Supplemental Request

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-979-DR-
ApplicantSierra County
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#091-00000
PW ID#82809
Date Signed1997-10-09T04:00:00
Citation: FEMA-979-DR-CA; Sierra County, DSR 82809

Cross-Reference: Landslide; FEMA Landslide Policy; Pre-disaster Condition.

Summary: Lavezzola Road was constructed on a steep natural slope above the Downie River. Runoff from 1993 storms caused a pre-existing landslide to re-activate. Vertical faulting occurred along approximately 300 feet of the road. It was feared that if this area were not stabilized, it had the potential of sliding downslope creating a dam across the river, thus threatening the downstream town of Downieville. Seven DSRs were prepared in the aggregate amount of $370,840 for various technical studies, surveys and monitoring activities to assess the immediate threat posed by a landslide, and to perform feasibility studies for re-establishing the road. The studies concluded that a landslide was likely in the near future, that the volume of landslide material would not be high enough to dam the river, and that there was no feasible way to re-establish a roadbed having long-term stability. On December 17, 1994, a landslide occurred beneath the road, preventing vehicle access and partially blocking the river. To re-establish access, the subgrantee constructed a temporary road by cutting deeper into the hillside. After two years of monitoring, the new roadbed appears to be stable. The subgrantee requested FEMA to reimburse the construction cost of the road. FEMA denied the request because according to the landslide policy once a site has been found to be unstable due to a pre-existing condition, the subgrantee is responsible for stabilizing the site. The subgrantee appealed. FEMA denied the appeal. The subgrantee submitted the second appeal.

Issues:
  1. Should FEMA reimburse the costs associated with the construction of the temporary bypass road?
  2. Are the costs to convert the temporary bypass into a permanent road eligible?
Findings:
  1. No. The hillside has a 40-plus year history of progressive upslope landslide failure.
  2. Yes. Once a stabilized roadbed has been created by the subgrantee, the costs to restore the facility (aggregate pavement and surface drainage) are eligible.
Rationale: As set forth in 44 CFR 206.223 (a)(1), to be eligible work must be required as a result of a declared disaster event. Additionally, landslide policy states: "if the site is found to be unstable due to an identified, pre-existing condition, the applicant is responsible for stabilizing the site. Once the site has been stabilized, the cost to restore the facility at the original site is eligible."

Appeal Letter

October 9, 1997

Ms. Nancy Ward
Governor's Authorized Representative
California Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 239013
Sacramento, California 95823

Dear Ms. Ward:

This letter is in response to your April 24, 1997, submittal of Sierra County's second appeal of damage survey report (DSR) 82809 under FEMA-979-DR-CA. Sierra County is requesting reimbursement of cost associated with the construction of a bypass road that replaced the section of Lavezzola Road that was damaged by a landslide.

As explained in the enclosed analysis, we have reviewed the case and have determined that the cost associated with the construction of the bypass road is ineligible for FEMA assistance. The landslide occurred as a result of pre-existing unstable ground. The landslide policy states: "if the site is found to be unstable due to an identified, pre-existing condition, the applicant is responsible for stabilizing the site. Once the site has been stabilized, the cost to restore the facility at the original site is eligible." Consequently, the appeal is denied as it is written. However, the bypass road now appears to be stable, so I have requested the Regional Director to write a DSR to fund the cost of restoring the facility (the road's gravel pavement and drainage structures) to its pre-disaster condition.

Please inform the subgrantee of my determination. The subgrantee may submit a third appeal to the Director of FEMA. The appeal must be submitted through your office and the Regional Director within 60 days of receipt of this determination.

Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate

Enclosure

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND
Lavezzola Road, built 60 years ago, services a rural area of approximately 40 homes located north of Downieville. This unpaved 16 to 20 feet wide road (including ditch and shoulder), maintained by the Sierra County Department of Public Works, has been constructed on a very steep natural slope on the east side of the Downie River. During the storms of 1993, heavy rain initiated a landslide that damaged approximately 300 feet of Lavezzola Road near Milepost (MP) 0.5. The damage included tension cracks having up to 2 feet of vertical displacement and sloughing running parallel to the road, and cracks across the road at the boundaries of the slide area. Despite the damage, the road was passable to one-way traffic. Upon inspection, inspectors of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the State of California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) prepared damage survey report (DSR) 82809 (Category B) in the amount of $20,000 to conduct a geotechnical study for landslide stabilization. The narrative in the DSR mentioned that if this area were not stabilized, it had the potential of sliding downslope, and creating a dam across the Downie River. This dam would eventually erode releasing a large wall (80 to 100 feet) of water downstream toward Downieville. This study triggered further geotechnical studies for landslide stabilization, hydrologic studies for the Downie River, and feasibility studies for permanent repair of the road. As a result of this situation, FEMA approved seven DSRs (including DSR 82809) in the aggregate amount of $370,840 for various continuing technical studies, surveys and monitoring. Details of these DSRs are presented in the attached Table 1.

The studies culminated in an October 1994 CH2M Hill report that concluded that a partial or complete failure of about 300 feet of Lavezzola Road should be expected. CH2M Hill further concluded that the volume of the slide material would not be large enough to dam the river thereby alleviating concerns of an immediate threat to Downieville.

On December 17, 1994, the expected landslide occurred beneath Lavezzola Road. Approximately 25,000 cubic yards of material slipped down the slope partially blocking the Downie River. All that was left of the road was a section no more than two feet wide. When the winter storms of 1995 were over, the subgrantee constructed a temporary bypass road by cutting deeper into the hillside.

On May 4, 1995, and March 20, 1996, the subgrantee submitted requests for additional funding and a time extension. Details of the requests are as follows:
Supplemental funding: Additional funding of $63,435 to cover the costs for: (1) engineering, management, and construction activities for realignment of Lavezzola Road; (2) on-going monitoring of slope movements; and (3) feasibility studies to address relocation of the road as a permanent solution; and
Time Extension: A time extension until July 31, 1997 to permit continued monitoring of the slope.
The Regional Director determined that the supplement and time extension were ineligible because FEMA landslide policy specifically excludes funding for restoration of a damaged facility on an unstable site, and measures (including technical studies) to stabilize natural slopes. The Regional Director further stated that the landslide of December 17, 1994, which necessitated the realignment, did not occur within the incident period of a declared disaster.

First Appeal
With an October 8, 1996, letter, OES transmitted the subgrantee's September 23, 1996, letter appealing the denial of supplemental funding ($63,435) and the time extension for continued monitoring of the slope. The subgrantee contended that the 1984 landslide policy should apply, and that there was no significant pre-existing damage to Lavezzola Road. OES supported the subgrantee's appeal. In her November 26, 1996 response, the Regional Director pointed out that the geotechnical studies concluded that there was no "immediate threat" of a landslide damming the Downie River. Therefore, any additional work on the site must be considered permanent restoration. The Regional Director denied the appeal for the reasons given above.

Second Appeal
The OES's April 24, 1997, letter transmitted and supported the subgrantee's February 28, 1997, second appeal of FEMA's denial of requests for supplemental funding and the time extension for continued monitoring of the slope. The subgrantee did not submit any additional documentation.

OES mentioned that the subgrantee agreed with FEMA's determination in response to the subgrantee's first appeal that further disaster-related slope monitoring was no longer necessary and withdrew their request for funds to monitor the slope. OES indicated in their letter that the subgrantee is now requesting that FEMA reimburse $41,000 to cover the cost for constructing the temporary bypass road and subsequently converting it to a permanent repair. The OES argued that the subgrantee's contractor, CH2M Hill, predicted a partial or complete failure of Lavezzola Road as a result of the declared disaster. This failure occurred on December 17, 1994. Because the failure of the road relates to the 1993 disaster, the OES contended that the road alignment work should be eligible for FEMA funding.

DISCUSSION
Following the 1993 storms, FEMA approved funding $370,840 for various technical studies to assess the potential immediate threat posed by a landslide damming the Downie River and to determine appropriate road restoration methods. In their October 13, 1994, report, CH2M Hill concluded that the volume of the most probable slope failure would not be high enough to dam the river. Thus the instability of the hillside could no longer be considered an "immediate threat", and any further work at this site under disaster 979 must be considered permanent restoration.
The hillside was unstable prior to the disaster.

FEMA policy states that permanent stabilization of landslides is not eligible work if there is a pre-existing condition that significantly contributed to the instability of the site. A brief history of the instability of the hillside traversed by Lavezzola Road is given below.
  • CH2M Hill examined aerial photographs of the hillside taken in 1955, 1966, and 1993. The photographs demonstrate that the hillside has a 40-plus year history of progressive upslope landslide failure directly below the section of Lavezzola Road that was damaged in 1993 and failed in 1994.
  • A geology report prepared by the Soil Conservation Service in February 1986 includes the following statement regarding the subject section of Lavezzola road: "Major landslides have occurred in the slope below the road and above the river. It appears the loss of this material has removed the counter weight on the slope and areas above the slides are becoming unstable. The cracks and subsiding areas in the road are precursors to slope failure."
  • In April 1989, a geotechnical engineer prepared a report on the subject section of Lavezzola Road for Sierra County. The report states: "As a result of the early March 1989 storms, cracking occurred in the roadbed and displacement of the outer (fill) portion was evident. The maximum displacement is..on the outside shoulder where a crack is open about 4 inches horizontally and dropped about 4 inches vertically."
  • In May 1993, the outer portion of the roadbed dropped up to 2.5 feet following the winter's heavy rains and snowmelt. However, the movements stopped as the ground dried out.
  • On December 17, 1994, the ground supporting Lavezzola Road failed. The slide debris assumed its angle of repose of about 35 degrees over the lower portion of the hillside.
The conclusion that can be drawn from this histoprter. Therefore, the cost of permanent restoration of the roadbed (the bypass road) is not eligible. However, the cost for restoring the facility (the gravel pavement and drainage structures) that was damaged by the 1993 disaster would be eligible once the subgrantee has stabilized the roadbed.

The temporary bypass appears to be stable.

The feasibility studies conducted by the subgrantee concluded that permanent restoration or relocation of the road would be prohibitively expensive. Therefore, a temporary bypass was constructed in the summer of 1995 by cutting deeper into the hillside. Two years of monitoring have indicated that the hillside is stable in its current state. Consequently, the subgrantee has decided to turn the temporary bypass into a permanent roadway.

The December 1994 landslide cannot be tied directly to the 1993 disaster.

Geotechnical studies demonstrated that movement of the subject hillside occured primarily when the ground became saturated. As the ground dried out in the summer and fall months, movement slowed down and eventually stopped. The attached figure from the CH2M Hill report demonstrates this for a survey monument located on the outside shoulder of Lavezzola Road. Note that there was essentially NO movement of the roadbed from October 1993 through the end of December 1993. Significant landslide movements resumed in February 1994 due to the winter rains. As the rains diminished in March 1994, landslide movements began to slow down. The rains in the fall of 1994 (not a declared disaster) were the direct cause of the landslide that severed Lavezzola Road. Thus, the cost of the bypass road is not eligible as an emergency protective measure under disaster 979 or any other declared disaster.

CONCLUSIONS
In accordance with FEMA policy, the subgrantee is responsible for stabilization of the roadbed because the hillside was unstable prior to the disaster, and because the road access emergency created by the landslide in December 1994 cannot be tied directly to the declared disaster. Based on two years of monitoring, it appears that the bypass constructed by the subgrantee constitutes a stable roadbed. Therefore, the cost for restoring the facility (the aggregate surface and base courses and any needed culverts) is now eligible.
TABLE 1
DETAILS OF DSRs


DSR/
CATEGORY

APPROVED AMOUNT

SCOPE OF WORK

82809/B

$20,000

Stabilization study

65823/B?

$75,000

Perform seismic refraction survey and field geological mapping and preliminary feasibility engineering of soil pins. Conduct hydrological study.

96238/B?

$129,814

Additional exploratory borings, additional seismic refraction surveys, monitor slide movement and prepare geological and topographic mapping. Review and interpret slide movement

04207/B?

$31,462

Compile engineering and geologic data, interpret data and recommend stabilization plan, and evaluate public safety impacts resulting from the most probable landslide event.

96239/G

$34,400

Include services of an engineer to provide on site inspection of the investigations and recommend limitation of the investigations as appropriate. Reimburse the cost of engineering management.

44675/G

$19,600

Include services of an engineer to provide on site inspection of the investigations and recommend limitation of the investigations as appropriate. Reimburse the cost of engineering management.

96240/B

$60,564

Landslide monitoring. Reimburse cost of monitoring and warning system.

TOTAL

$370,840

 AMOUNT APPROVED = AMOUNT REQUESTED

? THIS DSR IS A SUPPLEMENT TO DSR 82809

 THIS DSR IS A SUPPLEMENT TO DSR 96239

Last updated