Road Repair-Various Sites

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

Disaster1585-DR-CA
ApplicantRiverside County
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#065-99065-00
PW ID#800
Date Signed2008-01-15T05:00:00

Citation:

FEMA-1585-DR-CA; Riverside County

Cross-reference:

Repair to pre-disaster conditions; Eligible work; Administrative Costs

Summary:

As a result of heavy rainfall during the Winter Storms of February 2005, Project Worksheet (PW) 800 was prepared in November 2005 for road distress at six locations in Riverside County. The PW describes the observed damage to the road at all six sites as pavement (alligator) cracking caused by fatigue failure due to repeated traffic loading over an extended period of time. At each of the six sites the pavement was described as old and brittle. Therefore, a PW was written for the amount of zero dollars ($0.00) because the damage was not a direct result of the incident, but rather a lack of road maintenance at the six sites. The Applicant is requesting that FEMA reconsider the eligibility determination to allow for pavement repairs and administrative costs for a total project cost of $598,000.

Issues:

1) Should the scope of work be revised to allow for the repair of damaged asphalt pavement in the amounts described in the PW damage description?

2) Should the total project cost be increased to $598,227 as requested for repairs to the damaged asphalt pavement?

Findings:

1) No. The failure of the asphalt surface occurred prior to the declared event.

2) No. The project is not eligible for funding.

Rationale:

Stafford Act Section 406(e); 44 CFR §206.223(a)(1); 44 CFR §206.228(a)(2)(ii)

Appeal Letter

January 15, 2008

Mr. Paul Jacks
Governor’s Authorized Representative
Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
Response and Recovery Division
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, CA 95655

Re: Second Appeal – Riverside County, PA ID 065-99065-00,
Road Repair – Various Sites, FEMA-1585-DR-CA, Project Worksheet 800

Dear Mr. Jacks:

This is in response to your letter dated July 16, 2007, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Riverside County (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) decision to deny funding for repairs to damaged pavement at six sites in the County.

As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that the pavement failure was caused by a number of factors that pre-date the declared event. While the declared event made evident the already-failed pavement in the subject areas, it was not the underlying cause of the pavement failure. Therefore, I am denying the Applicant’s appeal.

Please inform the Applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.

Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate

Enclosure

cc: Nancy Ward
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IX

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND:

As a result of heavy rainfall during the Winter Storms of February 2005, Project Worksheet (PW) 800 was prepared in November 2005 for road distress at six locations in the Quail Valley area of Riverside County. The PW describes the observed damage to the road at all six sites as alligator cracking, which is a common term applied to interconnected cracks observed in asphalt pavement caused by fatigue failure due to repeated traffic loading. At each of the six sites the pavement was described as old and brittle. Therefore, PW 800 was written for the amount of zero dollars ($0.00) because the damage was not a direct result of the incident, but rather a lack of road maintenance at the six sites. Riverside County (Applicant) disagrees with FEMA’s determination in the PW.

The PW details the extent of damage observed at each of the six sites, along with the proposed repair costs, which are as follows:

• Replacement of 15,600 square feet (SF) of pavement along Avenida De Las Flores at an estimated cost of $177,500;
• Replacement of 1,080 SF of pavement along Bellamy Lane at an estimated cost of $14,500;
• Replacement of 7,800 SF of pavement along Avenida Estrella at an estimated cost of $58,000;
• Replacement of 10,320 SF of pavement along Avenida Gaviota at an estimated cost of $60,500;
• Replacement of 35,100 SF of pavement along Paseo Arroyo Road at an estimated cost of $204,500; and
• Replacement of 24,948 SF of pavement along Paseo La Plaza with no estimate of the repair cost, but presumed to be $36,000 based on the Applicant’s first appeal.

First Appeal

The Applicant submitted its first appeal to the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) in a letter dated May 31, 2006. The OES forwarded the appeal to FEMA on
July 13, 2006. The Applicant alleges that there are two fundamental errors in PW 800 as summarized in the following paragraphs.

First, the Applicant states that the PW addresses only five of nine damaged locations that the Applicant requested FEMA to examine. The Applicant also states that one of the six locations described in PW 800 (Site #2 – Bellamy Lane) is located in a different geographical area and should have been included on a different PW. The Applicant believes that four of the nine damaged sites, which were brought to the attention of FEMA, have not been addressed in any PW written by FEMA for the Applicant. As part of the first appeal the Applicant included copies of the draft PWs prepared by the Applicant and provided to FEMA at the time of the site inspections.

Second, the Applicant contends that its records should provide sufficient evidence that the damages to the sites in question were caused by the declared event rather than a lack of maintenance. The County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency (TLMA) uses the MTC Pavement System, which employs a “Pavement Condition Index” or PCI. The TLMA contends that, using this system in a November 2005 field review, the majority of the roads examined were in very good to excellent condition with the exception of those areas allegedly damaged by the declared event. Included with the appeal were: (1) a management section summary, (2) PCI ratings, (3) storm damage categories, (4) general clarifications, and (5) a CD with pictures of the damaged sections of road and undamaged sections for comparative purposes. There were no pictures available of the damaged sites showing their condition prior to the declared event.

Based on the documentation provided in the appeal, the Applicant requested that the eligibility determination be changed to allow for the funding of the damaged sites in the amount of $551,000.

In the analysis of the appeal it was observed that the pictures and documentation were not sufficient to establish that the damage was caused by a single storm event. The analysis went on to point out that the application of a single chip seal to four of the subject roads in the year 2002 is not considered proof that the roads were well maintained prior to the declared event. It was ultimately concluded that the damage depicted in PW 800 is not believed to be the result of a single storm event, but rather indicative of long-term deterioration, and the appeal did not present information sufficient to prove otherwise. Furthermore, the inclusion of the damage on Bellamy Road in PW 800 does not affect FEMA’s determination simply because it was not within the same geographical area as the other five damaged sites described in the PW. Consequently, the Deputy Regional Director denied the appeal.

Regarding the Applicant’s claim that FEMA did not address damage to four other road locations shown to FEMA by the Applicant, it was stated that the Applicant needs to provide FEMA with the site names and GPS coordinates so that FEMA can confirm that the damaged sites are not addressed in other PWs. Additionally, it would be helpful if the Applicant could provide supporting documentation for the four sites in question along with estimates of the repair costs.

Second Appeal

In the second appeal, submitted to OES on May 18, 2007, and forwarded by OES to FEMA on July 16, 2007, the Applicant included a response to the first decision prepared by the County TLMA and dated May 17, 2007. The response prepared by the TLMA addresses 10 points from the first appeal analysis, which includes but is not limited to:

• an explanation of what the Applicant was attempting to illustrate with the pictures provided with the appeal;
• a statement that the Applicant is unable to document the full extent of the 2,700 miles of road in its jurisdiction before and after storm events;
• the fact that an absence of maintenance records, along with the fact that the sites in question were not included in the County’s 7-year Transportation Improvement Program, are evidence that the sites in question were in good condition prior to the storm event; and
• an explanation of their standard practice in applying the PCI rating system.

The Applicant concurs with the conclusion that the damage was not the result of a single storm event, noting that the incident period of February 16th through the 23rd of 2005 covers a series of storms that raised the ground water level beneath the pavement, which led to the observed damages. The Applicant included a list of sites identified in the Applicant’s draft PWs, noting that the following sites were excluded from any PWs prepared by FEMA: Paseo Juanita, Paseo Nuna’s, Paseo Diablo, and Ave. Roble. It was noted that the repairs have been completed with $508,227 in contract costs and an estimated $90,000 in administrative costs. Therefore, the Applicant is requesting that FEMA fund a total of $598,000 for the project. While the Applicant states that the Bellamy Lane site should not have been included in PW 800, it is not clear if the associated repair cost is or is not contained in the funding being requested by the Applicant.

DISCUSSION:

Photographs of the subject roads confirm alligator cracking, although the single chip seal performed in 2002 conceal much of the alligator cracking. Alligator cracking is apparent even through the chip seal in a number of the photographs. The interconnected network of cracking is caused by fatigue failure of the asphalt surface. Alligator cracking begins at the base of the asphalt surface and propagates to the surface. The interconnected pattern indicates structural failure of the asphalt surface under repeated traffic loads. Pavement failure of this sort is generally due to a combination of insufficient base course, weak subbase, insufficient drainage in the roadway bed, and/or traffic loading in excess of design parameters. Pavement failuteed the surface layer of cracks and temporarily improved ride quality, but the failure of the pavement extends throughout the asphalt and into the base course. In drier weather, the chip seal prevents failed segments of asphalt (bounded by the pattern of alligator cracks) from coming loose from the base. However, with a saturated base, hydraulic pressures from traffic loading cause the alligator-cracked segments to come loose. The rains in 2005 did cause saturation of the base course, but the rains did not cause pavement failure. The pavement had failed structurally, as evidenced by the alligator cracking, prior to the rains and likely prior to application of the chip seal in 2002.

The photographs show further evidence of the severity of the structural failure. The interconnected network of alligator cracks without spalling around the cracks would be termed medium severity. The chip seal prevents identification of the severity of the spalling. However, at several intersections where traffic loads are higher due to stopping, turning, and acceleration forces, the pavement has undergone extensive patching confirming the pavement has already undergone structural failure (i.e., high severity alligator cracking).

The applicant cites a high Pavement Condition Index (PCI) as evidence that the roads were in good condition and that the failure was caused by the storm. However, ratings based primarily on visual review of the roadway surface are not reliable in determining pavement and base course failure. As alligator cracking is indicative of failure from the bottom up, and as the chip seal obscured evidence of pavement failure, the PCI is not a reliable gauge for determining some types of structural failure. The PCI history itself provides evidence that the chip seal concealed evidence of failure. On a number of the roadway segments, the PCI went up following the chip seal (comparing 2000 to 2002) even though a chip seal provides very little structural improvement and does not address alligator cracking or insufficient base course strength.

Regarding the four sites (Paseo Juanita, Paseo Nuna’s, Paseo Diablo, and Ave. Roble) that the Applicant claims as being omitted from any PWs written by FEMA, a review of the PW suggests that there may simply be some confusion in the delineation of the sites. The PW refers to the following sites: No. 3 – Avenida Estrella at Paseo Juanita; No. 4 – Avenida Estrella at Avenita Roble; and No. 6 apparently consists of five intersections, including Paseo Diablo off of Paseo La Plaza. It is conceivable that Paseo Nuna’s was inadvertently misnamed in the PW.
The Applicant is also requesting reimbursement for costs identified in the appeal simply as “administration.” When a project is determined to be eligible, costs associated with administering Federal disaster assistance subgrants will be covered by an allowance based on a percentage of the net eligible cost as defined in the regulations. If a project is determined to be ineligible, no such costs would apply.

CONCLUSION:

Photographic evidence of substantial alligator cracking indicates the pavement and base course had already undergone structural failure prior to the declared event. Ride quality, especially with the chip seal performed in 2002, may have still been good to very good even with the structural failure of the asphalt surface. The high water table created during the 2005 storms saturated the aggregate base course. The already-present structural failure was made apparent by hydraulic forces created by traffic over a saturated base. The declared event made evident the already-failed pavement in the subject areas; however, it was not the cause of the pavement failure. Consequently, repair of these roadways is not eligible for FEMA funding under the Public Assistance Program.

Last updated