Emergency Protective Measues-Slope Failure

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1646-DR
ApplicantCity of Larkspur
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#041-40438-00
PW ID#Project Worksheet 815
Date Signed2008-09-03T04:00:00
Citation: FEMA-1646-DR-CA, City of Larkspur (Applicant), Emergency Protective Meas-

Summary: As a result of heavy rainfall during the storms of April 2006, FEMA prepared PW 815 in July 2006 for emergency protective measures after a 40-foot-high slope failed above Madrone Avenue. FEMA initially concluded that an immediate threat did not exist, and the PW amount was reduced to zero dollars. In response to the first appeal, FEMA revisited the site and partially granted the appeal for emergency protective measures in the amount of $15,533. The Applicant disputes the scope of work approved by FEMA and requests funding for the installation of soil nails and the application of shotcrete as emergency protective measures in the amount of $114,439, based on actual costs.

Issues: 1. Should adjustments be made to the scope of work approved by FEMA to include the installation of soil nails and the application of shotcrete as emergency protective measures?

2. Should FEMA approve funding for an additional $98,906 for work completed by the Applicant?

Findings: 1. No. The Applicant did not provide FEMA with evidence to demonstrate that the installation of soil nails and the application of shotcrete was the least costly option necessary as emergency protective measures. Therefore, a revision to the scope of work is not justified.

2. No. Approval of funding an additional $98,906 for work that constitutes an ineligible permanent repair to the slope is not justified.

Rationale: 44 CFR §206.225; Response and Recovery Policy 9524.2, Landslides and Slope Failures.

Appeal Letter

September 3, 2008

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

Re: Second Appeal–City of Larkspur, PA ID 041-40438-00, Emergency Protective Measures– Slope Failure, FEMA-1646-DR-CA, Project Worksheet (PW) 815

Dear Mr. McCarton:

This letter is in response to a letter from your office dated April 16, 2008, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of Larkspur (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) decision regarding emergency protective measures for a slope failure.

As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that the completed work represents a permanent repair of the failed slope. FEMA is authorized to fund emergency protective measures only. Accordingly, I am denying this appeal.

Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 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 storms of April 2006, FEMA prepared PW 815 in July 2006 with a cost estimate of $33,033 for emergency measures to protect a slope above Madrone Avenue in the City of Larkspur (Applicant). The PW and attached Landslide Site Assessment Report describe the observed damage as a slope failure with a height of 40 feet and lengths of 23 feet at the bottom and 35 feet at the top. A 4-foot-wide paved pedestrian path is located at the top of the slope, which reportedly provides the only access to homes located north of the failed slope. The original ground is estimated to have been inclined at a slope of about 0.5(V):1(H), or about 63 degrees from the horizontal, based on the natural ground on both sides of the failure. The top of the failure encroaches on a 10-foot-long section of the pedestrian pathway on the west side, but does not contact the pathway elsewhere. A sanitary sewer line, maintained by Marin County, extends down the slope on the west side and was exposed by the failure. FEMA observed the sewer line leaking at the time of the site visit, which may have been a contributing factor in the slope failure. During final review, FEMA concluded that an immediate threat to life and property did not exist, and the PW amount was reduced to zero dollars.

First Appeal

The Applicant submitted its first appeal to the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) on March 27, 2007. OES forwarded the appeal to FEMA on May 24, 2007. The Applicant engaged the services of Miller Pacific Engineering Group (MPE) to assess the slope. MPE prepared a preliminary assessment report dated August 9, 2006, in which they expressed the opinion that the slide “will likely enlarge laterally and upslope” and slide debris could accumulate on Madrone Avenue adversely affecting emergency vehicle access and storm drainage. The MPE report recommended a repair to the slope using soil nails, wire mesh over the face of the slope, and shotcrete covering the wire mesh with weep holes to provide for drainage. The Applicant’s appeal states that the MPE report clearly shows that an immediate threat existed and that the recommended repair was necessary to alleviate the threat.

Subsequent to receipt of the appeal, FEMA performed another site visit attended by a FEMA geotechnical specialist. The geotechnical specialist concluded that the declared event caused the failure, not the sanitary sewer, and agreed that an immediate threat existed. The specialist, however, did not agree with the need for soil nails and shotcrete as emergency protective measures. FEMA determined that re-grading portions of the slope and installing plastic sheeting to divert storm water from the slope face were adequate emergency protective measures until permanent repairs were made to the slope. Consequently, FEMA partially granted the appeal on December 18, 2007. FEMA prepared a version of PW 815 that amended the original scope of work, resulting in a total project cost of $15,533. OES granted an additional time extension for project completion, until February 28, 2008.

Second Appeal

The Applicant submitted its second appeal to OES on February 28, 2008, and OES forwarded it to FEMA on April 16, 2008. The Applicant states that the emergency protective measures recommended by FEMA’s geotechnical specialist, subsequent to the site visit of August 8, 2007, were inappropriate and would have been ineffective. The Applicant’s position is based on a letter, dated February 27, 2008, prepared by MPE after reviewing FEMA’s first appeal decision. Work to stabilize the slope was completed on November 21, 2007, and consisted of the installation of soil nails and the application of shotcrete. In its second appeal, the Applicant requests that FEMA approve this work as cost-effective emergency protective measures in the amount of $114,439, based on actual project costs.

Discussion

FEMA, the State, and the Applicant agree that permanent work to repair this site is not eligible. Subsequent to the follow-up site visit of August 8, 2007, FEMA concurred with the need for emergency protective measures and developed a scope of work to eliminate the threat. In the second appeal, the State and Applicant contend that this work would not have eliminated the threat and propose work that has been completed as cost-effective emergency work.

FEMA regulations and policies require that emergency work be limited to that work necessary to eliminate or lessen an immediate threat of additional damage, where immediate threat is defined as being from an event that can reasonably be expected to occur within five years. All emergency protective measures must also be cost effective. FEMA’s policy on landslides and slope failures (Recovery Policy 9524.2, Landslides and Slope Failures) states, “The preferred protective measure is the least costly option necessary to alleviate the threat and is consistent with sound engineering practice….” Consequently, only the minimum work necessary to eliminate the threat is eligible.

The second appeal does not demonstrate that the eligible scope of work in PW 815 was insufficient to eliminate or lessen the immediate threat. The Applicant presumes that the failed slope would have continued to enlarge, as expressed by MPE in its August 9, 2006, letter; however, MPE did not perform any field or laboratory investigations, nor conduct analytical stability analyses of the slope. Not all slopes that fail continue to enlarge. A slope failure is nature’s mechanism of establishing a stable slope configuration under the specific conditions that triggered the failure. A permanent repair addresses the recurrence of such an event or even a more severe event. The original slope is described in the Landslide Site Assessment Report as inclined at about 0.5(V):1(H), or about 63 degrees from the horizontal, which is reportedly the inclination of the natural ground on both sides of the failure, and the MPE report concurs with that observation. This is a steep inclination for a natural soil slope unless underlain by rock. While the MPE report of February 27, 2007, suggests the location of the soil rock interface, it appears that no field investigation was performed to confirm this. The Applicant provided no engineering data or analyses to demonstrate that the failed slope necessarily posed more of an immediate threat than the natural slopes on either side, which remain at an inclination of about 63 degrees from the horizontal. Furthermore, while the Applicant’s geotechnical consultant does not concur with FEMA’s recommended measures, no engineering data or analyses were presented to demonstrate that the eligible scope of work was inadequate given the conditions of the site.

The completed work is described by the State in its April 16, 2008, transmittal letter as permanent repairs performed as emergency measures to eliminate the threat. However, eligible work is limited to that which is minimally required to eliminate the threat. PW 815 identified this eligible work in the first appeal resolution. The work claimed by the Applicant is ineligible permanent work.

CONCLUSION

The Applicant did not demonstrate that the eligible scope of work in PW 815 was insufficient to eliminate or lessen the threat that existed after the slope failed. The Applicant also did not demonstrate that the completed work was “the least costly option necessary to alleviate the threat” as required by FEMA’s policy on landslides and slope failures (Recovery Policy 9524.2, Landslides and Slope Failures). The completed work represents a permanent repair of the failed slope. Therefore, the appeal is denied.
Last updated