This page has not been translated into Greek. Visit the Greek page for resources in that language.
Slope Repair
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation: FEMA-1628-DR-CA; East Bay Regional Park District (Applicant)
Cross-reference: Landslides; Improved project; Hazard mitigation
Summary: Severe storms from December 17, 2005, to January 3, 2006, resulted in the failure of a slope in Alvarado Park. FEMA prepared PW 3571 to fund a geotechnical study to develop a recommendation for repair of the facility. The Applicant requested $256,484 to construct a wall at mid-slope, including $24,300 for hazard mitigation along the creek. FEMA concluded that the Applicants requested scope of work exceeded that which was necessary to repair the slope to its pre-disaster condition, and that a wall 50 feet long should be constructed along the top of the slope. FEMA prepared PW 3571 for an estimated total project cost of $63,382, which included the geotechnical study, a soldier pile wall along the top of the slope, and a guardrail adjacent to the wall. The hazard mitigation measure was denied in the first appeal. In the second appeal the Applicant is requesting $256,058 for a soldier pile wall at mid-slope and crib wall and installation of a culvert and rip rap as a hazard mitigation measure along the creek.
Issues: Is the Applicants proposed scope of work necessary to restore the facility to its pre-disaster function and capacity?
Finding No.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.203(d)1, Federal Grant Assistance, Improved Projects and §206.226, Restoration of Damaged Facilities
Severe storms from December 17, 2005, to January 3, 2006, resulted in a slope failure of approximately 45 feet wide along a recreational trail and fire access road within Alvarado Park. FEMA prepared PW 3571 for $4,700 to fund a geotechnical study to determine the cause of the slope failure and develop a recommendation for repair. Following the completion of the study, the Applicant requested $256,484: $104,250 to construct a retaining wall at mid-slope; a $24,300 hazard mitigation proposal to construct a culvert and install riprap along the creek; an additional $53,975 for slope and trail repair; and the balance of the estimate was for permits, biological monitoring, engineering, mobilization, and site preparation. FEMAs geotechnical engineer concluded that the Applicants requested scope of work, including the hazard mitigation proposal, exceeded that which was necessary to repair the slope to its pre-disaster condition, and determined that a wall should be constructed along the top of the slope, rather than at mid-slope. FEMA subsequently revised PW 3571 and added an additional $56,432 for the construction of a soldier pile wall along the top of the slope.
First Appeal
In its first appeal submitted October 25, 2007, the Applicant stated that construction of a wall at the top of the slope would constitute a safety hazard. The Applicant also requested another hazard mitigation proposal to install a vegetated crib wall at the toe of the slope. FEMA partially approved the Applicants appeal on May 08, 2008, for an additional $2,250 to install a guardrail adjacent to the wall along the top of the slope as a safety measure. FEMA denied the hazard mitigation proposal because the Applicant failed to support it with a benefit cost analysis.
Second Appeal
The Applicant submitted its second appeal on July 9, 2008. The Applicant stated that constructing a wall at the top of the slope, as recommended by FEMA, will disturb the historic nature of the park. The Applicant stated that Alvarado Park is listed on both the state and national historic registers. The Applicant also argued that the eligible scope of work does not tie into the existing creek restoration project at the toe of the slope, and that the soldier pile wall at the top of the slope will ultimately fail without adequate erosion protection. The Applicant believes that a vegetated crib wall at the toe of the slope is necessary to prevent erosion. The Applicant estimated that constructing the retaining wall at the top of the slope would cost approximately $208,000. Based on this estimate, the Applicant argued that the estimated cost of $24,700 to install a vegetated crib wall is only 11.9 percent of the total project cost, which it believes is a cost effective hazard mitigation measure.
DISCUSSION
FEMA has stated that a wall constructed at mid-slope, as requested by the Applicant, is beyond what is necessary to restore the ground integral to the support of the trail and fire access road. FEMAs position is supported by a review of the documentation submitted by the Applicant. The February 2, 2007 report provided by the Applicants geotechnical consultant, EarthMax, recommended using soldier piles with a length of 14 feet to support the load against the retaining wall. Drawings prepared and submitted by the Applicant display soldier piles varying in length from 28.3 feet to 32.5 feet. In addition, EarthMaxs report documented that the width of the damaged section of slope was 35 feet. However, the Applicants estimate is based on a wall of 72 feet in length. Furthermore, the cost estimate prepared by the Applicant for the soldier pile wall at the top of the slope includes tiebacks, while no recommendation was made by EarthMax for a tied back soldier pile wall or for a vegetated crib wall at the toe of the slope for erosion prevention. The Applicant did not include any documents with the appeal that justifies installing a wall that differs substantially from the recommendations of their geotechnical consultant. The scope of work used to prepare the Applicants cost estimate deviates from the scope of work in PW 3571 and from EarthMaxs recommendations.
CONCLUSION
The scope of work proposed by the Applicant for a wall at mid-slope exceeds that which is necessary to restore the facility to its pre-disaster function and capacity and significantly exceeds that which was recommended by their geotechnical consultant. Therefore, the appeal is denied.
Appeal Brief
Disaster | FEMA-1628-DR |
Applicant | East Bay Regional Park District |
Appeal Type | Second |
PA ID# | 000-UH96N-00 |
PW ID# | 3571 |
Date Signed | 2009-10-26T04:00:00 |
Finding No.
Appeal Letter
October 26, 2009
Frank McCarton
Governors Authorized Representative
California Emergency Management Agency
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, California 95655
Re: Second AppealEast Bay Regional Park District, PA ID 000-UH96N-00,
Slope Repair, FEMA-1628-DR-CA, Project Worksheet 3571
Dear Mr. McCarton:
This is in response to your letter dated September 9, 2008, which transmitted the referenced second appeal for East Bay Regional Park District (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMA) decision regarding repair of a slope failure that occurred during the declared event.
As explained in the enclosed analysis, the scope of work proposed by the Applicant exceeds that which is necessary to restore the facility to its pre-disaster function and capacity and significantly exceeds that which was recommended by the Applicants geotechnical consultant. Therefore, the appeal is denied.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206, Appeals<
Sincerely,
/s/
Elizabeth A. Zimmerman
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Nancy Ward
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IX
Frank McCarton
Governors Authorized Representative
California Emergency Management Agency
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, California 95655
Re: Second AppealEast Bay Regional Park District, PA ID 000-UH96N-00,
Slope Repair, FEMA-1628-DR-CA, Project Worksheet 3571
Dear Mr. McCarton:
This is in response to your letter dated September 9, 2008, which transmitted the referenced second appeal for East Bay Regional Park District (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMA) decision regarding repair of a slope failure that occurred during the declared event.
As explained in the enclosed analysis, the scope of work proposed by the Applicant exceeds that which is necessary to restore the facility to its pre-disaster function and capacity and significantly exceeds that which was recommended by the Applicants geotechnical consultant. Therefore, the appeal is denied.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206, Appeals<
Sincerely,
/s/
Elizabeth A. Zimmerman
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Nancy Ward
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IX
Appeal Analysis
BackgroundSevere storms from December 17, 2005, to January 3, 2006, resulted in a slope failure of approximately 45 feet wide along a recreational trail and fire access road within Alvarado Park. FEMA prepared PW 3571 for $4,700 to fund a geotechnical study to determine the cause of the slope failure and develop a recommendation for repair. Following the completion of the study, the Applicant requested $256,484: $104,250 to construct a retaining wall at mid-slope; a $24,300 hazard mitigation proposal to construct a culvert and install riprap along the creek; an additional $53,975 for slope and trail repair; and the balance of the estimate was for permits, biological monitoring, engineering, mobilization, and site preparation. FEMAs geotechnical engineer concluded that the Applicants requested scope of work, including the hazard mitigation proposal, exceeded that which was necessary to repair the slope to its pre-disaster condition, and determined that a wall should be constructed along the top of the slope, rather than at mid-slope. FEMA subsequently revised PW 3571 and added an additional $56,432 for the construction of a soldier pile wall along the top of the slope.
First Appeal
In its first appeal submitted October 25, 2007, the Applicant stated that construction of a wall at the top of the slope would constitute a safety hazard. The Applicant also requested another hazard mitigation proposal to install a vegetated crib wall at the toe of the slope. FEMA partially approved the Applicants appeal on May 08, 2008, for an additional $2,250 to install a guardrail adjacent to the wall along the top of the slope as a safety measure. FEMA denied the hazard mitigation proposal because the Applicant failed to support it with a benefit cost analysis.
Second Appeal
The Applicant submitted its second appeal on July 9, 2008. The Applicant stated that constructing a wall at the top of the slope, as recommended by FEMA, will disturb the historic nature of the park. The Applicant stated that Alvarado Park is listed on both the state and national historic registers. The Applicant also argued that the eligible scope of work does not tie into the existing creek restoration project at the toe of the slope, and that the soldier pile wall at the top of the slope will ultimately fail without adequate erosion protection. The Applicant believes that a vegetated crib wall at the toe of the slope is necessary to prevent erosion. The Applicant estimated that constructing the retaining wall at the top of the slope would cost approximately $208,000. Based on this estimate, the Applicant argued that the estimated cost of $24,700 to install a vegetated crib wall is only 11.9 percent of the total project cost, which it believes is a cost effective hazard mitigation measure.
DISCUSSION
FEMA has stated that a wall constructed at mid-slope, as requested by the Applicant, is beyond what is necessary to restore the ground integral to the support of the trail and fire access road. FEMAs position is supported by a review of the documentation submitted by the Applicant. The February 2, 2007 report provided by the Applicants geotechnical consultant, EarthMax, recommended using soldier piles with a length of 14 feet to support the load against the retaining wall. Drawings prepared and submitted by the Applicant display soldier piles varying in length from 28.3 feet to 32.5 feet. In addition, EarthMaxs report documented that the width of the damaged section of slope was 35 feet. However, the Applicants estimate is based on a wall of 72 feet in length. Furthermore, the cost estimate prepared by the Applicant for the soldier pile wall at the top of the slope includes tiebacks, while no recommendation was made by EarthMax for a tied back soldier pile wall or for a vegetated crib wall at the toe of the slope for erosion prevention. The Applicant did not include any documents with the appeal that justifies installing a wall that differs substantially from the recommendations of their geotechnical consultant. The scope of work used to prepare the Applicants cost estimate deviates from the scope of work in PW 3571 and from EarthMaxs recommendations.
CONCLUSION
The scope of work proposed by the Applicant for a wall at mid-slope exceeds that which is necessary to restore the facility to its pre-disaster function and capacity and significantly exceeds that which was recommended by their geotechnical consultant. Therefore, the appeal is denied.