alert - warning

This page has not been translated into Español. Visit the Español page for resources in that language.

Pile Foundation Bridge Replacement

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DesastreFEMA-1044-DR
ApplicantSanta Barbara County
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#083-00000
PW ID#95679,38837
Date Signed1999-06-07T04:00:00
Citation: Appeal Brief; Second Appeal; Santa Barbara County; FEMA-1044-DR-CA; PA #083-00000

Cross Reference: DSRs 95679 and 38837; Bridge Replacement; Codes and Standards; Category C

Summary: As a result of the winter storms of 1995, high flood waters damaged a two lane bridge carrying Figueroa Mountain Road over Alamo Pinatado Creek in Santa Barbara County (County), California. FEMA performed an evaluation and determined that structural damage was greater than 50% of the replacement cost. Therefore, the bridge was eligible for replacement. FEMA approved DSR 95679 for $308,320 to replace the bridge with a spread footing foundation design rather than the pile foundation design for $489,172, which was preferred by the County. Subsequently, the County requested an additional $673,000 to design and construct a pile foundation bridge. FEMA determined that this design was an improved design and limited the funding to the approved amount of $308,320, but prepared DSR 38837 for $13,310 to provide for temporary pavement and bridge removal. In the first appeal, the County indicated that a pile foundation design was the most cost effective design based on a hydraulic and cost analysis and that the proposed design was based on County codes and standards (Resolution 93-208). This appeal was denied. The Regional Director determined that the recommended spread footing design incorporated elements to prevent scour and was more cost effective than the pile foundation. The Regional Director also determined that Resolution 93-208 was not an applicable code or standard, in accordance with 44 CFR 206.226. In the second appeal, the County reiterates that the pile foundation design is the most cost effective and is required for public safety based on a hydraulic report, a soils report and Caltran's Bridge Design Specifications, which the County adopted. The County further contends that the design recommendations by the FEMA engineer were not specific concerning reduction of scour. In addition, the bridge, which was constructed on piles, withstood the floods of 1998.

Issues:
  1. Is the County Standard an applicable code or standard mandating the pile foundation design?
  2. Do the soils report and hydraulic study mandate a pile foundation design to adequately address the scour?
Findings:
  1. Yes. The County Standard is an applicable code or standard, but the specification does not mandate a pile foundation. It does suggest that a pile foundation be considered.
  2. No. The reports indicate a potential problem with scour, but alternative solutions were not discussed, and the spread footing/riprap design was not evaluated. The pile foundation design is clearly an improvement over the approved replacement.
Rationale: 44 CFR 206.226 and 206.203 (d)(1)

Appeal Letter

June 7, 1999

D. A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
P.O. Box 419023
Rancho Cordova, CA 95741

RE: Second Appeal - Santa Barbara County,Figueroa Mountain Road Bridge,FEMA-1044-DR-CA, DSR 95679

Dear Mr. Christian:
This is in response to your letter dated November 18, 1998, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) forwarding a second appeal of a request for additional funding under FEMA-1044-DR-CA on behalf of Santa Barbara County (County), California. The applicant is requesting an additional $673,000 for construction of a pile footing foundation bridge replacement.

As a result of the winter storms of 1995, high floodwaters damaged a 34-foot span, two-lane bridge carrying a county road (Figueroa Mountain Road) over Alamo Pinatado Creek in Santa Barbara County, California. The bridge was structurally damaged and FEMA utilized an engineering firm to assess the damages. The engineer performed a replacement/restoration evaluation and determined that restoration would be more than 50% of the replacement cost. As a result, FEMA prepared damage survey report (DSR) 95679 for $489,172 to replace the bridge, utilizing the County's pile foundation design. Upon review and based on the recommendation of FEMA's engineer, it was determined that a pile foundation was not required and the estimate was reduced to $308,320 for a spread footing foundation, as existed in the pre-disaster bridge. The County requested an additional $673,000 to design and construct a pile foundation bridge. FEMA determined that this design was an improved design and limited the funding to the amount approved under DSR 95679 ($308,320), but prepared DSR 38837 for $13,310 to provide for the temporary pavement and bridge removal.

In the first appeal, the County indicated that the pile footing foundation design was the most cost effective, based on a hydraulic and cost analysis, and that the pile foundation design was based on County codes and standards (Resolution 93-208). This appeal was denied and the Regional Director determined that the spread footing design incorporated elements to prevent scour and was more cost effective than the pile foundation design. The Regional Director also determined that Resolution 93-208 was not an applicable code or standard, in accordance with 44 CFR section 206.226 (b).

In the second appeal, the County reiterates that the pile foundation design is the most cost effective and is required for public safety based on a hydraulic report, a soils report and Caltrans Bridge Design Specifications, which the County adopted. The County further indicates that the design recommendations by the FEMA engineer were not specific concerning reduction of scour; that the bridge, which was constructed on piles, withstood the floods of 1998 and was so reported in Engineering News Record.

The issue of this appeal is whether the County was required to design a pile foundation for the replacement of the bridge based on codes, standards and appropriate engineering principals to ensure public safety. The Caltrans specifications, which were adopted by the County, do not mandate a pile foundation, but suggest that such a design should be considered in locations of high scour. The recommendations in DSR 95679, which were developed by a professional engineer hired by FEMA, recognize the potential of high scour. The engineer's recommendations were specific, subject to refinements during final design. He recommended a 30-foot extension of the downstream wingwall and strategic placement of riprap to alleviate scour. He indicated that a pile foundation was not warranted because the span is very short and settlement was not due to a lack of bearing capacity. The County did not evaluate these recommendations or develop any alternatives, other than the pile foundation, to alleviate scour. The County claims that FEMA did not perform a hydraulic study. An analysis of the County Hydraulics Report for Figueroa Mountain Road determines that for a 100-year event (3,050 cfs) and a channel width of 30 feet, the velocity would not be in an erosive range, especially with the provided < ton riprap and wingwall extensions. As such, the DSR replaced the bridge with a similar structure, which was a prudent and reasonable repair of the damage from the disaster.

After a thorough review of the documents provided, we have concluded that the Regional Director correctly determined that the pile foundation bridge replacement designed by the County was an improvement and was not mandated by the Caltrans specification. The amount of funding is limited to the originally approved amount in accordance with 44 CFR 206.203 (d) (1). Therefore, I am denying the second appeal.

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