Water Main Restoration

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

Disaster	FEMA-1046-DR
Applicant	City of Lompoc
Appeal Type	Third
PA ID#	083-42524
PW ID#	19947,83831,83832,59541
Date Signed	1999-01-18T05:00:00

PURPOSE: Respond to the City of Lompoc's third appeal for water main and slope repair.

DISCUSSION:During the winter storms of 1995, a landslide occurred within a natural hillside, upslope of the San Miguelito Creek, exposing approximately 15 linear feet of an 8-in. diameter water main. Other than undermining the support of the pipe, no specific damage to the pipe was reported. FEMA prepared DSR 19947 ($4,760) to restore the pipe by replacing the undermined section 10 feet into the hillside, within the existing easement. The subgrantee's first and second appeals asserted that additional costs are associated with this scope of work, including efforts to stabilize a total of 350 linear feet of slope, engineering and permitting costs, property purchase, and access issue costs, bringing the estimated total to $572,000. Alternatively, the subgrantee requested that FEMA fund their proposed relocation project which involved relocating 6,200 linear feet of pipeline along San Miguelito Road at an estimated cost of $157,000. The Executive Associate Director agreed that stabilization of the hillside was eligible, but only to the extent necessary to support the undermined section of pipe (50 linear feet of slope restoration). DSR 59541 was prepared in the amount of $96,500 to fund this work. The third appeal again states that this scope of work is not sufficient to restore the disaster damages, and requests funding of the relocation project. Review of the third appeal finds that the scope of work in DSR 59541 adequately restores the disaster-related damages to the pipeline. Further, it is found that there is no basis to support funding for relocation of the 6,200 lf of pipeline where only 15 feet had been undermined.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:Sign letter denying this appeal.

Appeal Letter

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND

During the winter storms of 1995, a landslide occurred within a natural hillside, upslope of the San Miguelito Creek. Floodwaters in the creek reportedly eroded the toe of the slope, resulting in the slope failure. The landslide resulted in exposing approximately 15 linear feet of an 8-in. diameter water main built into the hillside approximately 45 feet above the creek. Other than undermining the support of the pipe, no specific damage to the pipe was reported due to the slide. An easement for the pipeline extends 10 feet on either side of the pipe. A dirt access road is cut into the slope, providing vehicular access to the pipe location. A private road is located approximately 60 feet upslope of the pipe location. The City of Lompoc (subgrantee) requested disaster assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for repair of the damaged pipe.

FEMA prepared Damage Survey Report (DSR) 19947 in response to a site inspection on August 25, 1995, to provide permanent restoration of the pipeline. It was recommended that the pipe be moved 10 feet to the west (into the hillside), within the existing easement, as it was considered impractical to restore the pipe within the failed hillside location. DSR 19947 included excavation and backfill of a new trench, 50 ft. long, and replacement of 50 ft. of pipe, including four elbow attachments to accommodate the horizontal displacement of the offset section of pipe, for a total cost of $4,760. The DSR narrative indicated that the subgrantee intended to submit a Hazard Mitigation Proposal (HMP) to relocate approximately 6,200 linear feet of this pipeline to the right-of-way along San Miguelito Road. On August 28, 1995, the subgrantee submitted a non-concurrence of the costs associated with the eligible scope of work, suggesting that engineering costs alone could reach higher than even their estimated costs for relocation of $150,000.

First Appeal

On February 1, 1996, the subgrantee submitted another letter of non-concurrence regarding FEMA's estimation of costs for DSR 19947. The State of California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) transmitted the subgrantee's letter to FEMA as a first appeal. The subgrantee indicated that the location FEMA proposed for placement of the pipe is private property, thus requiring an easement or purchase of property. Additionally, the subgrantee stated that significant costs would be incurred for geotechnical and environmental studies, and for access for construction equipment to the site. The subgrantee requested FEMA reconsider their HMP for $150,000.

In response to the first appeal, FEMA conducted a second site visit. It was concluded that relocating the pipe within the subgrantee's 20 ft. easement was possible without purchase of private property, and that suitable access was available for construction equipment via the dirt access road. However, FEMA further evaluated the resulting stability of the site based on the conditions observed at the site visit, and upon review of the preliminary geotechnical study, dated October 16, 1996, prepared by the subgrantee's geotechnical consultant, Fugro West, Inc. This review concluded that the site where the pipeline is located is currently unstable and prone to future slides. Citing the Landslide Policy, the first appeal response concluded that stabilization of an unstable site is not eligible for funding. DSR 19947 was deobligated with DSR 83831 (<$4,760>), and replaced with DSR 83832. The scope of work in the replacement DSR was modified to include additional funding for mobilization of equipment, increasing the total eligible cost to $5,960. DSR 83832 was suspended pending stabilization of the site by the subgrantee. Additionally, DSR 74485 was prepared to provide funding for the geotechnical study preformed by Fugro West, Inc. in the amount of $1,000.

Second Appeal

The subgrantee submitted a second appeal of FEMA's determination of limited eligibility, transmitted through your office in a letter dated July 14, 1997. The subgrantee asserted that the site was stable prior to the disaster and should be restored to pre-disaster condition. The subgrantee submitted a preliminary engineering report prepared by their geotechnical consultant, Fugro West, Inc., that included a preliminary scope and cost estimate to repair the pipeline within the existing easement, including stabilization of 350 linear feet of slope by use of a soil nailing and shotcrete technique and placement of riprap at the toe of the slope. The cost for this repair effort was estimated by Fugro at $572,000. In lieu of repair of the existing pipe location, the subgrantee again requested funding for a relocation project consisting of constructing 6,200 linear feet of pipeline within the right-of-way along San Miguelito Road, estimated at $157,000, on the basis that the existing site would be subject to repetitive heavy damage and the proposed relocation would be more cost effective.

The Executive Associate Director reviewed the subgrantee's appeal and concluded that slope stabilization of the failed hillside is eligible for FEMA assistance, but only within the limits of the undermined section. Because only 15 feet of pipe was actually undermined and the subgrantee did not adequately demonstrate that the site had been subject to heavy repetitive damage, the relocation of 6,200 linear feet of pipe was found to not be eligible. It was noted that such work would be considered an improved project. In response to the second appeal determination, the Regional Director prepared DSR 59541, in the amount of $96,500, to fund relocation of the pipeline within the existing hillside easement and associated hillside stabilization efforts as necessary to support the undermined section of pipe (50 linear feet of slope repair). The proposed method of slope repair is consistent with the recommendation of the subgrantee's geotechnical consultant.

Third Appeal

The subgrantee submitted a third appeal, transmitted by your office in a letter dated August 24, 1998. The subgrantee asserts that the eligible scope of work provided in DSR 59541 does not adequately repair all the disaster related damage. To demonstrate that the hillside is subject to repetitive heavy damage, the subgrantee indicated that additional damage occurred to the hillside during the 1998 storms (FEMA-1203). The subgrantee is requesting funding for relocation of the pipeline at a cost of $157,000.

DISCUSSION

In response to the subgrantee's third appeal, we have reviewed the documentation regarding the eligible scope of work and the subgrantee's request for relocation. A discussion of each of these issues is provided below.

Eligible Scope of Work

The subgrantee asserts that the length of the eligible slope stabilization does not include all disaster related damage to the hillside and that placement of riprap at the toe of the slope is necessary to protect the slope from further creek erosion. Additionally, the subgrantee does not agree with FEMA's estimate for funding of the environmental review.

The subgrantee asserts that the eligible slope repair along a 50 ft. length of slope is not sufficient to repair the disaster damages to the hillside. The Fugro report recommended construction of the stabilization system for a total length of 350 ft. due to apparent unstable slope conditions in areas beyond the section of pipeline exposed by the disaster. The second appeal review found that these additional conditions were not attributed to the disaster such that extension of the stabilization system beyond the damaged section of the pipe would not be eligible for FEMA assistance. DSR 59541, therefore, limited the eligible repair length to the 50 lrdhe full 350 ft. length of hillside should be stabilized, but provides no further documentation to support that any apparent movement of this section of the slope was due to the FEMA-1046 disaster event. FEMA assistance may only be provided for repair of damages which occur from the disaster event (44 CFR 206.223(a)(1) General Work Eligibility). Therefore, repair of site conditions which cannot be specifically attributed to the disaster event are not eligible for assistance. The eligible scope of work is appropriately limited to the length necessary to support the undermined section of pipe (50 linear feet), as provided for in DSR 59541.

Secondly, the subgrantee asserts that placement of riprap at the toe of the slope, as recommended in the Fugro report, is necessary to protect the slope from further erosion induced slides. However, within the vicinity of the undermined pipe length, it is found that the proposed soil nailing stabilization system will adequately support the pipeline and protect the pipe from further unstable conditions. Additional toe stabilization efforts are not necessary to restore the function of the pipeline, and are therefore not eligible for funding. Additionally, as stated in the second appeal response, this work is considered to be mitigative and an improvement to the project site as it provides protection of the slope from the effects of the creek flow and was not present prior to the disaster. Engineering efforts associated with design of the riprap protection, and environmental and hydraulic studies associated with working in the stream bank, are therefore also not eligible.

The subgrantee states that FEMA's estimate for environmental review is not sufficient to address all environmental considerations for this project. The subgrantee references various permits and associated studies that may be necessary to complete the project, but has not provided a revised cost estimate for these expected efforts. Although the proposed project does involve construction within natural ground, it is recgonized that the intent of the project is to restore the site to its pre-disaster condition, utilizing reasonable construction methods. On this basis, it is expected that efforts associated with compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be minimal. DSR 59541 provided an allowance of $20,000 for engineering and environmental studies, based on the estimate included in the Fugro report, reducing the total cost to reflect the eligible scope of work (eliminating stream related construction issues). This estimated cost is approximately 26 percent of the total eligible project construction cost ($76,500) and is considered reasonable for the defined scope items and anticipated engineering and environmental studies.

Consideration for Relocation

To support their position that the hillside is subject to repetitive heavy damage, the subgrantee indicated that the hillside experienced additional flood related damage from the 1998 storms (FEMA-1203). While additional movement may have been induced from another declared disaster event, this does not demonstrate that the site had been subject to heavy repetitive damage in the past. Rather, the subgrantee has indicated that the pipeline has been in place since 1945 with adequate performance. Additional geotechnical review of the site conditions performed in response to this third appeal also concluded that there is no evidence of inherently unstable slope conditions to suggest the site has been subject to repetitive damage. Therefore, as the damage caused by the disaster is considered to be repairable with reasonable effort, consideration for relocation on the basis of repetitive heavy damage is not eligible.

As stated in the second appeal analysis, should the applicant choose to pursue the construction of the relocation project, such work would be considered an improved project. In accordance with 44 CFR 206.203(d)(1), our funding for this project would be limited to the Federal share of the estimated cost of the eligible work documented in DSR 59541. In addition, it is important that approval of the improved project be completed prior to any construction of the relocation project in order to complete environmental and historic preservation reviews. Any work that is performed before the Region is permitted to clear work under various historic preservation and environmental protection laws may jeopardize all funding of the project, including work previously approved.

CONCLUSION

Based on the documentation provided with the third appeal, I have determined that eligible scope of work provided in DSR 59541 is sufficient to restore the failed hillside in the vicinity of the exposed pipeline. The available documentation does not support the subgrantee's assertion that additional sections of the hillside require stabilization due to conditions resulting from the FEMA-1046 disaster event. Further, there is no basis to support funding for relocation of the 6,200 lf of pipeline where only 15 feet had been undermined. Such work would be considered an improved project, and if chosen by the applicant, must undergo regulatory reviews for approval. The subgrantee's appeal is denied.