This page has not been translated into 简体中文. Visit the 简体中文 page for resources in that language.
Roadway Embankment Restoration at 7825 W. Mercer Way
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: FEMA-1159-DR-WA; City of Mercer Island; DSR 73592 - 7825 W. Mercer Way
Cross Reference: Roadway Embankment, Slide, Saturated Soils, Slope Failure, Rock Buttress, Soldier Pile Wall;
Summary: During the DR-1159 incident period, a 50-to-65 foot section of the roadway embankment at 7825 West Mercer Way in the City of Mercer Island (City) failed, and slid toward a private drive and residences. DSR 73592 was prepared for $27,979 to fund restoration of the embankment with rock fill at the toe and on the slope. The City did not concur with the scope of work in the DSR, asserting that rock fill would not satisfactorily repair the embankment, and would present a danger to homeowners during construction and afterwards. To avoid further failures and to protect property, the City completed construction of a 135-foot soldier pile wall. In its first appeal of the scope of the DSR, the City stated that FEMA's determination that the soldier pile wall was not cost effective was made using an unrealistic (low) cost estimate of the rock fill option as a comparison. Because of this, the City stated that the soldier pile wall should have been considered a viable repair option. FEMA Region X denied the first appeal, stating that the City was only eligible for FEMA funded restoration of the embankment by the most cost effective manner possible to return the road and embankment only to its pre-disaster design and function. The region stated that the soldier pile wall was an improved project, and was longer than the extent of slope damages. In its second appeal the City asserts that the costs for the rock fill restoration were underestimated on the DSR, and according to its geotechnical consultant, an adequate rock wall repair would have cost as much as the soldier pile option. The City further states that the wall was 135 feet long because it restored the area that was damaged as proven on photos in FEMA's possession. In addition, the City's geotechnical consultant stated that the rock fill option would not have provided an adequate safety factor in repairing the embankment. The City is requesting $103,329 for the completed soldier-pile retaining wall.
Issues:
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1159-DR |
| Applicant | City of Mercer Island |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 033-45005 |
| PW ID# | 73592 |
| Date Signed | 1999-03-23T05:00:00 |
Cross Reference: Roadway Embankment, Slide, Saturated Soils, Slope Failure, Rock Buttress, Soldier Pile Wall;
Summary: During the DR-1159 incident period, a 50-to-65 foot section of the roadway embankment at 7825 West Mercer Way in the City of Mercer Island (City) failed, and slid toward a private drive and residences. DSR 73592 was prepared for $27,979 to fund restoration of the embankment with rock fill at the toe and on the slope. The City did not concur with the scope of work in the DSR, asserting that rock fill would not satisfactorily repair the embankment, and would present a danger to homeowners during construction and afterwards. To avoid further failures and to protect property, the City completed construction of a 135-foot soldier pile wall. In its first appeal of the scope of the DSR, the City stated that FEMA's determination that the soldier pile wall was not cost effective was made using an unrealistic (low) cost estimate of the rock fill option as a comparison. Because of this, the City stated that the soldier pile wall should have been considered a viable repair option. FEMA Region X denied the first appeal, stating that the City was only eligible for FEMA funded restoration of the embankment by the most cost effective manner possible to return the road and embankment only to its pre-disaster design and function. The region stated that the soldier pile wall was an improved project, and was longer than the extent of slope damages. In its second appeal the City asserts that the costs for the rock fill restoration were underestimated on the DSR, and according to its geotechnical consultant, an adequate rock wall repair would have cost as much as the soldier pile option. The City further states that the wall was 135 feet long because it restored the area that was damaged as proven on photos in FEMA's possession. In addition, the City's geotechnical consultant stated that the rock fill option would not have provided an adequate safety factor in repairing the embankment. The City is requesting $103,329 for the completed soldier-pile retaining wall.
Issues:
- Was the approved scope of work in DSR 73592 adequate to safely restore the road embankment to its predisaster design and function?
- Is the city eligible for funding of the 135-foot soldier pile wall restoration?
- No. The scope of work on the DSR was preliminary in nature, and did not take a number of necessary scope items and site conditions into account, including some relevant geotechnical data.
- No. The applicant constructed a soldier pile retaining wall in the place of a compacted earth embankment, representing a significant improvement. The applicant is eligible for additional funds ($ 47,167) to cover only the deficiencies in the original scope of work.
Appeal Letter
March 23, 1999
Donna J. Voss
State of Washington Military Department
Emergency Management Division
Post Office Box 40955
Olympia, Washington 98504
Dear Ms. Voss:
This letter is in response to your July 24, 1998, submittal of the City of Mercer Island's (City's) second appeal of Damage Survey Report (DSR) 73592 to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under FEMA-1159-DR-WA. The DSR was initially approved for $ 27,979 to fund roadway embankment restoration at 7825 Mercer Island Way using rock fill. The City did not concur with the approved scope in the DSR and appealed, asserting that rock fill would not satisfactorily repair the embankment, and stating that a soldier pile wall should have been considered. The Region denied the City's first appeal, stating that the approved scope was the most cost effective method of repairing the slope, and that the City had instead constructed a soldier pile retaining wall, which was an improved project. In its second appeal, the City states that the cost to repair the embankment with rock fill was underestimated on the DSR by FEMA, resulting in an unrealistic cost estimate. A geotechnical report submitted by the City concluded that the scope of work in the approved DSR would not have provided an adequate repair of the embankment. The City's soldier pile wall was 135 feet long while the DSR indicated only 50 to 65 feet of embankment failed. The City asserts that it has only restored the length of embankment that was damaged by the disaster as shown in photos submitted by the City.
After a review of the second appeal and all submitted documentation and photos, I find partially in favor of the City in its appeal. The City's geotechnical engineer correctly concludes that DSR 73592 failed to include significant scope items that resulted in an underestimate of the project's cost. The engineer further states that the scope of work in the DSR was inadequate to permanently restore the embankment. FEMA finds merit in this argument and has developed a revised scope of work to address the deficient or missing items in the original scope of work in DSR 73592. Accordingly, the amount of structural excavation has been increased, along with depth and size of the rock buttress and amount of rock fill on the slope. In addition, more reasonable unit costs were used for materials in place, and items have been included to cover utilities, drainage, safety issues, and traffic control.
However, the applicant has constructed a soldier pile wall that exceeds the length of the actual embankment failure and improves upon the compacted earth, roadway embankment that existed prior to the disaster. Therefore, the cost to construct the soldier pile wall is not eligible. However, because of the urgent nature of the repair and the accelerated schedule under which it was completed, and because the restoration did not change the pre-disaster design or use of the facility, it is therefore statutorily excluded from further NEPA requirements. Therefore, after a revision of the scope of work in DSR 73592 (new estimate enclosed), the applicant is due an additional $47,167, which may be applied towards the costs of the completed soldier pile wall.
By copy of this letter I request that the Regional Director prepare a supplemental DSR for $47,167 to fund a more complete scope of work as originally developed in DSR 73592. 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
Enclosure
cc: David de Courcy
Regional Director
FEMA Region X
Donna J. Voss
State of Washington Military Department
Emergency Management Division
Post Office Box 40955
Olympia, Washington 98504
Dear Ms. Voss:
This letter is in response to your July 24, 1998, submittal of the City of Mercer Island's (City's) second appeal of Damage Survey Report (DSR) 73592 to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under FEMA-1159-DR-WA. The DSR was initially approved for $ 27,979 to fund roadway embankment restoration at 7825 Mercer Island Way using rock fill. The City did not concur with the approved scope in the DSR and appealed, asserting that rock fill would not satisfactorily repair the embankment, and stating that a soldier pile wall should have been considered. The Region denied the City's first appeal, stating that the approved scope was the most cost effective method of repairing the slope, and that the City had instead constructed a soldier pile retaining wall, which was an improved project. In its second appeal, the City states that the cost to repair the embankment with rock fill was underestimated on the DSR by FEMA, resulting in an unrealistic cost estimate. A geotechnical report submitted by the City concluded that the scope of work in the approved DSR would not have provided an adequate repair of the embankment. The City's soldier pile wall was 135 feet long while the DSR indicated only 50 to 65 feet of embankment failed. The City asserts that it has only restored the length of embankment that was damaged by the disaster as shown in photos submitted by the City.
After a review of the second appeal and all submitted documentation and photos, I find partially in favor of the City in its appeal. The City's geotechnical engineer correctly concludes that DSR 73592 failed to include significant scope items that resulted in an underestimate of the project's cost. The engineer further states that the scope of work in the DSR was inadequate to permanently restore the embankment. FEMA finds merit in this argument and has developed a revised scope of work to address the deficient or missing items in the original scope of work in DSR 73592. Accordingly, the amount of structural excavation has been increased, along with depth and size of the rock buttress and amount of rock fill on the slope. In addition, more reasonable unit costs were used for materials in place, and items have been included to cover utilities, drainage, safety issues, and traffic control.
However, the applicant has constructed a soldier pile wall that exceeds the length of the actual embankment failure and improves upon the compacted earth, roadway embankment that existed prior to the disaster. Therefore, the cost to construct the soldier pile wall is not eligible. However, because of the urgent nature of the repair and the accelerated schedule under which it was completed, and because the restoration did not change the pre-disaster design or use of the facility, it is therefore statutorily excluded from further NEPA requirements. Therefore, after a revision of the scope of work in DSR 73592 (new estimate enclosed), the applicant is due an additional $47,167, which may be applied towards the costs of the completed soldier pile wall.
By copy of this letter I request that the Regional Director prepare a supplemental DSR for $47,167 to fund a more complete scope of work as originally developed in DSR 73592. 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
Enclosure
cc: David de Courcy
Regional Director
FEMA Region X