alert - warning

This page has not been translated into 简体中文. Visit the 简体中文 page for resources in that language.

Tuna Canyon Road Repair

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1577-DR
ApplicantLos Angeles County
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#037-99037-00
PW ID#Project Worksheet 3028
Date Signed2007-11-29T05:00:00
Citation: FEMA-1577-DR-CA; Los Angeles County – Roads

Cross-reference: Repair to pre-disaster conditions; Eligible work; Improved Project; Hazard Mitigation

Summary: As a result of heavy rainfall during the January 2005 Winter Storms, PW 3038 was prepared in July 2005 for the amount of $546,862 to fund repairs to slope washouts and associated restoration of shoulder pavement and appurtenances at two locations (Sites 1 and 2) in close proximity on Tuna Canyon Road. The PW calls for a soldier pile wall with pre-cast concrete panels to be constructed at each site, with each wall approximately 100 feet in length. The Applicant is requesting that the PW scope of work be revised to realign 400 feet of roadway at Site 1, requiring significant excavation; additional fill placement at Site 2; and over 200 feet of streambank erosion protection measures; at a total project cost of $1,641,886. The county asserts that The Regional Director denied the appeal because the county’s repair design included numerous components of work that were not damaged during the declared incident.
Issues:
1. Should PW 3038 be revised to comply with the scope of work associated with the County’s repair design for the road restoration?

2. Should the total project cost be increased to $1,641,886 to cover the costs for the scope of work associated with the County’s repair design for the road restoration?

Findings:
1) No, the Applicant has proposed a scope of work involving sections of road, culverts, and catch basins that were not damaged during the declared incident, and have not demonstrated that these are cost-effective mitigation measures.

2) No, the total project cost should not be increased to cover the costs for ineligible components of work in the County’s repair design.

Rationale:
Stafford Act Section 406(e); 44 CFR §206.223(a) (1); 44 CFR §206.203(d)(1)

Appeal Letter

November 29, 2007

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

Re: Second Appeal – Los Angeles (County), PA ID 037-99037-00
Tuna Canyon Road Repair, FEMA-1577-DR-CA, Project Worksheet 3038

Dear Mr. Jacks:

This is in response to your letter dated January 18, 2007, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Los Angeles County (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) decision not to revise the scope of work and increase funding for the repair of damages to two sections of Tuna Canyon Road.

As explained in the enclosed analysis, we have determined that the Applicant’s requested change to the scope of work at Site 1 exceeds the work required to restore the facility to its pre-disaster condition. Therefore, this part of the appeal is denied. The Applicant’s request to revise the scope of work at Site 2 is approved except for the planting of willow trees. By copy of this letter, I request the Regional Administrator take appropriate action to implement this determination.

Please inform the Applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 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 January 2005 Winter Storms, FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 3038 in July 2005 for $546,862 to fund repairs to slope washouts and associated restoration of shoulder pavement and appurtenances at two locations (Sites 1 and 2) in close proximity on Tuna Canyon Road. Site 1 is located at mile marker (MM) 4.97 and 4.98 on the south side of the creek, and Site 2 is located at MM 5.04 on the north side of the creek. The PW described approximately 100 feet of slope washout and damaged shoulder pavement at each site. The scope of work includes construction of a 100-foot solider pile wall at each site.

First Appeal

Los Angeles County (Applicant) submitted a first appeal to the California Governor Office of Emergency Services (OES) to FEMA on March 28, 2006. The Applicant contended that the scope of work for Site 1 is not feasible and the scope of work for Site 2 is too aggressive in this environmentally sensitive area. Instead of a solider pile wall at Site 1, the Applicant proposed to excavate approximately 400 feet of road immediately to the south of its current alignment. The Applicant proposed to restore the slope at Site 2 with fill then place erosion protection in the form of riprap and boulders along both sides of the creek over a length in excess of 200 feet. The revised scope of work included appurtenances such as geo-synthetic erosion protection blanket, catch basins, drainage pipe, asphalt pavement, crushed base, willow planting, etc. The Applicant requested that FEMA increase the project cost to $1, 407,696.

The Acting Regional Director denied the appeal because the Applicant did not submit sufficient documentation to support its request for a change in the scope of work. The Acting Regional Director informed OES that the scope of work that the Applicant proposed constituted an Improved Project pursuant to 44 CFR§ 206.203.

Second Appeal

The Applicant submitted a second appeal to OES on November 20, 2006. OES forwarded the appeal to FEMA on January 18, 2007. The Applicant reiterated its position regarding the need for a change to the scope of work to comply with the County’s designed repair scheme for the road restoration with ancillary support activities, along with the associated increase in the total project cost. The second appeal included copies of the PW, the first appeal response, much of the same information provided in the first appeal, additional photographs of the damaged road sections, and a copy of a report from the Geotechnical and Materials Engineering Division of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (LADPW). This report, dated November 2, 2005, had geotechnical recommendations for the proposed Tuna Canyon Road realignment and a set of boring logs.

The second appeal also included a cost comparison prepared by LADPW between the repair that the Applicant proposes at Site 2 and the scope of work for the soldier pile wall repair from PW 3038. This comparison was to illustrate that the repair proposed by the County was more cost effective. The Applicant revised the project estimate to $1,641,886, but did not provide an explanation for the increase from the amount given in the first appeal.

DISCUSSION:

The PW describes the damage at Sites 1 and 2 as slope washouts, which implies that the damage was caused by storm water running off the shoulder of the road and eroding material from the slope where it had been supporting the pavement. On this basis, the PW was written for repairs in the immediate vicinity of the observed damage. The Applicant stated in the first appeal (p. 3) that the type of repair described in the PW is not feasible at Site 1 because there is no competent material at a reasonable depth. This argument, however, is not sufficient justification to revise the scope of work. By their very nature, soldier piles derive the ability to carry lateral loads through their embedment in soil or rock. A technical argument might conceivably be made that a greater than normal depth of embedment might be required at a particular location, which could have significant cost implications. Consequently, a cost comparison might be made to demonstrate that the relocation of a road would be more cost effective than an expensive soldier pile wall at the actual location of the damage. This argument, however, would have to be supported by a cost analysis supported by engineering calculations showing the depth of pile embedment necessary to support the required lateral loads. Neither an engineering analysis nor cost comparisons were provided by the Applicant with either the first or second appeals.
The Applicant also states in the second appeal (p. 3) that the type of repair described in the PW at Site 1, “… does not mitigate problems with slope instability that lie deep below the surface…” This implies that the County is attempting to implement measures to protect the roadway from a deep-seated failure potentially resulting from a future event. Public Assistance provides funds to repair disaster-related damage. Since the damage from the incident event was a near-surface failure, the Applicant’s proposed measures to address slope instability deep below the surface are not eligible for funding.

Regarding Site 2, the Applicant states in both the first and second appeals that FEMA’s scope of work is too “aggressive,” noting in the second appeal (p. 4) that, “… since the road is close to the creek, it is highly unlikely the County would be able to obtain permits from jurisdictional agencies to construct a wall immediately adjacent to the streambed.” The Applicant proposes to add fill to the slope and 200 linear feet of riprap along both sides of the creek and other appurtenances, including planting of willow trees. It states that the cost of its project is estimated to be $130,000 compared to its estimate of $541,000 for the slope of work described in the PW. The PW estimate for the work at Site 2 is $270,080. Therefore, the Applicant’s proposed scope of work at Site 2 appears to be cost effective. However, the planting of trees are not eligible pursuant to Response and Recovery Directorate Policy 9524.5, Trees, Shrubs, and Other Plantings Associated with Facilities, dated September 24, 1998.

CONCLUSION

FEMA funds cost-effective repairs of disaster-related damages to eligible facilities. The Applicant’s request to revise the scope of work at Site 1 is denied because it exceeds the work required to restore the pre-disaster condition of the facility. The Applicant’s proposed scope of work at Site 2, minus the planting of willow trees, is reasonable and cost-effective. Therefore, this portion of the appeal is approved.

If the Applicant elects to accomplish its scope of work, the work would constitute an Improved Project requiring that the Federal funding be limited to the Federal share of the approved estimate of eligible costs. FEMA will review and update the estimated cost of the project as appropriate.