West Tank Reservoir Water Main - Kagel Canyon

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1046-DR
ApplicantLos Angeles County Department of Public Works
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#037-91012
PW ID#25829,17791
Date Signed1998-07-22T04:00:00
Citation: FEMA-1046-DR-CA; Los Angeles County DPW; DSRs 25829 and 17791

Cross Reference: Slope Stabilization, Landslide Policy, Relocation Projects, Improved Projects

Summary: During the winter storms of 1995, a landslide occurred within a natural hillside in the Kagel Canyon area of Los Angeles County, damaging a 150-linear foot (lf) section of a 6-in. diameter water main. The landslide itself extended well beyond the immediate vicinity of the damaged pipeline, involving almost 4 acres of hillside area. The water main supplies the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (applicant) West Tank Reservoir, which furnishes water to about 250 homes and for firefighting efforts in this hillside residential area. The applicant has estimated the cost of restoring the full landslide area to be almost $1.8 million, and has requested a relocation of the water main on the basis that it would be more cost effective (cost estimated at $285,000). DSR 25829, prepared in response to the initial site visit, limited funding to the cost of replacing the pipe ($30,000), concluding that the hillside was unstable and thus stabilization efforts would be the responsibility of the applicant. This determination was upheld in first appeal, but the first appeal analysis determined that the scope of pipe repair in DSR 25829 was ineligible, and prepared DSR 17791 to replace the pipe using FEMA cost codes for estimation of eligible costs. The estimated cost was $3,000. The applicant's second appeal again requests that FEMA reconsider the scope of the relocation project on the basis that it is cost effective in comparison to replacing the pipe within the failed hillside.

Issues:
  1. Is slope stabilization eligible for FEMA assistance?
  2. Is the proposed relocation of the pipeline eligible for FEMA assistance?
Findings:
  1. Yes. The slope failure was caused primarily by the disaster. However, due to the overall condition of the slide area, and the proximity of the failed pipe to the remaining hillside, such repair may not be practical.
  2. Yes. The proposed relocation appears to be more cost effective, however certain costs are either not eligible or represent an improvement.
Rationale: Slope failures within natural hillsides which are caused primarily by the disaster are eligible for restoration to the extent that they provide support to an eligible facility. For relocation projects to be eligible, they must be cost effective. Project components which represent an improvement to the predisaster design are evaluated as Improved Projects. Landslide Policy, 44CFR 201.226(e) , 44CFR 201.203(d)(1)

Appeal Letter

July 22, 1998

Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
74 North Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, 3rd Floor
Pasadena, California 91103-3678

Dear Mr. Najera:

This letter is in response to your December 17, 1997, submittal of the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works' second appeal of Damage Survey Reports (DSR) 25829 and 17791 under FEMA-1046-DR-CA. The applicant is requesting funding for the relocation of approximately 1,400 linear feet of water main as the most cost effective means for restoring a 150-linear foot section of the pipe that was damaged due to a landslide within a natural hillside.

As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that slope stabilization of the failed hillside, to the extent necessary to support the exposed section of the pipeline, is eligible for FEMA assistance. However, due to the overall condition of the slide area, and the proximity of the failed pipe to the remaining hillside, such repair may not be practical. The applicant's proposed relocation Alternative 4 appears to be a more cost effective means for restoring the function of the water main. However, certain costs proposed in this alternative are either not eligible or represent an improvement over the current design. By copy of this letter, I am requesting the Regional Director to prepare a supplemental DSR for eligible costs as described in the enclosed analysis.

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: Martha Z. Whetstone
Regional Director
FEMA Region IX

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND
During the Winter Storms of 1995, a landslide occurred within a natural hillside in the Kagel Canyon area of Los Angeles County, damaging a 150 linear foot (lf) section of a six-inch diameter water main. The landslide itself extended well beyond the immediate vicinity of the damaged pipeline, measured by the Geology Investigations Section of the Los Angeles County Public Works Department (applicant) as 600 feet long and 150 feet deep. The damaged water main is located in the upper portion of the hillside. The water main supplies the applicant's West Tank Reservoir, which furnishes water to about 250 homes and for firefighting efforts in this hillside residential area. The existing water main alignment runs within the U.S. Department of Forestry land for which the applicant has a blanket easement for waterworks.

On August 31, 1995, a site inspection team, consisting of representatives of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the California Office of Emergency Services (State) and the applicant, visited the site to observe the reported damages. In lieu of stabilizing the damaged hillside, the applicant proposed three alternative relocation routes, requesting that Alternative 1 be considered for funding. It is noted that this project involved reconstruction of 2,245 linear feet of pipeline at an alternate location, estimated at a cost of $271,213. The applicant further proposed that the reconstructed pipe be 12 inches in diameter, in accordance with their codes and standards. The FEMA inspector, however, proposed reconstructing the damaged length of pipeline (150 lf) adjacent to the current easement, within the adjacent private property, recognizing that the property would have to be purchased or condemned. Damage survey report (DSR) 25829 was prepared by the FEMA inspector for an estimated cost of $85,000, proposing to replace the damaged 150 lf of pipe, and to purchase an easement within this private property. During eligibility review, it was concluded that, in accordance with the Landslide Policy, stabilization of the hillside was the responsibility of the applicant. The eligible funding was reduced to cover only the replacement of the pipe as estimated by the inspection team as $30,000, and the DSR was suspended pending the stabilization of the hillside.

The applicant submitted a non-concurrence of FEMA's determination to not fund the relocation project in a letter dated April 2, 1996, stating that the property within which the FEMA inspector proposed to relocate the pipe is not geologically stable and that the property owner had expressed a "disinterest" in granting a construction easement. The applicant again proposed their three alternative routes, and requested FEMA reconsider the pipeline relocation. The FEMA Region IX Disaster Recovery Manager responded to this request in a letter dated September 24, 1996, stating that the applicant's reference to the original site being subjected to "repetitive damage" implied that the site is unstable. Accordingly, the Disaster Recovery Manager processed DSR 25829 as ineligible, stating that funding could be restored upon certification that the site was stabilized by the applicant. This response letter further indicated that the applicant could request a relocation project in accordance with the provisions of 44 CFR 206.226(e) Relocation, but that the Regional Director would evaluate the proposal to determine the cost effectiveness of the relocation. Additionally, regarding the issue of "codes and standards," the Disaster Recovery Manager indicated that the applicant must submit documentation substantiating the eligibility of such a code in accordance with 44 CFR 206.226 (b), Standards.

First Appeal
The applicant submitted a first appeal, transmitted by the State in a letter dated January 30, 1997, requesting that FEMA again reconsider funding their proposed Alternative 1 project. The applicant asserted that the proposed project met the eligibility criteria for relocation in that the pipeline, in its original location, would be subjected to repetitive damage, unless the site is stabilized, the relocated pipeline is not barred by other provisions of the 44 CFR, and that proposed Alternative 1 project, estimated to cost $271,213, is cost effective compared to the cost of hillside stabilization, estimated by the applicant at a cost of $1,771,250. The applicant further indicated that design of the new pipe must follow the requirements of the Los Angeles County Code, Title 20. Accordingly, the applicant states that using the fire flow requirements of the code, and applying standard engineering practice, requires replacement with a 12-inch pipe.

In response to the first appeal, FEMA met with the applicant and conducted a second site visit. However, based on a review of the documentation submitted by the applicant, and the observations made at the site visit, the original determination of ineligibility for relocation was upheld by the Regional Director. The Regional Director responded to the appeal in a letter dated July 2, 1997, stating that according to the Landslide Policy, if a site is found to be unstable, and the instability is a result of the disaster, the cost to restore the facility may be eligible for funding after the site has been stabilized by the applicant. The response further indicated that the failed hillside is a "natural feature" such that it, in itself, is not a facility eligible for funding. The Regional Director prepared DSR 11791 to replace the pipe only, estimated using FEMA Cost Codes at a cost of $3,000, and suspended the DSR until the site was stabilized. It was noted that the alternative project proposed by the applicant would be considered an improved project.

Second Appeal
The applicant submitted a second appeal of FEMA's determination of limited eligibility in a letter dated October 20, 1997. The applicant's appeal again states that their proposed relocation project should be eligible for FEMA assistance, asserting that the proposed project is intended to repair the pipeline in the most cost-effective manner, and should not be considered an improved project. The State transmitted the applicant's appeal in a letter dated December 17, 1997, indicating that they do not support the applicant's appeal in that they have not provided documentation of heavy repetitive damage to support consideration of a relocation project. Further, the State indicated that the applicant incorrectly included the cost of slope stabilization when evaluating the cost effectiveness of the relocation project. In response to the State's letter, the applicant submitted a second letter, dated January 7, 1998, regarding their appeal position, asserting that the State has overstated the criteria needed to invoke the provisions for eligibility of a relocation project.

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

Eligible Scope of Work
To provide guidance on determining eligible work for facilities where supporting natural ground has been damaged due to a disaster-related landslide, FEMA issued the Response and Recovery Directorate Policy No. 4511.300 A - Landslide Policy Relating to Public Facilities (Landslide Policy). The Landslide Policy states that, based on Section 406 of the Stafford Act, only damaged or destroyed public facilities and the related integral ground mass are eligible for restoration. This section of the policy suggests that some portion of the adjacent ground mass, potentially including some natural ground, may be eligible for restoration, if necessary to restore the function of the facg circumstances that led to the failure as discussed below.

According to the Landslide Policy, when the post-disaster condition of the site is unstable, and the unstable condition is caused primarily by the disaster, then permanent restoration of the facility, including ground restoration, is generally eligible for FEMA assistance. The documentation provided with this appeal indicates that the site is unstable, and was caused by the disaster. No evidence of predisaster instabilities were observed in the vicinity of this landslide. Accordingly, under such circumstances, it is concluded that restoration of the disaster damaged portion of the hillside, to the extent necessary to provide support of the pipe, would be eligible for FEMA assistance. However, FEMA also recognizes that the proposed repair should be practical, technically feasible and cost effective.

To replace the pipe at its original location, the applicant concludes that it will be possible to reconstruct the failed hillside by excavation of the failed material and replacement with compacted fill. The applicant estimates the cost of this effort to be $1,771,250, which includes stabilization of a four-acre slide area, 25 ft. deep, reconstruction of a 12-inch diameter pipeline for the 150 lf length, 30 percent engineering and inspection fees, and other costs (mobilization, clearing and grubbing, and revegetation). However, we have determined that these repair efforts are excessive relative to that which is specifically necessary to restore support of the pipe. In particular, based on the information provided in the project documentation, and observations made at the site visits, it is not necessary to stabilize the full hillside area in order to replace the pipe. Rather, it may be possible to limit the repair to the immediate vicinity of the damaged pipe, limiting the repair to approximately a 100-foot width of the hillside. Additionally, the codes referenced by the applicant do not require that a segment of pipe be redesigned during repair, nor would it be practical to reconnect this limited length of 12-inch diameter pipe to the existing 6-inch diameter pipe. Accordingly, the project cost would more appropriately include the cost of a 6-inch pipe. Finally, the 30 percent engineering and inspection fee is excessive, even for a project of this nature. Utilizing the FEMA guide for estimating engineering and inspection fees, 10 percent would be more appropriate. Accordingly, the eligible costs necessary to provide support of the pipe, rather than to stabilize the entire failed slope area, would be significantly less than the $1.8 million quoted by the applicant.

Various methods of repair of the hillside have been reviewed for this analysis for the purpose of providing a preliminary evaluation of technically feasible repair methods, and the cost effectiveness and practicality of such repairs. The general intent of these repair methods involve reconstructing the pipe within what would be the limits of the existing water main easement, recognizing that property outside the easement is privately owned. To replace the pipe in the general vicinity of its original location, or possibly to realign the pipe within the existing face of the hillside, methods of repair including excavation and replacement, combined with various stabilizing walls or other means of providing stability to the face of the failed slope, have been considered. However, it is recognized that the practicality of performing a repair within a hillside which has experienced such a significant loss of material may not be reasonable. Accordingly, it is concluded that relocation of the pipe, if found to be cost effective, should be considered as an alternate solution to stabilizing the hillside.

Consideration for Relocation
The applicant originally submitted three alternatives for pipe relocation. In response to the first appeal, FEMA met with the applicant and conducted a second site visit. The applicant indicated that the three alternatives as originally proposed were no longer cost effective because either the private property owners of the realignment location had indicated that they are unwilling to provide an easement for the work, or because the route was not easily accessible for standard construction equipment.

The applicant has submitted a fourth alternative as their preferred relocation. This alternative involves approximately 1,400 linear feet of 12-inch diameter pipe and does not require purchase of property for easements. The applicant has hired a geotechnical consultant to investigate this alternative and to provide a preliminary cost for the construction, estimated at $285,000. Additionally, to address environmental concerns associated with this relocation project, the applicant, in lieu of performing an Environmental Impact Statement, has prepared an Initial Study of Environmental Factors which concluded that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, and has thus prepared a Negative Declaration report. Regarding historical concerns attributed to the project, the applicant has hired a consultant to perform a Cultural Resources Survey and Impact Assessment. This study, as presented in the December 10, 1996, report by Clay A. Singer & Associates, Inc., concluded that there is no evidence of prehistoric or early historic occupation of the area.

A preliminary review of this alternative has been performed as part of this appeal review. It is noted that the estimated construction cost of the project is $187,000. Including costs for engineering design, geotechnical, environmental and archaeological studies, plus contingencies, the applicant is requesting a total of $285,000 for this scope of work. However, several components of this cost estimate are not eligible for FEMA assistance. Initially, the applicant references various codes which require the use of a 12-inch pipe to meet fire flow requirements. While engineering calculations support that a 6-inch pipe does not meet the current fire flow requirements for this location, these requirements are based on the current development surrounding the proposed alternate route, which exceeds the level of development when the pipe was initially constructed (believed to be in the 1930's). Accordingly, FEMA will not fund design upgrades which are required due to increased development or altered land use since the facilities original construction. As such, FEMA assistance for the relocation project would be limited to the replacement cost of a 6-inch diameter pipe. Should the applicant choose to proceed with the construction of the 12-inch diameter pipe, this portion of the project would be considered an improvement, and would need to undergo review as an Improved Project. Other components of the proposed alternative design that exceed the original construction, such as the installation of flexible couplings, would also be considered improvements. Finally, the cost of contingencies, included in the estimate at $18,000, is not an eligible line item cost for FEMA funding.

A summary of the estimated eligible costs for the proposed Relocation Alternative No. 4, consistent with the discussion of eligible scope described above, is provided on Attachment 1. The Regional Director will prepare a DSR to include funding for the relocation project in accordance with these costs, totaling $185,350. As stated above, if the applicant chooses to proceed with the improved portions of this project, such work would need to undergo review as an Improved Project. Prior to project approval, and prior to the start of construction, it will be necessary, for either a relocation project or an improved project, for FEMA to complete a review of the project relative to the various environmental protection and historic preservation regulations. Any work which is perfor the jeopardize any funding which may have been eligible.

CONCLUSION
Based on the documentation provided with the second appeal, I have determined that slope stabilization of the failed hillside, to the extent necessary to provide support to the water main, is eligible for FEMA assistance. However, it is further concluded that due to the overall condition of the slide area, and the proximity of the failed pipe to the remaining hillside, such repair may not be practical. The applicant's proposed relocation Alternative 4 appears to be a more cost effective means for restoring the function of the water main. The Regional Director will prepare a DSR to fund the eligible components of the applicant's proposed relocation project, as described herein. However, prior to project approval, and prior to the start of construction, it will be necessary for FEMA to complete a review of the project relative to the various environmental protection and historic preservation regulations. DSR 11791 will be removed from suspension and determined ineligible.
Last updated