Site stabilization of roadway
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation: FEMA-0979-DR-CA, Los Angeles County, DSR 46225
Cross Reference: Landslide, Retaining Wall Failure, Road Damage, Soldier Piles, Actual Costs
Summary: Heavy rains caused a landslide that undermined the base of a retaining wall resulting in wall movement. This caused the road to move outward forming a 6-inch-wide crack in the pavement. DSR 46225 was written for $72,445 to cover repairs to the roadway with a soldier beam and lagging retaining wall. The DSR inspectors believed the damage was not caused by the disaster. The DSR was suspended pending completion of a geotechnical study by the County. The study concluded that a shallow-seated landslide caused by heavy rainfall was the initiating event. The County requested that DSR 46225 be taken out of suspension. FEMA denied the request for funding because the roadway was stable and the wall movement was due to lack of a drainage system. The County appealed claiming that geotechnical reports supported their claim. The site was re-inspected by a joint FEMA, OES, and LACDPW team, who concluded that the landslide and resulting road damage were caused by the declared disaster event. FEMA denied the appeal because the County did not provide sufficient documentation to establish that the failure resulted from the disaster. Also, FEMA does not provide funding for site stabilization. In their second appeal, the County defended the design of the cemented rock retaining wall: "The wall has lasted for almost 25 years prior to the disaster." They claimed that the soldier piles stabilize the underlying slope as well as the road.
Issues:
Heavy rains in the winter of 1993 damaged approximately 70 linear feet of Glendora Mountain Road at mile marker (M.M.) 4.04. A shallow landslide undermined the base of a retaining wall resulting in tilting, bowing, and cracking of the wall. This, in turn, caused the shoulder of the road to move outward, forming a 6-inch-wide crack in the pavement. Damage survey report (DSR) 46225 was written on June 25, 1993, for the repair of the roadway that consisted of a soldier beam and lagging retaining wall located along the shoulder of the road. The estimated cost of the wall was $72,445. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and California Office of Emergency Services (OES) inspectors recommended against approval of the DSR because they believed the damage was not caused by the disaster. They also recommended that the DSR be suspended pending completion of a geotechnical study being performed by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW).
The results of the LACDPW geotechnical study were presented in a report dated November 3, 1994. The study concluded the damage resulted from a shallow-seated landslide caused by heavy rainfall. The recommended repair scheme was a soldier beam and lagging retaining wall.
In a letter dated November 8, 1994, the LACDPW requested that DSR 46225 be taken out of suspension, and that a supplemental DSR be written for an additional $73,555 to fund the estimated cost increase of the retaining wall project. Subsequently, FEMA prepared a geotechnical investigation using one of its own contractors. The results of that study were presented in a report dated September 18, 1995. The report concluded that heavy rains that resulted in the saturation of foundation soils and the buildup of hydrostatic pressures behind the stone wall caused the wall failure. The report further states that the failure could have been prevented by the presence of a subsurface drainage system. Based on a review of the two geotechnical reports, FEMA denied the request for project funding in a letter dated November 27, 1995. This determination was based on the fact that the roadway was stable and the wall movement was due to the lack of a drainage system.
First Appeal
LACDPW submitted their first appeal to the Regional Director in a letter dated May 7, 1996. LACDPW claimed that FEMA's geotechnical report supports their claim that the damage to Glendora Mountain Road at M.M. 4.04 was caused by the disaster and is eligible for funding. They asked that FEMA approve DSR 46225 as originally requested. The subgrantee withdrew their request for a $73,555 supplemental DSR. The site was re-inspected by a joint FEMA, OES, and LACDPW team on September 10, 1996. The inspectors determined that the FEMA geotechnical study was not made for the site being claimed but for a nearby site. Thus, the basis for FEMA's denial of LACDPW's request for funding was found to be invalid. The FEMA inspector concluded that the landslide and resulting wall damage were caused by the declared disaster event. The proposed H-section soldier pile retaining wall had recently been constructed, but the lagging had not been placed to avoid closing the road.
FEMA denied the appeal in a letter dated October 25, 1996, for these reasons: "The subgrantee has not provided information to demonstrate conclusively that the failure was the result of the disaster. . FEMA does not provide funding for site stabilization. Once the subgrantee has stabilized the site, FEMA may provide funding to restore a facility to its predisaster condition. In this case, the subgrantee has stabilized the road with H-section soldier piles, but has done nothing to stabilize the soil supporting the wall. As the subgrantee does not intend to stabilize the site underlying this portion of the facility, FEMA cannot provide funding to restore it."
Second Appeal
In a letter to OES dated February 4, 1997, LACDPW appealed DSR 46225 for the second time. They defended the design of the cemented rock wall: "The wall has lasted for almost 25 years prior to the disaster." They claimed that the damage occurred during the incident period and there was no pre-existing distress to the road. Finally, they claimed that the soldier piles stabilize the underlying slope as well as the road. OES forwarded LACDPW's appeal to the Regional Director on April 8, 1997, indicating their support for the appeal. The Regional Director forwarded the appeal to the Executive Associate Director on June 16, 1997.
DISCUSSION
The initial FEMA and OES inspectors were of the opinion that the damage at the site was not caused by the disaster. They felt that the wall movement occurred over an extended period of time. This opinion was disputed by LACDPW in a memorandum to OES dated September 17, 1993. They state that the footings clearly moved a great deal over a short period of time as evidenced by the fact that no weeds grew between the displaced lower wall and the upper wall (i.e., the wall was constructed in upper and lower sections), as there would have been if the soil were exposed over an extended period of time. In addition, photographs taken just after the event show no evidence of ongoing patching, as there would be if a chronic displacement of the wall and its footings existed. During the September 1996 inspection, the FEMA inspector (a geotechnical engineer) concluded that the landslide and resulting wall damage were caused by the declared DR-979 event.
It is important to the discussion of eligibility to note that the damaged facility in this case is the road itself. The landslide removed support from the wall's foundation causing it to move. The movement of the wall removed support from the shoulder of the road causing a 6-inch-wide crack in the pavement. The repair scheme chosen by LACDPW restored support to the shoulder of the road without having to repair either the landslide or the wall. The soldier piles now resist the lateral stresses formerly resisted by the rock wall. Therefore, the wall might remain in its current state for an indefinite period of time acting as a traffic barrier and preventing surface sloughing of the soils supporting the road. Should the wall fail completely, LACDPW would replace the wall with lagging between the soldier piles and another type of traffic barrier. This would involve closing the road during construction which LACDPW seeks to postpone or avoid altogether by leaving the wall in place.
CONCLUSIONS
FEMA policy applicable to this situation is as follows: "If the site is found to be unstable and the instability was exclusively caused by the disaster, the cost to restore the facility at the original site and the ground necessary to physically support the facility is eligible." The damage at the site was the result of the major disaster event. Therefore, the cost to restore the pavement and roadbed is eligible for funding.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-0979-DR |
| Applicant | Los Angeles County |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 037-91012 |
| PW ID# | 46225 |
| Date Signed | 1997-09-18T04:00:00 |
Cross Reference: Landslide, Retaining Wall Failure, Road Damage, Soldier Piles, Actual Costs
Summary: Heavy rains caused a landslide that undermined the base of a retaining wall resulting in wall movement. This caused the road to move outward forming a 6-inch-wide crack in the pavement. DSR 46225 was written for $72,445 to cover repairs to the roadway with a soldier beam and lagging retaining wall. The DSR inspectors believed the damage was not caused by the disaster. The DSR was suspended pending completion of a geotechnical study by the County. The study concluded that a shallow-seated landslide caused by heavy rainfall was the initiating event. The County requested that DSR 46225 be taken out of suspension. FEMA denied the request for funding because the roadway was stable and the wall movement was due to lack of a drainage system. The County appealed claiming that geotechnical reports supported their claim. The site was re-inspected by a joint FEMA, OES, and LACDPW team, who concluded that the landslide and resulting road damage were caused by the declared disaster event. FEMA denied the appeal because the County did not provide sufficient documentation to establish that the failure resulted from the disaster. Also, FEMA does not provide funding for site stabilization. In their second appeal, the County defended the design of the cemented rock retaining wall: "The wall has lasted for almost 25 years prior to the disaster." They claimed that the soldier piles stabilize the underlying slope as well as the road.
Issues:
- Was the damage to the road caused by the disaster?
- Is the soldier pile retaining wall eligible for funding?
- Yes. A FEMA geotechnical engineer confirmed this during a site visit.
- Yes. Support for the roadbed was re-established without having to repair the landslide or the damaged rock wall.
Appeal Letter
September 18, 1997
Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
California Office of Emergency Services
74 North Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, Third Floor
Pasadena, California 91103
Dear Mr. Najera:
This letter is in response to your April 8, 1997, transmittal of Los Angeles County's second appeal of DSR 46225 under FEMA-0979-DR-CA. The County is requesting funding for costs associated with the construction of a soldier pile retaining wall on Glendora Mountain Road to restore support to the roadbed.
As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that the road repair is eligible for funding because the damage was caused by the disaster. Therefore, I have granted this appeal for funding of the soldier-pile retaining wall and pavement repair. I have asked the Regional Director to take appropriate action to implement this determination. Please inform the applicant of this determination.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
California Office of Emergency Services
74 North Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, Third Floor
Pasadena, California 91103
Dear Mr. Najera:
This letter is in response to your April 8, 1997, transmittal of Los Angeles County's second appeal of DSR 46225 under FEMA-0979-DR-CA. The County is requesting funding for costs associated with the construction of a soldier pile retaining wall on Glendora Mountain Road to restore support to the roadbed.
As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that the road repair is eligible for funding because the damage was caused by the disaster. Therefore, I have granted this appeal for funding of the soldier-pile retaining wall and pavement repair. I have asked the Regional Director to take appropriate action to implement this determination. Please inform the applicant of this determination.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUNDHeavy rains in the winter of 1993 damaged approximately 70 linear feet of Glendora Mountain Road at mile marker (M.M.) 4.04. A shallow landslide undermined the base of a retaining wall resulting in tilting, bowing, and cracking of the wall. This, in turn, caused the shoulder of the road to move outward, forming a 6-inch-wide crack in the pavement. Damage survey report (DSR) 46225 was written on June 25, 1993, for the repair of the roadway that consisted of a soldier beam and lagging retaining wall located along the shoulder of the road. The estimated cost of the wall was $72,445. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and California Office of Emergency Services (OES) inspectors recommended against approval of the DSR because they believed the damage was not caused by the disaster. They also recommended that the DSR be suspended pending completion of a geotechnical study being performed by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW).
The results of the LACDPW geotechnical study were presented in a report dated November 3, 1994. The study concluded the damage resulted from a shallow-seated landslide caused by heavy rainfall. The recommended repair scheme was a soldier beam and lagging retaining wall.
In a letter dated November 8, 1994, the LACDPW requested that DSR 46225 be taken out of suspension, and that a supplemental DSR be written for an additional $73,555 to fund the estimated cost increase of the retaining wall project. Subsequently, FEMA prepared a geotechnical investigation using one of its own contractors. The results of that study were presented in a report dated September 18, 1995. The report concluded that heavy rains that resulted in the saturation of foundation soils and the buildup of hydrostatic pressures behind the stone wall caused the wall failure. The report further states that the failure could have been prevented by the presence of a subsurface drainage system. Based on a review of the two geotechnical reports, FEMA denied the request for project funding in a letter dated November 27, 1995. This determination was based on the fact that the roadway was stable and the wall movement was due to the lack of a drainage system.
First Appeal
LACDPW submitted their first appeal to the Regional Director in a letter dated May 7, 1996. LACDPW claimed that FEMA's geotechnical report supports their claim that the damage to Glendora Mountain Road at M.M. 4.04 was caused by the disaster and is eligible for funding. They asked that FEMA approve DSR 46225 as originally requested. The subgrantee withdrew their request for a $73,555 supplemental DSR. The site was re-inspected by a joint FEMA, OES, and LACDPW team on September 10, 1996. The inspectors determined that the FEMA geotechnical study was not made for the site being claimed but for a nearby site. Thus, the basis for FEMA's denial of LACDPW's request for funding was found to be invalid. The FEMA inspector concluded that the landslide and resulting wall damage were caused by the declared disaster event. The proposed H-section soldier pile retaining wall had recently been constructed, but the lagging had not been placed to avoid closing the road.
FEMA denied the appeal in a letter dated October 25, 1996, for these reasons: "The subgrantee has not provided information to demonstrate conclusively that the failure was the result of the disaster. . FEMA does not provide funding for site stabilization. Once the subgrantee has stabilized the site, FEMA may provide funding to restore a facility to its predisaster condition. In this case, the subgrantee has stabilized the road with H-section soldier piles, but has done nothing to stabilize the soil supporting the wall. As the subgrantee does not intend to stabilize the site underlying this portion of the facility, FEMA cannot provide funding to restore it."
Second Appeal
In a letter to OES dated February 4, 1997, LACDPW appealed DSR 46225 for the second time. They defended the design of the cemented rock wall: "The wall has lasted for almost 25 years prior to the disaster." They claimed that the damage occurred during the incident period and there was no pre-existing distress to the road. Finally, they claimed that the soldier piles stabilize the underlying slope as well as the road. OES forwarded LACDPW's appeal to the Regional Director on April 8, 1997, indicating their support for the appeal. The Regional Director forwarded the appeal to the Executive Associate Director on June 16, 1997.
DISCUSSION
The initial FEMA and OES inspectors were of the opinion that the damage at the site was not caused by the disaster. They felt that the wall movement occurred over an extended period of time. This opinion was disputed by LACDPW in a memorandum to OES dated September 17, 1993. They state that the footings clearly moved a great deal over a short period of time as evidenced by the fact that no weeds grew between the displaced lower wall and the upper wall (i.e., the wall was constructed in upper and lower sections), as there would have been if the soil were exposed over an extended period of time. In addition, photographs taken just after the event show no evidence of ongoing patching, as there would be if a chronic displacement of the wall and its footings existed. During the September 1996 inspection, the FEMA inspector (a geotechnical engineer) concluded that the landslide and resulting wall damage were caused by the declared DR-979 event.
It is important to the discussion of eligibility to note that the damaged facility in this case is the road itself. The landslide removed support from the wall's foundation causing it to move. The movement of the wall removed support from the shoulder of the road causing a 6-inch-wide crack in the pavement. The repair scheme chosen by LACDPW restored support to the shoulder of the road without having to repair either the landslide or the wall. The soldier piles now resist the lateral stresses formerly resisted by the rock wall. Therefore, the wall might remain in its current state for an indefinite period of time acting as a traffic barrier and preventing surface sloughing of the soils supporting the road. Should the wall fail completely, LACDPW would replace the wall with lagging between the soldier piles and another type of traffic barrier. This would involve closing the road during construction which LACDPW seeks to postpone or avoid altogether by leaving the wall in place.
CONCLUSIONS
FEMA policy applicable to this situation is as follows: "If the site is found to be unstable and the instability was exclusively caused by the disaster, the cost to restore the facility at the original site and the ground necessary to physically support the facility is eligible." The damage at the site was the result of the major disaster event. Therefore, the cost to restore the pavement and roadbed is eligible for funding.
Last updated