Embankment and Culvert Repair, Hall Road MP 0.8

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1154-DR
ApplicantClearwater County
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#035-00000
PW ID#29231
Date Signed2001-04-20T04:00:00

Citation:

FEMA-1154-DR-ID; Clearwater County; DSR 29231

Cross-reference:

Landslide Policy, Facility Restoration, Hazard Mitigation

Summary:

Heavy rains damaged the culvert and embankment at Lower Hall Road MP 0.8. The damage consisted of culvert distortion, erosion beneath the culvert, and embankment settlement. DSR 29231 stated that repairs to the site were ineligible under FEMA's landslide policy because unstable landslide debris beneath the road caused the damage. In its first appeal, the subgrantee asked that DSR 29231 be reviewed based on a geotechnical consultant's report. The consultant concluded that the ground beneath the road is stable, and that the movement was confined to the fill comprising the embankment. The Regional Director denied the subgrantee's appeal because no information had been supplied that would change the conclusions of instability. In its second appeal, the subgrantee re-stated the conclusions presented in its consultant's report regarding the apparent stability of the natural ground and the instability of the fill comprising the embankment. Clearwater County (County) maintains that the site is eligible, and can be properly restored for $38,122. The site was re-inspected by a FEMA, the State of Idaho, Bureau of Disaster Services and County team in May 2000. They state in their report that they did not find enough substantial evidence to either prove or disprove that the site is eligible for FEMA Public Assistance funding. If the site is stable, the report recommends that the facility be repaired rather than replaced.

Issues:

1) Was the settlement of the roadway caused by unstable natural ground?2) Is culvert replacement eligible?

Findings:

1) No. The settlement was caused by poor compaction of the embankment fill materials.2) 3) Yes. The repair of the culvert in place is not feasible

Rationale:

A facility is considered eligible for replacement when repair is not feasible (44 CFR 206.226 (d)(1))

Appeal Letter

April 20, 2001

Mr. Clark D. Meek
Deputy Governor's Authorized Representative
State of Idaho, Military Division
Bureau of Disaster Services, Building 600
4040 Guard Street
Boise, Idaho 83705-504

Re: Second Appeal - Clearwater County, PA ID #035-00000, Lower Hall Road, FEMA-1154-DR-ID, DSR 29231

Dear Mr. Meek:

This letter is in response to your July 11, 2000, transmittal of Clearwater County's second appeal of DSR 29231 under FEMA-1154-DR-ID. The subgrantee maintains that the natural ground at the site is stable, making the facility eligible for funding. The subgrantee is requesting that the culvert be replaced for an estimated cost of $38,122.

Based on a review of the documentation, I have granted the appeal for the reasons discussed in the enclosed analysis. I have determined that replacement of the culvert is eligible. By copy of this letter, I am requesting that the Regional Director prepare a DSR in the amount of $38,122.

Please inform the applicant of my determination, which constitutes the final level of appeal in accordance with 44 CFR 206.206.

Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate

Enclosure

cc: Tamara D. Doherty
Acting Regional Director
FEMA Region X

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND

In February 1996, warm rains melted a thick snow pack resulting in damage to infrastructure in Clearwater County (the County), Idaho. The president declared major disaster FEMA-1102-DR-ID. The runoff destroyed the 2-foot-diameter culvert and 10-foot-high embankment at Lower Hall Road Milepost (MP) 0.8. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funded the replacement of the damaged culvert with a 6-foot-diameter culvert of the same length. No funding was provided for inlet or outlet protection for the culvert as requested by the County.

In February 1997, heavy rains resulted in the declaration of another major disaster in Clearwater County, FEMA-1154-DR-ID. The restored culvert and embankment at Hall Road MP 0.8 were affected, but the culvert remained in place. The observed effects of the heavy rain and runoff were:
1. The inlet end of the culvert had been distorted from 6.0 feet round to 5.5 feet horizontal and 6.5 feet vertical producing an oblong shape.
2.
3. Erosion had caused a void beneath the outlet end of the culvert that extended about 6 feet into the embankment.
4.
5. The embankment had settled about 12 inches on the east side and 18 to 24 inches on the west side (the culvert is oriented in a north-south direction) in addition to moving downstream about 1 inch. The total length of the settled area was 140 feet.
6.
Damage Survey Report (DSR) 29231 determined that the site is underlain by pre-disaster landslide debris that had moved during the disaster and caused the observed effects at the site. In accordance with FEMA landslide policy, the applicant is responsible for landslide stabilization before eligible facility repairs can be funded. No permanent repairs were identified in the DSR.

First Appeal

On August 27, 1997, the County submitted its first appeal of FEMA's determination that the Lower Hall Road MP 0.8 site was ineligible for funding. The basis for the appeal is the June 30, 1997 letter prepared by Dr. Terry Howard of the geotechnical engineering consultant, Strata. Dr. Howard could find no evidence of landslide activity. He concluded that the movement of the roadway was confined to the fill comprising the embankment.

FEMA responded to this appeal in a letter to the State of Idaho, Bureau of Disaster Services (BDS) dated March 10, 1998. FEMA denied the subgrantee's appeal because no information had been supplied that would change the conclusion of instability reached in the DSR. The DSR was based on the conclusion that the site was unstable, and that the applicant must stabilize the site before repair of the facility becomes eligible for funding.

Second Appeal

The County submitted a second appeal in a letter to BDS dated April 27, 2000. An extension of the normal appeal period had been granted by FEMA to account for extenuating circumstances. The County maintains that the site is stable and, therefore, facility restoration is eligible. They propose to replace the culvert with a longer one of similar capacity for an estimated cost of $38,122. Inlet and outlet protection would be included. The County noted that these design features were denied by FEMA during site restoration after DR-1102. They requested that the site be re-inspected.

The site was re-inspected by a FEMA, BDS and County team on May 8 and 10, 2000. In an undated field inspection report, the team stated that they could not determine whether the site was stable or unstable.

BDS forwarded the County's appeal to FEMA in a letter dated July 11, 2000. BDS acknowledged that the re-inspection team was unable to provide a meaningful determination as to whether the facility is eligible for funding. The Regional Director forwarded the second appeal documents to the Executive Associate Director in a memorandum dated September 7, 2000.

DISCUSSION

The County makes several assertions concerning the eligibility of the facility repairs. The first issue to be discussed is site stability. Other issues to be discussed are the restoration of the facility, and potential mitigation measures.

Site Stability

FEMA's engineering geologist and the County's geotechnical consultant disagree about the presence of landslide debris in the stream valley beneath the roadway. However, the presence or absence of landslide debris is not the determining factor in applying FEMA's landslide policy. What is pertinent is whether or not the site is stable. The site is defined as the natural ground (which includes any landslide debris) that underlies the roadway embankment. If the disaster had caused the natural ground to move there would have to be cracks, downsets (vertical faulting), and/or other forms of distress in the natural ground. None of the inspectors who visited the site observed any of these signs of movement in the natural ground near the roadway embankment. Additionally, construction methods utilized during the installation of the new culvert after DR-1102 indicate that settlement of the fill material as documented in DSR 29231 would have been expected after saturation similar to that which occurred during DR-1154. Therefore, the embankment settlement does not indicate an unstable site. Both of these items indicate that the natural ground is stable.

Facility Damages

The claimed facility damages include roadway embankment settlement (downset), culvert deformation, erosion beneath the outlet end of the culvert, and the development of a plunge pool downstream of the culvert outlet.

The County claims that the deformation of the culvert from a circular shape to an oval shape was caused by the disaster. This is a reasonable claim because the compressing fill was capable of producing horizontal forces approaching half of its weight.

A facility is considered repairable when disaster damages do not exceed fifty percent of the cost of replacing the facility to its pre-disaster condition, and it is feasible to repair the facility so that it can perform the function for which it was being used as well as it did immediately prior to the disaster. The technical feasibility repairing of the culvert in place is quantative.

No information is available regarding possible pre-disaster erosion beneath the outlet end of the culvert. Even if some amount of pre-disaster erosion did exist, it is reasonable to assume that additional erosion would have been caused by the disaster. The eroded bedding is considered to be part of the facility, so its restoration is eligible. Filling in the eroded area with high-slump concrete, sacked concrete mix, crushed rock or some other suitable material is one approach to repairing eligible damage. However, this by itself will not stop the erosion.

The documented erosion of the fill material beneath the pipe is the result of water flowing underneath the pipe from the inlet. This erosion will eventually threaten the integrity of the supporting fill making the culvert more susceptible to damage or failure as each event occurs. The technically preferred method to stop this is to install a concrete headwall or cut-off apron. However, because the pipe is flush with the roadway embankment, the installation of a concrete headwall or cut-off apron on the existing culvert is not feasible. Additionally, lengthening of the pipe to allow installation of the headwall or cutoff apron is not feasible due to the pipe being deformed making it difficult to obtain a proper connection between the pipes. Therefore, because it is not feasible to properly repair the culvert in place and the culvert has suffered repetitive damage, the replacement of the culvert, including the installation of a concrete headwall and cut-off apron for $38,122 is eligible.

CONCriTherefore, FEMA's landslide policy does not apply to this site. Because of this, and the fact that repairs to the facility in place are not feasible, eligible facility repairs include the replacement of the culvert for $38,122. The appeal is granted.

Last updated