Linda Creek Bridge
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
PURPOSE: To obtain signature on a letter responding to the City of Roseville's third appeal.
DISCUSSION: Flooding in January and March 1995 caused damage to a pedestrian bridge crossing Linda Creek. Soil erosion caused piers to lean toward midspan of the bridge resulting in deflection of the superstructure. Based on a consultant's recommendation, the applicant reinforced the superstructure with two 66-foot long 12" by 18" steel tubes to reduce live load deflection. Upon review, supplemental DSR 15772 was reduced from $32,210 to $9,062 because the proposed steel tubes were not necessary to restore the pre-disaster condition. In the first appeal, the applicant requested reimbursement of the difference of $23,148 and asserted that the sag of the superstructure represented disaster-related damage and the interim reinforcing measures are reimbursable. The second appeal was submitted to again request $23,148, in addition to funding for replacement of the bridge totaling $157,605. The Executive Associate Director determined that steel tube reinforcements for the superstructure were not necessary to restore the bridge to pre-disaster condition and that the bridge was not eligible for replacement as the cost of restoring the bridge does not exceed 50% of the cost of bridge replacement. In the third appeal, the applicant once again requests FEMA reimburse the costs associated with the installation of the steel tube reinforcements. The applicant has not established that there was permanent disaster related damage to the superstructure; therefore, the steel reinforcement tubes are not eligible for reimbursement.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Sign the letter denying the subgrantee's third appeal.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1044-DR |
| Applicant | City of Roseville |
| Appeal Type | Third |
| PA ID# | 061-62938 |
| PW ID# | 11943,15772 |
| Date Signed | 1999-06-01T04:00:00 |
DISCUSSION: Flooding in January and March 1995 caused damage to a pedestrian bridge crossing Linda Creek. Soil erosion caused piers to lean toward midspan of the bridge resulting in deflection of the superstructure. Based on a consultant's recommendation, the applicant reinforced the superstructure with two 66-foot long 12" by 18" steel tubes to reduce live load deflection. Upon review, supplemental DSR 15772 was reduced from $32,210 to $9,062 because the proposed steel tubes were not necessary to restore the pre-disaster condition. In the first appeal, the applicant requested reimbursement of the difference of $23,148 and asserted that the sag of the superstructure represented disaster-related damage and the interim reinforcing measures are reimbursable. The second appeal was submitted to again request $23,148, in addition to funding for replacement of the bridge totaling $157,605. The Executive Associate Director determined that steel tube reinforcements for the superstructure were not necessary to restore the bridge to pre-disaster condition and that the bridge was not eligible for replacement as the cost of restoring the bridge does not exceed 50% of the cost of bridge replacement. In the third appeal, the applicant once again requests FEMA reimburse the costs associated with the installation of the steel tube reinforcements. The applicant has not established that there was permanent disaster related damage to the superstructure; therefore, the steel reinforcement tubes are not eligible for reimbursement.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Sign the letter denying the subgrantee's third appeal.
Appeal Letter
June 1, 1999
D. A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 419023
Sacramento, California 95741-9023
Re:Third Appeal- City of Roseville, Linda Creek Pedestrian Bridge,
FEMA-1046-DR-CA,DSR 15772
Dear Mr. Christian:
This letter is in response to your May 8, 1998, submittal of the above referenced appeal on behalf of the City of Roseville (City). The City is requesting $23,148 for costs associated with the installation of two 66-foot long, 12" by 18" steel tube reinforcements to the superstructure elements of a pedestrian bridge crossing Linda Creek.
The pedestrian bridge was damaged by the January 1995 disaster, FEMA-1044-DR-CA, when floodwater eroded soil around the pier foundations and undermined the abutments. DSR 11943 was written for $2,795 on February 17, 1995, for restoration of the substructure. The City's consultant, CH2M-Hill, conducted a field inspection of the bridge on February 23, 1995, and stated in the field report that the concrete encasement of the right timber post of Bent 2 was exposed due to erosion of the embedding soil. Under dead load the consultant observed a 6-inch sag of the deck at midspan. The consultant discovered pre-disaster decay of the timber bent cap at Bent 3 and concluded that "[if] the timber bent cap fails because of the observed decay, the entire bridge would likely collapse." Consequently, the consultant recommended closing the bridge until remedial actions were taken.
On March 24, 1995, the bridge sustained further damage due to the flood event FEMA-1046-DR-CA. The pier foundations were washed out causing the piers to lean toward mid-span of the bridge, which resulted in additional deflection of the superstructure. As an emergency measure, the City installed timber cribbing at both ends, adjacent to the abutments, to prevent immediate collapse under dead load. CH2M-Hill conducted a second site visit on March 27, 1995, to review the temporary reinforcing measures and evaluate potential repair proposals. The consultant discovered that the disaster-related erosion of the pier footings had caused Bent 3 to fail, such that it was no longer supporting the superstructure and attributed "a portion of the sag in the bridge" to the movement of Bent 3. As the cribbing provided temporary vertical support for dead load, the consultant recommended installation of the two steel tube reinforcements to minimize live load deflection.
FEMA prepared DSR 15772 for $32,210 on June 28, 1995, as a supplement to DSR 11943. The DSR included funding for replacement of the foundations, piers, and abutments as well as installation of the temporary cribbing of the superstructure and steel tube reinforcements.
The installation of the temporary cribbing was eligible for reimbursement as an emergency protective measure as it lessened the threat of additional damage to the bridge and permitted the City to restore the piers and abutments. Upon review, the value of eligible work included in DSR 15772 was reduced to $9,062, because the proposed structural steel tube reinforcement was not necessary to restore the pre-disaster condition of the bridge. In the third appeal, the City is again requesting reimbursement for the steel tube reinforcements.
Based on a review of the documentation submitted, I have determined that the City has not sufficiently demonstrated that steel tube reinforcements were necessary to restore the bridge to pre-disaster condition. The consultant's calculations indicate that the steel tubes were a necessary temporary emergency repair based on the inadequacies of the original design of the bridge. Pursuant to 44 CFR 206.225(a)(3), emergency work is eligible for reimbursement when it eliminates or lessens threats of significant additional damage to improved public property through measures which are cost effective. The restriction of access to the facility and the installation of cribbing at the abutments was sufficient to eliminate the immediate threat of additional damage to the bridge.
The City has not established that the deflection of the bridge is permanent damage. The City contends that it is irrelevant to discuss whether the steel members were plastically or elastically deformed after the disaster. FEMA believes it is appropriate to discuss strain of the steel members, for if they had exceeded the elastic limit then there would be residual plastic strain in the members once the bents were restored. However, the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that there was plastic deformation of the members. Therefore, FEMA considers the replacement of the abutments and timber piers adequate in order to reduce that "portion of the sag" caused by the disaster.
In accordance with 44 CFR 206.226, eligible permanent restorative work is limited to work that restores eligible facilities to the design of the facilities as they existed immediately prior to the disaster. 44 CFR 206.201(h), defines pre-disaster design as the size or capacity of a facility as originally designed and constructed or subsequently modified by changes or additions to the original design. The restoration of the substructure elements eliminates the disaster-related deflection of the superstructure and restores the bridge to its pre-disaster condition. The steel tube reinforcement represents an improved project and is subject to the funding limitation outlined in 44 CFR 206.203 (d)(1).
The restoration of the damaged substructure as defined in the scope of work of DSR 15772 returns the facility to its pre-disaster design and funding for the superstructure steel tube reinforcement is not eligible for reimbursement. Therefore, the appeal is denied. Please inform the applicant of my decision, which constitutes the final level of appeal in accordance with 44 CFR 206.206(e).
Sincerely,
/S/
James Lee Witt
Director
cc: Martha Z. Whetstone
Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
D. A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 419023
Sacramento, California 95741-9023
Re:Third Appeal- City of Roseville, Linda Creek Pedestrian Bridge,
FEMA-1046-DR-CA,DSR 15772
Dear Mr. Christian:
This letter is in response to your May 8, 1998, submittal of the above referenced appeal on behalf of the City of Roseville (City). The City is requesting $23,148 for costs associated with the installation of two 66-foot long, 12" by 18" steel tube reinforcements to the superstructure elements of a pedestrian bridge crossing Linda Creek.
The pedestrian bridge was damaged by the January 1995 disaster, FEMA-1044-DR-CA, when floodwater eroded soil around the pier foundations and undermined the abutments. DSR 11943 was written for $2,795 on February 17, 1995, for restoration of the substructure. The City's consultant, CH2M-Hill, conducted a field inspection of the bridge on February 23, 1995, and stated in the field report that the concrete encasement of the right timber post of Bent 2 was exposed due to erosion of the embedding soil. Under dead load the consultant observed a 6-inch sag of the deck at midspan. The consultant discovered pre-disaster decay of the timber bent cap at Bent 3 and concluded that "[if] the timber bent cap fails because of the observed decay, the entire bridge would likely collapse." Consequently, the consultant recommended closing the bridge until remedial actions were taken.
On March 24, 1995, the bridge sustained further damage due to the flood event FEMA-1046-DR-CA. The pier foundations were washed out causing the piers to lean toward mid-span of the bridge, which resulted in additional deflection of the superstructure. As an emergency measure, the City installed timber cribbing at both ends, adjacent to the abutments, to prevent immediate collapse under dead load. CH2M-Hill conducted a second site visit on March 27, 1995, to review the temporary reinforcing measures and evaluate potential repair proposals. The consultant discovered that the disaster-related erosion of the pier footings had caused Bent 3 to fail, such that it was no longer supporting the superstructure and attributed "a portion of the sag in the bridge" to the movement of Bent 3. As the cribbing provided temporary vertical support for dead load, the consultant recommended installation of the two steel tube reinforcements to minimize live load deflection.
FEMA prepared DSR 15772 for $32,210 on June 28, 1995, as a supplement to DSR 11943. The DSR included funding for replacement of the foundations, piers, and abutments as well as installation of the temporary cribbing of the superstructure and steel tube reinforcements.
The installation of the temporary cribbing was eligible for reimbursement as an emergency protective measure as it lessened the threat of additional damage to the bridge and permitted the City to restore the piers and abutments. Upon review, the value of eligible work included in DSR 15772 was reduced to $9,062, because the proposed structural steel tube reinforcement was not necessary to restore the pre-disaster condition of the bridge. In the third appeal, the City is again requesting reimbursement for the steel tube reinforcements.
Based on a review of the documentation submitted, I have determined that the City has not sufficiently demonstrated that steel tube reinforcements were necessary to restore the bridge to pre-disaster condition. The consultant's calculations indicate that the steel tubes were a necessary temporary emergency repair based on the inadequacies of the original design of the bridge. Pursuant to 44 CFR 206.225(a)(3), emergency work is eligible for reimbursement when it eliminates or lessens threats of significant additional damage to improved public property through measures which are cost effective. The restriction of access to the facility and the installation of cribbing at the abutments was sufficient to eliminate the immediate threat of additional damage to the bridge.
The City has not established that the deflection of the bridge is permanent damage. The City contends that it is irrelevant to discuss whether the steel members were plastically or elastically deformed after the disaster. FEMA believes it is appropriate to discuss strain of the steel members, for if they had exceeded the elastic limit then there would be residual plastic strain in the members once the bents were restored. However, the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that there was plastic deformation of the members. Therefore, FEMA considers the replacement of the abutments and timber piers adequate in order to reduce that "portion of the sag" caused by the disaster.
In accordance with 44 CFR 206.226, eligible permanent restorative work is limited to work that restores eligible facilities to the design of the facilities as they existed immediately prior to the disaster. 44 CFR 206.201(h), defines pre-disaster design as the size or capacity of a facility as originally designed and constructed or subsequently modified by changes or additions to the original design. The restoration of the substructure elements eliminates the disaster-related deflection of the superstructure and restores the bridge to its pre-disaster condition. The steel tube reinforcement represents an improved project and is subject to the funding limitation outlined in 44 CFR 206.203 (d)(1).
The restoration of the damaged substructure as defined in the scope of work of DSR 15772 returns the facility to its pre-disaster design and funding for the superstructure steel tube reinforcement is not eligible for reimbursement. Therefore, the appeal is denied. Please inform the applicant of my decision, which constitutes the final level of appeal in accordance with 44 CFR 206.206(e).
Sincerely,
/S/
James Lee Witt
Director
cc: Martha Z. Whetstone
Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Last updated