This page has not been translated into 简体中文. Visit the 简体中文 page for resources in that language.
Water Main Restoration
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation: FEMA-1046-DR-CA; City of Lompoc; DSRs 19947, 83831, 83832
Cross Reference: Slope Stabilization, Landslide Policy, Relocation Projects
Summary: During the winter storms of 1995, a landslide occurred within a natural hillside, upslope of the San Miguelito Creek. The slide exposed approximately 15 linear feet of an 8-in. diameter water main built into the hillside approximately 45 feet above the creek. Other than undermining the support of the pipe, no specific damage to the pipe was reported. DSR 19947 was prepared in the amount of $4,760 to provide permanent restoration of the pipe by replacing the undermined section 10 feet into the hillside, within the existing easement. The applicant submitted a first appeal of this scope of work stating that significant additional costs are associated with this scope of work, including engineering design and environmental studies, purchase of private property, and access issues. The applicant requested that FEMA fund their proposed relocation project which involved relocating 6,200 linear feet of pipeline along San Miguelito Road at an estimated cost of $150,000. FEMA denied the first appeal on that basis that the eligible scope of work was both technically and economically feasible. However, DSR 19947 was deobligated with DSR 83831, and DSR 83832 was prepared with a similar scope of work but increased to include funding for mobilization of equipment. The total eligible cost of DSR 83832 was $5,960. The applicant's second appeal again requests consideration of the relocation project, asserting that relocation is the only was to restore the pipe to its predisaster condition. The current estimate for the relocation project is $157,000.
Issues:
Stafford Act Section 406, 44CFR 201.206(c), Landslide Policy, 44CFR 201.226(e)
During the winter storms of 1995, a landslide occurred within a natural hillside, upslope of the San Miguelito Creek. Floodwaters in the creek reportedly eroded the toe of the slope, resulting in the slope failure. The landslide resulted in exposing approximately 15 linear feet of an 8-in. diameter water main built into the hillside approximately 45 feet above the creek. Other than undermining the support of the pipe, no specific damage to the pipe was reported due to the slide. An easement for the pipeline extends 10 feet on either side of the pipe. A dirt access road is cut into the slope, providing vehicular access to the pipe location. A private road is located approximately 60 feet upslope of the pipe location.
DSR 19947 was prepared in response to a site inspection on August 25, 1995, to provide permanent restoration of the pipeline. It was recommended that the pipe be moved 10 feet to the west (into the hillside), within the existing easement, as it was considered impractical to restore the pipe within the failed hillside location. DSR 19947 therefore included excavation and backfill of a new trench, 50 ft. long, and replacement of 50 ft. of pipe, including four elbow attachments to accommodate the horizontal displacement of the offset section of pipe, for a total cost of $4,760. The DSR narrative indicated that the applicant intended to submit a Hazard Mitigation Proposal (HMP) to relocate approximately 6,200 linear feet of this pipeline to the right-of-way along San Miguelito Road. On August 28, 1995, the applicant submitted a non-concurrence of the costs associated with the eligible scope of work, suggesting that engineering costs alone could reach higher than even their estimated costs for relocation of $150,000.
First Appeal
On February 1, 1996, the applicant submitted another letter of non-concurrence regarding FEMA's estimation of costs for DSR 19947. The State of California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) transmitted the applicant's letter to FEMA as a first appeal. The applicant indicated that the location FEMA proposed for placement of the pipe is private property, thus requiring an easement or purchase of property. Additionally, the applicant stated that significant costs would be incurred for geotechnical and environmental studies, and for access for construction equipment to the site. The applicant requested FEMA reconsider their HMP for $150,000.
In response to the first appeal, FEMA conducted a second site visit. It was concluded that relocating the pipe within the applicant's 20 ft. easement was possible without purchase of private property, and that suitable access was available for construction equipment via the dirt access road. However, FEMA further evaluated the resulting stability of the site based on the conditions observed at the site visit, and upon review of the preliminary geotechnical study, dated October 16, 1996, prepared by the applicant's geotechnical consultant, Fugro West, Inc. This review concluded that the site where the pipeline is located is currently unstable and prone to future slides. Citing the Landslide Policy, the first appeal response concluded that stabilization of an unstable site is not eligible for funding. DSR 19947 was deobligated with DSR 83831 (<$4,760>), and replaced with DSR 83832. The scope of work in the replacement DSR was modified to include additional funding for mobilization of equipment, increasing the total eligible cost to $5,960. DSR 83832 was suspended pending stabilization of the site by the applicant. Additionally, DSR 74485 was prepared to provide funding for the geotechnical study preformed by Fugro West, Inc. in the amount of $1,000.
Second Appeal
The applicant submitted a second appeal of FEMA's determination of limited eligibility, transmitted through your office to FEMA in a letter dated July 14, 1997. The applicant asserts that the site was stable prior to the disaster and should be restored to predisaster condition. The applicant indicates that they are not requesting slope stabilization, just repair of their facility by means of relocating 6,200 linear feet of this pipeline to the right-of-way along San Miguelito Road, currently estimated at $157,000. The applicant states that this scope of work should not be considered an improvement but the only way to repair the line. OES's letter further states that 44 CFR 206.226(e) allows FEMA to fund relocation of a facility when the facility will be subject to repetitive heavy damage, and refers to several cases when FEMA has provided such assistance for relocation of water mains.
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 facility. However, eligibility for such funding is subject to the 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 present condition of the site is unstable, and that the primary cause of the slide is due to toe erosion by disaster related floodwaters in the creek. As such, it is concluded that restoration of the disaster damaged portion of the hillside, to the extent necessary to provide support of the pipe, is eligible for FEMA assistance.
Accordingly, the eligible scope of work would include relocation of the pipe within the easement (approximately 50 ft. long to accommodate the displacement into the hillside), slope stabilization of the failed portion of the hillside (approximately 50 linear ft.), and engineering services specific to the design and construction of this eligible work. It is understood that relocation of the pipeline within the existing easement would not require purchase of additional private property.
To estimate a scope of work and cost for this project, we have reviewed the Fugro report submitted by the applicant. This report included a preliminary scope and cost estimate to repair the pipeline within the existing easement, including stabilization of the slope by use of a soil nailing and shotcrete technique. This scope of work appears reasonable and cost effective. However, it is noted that the Fugro report recommended construction of the stabilization system for a total length of 350 ft. due to apparent unstable slope conditions in areas beyond the section of pipeline exposed by the disaster. As these additional conditions have not been attributed to the disaster, extension of the stabilization system beyond the damaged section of the pipe is not eligible for FEMA assistance. Additionally, Fugro recommended that stream bank protection, by placement of riprap, be constructed along the toe of the slope. This work is considere sction of the slope from the effects of the creek flow and was not present prior to the disaster, and is therefore not eligible for FEMA assistance. Engineering efforts associated with design of the riprap protection, and environmental and hydraulic studies associated with working in the stream bank, are therefore also not eligible.
The Regional Director will prepare a supplemental DSR to fund this eligible work. Utilizing the Fugro proposal and the eligible scope of work described above, the estimated costs associated with this scope include the following:
(1)Unit cost represents a 20 percent premium over the Fugro estimated cost due to reduction in quantity.
(2)Unit cost estimated based on reduction of scope of design engineering and environmental studies.
Consideration for Relocation
For consideration of eligibility for relocation of the pipeline, it must be demonstrated that the facility is subject to repetitive heavy damage, that the proposed relocation project is not barred by other provisions of title 44 CFR; and that the overall project, including all costs, is cost effective. Regarding the criteria that the site "is and will be" subject to repetitive heavy damage, the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that this is the case. Although certain site features, including the steepness of the hillside and the presence of the creek at the toe of the slope, may suggest that the site could be subject to future localized instabilities, the applicant has indicated that the pipeline has been in place since 1945 with adequate performance. As the damage caused by the disaster is considered to be repairable with reasonable effort, consideration for relocation on the basis of repetitive heavy damage is not eligible.
Further, the scope of the proposed relocation project is not considered reasonable relative to the limited damage to the pipeline due to the disaster. The relocation project requested by the applicant involves replacement of 6,200 linear feet of pipeline. As only 15 feet of pipe was undermined by the disaster slide, relocation of over one mile of pipe is considered excessive for consideration.
Should the applicant choose to pursue the construction of the relocation project, such work would be considered an improved project. In accordance with 44 CFR 206.203(d)(1), our funding for this project would be limited to the Federal share of the estimated cost of the eligible work documented in the supplemental DSR to be prepared. In addition, it is important that approval of the improved project be completed prior to any construction of the relocation project in order to complete environmental and historic preservation reviews. Any work that is performed before the Region is permitted to clear work under various historic preservation and environmental protection laws may jeopardize all funding of the project, including work previously approved.
CONCLUSION
Based on the documentation provided with the second appeal, I have determined that slope stabilization of the failed hillside is eligible for FEMA assistance. The Regional Director will prepare a supplemental DSR to fund the eligible scope of work described herein. However, there is no basis to support funding for relocation of the 6,200 lf of pipeline where only 15 feet had been undermined. Such work would be considered an improved project, and if chosen by the applicant, must undergo regulatory reviews for approval.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1046-DR |
| Applicant | City of Lompoc |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 083-42524 |
| PW ID# | 1994,783831,83832 |
| Date Signed | 1998-03-16T05:00:00 |
Cross Reference: Slope Stabilization, Landslide Policy, Relocation Projects
Summary: During the winter storms of 1995, a landslide occurred within a natural hillside, upslope of the San Miguelito Creek. The slide exposed approximately 15 linear feet of an 8-in. diameter water main built into the hillside approximately 45 feet above the creek. Other than undermining the support of the pipe, no specific damage to the pipe was reported. DSR 19947 was prepared in the amount of $4,760 to provide permanent restoration of the pipe by replacing the undermined section 10 feet into the hillside, within the existing easement. The applicant submitted a first appeal of this scope of work stating that significant additional costs are associated with this scope of work, including engineering design and environmental studies, purchase of private property, and access issues. The applicant requested that FEMA fund their proposed relocation project which involved relocating 6,200 linear feet of pipeline along San Miguelito Road at an estimated cost of $150,000. FEMA denied the first appeal on that basis that the eligible scope of work was both technically and economically feasible. However, DSR 19947 was deobligated with DSR 83831, and DSR 83832 was prepared with a similar scope of work but increased to include funding for mobilization of equipment. The total eligible cost of DSR 83832 was $5,960. The applicant's second appeal again requests consideration of the relocation project, asserting that relocation is the only was to restore the pipe to its predisaster condition. The current estimate for the relocation project is $157,000.
Issues:
- Is slope stabilization eligible for FEMA assistance?
- Is the proposed relocation of the pipeline eligible for FEMA assistance?
- Yes. The slope failure was caused primarily by the disaster. Stabilization of the slope is eligible to the extent necessary to reconstruct the pipeline. A supplemental DSR will be prepared to provide funding for such stabilization.
- No. Sufficient information is not available to support relocation of 6,200 lf of pipeline in lieu of replacing the damaged 15 ft. section within the existing easement. Evidence of "repetitive damage" has not been demonstrated.
Stafford Act Section 406, 44CFR 201.206(c), Landslide Policy, 44CFR 201.226(e)
Appeal Letter
March 16, 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 July 14, 1997, submittal of the City of Lompoc's second appeal of damage survey reports (DSR) 19947, 83831 and 83832 under FEMA-1046-DR-CA. The applicant is requesting funding for the relocation of approximately 6,200 linear feet of water main as the most cost effective means for restoring a 15 linear foot section of the pipe which was undermined due to a landslide within a natural hillside.
As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that slope stabilization of the failed hillside is eligible for FEMA assistance, to the extent necessary to support the exposed section of pipeline. By copy of this letter, I am requesting the Regional Director to prepare a supplemental DSR to fund the eligible scope of work described in the analysis. However, I have found that there is no basis to support funding for relocation of the 6,200 lf of pipeline where only 15 feet had been undermined. Such work would be considered an improved project, and if chosen by the applicant, must undergo regulatory reviews for environmental impacts before approval.
Please inform the subgrantee of my determination. The subgrantee may submit a third appeal to the Director of FEMA. The appeal must be submitted through your office and the Regional Director within 60 days of receipt of this determination.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Acting Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
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 July 14, 1997, submittal of the City of Lompoc's second appeal of damage survey reports (DSR) 19947, 83831 and 83832 under FEMA-1046-DR-CA. The applicant is requesting funding for the relocation of approximately 6,200 linear feet of water main as the most cost effective means for restoring a 15 linear foot section of the pipe which was undermined due to a landslide within a natural hillside.
As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that slope stabilization of the failed hillside is eligible for FEMA assistance, to the extent necessary to support the exposed section of pipeline. By copy of this letter, I am requesting the Regional Director to prepare a supplemental DSR to fund the eligible scope of work described in the analysis. However, I have found that there is no basis to support funding for relocation of the 6,200 lf of pipeline where only 15 feet had been undermined. Such work would be considered an improved project, and if chosen by the applicant, must undergo regulatory reviews for environmental impacts before approval.
Please inform the subgrantee of my determination. The subgrantee may submit a third appeal to the Director of FEMA. The appeal must be submitted through your office and the Regional Director within 60 days of receipt of this determination.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Acting Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUNDDuring the winter storms of 1995, a landslide occurred within a natural hillside, upslope of the San Miguelito Creek. Floodwaters in the creek reportedly eroded the toe of the slope, resulting in the slope failure. The landslide resulted in exposing approximately 15 linear feet of an 8-in. diameter water main built into the hillside approximately 45 feet above the creek. Other than undermining the support of the pipe, no specific damage to the pipe was reported due to the slide. An easement for the pipeline extends 10 feet on either side of the pipe. A dirt access road is cut into the slope, providing vehicular access to the pipe location. A private road is located approximately 60 feet upslope of the pipe location.
DSR 19947 was prepared in response to a site inspection on August 25, 1995, to provide permanent restoration of the pipeline. It was recommended that the pipe be moved 10 feet to the west (into the hillside), within the existing easement, as it was considered impractical to restore the pipe within the failed hillside location. DSR 19947 therefore included excavation and backfill of a new trench, 50 ft. long, and replacement of 50 ft. of pipe, including four elbow attachments to accommodate the horizontal displacement of the offset section of pipe, for a total cost of $4,760. The DSR narrative indicated that the applicant intended to submit a Hazard Mitigation Proposal (HMP) to relocate approximately 6,200 linear feet of this pipeline to the right-of-way along San Miguelito Road. On August 28, 1995, the applicant submitted a non-concurrence of the costs associated with the eligible scope of work, suggesting that engineering costs alone could reach higher than even their estimated costs for relocation of $150,000.
First Appeal
On February 1, 1996, the applicant submitted another letter of non-concurrence regarding FEMA's estimation of costs for DSR 19947. The State of California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) transmitted the applicant's letter to FEMA as a first appeal. The applicant indicated that the location FEMA proposed for placement of the pipe is private property, thus requiring an easement or purchase of property. Additionally, the applicant stated that significant costs would be incurred for geotechnical and environmental studies, and for access for construction equipment to the site. The applicant requested FEMA reconsider their HMP for $150,000.
In response to the first appeal, FEMA conducted a second site visit. It was concluded that relocating the pipe within the applicant's 20 ft. easement was possible without purchase of private property, and that suitable access was available for construction equipment via the dirt access road. However, FEMA further evaluated the resulting stability of the site based on the conditions observed at the site visit, and upon review of the preliminary geotechnical study, dated October 16, 1996, prepared by the applicant's geotechnical consultant, Fugro West, Inc. This review concluded that the site where the pipeline is located is currently unstable and prone to future slides. Citing the Landslide Policy, the first appeal response concluded that stabilization of an unstable site is not eligible for funding. DSR 19947 was deobligated with DSR 83831 (<$4,760>), and replaced with DSR 83832. The scope of work in the replacement DSR was modified to include additional funding for mobilization of equipment, increasing the total eligible cost to $5,960. DSR 83832 was suspended pending stabilization of the site by the applicant. Additionally, DSR 74485 was prepared to provide funding for the geotechnical study preformed by Fugro West, Inc. in the amount of $1,000.
Second Appeal
The applicant submitted a second appeal of FEMA's determination of limited eligibility, transmitted through your office to FEMA in a letter dated July 14, 1997. The applicant asserts that the site was stable prior to the disaster and should be restored to predisaster condition. The applicant indicates that they are not requesting slope stabilization, just repair of their facility by means of relocating 6,200 linear feet of this pipeline to the right-of-way along San Miguelito Road, currently estimated at $157,000. The applicant states that this scope of work should not be considered an improvement but the only way to repair the line. OES's letter further states that 44 CFR 206.226(e) allows FEMA to fund relocation of a facility when the facility will be subject to repetitive heavy damage, and refers to several cases when FEMA has provided such assistance for relocation of water mains.
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 facility. However, eligibility for such funding is subject to the 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 present condition of the site is unstable, and that the primary cause of the slide is due to toe erosion by disaster related floodwaters in the creek. As such, it is concluded that restoration of the disaster damaged portion of the hillside, to the extent necessary to provide support of the pipe, is eligible for FEMA assistance.
Accordingly, the eligible scope of work would include relocation of the pipe within the easement (approximately 50 ft. long to accommodate the displacement into the hillside), slope stabilization of the failed portion of the hillside (approximately 50 linear ft.), and engineering services specific to the design and construction of this eligible work. It is understood that relocation of the pipeline within the existing easement would not require purchase of additional private property.
To estimate a scope of work and cost for this project, we have reviewed the Fugro report submitted by the applicant. This report included a preliminary scope and cost estimate to repair the pipeline within the existing easement, including stabilization of the slope by use of a soil nailing and shotcrete technique. This scope of work appears reasonable and cost effective. However, it is noted that the Fugro report recommended construction of the stabilization system for a total length of 350 ft. due to apparent unstable slope conditions in areas beyond the section of pipeline exposed by the disaster. As these additional conditions have not been attributed to the disaster, extension of the stabilization system beyond the damaged section of the pipe is not eligible for FEMA assistance. Additionally, Fugro recommended that stream bank protection, by placement of riprap, be constructed along the toe of the slope. This work is considere sction of the slope from the effects of the creek flow and was not present prior to the disaster, and is therefore not eligible for FEMA assistance. Engineering efforts associated with design of the riprap protection, and environmental and hydraulic studies associated with working in the stream bank, are therefore also not eligible.
The Regional Director will prepare a supplemental DSR to fund this eligible work. Utilizing the Fugro proposal and the eligible scope of work described above, the estimated costs associated with this scope include the following:
Item | Estimate Quantity | Estimated Unit Cost | Estimated Costs |
Relocate 8-in. Pipe | 50 ft. | $30 per ft. | $1,500 |
Install Soil Nails and Shotcrete Facing | 2,500 ft2 (50 lf x 50 ft. H) | $30 per ft2 - (1) | $75,000 |
Install Rock Slope Protection | 0 | $46 per yd3 | $0 |
Engineering and Environmental Studies | 1 | $20,000 (2) | $20,000 |
Estimated Total | - | - | $96,500 |
(1)Unit cost represents a 20 percent premium over the Fugro estimated cost due to reduction in quantity.
(2)Unit cost estimated based on reduction of scope of design engineering and environmental studies.
Consideration for Relocation
For consideration of eligibility for relocation of the pipeline, it must be demonstrated that the facility is subject to repetitive heavy damage, that the proposed relocation project is not barred by other provisions of title 44 CFR; and that the overall project, including all costs, is cost effective. Regarding the criteria that the site "is and will be" subject to repetitive heavy damage, the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that this is the case. Although certain site features, including the steepness of the hillside and the presence of the creek at the toe of the slope, may suggest that the site could be subject to future localized instabilities, the applicant has indicated that the pipeline has been in place since 1945 with adequate performance. As the damage caused by the disaster is considered to be repairable with reasonable effort, consideration for relocation on the basis of repetitive heavy damage is not eligible.
Further, the scope of the proposed relocation project is not considered reasonable relative to the limited damage to the pipeline due to the disaster. The relocation project requested by the applicant involves replacement of 6,200 linear feet of pipeline. As only 15 feet of pipe was undermined by the disaster slide, relocation of over one mile of pipe is considered excessive for consideration.
Should the applicant choose to pursue the construction of the relocation project, such work would be considered an improved project. In accordance with 44 CFR 206.203(d)(1), our funding for this project would be limited to the Federal share of the estimated cost of the eligible work documented in the supplemental DSR to be prepared. In addition, it is important that approval of the improved project be completed prior to any construction of the relocation project in order to complete environmental and historic preservation reviews. Any work that is performed before the Region is permitted to clear work under various historic preservation and environmental protection laws may jeopardize all funding of the project, including work previously approved.
CONCLUSION
Based on the documentation provided with the second appeal, I have determined that slope stabilization of the failed hillside is eligible for FEMA assistance. The Regional Director will prepare a supplemental DSR to fund the eligible scope of work described herein. However, there is no basis to support funding for relocation of the 6,200 lf of pipeline where only 15 feet had been undermined. Such work would be considered an improved project, and if chosen by the applicant, must undergo regulatory reviews for approval.