alert - warning

This page has not been translated into 简体中文. Visit the 简体中文 page for resources in that language.

Retaining Wall

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1646-DR
ApplicantCity of Petaluma
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#097-56784-00
PW ID#683
Date Signed2010-09-27T04:00:00

Citation:       FEMA-1646-DR-CA; City of Petaluma
 
Cross-
Reference:
   Environmental Compliance

Summary:    Rainstorms from March 29, 2006 through April 16, 2006, undermined supporting material from the base of a sidewalk retaining wall on the north side of Prospect Street.  FEMA prepared PW 683 Version 0 for $3,717 to repair erosion at the base of the retaining wall.  The City of Petaluma (Applicant) requested additional funds to change the scope of work (SOW) to include a cast in place drilled soldier pile wall with tie backs for an estimated amount of $187,965.   FEMA determined that the original SOW, or a similar repair method, would be sufficient to restore the instability caused by the disaster.
The Acting Regional Administrator partially approved a change to the scope of work to provide temporary shoring of the wall to provide safe installation of the concrete footing and increased the cost to $50,000 in response to its first appeal.  The Applicant adjusted the project cost to $105,623 in its second appeal.  The Applicant also maintained that the installation of a soldier pile wall and lagging system does not constitute an improved project.  In addition, the Applicant asserts that its method of repair is a cost effective method of restoring the existing wall back to its pre-disaster condition, design and function. 

Issue:            Is the soldier pile wall necessary to repair disaster-related damage to the existing retaining wall?  

Finding:          No.
             
Rationale:       44 CFR § 206.223 (a)(1); 44 CFR § 206.203 (d)(1)

Appeal Letter

 

 

September 27, 2010

 

 

Tom Maruyama

Governor’s Authorized Representative

California Emergency Management Agency

3650 Schriever Avenue

Mather, CA 95655

 

Re:    Second Appeal–City of Petaluma, PA ID 097-56784-00,

         Retaining Wall, FEMA-1646-DR-CA, Project Worksheet (PW) 683

 

Dear Mr. Maruyama:

This is in response to your letter dated February 19, 2010, which transmitted the referenced second appeal for City of Petaluma (Applicant).  The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of its request for an additional $55,623 to stabilize a retaining wall that was damaged by the disaster.  

Background

Rainstorms from March 29, 2006 through April 16, 2006, undermined supporting material from the base of a 5.5-foot section of a sidewalk retaining wall along the north side of Prospect Street, approximately 75 feet east of Kentucky Street.  The Applicant’s engineer inspected the retaining wall on May 2-3, 2006, and prepared a report recommending that the appropriate repair was the installation of a soldier pile wall.  The engineer based this recommendation on the loss of material along a section of the base of wall and an observed two-inch separation between the wall and the adjacent sidewalk.  FEMA’s geotechnical specialist inspected the wall on August 17, 2006, and observed the loss of material along a section of the wall, no structural damage, and existing cracking in the wall that was filled with large roots from local vines.  FEMA’ geotechnical specialist recommended excavating the loose material and backfilling the area with concrete.  FEMA prepared PW 683 with the scope of work consisting of hand excavation of three cubic yards of soil and placement of seven cubic yards of concrete footing.  On August 18, 2006, FEMA obligated PW 683 Version 0 for $3,717.  On October 28, 2008, the Applicant requested a change in the FEMA-approved scope of work to include a cast in place drilled soldier pile wall with tie backs for an estimated amount of $187,965.  FEMA reviewed the geotechnical report that the Applicant submitted and determined that the installation of a retaining wall exceeded what was necessary to address eligible disaster-related damage.  FEMA determined that the original scope of work, or a similar repair method, was sufficient to restore the instability caused by the disaster.  FEMA informed your office of this determination in a letter dated February 13, 2009.

However, the Regional Administrator determined that the approved scope of work in PW 683 Version 0 was not adequate to restore the wall to its pre-disaster condition.  On November 17, 2009, the Regional Administrator partially approved the appeal for a total project cost of $50,000.   The scope of work consisted of constructing a buttress at the base of the wall.

The Applicant submitted its second appeal on January 28, 2010, requesting an additional $55,623 to construct a soldier pile wall with tie backs to stabilize the existing retaining wall.   The Applicant maintained that the installation of a new soldier pile wall is a cost effective method of restoring the existing wall back to its pre-disaster condition, design and function.

Discussion

Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations Section 206.223, General work, states that to be eligible for assistance an item of work must be the direct result of the disaster.  FEMA and the Applicant agree that flood water eroded the material along a section of the base of the wall and that the proposed buttress will prevent future erosion at the wall.  However, the Applicant asserts that lateral support along the entire length of the wall is necessary to restore the retaining wall to its pre-disaster condition.  The Applicant states that there was a two-inch separation between the wall and the sidewalk when it conducted its initial post-disaster assessment of the wall.  It concluded that the flood caused the separation and weakened the wall laterally.  However, the Applicant has not shown conclusively that the flood caused the separation of the wall or otherwise damaged the wall beyond the erosion of the 5.5 section of the wall. The wall is approximately 39 feet long.  The eroded section was approximately 5.5 feet long.  The Applicant proposal to construct a soldier pile wall with tiebacks over the entire length of the wall exceeds the work required to restore the sidewalk retaining wall to its predisaster condition.

The Applicant states that FEMA exceeded its jurisdictional authority by directing the Applicant to construct the buttress at the base of the wall.  FEMA regulations authorize assistance to repair disaster-related damage in a cost-effective manner.  FEMA determined that the buttress was a reasonable and cost-effective method to repair the disaster-related damage to the wall.  The Applicant may implement another method of repair; however, FEMA assistance will be limited to the estimated amount approved in the project worksheet.

Conclusion

I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the Acting Regional Administrator’s decision in the first appeal is consistent with Public Assistance regulations and policy.  Therefore, I am denying the Applicant’s second appeal. 

Please inform the Applicant of my decision.  This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206, Appeals.

Sincerely,

/s/

Deborah Ingram

Acting Assistant Administrator

Recovery Directorate

cc:  Nancy Ward

       Regional Administrator

       FEMA Region IX