Damage to street pavement
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
PURPOSE: Respond to third appeal submitted by the City of Irvine for work associated with FEMA-979-DR-CA, DSR 97146.
DISCUSSION: In their third appeal, the City has claimed $1,423,138 to repair street pavements that were allegedly damaged by the heavy rains in 1993. The alleged damage includes reduction of pavement supporting capacity due to clay contamination of the aggregate base. Both the first and second appeals were denied because of historical seepage problems, and because the proposed subdrain system would not be cost-effective. The current analysis concludes that: the only eligible pavement damage is for claimed streets in the Amalfi area; aggregate base clay contamination is not supported by the appeal documentation; subsurface drains are not eligible because of an inapplicable standard; and well grouting is required by County code.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Sign the letter granting additional funding. A DSR will be written for $374,956 for the actual and estimated costs for repaving four streets in the Amalfi area, and for the estimated costs for abandoning 26 wells.
As a result of severe rain storms and flooding in January 1993, major disaster FEMA-979-DR-CA was declared by the president. On May 6, 1993, two damage survey reports (DSRs) were written for the City of Irvine, California (City), to address emergency and permanent repairs to City streets within the village of Turtle Rock. DSR 97147 was written for $1,410 to patch damaged pavement at various locations on Amalfi Drive. DSR 97146 was written for $52,942 to install and eventually abandon monitoring wells, to perform a hydrologic investigation, and to make recommendations for mitigating seepage problems. The DSR indicated that one or more additional DSRs would be written to address remedial measures for seepage reduction and pavement repairs.
The City contracted with Law/Crandall, Inc. to conduct the hydrologic investigation. On August 27, 1993, a report entitled Seepage Evaluation-Village of Turtle Rock, Irvine, California was presented to the City. On October 29, 1993, the City requested a supplement to DSR 97146 for the installation of a subsurface drainage system based on the recommendations of this report. On August 9, 1994, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region IX denied the request for a supplemental DSR because of historical seepage problems in this area, and because the proposed subdrain system (estimated at $545,000) was considered to be a hazard mitigation measure that would not be cost-effective.
In October 1994, the pavement engineering firm LaBelle-Marvin submitted a report to the City that described an investigation of the condition of the Amalfi Drive pavement. They concluded that the existing pavement section is inadequate for the existing traffic and subgrade support. Recommendations were made for either asphalt concrete overlays or reconstruction. On January 11, 1995, LaBelle-Marvin submitted a report presenting the results of a supplemental investigation that tested the supporting capacity of the aggregate base course at five locations on Amalfi Drive, and re-calculated the pavement requirements for Amalfi Drive. The R-value (supporting capacity) test results for the aggregate base (24 to 53) were substantially less than what was reportedly specified for the original construction (78). They stated: "The probable explanation for the marked decrease in aggregate base quality is contamination of the base layer with subgrade soils, particularly during periods of subsurface water migration. .. Due to the lesser aggregate base qualities, reconstruction of the roadway is recommended."
First Appeal
On June 14, 1995, the City appealed FEMA's decision to deny a supplemental DSR to fund the subdrain system. The City argued that the denial was based upon the misconception that the project would not be cost-effective. The City believed that only after a DSR had been written for the permanent repair of all of the damaged streets could a meaningful cost/benefit analysis be made. On October 16, 1995, the Regional Director denied the City's appeal because "the emergency work performed was in essence permanent restoration work which brought the facility (damaged streets) back to its pre-disaster condition. Therefore, a hazard mitigation proposal of $545,000 compared to the total of $1,410 for restoration work does not meet the cost effective requirements of the Act."
Second Appeal
On March 29, 1996, the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) forwarded the City's second appeal to the Associate Director at FEMA headquarters for resolution along with their recommendation for approval. The City emphasizes that "no one from FEMA has acknowledged the extent of the damage (written a DSR)." In essence, the City was claiming that the damage to their streets was not just the visible damage addressed in DSR 91747 for $1,410, but also the reduction in pavement supporting capacity (as described in the LaBelle-Marvin reports), and the resulting need to reconstruct the streets as recommended by LaBelle-Marvin. The City's estimated cost to install subsurface drainage systems and to reconstruct the streets was $1,700,000.
On December 19, 1996, the Associate Director denied the second appeal for the following reasons. First, any clay contamination of the aggregate base underlying the streets was caused by pre-disaster hydrogeologic conditions. Consequently, the cost for the pavement reconstruction proposed by the City was not eligible for federal aid (eligible). Second, the only documented visible pavement damage is that covered by DSR 97147 for $1,410. The hazard mitigation proposal for subdrain and interceptor systems was, therefore, not cost-beneficial. Third, the $9,200 for capping monitoring wells included in DSR 97146 will be de-obligated because the City intends to use the wells for continued monitoring. As a result of this determination, supplemental DSR 79378 was written on January 17, 1997 to de-obligate $9,200.
Third Appeal
On May 12, 1997, OES forwarded the City's third appeal dated April 1, 1997, to the Director of FEMA along with their recommendation for approval. The City is now requesting $1,423,138 to reimburse the actual costs for subdrain design and installation in four areas of Turtle Rock, to reimburse the actual costs for the repaving of a section of Amalfi Drive, and to fund the estimated costs for repaving seven other streets. In their narrative, the City disputes the reasons for which the second appeal was denied. Other than the actual costs for subdrain and pavement construction, no new technical data were presented.
DISCUSSION
This section addresses the eligibility of costs for well abandonment, the repair of pavement damage, and the design and installation of subdrains. The regulatory and technical issues surrounding each of these items are presented and discussed. In the third appeal, the City refers to study areas A, B, C, and D. In this discussion, these areas are referred to as the Amalfi area, the Sycamore Creek area, Ridgeline Drive, and the Sierra Roja area, respectively. Seven of the eight claimed streets are in the Amalfi and Sycamore Creek areas, with Ridgeline Drive being the eighth claimed street. There is no claimed pavement damage in the Sierra Roja area but a subdrain is being claimed.
Site Visit
On October 1 and 2, 1997, the site was visited by David Connors, a technical assistance contractor from FEMA Headquarters. The purposes of the visit were to receive new data from the City, and to observe the current condition of the streets being claimed for damages. Mike Maxwell from OES participated in the activities on October 1. The City presented new data from pavement investigations for six of the eight streets being claimed. The data, which were based on tests and measurements of recent pavement cores, included measurements of asphalt concrete and aggregate base thickness, R-values for the subgrade soils and the aggregate base, grain size analyses of the aggregate base, and information on slurry seal dates, subdrain construction, and dates of street construction. It was observed that all of the streets in the Amalfi area had pavement damage (except for the repaved section of Amalfi Drive) whereas none of the other claimed streets had any damage.
Well Abandonment
The primary issue is whether there is a regulatory requirement or technical reason to abandon the 28 monitoring wells that were installed in 14 borings as part of the hydrogeologic study authorized by DSR 97146. Two of these wells are ineligible because they were installed in the Sierra Roja area where there was no public facility damage. The cost for abandoning the remaining 26 wells is $8,543 (13/14 of the estimated cost). In a letter to FEMA contractor David Connors dated October 21, 1997, the e ndonment of Water Wells. The code states that any well, including monitoring wells, that has not been used for a year is considered to be abandoned unless the owner declares in writing his intention to use the well again. The City has not used the wells in over a year, and has stated that they do not intend to use the wells again. Accordingly, the wells must be abandoned as prescribed in the code (grouting). The technical reason for doing this is to avoid possible cross-contamination of aquifers by surface waters.
Asphalt Concrete Damage
The City conducted a pavement quality survey of all its local streets in 1991. The survey results indicate that there was no significant visible pavement distress on any of the eight streets being claimed. On August 20, 1993, the Barrett Consulting Group, a FEMA contractor, made a site visit to the three areas of concern. The purpose of their visit was to evaluate pavement damage caused by the 1993 rainfall disaster. In their letter dated September 7, 1993, they state that they observed several asphalt pavement patches and one water seep in the Amalfi area, but no distressed pavement areas or seeping groundwater in the other two areas. During the 1997 site visit, the FEMA contractor determined that there is still no visible damage to streets in the Sycamore Creek and Ridgeline areas.
Photographs taken in 1993 and 1995 document failed and distressed pavement at many locations along the streets in the Amalfi area. The 1997 site visit confirmed the pavement damage on these streets. This damage was apparently initiated by high groundwater due to disaster 979, and exacerbated by disasters 1044 and 1046 in 1995. It is concluded that the cost to repair the damage to the claimed streets in the Amalfi area is eligible for reimbursement under Section 406 of the Stafford Act.
Clay Contamination of Aggregate Base
The City contends that all eight claimed streets are damaged because the clay subgrade soils have contaminated the aggregate base underlying the asphalt concrete. The result is pavement sections that are inadequate for the traffic and subgrade conditions. However, the information supplied by the City has not demonstrated that there is clay contamination of the aggregate base. The City's pavement consultant, LaBelle - Marvin, performed grain size analyses in September 1997 on two samples of aggregate base taken from San Rufino Road in the Amalfi area and Wandering Rill in the Sycamore Creek area. There was no clay contamination of either of these samples. Both grain size curves fell well within the City's specifications for aggregate base, and there was only 3.3 percent and 6.2 percent silt-size particles. Thus, silt and/or clay did not migrate from the subgrade to the aggregate base at these locations.
During the October 1997 site visit, the City presented new data showing that the thickness of the aggregate base course beneath six of the eight claimed streets (not including Ridgeline and Amalfi Drives) was less than the design thickness by an average of 1.0 inches. This number also includes corrections to errors in the City's summary sheet, and the aggregate base thickness data from the September, 1995 report by Petra Geotechnical, Inc. The City alleged that the reduction in aggregate base thickness was due to the aggregate base being forced into the clay subgrade because the subgrade was saturated by the rains from disaster 979. No cores were taken from Ridgeline Drive, but the cores taken from Amalfi Drive had an average aggregate base thickness of 5.4 inches as compared to a design thickness of 5.0 inches. Why would the thickness of the aggregate base beneath Amalfi Drive increase in thickness while the reverse was allegedly occurring beneath the other streets? The most likely answer is that the as-built aggregate base thicknesses were within approximately plus or minus one inch of the design thicknesses. This variance is not unusual in the construction industry. For example, the aggregate base thicknesses beneath Amalfi Drive ranged from 3.75 inches to 7.5 inches. It is also possible that the average as-built thickness of the aggregate base beneath Amalfi Drive was 6.4 inches, and that 1.0 inches of the aggregate base was forced into the clay. Neither hypothesis can be proven because the City could not find any as-built records of aggregate base thicknesses for these streets. Clay contamination of the aggregate base due to disaster 979 is an allegation that is not substantiated by the available aggregate base thickness data.
The City has claimed that the supporting capacity of the street pavements has been reduced (damaged) because the results of R-value tests of the aggregate base were less than the specified value. The R-value for a composite sample of aggregate base taken from the Sycamore Creek area streets in September 1997 was 69 which is less than the design value of 80. This was the case despite the fact that a grain size analysis demonstrated that there was no clay contamination of the aggregate base. One possible explanation for this lower R-value is that the rock particles comprising the aggregate base may not have a hardness that meets specifications. Hardness is measured by a prescribed "percentage wear" test. No hardness test results were presented by the City although the test is required by their specifications. Rock hardness is a serious concern in southern California because the top 10 to 20 feet, or more of many of the local rock formations are in various stages of decomposition due to weathering. R-value test results performed in 1994 on five samples of aggregate base from beneath Amalfi Drive ranged from 24 to 53. No grain size tests were performed so it is not possible to determine whether these samples were contaminated by clay. However, the grain size test on aggregate base taken from nearby San Rufino Drive in September, 1997 did not indicate any silt or clay contamination. Once again, a possible explanation of the below-specification R values is the use of partially decomposed rock for the aggregate base. This hypothesis cannot be verified because the City was not able to locate any results of R-value tests performed on aggregate base during construction. Clay contamination of the aggregate base due to disaster 979 is an allegation that is not substantiated by the available R-value and grain size data.
Subdrains
In 1996, the City installed subsurface drains beneath the streets of three areas in Turtle Rock: the Sierra Roja area, the Sycamore Creek area, and the Amalfi area. In order for the subsurface drains to be eligible under 44 CFR 206.226, they must be required by City standards as part of the repair of a public facility damaged by a declared disaster.
In an October 1, 1997, memorandum to FEMA contractor David Connors, the City states that there was no damage to the streets in the Sierra Roja area. The FEMA public assistance program provides assistance only when there has been damage to a public facility caused by the declared disaster. The subsurface drains in that area are, therefore, ineligible because no public facility was damaged.
As discussed above, there is no visible damage to the streets in the Sycamore Creek area, and damage to the aggregate base due to clay contamination from disaster 979 has not been demonstrated. Therefore, the subsurface drains in this area are also ineligible for the reason stated in the preceding paragraph.
The subsurface drains beneath the streets in the Amalfi area would be eligible provided that they were installed to meet an applicable standard. To be applicable, a standard must meet all five of the tests stated in 44 CFR 206.226(b). The requirement for the installation of subsurface drains is found in section 9.3 of the City's Grading Manual. A review of the documentato thty's requirements for subdrain installation do not meet all of the tests for an applicable standard.
The restoration of the damaged pavements in the Amalfi area is considered to be "repair" rather than "new construction." The Grading Manual does not specify whether it applies to new construction or repair. In such cases, it is FEMA's policy that the standard applies only to new construction. Therefore, the standard does not apply to the type of repair or restoration required.
In addition, it has been determined that the standard is not applied uniformly to all similar types of facilities. This determination was made because the building official has the discretion to require or not require subsurface drains depending on his view of the situation. It is FEMA's policy that this type of standard does not meet the uniformity test.
For the above reasons, the cost for the subdrains in the Amalfi area is not eligible.
CONCLUSIONS
The Orange County code requires that abandoned wells be grouted. The City is abandoning 26 wells that were installed as part of the response to disaster 979. Therefore, the cost of $8,543 for grouting or otherwise decommissioning these wells is eligible.
The only eligible visible pavement damage is for the four claimed streets in the Amalfi area. The other streets being claimed have no visible pavement damage that can be tied directly to disaster 979. The City's allegation that their streets have suffered damage because of clay contamination of the aggregate base is not supported by the data submitted with this appeal. The four streets in the Amalfi area are eligible for $366,413 in permanent restoration funding, which does not include contingencies.
The only subsurface drains that are candidates for eligibility are the ones installed in the Amalfi area. None of the other drains is associated with damaged pavement. It has been determined that the subsurface drains installed in the Amalfi area are not eligible because the standard requiring subsurface drains fails two of the tests for applicability.
A supplemental DSR needs to be prepared for $374,956 for abandoning the wells and repaving the streets.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-979-DR- |
| Applicant | City of Irvine |
| Appeal Type | Third |
| PA ID# | 059-36770 |
| PW ID# | 97146 |
| Date Signed | 1998-02-13T05:00:00 |
DISCUSSION: In their third appeal, the City has claimed $1,423,138 to repair street pavements that were allegedly damaged by the heavy rains in 1993. The alleged damage includes reduction of pavement supporting capacity due to clay contamination of the aggregate base. Both the first and second appeals were denied because of historical seepage problems, and because the proposed subdrain system would not be cost-effective. The current analysis concludes that: the only eligible pavement damage is for claimed streets in the Amalfi area; aggregate base clay contamination is not supported by the appeal documentation; subsurface drains are not eligible because of an inapplicable standard; and well grouting is required by County code.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Sign the letter granting additional funding. A DSR will be written for $374,956 for the actual and estimated costs for repaving four streets in the Amalfi area, and for the estimated costs for abandoning 26 wells.
Appeal Letter
February 13, 1998
Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
State of California
74 North Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, Third Floor
Pasadena, California 91103
Dear Mr. Najera:
This letter is in response to your May 12, 1997, transmittal of the City of Irvine's third appeal of DSR 97146 under FEMA-979-DR-CA. The applicant is requesting reimbursement for costs associated with the repaving of streets, the installation of subsurface drains, and the abandoning of wells in the Village of Turtle Rock.
Based on a review of the documentation submitted, I have determined that this appeal should be partially granted for the reasons explained in the enclosed appeal analysis. Briefly, of the eight streets claimed, only four streets in the Amalfi area had visible pavement damage that can be tied to disaster 979. The allegation that disaster 979 caused the clay subgrade to contaminate the aggregate base beneath the claimed streets is not supported by the appeal documentation. Subsurface drains are not eligible because the City's code does not meet FEMA's policy for an eligible code or standard. The abandoning of monitoring wells is eligible because of a county code requirement. I have requested that the Regional Director prepare a supplemental DSR for repaving the four streets (excluding contingencies) and properly abandoning the wells for $374,956.
Please inform the applicant of my determination that constitutes the final level of appeal in accordance with 44 CFR 206.206(e).
Sincerely,
/S/
James Lee Witt
Director
Enclosure
Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
State of California
74 North Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, Third Floor
Pasadena, California 91103
Dear Mr. Najera:
This letter is in response to your May 12, 1997, transmittal of the City of Irvine's third appeal of DSR 97146 under FEMA-979-DR-CA. The applicant is requesting reimbursement for costs associated with the repaving of streets, the installation of subsurface drains, and the abandoning of wells in the Village of Turtle Rock.
Based on a review of the documentation submitted, I have determined that this appeal should be partially granted for the reasons explained in the enclosed appeal analysis. Briefly, of the eight streets claimed, only four streets in the Amalfi area had visible pavement damage that can be tied to disaster 979. The allegation that disaster 979 caused the clay subgrade to contaminate the aggregate base beneath the claimed streets is not supported by the appeal documentation. Subsurface drains are not eligible because the City's code does not meet FEMA's policy for an eligible code or standard. The abandoning of monitoring wells is eligible because of a county code requirement. I have requested that the Regional Director prepare a supplemental DSR for repaving the four streets (excluding contingencies) and properly abandoning the wells for $374,956.
Please inform the applicant of my determination that constitutes the final level of appeal in accordance with 44 CFR 206.206(e).
Sincerely,
/S/
James Lee Witt
Director
Enclosure
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUNDAs a result of severe rain storms and flooding in January 1993, major disaster FEMA-979-DR-CA was declared by the president. On May 6, 1993, two damage survey reports (DSRs) were written for the City of Irvine, California (City), to address emergency and permanent repairs to City streets within the village of Turtle Rock. DSR 97147 was written for $1,410 to patch damaged pavement at various locations on Amalfi Drive. DSR 97146 was written for $52,942 to install and eventually abandon monitoring wells, to perform a hydrologic investigation, and to make recommendations for mitigating seepage problems. The DSR indicated that one or more additional DSRs would be written to address remedial measures for seepage reduction and pavement repairs.
The City contracted with Law/Crandall, Inc. to conduct the hydrologic investigation. On August 27, 1993, a report entitled Seepage Evaluation-Village of Turtle Rock, Irvine, California was presented to the City. On October 29, 1993, the City requested a supplement to DSR 97146 for the installation of a subsurface drainage system based on the recommendations of this report. On August 9, 1994, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region IX denied the request for a supplemental DSR because of historical seepage problems in this area, and because the proposed subdrain system (estimated at $545,000) was considered to be a hazard mitigation measure that would not be cost-effective.
In October 1994, the pavement engineering firm LaBelle-Marvin submitted a report to the City that described an investigation of the condition of the Amalfi Drive pavement. They concluded that the existing pavement section is inadequate for the existing traffic and subgrade support. Recommendations were made for either asphalt concrete overlays or reconstruction. On January 11, 1995, LaBelle-Marvin submitted a report presenting the results of a supplemental investigation that tested the supporting capacity of the aggregate base course at five locations on Amalfi Drive, and re-calculated the pavement requirements for Amalfi Drive. The R-value (supporting capacity) test results for the aggregate base (24 to 53) were substantially less than what was reportedly specified for the original construction (78). They stated: "The probable explanation for the marked decrease in aggregate base quality is contamination of the base layer with subgrade soils, particularly during periods of subsurface water migration. .. Due to the lesser aggregate base qualities, reconstruction of the roadway is recommended."
First Appeal
On June 14, 1995, the City appealed FEMA's decision to deny a supplemental DSR to fund the subdrain system. The City argued that the denial was based upon the misconception that the project would not be cost-effective. The City believed that only after a DSR had been written for the permanent repair of all of the damaged streets could a meaningful cost/benefit analysis be made. On October 16, 1995, the Regional Director denied the City's appeal because "the emergency work performed was in essence permanent restoration work which brought the facility (damaged streets) back to its pre-disaster condition. Therefore, a hazard mitigation proposal of $545,000 compared to the total of $1,410 for restoration work does not meet the cost effective requirements of the Act."
Second Appeal
On March 29, 1996, the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) forwarded the City's second appeal to the Associate Director at FEMA headquarters for resolution along with their recommendation for approval. The City emphasizes that "no one from FEMA has acknowledged the extent of the damage (written a DSR)." In essence, the City was claiming that the damage to their streets was not just the visible damage addressed in DSR 91747 for $1,410, but also the reduction in pavement supporting capacity (as described in the LaBelle-Marvin reports), and the resulting need to reconstruct the streets as recommended by LaBelle-Marvin. The City's estimated cost to install subsurface drainage systems and to reconstruct the streets was $1,700,000.
On December 19, 1996, the Associate Director denied the second appeal for the following reasons. First, any clay contamination of the aggregate base underlying the streets was caused by pre-disaster hydrogeologic conditions. Consequently, the cost for the pavement reconstruction proposed by the City was not eligible for federal aid (eligible). Second, the only documented visible pavement damage is that covered by DSR 97147 for $1,410. The hazard mitigation proposal for subdrain and interceptor systems was, therefore, not cost-beneficial. Third, the $9,200 for capping monitoring wells included in DSR 97146 will be de-obligated because the City intends to use the wells for continued monitoring. As a result of this determination, supplemental DSR 79378 was written on January 17, 1997 to de-obligate $9,200.
Third Appeal
On May 12, 1997, OES forwarded the City's third appeal dated April 1, 1997, to the Director of FEMA along with their recommendation for approval. The City is now requesting $1,423,138 to reimburse the actual costs for subdrain design and installation in four areas of Turtle Rock, to reimburse the actual costs for the repaving of a section of Amalfi Drive, and to fund the estimated costs for repaving seven other streets. In their narrative, the City disputes the reasons for which the second appeal was denied. Other than the actual costs for subdrain and pavement construction, no new technical data were presented.
DISCUSSION
This section addresses the eligibility of costs for well abandonment, the repair of pavement damage, and the design and installation of subdrains. The regulatory and technical issues surrounding each of these items are presented and discussed. In the third appeal, the City refers to study areas A, B, C, and D. In this discussion, these areas are referred to as the Amalfi area, the Sycamore Creek area, Ridgeline Drive, and the Sierra Roja area, respectively. Seven of the eight claimed streets are in the Amalfi and Sycamore Creek areas, with Ridgeline Drive being the eighth claimed street. There is no claimed pavement damage in the Sierra Roja area but a subdrain is being claimed.
Site Visit
On October 1 and 2, 1997, the site was visited by David Connors, a technical assistance contractor from FEMA Headquarters. The purposes of the visit were to receive new data from the City, and to observe the current condition of the streets being claimed for damages. Mike Maxwell from OES participated in the activities on October 1. The City presented new data from pavement investigations for six of the eight streets being claimed. The data, which were based on tests and measurements of recent pavement cores, included measurements of asphalt concrete and aggregate base thickness, R-values for the subgrade soils and the aggregate base, grain size analyses of the aggregate base, and information on slurry seal dates, subdrain construction, and dates of street construction. It was observed that all of the streets in the Amalfi area had pavement damage (except for the repaved section of Amalfi Drive) whereas none of the other claimed streets had any damage.
Well Abandonment
The primary issue is whether there is a regulatory requirement or technical reason to abandon the 28 monitoring wells that were installed in 14 borings as part of the hydrogeologic study authorized by DSR 97146. Two of these wells are ineligible because they were installed in the Sierra Roja area where there was no public facility damage. The cost for abandoning the remaining 26 wells is $8,543 (13/14 of the estimated cost). In a letter to FEMA contractor David Connors dated October 21, 1997, the e ndonment of Water Wells. The code states that any well, including monitoring wells, that has not been used for a year is considered to be abandoned unless the owner declares in writing his intention to use the well again. The City has not used the wells in over a year, and has stated that they do not intend to use the wells again. Accordingly, the wells must be abandoned as prescribed in the code (grouting). The technical reason for doing this is to avoid possible cross-contamination of aquifers by surface waters.
Asphalt Concrete Damage
The City conducted a pavement quality survey of all its local streets in 1991. The survey results indicate that there was no significant visible pavement distress on any of the eight streets being claimed. On August 20, 1993, the Barrett Consulting Group, a FEMA contractor, made a site visit to the three areas of concern. The purpose of their visit was to evaluate pavement damage caused by the 1993 rainfall disaster. In their letter dated September 7, 1993, they state that they observed several asphalt pavement patches and one water seep in the Amalfi area, but no distressed pavement areas or seeping groundwater in the other two areas. During the 1997 site visit, the FEMA contractor determined that there is still no visible damage to streets in the Sycamore Creek and Ridgeline areas.
Photographs taken in 1993 and 1995 document failed and distressed pavement at many locations along the streets in the Amalfi area. The 1997 site visit confirmed the pavement damage on these streets. This damage was apparently initiated by high groundwater due to disaster 979, and exacerbated by disasters 1044 and 1046 in 1995. It is concluded that the cost to repair the damage to the claimed streets in the Amalfi area is eligible for reimbursement under Section 406 of the Stafford Act.
Clay Contamination of Aggregate Base
The City contends that all eight claimed streets are damaged because the clay subgrade soils have contaminated the aggregate base underlying the asphalt concrete. The result is pavement sections that are inadequate for the traffic and subgrade conditions. However, the information supplied by the City has not demonstrated that there is clay contamination of the aggregate base. The City's pavement consultant, LaBelle - Marvin, performed grain size analyses in September 1997 on two samples of aggregate base taken from San Rufino Road in the Amalfi area and Wandering Rill in the Sycamore Creek area. There was no clay contamination of either of these samples. Both grain size curves fell well within the City's specifications for aggregate base, and there was only 3.3 percent and 6.2 percent silt-size particles. Thus, silt and/or clay did not migrate from the subgrade to the aggregate base at these locations.
During the October 1997 site visit, the City presented new data showing that the thickness of the aggregate base course beneath six of the eight claimed streets (not including Ridgeline and Amalfi Drives) was less than the design thickness by an average of 1.0 inches. This number also includes corrections to errors in the City's summary sheet, and the aggregate base thickness data from the September, 1995 report by Petra Geotechnical, Inc. The City alleged that the reduction in aggregate base thickness was due to the aggregate base being forced into the clay subgrade because the subgrade was saturated by the rains from disaster 979. No cores were taken from Ridgeline Drive, but the cores taken from Amalfi Drive had an average aggregate base thickness of 5.4 inches as compared to a design thickness of 5.0 inches. Why would the thickness of the aggregate base beneath Amalfi Drive increase in thickness while the reverse was allegedly occurring beneath the other streets? The most likely answer is that the as-built aggregate base thicknesses were within approximately plus or minus one inch of the design thicknesses. This variance is not unusual in the construction industry. For example, the aggregate base thicknesses beneath Amalfi Drive ranged from 3.75 inches to 7.5 inches. It is also possible that the average as-built thickness of the aggregate base beneath Amalfi Drive was 6.4 inches, and that 1.0 inches of the aggregate base was forced into the clay. Neither hypothesis can be proven because the City could not find any as-built records of aggregate base thicknesses for these streets. Clay contamination of the aggregate base due to disaster 979 is an allegation that is not substantiated by the available aggregate base thickness data.
The City has claimed that the supporting capacity of the street pavements has been reduced (damaged) because the results of R-value tests of the aggregate base were less than the specified value. The R-value for a composite sample of aggregate base taken from the Sycamore Creek area streets in September 1997 was 69 which is less than the design value of 80. This was the case despite the fact that a grain size analysis demonstrated that there was no clay contamination of the aggregate base. One possible explanation for this lower R-value is that the rock particles comprising the aggregate base may not have a hardness that meets specifications. Hardness is measured by a prescribed "percentage wear" test. No hardness test results were presented by the City although the test is required by their specifications. Rock hardness is a serious concern in southern California because the top 10 to 20 feet, or more of many of the local rock formations are in various stages of decomposition due to weathering. R-value test results performed in 1994 on five samples of aggregate base from beneath Amalfi Drive ranged from 24 to 53. No grain size tests were performed so it is not possible to determine whether these samples were contaminated by clay. However, the grain size test on aggregate base taken from nearby San Rufino Drive in September, 1997 did not indicate any silt or clay contamination. Once again, a possible explanation of the below-specification R values is the use of partially decomposed rock for the aggregate base. This hypothesis cannot be verified because the City was not able to locate any results of R-value tests performed on aggregate base during construction. Clay contamination of the aggregate base due to disaster 979 is an allegation that is not substantiated by the available R-value and grain size data.
Subdrains
In 1996, the City installed subsurface drains beneath the streets of three areas in Turtle Rock: the Sierra Roja area, the Sycamore Creek area, and the Amalfi area. In order for the subsurface drains to be eligible under 44 CFR 206.226, they must be required by City standards as part of the repair of a public facility damaged by a declared disaster.
In an October 1, 1997, memorandum to FEMA contractor David Connors, the City states that there was no damage to the streets in the Sierra Roja area. The FEMA public assistance program provides assistance only when there has been damage to a public facility caused by the declared disaster. The subsurface drains in that area are, therefore, ineligible because no public facility was damaged.
As discussed above, there is no visible damage to the streets in the Sycamore Creek area, and damage to the aggregate base due to clay contamination from disaster 979 has not been demonstrated. Therefore, the subsurface drains in this area are also ineligible for the reason stated in the preceding paragraph.
The subsurface drains beneath the streets in the Amalfi area would be eligible provided that they were installed to meet an applicable standard. To be applicable, a standard must meet all five of the tests stated in 44 CFR 206.226(b). The requirement for the installation of subsurface drains is found in section 9.3 of the City's Grading Manual. A review of the documentato thty's requirements for subdrain installation do not meet all of the tests for an applicable standard.
The restoration of the damaged pavements in the Amalfi area is considered to be "repair" rather than "new construction." The Grading Manual does not specify whether it applies to new construction or repair. In such cases, it is FEMA's policy that the standard applies only to new construction. Therefore, the standard does not apply to the type of repair or restoration required.
In addition, it has been determined that the standard is not applied uniformly to all similar types of facilities. This determination was made because the building official has the discretion to require or not require subsurface drains depending on his view of the situation. It is FEMA's policy that this type of standard does not meet the uniformity test.
For the above reasons, the cost for the subdrains in the Amalfi area is not eligible.
CONCLUSIONS
The Orange County code requires that abandoned wells be grouted. The City is abandoning 26 wells that were installed as part of the response to disaster 979. Therefore, the cost of $8,543 for grouting or otherwise decommissioning these wells is eligible.
The only eligible visible pavement damage is for the four claimed streets in the Amalfi area. The other streets being claimed have no visible pavement damage that can be tied directly to disaster 979. The City's allegation that their streets have suffered damage because of clay contamination of the aggregate base is not supported by the data submitted with this appeal. The four streets in the Amalfi area are eligible for $366,413 in permanent restoration funding, which does not include contingencies.
The only subsurface drains that are candidates for eligibility are the ones installed in the Amalfi area. None of the other drains is associated with damaged pavement. It has been determined that the subsurface drains installed in the Amalfi area are not eligible because the standard requiring subsurface drains fails two of the tests for applicability.
A supplemental DSR needs to be prepared for $374,956 for abandoning the wells and repaving the streets.
Last updated