Garin Road Landslide
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation: FEMA-1155-DR-CA; Monterey County DPW, DSR 98809, Garin Road Landslide
Cross Reference:
Geotechnical Study, Immediate Threat, Emergency Protective Measures
Summary: As a result of the 1996/1997 winter storms, a landslide occurred within the privately owned upslope hillside of Garin Road. The Monterey County DPW requested funding for a geotechnical study to evaluate the condition of the slope and recommend repairs. The FEMA inspector prepared Category G DSR 98808 for $4,800 to fund the study, however, the FEMA reviewer determined that as private property, the hillside was not eligible for restoration, such that a study to recommend associated repair efforts would also not be eligible. The subgrantee submitted a first appeal asserting that the condition of the hillside posed a threat to the roadway and adjacent residences, and therefore a geotechnical study to assess the potential threat should be eligible. The Acting Regional Director concluded that as the hillside is privately owned, and therefore not an eligible facility, funding could not be provided to assess the stability of the slope. Additionally, the Acting Regional Director determined that there was not sufficient evidence to support that the condition of the slope posed a threat to the roadway or the adjacent residences, such that there was no basis to fund a geotechnical study as part of emergency protective measures. The subgrantee's second appeal again states that the purpose of the geotechnical study was to assess the threat posed by the hillside on Garin Road, not for repair of private property. The completed geotechnical study, dated May 20, 1997, is provided in support of the appeal.
Issues: 1) Is the geotechnical study eligible for funding?
Findings: 1) The failed hillside is privately owned. The documentation provided with the second appeal does not support that the condition of the failed hillside posed an immediate threat to the roadway or the adjacent residences. Further, the completed geotechnical report did not specifically address the potential for further movement of the hillside and the recommended repair methods were permanent in nature, exceeding the intent of emergency work.
Rationale: Private property is only eligible for emergency work funding, and only if the condition of site poses an "immediate threat" of additional damage to improved public or private property. 44 CFR 206.221(c) Immediate Threat, 44 CFR 206.225 Emergency Work
As a result of the late winter storms of 1996 (December 1996 - January 1997), a landslide occurred within private property, upslope of Garin Road. Debris from the failed slope was deposited onto the roadway, partially blocking the road. At the request of the Monterey County Department of Public Works (subgrantee), an inspection team, consisting of representatives from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the California Office of Emergency Services (OES) and the subgrantee, visited the site on February 21, 1997, to assess eligible funding under the Public Assistance program.
The FEMA inspector prepared Category G Damage Survey Report (DSR) 98809 in the amount of $4,800 to fund a geotechnical study to assess the condition of the hillside and potential for further movement. The FEMA reviewer, however, determined that the hillside itself, being private property, is not an eligible facility and is, therefore, not eligible for permanent repair. Accordingly, funding for an engineering study to evaluate potential repair methods would also not be eligible. DSR 98809 was determined to be ineligible for assistance. The FEMA reviewer noted on the DSR that if the cost for removing debris from the roadway exceeded $1,000, a Category A Debris Removal DSR could be requested. According to the subgrantee, related debris removal was included in DSRs 98820 and 98838. These DSRs were prepared for county wide debris removal in the lump sum amounts of $4,534 and $25,460, respectively.
First Appeal
The subgrantee submitted a first appeal of FEMA's determination to deny funding for the geotechnical study, transmitted by OES in a letter dated June 13, 1997. The subgrantee stated that the geotechnical study was necessary to evaluate the "slope stability and possible corrective action" of the hillside in order to restore the road. The subgrantee asserted that the failed slope posed a hazardous condition to Garin Road and possibly to residences on the opposite side of the road. It was understood that the geotechnical study had been completed in advance of the first appeal submittal, yet the report was not submitted in support of the subgrantee's appeal. The Acting Regional Director concluded that as the hillside is privately owned, and therefore not an eligible facility, funding could not be provided to assess the stability of the slope. Additionally, the Acting Regional Director determined that there was not sufficient evidence to support that the condition of the slope posed a threat to the roadway or the adjacent residences, such that there was no basis to fund a geotechnical study as part of emergency protective measures. The first appeal was denied in a letter dated March 27, 1998.
Second Appeal
The subgrantee's second appeal, transmitted by OES in a letter dated July 20, 1998, states that the purpose of the geotechnical study was to assess the threat posed by the hillside to Garin Road, not for repair of private property. The subgrantee noted that debris from the slide continued to fall onto the roadway during the FEMA-1203 disaster event (winter 1998), therefore, action had to be taken. The geotechnical study, dated May 20, 1997, is included with the appeal.
DISCUSSION
The subgrantee asserts that the failed condition of the hillside adjacent to Garin Road posed a threat to motorists and possibly to residences on the opposite side of Garin Road due to debris falling onto the roadway. The subgrantee is requesting funding for a geotechnical study to assess the stability of the slope. A copy of the completed study, prepared by Steven Raas & Associates, Inc., is provided by the subgrantee.
According to the Stafford Act, FEMA assistance regarding disaster damaged private property, such as this hillside, is limited to providing debris removal activities (Category A) and emergency protective measures (Category B). Permanent restoration of private property is not eligible for Public assistance funding. It is noted that DSR 98809 was prepared as Category G, suggesting that the intent of the geotechnical study was to evaluate the stability of the slope and recommend repair that would be permanent in nature. On this basis, a geotechnical study of the private property slope would not be eligible.
To be eligible for emergency work funding (Category A and B), the subgrantee must demonstrate that the condition of the hillside posed an "immediate threat" to health or safety, or to improved public or private property, such as the adjacent road or residences. Immediate threat is defined in 44 CFR 206.221(c) as a threat of additional damage or destruction from an event that can reasonably be expected to occur within five years. Such threats are often established through a geotechnical assessment which may be eligible for FEMA assistance, provided the scope of the study specifically addresses whether the disaster has created an unstable condition of the slope such that it is posing an "immediate threat" to roadway, and if so, characterizes the threat and recommends appropriate cost-effective emergency measures to mitigate the hazard. Any scope of work performed beyond this intent is not eligible for FEMA assistance.
It is further noted that eligible emergency protective measures are limited in scope to those efforts which specifically reduce the identified threat. The intent of the emergency measures is to provide a temporary means of reducing the threat until permanent repairs are implemented. Examples of eligible emergency work to protect a roadway from upslope debris generally include temporary filling (buttressing) or fencing at the toe of the slope to prevent further movement of the failed soil mass toward the road, excavation of the failed mass material, and/or placement of erosion control fabric (plastic sheeting) over the slide area. Measures taken beyond this level of effort are generally considered permanent in nature. As indicated above, permanent restoration, including overall slope stabilization, is not eligible for Public Assistance funding.
The geotechnical report prepared for the subgrantee has been reviewed as part of this second appeal analysis. The scope of the geotechnical study included review of available data, field explorations and laboratory testing, engineering analyses and recommendations, and preparation of the report. The report evaluated the geologic condition at the site and the nature of the slope failure, but did not specifically address potential continued movement of the failed mass or define the potential of any immediate threat to improved property. Therefore, based on this report, the presence of an "immediate threat" to the roadway or other property has not been clearly demonstrated. Additionally, the report provided recommendations for slope restoration, involving grading of the overall slope and installation of subdrains. This scope of repair is considered to represent permanent restoration of the slope, rather than the intent of emergency protective measures as described above. Therefore, it is concluded that the scope of the geotechnical report did not specifically assess the potential threat posed by the hillside, nor recommend repair efforts consistent with the intent of emergency protective measures. Since the scope of the report exceeded the focus of emergency response, it can not be funded through Category B work.
It is noted that FEMA regulations stipulate that emergency protective measures must be completed within six months of the disaster, plus approved extensions. The subgrantee had not, however, initiated repair work for more than one year after the disaster event, and only after the FEMA-1203 event in the winter of 1998. This delay in providing emergency measures does not support their concerroher, as stated above, "immediate threat" is defined as a threat of additional damage or destruction from an event that can reasonably be expected to occur within five years. Generally, this means that emergency protective measures are eligible to protect the site from damages that could occur due to heavy rains and flooding conditions representative of a five year flood event. Damages resulting from a declared disaster event, which is significantly greater in magnitude than that expected from a five year event, do not support the position that the condition of the slope posed a threat from a five year event.
CONCLUSION
The failed hillside is privately owned. The documentation provided with the second appeal does not support that the condition of the failed hillside posed an immediate threat to the roadway or the adjacent residences. Further, the completed geotechnical report for which the subgrantee is requested funding did not specifically address the potential for further movement of the hillside and the recommended repair methods were permanent in nature, exceeding the intent of emergency work. Accordingly, funding for the geotechnical study is not eligible for emergency work funding. The subgrantee's appeal is denied.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1155-DR |
| Applicant | Monterey County Department of Public Works |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 053-00000 |
| PW ID# | 98809 |
| Date Signed | 1999-02-08T05:00:00 |
Cross Reference:
Geotechnical Study, Immediate Threat, Emergency Protective Measures
Summary: As a result of the 1996/1997 winter storms, a landslide occurred within the privately owned upslope hillside of Garin Road. The Monterey County DPW requested funding for a geotechnical study to evaluate the condition of the slope and recommend repairs. The FEMA inspector prepared Category G DSR 98808 for $4,800 to fund the study, however, the FEMA reviewer determined that as private property, the hillside was not eligible for restoration, such that a study to recommend associated repair efforts would also not be eligible. The subgrantee submitted a first appeal asserting that the condition of the hillside posed a threat to the roadway and adjacent residences, and therefore a geotechnical study to assess the potential threat should be eligible. The Acting Regional Director concluded that as the hillside is privately owned, and therefore not an eligible facility, funding could not be provided to assess the stability of the slope. Additionally, the Acting Regional Director determined that there was not sufficient evidence to support that the condition of the slope posed a threat to the roadway or the adjacent residences, such that there was no basis to fund a geotechnical study as part of emergency protective measures. The subgrantee's second appeal again states that the purpose of the geotechnical study was to assess the threat posed by the hillside on Garin Road, not for repair of private property. The completed geotechnical study, dated May 20, 1997, is provided in support of the appeal.
Issues: 1) Is the geotechnical study eligible for funding?
Findings: 1) The failed hillside is privately owned. The documentation provided with the second appeal does not support that the condition of the failed hillside posed an immediate threat to the roadway or the adjacent residences. Further, the completed geotechnical report did not specifically address the potential for further movement of the hillside and the recommended repair methods were permanent in nature, exceeding the intent of emergency work.
Rationale: Private property is only eligible for emergency work funding, and only if the condition of site poses an "immediate threat" of additional damage to improved public or private property. 44 CFR 206.221(c) Immediate Threat, 44 CFR 206.225 Emergency Work
Appeal Letter
February 8, 1999
Mr. D. A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
P.O. Box 419023
Rancho Cordova, California 95741
Dear Mr. Christian:
This is in response to your July 20, 1998, submittal of the Monterey County Department of Public Works' second appeal of DSR 98808 (FEMA-1155-DR-CA). The subgrantee is requesting funding for a geotechnical report associated with a landslide on private property adjacent to Garin Road. FEMA denied funding for this study on the basis that the landslide occurred on private property and there was not sufficient evidence to support that an immediate threat was present.
The failed hillside is privately owned. The available documentation does not support that the condition of the failed hillside posed an immediate threat to the roadway or the adjacent residences. Further, the completed geotechnical report for which the subgrantee requested funding did not specifically address the potential for further movement of the hillside and the recommended repair methods were permanent in nature, exceeding the intent of emergency work. As explained in the enclosed analysis, funding for the geotechnical study is not eligible for emergency work funding. The subgrantee's appeal is denied.
Please inform the applicant of my determination. In accordance with the appeal procedure governing appeal decisions made on or after May 8, 1998, my decision constitutes the final decision on this matter. The current appeal procedure was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1998. It amends 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Richard A. Buck
Disaster Recovery Manager
FEMA Region IX
Mr. D. A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
P.O. Box 419023
Rancho Cordova, California 95741
Dear Mr. Christian:
This is in response to your July 20, 1998, submittal of the Monterey County Department of Public Works' second appeal of DSR 98808 (FEMA-1155-DR-CA). The subgrantee is requesting funding for a geotechnical report associated with a landslide on private property adjacent to Garin Road. FEMA denied funding for this study on the basis that the landslide occurred on private property and there was not sufficient evidence to support that an immediate threat was present.
The failed hillside is privately owned. The available documentation does not support that the condition of the failed hillside posed an immediate threat to the roadway or the adjacent residences. Further, the completed geotechnical report for which the subgrantee requested funding did not specifically address the potential for further movement of the hillside and the recommended repair methods were permanent in nature, exceeding the intent of emergency work. As explained in the enclosed analysis, funding for the geotechnical study is not eligible for emergency work funding. The subgrantee's appeal is denied.
Please inform the applicant of my determination. In accordance with the appeal procedure governing appeal decisions made on or after May 8, 1998, my decision constitutes the final decision on this matter. The current appeal procedure was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1998. It amends 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Richard A. Buck
Disaster Recovery Manager
FEMA Region IX
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUNDAs a result of the late winter storms of 1996 (December 1996 - January 1997), a landslide occurred within private property, upslope of Garin Road. Debris from the failed slope was deposited onto the roadway, partially blocking the road. At the request of the Monterey County Department of Public Works (subgrantee), an inspection team, consisting of representatives from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the California Office of Emergency Services (OES) and the subgrantee, visited the site on February 21, 1997, to assess eligible funding under the Public Assistance program.
The FEMA inspector prepared Category G Damage Survey Report (DSR) 98809 in the amount of $4,800 to fund a geotechnical study to assess the condition of the hillside and potential for further movement. The FEMA reviewer, however, determined that the hillside itself, being private property, is not an eligible facility and is, therefore, not eligible for permanent repair. Accordingly, funding for an engineering study to evaluate potential repair methods would also not be eligible. DSR 98809 was determined to be ineligible for assistance. The FEMA reviewer noted on the DSR that if the cost for removing debris from the roadway exceeded $1,000, a Category A Debris Removal DSR could be requested. According to the subgrantee, related debris removal was included in DSRs 98820 and 98838. These DSRs were prepared for county wide debris removal in the lump sum amounts of $4,534 and $25,460, respectively.
First Appeal
The subgrantee submitted a first appeal of FEMA's determination to deny funding for the geotechnical study, transmitted by OES in a letter dated June 13, 1997. The subgrantee stated that the geotechnical study was necessary to evaluate the "slope stability and possible corrective action" of the hillside in order to restore the road. The subgrantee asserted that the failed slope posed a hazardous condition to Garin Road and possibly to residences on the opposite side of the road. It was understood that the geotechnical study had been completed in advance of the first appeal submittal, yet the report was not submitted in support of the subgrantee's appeal. The Acting Regional Director concluded that as the hillside is privately owned, and therefore not an eligible facility, funding could not be provided to assess the stability of the slope. Additionally, the Acting Regional Director determined that there was not sufficient evidence to support that the condition of the slope posed a threat to the roadway or the adjacent residences, such that there was no basis to fund a geotechnical study as part of emergency protective measures. The first appeal was denied in a letter dated March 27, 1998.
Second Appeal
The subgrantee's second appeal, transmitted by OES in a letter dated July 20, 1998, states that the purpose of the geotechnical study was to assess the threat posed by the hillside to Garin Road, not for repair of private property. The subgrantee noted that debris from the slide continued to fall onto the roadway during the FEMA-1203 disaster event (winter 1998), therefore, action had to be taken. The geotechnical study, dated May 20, 1997, is included with the appeal.
DISCUSSION
The subgrantee asserts that the failed condition of the hillside adjacent to Garin Road posed a threat to motorists and possibly to residences on the opposite side of Garin Road due to debris falling onto the roadway. The subgrantee is requesting funding for a geotechnical study to assess the stability of the slope. A copy of the completed study, prepared by Steven Raas & Associates, Inc., is provided by the subgrantee.
According to the Stafford Act, FEMA assistance regarding disaster damaged private property, such as this hillside, is limited to providing debris removal activities (Category A) and emergency protective measures (Category B). Permanent restoration of private property is not eligible for Public assistance funding. It is noted that DSR 98809 was prepared as Category G, suggesting that the intent of the geotechnical study was to evaluate the stability of the slope and recommend repair that would be permanent in nature. On this basis, a geotechnical study of the private property slope would not be eligible.
To be eligible for emergency work funding (Category A and B), the subgrantee must demonstrate that the condition of the hillside posed an "immediate threat" to health or safety, or to improved public or private property, such as the adjacent road or residences. Immediate threat is defined in 44 CFR 206.221(c) as a threat of additional damage or destruction from an event that can reasonably be expected to occur within five years. Such threats are often established through a geotechnical assessment which may be eligible for FEMA assistance, provided the scope of the study specifically addresses whether the disaster has created an unstable condition of the slope such that it is posing an "immediate threat" to roadway, and if so, characterizes the threat and recommends appropriate cost-effective emergency measures to mitigate the hazard. Any scope of work performed beyond this intent is not eligible for FEMA assistance.
It is further noted that eligible emergency protective measures are limited in scope to those efforts which specifically reduce the identified threat. The intent of the emergency measures is to provide a temporary means of reducing the threat until permanent repairs are implemented. Examples of eligible emergency work to protect a roadway from upslope debris generally include temporary filling (buttressing) or fencing at the toe of the slope to prevent further movement of the failed soil mass toward the road, excavation of the failed mass material, and/or placement of erosion control fabric (plastic sheeting) over the slide area. Measures taken beyond this level of effort are generally considered permanent in nature. As indicated above, permanent restoration, including overall slope stabilization, is not eligible for Public Assistance funding.
The geotechnical report prepared for the subgrantee has been reviewed as part of this second appeal analysis. The scope of the geotechnical study included review of available data, field explorations and laboratory testing, engineering analyses and recommendations, and preparation of the report. The report evaluated the geologic condition at the site and the nature of the slope failure, but did not specifically address potential continued movement of the failed mass or define the potential of any immediate threat to improved property. Therefore, based on this report, the presence of an "immediate threat" to the roadway or other property has not been clearly demonstrated. Additionally, the report provided recommendations for slope restoration, involving grading of the overall slope and installation of subdrains. This scope of repair is considered to represent permanent restoration of the slope, rather than the intent of emergency protective measures as described above. Therefore, it is concluded that the scope of the geotechnical report did not specifically assess the potential threat posed by the hillside, nor recommend repair efforts consistent with the intent of emergency protective measures. Since the scope of the report exceeded the focus of emergency response, it can not be funded through Category B work.
It is noted that FEMA regulations stipulate that emergency protective measures must be completed within six months of the disaster, plus approved extensions. The subgrantee had not, however, initiated repair work for more than one year after the disaster event, and only after the FEMA-1203 event in the winter of 1998. This delay in providing emergency measures does not support their concerroher, as stated above, "immediate threat" is defined as a threat of additional damage or destruction from an event that can reasonably be expected to occur within five years. Generally, this means that emergency protective measures are eligible to protect the site from damages that could occur due to heavy rains and flooding conditions representative of a five year flood event. Damages resulting from a declared disaster event, which is significantly greater in magnitude than that expected from a five year event, do not support the position that the condition of the slope posed a threat from a five year event.
CONCLUSION
The failed hillside is privately owned. The documentation provided with the second appeal does not support that the condition of the failed hillside posed an immediate threat to the roadway or the adjacent residences. Further, the completed geotechnical report for which the subgrantee is requested funding did not specifically address the potential for further movement of the hillside and the recommended repair methods were permanent in nature, exceeding the intent of emergency work. Accordingly, funding for the geotechnical study is not eligible for emergency work funding. The subgrantee's appeal is denied.
Last updated