Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Brief
Citation: FEMA-1646-DR-CA; Marin County
PA ID# 041-99041-05; Marin County
PW ID# Project Worksheet 775; Taurus Drive
Summary: Marin County (Applicant) is appealing the Federal Emergency Management
Agencys (FEMAs) denial of Public Assistance for emergency protective measures to stabilize a slope on Doe Hill Fire Road. FEMA prepared PW 775 for emergency protective measures (category B), to remove debris and stabilize the collapsed hillside to assure continued access for emergency vehicles on Doe Hill Fire Road and to assure the integrity of the drainage facilities. FEMA funds emergency protective measures to eliminate or reduce an immediate threat to life, public health, or safety, and significant damage to improved public or private property. FEMA defines an immediate threat as the threat of additional damage or destruction that could reasonably be expected to occur within five years. FEMAs Landslide Assessment Report stated that no immediate threat existed and did not recommend funding for emergency protective measures or a geotechnical investigation. FEMA obligated PW 775 for $0 because it determined that the slope failure did not pose an immediate threat to down slope facilities.
In its first appeal, the Applicant requested that FEMA prepare a version of PW 775 to fund the geotechnical investigation of the landslide site and slope repair. It stated that its geotechnical report indicated that the landslide occurred during the disaster incident period; the change in degree of slope above the slope failure could cause the steeper uphill slope area to fail and result in a potentially larger landslide; and recommended a cost effective method of repair. The Deputy Regional Administrator denied the Applicants first appeal because FEMAs Landslide Assessment Report stated that no immediate threat existed.
In its second appeal, the Applicant stated that FEMAs Landslide Assessment Report only stated that no immediate threat existed without providing further justification or explanation. It re-submitted its geotechnical report, which was considered in the first appeal, and included a geotechnical memorandum that reiterated its position that there was an immediate threat to the Applicants facility as well as nearby private property. Finally, the Applicant stated that the scope of work met the eligibility criteria outlined in FEMAs Response and Recovery Policy 9524.2, Landslide Policy Relating to Public Facilities, dated August 17, 1999.
FEMA funds emergency protective measures to stabilize slopes and hills to eliminate an immediate threat to life, public health, safety, or significant damage to improved public or private property. FEMA defines an immediate threat as the threat of additional damage or destruction from an event that can reasonably be expected to occur within five years. The Applicant has not submitted any documentation that demonstrates that an immediate threat, as defined by FEMA, of additional damage within five years exists.
Issues: Are the costs eligible for Public Assistance funding as emergency protective measures?
Findings: No. The Applicant has not demonstrated that an immediate threat existed.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.225(a)(3).