alert - warning

This page has not been translated into Español. Visit the Español page for resources in that language.

Taurus Drive

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DesastreFEMA-1646-DR
ApplicantMarin County
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#041-99041-05
PW ID#Project Worksheet 775
Date Signed2008-02-12T05:00:00
Citation: FEMA-1646-DR-CA; Marin County
Summary: Marin County (Applicant) is appealing the Federal Emergency Management
Agency’s (FEMA’s) 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. FEMA’s 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 Applicant’s first appeal because FEMA’s Landslide Assessment Report stated that no immediate threat existed.

In its second appeal, the Applicant stated that FEMA’s 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 Applicant’s facility as well as nearby private property. Finally, the Applicant stated that the scope of work met the eligibility criteria outlined in FEMA’s 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).

Appeal Letter

February 12, 2008

Paul Jacks
Governor’s Authorized Representative
Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
Response and Recovery Division
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, CA 95655

Re: Second Appeal–Marin County, PA ID 041-99041-00
Taurus Drive, FEMA-1646-DR-CA, Project Worksheet (PW) 775

Dear Mr. Jacks:

This is in response to your letter dated September 6, 2007, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Marin County (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of Public Assistance for emergency protective measures to stabilize a slope on Doe Hill Fire Road.

On July 25, 2006, FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (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. FEMA’s Landslide Assessment Report dated August 3, 2006, stated that no immediate threat existed and did not recommend funding for emergency protective measures or a geotechnical investigation. FEMA did not obligate funds for PW 775 because it determined that slope failure did not pose an “immediate threat” to down slope facilities.

In its first appeal letter dated November 20, 2006, 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 dated November 16, 2006, 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. In a letter dated April 16, 2007, the Deputy Regional Administrator denied the Applicant’s first appeal because FEMA’s Landslide Assessment Report stated that no immediate threat existed.

In a letter dated July 6, 2007, the Applicant filed its second appeal. With its second appeal, the Applicant stated that FEMA’s Landslide Assessment Report only stated that no immediate threat existed without providing further justification or explanation. It re-submitted its geotechnical report dated November 16, 2006, which was considered in the first appeal, and included a geotechnical memorandum dated July 6, 2007, that reiterated its position that there was an immediate threat to the Applicant’s facility as well as nearby private property. Finally, the Applicant stated that the scope of work met the eligibility criteria outlined in FEMA’s Response and Recovery Policy 9524.2, Landslide Policy Relating to Public Facilities, dated August 17, 1999. In its transmittal letter dated September 6, 2007, the California Office of Emergency Services stated that the Applicant had demonstrated that it used cost-effective and necessary measures, as determined by the geotechnical report, to eliminate the immediate threat caused by the slope failure. The actual cost of the geotechnical investigation, engineering and design, and repair of slope failure is $15,516.

We have reviewed all the information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the Deputy Regional Administrator’s decision on the first appeal is consistent with program regulations and policies. Therefore, I am denying the second appeal.

Please inform the Applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.

Sincerely,

/s/

Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate

cc: Nancy Ward
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IX