This page has not been translated into 简体中文. Visit the 简体中文 page for resources in that language.
Landslide and Road Repairs
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: Appeal Brief; Second Appeal; Economy Borough; FEMA-1093-DR-PA; PA 007-22264
Cross-Reference: DSR 91616; Landslide and Road Repairs
Summary: Following the winter floods of 1996 in Pennsylvania, FEMA prepared DSR 91616 on July 10, 1996, to repair a section of Shaffer Road and supporting hillside located in Economy Borough (Borough). The damage consisted of a landslide over Shaffer Road. The level of funding was $0 because the damage to the roadway and hillside could not be linked directly to the incident period. The area was saturated for three to four months after the disaster incident period and landslide-type activity in the hillside existed prior to the disaster event. On September 23, 1996, the State forwarded the first appeal. The Borough contended that prior to the disaster the road was stable and requested funding for stabilizing the landslide and reconstruction of the roadway. The appeal also contended that road repairs were necessary for emergency services and the unstable slope was a threat to a fire station located on top of the hillside. A Site Investigation Report prepared for the Borough by an engineering firm concluded that the hillside supporting the fire station was not stable in the long term and that the recent landslide at this site appeared to be continuation of a long-term, inherent instability problem. Another engineering report submitted with the appeal supported the conclusions of the first. The Regional Director denied the appeal on January 28, 1997, because the landslide was a pre-existing condition. The Regional Director indicated that FEMA's landslide policy does not provide for the stabilization of pre-existing landslide conditions. Rather, the policy provides that, in general, once a site is stabilized by others, the reconstruction of the roadway may be eligible for assistance. The State submitted the second appeal on June 13, 1997. The appeal was based on the contention that failure of an unstable condition can occur well after the disaster event, supported by information from a geotechnical-engineering book. The Borough also contends that the damaged road creates adverse impacts on providing emergency services.
Issue: Is the repair of the landslide and the roadway eligible?
Finding: No. The landslide resulted from a pre-existing unstable condition and the roadway damage occurred well after the incident period.
Rationale: Policy No. 4511.300 A, EX, Landslide Policy Relating to Public Facilities establishes that if the site is found to be unstable due to an identified, pre-existing condition, the applicant is responsible for stabilizing the site. Further, 44 CFR 206.223 requires that to be eligible, an item of work must be the direct result of the major disaster event.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1093 |
| Applicant | Economy Borough |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 007-22264 |
| PW ID# | 91616 |
| Date Signed | 1997-12-23T05:00:00 |
Cross-Reference: DSR 91616; Landslide and Road Repairs
Summary: Following the winter floods of 1996 in Pennsylvania, FEMA prepared DSR 91616 on July 10, 1996, to repair a section of Shaffer Road and supporting hillside located in Economy Borough (Borough). The damage consisted of a landslide over Shaffer Road. The level of funding was $0 because the damage to the roadway and hillside could not be linked directly to the incident period. The area was saturated for three to four months after the disaster incident period and landslide-type activity in the hillside existed prior to the disaster event. On September 23, 1996, the State forwarded the first appeal. The Borough contended that prior to the disaster the road was stable and requested funding for stabilizing the landslide and reconstruction of the roadway. The appeal also contended that road repairs were necessary for emergency services and the unstable slope was a threat to a fire station located on top of the hillside. A Site Investigation Report prepared for the Borough by an engineering firm concluded that the hillside supporting the fire station was not stable in the long term and that the recent landslide at this site appeared to be continuation of a long-term, inherent instability problem. Another engineering report submitted with the appeal supported the conclusions of the first. The Regional Director denied the appeal on January 28, 1997, because the landslide was a pre-existing condition. The Regional Director indicated that FEMA's landslide policy does not provide for the stabilization of pre-existing landslide conditions. Rather, the policy provides that, in general, once a site is stabilized by others, the reconstruction of the roadway may be eligible for assistance. The State submitted the second appeal on June 13, 1997. The appeal was based on the contention that failure of an unstable condition can occur well after the disaster event, supported by information from a geotechnical-engineering book. The Borough also contends that the damaged road creates adverse impacts on providing emergency services.
Issue: Is the repair of the landslide and the roadway eligible?
Finding: No. The landslide resulted from a pre-existing unstable condition and the roadway damage occurred well after the incident period.
Rationale: Policy No. 4511.300 A, EX, Landslide Policy Relating to Public Facilities establishes that if the site is found to be unstable due to an identified, pre-existing condition, the applicant is responsible for stabilizing the site. Further, 44 CFR 206.223 requires that to be eligible, an item of work must be the direct result of the major disaster event.
Appeal Letter
December 23, 1997
Mr. Charles F. Wynne
Governor's Authorized Representative
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
P.O. Box 3321
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105
Dear Mr. Wynne:
This is in response to your letter dated June 13, 1997, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). With that letter, you forwarded a second appeal of damage survey report (DSR) 91616 under FEMA-1093-DR-PA on behalf of Economy Borough (Borough), requesting that FEMA fund the repair of Shaffer Road and the associated landslide.
On July 10, 1996, FEMA prepared DSR 91616 to repair damage to Shaffer Road and the supporting hillside. The level of funding was $0, because landslide activity existed prior to the disaster and damages to the roadway occurred well after the declared disaster event. The State forwarded the first appeal on September 23, 1996, requesting funding for the stabilization of the landslide and the reconstruction of the roadway. The basis of this appeal was that the damage resulted from the disaster event. The applicant submitted road maintenance logs and a statement by a Commonwealth of Pennsylvania inspector to support their position. A supplemental report from an engineering firm was also submitted in support of the appeal. The report indicated, however, that the landslide appeared to be a continuation of a long-term, inherent instability problem. The Regional Director denied the appeal on January 28, 1997, pursuant to FEMA's Policy No. 4511.300 A, EX, Landslide Policy Relating to Public Facilities, because the damage occurred in a pre-existing landslide area.
The State submitted the second appeal on June 13, 1997. The issue of this appeal is whether the delayed failure of the hillside was the result of an unstable soil condition, which developed as a direct result of the disaster. The applicant asserts that precipitation from the disaster super-saturated the soil which resulted in the landslide. The applicant submitted information from a geotechnical engineering book to support their claim. The Borough also contends that the damaged road creates a time consuming detour delay for emergency service vehicles. Regarding the first issue, the engineering report submitted with the appeal states in part, ".the site.displays evidence of historic slides.Thus the site is inherently landslide-prone. The long-ago construction of Shaffer Road.decreased the slope stability." This report supports the fact that the Shaffer Road area was unstable prior to the disaster. The information from the geotechnical engineering text explained the mechanics of how a rotational slide fails. We do not dispute this information. The salient point to consider is that the area was unstable prior to the disaster. The specific event that triggers the eventual landslide in an unstable area is less important when determining eligibility for disaster assistance. FEMA does not fund the repair or stabilization of historic landslide areas.
The applicant states that failure to repair Shaffer Road will compromise the Borough's ability to provide emergency services to the residents at the lower end of the road because of time consuming detours. While we recognize the challenge that the detours present to the community, there is public access to those properties. Based on my review of this appeal, I have concluded that the facts of this case do not qualify it for Federal disaster assistance. Therefore, I am denying the appeal.
Please inform the applicant of my determination. The applicant may submit a third appeal to the Director of FEMA, through your office and the Regional Director, in accordance with 44 CFR 206.206. A third appeal must be submitted within 60 days after receipt of this determination.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
cc: Rita A. Calvan
Regional Director
FEMA Region III
Mr. Charles F. Wynne
Governor's Authorized Representative
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
P.O. Box 3321
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105
Dear Mr. Wynne:
This is in response to your letter dated June 13, 1997, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). With that letter, you forwarded a second appeal of damage survey report (DSR) 91616 under FEMA-1093-DR-PA on behalf of Economy Borough (Borough), requesting that FEMA fund the repair of Shaffer Road and the associated landslide.
On July 10, 1996, FEMA prepared DSR 91616 to repair damage to Shaffer Road and the supporting hillside. The level of funding was $0, because landslide activity existed prior to the disaster and damages to the roadway occurred well after the declared disaster event. The State forwarded the first appeal on September 23, 1996, requesting funding for the stabilization of the landslide and the reconstruction of the roadway. The basis of this appeal was that the damage resulted from the disaster event. The applicant submitted road maintenance logs and a statement by a Commonwealth of Pennsylvania inspector to support their position. A supplemental report from an engineering firm was also submitted in support of the appeal. The report indicated, however, that the landslide appeared to be a continuation of a long-term, inherent instability problem. The Regional Director denied the appeal on January 28, 1997, pursuant to FEMA's Policy No. 4511.300 A, EX, Landslide Policy Relating to Public Facilities, because the damage occurred in a pre-existing landslide area.
The State submitted the second appeal on June 13, 1997. The issue of this appeal is whether the delayed failure of the hillside was the result of an unstable soil condition, which developed as a direct result of the disaster. The applicant asserts that precipitation from the disaster super-saturated the soil which resulted in the landslide. The applicant submitted information from a geotechnical engineering book to support their claim. The Borough also contends that the damaged road creates a time consuming detour delay for emergency service vehicles. Regarding the first issue, the engineering report submitted with the appeal states in part, ".the site.displays evidence of historic slides.Thus the site is inherently landslide-prone. The long-ago construction of Shaffer Road.decreased the slope stability." This report supports the fact that the Shaffer Road area was unstable prior to the disaster. The information from the geotechnical engineering text explained the mechanics of how a rotational slide fails. We do not dispute this information. The salient point to consider is that the area was unstable prior to the disaster. The specific event that triggers the eventual landslide in an unstable area is less important when determining eligibility for disaster assistance. FEMA does not fund the repair or stabilization of historic landslide areas.
The applicant states that failure to repair Shaffer Road will compromise the Borough's ability to provide emergency services to the residents at the lower end of the road because of time consuming detours. While we recognize the challenge that the detours present to the community, there is public access to those properties. Based on my review of this appeal, I have concluded that the facts of this case do not qualify it for Federal disaster assistance. Therefore, I am denying the appeal.
Please inform the applicant of my determination. The applicant may submit a third appeal to the Director of FEMA, through your office and the Regional Director, in accordance with 44 CFR 206.206. A third appeal must be submitted within 60 days after receipt of this determination.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
cc: Rita A. Calvan
Regional Director
FEMA Region III