Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Summary
PA ID# 013-21796; City of El Cerrito
DSR ID# 95376; Wildcat Drive
Citation: FEMA-1155-DR-CA; City of El Cerrito, Wildcat Drive, DSR 95376
Cross Reference: Pre-Existing Condition, Landslide Policy, Emergency Protective Measures
Summary: As a result of the 1997 winter storms, a landslide occurred within the downslope embankment adjacent to Wildcat Drive. One lane of roadway and the underlying embankment was lost due to the slide. The FEMA inspector prepared Category B DSR 95374 ($80,620) to provide stabilization of the remaining one lane of roadway in order to provide temporary emergency access to adjacent homes. Additionally, the subgrantee requested funding in the amount of $337,300 for stabilization of the embankment to restore the second lane of roadway. FEMA determined that the slope failure was due to a pre-existing unstable condition such that stabilization of the embankment would be the responsibility of the subgrantee. FEMA prepared Category C DSR 95376 ($15,046) to fund repair of the pavement and subgrade, and curb and gutter. The DSR was suspended pending the subgrantee's completion of stabilization efforts. The subgrantee's first appeal asserted that the stabilization effort necessary to restore the second lane of roadway is (1) consistent with the Landslide Policy in that this work is integral to the support of the roadway, and (2) that it should be eligible as an emergency protective measure as it is necessary to provide suitable access for fire equipment. The Regional Director upheld the previous determination that the stabilization of a pre-existing unstable condition is not eligible, and that the scope of work provided in DSR 95374 was sufficient to reduce potential threats of additional damage. The subgrantee's second appeal restates their position of the first appeal.
- Is stabilization of the failed embankment eligible for permanent restoration?
- Is stabilization of the failed embankment eligible as an emergency protective measure?
- Is the scope of work provided for in DSR 95376 sufficient to restore the eligible facility?
- No. The slope failure was caused in part by a pre-existing unstable condition. Stabilization of the hillside is the responsibility of the subgrantee.
- No. Reconstruction of the second lane of roadway and associated slope stabilization is not necessary to reduce a threat. Sufficient emergency measures were provided for in DSR 95374.
- No. Placement of engineered fill beneath the roadway, inside the retaining structure, is also an eligible scope item, as a portion of the embankment was man-made.
Rationale: Landslide Policy, 44 CFR 206.225 Emergency Work