Joplin Boy's Ranch
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: Appeal Brief; Second Appeal; Orange County; FEMA-1203-DR-CA;
PA ID #059-00000
Cross-Reference: DSR 95112; Landslide; Slope Failure; Permanent Restoration
Summary: As a result of the El Ni?o storms and heavy rains in February of 1998, a landslide occurred downslope of the access road on the Joplin Boy's Ranch, damaging approximately 100 linear feet of roadway. On September 15, 1998, FEMA prepared DSR 95112 for $3,369 to repair the road surface and to replace 148 cubic yards (cu. yds.) of unclassified fill to restore the sub-base of the road facility. During the course of a geotechnical review, FEMA determined that the landslide was within an area of small to moderate older landslides and limited to natural ground and bedrock. Based on FEMA's Landslide Policy, stabilization of the failed slope was determined to be the responsibility of the County. The subgrantee did not concur with the DSR and requested an independent FEMA/State review of the site. The FEMA/State team inspected the site and concluded that the site was unstable and the subgrantee had restored temporary access to the sanitary treatment pond through a gravel road that extended across the ball field. The State informed the subgrantee of the results of the independent FEMA/state review in a letter dated January 6, 1999. FEMA subsequently issued Supplement 15 on March 15, 1999, wherein it stated that DSR 95112 was suspended pending the subgrantee stabilizing the site. On April 26, 1999, the subgrantee forwarded a letter to the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services appealing FEMA's determination of an eligible scope of work. Although the County acknowledged the existence of a landslide at this location, it contended that at least 10% of the damage was caused by surface erosion after the capacity of the storm drainage system was exceeded, but before the landslide occurred. Therefore, a reasonable amount of natural ground to support the facility should include an additional 1,704 cu. yds. of fill. The County also requests the costs for geotechnical services on the basis of Section 403 of the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b). On October 4, 1999, the Regional Director denied the appeal stating that the County's costs for geotechnical services and the replacement of lost natural ground were not eligible because the purpose is permanent site stabilization. In accordance with the FEMA Landslide Policy, it is the responsibility of the subgrantee to provide a stable site. The subgrantee's second appeal restates its position of the first appeal and withdraws its request for an alternate project.
Issues: 1. Are the costs of slope stabilization efforts for the roadway embankment eligible for funding?
2. Are the costs of erosion repairs eligible for funding?
3. Are the costs of the geotechnical services eligible for funding?
Findings: 1. No. The slope failure was caused in part by a pre-existing unstable geologic condition. Stabilization of the hillside is the responsibility of the subgrantee. However, the additional fill necessary to restore the integral ground of the facility in the amount of 1,556 cu. yds. is eligible.
2. No. We view the erosion and landslide as a single continuous event, not as two consecutive events.
3. Yes. The county was concerned that the landslide might threaten facilities, but they did not demonstrate that it was threatening any facilities. However the portions of the geotechnical services that relate to determining the stability of the site before and after restoration are eligible and are estimated to be 55% of the total geotechnical services costs.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1203-DR |
| Applicant | Orange County |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 059-00000 |
| PW ID# | 95112 |
| Date Signed | 2000-11-07T05:00:00 |
PA ID #059-00000
Cross-Reference: DSR 95112; Landslide; Slope Failure; Permanent Restoration
Summary: As a result of the El Ni?o storms and heavy rains in February of 1998, a landslide occurred downslope of the access road on the Joplin Boy's Ranch, damaging approximately 100 linear feet of roadway. On September 15, 1998, FEMA prepared DSR 95112 for $3,369 to repair the road surface and to replace 148 cubic yards (cu. yds.) of unclassified fill to restore the sub-base of the road facility. During the course of a geotechnical review, FEMA determined that the landslide was within an area of small to moderate older landslides and limited to natural ground and bedrock. Based on FEMA's Landslide Policy, stabilization of the failed slope was determined to be the responsibility of the County. The subgrantee did not concur with the DSR and requested an independent FEMA/State review of the site. The FEMA/State team inspected the site and concluded that the site was unstable and the subgrantee had restored temporary access to the sanitary treatment pond through a gravel road that extended across the ball field. The State informed the subgrantee of the results of the independent FEMA/state review in a letter dated January 6, 1999. FEMA subsequently issued Supplement 15 on March 15, 1999, wherein it stated that DSR 95112 was suspended pending the subgrantee stabilizing the site. On April 26, 1999, the subgrantee forwarded a letter to the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services appealing FEMA's determination of an eligible scope of work. Although the County acknowledged the existence of a landslide at this location, it contended that at least 10% of the damage was caused by surface erosion after the capacity of the storm drainage system was exceeded, but before the landslide occurred. Therefore, a reasonable amount of natural ground to support the facility should include an additional 1,704 cu. yds. of fill. The County also requests the costs for geotechnical services on the basis of Section 403 of the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b). On October 4, 1999, the Regional Director denied the appeal stating that the County's costs for geotechnical services and the replacement of lost natural ground were not eligible because the purpose is permanent site stabilization. In accordance with the FEMA Landslide Policy, it is the responsibility of the subgrantee to provide a stable site. The subgrantee's second appeal restates its position of the first appeal and withdraws its request for an alternate project.
Issues: 1. Are the costs of slope stabilization efforts for the roadway embankment eligible for funding?
2. Are the costs of erosion repairs eligible for funding?
3. Are the costs of the geotechnical services eligible for funding?
Findings: 1. No. The slope failure was caused in part by a pre-existing unstable geologic condition. Stabilization of the hillside is the responsibility of the subgrantee. However, the additional fill necessary to restore the integral ground of the facility in the amount of 1,556 cu. yds. is eligible.
2. No. We view the erosion and landslide as a single continuous event, not as two consecutive events.
3. Yes. The county was concerned that the landslide might threaten facilities, but they did not demonstrate that it was threatening any facilities. However the portions of the geotechnical services that relate to determining the stability of the site before and after restoration are eligible and are estimated to be 55% of the total geotechnical services costs.
Appeal Letter
November 7, 2000
Mr. D. A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
P.O. Box 419023
Rancho Cordova, California 95741
RE: Second Appeal: Orange County, PA ID #059-00000, Joplin Boy's Ranch,
FEMA-1203-DR-CA, Damage Survey Report (DSR) 95112
Dear Mr. Christian:
This is in response to your letter dated March 21, 2000, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regarding the referenced second appeal. Orange County (subgrantee) is requesting FEMA funding to repair a landslide along a road on the Joplin Boy's Ranch.
As a result of the El Ni?o storms and heavy rains in February of 1998, a landslide occurred downslope of an access road on the Joplin Boy's Ranch, damaging approximately 100 linear feet of roadway. FEMA conducted a geotechnical review of the site on September 15, 1998, and determined that the slope failure was within an area of small to moderate older landslides and limited to natural ground and bedrock. Pursuant to FEMA's Landslide Policy Relating to Public Facilities 4511.300A, EX, dated November 30, 1995 (now Response and Recovery Directorate Policy No. 9524.2, dated August 17, 1999), stabilization of the failed slope was the responsibility of the subgrantee. FEMA subsequently prepared DSR 95112 for $3,369 to repair the road surface and to replace 148 cubic yards (cu. yds.) of unclassified fill to restore the sub-base of the road. The subgrantee did not concur with the DSR and requested an independent FEMA/State review of the site. The FEMA/State team inspected the site and concluded that the site was unstable and the subgrantee had restored temporary access to the sanitary treatment pond through a gravel road that extended across the ball field. The State informed the subgrantee of the results of the independent FEMA/state review in a letter dated January 6, 1999. FEMA subsequently issued Supplement 15 on March 15, 1999, wherein it stated that DSR 95112 was suspended pending the subgrantee stabilizing the site.
On April 26, 1999, the subgrantee forwarded a letter to the Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) appealing FEMA's determination of the eligible scope of work. Although the subgrantee acknowledged the existence of a landslide at this location, it contended that at least 10% of the damage at the site was caused by surface erosion after the capacity of the storm drainage system was exceeded, but before the landslide occurred. Therefore, 10% of the estimated repair cost of $270,000 should be eligible for FEMA assistance. In addition, the subgrantee claimed that a reasonable amount of natural ground to support the damaged road should be 1,704 cu. yds. of fill, instead of 148 cy. yds. FEMA approved in DSR 95112. Further, the subgrantee requested the costs for geotechnical services on the basis of Section 403 (42 U.S.C. 5170b) of the Stafford Act. Finally, the subgrantee requested an alternate project to construct a year-round service roadway to facilitate travel to the sanitary treatment facility for Joplin Boy's Ranch if the first appeal were approved. The Regional Director denied the appeal on October 4, 1999, stating that the subgrantee's costs for geotechnical services and the replacement of lost natural ground were not eligible because the purpose of the geotechnical services was permanent site stabilization, and in accordance with the FEMA Landslide Policy, it is the responsibility of the subgrantee to provide a stable site. The Regional Director also approved an improved project, stating that the eligible costs shall be limited to the approved estimate that had been determined in the DSR.
The subgrantee submitted a second appeal, transmitted by OES in a letter dated January 19, 2000, that restates its position of the first appeal and withdraws its request for an alternate project. The primary issues of this appeal regard the eligibility of slope stabilization efforts of the roadway embankment, the eligibility of repairs associated with erosion, and the eligibility of costs for geotechnical services.
To provide guidance on determining eligible work for facilities where supporting natural ground has been damaged by a landslide, FEMA issued the Landslide Policy. According to the policy, when the post-disaster condition of the site is unstable, permanent restoration of the facility is eligible only after the site has been stabilized. The responsibility for stabilizing the site depends upon the cause of the instability. If the post-disaster instability is caused exclusively by the disaster, funding to restore the function of the facility, including providing stable ground, is eligible. However, if the post-disaster instability is caused exclusively or in part by a condition or geologic feature that existed prior to the disaster, the applicant is responsible for stabilizing the site before any Federal assistance is provided for permanent restoration of the facility and integral ground. Since the site was found to have pre-existing unstable conditions that contributed to the landslide, the stabilization of the failed slope is the responsibility of the subgrantee. Once the site has been stabilized, the cost to restore the road at the original site is eligible. The subgrantee stated that the 148 cu yds. of fill that FEMA included in DSR 95112 was insufficient integral ground to restore the road. The subgrantee claimed that 1,704 cu. yds. of fill were more appropriate. I have reviewed the information submitted and determined that additional fill is warranted because FEMA's Landslide Policy states that the ground necessary to physically support a facility is considered integral to its function. Therefore, I am approving an additional 1,556 cu. yds. of fill at a cost of $13,506.
The subgrantee asserted that the road and embankment experienced erosion prior to the landslide. It estimated that 10% of the total repair cost of the road and landslide is attributable to erosion and should be eligible for reimbursement. We view the erosion and landslide as a single continuous event, not as two consecutive events. Accordingly, I am denying this part of the appeal.
The subgrantee suggested that the costs for geotechnical services should be eligible pursuant to 44 CFR 206.225(a) because the adjacent ball field, fencing, light towers, maintenance building, and other facilities are "threatened" by the damage to the roadway. 44 CFR 206.225(a) states that emergency protective measures necessary to eliminate or lessen immediate threats to life, public health or safety, or improved property are eligible for reimbursement. The subgrantee's geotechnical report states in pertinent part, "The landslide does not appear at this time to have the potential to migrate headward significantly past the landslide scarp into either the playing field or the area under the buildings...." Based on this information, it appears that an immediate threat to improved property did not exist. Therefore, the cost of the geotechnical services is not eligible under this section of the regulations. However, the landslide policy states that limited geotechnical studies are eligible to determine the stability of the site before and after restoration of the eligible facility. The subgrantee funded a geotechnical study to determine the stability of the site as well as to develop a design and cost estimate to stabilize the landslide area. Therefore, I have determined that the cost associated with assessing the stability of the site is eligible. I estimate this cost to be 55% of the $10,850 (or $5,950) spent for geotechnical services.
In summary, I have concluded that (1) the stabilization of the hillside and the erosion damage are not eligible for assistance; and, (2) additional fill material for the road and a portion of the cost tihe condition that the applicant stabilizes the site either before or during the road restoration work, prior to any Federal assistance being provided for permanent restoration of the facility and its integral ground. By copy of this letter, I am requesting that the Regional Director prepare a supplemental DSR for $19,456 ($13,506 for additional fill and $5,950 for geotechnical services) to implement my decision on this basis.
Please inform the applicant of my determination. My decision constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
cc: Martha Whetstone
Regional Director
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
RE: Second Appeal: Orange County, PA ID #059-00000, Joplin Boy's Ranch,
FEMA-1203-DR-CA, Damage Survey Report (DSR) 95112
Dear Mr. Christian:
This is in response to your letter dated March 21, 2000, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regarding the referenced second appeal. Orange County (subgrantee) is requesting FEMA funding to repair a landslide along a road on the Joplin Boy's Ranch.
As a result of the El Ni?o storms and heavy rains in February of 1998, a landslide occurred downslope of an access road on the Joplin Boy's Ranch, damaging approximately 100 linear feet of roadway. FEMA conducted a geotechnical review of the site on September 15, 1998, and determined that the slope failure was within an area of small to moderate older landslides and limited to natural ground and bedrock. Pursuant to FEMA's Landslide Policy Relating to Public Facilities 4511.300A, EX, dated November 30, 1995 (now Response and Recovery Directorate Policy No. 9524.2, dated August 17, 1999), stabilization of the failed slope was the responsibility of the subgrantee. FEMA subsequently prepared DSR 95112 for $3,369 to repair the road surface and to replace 148 cubic yards (cu. yds.) of unclassified fill to restore the sub-base of the road. The subgrantee did not concur with the DSR and requested an independent FEMA/State review of the site. The FEMA/State team inspected the site and concluded that the site was unstable and the subgrantee had restored temporary access to the sanitary treatment pond through a gravel road that extended across the ball field. The State informed the subgrantee of the results of the independent FEMA/state review in a letter dated January 6, 1999. FEMA subsequently issued Supplement 15 on March 15, 1999, wherein it stated that DSR 95112 was suspended pending the subgrantee stabilizing the site.
On April 26, 1999, the subgrantee forwarded a letter to the Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) appealing FEMA's determination of the eligible scope of work. Although the subgrantee acknowledged the existence of a landslide at this location, it contended that at least 10% of the damage at the site was caused by surface erosion after the capacity of the storm drainage system was exceeded, but before the landslide occurred. Therefore, 10% of the estimated repair cost of $270,000 should be eligible for FEMA assistance. In addition, the subgrantee claimed that a reasonable amount of natural ground to support the damaged road should be 1,704 cu. yds. of fill, instead of 148 cy. yds. FEMA approved in DSR 95112. Further, the subgrantee requested the costs for geotechnical services on the basis of Section 403 (42 U.S.C. 5170b) of the Stafford Act. Finally, the subgrantee requested an alternate project to construct a year-round service roadway to facilitate travel to the sanitary treatment facility for Joplin Boy's Ranch if the first appeal were approved. The Regional Director denied the appeal on October 4, 1999, stating that the subgrantee's costs for geotechnical services and the replacement of lost natural ground were not eligible because the purpose of the geotechnical services was permanent site stabilization, and in accordance with the FEMA Landslide Policy, it is the responsibility of the subgrantee to provide a stable site. The Regional Director also approved an improved project, stating that the eligible costs shall be limited to the approved estimate that had been determined in the DSR.
The subgrantee submitted a second appeal, transmitted by OES in a letter dated January 19, 2000, that restates its position of the first appeal and withdraws its request for an alternate project. The primary issues of this appeal regard the eligibility of slope stabilization efforts of the roadway embankment, the eligibility of repairs associated with erosion, and the eligibility of costs for geotechnical services.
To provide guidance on determining eligible work for facilities where supporting natural ground has been damaged by a landslide, FEMA issued the Landslide Policy. According to the policy, when the post-disaster condition of the site is unstable, permanent restoration of the facility is eligible only after the site has been stabilized. The responsibility for stabilizing the site depends upon the cause of the instability. If the post-disaster instability is caused exclusively by the disaster, funding to restore the function of the facility, including providing stable ground, is eligible. However, if the post-disaster instability is caused exclusively or in part by a condition or geologic feature that existed prior to the disaster, the applicant is responsible for stabilizing the site before any Federal assistance is provided for permanent restoration of the facility and integral ground. Since the site was found to have pre-existing unstable conditions that contributed to the landslide, the stabilization of the failed slope is the responsibility of the subgrantee. Once the site has been stabilized, the cost to restore the road at the original site is eligible. The subgrantee stated that the 148 cu yds. of fill that FEMA included in DSR 95112 was insufficient integral ground to restore the road. The subgrantee claimed that 1,704 cu. yds. of fill were more appropriate. I have reviewed the information submitted and determined that additional fill is warranted because FEMA's Landslide Policy states that the ground necessary to physically support a facility is considered integral to its function. Therefore, I am approving an additional 1,556 cu. yds. of fill at a cost of $13,506.
The subgrantee asserted that the road and embankment experienced erosion prior to the landslide. It estimated that 10% of the total repair cost of the road and landslide is attributable to erosion and should be eligible for reimbursement. We view the erosion and landslide as a single continuous event, not as two consecutive events. Accordingly, I am denying this part of the appeal.
The subgrantee suggested that the costs for geotechnical services should be eligible pursuant to 44 CFR 206.225(a) because the adjacent ball field, fencing, light towers, maintenance building, and other facilities are "threatened" by the damage to the roadway. 44 CFR 206.225(a) states that emergency protective measures necessary to eliminate or lessen immediate threats to life, public health or safety, or improved property are eligible for reimbursement. The subgrantee's geotechnical report states in pertinent part, "The landslide does not appear at this time to have the potential to migrate headward significantly past the landslide scarp into either the playing field or the area under the buildings...." Based on this information, it appears that an immediate threat to improved property did not exist. Therefore, the cost of the geotechnical services is not eligible under this section of the regulations. However, the landslide policy states that limited geotechnical studies are eligible to determine the stability of the site before and after restoration of the eligible facility. The subgrantee funded a geotechnical study to determine the stability of the site as well as to develop a design and cost estimate to stabilize the landslide area. Therefore, I have determined that the cost associated with assessing the stability of the site is eligible. I estimate this cost to be 55% of the $10,850 (or $5,950) spent for geotechnical services.
In summary, I have concluded that (1) the stabilization of the hillside and the erosion damage are not eligible for assistance; and, (2) additional fill material for the road and a portion of the cost tihe condition that the applicant stabilizes the site either before or during the road restoration work, prior to any Federal assistance being provided for permanent restoration of the facility and its integral ground. By copy of this letter, I am requesting that the Regional Director prepare a supplemental DSR for $19,456 ($13,506 for additional fill and $5,950 for geotechnical services) to implement my decision on this basis.
Please inform the applicant of my determination. My decision constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
cc: Martha Whetstone
Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Last updated