Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 059-68028; City of San Juan Capistrano
PW ID# 1056; Emergency Protective Measures
Citation: FEMA-1577-DR-CA; City of San Juan Capistrano, PW 1056, Emergency Protective Measures
Cross-reference: Emergency Protective Measures, Facility Restoration, Landslide, Integral Ground
Summary: On January 12, 2005, two slope failures were found in the backyard of a residence in the City of San Juan Capistrano (Applicant). An Applicant owned 8-inch water line is located approximately 7.5 feet upslope of the higher failure. The water line was not damaged due to the slope failure. FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 1056 for emergency protective measures that included sandbags and a water barrier to stabilize the failure, as recommended by the Applicants geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical report also included a recommendation for additional slope repair. The PW was approved for $4,786. The Applicant also restored the failed slope at an additional cost of $58,244. Since the waterline was not damaged, FEMA determined the landslide repair was not integral to the repair of the public facility. Therefore, FEMA did not prepare an additional PW for permanent restoration of the slope. The Applicants first appeal submitted on October 10, 2005 asserts that the repairs made to the failure, per the geotechnical consultants recommendations, were emergency protective measures in order to protect the public health and safety. The Acting Regional Director denied this appeal stating that permanent repairs are not eligible as an emergency protective measure because the water line was not immediately threatened. In the Applicants second appeal dated April 25, 2006, the Applicants geotechnical consultant provided a statement arguing the repairs made were necessary to eliminate or lessen immediate threats of significant additional damage due to the location of the waterline and the severity of the slope. The Governors Office of Emergency Services (OES) supports the Countys appeal for $58,244.
Issues: Is the work described by the Applicants consultant and contractor an emergency protective measure?
Findings: No. The work described by the Applicant is permanent in nature and cannot be funded as an emergency protective measure.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.201(b) and 44 CFR §206.201(g)