Amesti Road

June 1, 2009

Frank McCarton
Governor’s Authorized Representative
California Emergency Management Agency
Response and Recovery Division
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, CA 95655

Re: Second Appeal–Santa Cruz County, PA ID 087-00000, Amesti Road, FEMA-1203-DR-CA, Damage Survey Report (DSR) 27263
Dear Mr. McCarton:

This letter is in response to your letter dated January 28, 2008, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Santa Cruz County (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of funding to repair Amesti Road in the amount of $1,210,550, and its request for a time extension. In the second appeal, the Applicant requests a revised amount of $8,000,000.
Landslides damaged Amesti Road in both FEMA-1046-DR-CA (September 1995) and FEMA-1203-DR-CA (February 1998). DSR 27263 was written in June 1998 to repair Amesti Road at an estimated cost of $469,949 with stabilization as a condition of the grant prior to obligation. In December 2002, the Applicant requested a time extension to stabilize the site and revised funding of $1,210,550. FEMA denied the request in August 2003. In separate actions, the Applicant received section 404 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funding in November 1998 to purchase land adjacent to Amesti Road. A Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) was formed to maintain the site. In November 2003, the Applicant requested a HMGP grant to relocate the road through the GHAD.
On October 21, 2003, the Applicant submitted its first appeal of FEMA’s decision to deny a time extension request and determination that DSR 27263 was ineligible for funding. It stated that it had been waiting for an answer regarding whether it risked HMGP funding if Amesti Road were realigned through the GHAD. The Deputy Regional Administrator denied the first appeal on July 30, 2007, stating that the landslides had damaged the road in two disasters, though no money was ever obligated to restore the road because it remained unstable. In cases when a site is found to be unstable due to an identified, pre-existing condition, the Applicant is responsible for stabilizing the site. Once the site has been stabilized, the cost to restore the facility at the original site is eligible. For this facility, the Applicant never completed work to stabilize the site.

The Applicant submitted its second appeal on November 14, 2007, requesting funding to restore the roadway in its historic location at an estimated cost of $8,000,000. It did not include additional documentation, but stated that the road was necessary due to localized congestion and the need for emergency access to residential areas. It stated that it had considered a number of options other than restoring the road in its historic location; however, none of the alternatives were considered practical. The Applicant did not include information to indicate how the $8,000,000 estimate was derived, nor indicate that work to stabilize the site had been completed.
The Applicant has not provided justification to warrant a time extension, in accordance with 44 CFR §206.204(d)(2). It has not indicated that stabilization of the site is complete, which is required for grant funding. I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the Deputy Regional Administrator’s decision in the first appeal is consistent with Public Assistance regulations and policy. Accordingly, I am denying the second appeal.

Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206, Appeals.
Sincerely,
/s/
James A. Walke
Acting Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate

cc: Nancy Ward
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IX