This page has not been translated into Español. Visit the Español page for resources in that language.
Palisades Bluff Landslide
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation: City of Santa Monica, P.A.I.D. #037-70000, FEMA-1203-DR-CA, Palisades Bluff Landslide, DSR #06544 & 22096.
Cross-reference: Subject: Landslide policy, Federal Highway Administration, Federal-Aid Road, "Facility" definition. FEMA Record: DSR #22544 & 22096.
Summary: The three successive landslides occurred on the Palisades Bluffs along the Pacific Coast Highway in Santa Monica. The City of Santa Monica is applying for reimbursement of the cost of emergency measures to stabilize and de-water the site, and to remove some of the fallen debris. FEMA had denied funding because (1) the Palisades Bluffs themselves do not meet the definition of a facility, regardless of the fact that they may be part of a public park; (2) there is clearly substantial evidence that, while the slide was precipitated by the storm, it is the result of an inherent weakness of the geological formation, and that the slide is a natural part of the process of erosion which is an on-going phenomenon over the entire length of the bluff; and (3) the emergency measures to protect against further slumps and slides, and debris removal at the base of the bluff are within the purview of the Federal Highway Administration because the Pacific Coast Highway is a Federal-aid road, and thus not eligible for FEMA reimbursement.
Issues: (1) Does the fact that the bluffs are part of a public park mean that they are eligible under 44 CFR 206.221(h), or that they are an "improved and maintained natural feature" as provided in 44 CFR 206.201(c)? (2) Are the accepted facts that continuous erosion is taking place at the site, and that a potential for landslides has been identified sufficient to find that the site meets FEMA's criteria as "unstable" prior to the declared disaster, or is an actual prior incidence of a landslide necessary to meet this criteria for ineligibility? (3) Does the responsibility for safety and debris removal from a Federal -aid road extend to include the bounding City-owned property threatening it?
Findings: (1) No. Eligibility must include conformance with the definition of a "facility" in 44 CFR 206.201(c), in addition to that of a "public facility" in 44 CFR 206.221(h). Grounds keeping, landscaping, park lighting and walkways steps, and minor retaining walls are "facilities" themselves but do not convey "facility" definition onto the underlying natural ground. (2) Yes. The geological structure, and the exposure of the site, together with the site history - even in the FEMA records from past disasters-provide substantial documentation of the site's prior instability and on-going natural erosion. (3) Yes. The Federal Highway Administration is the Agency with primary responsibility for emergency measures taken to remove debris and protect the road, even though the debris and risk are off of the right of way.
Rationale: Stafford Act 406(a)(1); 44 CFR 206.201(c); 44 CFR 206.221(h), FEMA Landslide Policy #4311.300A,EX (November 30, 1995).
The Palisades Bluff extends for 1.6 miles along the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) just north of the Santa Monica Pier near the center of the city of Santa Monica. It is a precipitous eroded cliff facing the sea composed of alluvial terrace formations of slightly cemented silty clay and sandy gravel layers extending up approximately 50 feet to 150 feet above the beachfront with a 45- to 90-degree slope. In the area of the subject landslide, the height of the bluff is approximately 130 feet above the PCH.
Except for the cuts made for the roadway, and the construction of some pathways and steps, the bluff face has been left in a natural condition. The bluff has had a history of erosion and landslides, with evidence of an average rate of erosion of 4 inches a year. Most recently, several portions of the bluff collapsed during the Northridge Earthquake. FEMA was reviewing a project for funding under the Grant Acceleration Program (GAP) at the time that the 1998 slide took place. This GAP project covered the costs of replacing the walkways and fence that had been carried away in the landslides in new locations. FEMA subsequently denied funding for bluff stabilization geotechnical work and repair schemes caused by the earthquake because "the palisades bluffs are a natural unimproved feature and do not qualify as an "improved facility."
THE DAMAGE
During the heavy rains caused by El Nino in spring of 1998, over a stretch of 150 feet, a section of the bluffs collapsed in three successive landslides. The first landslide on April 14, 1998, blocked all lanes of traffic on the Pacific Coast Highway. Caltrans removed the debris. Subsequent slides took place higher up the slope on April 16 and 21. This then left an overhanging mass that was subsequently removed with a backhoe and a crane with a dragline. Dames and Moore, geotechnical engineers, produced a report on the situation, and supervised the emergency work to stabilize the site. Dewatering wells were dug at the top of the slide, which were not successful in draining the site, and, later, horizontal drains were installed from the side after the dangerous overburden had been removed. These did find and drain water from the bluff layers.
DSRs WRITTEN
FEMA approved a DSR for the emergency repairs on November 23, 1998. Subsequent to this, the City asked for a supplement for the small sum of $2,480. It was then, on review, that FEMA determined the entire grant to be ineligible because of evidence that the site was previously unstable, and thus ineligible for funding under FEMA's landslide policy. Also, the PCH was a Federal-aid road, and thus FEMA funds could not be used for its protection and cleanup. FEMA then wrote a DSR in September of 1999 to deobligate the funding.
DSRs FOR Palisades Bluff
DSR # PAPed Date CAT Scope Net Eligible
06544 11/23/98 B Emergency work to remove overhang, and dewater the site, and remove debris. 386,696
22096 9/8/99 B Deobligation based on finding that site was unstable prior to DR -386,696
NET TOTAL FUNDING 0$
FIRST APPEAL
The City based its appeal of the deobligation on (1) the contention that the debris removal and the emergency protective measures were located on City property and were the City's responsibility, (2) the slides were the direct result of the saturation, and not the result of previous instability, and (3) the bluffs are eligible under FEMA's regulatory definitions. This third point is explained with the following rationale. Rather than being "natural ground," the bluffs conform to FEMA's definition of an "improved and maintained natural feature" in FEMA's definition of a Facility in 44 CFR 206.201. The bluffs also are part of a "park" as in FEMA's definition of a Public Facility in 44 CFR 206.221(h). The Stafford Act provides that "Public Facilities" are eligible for FEMA Public Assistance Funding.
In the appeal response, the Regional Director determined that, while the city was responsible for the site, the Federal Highway Administration, not FEMA, has the authority to provide assistance for this type of work, and that the permanent landslide repair "is not eligible.because site stabilization is the owner's responsibility." The FEMA finding was supported by evidence that the site had a history of instability prior to the storm.
SECOND APPEAL REQUEST
The City submitted a second appeal on June 29, 2000. This appeal responded to the FEMA reasons for denial with the following points:
(1) "Facility" Definition: The City defended its position that the bluffs conform to FEMA's definition of an eligible "facility" because (1) it is improved and maintained because regular maintenance ("includes sweeping and cleaning, landscaping and irrigation, electrical and lighting, drainage systems, foundation and retaining wall repairs as needed"), and (2) it is part of a park as defined by 44 CFR 206.201(h). In addition, the City presented the position that, because the bluffs are part of a park, they in fact do not need to meet the "improved and maintained" requirement because parks are listed as "public facilities" in 44 CFR 206.201(h).
(2) Prior instability: In response to the claim that the site was unstable to begin with, and thus ineligible under the FEMA landslide policy, the City responded that FEMA misquoted the Dames and Moore geotechnical report, in stating that it concluded that "the bluff failed in an area previously identified as unstable." because the report said that the landslide "occurred in an area of potential instability identified during previous investigations." (Dames and Moore had been contracted with earlier to do studies, including one for FEMA after the Northridge Earthquake.) The City contends that the instability at the particular location of the slide was exclusively the result of the storms, and that "potential" instability should not be interpreted by FEMA to mean that the site was "unstable due to an identified, pre-existing condition."
(3) Federal-Aid Road: The City states that the debris removal and emergency protective measures for which FEMA reimbursement is requested did not include the removal of the slide from the roadway, but rather the cleanup and scraping of the site on city property next to the highway only.
DISCUSSION
(1) "Facility" Definition: While the Stafford Act provides that parks are public facilities, funding is also based on a finding that the specific damaged features in the parks meet the eligibility requirements of 44 CFR 206.201(c), meaning they must be a built or manufactured building or system, or an improved and maintained natural feature. Maintenance alone of a natural feature is insufficient to qualify it as a public facility. Therefore, the bluff does not meet the definition of an eligible public facility.
(2) Prior instability: From all of the evidence, and the fact that the bluffs are essentially the same geological formation over their entire length, the claim that the slide was exclusively the result of the storms is weak. As the City itself admits in its appeal, "it has been a known fact that the bluff, due to its geotechnical nature, is an area of potential landslide activity." To support the case in the appeal on the use of the term "potential" is to make a distinction, which in this case, is without a difference. It is a known fact that other parts of the bluffs collapsed in the Northridge Earthquake, and in previous storms. The Northridge Earthquake claim itself resulted in approximatroich was made subsequent to the 1998 storm damage. In this DR 1203 case, the City has not sought funding for the repair of any walkways, railings or other improvements which may have been carried away by the slide - most likely because FEMA funding has been provided for this kind of work already as a result of the Northridge Earthquake.) As provided in FEMA Landslide Policy 4311.300A, EX (November 30, 1995), FEMA funding is not intended to cover the stabilization of natural ground from naturally occurring erosion. Also, the stabilization of the hillside does not qualify as an emergency protection measure.
(3) Federal-Aid Road: We have confirmed with the Federal Highway Administration that its Emergency Relief Program funds may be used to fund cost-effective mitigation measures outside the right-of-way in areas where landslides have occurred. The work performed on the hillside is considered permanent stabilization, and not an emergency protective measure.
CONCLUSION
After analysis of the facts of this case, FEMA has determined that (1) the Palisades Bluffs themselves do not meet the definition of a facility, regardless of the fact that they may be part of a public park; (2) there is clearly substantial evidence that, while the slide was precipitated by the storm, it is the result of an inherent weakness of the geological formation, and that the slide is a natural part of the process of erosion which is an on-going phenomenon over the entire length of the bluffs; and (3) The worked performed on the bluffs was permanent stabilization and not emerging protective measures.
In light of the above findings, the appeal is denied.
Appeal Brief
| Desastre | FEMA-1203-DR |
| Applicant | City of Santa Monica |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 037-70000 |
| PW ID# | 06544 & 22096 |
| Date Signed | 2001-06-06T04:00:00 |
Appeal Letter
June 6, 2001
Mr. D.A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 419023
Rancho Cordova, California 95741-9023
RE: City of Santa Monica, P.A.I.D. #037-70000, Palisades Bluff Landslide, FEMA-1203-DR-CA DSRs 06544, 22096. OES log number 64413.5
Dear Mr. Christian:
This is in response to your letter of August 30, 2000, forwarding the second appeal of Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) 06544 & 22096 submitted by the City of Santa Monica to OES on June 29, 2000. The applicant has requested $389,176 to reimburse the cost of emergency hazard removal, site stabilization, and debris removal after a series of landslides.
As explained in the enclosed analysis, FEMA has determined that the work is ineligible because the site does not meet the definition of a "facility" under FEMA regulations and there is substantial evidence that the site was susceptible to landslides prior to the storm. Under the FEMA landslide policy, the stabilization of natural ground from prior existing weaknesses is ineligible for funding. Therefore, I am denying the appeal.
Please inform the applicant of this 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
Enclosure
cc: Karen E. Armes
Acting Regional Director
Region IX
REF: City of Santa Monica, P.A.I.D. #037-70000, FEMA-1203-DR-CA, Palisades Bluff Landslide, DSR #06544 & 22096.
Mr. D.A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 419023
Rancho Cordova, California 95741-9023
RE: City of Santa Monica, P.A.I.D. #037-70000, Palisades Bluff Landslide, FEMA-1203-DR-CA DSRs 06544, 22096. OES log number 64413.5
Dear Mr. Christian:
This is in response to your letter of August 30, 2000, forwarding the second appeal of Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) 06544 & 22096 submitted by the City of Santa Monica to OES on June 29, 2000. The applicant has requested $389,176 to reimburse the cost of emergency hazard removal, site stabilization, and debris removal after a series of landslides.
As explained in the enclosed analysis, FEMA has determined that the work is ineligible because the site does not meet the definition of a "facility" under FEMA regulations and there is substantial evidence that the site was susceptible to landslides prior to the storm. Under the FEMA landslide policy, the stabilization of natural ground from prior existing weaknesses is ineligible for funding. Therefore, I am denying the appeal.
Please inform the applicant of this 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
Enclosure
cc: Karen E. Armes
Acting Regional Director
Region IX
REF: City of Santa Monica, P.A.I.D. #037-70000, FEMA-1203-DR-CA, Palisades Bluff Landslide, DSR #06544 & 22096.
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUNDThe Palisades Bluff extends for 1.6 miles along the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) just north of the Santa Monica Pier near the center of the city of Santa Monica. It is a precipitous eroded cliff facing the sea composed of alluvial terrace formations of slightly cemented silty clay and sandy gravel layers extending up approximately 50 feet to 150 feet above the beachfront with a 45- to 90-degree slope. In the area of the subject landslide, the height of the bluff is approximately 130 feet above the PCH.
Except for the cuts made for the roadway, and the construction of some pathways and steps, the bluff face has been left in a natural condition. The bluff has had a history of erosion and landslides, with evidence of an average rate of erosion of 4 inches a year. Most recently, several portions of the bluff collapsed during the Northridge Earthquake. FEMA was reviewing a project for funding under the Grant Acceleration Program (GAP) at the time that the 1998 slide took place. This GAP project covered the costs of replacing the walkways and fence that had been carried away in the landslides in new locations. FEMA subsequently denied funding for bluff stabilization geotechnical work and repair schemes caused by the earthquake because "the palisades bluffs are a natural unimproved feature and do not qualify as an "improved facility."
THE DAMAGE
During the heavy rains caused by El Nino in spring of 1998, over a stretch of 150 feet, a section of the bluffs collapsed in three successive landslides. The first landslide on April 14, 1998, blocked all lanes of traffic on the Pacific Coast Highway. Caltrans removed the debris. Subsequent slides took place higher up the slope on April 16 and 21. This then left an overhanging mass that was subsequently removed with a backhoe and a crane with a dragline. Dames and Moore, geotechnical engineers, produced a report on the situation, and supervised the emergency work to stabilize the site. Dewatering wells were dug at the top of the slide, which were not successful in draining the site, and, later, horizontal drains were installed from the side after the dangerous overburden had been removed. These did find and drain water from the bluff layers.
DSRs WRITTEN
FEMA approved a DSR for the emergency repairs on November 23, 1998. Subsequent to this, the City asked for a supplement for the small sum of $2,480. It was then, on review, that FEMA determined the entire grant to be ineligible because of evidence that the site was previously unstable, and thus ineligible for funding under FEMA's landslide policy. Also, the PCH was a Federal-aid road, and thus FEMA funds could not be used for its protection and cleanup. FEMA then wrote a DSR in September of 1999 to deobligate the funding.
DSRs FOR Palisades Bluff
DSR # PAPed Date CAT Scope Net Eligible
06544 11/23/98 B Emergency work to remove overhang, and dewater the site, and remove debris. 386,696
22096 9/8/99 B Deobligation based on finding that site was unstable prior to DR -386,696
NET TOTAL FUNDING 0$
FIRST APPEAL
The City based its appeal of the deobligation on (1) the contention that the debris removal and the emergency protective measures were located on City property and were the City's responsibility, (2) the slides were the direct result of the saturation, and not the result of previous instability, and (3) the bluffs are eligible under FEMA's regulatory definitions. This third point is explained with the following rationale. Rather than being "natural ground," the bluffs conform to FEMA's definition of an "improved and maintained natural feature" in FEMA's definition of a Facility in 44 CFR 206.201. The bluffs also are part of a "park" as in FEMA's definition of a Public Facility in 44 CFR 206.221(h). The Stafford Act provides that "Public Facilities" are eligible for FEMA Public Assistance Funding.
In the appeal response, the Regional Director determined that, while the city was responsible for the site, the Federal Highway Administration, not FEMA, has the authority to provide assistance for this type of work, and that the permanent landslide repair "is not eligible.because site stabilization is the owner's responsibility." The FEMA finding was supported by evidence that the site had a history of instability prior to the storm.
SECOND APPEAL REQUEST
The City submitted a second appeal on June 29, 2000. This appeal responded to the FEMA reasons for denial with the following points:
(1) "Facility" Definition: The City defended its position that the bluffs conform to FEMA's definition of an eligible "facility" because (1) it is improved and maintained because regular maintenance ("includes sweeping and cleaning, landscaping and irrigation, electrical and lighting, drainage systems, foundation and retaining wall repairs as needed"), and (2) it is part of a park as defined by 44 CFR 206.201(h). In addition, the City presented the position that, because the bluffs are part of a park, they in fact do not need to meet the "improved and maintained" requirement because parks are listed as "public facilities" in 44 CFR 206.201(h).
(2) Prior instability: In response to the claim that the site was unstable to begin with, and thus ineligible under the FEMA landslide policy, the City responded that FEMA misquoted the Dames and Moore geotechnical report, in stating that it concluded that "the bluff failed in an area previously identified as unstable." because the report said that the landslide "occurred in an area of potential instability identified during previous investigations." (Dames and Moore had been contracted with earlier to do studies, including one for FEMA after the Northridge Earthquake.) The City contends that the instability at the particular location of the slide was exclusively the result of the storms, and that "potential" instability should not be interpreted by FEMA to mean that the site was "unstable due to an identified, pre-existing condition."
(3) Federal-Aid Road: The City states that the debris removal and emergency protective measures for which FEMA reimbursement is requested did not include the removal of the slide from the roadway, but rather the cleanup and scraping of the site on city property next to the highway only.
DISCUSSION
(1) "Facility" Definition: While the Stafford Act provides that parks are public facilities, funding is also based on a finding that the specific damaged features in the parks meet the eligibility requirements of 44 CFR 206.201(c), meaning they must be a built or manufactured building or system, or an improved and maintained natural feature. Maintenance alone of a natural feature is insufficient to qualify it as a public facility. Therefore, the bluff does not meet the definition of an eligible public facility.
(2) Prior instability: From all of the evidence, and the fact that the bluffs are essentially the same geological formation over their entire length, the claim that the slide was exclusively the result of the storms is weak. As the City itself admits in its appeal, "it has been a known fact that the bluff, due to its geotechnical nature, is an area of potential landslide activity." To support the case in the appeal on the use of the term "potential" is to make a distinction, which in this case, is without a difference. It is a known fact that other parts of the bluffs collapsed in the Northridge Earthquake, and in previous storms. The Northridge Earthquake claim itself resulted in approximatroich was made subsequent to the 1998 storm damage. In this DR 1203 case, the City has not sought funding for the repair of any walkways, railings or other improvements which may have been carried away by the slide - most likely because FEMA funding has been provided for this kind of work already as a result of the Northridge Earthquake.) As provided in FEMA Landslide Policy 4311.300A, EX (November 30, 1995), FEMA funding is not intended to cover the stabilization of natural ground from naturally occurring erosion. Also, the stabilization of the hillside does not qualify as an emergency protection measure.
(3) Federal-Aid Road: We have confirmed with the Federal Highway Administration that its Emergency Relief Program funds may be used to fund cost-effective mitigation measures outside the right-of-way in areas where landslides have occurred. The work performed on the hillside is considered permanent stabilization, and not an emergency protective measure.
CONCLUSION
After analysis of the facts of this case, FEMA has determined that (1) the Palisades Bluffs themselves do not meet the definition of a facility, regardless of the fact that they may be part of a public park; (2) there is clearly substantial evidence that, while the slide was precipitated by the storm, it is the result of an inherent weakness of the geological formation, and that the slide is a natural part of the process of erosion which is an on-going phenomenon over the entire length of the bluffs; and (3) The worked performed on the bluffs was permanent stabilization and not emerging protective measures.
In light of the above findings, the appeal is denied.