LaConchita Community Landslide
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation: FEMA-1046-DR-CA; Ventura County Public Works; DSR's 11440, 39698
Cross
Reference: Landslide Policy, Landslide, Geotechnical Investigation, Emergency Protective Measures, Slope Stabilization, Pre-Existing Condition(s)
Summary:
Heavy rains of January 1995 led to a March 4, 1995, landslide in the La Conchita Community of Ventura County (County), California. The slide covered 300 feet of Vista Del Rincon (VDR) Drive. After covering the road with 7-8 feet of debris, the slide stabilized. Geotechnical investigations which were conducted prior to the slide had indicated the hillside was a component of a pre-existing, historically active landslide complex. Investigations after the slide verified that the localized slope failure was a result of the January 1995, rains. After voiding the initial DSR, written for full slide stabilization, FEMA prepared DSR 11440 on January 11, 1996 in the amount of $69,000 for the installation of surface drainage and associated engineering tasks. DSR 11440 was amended in March 1996, changing the DSR scope to provide $45,000, exclusively to study the localized slide, and to determine methods for removing the debris from the road without triggering a new slide. As of March 1996, the County had not begun any emergency measures or debris removal. On June 17, 1996, the County's first appeal was received at FEMA Region IX, asserting that the amount of money provided in DSR 11440 was insufficient to conduct a proper engineering study of the slide. On August 30, 1996, DSR 39698 was prepared, deobligating the $45,000 provided in DSR 11440, because 17 months after the landslide, no emergency measures had been taken, the slide had stabilized. The first appeal was denied on November 14, 1996, in a letter from Region IX, which also informed the County of the deobligation of DSR 11440. The pre-existing landslide complex was deemed the County's responsibility to permanently stabilize (not FEMA's) under landslide policy No. 4511.300 A.EX. The policy holds that only emergency work and debris removal is eligible for pre-existing landslide complexes, not permanent stabilization. In the second appeal received by FEMA on May 7, 1997, the County disagrees with DSR 39698 which deobligated DSR 11440 ($45,000). The County is asking FEMA to account for the continued stability of the existing slope, if and when the County removes the mud and debris (toe of the slope) from VDR drive.
Issues: 1. Did the landslide pose an immediate threat to life or improved property, making it initially eligible for emergency measures?2. Is emergency or permanent restoration of the landslide area eligible for FEMA funding 17 months after the disaster (as of August 1996)?
Findings:
1. Yes. The landslide, which occurred on March 4, 1995, was initially eligible for emergency measures within 6 - 12 months after the disaster. 2. No. The localized landslide which occurred was initially eligible for emergency stabilization (within up to 12 months) but is no longer eligible, 17 months after the disaster. Also, permanent restoration is not eligible, because the slide was part of a large pre-existing, regional landslide complex, making only emergency measures and debris removal eligible per FEMA policy 4511.300.A.EX, and only if completed within allowable time frames.
Rationale:
The County failed to act promptly after the landslide occurred on March 4, 1995, making emergency measures no longer eligible (not completed within 6 to 12 months). By not taking action, the County has allowed the landslide to cover a road and become stable (in the context of immediate threat) for over 28 months. The appeal is denied because the time frame for the eligible scope of work for emergency measures has expired.
BACKGROUND
Heavy rains of January 1995 led to a March 4, 1995, landslide in the LaConchita Ranch Community in Ventura County (County), California, covering 300 feet of Vista Del Rincon (VDR) Drive with 7-8 feet of mud and debris. Nine private residences were damaged and three were destroyed as a result of the slide. 75 other residences were evacuated after the slide. The slide stabilized after covering the road with earth, rock and debris, with this material making up the new toe of the slope. Engineering and geotechnical studies of the area (USGS, Geologists, Engineers) from both before and after the slide indicate the hillside was a component of a pre-existing, historically active landslide complex encompassing the entire area. In studying the slide area, geologists determined the local landslide failure was accelerated by the rains from the January storm. Initial DSR's written for stabilization were later voided and replaced by damage survey report (DSR) 11440 which was prepared on January 11, 1996, in the amount of $69,000, for the installation of landslide slope drainage and associated engineering. This DSR was amended by FEMA in March 1996, changing the scope of the DSR to provide $45,000 exclusively for a "Geotechnical Investigation Estimate." This funding was for a limited geotechnical study of the localized slide that was resting on the road, and to determine methods for removing debris from the road without triggering further sliding. As of March 1996, the County had not undertaken any emergency measures or debris removal activities on the road.
First Appeal
On February 8, 1996, the County submitted a "Non-Concurrence letter" to DSR 11440 stating that the funding was insufficient to cover the "comprehensive engineering and geological investigation and evaluation of the slide area" that the County asserted was necessary. The County followed up this letter with an April 2, 1997, letter, which further contested the scope and funding provided in DSR 11440. This letter was forwarded to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region IX by the State of California (State) Office of Emergency Services as a first appeal. In this first appeal, the County laid out a six-phase plan for dealing with the landslide and its aftermath. The six phases were 1) conduct a comprehensive engineering and geologic investigation of the landslide area; 2) determine the methods for stabilizing the active landslide before debris removal could be safely conducted; 3) stabilize the active slide; 4) remove slide debris from the road and surroundings; 5) implement physical measures to reduce the danger of a further slide incident; and 6) monitor the slide area and maintain drainage facilities or other structures to alleviate further effects of the slide.
In his November 14, 1996, response to the first appeal, the Regional Director stated that sufficient funding was provided for a geotechnical study of the localized slide area (DSR 11440). The findings of this study were to be used to identify measures which would reduce the immediate threat posed by the slide mass and to allow for safe debris removal. These measures would potentially be eligible for FEMA funding if there were an immediate threat from the slide, as specified in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 206.224(a). The Regional Director goes on to state that "the La Conchita landslide is a large, deep-seated and ancient landslide complex that has undergone repeated movements in the years preceding the most recent slide." As such, it is only eligible for stabilization to the extent that there is an immediate threat to life, public health, safety, or improved property, in accordance with FEMA's Landslide Policy, No. 4511.300 A, EX. In addition, emergency work that would be conducted in response to such an immediate threat must have been completed within 6 months of the disaster (or 12 months with an approved extension). At the time of the Region's response to the County's appeal, 19 months had elapsed and the slide had become stable. The Regional Director also stated that since the County had not taken action which would indicate that the slide mass posed an immediate threat, or demonstrated this fact through other means, the appeal was denied and the funds previously obligated under DSR 11440 were deobligated by DSR 39698.
Second Appeal
The County submitted a second appeal to FEMA headquarters on February 27, 1997, 23 months after the landslide. The County disagreed with the Regional Director's denial of the first appeal, which deobligated all eligible funds for the slide, as a result of the absence of an immediate threat and the lack of any actions by the County to that point. The County stated that they had not concurred with the funding level and scope of the original DSR ($69,000) which was written to provide funding for engineering and the installation of horizontal drainage. This was due to the potential danger posed to workers by the slide, which the County felt was not addressed by FEMA. The County also asserted that it had begun the federal procurement process to select a consultant for the engineering study of the slide, which was funded by revised DSR 11440, and was within days of awarding a contract when the funds were deobligated by FEMA. The County further inquires in the appeal, ".what happens to the stability of the slide when a mass of earth 300 feet long and 7 or 8 feet high is removed from the public street? Will FEMA or OES guarantee that the material can be removed from the toe of an active landslide without engineering evaluation and exceptional risk?"
FEMA Region IX received the State's letter forwarding the County's second appeal on May 7, 1997, and prepared a transmittal memorandum for the Response and Recovery (R&R) Directorate dated August 2, 1997. In forwarding the second appeal to FEMA headquarters for review, the Regional Director states that in the 28 months after the disaster event, the hillside and slide mass have remained stable, even after being subjected to two heavy winter rain periods. The Regional Director asserts that the County has not taken any action, or otherwise demonstrated that the slide mass or the hillside currently poses an immediate threat to life or improved property.
DISCUSSION
At the time of the landslide (March 4, 1995), emergency measures and debris removal were eligible for FEMA funding according to FEMA Landslide Policy No. 4511.300 A, EX. An existing landslide complex had failed in a localized area covering 300-feet of Vista Del Rincon (VDR) Drive and posed a threat to public safety and improved property. However, over the 17 months following the slide (up to August 1996), the County, rather than taking action, contested the scope and funding of each DSR, and proposed large scale regional studies and stabilization measures in an attempt to address the entire landslide complex. As a result, the County failed to take any substantive action in the 17 months after the slide, prompting FEMA to deobligate all funding in August 1996.
Documentation indicates the County was aware of the larger landslide complex prior to the March 1995 slide. One indication of the County's knowledge of the scope of the problem and their hesitancy (or lack of the means) to address it appears in a February 1995 (before the slide) letter from a Ventura County Board Member addressed to California Congressman Elton Gallegly. The letter warned of the impending slide, and touched on the scope of the potential slide and the County's lack of action even before the slide. The letter states that,
"Last September (1994) county officials were informed of an unstable slope above a row of homes north of Vista Del Rincon Drive.The unstable slope is on private property and the county (Public, lack of funding for such a massive project." [emphasis added]
This further confirms that the area was prone to landslides prior to the disaster. FEMA policy does not allow for the permanent stabilization of landslides. If the landslide poses an immediate threat to life and improved property, FEMA will fund a geo-technical investigation of cost effective alternatives to lessen or eliminate the threat. If there are cost effective measures, FEMA will fund them. If a public facility is damaged from a landslide that was unstable prior to the disaster, FEMA will fund the repair of the facility after the applicant has stabilized the landslide area. In the La Conchita landslide, seven to eight feet of soil from the hillside was deposited on public road. The applicant argues that FEMA should fund a six-phase study to determine if it is feasible to remove the soil from the road without causing additional slides. FEMA approved a DSR for $45,000 to study the feasibility of removing the soil from the road. However, the work was not accomplished within the regulatory timeframes. The regional staff subsequently de-obligated the funds. To date, the applicant has not initiated a feasibility study of the area. Consequently, the soil (debris) from the landslide remains on the public road.
If the public road was damaged by the landslide, the repair of the road is eligible for funding. However, if a geo-technical study indicates that the cost to remove the soil from the public road and to stabilize the foot of the slide exceeds the cost to repair the road, FEMA is not obligated to fund that work. Likewise, FEMA is not obligated to establish a new road because access to all structures in the subdivision still exists. If the applicant does not remove the soil from the public street, it may submit a request to FEMA for an alternate project. In this case, FEMA and the applicant must agree on an estimated cost to repair the road.
The disaster regulations allow applicants six months to complete all eligible debris removal and emergency protective measures. The grantee may grant a 6-month time extension to complete emergency work if extenuating circumstances exist that preclude completion of the work. 44CFR206.204 grants the Regional Director authority to extend the completion date for emergency work upon receipt of a request from the applicant. In this case, the applicant did not complete the emergency protective measures within the regulatory timeframes, nor did they request a time extension for the completion of the emergency work.
CONCLUSION
Given the facts of this case, the Regional Director's decision on the first appeal is consistent with the program policy. Therefore, the appeal is denied.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1046-DR |
| Applicant | Ventura County Public Works - Transportation Department |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 111-91049 |
| PW ID# | 11440, 39698 |
| Date Signed | 1998-01-13T05:00:00 |
Cross
Reference: Landslide Policy, Landslide, Geotechnical Investigation, Emergency Protective Measures, Slope Stabilization, Pre-Existing Condition(s)
Summary:
Heavy rains of January 1995 led to a March 4, 1995, landslide in the La Conchita Community of Ventura County (County), California. The slide covered 300 feet of Vista Del Rincon (VDR) Drive. After covering the road with 7-8 feet of debris, the slide stabilized. Geotechnical investigations which were conducted prior to the slide had indicated the hillside was a component of a pre-existing, historically active landslide complex. Investigations after the slide verified that the localized slope failure was a result of the January 1995, rains. After voiding the initial DSR, written for full slide stabilization, FEMA prepared DSR 11440 on January 11, 1996 in the amount of $69,000 for the installation of surface drainage and associated engineering tasks. DSR 11440 was amended in March 1996, changing the DSR scope to provide $45,000, exclusively to study the localized slide, and to determine methods for removing the debris from the road without triggering a new slide. As of March 1996, the County had not begun any emergency measures or debris removal. On June 17, 1996, the County's first appeal was received at FEMA Region IX, asserting that the amount of money provided in DSR 11440 was insufficient to conduct a proper engineering study of the slide. On August 30, 1996, DSR 39698 was prepared, deobligating the $45,000 provided in DSR 11440, because 17 months after the landslide, no emergency measures had been taken, the slide had stabilized. The first appeal was denied on November 14, 1996, in a letter from Region IX, which also informed the County of the deobligation of DSR 11440. The pre-existing landslide complex was deemed the County's responsibility to permanently stabilize (not FEMA's) under landslide policy No. 4511.300 A.EX. The policy holds that only emergency work and debris removal is eligible for pre-existing landslide complexes, not permanent stabilization. In the second appeal received by FEMA on May 7, 1997, the County disagrees with DSR 39698 which deobligated DSR 11440 ($45,000). The County is asking FEMA to account for the continued stability of the existing slope, if and when the County removes the mud and debris (toe of the slope) from VDR drive.
Issues: 1. Did the landslide pose an immediate threat to life or improved property, making it initially eligible for emergency measures?2. Is emergency or permanent restoration of the landslide area eligible for FEMA funding 17 months after the disaster (as of August 1996)?
Findings:
1. Yes. The landslide, which occurred on March 4, 1995, was initially eligible for emergency measures within 6 - 12 months after the disaster. 2. No. The localized landslide which occurred was initially eligible for emergency stabilization (within up to 12 months) but is no longer eligible, 17 months after the disaster. Also, permanent restoration is not eligible, because the slide was part of a large pre-existing, regional landslide complex, making only emergency measures and debris removal eligible per FEMA policy 4511.300.A.EX, and only if completed within allowable time frames.
Rationale:
The County failed to act promptly after the landslide occurred on March 4, 1995, making emergency measures no longer eligible (not completed within 6 to 12 months). By not taking action, the County has allowed the landslide to cover a road and become stable (in the context of immediate threat) for over 28 months. The appeal is denied because the time frame for the eligible scope of work for emergency measures has expired.
Appeal Letter
January 13, 1998
Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Disaster Field Office - Public Assistance Section
74 North Pasadena Avenue - West Annex 3rd Floor
Pasadena, California 91103
Dear Mr. Najera:
This letter is in response to your April 3, 1997, submittal of Ventura County Department of Transportation's second appeal of damage survey reports (DSRs) 11440 and 39698 under FEMA-1046-DR-CA. DSR 11440 was prepared to cover the cost for an engineering investigation of the localized landslide, which occurred on March 4, 1997, and covered 300 feet of Vista Del Rincon Drive. The engineering study was eligible so that emergency protective measures and debris removal could be conducted. On August 30, 1996, DSR 39698 was written, to de-obligate funding for the engineering study, because 17 months after the landslide, the county had not conducted any emergency measures or studies.
Review of documentation submitted shows that the landslide was a component of a large, pre-existing landslide complex. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) landslide policy No. 4511.300 A.EX, funding for permanent restoration of pre-existing landslide complexes is not eligible. FEMA will fund only emergency (Category B) work within 6 months of the disaster (12 months with an approved extension). Since no action was taken within 17 months of the disaster, I am denying the appeal as detailed in the enclosed appeal analysis.
Please inform the applicant of this determination. The applicant may appeal this determination to the Director of FEMA. The appeal must be submitted through your office and the Regional Director within 60 days of the receipt of this determination.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Ray Williams
Acting Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Disaster Field Office - Public Assistance Section
74 North Pasadena Avenue - West Annex 3rd Floor
Pasadena, California 91103
Dear Mr. Najera:
This letter is in response to your April 3, 1997, submittal of Ventura County Department of Transportation's second appeal of damage survey reports (DSRs) 11440 and 39698 under FEMA-1046-DR-CA. DSR 11440 was prepared to cover the cost for an engineering investigation of the localized landslide, which occurred on March 4, 1997, and covered 300 feet of Vista Del Rincon Drive. The engineering study was eligible so that emergency protective measures and debris removal could be conducted. On August 30, 1996, DSR 39698 was written, to de-obligate funding for the engineering study, because 17 months after the landslide, the county had not conducted any emergency measures or studies.
Review of documentation submitted shows that the landslide was a component of a large, pre-existing landslide complex. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) landslide policy No. 4511.300 A.EX, funding for permanent restoration of pre-existing landslide complexes is not eligible. FEMA will fund only emergency (Category B) work within 6 months of the disaster (12 months with an approved extension). Since no action was taken within 17 months of the disaster, I am denying the appeal as detailed in the enclosed appeal analysis.
Please inform the applicant of this determination. The applicant may appeal this determination to the Director of FEMA. The appeal must be submitted through your office and the Regional Director within 60 days of the receipt of this determination.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Ray Williams
Acting Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUND
Heavy rains of January 1995 led to a March 4, 1995, landslide in the LaConchita Ranch Community in Ventura County (County), California, covering 300 feet of Vista Del Rincon (VDR) Drive with 7-8 feet of mud and debris. Nine private residences were damaged and three were destroyed as a result of the slide. 75 other residences were evacuated after the slide. The slide stabilized after covering the road with earth, rock and debris, with this material making up the new toe of the slope. Engineering and geotechnical studies of the area (USGS, Geologists, Engineers) from both before and after the slide indicate the hillside was a component of a pre-existing, historically active landslide complex encompassing the entire area. In studying the slide area, geologists determined the local landslide failure was accelerated by the rains from the January storm. Initial DSR's written for stabilization were later voided and replaced by damage survey report (DSR) 11440 which was prepared on January 11, 1996, in the amount of $69,000, for the installation of landslide slope drainage and associated engineering. This DSR was amended by FEMA in March 1996, changing the scope of the DSR to provide $45,000 exclusively for a "Geotechnical Investigation Estimate." This funding was for a limited geotechnical study of the localized slide that was resting on the road, and to determine methods for removing debris from the road without triggering further sliding. As of March 1996, the County had not undertaken any emergency measures or debris removal activities on the road.
First Appeal
On February 8, 1996, the County submitted a "Non-Concurrence letter" to DSR 11440 stating that the funding was insufficient to cover the "comprehensive engineering and geological investigation and evaluation of the slide area" that the County asserted was necessary. The County followed up this letter with an April 2, 1997, letter, which further contested the scope and funding provided in DSR 11440. This letter was forwarded to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region IX by the State of California (State) Office of Emergency Services as a first appeal. In this first appeal, the County laid out a six-phase plan for dealing with the landslide and its aftermath. The six phases were 1) conduct a comprehensive engineering and geologic investigation of the landslide area; 2) determine the methods for stabilizing the active landslide before debris removal could be safely conducted; 3) stabilize the active slide; 4) remove slide debris from the road and surroundings; 5) implement physical measures to reduce the danger of a further slide incident; and 6) monitor the slide area and maintain drainage facilities or other structures to alleviate further effects of the slide.
In his November 14, 1996, response to the first appeal, the Regional Director stated that sufficient funding was provided for a geotechnical study of the localized slide area (DSR 11440). The findings of this study were to be used to identify measures which would reduce the immediate threat posed by the slide mass and to allow for safe debris removal. These measures would potentially be eligible for FEMA funding if there were an immediate threat from the slide, as specified in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 206.224(a). The Regional Director goes on to state that "the La Conchita landslide is a large, deep-seated and ancient landslide complex that has undergone repeated movements in the years preceding the most recent slide." As such, it is only eligible for stabilization to the extent that there is an immediate threat to life, public health, safety, or improved property, in accordance with FEMA's Landslide Policy, No. 4511.300 A, EX. In addition, emergency work that would be conducted in response to such an immediate threat must have been completed within 6 months of the disaster (or 12 months with an approved extension). At the time of the Region's response to the County's appeal, 19 months had elapsed and the slide had become stable. The Regional Director also stated that since the County had not taken action which would indicate that the slide mass posed an immediate threat, or demonstrated this fact through other means, the appeal was denied and the funds previously obligated under DSR 11440 were deobligated by DSR 39698.
Second Appeal
The County submitted a second appeal to FEMA headquarters on February 27, 1997, 23 months after the landslide. The County disagreed with the Regional Director's denial of the first appeal, which deobligated all eligible funds for the slide, as a result of the absence of an immediate threat and the lack of any actions by the County to that point. The County stated that they had not concurred with the funding level and scope of the original DSR ($69,000) which was written to provide funding for engineering and the installation of horizontal drainage. This was due to the potential danger posed to workers by the slide, which the County felt was not addressed by FEMA. The County also asserted that it had begun the federal procurement process to select a consultant for the engineering study of the slide, which was funded by revised DSR 11440, and was within days of awarding a contract when the funds were deobligated by FEMA. The County further inquires in the appeal, ".what happens to the stability of the slide when a mass of earth 300 feet long and 7 or 8 feet high is removed from the public street? Will FEMA or OES guarantee that the material can be removed from the toe of an active landslide without engineering evaluation and exceptional risk?"
FEMA Region IX received the State's letter forwarding the County's second appeal on May 7, 1997, and prepared a transmittal memorandum for the Response and Recovery (R&R) Directorate dated August 2, 1997. In forwarding the second appeal to FEMA headquarters for review, the Regional Director states that in the 28 months after the disaster event, the hillside and slide mass have remained stable, even after being subjected to two heavy winter rain periods. The Regional Director asserts that the County has not taken any action, or otherwise demonstrated that the slide mass or the hillside currently poses an immediate threat to life or improved property.
DISCUSSION
At the time of the landslide (March 4, 1995), emergency measures and debris removal were eligible for FEMA funding according to FEMA Landslide Policy No. 4511.300 A, EX. An existing landslide complex had failed in a localized area covering 300-feet of Vista Del Rincon (VDR) Drive and posed a threat to public safety and improved property. However, over the 17 months following the slide (up to August 1996), the County, rather than taking action, contested the scope and funding of each DSR, and proposed large scale regional studies and stabilization measures in an attempt to address the entire landslide complex. As a result, the County failed to take any substantive action in the 17 months after the slide, prompting FEMA to deobligate all funding in August 1996.
Documentation indicates the County was aware of the larger landslide complex prior to the March 1995 slide. One indication of the County's knowledge of the scope of the problem and their hesitancy (or lack of the means) to address it appears in a February 1995 (before the slide) letter from a Ventura County Board Member addressed to California Congressman Elton Gallegly. The letter warned of the impending slide, and touched on the scope of the potential slide and the County's lack of action even before the slide. The letter states that,
"Last September (1994) county officials were informed of an unstable slope above a row of homes north of Vista Del Rincon Drive.The unstable slope is on private property and the county (Public, lack of funding for such a massive project." [emphasis added]
This further confirms that the area was prone to landslides prior to the disaster. FEMA policy does not allow for the permanent stabilization of landslides. If the landslide poses an immediate threat to life and improved property, FEMA will fund a geo-technical investigation of cost effective alternatives to lessen or eliminate the threat. If there are cost effective measures, FEMA will fund them. If a public facility is damaged from a landslide that was unstable prior to the disaster, FEMA will fund the repair of the facility after the applicant has stabilized the landslide area. In the La Conchita landslide, seven to eight feet of soil from the hillside was deposited on public road. The applicant argues that FEMA should fund a six-phase study to determine if it is feasible to remove the soil from the road without causing additional slides. FEMA approved a DSR for $45,000 to study the feasibility of removing the soil from the road. However, the work was not accomplished within the regulatory timeframes. The regional staff subsequently de-obligated the funds. To date, the applicant has not initiated a feasibility study of the area. Consequently, the soil (debris) from the landslide remains on the public road.
If the public road was damaged by the landslide, the repair of the road is eligible for funding. However, if a geo-technical study indicates that the cost to remove the soil from the public road and to stabilize the foot of the slide exceeds the cost to repair the road, FEMA is not obligated to fund that work. Likewise, FEMA is not obligated to establish a new road because access to all structures in the subdivision still exists. If the applicant does not remove the soil from the public street, it may submit a request to FEMA for an alternate project. In this case, FEMA and the applicant must agree on an estimated cost to repair the road.
The disaster regulations allow applicants six months to complete all eligible debris removal and emergency protective measures. The grantee may grant a 6-month time extension to complete emergency work if extenuating circumstances exist that preclude completion of the work. 44CFR206.204 grants the Regional Director authority to extend the completion date for emergency work upon receipt of a request from the applicant. In this case, the applicant did not complete the emergency protective measures within the regulatory timeframes, nor did they request a time extension for the completion of the emergency work.
CONCLUSION
Given the facts of this case, the Regional Director's decision on the first appeal is consistent with the program policy. Therefore, the appeal is denied.
Last updated