Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 007-17046-00; Town of Colesville
PW ID# Project Worksheet 1155; Slope Erosion and Failure on Hartz Road
FEMA-1670-DR-NY, Town of Colesville, Project Worksheet (PW) 1155,
Slope Erosion and Failure on Hartz RoadCross-reference:
Documentation, General Eligibility, LandslidesSummary:
Following severe storms and flooding during the period of November 16-17, 2006, (FEMA- 1670-DR-NY), FEMA prepared PW 1155 for slope erosion along a portion of Marsh Creek that threatened Hartz Road. FEMAs inspection and geotechnical site assessment determined that a portion of the creek slope was eroded, but that the erosion was due to pre-existing conditions. The inspection also determined that Hartz Road did not sustain damage due to FEMA-1670-DR-NY. Based on the site inspection and geotechnical assessment report, FEMA did not approve funds for PW 1155.
In its first appeal on May 2, 2007, the Applicant claimed that the slope erosion was a direct result of flooding that occurred June 26-July 10, 2006 (FEMA-1650-DR-NY), and that the work was required because the unstable slope posed an immediate threat to the Hartz Road. Support documents included a letter from the Broome County Soil and Water Conservation District, letters from Hartz Road homeowners, a copy of FEMAs geotechnical site assessment report, photographs of the slope area, and a copy of a topographic survey of the Hartz Road slope area and a project costs estimate provided by Hawk Engineering, an independent engineering company retained by the Applicant. The Hawk Engineering survey concluded that the slope erosion was due to FEMA-1650-DR-NY. FEMA denied the first appeal indicating that the Applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to support its claim for damages related to flooding in November 2006 (FEMA-1670-DR-NY).
In a letter dated January 3, 2008, New York State Emergency Management Office (SEMO) requested that FEMA review the circumstances surrounding this project and set aside the initial ineligible decision. The Regional Administrator explained that the disaster site, which was damaged in June-July 2006 (FEMA-1650-DR-NY) and again during the disaster in November 2006 (FEMA-1670-DR-NY), was eligible for debris removal in the first event and ineligible for permanent work in the second event because damages were not disaster-related. The Applicant submitted a second appeal on October 18, 2007, reiterating its request for funding for slope erosion stabilization because the slope erosion was a direct result of the earlier disaster (FEMA-1650-DR-NY). Support documents included a follow-up topographic survey report from the president of Hawk Engineering, Charles Gaynor, and a copy of Mr. Gaynors curriculum vitae. Issues:
1. Is the work requested required as a direct result of the disaster?
2. Did Applicant supply documentation with its appeal sufficient to support its claim?Findings:
2. No. Rationale:
44 CFR §206.206; 44 CFR §206.223(a)(1); FEMA Policy 9524.2 Landslides and Slope Failures
; PA Guide 322 Landslide; PA Guide 322 Direct Result