Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 043-52326-00; City of New Albany
PW ID# 568; Slope Stabilization
Citation: FEMA-1997-DR-IN, City of New Albany, Slope Stabilization, Project Worksheet (PW) 568.
Summary: Severe rainstorms producing record breaking rainfall from April 19, 2011, through June 6, 2011, resulted in flooding and significant storm water runoff causing 165 linear feet of road damage and slope failure along Spring Street Hill Road. FEMA prepared PW 568 for $222,995 to repair the roadway and stabilize the failed slope. FEMA determined that the work was ineligible because the site was found unstable prior to the event. Under 44 CFR 206.223(a), work must be required as a result of the emergency or major disaster event. In the first appeal, the Applicant asserted that the site was damaged from the significant water runoff, which overwhelmed local drainage channels, thereby penetrating the slope and causing the failure, and was therefore eligible for repair assistance. The Regional Administrator (RA) denied the appeal in accordance with Recovery Policy RP9524.2, Landslides and Slope Stability Related to Public Facilities, dated October 8, 2010, stating that the documentation submitted by the Applicant outlines a history of slope instability and failures along Spring Street Hill Road, as well as efforts to stabilize sections of the roadway. In addition, cracks in the asphalt resulting from the instability of the integral ground were identified prior to the incident period. The road failure that occurred during the incident period stemmed from these subsurface defects. Further, the RA determined that the Applicant’s appeal letter was received beyond the sixty day timeframe allowed under 44 CFR §206.206, Appeals. In the second appeal, the Applicant maintains that the slope failure was a direct result of the disaster event and not the subsurface defects noted in the RA’s denial. In support of the second appeal the Applicant submitted a letter from its consulting engineer questioning the validity of FEMA’s policy RP9524.2, Landslides and Slope Stability Related to Public Facilities, as it relates to this specific project’s geographic location, and reiterates its previous position that the pavement subsidence failure in May 2010 (same location of the current slope failure) was repaired and stabilized. No further documentation was submitted to support its claim.
Issue: Was slope instability at the Spring Street Hill Road site caused by the declared event?
Finding: No. There is evidence of prior site instability provided in the Applicant’s documentation.
Rationale: Section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 44 CFR §206.223(a), General Work Eligibility, Public Assistance Guide, FEMA 322, June 2007; RP9524.2, Landslides and Stability Related to Public Facilities, October 8, 2010