Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Letter
PA ID# 055-99005-00; Amador County
PW ID# Project Worksheet 781; Ostrom Road
April 11, 2008
Governors Authorized Representative
Governors Office of Emergency Services
Response and Recovery Division
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, CA 95655
Re: Second AppealAmador County, PA ID 005-99005-00
, FEMA-1646-DR-CA, Project Worksheet 781
Dear Ms. Koch:
This letter is in response to the referenced second appeal submitted by Amador County (Applicant) to your office on October 12, 2007, and transmitted by your letter dated December 11, 2007. The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMA) denial of funding for pavement repair.
The heavy rains of the 2006 Spring Storms produced severe flooding that damaged the shoulder of Ostrom Road. FEMA reimbursed the Applicant $22,424 to repair the shoulder of the road. The Applicant also requested $129,366 to repair asphalt road pavement. FEMA denied this funding because the cracking of the asphalt indicated deferred maintenance.
The Applicant submitted its first appeal to the Office of Emergency Service (OES) on March 2, 2007. OES forwarded the appeal to FEMA on May 3, 2007. The Applicants first appeal stated that seven weeks of solid rainfall and standing water compromised the sub-base and caused cracks in the asphalt pavement. The Applicant submitted photographs and maintenance logs for documentation.
The Deputy Regional Administrator denied the first appeal on August 1, 2007. FEMA determined that the pavement replacement was ineligible because the damage was due to deferred maintenance. The road surface showed clear signs of alligator cracking, a series of interconnected cracks caused by fatigue failure of the stabilized base due to repeated traffic loading.
The Applicant submitted its second appeal to the OES on October 12, 2007. The Applicant asserts that patching logs and photographs, submitted with the second appeal, demonstrate that the damaged sections of Ostrom Road showed recent maintenance. As in the first appeal, the
Applicant contends that the standing water washed out the sub-base, and caused the pavement to crack.
The most common causes of alligator cracking include an increase in loading, inadequate structural design, or inadequate compaction of the sub-base during construction. These causes will show cracking or fatigue throughout the entire width of the structure, without complete failure of the paved surface. Severe flooding events cause complete failure rather than symptoms of a compromised pavement structure, such as the cracking that has occurred in the Applicants road.
I have reviewed all information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the Deputy Regional Administrators decision in the first appeal is consistent with Public Assistance Program regulations and policies. Therefore, I deny the Applicants second appeal.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206.
Carlos J. Castillo
Disaster Assistance Directorate
cc: Nancy Ward
FEMA Region IX