Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 035-75360-00; City of Taylorsville
PW ID# 295; Road Repair and Slope Stabilization
Citation: FEMA-4011-DR-UT, City of Taylorsville City, Road Repair and Slope Stabilization
Cross-Reference: Emergency Protective Measures, Landslides, Pre-Disaster Condition
Summary: During the flooding event, the City of Taylorsville (Applicant) became aware of pavement damage along a 213-foot long section of Canal Street. FEMA prepared PW 295 to document the road damage, but based on the site conditions, determined the PW to be ineligible, because the instability of the slope supporting the road was a pre-existing condition. The Applicant submitted a first appeal requesting $1.2 million to restore the site, subsequently reducing the request to $650,000. The Applicant stated that there had been no significant movement since the flooding event indicating that the movement was, in fact, caused by the disaster. The Applicant requested funding for the installation of a box culvert in the canal at the bottom of the slope in order to re-grade and stabilize the slope and repair the roadway. The FEMA Regional Administrator denied the appeal stating that while the declared event may have triggered additional slope failure, the Applicant did not provide any compelling information to substantiate that the site was not previously unstable. The Applicant submitted a second appeal asserting that the roadway damage was not caused by movement of the slope, but by “an unusually high amount of water saturation and inability of the soil type to absorb it without causing the asphalt to shift and separate.” The Applicant states that “lengthening the slope” was necessary to provide support for the equipment required for the road repair and to eliminate the potential for instability. The Applicant asserts that lengthening or reinforcing the slope is eligible for funding as an emergency protective measure due to the immediate threat to life, safety, and significant additional damage to improved property. Lastly, the Applicant states that the conclusions made by FEMA in PW 275 regarding the pre-existing condition of the site are not consistent with photographic evidence and the additional information it provided with the first appeal.
Issues: 1. Did an immediate threat exist at the site as the result of the event?
2. Was the instability of the site caused by the event?
Findings: 1. No.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.225(a)(3) Emergency Work; 44 CFR §206.221(c) Definitions; FEMA Recovery Policy 9524.2, Landslides and Slope Stability Related to Public Facilities