U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

Official websites use .gov

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Https

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites..

Ostrom Road

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1646-DR
ApplicantAmador County
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#055-99005-00
PW ID#Project Worksheet 781
Date Signed2008-04-11T04:00:00
FEMA-1646-DR-CA, Amador County, PW 781
Cross-reference: Permanent Work, Road Repair
Summary: Following declaration FEMA-1646-DR-CA, the Applicant requested funding for shoulder and pavement repair on 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 on March 5, 2007, stating that heavy rainfall saturated the road’s subgrade and produced cracks in the paved surface. The Applicant produced patch logs and photographs to show some repairs made prior to the event. The logs and photos did not support the assertion that the repairs were completed prior to the incident or part of a regular maintenance program. Additionally, the monthly logs did not describe the damage repaired or the repairs themselves in any detail. The Applicant did not establish that standing floodwater will cause alligator cracking in asphalt pavement.
On October 12, 2007, the Applicant submitted its second appeal reiterating its position presented in the first appeal.

Issues: 1. Is the work required as a result of the disaster?

Findings: 1. No.

Rationale: 44 CFR §206.223 (a)(1)
Second Appeal–Amador County, FEMA-1646-DR-CA, Project Worksheet 781

Appeal Letter

April 11, 2008

Grace Koch
Governor’s Authorized Representative
Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
Response and Recovery Division
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, CA 95655

Re: Second Appeal–Amador County, PA ID 005-99005-00
Ostrom Road, 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 Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (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 Applicant’s 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 Applicant’s road.

I have reviewed all information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the Deputy Regional Administrator’s decision in the first appeal is consistent with Public Assistance Program regulations and policies. Therefore, I deny the Applicant’s second appeal.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206.

Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate

cc: Nancy Ward
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IX
Last updated February 4, 2020