Susquehanna County Bridge #22
Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
DISCUSSION: Flooding in 1996 (FEMA-1093-DR) destroyed the one-lane Susquehanna County Bridge #22. DSR 36466 obligated $295,878 to replace the bridge in kind. The County's first appeal asked FEMA to fund a two-lane bridge, claiming that Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) standards required the wider bridge. FEMA denied the appeal based on the facility's predisaster use. The State asked FEMA to reconsider and also submitted a second appeal on behalf of the applicant. The State claimed that a letter from FEMA (sent prior to the first appeal response) suggested the County would be fully reimbursed if it submitted a hydraulic report. FEMA's response explained that the report simply confirmed the dimensions of the bridge. The County's third appeal was approximately six months late and contained no new information. FEMA has consistently replaced one-lane bridges with one-lane bridges based on policy guidance and its interpretation of 44 CFR 206.226(b). Therefore, there is no reason to fully fund this bridge.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Sign letter denying this appeal.
Third Appeal Summary
FEMA-1093-DR
PA ID# 115-00000; Susquehanna County Board of Commissioners
DSR ID# 36466; Susquehanna County Bridge #22
06/16/1999
PURPOSE: Respond to third appeal submitted by the Susquehanna County Board of Commissioners asking for funding to replace a one-lane bridge with a two-lane bridge.PA ID# 115-00000; Susquehanna County Board of Commissioners
DSR ID# 36466; Susquehanna County Bridge #22
06/16/1999
DISCUSSION: Flooding in 1996 (FEMA-1093-DR) destroyed the one-lane Susquehanna County Bridge #22. DSR 36466 obligated $295,878 to replace the bridge in kind. The County's first appeal asked FEMA to fund a two-lane bridge, claiming that Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) standards required the wider bridge. FEMA denied the appeal based on the facility's predisaster use. The State asked FEMA to reconsider and also submitted a second appeal on behalf of the applicant. The State claimed that a letter from FEMA (sent prior to the first appeal response) suggested the County would be fully reimbursed if it submitted a hydraulic report. FEMA's response explained that the report simply confirmed the dimensions of the bridge. The County's third appeal was approximately six months late and contained no new information. FEMA has consistently replaced one-lane bridges with one-lane bridges based on policy guidance and its interpretation of 44 CFR 206.226(b). Therefore, there is no reason to fully fund this bridge.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Sign letter denying this appeal.