Roadway Repairs
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: FEMA-1046-DR-CA; Golden West Community Services District
Cross
Reference: Disaster Related Damages; Time of Adoption of Codes
Summary: The Dolomite Road owned by Golden West Community Services District (GWCSD) in Eldorado reportedly was damaged as a result of saturated conditions resulting from the storms of March and April of 1995. Damage Survey Report (DSR) 22828 was prepared on August 19, 1995, for the repair of 1790 feet of the 18-foot wide roadway and 405 feet of access roads. At the time the DSR was prepared, the work was 99% complete. Two days prior to the inspection, on August 17, 1995, the subgrantee adopted a standard on road repairs. Following review, the DSR was determined to be ineligible on January 16, 1996. On
July 22, 1996, GWCSD appealed on the basis that the damage was disaster related since the road had been underwater and that the standard was adopted prior to the DSR being written, and, therefore, was prior to project approval. The Regional Director responded on November 26, 1996, stating that (1) alligator cracks, evident in photos taken after the disaster and prior to the repairs, were indicative of damages due to the age of the road surface and were not the result of the flooding conditions and (2) the standard does not apply because it was adopted after the work was completed. The second appeal only provides a letter from a resident of Dolomite Road stating that the damages after the disaster, cracking and potholes were not apparent before the disaster and described the flooding of the road.
Issues: 1) Were the cracking and potholes disaster related? 2) Are the damages eligible? 3) Does the standard make the repairs eligible?
Findings: 1) No. The damages are typical of age related effects (alligator cracks) of a road surface which though exacerbated by the disaster, were not created by the disaster. 2) No. The disaster may have added to the formation of the potholes. However, the potholes were not documented and the road was repaired prior to the inspection. 3) No. The standard went into effect after the repair work was performed.
Rationale: Eligible damages need to be the result of a declared disaster event, per
44 CFR 206.223(a)(1).
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1046-DR |
| Applicant | Golden West Community Services District |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 017-91011 |
| PW ID# | 22828 |
| Date Signed | 1998-08-14T04:00:00 |
Citation: FEMA-1046-DR-CA; Golden West Community Services District
Cross
Reference: Disaster Related Damages; Time of Adoption of Codes
Summary: The Dolomite Road owned by Golden West Community Services District (GWCSD) in Eldorado reportedly was damaged as a result of saturated conditions resulting from the storms of March and April of 1995. Damage Survey Report (DSR) 22828 was prepared on August 19, 1995, for the repair of 1790 feet of the 18-foot wide roadway and 405 feet of access roads. At the time the DSR was prepared, the work was 99% complete. Two days prior to the inspection, on August 17, 1995, the subgrantee adopted a standard on road repairs. Following review, the DSR was determined to be ineligible on January 16, 1996. On
July 22, 1996, GWCSD appealed on the basis that the damage was disaster related since the road had been underwater and that the standard was adopted prior to the DSR being written, and, therefore, was prior to project approval. The Regional Director responded on November 26, 1996, stating that (1) alligator cracks, evident in photos taken after the disaster and prior to the repairs, were indicative of damages due to the age of the road surface and were not the result of the flooding conditions and (2) the standard does not apply because it was adopted after the work was completed. The second appeal only provides a letter from a resident of Dolomite Road stating that the damages after the disaster, cracking and potholes were not apparent before the disaster and described the flooding of the road.
Issues: 1) Were the cracking and potholes disaster related? 2) Are the damages eligible? 3) Does the standard make the repairs eligible?
Findings: 1) No. The damages are typical of age related effects (alligator cracks) of a road surface which though exacerbated by the disaster, were not created by the disaster. 2) No. The disaster may have added to the formation of the potholes. However, the potholes were not documented and the road was repaired prior to the inspection. 3) No. The standard went into effect after the repair work was performed.
Rationale: Eligible damages need to be the result of a declared disaster event, per
44 CFR 206.223(a)(1).
Appeal Letter
August 14, 1998
Mr. D.A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
P.O. Box 419023
Rancho Cordova, California 95741
Dear Mr. Christian:
This letter is in response to your December 16, 1997, submittal of Golden West Community Services District's second appeal of the Regional Director's determination that road repairs in DSR 22828 were not disaster related, and, further, that an adopted standard was not applicable.
The subgrantee's second appeal asserts that the road did suffer damages as a result of the disaster, and that the standard which was used to redesign the road should be considered acceptable as it was adopted prior to project approval. In support of their position that the road was damaged as a result of the disaster, the subgrantee has provided a letter from a resident living along the repaired road. The resident described the intensity of the rainfall and resulting flood conditions. He stated that within two weeks of the disaster "the roadway was a myriad of potholes and deteriorating sub-surface".
Based on a review of all the information, including the letter from the resident, it is understood that after the disaster, the road surface showed signs of distress, evidenced by alligator cracking as well as potholes. Alligator cracks, which are apparent on the road surface in the post-disaster photographs included in DSR 22828, are generally not considered disaster-related damages from flood type disasters. Such cracking is considered indicative of aged road surfaces, or roadways requiring maintenance, and as such is considered a pre-disaster condition. A further indicator that these roads may have had some pre-disaster deterioration is the presence of the chip and seal surface. Such surfaces are shallow (typically less than 0.5 inches) surface courses that are usually placed as temporary repairs suggesting that a more extensive repair will be needed. It is noted that the subgrantee has not provided any maintenance records to substantiate the pre-disaster condition of the road. Accordingly, it is concluded that repair of the portion of the pavement within which alligator cracking was observed is not eligible.
It is recognized, however, that alligator cracking may make a road vulnerable to the influx of water. During a flood type disaster such as this, the cracks may have enabled the water to easily penetrate the road surface, saturating the subbase. With a weakened subbase, additional damage, such as potholes, may occur when vehicles travel over the road surface. Such conditions are consistent with those described by the local resident.
Accordingly, repair of potholes which can be specifically attributed to the disaster event may be eligible for funding. However, repairs to the roadway surface were completed prior to the site inspection. As such, FEMA was not able to assess the eligibility of the potholes for repair, or to quantify an eligible scope of work. When an applicant initiates repairs prior to a FEMA inspection, it is prudent for the applicant to document disaster-related damages prior to completion of the work. An inventory of the damages including photographs and detailed measurements often are sufficient to support an applicants requested scope of work. However, the photographs provided by the subgrantee of the post-disaster road conditions do not provide sufficient detail to determine eligibility nor quantities of repair. As the completed work exceeded the repair effort necessary to repair just the potholes, we are also not able to differentiate the scope of the completed work which is associated with potentially eligible damages from other unrelated work efforts. Accordingly, in the absence of accurately documented disaster damages, FEMA is unable to provide funding for the completed work. DSR 22828 remains ineligible for FEMA assistance.
Regarding the subgrantee's standard upon which they based their road repair design, the subgrantee asserts that FEMA regulations only require that a standard be adopted prior to project approval, and does not specifically require that the standard be in effect at the time the work was being performed. Although the work was 99% complete at the time the standard was formally adopted, as stressed by the subgrantee, design of the repair was complete and construction of this design was initiated and substantially completed. As was indicated in the Regional Director's first appeal response (enclosed), it cannot be said that these repairs were required in accordance with a specific standard if that standard was not in place during the time the work was being performed. Accordingly, work completed in accordance with this standard is not eligible. Therefore, the appeal is denied.
Please inform the applicant of my determination. In accordance with the appeal procedure governing appeal decisions made on or after May 8, 1998, my decision constitutes the final decision on this matter. The current appeal procedure was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1998. It amends 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Ms. Martha Z. Whetstone
Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Mr. D.A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
P.O. Box 419023
Rancho Cordova, California 95741
Dear Mr. Christian:
This letter is in response to your December 16, 1997, submittal of Golden West Community Services District's second appeal of the Regional Director's determination that road repairs in DSR 22828 were not disaster related, and, further, that an adopted standard was not applicable.
The subgrantee's second appeal asserts that the road did suffer damages as a result of the disaster, and that the standard which was used to redesign the road should be considered acceptable as it was adopted prior to project approval. In support of their position that the road was damaged as a result of the disaster, the subgrantee has provided a letter from a resident living along the repaired road. The resident described the intensity of the rainfall and resulting flood conditions. He stated that within two weeks of the disaster "the roadway was a myriad of potholes and deteriorating sub-surface".
Based on a review of all the information, including the letter from the resident, it is understood that after the disaster, the road surface showed signs of distress, evidenced by alligator cracking as well as potholes. Alligator cracks, which are apparent on the road surface in the post-disaster photographs included in DSR 22828, are generally not considered disaster-related damages from flood type disasters. Such cracking is considered indicative of aged road surfaces, or roadways requiring maintenance, and as such is considered a pre-disaster condition. A further indicator that these roads may have had some pre-disaster deterioration is the presence of the chip and seal surface. Such surfaces are shallow (typically less than 0.5 inches) surface courses that are usually placed as temporary repairs suggesting that a more extensive repair will be needed. It is noted that the subgrantee has not provided any maintenance records to substantiate the pre-disaster condition of the road. Accordingly, it is concluded that repair of the portion of the pavement within which alligator cracking was observed is not eligible.
It is recognized, however, that alligator cracking may make a road vulnerable to the influx of water. During a flood type disaster such as this, the cracks may have enabled the water to easily penetrate the road surface, saturating the subbase. With a weakened subbase, additional damage, such as potholes, may occur when vehicles travel over the road surface. Such conditions are consistent with those described by the local resident.
Accordingly, repair of potholes which can be specifically attributed to the disaster event may be eligible for funding. However, repairs to the roadway surface were completed prior to the site inspection. As such, FEMA was not able to assess the eligibility of the potholes for repair, or to quantify an eligible scope of work. When an applicant initiates repairs prior to a FEMA inspection, it is prudent for the applicant to document disaster-related damages prior to completion of the work. An inventory of the damages including photographs and detailed measurements often are sufficient to support an applicants requested scope of work. However, the photographs provided by the subgrantee of the post-disaster road conditions do not provide sufficient detail to determine eligibility nor quantities of repair. As the completed work exceeded the repair effort necessary to repair just the potholes, we are also not able to differentiate the scope of the completed work which is associated with potentially eligible damages from other unrelated work efforts. Accordingly, in the absence of accurately documented disaster damages, FEMA is unable to provide funding for the completed work. DSR 22828 remains ineligible for FEMA assistance.
Regarding the subgrantee's standard upon which they based their road repair design, the subgrantee asserts that FEMA regulations only require that a standard be adopted prior to project approval, and does not specifically require that the standard be in effect at the time the work was being performed. Although the work was 99% complete at the time the standard was formally adopted, as stressed by the subgrantee, design of the repair was complete and construction of this design was initiated and substantially completed. As was indicated in the Regional Director's first appeal response (enclosed), it cannot be said that these repairs were required in accordance with a specific standard if that standard was not in place during the time the work was being performed. Accordingly, work completed in accordance with this standard is not eligible. Therefore, the appeal is denied.
Please inform the applicant of my determination. In accordance with the appeal procedure governing appeal decisions made on or after May 8, 1998, my decision constitutes the final decision on this matter. The current appeal procedure was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1998. It amends 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Ms. Martha Z. Whetstone
Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Last updated