County-Wide Road, Bridge, and Culvert Damage

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

Disaster1909-DR-TN
ApplicantHouston County
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#083-99083-00
PW ID#Unwritten Project Worksheets
Date Signed2013-10-28T00:00:00

Citation:   FEMA-1909-DR-TN, Houston County, County-wide Road, Bridge, and Culvert Damage, Unwritten Project Worksheets (PWs)

Cross-Reference:  Pre-disaster Condition; Roads

Summary:   Between April 30, 2010, and May 18, 2010, severe storms and flooding caused damage to roads, bridges, and culverts throughout Houston County.  Houston County (Applicant) requested Public Assistance funding for the repair of the disaster damage, and FEMA approved 98 PWs for the repairs for a total of $1,356,670.  In early 2011, the Applicant supplied FEMA with a list of roads that were “omitted” from the 98 PWs.  FEMA determined that all eligible road, culvert, and bridge repairs were funded through the approved PWs and determined that the additional damage submitted by the Applicant was not disaster related.  Further, FEMA determined that the Applicant submitted the request for additional damage after the deadline for reporting damages for the event.  The Applicant submitted its first appeal on October 18, 2011, claiming that FEMA omitted repairs of 123 damaged roads from the approved PWs. The Applicant claimed that it identified the damage to these additional roads to the FEMA Project Specialist within the deadline in July 2010, and FEMA neglected to include the repair of the damage in the approved PWs.  The FEMA Region IV Regional Administrator denied the appeal on May 11, 2012, stating that the Applicant had not submitted sufficient documentation that the additional damage was disaster related.  The Regional Administrator’s determination was based on a review of all approved PWs, the supporting documentation submitted by the Applicant, and notes in the Case Management File prepared by the FEMA Project Specialist stating that “FEMA personnel inspected 340 miles of roads within the Applicant’s jurisdiction and found that a large percentage of the road damage appeared to be routine maintenance and not eligible for FEMA reimbursement.” The Applicant submitted its second appeal on July 12, 2012; however, the FEMA Regional Administrator did not receive the second appeal until May 16, 2013.  Although not specifically cited as the amount in dispute, the Applicant states that the cost of the additional work completed on the roads not included on PWs is $238,553. 

Issues:  Did the Applicant demonstrate that the damage was caused by the declared event?

Findings:  No.  The Applicant did not sufficiently demonstrate the pre-disaster condition of the roads and that the damage was caused by the event.

Rationale:   44 CFR §206.223(a), General work eligibility

Appeal Letter

October 28, 2013

James H. Bassham
Director
Tennessee Emergency Management Agency
3041 Sidco Drive
Nashville, TN 37204

Re: Second Appeal – Houston County, PA ID 083-99083-00, County-Wide Road, Bridge, and Culvert Damage; FEMA-1909-DR-TN, Unwritten Project Worksheets (PWs)

Dear Mr. Bassham:

This is in response to a letter from your office dated September 19, 2012, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Houston County (Applicant).  The Applicant is appealing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of $238,553 for the repair of road, culvert, and bridge damage not captured on a project worksheet.

As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that the Applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that the damage was caused by the declared event.  Therefore, I am denying the appeal.

Please inform the Applicant of my decision.  This determination constitutes the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206, Appeals.

Sincerely,

/s/

Deborah Ingram
Assistant Administrator
Recovery Directorate

Enclosure

cc:  Major P. May
      Regional Administrator
      FEMA Region IV

Appeal Analysis

Background

Between April 30, 2010, and May 18, 2010, severe storms and flooding caused damage to roads, bridges, and culverts throughout Houston County, Tennessee.  Houston County (Applicant) requested Public Assistance funding for the repair of the disaster damage, and FEMA approved 98 PWs for the road, bridge, and culvert repairs for a total of $1,356,670. In early 2011, the Applicant supplied FEMA with a list of roads that were “omitted” from the 98 PWs.  FEMA determined that all eligible road, culvert, and bridge repairs were funded through the approved PWs and determined that the additional damage submitted by the Applicant was not disaster related.  Further, FEMA determined that the Applicant submitted the request for additional damage after the deadline for reporting damages for the event.    

First Appeal

The Applicant submitted its first appeal on October 18, 2011, claiming that FEMA omitted the repairs of 123 damaged roads from approved PWs. The Applicant claimed that it identified the damage to these additional roads to the FEMA Project Specialist within the deadline in July 2010, and FEMA neglected to include the repair of the damage in the approved PWs.  The FEMA Region IV Regional Administrator denied the appeal on May 11, 2012, stating that the Applicant had not submitted sufficient documentation that the additional damage was disaster related.  The Regional Administrator’s determination was based on a review of all approved PWs, the supporting documentation submitted by the Applicant, and notes in the Case Management File prepared by the FEMA Project Specialist stating that “FEMA personnel inspected 340 miles of roads within the Applicant’s jurisdiction and found that a large percentage of the road damage appeared to be routine maintenance and not eligible for FEMA reimbursement.”

Second Appeal

The Applicant submitted its second appeal on July 12, 2012; however, the FEMA Regional Administrator did not receive the second appeal until May 16, 2013.  The Tennessee Emergency Management Agency transmitted the second appeal initially on September, 19, 2012; however, FEMA Region IV had no record of the receipt of the appeal.   Although not specifically cited as the amount in dispute, the Applicant states that the cost of the additional work completed on the roads not included on PWs is $238,553.  The Applicant reiterates its position that the additional damage was caused by the events referring to photos, e-mails, and Daily Logs to support its position.

Discussion

According to Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) 206.223(a), General work eligibility, in order to be eligible for reimbursement under the Public Assistance Program, an item of work must be required as the result of the disaster.  The Applicant submitted documentation showing that the road damage was identified and reported to FEMA personnel; however, has not submitted documentation supporting that the repairs were required as the result of the declared event.  For facilities that require routine maintenance to maintain their designed function, such as roads, it may be possible to review pre-disaster maintenance or inspection reports to verify the pre-disaster condition and to assess eligible disaster damage. The FEMA Public Assistance Division requested more information from the Applicant to demonstrate the pre-disaster condition of the sites, but the Applicant did not respond to the request.  FEMA did not accidently omit the road damage in question as supposed by the Applicant.  FEMA did not include the repair of all of the road damage reported by the Applicant in the approved scopes of work, because FEMA determined that the damage was not caused by the event.  The Applicant submitted a work log showing force account labor on days during the disaster, payroll data during the incident period, equipment logs, and price lists.  The Applicant maintains that work would not have been completed during the disaster had it not been disaster-related.  However, damage that is identified during a disaster is not necessarily caused by the disaster.  While the Applicant submitted documentation demonstrating that work was done during or soon after the incident period, no documentation was provided that demonstrated the condition of the roads prior to the disaster. 

Conclusion

The Applicant has not demonstrated that the additional costs in question were incurred to restore damage caused by the declared event.  Therefore, the additional costs are not eligible for funding.

Last updated