PA ID# 027-37760-00; City of Lenoir
PW ID# Project Worksheet 113; Old North Road Bridge Culvert
Citation: FEMA-1546-DR-NC, City of Lenoir, Old North Road Bridge and Culvert Structure
Cross-reference: Pre-Disaster Conditions, Work Eligibility
Summary: Heavy rains associated with Tropical Storm Frances caused damage in western North Carolina in September 2004. Project Worksheet (PW) 113 was written for the City of Lenoir (Applicant) to document damages to the Old North Road Bridge and culvert. However, the PW was not funded based on a determination that most of the damage to the bridge and culvert existed prior to the disaster and the estimated cost to fill three failed areas of the roadway shoulder, the work that was determined to be disaster related, did not meet the $1,000 project threshold in accordance with 44 CFR §206.202(d)(2). In a letter dated January 14, 2005, the North Carolina Division of Emergency Management notified the Applicant that it agreed with FEMAs decision not to fund PW 113. The Applicants engineering firm inspected the bridge and produced a report dated April 4, 2005, documenting the condition of the bridge. FEMAs Technical Assistance Contractor (TAC) compared the Applicants April 2004 (predisaster) bridge inspection report with the April 2005 (post-disaster) bridge inspection report and documented the results in a memorandum dated December 22, 2005. The TAC concluded that the bridge had experienced significant structural distress prior to the disaster and that the extensive repair recommended by the April 2004 engineering report had not begun at the time of the disaster. However, it recommended that PW 113 be obligated for $2,000 to fund eligible costs related to filling three areas on the roadway shoulder. On February 6, 2006, PW 113 was obligated for this amount. The Applicant submitted its first appeal on April 3, 2006, requesting $400,000 to remove and replace the existing bridge. FEMA denied the appeal on June 27, 2006, stating that the Applicant did not provide information to indicate that the damage to the bridge was a direct result of the declared event. The Applicant submitted its second appeal on September 15, 2006, requesting $288,000 in what it estimates are eligible costs.
Issues: 1. Is the work requested required as a direct result of the disaster?
2. Does the work requested by the Applicant return the facility to predisaster condition?