This page has not been translated into Español. Visit the Español page for resources in that language.
Old North Road Bridge Culvert
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
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?
Findings: 1. No.
2. No.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.223(a)(1)
Appeal Brief
| Desastre | FEMA-1546-DR |
| Applicant | City of Lenoir |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 027-37760-00 |
| PW ID# | Project Worksheet 113 |
| Date Signed | 2008-04-02T04:00:00 |
2. Does the work requested by the Applicant return the facility to predisaster condition?
2. No.
Appeal Letter
April 2, 2008
Mr. H. Douglas Hoell, Jr.
Director
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
116 W. Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603-1135
Re: Second AppealCity of Lenoir, PA ID 027-37760-00, Old North Road Bridge and Culvert Structure, FEMA-1546-DR-NC, Project Worksheet (PW) 113
Dear Mr. Hoell:
This letter is in response to the second appeal forwarded by your office on December 13, 2006. The City of Lenoir (Applicant) is appealing the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMA) denial of its first appeal dated April 3, 2006. The Applicant is asking for $288,000.
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, your office notified the Applicant that it agreed with FEMAs determination.
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 shoulder of the roadway. 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 contradict the determination that the damage to the bridge was not 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 related to the
replacement of the Old North Road Bridge and culvert structure (i.e., the difference between the cost to repair the predisaster damage and the cost of replacing the bridge).
The bridge inspection report dated April 2004 indicated that the bridge required prompt action to repair damages and that the bridge had no remaining life. The grades summarizing its condition were identical in the 2004 (predisaster) and 2005 (post-disaster) reports. For disaster assistance, work must be required as a direct result of the declared disaster, per 44 CFR §206.233(a)(1). In this case, only the damage to the three areas on the shoulders of the roadway over the culvert was caused as a direct result of the disaster. For these reasons, I am denying the appeal.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
cc: Major P. May
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IV
Mr. H. Douglas Hoell, Jr.
Director
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
116 W. Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603-1135
Re: Second AppealCity of Lenoir, PA ID 027-37760-00, Old North Road Bridge and Culvert Structure, FEMA-1546-DR-NC, Project Worksheet (PW) 113
Dear Mr. Hoell:
This letter is in response to the second appeal forwarded by your office on December 13, 2006. The City of Lenoir (Applicant) is appealing the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMA) denial of its first appeal dated April 3, 2006. The Applicant is asking for $288,000.
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, your office notified the Applicant that it agreed with FEMAs determination.
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 shoulder of the roadway. 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 contradict the determination that the damage to the bridge was not 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 related to the
replacement of the Old North Road Bridge and culvert structure (i.e., the difference between the cost to repair the predisaster damage and the cost of replacing the bridge).
The bridge inspection report dated April 2004 indicated that the bridge required prompt action to repair damages and that the bridge had no remaining life. The grades summarizing its condition were identical in the 2004 (predisaster) and 2005 (post-disaster) reports. For disaster assistance, work must be required as a direct result of the declared disaster, per 44 CFR §206.233(a)(1). In this case, only the damage to the three areas on the shoulders of the roadway over the culvert was caused as a direct result of the disaster. For these reasons, I am denying the appeal.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
cc: Major P. May
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IV