Citation: FEMA-1829-DR-ND, Valley City, Road Repair, Project Worksheets (PWs) 5522, 5525, 5528, and 5529
Summary: As a result of heavy snow and severe spring storms associated with FEMA-1829- DR-ND, emergency levees were constructed along the Sheyenne River in Valley City (Applicant). Heavy machinery and haul trucks used to deliver and remove clay material for these levees damaged roads, curbs, and driveways along haul routes in the Applicant’s jurisdiction. Initial damage assessments and inspections were conducted by FEMA, North Dakota Department of Emergency Services (NDDES), and the Applicant between July and October 2009. At the time of the initial inspections, emergency levees had not been removed. As a result, FEMA and NDDES officials advised the Applicant that the inspection team should be notified when the levees were removed so that additional inspections could be made to capture any damaged caused by levee removal.
On January 20 and 22, 2010, PWs 5522, 5525, 5528, and 5529 were approved for repairs to damaged roadway, curb, and gutter sites for a combined total cost of $974,141. From August 6 to 9, 2010, prior to beginning construction on the project, the Applicant’s contractor re-inspected the damaged sites and identified additional repairs in the amount of $250,000. The Applicant reported the additional damage to NDDES, who informed the Applicant that no additional information had been provided to establish that the additional damage was a result of the declared event, and cautioned that the time frame established to report additional damages or appeal the initial PW determination had been exceeded. In the first appeal, the Applicant provided documentation, including pictures, regarding areas that had additional damage. In addition to this documentation, the appeal contended that the PW inspection process was flawed. FEMA denied this appeal, determining that additional damages could not be attributed to the declared disaster event, and stating that the appeal of the approved scope of work was not filed within the established regulatory timeframe and that no and acceptable justification was provided for the delay in filing.
In the second appeal, the Applicant reiterated the argument that the repair sites were damaged by heavy machinery and haul trucks used to deliver and remove material for emergency levee repairs, and included photographs, haul route maps, and sheet of damages. The Applicant also argues that preparations for potential flooding in 2010 prevented officials from taking actions during the requisite appeal time period. However, the Applicant submitted the request for a change to the scope of work outside of the regulatory timeframe, and FEMA was not able to inspect the additional damage on sites claimed by the Applicant. Further, the Applicant did not provide sufficient information to support the claim that additional damage was caused by the declared event.
Issue: Is the additional damage identified by the Applicant a result of the disaster?
Rationale: Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44CFR) §206.202(d)(1)(ii), Application procedure, Project worksheets; 44 CFR §206.206, 44 CFR §206.223(a)(1), General work eligibility; Public Assistance Guide, Scope of Work and Costs