Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Third Appeal Brief
PA ID# 201-43205-00; Lowe Township
PW ID# (PW) 353 ; Roads, Direct Result of Disaster
Conclusion: Documentation provided by Lowe Township (Subrecipient) demonstrates routine predisaster maintenance of the Subrecipient’s culverts, and enables FEMA to determine damage to the culvert sites on appeal (sites 1 to 8) was caused by the disaster. Items of work to restore the sites, as recorded in the approved scope of work (SOW) are therefore eligible for Public Assistance (PA) in the amount of $12,493.91.
From May 4 to June 21, 2015, severe storms caused flash flooding on the Subrecipient’s road network. FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 353 to restore culverts at 12 sites, with an estimated total cost of $17,058.96. The Subrecipient completed restoration of the culverts at sites 1 to 8 before development of the SOW. In a PA Determination Memorandum, FEMA found the Subrecipient had not demonstrated the damages were the direct result of the disaster. FEMA removed all funding for the project. The Subrecipient appealed for the total project cost, and argued the damages were the direct result of the disaster. The Region VII Regional Administrator (RA) partially granted the appeal and approved funding ($4,565.05) for the culverts at sites 9 to 12; the RA was able to determine that damages evident in post-disaster photographs of the sites matched those described by the PW 353 damage statement. Work to restore sites 1 to 8 remained ineligible, as the RA determined there was no documentation showing disaster-related damages. The Subrecipient submits its second appeal for the cost to restore sites 1 to 8 ($12,493.91), and reiterates its first appeal eligibility arguments.
Authorities and Second Appeals
Stafford Act § 406.
44 C.F.R. §§ 206.223(a)(1), 206.226.
PA Guide, at 33.
Village of Waterford, FEMA-4020-DR-NY, at 4.
Arthur County, FEMA-4225-DR-NE, at 3.
Republic County Highway Department, FEMA-4230-DR-KS, at 3-4.
Per 44 C.F.R. § 206.226, FEMA may provide funding to restore an eligible facility on the basis of the design of that facility as it existed immediately prior to the disaster. The PA Guide states it may be possible to review maintenance records to verify predisaster conditions and assess eligible disaster damages.
Annual budget data and repair invoices show predisaster repair work, including work at several of the sites on appeal.
Therefore, the Subrecipient demonstrated routine predisaster maintenance.
Per 44 C.F.R. § 206.223(a)(1), an item of work must be required as a direct result of a
Additional documentation shows sites 1 to 8 were completely destroyed by the disaster, and their restoration began without the expectation of Federal assistance.
Along with the determination that the Subrecipient demonstrated predisaster maintenance, these findings allow FEMA to conclude the damages to sites 1 to 8 were a direct result of the disaster