Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 073-56375-00; Pleasant Grove Township
PW ID# (PW) 47 ; Direct Result of Disaster – Predisaster Conditions
Conclusion: Pleasant Grove Township (Subrecipient) demonstrated Sites 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 12 were routinely maintained prior to the disaster and the work to repair damage to those sites was required as a direct result of the disaster.
In September 2016, severe storms and extensive flooding caused damage throughout the state of Kansas. The Subrecipient requested Public Assistance (PA) to repair 13 road sites (later amended to 12 sites) that it claimed were damaged as a result of the disaster. FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 47 to document the request and found that only Sites 1, 2, and 7 depicted evidence of damage, whereas Site 4 was a minimally maintained dirt road with no apparent damage, and the remaining sites were maintained but also did not show any signs of damage. The Subrecipient appealed FEMA’s determination and argued the roads were maintained and damaged by the disaster. The Regional Administrator denied the appeal because the Subrecipient had not provided sufficient documentation demonstrating that the reported damage to its roadways was related to the disaster and the documentation provided only demonstrated spot repairs, rather than routine maintenance prior to the disaster. The Subrecipient again appeals, reiterating its prior arguments that it provided invoices, statements of work and other, non-photographic evidence that demonstrate the road sites were maintained prior to the disaster and the damage to the roads was caused by the disaster.
Authorities and Second Appeals
44 C.F.R. § 206.223(a)(1), 206.226.
PAPPG, at 110, 129.
Village of Waterford, FEMA-4020-DR-NY, at 4.
Lowe Township, FEMA-4287-DR-KS, at 3-5.
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 PAPPG states FEMA reviews maintenance records or documentation establishing the Subrecipient had a routine maintenance program (such as invoices) to verify predisaster conditions and assess eligible disaster damages.
Annual road work expenditures and repair invoices show predisaster repair work, including work performed 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 major disaster to be eligible for PA funding.
The determination that the Subrecipient demonstrated predisaster maintenance, coupled with detailed damage descriptions and photographs taken by FEMA’s project specialist during site inspections, allow FEMA to conclude the damage to sites 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 12 were a direct result of the disaster.