U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

Official websites use .gov

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Https

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites..

Queen Anne Road Bridge Crossing

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1586-DR
ApplicantPinal County
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#021-99021-00
PW ID#Project Worksheet 43-1
Date Signed2009-02-17T05:00:00
Citation: FEMA-1586-DR-AZ, Pinal County, Queen Anne Road Bridge Crossing
Project Worksheet (PW 43-1)

Cross
Reference: Bridges, Time Limitations

Summary: During February 2005, several tropical storms generated heavy rainfall in Queens Valley, AZ. The flood waters caused cavitation between the pipes and the two headwalls of the Queen Anne Road Bridge Crossing. Flood waters also damaged four corrugated steel culverts under the bridge crossing. FEMA obligated PW 43 for $150,000 on June 7, 2005.

On October 17, 2005, Pinal County (Applicant) discovered damage to the 4- and 6-inch water lines while repairing the bridge crossing. On October 25, 2005, the Applicant reported the water lines damage to the State (ADEM). The Applicant also stated that engineering and construction cost changes are eligible. On July 19, 2007, ADEM submitted the Applicant’s request to FEMA.
On December 13, 2007, the Applicant submitted the first appeal. The Applicant asserted that the damage should be eligible because it complied with all applicable FEMA notification deadlines and attached a timeline as proof. The Deputy Regional Administrator denied the appeal because ADEM did not present any extenuating circumstances beyond ADEM’s control for not reporting the damage to FEMA until July 19, 2007, nearly 21 months after the Applicant made the discovery.

The Applicant submitted a second appeal that reiterates the arguments made in the first appeal. ADEM participated in the State Management of Disasters (SMD) initiative in 2000, and managed six major disasters since then. ADEM provided a State/FEMA agreement that allows ADEM to manage the disaster until final review. In accordance with 44 CFR §206.207, FEMA allows a State that demonstrates the capability to manage a disaster to be responsible for program administration. Therefore, ADEM was not required to notify FEMA of the changes until FEMA conducted the final review.

Issues: Did the Applicant comply with program regulations?

Findings: Yes.

Rationale: 44 CFR §206.207

Appeal Letter

February 17, 2009

Beth Zimmerman
Alternate Governor’s Authorized Representative
Arizona Division of Emergency Management
5636 East McDowell Road, Building M5507
Phoenix, Arizona 850008-3495

Dear Ms. Zimmerman:

Re: Second Appeal–Pinal County, PA ID 021-99021-00, Queen Anne Road Bridge Crossing, FEMA-1586-DR-AZ, Project Worksheet (PW) 43-1

This is in response to your letter dated August 6, 2008, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Pinal County (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) decision to deny $55,844 for the cost to repair the water lines and $74,758 for the cost of the engineering and construction changes for the Queen Anne Road Bridge Crossing.
During February 2005, several tropical storms generated heavy rainfall in Queens Valley, AZ. The flood waters caused cavitation between the pipes and the two headwalls of the Queen Anne Road Bridge Crossing. Flood waters also damaged four corrugated steel culverts under the Queen Anne Road Bridge Crossing. FEMA obligated PW 43 for $150,000 on June 7, 2005.

On October, 17, 2005, the Applicant discovered damage to the 4- and 6-inch water lines while repairing the damaged section of the bridge crossing. On October 25, 2005, the Applicant reported the water lines damage to the Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs (ADEM). The Applicant stated that the 4-inch pipes needed to be replaced by 6-inch pipes to comply with building codes and standards. The Applicant also stated that engineering and construction cost changes are eligible. On July 19, 2007, ADEM submitted the Applicant’s request for a change in the scope of work and additional funding to FEMA.

On October 1, 2007, FEMA denied the Applicant’s request to fund the water lines repair and the engineering and construction cost changes. FEMA found that the water lines repair was ineligible because the Applicant did not identify the damage within 60 days of the Kickoff Meeting in accordance with 44 CFR §206.202(d)(ii). Second, FEMA did not approve the engineering and construction changes because FEMA could not determine what costs were related to the ineligible water lines repair.
On December 13, 2007, the Applicant submitted the first appeal. The Applicant asserted that the damage should be eligible because the Applicant complied with all applicable FEMA notification deadlines and attached a timeline as proof. Region IX acknowledged that the Applicant demonstrated extenuating circumstances beyond the Applicant’s control for not reporting the water line damage because the damage was not visible during the site visit. The Deputy Regional Administrator denied the appeal because ADEM did not notify FEMA of the water line damage until July 19, 2007, nearly 21 months after the Applicant made the discovery. The Deputy Regional Administrator stated that ADEM did not present any extenuating circumstances beyond ADEM’s control for the failure to report the additional damage in a timely manner.

The Applicant’s second appeal reiterates the arguments made in the first appeal. ADEM asserts that the Applicant should not be held accountable because ADEM failed to report the changes to FEMA in a timely manner. ADEM also argues that there were numerous entries in the FEMA contact log report about the water lines repair before July 19, 2007. ADEM participated in the State Management of Disasters (SMD) initiative in 2000, and managed six major disasters since then. ADEM provided a State/FEMA agreement that allows ADEM to manage the disaster until final review. In accordance with 44 CFR §206.207, FEMA allows a State that demonstrates the capability to manage a disaster to be responsible for program administration. Therefore, ADEM was not required to notify FEMA of the changes until FEMA conducted the final review.

I have reviewed all information submitted with the appeal and determined that the Applicant complied with program regulations. Therefore, I approve the appeal. By copy of this letter, I am requesting that the Regional Administrator take the appropriate action to implement my decision.

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/
James A. Walke
Acting Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate

cc: Nancy Ward
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IX
Last updated February 4, 2020