Result of Declared Incident

Appeal Brief

Summary Paragraph

From September 14-28, 2020, Hurricane Sally caused damage to the Florida panhandle. Holmes County (Applicant) requested Public Assistance to repair unpaved roads throughout the county. FEMA prepared Grants Manager Projects (GMPs) 165974, 170548, 170549, and 170550 to document claimed damages, repairs, and costs. FEMA conducted site inspections and prepared Site Inspection Reports. FEMA issued a Request for Information for each project, seeking documentation supporting predisaster condition and quantifying damage. The Applicant provided photographs and invoices, explaining that it did not place additional road materials unless needed. FEMA partially granted funding for GMP 165974, approving $46,232.76 and denied funding for the remaining projects, finding that the Applicant did not provide adequate documentation to support that all the claimed damages were incident related. The Applicant submitted first appeals for each project, requesting all denied costs. FEMA denied the appeals, finding the Applicant had not demonstrated that the road damage was a result of the declared incident. The Applicant submitted a second appeal, requesting $25,008,703.70, and reasserting its first appeal arguments. The Florida Division of Emergency Management transmitted the appeal with support.

Authorities and Second Appeals

• Stafford Act § 406(a)(1)(A).
• 44 C.F.R. §§ 206.223(a)(1), 206.226.
• PAPPG, at 51-52, 63- 64, 65, 169, and 170.
• Escambia Cnty., FEMA-4564-DR-FL, at 3; Washington Cnty, FEMA-4586-DR-TX, at 3; Belgrade (Township of), FEMA-4390-DR-MN, at 2.
  • Here, the Applicant’s documentation does not identify work related to the sites under appeal or establish routine maintenance. As such, the Applicant has not documented the predisaster condition of its roads. Consequently, FEMA cannot determine the claimed damages are disaster related.

Headnotes

• An item of work must be required as a result of the incident to be eligible for PA funding. It is the Applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate that the damage is the direct result of the incident.

Conclusion

The Applicant has not demonstrated that the work to repair the roads was required as a result of the disaster and, therefore, it is not eligible for PA funding. Therefore, the appeal is denied.

Appeal Letter

Appeal Analysis

Background

From September 14-28, 2020, Hurricane Sally caused damage to the Florida panhandle.[1] Holmes County (Applicant) requested Public Assistance (PA) to repair numerous sites on 548 unpaved[2] roads throughout the county. FEMA prepared Grants Manager Projects (GMPs) 165974, 170548, 170549, and 170550 to document claimed damages, repairs, and costs. FEMA conducted site inspections and prepared Site Inspection Reports (SIRs), noting flood damage to road components, including surfaces and ditches. FEMA issued a Request for Information for each project, asking the Applicant to provide: (1) documentation to support the predisaster condition of the roads; (2) documentation to substantiate the post-disaster condition of the roads that could be used to quantify damage; and (3) maintenance records with locations and quantities of aggregate surfaces applied prior to the incident. The Applicant provided post-disaster photographs and explained that it graded the roads to remove potholes and scouring but did not place more materials during routine road maintenance unless needed. The Applicant also provided purchase orders and invoices for materials used for previous disaster-related repairs.[3] In August and September 2021, FEMA partially granted funding for GMP 165974, approving $46,232.76 and denied funding for the remaining projects, finding that the Applicant did not provide adequate documentation to demonstrate that all the claimed damages were a direct result of the disaster.

First Appeal 

The Applicant submitted first appeals for each project in October and November 2021, requesting FEMA approve all denied costs. The Applicant contended that it had previously provided sufficient work and maintenance records that verified the predisaster condition of its roads, and the locations and quantities of disaster-caused damage. In December 2021, the Florida Division of Emergency Management (Recipient) transmitted the Applicant’s appeals, recommending that FEMA fully fund the Applicant’s claimed costs. 

In a letter dated January 13, 2023, the FEMA Region 4 Regional Administrator denied the appeals, finding the Applicant had not demonstrated that the claimed road damage was a result of the declared incident. FEMA found the Applicant did not provide documentation to show the predisaster condition of the roads or that a routine maintenance program existed prior to the incident; or of actual gravel surface loss on the roads. FEMA noted that the Applicant provided documentation such as spreadsheets, lump sum invoices, photographs, floodplain maps, and emails. However, FEMA found that the information did not support quantification of actual gravel surface loss or substantiate that the claimed damage was a result of the declared incident. Therefore, FEMA stated it was unable to validate the eligibility of the claimed work and costs.   

Second Appeal

On March 13, 2023, the Applicant submitted a second appeal, requesting $25,008,703.70 in costs to repair unpaved roads. The Applicant reasserts that it provided sufficient documentation to show predisaster condition and establish that it had a routine maintenance program. The Applicant contends that previously provided documents related to repairs resulting from a prior disaster, including material invoices, payment documents, force account labor and equipment records, and purchase orders, demonstrate road maintenance and substantiate predisaster condition. On second appeal, the Applicant provides a statement from an employee of its Road and Bridges Department, explaining that although no written maintenance policy exists, the Applicant has a routine maintenance program whereby road crews routinely travel the Applicant’s unpaved roads to grade and compress the rock surface and make repairs as needed.^[4] The Applicant also provides a September 2019 to September 2020 work order report, showing complaints and repairs during the 12 month period preceding the disaster. The Applicant provided dated and undated predisaster photographs showing road work activity on 16 unpaved roads. The Recipient transmitted the appeal on May 5, 2023, recommending approval.

Discussion

FEMA provides PA funding to eligible applicants for the repair, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of eligible facilities damaged or destroyed by major disasters on the basis of their predisaster design and function, in conformity with other provisions.^[5]To be eligible, work must be required as a result of the declared incident, and the applicant must demonstrate that the damage was directly caused by the incident.^[6] The incident may cause minor damage to roads that result in damage similar to that which may occur over time from other causes, such as the age of the road, traffic flow, and frequent rain.[7] When evaluating eligibility of reported road damage, in addition to evaluating how the incident caused the damage, FEMA reviews maintenance records or documentation establishing that the applicant has a routine maintenance program.[8] When necessary to validate damage, the applicant may be required to provide documentation supporting the predisaster condition of the facility.[9] It is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate that claimed damage was directly caused by the declared incident, and, where pre-existing damage exists, to distinguish that damage from the disaster-related damage.^[10]

Here, FEMA has previously denied the majority of the Applicant’s PA request because the Applicant did not provide documentation to demonstrate that all the claimed damages were the result of the disaster, and/or distinguish pre-existing damage from damage caused by the disaster. Further, the Applicant’s documentation does not identify work related to the sites under appeal or provide maintenance records that could be used to validate damage.

While the provided predisaster photographs are generally labeled with road names, the information provided is does not match them to claimed damage sites. For example, the 2019-2020 work order report neither ties the work performed with any sites under appeal, nor establishes that the Applicant had a program of routine maintenance. Rather, it records that the Applicant responded to separate as-needed road issues identified and/or requested by county residents, and recorded these “problems” in generic terms such as “fix road,” “grade,” and “spread dirt.” Similarly, the documents that are related to work addressing previously awarded PA funding under a prior disaster, including materials invoices, do not associate the material with the sites on appeal. The expenditure reports do not provide information to show how the broad categories, such as “Repair and Maintenance” and lump sum appropriations and expenditures were allocated to routine road maintenance, nor to prior maintenance work related to claimed damaged sites. Finally, the Applicant provided the statement from its employee confirming that the Applicant does not have a written maintenance program. While the statement describes routine road inspection and repair activities, it does not provide supporting documentation, such as inspection/work reports or photographs.^[11] As such, the Applicant has not documented the predisaster condition of its roads to help validate damage, or otherwise demonstrated that the claimed damages are the direct result of the declared incident. Therefore, the requested repairs are ineligible.

Conclusion

The Applicant has not demonstrated that the work to repair the roads was required as a result of the disaster and, therefore, it is not eligible for PA funding. Therefore, the appeal is denied.