This page has not been translated into Español. Visit the Español page for resources in that language.
Lower Imnaha Road
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation: FEMA-1160-DR-OR; Wallowa County; DSRs 07835, 07839, 37068
Cross Reference: Erosion, embankment, road, cost overrun, actual costs, cost estimate
Summary: Following the flood disaster in late 1996 and early 1997, FEMA prepared twelve small project DSRs for the cost of restoring the subgrantee's damaged facilities. The Grantee submitted the subgrantee's first appeal to the Regional Director for a small project adjustment of $108,537 to cover a net cost overrun on all of the subgrantee's small projects. The Regional Director determined that the subgrantee incurred an eligible cost overrun of $19,298 and prepared a supplemental DSR in that amount. The Grantee submitted the subgrantee's second appeal to the Executive Director requesting additional funding of $84,026 to cover the claimed actual costs of small project DSRs 07835, 07839, and 37068. The basis of the second appeal is that FEMA inadvertently excluded a section of damaged road in DSRs 07839 and 37068 and also did not include all of the materials necessary to complete the road repair. The Grantee claims that a 700 linear foot section of the road surface and embankment was damaged by the disaster, but was excluded as a part of the scope of work for DSR 07839. Also, the Grantee contends that if FEMA had used the proper cost codes for the work, then the FEMA estimate would have more accurately represented the cost of the repair work. In addition, the Grantee claims that the subgrantee expended an additional $1,276 for the scope of work described in DSR 07835 that was not approved in the Regional Director's first appeal response.
Issues:
During the flood event in December 1996 and January 1997, Wallowa County (subgrantee) sustained damages to several of its facilities. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepared twelve small project Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) to reimburse the subgrantee for the cost of restoring the facilities to their pre-disaster condition. Following completion of eleven of the restoration projects, the subgrantee submitted an appeal to the Regional Director for a small project adjustment to cover a net cost overrun on all small projects.
First Appeal
By a letter dated July 7, 1998, the Oregon Emergency Management (Grantee) transmitted the subgrantee's appeal for a cost adjustment on its small projects. FEMA and the Grantee reviewed DSRs 07835, 07837, 07839 through 07844, 07846, 07847, 37068, and 78181. The Grantee determined that the subgrantee incurred an eligible cost overrun of $108,537.
In response to the first appeal, the Regional Director determined that the subgrantee incurred an eligible cost overrun of $19,298 and prepared a supplemental DSR in that amount. This was a $89,239 discrepancy in eligible costs from the amount determined by the Grantee. The Regional Director and Grantee agreed on the amount of the cost adjustment on all but four of the DSRs. The Regional Director determined that the Grantee included a $1,523 cost overrun for DSR 07846 for emergency contract work that was covered and paid for under DSR 07843. In addition, the Grantee's cost overrun for DSR 07835 included $1,906 of emergency force account work that was also covered and paid for under DSR 07843.
The remaining difference of $85,810 between the Regional Director's and the Grantee's determined cost overrun was attributed to DSRs 07839 and 37068. DSR 07839 was prepared for $40,378 to permanently restore 1200 feet of Lower Imnaha River Road (County Road 735). DSR 37068 was prepared for $3,058 as a hazard mitigation measure (riprap) to protect a 530 foot section of the road from future erosion. These DSRs for Lower Imnaha River Road total $43,436.
The subgrantee claimed actual costs of $126,188 for the road repair. The subgrantee's higher cost was due to additional materials and work required to restore a section of roadway that was not included in the scope of DSR 07839. The Grantee and subgrantee claimed that FEMA overlooked the additional damaged section during the initial site inspection.
The Regional Director responded that the project documentation demonstrated that the overlooked site was, in fact, examined during the initial site inspection. Review of the project information provided by the Grantee did not support any additional repair work beyond that described in DSRs 07839 and 37068. Finally, because there was no means to separate any additional eligible costs for the eligible scope of work out of the subgrantee's claimed actual costs, the eligible project costs were limited to the amounts initially approved.
Second Appeal
By a letter dated February 22, 1999, the Grantee submitted the subgrantee's second appeal to the Executive Associate Director. The subject of the second appeal is small project DSRs 07835, 07839, and 37068. The Grantee requests that FEMA reimburse the subgrantee $84,026 above the estimate for these DSRs to fund the DSRs at actual costs and to cover the small project overrun.
DSRs 07839 and 37068
The Grantee contends that the FEMA inspection team mistakenly disregarded additional damage to Lower Imnaha River Road. In addition, the Grantee contends that FEMA omitted materials and work from DSR 07839 that were necessary to repair Lower Imnaha River Road and also did not use the appropriate cost codes for estimating the project cost. Specifically, 800 cubic yards (cy) of embankment materials were omitted from the approved scope of work. Furthermore, the DSR did not provide for the restoration of a damaged 12-inch culvert or the extraordinary haul distance for the base rock and asphalt concrete. These omitted items totaled $2,242.
The FEMA approved scope of work for the road repair included 2,348 cy of pit run aggregate at $13/cy. The Grantee states that riprap was necessary to properly repair the road embankment. At $22/cy for dumped riprap, this accounts for an additional $21,132. An additional 700 feet of damaged road embankment, that was not identified by FEMA, required riprap which added $40,700 to the eligible cost. The Grantee contends that FEMA's eligible estimate should have been $107,510 if FEMA had accounted for all materials and used the appropriate cost codes. The Grantee claims that the actual cost is $126,188.
The Grantee claims that additional factors contributed to the subgrantee's cost overrun. A contractor was hired to excavate and develop the borrow pit to provide the riprap for slope restoration and protection. The location of the work site resulted in high mobilization costs and the contractor was required to pay its employees at or above the Bureau of Labor and Industries labor rates in accordance with State law.
DSR 07835
The Grantee contends that the actual eligible cost for DSR 07835 is $33,778 which is $1,276 above the amount FEMA determined in its cost overrun review. FEMA determined that the eligible cost was $32,502.
DISCUSSION
The first appeal response by the Regional Director resolved the issues concerning all of the small project DSRs with the exception of DSRs 07835, 07839, and 37068. The analysis below addresses the issues associated with these DSRs as presented by the Grantee.
DSRs 07839 and 37068
Following the initial site inspection on February 19, 1997, FEMA prepared DSR 07839 to repair 1200 linear feet (lf) of Lower Imnaha River Road. The DSR included the repair of the road embankment and surface using pit run aggregate and a bituminous cold patch. According to the FEMA inspector's narrative, the road was examined for damages between mileposts 4.5 and 5.2. Between these mileposts, the FEMA inspector identified damage along three separate sections of roadway. The sites include: Site "A" which is a 530 lf section between mileposts 4.5 and 5.0; Site "B" which is a 50 lf section of roadway between mileposts 5.0 and 5.1; and Site "C" which is a 620 lf section of roadway between mileposts 5.1 and 5.2. The inspector noted that in the worst section, approximately 5 feet of roadway and shoulder width were damaged.
The Grantee and subgrantee contend that a major portion of the cost overrun is due to the repair of an additional section of roadway that was inadvertently overlooked during the initial site inspection. This site (Site "X") is located between Sites "A" and "B". The Grantee claims that approximately 700 lf of roadway was repaired which required approximately 1,850 cy of riprap.
The Grantee submitted photographs to support that this area was damaged by the disaster event. While these photographs show some erosion to the road embankment, it is not clearly evident that this is disaster-related damage. This is supported by the subgrantee's May 6, 1997, letter and the Grantee's transmittal letter which requested a re-inspection of road damage at milepost 5.2 (Site "D"). In these letters, there was no reference of any damage at Site "X". In a June 12, 1997, memorandum to FEMA, the Grantee determined that Site "D" was not eligible for permanent restoration funding as the roadway section was not damaged or threatened by erosion. Site "X" was not identified by the Grantee as a damaged area until the Grantee reviewed the first appeal for a small project cost adjustment. Furthermore, it appears from the FEMA inspector's documentation that the road was fully investigateng1997, it was determined that the subgrantee widened the embankment at Site "X" beyond the pre-disaster width by an average of 6 feet. As stated in 44 CFR 206.226, FEMA will fund the work that is necessary to restore eligible facilities on the basis of the design of the facility as it existed immediately prior to the disaster. Therefore, if the erosion to Site "X" were disaster-related, the improvements made to the roadway section are not eligible for FEMA funding. It is also noted that a 300-foot long section of road shoulder at Site "C" was widened by approximately 6 feet beyond the pre-disaster condition. The cost for this work is also not eligible for FEMA funding.
The Grantee claims that the following materials and costs were incurred under DSR 07839, but were not included in FEMA's estimate of eligible costs: $81.70 for embankment materials; $147.50 for acquired or donated materials; $720 for a 12 inch diameter culvert; $1,293 for an extraordinary haul distance for base rock used in the repair of the road embankment; and 800 cy of material for the emergency repair of a section of Lower Imnaha River Road. However, the Grantee and subgrantee did not provide any documentation supporting this claim. Therefore, FEMA can not approve any additional funding for these items.
As determined in the Regional Director's first appeal decision, the cost documentation is not sufficient to determine the actual eligible costs incurred for the eligible scope of work described in these DSRs. The subgrantee incurred ineligible costs for the work performed along the 700 lf road section at Site "X" and the improvements at Site "C". It is not clear what portion of the total actual cost was expended on the eligible work and what portion was expended on the ineligible work. Therefore, FEMA can not provide additional funding based on the actual costs as documented by the subgrantee.
The subgrantee used riprap in lieu of the approved pit run to repair the road embankments. While this type of material was not cited in the approved DSRs, this material is a reasonable method of repair that protects the road from further erosion. Therefore, dumped riprap is an eligible cost for the three eligible sites (A, B, and C). As the actual costs for the eligible work are indeterminable, FEMA can only provide additional funding based on the FEMA cost codes for the disaster. Using the cost code for dumped riprap at $22/cy for the 2,348 cy required to restore the eligible road embankments results in an eligible cost of $51,656. This replaces the previously approved pit run which totaled $30,524. In addition, DSR 37068 approved 139 cy of riprap for the toe of the slope at Site "A" for $3,058. This quantity of rip rap is included in the total amount of 2,348 cy. Therefore, the total eligible amount of $51,656 is reduced by the previously approved amounts for the pit run and Site "A" riprap which total $33,582. Thus, supplemental funding of $18,074 for dumped riprap is eligible for FEMA funding.
DSR 07835
The final invoice submitted by the contractor for the work described in DSR 07835 totaled $32,502. The Grantee claims that the actual cost for DSR 07835 is $33,778. However, the Grantee and subgrantee did not provide any documentation to support the additional claimed costs of $1,276. Therefore, there is no basis to provide additional funding above the amount of $32,502 approved in the Regional Director's first appeal decision.
CONCLUSION
The subgrantee and Grantee did not provide any information to support an additional $1,276 in eligible funding for DSR 07835.
There is no documentation to support that Site "X" was damaged by the disaster. Therefore, the work performed at this site is not eligible for FEMA funding. In addition, the actual costs for the eligible scope of work defined in DSRs 37068 and 07839 are not separated from the ineligible work at Site "X" and the improvements performed at Sites "C" and "X". Therefore, there is no basis for determining the actual costs for the eligible work performed by the subgrantee. However, the subgrantee performed a reasonable repair of the road embankment using riprap in lieu of the pit run that was approved in DSR 07839. Therefore, the Regional Director will prepare a supplemental DSR in the amount of $18,074 to fund the cost of using dumped riprap for repair of the eligible sites.
Appeal Brief
| Desastre | FEMA-1160-DR |
| Applicant | Wallowa County |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 063-00000 |
| PW ID# | 07835,07839,37068 |
| Date Signed | 1999-08-24T04:00:00 |
Cross Reference: Erosion, embankment, road, cost overrun, actual costs, cost estimate
Summary: Following the flood disaster in late 1996 and early 1997, FEMA prepared twelve small project DSRs for the cost of restoring the subgrantee's damaged facilities. The Grantee submitted the subgrantee's first appeal to the Regional Director for a small project adjustment of $108,537 to cover a net cost overrun on all of the subgrantee's small projects. The Regional Director determined that the subgrantee incurred an eligible cost overrun of $19,298 and prepared a supplemental DSR in that amount. The Grantee submitted the subgrantee's second appeal to the Executive Director requesting additional funding of $84,026 to cover the claimed actual costs of small project DSRs 07835, 07839, and 37068. The basis of the second appeal is that FEMA inadvertently excluded a section of damaged road in DSRs 07839 and 37068 and also did not include all of the materials necessary to complete the road repair. The Grantee claims that a 700 linear foot section of the road surface and embankment was damaged by the disaster, but was excluded as a part of the scope of work for DSR 07839. Also, the Grantee contends that if FEMA had used the proper cost codes for the work, then the FEMA estimate would have more accurately represented the cost of the repair work. In addition, the Grantee claims that the subgrantee expended an additional $1,276 for the scope of work described in DSR 07835 that was not approved in the Regional Director's first appeal response.
Issues:
- Has the subgrantee incurred an eligible cost overrun above the amount determined by the Regional Director?
- Is the use of riprap an eligible repair method for the eligible sites?
- No. It can not be verified that the additional damage identified by the Grantee was disaster-related. In addition, improvements over the pre-disaster condition were made to a damaged road section identified in DSR 07839. Therefore, the actual costs for the eligible repair work cannot be separated from the costs of the ineligible work and the improvements made to the road. In addition, the cost documentation for DSR 07835 does not support the additional cost of $1,276 identified by the Grantee.
- Yes. The use of riprap is a reasonable repair method and the subgrantee is eligible for additional funding for the higher cost of this repair.
Appeal Letter
August 24, 1999
Ms. Abby Kershaw
Governor's Authorized Representative
Oregon Emergency Management
Department of State Police
595 Cottage Street, NE
Salem, Oregon 97310
Re: Second Appeal; Wallowa County; FEMA-1160-DR-OR; DSRs 07835, 07839, and 37068
Dear Ms. Kershaw:
This is in response to your February 22, 1999, submittal of the above referenced appeal. Wallowa County's (subgrantee's) second appeal was submitted regarding a cost adjustment for all of its small projects. The subgrantee's second appeal is based on the actual costs of the three small project Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) referenced above. Your office requests that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provide additional funding in the amount of $84,026 to fund the DSRs at actual costs and to cover the remaining portion of the claimed small project overrun.
As explained in the enclosed analysis, the subgrantee has not provided sufficient documentation to support that the claimed actual costs are eligible for reimbursement. The cost documentation for DSR 07835 does not support that any additional costs were expended. Based on a review of the documentation provided with respect to DSRs 07839 and 37068, it is concluded that the subgrantee repaired non-disaster-related damage and made improvements to Lower Imnaha Road. It is not possible to separate the project's eligible actual costs from the project's ineligible costs. Therefore, FEMA's estimates for DSRs 07839 and 37068 are used as the eligible costs for the repair work. However, I have determined that the use of riprap is a reasonable method of repair and is eligible for FEMA funding. By copy of this letter, I am requesting the Regional Director to prepare a supplemental DSR in the amount of $18,074 for the additional cost of the riprap.
Please inform the subgrantee of this determination. In accordance with the appeal procedure governing appeal decisions made on or after May 8, 1998, my decision constitutes the final decision on this matter. The current appeal procedure was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1998. It amends 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
cc: David L. de Courcy
Regional Director
FEMA Region X
Ms. Abby Kershaw
Governor's Authorized Representative
Oregon Emergency Management
Department of State Police
595 Cottage Street, NE
Salem, Oregon 97310
Re: Second Appeal; Wallowa County; FEMA-1160-DR-OR; DSRs 07835, 07839, and 37068
Dear Ms. Kershaw:
This is in response to your February 22, 1999, submittal of the above referenced appeal. Wallowa County's (subgrantee's) second appeal was submitted regarding a cost adjustment for all of its small projects. The subgrantee's second appeal is based on the actual costs of the three small project Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) referenced above. Your office requests that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provide additional funding in the amount of $84,026 to fund the DSRs at actual costs and to cover the remaining portion of the claimed small project overrun.
As explained in the enclosed analysis, the subgrantee has not provided sufficient documentation to support that the claimed actual costs are eligible for reimbursement. The cost documentation for DSR 07835 does not support that any additional costs were expended. Based on a review of the documentation provided with respect to DSRs 07839 and 37068, it is concluded that the subgrantee repaired non-disaster-related damage and made improvements to Lower Imnaha Road. It is not possible to separate the project's eligible actual costs from the project's ineligible costs. Therefore, FEMA's estimates for DSRs 07839 and 37068 are used as the eligible costs for the repair work. However, I have determined that the use of riprap is a reasonable method of repair and is eligible for FEMA funding. By copy of this letter, I am requesting the Regional Director to prepare a supplemental DSR in the amount of $18,074 for the additional cost of the riprap.
Please inform the subgrantee of this determination. In accordance with the appeal procedure governing appeal decisions made on or after May 8, 1998, my decision constitutes the final decision on this matter. The current appeal procedure was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1998. It amends 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
cc: David L. de Courcy
Regional Director
FEMA Region X
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUNDDuring the flood event in December 1996 and January 1997, Wallowa County (subgrantee) sustained damages to several of its facilities. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepared twelve small project Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) to reimburse the subgrantee for the cost of restoring the facilities to their pre-disaster condition. Following completion of eleven of the restoration projects, the subgrantee submitted an appeal to the Regional Director for a small project adjustment to cover a net cost overrun on all small projects.
First Appeal
By a letter dated July 7, 1998, the Oregon Emergency Management (Grantee) transmitted the subgrantee's appeal for a cost adjustment on its small projects. FEMA and the Grantee reviewed DSRs 07835, 07837, 07839 through 07844, 07846, 07847, 37068, and 78181. The Grantee determined that the subgrantee incurred an eligible cost overrun of $108,537.
In response to the first appeal, the Regional Director determined that the subgrantee incurred an eligible cost overrun of $19,298 and prepared a supplemental DSR in that amount. This was a $89,239 discrepancy in eligible costs from the amount determined by the Grantee. The Regional Director and Grantee agreed on the amount of the cost adjustment on all but four of the DSRs. The Regional Director determined that the Grantee included a $1,523 cost overrun for DSR 07846 for emergency contract work that was covered and paid for under DSR 07843. In addition, the Grantee's cost overrun for DSR 07835 included $1,906 of emergency force account work that was also covered and paid for under DSR 07843.
The remaining difference of $85,810 between the Regional Director's and the Grantee's determined cost overrun was attributed to DSRs 07839 and 37068. DSR 07839 was prepared for $40,378 to permanently restore 1200 feet of Lower Imnaha River Road (County Road 735). DSR 37068 was prepared for $3,058 as a hazard mitigation measure (riprap) to protect a 530 foot section of the road from future erosion. These DSRs for Lower Imnaha River Road total $43,436.
The subgrantee claimed actual costs of $126,188 for the road repair. The subgrantee's higher cost was due to additional materials and work required to restore a section of roadway that was not included in the scope of DSR 07839. The Grantee and subgrantee claimed that FEMA overlooked the additional damaged section during the initial site inspection.
The Regional Director responded that the project documentation demonstrated that the overlooked site was, in fact, examined during the initial site inspection. Review of the project information provided by the Grantee did not support any additional repair work beyond that described in DSRs 07839 and 37068. Finally, because there was no means to separate any additional eligible costs for the eligible scope of work out of the subgrantee's claimed actual costs, the eligible project costs were limited to the amounts initially approved.
Second Appeal
By a letter dated February 22, 1999, the Grantee submitted the subgrantee's second appeal to the Executive Associate Director. The subject of the second appeal is small project DSRs 07835, 07839, and 37068. The Grantee requests that FEMA reimburse the subgrantee $84,026 above the estimate for these DSRs to fund the DSRs at actual costs and to cover the small project overrun.
DSRs 07839 and 37068
The Grantee contends that the FEMA inspection team mistakenly disregarded additional damage to Lower Imnaha River Road. In addition, the Grantee contends that FEMA omitted materials and work from DSR 07839 that were necessary to repair Lower Imnaha River Road and also did not use the appropriate cost codes for estimating the project cost. Specifically, 800 cubic yards (cy) of embankment materials were omitted from the approved scope of work. Furthermore, the DSR did not provide for the restoration of a damaged 12-inch culvert or the extraordinary haul distance for the base rock and asphalt concrete. These omitted items totaled $2,242.
The FEMA approved scope of work for the road repair included 2,348 cy of pit run aggregate at $13/cy. The Grantee states that riprap was necessary to properly repair the road embankment. At $22/cy for dumped riprap, this accounts for an additional $21,132. An additional 700 feet of damaged road embankment, that was not identified by FEMA, required riprap which added $40,700 to the eligible cost. The Grantee contends that FEMA's eligible estimate should have been $107,510 if FEMA had accounted for all materials and used the appropriate cost codes. The Grantee claims that the actual cost is $126,188.
The Grantee claims that additional factors contributed to the subgrantee's cost overrun. A contractor was hired to excavate and develop the borrow pit to provide the riprap for slope restoration and protection. The location of the work site resulted in high mobilization costs and the contractor was required to pay its employees at or above the Bureau of Labor and Industries labor rates in accordance with State law.
DSR 07835
The Grantee contends that the actual eligible cost for DSR 07835 is $33,778 which is $1,276 above the amount FEMA determined in its cost overrun review. FEMA determined that the eligible cost was $32,502.
DISCUSSION
The first appeal response by the Regional Director resolved the issues concerning all of the small project DSRs with the exception of DSRs 07835, 07839, and 37068. The analysis below addresses the issues associated with these DSRs as presented by the Grantee.
DSRs 07839 and 37068
Following the initial site inspection on February 19, 1997, FEMA prepared DSR 07839 to repair 1200 linear feet (lf) of Lower Imnaha River Road. The DSR included the repair of the road embankment and surface using pit run aggregate and a bituminous cold patch. According to the FEMA inspector's narrative, the road was examined for damages between mileposts 4.5 and 5.2. Between these mileposts, the FEMA inspector identified damage along three separate sections of roadway. The sites include: Site "A" which is a 530 lf section between mileposts 4.5 and 5.0; Site "B" which is a 50 lf section of roadway between mileposts 5.0 and 5.1; and Site "C" which is a 620 lf section of roadway between mileposts 5.1 and 5.2. The inspector noted that in the worst section, approximately 5 feet of roadway and shoulder width were damaged.
The Grantee and subgrantee contend that a major portion of the cost overrun is due to the repair of an additional section of roadway that was inadvertently overlooked during the initial site inspection. This site (Site "X") is located between Sites "A" and "B". The Grantee claims that approximately 700 lf of roadway was repaired which required approximately 1,850 cy of riprap.
The Grantee submitted photographs to support that this area was damaged by the disaster event. While these photographs show some erosion to the road embankment, it is not clearly evident that this is disaster-related damage. This is supported by the subgrantee's May 6, 1997, letter and the Grantee's transmittal letter which requested a re-inspection of road damage at milepost 5.2 (Site "D"). In these letters, there was no reference of any damage at Site "X". In a June 12, 1997, memorandum to FEMA, the Grantee determined that Site "D" was not eligible for permanent restoration funding as the roadway section was not damaged or threatened by erosion. Site "X" was not identified by the Grantee as a damaged area until the Grantee reviewed the first appeal for a small project cost adjustment. Furthermore, it appears from the FEMA inspector's documentation that the road was fully investigateng1997, it was determined that the subgrantee widened the embankment at Site "X" beyond the pre-disaster width by an average of 6 feet. As stated in 44 CFR 206.226, FEMA will fund the work that is necessary to restore eligible facilities on the basis of the design of the facility as it existed immediately prior to the disaster. Therefore, if the erosion to Site "X" were disaster-related, the improvements made to the roadway section are not eligible for FEMA funding. It is also noted that a 300-foot long section of road shoulder at Site "C" was widened by approximately 6 feet beyond the pre-disaster condition. The cost for this work is also not eligible for FEMA funding.
The Grantee claims that the following materials and costs were incurred under DSR 07839, but were not included in FEMA's estimate of eligible costs: $81.70 for embankment materials; $147.50 for acquired or donated materials; $720 for a 12 inch diameter culvert; $1,293 for an extraordinary haul distance for base rock used in the repair of the road embankment; and 800 cy of material for the emergency repair of a section of Lower Imnaha River Road. However, the Grantee and subgrantee did not provide any documentation supporting this claim. Therefore, FEMA can not approve any additional funding for these items.
As determined in the Regional Director's first appeal decision, the cost documentation is not sufficient to determine the actual eligible costs incurred for the eligible scope of work described in these DSRs. The subgrantee incurred ineligible costs for the work performed along the 700 lf road section at Site "X" and the improvements at Site "C". It is not clear what portion of the total actual cost was expended on the eligible work and what portion was expended on the ineligible work. Therefore, FEMA can not provide additional funding based on the actual costs as documented by the subgrantee.
The subgrantee used riprap in lieu of the approved pit run to repair the road embankments. While this type of material was not cited in the approved DSRs, this material is a reasonable method of repair that protects the road from further erosion. Therefore, dumped riprap is an eligible cost for the three eligible sites (A, B, and C). As the actual costs for the eligible work are indeterminable, FEMA can only provide additional funding based on the FEMA cost codes for the disaster. Using the cost code for dumped riprap at $22/cy for the 2,348 cy required to restore the eligible road embankments results in an eligible cost of $51,656. This replaces the previously approved pit run which totaled $30,524. In addition, DSR 37068 approved 139 cy of riprap for the toe of the slope at Site "A" for $3,058. This quantity of rip rap is included in the total amount of 2,348 cy. Therefore, the total eligible amount of $51,656 is reduced by the previously approved amounts for the pit run and Site "A" riprap which total $33,582. Thus, supplemental funding of $18,074 for dumped riprap is eligible for FEMA funding.
DSR 07835
The final invoice submitted by the contractor for the work described in DSR 07835 totaled $32,502. The Grantee claims that the actual cost for DSR 07835 is $33,778. However, the Grantee and subgrantee did not provide any documentation to support the additional claimed costs of $1,276. Therefore, there is no basis to provide additional funding above the amount of $32,502 approved in the Regional Director's first appeal decision.
CONCLUSION
The subgrantee and Grantee did not provide any information to support an additional $1,276 in eligible funding for DSR 07835.
There is no documentation to support that Site "X" was damaged by the disaster. Therefore, the work performed at this site is not eligible for FEMA funding. In addition, the actual costs for the eligible scope of work defined in DSRs 37068 and 07839 are not separated from the ineligible work at Site "X" and the improvements performed at Sites "C" and "X". Therefore, there is no basis for determining the actual costs for the eligible work performed by the subgrantee. However, the subgrantee performed a reasonable repair of the road embankment using riprap in lieu of the pit run that was approved in DSR 07839. Therefore, the Regional Director will prepare a supplemental DSR in the amount of $18,074 to fund the cost of using dumped riprap for repair of the eligible sites.