Result of the Declared Incident

Appeal Brief

Summary Paragraph

From September 17 through November 15, 2017, Hurricane Maria’s strong winds and heavy rain damaged the Facility. In the Site Inspection Report (SIR) and accompanying photographs and drawings, FEMA identified minor scour at one of the Facility abutment wing walls, debris impact that damaged mesh on the pedestrian railing, and damage to base and surface substrates on the bridge approaches. FEMA prepared Grants Manager Project 95724 for the Facility and documented damage to the pedestrian railing and bridge approaches. Afterwards, the Applicant requested that FEMA add the east and west abutment scour and two steel beams as damaged components. FEMA issued a Determination Memorandum approving Public Assistance (PA) funds to repair damage to the pedestrian railings of the Facility. However, FEMA denied PA funding to repair the abutments and steel beam replacement of the Facility, finding that the Applicant did not demonstrate the claimed damages were caused as a direct result of the incident. In its first appeal, the Applicant claimed Hurricane Maria exclusively caused damage to bridge abutments because of the high velocity and volume of the water flows that displaced the abutments’ base materials. In support of its appeal, the Applicant submitted a post-disaster Hydrological-Hydraulic and Scour Study for a replacement bridge; a post-disaster geotechnical evaluation; photographs of the damaged Facility post-event; and a cost estimate. The FEMA Region 2 Regional Administrator found the Applicant had not demonstrated that the work to repair scour damage around the bridge abutments was required as a result of the declared incident. On second appeal, the Applicant requests funding to repair the abutments of the Facility. The Applicant states the Hydrological-Hydraulic and Scour Study and the geotechnical evaluation show work necessary to repair the abutments. The Applicant asserts the repairs of the west and east abutments are to avoid future damage to the Facility foundation as result of abutments scours. The Central Recovery Reconstruction and Resilience Office of Puerto Rico (Recipient) transmitted the Applicant’s second appeal reiterating the Applicant’s assertions and supporting the Applicant’s second appeal.

Authorities and Second Appeals

• Stafford Act § 406.
• 44 C.F.R. § 206.223(a)(1).
• PAPPG, at 19, 116, 133, 134, and 135.
• City of Brunswick, FEMA-4451-DR-MO, at 3.
  • To be eligible for PA funding, work must be required as a result of the disaster.FEMA reviews predisaster maintenance or inspection reports to assist in verifying the predisaster condition and assess eligible disaster damage.

Headnotes

• None of the reports submitted document scour to the existing Facility. The Applicant has not shown that the work to repair the Facility was required as a direct result of the declared incident; thus, it is not eligible for PA funding.

Conclusion

The Applicant has not shown that the work to the Facility abutments was required as a direct result of the declared incident; thus, it is not eligible for PA funding. Therefore, the appeal is denied.

Appeal Letter

Appeal Analysis

Background

From September 17 through November 15, 2017, Hurricane Maria’s strong winds and heavy rain impacted the Municipality of San Sebastian (Applicant). The Applicant requested Public Assistance (PA) for work to address damage at the Applicant’s bridge located at Torres Pino Street off PR-125, Barrio Pozas, San Sebastián, Puerto Rico (Facility). The Facility is a single span steel truss bridge with steel I-beams and pedestrian walkways, steel mesh pedestrian railings, asphalt approaches, and concrete abutments on the east and west sides. On November 8, 2018, FEMA conducted a site inspection of the Facility. In the Site Inspection Report (SIR) and accompanying photographs and drawings, FEMA identified minor scour at one of the Facility’s wing walls, debris impact that damaged mesh on the pedestrian railing, and damage to base and surface substrates on the Facility’s approaches. The SIR did not identify any damage to the Facility abutments. On March 15, 2021, the Applicant requested that FEMA add the east and west abutments and two steel I-beams as damaged components.

On April 30, 2021, FEMA issued a Request for Information (RFI) seeking documentation of the Facility’s predisaster condition and a scope of work for intended repairs. Specifically, FEMA requested that the Applicant provide: (1) maintenance records, as FEMA noted corrosion on the steel I-beam structural supports; (2) documentation of the Facility’s predisaster condition, including inspection reports, such as the Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority (PRHTA) Structure Inventory and Inspection Report per the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS); and (3) additional documentation regarding the scour being claimed on abutments. On May 15, 2021, the Applicant submitted post-disaster daily incident notes and post-event photographs of the damaged Facility. Additionally, the Applicant stated that inspections were not conducted for this Facility and that original bridge construction plans were not available.

On February 9, 2022, FEMA issued a Determination Memorandum denying funding in the amount of $61,037.06 for repairs to the abutments and steel I-beams stating the Applicant did not demonstrate that claimed damage to these elements was a result of the declared incident. However, FEMA granted PA funding in the amount of $52,713.58 for repairs to the pedestrian railings and bridge approaches. 

First Appeal 

On April 8, 2022, the Applicant appealed and claimed the disaster exclusively caused damage to the Facility’s abutments because of the excessive high velocity and volume of the water flows that displaced the abutments’ fill materials.[1] The Applicant asserted that although it did not have maintenance records or predisaster photographs, scour to the abutments was major damage that could only have been caused by a major event like Hurricane Maria, and post-disaster photographs made it easy to distinguish disaster-related damage. The Applicant stated the repairs of the east and west abutments were to avoid future damage to the Facility foundation as a result of disaster-related scours. Additionally, in explaining why it did not provide inspection reports as requested in FEMA’s RFI, the Applicant stated that a request for the bridge report revealed that the Facility was never registered and is not in the PRHTA bridge inventory. In support of its appeal, the Applicant submitted a Hydrological-Hydraulic and Scour Study (H&H Study), post-disaster photographs, and a cost estimate. In a letter dated June 7, 2022, the Central Recovery Reconstruction and Resilience Office (Recipient) recommended approving the first appeal. 

The FEMA Region 2 Regional Administrator denied the appeal on December 23, 2022, finding the Applicant had not demonstrated that the work to repair claimed scour damage around the Facility’s abutments was required as a result of the declared incident. FEMA determined the Applicant had not provided documentation quantifying the loss of abutment fill due to the disaster or distinguished the amount lost due to pre-existing damage. FEMA noted the Applicant acknowledged that it did not have maintenance records or predisaster photographs of the Facility. Additionally, FEMA observed the H&H Study did not establish or conclude that the disaster caused damage at the Facility’s abutments. FEMA stated that absent other documentation or evidence supporting the Applicant’s position, the post-disaster photographs and reports provided with its first appeal did not identify damage as disaster related and distinguish it from pre-existing damage. 

Second Appeal

The Applicant’s February 21, 2023, second appeal reiterates its first appeal assertions that excessive high velocity and high-volume water flows from the disaster scoured the base of the abutments. On April 19, 2023, the Recipient transmitted the Applicant’s second appeal reiterating the Applicant’s assertions and supporting the Applicant’s second appeal. The Recipient notes that a standard maintenance procedure to the Facility would not have been able to prevent the damages to the abutments in this project.

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, function, and capacity in conformity with other provisions.[2] To be eligible for PA funding, work must be required as a result of the disaster.[3] FEMA does not provide funding for repair of damage caused by deterioration or deferred maintenance.[4]FEMA may request predisaster maintenance or inspection reports to assist in verifying the predisaster condition of the facility to determine the eligibility of damage claimed for permanent work.[5] It is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate that claimed damage was directly caused by the incident, and where pre-existing damage exists, to distinguish that damage from the disaster-related damage.[6]

Here, the Applicant requests PA for scour repairs to the abutments of the Facility. The information the Applicant provided on appeal, and in the record, does not establish that this work was required as a result of the disaster to restore the Facility to its predisaster design, function, or capacity; or differentiate between the pre- and post-disaster condition of the Facility abutments in order to validate damage. Neither the SIR nor accompanying post-disaster photographs show disaster-related damage to those abutments. Photographs taken during the site inspection revealed a heavily corroded bridge, but do not establish that the Facility was damaged by the event.[7] Moreover, the SIR and post-disaster photographs did not show scour to the east or west abutments. On first appeal, the Applicant provided a post-disaster geotechnical report, which states that post-disaster photographs from October and November 2017 show that significant erosion and scour occurred along the riverbanks upstream of the bridge. However, this report does not state that such damage also occurred at the abutments at issue. Here, the post-disaster photographs and reports do not identify damage as disaster-related and distinguish it from pre-existing damage and the Applicant has not provided additional documentation or evidence supporting its position. As such, the Applicant has not demonstrated that damages were directly caused by the declared incident. Therefore, work to address claimed scour damage around the abutments is not eligible for PA funding.

Conclusion

The Applicant has not shown that the work to the Facility abutments was required as a direct result of the declared incident; thus, it is not eligible for PA funding. Therefore, the appeal is denied.