Result of Declared Incident

Appeal Brief

Appeal Letter

Appeal Analysis

Background

From September 14-28, 2020, Hurricane Sally caused strong winds, torrential rain, and tidal surge resulting in extensive damage throughout the western Panhandle region of Florida.[1] Escambia County (Applicant) requested Public Assistance (PA) funding for claimed damages to several culverts and adjacent roadways due to surface water flooding and high-velocity water flows. The claimed damaged items included stone riprap, roadway base and surface, channel fill, sod, headwalls, culvert pipes, inlet roadway, and guardrails. Specifically, the Applicant sought PA for the following Damage Inventory (DI) sites: (1) Woodridge/Oak Valley (DI 419608) pipe replacement, road repair/replacement, and guardrail replacement; (2) Little Creek Drive (DI 447831) replacement of two 24-inch reinforced concrete pipes (RCPs), 52 feet in length, that it stated were filled with debris and sediment; (3) Little Creek Lane (DI 447834) pipe replacement, concrete headwall repair, road repair, curb repair, and culvert replacement; (4) Little Creek Lane (DI 4478835) pipe replacement, outfall ditch cleaning, and fence replacement; (5) Little Creek Drive (DI 447836) curb replacement, road repair, pipe replacement, and headwall replacement; and (6) Little Creek Bridge (DI 447838) pipe replacement, headwall replacement, curb repair, guardrail replacement, and road repair. FEMA prepared Grants Manager Project 172075 to capture the claimed damages and associated repair costs of $463,817.79. 

From March 12-20, 2021, FEMA performed site inspections and prepared Site Inspection Reports (SIRs), which included photographs and recorded damages claimed by the Applicant, for each of the sites. The Applicant then provided a May 2021 Preliminary Engineering Assessment (PEA) to support its damages claims. The PEA included a summary of the claimed damage at the sites, maps of the location of the claimed damages, photographs of the claimed damage, and estimates of probable construction costs for both repair and mitigation. The Applicant also submitted predisaster maintenance records for the sites.

FEMA issued a Request for Information (RFI) to the Applicant on August 13, 2021, seeking documentation demonstrating that the incident directly caused the claimed damages. The Applicant responded on August 24, 2021, providing documentation, such as photographs, of some of the claimed damages and debris removal estimates. FEMA’s requests and the Applicant’s responses are summarized to follow. 

1. Woodridge/Oak Valley (DI 419068)

FEMA requested photographs showing the claimed separated and collapsed 48-inch concrete pipe, collapsed headwall, two collapsed concrete inlets, and roadway damage for the full width of the road. The Applicant provided photographs showing the collapse of one side of the road, guardrail failure, headwall collapse, scour under the inlet, and pipe joint separation.

1. Little Creek Drive (DI 447831)

FEMA requested photographs showing the claimed separated and collapsed 48-inch concrete pipe, collapsed headwall, two collapsed concrete inlets, and roadway damage for the full width of the road. The Applicant did not submit photographs of the site because it said standing water would not allow access to take photographs inside the drainage systems.

1. Little Creek Lane (DI 447834)

FEMA requested photographs showing the claimed joint failure in each of the 42-inch concrete pipes and damage to the headwall. The Applicant submitted photographs of the headwall showing cracking and settling. The Applicant stated that photographs could not be taken of the inside of the drainage system due to ponding water. 

1. Little Creek Lane (DI 447835)

FEMA requested photographs showing the claimed separated joints in each of the two concrete pipes, start and end points for the fence and outfall ditch, and the estimated loss and/or gain of material in the outfall ditch. The Applicant submitted information regarding the start and end points for a fence and outfall ditch, and the estimated loss and/or gain of material in the outfall ditch. The Applicant said it previously submitted photographs that it stated showed that the curb line and asphalt are sinking.

1. Little Creek Drive (DI 447836)

FEMA requested estimated quantities of debris and sedimentation remaining in each of the 36-inch diameter pipes, with photographs, and the condition of the headwall prior to the disaster. The Applicant submitted estimates of the quantities of debris and sedimentation.

1. Little Creek Bridge (DI 447838)

FEMA requested photographs showing the claimed failed joints in each of the 42-inch diameter concrete pipes, photographs showing the downstream scour shifting and cracking of the headwall and photographs of the damaged guard rail and the amount of scour, by volume, around the guardrail. The Applicant submitted post-disaster photographs showing downstream scour and shifting and cracking of the headwall. The Applicant stated that photographs could not be taken of the inside of the drainage system due to sediment downstream of the pipe/cross drains that caused water to pond. 

FEMA issued a Determination Memorandum on December 3, 2021, partially granting the PA request. For damages located at Woodridge/Oak Valley (DI 419068), FEMA determined that the Applicant’s photographs showed the road was passable and damage was localized to one end of the cross drains; thus, FEMA estimated that only $31,451.41 in costs for repair of disaster-related damage at that site was eligible. The approved costs for this site included replacing a concrete headwall and curb, replacing two 8-foot sections of the 48-inch RCP, repair costs for the damaged portion of the road and guardrail, and maintenance of traffic and traffic mobilization. For DI sites located on Little Creek Drive, Little Creek Lane, and Little Creek Bridge, FEMA stated that historical satellite imagery for each of the locations showed predisaster damage. FEMA found the Applicant did not provide documentation of visible and quantifiable damages directly attributable to the event. Overall, FEMA denied $432,366.38 in claimed costs, finding that the Applicant did not provide documentation required to substantiate that the damages associated with those requested costs were directly caused by the declared incident.

First Appeal 

The Applicant submitted its first appeal to the Florida Division of Emergency Management (Recipient) on January 4, 2021, requesting the denied $432,366.38. The Applicant maintained that it provided sufficiently detailed responses to FEMA’s RFI and stated the PEA, including the photographs contained therein, sufficiently explained why the claimed damages were a result of the declared incident. On February 15, 2022, the Recipient transmitted the Applicant’s first appeal to FEMA, along with a memorandum recommending its approval. 

In a letter dated November 18, 2022, the Region 4 Regional Administrator denied the first appeal. FEMA found that the Applicant had not supported all the claimed damages nor demonstrated that the damages occurred as a direct result of the disaster. 

Second Appeal

The Applicant submits a second appeal requesting the denied $432,366.38. The Applicant reiterates its first appeal arguments and asks that the scope of work for Woodbridge/Oak Valley site be reworked to a larger bridge culvert. Concerning this request, the Applicant notes that the site was completely replaced in 2015-2016 as a result of damage from a 2014 extreme flooding event. The Applicant provided the project worksheet for the site from the prior disaster, which included replacing roadway, curb, guardrail, and beams, replacing pipes, inlets, installing a concrete flume and concrete block, and replacing an overflow spillway. The Applicant asserts that because the structure was relatively new, only the declared incident could have caused the extensive damages, which it asserts now requires full replacement. The Recipient transmitted the Applicant’s appeal to FEMA, expressing its support.

Discussion

Result of Declared Incident

FEMA may provide PA funding to eligible applicants for the repair, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of eligible facilities damaged or destroyed by major disasters.[2] To be eligible for PA funding, work must be required as a result of the disaster and the Applicant must demonstrate that damage was caused directly by the declared incident.[3] FEMA does not provide funding for repair of damage caused by deterioration or deferred maintenance.[4] When necessary to validate damage, the applicant may be required to provide predisaster photographs of the impacted site or documentation supporting the predisaster condition of the facility (e.g., facility maintenance records, inspection/safety reports).[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]

i.          Woodridge/Oak Valley (DI 419068)

The Applicant claims damages to drainage inlets and a partial section of the roadway and associated guardrail, a downstream headwall collapse, the detachment of two adjacent 48-diameter RCPs, and a waterline collapse. The Applicant’s post-disaster photographs show the road damages extend roughly 6 to 8 feet from the edge of the pavement and do not extend to both sides of the road. The documentation shows that only the first joint of a 48-inch foot RCP on the end of the culvert separated during the disaster. In addition, while the Applicant seeks to replace two 48-foot RCPs, the Applicant’s documentation does not show any additional joint separations. There is no visual information to indicate additional separated joints and/or evidence of roadway failure in the form of cracking or sinkholes from a loss of material through the joint.  

The Applicant’s documentation does not support its claim that the entire roadway and culvert require replacement and removal as a result of the declared incident or that the declared incident caused damage to the entire pipe. Therefore, the additional work and $84,286.62 in costs the Applicant requests for this site remain ineligible.

ii.         Little Creek Drive (DI 447831) 

The Applicant claims damages to two 24-inch RCPs, 52 feet in length, that it states were filled with debris and sediment. The post-disaster photographs in the PEA show the pipe outfall, but not do not show that it was filled with sediment and debris. Further, both the PEA and the SIR photographs show that the area is overgrown. The predisaster maintenance records indicate that the right of way (ROW) was cleared and the ditches were cleaned in September 2013, but do not include records of more recent maintenance. 

Here, the Applicant’s documentation does not support the claimed damages. Neither the photographs nor the maintenance records allow FEMA to validate the claimed damages were a direct result of the disaster. Therefore, the requested work and $42,808.89 in costs for this site remain ineligible.

iii.        Little Creek Lane (DI 447834) 

The Applicant claims damages to a pipe, a concrete headwall, a road, and a curb. The Applicant provided post-disaster photographs but did not provide any documentation relating to the predisaster condition of the items. The Applicant’s photographs show vegetation growing in the outfall ditch and the side of the headwall, vegetative debris on the side of the road, and pavement in poor condition with alligator cracking and patching. In addition, the maintenance records show indicate that the ROW was cleared and the ditches were cleaned in 2013, but do not include records of more recent maintenance. The maintenance records also show numerous pothole repairs, indicative of deteriorating pavement. One of the Applicant’s maintenance records from 2014 noted that the bridge at Little Creek Lane had water running over it that was washing out the area, suggesting that the culverts may have been subject to overtopping during heavy rains.

Here, the Applicant’s documentation does not support its claim that the damages were directly caused by the declared incident rather than from pre-existing deficiencies; therefore, the requested work and $77,199.11 in costs for replacing the bridge culvert and repairing other system elements at this site are not eligible for PA funding.

iv.        Little Creek Lane (DI 447835)

The Applicant claims damages to a pipe, outfall ditch, and fence. The photographs included in the PEA show an outfall ditch lined with cinder blocks and a roadway section with adjacent guardrail, but do not show the damage claimed. The Applicant has not provided photographs or other documentation showing pipes filled with debris, failing pipe joints, or damage to the 211-foot section of the privacy fence as claimed. The Applicant’s maintenance records indicate that the ROW was cleared and the ditches were cleaned in 2013, but do not include records of more recent maintenance. In addition, there is no documentation showing that the Applicant regraded the ditches or replenished fill dirt, riprap or sodding, even after the 2014 rain event overtopped a bridge culvert in the area in 2014. 

The Applicant’s documentation does not support its claim that the damages were directly caused by the declared incident; therefore, the requested work and $89,086.10 in costs for replacing the pipe, cleaning the ditch, and repairing the fencing are not eligible for PA funding.

v.       Little Creek Drive (DI 447836)

The Applicant claims damages to a pipe and headwall. However, the documentation in the record does not demonstrate that the claimed damage is a direct result of the disaster. Post-disaster photographs show the pipe outfall, but the record does not contain any photographs or other documentation showing that there was sediment or debris inside the pipe. In addition, although the Applicant’s maintenance records list a headwall repair in 2018, the records do not contain enough information to confirm the repair was made to the headwall being claimed here. The Applicant’s 2018 work orders for this site do not include this repair and the notations on the maintenance records indicate that the repair was for a miter (slanted) end of a headwall. The headwall for which the Applicant is claiming damage does not have a slanted end. 

The Applicant’s documentation does not support its claim that the damage was directly caused by the declared incident; therefore, the requested work and $87,896.36 in costs at this site are not eligible for PA funding.

vi.        Little Creek Bridge (DI 447838) 

The Applicant claims damages to a pipe, headwall, curb, guardrail, and road. However, post-disaster photographs show a pipe outfall with discolored concrete and vegetation growing on top, and they do not show the separated pipe joints that the Applicant claims. The PEA noted that the cross-drain system experienced previous atypical rain events when the same cross drains and culverts were subjected to similar overflow conditions and overtopped. The predisaster maintenance records contain one entry for repairing a pipe at the site in 2016, but do not detail the nature of that repair. With regard to the road, the totality of the documentation, including predisaster maintenance records, post-disaster photographs as well as predisaster Google Earth imagery showing that the road had alligator cracking and surface patching before the declared incident, do not enable FEMA to verify the damage the Applicant claims was a direct result of the declared incident.

The post-disaster photographs do not demonstrate that the pipe joints separated or that the roadway was damaged as a direct result of the declared incident.  In addition, the other post-disaster photographs and documentation do not demonstrate that the headwall, curb, guardrail, and road were damaged as a direct result of the declared incident. The Applicant’s documentation does not support its claim that the damages were directly caused by the declared incident rather than from pre-existing deficiencies; therefore, the requested work and $51,089.30 in costs at this site are not eligible for PA funding.

Conclusion

FEMA finds the Applicant has not demonstrated that the requested work is required as a result of the declared incident. Therefore, the appeal is denied.