Immediate Threat, Damage Assessments and Surveys

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

Disaster	4283
Applicant	Volusia County
Appeal Type	Second
PA ID#	127‐99127‐00
PW ID#	PW 458
Date Signed	2022-12-14T17:00:00

Summary Paragraph

From October 3–19, 2016, Hurricane Matthew impacted the east coast of Florida.  Volusia County (Applicant) performed emergency protective measures, including mosquito abatement activities.  The Applicant also used helicopters to assess and photograph damage.  FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 458 to document the costs.  FEMA denied the Applicant’s request for reimbursement for telecommunication costs, force account labor (FAL) compensatory time, helicopter support, and mosquito abatement costs.  FEMA found that the Applicant did not provide required documentation to support eligibility for the telecommunication, mosquito abatement, and FAL costs, and the Applicant was not legally responsible for the helicopter support.  The Applicant submitted a first appeal letter dated September 10, 2021, requesting $173,259.00 and providing additional documentation.  FEMA, in a request for information, asked whether the helicopter costs were for emergency protective measures specific to PW 458.  In response, the Applicant stated that the costs were incurred to document/photograph disaster damage.  In a May 23, 2022 letter, the FEMA Region IV Regional Administrator denied the appeal, finding that the Applicant did not provide documentation to support eligibility for telecommunications, FAL, and mosquito abatement; and that the helicopter costs were ineligible indirect costs.  The Applicant submits a July 15, 2022 dated second appeal, requesting $155,285.32 for helicopter costs and mosquito abatement.  The Florida Division of Emergency Management transmitted the appeal, recommending approval.

Authorities and Second Appeals

• Stafford Act §§ 403, 324.
• 44 C.F.R. §§ 206.225(a), 207.2, 207.4(c).
• PAPPG, at 36-37, 39, 58, 70, 127, 141, 178-179.

Headnotes

• FEMA provides PA funding for mosquito abatement under limited circumstances based on specific criteria per FEMA guidelines.  Abatement measures must comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations concerning vector control.
  • The Applicant did not provide documentation showing that appropriately trained and certified applicators applied EPA approved insecticides according to label directions and precautions.  Nor did it provide information/documentation, such as spray maps, establishing when, by which method (i.e., ground/aerial), and where chemical spraying occurred that would enable FEMA to verify compliance with all applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations.

• Costs related to assessing overall damage or debris impacts are indirect costs and eligible as management costs.  Management costs are not eligible as project costs. 
  • The helicopter costs are indirect management costs, and as such, are not provided directly to the Applicant. 

Conclusion

The Applicant has not demonstrated that the mosquito abatement work met specific eligibility criteria required by FEMA policy.  Additionally, the helicopter costs are indirect management costs, and as such, are not provided directly to the Applicant.  Therefore, the appeal is denied.

Appeal Letter

Appeal Analysis

Background

From October 3–19, 2016, Hurricane Matthew impacted the east coast of Florida.[1]  Volusia County (Applicant) requested Public Assistance (PA) funding for various emergency protective measures (e.g., implementing disaster preparations such as sandbags, utilizing generators across the county to address power outages, etc.), mosquito abatement activities, and costs related to operating helicopters to assess and photograph damage.  FEMA awarded Project Worksheet (PW) 458 as a Category B project, obligating $1,268,232.40 associated with eligible emergency protective measures.  However, FEMA denied the Applicant’s request for reimbursement for telecommunication costs, force account labor (FAL) compensatory time, mosquito abatement, and helicopter support costs.  FEMA found that the Applicant did not provide required documentation to support eligibility for the telecommunication, FAL, and mosquito abatement costs, and the Applicant was not legally responsible for the helicopter support.

First Appeal

The Applicant submitted a first appeal letter dated September 10, 2021, requesting $173,259.00[2] and providing additional documentation, including helicopter work orders, Florida Department of Health arbovirus[3] reports, and a Zika virus state of emergency declaration (hereafter “EO-16-149”).[4]  The Applicant referred to arbovirus reports and EO-16-149 in support of claimed mosquito abatement costs and asserted that the helicopter costs were incurred to assess and document disaster damage.  In a letter dated October 29, 2021, the Florida Division of Emergency Management (Recipient) recommended that FEMA grant the appeal.  FEMA issued a Request for Information, asking for information clarifying whether the helicopter costs were for emergency protective measures specific to PW 458.  In response, the Applicant stated that the helicopter costs were related to assessing and photographing damage and requested that FEMA create a Category Z (management costs) project for the costs. 

The FEMA Region IV Regional Administrator denied the appeal on May 23, 2022, finding that: (1) the Applicant did not provide documentation to support that telecommunication costs and FAL overtime were incurred during the performance of eligible emergency protective measures; (2) the Applicant did not provide documentation demonstrating that mosquito abatement was eligible for reimbursement pursuant to PA policy; and (3) the use of a helicopter to capture pre- and post-disaster imagery was an indirect cost that cannot be reimbursed on a Category B project.  In regard to mosquito abatement documentation, FEMA found that while the provided arbovirus reports indicate that the Applicant was under continued alert, they do not indicate a spike in disease-transmitting mosquito populations following the disaster that would require additional spraying.  FEMA also noted that the Applicant did not provide any other documentation to support its claim, such as medical or state verification of an increased threat to the public after the disaster, to indicate that additional mosquito abatement was necessary.

Second Appeal

The Applicant submitted a July 15, 2022 appeal, requesting $155,285.32 for denied mosquito abatement ($142,912.00) and helicopter costs ($12,373.32).[5]  The Applicant provided additional mosquito abatement documentation, including trap data and a letter from the Florida Department of Health.[6]  The Applicant reiterated its previous helicopter costs’ arguments, and asserted that the costs were not indirect because they were associated with several projects.  The Recipient transmitted the Applicant’s appeal in a September 15, 2022 letter, recommending approval.

 

Discussion

Immediate Threat

FEMA may provide PA funding for emergency protective measures to save lives, protect public health and safety, and protect improved property that eliminate or lessen certain immediate threats.[7]  FEMA provides funding for mosquito abatement under limited circumstances based on specific criteria set forth in FEMA policy.[8]  To be eligible for PA funding, insecticide formulations must be among those approved and registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for use in urban areas for mosquito control, and must be applied according to label directions and precautions by appropriately trained and certified applicators.[9]  Furthermore, mosquito abatement measures must comply with all Federal, State, Territorial, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations concerning vector control.[10]  FEMA only provides PA funding for the increased cost of mosquito abatement.[11]  This is the amount that exceeds the average amount based on the last three years of expenses for the same period.[12]  If the applicant does not provide sufficient documentation to support its claim as eligible, FEMA cannot provide PA funding for the work.[13]

Here, the Applicant has not provided documentation establishing that it utilized EPA approved and registered insecticide formulations that were applied according to label directions and precautions by appropriately trained and certified applicators.  Nor did it provide information/documentation, such as spray maps, establishing when, by which method (i.e., ground/aerial), and where, chemical spraying occurred that would enable FEMA to verify compliance with all Federal, State, Territorial, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations concerning vector control.  The Applicant has not provided documentation to establish that it met specific criteria outlined in FEMA policy that must be satisfied for mosquito abatement eligibility.[14]  Thus, the requested mosquito abatement is not eligible for PA funding.

Damage Assessments and Surveys

FEMA may provide funding for indirect costs incurred in administering and managing PA awards that are not directly chargeable to a specific project.[15]  Costs related to assessing overall impacts of an incident, locating damage or debris impacts are indirect costs and eligible as management costs.[16]  They are not eligible as project costs or direct administrative costs (DAC).[17]  FEMA categorizes recipient management costs as Category Z.[18]  The recipient determines the amount of funds, if any, that it will pass through to applicants for management costs.[19]

Here, the requested helicopter costs related to assessing overall impacts of the incident are not associated with a specific project.  The helicopter costs are therefore indirect management costs, not eligible as project costs or DAC.  In regard to the Applicant’s request for a Category Z PW, FEMA policy applicable to this disaster does not contemplate providing management costs under Category Z directly to applicants.  Rather, eligible Category Z funds would have been provided to the Recipient, which determines the amount of funds, if any, that it will pass through to the Applicant for its management costs.

 

Conclusion

The Applicant has not demonstrated that the mosquito abatement work met specific eligibility criteria required by FEMA policy.  Additionally, the helicopter costs are indirect management costs, and as such, are not provided directly to the Applicant.  Therefore, the appeal is denied.

 

[1] The President declared a major disaster for Hurricane Matthew, FEMA-4283-DR-FL, on October 8, 2016, with an incident period of October 3–19, 2016.

[2] The Applicant requested telecommunication costs ($671.79), force account labor (FAL) compensatory time ($17,301.89), mosquito abatement costs ($142,912.00), and helicopter support costs ($12,373.32).

[3] “An arbovirus is a virus utilizing arthropods as vectors and is transmitted via their feeding to a definitive host.”  Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide, FP 104-009-2, at 178 (Jan. 1, 2016) [hereinafter PAPPG].

[4] State of Fla., Office of the Governor, Executive Order No. 16-149, Amended Emergency Order for Zika Virus (June 23, 2016) [hereinafter EO-16-149].

[5] As the Applicant does not request the previously denied telecommunication costs or FAL overtime, these are not discussed further in this decision.

[6] Letter from Adm’r, Fla. Dept. of Health, to Dir. Volusia Cty. Mosquito Control (Oct. 14, 2016) (noting that the Applicant was under a public health emergency due to travel related Zika virus infections, the state-wide presence of West Nile virus (typically peaking around late summer and fall), and stating “it is imperative that we take actions to help reduce mosquito populations”).

[7] Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance (Stafford) Act § 403(a)(3), Title 42, United States Code (U.S.C.) § 5170b(a)(3) (2013); Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) § 206.225(a) (2016).

[8] PAPPG, at 58, 70, 178-179.

[9] Id. at 179.

[10] Id.

[11] Id. at 70

[12] Id.

[13] Id. at 127.

[14] Additionally, the Applicant did not provide documentation showing that its claimed mosquito abatement costs represent the amount that exceeds the average amount based on the last three years of expenses for the same period.  However, the cost eligibility issue is moot because the work is ineligible.

[15] Stafford Act § 324(a), 42 U.S.C. § 5165b(a); 44 C.F.R. § 207.2; PAPPG, at 36-37, 141.

[16] PAPPG, at 39.

[17] Id.

[18] Id. at 141.

[19] 44 C.F.R. § 207.4(c); PAPPG, at 37.