Result of Declared Incident

Appeal Brief

Appeal Letter

Appeal Analysis

Background

Hurricane Sally caused strong winds, torrential rain, and tidal surge resulting in extensive damage throughout Florida.[1] Escambia County (Applicant) claimed to have sustained damage to a corrugated metal drainage pipe and stone riprap at 5790 West Shore Drive as a result of disaster-generated winds, surface water flooding, and high-velocity water flows. FEMA prepared Grants Manager Project 172061 to capture the claimed damage in the amount of $30,922.46.

FEMA performed a site inspection on February 10, 2021. In its site inspection report (SIR), FEMA included Applicant-provided photographs of the drainage pipe that showed deteriorated pipe metal. On July 21, 2021, FEMA issued a Request for Information (RFI) to the Applicant via Grants Manager, seeking documentation that demonstrated the predisaster condition of the pipe and the riprap. The Applicant responded to FEMA’s RFI on July 22, 2021 with a post-disaster Preliminary Engineering Assessment (PEA) that an engineering firm conducted at the Applicant’s request and a post-disaster October 23, 2020 video inspection of the damaged pipe. The Applicant’s engineering firm concluded in the PEA that the pipe’s interior coating further deteriorated as a result of the declared incident and that there were holes in the pipe showing earth behind the pipe for several joints upstream of the outlet. The Applicant’s engineering firm stated that heavy rainfall and subsequent surcharge of this pipe due to the declared incident further eroded the remaining metal near the pipe outfall.[2] The Applicant’s engineering firm also noted that increased water levels from the disaster in Crescent Lake contributed to the erosion of sediment at the pipe outfall.

On September 8, 2021, FEMA issued a Determination Memorandum denying $30,922.46 in costs, stating the Applicant failed to provide documentation required to substantiate that the damage was directly caused by the declared incident. FEMA noted that while the Applicant’s post-disaster video inspection showed the drainage pipe was intact and still fully functional, the pipe was rusted and showed other signs of long-term deterioration near the outfall. FEMA found the claimed riprap eligible; however, because its replacement cost ($796.30) fell below the minimum project cost threshold for Public Assistance (PA) reimbursement, the riprap cost was therefore not eligible for PA funding.[3]

First Appeal

The Applicant submitted its first appeal on September 9, 2021, requesting that FEMA reinstate the project, and increase the estimated cost for the riprap replacement to $5,499.50 to reflect the PEA cost estimate. Regarding the drainage pipe, the Applicant asserted that its PEA included sufficient information to substantiate its claim that the pipe failed as a result of the declared incident. Specifically, in the PEA, the Applicant’s engineering firm stated that the interior coating failed and that earth behind the pipe was showing for several joints upstream of the outlet. The Applicant’s engineering firm also noted that increased water levels from the disaster in Crescent Lake contributed to the erosion of sediment at the pipe outfall. On October 29, 2021, the Florida Division of Emergency Management (Recipient) transmitted the Applicant’s first appeal with a letter recommending approval.

On October 12, 2022, the FEMA Region 4 Regional Administrator partially granted the appeal, finding $5,499.50 for the riprap replacement to be eligible. However, FEMA also found the Applicant did not demonstrate that damage to the drainage pipe occurred as a direct result of the incident. FEMA found that neither the Applicant-provided photographs of the drainage pipe or the post-disaster video inspection showed any damage or displacement of the pipe, but there were signs of long-term wear and tear such as rust and corrosion. FEMA also noted that the Applicant did not provide any predisaster documents to demonstrate the predisaster condition of the pipe. Finally, FEMA concluded it was unclear if the Applicant routinely maintained and inspected the drainage pipe because the Applicant’s maintenance records documented peripheral upkeep but did not contain any detailed information on completed repair work or upgrades associated with the drainage pipe.

Second Appeal

On December 5, 2022, the Applicant submitted a second appeal requesting approval for the pipe repair. In support, the Applicant cites its engineering firm’s assessment in the PEA, based on the October 2020 pipe inspection video, that it states showed holes in the pipe, exposing the earthworks behind it. The Applicant reiterates its argument that, based on the 2020 post-disaster video inspection, the damage was a result of the declared incident. The Applicant further states that, since the declared incident, the pipe has continued to fail and impact adjacent properties. The Applicant also attaches a video inspection report from August 28, 2014, in connection with a prior disaster. The Applicant states that at the time of the 2014 inspection, no damage was found to the pipe and, therefore, it was it was not repaired with other outfalls in the project. The Applicant states that because the pipe had not shown damage or obstructions in 2014, there would have been no maintenance records other than the routine cleaning and repair records of the adjacent areas that the Applicant already provided. On February 2, 2023, the Recipient supported the appeal.  On March 6, 2023, FEMA issued an RFI seeking copies of the August 28, 2014 and October 23, 2020 pipe inspection videos, but the Applicant did not respond.[4]

Discussion

FEMA provides PA funding to eligible applicants for the repair, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of eligible facilities damaged or destroyed by major disasters.[5] To be eligible for PA funding, work must be required as a result of the disaster.[6] FEMA does not provide funding for repair of damage caused by deterioration or deferred maintenance.[7] FEMA reviews predisaster maintenance or inspection reports to assist in verifying the predisaster condition and assess eligible disaster damage.[8] 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.[9]

Here, the Applicant’s PEA noted pre-disaster damage to the pipe, including continued deterioration of the pipe’s interior coating and erosion to the remaining metal at the pipe outfall, indicating the pipe coating was failing and the pipe metal was eroding before the declared incident.[10] In addition, a FEMA engineer that reviewed the project noted that while the post-disaster pipe video inspection showed the pipe was still intact and fully operational, the pipe also showed areas of rust and corrosion in the last 15 to 20 feet of pipe near the outfall.[11] This type of damage raised questions as to the cause of this damage. FEMA requested additional documentation from the Applicant in order to establish the damages claimed were a direct result of the disaster. The Applicant did not provide any documentation to tie the damage to the disaster, such as technical assessments or predisaster photographs to support its claim.

Although the Applicant provided post-disaster photographs, they do not tie the claimed damages to the declared incident or provide any comparison between pre- and post-disaster conditions that would enable FEMA to tie the claimed damages to the declared incident. Similarly, the records the Applicant provided do not establish the predisaster condition of the pipe. The Applicant also stated it was unable to provide maintenance records for the pipe since there were no reported concerns with the pipe.[12] The Applicant has not demonstrated that it had a routine maintenance program nor has it demonstrated the predisaster condition of the pipe. While the Applicant provided a written report describing a pipe inspection from August 28, 2014 that stated there were no defects in the pipe at that time, it has not produced documentation demonstrating the predisaster condition of the pipe for the following six years, between 2014 and when the disaster occurred in 2020. Therefore, the Applicant has not provided information to enable the Agency to distinguish pre-existing damage from disaster-related damage. Thus, the Applicant’s documentation does not support its claim that the damage was directly caused by the declared incident.

Conclusion

The Applicant has not shown that the work to repair the drainage pipe was required as a result of the declared incident. Therefore, the appeal is denied.