FEMA finds the Applicant has not demonstrated that the additional work requested is required as a result of the disaster. Therefore, this appeal is denied. Appeal Letter SENT VIA EMAIL Kevin Guthrie Director Florida Division of Emergency Management 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd. Tallahassee Florida, 32399 Elizabeth Kissel Program Coordinator Escambia County 221 Palafox Place Pensacola, Florida 32502 Re: Second Appeal – Escambia County, PA ID:033-99033-00, FEMA-4564-DR-FL, Grants Manager Project 172091 – Result of Declared Incident Dear Kevin Guthrie and Elizabeth Kissel: This is in response to Florida Division of Emergency Management (Recipient) letter dated July 26, 2023, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Escambia County (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of funding in the amount of $391,740.06 for repairs to articulated blocks lining ditches along Monroe Avenue. As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined the Applicant has not demonstrated that the additional work requested is required as a result of the disaster. Therefore, this appeal is denied. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 206.206, Appeals. Sincerely, /S/ Robert Pesapane Director Public Assistance Division Enclosure cc: Robert D. Samaan Acting Regional Administrator FEMA Region 4 Appeal Analysis Background In September 2020, Hurricane Sally caused strong winds, torrential rain, and tidal surge, resulting in extensive damage throughout the state of Florida.[1] Escambia County (Applicant) requested FEMA Public Assistance (PA) for work to repair displacement of articulated blocks[2] at four sites within a 1400-foot-long road ditch (Facility) that ran alongside Monroe Avenue, and erosion of a 4-foot by 4-foot shoulder[3] adjacent to the Facility at a fifth site. The Applicant’s consulting engineer prepared a Preliminary Engineering Assessment (PEA), dated February 2021, documenting a total of 123 square yards (SYs) of lost articulated blocks at four sites and failure of the shoulder at the fifth site. The proposed scope of work (SOW) recommended, among other items, removing 1,078 SYs of existing concrete and installing that same quantity in articulated blocks with cable ties to prevent future lateral displacement, and re-establishing the grade on the shoulder, for a total cost of $440,633.34. FEMA conducted a Site Inspection on March 12, 2021. The Site Inspection Report (SIR) noted the displacement of the same quantities of articulated block at the same four sites noted in the PEA, as well as the eroded soil at the fifth site. The SIR noted the method and repair would be removing and replacing 123.2 SYs of articulated blocks at four sites and replacing soil at the fifth. FEMA prepared Grants Manager Project 172091, which included a Damage Description and Dimensions (DDD) and a SOW that mirrored the SIR. On July 16, 2021, FEMA issued a Request for Information to the Applicant requesting the following information: maintenance documentation to substantiate predisaster condition of the ditches, including photographs; documentation supporting items claimed in the PEA that deviated from FEMA’s DDD; and supporting quantity calculations for the extent of the claimed damage.[4] The Applicant responded on July 16, 2021, submitting the predisaster maintenance record for Monroe Avenue for the nine years before the disaster, and stating that the DDD only reflected damaged items and not incidental repairs. The Applicant explained that the PEA provided by the Applicant’s consulting engineer included work and costs that were incidental to the repair of the displaced blocks. FEMA issued a Determination Memorandum on August 23, 2021, denying $391,740.06 of the requested costs. FEMA found that the Applicant had not substantiated that the claimed work and costs were required as a result of the declared incident. FEMA noted that certain work items included in the PEA were for items that did not appear damaged by the event; for example, the sections of the bedding stone and filter fabric that was still in place following the disaster. Therefore, FEMA awarded $48,893.28[5] based on replacing the displaced blocks identified in the PEA and SIR and restoring the eroded shoulder with soil as described in the project’s DDD and SOW. First Appeal The Applicant filed a first appeal on September 24, 2021, requesting the $391,740.06 in previously denied costs. First, the Applicant stated that the PEA justified the costs and quantities beyond those described in the DDD. The Applicant acknowledged that only select sections of the Facility were damaged as a result of the disaster but stated that because the interlocking block armoring was connected for the entire length of the Facility, it must be installed and removed as one piece. The Applicant then stated that although the bedding stone and filter fabric was still in place after the disaster, it could not be reused when installing new articulated block armoring. Lastly, the Applicant noted that a survey, conducted after the PEA, revealed a need for erosion protection in the form of additional articulating block and concrete pavement to repair the shoulder along the Facility. It stated that while it previously anticipated the need to regrade the area, it had not anticipated the need for additional armoring. It also noted that that the eroded area, previously hidden by natural overgrowth, was 433 feet long versus the 4 feet previously stated in the PEA. The Florida Division of Emergency Management (Recipient) forwarded the appeal in support of the Applicant on November 19, 2021. The FEMA Region 4 Regional Administrator denied the first appeal in a letter dated April 14, 2023. FEMA found that the interlocking block armor could be replaced individually to address the sections that were damaged, and the Applicant had not substantiated that replacing all material, including filter fabric and intact sections of stone, was required as a direct result of the disaster. Additionally, the Applicant had not substantiated that the additional erosion protection for the additional washed-out shoulders was the result of the declared incident. Rather, FEMA noted that the documentation provided by the Applicant, including predisaster photographs and maintenance documentation, suggested inadequate maintenance and recent culvert construction caused the ongoing erosion issues. Second Appeal The Applicant submitted a second appeal on May 31, 2023, reiterating first appeal arguments and submitted a second PEA report that stated similar findings to the original report, but that also contained cost estimates from contractors.[6] The Recipient forwarded the appeal on July 26, 2023, in support of the Applicant’s position. Discussion FEMA may reimburse eligible applicants for the repair, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of public facilities damaged or destroyed by a major disaster on the basis of their predisaster design, function, and capacity in conformity with other provisions.[7] To be eligible for PA funding, an item of work must be required as a result of a major disaster, and the applicant must demonstrate that the damage was directly caused by the incident.[8] When necessary to validate damage, the applicant may be required to provide documentation supporting the predisaster condition of the facility (e.g., facility maintenance records, inspection/safety reports).[9] 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.[10] Here, the Applicant’s first PEA and FEMA’s SIR both note that the disaster displaced 123 SYs of articulated blocks. The required method of repair for these damages is where the documents differ. The first PEA included costs to remove and install 1,078 SYs of blocks, whereas the SIR noted repair work to remove and replace 123 SYs of displaced blocks. While the Applicant states that all the blocks (including non-damaged sections of blocks) must be removed and replaced due to the interlocking nature of the blocks, the documentation does not support a SOW beyond what was previously approved by FEMA. For example, the first PEA only recommends removal of all existing blocks and upgrading to blocks with interlocking cabling because of increased flow of recently installed culverts, while the second PEA does not state that total replacement of the blocks (including non-damaged blocks) is required as a result of the disaster to restore the Facility to its predisaster design, function, and capacity. The Applicant has not demonstrated the additional requested work to restore the damaged sections of articulated blocks is required as a result of the disaster to restore the Facility to its predisaster condition. The Applicant also requests funding for additional work to repair the previously identified erosion in the fifth site. However, aside from the Applicant’s assertions in its appeal letters, it has not provided documentation that demonstrates the additional requested work for the fifth site is required as a result of the disaster. For example, neither PEA contains language that states the work is necessary to repair the erosion and restore the Facility to its predisaster design, function, and capacity. Next, the Applicant seeks funding for erosion damages over a 433-foot area, rather than the originally identified 4-foot area. Yet, the Applicant has not provided supporting documentation, such as post-disaster photographs, that substantiates the disaster caused of the additional claimed damage. Notably, the Applicant discusses additional washed-out shoulders in its second appeal letter, but never specifically states that these areas were damaged as a result of this disaster. Moreover, while the predisaster maintenance documentation shows the Applicant conducted activities to Monroe Avenue on a semi-regular basis, it is not clear if the work was conducted to the additional shoulder areas that are at issue on appeal. Therefore, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the additional requested work relating to the fifth site (i.e., additional articulating block and concrete pavement), or work to repair the additional claimed erosion damage, are required a result of the disaster. Conclusion