Snow Removal Costs

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

Disaster	FEMA-1046-DR
Applicant	Alpine County
Appeal Type	Second
PA ID#	003-00000
PW ID#	N/A
Date Signed	1998-03-24T05:00:00

Citation: FEMA-1046-DR-CA; Alpine County

Cross Reference: Disaster Declaration, Extraordinary Costs, Snow Removal

Summary: The subgrantee experienced a 150% increase in snow removal and related costs as a result of the winter storms of 1994/1995. The first appeal for funding cited the extraordinary cost and a discussion of how the declaration was not specific to the type of precipitation, and, therefore, these costs should be eligible. The Regional Director responded that snow removal is rarely eligible, and then only when specified in the declaration, which is not the case here. The second appeal stated that although wind and rain were not specified in the declaration, damage from them was eligible. Further, it is maintained that the declaration cites "severe winter storm" and that wind, rain, and snow are elements of such.

Issues:

1. Are some costs associated with snow removal eligible under declared disaster 1046?
2. Are all snow removal related costs incurred eligible?

Findings:

1. Yes. The precipitation was the result of the declared disaster and the declaration was based on the effects of a severe winter storm. That does not exclude the potential impacts from snow.
2. No. Only costs incurred during the declared disaster period for emergency work (opening one lane in each direction for emergency vehicle access).

Rationale:

1. 44 CFR 206.223(a).
2. 44 CFR 206.225(a)(3)

Appeal Letter

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND
As a result of severe winter storms in early 1995, Alpine County received heavy snows. According to the subgrantee, road snow "management" (applicant's term) costs were much higher than normal. The subgrantee is requesting funding for snow management in Bear Valley. Snow removal for a 1.5- mile section of public roads in Bear Valley, including roads to the fire station and sheriff's station, cost $134,579 for 1994/1995 as compared to a nine-year average of $50,368. Rather than actually removing snow from the roads in the balance of Bear Valley, the roads are packed and groomed for use by over-the-snow vehicles (hence the term "snow management"). For convenience, the term "removal" will be used herein. The cost for snow removal on these roads in 1994/1995 was $30,184 as compared to the nine-year average of $15,570.

First Appeal
On August 19, 1996, the State of California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) forwarded the subgrantee's September 27, 1995 first appeal for extraordinary costs of snow management. The subgrantee claimed that the costs for snow removal and related activities were nearly $100,000. Further, the subgrantee requested that the effects of the snow to their community be treated fairly in comparison to the treatment of the effects of rain to the rest of California. OES estimated that the subgrantee's extraordinary increased costs for snow removal during the declared incident was $38,000. OES added that the declaration stated that the damage resulting from the winter storms was sufficient to warrant a major disaster declaration and did not differentiate between types of precipitation. The Regional Director responded on November 22, 1996, that snow removal is rarely eligible for Federal disaster assistance and then only when the snow removal is specifically referenced in the declaration.

Second Appeal
On August 14, 1997, OES forwarded the subgrantee's second appeal letter of May 12, 1997. OES stated that wind and rain were not specifically mentioned in the declaration of ". severe winter storms," however, the costs associated with the repair of damage caused by wind and rain were reimbursed by FEMA. Further, severe winter storms are typically composed of wind, rain, and snow. Also, there is no statement to the effect that the declaration must provide details or that snow is to be excluded from severe winter storms in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act or Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

DISCUSSION
For snow removal costs to be eligible, the costs must have been incurred during the declared disaster incident period (February 13 to April 19, 1995), and must have been necessary as emergency protective measures to maintain one lane in each direction for emergency response vehicles along primary emergency access routes. A review of the data submitted by the applicant shows that some of the snow removal work (all done by contractors) meets those criteria, and associated costs are eligible. However, the subdivision roads are not considered primary emergency routes and, therefore, the packing and grooming costs are not eligible. The following table summarizes the eligible costs:

Summary of Bear Valley and Subdivision
Eligible Snow Removal Related Costs

February 1995	$18,036
March 1995	$16,619
April 1995	$3,400
Total Eligible Costs	$38,055

CONCLUSION
Emergency snow removal costs incurred during the declared disaster period are eligible. A damage survey report will be prepared in the amount of $38,055.