This page has not been translated into Русский. Visit the Русский page for resources in that language.
Debris Removal
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: FEMA-1606-DR-TX, Jasper Newton Electric Cooperative, PW 2545
Cross-reference: Debris Removal
Summary: In the aftermath of Hurricane Rita, Jasper Newton Electric Cooperative (Applicant) identified 4,500 trees that were considered dangerous, on the right-of-way (ROW), and under the Applicants jurisdiction for removal. FEMA prepared PW 2545 on
March 13, 2006, for $882,000 to fund debris removal activities started during the disaster. Later that same month, the Applicant accepted bids from contractors to perform a full system survey to identify system deficiencies caused by the storm. The Applicant requested and was granted an extension through
September 24, 2007. The survey was completed in January 2007 and identified an additional 6,471 trees to be removed at an additional cost of $1,873,093. A contract was awarded in February 2007 to cut the additional trees identified in the survey. The Applicant requested and was granted a second extension for the original scope of work through March 24, 2008. On March 29, 2007, the Applicant requested additional funds based on the survey. The Regional Administrator denied the request for additional funds because the additional trees identified in the survey were outside the original scope of work.
On July 10, 2007, the Applicant submitted its first appeal. The State supported the Applicants position. On February 5, 2008, the Region denied the appeal, stating that the additional trees identified 18 months after the disaster do not qualify as an immediate threat.
The Applicant submitted its second appeal on April 18, 2008, which is a resubmission of the first appeal. The Applicant did not submit any additional documentation. The State recommends approval of the appeal.
Issues: Do the additional 6,471 trees identified in the survey meet the definition of an immediate threat to health and safety?
Findings: No.
Rationale: Stafford Act Section 403; 44 CFR §206.224(a).
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1606-DR |
| Applicant | Jasper Newton Electric Cooperative |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 000-UN08R-00 |
| PW ID# | Project Worksheet 2545 |
| Date Signed | 2009-01-02T05:00:00 |
March 13, 2006, for $882,000 to fund debris removal activities started during the disaster. Later that same month, the Applicant accepted bids from contractors to perform a full system survey to identify system deficiencies caused by the storm. The Applicant requested and was granted an extension through
September 24, 2007. The survey was completed in January 2007 and identified an additional 6,471 trees to be removed at an additional cost of $1,873,093. A contract was awarded in February 2007 to cut the additional trees identified in the survey. The Applicant requested and was granted a second extension for the original scope of work through March 24, 2008. On March 29, 2007, the Applicant requested additional funds based on the survey. The Regional Administrator denied the request for additional funds because the additional trees identified in the survey were outside the original scope of work.
On July 10, 2007, the Applicant submitted its first appeal. The State supported the Applicants position. On February 5, 2008, the Region denied the appeal, stating that the additional trees identified 18 months after the disaster do not qualify as an immediate threat.
The Applicant submitted its second appeal on April 18, 2008, which is a resubmission of the first appeal. The Applicant did not submit any additional documentation. The State recommends approval of the appeal.
Appeal Letter
January2, 2009
Philip Anders
Recovery Section AdministratorHouston
Office of the Governor
Division of Emergency Management
5425 Polk Street, Suite 470
Houston, TX 77023
Re: Second AppealJasper Newton Electric Cooperative, PA ID 000-UN08R-00,
Debris Removal, FEMA-1606-DR-TX, Project Worksheet (PW) 2545
Dear Mr. Anders:
This is in response to your letter dated June 19, 2008, transmitting the referenced second appeal on behalf of Jasper Newton Electric Cooperative (Applicant). The Applicant is requesting that the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reconsider the denial of additional funding for the removal of damaged trees.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Rita, Jasper Newton Electric Cooperative (Applicant) identified approximately 4,500 trees that were on the right-of-way (ROW), considered dangerous, and under the Applicants jurisdiction for removal. On March 13, 2006, FEMA prepared PW 2545 for $882,000 to fund debris removal activities started during the disaster. Later that same month, the Applicant accepted bids from contractors to perform a full system survey to identify system deficiencies caused by the storm. The survey was completed in January 2007 and identified an additional 6,471 trees to be removed at an additional cost of $1,873,093. In February 2007, a contract was awarded to remove the additional trees identified in the survey.
On March 29, 2007, the Applicant requested additional funding for debris removal based on the survey. The Regional Administrator denied the request for additional funds because the additional trees identified in the survey were outside the original scope of work.
On July 10, 2007, the Applicant submitted its first appeal with the State supporting the Applicants position. On February 5, 2008, the Region denied the appeal, stating that additional trees identified 18 months after the disaster do not qualify as an immediate threat pursuant to 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 206.224(a).
The Applicant submitted its second appeal on April 18, 2008, which is a resubmission of the first appeal with no additional documentation to support its claim. The State recommends approval of the appeal.
The original PW was prepared and signed by FEMA with the concurrence of the State and the Applicants Director of Finance (designated agent). Neither the State nor FEMA were advised in writing that a survey was being conducted to determine additional damage; nor was there any indication that the trees included in PW 2545 were not the full extent of the damage. The exit interview signed on March 22, 2006, by the Director of Finance, effectively stated that all damage surveys in all categories of work had been completed. If any additional damage had been found, pursuant to 44 CFR §206.202, the Applicant should have notified FEMA in writing within 60 days of the kickoff meeting held on October 20, 2005. There was no written notification submitted by the Applicant indicating that any additional damage had been found.
The 44 CFR §206.204 states that debris clearance should be completed six months from the date of the disaster declaration; however, the State can extend the deadline an additional 6 months. Extensions beyond the States authority must be approved by the Regional Administrator. The Regional Administrator granted the Applicant two extensions, which extended the deadline to March 28, 2008. The debris removal work was completed on March 28, 2008, at a cost of $930,000 for the removal of 5,000 trees. In its appeal, the Applicant asserted that the cost-per-tree used by FEMA in the PW was too low. The average cost-per-tree used in PW 2545 was $197.00; the average cost-per-tree used in the selected contractors (Martindale Tree Service) bid was $186.18; and the actual cost-per-tree was $186.00.
FEMA considers the removal of the additional 6,471 trees, identified in the survey, to be routine operational and maintenance activity; and not an immediate threat to life, public health, and safety. It is therefore outside the original scope of work and ineligible for reimbursement under the Public Assistance (PA) Program. I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the Regional Administrators decision in the first appeal is consistent with PA regulations and policy. Accordingly, I am denying the second appeal.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
cc: William Peterson
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region VI
Philip Anders
Recovery Section AdministratorHouston
Office of the Governor
Division of Emergency Management
5425 Polk Street, Suite 470
Houston, TX 77023
Re: Second AppealJasper Newton Electric Cooperative, PA ID 000-UN08R-00,
Debris Removal, FEMA-1606-DR-TX, Project Worksheet (PW) 2545
Dear Mr. Anders:
This is in response to your letter dated June 19, 2008, transmitting the referenced second appeal on behalf of Jasper Newton Electric Cooperative (Applicant). The Applicant is requesting that the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reconsider the denial of additional funding for the removal of damaged trees.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Rita, Jasper Newton Electric Cooperative (Applicant) identified approximately 4,500 trees that were on the right-of-way (ROW), considered dangerous, and under the Applicants jurisdiction for removal. On March 13, 2006, FEMA prepared PW 2545 for $882,000 to fund debris removal activities started during the disaster. Later that same month, the Applicant accepted bids from contractors to perform a full system survey to identify system deficiencies caused by the storm. The survey was completed in January 2007 and identified an additional 6,471 trees to be removed at an additional cost of $1,873,093. In February 2007, a contract was awarded to remove the additional trees identified in the survey.
On March 29, 2007, the Applicant requested additional funding for debris removal based on the survey. The Regional Administrator denied the request for additional funds because the additional trees identified in the survey were outside the original scope of work.
On July 10, 2007, the Applicant submitted its first appeal with the State supporting the Applicants position. On February 5, 2008, the Region denied the appeal, stating that additional trees identified 18 months after the disaster do not qualify as an immediate threat pursuant to 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 206.224(a).
The Applicant submitted its second appeal on April 18, 2008, which is a resubmission of the first appeal with no additional documentation to support its claim. The State recommends approval of the appeal.
The original PW was prepared and signed by FEMA with the concurrence of the State and the Applicants Director of Finance (designated agent). Neither the State nor FEMA were advised in writing that a survey was being conducted to determine additional damage; nor was there any indication that the trees included in PW 2545 were not the full extent of the damage. The exit interview signed on March 22, 2006, by the Director of Finance, effectively stated that all damage surveys in all categories of work had been completed. If any additional damage had been found, pursuant to 44 CFR §206.202, the Applicant should have notified FEMA in writing within 60 days of the kickoff meeting held on October 20, 2005. There was no written notification submitted by the Applicant indicating that any additional damage had been found.
The 44 CFR §206.204 states that debris clearance should be completed six months from the date of the disaster declaration; however, the State can extend the deadline an additional 6 months. Extensions beyond the States authority must be approved by the Regional Administrator. The Regional Administrator granted the Applicant two extensions, which extended the deadline to March 28, 2008. The debris removal work was completed on March 28, 2008, at a cost of $930,000 for the removal of 5,000 trees. In its appeal, the Applicant asserted that the cost-per-tree used by FEMA in the PW was too low. The average cost-per-tree used in PW 2545 was $197.00; the average cost-per-tree used in the selected contractors (Martindale Tree Service) bid was $186.18; and the actual cost-per-tree was $186.00.
FEMA considers the removal of the additional 6,471 trees, identified in the survey, to be routine operational and maintenance activity; and not an immediate threat to life, public health, and safety. It is therefore outside the original scope of work and ineligible for reimbursement under the Public Assistance (PA) Program. I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the Regional Administrators decision in the first appeal is consistent with PA regulations and policy. Accordingly, I am denying the second appeal.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
cc: William Peterson
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region VI