Debris Removal and Monitoring

Appeal Brief

Summary Paragraph:

From February 11-19, 2021, a severe winter storm impacted the state of Mississippi, resulting in a major disaster declaration on May 4, 2021. Jefferson County (Applicant) requested costs it incurred from August 17 to November 13, 2021, to remove leaning tree (leaners) and hanging limb (hangers) debris generated by the incident. FEMA created Grants Manager Project 188437 to document the claimed costs. FEMA participated in a joint site inspection, including taking photographs. Additionally, the Applicant submitted photographic documentation taken by its contracted debris monitoring firm. FEMA conducted a 100 percent validation of all the photographs submitted and issued a Determination Memorandum (DM) denying $549,110.43 of the total costs because the Applicant had not demonstrated that the claimed leaners or hangers met FEMA’s debris removal eligibility criteria. The Applicant appealed. On June 24, 2024, the FEMA Region 4 Regional Administrator restored costs of $23,732.31 while denying the remainder of costs, $525,378.12. The Applicant submitted its second appeal, seeking the denied costs, reiterating its first appeal assertions, and stating that FEMA’s evaluation to determine eligibility was based on an assessment of leaners and hangers from sole reliance on photographs rather than the totality of the documentation submitted.

Authorities

• Stafford Act §§ 403(a), 407(a).
• 44 C.F.R. §§ 206.206, 206.224(a).
• PAPPG, at 63-65, 99, 101-103.

Headnotes

• FEMA may fund eligible vegetative debris removal including tree limbs, branches, stumps, or trees that are still in place but damaged to the extent that these pose an immediate threat and if certain eligibility criteria for removal are met.
  • The Applicant did not demonstrate that the removed leaners and hangers met FEMA’s eligibility criteria for removal and posed an immediate threat requiring removal.
  • Consequently, the Applicant’s debris monitoring costs associated with the ineligible work are also ineligible for PA funding.

Conclusion

The leaners and hangers did not pose an immediate threat requiring removal. Accordingly, the debris removal and associated costs for the debris removal and monitoring are ineligible for PA funding. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

Appeal Letter

Appeal Analysis

Background

From February 11-19, 2021, a winter storm impacted the state of Mississippi, resulting in vegetative debris and tree damage from ice accumulation, including fallen trees, leaning trees (leaners), and hanging limbs (hangers), along Jefferson County’s (Applicant) roads. The Applicant procured contracts for debris removal of leaners and hangers and debris monitoring. The Applicant requested $2,236,661.48 in Public Assistance (PA) reimbursement for the costs of this work completed from August 17 through November 13, 2021, which FEMA documented in Grants Manager Project 188437.[1] During a joint site inspection, FEMA, the Applicant’s consultant, and the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency (Recipient), took photographs of debris along the roadways. In response to FEMA’s request for information further detailing debris monitoring work performed by the Applicant’s debris monitoring firm, the Applicant provided an explanation of the monitoring firm’s invoicing process.

FEMA conducted a 100 percent validation of all 17,506 photographs of leaners and hangers submitted by the Applicant’s debris monitoring firm.[2] On June 24, 2024, FEMA issued a Determination Memorandum, denying $549,110.43.[3] While FEMA found some costs to be eligible, it determined that the Applicant had not demonstrated that all removed leaners or hangers posed an immediate threat or otherwise met FEMA’s debris removal eligibility criteria. In an attached validation spreadsheet, FEMA provided four separate reasons for denial, with comments indicating which of the four reasons applied to each denied cost item. FEMA also presented sample photographs and corresponding descriptions for each of the four reasons, explaining why the pictured hanger or leaner on the tickets did not pose an immediate threat and did not meet the FEMA eligibility criteria identified on FEMA’s validation spreadsheet.[4]

First Appeal

On September 16, 2024, the Applicant submitted its first appeal, seeking $549,110.43 in denied costs.[5] In its appeal letter, the Applicant detailed the debris monitor’s training materials and ticket submission process, which it states was designed to verify that the leaner and hanger work complied with all requirements. The Applicant asserted that its use of a highly experienced debris monitoring firm ensured that it had sufficiently documented the work, and thus, met FEMA’s criteria. The Applicant also provided a validation spreadsheet with 17,506 photographs, and explained the photograph sequence on each monitoring ticket in support of its initial claim for leaners and hangers removal work.[6] It further contended that FEMA relied on an audit of photographs without consideration of the totality of documents including invoices, work logs, Global Positioning System (GPS) maps, affidavits relating to work performed, monitoring, and observations in addition to the photographs. On September 17, 2024, the Recipient transmitted the Applicant’s first appeal to FEMA.

On March 3, 2025, the FEMA Region 4 Regional Administrator restored costs of $23,732.31 after correcting a DM miscalculation error, and denied the remainder of the costs, $525,378.12.  FEMA stated that the denied hanging limbs either did not extend over improved or public use areas, did not measure larger than 2 inches in diameter, or did not represent an immediate threat. Likewise, FEMA stated that the denied trees did not lean more than 30 degrees or did not pose an immediate threat by extending over improved or public use property.

Second Appeal

On May 2, 2025, the Applicant submitted its second appeal, seeking the denied costs of $525,378.12, reiterating its first appeal assertions. The Applicant states that FEMA policy does not require applicants to provide photographs of every hazardous tree limb and does not focus on photographs to the exclusion of other documentation. Instead, the Applicant notes that FEMA guidance emphasizes the role of debris monitors to verify compliance with FEMA’s requirements. The Applicant also addresses findings FEMA made in its validation spreadsheet and photographs that FEMA cited to support its ineligibility determinations and provides explanations for why the work in those examples was eligible. On May 21, 2025, the Recipient forwarded the Applicant’s appeal to FEMA with a letter stating its support and requesting FEMA reevaluate the submitted documentation for eligibility. 

Discussion

FEMA is authorized to provide PA funding for debris removal activities that are in the public interest, such as removal that is necessary to eliminate immediate threats: (1) to lives, public health and safety; or (2) of significant damage to improved public or private property.[7] FEMA may fund eligible vegetative debris removal including tree limbs, branches, stumps, or trees that are still in place but damaged to the extent that they pose an immediate threat.[8] These items are not eligible if the hazard existed prior to the incident, or if the item is in a natural area and does not extend over improved property or public-use areas, such as playgrounds, trails, or sidewalks.[9] Removal of broken limbs or branches that are 2 inches or larger in diameter (measured at the point of break) that pose an immediate threat are eligible.[10] FEMA considers incident-damaged trees to be hazardous and eligible if the tree has a diameter of 6 inches or greater when measured 4.5 feet above ground level, and the tree: 1) has a split trunk; 2) has a broken canopy; or 3) is leaning at an angle greater than 30 degrees.[11] It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide documentation to substantiate the eligibility of its claim and to clearly explain how those records support the appeal.[12]

To support its claim, the Applicant submitted, among other items, 17,506 post-disaster photographs of the debris and its debris removal activities; ticket, truck and work order numbers; and GPS work locations. However, the documentation provided by the Applicant does not demonstrate the eligibility of the denied work and costs. In some cases, this includes relevant leaner degree angle, hanger diameter, or the on-site debris monitor’s evaluation, or instances where the leaner angle or hanger diameter do not demonstrate an immediate threat. In addition, some photographs do not show the relationship of the leaner or hanger debris to a road or other improved property. Even for trees displaying a hazardous indicator, such as a broken canopy, the information provided does not indicate the proximity of the tree to the road or other improved property. Accordingly, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the claimed work met all eligibility criteria, including demonstrating that the debris removal was in the public interest and posed an immediate threat. As the Applicant was not able to demonstrate its claimed debris removal was eligible, the Applicant’s associated debris monitoring costs are also ineligible. 

Conclusion

The leaners and hangers did not pose an immediate threat requiring removal. Accordingly, the debris removal and associated costs for the debris removal monitoring are ineligible for PA funding. Therefore, this appeal is denied.