Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Summary
PA ID# 087-00000; County of Santa Cruz
DSR ID# 95064, 95065, 08723, 08724, 08725, 08726, 95057, 95058, 08729, 00277; Request for Time Extensions
Citation: FEMA-1155-DR-CA; County of Santa Cruz; Request for Time Extensions, DSRs 95064, 95065, 08723, 08724, 08725, 08726, 95057, 95058, 08729, 00277
Cross-reference: Time Extensions, NEPA Compliance
Summary: As a result of the winter storms in December 1996 and January 1997, the County of Santa Cruz (Applicant) sustained various damages to numerous sections of roadways. FEMA prepared 10 DSRs for repair of road and shoulder damages due to localized slope failures resulting from saturation or erosion, and/or surface damage due to falling hillside debris. The Applicant requested and received time extensions from OES for all this work, citing various reasons for the delay. Between December 2000, and May 2001, the Applicant requested further time extensions beyond the January 4, 2001, regulatory authority of OES. FEMA denied the time extension request being that work had not even begun on the projects, and that the Applicant had failed to demonstrate that circumstances beyond their control caused the delay. The DSRs were deobligated. The Applicants first appeal requested reconsideration of the time extensions, citing many of the same reasons as in their original request. The Acting Regional Director denied the first appeal, maintaining that the Applicant did not provide sufficient justification for further extensions. The response also indicated that even if the work was performed within the required timeframe, certain projects were completed without complying with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Applicants second appeal reaffirms the reasons for not completing work within the approved time extensions as presented in the first appeal. As for NEPA compliance, the Applicant concurs that in some cases they were aware the permits were necessary but inadvertently did not obtain them, but in other cases were not aware of the requirement. It is noted that in subsequent conversations, the Applicant has indicated their intention to withdraw their appeal for DSRs 08726, 08729, 95064 and 00277.
Issues: (1) Is a time extension warranted for these projects?(2) Did the completed projects comply with NEPA requirements?
Findings: (1) No, the Applicant has not demonstrated that extenuating circumstances exist to have prevented work from being completed within the required timeframe for DSRs 95057 and 95058. (2) No, for DSRs 08723, 08724, 08725, and 95065, the Applicant did not comply with necessary environmental permitting requirements.
Rationale: 44 CFR 206.204, 44 CFR Part 10