Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Summary
PA ID# 075-00000; City and County of San Francisco
DSR ID# 65987; Hetch Hetchy Early Intake Switchyard
Citation: FEMA-1155-DR-CA; City and County of San Francisco; Hetch Hetchy Early Intake Switchyard, DSR 65987
Cross-reference: Eligible scope of work, environmental compliance, time requirements for submitting appeals
Summary: High flows in the Tuolumne River eroded the adjacent slopes, affecting the support and stability of the upslope Hetch Hetchy Early Intake Switchyard facility. Based on a geotechnical study and contractor bids, the Applicant proposed a method of repair involving the installation of a soldier pile wall along a 500-foot length, estimated at $3,112,560. FEMA reviewed the information but concluded that, based on the overall site stability, a properly rebuilt, armored slope would be sufficient. On September 14, 1998, FEMA obligated Category D DSR 65987 to fund the restoration of a 200-foot length of the eroded slopes using placement of riprap in the amount of $164,016. The Applicant constructed the drilled soldier pile wall along the full length of the switchyard (500-foot length) between the period of June 2, 1997 and December 15, 1998, at a cost of $3,743,269. On March 4, 2002, almost 3½ years after the work was completed, the Applicant submitted a request for supplemental funding to cover the cost of the actual work completed. The Region conducted a technical and post-construction environmental review and determined that the eligible scope of work was not completed, and that it could not provide environmental clearance for the completed work. FEMA prepared DSR 92618 in the amount of $164,016 to deobligate funding provided in the original DSR. The Applicant submitted a first appeal requesting funding for the constructed scope. The Acting Regional Director denied the appeal, stating that the scope of work in DSR 65987 was sufficient and that the appeal was submitted five years after the regulatory deadline. The second appeal asserts that the original scope did not thoroughly document all damage and that the repair scheme was impractical, infeasible, and unsafe, and requests FEMA reconsider funding the actual cost of the completed scope of work in the amount of $3,793,805 based on the merits of the project rather than regulatory timeframes.
Issues: (1) Is there sufficient justification to support reconsideration of funding work identified almost 3½ years after it was completed?
Findings: (1) No, the Applicant has not provided additional information to support its appeal position beyond that which was provided in its first appeal, nor have it demonstrated extenuating circumstances to merit further extensive review of its appeal five years after the regulatory timeframe for appeal submissions.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.202 (d), 44 CFR §206.206