This page has not been translated into 简体中文. Visit the 简体中文 page for resources in that language.
Scope of Work
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: FEMA-1646-DR-CA, Santa Cruz County (Applicant), Scope of Work,
Project Worksheet (PW) 67-2
Cross-reference: Time Limitations
Summary: The severe storms and flooding from March 29-April 16, 2006, damaged Trout Gulch Road, a two-lane paved mountain road. The road embankment suffered heavy erosion that resulted in a slope failure of 60 feet in length by 8 feet wide by 15 feet deep. The storms also damaged the road pavement. FEMA prepared
PW 67 for $318,438, which included the cost to construct a retaining wall ($246,425). Upon final review of the PW, FEMA determined that the method of repair did not return the facility to its pre-disaster condition, but represented significant improvements from the pre-disaster design or a hazard mitigation opportunity. FEMA revised the scope of work and reduced funding to $8,641. FEMA obligated funding for the project under PW 67-2 following environmental clearance in October 2006. In a letter dated March 5, 2007, the Governors Office of Emergency Services (OES) notified the Applicant of the amount obligated for PW 67-2. The letter identified the appeals process in accordance with 44 CFR §206.206, and also advised the Applicant that . . . if you disagree with the FEMA obligated amount or scope of work for the PW(s) . . . you must appeal FEMAs determination within 60 days from the date of this letter. The Applicant submitted its first appeal on September 28, 2007. FEMA denied the first appeal as it was submitted over four months beyond the regulatory 60-day time frame.
The OES transmitted the Applicants second appeal to FEMA in a letter dated
June 12, 2008. The OES letter concurs with FEMAs position that the first appeal was submitted beyond the 60-day deadline. The Applicant did not provide any extenuating circumstances for submitting the first appeal after the established deadline.
Issues: Did the Applicant submit its first appeal within the regulatory timeline?
Findings: No.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.206(c)
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1646-DR |
| Applicant | Santa Cruz County |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 087-99087-00 |
| PW ID# | Project Worksheet 67-2 |
| Date Signed | 2008-10-14T04:00:00 |
Project Worksheet (PW) 67-2
PW 67 for $318,438, which included the cost to construct a retaining wall ($246,425). Upon final review of the PW, FEMA determined that the method of repair did not return the facility to its pre-disaster condition, but represented significant improvements from the pre-disaster design or a hazard mitigation opportunity. FEMA revised the scope of work and reduced funding to $8,641. FEMA obligated funding for the project under PW 67-2 following environmental clearance in October 2006. In a letter dated March 5, 2007, the Governors Office of Emergency Services (OES) notified the Applicant of the amount obligated for PW 67-2. The letter identified the appeals process in accordance with 44 CFR §206.206, and also advised the Applicant that . . . if you disagree with the FEMA obligated amount or scope of work for the PW(s) . . . you must appeal FEMAs determination within 60 days from the date of this letter. The Applicant submitted its first appeal on September 28, 2007. FEMA denied the first appeal as it was submitted over four months beyond the regulatory 60-day time frame.
The OES transmitted the Applicants second appeal to FEMA in a letter dated
June 12, 2008. The OES letter concurs with FEMAs position that the first appeal was submitted beyond the 60-day deadline. The Applicant did not provide any extenuating circumstances for submitting the first appeal after the established deadline.
Appeal Letter
October 14, 2008
Frank McCarton
Governors Authorized Representative
Governors Office of Emergency Services
Response and Recovery Division
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, California 95655
Re: Second AppealSanta Cruz County, PA ID 087-99087-00, Scope of Work,
FEMA-1646-DR-CA, Project Worksheet (PW) 67-2
Dear Mr. McCarton:
This letter is in response to your letter dated June 11, 2008, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Santa Cruz County (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMA) decision to exclude the construction of a retaining wall from the original scope of work for repairs on Trout Gulch Road.
The severe storms and flooding from March 29-April 16, 2006, damaged Trout Gulch Road, a two-lane paved mountain road. The road embankment suffered heavy erosion resulting in a slope failure of 60 feet in length by 8 feet wide by 15 feet deep. The storms also damaged the road pavement. FEMA prepared PW 67 for $318,438, which included the cost to construct a retaining wall ($246,425). Upon final review, FEMA determined that the method of repair did not return the facility to its pre-disaster condition, but represented significant improvements from the pre-disaster design or a hazard mitigation opportunity. As a result, FEMA revised the scope of work and reduced funding to $8,641. FEMA obligated funding for the project under
PW 67-2 following completion of the environmental review in October 2006.
In a March 5, 2007, transmittal entitled Notification of Obligation and Payment, the Governors Office of Emergency Services (OES) notified the Applicant of the amount of funding that FEMA obligated for the project. The OES letter advised the Applicant . . . if you disagree with the FEMA obligated amount or scope of work for the PW(s) . . . you must appeal FEMAs determination within 60 days from the date of this letter. The letter also identifies the appeals process in accordance with 44 CFR §206.206.
The Applicant submitted its first appeal on September 28, 2007, requesting that the PW be revised to the original scope of work, which includes the cost of the retaining wall. The Applicant also requested a 12-month time extension to allow time to resolve the appeal. In a letter dated February 14, 2008, FEMA cited the March 5, 2007, OES letter that advised the
Applicant of the appeals process pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206 and denied the appeal as it was submitted four months beyond the regulatory 60-day time frame.
The OES transmitted the Applicants second appeal in a letter dated June 12, 2008. The OES letter concurs with FEMAs position that the first appeal was submitted beyond the 60-day deadline. The Applicants second appeal, dated May 12, 2008, again requests reconsideration of the reduced scope of work. The Applicant did not provide any extenuating circumstances for submitting the first appeal after the established deadline.
I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the
Deputy Regional Administrators decision in the first appeal is consistent with Public Assistance 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: Nancy Ward
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IX
Frank McCarton
Governors Authorized Representative
Governors Office of Emergency Services
Response and Recovery Division
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, California 95655
Re: Second AppealSanta Cruz County, PA ID 087-99087-00, Scope of Work,
FEMA-1646-DR-CA, Project Worksheet (PW) 67-2
Dear Mr. McCarton:
This letter is in response to your letter dated June 11, 2008, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Santa Cruz County (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMA) decision to exclude the construction of a retaining wall from the original scope of work for repairs on Trout Gulch Road.
The severe storms and flooding from March 29-April 16, 2006, damaged Trout Gulch Road, a two-lane paved mountain road. The road embankment suffered heavy erosion resulting in a slope failure of 60 feet in length by 8 feet wide by 15 feet deep. The storms also damaged the road pavement. FEMA prepared PW 67 for $318,438, which included the cost to construct a retaining wall ($246,425). Upon final review, FEMA determined that the method of repair did not return the facility to its pre-disaster condition, but represented significant improvements from the pre-disaster design or a hazard mitigation opportunity. As a result, FEMA revised the scope of work and reduced funding to $8,641. FEMA obligated funding for the project under
PW 67-2 following completion of the environmental review in October 2006.
In a March 5, 2007, transmittal entitled Notification of Obligation and Payment, the Governors Office of Emergency Services (OES) notified the Applicant of the amount of funding that FEMA obligated for the project. The OES letter advised the Applicant . . . if you disagree with the FEMA obligated amount or scope of work for the PW(s) . . . you must appeal FEMAs determination within 60 days from the date of this letter. The letter also identifies the appeals process in accordance with 44 CFR §206.206.
The Applicant submitted its first appeal on September 28, 2007, requesting that the PW be revised to the original scope of work, which includes the cost of the retaining wall. The Applicant also requested a 12-month time extension to allow time to resolve the appeal. In a letter dated February 14, 2008, FEMA cited the March 5, 2007, OES letter that advised the
Applicant of the appeals process pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206 and denied the appeal as it was submitted four months beyond the regulatory 60-day time frame.
The OES transmitted the Applicants second appeal in a letter dated June 12, 2008. The OES letter concurs with FEMAs position that the first appeal was submitted beyond the 60-day deadline. The Applicants second appeal, dated May 12, 2008, again requests reconsideration of the reduced scope of work. The Applicant did not provide any extenuating circumstances for submitting the first appeal after the established deadline.
I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the
Deputy Regional Administrators decision in the first appeal is consistent with Public Assistance 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: Nancy Ward
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IX