This page has not been translated into Español. Visit the Español page for resources in that language.
Escuela Ranch Bridge
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: FEMA-1044-DR-CA; California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo; PA ID 000-92257; DSR. 34985/09749.
Cross Reference: Winter storms and flooding; bridge damage; environmental considerations.
Summary: The approach to the California Polytechnic State University's (Cal Poly's) Escuela Ranch Bridge sustained damage as a result of the rains and flooding from the early-1995 disaster. FEMA inspected the damage on March 1, 1995, and approved DSR 34985 for $5,124 to remove and replace a damaged grade beam. At the time the DSR was approved, a categorical exclusion was issued making the project not subject to additional environmental considerations. The Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) granted a November 7, 1996, time extension request to September 15, 1997, and a second December 11, 1997, time extension request to June 15, 1998. Because of the apparent confusion on the part of the applicant, FEMA had initiated another environmental review of the project early in 1998. FEMA provided a written clearance dated December 4, 1998, giving the applicant clearance to complete the repair project. Cal Poly again failed to complete the work and failed to justify why the work was not accomplished. Cal Poly submitted its Project Completion and Certification Report (P.4 Alternate) on December 15, 1998, that showed that the work had not been done. FEMA closed the grant application and deobligated DSR 34985 on June 11, 1999. Cal Poly submitted a first appeal of the deobligation in which it argued that it received a notification of the environmental clearance after the window for doing the work-June 15 to November 15, 1998. This date was not provided either by OES or FEMA. FEMA's clearance implied that the applicant should complete the project in the following dry season. The applicant requested another time extension on the project to November 15, 2000. The Regional Director denied the appeal. The applicant has now submitted a second appeal of the determination with essentially no justification for not performing the work since the original DSR was approved in March 1995. FEMA deobligated DSR 34985 on June 11, 1999.
Issue: Should Cal Poly be granted a fourth time extension to perform a repair project, which it has failed to do in almost five years?
Findings: No. The applicant has been given more than ample opportunity to perform the repairs.
Rationale: 44 CFR 206.206 (c) (2) (ii).
Appeal Brief
| Desastre | FEMA-1044-DR |
| Applicant | California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 000-92257 |
| PW ID# | 34985 |
| Date Signed | 2001-01-24T05:00:00 |
Cross Reference: Winter storms and flooding; bridge damage; environmental considerations.
Summary: The approach to the California Polytechnic State University's (Cal Poly's) Escuela Ranch Bridge sustained damage as a result of the rains and flooding from the early-1995 disaster. FEMA inspected the damage on March 1, 1995, and approved DSR 34985 for $5,124 to remove and replace a damaged grade beam. At the time the DSR was approved, a categorical exclusion was issued making the project not subject to additional environmental considerations. The Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) granted a November 7, 1996, time extension request to September 15, 1997, and a second December 11, 1997, time extension request to June 15, 1998. Because of the apparent confusion on the part of the applicant, FEMA had initiated another environmental review of the project early in 1998. FEMA provided a written clearance dated December 4, 1998, giving the applicant clearance to complete the repair project. Cal Poly again failed to complete the work and failed to justify why the work was not accomplished. Cal Poly submitted its Project Completion and Certification Report (P.4 Alternate) on December 15, 1998, that showed that the work had not been done. FEMA closed the grant application and deobligated DSR 34985 on June 11, 1999. Cal Poly submitted a first appeal of the deobligation in which it argued that it received a notification of the environmental clearance after the window for doing the work-June 15 to November 15, 1998. This date was not provided either by OES or FEMA. FEMA's clearance implied that the applicant should complete the project in the following dry season. The applicant requested another time extension on the project to November 15, 2000. The Regional Director denied the appeal. The applicant has now submitted a second appeal of the determination with essentially no justification for not performing the work since the original DSR was approved in March 1995. FEMA deobligated DSR 34985 on June 11, 1999.
Issue: Should Cal Poly be granted a fourth time extension to perform a repair project, which it has failed to do in almost five years?
Findings: No. The applicant has been given more than ample opportunity to perform the repairs.
Rationale: 44 CFR 206.206 (c) (2) (ii).
Appeal Letter
January 24, 2001
Mr. D.A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
75 North Fair Oaks Avenue, East Annex, 4th Floor
Pasadena, California 91103
Re: Second Appeal: California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly), P.A. ID 000-92257, Escuela Ranch Bridge, FEMA-1044-DR-CA, DSR 34985. Log # LAG/74417.
Dear Mr. Christian:
This is in response to your June 8, 2000, letter forwarding the April 24, 2000, second appeal from the California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly). The applicant is appealing the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) deobligation of Damage Survey Report (DSR) 34985 and the denial of its request for a time extension. The Governor's Authorized Representative (GAR) received the appeal more than 84 days after the applicant was notified of the first appeal result-more than 24 days beyond the timeframe allowed for appeals as set forth in 44 CFR 206.206(c ) (1). Because the deadline for submitting the second appeal has passed, we are denying the applicants appeal.
A brief history of this case indicates that in the aftermath of the early-1995 heavy rains and flooding disaster, FEMA approved DSR 34985 for $5,124 for Cal Poly to repair the damaged grade beam support on the Escuela Ranch Bridge. Pursuant to Section 316 of the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. 5159), the project was categorically excluded from additional environmental consideration because the bridge was being restored to substantially its predisaster condition. The applicant did not repair the facility in a timely manner and in a November 7, 1996, letter to the Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES), the applicant requested and was granted a time extension to September 15, 1997. In a December 11, 1997, letter to your office, Cal Poly requested and was granted another time extension to June 15, 1998, to complete the project.
The applicant submitted its Project Completion and Certification Report (P.4 Alternate) on December 15, 1998, indicating that the work had not yet been completed. Cal Poly was not in the process of implementing the repairs and was not requesting another time extension for the project. FEMA, therefore, while performing the federal closeout of the disaster, deobligated DSR 34985 on June 11, 1999, and closed the grant application.
Because of the applicant's apparent confusion regarding the initial exclusion from environmental considerations, FEMA had initiated an environmental review of the project earlier in 1998 in consultation with both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service because two endangered species were involved. FEMA provided a new December 4, 1998, written clearance for the project stating that clearances under NEPA and the Federal Endangered Species Act were contingent on the applicant observing certain Avoidance and Minimization Measures required by USFWS. Neither the clearance letter nor the enclosed measures for DR-1044 DSR 34985 specified a deadline for completing the project.
On October 14, 1999, your office forwarded an August 20, 1999, letter from Cal Poly, which it stated was its first appeal of the deobligation. In this letter, Cal Poly requested another time extension to November 15, 1999, claiming that OES stated in a January 22, 1999, letter that the project had to be completed by November 15, 1998. I have reviewed your letter and FEMA's December 4, 1998, clearance and have determined that neither had any such deadline. Cal Poly stated that it had asked OES and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for revised dates of August 1 to November 15, 1999, to complete the project, asserting that it had an August 2, 1999, environmental clearance in its office. You recommended in your letter that FEMA reverse the deobligation and grant a time extension to November 30, 1999.
Cal Poly submitted a letter two months later on October 19, 1999, requesting yet another time extension to November 15, 2000, to complete the project. In this letter, the applicant stated that it needed an environmental clearance ".which has the correct date." Your office forwarded this letter on October 27, 1999. In spite of receiving FEMA's December 4, 1998, clearance and its assertion that it possessed an August 2, 1999, clearance to complete the project, Cal Poly failed to complete the work during the 1999 dry season and presented no justification for not completing the repair project. Because there were no extenuating circumstances or unusual project requirements beyond the applicant's control to justify another time extension, the Regional Director denied both the first appeal and the applicant's request for a time extension to November 15, 2000.
In this second appeal, which you do not support, the applicant simply restated that it received on January 22, 1999, approval to complete the work by December 31, 1998. We have already determined that statement to be incorrect. I have reviewed the information submitted with the second appeal and have concluded that the applicant had sufficient opportunity to complete the project between 1995 and 1999. There were no extenuating circumstances why the project was not completed. In addition, there was no justification for the late submission of the second appeal. I am denying the second appeal because the appeal was submitted more than sixty days after the Regional Director's response to the first appeal. The foregoing analysis demonstrates that the appeal would have been denied because of failure to complete repairs in a timely manner.
Please inform the applicant that my denial of the appeal was because it was not submitted within the statutory timeframe. My decision constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
cc: Martha Whetstone
Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Mr. D.A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
75 North Fair Oaks Avenue, East Annex, 4th Floor
Pasadena, California 91103
Re: Second Appeal: California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly), P.A. ID 000-92257, Escuela Ranch Bridge, FEMA-1044-DR-CA, DSR 34985. Log # LAG/74417.
Dear Mr. Christian:
This is in response to your June 8, 2000, letter forwarding the April 24, 2000, second appeal from the California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly). The applicant is appealing the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) deobligation of Damage Survey Report (DSR) 34985 and the denial of its request for a time extension. The Governor's Authorized Representative (GAR) received the appeal more than 84 days after the applicant was notified of the first appeal result-more than 24 days beyond the timeframe allowed for appeals as set forth in 44 CFR 206.206(c ) (1). Because the deadline for submitting the second appeal has passed, we are denying the applicants appeal.
A brief history of this case indicates that in the aftermath of the early-1995 heavy rains and flooding disaster, FEMA approved DSR 34985 for $5,124 for Cal Poly to repair the damaged grade beam support on the Escuela Ranch Bridge. Pursuant to Section 316 of the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. 5159), the project was categorically excluded from additional environmental consideration because the bridge was being restored to substantially its predisaster condition. The applicant did not repair the facility in a timely manner and in a November 7, 1996, letter to the Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES), the applicant requested and was granted a time extension to September 15, 1997. In a December 11, 1997, letter to your office, Cal Poly requested and was granted another time extension to June 15, 1998, to complete the project.
The applicant submitted its Project Completion and Certification Report (P.4 Alternate) on December 15, 1998, indicating that the work had not yet been completed. Cal Poly was not in the process of implementing the repairs and was not requesting another time extension for the project. FEMA, therefore, while performing the federal closeout of the disaster, deobligated DSR 34985 on June 11, 1999, and closed the grant application.
Because of the applicant's apparent confusion regarding the initial exclusion from environmental considerations, FEMA had initiated an environmental review of the project earlier in 1998 in consultation with both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service because two endangered species were involved. FEMA provided a new December 4, 1998, written clearance for the project stating that clearances under NEPA and the Federal Endangered Species Act were contingent on the applicant observing certain Avoidance and Minimization Measures required by USFWS. Neither the clearance letter nor the enclosed measures for DR-1044 DSR 34985 specified a deadline for completing the project.
On October 14, 1999, your office forwarded an August 20, 1999, letter from Cal Poly, which it stated was its first appeal of the deobligation. In this letter, Cal Poly requested another time extension to November 15, 1999, claiming that OES stated in a January 22, 1999, letter that the project had to be completed by November 15, 1998. I have reviewed your letter and FEMA's December 4, 1998, clearance and have determined that neither had any such deadline. Cal Poly stated that it had asked OES and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for revised dates of August 1 to November 15, 1999, to complete the project, asserting that it had an August 2, 1999, environmental clearance in its office. You recommended in your letter that FEMA reverse the deobligation and grant a time extension to November 30, 1999.
Cal Poly submitted a letter two months later on October 19, 1999, requesting yet another time extension to November 15, 2000, to complete the project. In this letter, the applicant stated that it needed an environmental clearance ".which has the correct date." Your office forwarded this letter on October 27, 1999. In spite of receiving FEMA's December 4, 1998, clearance and its assertion that it possessed an August 2, 1999, clearance to complete the project, Cal Poly failed to complete the work during the 1999 dry season and presented no justification for not completing the repair project. Because there were no extenuating circumstances or unusual project requirements beyond the applicant's control to justify another time extension, the Regional Director denied both the first appeal and the applicant's request for a time extension to November 15, 2000.
In this second appeal, which you do not support, the applicant simply restated that it received on January 22, 1999, approval to complete the work by December 31, 1998. We have already determined that statement to be incorrect. I have reviewed the information submitted with the second appeal and have concluded that the applicant had sufficient opportunity to complete the project between 1995 and 1999. There were no extenuating circumstances why the project was not completed. In addition, there was no justification for the late submission of the second appeal. I am denying the second appeal because the appeal was submitted more than sixty days after the Regional Director's response to the first appeal. The foregoing analysis demonstrates that the appeal would have been denied because of failure to complete repairs in a timely manner.
Please inform the applicant that my denial of the appeal was because it was not submitted within the statutory timeframe. My decision constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
cc: Martha Whetstone
Regional Director
FEMA Region IX