Summary Paragraph From June to July of 2008, storms and heavy rain caused scouring at the Crystal Ridge Ski and Sledding Hill. The site upon which Crystal Ridge is located was formerly a landfill, which was closed in the 1990s. FEMA prepared PW 934 to repair damage at the facility, as well as to include a hazard mitigation proposal (HMP) to construct a diversion dike. Following the initial preparation of PW 934, FEMA denied the Applicant’s request to modify the SOW to add additional work to the HMP, citing an unfavorable benefit cost ratio. The project was completed in November 2010. Upon closeout the Grantee requested a cost overrun. When closeout revealed that the Applicant had exceeded the approved SOW, the Grantee submitted an improved project request. An environmental and historic preservation (EHP) review was conducted on the improved project request and determined that only work approved in the original SOW met EHP review requirements. FEMA then deobligated funds for costs associated with work that was completed outside of the original SOW. With the first appeal of this determination, the Applicant asserted that the basic SOW was unchanged, that the Grantee was informed of the SOW of the project prior to issuing payment and provided correspondence between the Applicant and Grantee indicating acceptance of the SOW, and that incremental costs off the work were borne by the Applicant. The Applicant supported this with a comparison of the work done to the original SOW, correspondence with the Grantee, and proof of payments made by the county. The FEMA Region V Regional Administrator denied the appeal for timeliness and for completion of the HMP work without EHP review. With submission of the second appeal, the Applicant asserts that it was not notified of the original denial of the modified SOW and that the work completed was within the original SOW. Authorities and Second Appeals Stafford Act § 423. 44 C.F.R. §§ 206.203, 206.206 PA Guide, at 111. Headnotes Pursuant to the Stafford Act § 423 and 44 C.F.R. § 206.206, the Applicant can appeal any decision “previously made related to an application for or the provision of Federal Assistance.” The Applicant is within the time limits for their appeal of Version 2, which was prepared on December 3, 2013 and appealed by the applicant on January 31, 2014. 44 C.F.R. § 206.203 provides that “If a subgrantee desires to make improvements, but still restore the predisaster function of a damaged facility, the Grantee’s approval must be obtained.” While the Applicant did keep the Grantee informed of changes, the work performed changes the size and footprint of the project, and consequently is a significant change from the pre-disaster configuration. The PA Guide notes that “any improved project that results in a significant change from the predisaster configuration (that is, different location, footprint, function, or size) of the facility must also be approved by FEMA prior to construction to ensure completion of the appropriate environmental and/or historic preservation review. The work completed at the site changes the size and footprint of the original project, and as such is a significant change from the pre-disaster configuration was required to have been approved by FEMA prior to construction to ensure completion of the appropriate environmental and/or historic preservation review. The changes were not approved by FEMA.