Agenda 11/13/2012 Item #11K11/13/2012 Item 11.K.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to review and approve the documents that outline the history, timing,
prior guidance and approvals received for: The beach renourishment program; The Local
Government Funding Request (LGFR) grant applications; and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) appeal process.
OBJECTIVE: To review the history, timing, prior guidance and approvals related to:
1. The timing and scope of the next major beach renourishment for Collier County
(Attachment 1).
2. The LGFR recent submittal for cost share funding to Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) (Attachment 2).
3. The FEMA appeal process for TS Gabrielle and Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma
(Attachments 3 & 4).
CONSIDERATIONS: At the September 25, 2012 BCC meeting, several Commissioners
expressed concerns regarding the management and timing of the next major beach
renourishment. The discussion questioned whether staff worked in a timely manner in pursuing
the renourishment of our public beaches. The document attached shows that staff began planning
in 2009 and received guidance in 2010 and early 2011 for a long range extended renourishment
program. Subsequently, they pursued permits for the extended program until funding and
guidance changed.
At the October 9, 2012 BCC meeting, public comments were received regarding the LGFR
recently submitted to FDEP. Subsequently, staff was requested to respond directly to Mr.
Krasowski's email to Alex Reed of FDEP. At the same meeting, concerns were voiced regarding
the history and timing of the FEMA appeals for TS Gabrielle and Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma.
The attached documents answer Mr. Krasowski's questions and provide a history on the FEMA
approval and appeal process.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no Fiscal Impact related to this action.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan
related to this action.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: This document has not been reviewed
by any of the Board's advisory committees.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office
and does not present any legal issues. This item requires majority vote for approval. — CMG
RECOMMENDATION: To approve that the discussion documents that outline the history,
timing and approvals received for the beach renourishment program are accurate and consistent
with prior Board direction and; accept the responses regarding the LGFR application and; accept
Packet Page -985-
11/13/2012 Item 11.K.
the FEMA appeal history and reaffirm direction to continue our appeals for all lawfully entitled
reimbursements.
PREPARED BY: J. Gary McAlpin, P.E., Coastal Zone Management, Natural Resources
Department
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment No. 1 Renourishment Planning Document
Attachment No. 2 LGFR discussion
Attachment No. 3 FEMA worksheet
Attachment No. 4 Summary of FEMA Activity
Packet Page -986-
11/13/2012 Item 11.K.
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 11.K.
Item Summary: Recommendation to review and approve the documents that outline the
history, timing, prior guidance and approvals received for: The beach renourishment program;
The Local Government Funding Request (LGFR) grant applications; and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) appeal process. (Gary McAlpin, Natural Resources Department,
Growth Management Division)
Meeting Date: 11/13/2012
Prepared By
Name: HambrightGail
Title: Accountant,Coastal Zone Management
10/31/2012 4:34:57 PM
Submitted by
Title: Accountant,Coastal Zone Management
Name: HambrightGail
10/31/2012 4:34:59 PM
Approved By
Name: McAlpinGary
Title: Director - Coastal Management Programs,Coastal Zon
Date: 10/31/2012 5:08:31 PM
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst, GMD P &R
Date: 11/1/2012 1:56:33 PM
Name: GreeneColleen
Title: Assistant County Attorney,County Attorney
Date: 11/1/2012 3:08:14 PM
Name: Marcella.Teanne
Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning
Packet Page -987-
Date: 11/6/2012 6:18:36 PM
Name: UsherSusan
Title: Management/Budget Analyst, Senior,Office of Manage
Date: 11/6/2012 6:35:07 PM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney
Date: 11/6/2012 6:41:15 PM
Name: OchsLeo
Title: County Manager
Date: 11/6/2012 6:52:13 PM
Packet Page -988-
11/13/2012 Item 11.K.
11/13/2012 Item 11.K.
Attachment No. 1
October 9, 2012
Analysis of BCC comments regarding the management of the beach renourishment timing and scope
for the next maior renourishment of the Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples beaches.
At the September 25, 2012 BCC meeting, it was discussed that staff was behind schedule managing the
upcoming beach renourishment. Specifically, it was stated that the 2005/06 renourishment was a six
year design and renourishment should have occurred in 2012 with planning preceding this date.
The history and chronology of this activity was researched. In summary, funds were budgeted in 2009;
planning for the next renourishment began in 2010; direction was changed in early 2011 and again in
2012. Below is the detailed chronology of this activity that reflects the timing and directions staff
received from the Board of County Commissioners, the Coastal Advisory Committee and the Tourist
Development Council for the upcoming beach renourishment planned for FY 13/14.
1. The last renourishment was completed in May 2006. It was a six year design life project. The
cost for the entire project including the renourishment, engineering, permitting, sand search,
monitoring and mitigation reef was close to $25M. The sand placement, engineering,
permitting and monitoring that would all be required for the next renourishment was estimated
at over $20M. Although this was a six year design project, funds were accrued on a ten year
schedule and set aside at $2M per year. At the end of the six year interval in 2012,
approximately $12M in renourishment funding had been set aside. This was believed to be
insufficient to construct the next beach renourishment.
2. TS Fay damaged Collier County beaches on 11/19/2008 and a federal disaster was declared.
Collier County had a Project Worksheet (PW) approved for the Vanderbilt, Park Shore and
Naples beaches and an additional PW approved for the Marco Island beach. Both these PW's
were to mitigate damages caused by this storm.
3. On May 26, 2009, the BCC approved a budget request for $150,000 to re- evaluate and re- permit
its beaches providing a more robust beach fill section for hot spots and /or other beach sections.
The exact intent /wording that was approved was:
a. "With TS Fay FEMA approval, Collier County has the opportunity to re- evaluate its
beaches and re- permit a more robust beach fill section for hot spots and /or other beach
sections. This funds that activity."
4. Beach renourishment planning began in the summer /fall of 2010, four years after the 2005/06
renourishment. A proposal to develop a conceptual design and various options was developed
in the fall of 2010 and approved by the CAC on 10/14/2010 and the TDC on 11/22/2010. This
proposal focused on the following items:
a. The evaluation of conceptual structures and beach fill design modifications on three
coastal segments along the Collier County coast.
Page 1 of 3
Packet Page -989-
11/13/2012 Item 11.K.
Attachment No. 1
b. The study is to evaluate the effectiveness of existing structures and beach fill design
templates, and identify changes needed to solve hot spots and improve project
performance and durability. With the existing nourishment plan, some structures may
no longer be needed.
c. The services include a sediment budget, conceptual design, cost estimate and modeling
of coastal structure modifications.
d. The hourly not to exceed cost for these services was $147,602.
5. On 2/9/2011 Naples City Council and the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
directed that:
a. "Staffs work together to draft up proposed changes in regulations with solutions that
are more long term." Staff met with Governor Scott, FDEP Secretary Vinyard and FDEP
Deputy Secretary Littlejohn which ultimately resulted in a 2012 Florida House bill which
streamlined permitting activities for new and repeat renourishment projects.
b. Staff also investigated options that maximized the time between major beach
renourishment projects by focusing on "solutions that are more Long term."
c. This direction refocused efforts on much more comprehensive and complete solutions
which resulted in a 10 -year design recommendation.
6. The Conceptual Design update report was presented to the CAC on 3/10/2011. The CAC
approved progress to date.
7. The draft Conceptual Design report was presented and approved by the CAC on 5/12/2011.
a. This study developed conceptual designs that addressed the effectiveness of existing
structures and beach fill templates and changes needed to solve hot spots and improve
project performance and durability.
b. It consisted of three phases (conceptual design /cost; numerical modeling of the coast;
and numerical modeling to evaluate structural and non - structural solutions). It also
presented four options, the last being a higher and wider beach with a 10 -year design
life.
8. The RFP solicitation specifications were presented and approved by the CAC on 9/8/11 for
Engineering Consultants for the next major beach renourishment.
9. The final Conceptual Design report was approved by the CAC on October 13, 2011 and the TDC
on 2/27/2012.
10. A recommendation to approve a shortlist of firms for Beach renourishment Engineering Services
was ratified by the CAC on 1/12/2012 and the TDC on 1/23/2012.
Page 2 of 3
Packet Page -990-
11/13/2012 Item 11.K.
Attachment No. 1
11. The Coastal Planning and Engineering draft contract was presented and approved by the CAC on
5/11/12 and the TDC on 5/29/12. This contract was for the permitting of a 10 -year project
design.
Related to the discussion of beach renourishment planning, the beaches were not renourished
immediately after TS Fay for the following reasons:
1. TS Fay occurred less than 3 years after the 2005/06 renourishment. The beaches were healthy
and although they did receive 175,000 CY of sand loss attributable to TS Fay, they were not in
need of immediate renourishment.
2. Renourishing in less than three years after the last major beach renourishment would not be
effective because 175,000 CY's would be placed throughout the 8.5 miles of shoreline of the
Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples beaches. Individual beach volumes and quantities would not
have a significant impact.
3. Delaying renourishment and combining it with a "planned renourishment program" would
provide a more technically and financially effective project /solution and minimize the impact to
the public.
Page 3 of 3
Packet Page -991-
11 /13/2012 Item 11. K.
Attachment No. 2
October 29, 2012
Collier County Local Government Beach Funding Assistance Request discussion
During the Public Comments portion of the October 9, 2012 BCC meeting, Mr. Bob Krasowski
voiced several issues with respect to the recently completed Local Government Funding Request
(LGFR) to Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Additionally,
Commissioner Hiller has requested that staff address Mr. Krasowski's email to Alex Reed of
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) dated October 16, 2012. This memo
addresses these issues, as well as Commissioner Hiller's additional comments to Mr. Ochs.
�. Addressing Mr. Krasowski comment on timing, transparency and accuracy-
f=rom: Bob Krasowski
To: Ms. Alex I ecd.
Ms. Reed,
l fe l compelled to share my aforenientioned comments and concerns re<_Yardin4 the. C-- ollier
County Application for State Beach l undlm -1 Assistance. 1 silecialiv in light of the fact that
those X - �I submitted the application, to you, have not modified/updated the inforination it
contains since its first submittal.
lvly comments refer to two separate but interconnected arcas:
t trst, The transparency associated with the application subrnission process.
Second, The timeliness and accuracy of the Sept i Sth sLibmlttal information as, It relates to
the more recently stated positions of the Collier County Board of Cornmissioners (CCBC).
Chronoio�-,icaliy°,
Neither The Collier County Commissioners nor the PLiblic had seen the SUbMitted application
before it was delivered to YOU on `~ept.1 e '12. Neither had a clear u.iderstandin , of the details
rC «arding Federal and State fund allotinent r,eciuests. suggested point Inter local
a4greerner-its, sand volumes and application locations as ,��ell as oth r isspaes.
Staff comments:
Collier County has been submitting LGFR's to FDEP for the past 8 to 10 years without
incident. It is a routine part of staffs functions and is intended to identify upcoming projects
for cost share consideration by FDEP. The procedure that has always been used in the past is
that staff submits the LGFR to FDEP, have the BCC approve a supporting resolution and
when funds are ready to be awarded and a contract prepared by FDEP, have the BCC ratify
the contract between the County and FDEP. In the past, FDEP has cost share funded
approximately 30% of our project costs and up until lately, all projects were routinely
funded. Recently however, because of the lack of state documentary stamp tax funds, cost
share funding by FDEP has become very competitive. This year is an especially critical year
Page 1 of 8
Packet Page -992-
11/13/2012 Item 11.K.
Attachment No. 2
for Collier County since FDEP's cost share funding has the potential to support our
upcoming renourishment project. Over the past year, staff has met extensively with FDEP to
discuss ways to improve our project competitiveness. These discussions have also been
communicated with the Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC). The common thread in this
year's discussion with FDEP was to make sure that our application was submitted on time
and complete. FDEP indicated that "Time was of the Essence" and no late or incomplete
applications would be accepted.
The 2012 survey data used to develop the LGFR arrived on September 5, 2012. This
information was used to revise alternatives and develop the beach design. The "most
probable data" was used by staff to develop this request. A resolution supporting the LGFR
was submitted and approved by the BCC on September 11, 2012 (Agenda Item 11 -1). At this
time the LGFR was not completed and staff indicated that the submittal would be based on a
six year project design and renourish the beaches with approximately 420,000 cy of sand. It
was also stated that the BCC would have the opportunity to approve the grant contract if
Collier County ranked high enough to qualify for funding. The revised alternatives were
presented in a workshop to the joint CAC and Tourist Development Council (TDC) on
September 13, and the final decision by the BCC was made for the selected alternative
(420,000 cy) on September 25, 2012. The LGFR was due to the state on September 18, and
all the time between Sept 13 and Sept 18 was used to prepare the LGFR based on the
probable decision approved by the CAC. The State provided only 2 months' notice for the
LGFR this year, with a substantial new interpretation of the rules. The submitted LGFR is
consistent with the County objectives and the plan approved by the BCC on
9/25/2012. Also, please keep in mind that the County's support resolution was submitted
with the LGFR application.
No direction from the BCC was given that the BCC wanted to approve the LGFR prior to
submittal to FDEP. This had never happened in the past and staff indicated that it would
forward the LGFR to the BCC when complete. Confusion however, existed as to the timing
of this request. Commissioner Hiller indicated that staff committed to submit the LGFR back
to the BCC for approval prior to submitting it to FDEP. The following is the exact statement
from the minutes of the BCC meeting on 9/11/12 when this was discussed. Staff stated that,
"once we have the application complete, Commissioner, we will distribute it and show it to
the Commissioners. But at this point in time the due date from the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection is the 18th of this month. So we need to get our application in at
that point in time. And part of the application is a resolution by the Board indicating that the
Board would support the cost share efforts, and this is similar to what we have done every
year. " Staff waited until FDEP had reviewed the 9/18/2012 LGFR submittal and deemed it
complete before forwarding a copy to the BCC. The completed application as verified by
FDEP was delivered to the BCC Office for each Commissioner on 10/5/2102.
2. At the September 25 '12 Collier County Board of Commissioners meeting, where the entire
beach re- nourishment project was discussed, the application was still not brought forward by
staff. At that meeting the CCBC made some specific modifications to the project approving
maximum sand volumes 421,000 cy. and broadening the scope of available methods for re-
nourishment. On Sept. 25 '12 the CCBC voted to include Upland Sand Source as one of the
Page 2of8
Packet Page -993-
11/13/2012 Item 11.K.
Attachment No. 2
methods to be included in the bid process to identify its potential for full or partial use in the
project. Also they approved the use of an emergency upland sand truck haul of 24,000 cy
to shore up two areas of our beaches. This material may stay in place reducing the sand
volume needs projected for the larger project described in the Sept. 18 submission.
These changes lead me to believe much of the Sept. 18 '12 application data is outdated,
inaccurate and unreliable.
As recently as the Oct 9 CCBC meeting Commissioner Hiller made an extended comment
about her not being informed about the information included in the Sept 18, '12, application.
Staff Comments:
The September 25, 2012 meeting was after the due date for the LGFR. Information
presented was consistent with Board direction and intent. The use of an upland sand source
was a bidding option directed by the BCC and not firm scope. Additionally, these changes in
project description /scope directed by the BCC would not materially effect the application for
state funding.
A decision on intruding into turtle nesting season May 1 thru Oct. 31 is still
pending, conditional on responses to options presented in the bid process which provides for
options to work in or out of nesting season.
Staff Comments:
Permitting and funding have separate time lines, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) has approved year round beach construction for Collier County, subject to the
County's request for a permit modification. The BCC directed staff to list this as a bidding
option. The decision will be made by the BCC but not until the bid process is complete.
4. Again, the CCBC identified a total volume of sand of 421,000 cy not the 515,000
cy identified in the chart at the bottom of page one of the application. The 6 year design as a
duplication of our last large renourishment is complicated and still under consideration as
people grapple with the suggestion that a factor of two times the sand volume needed to
actually match the last project is added and described as a buffer yet also called the six year
design.
Staff Comments:
The 515,000 cy number is the amount that fits under the 2006 permitted template using the
2012 survey. The dollar amount in the LGFR reflects a project sized for 420,000 cy, there is
no intent of building a larger project without BCC approval. The use of an upper limit in the
LGFR and permit application is cautionary and provides a contingency should a larger
project be needed at the time of construction. In 2005, a precise project volume and template
was permitted, and it could not be modified to address storm losses from the 2005 hurricanes
in time for construction in 2006. It is customary to hedge a larger project for the purpose of
funding and permitting, so as to add flexibility at the time of construction. The plan
described meets the County's intent, especially given the dollar amount is for a 420,000 cy
proj ect.
Page 3 of 8
Packet Page -994-
11/13/2012 Item 11.K.
Attachment No. 2
5. The map on page 3 is not the map that was shown to and approved by the CCBC at the Sept.
25, '12 meeting specifying the Iocations where the beaches would be re- nourished.
Staff Comments:
The map on page 3 identifies the overall beach segments and does not include gaps. The
parcel maps in Attachment 1 of the LGFR shows the gaps in project limits and the areas
where sand is proposed.
6. Page 6, Questions about the $350,000 identified for the monitoring of sea turtles go
unanswered in the public forum of the CCBC since the application was not vetted properly,
or provided to the Commissioners in a timely fashion as promised.
Staff Comments:
This is part of monitoring cost for physical and biological surveys and sea turtle's monitoring
in the LGFR format. This is the format that FDEP requires.
7. The close to $5 million in federal funds for Nourishment & Construction Services is of great
local interest in light of our recent local discussion about FEMA fund de- obligations and
peripheral issues.
Staff Comments:
A Project Worksheet (PW) for TS Fay has been approved by FEMA and is not related in any
way to the recent de- obligation of Hurricane Wilma funds. PW's are being processed for TS
Debbie and with the President's declaring parts of Florida (Collier is included) a federal
disaster as a result of TS Isaac, it looks like funding may be available for this storm also.
FDEP awards additional points towards funding for FEMA projects.
S. Regarding the question on Page 10 of the application: Is this project being planned or
constructed in cooperation with another local government? Explain?
This question received a very odd response. As mentioned earlier the collaborations
mentioned by the applicant and the agreements with long boat key and others were not
reviewed by the public and /or Commissioners for cost analysis or other purposes.
I have copied a number of people responsible for and /or interested in this issue. I
understanding there are deadlines looming for interlocal agreements but don't expect any
action to be delayed by my comments. I don't mean to be nit picking but 1 believe the
submission of information to you for the purpose of securing Federal and State funding for a
project is a very serious matter and hope you receive accurate and timely information.
Staff Comments:
Page 4 of 8
Packet Page -995-
11/13/2012 Item 11.K.
Attachment No. 2
Combining our project with another municipality for mobilization savings and securing
additional FDEP Cost Share points has been discussed numerous times with the BCC
(Agenda item 11A on 4/10/2012; 11A on 5/22/12; 11C on 6/26/2012). FDEP considers
Regionalization as a significant item. Staff's intent was to indicate to FDEP that Collier
County is working towards a regional project if it makes sense and is approved by the BCC
with an executed /signed interlocal agreement. We have asked FDEP to evaluate our proposal
with and without regionalization - points and requesting until the end of the year to resolve this
item. A joint project could save Collier County at least $1,000,000 if properly implemented.
Failing to consider this option and not providing the BCC with this option if it is available
would be negligent. The BCC always has the final say on implementation through an
interlocal agreement.
9. One final comment, my personal interest in this project is that of a private citizen interested
in advocating for design strategies that provide for protection of coastal economic resources,
public and tourist recreational beaches and respect for and avoidance of harm to our natural
resources, in this case primarily nesting sea turtle . Though I'm sure shore birds will increase
the challenges of natural resource protection in the near future.
Staff Comments:
Again, the BCC has directed staff to provide an alternate bid for renourishment outside of
turtle nesting season. Additionally, also recognize that the new programmatic biological
opinion from USFWS, the federal agency charged with the protection of endangered species
allows year round renourishment within Collier County.
Relative to Commissioner Hiller additional comments to Mr. Ochs:
1. Of significant concern to me are the inflated sand volumes for the six year design template
when the erosion per the 2012 monitoring, as I've been told, is only about 120,000 cy., with
420,000 cy presented to the BCC only after over 500,000 cy was presented to the State
without BCC review.
Staff Comments:
Staff conducted a joint public workshop with the CAC and TDC to discuss how the beach is
built and the different components to be taken into account when designing a beach. The
CAC and the TDC both recommended approval of the approach and the design volume of
approximately 420,000 cy's. This design approach was the same that was used in the 05/06
renourishment. The 05/06 renourishment actual beach performance has validated the design
criteria and parameters used. Staff has proposed a peer review of the design parameters and
methodology to assure that the design approach is correct.
2. And what about the joint venture with a jurisdiction so far physically removed from us that i
can't see any economies, and which only serves to needlessly delay the renourishment.
Staff Comments:
A joint venture that does not make practical or economic sense will not be proposed by staff.
Staff does not anticipate that any future joint venture with other municipalities delaying our
Page 5 of 8
Packet Page -996-
11/13/2012 Item 11.K.
Attachment No. 2
next renourishment. Dredging contractors have consistently indicated that mobilization costs
could be saved/shared and economies of scale would be factored into their pricing.
What about ignoring inclusion of truck hauls? It's my understanding that prior to the last
major renourishment project that truck hauls were utilized. When Bob raised it as an option
he received no such disclosure. It was agreed it would be considered, but has not been
disclosed to the State.
Staff Comments:
The use of an upland sand source is not fixed in the scope but rather a bidding option directed
by the BCC. When the LGFR was submitted to the state the primary sand source was borrow
area T -1 located in federal waters off Sanibel. Inclusion of the use of an inland sand source
at this time would not have a material effect on the LGFR application for state funding.
4. And then there's the timing and direction of placement. Not to mention, the Commissioners
still haven't been told where the sand will be placed.
Staff Comments:
The Commissioners approved the permitting of the renourishment plan on 9/25/12. In this
presentation, the boundaries of renourishment and the renourishment gaps were clearly
identified. Timing to start the renourishment will be discussed with the BCC for decision -
making during the contract award process. Direction of placement of sand will be resolved
and presented to the BCC at the time of contract award.
Unedited E -mail from Mr. Krasowski below used to answer questions above.
On Oct 16, 2012, at 3:16 PM, "Minimushomines@aol.com" <Minimushomines@aol.com> wrote:
From: Minim ushomines(alaol.com [mailto: Minim ushomines(a)aol.coml
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 02:12 PM
To: Alex. Reed 0 dep.state.fl.us <Alex.Reed - &dep.state.fl.us>
Cc: nickcasalanauita(a colliergov.net <nickcasalanguita(c colliergov .net >; Will iamLorenz(a )colliergov.net
< WiIliamLorenz (a)colliergov.net >; GaryMcAlpin(a)colliergov.net <GaryMcAlpin0collieraov.net >; Keehn,
Stephen; Lainie.Edwards(-Odeo.state.fl.us <Lainie.Edwardsna dep.state.fl.us >; goldandrose( mac.com
<goldandrose(a mac.com >; aeorgiahiller(a)colliergov.net <georaiahiller(a )collieraov.net >;
FredCoyle(a)colliergov.net <FredCovle @collier oq v.net>
Subject: RE: Local Government Beach Funding Assistance Requests for Collier County Fl.
From: Bob Krasowski
To: Ms. Alex Reed,
Ms. Reed,
I feel compelled to share my aforementioned comments and concerns regarding the Collier
County Application for State Beach Funding Assistance. Especially in light of the fact that
those who submitted the application, to you, have not modified /updated the information it
contains since its first submittal.
Page 6 of 8
Packet Page -997-
11/13/2012 Item 11.K.
Attachment No. 2
My comments refer to two separate but interconnected areas:
First, The transparency associated with the application submission process.
Second, The timeliness and accuracy of the Sept 18 th submittal information as it relates to the
more recently stated positions of the Collier County Board of Commissioners (CCBC).
Chronologically,
Neither The Collier County Commissioners nor the Public had seen the submitted application
before it was delivered to you on Sept. 18 12. Neither had a clear understanding of the details
regarding Federal and State fund allotment requests, suggested joint inter local
agreements, sand volumes and application locations as well as other issues.
At the September 25'12 Collier County Board Of Commissioners meeting, where the entire
beach re- nourishment project was discussed, the application was still not brought forward by
staff. At that meeting the CCBC made some specific modifications to the project approving
maximum sand volumes 421,000 cy. and broadening the scope of available methods for re-
nourishment. On Sept. 25'12 the CCBC voted to include Upland Sand Source as one of the
methods to be included in the bid process to identify its potential for full or partial use in the
project. Also they approved the use of an emergency upland sand truck haul of 24,000 cy
to shore up two areas of our beaches. This material may stay in place reducing the sand volume
needs projected for the larger project described in the Sept. 18 submission.
These changes lead me to believe much of the Sept. 18'12 application data is outdated,
inaccurate and unreliable.
As recently as the Oct 9 CCBC meeting Commissioner Hiller made an extended comment about
her not being informed about the information included in the Sept 18, 12, application.
A decision on intruding into turtle nesting season May 1 thru Oct. 31 is still pending, conditional
on responses to options presented in the bid process which provides for options to work in or
out of nesting season.
Again, the CCBC identified a total volume of sand of 421,000 cy not the 515,000 cy identified in
the chart at the bottom of page one of the application. The 6 year design as a duplication of our
last large renourishment is complicated and still under consideration as people grapple with the
suggestion that a factor of two times the sand volume needed to actually match the last project
is added and described as a buffer yet also called the six year design.
The map on page 3 is not the map that was shown to and approved by the CCBC at the Sept.
25, '12 meeting specifying the locations where the beaches would be re- nourished.
Page 6, Questions about the $350,000 identified for the monitoring of sea turtles go
unanswered in the public forum of the CCBC since the application was not vetted properly,
or provided to the Commissioners in a timely fashion as promised.
The close to $5 million in federal funds for Nourishment & Construction Services is of great local
interest in light of our recent local discussion about FEMA fund de- obligations and peripheral
issues.
Page 7 of 8
Packet Page -998-
11/13/2012 Item 11.K.
Attachment No. 2
Regarding the question on Page 10 of the application: Is this project being planned or
constructed in cooperation with another local government? Explain?
This question received a very odd response. As mentioned earlier the collaborations
mentioned by the applicant and the agreements with long boat key and others were not
reviewed by the public and /or Commissioners for cost analysis or other purposes.
I have copied a number of people responsible for and /or interested in this issue. I understanding
there are deadlines looming for interlocal agreements but don't expect any action to be delayed
by my comments. I don't mean to be nit picking but I believe the submission of information to
you for the purpose of securing Federal and State funding for a project is a very serious matter
and hope you receive accurate and timely information.
One final comment, my personal interest in this project is that of a private citizen interested in
advocating for design strategies that provide for protection of coastal economic resources,
public and tourist recreational beaches and respect for and avoidance of harm to our natural
resources, in this case primarily nesting sea turtle . Though I'm sure shore birds will increase the
challenges of natural resource protection in the near future.
Respectfully,
Bob Krasowski,
1086 Michigan Ave.
Naples Fl. 34103
239 - 434 -0786
239 - 404 -8958
Under Florida Law, e -mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e -mail address released in response to a public records
request, do not semi electronic mail to this entity. Instead. contact this office by telephone or in writing.
Page 8 of 8
Packet Page -999-
11/13/2012 Item 11.K.
Attachment No. 3
10/30/2012
Response to Commissioner Hiller's request for FEMA appeals - history and timing.
Tropical Storm Gabrielle became a Federally Declared Disaster on September 28, 2001. Collier County
had four (4) engineered beaches; Vanderbilt, Park Shore, Naples and Marco Island that incurred erosion
damage and received federal recovery funding.
Estimates are used to determine the initial federal obligation of funds for the recovery work. This
however, is not necessarily the final costs that will be approved. The final costs are based on
reasonable, actual costs incurred by the applicant completing the eligible scope of work. Actual costs
are determined through a reconciliation process initiated by the state when the work is complete.
Discrepancies between the initial estimate and the final costs are addressed through inspection, audit,
reconciliation, certification and obligation through the project worksheet (PW).
Recovery work is also eligible for reimbursement from the date of landfall through the date work is
completed. Our completion date is specified in the United States Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit
issued on September 20, 2005 to be three (3) years after the construction completion date. This allows
for mandatory biological monitoring that generally ended in 2010/2011. Except for emergency beach
stabilization no recovery work could begin before the issuance of all regulatory permits. Beginning
work prior to issuance of permits would be in violation of the Stafford Act.
Permitting for this project was not complete until December 2005. Between the date of Federal
Declaration and the date the permits were issued, the County operated in an emergency protective
mode. In 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma damaged Collier County coasts and federal disasters were
declared for both of these storms with recovery funds authorized by FEMA. In total 10 PW's were
authorized by FEMA for these three storms.
In August 2009, FDEM along with FEMA began the audit and reconciliation of these three storm events
as required by project closeout. During the close out process, Collier County provided additional
information along with supporting documentation and technical studies that justified additional
recovery funding. All the additional recovery items were reviewed, audited and validated by both the
FDEM and FEMA closeout specialists. FEMA's closeout report dated January 21, 2010 validated the total
costs for these three disasters to be $29,574,446. FDEM /FEMA wrote, authorized and obligated
subsequent versions of these PW's on February 1, 2010.
FEMA also recommended in their January 21, 2010 closeout report that the most equitable way to
divide unallocated cost between storms was to allocate the costs based on the percentage of eligible
sand. This was required to account for the different levels of federal cost share reimbursement
authorized by each storm. Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma prorated portion of the additional costs was
determined to be 55% with the balance being allocated to TS Gabrielle. FDEM /FEMA's Disaster
Recovery Office in Lake Mary, FL processed and ultimately paid an additional $9,486,535 in recovery
costs for Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma ($9,518,528 with administrative costs added). With the payment
of the additional obligated amount of $9,486,535, the total payment to Collier County for these three
disasters was $20,385,949. The total payment for Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma was $15,467,971 prior
to the de- obligation of $11,172,272. An attached Collier County FEMA Appeal Summary worksheet
reconciles FEMA obligations and deobligations to date.
Page 1 of 2
Packet Page -1000-
11 /13/2012 Item 11X.
Attachment No. 3
FDEM /FEMA's Disaster Recovery Office in Lake Mary, FL had jurisdictional responsibility for Hurricanes
Katrina and Wilma and approved, processed and paid the $9,486,535 in additional recovery costs. FEMA
Region IV in Atlanta had jurisdictional responsibility for TS Gabrielle and even though all the additional
recovery costs were validated and approved at project closeout, FEMA Region IV refused to recognize
the validity of our request. Their initial reasoning was that the authorizing PW's for TS Gabrielle had
already been closed.
FDEM working with the County filed a first appeal for TS Gabrielle to FEMA Region IV Atlanta on April 9,
2010. This appeal indicated that the PW's for this disaster were closed in error by FDEM - Tallahassee
without knowledge or authorization by FDEM -Lake Mary or Collier County. The appeal also stipulated
that the closeout occurred without considering environmental monitoring schedules or costs.
Environmental monitoring was a requirement of the PW's and closeout should not have occurred until
this work was complete. The first appeal response was received from FEMA Region IV on September 30,
2010 and approved the environmental monitoring costs but denied the additional sand expenditures.
FEMA's rationalization was that the County did not appeal within 60 days the approved scope of work
being obligated (July 8, 2004). This appeal within 60 days of July 8, 2004 would have been impossible as
indicated in our second appeal request.
The second appeal request from Collier County to FDEM on TS Gabrielle was filed on November 24,
2010. On January 24, 2011 FDEM filed its second appeal on behalf of Collier County to FEMA for TS
Gabrielle. The second appeal response from FEMA was received on May 14, 2012. This appeal denied
any additional sand quantities but identified other eligible costs that are reimbursable to Collier County.
It is important to note that unlike the de- obligation of previously awarded funding for Hurricanes Wilma
and Katrina, the appeals for TS Gabrielle were for additional reimbursements that the County believed it
was entitled to receive. As such, the denial by FEMA of these appeals had no impact on the County's
beach renourishment budget because these funds were never awarded. It simply meant that the
County would not be receiving all of the reimbursements for which it believed were justified. However,
the major issue of this appeal response was that the denial instituted a re- examination of costs funded
for Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma. As a result of this directive, FEMA de- obligated without consultation,
$11,172,272 from FDEM for Hurricanes Wilma and Katrina. Subsequently, FDEM has invoiced Collier
County for these funds.
On July 26, 2012 Collier County filed its first appeal request to FDEM contesting the de- obligation of
funds for Hurricanes Wilma and Katrina.
Page 2of2
Packet Page -1001-
II
C
N
L
U
(B
Q
m
E
C
f0
m
C
L
u
a.
a Q
f6
LU
L- L
.- O
O "'
L�
mC
C N
E Y
L
Ln
2O
V
O
o`
U
f0
01
m
W
N
O
3
N
C
N
Q
N
N
i
aa,
00
Ln
tD
N
O
O
O
m
O
0"1
v
0
n
N
a'
e-i
Ln
f\
O
tD
0o
N
Lf
Lr
O
al
0)
00
Lr1
c-i
M
f\
00
00
ri
00
00
a
Ln
O
to
O
ri
N
O
N
:T
N
n
t0
01
ri
N
d
n
0o
O
O
"*:
n
ri
rn
M
O
Ln
00
O
O
O
r,
N
R*
m
N
rl
Ln
00
m
LD
01
ri
Ln
(6
C
"O
M
r-
Ln
a1
w
w
M
O
Ln
r-I
r-I
r,
to
N
M
V
3
(v
r I
O
tD
N
ri
al
Ln
Ln
r,
00
M
Ln
-cr
cn
rl
O
>
O
Ln
Ci'
m
M
z::
a1
1*
Ln
N
-4
m
M
f\
ri
E
Z
o
00
m
0)
ri
r•+
�
m
00
m
o
Ln
N
W
00
o
a
u
r•
o
LO
Ln
O
N
M
Ln
N
a)
ri
Ln
00
d;
Ln
N
to
O
1.0
O
Ti
N
-4
M
r-
d'
O
Ln
tD
01
O
!6
0
ICT
r-
00
N
N
rl
M
tD
N
01
O
ft
tD
N
Ln
CU
N
r-Z
tD
r�
N
4
r�
al
r\
�
LL1
Ln
N
r\
Ln
01
O
O_
m
m
r
Ln
a1
LD
Ln
N
m
m
r�
r-I
N
CY
00
CP
E
SZ
C
1-4
O
LD
N
ri
Ln
N
M
M-zt
00
00
d
N
M
Q
a
O
Ln
Cr
M
M
N
Lr
00"
00
0
0
R
N
Lri
L
0
00
m
al
.-L
a)
r-
tD
00
w
O
Ln
O
N
00
ro
cu
N
r,
o
tD
Ln
O
r-I
M
Ln
N
oo
-4
Ln
O
M
M
p
4--
v
c I
N
Lf1
r I
1
N
r-
�
rMi
r�-1
L_
N
O
9.0
C't
N
N
-i
M
r-
IZT
O
Ln
tD
0)
ri
N
r'�
n
00
N
In
N
al
to
N
m
O't
tD
N
00
O•
Q
N
to
r-�
Gh
ri
r-�
al
r\
4
Ln
Ln
N
r\
Ln
tD
0!
C
-O
D_
O
r-
Ln
N
tD
Ln
r-
M
M
r,
I
N
d'
00
q*
m
0J
m
n
O
to
N
tD
Ln
rl
M
M
Ict
00
00
N
'O
o
N
-0
d
Lr'j
;F
r-
ri
N'
Lr1
00
-11
00
o
O
CT
N
c
E
(u
'C:
m
00
m
v
O
a)
r-
to
00
to
o
Ln
O
r`
N
fu
a
a
O
N
O
o
N
N
-I
m
Ln
N
oo
ri
Ln
0o
M
Ln
O
N
fr1
Lf1
01
�
ri
ri
r-I
ri
ri
N
C
N
O
M
f\
'
w
4J
O 3
LO
N
ri
Lrl
Ln
Ln
C4
Ln
Ln
al
tr1
!n
to
O
3
Q
�T
M
00
LO
tD
tD
Ln
rS
f0
M
Ln
00
00
00
co
N
Ln
IIZT
q:r
t0
Q
aZ
a�
c6l
Q
a
Ln
O
t0
O
ri
N
ri
M
r-
zT
O
Ln
tD
m
O
Q)
d
n
00
N
N
N
M
tD
N
Ln
O
�T
N
00
ri
lD
t\
N-Ci
t\
Cl
r\
4
O
Ln
N
N
01
C
t10
C
M
n
Ln
m
tD
Ln
n
M
m
.--I
N
ri
d'
ri
w
�O+
3
ri
O
w
r-I
U)
r
M
m
a)
00
00
0)
N
d'
to
O
O
Lr1
C1'
M
M
N
Ln
00'
O
O
f\
tD
Ol
Q
E
O
00
M
01
ri
m
r\
tD
00
00
O
Ln
ri
00
01
Q
o
to
Ln
O
�-+
m
Ln
N
m
.-i
Ln
M
w
w
LJJ
O
ri
N
Ln
ri
ri
M
Ln
O
LL
tDD
to
n
r-
O
-O
m
O
O
M
Ln
Ln
Ln
tD
r 1
r-1
tD
r,
r-
rl
ri
�-i
N
N
N
t0
D_
f0
E
0J
OAS
E
2
_
C
Ln
Ln
f0
C
E
C7
N
N
Y
al
f6
Y
+°
m
v
�
H
m
m
R
c
N
ri
c
r I
c
r-I r
c
'a
3
7
3
C
Ln
N
Ln
u
o
W
N
O
3
N