Backup Documents 10/09/2012 Item # 7i
YORK.
DRAFT -1
August 22, 2012
J. Gary McAlpin, P.E., Director
Coastal Zone Management
Collier County Government
W. Harmon Turner Bldg., Suite 103
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
Re: Discussion of Routine Beach Maintenance
FDEP Operating Permits & Relation to
10- Category G Large Projects for Beach Recovery
Specific to FEMA -FL -DRs -1393, 1602 & 1609
Dear Director McAlpin;
1310 Cross Creek Circle
Suite B
Tallahassee, FL 32301 -3728
Tel: 850- 671 -6367
Fax: 850- 877 -7698
www.yorkrsg.com
On August 16, 2012 York received instructions from you to address comments
regarding "routine annual beach sand maintenance" in FEMA's Final Decision Letter for
the 2nd Appeal on DR 1393 PWs 566 & 673 dated May 14, 2012. These comments
referenced the FDEM (Grantee) memorandum dated July 10, 2008 that accompanied the
Final Inspection Report (FIR) for closeout of DR -1393 PWs (566, 568, 575 & 673).
Because FDEM- Tallahassee had management authority only for DR -1393, the FIR
presented a general rationale for allocation of eligible costs across the three disasters
(DRs 1.393, 1602 & 1609) as a logical means to close -out the DR 1393 PWs. The
FEMA -FDEM FRO in Lake Mary had authority to manage DRs 1602 & 1609 PWs; these
6 -PWs were closed before those for DR 1393, which were found later to have missed
eligible recovery costs.
In August 2009, the County had not received reimbursements for the DR -1393
closed PWs and requested the FRO -Lake Mary office to re- inspect all three DRs to
prepare revised closeout PWs that reflected an accurate accounting of eligible costs. As
part of that invoice /cost validation process, a revised spreadsheet of the ineligible County
cost for routine annual beach maintenance was prepared. The four -year estimated
maintenance cost (9 -2001 to 9 -2004) of $1.9 million was then subtracted from the total of
all eligible invoices validated by the FEMA -FDEM specialists for the three disasters.
7a
v
YORK.
In conclusion, FEMA's comments addressing annual sand maintenance are not
entirely correct. The new versions of the PWs prepared for closeout provided an accurate
accounting of eligible recovery costs as authorized in 44 CFR Subpart H §206.223(a)(1)
and §206.226(d) and 0); and, as required for environmental compliance in 44 CFR Part
10.
A more detailed explanation for estimating the four -year ineligible cost of routine
beach sand maintenance is attached to this letter with supporting exhibits.
As you know, all recovery work to repair damages to the four engineered beaches
was performed under two Joint Coastal Construction Permits (Mainland and Marco
Island beaches) issued in 2005 -2006. The County filed these two permit applications
immediately following DR 1393 as authorized in the four PWs for NEPA compliance. No
additional permitting was required for DRs 1602 and 1609 because the scope of work
was included in the permits approved for DR 1393, saving time, effort and expense to
recover from these two major disasters. Beach recovery work was completed in 2006
and all 10 -PWs were completed in 2010 following 3 -years of post - construction biological
monitoring.
The Coastal Zone Management Off'ice's management of the 3- disasters FEMA
recovery process complied with all federal and state environmental laws and performed
the many complicated tasks efficiently. Beach nourishment projects can experience costs
of $1 million per mile, which would be about $20.6 million for the four County
engineered beaches. Under different circumstances, the total recovery costs For the 3
major disasters quite possibly could have exceeded $60 million. By comparison, the final
total eligible validated cost (after deducting maintenance) for the 3 disasters was $31.7
million.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of assistance to the County in this matter.
Regards,
Bruce French
Sr. Project Manager, York RSG, Inc.
Attachments: Report
6- Exhibits
2
'7A
'7A
i
YORK.
Description of Routine Beach Maintenance
FDEP Operating Permits & Relation to
10- Category G Large Projects for Beach Recovery
Specific to FEMA- FL -DRs- 1393,1602 & 1609
Prepared for Collier County, FL — Coastal Zone Management
Federal Disaster Declarations: DR -1393, DR-1602,1609
Date: August 23, 2012
1. Basis of Ineligible Routine Beach Sand Maintenance
The rationale for determining routine beach sand maintenance costs as ineligible is
embodied in the description of "Force Account' presented in the:
Public Assistance Guide FEMA 322 /October 1999 & /June 2007; and,
FEMA Policy 9525.7 Labor Costs - Emergency Work (7/20/2000).
Specific to Collier County's Category G large beach recovery projects, annual
replacement of up to 50,000 cubic yards of sand is authorized in the FDEP Operating
Permits issued in 1999 to control "normal" erosion of the four public, engineered
beaches: Mainland Beaches- Vanderbilt, Park Shore & Naples; and, Marco Island
Beach. The total annual amount could be installed at one beach or as needed at each
of the four beaches. Therefore, all costs associated with routine maintenance are
ineligible, non - disaster activities that are the financial responsibility of the County.
2. Codes and Standards Defined
2.1. Public Assistance Guide, FEMA 322 /October 1999 & /June 2007 and
Applicant Handbook, FEMA 323 /September 1999:
Permanent Restoration of Facilities
A. GENERAL ELIGIBILITY
• Facilities will be restored on the basis of design, capacity and function of such
facilities as they existed immediately prior to the disaster and in conformity with
applicable standards.
- Codes and Standards must be in writing, apply to the type of work, and be in place
and enforced prior to the disaster declaration. They must apply uniformly to all
similar types of facilities.
s
YORK.
I 7
44 CFR 206.226 Restoration of damaged facilities. Revised as of October 1, 2000
(codified)
2.2.
Work to restore eligible facilities on the basis of the design of such facilities as
they existed immediately prior to the disaster and in conformity with the
following is eligible:
(b) Standards. For the costs of Federal, State, and local repair or replacement
standards which change the predisaster construction of facility to be eligible, the
standards must:
(1) Apply to the type of repair or restoration required; (Standards may be
different for new construction and repair work)
(2) Be appropriate to the predisaster use of the facility;
(3)(i) Be found reasonable, in writing, and formally adopted and implemented
by the State or local government on or before the disaster declaration date or
be a legal Federal requirement applicable to the type of restoration.
(ii) This paragraph (b) applies to local governments on January 1, 1999 and to
States on January 1, 2000. Until the respective applicability dates, the
standards must be in writing and formally adopted by the applicant prior to
project approval or be a legal Federal or State requirement applicable to the
type of restoration.
(4) Apply uniformly to all similar types of facilities within the jurisdiction of
owner of the facility; and
(5) For any standard in effect at the time of a disaster, it must have been
enforced during the time it was in effect.
(h) Beaches.
(1) Replacement of sand on an unimproved natural beach is not eligible.
(2) Improved beaches. Work on an improved beach may be eligible under the
following conditions:
(i) The beach was constructed by the placement of sand (of proper grain size)
to a designed elevation, width, and slope; and
(ii) A maintenance program involving periodic renourishment of sand must
have been established and adhered to by the applicant.
2.3. Codes and Standards of Engineered Beaches
Codes and standards for beaches can be defined as the construction specifications
authorized in the initial government permit issued for establishing an engineered
beach. A beach is that area of the coastal zone lying between the upland dune
line and the offshore depth -of- closure. In general the slope and elevation of the
beach at state - established range monuments are determined during the design
phase. Grain size and color may be included in the specifications. The design
specifications are intended to provide a beach that is stable under normal weather
conditions and to afford the greatest storm protection of adjacent improved
4
7A
i
YORK.
property. After construction, a state - approved operating permit is issued to the
local government for installing a limited volume of sand annually to maintain the
design elevation profile of the engineered beach.
An engineered beach is not resilient to major disasters, such as tropical storms or
hurricanes, which may cause sand erosion (lost from the system) that exceeds the
permitted annual maintenance volume and the ability of the design tolerance to
recover the elevation profile.
3. Category G Large Recovery Project Period (Sept. 13, 2001 to Jan. 2010)
3.3. Start Date for Adjusting Ineligible Routine Beach Sand Maintenance
T.S. Gabrielle made landfall on September 13, 2001 and became a federal declared
disaster on September 28, 2001. The four engineered beaches incurred damages and
were declared eligible for federal assistance under FEMA- FL- DR1393.
3.4. Scope of Eligible Work
Post - disaster elevation profile surveys were performed to provide a general, static
estimate of sand volume lost by coastal erosion. These estimates were provided as
"samples" for documenting damage in each of the 4 -PWs 566, 568, 575 & 673.
Disaster - initiated erosion continued until completion of coastal construction in 2006.
The generic text for the Scope of Eligible Work included the following statements:
• To restore the beach to predisaster cross section...
• The actual cost of this project will be determined by bid process and
availability of the source material (offshore or inland borrow area).
3.5. Environmental Compliance
FEMA is authorized by the Stafford Act to enforce the requirement for environmental
compliance as directed in 44 CFR Part 10, which is integral to defining the eligible
scope of work. The FEMA Regional Environmental Officer assured consistency with
this requirement by including in the Category G PWs the following text:
JUNE 24, 2004 -
FEMA`S ENVIRONMENTAL LIAISON OFFICE HAS REVIEWED THE
FOLLOWING EMERGENCY BERM PROJECT:
THE FOLLOWING GRANT CONDITIONS APPLY:
1. ANY CHANGE IN THE ORIGINAL SCOPE OF WORK REQUIRES
THAT THE APPLICANT NOTIFY FL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
(WHO WILL NOTIFY FEMA), AS WELL AS ANY AGENCY FROM WHICH
THE APPLICANT RECEIVED A PERMIT.
'7A
YORK.
2. THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE TO OBTAIN ALL RELEVANT
LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL PERMITS. NO CONSTRUCTION
ACTIVITIES SHALL COMMENCE PRIOR TO RECEIVING SAID
PERMITS.
AT A MINIMUM THE APPLICANT SHOULD CONTACT:
1. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (404,401 (STATE PERMIT), 402
(NPDES), OR NATIONWIDE)
2. US FISH AND WILDLIFE (THREATENED AND ENDANGERED
SPECIES) .
3. STATE FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY
4. STATE NATURAL HERITAGE AGENCY (THREATENED AND
ENDANGERED SPECIES)
5. STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT OFFICE (FOR CONSISTENCY
DETERMINATION)
3. ALL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT MUST COMPLY
WITH ALL CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN ANY REQUIRED LOCAL,
STATE, OR FEDERAL PERMITS.
AS A REMINDER, APPLICANTS FOR FEMA FUNDING MUST COMPLY
WITH ALL APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE, TRIBAL, AND FEDERAL
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION LAWS,
REGULATIONS, PERMITS, AND CONDITIONS IN ORDER TO RECEIVE
FE MA FUNDS FOR THEIR PROJECTS. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
THESE REQUIREMENTS MAY JEOPARDIZE FEDERAL FUNDING.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT BRETT BOWEN, DEPUTY
ENVIRONMENTAL LIAISON OFFICER DR-1393 AT (770) 220 -5387.
NEPA Level of Review- NEPA review is complete •• GBOWEN• The project is
Categorically Excluded under 44 CFR 10.8(4):
15. Repair, replace, restore, retrofit, upgrade to current codes and standards, or
replace a facility (xv)
Documentation Complete 06/24/2004
Standard Conditions
1. Any change to the approved scope of work will require re- evaluation for
compliance with NEPA and other Laws and Executive Orders.
2. This review does not address all federal, state and local requirements.
Acceptance of federal funding requires recipient to comply with all federal, state
t 7 A im"
YORK.
and local laws. Failure to obtain all appropriate federal, state and local
environmental permits and clearances may jeopardize federal funding.
3. If ground disturbing activities occur during construction, applicant will
monitor ground disturbance and if any potential archeological resources are
discovered, will immediately cease construction in that area and notify the State
and FEMA.
3.6 End Date for Adjusting Ineligible Beach Sand Maintenance
Th,- Pimp nerind fnr .Min- ,finsr:t'he inelinihle beach sand maintenance;ocr3od of years is
LL%,L.U&%.%► u.7 44 ±Y',�a {IY_ #tali vuav "WL" X% 1 vu v ld —&-4 a..., •.vv. w.— .•�.. - •. - - - --
declaration date of hurricane Katrina (DR 1602) on August 28 2005. Public Assistance
administrative and NEPA- limited work activities during this period included:
• Erosion estimates from post - disaster elevation profile surveys for DR 1393
• Ineligible annual beach sand maintenance authorized by FDEP operating permits
• County appeal and FEMA approval of PW eligibility
• County's Environmental Permit Application to USACE & FDEP Jan. 24, 2004
• USACE permit application review requirement for an Environmental Assessment
• FEMA environmental compliance review through June 24, 2004
• FDEP approved permits for inlet sand dredging -beach nourishment Jan-Feb. 2005
• Post - disaster elevation profile surveys for DR 1602 in Sept. 2005
• USACE approved coastal construction permit Sept. 20, 2005 (offshore sand)
• County bid process for offshore dredge contracts Oct. -Dec. 2005
• DR 1609 Hur. Wilma federal declaration Oct. 24, 2005
• Approved permits (modified to include DR 1393, 1602 & 1609 damages) sent on
Jan. 1, 2006 to FEMA Region 4- Atlanta for environmental compliance review
and approval of change in scope of work.
• FDEP approval of USACE coastal construction permits (modified) Jan. 2006
Supporting documentation for these activities are contained in the applicant's file
maintained by FEMA and FDEM.
No routine beach sand maintenance was includcd in the estimation of ineligible work
after the sequential impacts from DRs 1602 and 1609._ This was due to the county being
engaged in numerous activities to recover from DR 1393 and the immediate need for
modifying the USACE -FDEP coastal construction permits to include damages from DRs
1602 and 1609. Offshore sand dredging contract work commenced in 2006 to complete
recovery of the four engineered beaches to the design elevation profiles (codes and
standards) authorized in the 10 -PWs for the three disasters.
7
7 A +"
i
YORK.
3.7 End Dates of 10- Category G PWs
Included in the approved Joint Coastal Construction Permits for the 3- mailand beaches
and for the Marco Island Beach were numerous conditions from the USACE, USFWS,
USMMS, and FDEP. The condition submitted by the USFWS for 3 -years post
construction biological monitoring extended the eligible PW work completion to January
2010 for Mainland beaches and to May 2010 for Marco Island beach.
4. Procedure Used to Estimate Ineligible Routine Beach Sand Maintenance Costs
truck - hauled sand to be installed on any of the four beaches as needed to maintain the
design elevation profile. The County hired professional engineers to oversee the
beach sand maintenance work of contracted companies including Jahana Industries,
gn lip- Barber & Brundage, and STD Enterprises of Naples. The County issued the
last pre - disaster Purchase Order #105968 to Agnoli for the period June 2001 to
January 2002, which was completed prior to September 13, 2001; it was not included
in the ounty "s request for FEMA reimbursement. See partial list of Purchase Orders
in Exhibit 6.
Although truck- hauling of inland sand for routine beach maintenance commenced
again on October 10, 2001 (Exhibit 6) related purchase orders issued to many vendors
contained both eligible and ineligible work. Therefore, it was decided to estimate a
reasonable 4 -year maintenance cost and subtract the ineligible amount from the final
list of validated eligible costs at PW closeout.
Maintenance- related invoices for work performed in 2001 were used to establish the
costs for disaster- ineligible maintenance work performed by the County in 2002:
Truck- hauled sand, cubic yard $ 4.34
Grading & Tilling, avg, annual cost $ 60,000.00
Surveyor (elevation profiles), annual fee $ 50,000.00
Engineering/Management, annual fee $ 75,000.00
The County's annual Force Account labor cost for planning, contracting, inspection,
invoice payment and reporting was estimated at $ 40,000.00
An assumed annual inflation rate of 6% was used to estimate the cost of the above
items for 2003, 2004 and 2005. For the FDEP maximum permitted volume for 4 -year
beach sand maintenance of 200,000 cubic yards (inland - sourced) the construction
cost, was estimated at $949,291:67; the County's Force Account costs plus related
contract services were estimated at $1,043,345.92.
YORK.
The, resulting total 4-year estimated annual routine beach maintenance cost of
51;992,637.59 was prorated for each of the four beaches based on their respective
coastline miles to total beach miles. The spreadsheet prepared as an attachment to the
FDEM - Tallahassee Final Inspection Report for DR 1393 PWs of July 10, 2008 is
attached as an Exhibit.
In August 2009 following validation of eligible invoices for the completed 10 -PWs,
FEMA -FDEM FRO specialists and FEMA Technical Advisor re- allocated these
ineligible maintenance costs by the percent disaster - erosion as estimated in the CP &E
Report, January 2010.
5. List of Exhibits
1. Public Assistance Guide FEMA 322/October 1999 & /June 2007; and,
2. FEMA Policy 9525.7 Labor Costs - Emergency Work (7/20/2000)
3. Applicant Handbook, FEMA 323 /September 1999
4. 44 C.F.R. Revised as of October 1, 2000 (codified)
5. Partial List of Vendor Purchase Orders for Pre- and Post - disaster routine beach
sand maintenance work
6. Spreadsheet Prepared for FDEM -FIR dated July 10, 2008 and used to determine
ineligible beach sand maintenance costs for 3 major disasters during the joint PW
closeout, August 2009.
0
v
YORK.
DRAFT -3
August 15, 2412
J. Gary McAlpin, P.E., Director
Coastal Zone Management
Collier County Government
W. Harmon Turner Bldg., Suite 103
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
'7A
1310 Cross Creek Circle
Suite B
Tallahassee, FL 32301 -3728
Tel: 850 - 671 -6367
Fax: 850-877-7698
www.yorkrsg.com
Re: Compilation of Federal Documents Governing Disaster Recovery
10- Category G Large Projects for Beach Recovery
Specific to FEMA-FL-DRs- 13 93, 1602 & 1609
Dear Director McAlpin;
'On July 31., 2012 York received instructions from you to identify and compile
relevant federal laws, regulations and policies that frame the body of actions for FEMA's
administration of federal assistance provided to Collier County for FEMA -DR -1609 PW
2700 Naples Beach, PW 2704 Park Shore Beach and PW 6733 Marco Island Beach. This
request is related to the County's receipt of FDEM Invoice #122 dated July 23, 2012 for
reimbursement of overpayments on the three PWs.
We have completed the assigned task with the compilation of documents
presented in 15 Exhibits that pertain to the FEMA Public Assistance program and more
specifically to Category G beach recovery projects. As a consequence of this task, we
believe that the federal laws and rules in effect on the declaration date of DR -1393
comprise the body of federal authorizations governing administration of the 10 -PWs for
beach recovery work (3 mainland beaches and the Marco Island beach) through the
completion of construction, post -3 -year biological monitoring and final joint closcout by
FDEM and FEMA. This position is directly associated with the fact that damages caused
by the three federal disasters received USACE final approval (2005 -06) for the scope of
work in two joint coastal construction permits, which was a result of the County's permit
application immediately following the declaration of DR -1393.
Information provided in the attached Exhibits supports the fact that the County
performed all beach recovery work in compliance with these federal laws, regulations
and policies. To this end, York advises the County to seek an independent legal opinion
in addition to expert testimony from a professional engineer specializing in Florida beach
renourishment and management.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of assistance to the County in this matter.
Regards,
Bruce French
Sr. Project Manager, York RSG, Inc.
0
YORK.
Compilation of Federal Documents Governing Disaster Recovery
10- Category G Large Projects for Beach Recovery
Specific to FEMA- FL -DRs- 1393,1602 & 1609
Compiled for Collier County, FL — Coastal Zone Management
Federal Disaster Declarations: DR -1393, DR -1602, 1609
Date: August 9, 2012
1.0 Government Program Administration
All federal, state and local governments are required to administer programs
authorized in Laws, Rules, Regulations and Guidance Documents. Specific
procedures on how to conduct the business of government are dependent on the
effective dates of these legal authorizations; subsequent changes and revisions to
these legal procedures are not retroactive, but specifically apply to government
activities performed after the new effective date(s).
1.1. Tropical Storm (T.S.) Gabrielle became a federally - declared disaster on
September 28, 2001. In Collier County, four engineered public beaches
(Vanderbilt, Park Shore, Naples and Marco Island) incurred erosion damage and
were determined by FEMA to be eligible for federal funding under the Public
Assistance Program. Recovery work is eligible for reimbursement from the
"official" date of landfall, which is stated by FEMA as September 13, 2001,
through the date of work completion. For these four Category G beach recovery
projects the completion date is specified by the USACE Permit (issued
September 20, 2005) Specific Conditions (listed by the USFWS) as being 3 years
after the construction completion date, which allows for mandatory biological
monitoring of the work area (generally ending in 2010- 2011).
1.2. During the USACE permit review process for NEPA compliance required by the
Stafford Act, the estimated scope of work for six Category G PWs under DRs-
1602 & 1609 were included within the final approved scope of work authorized
in the two USACE joint coastal construction permits (3- mainland beaches & 1-
Marco island beach) issued 2005 -06.
1.3. Laws, Rules, Regulations and Guidance Documents in effect on the federal
declaration date for T.S. Gabrielle, DR -1393 govern all FEMA- eligible work to
be performed by Collier County as the PA applicant. These authorizations are to
be adhered to throughout the implementation of each individual Project
Worksheet (PW) issued to Collier County and govern the procedures for the joint
FEMA -State PW closeout for determination of final eligible scope of work and
cost reimbursement. Subsequent changes or revisions to these legal documents
after the declaration date of September 28, 2001 do not apply to Collier County's
performance of the ten Category G PWs for beach recovery work (DRs -1393,
1602 & 1609).
2
s
YORK.
1.4 A total of 10 Category G -P'Ws were issi
beaches as listed in the following table:
Pws
Beach: DR -1393
Vanderbilt 568
Park Shore 575
Naples 566
Marco Island 673
' 7A m"
ied for the four Collier County public
DR -1602 DR -1609
1110 2698
2704
1109 2700
6733
3
� 7A
YORK.
1.5 A key element of implementing the FEMA- approved Scope of Work for the 10
PWs is tl.m timeline of events directly related to the three disaster declaration'
dates, USACE offshore sand permitting and construction and post - monitoring:
DR -1393
September 28, 2001
Truck Hauled Sand-
. Multi- Vendors
Qctdber 10, 2001 end May 23, 2007
FEMA -REO Review
June 24, 2004
Snyder -Inlet Sand
Wiggins Pass
January 13, 2005
City of Naples -
Inlet Sand
Doctors Pass
February 22, 2005
DR -1602
August 28, 2005
USACE Permit
September 20, 2005
DR -1609
October 24, 2005
GLDD7,Offshore Sand
3- Mainland Beaches
December 2, 2005 end August 17, 2006
Notification of
FEMA for Permitted
Scope of Work
January 1, 2006
SubAqu- Offshore Sand
Marco Beach
September 5, 2006 end May 4, 2007
Inlet Sand -
Wiggins Pass
December 6, 2006
3 -yr Bio- Monitoring
Mainland
January 2007 through December 2010
Marco
June 2007 through May 2010
FEMA -State Scope
& Invoice Validation
August 3, 2009 for accurate accounting
of costs for 3- DRs -10 PWs
FEMA Payments
2011, 2012
& Appeals
on -going
Notes:
1. Truck - hauled sand was installed at 50,000 cubic yards annually as authorived in
the two FDEP operating permits issued for the mainland and Marco island
beaches prior to DR -1393. The total 4 -year cost estimated at $1.9 million was
paid 100 percent by the County and was not included in the Final Closeout .
versions of the 10 -PWs.'
4
7A
YORK.
[ Notes Continued]
2. Inlet sand dredging and deposit on "down -drift" mainland beaches was performed
by the County under FDEP authorized permits issued after the declaration date of
DR -1393. Dredging was required to recover the permitted designed depth
specified for safe navigation following excessive sand deposition resulting from
DRs -1393, 1602 and 1609.
3. Completion of contractor work for offshore dredging performed under the two
joint USACE coastal construction permits did not represent the end date of the
10 -PWs. PW- eligible, post - dredging work included grading to engineered beach
design- elevation profiles and disking for sand density suitable for turtle nesting.
The USACE permit conditions for 3 -years post- construction biological
monitoring began after these construction tasks were completed.
4. All 10 -PWs included in the scope of work the authorization to restore the specific
beach to the engineered design specification for the elevation profiles existing
prior to disaster damage. The total volume of sand was provided from three
sources: inland truck- hauled sand, storm- deposited inlet- dredge sand and offshore
sand deposits. As authorized in the 10- PWs, ail :work performed restored the
beaches to DR -1393 "pre-disaster cross sections ", which are the "current codes
and standards" as required by FEMA for compliance. Additionally, as stated by
the REO in each of the I0 -PWs: "the actual cost of this project will be determined
by bid process and availability of the source material (offshore or inland borrow
area) ". FEMA and FDEM validated all costs and determined the eligible scope of
work at the joint Final Closeout on August 3, 2009.
5. The Final Closeout versions of the 10 -PWs were prepared in advance of
completing the NEPA- required, 3 -years biological monitoring. In lieu of actual`
invoiced costs for ronitoring, FEMA specialists estimated the cost for this
contractual work.
5
YORK.
1.6 Summary of Validated Invoices for completing the eligible scope of work
required by the 10 -PWs performed August 3, 2009 during Final Closeout:
$
30,496,999.96
Vendor Costs
$
28,612.00
Permits
$
844,800.00
Monitoring
$
466,093.89
PM
$
1,917,466.21
Inlet Sand Dredging
$
33,753,961.06
Total Cost of 3 -DRs
$
1,992,637.59)
Less Truck- hauled Sand
$
31,761,323.47
Colliers Gross Cost of 3 -DRs
FE
Less FDEP Reimb.=
I 7A 44W
State 12.5% Collier 12.5%
$ 2,051,067.27 $ 2,051,067.27
$ 2,051,067.27 $ 2,051,067.27
= F.S.161 Trust Funds Rev. 8 -27 -2009
10 -PWs
Note: Subtraction of FDEP funds that were provided from the state's trust fund
authorized by F.S. 161 represents a duplication of benefits. The amount provided by
FDEP to the County for FEMA- eligible PW recovery work significantly exceeded the
federal -state cost share established in the disaster agreements for DRS-1 393 (75 % -25 %)
and for 1602 & 1609 (100 % -0 %). Following the Final Closeout and reimbursement of
eligible costs ($29.7 million) to the County, the County is to reimburse the state for the
duplicated amount. This legal compliance procedure is authorized in the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, P.L. 93 -288 Sec. 312(a); 44 CFR
13.24 and 206.226(a); and, as explained in FEMA Policy 9525.3, effective October 30,
2000.
0
Validated Costs
FEMA 75%1100%
Final Est 51.66% Total Est 1393 =
$
16,408,538.18
$ 12,306,403.64
Closeouts 48.34% Total 1602 +1609 =
$
15,352,785.29
$ 15,352,785.29
100.00% 10 PWs =
$
31,761;323.47
$ 27,659,188.93
Less Colliers Share=
$=
2,051,067.27
Gross to Collier =
$
29,710,256.20
FE
Less FDEP Reimb.=
I 7A 44W
State 12.5% Collier 12.5%
$ 2,051,067.27 $ 2,051,067.27
$ 2,051,067.27 $ 2,051,067.27
= F.S.161 Trust Funds Rev. 8 -27 -2009
10 -PWs
Note: Subtraction of FDEP funds that were provided from the state's trust fund
authorized by F.S. 161 represents a duplication of benefits. The amount provided by
FDEP to the County for FEMA- eligible PW recovery work significantly exceeded the
federal -state cost share established in the disaster agreements for DRS-1 393 (75 % -25 %)
and for 1602 & 1609 (100 % -0 %). Following the Final Closeout and reimbursement of
eligible costs ($29.7 million) to the County, the County is to reimburse the state for the
duplicated amount. This legal compliance procedure is authorized in the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, P.L. 93 -288 Sec. 312(a); 44 CFR
13.24 and 206.226(a); and, as explained in FEMA Policy 9525.3, effective October 30,
2000.
0
11P '7A
YORK.
2.0 Index of Exhibits
1 Disaster Relief Act of 1974, Public Law 93 -288, 93rd Congress, S. 3062, May 22, 1974
2 U.S. Code 2001 Title 42- The Public Health and Welfare
3 44 C.F.R. Revised as of October 1, 2000 (codified)
4 FEMA's NEPA Desk Reference, Version III — May 14, 1996
5 Possible Consequences of Not Following National Environmental Policy Act Process
6 FEMA Environmental Policy Package
7 FEMA 322 /Modified 2001 Public Assistance Guide
8 FEMA 323/1999 Applicant Handbook
9 FEMA 321/2001 Public Assistance Policy Digest
10 Archived List of FEMA 9500 Series of Policies for the Public Assistance Program, 9 -22 -2004
11 Archived List of FEMA 9500 Series of Policies for the Public Assistance Program, 9 -23 -2011
12 Disaster Assistance Fact Sheet DAP9580.8 Eligible Sand Replacement on Public Beaches
Effective October 1, 2009
13 DHS Management Directives System MD Number: 5100.1 Issue Date: 4/19/2006
14 42 USC CHAPTER 68 - DISASTER RELIEF U.S. House of Representatives Analysis January 03,
2012 (112 -90)
15 CEF for Large Projects, Instructional Guide V2.1, September 2009
7
7A 4-
EXHIBIT 15
CEF for Large Projects, Instructional Guide V2.1, September 2009
Comment: Although the CEF became available after DR 1393, Collier County's
performance of the Category G 10 -PWs was consistent with the Instructional Guide.
Relevant Sections:
1.1 FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR DISASTER DAMAGE
Para.4 - For large projects, this estimate is used to determine the initial Federal
obligation of funds for the work, but it is not necessarily the final cost that will be
approved for the project. Rather, the final cost is based upon the reasonable, actual
costs incurred by the applicant in 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 cost are
addressed through the obligation (or de- obligation) of Federal funds.
2.6 STEP 6 — RECONCILE COSTS WHEN PROJECT IS COMPLETED
(Page 2 -7) Upon completion of a large project, the grantee must submit supporting
documentation and an accounting of all eligible costs incurred for the project to
FEMA for a final determination of eligible project costs. The grantee must certify that
the reported costs were incurred in the performance of eligible work and that the
project was completed in accordance with FEMA approval. The grantee may perform
inspections and audits as it deems necessary to make this certification. FEMA will
review the reported costs to determine if the costs are eligible, and may conduct
inspections or audits as necessary to verify eligible costs. Upon completing this
review, FEMA will reconcile final costs for eligible work against the original
estimate and prepare a supplemental PW to adjust the approved amount upward or
downward as necessary. If additional funds are approved by FEMA, the grantee may
then make an additional drawdown of any funds remaining for that project.
Within 90 days following completion of the last large project, the grantee must
submit a final progress report that includes the final amount paid for each large
project. If FEMA determines that the grantee has drawn Federal funds for ineligible
costs, then the grantee must return those funds to F6-MA.
Refer to Appendix E (Standard Operating Procedure — CEF for Large Projects)
for additional information relating to the cost reconciliation process.
Appendix E (excerpts pages 3 & 4)
• When applicants complete large projects and submit project documentation to the
State and FEMA, FEMA will reconcile actual eligible costs against estimated
costs, except for alternate and improved projects.
• if the Project Specialist requires assistance with any part of the CEF, the PAC
Crew Leader will request a Technical Specialist (a cost estimator, engineer,
environmental specialist, historic preservation specialist, insurance specialist, etc.)
from the Ordering Specialist. Refer to the CEF for Large Projects Instructional
Guide for more detail.
'7A
EXHIBIT 15
CEF for Large Projects, Instructional Guide V2.1, September 2009
Comment: Although the CEF became available after DR 1393, Collier County's
performance of the Category G 10 -PWs was consistent with the Instructional Guide.
Relevant Sections:
1.1 FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR DISASTER DAMAGE
Para.4 - For large projects, this estimate is used to determine the initial Federal
obligation of funds for the work, but it is not necessarily the final cost that will be
approved for the project. Rather, the final cost is based upon the reasonable, actual
costs incurred by the applicant in 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 cost are
addressed through the obligation (or de- obligation) of Federal funds.
2.6 STEP 6 — RECONCILE COSTS WHEN PROJECT IS COMPLETED
(Page 2 -7) Upon completion of a large project, the grantee must submit supporting
documentation and an accounting of all eligible costs incurred for the project to
FEMA for a final determination of eligible project costs. i"he grantee must certify that
the reported costs were incurred in the performance of eligible work and that the
project was completed in accordance-with FEMA approval. The grantee may perform
inspections and audits as it deems necessary to make this certification. FEMA will
review the reported costs to determine if the costs are eligible, and may conduct
inspections or audits as necessary to verify eligible costs. Upon completing this
review, FEMA will reconcile final costs for eligible work against the original
estimate and prepare a supplemental PW to adjust the approved amount upward or
downward as necessary. If additional funds are approved by FEMA, the grantee may
then make an additional drawdown of any funds remaining for that project.
Within 90 days following completion of the last large project, the grantee must
submit a final progress report that includes the final amount paid for each large
project. I F'ENIA'determines that the grantee has drawn Federal funds for ineligible
costs, then the grantee must return those flints to FEMA
Refer to Appendix E (Standard Operating Procedure — CEF for Large Projects)
for additional information relating to the cost reconciliation process.
Appendix E (excerpts pages 3 & 4)
• When applicants complete large projects and submit project documentation to the
State and FEMA, FEMA will reconcile actual eligible costs against estimated
costs, except for alternate and improved projects.
• If the Project Specialist requires assistance with any pail of the CEF, the PAC
Crew Leader will request a Technical Specialist (a cost estimator, engineer,
environmental specialist, historic preservation specialist, insurance specialist, etc.)
from the Ordering Specialist. Refer to the CEF for Large Projects Instructional
Guide for more detail.
'7A
Go lei county
Public Services Division
Coastal Zone Management
July 26, 2012
Mr. Bryan W. Koon, Director
Florida Division of Emergency Management
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100
Mr. Leo Lachat
Florida Department of Emergency Management
Bureau Chief - Recovery
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100
Mr. Robert M. (Bob) Seibert
Lead Deputy Public Assistance Officer
Florida Division of Emergency Management
5900 Lake Eleanor Drive
Orlando, Florida 32809
RE: Request for Reconsideration of the Second Appeal Denial of TS Gabrielle'- DR -2393; PW's 0566
-and 0673.
Dear Mr. Koon, Lachat and Seibert:
On May 14 2012, Collier County received notification of Denial from Ms. Deborah Ingram, Assistant
Administrator of FEMA's Recovery 'Directorate. ' "Collier County believes that this denial was made in
error and that the FEMA analysis did not take into account the following facts:
1. The Denial letter from FEMA voiced opinions to refute our scientific and expert reports. Our reports
were based on expert analysis from Professional Engineers with significant coastal experience.
FEMA provided no technical evidence from experienced or Professional Engineers experienced in
coastal engineering matters to refute our information. FEMA "Beach Expert" review and approved
our position when the PW's were modified.
2. Original PW's authorized by FEMA was comprised of generic text. The initial language and scope
was an estimate that was to be reconciled at contract approval and close out.
1 The estimated initial sand volumes could only be achieved if recovery work commenced
immediately. Federal and state permitting were not in place at this time and if the project
proceeded without permits, it would be a federal violation of NEPA Compliance and the Stafford
Act. —41nnb
Colter County Coastal Zone Management - W. Harmon Turner Building, Suite 103.3301 East Tamlarri Trail • Naples, Florida 34112.239- 252 -2966 - FAX 239.2522950
v&u rnliarnmr nallmsQ1*17n amananamanl
'7A
Request for Reconsideration of 2 "d Denial
July 26, 2012
Page 2 of 2
4. Between the date of the Federal Declaration and the date of the permits, the county operated in an
S. The 50,000 cy /yr maintenance program that was setup, documented and approved prior to Tropical
Storm Gabrielle was ignored and dismissed in FEMA's denial letter. Again, an opinion without due
consideration. Sand bypassing is a source of repairs that is a FEMA encouraged policy as
documented by FEMA Policy 9580.8.
6. The denial letter stated "much uncertainty of erosion ". Technical reports and yearly monitoring
activity verify in detail our position. There was no review or discussion of this information.
7. No analysis of our invoices /documentation provided. These were approved by FDEM and FEMA
staff and served as the basis for the PW's written by FDEM. These were rejected out of hand with
no review or discussion.
8. At closeout FEMA -FRO and FDEM -FRO validate all invoices and changes in scope. Additionally, all
PW's were closed out and approved by FEMA Atlanta and Tallahassee FDEM.
Collier County Is requesting that the State Director of Florida Department of Emergency Management
(FDEM) support this Request for Reconsideration by moving forward with a new FEMA appeal request
on this project.
Very Respectfully,
Gary McAlpin
CC: Leo Ochs
Nick Casalanguida
Bill Lorenz
Mark Isackson
Steve Carnell
Dan Summers
Ed Finn
Sherry Pryor
Mayor John'Sorey
Michael Cox
7A
Co 1eY County
Public Services Division
Coastal Zone Management
July 26 2012.
Mr. Bryan W. Koon, Director
Florida Division of Emergency Management
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100
Mr. Leo Lachat
Florida Department of Emergency Management
Bureau Chief - Recovery
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100
Mr. Robert M. (Bob) Seibert
Lead Deputy Public Assistance Officer
Florida Division of Emergency Management
5900 Lake Eleanor Drive
Orlando, Florida 32809
RE: FirstAppeal Request: De- obligation of Funds for 'Hur6cane Wilma - OR 1609, PW 2700'
Dear Mr. Koon, Lachat and Seibert:
On June 21, 2012 FEMA de-obligated $11,095,283.52 from PW 2700; Hurricane Wilma DR -1609. Collier
County and Florida Department of Emergency Management we not consulted prior to this action taking
place. Collier County is requesting an appeal of this activity based on the following:
1. Collier County worked closely with FDEM to determine eligibility, scope documentation,
authorization and approval for Hurricane Wilma and the balance of the 2004/05 storms. In fact,
Collier took all direction /guidance from the State. Collier presented the information; The State wrote
the PW's; approved the additional scope /work; and received authorization from FEMA.
2. Expenditure and payment were reviewed, approved and authorized by FEMA -Lake Mary, FEMA -
Atlanta and FEMA - Washington.
3. All approaches are backed up with hard costs, hard documentation, proper authorizations, proper
closeouts and correct closeout documentation.
4. Scope increases were approved in each one of the revised PW's by FEMA.
S. Payments were made 22 months ago for Collier County expended costs. This was for cost
reimbursement with no conditions on the reimbursement.
rcH;or rnnnly rnaelal 7nno MananPmont • W Harmnn TI ImPf Ai4klinn SiKir. 1r19 . Mn1 Fast Tamiami Trail - Nades. Florida 34112 -239-252-2966- FAX 239-252-2950
'7A
First Appeal Request -De- obligation Hurricane Wilma
July 26, 2012
Page 2 of 2
6. Details will be developed that address the lack of technical basis for the de- obligation along with the
disregard for established FEMA policies and procedures.
Collier County is requesting that the State Director of Florida Department of Emergency Management
(FDEM) support this Appeal Request.
Very Respectfully,
j/9t4-/ 114 6-6�2—
Gary McAlpin
CC: Leo Ochs
Nick Casalanguida
Bill Lorenz
Mark Isackson
Steve Carnell
Dan Summers
Ed Finn
Sherry Pryor
Mayorkhn Sorey
Michael Cox
IOWA,
Tell
04TAGO
SRI
FO
Fn
SQVf is Nov"
35 3.
-lot
0 ?
WAD-
0
Lai
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
RICK SCOTT BRYAN W. KODN
Governor Dlraclor
July 25, 2012
Ms. Cheryl Pryor
Collier County
3301 Tamiami Trail, Admin. Bldg.
Naples, FL 34112
Re: Overpayment
Dear Ms. Pryor:
The attached invoice is In reference to an overpayment for Hurricane Wilma:
FEMA- DR- 1609 -17C: (see' attachment)
Please remit to the State of Florida: $ 11,172.272.62 at:
Division of Emergency Management
5900 Lake Ellenor Drive
Orlando, FL 32809 -4634
Attention: Renee Singh,
Deputy State Public Assistance Officer of Finance
Please contact Renee Singh via e-mail, Renee.Singh(a7em.myflartda.com or by phone
407 - 858 -2761 should you have any questions or need any additional information.
Respectfully, -
Charles Shinkle
Deputy Bureau Chief
Division of Emergency Management
Attachment: CS/Ica
FLORIDA RECOVERY OFFICE - DIVISION HEADQUARTERS - STATE LOGISTICS RESPONSE CENTER
5900 Lake Ellenor Drive 2555 Shumird Oak Boulevard 2702 Dlreclors Row
Orlando. FL 32809-4534 Tallahassee. FL 32399 -2100 Orlando, FL 32609.5631
407.858 -2761 Tel: 850.419. 9969 -Fax: 850. 488.1018
www. Florida Ols aslev ore
'7A w
INVOICE
STATE OF FLORIDA
Division of Emergency Management
Date: Jul 23, 2012
Invoice #; 122
To: Collier County (FIPS: 021- 99021 -00)
3301 Tamlaml Trall, Admin Bldg
Naples, FL 34112
Master PW tt Federal Share Admin Slate Share Line Item Total
1609
2700
$11,095,283.62
$55,476.42
$O.OD
I $11,150,759.94
1809
2704
($16,816.80)
($64.08)
$O.DO
($16,900.88)
1609
6733
$38,222.45
$ib1.11
$0.00
$38,413.66
SubTotal
Make checks payable'to State of Florid a for total amount of*
$11,172,272.62
$11,172,272.$2'
State of Florida Public Assistance, 5900 Lake Ellenor Drive, Orlando, FL 32809 -4634
Phone (407) 858 -2761 Fax (407) 858 -4429 renee.singh @em.myfiodda.com
Payment 022 Project 2700 FEMA- 1609 -DR -FL
Payment #122: Project 2700 (L - Cat G)
7A
021 - 99021 -00
Collier County
$761,256.08
John Sdxnldl - May 16, 2006
Eligible
Federal
Admin
State
Obligated & Approved
$1,272,301.32
Version 0 (Large) - Initial Obligation
$3,381,940.54
$2,536,455.41
$16,909.70
nla
SysremAdmMiaMalor- Apr 11, 2006
$255,883.14
Version 1 (Large) - Federal Share Change
$0.00
$507,291.08
$0.00
n/a
System Adminlstralor -Jan 16, 2007
$803,931.91
Version 2 (Large) - Federal Share Change
$0.00
$338,194.05
$0.00
n/a
SyslemAdminrabaror -Jun 19, 2007
$9,775,103.49
Version 3 (Large) - Eligible Amount Change
$9,486,535.40
$9,486,535,40
$47,432.68
n/a
Renee Singh -Aug 30, 2010
- $11,095,283,52
Version 4 (Large) - Version Modificationi
$0,00
$0.00
$0.00
n/a
Rena* Singh - Oct 10, 2010
Version 5 (Large) -Version Modification
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
n/a
Rene* Singh - Jan 4 2011
Version 6 (Large) - Eligible Amount Change
($11,095,283.52)
($11,095,283.52)
($55,476.42)
n/a
Ranee Singh - Jul 16, 2012
Payment #79
$1,773,192.42
$1,773,192.42
$8,865.96
$0.00
Justified by RFRs (100.0%
RFR #1 - Expense Approval
$761,256.08
John Sdxnldl - May 16, 2006
RFR #1 - Expense Approval
$1,272,301.32
Nkk Behnnan - Jul 28, 2006
RFR #1 - Expense Approval
$255,883.14
Mo6asa Va&ja - Aug 2, 2008
RFR #1- Expense Approval
$803,931.91
Darryl Cox -Jun 21, 2007
RFR #2 - Expense Approval
$9,775,103.49
lrelheMe (Lents) Huk+ll - Sep 3, 2010
Reversal of Overrun
- $11,095,283,52
$1,773,192.42
$1,773,192.42
$8,866.96
$0.00
Previous Payments
Payment #54
$570,942.06
$3,806.28
$95,157.01
Orlando Rodriguez - May f6, 2006
Payment #77
$954,225.99
$6,361.51
$159,037.67
Nick BeAmwn - Jul 28, 2006
Payment #79
$191,912.36
$1,279.42
$31,985.39
Orlando Roddguaz - Aug 2, 2008
Payment #91
$343,416.08
$0.00
($171,708.04)
Orlando Rodriguez - Mar f2, 2007
Payment #107
$723,538.72
$4,019,66
$0.00
Yen Cal - Jul 27, 2007
Payment #108
$309,337.24
$0.00
($114,472.03)
Van Cal - Oct 31, 2007
Payment #119
$9,775,103.49
$48,875.52
$0.00
Jamie Booth - Jan 8, 2009
Payment #117
$0.00
($0.01)
$0.00
Jamie Booth - Jan 8, 2009
Adjustments
— $12,868,475.94 — $64,342.38 — $0.00
+ $0.00 + $0.00 + $0.00
This Payment ($11,096,283.52) ($65,476.42)
n,rspa,,n.nrl..vs.6.1.r�ce ors0.oa
PaymaM ukulations as al JW 19, ?Oi2. '
Plinhd from AwIdaPAxM on Jul 20, 2012 al 12.5! PM.
$0.00
Payment #122 Project 6733 FEMA- 1609 -DR-FL
Payment #122: Project 6733 (L - Cat G)
Collier County
Obligated & Approved
Version 0 (Large) - Initial Obligation
Syafem Adminfshalor- May 2$ 2006
Version 1 (Large) - Federal Share Change
System Adminlstalor -Jan 18, 2007
Version 2 (Large) - Federal Share Change
System Ad*Mialor- Jun 20, 2007
Version 3 (Large) - Eligible Amount Change
System AdmWslfafor- Jan 30, 2008
Version 4 (Large) - Eligible Amount Change
Renee Singh - Aup 17, 2010
Version 5 (Large) - Eligible Amount Change
Renee Singh - Jul 18, 2012
Justifled by RFRs (1Q0.0 %)
RFR #1 - Expense Approval
Aaron Harden - Jun 11, 2007
Reversal of Overrun
Previous Payments
Payment #106
Yen Car -Jun 12, 2007
Payment #110
Yan Cot - OC131, 2007
Payment #119
Jamie Booth - Jan A. 2009
Adjustments
This Payment
rMspaymanlloaves a below of 50.00.
°aymsnl eakvlalions a at J0l ra, 7012.
°dnlsd from FibridsMorp on Jul 20, 2012 of 1235 PM.
Eligible Federal Admin
$625,964.16
$469,473.12
$3.129.82
$0.00
$93,894.62
$0.00
$0.00
$62,596.42
$0.00
(3107,135.18)
($107,135.18)
($535.67)
$31,993.47
$31,993,47
$159.96
($38,222.45)
($38,222.45)
($191.11)
$512,600.00
$512,600.00
$2,663.00
$625,964.16
- $113,364.16
$512,600.00 $512,600.00 $2,563.00
$563,367.74
$3,129.82•
$62,596.42
$0.00
($75,141.71)
($375.71)
— $550,822.45
— $2,754.11 —
+ $0.00
+ $0.00 +
($38,212.46) ($191.11)
021 - 99021 -0D
State
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$0,00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
40.00
$0.00
$0.00
7a
'7A
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
500 C sweet, SW
Washington. DC 20472
T,TAtTk
FEMA
MY 14 2012
Bryan Koon
Director
Florida Division of Emergency Management
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -2100
Re: Second Appeal - Collier County Public Services Division, PAID 021- 08835 -01,
Sand Replacement, FEMA- 1393- DR -FL, Project Worksheets (PWs) 566 and 673
Dear Mr. Koon:
This letter is in response;.to a January 24, 2011, letter from your office, which transmitted the
referenced second, appeal on behalf of the Collier County Public Services Division (Applicant).
The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency
Management Agency's (FEMA) denial of $9,`188,497 for renourishment of mainland and Marco
Island beaches.
I have determined that there is no adequate basis to increase the amount of eligible sand replaced
on the beaches. I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and have determined
that the Regional Administrator's decision in the first appeal is consistent with Public Assistance
regulations and policy. However, in my review of the documentation, I have found errors in the
apportionment of eligible costs that were incurred as a part of the mainland and Marco Island
renourishment projects. By copy of this letter, I am requesting the Regional Administrator
prepare versions of PWs 566 and 673 to award the eligible costs associated with the
renourishlnent projects as detailed in the enclosed analysis.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination is the final decision on this
matter pursuant to 44 CFR § 206.206, Appeals.
Enclosure
cc: Major P. May
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IV
Sincerely,
106-V 4�
Deborah Ingram
Assistant Administrator
Recovery Directorate
wwwfeme.gov
A
7A
SECOND APPEAL ANALYSIS
FEMA- 1393 -DR -FL
Collier County Public Services Division, PA ID 021- 08835 -01
Sand Replacement, Project Worksheets 566 and 673
Background
FEMA determined that four engineered beaches in Collier County are eligible for Public
Assistance (PA) permanent work funding as improved and maintained beaches. These beaches
suffered sand erosion from Tropical Storm Gabrielle (FEMA- 1393 -DR FL), Hurricane Katrina
(FEMA-16O2-DR-FL), and Hurricane Wilma (FEMA - 1609- DR -FL). FEMA prepared >several
Project Worksheets (PWs) to replace the sand eroded by each storm.
The Collier County Public Services Division (Applicant) performed nourishment work in two
separate projects that had different design firms and contractors. The first renourishment project,
the mainland project, to restore the Naples, Vanderbilt, and Park Shore beaches substantially to
their 1996 design, was completed in 2006. The other renourishment project, to restore the Marco
Island beach to its design, was completed in 2007. While the Applicant's appeal only addresses
PWs under FEMA - 1393- DR -FL, in order to properly assess the eligible work and costs, both
renourishment projects must be examined in conjunction with all three disasters. Table 1
provides information on the ten PWs (including versions) for eligible work that was
accomplished as part of the renourishment projects.
TABLE 1- •- COLLIER COUNTY - CATEGORY G BEACH PWs` -
PW,!
FEMA4393 -DR -IF
PW A`moynt' - < Sand Volume (CY)
Beach
566
$1,700,137.45 70,650
Naples
568
$2,085,076.70 80,464
Vanderbilt
575
$634,657.86 36,382
Park Shore
673
$593,292.00 49,441
Marco Island
Total
$5,013,164.01 236,937, '
4,290
P --W, `
` FEMA �6QZ -QR-FL
PW Amount Sand Vnhimo trvti"
.
1109
$1,192,557.72
45,762 Naples
1110
$375,779.91
15,599 Vanderbilt
Total
$1,568,337.63
61;36;1
�. .. I •'. Fa0,3.)U . I
* The eligible volume of sand in PW 2700 is allocated based on the Applicant's engineering study
which attributes an estimate of 55% of the 2006 renourishment to FEMA - 1609- DR -FL. The PW's
original scope of work approved 5 .8,641 CY of sand for Naples Beach at a cost of $3,381,940.54.
Second Appeal Analysis, Collier County Public Services Division, PA ID 021- 08835 -01 Paget of 8
Sand Replacement, Project Worksheets 566 and 673
' FE0A- 1609 -DR -FL
'PW
• PW Amount-
Sand Volume`i;CY
Beach 1�:
2700*
$12,868,475.94
367,159
Naples, Vanderbilt, Park Shore
2698
$284,334.27
11,803
Vanderbilt
2704
$100,815.00
4,290
Park Shore
6733
$550,822.45
55,000
Marco Island
Total
$13.804.447.66
438.252
�. .. I •'. Fa0,3.)U . I
* The eligible volume of sand in PW 2700 is allocated based on the Applicant's engineering study
which attributes an estimate of 55% of the 2006 renourishment to FEMA - 1609- DR -FL. The PW's
original scope of work approved 5 .8,641 CY of sand for Naples Beach at a cost of $3,381,940.54.
Second Appeal Analysis, Collier County Public Services Division, PA ID 021- 08835 -01 Paget of 8
Sand Replacement, Project Worksheets 566 and 673
7A
From September 13 to September 21, 2001, Tropical Storm Gabrielle eroded Collier County's
public beaches. FEMA prepared PWs 566 and 673 for the restoration of 70,65,0 CY of sand to
the Naples beach and 49,441 CY to the Marco Island beach, respectively. The disaster related
damages documented in the PWs' eligible scopes of work were derived from pre - and post -storm
surveys. The Applicant was unable to complete the required repairs until the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection (FDEP) issued an environmental permit for the renourishment,
under Florida Statutes, Chapters 161 and 370, as the Applicant's 1999 permit for county-wide
beach maintenance allowed for only 50,000 CY of spot nourishments annually. On April 3,
2009, FEMA received from the Florida Division of Emergency Management (Grantee) Final
Inspection Reports (FIR), dated June 30, 2008, for each PW. The FIR indicated that work on the
beach projects had completed on May 1, 2006. FEMA prepared final reconciliation reports on
March 31, 2010, and initiated close -out of the PWs.
First Appeal
The Grantee submitted a first appeal on behalf of the Applicant on April 9, 2010. In the appeal,
the Grantee claimed that PWs 566 and 673 were closed in error as costs for three years of beach
environmental and turtle monitoring, required by federal regulations and FDEP, were absent
from the approved costs. Additionally, the Grantee requested that FEMA increase the eligible
amount of the PWs based on an apportionment of the actual sand replacement costs. Included
with the appeal were draft closeout versions of PW 566 and 673.
With the draft Version 3 of PW 566, the Grantee requested that FEMA consolidate the three
mainlandl beach PWs, by combining scope of work and cost adjustments for PWs 568 and 575
for Vanderbilt and Park Shore beaches, respectively, with Naples Beach under a single closeout
version of PW 566. The PW included line item costs of $10,200.00 for Environmental
Monitoring, $278,556.95 for Force Account Labor, and a lump sum of $9;945,945:77 for
Contracts. The PW`s revised scope of work explained that the proposed Contracts cost
represented 34 %'' of-the 2006 Mainland Collier County Beach Renourishmcnt Project. This
apportionment came from a January 2010 report titled, "Tropical Storm Gabrielle, hurricanes
Katrina and Wilma Storm Impact Re- assessment Report: 1995 -1996 Collier County Beach
Nourishment Project," that was Iticcpared by Collier County ?s conwiitant for the mainland beach
nourishment project, Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc. (CPE)'. The report partitioned the
sand loss between Naples, Vanderbilt, and Park Shore and used estimates to divide the total into
complementary portions by attributing 55% of the sand replacement to Hurricane' Wilma,'
(FEMA- I60,9 -DR- L), I l %a to (Jurricane Katrina (FEMA- 1602- 1)R-FL), and the remaining 34 %
to Tropical Storm Gabrielle (FFMA= 1,393- DR -FL)
The 6,rantee also submitted a proposed draft_Version 2 of, PW 673 for the Marco Island beach
that included line items of $13,766.00 for Environmental Monitoring, $73,645.54 for Force
Account Labor, and a lump sum Contracts cost ol'$1,159,812.50. The scope of work detailed
that the Contract cost represented 68.83 % of the cost of the sand renourishment contract. This
factor was derived by subtracting the 55,000 CY of sand estimated on PW 6733 attributed to
Hurricane Wilma under FEMA - 1609- DR -FL, from the total volume of sand replaced, 176,457
CY, for the Marco Island renourishment.
In a September 30, 2010, letter partially granting the Grantee's appeal, the Regional
Administrator determined that the incurred environmental and turtle monitoring costs are eligi ::
for reimbursement and directed that versions of PWs 566 and 673 be prepared to reflect those
Second Appeal Analysis, Collier County Public Services Division, PA ID 021- 08835 -01 Page 2 of
Sand Replacement, Project Worksheets 566 and 673
7A
costs. The Regional Administrator further determined that no adequate basis was provided- for
attributing the proposed portions of the 2006 and 2007 renourishment projects to PWs 566 and
673¢, The Regional Administrator noted that the Grantee's request to amend the scopes of work
was submitted ,five years after FEMA approved the scopes of work on July 8, 2004. `'Pursuant to
Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §206.206(c)(1), Time Limits, applicants must file
appeals within 60 days after receipt of a notice of the determination that is being appealed.
Second Appeal
With a letter dated January 24, 2011, the Grantee supported and forwarded the Applicant's
November 24, 2010, second,appeal to FEMA. In the appeal, the Applicant'asserted that FEMA
based the approved scopes of work on estimated volumes of sand loss from the beaches, rather
than the actual quantity of sand required to restore the beaches. To address this difference, the
Applicant requested that FEMA increase the approved scopes of work and associated costs to
reflect the amount of sand replaced during the 2006 and 2007 renourishment projects. The
.Applicant also requested that FEMA combine the three mainland beach PWs under a new
version of PW 566 as shown in Table 2. The Applicant submitted copies of-the proposed draft
closeout versions of PWs 566 and 673 that the Grantee had previously submitted with the.first .
TABLE 2 — FEMA- 1393 -DR -FL — Amounts Obligated and Requested
�` t , t \. t je � lM �f�•4l�iAgR.�y�1� I 1 r f
r
Naples 566
70,650
$1,700,13.7.45
$2,085,076.70 226'971
$8,534,565.27
Vanderbilt 568
80,464
X34% of 667,562 CY)
Park Shore 575
36,382
$634,657.86
Marco Island 673
49,441
$593,292.00 121,457
$653,932.04
(68.83 %.of 176,457 CY)
Total
236,937
, $5,1313,164.{)1' 348,428' `
$9,188,497.31
To, support its revised scopes of work and associated costs, the Applicant included a copy of
remain appealable after the 60 -day post obligation period had expired. Furtherrn6iiF, [lie CPE
report states that based on surveys taken in 2000 and 2006, the cumulative sand loss from the
mainland beaches was 553,000CY. In calculating the revised costs on the closeout version of
PW 566, the Applicant multiplied the 2006 mainland renourishment project costs by a 34%
factor from the amount of erosion the CPF., report attributed to Tropical Storm Gabrielle. As
justification for the eligibility of apportionment of the total renourishnient costs based on the
CPE distribution, the draft closeout PW noted that FEMA prepared Version 3 of PW 2700 under
FEMA- 1609- DR -FL. PW 2700 Version 3 consolidated the damages for the three mainland
beaches from Hurricane-Wifih4 (represented by PWs 2698, 2700, and 2704) and increased the
approved costs to include 555%, of the °total billing amount of $ 19,833,883:57 for U� 2e 0 - 6*--"-
renourishment project. FEMA obligated PW 2700 Version 3 on August 27, 2011.
Similarly, the Applicant's proposed closeout version of 673 attributed 68.83% of the work and
costs ofthe 2007 renourisluneni project on Marco Island to Tropical Storm Gabrielle. FEMA
Second Appeal Analysis, Collier County Public Services Division, PA: ID 021 - 08835 -01 Page 3 of 8
Sand Replacement, Project Worksheets 566 and 673
7A
obligated the complementary portion, or 31.71 % of the renourishment contract costs, with
Version 4 of PW 6733 under FEMA- 1609- DR -FL, and with this appeal, the Applicant is
requesting reimbursement for the remainder under PW 673. No now supporting cost
documentation or other information for the renourishment project contracts was provided. Based
on the cost data contained in the two draft closeout versions, theApplicant is requesting an
additional $4;114,693.26 for the mainland beaches under PW 566 and an additional $60,640.04
for Marco Island beach under PW 673.
Discussion
In order to properly evaluate the appropriateness, accuracy, and eligibility of the Applicant's
proposal of using proration of the costs of the two beach restoration projects as foundations for
estimating reimbursable costs under PWs 566 and 673, we must consider these,PWs in the
context of the total damages documented by these'and the other eight PWs identified in Table 1.
sand renourishment,'for which the Applicant -has requested reimbursement under FEMA-1393-
DR- FL,!must be directly attributable to Tropical Storm Gabrielle.
PW566,— Mainland Beaches
In 2006, the Applicant completed the mainland sand renourishment project to restore the Naples,
Vanderbilt, and Park Shore beaches substantially to their 1996 design. The January 2010 CPE
report lists the as built volume of sand for the mainland project as 668,000 CY. Prior to the 2006
renourishment, the Applicant replaced 140,102 CY of truck- hauled sand between 2000 and 2003
and 44,352 CY of dredged sand in 2005. Surveys taken in June 2000 before Tropical Storm
g Gabrielle and in the first quarter of 2006 before the mainland renourishment found the total
volumetric toss over the nearly six years to be 369,001 CY.-CPE calculated a;total,sandloss of
553,455 CY by adding the maintenance nourishments to the measured loss. The Applicant
maintains that CPE's value is a more accurate assessment of the volume of sand loss as a result
of storms than are the quantities calculated from pre- and post -storm surveys that FEMA used to
estimate storm loss volumes. Furthermore, in the "Storm Contribution" section of the report,
CPE states that given the relative magnitude of Hurricane Wilma, the distribution (Table 3) of
sand loss attributed to each storm based on the surveys before and after each event is unrealistic.
TABLE 3 — Mainland Beaches — Storm erosion distribution by declaration
Initial ApproVed Storm Totals Percent of CPE deport;
Disaster PW Mainland Sand Percent i f
Scope Estimates (CY) (CY) Total
Loss CY Totat:._
1393
566
70,650
187,496
58%
187,496
349
568
80,464
575
36,382
1602
1109
45,762
61,361
19%
61,361
11$6
,, • ..
1110
, -- _
15,599
1609
2700
•58,641
74,734
23%.
3134;5.98
r,A
55°16
ors r.
2698
11,803
2704
4,290
Total
323,591.
200'x6„
553,455
10961 ,
* Volume from orieinal approved scope of work for PW 2700. (see Table I note)
Second Appeal Analysis, Collier County Public Services Division, PA ID 021- 08835 -01 Page 4 of 8
Sand Replacement, Project Worksheets 566 and 673 AA
7A
Instead, CPE recommended using : 553,455 CY as the total loss resulting from the storms and
proposed a distribution of 34 %,11 %, and 55% for Tropical Storm Gabrielle, Hurricane Katrina,
and Hurricane Wilma, respectively. As shown in Table 3, CPE seems to have derived this
modified distribution by adding the volumes of the maintenance nourishments between 2000 and
2005 to the volume that the original scopes of work of PWs 2698, 2700, and 2704 under FEMA-
1609 -DR -FL attributed to Hurricane Wilma. Using this distribution of relative volumes as a
basis for allocating costs under FEMA- 1393 -DR FL, the Applicant is requesting reimbursement'
from FEMA of 34% of the total contract cost -of $19,833,883.57 for depositing 667,562 CY of
sand for renourishment of the mainland hrarhne
As noted in the Grantee's July 10, 2008, memorandum accompanying the FIR, the "Total
(e]ligible costs are to be determined by subtracting the county's routine' permitted annual beach
maintenance work related to 50,000 cubic yards for the FEMA recovery period... and not the
sand volume completed'by the contractors." This is supported by the Applicant's 1999 permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection allowing the annual deposition of
50,000 CY of sand in spot nourishments. Th documents er::indicated that fhe 141),102 CY
of truclhauled sand from 200Q to 2003 represents three years' worth.of maintenance
�J" 16 553,455 CY is the correct amount of total sand loss.m .fro the three-mainiand beaches
bether -Ame 2000 and the first quarter of 2006, it is not representative of the amount of sand
eroded by the three declared storms in that period for the following reasons:
• The 140,102 CY of heck- hauled.sand includes at least one (April 2001), if not two,
maintenance nourishments before Tropical Storm Gabrielle; and
w • The sand placed on the beaches between Tropical Storm Gabrielle and 2006 needs to be
considered as maintenance aoushmeuts and not eligible storm losses.
Even if maintenance nourishments are excluded, the difference between the June 2000 and first
quarter 2006 profiles is not necessarily limited to disaster damage from the declared storms.
There is too much uncertainty about typical erosion before, between, and after the events for
reliable use of this information to determine disaster damage. The sand volumes calculated for
the eligible scopes of work are based on survey data that was available when the PWs were
prepared and represent the most reliable pre- and post -stone profile data. The Applicant has not
demonstrated that a survey of losses over a nearly six year period is more accurate than the
estimates prepared for the PWs. Furthermore, as the documentation submitted fails to
demonstrate that 34% of the sand replaced through the mainland renourishment project was
attributable to sand loss as a direct result of Tropical Storm `Gabrielle, the additional`
reimbursement the Applicant seeks for the mainland beaches under FEMA - 1393 -DR -FL does
not meet the 44 CFR § 206.223(a)(1) eligibility requirements.
PW 673 — Marco Island Beach
The renourisluneut of Marco Island was completed in 2007 and consisted of an as built volume
of 176,457 CY of sand at a contract cost of $1,551,312.92. In calculating the volume of sand
loss as a result of Tropical Storm Gabrielle, the Applicant subtracted the Hurricane Wilma
contribution of 55,000 CY funded with PW 6733 under FEMA- 1609- DR- FL_from the total
volume renourished. This calculation results in 121,457 CY of sand, or 68.83% of the
renourishment project. The Applicant used this volumetric ratio in assigning 68.83% of the costs
Second Appeal Analysis, Collier County Public Services Division, PA ID 021- 08835 -01 Page 5 of 8
Sand Replacement, Project Work-sheets 566 and 673
1q
of the 2007 renourishment project to Tropical Storm Gabrielle.
new documentation in its second anDeal documenting the arrant
pe of the renourshment project.
the
As with ",the mainland renourishment project, the quantity of sand replaced in the Marco island
project included eligible sand loss due to the declared storms, as well as normal erosion of the
beach before, between, and after the declared incident periods. This additional; sand is not
eligible for FEMA funding, since, as stated above,, only the costs of replacing the volume of sand
loss as a direct result of Tropical Storm Gabrielle are reimbursable under FEMA - 1393 -DR FL.
Therefore, the eligible scope of work is limited to the 49,441 CY included in the approved scope
of work on PW 673 as it was directly measured from pre - and post -storm profile data and
represents the best available data.'
Eligible Costs
A determination that there is no change warranted in the scope of work for a PW would usually
leave a determination of final costs to project closeout. In this appeal, draft closeout PW
versions were submitted as part of the supporting documentation. Review of those documents
has found significant errors such that a discussion of eligible costs is prudent.
The proposed draft'closeout versions for PWs 566 and 673 that provided the cost estimates for
the appeal, as well as the July 2008 Final Inspection Report for closeout of all 10 PWs, made
errors in assuming that all costs associated with the 2006 renourishment of the mainland beaches
and the 2007 renourishment of the Marco Island beach were eligible. These projects renoudshed
the beaches to their design for the first time since _orizinalnourishment in 1996; " While "thev did
as well as sand placed on areas outside of
The mainland project replaced a total of 667,562 CY of sand; only 187,496 CY of that sand
(28,1 %u) is eligible for funding under FEMA- 1393-DR -FL. The Marco Island project replaced
176,457 CY of sand; only 49,441 CY (28.0 %) is eligible for funding under FEMA- 1393 -DR FL.
These percentages must be used in computing eligible costs, either by direct application to the
costs or in the determination of a unit cost (per CY). The unit cost method is suggested since the
costs have to be distributed over several PWs.
The project costs as presented in the draft closeout versions for PWs 566 and 673 are divided
into three elements:
• Force account labor costs;
• Contract costs; and
• Environmental Monitoring costs.
The force account labor is for project management, inspection, and administration, based on the
summary sheet submitted with the FIR. These costs total $466,094. The costs are divided by
disaster, but given the amount of full -time project management (12 months) and beach inspection
(17 months); these charges have to be considered applicable to the complete renourishment
projects and need to be weighted accordingly. The costs are also divided by renourishment
Second Appeal Analysis, Collier County Public Services Division, PA ID 021 -08835 -01 Page 6 of 8
Sand Replacement, Project Worksheets 566 and 673
7A
..;
project (mainland and Marco Island),. but this is based on total length of project area. To
determine a unit cost for force account project management, it is best to combine the two
projects since accurate records were not maintained. The two renourishment projects placed a
total of 884,019 CY of sand on Collier County beaches. That reduces to a unit cost of $0.5272
per CY for force account project management.
The contract costs have been identified as 319,83 3,883.57 for the mainland project and
$1,551,312.92 for the Marco Island project. Dividing these costs by 667,562 CY and 176,457
CY of piaced.sand for the mainland and Marco Island projects, respectively, results in unit costs
of $29.7109 per CY for the mainland project and $8.7915 per CY for the Marco Island project.
Adding the force account project management unit cost yields total unit costs of $30,2381 per
CY for the mainland project and $9.3'187 per CY for the Marco Island project.
As a result of the permit requirements of the Florida statutes associated with the beach
renourishment projects, the Applicant incurred three years of environmental monitoring costs.
The first appeal approved these post-construction monitoring costs in theaamounts of $10,200 for
PW 566 and $13,766 for PW 673. The eligible costs were based on proration of the total
estimated costs of $30,000 for the mainland beaches and $20,000 for the Marco Island beach.
Because Stafford Act §406(e)(1) authorizes FEMA to reimburse the costs of repair of an
improved beach "in conformity with codes ... applicable at the time at which the disaster
occurred," these costs would be required and eligible regardless of the amount of sand re-
nourished; thus, 100% of these costs should be eligible. Furthermore, as the costs were initially
necessitated by the repairs of damages by Tropical Storm Gabrielle, the full costs should be
reimbursed under FEMA- 13 93-DR-FL.
Due to the imprecision of appropriately distributing mainland beach monitoring costs between
PWs 566, 568, and 575, the Region should make closeout adjustments for the three mainland
beaches oa PW 566. In order to reimburse only eligible costs, the FEMA Region W staff should
prepare a closeout version of PW 566 to include a line item of - $4,419,$72.01 for deobligation of
the total previously funded costs on PWs 566, 568, and 575. The version should include a line
item for reimbursement of the eligible portion of actual costs. Using the unit costs for the
eligible replaced sand based on the contract costs supplied with the project closeout
documentation and lump sum monitoring, costs, as described above, this results in -total eligible
costs of$5,699,535.53 for the mainland beaches (187,496 CY x $30.23811CY + $30,000).
Similarly, the Region should prepare a closeout version of PW 673, to deobligate the previously
funded $593,292.00 and obligate $480,726 for the Marco Island beach (49,441 CY x
$9.3187/CY + $20,000).
Second Appeal Analysis, Collier County Public Services Division, PA ID 021 - 08835 -01 Page 7 of 8
Sand Replacement, Project Worksheets 566 and 673
�a
l
f
7A
TABLE 5 —Funding of Beach Restoration under FF-MA- 1393 -DR -FL
I f �lslRs
MI MW
Naples 566
$1,700,137.45
$8,534,565.27
__$_5,_699_,535.53
--------------- - - --
Vanderbilt 568
$2,085,076.70
Park Shore 575
$634,657.86
Marco Island 673
$593,292.00
$653,932.04
$480,726.00
Total
$5,013,1"o
$9,188,497.31
$6,180,261.53
difester incident periods, and also placed sand on non-eligible beaches. )~final costs must be
based on the eligible volumes of eroded sand that are directly attributable; to the declared event.
Conclusion
The Applicant did not present new documentation in its second appeal that demonstrates
Tropicaf Storm Gabrielle eroded a greater volume of sand front the mainland and Marco Island
beaches than the ''sand loss volumes FEMA calculated from pre - and post -storm surveys and
documented in the approved scopes of work for PWs 566, 563, 575, and 673. These surveys
represent the most reliable pre - and post -storm beach profile measurements. CPU's, stud was `x 'ns .
PWs.
The Applicant submitted proposed draft closeout versions of PWs 566 and 673 that suggest the
total volume of sand replaced by the 2006 and 2007 nourislunent projects is eligible and should
be apportioned to each of the three federally declared disasters. Nowever, the quantity of sand
replaced through the two renomishment project includes sand loss as a result of the declared
storms, as well as erosion before, between, and after the declared storms. Given that the
mainland and Marcos Island renoutishment projects included both eligible and ineligible work,
and the fact that this response only affects the PWs under FEMA- 1393- DR -FL; Regional PA
staff should reexamine the costs funded by PWs under FEMA- 1607 -DR -FL and FEMA =1609-
DR-FL to deobligate duplicative environmental and turtle monitoring costs and to ensure that
FEMA reimburses only eligible sand replacement costs.
Second Appeal Analysis, Collier County Public Services Division, PA ID 021- 08835 -01 rage K or d
Sand Replacement, Project Worksheets 566 and 673
7A
9
4
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
RICK SCOTT DAVID HALSTEAD
Govemor Director
January 24, >2011,
Ms. Elizabeth A. Zimmerman,
Assistant Administrator — Disaster Assistance Directorate
DHS- Federal Emergency Management Agency
500 C Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20472
Through:
Major P. May, FEMA Region IV Administrator
Federal Emergency Management Agency
3003 Chamblee- Tucker Road
Atlanta, Georgia 30341
Re: Collier County
Second Appeal of DR- 1393; PW's -566 "& 673
Dear Ms. Zimmerman:
The-Florida Division of Emergency Management (Division) is in possession of a letter
indicating Collier County's ( subgrantee's) desire to submit a second appeal of FEMA's denial of
a sand replacement costs as reported on the above - referenced Project Worksheets (PW's) arising
from the Tropical Storm Gabrielle event (DR- 1393). This letter has been received in a timely
manner from the subgrantee, and the Grantee recommends that FEMA approve this appeal based
on the arguments presented therein.
Issue for Second Appeal
Tropical Storm Gabrielle (DR -1393) caused damaging beach erosion to public beaches
within the subgrantee's jurisdiction. In the wake of Gabrielle, joint teams from FEMA, the
Grantee and the subgrantee, wrote PW's to reimburse the subgrantee for the costs of repairing
this damage. Specifically, PW's 566 and 673 were written to reimburse for costs associated with
repairing the subgrantee's public beaches on mainland Collier County (Naples, FL), and on
Marco Island, respectively. These same public beaches would also suffer damage during 2005's
HurTicane Katrina (DR -1602) and Hurricane Wilma (DR -1609) events.
In 2009, the subject PW's were closed out with a large disparity existing between the
subgrantee's claimed beach reconstruction costs, and the obligated amounts attributed to the
PW's. Additionally, the closeout versions of the PW's did not account for future environmental
and turtle monitoring costs that were, foreseeable under Federal and/or Florida law. On first
FLORIDA RECOVERY OFFICE • DIVISION HEADOUARTERS • STATE LOGISTICS RESPONSE CENTER
36 Skyline Drive 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard 2702 Direclors Row
Lake Mary, FL 32746-6201 Tallahassee, FL 32399.2100 Orlando, FL 32809.5631
T.i. aen.Ara.00so. s7 . atn.saa.tnra
7A
Ms. Elizabeth A. Zimmerman
January 24, 2011
Page 2
appeal, the Regional Administrator approved a total of $23,966 to cover future environmental
and turtle monitoring costs, but denied a total of $9,188,479.31 in additional beach
reconstruction costs which the subgrantee attributes to the Gabrielle event. This second appeal
follows.
In the analysis attached to the Regional Administrator's first appeal determination letter,
two reasons are provided as to why the subgrantee's additional beach reconstruction costs have
continued to be deemed ineligible by FEMA:
1. FEMA claims that there is no basis for attributing the additional underlying damage to
Tropical Storna Gabrielle, and
2. FEMA 'clairns that the subgrantee is "locked in" to the estimated sand replacement values
listed on version 0 of the subgrantee's PW's (both of which were obligated on July 8,
2004), due to FEMA's 60 day objection period.
These issues will be addressed below in reverse order from that shown above.
FEMA 's 60 -day objection period is not a limiting factor
The analysis attached to the first appeal determination cites that as approved scopes of
work were obligated on July 8, 2004, the obligation established a 60 -day window in which the
subgrantee was required to either appeal the approved scopes of work, or forever lose the right'tc
change that scope of work as real world conditions evolved. To this, the Grantee points out that
such an interpretation would have been incorrect under FEMA policy that was in effect at the
time of the Gabrielle event, and would also be incorrect in the present established practice as
well. The FEMA Public Assistance Guide clearly notes that "[d]uring the performance of work
on a project, the applicant may discover hidden damage, additional work that is necessary to
properly complete the project, or that certain costs are higher than those used to make the
original estimate for the PW" (see: FEMA 322/October 1999, page 115). This statement
indicates that FEMA policy envisions that the original obligation of a PW is not intended to be a
"lock- down" event, and that it is quite likely that project costs will change over the lifecycle of
the project.
Continuing in the same subsection of FEMA 322, the Grantee can find no mention that
the establishment of a scope of work through PW obligation begins a 60 -day appeals countdown,
after which the subgrantee would be barred from making eligible changes to the approved scope
of work. To read in such an interpretation would be contra to the established current practice in
that scopes of work are modified often as projects develop, and the modification seen in this PW
is not extraordinary in comparison with modifications made to the scopes of countless number of
other projects currently still open in Florida. In such a case, the general rule could simply be
stated that the scope of work may be changed (given a set of changed circumstances or changed
data inputs), so long as the project has not been closed out. As the successful first appeal on this
7A
Ms. Elizabeth A. Zimmerman
January 24, 2011
Page 3
PW indicated that there will be environmental monitoring costs accruing in the future,( the
project could not be closed out, which is defined as occurring when "... all required work of the
grant has been completed" (see: 44 CFR § I3.50(a)). As line items on a PW cannot be
individually closed out (i.e. — the entire PW must be closed out, or the PW remains open), and as
the Regional Administrator's fast appeal determination indicates that there was still-work
remaining to be completed on the PW (environmental monitoring), the entire PW remained open,
and thus the scope of work for beach reconstruction could legitimately be changed as new
studies dictated.
As the applicant's appeal should be unaffected by the passage of the 2004 60 -day
objection period, the next section of the appeal deals with the scientific study underlying the
apportionment of additional damage to Tropical Storm Gabrielle.
The basis for attributing additional damage to Tropical Storm Gabrielle
In regard to the subgrantee's assertion that additional damage should be attributed to
Tropical Storm Gabrielle, the Regional Administrator answered this claim in the first appeal
determination by stating that "[t]he subgrantee provides no basis for attributing a portion of its
overall beach restoration project to damage inflicted by Tropical Storm Gabrielle beyond that
already identified in the PW's." Included in the subgrantee's second appeal package, the
reviewer will find a copy of a study prepared by Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., which
explains the inadequacies of earlier studies, and which lays out a new apportionment of overall
storm damage caused by the 3 Presidentially declared disasters to have major affects on the area
between 2001 and 2005 2 (see Attachment C of the subgrantee's second appeal package). The
Grantee has read this study and does not dispute the findings contained therein.
While the Grantee can only take a guess at why the Regional Administrator did not
accept the findings of this study, the Grantee has reason to believe that it is due to a mistaken
belief that the study attributes all damage during that timeframe to the 3 Presidentially declared
disasters of interest, and does not consider any other possible sources of damage. On page 2 of
the first appeal analysis, the analysis notes that the area would have been affected by at least 3
additional hurricanes, and "numerous other weather events which did not meet the threshold for
a Federally- declared disaster." The reviewer seems to have been of the opinion that each of
these weather incidents caused its own beach erosion (which the subgrantee does not dispute),
which was not accounted for in the .study attributing "all damage" to the three named storms of
interest (which the subgrantee does dispute).
The subgrantee strongly dislaates this bast assumption by the reviewer, and asserts that
beach erosion from these other events was considered in the study, and thus the study is not
flawed as has been assumed by the reviewer. The study accounted for the effects of this beach
erosion by accounting for "supplemental sand fill" that was added yearly between the years 2000
' The Regional Administrator granted $23,966 In future monitoring costs in partially granting the
subgrantee's first appeal.
2 These 3 storms being Gabrielle (DR- 1393), Katrina (DR -1602) and Wilma (DR -1609)
7A
Ms. Elizabeth A. Zimmerman
January 24, 2011
Page 4
and 2006 (see page 4 of Attachment C to the subgrantee's second appeal request). The Grantee
can see no reason why treating sand losses for each of the "other events" would be necessary
individually, so long as the yearly loss is accounted for in the net calculations. Additionally, the
subgrantee has asserted that no Stafford Act reimbursement has been requested for this
"supplemental sand fill" in any of the 3 named storms that are the subject of the study. As a
result, the study does represent the pure damage that can be associated with the 3 storms of
interest (i.e. — free from the confounding effects of other weather events), and represents a valid
apportionment of damage across the 3 events.
As the subgrantee has provided a valid scientific study which more accurately apportions
damage due to the 3 named events of interest than had earlier studies, and as that study does take
account of other weather related erosion that would have occurred during the timeframe in
question, the Grantee recommends that FEMA approve this second appeal and award the relief
requested by the subgrantee.
Relief Requested
In regard to relief requested, the subgrantee requests the granting additional costs
consistent with new version PW's that the subgrantee has filed with FEMA. Attached to the
subgrantee's second appeal package as Attachments D and E, respectively, these PW's request
additional funding to correct previous version overruns in the following amounts:
- DR -1393; PW -566 —an additional $8,534,565.27 is requested, and
DR -1393; PW -673 —an additional $653,932.04 is requested.
Summarizing these requests, the subgrantee requests an additional $9,188,497.31 from what has
already been obligated for these otherwise eligible beach projects. As this request is backed with
a scientific study, is not barred by a timeliness issue, and is for otherwise- eligible work to
constructed/maintained beaches, the Grantee recommends approval of this second appeal.
Conclusion
The Florida Division of Emergency Management believes that the argument provided
above will provide an adequate basis upon which FEMA can provide the relief requested to the
subgrantee. If you have any further requests for technical information regarding this second
appeal, please contact Evan Rosenberg, Special Projects Coordinator, at (850) 487 -2293 or by e-
mail at: evan .rosenberg @cm.myflorida.com.
7A
Ms. Elizabeth A. Zimmerman
January 24, 2011
Page 5
Sincerely, C
N��
V t David Halstead, GAR
Division of Emergency Management
DH/DW/TEBO /KA/er
Attachments: Subgrantee's Second Appeal Letter (Including Attachments A - E)
Copy of First Appeal Denial letter
(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Agenda Item #
MEETING DATE (Circle Meeting Type) Regular Special Workshop Budget
AGEND ITEM TITLE
NAME ADDRESS
pa"eselti ��Ir — Other:
COLLIER COUNTY ORD E 2003 -53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004 -05 AND 2007 -24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING I Y LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOU COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR
PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE LEFT OF THE DIAS IN THE BOARD ROOM PRIOR TO THE SUBJECT BEING HEARD
(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Agenda Item # ,47
MEETING DATE +- I "" (Circle Meeting Type) Regular Special Workshop Budget
AGENDA ITEM TITLE,
NAME i/ l i �) "•:J �,F' ADDRESS
Representing/ Petitioner: >t _ Other: ........ _...- _.,....
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003 -53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004 -05 AND 2007 -24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOU COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR
PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE LEFT OF THE DIAS IN THE BOARD ROOM PRIOR TO THE SUBJECT BEING HEARD