Summary: The El Niño storms of 1998 damaged many public facilities in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea including roads, drainage structures, embankments and coastal structures. These latter structures included stairways, rock revetments, seawall foundations and pathways. In June 1998, FEMA prepared 21 small project DSRs to provide funding to the Applicant for their response and recovery efforts. The total funded amount for the 21 DSRs was $361,546. The Applicant claims that the total actual cost for implementing the scopes of work on the 21 DSRs was $769,612. The Applicant submitted a request for a NSPO (first appeal) of $411,066 that was later corrected by the Applicant to $408,066. The Regional Director denied the first appeal because no documentation was submitted explaining the reasons for the overruns as required by the regulations. The Applicants second appeal provided text that explained the project overruns as well as detailed documentation in a 3-inch binder. OES supported the appeal, and requested that FEMA approve the additional funding. Most of the total overrun occurred on four projects. On one project, the Applicant constructed weirs across the bottom of a canyon that were not included in the DSR. They assert that the weirs were necessary to repair erosion on the bottom of the canyon, and that the bottom of the canyon is an eligible facility. The other three projects were all located on the Pacific coast where retaining walls (seawalls) were constructed instead of the rip rap revetments specified in the DSRs. The Applicant claims that the seawalls were required by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) so they are eligible for additional funding.
Issues: (1) Is the bottom of the canyon an eligible facility?(2) Are the requirements of the CCC an eligible design standard?(3) Are the overruns on the Flanders Canyon and shoreline protection projects eligible for funding?(4) Are any additional NSPO costs eligible?
Findings: (1) No. The Applicant has not demonstrated that the canyon bottom is a designed, constructed or maintained facility.(2) (3) No. The permit requirements of the CCC are based on judgment, aesthetics and possibly other factors. This permit process is not the same as a design standard.(4) (5) No. They are considered to be Improved Projects, which cap funding at the estimated costs on the DSRs.(6) (7) Yes. The net eligible total costs of all small projects did result in a $7,055 cost overrun.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.221(h) and 44 CFR §206.226(b).