HomeMy WebLinkAbout20151492.tiff RESOLUTION
RE: APPROVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION FOR
WATER CONTROL FACILITY CENTRAL STRUCTURE AND BRIDGE AT COUNTY
ROAD 9.5 (FEMA) AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to
Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of
administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, the Board has been presented with a Community Development Block Grant
Application for Water Control Facility Central Structure and Bridge at County Road 9.5 (FEMA)
from the County of Weld, State of Colorado, by and through the Board of County
Commissioners of Weld County, to the Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of
Homeland Security and Emergency Management, commencing upon full execution, with further
terms and conditions being as stated in said application, and
WHEREAS, after review, the Board deems it advisable to approve said application, a
copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Weld County, Colorado, that the Community Development Block Grant Application for Water
Control Facility Central Structure and Bridge at County Road 9.5 (FEMA) from the County of
Weld, State of Colorado, by and through the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County,
to the Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Homeland Security and Emergency
Management, be, and hereby is, approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the Chair be, and hereby is, authorized
to sign said application.
2015-1492
0-CI OEM;Acct- Wag._ EM0016
BC0045
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION-WATER CONTROL
FACILITY CENTRAL STRUCTURE AND BRIDGE AT CR 9.5(FEMA)
PAGE 2
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded,adopted by the
following vote on the 27th day of May,A.D.,2015
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY,COLORADO
ATTEST:( Cd ; L EXCUSED
t.C Barbara Kirkmeyer,Chair
Weld County Clerk to the Board ,
t 0 A-K-c a e _
Mike Freeman, Pro-Tern
•
De'u,,Clerk to the Boa dI _ � �� .r7
ean P.Conway
APPROVED S TO FORM: ism t� ���
r e
ie A.Cozad
County Attorney ��Ii \ I XCUSED
Date of signature: (4/02Q Steve Moreno
2015-1492
EM0016
BC0045
Colorado Division of Homeland Security Grant NOI / Application
Emergency Management CDBG - DR Recover Colorado
Infrastructure Program
THIS SECTION FOR STATE USE ONLY
DHSEM Identification Number: Colorado Point of Contact:
CDBG-DR Program Manager
Date NOI (Part A) Received: Colorado DHSEM
9195 East Mineral Avenue, Suite 200
Date Application (Part B) Received: Centennial, Colorado 80112
Office: 720.852.6713
Date Next Steps Letter Transmitted: Fax: 720.852.6750
cdps dhsem cdbg@state.co.us
7
PART A - NOI :
PROJECT OVERVIEW
1. Applicant Legal Name: Weld County, Colorado
2. Applicant
✓ Local Government Pik alc Non-Profit (Attach copy of 501c3, if applicable)
Type:
3. Project Title: County Match FEMA Projects - WELCO36 (851 )
4. Proposed Project Total Cost: 968.066.67
CDBG-DR-I Request: 121 .008.34
5. Certifications:
The undersigned assures fulfillment of all requirements of the CDBG-DR Recover Colorado Infrastructure Program as
contained in the program guidelines and that all information contained herein is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge. The governing body of the applicant has duly authorized the document, commits to the non-Federal and State
share identified in the Budget, and hereby applies for the assistance documented in this application. Also, the applicant
understands that the project may proceed ONLY AFTER a GRANT AGREEEMENT is approved.
Mike Freeman , Pro-Tem Weld County Commissioner (970) 356-4000
Typed Name of Authorized Applicant Agent 1+ilr Telephone Number
mAit MAY 272015
Signature vJAuthorized Applicant Agent Date Signed
2015- 1492
kttauh any continuations or additional items as an \ttachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. rage 1 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of homeland Security and Emergency Management
PART A - NOI : APPLICANT INFORMATION
1 . Applicant Legal Name: Weld County. Colorado
2. FIPS Code: 123 DUNS Number: 07575-7955
3. U.S. Congressional District: 4th Congressman Name:
4. State Senatorial District: 1 Senator Name: Mr. Cory Gardner
5. State Legislative District: 50 Representative Name: M r. Ken Buck
6. Primary Point of Contact:
The Primary Point of Contact is the person responsible for coordinating the implementation of this proposal, if approval is
granted.
Ms. Mr. I Mrs. • First Name: Roy Last Name: Rudisill
Title: Director Organization: Weld County Office of Emergency Managem€
Street Address: 1150 O Street
City: Greeley State: Colorado Zip Code: 80631
Telephone: (y 1 U ) Oka Fay (y / U ).S.S5- / a Mobile: y /U ) J51 -U E-mail Address: rrudisill(a�co .weld . co
7. Alternate Point of Contact:
The Alternate Point of Contact is the person that can address questions or concerns in the Primary Point of Contact's
absence.
\k. ✓ tits. M1I ,. First Name: Barb Last Name: Connolly
Title: Controller Organization: Weld County Accounting
Street Address: 1150 O Street
City: Greeley State: Colorado Lip Code: 80631
Telephone: (yf U )s I ' : (y / U )0in' I ,6 Mobile: E-mail Address: bconnollyco .weld .
8. Application Prepared by :
Ms. IIIMr. I Mrs IN First Name: Kyle Last Name: Jones
Title: Planner Organization: ARCADIS-US
Street Address:
City: Tallahassc State: FL Zip Code: 32309
Telephone: (u3U)b I \: Mobile: �225 , 2U2-3 E-mail Address: kyle . iones(c�arcadis-
9. Authorized Applicant Agent:
Ms. ig Mr. Mrs. First Name: Barbara Last Name: Kirkmeyer
Title: COMMiSSii Organization: Weld County
Street Address: 1150 O Street, P . O . Box 758
City: Greeley State: Colorado Zip Code: 80631
Telephone: (y U )OO6 I: v Mobile: E-mail Address: bkirkmeyer(co .welc
The Authorized Applicant Agent MUST be the chief executive officer, mayor, etc. Nis person must be able to sign
contracts, authorize funding allocations or payments, etc.
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 2 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
PART A - NOI: PROJECT DESCRIPTION & NATIONAL OBJECTIVES MET
1. Project — Eligible Activity Description:
Describe the proposed project. Explain how the proposed project will address recovery and/or resilience needs in your
community either independently or as part of a larger project. Include a description of the desired outcome and the
recovery objective(s) to be achieved. This narrative should describe the CDBG-DR Eligible Activity.
In an effort to achieve resiliency from the severe storms and minimize risk to the general
public, Weld County addressed severe damage to local roadways , bridges, culverts .
removed hazardous roadway debris, made emergency repairs to paved and gravel
roadways , addressed river embankments/dangerous conditions to the public and made
repairs to emergency response vehicles that were damaged during the Incident Period .
FEMA Categories A, B , C , and E were addressed in the Weld County FEMA Match . CDBG
funds are needed to be applied towards the Weld County FEMA Local Match for the
emergency work that was identified on previously submitted Project Worksheets . All
projects covered under the Weld County Project Worksheets were vital for Weld County to
clear hazardous debris from roadways/creeks/streams and enhance their infrastructure,
river embankments, equipment and roadways. This particular NOI/Application will discuss
1A/CI ('ma fogl 1 Thin Dee-Nit-1n+ \A/nrI,nhnnt in nttnnhnr4 nr,rl , r\r,tninr• nnnnn nf weird,
2. Site / Physical Location: Describe the area(s) affected/protected by this project, including location by complete street
address and longitude and latitude (coordinates in decimal degrees).
The latitude is 40 . 175250 and longitude is - 104 .979040 . The attached spreadsheet shows
the Lat/Long coordinates for all of the Project Worksheets and depicts the damage site
locations as identified in the correlating Project Worksheets .
3. Population Served: Briefly describe the demographics of the population served or protected by this project. Include
the percent of the overall community population benefiting from this project. Explain your response.
An estimated 90% or more of the community benefited from the proactive work by Weld
County and the removal of hazardous debris and the emergency work/repairs made to the
roadways, bridges, equipment and culverts . The population benefiting from this Match
Project will include an LMI level population percentage that will be directly or indirectly
impacted through this project. This NOI and the associated PW impacted the entire County
and demographic area . White : 67 .6% , Hispanic: 28 . 3% , Other: 1 . 6% , Asian : 1 . 3% . Black :
0 .8% , Native American : 0 .4% . Weld County consists of 99,317 households with a median
iouseio c income o' S56 589 anc : ie maiori-v of We c Coun-v s owner-occuoiec wi: i v
4. Priority of this Project: If you are submitting more than one CDBG-DR Infrastructure NOI, what is the relative
priority of this project? Please indicate the priority as: Priority # of## Projects Submitted.
Priority 8 of 36 Projects Submitted .
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 3 of 20
I
A
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
PART A - NOI : CDBG-DR FUNDING QUALIFICATIONS
Community Development Block Grant — Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funding can be approved for a project in which
ALL of the following requirements are met The physical location of the activity must be within a county listed in Table 1 of
the program Recover Colorado Infrastructure Grant Program Guidelines (Guidelines).
1. Connection to Disaster Recovery
CDBG's Disaster Recovery funds must be used for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, long-term recovery,
restoration of infrastructure and housing, economic revitalization, and mitigation from future damages.. The activity
must show a direct link to damages received during one or more of the events listed in Table 1 of the Guidelines. Please
provide a brief explanation of how the proposed acquisition activity: (1) was a result of the disaster event; (2) will
restore infrastructure or revitalize the economy; or will (3) mitigate future damages.
During the incident period of September 11 , 2013 to September 30 , 2013 , Weld County,
Colorado received heavy rainfall and debris in the creeks , streams and rivers which caused
surface gravel removal and scour damage to numerous roads and bridges in Weld County .
This NOI Application request addresses emergency work and the damages thatwere a
!V\YI\ /\T Y/\/11 \I� /\♦ �t� /\ I\ /\\ I/1 YI\ Tt /\ /\ �\Y\ /H TY'\ /1 I1/\ YYl\ Ir\�\Y\ /V 1 1Ini n- ,-,# .I1 :,+, A \ � I\!� T� \!1 Y/1 /V\ 1 /1 I1�
2. Compliance with National Objectives
State recipients receiving allocations under the CDBG-DR program must certify that their projected use of funds
will ensure, and maintain evidence, that each of its activities assisted with CDBG-DR funds meets at least one of
the three National Objectives.
a) Which of the National Objectives are met by proposed project?
./ ^ Will benefit low and moderate income (LMI) persons; or
Will aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; or
✓ Is an Urgent Need in which meet community development needs having a particular urgency because
existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community where
other financial resources are not available to meet such needs.
b) How will the proposed project meet the above checked National Objective(s).
See attached LMI data for the Project .
In addition to the LMI data attached , the State of Colorado (according to ACS
2008-2012 5Y ) lists Weld County at a 41 .0% LMI . In reviewing the LMI data for this
Project NOI , the PW associated LMI % was 38. 59% . However, this percentage does not
accurately capture the total number of service areas that are either directly or indirectly
impacted by the FEMA Match Projects . The entire community benefited from the
proactive emergency work by Weld County and the removal of hazardous debris and
the work/repairs made to the roadways , bridges, equipment and culverts thus the
County believes that a higher LMI % should be given for this FEMA match Projects.
The general vicinity of FEMA Match Projects encompasses the entire County and
greatly benefits the entire LMI population for this project, which is why the County
believes that this project not only meets, but exceeds the 50% requirement for meeting
the National Objective . The emergency work/repairs that were made under the WELCO
PW's for the Local FEMA Match drastically reduced hazardous conditions for the
general public and enabled Weld County to focus on resiliency efforts post storm . It is
believed that the service area for Project Site Locations benefited multiple LMI tract
sections and thus a higher weighted percentage of over 50% should be noted for this p
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 4 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
3. Compliance kith the primary objective. As indicated in the Guidelines: "A proposed project's benefits to LMI
persons will be an important factor in evaluating potential infrastructure projects. A total of 20% of the Recover
Colorado Infrastructure project funding must benefit LMI persons. Due to the very low percentage of LMI projects
submitted in the first round of infrastructure funding, it is estimated that approximately 25% to 30% of the funding
available in this second allocation must meet the LMI requirement to make up for the deficit."
This section does not need to be completed if the project does not meet this National Objective.
The primary objective for using CDBG Disaster Recovery funds is benefitting, by at least 51 percent, persons of low and
moderate income. The following section provides the information necessary to complete this requirement.
a) Is the proposed activity: / jurisdiction wide [ specified target area
If you checked specified target area, which data source was used? (Note: select the smallest unit of Census data that
encompasses your proposed target area.)
b) Enter the number of households involved in the proposed project. 99, 317
c) In the space below, describe how the applicant will comply with the requirement that at least 51 percent of CDBG-DR
dollars will principally benefit low- and moderate-income households and persons.
Weld County will comply with the 51 % requirement due to the fact that the PW
associated under this NOI Project for the FEMA County Match is targeted to areas of the
county that qualify as LMI . The justification behind this methodology is that multiple
d) Enter the number of households within each income category expected to benefit from the proposed project.
Incomes above 80% of the County Median 785
Incomes above 50% and up to 80% of the County Median 1265
Incomes at or below 50% of the County Median 2060
e) Which type of income was used to determine the above? (Check only one)
As determined by the American Community Survey (Public Facilities projects)
Annual income as defined for Public Housing and Section 8
7 Annual income as reported under the Census long form
Adjusted gross income as defined for reporting under IRS
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail '4uhmittai. Page 5 of 20
CDBC-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
PART A - NOI: COMPREHENSIVE RISK ANALYSIS INFORMATION
1. Community Hazards Review: Please list and briefly describe in rank order of importance the natural or man-made
hazards in your (the Applicant's) service area.
The hazards identified within this Project for the FEMA County Match for WELCO36 (851 )
would be ranked in the following manner: Flood , Erosion and Subsidence .
The hazards caused significant damage and posed a severe risk to the community for the
designated incident period .
2. High Risk Hazards Addressed by the Project:
Describe how, and the degree to which, the proposed project mitigates high risk hazards. Include damage history, source
and type of problem, frequency of event(s), and severity of damage information, if available.
Hazard 1
Flooding caused the most severe damage to Weld County during the designated incident
period and this Project addressed and mitigated against severe flood damage to local
roadways, bridges, culverts, removed hazardous debris along roadways . In addition ,
County Officials ensured repairs were made to paved and gravel roadways for the safety of
the community and addressed river embankments/dangerous conditions to the public and
made repairs to emergency response vehicles that were damaged during the Incident
Period . The repairs made brought the damaged infrastructure back to its pre-disaster
condition in accordance with regulations .
llatzard 2
Erosion also caused a severe issue for the County . This Project addressed and mitigated
against severe erosion damage to local roadways , shoulders, and embankments . The work
that was conducted by the County mitigated against any immediate threat/hazard to the
damaged infrastructure and restored the infrastructure back to its pre-disaster condition in
accordance with regulations .
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 6 of 20
CDBC,-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
Hazard 3
Subsidence was another critical hazard that caused dangerous conditions for the
community . This Project addressed and mitigated against severe subsidence damage to
local roadways , shoulders, bridges and embankments . The work that was conducted by the
County mitigated against any immediate threat/hazard to the damaged infrastructure and
restored the infrastructure back to its pre-disaster condition in accordance with regulations .
Note: If your proposed project addresses more than three Hazards, please provide that information as an
attachment.
3. Elimination of Risk: Does the proposed project result in the elimination of a hazard from your (the Applicant's) service
area? If so, please describe. If not, please estimate the degree to which this project will mitigate the risk from the hazards
identified in Item #2.
The Proposed FEMA Local Match for WELCO36 (851 ) does not completely eliminate the
hazards identified from the service area . The Proposed FEMA Match Project does allow
Weld County to receive a percentage of funds back that the County expended during one of
the most costly disasters in Colorado history however. These types of hazards that
occurred in Weld County and throughout Colorado are truly an act of mother nature and the
County was as prepared as it could have been but the severity/duration of the incident was
of an unprecedented nature . Weld County cannot eliminate the risk of future flooding ,
erosion or land subsidence , but Local Officials can ensure that their community is prepared
for future incident, take the necessary precautions and that their infrastructure is restored
4. Environmental Quality Improvements: Does the proposed project result in an improvement in the quality of the natural
environment in your (the Applicant's) service area? If so, please describe.
Yes; the damages that attributed to the designated incident period and FEMA-DR 4145
were addressed via the previously submitted PW and the work conducted to restore the
infrastructure back to its pre-disaster condition was implemented . The work done at this
site location (see previous attachment for lat/long coordinates ) addressed not only
improvements/repairs made to the infrastructure, but also improvements and repairs to the
river embankments and any potential erosion or subsidence issues that could have
tA,nrennnrl if +kn (`ni in+ti not tinlenn +Inn nrn'nnfitin rnn-mc-i erne thcit +felt elir-1
5. Climate Change Improvements: Does the proposed project reduce or ameliorate a projected impact of climate change
in Colorado? If so, please briefly describe the benefit of the project.
This Proposed Project reduces a projected impact climate change due to the proactive
mitigation measures that were undertaken by Weld County during the designated incident
period . This was accomplished by ensuring that the damaged site location was addressed
as soon , but as safely, as possible, and not to sustain any further impacts to the site
locations or environment that would enable the damage to enhance the projected impact of
any potential climate changes.
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 7 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
6. Community Process: Does the proposed project include a community planning or involvement process that increases
community resiliency? If so, please briefly describe the process.
This Proposed Project was initiated by County Officials in an effort to achieve resiliency
from the severe storms and also to minimize risk to the community, Weld County addressed
the severe flood damage to the roadways and infrastructure by ensuring that dangerous
conditions for the public were addressed and mitigated properly and efficiently.
7. Reduction in the Costs of Future Response or Recovery: Will the proposed project result in a reduction in the cost
of response or recovery from an incident occurring due to one or more of the hazards identified in Item #1 or #2? If so,
please briefly describe how response or recovery costs will be reduced.
For a small scale flooding incident, yes; however, the flooding that occurred during the
designated incident period was catastrophic and the PW associated with the NOI FEMA
Local Match Request were completed to address the damages .
S. Floodplain/Floodway/Substantially Damaged Properties: Does the proposed project include a property or
properties located in a floodway or floodplain; or not located in a regulatory floodplain but which were substantially
damaged or have a history of damage from at least two disaster events? If so, please identify those properties below.
No; the Proposed Project is for the FEMA Local Match for WELCO36 (851 ) from CDBG-DR
in regards to expenses from CAT C Damage Categories for the designated incident period
for FEMA-DR 4145 .
9. Mitigation Planning:
Does your community have a current FEMA approved multi-hazard mitigation plan? Yes No
Location of proposed project in mitigation plan strategies: Page 139 Section/Part Mitigation Stra
Is the community a member of good standing with the National Flood Insurance Program? ✓ Yes No
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and c-mail submittal. Page 8 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
10. Community Plan Compliance: Does the proposed project comply with and/or address an issue recognized in key
community plans? Key plans include, but are not limited to: a Comprehensive Master Plan, a Stormwater Management Plan,
a Hazard Mitigation Plans, or key community codes. If so, please describe how the project integrates into the plan(s).
Yes; the Proposed Project complies with all local community plans and this Project
integrates into the Plans because the County addressed the damages to local roadways
and infrastructure and mitigated damages that posed a serious risk/hazard to the
community during the incident period . This FEMA PW was initiated by Weld County and via
this Proposed Project, the County requests that CDBG funds be applied towards the local
FEMA Match for this Project.
11. Environmental / Historic Preservation Issues: Please describe any significant environmental, historic, or cultural features
that may be affected by the project. Please also describe any features that may be improved by the project.
All environmental issues are addressed on the attached Project Worksheet as supporting
documentation . The significant EHP issues were in regards to the Endangered Species Act
( ESA) and EHP Standard Conditions . All items were addressed and any additional
supporting backup documentation can be provided upon request.
12. Permitting: Please list the local, state, and federal permits that will be required to complete this project.
All permitting was addressed on the attached Project Worksheet as supporting
documentation . The significant permitting issues were in regards to the Endangered
Species Act ( ESA) and EHP Standard Conditions. All items were addressed and any
additional supporting backup documentation can be provided upon request. Please see
below for environmental permits that were obtained .
Floodplain Permit
An /t ml,+lnr,ts/I(4P1 (lnrmt}
ttach and continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 9 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
13. Community Resilience: Please describe how this project will increase the resilience of your community. As defined in the
Guidelines: "Resilience incorporates hazard mitigation and land use planning strategies; critical infrastructure, environmental
and cultural resource protection; and sustainability practices to reconstruct the built environment, and revitalize the economic,
social, and natural environments."
In an effort to achieve resiliency from the severe storms and minimize risk to the general
public, Weld County addressed severe damage to local roadways , bridges, culverts,
removed hazardous debris roadways , made repairs to paved and gravel roadways,
addressed river embankments/dangerous conditions to the public and made repairs to
emergency response vehicles that were damaged during the Incident Period .
This Proposed Project addresses proactive work initiated by Weld County during FEMA-DR
4145 enabled the community to recover in an expeditious manner and increased the
resilience of the community by incorporating nearly every aspect of sustainability and
revitalizing the community . The community was able to recover quicker due to the proactive
work done through this Proposed Project and the associated PW's.
14. Maps
Please attach the following maps with the project site and structures marked on the map. Use SAME ID number as in
the Individual Property Worksheets.
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). If the FIRM for your area is not published, please attach a copy of the Flood
Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM).
City or county scale map (large enough to show the entire project area)
USGS 1 :24,000 topo map
Parcel Map (Tax Map, Property Identification Map, etc.)
Overview photographs. The photographs should be representative of the project area, including any relevant
streams, creeks, rivers, etc., and drainage areas which affect the project site of will be affected by the project.
15. Additional Comments (Optional): Enter any additional comments related to the proposed project's ability to reduce
hazard risk and increase community resiliency.
This proposed project reduced the hazard risk to the community and increased resiliency by
the work conducted through the PW in correlation with FEMA-DR 4145 . CDBG funds are
being requested to be applied to the local FEMA Match ( 12 . 5% ) for the PW.
All maps are located in project files that were previously submitted and will be provided
upon request.
The entire r:nmmiinity benefited frnm the nrnar:tive work by Weld Cnllnty and the removal r0
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page Iii of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
PART A - NOI: DECISION MAKING PROCESS
1. Decision-Making Process:
Describe the process you used to decide that this project is the best solution to the problem. Explain why this project is
the best alternative you considered. Address questions such as:
• Are you focusing on the area in your community that has the greatest potential for losses?
• Have you considered the risks to critical facilities and structures and benefits to be obtained by mitigating this
vulnerability?
• Have you considered those areas or projects that present the greatest opportunities given the current situation(s)
of interest in your community?
• Are you addressing a symptom or the source of the problem? Addressing the source of the problem is a long-term
solution which provides the most mitigation benefits.
• If impacts to the environment, natural, cultural or historic resources have been identified, explain how your alternatives
and proposed project address, minimize, or avoid these impacts.
The Site locations within this WELCO PW in the Proposed Project were identified due to
the high dollar amount of funds that were expended by Weld County to ensure the safety of
the community and also restore county infrastructure back to its pre-disaster condition . This
Proposed Project has site locations across the entire community and service area and it
was determined that a large percentage of the LMI population was impacted by the severe
flooding incident and the proactive work by County Officials enabled the community to
recover quicker, thus allowing the community to sustain resiliency and return operations to
normal .
2. Acquisition Projects - Describe the community's methodology for selecting the properties to be acquired in this application
and how each is ranked (highest to lowest):
N/A
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page II of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
PART A - NOI: SCOPE OF WORK / BUDGET OVERVIEW / FINANICAL FACTORS
1. Project Scope: Please provide a comprehensive and detailed description of the scope of the proposed project.
Describe each of the project components and the steps necessary to complete that work. If the proposed project is a
funding match for another disaster recovery or infrastructure development program, please identify the
agency, program funds, and project reference number that CDBG-DR funding is intended to support. Also
describe any critical deadlines that must be met to accomplish this work.
This Proposed Project is for the Local FEMA Match for costs for WELCO36 (851 ). These
costs were incurred as a result of FEMA-DR 4145 . During the incident period of September
11 , 2013 to September 30 , 2013 , Weld County. Colorado received heavy rainfall and debris
in the creeks, streams and rivers which caused severe flooding to and along roadways and
surface streets , and also severely damaged local infrastructure . This NOI Application
request addresses the emergency work / damages that were a direct result of the severe
flooding .
A Scope of Work is included within the PW and addresses the work that was completed .
2. Community Priority: Please describe why this project is a priority for your organization.
This Proposed Project is a priority for Weld County to utilize the CDBG funding as the Local
FEMA Match to offset the costs for the proactive work done by the County to reduce
hazardous conditions to the community.
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 12 of ?II
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
3. Project Cost Summary: Please summarize the major cost components of the project. Please round all values to the
nearest dollar.
a. Planning / Engineering / Design $
b. Environmental Compliance $ The value of general and/or
c. Real Property Acquisition / Demolition $ professional labor wages must
be tabulated in accordance
d. Closing Costs / Legal Fees $ with the Davis Bacon Act of
e. Housing Program Assistance $ 1931
f. Construction Costs $
g. Project Delivery Costs $
h. Other (specify below) $ 968.066.67
See Pro.ect Worksheet Cost ;attached ) i. Total ofa-h $ 968.066.67
j. Duplication of Benefits (if unknown at time of application enter zero). $ 0.00
k. Subtract j. from i. to determine Total Project Cost $ 968.066.67
Notes: Housing Program Assistance costs include the cost of compliance with Uniform Relocation Assistance (URA) and
Comparable Housing Assistance (CHA) requirements. Project Delivery Costs include the costs of project delivery by the
sponsoring organization but do not include administrative overhead.
4. Total Project Cost Allocations
Proposed Project Total Cost: $ 968.066.67
Federal Cost Share: $ 726.050 00
State Cost Share: $ 121 ,008.34
$ 121 .008 34
Local Cost Share
5. Basis of Cost Estimate: Briefly describe how the cost estimates listed in #3 above were developed (e.g. lump sum, unit cost,
quotation, etc.).
The Cost Estimates were developed above from actual work that was properly procured
and conducted . They come directly off of what was included on the FEMA approved PW
and the costs are broken down by type of work and site .
6. Project Management: Describe how you will manage the costs and schedule, and how you will ensure successful
performance.
The work for this Proposed Project has been completed or is pending completion . The
12 . 5% CDBG Local Match will be applied towards the Weld County Match for FEMA PW's
and the costs that were previously incurred during the disaster.
Note: The applicant must agree to furnish quarterly reports during the entire time the project is in active status. Quarters end
on March 31st, June 30th, September 30th, and December 31st. Reports are due to the State within 15 days after the end of
each quarter.)
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 13 of 20
('I)l$(;-1)R Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
7. Project Maintenance Requirements: The following questions are to give assurance on the project's maintenance over
its useful life. Please answer each question and give a brief explanation.
a. If the project involves the acquisition of real property, what is the proposed land use after acquisition? (i.e., Agriculture,
Recreation, Vacant Land, Park, Wetlands, etc.)
N/A
b. Will the project require periodic maintenance?
No
c. If yes, who will provide the maintenance?
N/A
d. What is the estimated cost of maintenance on an annual basis?
0
Note: Cost of maintenance is considered an application prioritization weighting factor. Projects with high maintenance
costs have a greater risk of future failure due to deferred maintenance. Therefore, the responses provided above should be
as complete and verifiable as possible in order to minimize the likelihood of ranking point reductions due to maintenance
concerns.
8. Additional Comments: Enter any additional comments related to the proposed project's finding, if desired .
CDBG funds are needed for the 12 . 5% Local FEMA Match and the associated PW that is
included in the NOI-Application . It should be noted that a version request was submitted for
this project for work that has yet to be completed . The total obligated amount could change
which would change the 12 . 5% Local FEMA Match .
9. Financial / Fiscal Health Factors: Please indicate the total budget (all funds) of your organization. Please describe the
impact of disaster recovery efforts to date on this budget. In addition, if this objective is selected based on the local
governments inability to finance the activity, the municipality must also include in the application package a resolution stating
this fact and supporting documentation such as budgetary information, a description of TABOR restrictions, and the most
recent audit report or approved exemption from audit.
Weld County's total 2015 budget is $307 , 031 , 089 . 00 . The impact of the September, 2013
flooding has primary been on the damage to the county's road and bridge system . The
damage has resulted in Weld County having to transfer $5 million from the Contingency
Fund to the Public Works Fund in 2013 and in 2014 for a total of $ 10 million dollars . Without
assistance from FEMA, FWHA, and CDBG the amount would have several million more .
The impact has also forced the county to shift local resources from projects unrelated to
flooding to deal with the emergency situations created by the flood in both the 2013 and
2014 fiscal years . Even in 2015 the county is still using local resources to recover from the
flooding . Fortunately, Weld County has always been fiscally conservative and budgeted
responsibly . Had the county not taken the responsible approach to its finances county
service would have had to have been cut to cope with the flood recovery.
IA/o r (`ni in-u nnoro-oe i inror ho mne- roc rin-ivo nrnnorni ov imi-c inn in - no e-o-o moeiroAll
Attach any continuations or additional items as an :Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 14 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
PART B - APPLICATION : PROJECT MILESTONES / TIMELINES / TASKS
I . Timeline / Tasks
Insert the proposed work schedule as tasks to accomplish the overall goal of the proposed activity (i.e., appraisals, title
search, closing, etc.), and provide a description of the task's purpose. This timeline will be used as a measurement tool
for progress in the project's implementation and is included in the required Quarterly Reports. Also, FEMA uses the
timeline for determining the approved period of performance. It will be the basis used to justify delays or extensions, if
necessary, and should be estimated carefully. The first and last entries are state requirements and have already been
entered.
Task 1 :
Grant Process and Environmental Review Timeframe: 3 Months
Task ? : Emergency Repairs- The initial emergency repairs were made directly 1 Completed
g Y P g Y p Timeframe:
Task 3: Permanent Repairs - Becuase the emergency repairs were quick repair Completed
Time
Task4: Additional Permanent Repairs - All the necessary repairs were not corn 6 Months
Timeframe:
Task 5:
Timeframe:
Task 6:
Timeframe:
Task 7:
Timeframe:
Task 8:
Timeframe:
Task 9:
Timeframe:
Final Inspection Report and Project Closeout
Task 10:
The Final Inspection Report is a review of the activity's paper documentation.
showing the project was implemented as required. Once the review is completed. the 3 Months
report and findings will be provided to the grantee for review and concurrence. The Timeframe:
State submits the concurrence to FEMA as part of a closeout package to formally
Total Project Timeframe: 12 Months
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and c-mail submittal. Page 15 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
2. Start Date & Pre-Award Costs: The start date for any project begins upon GRANT AGREEMENT approval by the
State Controller. If a different start date or timeframe is needed, provide an explanation below. Also indicate if any pre-
award activities or costs have been incurred or authorized.
The proposed project is for local FEMA match dollars and the majority of the work is
completed ; however, another round of construction will be performed this summer. The
repairs for this site began as soon as the flood waters receded and the county crews were
able to access the site . The initial phase of repairs were emergency in nature and began in
September of 2013 and concluded during November of that same year. Permanent repairs
for this site commenced the following year at the beginning of construction season and
concluded in October of 2014 because of weather constraints . The final repairs will be
completed in October of 2015 . Additionally, cost have been incurred through the preparation
of this NOI Application .
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 16 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
Please note that Part B is required for the final Application submittal . Part B sections
may optionally be completed and submitted with the NOI. Please update any Part A
section information when submitting you full Application.
PART B — APPLICATION : ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
1. Environmental Review Background Information & Environmental Review Worksheet:
In accordance with 24 CFR Part 58.22 (see below), all federally funded projects must accomplish an environmental review
prior to beginning any work on a project. These HUD regulations are in place for two purposes:
1 . To ensure federal funds are used to place people of low and moderate income in environmentally safe
conditions; and
2. To ensure federal funds are NOT used to negatively impact environmental conditions that exist near a
project site.
Please note the following limitations on CDBG-DR grant activities pending environmental clearance per 24 CFR Part 58.22.
(a) Neither a recipient nor any participant in the development process, including public or private nonprofit or for-profit
entities, or any of their contractors, may commit HUD assistance under a program listed in Sec. 58. 1(b) on an activity or
project until HUD or the state has approved the recipient's RROF and the related certification from the responsible
entity. In addition, until the RROF and the related certification have been approved, neither a recipient nor any
participant in the development process may commit non-HUD funds on or undertake an activity or project under a
program listed in Sec. 58. 1(b) if the activity or project would have an adverse environmental impact or limit the choice
of reasonable alternatives.
(b) N/A for DOLA/CDPS projects.
(c) If a recipient is considering an application from a prospective sub-recipient or beneficiary and is aware that the
prospective sub-recipient or beneficiary is about to take an action within the jurisdiction of the recipient that is
prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section, then the recipient will take appropriate action to ensure that the objectives
and procedures of NEPA are achieved.
(d) An option agreement on a proposed site or property is allowable prior to the completion of the environmental review
if the option agreement is subject to a determination by the recipient on the desirability of the property for the project as
a result of the completion of the environmental review in accordance with this part and the cost of the option is a
nominal portion of the purchase price. There is no constraint on the purchase of an option by third parties that have not
been selected for HUD funding, have no responsibility for the environmental review and have no say in the approval or
disapproval of the project.
(e) Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP). In accordance with section 11(d)(2)(A) of the Housing
Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 12805 note), an organization, consortium, or affiliate receiving
assistance under the SHOP program may advance non-grant funds to acquire land prior to completion of an
environmental review and approval of a Request for Release of Funds (RROF) and certification, notwithstanding
paragraph (a) of this section. Any advances to acquire land prior to approval of the RROF and certification are made at
the risk of the organization, consortium, or affiliate and reimbursement for such advances may depend on the result of
the environmental review. This authorization is limited to the SHOP program only and all other forms of HUD
assistance are subject to the limitations in paragraph (a) of this section.
(1) Relocation. Funds may be committed for relocation assistance before the approval of the RROF and related
certification for the project provided that the relocation assistance is required by 24 CFR part 42.
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 17 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
Environmental Review Worksheet
Check ALL of the activities listed below that will be included as part of the project,
REGARDLESS OF THE FUNDING SOURCE:
❑ Information and financial services
0 Administrative and management activities
D Environmental and other studies, resource identification, and the development of plans and strategies
0 Most engineering and design costs associated with eligible projects
cu
■ Inspections and testing of properties for hazards or defects
b ■ Project planning
.2 es ❑ Purchase of insurance
> co ❑ Purchase of tools
W .' ❑ Technical assistance and training
DC :i~ .5 ❑ Interim assistance to arrest the effects of an imminent threat or physical deterioration in which the assistance
W w a does not alter environmental conditions.
`•"s p Public services that will not have a physical impact or result in any physical changes (e.g., employment, child
,� care, health, education, counseling, welfare)
Assistance for temporary or permanent improvements that do not alter environmental conditions and are limited
to protection, repair, or restoration activities necessary only to control or arrest the effects from disasters or
imminent threats to public safety including those resulting from physical deterioration
(Must also complete the Regulatory Checklist at the end of Exhibit IV-A)
m
p Operating costs e. , maintenance, security, operation, utilities, furnishings, equipment, su lies, staff training( g• Y p gsupplies,
z and recruitment, other incidental costs)
;W O Relocation costs
p Acquisition, repair, improvement, reconstruction, or rehabilitation when the facilities and improvements are in
place and will be retained in the same use without change in size or capacity of more than 20 percent
❑ Special projects directed to the removal of material and architectural barriers that restrict the mobility of and
accessibility to elderly and handicapped persons
I Acquisition (including leasing) or disposition of, or equity loans on, an existing structure
0 Acquisition (including leasing) of vacant land provided the structure or land acquired, financed, or disposed of
will be retained for the same use
0 Acquisition, repair, improvement, reconstruction, or rehabilitation when the facilities and improvements are in
place, but will change in size or capacity of more than 20 percent
> ❑ Acquisition, repair, improvement, reconstruction, or rehabilitation when the facilities and improvements are in
aliF) place, but will involve a change in land use, such as from non-residential to residential, commercial to
industrial, or from one industrial use to another
-L 51 Demolition
id N New construction
This checklist must be included rr, ith the CDBG application.
Please direct questions to the appropriate contact person below:
DOLAJDLG DHSEM
'famra Norton, Environmental Compliance Officer Steven Boand, State Disaster Recovery Manager
Department of Local Affairs Department of Public Safety
1313 Sherman Street, Room 521, Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
Denver, CO 80203 9195 E Mineral Ave, Suite 200
303-866-6398 Centennial, CO 80112
720.852.6713
testa.norton(c�state.co.us steven.boand@state.co.us
DPS/DOLA USE ONLY:
Required level of environmental review: O Exempt O CENST O CESTO EA
Reviewed by:
Date of Review:
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 18 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
2. Supplemental Environmental Review Information
Enter any additional comments related to environmental concerns for the proposed project if desired. Please list and attach any
documents or studies that have been prepared that support the Environmental Review Worksheet responses.
All environmental issues are addressed on the attached Project Worksheet as supporting
documentation . The significant EHP issues were in regards to the Endangered Species Act
( ESA) and EHP Standard Conditions . All items were addressed and any additional supporting
backup documentation can be provided upon request . Please see below for environmental
permits that were obtained .
Floodplain Permit
404 Nationwide Permit
Migratory Birds Permit (if needed )
Threatened and Endangered Species Permit
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 19 of 211
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
PART B - APPLICATION : DETAILED PROJECT BUDGET
1. Detailed Project Budget: Please enter or attach a detailed and comprehensive final proposed budget for the project.
Please note that CDBG-DR funds may be limited to the amount submitted with the NOI pending the availability of
additional funding
This Proposed Project is for the Local FEMA Match for costs for WELCO36 (851 ). These
costs were incurred as a result of FEMA-DR 4145 . During the incident period of September
11 , 2013 to September 30 , 2013 , Weld County, Colorado received heavy rainfall and debris in
the creeks, streams and rivers which caused severe flooding to and along roadways and
surface streets , and also severely damaged local infrastructure . This Application request
addresses the emergency work / damages that were a direct result of the severe flooding .
A Scope of Work and detailed project budget is included within the PW and addresses the
work that was completed . It is important to note that a version request has been made for this
Project Worksheet and the attached Project Worksheet may not reflect FINAL costs .
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and c-mail submittal. Page 20 of 20
N
CO
N
a
E
0
u
C
E
I,
a
E
v
C
ft
a
ft
01
c 0
° E
a a 3
a 0
u
N a
a E a
oO
E
E v E
a E 2 °
a J ou t,
E I .- a
O L
E o m
C 0
o a C V
N j0 N p O
a a e) 0E
v 0 '- o 3
E E
v a p
o la ° a J 0
• C L
„ E O
3 3 3 °
0° ° O 3 ° m
V r0
0 0 a C C C
c c c ° E
J J J N 0 ;2
O O O a a a
U U U a a 0-
> F-
00 z-
C � a
0 O 0
O 0 0
x 2 2
0 0 2 O O
J J J J J
oae o 0 0 * * o * *o o * o a° 3e o 0 * * * 0 0 0 00 e e `E \ * a° 0 0 0 0 * w *o * *
0 0 0 o I o C CI o o ,e o T o o
O IN 1D tD ID el tD O n n 0 0 0 t0 ID if) 01 LD O ‘4.41n4 O Q Q 1D m CO � • ul Q CO Q CO n n n 0 Ol O
Vd N .-1 N .-I N rJ d N N n n d r+ r1 ^I VI e-J n n4 n u1 ut �--i r1 r-1 N CO ul ul .d V1 rJ d Q .-I d to Q N
0l W CO CO 00 00 CO CO rV N n n CT CO CO CO 0 CO 00 CO n t` ri CO 0 in N. er,N ri /� ul ri ul kr,N ul 00 01 CO 01
m n m m m m M m in in M M m M M M m m d n M M M N L11 N N N N N d co en CO kJ)
O
O
2
3
O
ul V) ul in to ul N Ln 0 0 in ul u1 Vl ul ul 0 Ln O N ul ✓1 in in 0 0 O 0 m m 0 ut 0 0 0 ul in ul In O
in co ri u) 03 CO n n ul rti r-1 ,-1 Ul .--1 n a1 n in in M 10 CO N u) ul u1 lO 113 t0 n VI 0 ul m
> n m nn m m m m m n rn m r+ r, n (n m m vl m n m r+ 0 0 m n n al cl 0 o n o n 0 0 n n N N. a1
M m en M m el -I N N M M m N M N N N m r1 N r1 N N N N N rd r4 el r+ !+
Z
O
O
2
0
J
in
m tD 100 LOD tUD tUD 00 m 0 0 0 O in ul CI m U) IOD 10D O LO al D tD 110 0 OI 0Ul 40 O M O ul ul O Ul 0ul m On m .0 0 in-I Q <mn O M O
2 n n 0 0 O 0 0 n Q Q Q d n O 0 0 m 0 rt n Q 10 1D O r-1 O V N O 1D O LO O ^ Q O m m F. Q
C N N N N r-1 r-I N N N rt N r-1 N .-r - .-1 r-1 r-I e-1 e-4
• VI O In V1 V1 u1 ul u1 to V1 O O V) ✓l ul ul O V1 V1 0 O 1/1 N Ln O Ln ul O 1n u) u1 ul ul O O V1 V) Vl Ln ul
0 n 0 ID ID tO tO O n en m N rJ n t0 tO ID CO LD I-- O N Ll1 V1 t0 d 0) en 0 in ul 0) L/) 01 n IN. in F. O n m
O1D N N N N N N lD 0 0 m m 1D N N N N N rn N m r4 .-� N V) tO 0 r-I el -+ 1D N N CO LO Q lD O
r-I r-4 r1 e-1 rw N N rti r--1 r N r t
2
Q
J
in in in in in V) Ln in 0 0 in in in u) ✓) V) in in 0 M u) Vl Ln In 0 u) 0 0 ul ul ul ul L ) 0 0 O In 0 u) O
3 u el CO CO m CO CO in 1n ul ul ul in m CO CO 0) m CO "I ul n N CO LO CO S N n 00 n 00 (T O) n ul 0 ul u1
p u1 01 n n n n n M ID 1D )D lD ul n n n Q F. M LD n in N O N N N In N ul ID
J
.-1 N e-/ . . . . . r1 .-1 N N e-1 r-1 .-1 .-1 N rti .-1 N N ri r-I .-r m N e-1 .-1 r-1 rI N r•1 IN r-1 r-1 rti r•1 r-1 c-I r-1
O vl .-+ .-+ ra e-+ .-1 0 0 0 ,-I r+ 0 .-I el .-1 N e-1 ul ul r-1 0 0 rr N m O lD O O rn O en C0 co 0 0 01 0 Cr
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 el .-I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r1 O O O O 0 0 o O O 0 N O r I
1D n Vl N VI ul Ln tD O O ul Ln 1D ul Ln Ln Ln Vl n n VI CO CO Ln rI el O O m CO el CO r-1 al 01 t0 ill 0 1D O
o O N N N N N O N N N N O N N N N N O O N .--I .--I N N N N N r4 r-1 N el N rl r-1 .-I O N O N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000000000000000000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
men m m en m m M M M M en en m M M m m M M M en M m m m m M M M m m M M M M en M en M
• N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 01 N N
rl r1 rl r-I ri - c I r-1 r4 e-I r( .-1 rl r-I .-I .-1 r-1 .-1 r-1 - - .-1 rl .-1 .1 r1 el el .-I .-1 r'1 rt rl .-t r1 rl H rl N r4
-ad
m CO m CO m m m CO m CO CO CO 00 CO m m m m CO CO CO CO m m CO CO CO CO m m m 00 m co m m m m m 00
• O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
n in VI 1/1 In 4/1 V) N u) ul V1 Ul L/1 V1 Vl VI in V) V) VI V) V) VI V) In ul u) VI In VI VI V1 V) V) V1 In V) in inV1 u)
m O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
N 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000000000000000000000
en 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C0000 0 0 0 000000000000000000000000000000000000
Cl in in In ul VI Ln Ln 1n Ln ul ul V) ul V1 In 1.0 ul ✓ 1n In VI Ln In Vl Vl In Ul to Vl V• Ul ul ul Ul ul Ln M to to m
U r1 r4 r1 . . . . . . . rl el r1 r1 r1 .-1 r rI 1 1 r1 r( r+ rl r1 .-I rI r1 rI r. (ti .-1 r-J .-I rl r1 rl .ti r1 rI .-1 ri
r1 ,-r ry ti) en Q lui rl r1 r-1 .-� .-1 .-I rI N en . n! .--1 N el el N el .-I eV 01 O .-I N m Q .--1 .-1 .-y r-1 ,-I rI -. .-.
C
0
V
0
0
J
r4 rn c1 O 'S Q C' u) ID In CO C) O '-I .-1 --1 N N Ln m tD co co O) r+ rr -4 el en en En en 'Cr r-1 en V in lD n m
'1 -1 r-I r-1 r-1 .-I r-I r-I .-1 r-'I e-I r1 .-J N N N N N N N N rV en en en en en en m
a
Q Q Q Q Q Q < Q Q Q Q 2 Q 4 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q G Q Q ¢ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q C Q Q Q Q
a 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
CU) W W LLJ W W LL LL LLI LU LU LLI W UJ W LL W LL UJ UJ LU W LLJ LLJ UJ W W W LU LL LL LU LLJ LLJ LLl LLJ LLI Lu W LL LL
Q LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL U- LL LL LL LL u. LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL
m O o 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o 0 o o o o n o o m
m Ln d 01 (V rJ 0) to n en N N Q m 0 ti ul n en en N al rl en it rl LX) 0 Ln 01 M O Cl C7) CO 01 d in CO el
rl VI N d d ul en m ID d Q ulk.n N N In to M 0 'Cr O CO al O1 r1 0 n Q in r1 rl QI In n n
a ti (0 Ol en N Ql M CO 10 CO CO M m ID N n Q M N 0) CO 0 m M N n CO en 01 10 n tD CO N el Cr m el tD Vl rl
Ln O en rr o 0 0 d cel en m m Q m CO m d d 0 r-1 m m m O N Ol O ut LEIN N In N 01 N O d n ul O)
d d en M m en en d .-r rti n n d M m M m CO d d n N N m COry rl 0 N ry N N N O 0 d d el Q 0
v _ _
4; cvvccavvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvcvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
J
O 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q
CO m O Ln O O at tO m m 01 O N IN. ul N rn tD CO 01 O) n o N .--1 O Ln N M ul ul n d Q en Cl N C CO in
co r-1 m 00 a1 O) n d Q d Ln In O1 Co m CO O m m N V1 O O CO n Q) 01 co n Vl m N n m r-e t0 01 O CO N
a n 0 d d d d Cr el 0 0 el rl el CO CO CO Ln en en 0 rl CO rl d a1 N to Q 0) a1 0 m tD CO U) m r1 al n N
xi 01 in d d d d 0 0 0 N 0 0 O m CO CO rl rl el N 0 al 01 Q CO r-I m 0 N N CO N M Q CO tD o N C) V1
J LC) ID N N N N N n O 0 m m n d el d d d LD tD m CO m N CO 0 0 al m m m m O m m ul n 0/ ID O
d 0 0 4 0 0 d 0 in in d d 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 d 0 0 4 Ln Ln d d d d Q m d d d a O d 0
m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Orl el el ell r-1 e-1 er N el el rl rl rl r-41 r♦ el el el a .--I r-1 r-1 el el el el .-i el el el el .-1 el el rl el rl rl el rl
J
Il
-
3 �1 t .r kip,W W W
• LL LL LL W W u 2r. -"• •
LL LL LL
•
•
:1 �u x
i' k, s • ...
41
V • 7 r lV e7 el fJi 1 4.0il we.r ..." ----- ic. a • Sielera'
t +w11 t 1J.
- It•
a a w w ti
-4„...
J, �w'"i
111
$ 4 •
1 ,J'IL. - • :. cap ,
_ • .
. .
4.,.....: .
ki,
t
I . f _.1 ' ) CI
z t
1 1 K. .ye e . S a a a a
t c 2< 2< I f it I < 'm
W W T W W W
l l y, LL LL 1t LL LL it
IIILLL
•
el
w f 2 44.
•.O 'O ' -a � , •' LL a 4.kr, lip
= 'kJ t
r , 1. t/ i
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page I of 28
13.7-0743-1&! . .‘ 145-1. N- 0851 (0)
Applicant Name: Application Title:
WELD (COUNTY) WELCO36 - Wtr Cntrl. Fac -CR9.5 Bridge & Cntrl Struct.
Period of Performance Start: Period of Performance End:
09-14-2013 03-14-2015
Subgrant Application - Entire Application
Application Title: WELCO36 - Wtr. Cntrl. Fac -CR9.5 Bridge & Cntrl Struct.
Application Number: PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00851(0)
Application Type: Subgrant Application (PW)
Preparer Information
Prefix
First Name Paul
Middle Initial
Last Name Hesse
Title TAC Project Specialist
Agency/Organization Name FEMA - DHS
Address 1 9200 East Mineral Ave
Address 2
City Centennial
State CO
Zip 80112
Email deanna.butterbaugh@state.co.us
Is the application preparer the Point of Contact? No
Point of Contact Information
Prefix
First Name Roy
Middle Initial
Last Name Rudisill
Title Director - OEM
Agency/Organization Weld County
Address 1 1150 O Street
Address 2 rudisill@weldgov.com
City Greeley
State CO
ZIP 80632
Phone 970-304-6540
Fax
https://connect I .dhs.gov/emmie/,DanaInfo=isource. tema.net.SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
4
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 2 of 28
Email rrudisill@weldgov.com
Alternate Point of Contact Information
Prefix
First Name Trevor
Middle Initial
Last Name Jinicek
Title Director
Agency/Organization Weld County
Address 1 1150 O Street
Address 2
City Greeley
State CO
ZIP 80632
Phone 970-356-4000
Fax
Email tjinicek@weldgov.com
Project Description
Disaster Number: 4145
Pre-Application Number: PA-08-CO-4145-RPA-0088
Applicant ID: 123-99123-00
Applicant Name: WELD (COUNTY)
Subdivision:
Project Number: WELCO36
Standard Project Number/Title: 499 - Water Control Facilities
Please Indicate the Project Type: Neither Alternate nor Improved
Application Title: WELCO36 - Wtr. Cntrl. Fac -CR9.5 Bridge & Cntrl Struct.
Category: D.WATER CONTROL FACILITIES
Percentage Work Completed? 7.0 %
As of Date: 01 -24-2014
Comments
The applicant must notify the state if there are any changes in the scope of work prior to starting the repairs. Failure to
notify the State Division of Emergency Management may jeopardize receipt of federal funds.
Attachments
Damage Facilities (Part 1 of 2)
Facility Site
Number Facility Name Address County City State ZIP Previously Action
Damaged?
1 CR9.5 Bridge and Control CR 9.5 at St. Vrain Weld East of Longmont CO 80501 No
Structure River
Comments
https://connectl .dhs.gov/emm ie/,Danalnfo=isource.fema.net.SSL+dispatch Destination .do?. .. 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 3 of 28
Attachments
User Date Document Type Description Hard Copy File
p File Name Action
Reference
PAUL 02-23- Map Location Map PW #WELCO36 Location View
HESSE 2014 Map.pdf(749.32 kb)
PAUL 02-23- Control Structure St. Vrain River Control
HESSE 2014 Photos Photos Structure Photos.pdf(1 .75 View
Mb)
PAUL 02-23- Photos CR 9.5 Bridge Photos Bridge 9.5-24.5 over St. Vrain View
HESSE 2014 River Photos.pdf(259.20 kb)
PAUL 02-23- Photos Applicant Photos EM 9.5 - 24.5A Photolog.pdf
HESSE 2014 (1 . 11 Mb) View
PAUL 02-23- Map WELCO36 Damage PW WELCO36 DDD Area
HESSE 2014 Description Area Map Map.pdf(902.26 kb) View
PAUL 02-23- Drawings/Sketches Control Structure EM_9.5 Grade Control
HESSE 2014 Drawings dwgs.pdf(3.85 Mb) View
Facility Name: CR9.5 Bridge and Control Structure
Address 1 : CR 9.5 at St. Vrain River
Address 2:
County: Weld
City: East of Longmont
State: CO
ZIP: 80501
Was this site previously damaged? No
Percentage Work Completed? 7.00
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00851 (0):
County Road 9.5 Bridge and Control Structure located approximately 1 mile
Location: north of Rt. 119 where CR 9.5 crosses the St. Vrain River, just east of 1-25.
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00851 (0):
During the incident period of September 11 , 2013 through September 30,
2013, the declared severe storms caused flooding. landslides and mudslides
throughout Weld County in Colorado. The CR9.5 Bridge [Bridge #WEL009.5-
24.5A] and Grade Control Structure at the St. Vrain River sustained damages
from floodwaters eroding the embankment under the north abutment and
overtopping the control structure along with excessive velocity causing scour
and displacement of rip rap that is part of the control structure. The bridge
damages included erosion of the embankment under the northern abutment
and wingwall on the east side exposing the caissons. Control Structure
damages consisted of embankment erosion: rip rap washout, displacement
and undermining: scour holes: along with walkway displacement and
undermining. The majority of the damage occurred to the areas north of the
control structure weir centerline. South of the control structure weir centerline
the rip rap did not sustain damage, however the walkway and supporting soil,
which is over the rip rap. sustained damage. There is no apparent damage to
the control structure sheetpiling.
Total damages include embankment 4630CY. scour holes 1381 CY. bedding
44CY, rip rap 569CY. top soil 359CY, grouted boulders 367SY, guardrail
30LF, and walkway 55CY.
https://connect l .dhs.gov/emmie/. Danalnfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination .do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 4 of 28
GPS: 40. 17525. -104.97904
Floodmap #08026608500 dated 9/28/82 [in floodplain]
North side of river:
For estimating purposes. the project is split into areas [Refer to attached
sketch showing Damage Description Areas]. This PW is for the entire control
structure and bridge. On the north side of the river, Areas 1 . 2, 3. and 4A are
all part of the damaged facility.
Area 1 : Embankment north of the river, east of the northern bridge abutment
[CR9.5]
Dimensions:
1 . 1 : (60FT wide x 20FT deep/2) x 100LF/27 = 2222CY [Note: cross-sectional
area is a triangle]
1 .2: GOLF of 24"RCP storm sewer washed out
1 .3: One [1 ] 24" RCP flared end section washed out
Damage: Floodwaters caused embankment erosion and loss of material
[2222CY] along with loss of 24" RCP storm sewer [60LF] including one [1 ] 24"
RCP flared end section that was located in the embankment. Note: Area of
embankment surface = 100LF x 65FT = 6500SF.
Area 2: Rip rap section north of the control structure weir centerline and
downstream of the control structure sheetpiling includes ungrouted rip rap
with bedding underneath and top soil cover along with an area of grouted
boulders
Dimensions:
2. 1 : 85FT long x 60FT wide x 3FT deep/27 = 567CY scour hole
The following dimensions are for the displaced loose rip rap including bedding
and top soil:
2.2: 30FT long x 60FT wide x 0.66FT deep/27 = 44CY displaced bedding
Damage Description and Dimensions: under loose rip rap
2.3: 30FT long x 60FT wide x 3FT deep/27 = 200CY displaced loose rip rap
2.4: 30FT long x 60FT wide x 0.66FT deep/27 = 44CY displaced top soil over
loose rip rap
Dimensions for the displaced grouted boulder area that was undermined and
collapsed:
2.5: 55FT long x 60FT wide/9 = 367SY displaced grouted boulders 3FT thick
[shown in SY due to cost information in the Scope of work is in SY for 3FT
thick]
Damage: Floodwaters caused erosion of river subgrade causing loss of
material and displacement of material as quantified above
Area 3: Scour hole north of the control structure weir centerline and upstream
of the control structure sheetpiling
Dimension: 3. 1 : 85FT long x 55FT wide x 3FT deep/27 = 519CY
Damage: Floodwaters caused erosion of improved river subgrade causing
loss of material [519CY]
Note: River subgrade work was engineered and constructed in the late
1990's.
Area 4A: North abutment of CR9.5-24.5A Bridge
Dimensions:
4A. 1 : ( 15FT long x 20FT wide/2) x 9FT deep/27 = 50CY eroded embankment
and abutment subgrade material [Note: Cross-sectional area is a triangle]
4A.2: 3OLF of W beam [three beam detail] guardrail with metal posts
damaged and supporting soil washed away [embankment loss shown in Area
1 ]
4A.3: (20LF + 3OLF) x 10FT wide x 6FT deep/27 = 111 CY rip rap loss north
abutment
Damage: Floodwaters caused scour and erosion of embankment causing
loss of material under the northeast wingwall. behind the north bridge
abutment and around caissons [50CY]. Erosion of embankment caused
damage to guardrail [30LF]. Erosion caused loss of rip rap material at north
https://connect I .dhs.gov/emmie/,Danalnfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination .do?. .. 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 5 of 28
[111 CY] abutment. Bridge was closed to traffic due to lack of support under
north abutment and guardrail. Voids were observed at the bottom of north
abutment wall at the 11 -13-13 inspection between concrete beams B and C
(second and third beams from the west side of the bridge) after repairs were
completed. Voided embankment material behind the north abutment
remaining at time of inspection is estimated to be 12.5 ft L x 3 ft W x 2 ft D=
2.7CY. This is not in addition to the amount shown in 4A. 1 above and is an
estimate of the void volume that was visible at the time of inspection.
Additional stabilization is necessary on the channel side of the northeast
wingwall beyond the limits of the installed sheet pile wall.
Note: CDOT inspectors conducted an emergency scour inspection on
September 15. 2013 to document damages at the facility. The bridge was
closed at the time of the inspection. Notes from inspection are as follows:
"The east end of the North Abutment (A5) has significant scour of the riprap
slope undermining approximately 25 ft of the abutment cap and exposing 3
caissons. The northeast wingwall is completely undermined. The north
approach slab is undermined beneath all of the northbound lane from the
back face of A5 nearly to the sleeper slab. "
South side of river:
Note: The areas shown are for estimating purposes only. This PW is for the
entire control structure and bridge. On the south side of the river. Area 4B is
for the bridge and Areas 5. 6. 7. and 8 are all part of the control structure
facility.
Area 4B: South abutment and Piers 2 and 3 of CR9.5-24.5A Bridge
Dimensions:
4B. 1 : (10LF + 46LF + 10LF) x 10FT wide x 3FT deep/27 = 73CY rip rap loss
at south abutment
4B.2: 10LF [column circumference] x 3FT wide x 3FT deep/27 x 3 columns =
10CY scour at Pier 2
4B.3: 10LF [column circumference] x 3FT wide x 3FT deep/27 x 3 columns =
10CY scour at Pier 3
Damage: The applicant noted additional rubble rip rap was washed away
downstream during this event at the south abutment [73CY]. Embankment
material lost due to scour at Pier 2 [10CY]. For this PW it is assumed that an
additional 10CY of material is lost due to scour at Pier 3. Pier 4 is in the river
and could not be accessed.
Note: CDOT inspectors conducted an emergency scour inspection on
September 15. 2013 to document damages at the facility. The bridge was
closed at the time of the inspection. Notes from inspection are as follows:
"Bridge should remain closed until North Abutment and approach are
stabilized. Measurable scour up to 5 ft from previous report data at the
upstream face of Piers 2 and 3. unable to measure at Pier 4 or any other
portions of the piers due to high water velocity."
Area 5: Scour hole south of the control structure weir centerline and
upstream of the control structure sheetpiling
Dimension: 5. 1 : 45FT long x 55FT wide x 3FT deep/27 = 275CY
Damage: Floodwaters caused erosion of improved river subgrade causing
loss of material [275CY]. Note: River subgrade work was engineered and
constructed in the late 1990's.
Area 6: Concrete walk south of the river beginning at a point east of the
control structure [GPS: 40. 17457. -104.97844] and extending westerly under
the CR9.5 bridge and ending at a point [GPS: 40. 17496. -104.97935] where
the walk intersects the western Right-of-Way for CR9.5.
Dimension: 6. 1 : 295LF x 10FT wide x 6"/12 thick/27 = 55CY
Damage: Floodwaters caused displacement of existing concrete walk [55CY]
Area 7: Eroded soil on the southern bank underneath and east of CR9.5 in
the area of the concrete walk
Dimensions:
yy 7. 1 : 75LF x 20FT x 2FT/27 = 111CY eroded embankment [under CR9.5
https://connect I .dhs.goviem m ie/,Dana( n fo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatch Destination.do?.. . 5/6/2014
A _ _ _ _
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 6 of 28
bridge]
7.2: 75LF x 20FT x 0.33FT/27 = 18CY eroded top soil [under CR9.5 bridge]
7.3: 100LF x 25FT x 2FT/27 = 185CY eroded rip rap [east of CR9.5 bridge.
either side of sheetpiling]
7.4: 220LF x 55FT wide x 1 .5FT deep/27 = 672CY eroded embankment [east
of CR9.5 bridge]
7.5: 220LF X 55FT x 0.33FT/27 = 148CY eroded top soil [east of CR9.5
bridge]
Damage: Floodwaters caused erosion and loss of material [1173CY].
Note: This area has two [2] 18" CMP storm drains, one on the east side of the
control structure sheetpiling which returns water from the ditch east of CR9.5
to the river and one on the west side of the control structure sheetpiling that
drains a small ponding area south of the concrete walk. There is no apparent
damage to either of these CMPs and discussions at the site visit indicated that
these lines could be worked around during repairs to the walk without
disturbance.
Area 8: Eroded improved embankment on the southern bank downstream of
the control structure
Dimensions:
8. 1 : 270LF x 45FT wide x 7FT deep/2/27 = 1575CY eroded embankment
8.2: 270LF x 45FT x 0.33FT/27 = 149CY eroded top soil
Damage: Floodwaters caused erosion and loss of material [1724CY]
Area 9 Miscellaneous Damage [south of control structure centerline]:
9. 1 : Floodwaters deposited debris incidental to the project including one [1 ]
tree [approx. 24" caliper] and two [2] 24 ' RCP pipe sections 4FT long each
9.2: Floodwaters destroyed 150LF of 3-strand barb wire fence
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00851 (0):
The Applicant plans to bid out this project for the repairs to the CR9.5 Bridge
and Control Structure. The Scope of Work for this project is split up into the
same areas that were used for the Damage Description. These areas are
shown on the attached sketch. Areas 1 through 4A are north of the St. Vrain
River and Areas 4B through 9 are south of the river. The quantities are
estimated based on site visits and the bid drawings for the control structure.
Except where noted . costs are estimated using the Urban Drainage Flood
Control District Bid Tabs Program Version 2007.7.xls dated 2/10/14 Summary
of All Unit Costs [copy attached] for similar work, complete and in-place.
WORK COMPLETED:
Due to the road closure. the Applicant contracted with TLM Constructors
under emergency procurement procedures to repair the void under the north
bridge abutment of CR9.5 [contracted Fall 2013 — copy of agreement
attached]. The repair was performed on 9-17 through 9-21 -2013 and included
Scope the following:
of Work:
Area 4A:
Formwork consisted of 30LF x 25FT = 750SF of sheetpiling along the east
side of the north abutment with approximately 25LF x 8FT = 200SF of
formwork that consisted of plywood and vertical steel whalers on the southern
face of the north abutment underneath the bridge.
Six [6] openings. approximately 18" x 18". were cut in the roadway to access
the void area behind the north abutment. Flowable concrete fill was poured in
lifts to fill the void behind the abutment [approximately 40CY]. Some void
area still exists and will be addressed below. It is assumed that an additional
10CY of flowable fill may be required to complete.
Dump rip rap to protect north abutment: 20LF x 25FT x 4.5FT/27 = 83CY
Cost for Work Completed Area 4: The Applicant submitted a spreadsheet
itemizing the costs for the project to-date [copy attached]
FA Labor: $5.367.43 [see attached FA information from Applicant]
https://connect I .dhs.gov%emm ie/,Danalnfo=isource.tema.net.SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/20 14
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 7 of 28
FA Equipment: $366.00 [see attached FA information from Applicant]
Contracted Services: $57.782.49 [see attached invoices]
Total Cost = 5367.43 + 366 + 57782.49 = $63.515.92
The cost submitted appears to be reasonable as shown on the attached
Contractor Agreement markup.
WORK TO BE COMPLETED:
Note: Rounding errors may exist. The quantities shown are rounded to the
whole number, however the cost is correctly calculated using the unrounded
number. Refer to the attached excel spreadsheet for all calculations and the
numbers shown below.
North side of river:
Temporary Construction Measures:
Traffic Control: 10DY x $500.00/DY = $5.000.00
Note: UDFCD bid prices shows $453/day. this value was rounded to
$500/day.
Install stream diversion to isolate north side of control structure:
Install sheetpiling to elevation 5FT above existing piles [RSMeans 31 41 16
10 1900 drive, extract. salvage] 300LF x 23FT = 6900SF x $26.50/SF =
$182,850.00
Install dewatering pumps/generator assembly [FEMA Code 8311 ] 2EA x 2WK
x 168HR/WK = 672HR x $8.00/HR = $5,376.00
Note: 2 week dewatering assumed for project, cost used was for the
generator assembly
Total Cost Temporary Measures: 5000 + 182,850 + 5,376 = $193,226
Area 1
1 . 1 : Rebuild embankment north of creek 3: 1 slope: 2222CY x $11 .93/CY =
$26.511 . 11
1 .2: Install 24" RCP storm sewer: GOLF x $73.58/LF = $4.414.80
1 .3: Install 24" RCP flared end section: 1 EA x $2.216.37/EA = $2.216.37
1 .4: Seed and mulch for erosion protection: 6500SF x $0.08/SF = $520.00
Total Cost Area 1 : 26511 . 11 + 4414.80 + 2216.37 + 520 = $33.662.28
Area 2
2.0: Remove existing rip rap and grouted boulders downstream of control
structure: 567CY x $33.66/CY = $19.074.00 Note: Rip rap was placed as
protection by the contractor [TLM] in Area 4A Work Completed.
2. 1 : Install material to fill scour holes and compact: 567CY x $11 .93/CY =
$6.760.33
2.2: Install Type II bedding material north of control structure: 30FT x 60FT x
0.66FT = 44CY x $58.07/CY = $2,555.08
2.3: Reinstall rip rap north of control structure beyond grouted boulders: 30FT
x 60FT x 3FT = 200CY x $70.65/CY = $14, 130.00
2.4: Install topsoil over riprap: 30FT x 60FT x 0.66FT = 44CY x $33.00/CY =
$1 .452.00
2.5: Reinstall stepped grouted boulders downstream of control structure:
55FT x 60FT = 367SY x $244.39/SY = $89,609.67
Total Cost Area 2: 19074 + 6760.33 + 2555.08 + 14130 + 1452 + 89609.67 =
$133,581 .08
Area 3
3.0: Relocate rip rap upstream of control structure placed for abutment
protection [under Work Completed] to prepare area for filling scour hole: 50FT
x 55FT x 8FT = 815CY x $8.01 /CY = $6.526.67
3. 1 : Install material to fill scour holes and compact: 519CY x $11 .93/CY =
$6. 196.97
Total Cost Area 3: 6526.67 + 6196.97 = $12.723.64
Area 4A
4A.0: Remove formwork from southern face of the north abutment under the
bridge. Note: Cost associated with this item is included in 4A. 1 below.
littps://connectl .dhs.gov/emm ie/, Dana I n fo=isourcetema.net,SSL+dispatcli Destination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 8 of 28
4A. 1 : Set additional formwork [12LF x 4FT = 48SF]: $1 .000 lump sum
estimate
Pump flowable fill into remaining void under north abutment [10CY]: 10CY x
$150/CY [cost used from contract] = $1500 + $2000 [concrete pumper adder]
= $3,500
4A.2: Remove 3OLF of damaged guardrail end treatment on east side of
roadway [double horizontal rail section only]: $500 lump sum estimate
4A.3: Install Type 3 W-Beam guardrail [Three Beam Detail]: 3OLF x
$33.45/LF [CDOT Code 606-00350] + $1 .000 [small job adder] = $2,003.50
4A.4: Install 111 CY of rip rap at north abutment: 111 CY x $70.65/CY =
$7.850
Total Cost Area 4A: 1000 + 3500 + 500 + 2003.50 + 7850 = $14,853.50
South side of river:
Area 4B
4B. 1 : Install 73CY of rip rap at south abutment: 73CY x $70.65/CY = $5. 181
4B.2: Install material at Pier 2: 10CY x $70.65/CY = $706.50
4B.3: Install material at Pier 3: 10CY x $70.65/CY = $706.50
Total Cost Area 4B: 5181 + 706.50 + 706.50 = $6.594.00
Area 5
5.0: Install dewatering pump/generator assembly [FEMA Code 8311 ] lEA x
8HR x $8.00/HR = $64.00
Note: Cost used was for the generator assembly.
5. 1 : Install material to fill scour hole: 275CY x $11 .93/CY = $3.280.75
Total Cost Area 5: 64 + 3.280.75 = $3,344.75
Area 6
6.0: Remove damaged concrete walk: 55CY x $51 .57/CY = $2,817.25
[concrete to be recycled]
6. 1 : Install concrete walk 10FT wide x 6" thick: 55CY x $384.50/CY =
$21 .005.09
Total Cost Area 6: 2817.25 + 21005.09 = $23,822.34
Area 7
7. 1 : Install fill material and grade along walk under bridge: 111 CY x
$11 .93/CY = $1 .325.56
7.2: Install top soil over fill material & grade [4" thick]: 18CY x $33.00/CY =
$605.00
7.2. 1 : Seed and mulch for erosion protection: 1500SF x $0.08/CY = $120.00
7.3: Install rip rap east of bridge [either side of sheetpiling]: 185CY x $70.65 =
$13.083.33
7.4: Install fill material and grade along walk east of bridge: 672CY x
$11 .93/CY = $8.019.61
7.5: Install top soil over fill material & grade [4" thick]: 148CY x $33.00/CY =
$4.880.33
7.5. 1 : Seed and mulch for erosion protection: 12100SF x $0.08/SF = $968.00
Total Cost Area 7: 1325.56 + 605 + 120 + 13083.33 + 8019.61 + 4880.33 +
968 = $29.001 .83
Area 8
8. 1 : Install fill material and grade: 1575CY x $11 .93/CY = $18,789.75
8.2: Install top soil over fill material & grade [4" thick]: 149CY x $33.00/CY =
$4.900.50
8.2. 1 : Seed and mulch for erosion protection: 12150SF x $0.08/SF = $972.00
Total Cost Area 8: 18789.75 + 4900.50 + 972 = $24,662.25
Area 9
9. 1 : Remove debris incidental to project [1 tree and 2 pieces of 24" RCP]:
1 LS x $1 ,000.00 = $1 ,000.00
Note: Applicant is responsible for disposing debris at a certified disposal site.
9.2: Install 3-strand barb wire fence: 150LF x $6.86/LF = $1 ,029.00
https://connect I .dhs.gov/emmie/, Danalnfo=isource.fema.net.SSL+dispatch Destination .do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 9 of 28
Total Cost Area 9: 1000 + 1029 = $2,029.00
WORK TO BE COMPLETED COST SUMMARY:
$ 193,226.00 + $33.662.28 + $133.581 .08 + $12.723.64 + $14.853.50 +
$6.594.00 + $3,344.75 + $23,822.34 + $29.001 .83 + $24.662.25 + $2,029.00
= $477,500.68
Direct Administrative Cost [DAC]: Applicant is claiming DAC. however backup
data has not been received. therefore an estimate of 20 hrs x $50/hr = $1000
is shown on the DAC sheet attached to this PW.
PROJECT NOTES:
1 . During repair or reconstruction. applicant may incur additional costs related
to clearing and grubbing. placement of topsoil. erosion and sedimentation
control. sanitary facilities. dewatering, mobilization and flagging/traffic control.
Such costs are generally addressed in the "in-place" unit costs of repair or
reconstruction items, and not specifically addressed in the Scope of Work.
However. if a project requires an extraordinary use of any such item. to where
a specific reference in the PW should be considered, applicant is advised to
contact Colorado Department of Emergency Management requesting a
revision to the PWs Scope of Work.
2. FORCE ACCOUNT LABOR/EQUIPMENT: No timesheet or equipment
logs were submitted for review. therefore the Applicant's spreadsheet was
used. Applicant is responsible to provide documents at closeout.
3. INVOICES: 100% of all submitted invoices have been reviewed and are
attached as supporting documentation. No cancelled checks were received.
Proof of payment may be requested at closeout.
4. Pursuant to 44 CFR 13.42, Grantees and Subgrantees are required to
retain records. including source documentation. to support expenditures/costs
incurred against the grant award, for 3 years from the date of submission to
FEMA of the final Financial Status Report.
5. The applicant must obtain all required federal. state. and local permits prior
to the commencement of work.
6. The subgrantee is requesting direct administrative costs that are directly
chargeable to this specific project. Associated eligible work is related to
administration of the PA project only and in accordance with 44 CFR 13.22.
These costs are treated consistently and uniformly as direct costs in all
federal awards and other subgrantee activities and are not included in any
approved indirect costs.
7. Project was reviewed for 406 Hazard Mitigation and a copy of 406 HMP
proposal is attached with this project.
8. The applicant is aware that all projects are subject to an insurance review
as stated in 44 C.F.R. Sections 206.252 and 206.253. If applicable. an
insurance determination will be made either as anticipated proceeds or actual
proceeds in accordance with the applicant's insurance policy that may affect
the total amount of the project.
9. The applicant is required to adhere to State and Federal Government
Procurement rules and regulations and maintain adequate records to support
the basis for all purchasing of goods and materials and contracting services
for projects approved under the Public Assistance program. as stated in 44
CFR 13.36. The applicant has advised they have followed their normal
procurement procedures.
10. Except where noted. costs for the Work to be Completed for the Control
Structure are estimated using the Urban Drainage Flood Control District Bid
https://connect I .dhs.gov/emm ie/.Danal n fo=isource.fema.net.SSL+dispatchDestination.do?. . . 5/6/2014
ye- Asa a a as email
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page I 0 of 28
Tabs Program Version 2007.7.xls dated 2/10/14 Summary of All Unit Costs
[copy attached] for similar work, complete and in-place.
11 . The Applicant has contracted with ICON Engineering. Inc. [the designer
of the original Control Structure] to provide engineering services for the
repairs to the bridge and grade control structure located at CR 9.5 and the St.
Vrain River. The Applicant submitted the attached Exhibit A — Scope of
Services from the ICON Engineering Agreement. This document was
reviewed by the FEMA Project Specialist as a basis for the Scope of Work for
this PW. Due to the short timeframe available prior to the Spring 2014 runoff
high river flows, the Applicant plans to repair the area in an phased approach
as shown below:
12. The following notes are supplemental items from the FEMA bridge
inspection that are not listed in the Damage Description and Dimensions:
CR 9.5-24.5A over St. Vrain River in Section 35. T3N. R68W, Category C.
Permanent Bridge Repair
Lat: N40. 17610 Long: — W104.97929
On November 13. 2013. Kathleen Ruvarac, FEMA TAC Bridge Specialist,
David Ray. FEMA Hazard Mitigation Specialist. Gary Moore, FEMA
Environmental Historic Preservation Specialist. and Donald Dunker, Weld
County Public Works Engineer. performed a site investigation at this location
to document damages. The bridge was open and repairs completed at the
time of inspection.
The 300.7 ft long x 46.3 ft wide concrete and steel structure traverses the St.
Vrain River in Weld County. CO. The bridge is a quadruple (4) span
concrete/steel bridge consisting of a 2 inch asphalt overlay on an 8 inch
concrete deck with epoxy reinforcement. Four (4) — Bulb Tee 54 inch (BT54)
prestressed concrete girders. concrete abutments, and three (3) concrete
intermediate piers. Two 6 inch diameter PVC utility suspended form bottom of
deck in third bay from the west side of the structure. The deck is flanked on
both sides with steel guide rail with steel posts. 6 inch diameter steel utility
attached to east curb.
The applicant provided previous bridge inspection reports for the facility dated
June 30. 2010 and May 23, 2012. The bridge in built in 1999 and had a
sufficiency rating of 99.8 in 2010 and 100.0 in 2012.
2010 inspection notes of elements include: concrete spalling at end of all
girders at both abutments. with some exposed rebar: tops of caissons are
exposed about eight inches at Pier 3: some delamination noted in end
diaphragm at pier 4 end of girder 4A; erosion and undermining less than 3
inches at northwest corner of north abutment (A5): 1 .5 ft deep erosion hole at
end of northwest wingwall; Erosion starting to undermine sleeper slab. The
deck condition is noted as good condition (7) on a scale of 0 to 9. The
superstructure is noted as very good condition (8) and the substructure noted
as satisfactory (6). The channel banks were observed to be protected or well
vegetated (8). Maintenance items included cleaning plugged deck drains.
sealing cracks in asphalt surface.
2012 inspection notes of elements include: concrete spalling at end of all
girders at both abutments, with exposed rebar at ends of girders 4A and 4VB
at north abutment (A5): tops of caissons are exposed about ten inches at Pier
3; some delamination noted in end diaphragm at pier 4 end of girder 4k
erosion and undermining less than 6 inches at northwest corner of north
abutment (A5). The deck condition is noted as good condition (7) on a scale
of 0 to 9. The superstructure is noted as very good condition (8) and the
substructure noted as good condition (7) . The channel banks were observed
to be protected or well vegetated (8). Maintenance items included sealing
cracks in asphalt surface. and patching concrete spalls in end diaphragms.
Due to the high water elevation in the river at the time of inspection. the full
https://connect l .dhs.goviemm ie/,Dana[nfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/20 14
-
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 11 of 28
extent of damages incurred as a result of this disaster may not have been
observed and documented.
Hazard Mitigation Proposal
Is effective mitigation feasible on this site? Yes
If you answered Yes to the above question. the next question is required
Will mitigation be performed on this site? Yes
If you answered Yes to the above question. the next question is required
Do you wish to attach a Hazard Mitigation Proposal? Yes
If you answered Yes to the above question. the next two questions are required
Please provide the Scope of Work for the estimate: HMP Attached
(maximum 4000 characters)
Would you like to add the Hazard Mitigation Yes
Proposal as a cost line item to the project cost?
GIS Coordinates
Project Location Latitude Longitude
CR 9.5 at St. Vrain River 40. 17525 - 104.97904
Special Considerations
1 . Does the damaged facility or item of work have insurance coverage and/or is it an insurable risk No
(e.g. , buildings. equipment. vehicles. etc)?
If you would like to make any comments, please enter them below.
(maximum 4000 characters)
Insurance Policy on file at JFO.
2. Is the damaged facility located within a floodplain or coastal high hazard area and/or does it have Yes
an impact on a floodplain or wetland?
If you would like to make any comments, please enter them below.
(maximum 4000 characters)
Floodmap #0802660850C dated 9/28/82 in floodplain
3. Is the damaged facility or item of work located within or adjacent to a Coastal Barrier Resource No
System Unit or an Otherwise Protected Area?
4. Will the proposed facility repairs/reconstruction change the pre-disaster conditions (e.g. . footprint. No
material. location.. capacity. use of function)?
5. Does the applicant have a hazard mitigation proposal or would the applicant like technical Yes
assistance for a hazard mitigation proposal?
If you would like to make any comments. please enter them below.
(maximum 4000 characters)
HMP Attached
6. Is the damaged facility on the National Register of Historic Places or the state historic listing? Is it No
older than 50 years? Are there more, similar buildings near the site?
7. Are there any pristine or undisturbed areas on. or near, the project site? Are there large tracts of No
forestland?
8. Are there any hazardous materials at or adjacent to the damaged facility and/or item of work? No
9. Are there any other environmental or controversial issues associated with the damaged facility Yes
and/or item of work?
If you would like to make any comments, please enter them below.
(maximum 4000 characters)
The applicant and/or their contractors must obtain and comply with the appropriate federal. state and local permits,
https://connectl .dhs.gov/emm ie/,Danaln lo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatch Destination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 12 of 28
including those issued by US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Sec. 404 of the Clean Water Act. and are
responsible for contacting the USACE Denver Regulatory Office at (303) 979-4120 to determine if flood-related activity
lies within the Corps' regulatory jurisdiction.
Attachments
User Date Document Type Description Hard Copy File File Name Action
Reference
PAUL 02-23- Floodplain Firmette PW #WELCO36 Firmette.pdf View
HESSE 2014 (172.36 kb)
PAUL 02-23- PW #WELCO36 EHP mouse
HESSE 2014 Map Mouse Map map.pdf(384.76 kb) View
PAUL 02-23- Additional Quit Claim Deed PW #WELCO36 Quit Claim
HESSE 2014 Information and RigD�tg wg f Way Deeds.pdf(728.86 kb) View
PAUL 02-23- Bridge CR 9.5 Bridge CR9.5 Bridge Inspection
HESSE 2014 Survey/Document Inspection Reports Reports 2010 2012 Post- View
Disaster.pdf(4.29 Mb)
For Category C, D, E, F, and G Projects only
Is effective mitigation feasible on this project? Yes
If you answered Yes to the above question. the next question is required
Will mitigation be performed on any sites in this Yes
project?
If you answered Yes to the above question. the next question is required
Do you wish to attach a Hazard Mitigation Proposal? Yes
If you answered Yes to the above question. the next two questions are required
Please provide the Scope of Work
HMP attached
for the estimate:
Would you like to add the Hazard Mitigation Yes
Proposal as a cost line item to the project cost?
Hazard Mitigation Proposal - 0909
Unit Unit of Subgrant Cost
# Code Material and/or Description Quantity Measure Unit Price Budget Type Estimate Action
Class
'k** Version 0 ***
1 9999 Rip rap (applicant cost) 991 CY $ 70.65 S 70.014. 15
2 9999 Unclassified fill (applicant cost) 164 CY $ 11 .93 $ 1 .956.52
3 9999 Sheetpile (cost from RS Means 2800 SF $ 44.50 $ 124.600.00
314116101800)
4 9999 Manhole (cost from UDFCD-BID) 1 EA 3.000.00 $ 3.000.00
Total Cost: $ 199,570.67
Comments
HMP attached.
Attachments
User Date Document Description Hard Copy File File Name Action
Type Reference
PAUL 03-24- Mitigation PW #WELCO36 PW #WELCO36 HMP Rev View
HESSE 2014 Proposal HMP Rev 1 1 .pdf( 144.63 kb)
https://connect l .dhs.goviem m let Dana / n fo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination .do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 13 of 28
Cost Estimate
Is this Project Worksheet for Cost Estimate Format
(Preferred) Repair
Sequence Code Material and/or Unit Unit of Unit Price Subgrant Type Cost Action
Description Quantity Measure Budget Class Estimate
' Version 0 `'k"
Work Completed
CEF Cost
1 9000 Estimate (See 1 LS $ CONSTRUCTION Work $ 63,516.00
Attached 63.516.00 Completed
Spreadsheet)
Work To Be Completed
CEF Cost Work To
2 9000 Estimate (See 1 LS $ CONSTRUCTION Be $ 703,980.00
Attached 703,980.00 Completed
Spreadsheet)
Direct Subgrantee Admin Cost
Direct Direct
3 9901 Administrative 1 LS $ 1 ,000.00 INDIRECT Subgrantee $ 1 ,000.00
Costs CHARGES Admin Cost
(Subgrantee)
Total Cost : $ 768,496.00
Insurance Adjustments (Deductibles. Proceeds and Settlements) - 5900/5901
Unit Unit of Unit Subgrant Cost
Sequence Code Material and/or Description Quantity Measure Price Budget Type Estimate Action
Class
Total Cost : $ 0.00
Hazard Mitigation Proposal - 0909
Unit Unit of Unit Subgrant Cost
Sequence Code Material and/or Description Quantity Measure Price Budget Type Estimate Action
Class
't'i't Version 0 'k*'
1 9999 Rip rap (applicant cost) 991 CY $ 70.65 $ 70,014. 15
2 9999 Unclassified fill (applicant 164 CY
cost) $ 11 .93 $ 1 ,956.52
3 9999 Sheetpile (cost from RS 2800 SF $ 44.50
Means 314116101800)ii
$ 124,600.00
4 9999 Manhole (cost from 1 EA $
UDFCD-BID) 3.000.00 $ 3,000.00
Total Cost : $ 199,570.67
Total Cost Estimate: $ 968,066.67
(Preferred Estimate Type + Insurance Adjustments + Hazard Mitigation Proposal)
I
Comments
Cost calculations are shown in the scope of work for each area. Be advised there are some rounding errors. All cost
information is shown on the attached WELCO36 Cost Spreadsheet and Backup Data pdf file. All areas shown on this
https://connect l .dhs.gov/emmie/,Danalnfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatch Destination .do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 14 of 28
PW are for the Bridge and Control Structure at the St. Vrain River.
Attachments
User Date Document Description Hard Copy File File Name Action
Type Reference
PAUL 02-23- Calculation PW #WELCO36 DAC PV V # WELCO36 DAC.pdf View
HESSE 2014 Sheet Sheet (46.20 kb)
PAUL 02-23- Force Applicant FA Sheets Weld Co FA Sheets.pdf(224. 19 View
HESSE 2014 Account kb)
PAUL 02-23- Contract TLM Constructors Weld Co CR9.5 Bridge Memo- View
HESSE 2014 Document Contract TLM Contract.pdf(950.34 kb)
PAUL 02-23- Invoice TLM Invoice & Backup EM-BR9.5-24.5A TLM View
HESSE 2014 Billing.pdf(2.34 Mb)
PAUL 02-23- Contract ICON Engineering Signed Work Order EM-BR-9.5-
HESSE 2014 Document Contract 24.5 ICON Engineering.pdf View
(9.34 Mb)
PAUL 03-24- Calculation PW #WELCO36 Cost PW #WELCO36 Cost
HESSE 2014 Sheet Spreadsheet & Backup Spreadsheet & Backup Data View
Data Rev 1 Rev 1 .pdf(1 .36 Mb)
PAUL 03-24- Calculation PW #WELCO36 CEF PW #WELCO36 CEF Rev View
HESSE 2014 Sheet Rev la 1 a.pdf(956.83 kb)
Existing Insurance Information
Insurance Type Policy No. Bldg/Property Content Insurance Deductible Years
Amount Amount Amount Amount Required
Comments
Attachments
Comments and Attachments
Name of Section Comment Attachment
The applicant must notify the state if there are any changes in the
Project Description scope of work prior to starting the repairs. Failure to notify the State
Division of Emergency Management may jeopardize receipt of
federal funds.
PW #WELCO36
Location Map.pdf
St. Vrain River Control
Structure Photos.pdf
Bridge 9.5-24.5 over St.
Damage Facilities Vrain River Photos.pdf
EM 9.5 - 24.5A
Photoloq.pdf
PW WELCO36 DDD
Area Map.pdf
EM 9.5 Grade Control
dwgs.pdf
PW #WELCO36
Firmette.pdf
Special Considerations PW #WELCO36 EHP
mouse map.pdf
PW #WELCO36 Quit
Claim Deeds.pdf
https://connectl .dhs.gov/emm ie/,Danalnfo=isourcelema.net.SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 15 of 28
CR9.5 Bridge Inspection
Reports 2010 2012
Post-Disaster.pdf
PW #WELCO36 HMP
Mitigation HMP attached. Rev 1 .pdf
PW # WELCO36
DAC.pdf
Weld Co FA Sheets.pdf
Weld Co CR9.5 Bridge
Memo-TLM Contract.pdf
Cost calculations are shown in the scope of work for each area. Be EM-BR9.5-24.5A TLM
advised there are some rounding errors. All cost information is Billing.pdf
Cost Estimate shown on the attached WELCO36 Cost Spreadsheet and Backup Signed Work Order EM-
Data pdf file. All areas shown on this PW are for the Bridge and gR-9.5-24.5 ICON
Control Structure at the St. Vrain River. Engineerinq.pdf
PW #WELCO36 Cost
Spreadsheet & Backup
Data Rev 1 .pdf
PW #WELCO36 CEF
Rev 1a.pdf
Form 90-91 WELCO36 Signed
PW.pdf
Bundle Reference # (Amendment #) Date Awarded
PA-08-CO-4145-State-0044(43) 04-15-2014
Subgrant Application - FEMA Form 90-91
Note: The Effective Cost Share for this application is 75%
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
PROJECT WORKSHEET
DISASTER PROJECT NO. PA ID NO. DATE CATEGORY
WELCO36 123-99123- 04-01-2014 D
FEMA 4145 - DR -CO 00
APPLICANT WELD (COUNTY) WORK COMPLETE AS OF
01-24-2014 7
Site 1 of 1
DAMAGED FACILITY
COUNTY Weld
CR9.5 Bridge and Control Structure
LOCATION LATITUDE LONGITUDE.
40. 17525 -104.97904
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00851 (0).
County Road 9.5 Bridge and Control Structure located approximately 1 mile north of Rt. 119 where CR 9.5
crosses the St. Vrain River. just east of 1-25.
DAMAGE DESCRIPTION AND DIMENSIONS:
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00851 (0)
During the incident period of September 11 . 2013 through September 30. 2013. the declared severe storms caused flooding. landslides and
mudslides throughout Weld County in Colorado. The CR9.5 Bridge (Bridge #WEL009.5-24.5A] and Grade Control Structure at the St. Vrain River
sustained damages from floodwaters eroding the embankment under the north abutment and overtopping the control structure along with excessive
velocity causing scour and displacement of rip rap that is part of the control structure. The bridge damages included erosion of the embankment
under the northern abutment and wingwall on the east side exposing the caissons. Control Structure damages consisted of embankment erosion: rip
littps://connectl .dhs.gov/emm ie/, Danaln fo=isourcefema.net.SSL+dispatchDestination .do?.. . 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 16 of 28
rap washout, displacement and undermining: scour holes; along with walkway displacement and undermining. The majority of the damage occurred
to the areas north of the control structure weir centerline. South of the control structure weir centerline the rip rap did not sustain damage, however
the walkway and supporting soil, which is over the rip rap, sustained damage. There is no apparent damage to the control structure sheetpiling.
Total damages include embankment 4630CY, scour holes 1381CY, bedding 44CY, rip rap 569CY, top soil 359CY, grouted boulders 367SY,
guardrail 30LF, and walkway 55CY.
GPS: 40.17525, -104.97904
Floodmap #0802660850C dated 9/28/82 [in floodplain]
North side of river:
For estimating purposes. the project is split into areas [Refer to attached sketch showing Damage Description Areas]. This PW is for the entire
control structure and bridge. On the north side of the river, Areas 1 , 2, 3, and 4A are all part of the damaged facility.
Area 1 : Embankment north of the river, east of the northern bridge abutment [CR9.5]
Dimensions:
1 .1 : (60FT wide x 20FT deep/2) x 100LF/27 = 2222CY [Note: cross-sectional area is a triangle]
1 .2: 60LF of 24"RCP storm sewer washed out
1 .3: One [1] 24" RCP flared end section washed out
Damage: Floodwaters caused embankment erosion and loss of material [2222CY] along with loss of 24" RCP storm sewer [60LF] including one [1]
24" RCP flared end section that was located in the embankment. Note: Area of embankment surface = 100LF x 65FT = 6500SF.
Area 2: Rip rap section north of the control structure weir centerline and downstream of the control structure sheetpiling includes ungrouted rip rap
with bedding underneath and top soil cover along with an area of grouted boulders
Dimensions:
2.1 : 85FT long x 60FT wide x 3FT deep/27 = 567CY scour hole
The following dimensions are for the displaced loose rip rap including bedding and top soil:
2.2: 30FT long x 60FT wide x 0.66FT deep/27 = 44CY displaced bedding under loose rip rap
2.3: 30FT long x 60FT wide x 3FT deep/27 = 200CY displaced loose rip rap
2.4: 30FT long x 60FT wide x 0.66FT deep/27 = 44CY displaced top soil over loose rip rap
Dimensions for the displaced grouted boulder area that was undermined and collapsed:
2.5: 55FT long x 60FT wide/9 = 367SY displaced grouted boulders 3FT thick [shown in SY due to cost information in the Scope of work is in SY for
3FT thick]
Damage: Floodwaters caused erosion of river subgrade causing loss of material and displacement of material as quantified above
Area 3: Scour hole north of the control structure weir centerline and upstream of the control structure sheetpiling
Dimension: 3.1 : 85FT long x 55FT wide x 3FT deep/27 = 519CY
Damage: Floodwaters caused erosion of improved river subgrade causing loss of material [519CY]
Note: River subgrade work was engineered and constructed in the late 1990's.
Area 4A: North abutment of CR9.5-24.5A Bridge
Dimensions:
4A.1 : (15FT long x 20FT wide/2) x 9FT deep/27 = 50CY eroded embankment and abutment subgrade material [Note: Cross-sectional area is a
triangle]
4A.2: 30LF of W beam [three beam detail] guardrail with metal posts damaged and supporting soil washed away [embankment loss shown in Area
1]
4A.3: (20LF + 30LF) x 10FT wide x 6FT deep/27 = 111 CY rip rap loss north abutment
Damage: Floodwaters caused scour and erosion of embankment causing loss of material under the northeast wingwall, behind the north bridge
abutment and around caissons [50CY]. Erosion of embankment caused damage to guardrail [30LF]. Erosion caused loss of rip rap material at north
[111 CY] abutment. Bridge was closed to traffic due to lack of support under north abutment and guardrail. Voids were observed at the bottom of
north abutment wall at the 11-13-13 inspection between concrete beams B and C (second and third beams from the west side of the bridge) after
repairs were completed. Voided embankment material behind the north abutment remaining at time of inspection is estimated to be 12.5 ft L x 3 ft W
x 2 ft D= 2.7CY. This is not in addition to the amount shown in 4A.1 above and is an estimate of the void volume that was visible at the time of
inspection. Additional stabilization is necessary on the channel side of the northeast wingwall beyond the limits of the installed sheet pile wall.
Note: CDOT inspectors conducted an emergency scour inspection on September 15, 2013 to document damages at the facility. The bridge was
closed at the time of the inspection. Notes from inspection are as follows: "The east end of the North Abutment (A5) has significant scour of the
riprap slope undermining approximately 25 ft of the abutment cap and exposing 3 caissons. The northeast wingwall is completely undermined. The
north approach slab is undermined beneath all of the northbound lane from the back face of A5 nearly to the sleeper slab. "
South side of river:
Note: The areas shown are for estimating purposes only. This PW is for the entire control structure and bridge. On the south side of the river, Area
4B is for the bridge and Areas 5, 6, 7, and 8 are all part of the control structure facility.
Area 46: South abutment and Piers 2 and 3 of CR9.5-24.5A Bridge
Dimensions:
46.1 : (10LF + 46LF + 10LF) x 10FT wide x 3FT deep/27 = 73CY rip rap loss at south abutment
4B.2: 10LF [column circumference] x 3FT wide x 3FT deep/27 x 3 columns = 10CY scour at Pier 2
4B.3: 10LF [column circumference] x 3FT wide x 3FT deep/27 x 3 columns = 10CY scour at Pier 3
Damage: The applicant noted additional rubble rip rap was washed away downstream during this event at the south abutment [73CY]. Embankment
material lost due to scour at Pier 2 [10CY]. For this PW it is assumed that an additional 10CY of material is lost due to scour at Pier 3. Pier 4 is in
the river and could not be accessed.
Note: CDOT inspectors conducted an emergency scour inspection on September 15, 2013 to document damages at the facility. The bridge was
dosed at the time of the inspection. Notes from inspection are as follows: "Bridge should remain closed until North Abutment and approach are
stabilized. Measurable scour up to 5 ft from previous report data at the upstream face of Piers 2 and 3, unable to measure at Pier 4 or any other
portions of the piers due to high water velocity."
Area 5: Scour hole south of the control structure weir centerline and upstream of the control structure sheetpiling
Dimension: 5.1: 45FT long x 55FT wide x 3FT deep/27 = 275CY
Damage: Floodwaters caused erosion of improved river subgrade causing loss of material [275CY]. Note: River subgrade work was engineered
and constructed in the late 1990's.
https://connect I .dhs.gov/emm ie/,Danalnfo=isource.fema.net.SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/20 14
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 17 of 28
Area 6: Concrete walk south of the river beginning at a point east of the control structure [GPS: 40.17457, -104.97844] and extending westerly under
the CR9.5 bridge and ending at a point [GPS: 40.17496, -104.97935] where the walk intersects the western Right-of-Way for CR9.5.
Dimension: 6.1 : 295LF x 10FT wide x 6"/12 thick/27 = 55CY
Damage: Floodwaters caused displacement of existing concrete walk [55CY]
Area 7: Eroded soil on the southern bank underneath and east of CR9.5 in the area of the concrete walk
Dimensions:
7.1 : 75LF x 20FT x 2FT/27 = 111CY eroded embankment [under CR9.5 bridge]
7.2: 75LF x 20FT x 0.33FT/27 = 18CY eroded top soil [under CR9.5 bridge]
7.3: 100LF x 25FT x 2FT/27 = 185CY eroded rip rap (east of CR9.5 bridge, either side of sheetpiling]
7.4: 220LF x 55FT wide x 1 .5FT deep/27 = 672CY eroded embankment [east of CR9.5 bridge]
7.5: 220LF X 55FT x 0.33FT/27 = 148CY eroded top soil [east of CR9.5 bridge]
Damage: Floodwaters caused erosion and loss of material [1173CY].
Note: This area has two [2] 18" CMP storm drains, one on the east side of the control structure sheetpiling which returns water from the ditch east of
CR9.5 to the river and one on the west side of the control structure sheetpiling that drains a small ponding area south of the concrete walk. There is
no apparent damage to either of these CMPs and discussions at the site visit indicated that these lines could be worked around during repairs to the
walk without disturbance.
Area 8: Eroded improved embankment on the southern bank downstream of the control structure
Dimensions:
8.1 : 270LF x 45FT wide x 7FT deep/2/27 = 1575CY eroded embankment
8.2: 270LF x 45FT x 0.33FT/27 = 149CY eroded top soil
Damage: Floodwaters caused erosion and loss of material [1724CY]
Area 9 Miscellaneous Damage [south of control structure centerline]:
9.1 : Floodwaters deposited debris incidental to the project including one [1] tree [approx. 24" caliper] and two [2] 24" RCP pipe sections 4FT long
each
9.2: Floodwaters destroyed 150LF of 3-strand barb wire fence
SCOPE OF WORK:
PA-08-CO-4145-PW 00851 (0):
The Applicant plans to bid out this project for the repairs to the CR9.5 Bridge and Control Structure. The Scope of Work for this project is split up into
the same areas that were used for the Damage Description. These areas are shown on the attached sketch. Areas 1 through 4A are north of the St.
Vrain River and Areas 48 through 9 are south of the river. The quantities are estimated based on site visits and the bid drawings for the control
structure. Except where noted, costs are estimated using the Urban Drainage Flood Control District Bid Tabs Program Version 2007.7.xls dated
2/10/14 Summary of All Unit Costs [copy attached] for similar work, complete and in-place.
WORK COMPLETED:
Due to the road closure, the Applicant contracted with TLM Constructors under emergency procurement procedures to repair the void under the
north bridge abutment of CR9.5 [contracted Fall 2013 — copy of agreement attached]. The repair was performed on 9-17 through 9-21-2013 and
included the following:
Area 4A:
Formwork consisted of 30LF x 25FT = 750SF of sheetpiling along the east side of the north abutment with approximately 25LF x 8FT = 200SF of
formwork that consisted of plywood and vertical steel whalers on the southern face of the north abutment underneath the bridge.
Six [6] openings, approximately 18" x 18", were cut in the roadway to access the void area behind the north abutment. Flowable concrete fill was
poured in lifts to fill the void behind the abutment [approximately 40CY]. Some void area still exists and will be addressed below. It is assumed that
an additional 10CY of flowable fill may be required to complete.
Dump rip rap to protect north abutment: 20LF x 25FT x 4.5FT/27 = 83CY
Cost for Work Completed Area 4: The Applicant submitted a spreadsheet itemizing the costs for the project to-date [copy attached]
FA Labor: $5,367.43 [see attached FA information from Applicant]
FA Equipment: $366.00 [see attached FA information from Applicant]
Contracted Services: $57,782.49 [see attached invoices]
Total Cost = 5367.43 + 366 + 57782.49 = $63,515.92
The cost submitted appears to be reasonable as shown on the attached Contractor Agreement markup.
WORK TO BE COMPLETED:
Note: Rounding errors may exist. The quantities shown are rounded to the whole number, however the cost is correctly calculated using the
unrounded number. Refer to the attached excel spreadsheet for all calculations and the numbers shown below.
North side of river:
Temporary Construction Measures:
Traffic Control: 10DY x $500.00/DY = $5,000.00
Note: UDFCD bid prices shows $453/day, this value was rounded to $500/day.
Install stream diversion to isolate north side of control structure:
Install sheetpiling to elevation 5FT above existing piles [RSMeans 31 41 16 10 1900 drive, extract, salvage] 300LF x 23FT = 6900SF x $26.50/SF =
$182,850.00
Install dewatering pumps/generator assembly [FEMA Code 8311] 2EA x 2WK x 168HR/WK = 672HR x $8.00/HR = $5,376.00
Note: 2 week dewatering assumed for project, cost used was for the generator assembly
Total Cost Temporary Measures: 5000 + 182,850 + 5,376 = $193,226
Area 1
1 .1 : Rebuild embankment north of creek 3:1 slope: 2222CY x $11 .93/CY = $26,511 .11
1 .2: Install 24" RCP storm sewer 60LF x $73.58/LF = $4,414.80
https://connect l .dhs.gov/emmie/,Danalnfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 18 of 28
1 .3: Install 24" RCP flared end section: lEA x $2.216.37/EA = $2,216.37
1 .4: Seed and mulch for erosion protection: 6500SF x $0.08/SF = $520.00
Total Cost Area 1 : 26511 .11 + 4414.80 + 2216.37 + 520 = $33,662.28
Area 2
2.0: Remove existing rip rap and grouted boulders downstream of control structure: 567CY x $33.66/CY = $19,074.00 Note: Rip rap was placed as
protection by the contractor [TLM] in Area 4A Work Completed.
2.1: Install material to fill scour holes and compact: 567CY x $11.93/CY = $6,760.33
2.2: Install Type II bedding material north of control structure: 30FT x 60FT x 0.66FT = 44CY x $58.07/CY = $2,555.08
2.3: Reinstall rip rap north of control structure beyond grouted boulders: 30FT x 60FT x 3FT = 200CY x $70.65/CY = $14,130.00
2.4: Install topsoil over riprap: 30FT x 60FT x 0.66FT = 44CY x $33.00/CY = $1 ,452.00
2.5: Reinstall stepped grouted boulders downstream of control structure: 55FT x 60FT = 367SY x $244.39/SY = $89,609.67
Total Cost Area 2: 19074 + 6760.33 + 2555.08 + 14130 + 1452 + 89609.67 = $133,581 .08
Area 3
3.0: Relocate rip rap upstream of control structure placed for abutment protection [under Work Completed] to prepare area for filling scour hole:
SOFT x 55FT x 8FT = 815CY x $8.01/CY = $6,526.67
3.1 : Install material to fill scour holes and compact: 519CY x $11.93/CY = $6,196.97
Total Cost Area 3: 6526.67 + 6196.97 = $12.723.64
Area 4A
4A.0: Remove formwork from southern face of the north abutment under the bridge. Note: Cost associated with this item is included in 4A.1 below.
4A. 1: Set additional formwork [12LF x 4FT = 48SF]: $1 ,000 lump sum estimate
Pump flowable fill into remaining void under north abutment [10CY]: 10CY x $150/CY [cost used from contract] = $1500 + $2000 [concrete pumper
adder] = $3,500
4A.2: Remove 3OLF of damaged guardrail end treatment on east side of roadway [double horizontal rail section only]: $500 lump sum estimate
4A.3: Install Type 3 W-Beam guardrail [Three Beam Detail]: 3OLF x $33.45/LF [COOT Code 606-00350] + $1,000 [small job adder] = $2,003.50
4A.4: Install 111 CY of rip rap at north abutment: 111 CY x $70.65/CY = $7.850
Total Cost Area 4A: 1000 + 3500 + 500 + 2003.50 + 7850 = $14,853.50
South side of river:
Area 4B
46. 1 : Install 73CY of rip rap at south abutment: 73CY x $70.65/CY = $5, 181
46.2: Install material at Pier 2: 10CY x $70.65/CY = $706.50
46.3: Install material at Pier 3: 10CY x $70.65/CY = $706.50
Total Cost Area 4B: 5181 + 706.50 + 706.50 = $6,594.00
Area 5
5.0: Install dewatering pump/generator assembly [FEMA Code 8311] lEA x 8HR x $8.00/HR = $64.00
Note: Cost used was for the generator assembly.
5.1: Install material to fill scour hole: 275CY x $11.93/CY = $3,280.75
Total Cost Area 5: 64 + 3,280.75 = $3,344.75
Area 6
6.0: Remove damaged concrete walk: 55CY x $51.57/CY = $2,817.25 [concrete to be recycled]
6. 1 : Install concrete walk 1 OFT wide x 6" thick: 55CY x $384.50/CY = $21 ,005.09
Total Cost Area 6: 2817.25 + 21005.09 = $23,822.34
Area 7
7.1 : Install fill material and grade along walk under bridge: 111 CY x $11 .93/CY = $1 ,325.56
7.2: Install top soil over fill material & grade [4" thick]: 18CY x $33.00/CY = $605.00
7.2.1 : Seed and mulch for erosion protection: 1500SF x $0.08/CY = $120.00
7.3: Install rip rap east of bridge [either side of sheetpiling]: 185CY x $70.65 = $13.083.33
7.4: Install fill material and grade along walk east of bridge: 672CY x $11 .93/CY = $8.019.61
7.5: Install top soil over fill material & grade [4" thick]: 148CY x $33.00/CY = $4,880.33
7.5.1 : Seed and mulch for erosion protection: 12100SF x $0.08/SF = $968.00
Total Cost Area 7: 1325.56 + 605 + 120 + 13083.33 + 8019.61 + 4880.33 + 968 = $29.001.83
Area 8
8. 1 : Install fill material and grade: 1575CY x $11 .93/CY = $18,789.75
8.2: Install top soil over fill material & grade [4" thick]: 149CY x $33.00/CY = $4,900.50
8.2.1 : Seed and mulch for erosion protection: 12150SF x $0.08/SF = $972.00
Total Cost Area 8: 18789.75 + 4900.50 + 972 = $24,662.25
Area 9
9.1 - Remove debris incidental to project [1 tree and 2 pieces of 24" RCP]: 1 LS x $1,000.00 = $1 ,000.00
Note: Applicant is responsible for disposing debris at a certified disposal site.
9.2: Install 3-strand barb wire fence: 150LF x $6.86/LF = $1 ,029.00
Total Cost Area 9: 1000 + 1029 = $2,029.00
WORK TO BE COMPLETED COST SUMMARY:
$193,226.00 + $33,662.28 + $133,581 .08 + $12,723.64 + $14,853.50 + $6,594.00 + $3.344.75 + $23,822.34 + $29,001 .83 + $24,662.25 + $2,029.00
= $477,500.68
Direct Administrative Cost [DAC]: Applicant is claiming DAC, however backup data has not been received, therefore an estimate of 20 hrs x $50/hr =
$1000 is shown on the DAC sheet attached to this PW.
PROJECT NOTES:
https://connectl .dhs.gov/emm ie/,DanaInfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatch Destination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 19 of 28
1 . During repair or reconstruction, applicant may incur additional costs related to clearing and grubbing, placement of topsoil, erosion and
sedimentation control, sanitary facilities, dewatering, mobilization and flagging/traffic control. Such costs are generally addressed in the "in-place"
unit costs of repair or reconstruction items, and not specifically addressed in the Scope of Work. However, if a project requires an extraordinary use
of any such item, to where a specific reference in the PW should be considered, applicant is advised to contact Colorado Department of Emergency
Management requesting a revision to the PWs Scope of Work.
2. FORCE ACCOUNT LABOR/EQUIPMENT: No timesheet or equipment logs were submitted for review, therefore the Applicant's spreadsheet was
used. Applicant is responsible to provide documents at closeout.
3. INVOICES: 100% of all submitted invoices have been reviewed and are attached as supporting documentation. No cancelled checks were
received. Proof of payment may be requested at closeout.
4. Pursuant to 44 CFR 13.42, Grantees and Subgrantees are required to retain records, including source documentation, to support
expenditures/costs incurred against the grant award, for 3 years from the date of submission to FEMA of the final Financial Status Report.
5. The applicant must obtain all required federal, state, and local permits prior to the commencement of work.
6. The subgrantee is requesting direct administrative costs that are directly chargeable to this specific project. Associated eligible work is related to
administration of the PA project only and in accordance with 44 CFR 13.22. These costs are treated consistently and uniformly as direct costs in all
federal awards and other subgrantee activities and are not included in any approved indirect costs.
7. Project was reviewed for 406 Hazard Mitigation and a copy of 406 HMP proposal is attached with this project.
8. The applicant is aware that all projects are subject to an insurance review as stated in 44 C.F.R. Sections 206.252 and 206.253. If applicable, an
insurance determination will be made either as anticipated proceeds or actual proceeds in accordance with the applicant's insurance policy that may
affect the total amount of the project.
9. The applicant is required to adhere to State and Federal Government Procurement rules and regulations and maintain adequate records to
support the basis for all purchasing of goods and materials and contracting services for projects approved under the Public Assistance program, as
stated in 44 CFR 13.36. The applicant has advised they have followed their normal procurement procedures.
10. Except where noted, costs for the Work to be Completed for the Control Structure are estimated using the Urban Drainage Flood Control District
Bid Tabs Program Version 2007.7.xls dated 2/10/14 Summary of All Unit Costs [copy attached] for similar work, complete and in-place.
11 . The Applicant has contracted with ICON Engineering, Inc. [the designer of the original Control Structure] to provide engineering services for the
repairs to the bridge and grade control structure located at CR 9.5 and the St. Vrain River. The Applicant submitted the attached Exhibit A — Scope
of Services from the ICON Engineering Agreement. This document was reviewed by the FEMA Project Specialist as a basis for the Scope of Work
for this PW. Due to the short timeframe available prior to the Spring 2014 runoff high river flows, the Applicant plans to repair the area in an phased
approach as shown below:
12. The following notes are supplemental items from the FEMA bridge inspection that are not listed in the Damage Description and Dimensions:
CR 9.5-24.5A over St. Vrain River in Section 35, T3N. R68W, Category C, Permanent Bridge Repair
Lat: N40.17610 Long: — W104.97929
On November 13, 2013. Kathleen Ruvarac, FEMA TAC Bridge Specialist, David Ray, FEMA Hazard Mitigation Specialist, Gary Moore, FEMA
Environmental Historic Preservation Specialist, and Donald Dunker, Weld County Public Works Engineer, performed a site investigation at this
location to document damages. The bridge was open and repairs completed at the time of inspection.
The 300.7 ft long x 46.3 ft wide concrete and steel structure traverses the St. Vrain River in Weld County, CO. The bridge is a quadruple (4) span
concrete/steel bridge consisting of a 2 inch asphalt overlay on an 8 inch concrete deck with epoxy reinforcement, Four (4) — Bulb Tee 54 inch (BT54)
prestressed concrete girders, concrete abutments, and three (3) concrete intermediate piers. Two 6 inch diameter PVC utility suspended form
bottom of deck in third bay from the west side of the structure. The deck is flanked on both sides with steel guide rail with steel posts, 6 inch diameter
steel utility attached to east curb.
The applicant provided previous bridge inspection reports for the facility dated June 30, 2010 and May 23, 2012. The bridge in built in 1999 and had
a sufficiency rating of 99.8 in 2010 and 100.0 in 2012.
2010 inspection notes of elements include: concrete spalling at end of all girders at both abutments, with some exposed rebar; tops of caissons are
exposed about eight inches at Pier 3: some delamination noted in end diaphragm at pier 4 end of girder 4A; erosion and undermining less than 3
inches at northwest corner of north abutment (A5); 1 .5 ft deep erosion hole at end of northwest wingwall; Erosion starting to undermine sleeper slab.
The deck condition is noted as good condition (7) on a scale of 0 to 9. The superstructure is noted as very good condition (8) and the substructure
noted as satisfactory (6). The channel banks were observed to be protected or well vegetated (8). Maintenance items included cleaning plugged
deck drains, sealing cracks in asphalt surface.
2012 inspection notes of elements include: concrete spelling at end of all girders at both abutments, with exposed rebar at ends of girders 4A and
4VB at north abutment (A5); tops of caissons are exposed about ten inches at Pier 3; some delamination noted in end diaphragm at pier 4 end of
girder 4A; erosion and undermining less than 6 inches at northwest corner of north abutment (A5). The deck condition is noted as good condition (7)
on a scale of 0 to 9. The superstructure is noted as very good condition (8) and the substructure noted as good condition (7). The channel banks
were observed to be protected or well vegetated (8). Maintenance items included sealing cracks in asphalt surface, and patching concrete spells in
end diaphragms.
Due to the high water elevation in the river at the time of inspection, the full extent of damages incurred as a result of this disaster may not have been
observed and documented.
Does the Scope of Work change the pre-disaster
conditions at the site? Yes No Special Considerations included? Yes No
Hazard Mitigation proposal included? Yes No Is there insurance coverage on this facility? Yes No
https://connectl .dhs.gov/emm ie/,Dana[nfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 20 of 28
PROJECT COST
ITEM CODE NARRATIVE QUANTITY/UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
'* Version 0 ***
Work Completed
1 9000 CEF Cost Estimate (See Attached 1 /LS $ 63.516.00 $ 63,516.00
Spreadsheet)
Work To Be Completed
2 9000 CEF Cost Estimate (See Attached 1 /LS $ 703.980.00 $ 703.980.00
Spreadsheet)
Direct Subgrantee Admin Cost
3 9901 Direct Administrative Costs 1 /LS $ 1 .000.00 $ 1 ,000.00
(Subgrantee)
4 0909 Hazard Mitigation Proposal 1 /LS $ 199,570.67 $ 199.570.67
TOTAL COST $ 968.066.67
PREPARED BY Paul Hesse TITLE TAC Project Specialist SIGNATURE
APPLICANT REP. Roy Rudisill TITLE Director - OEM SIGNATURE
WELD (COUNTY) : PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00851
Conditions Information
Review Name Condition Type Condition Name Description Monitored Status
This review does not address all
federal, state and local requirements.
Acceptance of federal funding
Standard requires recipient to comply with all
Final Review Other (EHP) Condition #2 federal, state and local laws. Failure No Approved
to obtain all appropriate federal. state
and local environmental permits and
clearances may jeopardize federal
funding.
Any change to the approved scope of
Final Review Other (EHP) Standard work will require re-evaluation for No Approved
Condition #1 compliance with NEPA and other
Laws and Executive Orders.
Gravel/borrow materials for work to be
National Historic completed must be obtained from one
Final Review Other (EHP) Preservation Act of the following pre-approved sources: No Approved
(NHPA) (SHPO approved source. CO
Licensed Pit. commercial source.
contractor or county Stockpiles).
POST-CONSTRUCTION: 17. Upon
project completion. revegetate all
disturbed areas with native shrubs.
trees, and grasses. a. Rip compacted
access routes prior to replanting with
Endangered native vegetation. b. Fill and reseed
Final Review Other (EHP) Species Act with weed free material and native No Approved
(ESA) seed mixtures. a Consult the Service
before finalizing a seed and plant list.
18. Bury riprap. then plant with native
riparian vegetation. 19. Rehabilitate
adjacent habitats impacted by
floodwaters to restore connectivity
https://connect I .dhs.gov/elm ie/,DanaInfo=isource.tema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination .do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 21 of 28
and prevent future impacts from
erosion or sedimentation. 20.
Consider monitoring the revegetated
areas for success. The Service can
help establish success criteria during
the consultation process.
If ground disturbing activities occur
during construction, applicant will
Standard monitor ground disturbance and if any
Final Review Other (EHP) Condition #3 potential archeological resources are No Approved
discovered, will immediately cease
construction in that area and notify the
State and FEMA.
PRE-CONSTRUCTION DESIGN: 1 .
Design the project to avoid and
minimize the permanent and
temporary impacts to riparian and
adjacent upland habitats. a. Before
construction. identify and prioritize
riparian and adjacent upland habitats
within the project area. Design the
project so that it avoids these habitats
whenever possible. b. Minimize the
amount of concrete. riprap, bridge
footings. and other "hard."
impermeable engineering features
within the stream channel and riparian
or adjacent upland habitats. c. Use
bioengineering techniques to stabilize
stream banks. d. Minimize the number
and footprint of access routes, staging
areas, and work areas. e. Locate
access routes, staging areas. and
work areas within previously disturbed
or modified non-habitat areas. f.
Maintain habitat connectivity under
Endangered bridges or through culverts by
Final Review Other (EHP) Species Act installing ledges or dry culverts No Approved
(ESA) adjacent to the culverts with water
flow. g. Avoid fragmenting linear
riparian corridors. 2. Install limits of
work fencing (e.g. , orange barrier
netting or silt fencing). signage. or
other visible markers to delineate
access routes and the project area
from habitats. Use this fencing to
enforce no-entry zones. 3. Hold a
preconstruction briefing for onsite
personnel to explain the limits of work
and other conservation measures. 4.
Follow regional stormwater guidelines
and design best management
practices (BMPs) to control
contamination, erosion, and
sedimentation. such as silt fences, silt
basins, gravel bags, and other
controls needed to stabilize soils in
denuded or graded areas. during and
after construction. 5. Locate utilities
along existing road corridors, and if
possible. within the roadway or road
shoulder. a. Bury overhead utilities
whenever possible. b. Directionally
https://connect I .dhs.gov/emmie/, Danaln fo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination .do?. .. 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 22 of 28
bore utilities and pipes underneath
habitats. 6. Develop and implement a
habitat restoration plan that addresses
site preparation, planting techniques,
control of non-native weeds. native
seed mixtures, and post-construction
monitoring.
The applicant should implement
appropriate FWS conservation
measures identified in the Emergency
Consultation between FEMA and
USFWS. dated September 24. 2013,
Endangered to the extent possible: including a
Final Review Other (EHP) Species Act post-construction estimate of the No Approved
(ESA) amount of habitat affected by the
emergency response. an evaluation of
how conservation recommendations
were implemented. and the results of
implementation in minimizing adverse
effects.
The applicant is responsible for
verifying and compliance with all
permit requirements, including permit
conditions. pre-construction
notification requirements and regional
conditions as provided by the US
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
The applicant is responsible for
Clean Water Act implementing. monitoring, and
Final Review Other (EHP) (CWA) maintaining all Best Management No Approved
Practices (BMP's) and Pre-
Construction Notification (PCN)
conditions of applicable Nation Wide
Permits (NWP). This is to include any
requirements per the Colorado
Department of Public Health and
Environment 401 Water Quality
Certification for Clean Water Act
permits.
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION : 7.
Contact the Service immediately by
telephone at (303) 236-4773 if a
Preble's is found alive, dead. injured,
or hibernating within the project area.
Please also contact the Service if any
other listed species are found within
the project area. 8. To the maximum
extent practicable, limit disturbing
(e.g. . crushing. trampling) or removing
(e.g. . cutting. clearing) all vegetation ,
such as willows, trees. shrubs, and
grasses within riparian and adjacent
upland habitats. a. Restrict the
temporary or permanent removal of
vegetation to the footprint of the
project area. b. Minimize the use of
heavy machinery and use smaller
equipment when possible. c. Soil
compaction: Temporarily line access
routes with geotextiles or other
materials. especially in wet. unstable
soils to protect roots and the seed
bank. 9. Use the attached table to
https://connect l .dhs.gov/emm ie/,Dana I n fo=isource.fema.net. SSL+dispatchDestination.do:'... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 23 of 28
track the acres or square feet of
riparian and upland habitats
temporarily or permanently affected
by the response activities. a.
Temporary Impacts: Native vegetation
and habitats will reestablish following
rehabilitation (e.g. . access route that
is rehabilitated with native. weed-free
seeds and plants). b. Permanent
Impacts: Riparian or upland habitats
will not return as a result of project
activities (e.g. , road surface. concrete
footings) 10. Track the volumes of any
water from onsite sources stored or
used for dust abatement, soil
compaction, concrete mixing. or other
activities. 11 . Locate. store. stage.
operate. and refuel equipment outside
of riparian or adjacent upland habitats.
a. Operate equipment from previously
disturbed or modified roadbeds or
road shoulders above the riparian
habitats. b. Limit the number of
entrance and exit points leading into
the project area. c. Stockpile topsoil
and debris outside the riparian
corridor and protect from stream flows
or runoff. 12. During the Preble's
Endangered active season (May 1 through
Final Review Other (EHP) Species Act November 1 ). work only during No Approved
(ESA) daylight hours to avoid disrupting
Preble's nocturnal activities. 13.
Promptly remove waste to minimize
site disturbance and avoid attracting
predators. 14. Cover exposed holes or
piles of loose dirt with boards. tarps.
or other materials to prevent
entrapment. 15. Use best
management practices (BMPs) to limit
construction-related disturbance. such
as soil compaction, erosion, and
sedimentation. and to prevent the
spread of invasive weeds: a. Soil
compaction: Establish one access
route for workers. vehicles. and
machinery, preferably along a
previously disturbed surface or route.
b. Soil compaction: Temporarily line
access routes with geotextiles or other
materials. especially in wet. unstable
soils. c. Weed control: Wash and
inspect vehicles and equipment
before entering or leaving the project
area so that they are free of noxious
weed seeds and plant parts. d. Weed
control: Use only weed free certified
materials. including gravel. sand. top
soil, seed. and mulch. 16. Complete
construction before beginning
restoration or enhancement activities.
If ground disturbing activities occur
during construction. applicant will
EHP Review Other (EHP) monitor ground disturbance and if any No Recommended
Standard potential archeological resources are
https://connect I .dhs.gov/emmie/.Danalnfo=isource.tema. net,SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/20 14
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 24 of 28
Condition #3 discovered. will immediately cease
construction in that area and notify the
State and FEMA.
This review does not address all
federal. state and local requirements.
Acceptance of federal funding
Standard requires recipient to comply with all
EHP Review Other (EHP) Condition #2 federal, state and local laws. Failure No Recommended
to obtain all appropriate federal. state
and local environmental permits and
clearances may jeopardize federal
funding.
Any change to the approved scope of
EHP Review Other (EHP) Standard work will require re-evaluation for No Recommended
Condition #1 compliance with NEPA and other
Laws and Executive Orders.
Gravel/borrow materials for work to be
National Historic completed must be obtained from one
EHP Review Other (EHP) Preservation Act of the following pre-approved sources: No Recommended
(NHPA) (SHPO approved source. CO
Licensed Pit. commercial source.
contractor or county Stockpiles).
POST-CONSTRUCTION : 17. Upon
project completion. revegetate all
disturbed areas with native shrubs.
trees. and grasses. a. Rip compacted
access routes prior to replanting with
native vegetation. b. Fill and reseed
with weed free material and native
seed mixtures. c. Consult the Service
Endangered before finalizing a seed and plant list.
EHP Review Other (EHP) Species Act 18. Bury riprap. then plant with native No Recommended
(ESA) riparian vegetation. 19. Rehabilitate
adjacent habitats impacted by
floodwaters to restore connectivity
and prevent future impacts from
erosion or sedimentation. 20.
Consider monitoring the revegetated
areas for success. The Service can
help establish success criteria during
the consultation process.
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION : 7.
Contact the Service immediately by
telephone at (303) 236-4773 if a
Preble's is found alive, dead. injured,
or hibernating within the project area.
Please also contact the Service if any
other listed species are found within
the project area. 8. To the maximum
extent practicable, limit disturbing
(e.g. , crushing. trampling) or removing
(e.g.. cutting. clearing) all vegetation,
such as willows, trees. shrubs, and
grasses within riparian and adjacent
upland habitats. a. Restrict the
temporary or permanent removal of
vegetation to the footprint of the
project area. b. Minimize the use of
heavy machinery and use smaller
equipment when possible. c. Soil
compaction: Temporarily line access
routes with geotextiles or other
https://connect l .dhs.gov/emm ie/,Danalnfo=isource. fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination .do`.'. . . 5/6/20 14
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 25 of 28
materials. especially in wet. unstable
soils to protect roots and the seed
bank. 9. Use the attached table to
track the acres or square feet of
riparian and upland habitats
temporarily or permanently affected
by the response activities. a.
Temporary Impacts: Native vegetation
and habitats will reestablish following
rehabilitation (e.g. , access route that
is rehabilitated with native, weed-free
seeds and plants). b. Permanent
Impacts: Riparian or upland habitats
will not return as a result of project
activities (e.g. , road surface. concrete
footings) 10. Track the volumes of any
water from onsite sources stored or
used for dust abatement, soil
compaction. concrete mixing. or other
activities. 11 . Locate, store. stage.
operate. and refuel equipment outside
of riparian or adjacent upland habitats.
a. Operate equipment from previously
disturbed or modified roadbeds or
road shoulders above the riparian
habitats. b. Limit the number of
entrance and exit points leading into
the project area. c. Stockpile topsoil
and debris outside the riparian
corridor and protect from stream flows
Endangered or runoff. 12. During the Preble.s
EHP Review Other (EHP) Species Act active season (May 1 through No Recommended
(ESA) November 1 ). work only during
daylight hours to avoid disrupting
Preble's nocturnal activities. 13.
Promptly remove waste to minimize
site disturbance and avoid attracting
predators. 14. Cover exposed holes or
piles of loose dirt with boards. tarps.
or other materials to prevent
entrapment. 15. Use best
management practices (BMPs) to limit
construction-related disturbance. such
as soil compaction, erosion, and
sedimentation. and to prevent the
spread of invasive weeds: a. Soil
compaction: Establish one access
route for workers. vehicles. and
machinery. preferably along a
previously disturbed surface or route.
b. Soil compaction: Temporarily line
access routes with geotextiles or other
materials. especially in wet. unstable
soils. c. Weed control: Wash and
inspect vehicles and equipment
before entering or leaving the project
area so that they are free of noxious
weed seeds and plant parts. d. Weed
control: Use only weed free certified
materials. including gravel. sand. top
soil, seed. and mulch. 16. Complete
construction before beginning
restoration or enhancement activities.
PRE-CONSTRUCTION DESIGN: 1 .
https://connectl .dhs.gov/emmie/,Danalnfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatch Destination .do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 26 of 28
Design the project to avoid and
minimize the permanent and
temporary impacts to riparian and
adjacent upland habitats. a. Before
construction, identify and prioritize
riparian and adjacent upland habitats
within the project area. Design the
project so that it avoids these habitats
whenever possible. b. Minimize the
amount of concrete. riprap. bridge
footings. and other 'hard."
impermeable engineering features
within the stream channel and riparian
or adjacent upland habitats. c. Use
bioengineering techniques to stabilize
stream banks. d. Minimize the number
and footprint of access routes, staging
areas. and work areas. e. Locate
access routes, staging areas. and
work areas within previously disturbed
or modified non-habitat areas. f.
Maintain habitat connectivity under
bridges or through culverts by
installing ledges or dry culverts
adjacent to the culverts with water
flow. g. Avoid fragmenting linear
Endangered riparian corridors. 2. Install limits of
EHP Review Other (EHP) Species Act work fencing (e.g. , orange barrier No Recommended
(ESA) netting or silt fencing). signage. or
other visible markers to delineate
access routes and the project area
from habitats. Use this fencing to
enforce no-entry zones. 3. Hold a
preconstruction briefing for onsite
personnel to explain the limits of work
and other conservation measures. 4.
Follow regional stormwater guidelines
and design best management
practices (BMPs) to control
contamination. erosion. and
sedimentation. such as silt fences, silt
basins, gravel bags, and other
controls needed to stabilize soils in
denuded or graded areas. during and
after construction. 5. Locate utilities
along existing road corridors, and if
possible. within the roadway or road
shoulder. a. Bury overhead utilities
whenever possible. b. Directionally
bore utilities and pipes underneath
habitats. 6. Develop and implement a
habitat restoration plan that addresses
site preparation. planting techniques,
control of non-native weeds. native
seed mixtures, and post-construction
monitoring.
The applicant is responsible for
verifying and compliance with all
permit requirements. including permit
conditions. pre-construction
notification requirements and regional
conditions as provided by the US
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
The applicant is responsible for
https://connect I .dhs.gov/emmie/,Danalnfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination .do`'. . . 5/6/2014
l
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 27 of 28
implementing. monitoring, and
maintaining all Best Management
Practices (BMP's) and Pre-
Construction Notification (PCN)
Clean Water Act conditions of applicable Nation Wide
EHP Review Other (EHP) (CWA) Permits (NWP). This is to include any No Recommended
requirements per the Colorado
Department of Public Health and
Environment 401 Water Quality
Certification for Clean Water Act
permits.
The applicant should implement
appropriate FWS conservation
measures identified in the Emergency
Consultation between FEMA and
USFWS. dated September 24, 2013.
Endangered to the extent possible: including a
EHP Review Other (EHP) Species Act post-construction estimate of the No Recommended
(ESA) amount of habitat affected by the
emergency response. an evaluation of
how conservation recommendations
were implemented. and the results of
implementation in minimizing adverse
effects.
Internal Comments
No. Queue User Date/Time Reviewer Comments
04-15-2014
7 Award Review SYSTEM 05:45 PM ACCEPTED
GMT
Note: the grantee's comment is addressed with an updated
CEF as well as Note: Rounding errors may exist. The
quantities shown are rounded to the whole number, however
the cost is correctly calculated using the unrounded number.
04-'11 -2014 Refer to the attached excel spreadsheet for all calculations.
6 Final Review PALACIO 05:27 PM Final Reviewer finds eligible the application and approves the
JOSE GMT funding of this project worksheet based on the applicant
having performed all required procurement procedures,
perform all required special considerations recommendations
such as permits to address EHP considerations and securing
all actual cost documentation for the financial reconciliation of
this project. Task Force Leader- J. Palacio 04/11 /2014
Grantee 04-11 -2014
5 Review PATEL KAJAL 02:45 PM CEF attached does not match figures in the CEF of the PW
GMT
PW-00851 WELD (COUNTY), CAT D, 7%. complete. Bridge
and control structure over St. Vrain River. Bridge (40. 17525. -
104.97904) damages included embankment erosion: wing
wall, walkway and rip rap damage. Work needed: Install
stream diversion to isolate north side of control structure.
rebuild embankment north of creek. seed and mulch for
erosion protection, remove/replace existing rip rap and grouted
boulders back to pre-disaster condition (PDC); install Type II
bedding material north of control structure. reinstall (relocate
washed) rip rap: install topsoil over riprap. re-install stepped
grouted boulders downstream of control structure: install
flowable-fill in scour holes: remove formwork from southern
face of the north abutment under the bridge; remove/replace
damaged guardrail end. Install rip rap: remove/replace
concrete walk and recycle concrete. Hazard Mitigation: to
restore south embankment to PDC add rip rap and fill with
https://connect I .dhs.gov/emm ie/. Dana[nfo=isource. fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 28 of 28
seed and mulch; and add sheet pile and a manhole for storm
sewer system. - tcookro - 04/03/2014 14:04:26 GMT
Disregard category this is CAT C. - tcookro - 04/03/2014
14:35:31 GMT
Project activities have the potential to impact Waters of the
United States or wetlands. Project involves dredge. fill.
excavation and/or modification. - tcookro - 04/03/2014
14: 16:05 GMT
Project site work is not in a mapped wetland. - tcookro -
04/03/2014 13:38:25 GMT
Entire community will benefit from project completion. -
tcookro - 04/02/2014 18: 11 :37 GMT
Action is addressed under the attached Emergency
04-03-2014 Consultation between FEMA and USFWS. dated September
PATTERSON 24, 2013. The consultation includes conservation measures
4 EHP Review 08:40 PM
MOLLY GMT intended to minimize impacts to the federally listed Preble's
Meadow Jumping Mouse, Ute's Lady's Tress and Colorado
Butterfly Bush, and Designated Critical Habitat protected under
the ESA. - tcookro - 04/02/2014 21 :54:45 GMT
Please add 'borrow' condition on to NHPA
Project is located in Zone A, FIRM panel 0802660850C, dated
9/28/1982. Per 44 CFR Part 9.5 (g) Step 1 : Project repairs are
determined to have no effect on floodplain or wetlands
provided that the repairs remain in the existing footprint and do
not impact previously undisturbed areas. No further floodplains
review is required. - tcookro - 04/03/2014 13:32: 17 GMT
The scope of work has been reviewed and meets the criteria of
the 2013 signed Programmatic Agreement, Appendix B: III-
A.B. E. G. H , I. J . K and P agreed to by FEMA and the SHPO. -
tcookro - 04/03/2014 14: 13: 16 GMT
Cost Estimate HELLAND 04-02-2014
3 Format Review KEVIN 05:00 PM CEF eligible - KDH 04/02/14
GMT
Mitigation g714 The hazard mitigation proposal is approved. Mark W. Petitt.
2Review PETITT MARK GT PM 406 Specialist
A review of the documentation provided has identified that
Weld County is insured for property damages through;
Colorado Counties Casualty and Property Pool, Policy Number
020412751 .
This policy does not provide coverage for dams, dikes.
Insurance JOHNSON 04-02-2014 bridges. culverts. roadways. streets, walks. paved surfaces.
1 Review KENNETH 01 :32 PM tunnels. canals, land.
GMT The insurance policy will not provide coverage for costs
identified in this PW
There will not be an insurance reduction for this PW.
The FEMA eligible damages are not to building, contents,
equipment, or vehicles: therefore. there will not be an
insurance commitment required.
i
N
https://connect I .dhs.gov/emm ie/,Danalnfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination .do?... 5/6/2014
Hello