The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20151511.tiff RESOLUTION RE: APPROVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION FOR BRIDGE 23/14A OVER LITTLE DRY CREEK (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 Bridge 23/14A over Little Dry Creek (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 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 Bridge 23/14A over Little Dry Creek (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 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. 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: d, A) V ,;I •j. EXCUSED Barbara Kirkmeyer, Chair Weld County Clerk to the Board �, r • //�� Mike Freeman, Pro-Tem BY x0,04_, t•) I — c De Clerk to the oard(11.1+rt r }-----. P se �,e %`Sean P. Conway �r� APPROVED AS TO FOR r H (F1 ` � 4 _ __ 0_ " ulie A. Cozad +fir( County Attorney V i" '1 ,—•/EXCUSED Steve Moreno i Date of signature: o2 C r / 2015-1511 CC...DUN Acct (07,22_ EM0016 BC0045 0Colorado 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(Pat B)Received: Centennial,Colorado 80112 Office: 720.852.6713 Date Next Steps Letter Transmitted: Fax: 720.852.6750 cdps dhsem cdbg(&,state.co.us Jj PART A - NOI: PROJECT OVERVIEW I. Applicant Legal Name: Weld County, Colorado 2. Applicant ri Local Government Private Non-Profit(Attach copy of 501c3, if applicable) Type: 3. Project Title: County Match FEMA Projects-WELCO31 (688) 4. Proposed Project Total Cost: 57,598.14 CDBG-DR-I Request: 7,199.77 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—Tern Weld County Commissioner (970)356-4000 Toped Nameoo/Authorized:Applicant Agent Title Telephone Number ' ( a-rL.¢.e____ MAY 2 7 Z015 5',guune o/Authori:ed Applicant Aeeni Dine Signed 2015-1511 Attach any continuations nr additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page I of 29 CDBC-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management PART A - NOI: APPLICANT INFORMATION I. Applicant Legal Name: Weld County, Colorado 2. FIRS 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 Namc: Mr 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. ❑✓ 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/U)3Ud Fax: (y/U)33b-/ij Mobile: (9/U) 351-U E-mail Address: rrudisill(Ct),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. Ms. ❑ Mr.❑ Misu First Name: Barb Last Name: Connolly Title: Controller Organization: Weld County Accounting Street Address: 1150 O Street City: Greeley State: Colorado Zip Code: 80631 Telephone: (y/U)345 F x: k9(V)000-t{y Mobile: F-mail Address: bconnolly(@.co.Weld. K. Application Prepared by: Ms.❑ Mr.❑ Mts❑ First Name: Kyle Last Name: Jones Title: Planner Organization: ARCADIS-US Street Address: City: TallahassE State: FL Zip Code: 32309 Telephone: (t5U)L5 F x: Mobile: (LLb) LUZ-3 E-mail Address: kyle.iones(aarcadis- 9. Authorized Applicant Agent: Ms. ❑ Mr.fl Mts.❑FirstName: Barbara Last Name: Kirkmever Title: COMMISSil Organization: Weld County Street Address: 1150 O Street, P.O. Box 758 City: Greeley State: Colorado Zip Code: 80631 Telephone: lytu)3°G F:x: Mobile: E-mail Address: bkirkmeyer(( co.Welt The Authorized Applicant Agent MUST be the chief executive officer, mayor, etc. This 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 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 \NCI r'r\O1 /COO\ Tr... 0...'....! \nl...l...L.....4 ..H....L....J .....J ......1..'.... .L....'L..J .. .. ..L..,...� O 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 40.094590 and longitude is -104.848840. 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 household income of$56 589 and the maioritv of Weld County is owner-occuoied with O 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 25 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 CDBC-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 I of the program Recover Colorado Infrastructure Grant Program Guidelines(Guidelines). I. 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 I of the Guidelines. Please provide a brief explanation of how the proposed acquisition activity: (I) 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 that were a .J:.. .., .,.....n ..F aM.. ........�.. FL....J:.,.. TI.... ..1..4:.... 1']1111 4L...4 :.. :..l...a ..,;,ti 4r.1.. �..........4 I� 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(LXII)persons;or riWill aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight;or riIs 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 25.47%. 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 Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 4 of 20 CDRC-0R Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 3. Compliance with 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 [.Ml requirement to make up for the deficit." This section does not need to he completed if the project does not meet this National Objective. The primary objective for using CDBG Disaster Recovery funds is benefitting,by at least 5 I percent,persons of low and moderate income. The following section provides the information necessary to complete this requirement. a) Is the proposed activity: j.„7 jurisdiction wide Fl 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 c) Which type of income was used to determine the above? (Check only one) niAs determined by the American Community Survey (Public Facilities projects) riAnnual income as defined for Public Housing and Section 8 Annual income as reported under the Census long form piAdjusted gross income as defined for reporting under IRS Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and c-mail submittal. Page 5 of 211 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 WELCO31 (688) 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. Hazard 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 CDISG-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 WELCO31 (688) 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 ej 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? Ifso, 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 tat/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 lstnronnrrl if rn..n+., hn inn* +nl,nn +hn nrn-,r+i., mn n,,r n +h 4 +h n.. din 0 5. Climate Change Improvements: Does the proposed project reduce or ameliorate a projected impact of climate change in Colorado? Ifso, 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 Iloodway or tloodplain; or not located in a regulatory Iloodplain 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 WELCO31 (688) 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? 1 Yes No Location of proposed project in mitigation plan strategies: Page 139 Section/Pan Mitigation Stra Is the community a member of good standing with the National Flood Insurance Program? ji[ Yes No Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 8 of 20 CDBC-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. II. 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 ArIA Attach any 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 community henefited from the nrnactive work by Weld County and the removal rill Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and c-mail submittal. Page 10 of 20 CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management PART A - NOI: DECISION MAKING PROCESS 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 11 of 20 CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management PART A - NOI: SCOPE OF WORK / BUDGET OVERVIEW / FINANICAL FACTORS I. 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 WELCO31 (688). 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 suhmittal. Page 12 of 20 CDRG-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 c. Housing Program Assistance $ 1931 Construction Costs $ g. Project Delivery Costs $ h. Other(specify below) $ 57,598.14 See Project Worksheet Cost (attached) i. Total of a-h $ 57.598.14 j. Duplication of Benefits(if unknown at time of application enter zero). $ 0.00 k. Subtract j. from i. to determine Total Project Cost $ 57,598.14 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: $ 57,598.14 Federal Cost Share: $ 43,199.08 State Cost Share: $7.188.77 $7,199.77 Local Cost Sham 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 arc 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 CDItG-DR 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. I f 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 funding, if desired. CDBG funds are needed for the 12.5% Local FEMA Match and the associated PW that is included in the NOI-Application. 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. 2.0.2n1cl_Cfluatatianotaio.csacliarilac_natacirap-triciiii.cuarnnizurtuAQAdinaitaiinairrilaaliain Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal, page 14 of 20 CDBC•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 projects 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 I: Grant Process and Environmental Review Timeframe: 3 Months Task 2: Emergency Repairs-The initial emergency repairs were made directly I Completed 9 Y P 9 Y P Time Game: Task 3: Permanent Repairs - Becuase the emergency repairs werequick re aii Completed P 9 Y P P Timeframe: Task 4: Timeframe: Task 5: Timelr-ame: 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 Time frame: State submits the concurrence to FEMA as part of a closeout package to formally Total Project Timeframe: 6 Months Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail suhmittal. Page IS of 20 CDBC-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 work has already been completed. 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. Additionally, cost were 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 CDRG-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 Environmental Review Background Information& Environmental Review Worksheet: In accordance with 24 CFR Part 58.22 (sec 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: I. 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 CDRG-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(6)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-THUD 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 DOI.A/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 panics 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 I I(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 arc 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. (I) 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 c-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: U Information and financial services D Administrative and management activities O Environmental and other studies,resource identification,and the development of plans and strategies 0 Most engineering and design costs associated with eligible projects ■ Inspections and testing of properties for hazards or defects 7, • Project planning , ¢ 3 ❑ Purchase of insurance > m ❑ Purchase of tools s ❑ Technical assistance and training X s .E ❑ Interim assistance to arrest the effects of an imminent threat or physical deterioration in which the assistance w does not alter environmental conditions. = 0 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) Operating costs(e.g.,maintenance,security, operation, utilities, furnishings, equipment, supplies,staff training v, — Z and recruitment,other incidental costs) U z ❑ Relocation costs Q Acquisition,repair,improvement,reconstruction,or rehabilitation when the facilities and improvements arc in U 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 W, accessibility to elderly and handicapped persons U k ❑ Acquisition(including leasing)or disposition of,or equity loans on,an existing structure m ❑ Acquisition(including leasing)of vacant land provided the structure or land acquired, financed,or disposed of will be retained for the same use ❑ Acquisition,repair, improvement,reconstruction,or rehabilitation when the facilities and improvements arc 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 Wplace, 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 x ❑ Demolition ❑ New construction This checklist must be included with the CDBG application. Please direct questions to the appropriate contact person below: DOLA/DLG DHSEM T mnru Norton,Environmental Compliance OfficerSteven Boand,State Disaster Recovery Manager Department of Local Affairs Department of Public Safety I3 U Sherman Street.Room 521. Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 9195 0 Mineral Ave,Suite 200 Denver.CO 802(13 301-866-6398 Centennial,CO 80112 220-8516713 tamra.nortonMstate.co.us steven.boand(a state.co.us UPS/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 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 O Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 19 of 20 CDBC-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management PART B -APPLICATION: DETAILED PROJECT BUDGET I. 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 WELCO31 (688). 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. Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 20 of 20 E y 3 Loi � ° E c E 2 -2 :9,f1 E o 3 E r 3 3 3 r ▪ ° 3 • E a o 0 i 2 - 2 2 • f 93 O O oC T e N O o a d° d° C O a €iP d° of o 5, 0. e `eP a° d? e a v m o o m of O m n m m m m m m .n m m m m m m m m m d n m m m n .n ry ry ry ry ry v m m m n m m m m m ry ry n n m m m m o m m m n n n m o n n .n n .n r .n m m m m ry O 3 0 i " mmmmm .. 00 O mmmnm nrvrvm .. rv .. nnn ry nOON 0 0 F 3 0 5n nnnrvn P, nnrv .. ry rv228 '° ti m 8 m o n e m m o o a ry m o m O e o o n n o f 3 0 o .mm„ n n n n n m m m m m n n n a n m m m � n n ry m m � m m f m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m .. m n n m m m m m m � m m m n m o m .� a LL w w w w w f 55 > 5 > 52 > > > > > > > w w w f w F f F w w w w w > w > w Iii • _. -._ 1 srN A is VI - , a W -1 II :: . • _ .. © 1 Fid,�'. , - _. . -- Ir .6.: ifi-ii; "1z •Ifl $ iI : ± 11iY: ; !1ji . \ ,Mall 1p a f , Y� • �Y h • I- . • ii 0 r e} • , NI 'F• R Y 'C •..s li , r r r r pfil 11 l s 0 . . . .. I E 4 i - '-' - 1 . , 1 . . , in !,r MDI .l O . 1 r't. * • in f• Ilinte i I tiE' . i Ili i w Mr r) V i } l OY 3n5 ti.i` ` W f i 0 Q11:3 aEr) d 10 0 , T. 15 . J I Federal Emergency Management Agency F-Grants Page 1 of 28 PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00688(1) P Applicant Name: Application Title: WELD(COUNTY) WELCo31 -BR 23-14A over Little Dry Creek and Approach Period of Performance Start: Period of Performance End: 09-14-2013 Subgrant Application - Entire Application Application Title: WELCO31 -BR 23-14A over Little Dry Creek and Approach Application Number: PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00688(1) Application Type: Subgrant Application(PW) Preparer Information Prefix First Name Ken Middle Initial Last Name Beebe Title TAC Bridge Specialist Agency/Organization Name FEMA-OHS Address 1 9200 E. 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 City Greeley State CO ZIP 80632 https:i/isource.fema.netiemmie.'dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&h... I 0-10,2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 2 of 28 Phone 910-304-6540 Fax Email rrudisill@weld.gov.com Alternate Point of Contact Information Prefix First Name Middle Initial Last Name Title Agency/Organization Address 1 Address 2 City State ZIP Phone Fax Email 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: WELCO31 Standard Project Number/Title: 399- Road System Damage Please Indicate the Project Type: Neither Alternate nor Improved Application Title: WELCO31 -BR 23-14A over Little Dry Creek and Approach Category: C.ROADS & BRIDGES Percentage Work Completed? 50.0% As of Date: 11-13-2013 Comments Attachments User Date Document Description Hard Copy File File Name Action Type Reference KATHLEEN 02-27- WELCO31_Location Map.pdf RUVARAC 2014 Map (108.44 kb) View Damage Facilities(Part 1 of 2) It i I https: ;isource.fema.net/emmieidispatchDestination.do''menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&h... 1 0/10/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 3 of 28 Facility Site Number Facility Name Address County City State ZIP Previously Action Damaged? 1 BR 23-14 A over Little Dry Creek Weld CO No Comments Attachments User Date Document Type Description Hard Copy File File Name Action Reference KATHLEEN 02-27- Photos WELCO31 Photo Sheet View RUVARAC 2014 01.pdf(178.40 kb) KATHLEEN 02-27- Photos Applicant Photos.pdf(1.64 View RUVARAC 2014 Mb) KATHLEEN 02-27- Bridge BR 23-14A_Bridge RUVARAC 2014 Survey/Document Inspection Report.pdf(2.23 View Mb) Facility Name: BR 23-14 A over Little Dry Creek Address 1: Address 2: County: Weld City: State: CO ZIP: Was this site previously damaged? No Percentage Work Completed? 50.00 % PA-08-CO-414 5-P W-00 688(0): This project worksheet addresses damages to roadway approach at Bridge WEL023.0-014A over Little Dry Creek, in Section 35, T2N, R67W. Lat: N40.09459 Location: Long: -W104.84884 PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00688(1): Version 1 ""' PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00688(0): 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 damage to numerous roads and bridges in Weld County. This project worksheet addresses damages to roadway approach at Bridge WEL023.0-014A over Little Dry Creek, in Section 35, T2N, R67W. 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 https:-:'isource.fema.net!emmie'dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/I0/20I4 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 4 of 28 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. Lat: N40.09459 Long: -W104.84884 Flooding of the Little Dry Creek resulted in damages on CR 23 include washout of shoulder embankment material adjacent to the southbound travel lane and behind the north approach wingwalls of the Bridge WEL023.0-014A. The 29.3 ft long x 32.1 ft wide steel structure traverses the Little Dry Creek in Weld County, CO. The bridge is a single (1)span bridge consisting of an 6 inch asphalt overlay on corrugated steel deck, Eight(8) —W24x68 steel girders in each span, sheet pile backwall supported by six (6)with 8 inch x 8 inch H piles abutments and wing walls. The deck is flanked on both sides with a galvanized W rail beam bolted to steel posts. Embankment material was washed away by the flood waters behind each wingwall on the north approach (NE and NW)and is estimated to be 6 ft L x 10 ft W x 3.56 ft D x 2 wings = 15.8 CY Embankment material was washed out along the southbound shoulder on the north approach (west side of the road) and is field measured to be 67 Damage Description and ftLx16ftWx5ftD = 198.5CY Dimensions: Total Embankment Material = 214.3 CY Rip Rap was washed away at the northwest wingwall estimated to be 6 ft Lx 10 ft W towards the channel x 4.5 ft D = 10.0 CY Vegetative debris at the site requires clean up and removal. The quantity is estimated to be 50 ft in L x 60 ft in W x 5 ft in D = 555.6 CY. Recent bridge inspection report was provided by the applicant dated May 21, 2012. The bridge was built in 1997 and had a sufficiency rating of 94.6 in 2012. 2012 inspection notes of elements include: bridge deck and approach railing inadequate, pavement crack sealing, light rust on bottom of girders, w-beam steel posts, and steel sheet pile abutments. The deck condition is noted as fair(5)on a scale of 0 to 9. The superstructure is noted as satisfactory (6)and substructure is noted as good (7). The channel banks were observed to be in need of minor repairs (7). Maintenance items included sealing crack in deck overlay and railing replacement. The Applicant has provided pictures of the facilities documenting damages. These photos are attached to this project worksheet. PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00688(1): *****Version 1 ***** PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00688(0): WORK TO BE COMPLETED: 1 — Fill embankment material lost in roadway travel lanes, embankment and shoulders—214.3 CY x 1.82 (Conversion Factor CY ABC Class 6 Material to Tons = 390.0 tons x $33.70/ton (CDOT Item Number 304- 06000 Aggregate Base Course Class 6 x 2 due to economies of scale as compared with number of CDOT annual projects) = $13,143.00 https://isource.Tema.net/emmi e/d i spatch Destination.do?menuT i le=&topTi l e=ds Header&b... 10/10/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 5 of 28 2—Replace Rip Rap north and south abutments = 10.0 CY x$83.17/CY (Rip Rap 18 inch CDOT Item Number 506-00218) = $831.70 3— Debris removal at site—555.6 CY x$5.00/CY estimated cost= $2,778.00. The applicant indicated that the debris would be disposed of at its landfill in Kennesburg, Colorado. Tree limbs, etc. would be disposed of at A-1 Organics Rattler Ridge, 12002 CR 59, Kennesburg, CO. Solid Waste would be disposed of at Waste Management- Buffalo Ridge Landfill, 11655 CR 59, Keenesburg, CO. Total = $16,752.70 cost estimate prepared by project specialist using 2013 CDOT Average Unit Prices 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 items, to where a specific reference in the PW should be considered, applicant is advised to contract Colorado Department of Emergency Management requesting a revision to the PW's Scope of Work. 2. Applicant has completed a substantial percentage of the work but will not have cost data available within the fourteen day Pocket Guide rule. Per Field Operations Pocket Guide, Section 7, Cost Estimates, Page 26, "If the applicant has not produced cost data within two weeks of the site Scope of Work: inspection, the Project Specialist will prepare the PW on the basis of an estimate for the work accomplished". Applicant and FEMA personnel jointly conducted all inspections and agreed to use CDOT costs for in- place costs to derive estimates on this project worksheet. Applicant understands that all actual support documentation, invoices, FA records, contract and proof of payment will be required for final reconciliation and or closeout process. Attached is the CDOT average in-place cost for materials. 3. The Applicant will notify FEMA and the State of their intent to perform permanent work related to this site before any work commences in the field. Failure to do so may jeopardize the sub-grant for permanent work related to the work in this sub-grant. 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. Payment for small projects is made at the time of project approval, based on validated documentation included in the PW, including https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/10/20 I 4 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 6 of 28 documents, site visit observations and/or photos. At the time that this PW was written, no documentation was available regarding DAC. Since DAC can only be validated through documentation provided by the applicant, no allowance was included. 8. Project was reviewed for 406 Hazard Mitigation and applcinat has hired an engineering firm to identify hazard mitigation measures at a later date. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 406 HMP: At the time that this PW was written, the full extent of feasible 406 hazard mitigation opportunities was not identified. Applicant may propose 406 Mitigation opportunities for consideration. PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00688(1): Version 1 ***** This version of the PW is being written in regard to a letter from the applicant dated 06/04/2014 requesting additional funds to restore the bridge to pre-existing conditions. This PW was written to address damages to the North roadway approach at Bridge WEL023.0-014A. At the time of FEMA inspection the bridge was open and most repairs had been completed. The applicant had provided the FEMA project officer with photos showing the damage. See the PW for identified damages and the Scope of Work (SOW)to bring this site back to pre-existing condition and function. The total costs for the PW is $18,245.70 and is considered to be a small project. The applicant states in their request that the majority of the costs captured in the PW are for emergency repair work. The applicant has provided drawings and costs to support their request for additional funding. They are requesting an additional $26,302.14 for construction and $17,663.44 for engineering costs. During review of the submitted documentation and receiving additional information it was found that this project had been put out for bid and the low bid was $21,689.00 for construction (placing riprap behind 4 wingwalls). The low bidder was awarded the contract. In a telephone call with the applicant on 09/11/2014 it was decided that the low bid of $21,689.00 will become the applicant's request for construction costs. After review FEMA has determined that the $21,689.00 is eligible for funding. The applicant has submitted engineering costs of$17,663.44 which is 81% of the eligible construction cost. It is noted that Weld county did conduct competative bidding for engineering and did comply with their procurement policy by selection of the lowest bidder. The applicant has since provided FEMA documentation showing the actual cost for temporary easement to be$4,372.44, extra environmental review to be $1,557.00 and the engineering and design cost to be $11,734.00. FEMA h ttp s://i source.fem a.net/emmie/di spatch Destination.do?menuTi le=&topT i le=ds H eader&b... 10/10/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 7 of 28 has determined that the total actual cost of$17,663.44 for engineering is FEMA eligible. The total eligible cost for this version is$21,689.00 + $17,663.44 = $39,352.44. Comments and Attachments • Bohannan Huston Hourly Breakdown and Cost Estimate (Exhibit B) 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 Yes Proposal? If you answered Yes to the above question,the next two questions are required Work To Be Completed The applicant has indicated that the installation of turf reinforcement mat on the roadside shoulders and embankment slopes will re-direct channel flow across the slopes reducing erosion at the facility and alleviating future damages. 1) Turf Reinforcement Mat—70 ft in length x 16 ft average width within the right of way on the west shoulder= 124.4 SY x 1.2 factor for toe in excess of material = 149.3 SY x $10.00/SY(CDOT Item Number 216-00301) = $1,493.00 This HMP is considered cost effective per FEMA Disaster Please provide the Scope of Work for the Assistance Policy 9526.1, Section VII. B. 2. Certain estimate: mitigation measures (Appendix A), determined cost effective, (maximum 4000 characters) as long as the mitigation measure does not exceed 100%of the eligible cost of the eligible repair work on the project. Appendix A. 5. Gabion baskets, rip rap, sheet piling, and geotextile fabric installation- installation to control erosion. SOW Item#1 =$13,143.00 $1,493.00/$13,143.00 = 11.4% The net cost of mitigation/cost of damages is 11.4% < 100%. This HMP is for cost estimating purposes only. The Final design is the obligation of the Applicant and/or their agent. Would you like to add the Hazard Mitigation No Proposal as a cost line item to the project cost? GIS Coordinates Project Location Latitude Longitude BR 23-14A over Little Dry Creek 40.09459 -104.84884 Special Considerations 1. Does the damaged facility or item of work have insurance coverage and/or is it an insurable No risk(e.g., buildings, equipment,vehicles, etc)? https: /isource.fema.netiemmie/dispatchDestination.do'?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/10/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 8 of 28 2. is the damaged facility located within a floodplain or coastal high hazard area and/or does it Yes have an impact on a floodplain or wetland? If you would like to make any comments, please enter them below. (maximum 4000 characters) Zone A-Areas of 100 year flood; base flood elevations and flood hazard factors not determined. Flood Map 0802660750C dated September 28, 1982 3. Is the damaged facility or item of work located within or adjacent to a Coastal Barrier No Resource System Unit or an Otherwise Protected Area? 4. Will the proposed facility repairs/reconstruction change the pre-disaster conditions (e.g., No footprint, 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) See attached HMP proposal 6. Is the damaged facility on the National Register of Historic Places or the state historic listing? No Is it 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 No tracts of 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 Yes facility and/or item of work? If you would like to make any comments, please enter them below. (maximum 4000 characters) EHP to conduct review Attachments User Date Document Description Hard Copy File File Name Action Type Reference KATHLEEN 02-27- Floodplain Firmette.pdf(216.38 View RUVARAC 2014 kb) 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 Yes Proposal? If you answered Yes to the above question,the next two questions are required Work To Be Completed The applicant has indicated that the installation of turf reinforcement mat on the roadside shoulders and embankment slopes will re-direct channel flow across the slopes reducing erosion at the facility and alleviating future damages. 1)Turf Reinforcement Mat—70 ft in length x 16 ft average width within the right of way on the west shoulder= 124.4 SY x 1.2 factor for toe in excess of material = 149.3 SY x $10.00/SY (CDOT Item Number 216- 00301) = $1,493.00 This HMP is considered cost effective hops://isource.fema.netiemmie,'dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... I Oi I 0/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 9 of 28 per FEMA Disaster Assistance Policy 9526.1, Section VII. B. 2. Certain mitigation measures(Appendix A), determined cost effective, as long as the mitigation measure does not exceed 100% of the eligible cost of the eligible repair work on Please provide the Scope of Work the project.Appendix A. 5. Gabion baskets, rip rap, sheet for the estimate: piling, and geotextile fabric installation- installation to control erosion. SOW Item#1 = $13,143.00$1,493.00/$13,143.00= 11.4% The net cost of mitigation/cost of damages is 11.4% < 100%. This HMP is for cost estimating purposes only. The Final design is the obligation of the Applicant and/or their agent. Would you like to add the Hazard Mitigation Yes Proposal as a cost line item to the project cost? Hazard Mitigation Proposal -0909 Subgrant # Code Material and/or Description Unit Unit of Unit Budget Type Cost Action Quantity Measure Price Class Estimate ***Version 0*** 1 9999 Turf Reinforcement Mat(CDOT 149.3 SY $ 10.00 $ 1,493.00 216-00301 2013) Total Cost: $ 1,493.00 Comments Attachments Hard Copy User Date Document Type Description File File Name Action Reference KATHLEEN 02-27- Environmental/Historic EHP email approval of View RUVARAC 2014 Document TRM.pdf(94.76 kb) KATHLEEN 02-27- Mitigation Proposal WELCO31 HMP.pdf View RUVARAC 2014 (59.85 kb) Cost Estimate Is this Project Worksheet for (Preferred) Repair Material Unit Unit of Subgrant Cost Sequence Code and/or Quantity Measure Unit Price Budget Class Type Action Estimate Description ***Version 0 *** Work To Be Completed Aggregate Work To 1 9999 Base 390 TON $ 33.70 CONSTRUCTION Be $ 13,143.00 Course Completed Work To 2 9999 Rip Rap 10 CY $83.17 CONSTRUCTION Be $ 831.70 Completed https:/;isource.fema.net;emmie/dispatchDestination.do''menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/10/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency F,-Grants Page I 0 of 28 Debris Work To 3 9999 Removal 555.6 CY $ 5.00 CONSTRUCTION Be $ 2,778.00 Completed ***Version 1 *** Other 4 9999 Change in 1 LS 39,352.44 Other $ 39,352.44 SOWTotal Cost : $ 56,105.14 Insurance Adjustments(Deductibles, Proceeds and Settlements)-5900/5901 Subgrant Sequence Code Material and/or Unit Unit of Unit Budget Type Cost Action Description Quantity Measure Price Class Estimate Total Cost : $0.00 Hazard Mitigation Proposal-0909 Subgrant Sequence Code Material and/or Unit Unit of Unit Budget Type Cost Action Description Quantity Measure Price Class Estimate ***Version 0*** 1 9999 Turf Reinforcement Mat 149.3 SY $ 10.00 $ 1,493.00 (CDOT 216-00301 2013) Total Cost: $ 1,493.00 Total Cost Estimate: I $57,598.14 (Preferred Estimate Type+Insurance Adjustments+Hazard Mitigation Proposal) Comments Attachments User Date Document Description Hard Copy File File Name Action Type Reference KATHLEEN 02-27- Weld County-2013 CDOT RUVARAC 2014 Miscellaneous Average Unit Prices.pdf(37.37 View kb) Existing Insurance Information Insurance Type Policy No. Bldg/Property Content Insurance Deductible Years Amount Amount Amount Amount Required Comments Policy on file at JFO Attachments Comments and Attachments Name of Section Comment Attachment https://isource.fema.net,emmie'dispatchDestination.do?mcnuTile=&topTilc=dsHeader&b... 10/10/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page I I of 28 Project Description WELCO31 Location Map.pdf WELCO31 Photo Sheet 01.pdf Damage Facilities Applicant Photos.pdf BR-23-14A Bridge Inspection Report.pdf Special Considerations Firmette.pdf Mitigation EHP email approval of TRM.pdf WELCO31 HMP.pdf Cost Estimate Weld County-2013 COOT Average Unit Prices.pdf Insurance Information Policy on file at JFO WELCO31 -Signed PW.pdf PW 688 - Entire Application.pdf Version 1 PW 688 scope change request.PNG Form 90-91 Version 1 WELCO31-Final-Request-for-Version-19185-22582.pdf VER. 1 PW 00688 Revised Cover Sheet.docx Bohannan Huston Hourly Breakdown and Cost Estimate (Exhibit B).pdf Bundle Reference#(Amendment#) Date Awarded PA-08-CO-4145-State-0084(82) 10-10-2014 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 WELCO31 123-99123- 09-26-2014 C FEMA 4145 - DR -CO 00 APPLICANT:WELD(COUNTY) WORK COMPLETE AS OF 11-13-2013 •50% Site 1 of 1 DAMAGED FACILITY: COUNTY: Weld BR 23-14 A over Little Dry Creek LOCATION LATITUDE: LONGITUDE: 40 09459 -104.84884 PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00688(0): This project worksheet addresses damages to roadway approach at Bridge WEL023.0-014A over Little Dry Creek,in Section 35,T2N, R67W. Lat: N40 09459 Long: -W104.84884 PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00688(1): Version 1 DAMAGE DESCRIPTION AND DIMENSIONS: PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00688(0): https:!/isource.terra.netiemmieidispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/10/20 14 Federal Emergency Management Agency F-Grants Page 12 of 28 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 damage to numerous roads and bridges in Weld County. This project worksheet addresses damages to roadway approach at Bridge WEL023.0-014A over Little Dry Creek,in Section 35,T2N,R67W. 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. Lat: N40.09459 Long: -W104.84884 Flooding of the Little Dry Creek resulted in damages on CR 23 include washout of shoulder embankment material adjacent to the southbound travel lane and behind the north approach wingwalls of the Bridge WEL023.0-014A. The 29.3 ft long x 32.1 ft wide steel structure traverses the Little Dry Creek in Weld County, CO. The bridge is a single(1)span bridge consisting of an 6 inch asphalt overlay on corrugated steel deck,Eight(8)—W24x68 steel girders in each span,sheet pile backwall supported by six(6)with 8 inch x 8 inch H piles abutments and wing walls.The deck is flanked on both sides with a galvanized W rail beam bolted to steel posts. Embankment material was washed away by the flood waters behind each wingwall on the north approach(NE and NW)and is estimated to be 6 ft Lx 10 ft W x 3.56 ft Dx 2 wings= 15.8 CY Embankment material was washed out along the southbound shoulder on the north approach(west side of the road)and is field measured to be 67 ft Lx 16 ft W x 5 ft D=198.5 CY Total Embankment Material=214.3 CY Rip Rap was washed away at the northwest wingwall estimated to be 6 ft L x 10 ft W towards the channel x 4.5 ft D= 10.0 CY Vegetative debris at the site requires clean up and removal. The quantity is estimated to be 50 ft in L x 60 ft in W x 5 ft in D=555.6 CY. Recent bridge inspection report was provided by the applicant dated May 21,2012.The bridge was built in 1997 and had a sufficiency rating of 94.6 in 2012. 2012 inspection notes of elements include bridge deck and approach railing inadequate,pavement crack sealing,light rust on bottom of girders,w-beam steel posts,and steel sheet pile abutments.The deck condition is noted as fair(5)on a scale of 0 to 9. The superstructure is noted as satisfactory(6)and substructure is noted as good(7).The channel banks were observed to be in need of minor repairs(7). Maintenance items included sealing crack in deck overlay and railing replacement. The Applicant has provided pictures of the facilities documenting damages. These photos are attached to this project worksheet. PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00688(1): ""'Version 1 SCOPE OF WORK PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00688(0): WORK TO BE COMPLETED: 1 —Fill embankment material lost in roadway travel lanes,embankment and shoulders—214.3 CY x 1.82(Conversion Factor CY ABC Class 6 Material to Tons=390.0 tons x$33.70/ton(CDOT Item Number 304-06000 Aggregate Base Course Class 6 x 2 due to economies of scale as compared with number of CDOT annual projects)=$13,143.00 2—Replace Rip Rap north and south abutments= 10.0 CY x$83.17/CY(Rip Rap 18 inch CDOT Item Number 506-00218)=$831.70 3—Debris removal at site—555.6 CY x$5.00/CY estimated cost=$2,778.00.The applicant indicated that the debris would be disposed of at its landfill in Kennesburg,Colorado.Tree limbs,etc.would be disposed of at A-1 Organics Rattler Ridge, 12002 CR 59, Kennesburg,CO. Solid Waste would be disposed of at Waste Management-Buffalo Ridge Landfill, 11655 CR 59, Keenesburg.CO. Total=$16,752.70 cost estimate prepared by project specialist using 2013 CDOT Average Unit Prices 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 items.to where a specific reference in the PW should be considered, applicant is advised to contract Colorado Department of Emergency Management requesting a revision to the PW's Scope of Work. 2. Applicant has completed a substantial percentage of the work but will not have cost data available within the fourteen day Pocket Guide rule. Per Field Operations Pocket Guide,Section 7,Cost Estimates, Page 26, 'If the applicant has not produced cost data within two weeks of the site inspection,the Project Specialist will prepare the PW on the basis of an estimate for the work accomplished".Applicant and FEMA personnel jointly conducted all inspections and agreed to use CDOT costs for in-place costs to derive estimates on this project worksheet. Applicant understands that all actual support documentation. invoices, FA records,contract and proof of payment will be required for final reconciliation and or closeout process.Attached is the CDOT average in-place cost for materials. hops//isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/10/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 13 of 28 3. The Applicant will notify FEMA and the State of their intent to perform permanent work related to this site before any work commences in the field. Failure to do so may jeopardize the sub-grant for permanent work related to the work in this sub-grant. 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 Payment for small projects is made at the time of project approval,based on validated documentation included in the PW, including documents,site visit observations and/or photos. At the time that this PW was written, no documentation was available regarding DAC. Since DAC can only be validated through documentation provided by the applicant,no allowance was included. 8. Project was reviewed for 406 Hazard Mitigation and applcinat has hired an engineering firm to identify hazard mitigation measures at a later date. 9 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. 10. 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. 11. 406 HMP:At the time that this PW was written,the full extent of feasible 406 hazard mitigation opportunities was not identified. Applicant may propose 406 Mitigation opportunities for consideration. PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00688(1): This version of the PW is being written in regard to a letter from the applicant dated 06/04/2014 requesting additional funds to restore the bridge to pre-existing conditions. This PW was written to address damages to the North roadway approach at Bridge WEL023.0-014A, At the time of FEMA inspection the bridge was open and most repairs had been completed. The applicant had provided the FEMA project officer with photos showing the damage. See the PW for identified damages and the Scope of Work(SOW)to bring this site back to pre- existing condition and function. The total costs for the PW is$18,245.70 and is considered to be a small project. The applicant states in their request that the majority of the costs captured in the PW are for emergency repair work. The applicant has provided drawings and costs to support their request for additional funding. They are requesting an additional$26,302.14 for construction and$17,663.44 for engineering costs. During review of the submitted documentation and receiving additional information it was found that this project had been put out for bid and the low bid was$21,689.00 for construction(placing riprap behind 4 wingwalls). The low bidder was awarded the contract. In a telephone call with the applicant on 09/11/2014 it was decided that the low bid of$21,689.00 will become the applicant's request for construction costs. After review FEMA has determined that the$21,689.00 is eligible for funding. The applicant has submitted engineering costs of$17,663.44 which is 81%of the eligible construction cost. It is noted that Weld county did conduct competative bidding for engineering and did comply with their procurement policy by selection of the lowest bidder.The applicant has since provided FEMA documentation showing the actual cost for temporary easement to be$4,372.44,extra environmental review to be $1,557.00 and the engineering and design cost to be$11,734.00. FEMA has determined that the total actual cost of 517,663.44 for engineering is FEMA eligible. The total eligible cost for this version is$21,689.00+$17,663.44=$39.352.44, Comments and Attachments •Bohannan Huston Hourly Breakdown and Cost Estimate(Exhibit B) 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 PROJECT COST ITEM CODE NARRATIVE QUANTITY/UNIT UNIT PRICE COST — Version 0'.. Work To Be Completed https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/10/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 14 of 28 1 9999 Aggregate Base Course 390/TON $ 33.70 $ 13,143.00 2 9999 Rip Rap 10/CY $83.17 $831.70 3 9999 Debris Removal 555.6/CY $ 5.00 $2,778.00 *** Version 1 *** Other 4 9999 Change in SOW 1/LS $ 39,352.44 $ 39,352.44 5 0909 Hazard Mitigation Proposal 1/LS $ 1,493.00 $ 1,493.00 TOTAL $57,598.14 COST PREPARED BY Ken Beebe TITLE TAC Bridge Specialist SIGNATURE APPLICANT REP. Roy Rudisill TITLE Director-OEM SIGNATURE WELD(COUNTY) : PA-08-CO-4945-PW-00688 Conditions Information Review Name Condition Type Condition Name Description Monitored Status 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 Final Review Other(EHP) Species Act plant list. 18. Bury riprap, then No Approved (ESA) plant with native 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. This review does not address all federal, state and local requirements. Acceptance of federal funding requires Standard recipient to comply with all Final Review Other(EHP) Condition#2 federal, state and local laws. No Approved Failure to obtain all appropriate federal, state and local environmental permits and clearances may jeopardize federal funding. Any change to the approved hops:/ isource.fcma.netiemmieidispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10'I0;2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 15 of 28 scope of work will require Final Review Other(EHP) re- Standard evaluation for compliance with No Approved Condition #1 NEPA and other Laws and Executive Orders. Applicant is responsible for Executive Order coordinating with the local Final Review Other(EHP) 11988 - floodplain manager. All required No Approved Floodplains permits should be maintained as part of the permanent record. 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. 18. Bury riprap, then Final Review Other(EHP) Species Act plant with native riparian No Approved (ESA) 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. 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 https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?mcnuTile=&topTile dsHeader&b... 10/10/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency F-Grants Page 16 of 28 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 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 Endangered guidelines and design best Final Review Other(EHP) Species Act management practices (BMPs) No Approved (ESA) 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. 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 https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do'?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/10/20 I 4 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 17 of 28 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 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 Endangered abatement, soil compaction, Final Review Other (EHP) Species Act concrete mixing, or other No Approved (ESA) 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 active season (May 1 through 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 https://i source.fema.net/emm i e/d i spatchDesti nation.do?menuTi le=&topT i l e=ds H eader&b... 10/10/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 18 of 28 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. The applicant should implement appropriate FWS conservation measures identified in the Emergency Consultation between FEMA and USFWS, dated September 24, 2013, to Endangered the extent possible; including a Final Review Other (EHP) Species Act post-construction estimate of No Approved (ESA) the 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 should implement appropriate FWS conservation measures identified in the Emergency Consultation between FEMA and USFWS, dated September 24, 2013, to Endangered the extent possible; including a Final Review Other (EHP) Species Act post-construction estimate of No Approved (ESA) the 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. 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 https://isource.fem a.net/emmi e/d i spatchDesti nation.do?menuT i le=&topTi le=ds H eader&b... 10/10/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 19 of 28 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 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 Endangered reestablish following Final Review Other(EHP) Species Act rehabilitation (e.g., access route No Approved (ESA) 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 active season (May 1 through November 1), work only during daylight hours to avoid disrupting Preble's nocturnal activities. 13. Promptly remove https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTi Ie=dSHeader&b... 10/10/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 20 of 28 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. 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, Final Review 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 https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/10/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency F.-Grants Page 21 of 28 habitat connectivity under bridges or through culverts by installing ledges or dry culverts 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 Endangered management practices (BMPs) Other(EHP) Species Act to control contamination, No Approved (ESA) 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. If ground disturbing activities occur during construction, applicant will monitor ground Final Review Other (EHP) Standard disturbance and if any potential No Approved Condition#3 archeological resources are discovered, will immediately cease construction in that area and notify the State and FEMA. Applicant is responsible for Executive Order coordinating with the local Final Review Other(EHP) 11988- floodplain manager. All required No Approved Floodplains permits should be maintained as part of the permanent record. Any change to the approved Standard scope of work will require re- Final Review Other(EHP) Condition #1 evaluation for compliance with No Approved NEPA and other Laws and Executive Orders. https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/10/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 22 of 28 This review does not address all federal, state and local requirements. Acceptance of federal funding requires Standard recipient to comply with all Final Review Other(EHP) Condition#2 federal, state and local laws. No Approved Failure to obtain all appropriate federal, state and local environmental permits and clearances may jeopardize federal funding. If ground disturbing activities occur during construction, applicant will monitor ground Final Review Other(EHP) Standard disturbance and if any potential No Approved Condition #3 archeological resources are discovered, will immediately cease construction in that area and notify the State and FEMA. If ground disturbing activities occur during construction, applicant will monitor ground EHP Review Other(EHP) Standard disturbance and if any potential No Recommended Condition #3 archeological resources are 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 requires Standard recipient to comply with all EHP Review Other(EHP) Condition#2 federal, state and local laws. No Recommended Failure to obtain all appropriate federal, state and local environmental permits and clearances may jeopardize federal funding. Any change to the approved Standard scope of work will require re- EHP Review Other(EHP) Condition #1 evaluation for compliance with No Recommended NEPA and other Laws and Executive Orders. Applicant is responsible for Executive Order coordinating with the local EHP Review Other(EHP) 11988- floodplain manager. All required No Recommended Floodplains permits should be maintained as part of the permanent record. 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 https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/10/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 23 of 28 before finalizing a seed and plant list. 18. Bury riprap, then plant with native riparian vegetation. 19. Rehabilitate adjacent habitats impacted by Endangered floodwaters to restore EHP Review Other (EHP) Species Act connectivity and prevent future No Recommended (ESA) impacts from erosion or sedimentation. 20. Consider monitoring the revegetated areas for success. The Service can help establish success criteria during the consultation process. 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 Endangered footprint of access routes, EHP Review Other(EHP) Species Act staging areas, and work areas. No Recommended (ESA) 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 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 https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&h... 10/10/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 24 of 28 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. 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 EHP Review 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 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 https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/10/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 25 of 28 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 active season (May 1 through November 1), work only during daylight hours to avoid disrupting Preble's nocturnal Endangered activities. 13. Promptly remove Other(EHP) Species Act waste to minimize site No Recommended (ESA) 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 https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/10/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 26 of 28 before beginning restoration or enhancement activities. The applicant should implement appropriate FWS conservation measures identified in the Emergency Consultation between FEMA and USFWS, dated September 24, 2013, to Endangered the extent possible; including a EHP Review Other(EHP) Species Act post-construction estimate of No Recommended (ESA) the 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 Final PEVAN 10-08-2014 This project is found eligible in final review. 15 03:24 PM Review RONALD GMT Ron Pevan DIBD State has reviewed the PW and determines project and work are eligible for funding under the PA program. Adjust the 09-30-2014 Scope of Work to reflect the Work Completed as described in 14 Grantee LAWSON 05:42 PM the damage description and the Work to be Completed. Review LESTER GMT 9/30/14- Even though this is a small project, the revision of the additional SOW has ben accepted an eligible. Please address the DAC statement in the PW as there is not any DAC forwarded to the Project Cost Narrative section of this PW. LJL 09-29-2014 State has reviewed the PW and determines project and work 13 Grantee LAWSON 06:35 PM are eligible for funding under the PA program. Adjust the Review LESTER GMT Scope of Work to reflect the Work Completed as described in the damage description and the Work to be Completed. Category C. Roads and Bridges. 50.0%. Weld County. During the September 2013 incidents, flooding of the Little Dry creek resulted in damages on CR23 including washout of the shoulder embankment material adjacent to the southbound travel lane and behind the north approach wingwalls of the bridge. The project includes replacement of embankment material lost in roadway travel lanes, embankment and shoulders; replacement of rip rap at the north and south abutments; and debris removal at site. Debris has been or will be disposed of in licensed landfills. As mitigation, the applicant will install turf reinforcement mats on the roadside shoulders and embankment slopes to redirect channel flow across the slopes to reduce erosion. -dmcvaris- 03/17/2014 17:22:19 GMT ***VERSION 1***: This PW was reviewed by EHP staff on March 17th, 2014. It was submitted to EHP after rework for administrative changes to increase project costs. These changes do not affect the original scope of work and no additional EHP review is required. - dsharon -09/29/2014 17:05:00 GMT Project site work is in mapped wetlands. Project has no potential to impact the wetland function or resources and https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do'?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/10/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 27 of 28 substantially restores site to pre-disaster condition. No further wetland review is required under the 8-step process. - dmcvaris -03/17/2014 17:11:07 GMT The entire community will benefit from the completion of this project. - dmcvaris- 03/17/2014 17:12:08 GMT Action is addressed under the attached Emergency Consultation between FEMA and USFWS, dated September 24, 2013. The consultation includes conservation measures 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 09-29-2014 the ESA. - dmcvaris- 03/17/2014 16:43:15 GMT 12 EHP PATTERSON 05:08 PM Change 2nd ESA radial button to "MA/NLAA"selection. Review MOLLY GMT Project is located in Zone A, FIRM panel 0802660864C , dated 09/28/1982. 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. -dmcvaris- 03/17/2014 17:03:57 GMT According to the bridge inspection report appended to the PW, this bridge was erected in 1997 and thus does not meet the 50- year age consideration of the National Register of Historic Places. Though properties with pre-1965 buildings are located within view of the bridge, the nature of the completed and proposed construction is expected to have no effect on these properties. -dmcvaris -03/17/2014 15:29:51 GMT Mitigation 09-29-2014 The hazard mitigation proposal is approved. Mark W. Petitt, 11 Review PETITT MARK GT PM 406 Specialist Insurance JOHNSON 09-29-2014 VERSION 1 —The additional costs for the bridge repairs will 10 Review KENNETH 03:38 PM not alter the prior insurance policy coverage comments or the GMT insurance requirement comments. Mitigation 09-29-2014 The hazard p mitigation proposal is approved. Mark W. Petitt, 9 Review PETITT MARK GMT PM 406 Specialist 9 09-29-2014 Applicant's property insurance through the CAPP risk pool 8 Insurance JOHNSON 03:23 PM affords no coverage for bridges, roadways or embankments. Review KENNETH GMT Insurance proceeds are not anticipated, and there is no insurance purchase requirement. 09-29-2014 7 Initial TREZONA 03:21 PM 9-29-2014: Completed Initial review, no issues were identified; Review SCOTT GMT work appears eligible. Award 04-14-2014 6 Review SYSTEM 05:45 PM ACCEPTED GMT NOte: Per the grantee's request; Applicant has completed a substantial percentage of the work but will not have cost data available within the fourteen day Pocket Guide rule therefore the PW was written as WTBC.Final Reviewer finds eligible the Final PALACIO 04-03-2014 application and approves the funding of this project worksheet 5 Review JOSE 08:19 PM based on the applicant having performed all required GMT 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 04/03/2014 State has reviewed the PW and determines project and work https://isource.fema.net/emmic/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/10/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 28 of 28 Grantee WILHELM 03-20-2014 are eligible for funding under the PA program. Adjust the 4 Review JUSTIN 10:00 PM Scope of Work to reflect the Work Completed as described in GMT the damage description and the Work to be Completed. Category C. Roads and Bridges. 50.0%. Weld County. During the September 2013 incidents, flooding of the Little Dry creek resulted in damages on CR23 including washout of the shoulder embankment material adjacent to the southbound travel lane and behind the north approach wingwalls of the bridge. The project includes replacement of embankment material lost in roadway travel lanes, embankment and shoulders; replacement of rip rap at the north and south abutments; and debris removal at site. Debris has been or will be disposed of in licensed landfills. As mitigation, the applicant will install turf reinforcement mats on the roadside shoulders and embankment slopes to redirect channel flow across the slopes to reduce erosion. -dmcvaris- 03/17/2014 17:22:19 GMT Project site work is in mapped wetlands. Project has no potential to impact the wetland function or resources and substantially restores site to pre-disaster condition. No further wetland review is required under the 8-step process. - dmcvaris -03/17/2014 17:11:07 GMT 03-18-2014 The entire community will benefit from the completion of this EHP EAKINS project. -dmcvaris-03/17/2014 17:12:08 GMT 3 Review WYNN GMT PM Action is addressed under the attached Emergency Consultation between FEMA and USFWS, dated September 24, 2013. The consultation includes conservation measures 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. -dmcvaris- 03/17/2014 16:43:15 GMT Change 2nd ESA radial button to "MA/NLAA"selection. Project is located in Zone A, FIRM panel 0802660864C , dated 09/28/1982. 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. -dmcvaris- 03/17/2014 17:03:57 GMT According to the bridge inspection report appended to the PW, this bridge was erected in 1997 and thus does not meet the 50- year age consideration of the National Register of Historic Places. Though properties with pre-1965 buildings are located within view of the bridge, the nature of the completed and proposed construction is expected to have no effect on these properties. - dmcvaris- 03/17/2014 15:29:51 GMT 03-17-2014 Mitigation The hazard mitigation proposal is 2 Review PETITT MARK GMT PM 406 Specialist 9 P P approved. Mark W. Petitt, 03-17-2014 Applicant's property insurance through the CAPP risk pool Insurance GILLIAM affords no coverage for bridges, roadways or embankments. 1 Review ROBERT GMT09 PM Insurance proceeds are not anticipated, and there is no insurance purchase requirement. https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&top Tile=dsHeader&b... 10/10 2014 Hello