HomeMy WebLinkAbout20151504.tiff RESOLUTION
RE: APPROVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION FOR
BRIDGE 20.5/3B OVER BOULDER 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 20.513B over Boulder 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 and Emergency Management,
commencing upon full execution, with further terms and conditions being as stated in said
application, and
WHEREAS, after review, the Board deems it advisable to approve said application, a
copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Weld County, Colorado, that the Community Development Block Grant Application for Bridge
20.5/3B over Boulder 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 and Emergency Management, be, and hereby is,
approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the Chair be, and hereby is, authorized
to sign said application.
CZ% )leaf W2.2 2015-1504
EM0016
BC0045
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION FOR BRIDGE 20.5/3B
OVER BOULDER CREEK(FEMA)
PAGE 2
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted
by the following vote on the 27th day of May,A.D.,2015.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY,COLORADO
ATTEST: JCL:4k
EXCUSED
�,�xJ�,� V.�C :4k Barbara Kirkmeyer,Chair
Weld County Clerk to the Board per.
/ Mice Freeman,Pro-Tens
BY.11 1 / 1 I,l . � .4 li ��
De. Clerk to the ;;oard �. EL c'
��Sean P.Conway
'`r �k Ltr p�
APPROVED AS TO FOR , tsQ� -°a
` ���' MK lie A.Cozad
County Attorney •'16(73�w�4EXCUSED
a I Steve Moreno
Date of signature:
2015-1504
EM0016
BC0045
/2.7.-c , Colorado Division of Homeland Security Grant NOI / Application
1 . Emergency Management CDBG - DR Recover Colorado
Infrastructure Program
THIS SECTION FOR STATE USE ONLY
DHSEM Identification Number: Colorado Point of Contact:
CDBG-DR Program Manager
Date NOI (Part A) Received: Colorado DHSEM
9195 East Mineral Avenue, Suite 200
Date Application (Part B) Received: Centennial, Colorado 80112
O11ice: 720.852.6713
Date Next Steps Letter Transmitted: Fay: 721.852.6750
cdps dhsem cdbgastate.co.us -
PART A - NOI :
PROJECT OVERVIEW
1 . Applicant Legal Name: Weld County. Colorado
2. Applicant
✓ Local Government Private Non-Profit (Attach copy of 501c3, if applicable)
T .
3. Project Title: County Match FEMA Projects- WELCO07 (510)
4. Proposed Project Total Cost: 166.006.62
CDBG-DR-I Request: 20/50.83
5. Certifications:
The undersigned assures fulfillment of all requirements of the CDBG-DR Recover Colorado Infrastructure Program as
contained in the program guidelines and that all information contained herein is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge. The governing body of the applicant has duly authorized the document, commits to the non-Federal and State
share identified in the Budget, and hereby applies for the assistance documented in this application. Also, the applicant
understands that the project may proceed ONLY AFTER a GRANT AGREEEMENT is approved
Mike Freeman , Pro—Tem Weld County Commissioner (970) 356-4000
Typed Name of Authorized Applicant Agent 1`iii Telephone Number
MSC' ejdtase...-- £IAYI72015
Signature of Authorized Applicant Agent Date Signed
2015-1504
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 1 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
PART A - NOI : APPLICANT INFORMATION
I . Applicant Legal Name: Weld County. Colorado
2. FIPS Code: 123 DUNS Number: 07575-7955
3. U.S. Congressional District: 4th Congressman Name:
4. State Senatorial District: 1 Senator Name: M r. Cory Gardner
5. State Legislative District: 50 Representative Name: M r. KertB u Ck
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. II \Ir. ✓ Mrs. li First Name: Roy Last Name: Rudisill
Title: Director Organization: Weld County Office of Emergency Managem€
Street Address: 1150 O Street
it\ Greeley State: Colorado Lip Code: 80631
Telephone: (y t U ) „N! l a.x : ( y t u )sie- f 6 Mobile: (9 (U ) 35 - -U E-mail Address: rrudisill(a co .weld . co
7. Alternate Point of Contact:
The Alternate Point of Contact is the person that can address questions or concerns in the Primary Point of Contact's
absence.
Ms. V \ Ir `li .. 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 ).5 I ; \ : ly f UpOO- r 6 Mobile: E-mail Address: bconnolly(a�co .weld .
8. Application Prepared by:
Ms. II Mrs Mrs IN First Name: Kyle l _ast Name: Jones
Title: Planner Organization: ARCADIS-US
Street Address:
City: TallahassE State: FL Zip Code: 32309
Telephone: (OM)) Oki I . x: Mobile: (22b, 2Ul-3 FL-mail Address: kyle . jones(a arcadis-
9. Authorized Applicant Agent:
Ms. fl Mr. Mrs. First Name: Barbara last Manic: Kirkmeyer
Title: COMMISSif Organization: Weld County
Street Address: 1150 O Street, P . O . Box 758
City: Greeley State: Colorado lip Code: 80631
Telephone: x: Mobile: E-mail Address: bkirkmeyer(c�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
1. Project - Eligible Activity Description:
Describe the proposed project. Explain how the proposed project will address recovery and/or resilience needs in your
community either independently or as part of a larger project. Include a description of the desired outcome and the
recovery objective(s) to be achieved. This narrative should describe the CDBG-DR Eligible Activity.
In an effort to achieve resiliency from the severe storms and minimize risk to the general
public, Weld County addressed severe damage to local roadways , bridges, culverts,
removed hazardous roadway debris, made emergency repairs to paved and gravel
roadways , addressed river embankments/dangerous conditions to the public and made
repairs to emergency response vehicles that were damaged during the Incident Period .
FEMA Categories A, B , C , and E were addressed in the Weld County FEMA Match . CDBG
funds are needed to be applied towards the Weld County FEMA Local Match for the
emergency work that was identified on previously submitted Project Worksheets . All
projects covered under the Weld County Project Worksheets were vital for Weld County to
clear hazardous debris from roadways/creeks/streams and enhance their infrastructure ,
river embankments, equipment and roadways . This particular NOI/Application will discuss
1A/Cl fnn7 / t^ 1 n \ thin Kin ' /\ nnlir.n+itmn rnn+ninn a
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 .446330 and the longitude is - 104 .701460 . The attached spreadsheet
shows the Lat/Long coordinates for all of the project worksheets and depict the damage site
locations as identified in the correlating Project Worksheets . However; the area affected
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
househo d income of S56.589 anc _ ie ma'or _v o= W . . ,o un `v is owner-occupied with _1
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 18 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
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
PART A - NOI : CDBG-DR FUNDING QUALIFICATIONS
Community Development Block Grant — Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funding can be approved for a project in which
ALL of the following requirements are met The physical location of the activity must be within a county listed in Table 1 of
the program Recover Colorado Infrastructure Grant Program Guidelines (Guidelines).
1. Connection to Disaster Recovery
CDBG's Disaster Recovery funds must be used for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, long-term recovery,
restoration of infrastructure and housing, economic revitalization, and mitigation from future damages.. The activity
must show a direct link to damages received during one or more of the events listed in Table 1 of the Guidelines. Please
provide a brief explanation of how the proposed acquisition activity: ( 1 ) was a result of the disaster event; (2) will
restore infrastructure or revitalize the economy; or will (3) mitigate future damages.
During the incident period of September 11 , 2013 to September 30 , 2013 , Weld County,
Colorado received heavy rainfall and debris in the creeks, streams and rivers which caused
surface gravel removal and scour damage to numerous roads and bridges in Weld County .
This NOI Application 11 request addresses emergency work and the damages that were a
�F }y.� n /1 i1. .�r� 1�/'�.- - ..'.h TL, /� i+...rr��r\}.M.r n'ni 4Y1 � • ..;n-, , ,.. ,- }
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?
fl Will benefit low and moderate income (LMI) persons; or
Will aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; or
✓ Is an Urgent Need in which meet community development needs having a particular urgency because
existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community where
other financial resources are not available to meet such needs.
b) How will the proposed project meet the above checked National Objective(s).
See attached LMI data for the Project .
In addition to the LMI data attached , the State of Colorado (according to ACS
2008-2012 5Y ) lists Weld County at a 41 . 0% LMI . In reviewing the LMI data for this
Project NOI , the PW associated LMI % was 52 .27% . 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 .
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
match project due to Nature and Location of the activity that was completed and also the
accessibility for the Site Locations that benefited the surrounding areas of Weld County.
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 4 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
3. Compliance 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 LMI requirement to make up for the deficit."
This section does not need to be completed if the project does not meet this National Objective.
The primary objective for using CDBG Disaster Recovery funds is benefitting, by at least 51 percent, persons of low and
moderate income. The following section provides the information necessary to complete this requirement.
a) Is the proposed activity: / jurisdiction wide ❑ specified target area
If you checked specified target area, which data source was used? (Note: select the smallest unit of Census data that
encompasses your proposed target area.)
b) Enter the number of households involved in the proposed project. 99 , 317
c) In the space below, describe how the applicant will comply with the requirement that at least 51 percent of CDBG-DR
dollars will principally benefit low- and moderate-income households and persons.
Weld County will comply with the 51 % requirement due to the fact that the PW
associated under this NOI Project for the FEMA County Match is targeted to areas of the
county that qualify as LMI . The justification behind this methodology is that multiple
d) Enter the number of households within each income category expected to benefit from the proposed project.
Incomes above 80% of the County Median 785
Incomes above 50% and up to 80% of the County Median 1265
Incomes at or below 50% of the County Median 2060
e) Which type of income was used to determine the above? (Check only one)
As determined by the American Community Survey (Public Facilities projects)
Annual income as defined for Public Housing and Section 8
,/ Annual income as reported under the Census long form
Adjusted gross income as defined for reporting under IRS
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 5 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergent) 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 WELCO07 (510 )
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 .
IJazard 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
WV
CI)I1G-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 WELCO07 (510 ) does not completely eliminate the
hazards identified from the service area . The Proposed FEMA Match Project does allow
Weld County to receive a percentage of funds back that the County expended during one of
the most costly disasters in Colorado history however. These types of hazards that
occurred in Weld County and throughout Colorado are truly an act of mother nature and the
County was as prepared as it could have been but the severity/duration of the incident was
of an unprecedented nature . Weld County cannot eliminate the risk of future flooding ,
erosion or land subsidence, but Local Officials can ensure that their community is prepared
for future incident, take the necessary precautions and that their infrastructure is restored
4. Environmental Quality Improvements: Does the proposed project result in an improvement in the quality of the natural
environment in your (the Applicant's) service area? If so, please describe.
Yes ; the damages that attributed to the designated incident period and FEMA-DR 4145
were addressed via the previously submitted PW and the work conducted to restore the
infrastructure back to its pre-disaster condition was implemented . The work done at this
site location (see previous attachment for lat/long coordinates ) addressed not only
improvements/repairs made to the infrastructure , but also improvements and repairs to the
river embankments and any potential erosion or subsidence issues that could have
tAlnrrnnnrl if thin (^ni irtti hnrl not tnlenn thin nrnnntivin rnnenci erne thnt thnt, rlird
5. Climate Change Improvements: Does the proposed project reduce or ameliorate a projected impact of climate change
in Colorado? If so, please briefly describe the benefit of the project.
This Proposed Project reduces a projected impact climate change due to the proactive
mitigation measures that were undertaken by Weld County during the designated incident
period . This was accomplished by ensuring that the damaged site location was addressed
as soon , but as safely, as possible, and not to sustain any further impacts to the site
locations or environment that would enable the damage to enhance the projected impact of
any potential climate changes .
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 7 of 20
4
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
P P
community resiliency? If so, please briefly describe the process.
This Proposed Project was initiated by County Officials in an effort to achieve resiliency
from the severe storms and also to minimize risk to the community, Weld County addressed
the severe flood damage to the roadways and infrastructure by ensuring that dangerous
conditions for the public were addressed and mitigated properly and efficiently.
7. Reduction in the Costs of Future Response or Recovery: Will the proposed project result in a reduction in the cost
of response or recovery from an incident occurring due to one or more of the hazards identified in Item #1 or #2? If so,
please briefly describe how response or recovery costs will be reduced.
For a small scale flooding incident, yes: however, the flooding that occurred during the
designated incident period was catastrophic and the PW associated with the NOI FEMA
Local Match Request were completed to address the damages .
S. Floodplain/Floodway/Substantially Damaged Properties: Does the proposed project include a property or
properties located in a floodway or floodplain; or not located in a regulatory floodplain but which were substantially
damaged or have a history of damage from at least two disaster events? If so, please identify those properties below.
No; the Proposed Project is for the FEMA Local Match for WELCO07 (510) from CDBG-DR
in regards to expenses from CAT C Damage Categories for the designated incident period
for FEMA-DR 4145 .
9. Mitigation Planning:
Does your community have a current FEMA approved multi-hazard mitigation plan? ✓ Yes \o
Location of proposed project in mitigation plan strategies: Page 13 9 Section/Part Mitigation Stra
ra
Is the community a member of good standing with the National Flood Insurance Program? 1 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 .
11. Environmental / Historic Preservation Issues: Please describe any significant environmental, historic, or cultural features
that may be affected by the project. Please also describe any features that may be improved by the project.
All environmental issues are addressed on the previously submitted 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 are addressed in the PW which is attached to the NOI
Application .
12. Permitting: Please list the local, state, and tderal hermit that \\ ill he required to complete this project .
All environmental issues are addressed on the previously submitted 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 in the Project
Worksheet which is attached to this NOI Application and any additional information that is
needed can provided upon request. Please see below for environmental permits that were
obtained .
nnrrnif
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.
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 benefited from the nrnac:tive work by Weld Cot intv and the removal rel
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 10 of 20
d
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
PART A - NOI : DECISION MAKING PROCESS
1. Decision-Making Process:
Describe the process you used to decide that this project is the best solution to the problem. Explain why this project is
the best alternative you considered. Address questions such as:
• Are you focusing on the area in your community that has the greatest potential for losses?
• Have you considered the risks to critical facilities and structures and benefits to be obtained by mitigating this
vulnerability?
• Have you considered those areas or projects that present the greatest opportunities given the current situation(s)
of interest in your community?
• Are you addressing a symptom or the source of the problem? Addressing the source of the problem is a long-term
solution which provides the most mitigation benefits.
• If impacts to the environment, natural, cultural or historic resources have been identified, explain how your alternatives
and proposed project address, minimize, or avoid these impacts.
The Site locations within this WELCO PW in the Proposed Project were identified due to
the high dollar amount of funds that were expended by Weld County to ensure the safety of
the community and also restore county infrastructure back to its pre-disaster condition . 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
1. Project Scope: Please provide a comprehensive and detailed description of the scope of the proposed project.
Describe each of the project components and the steps necessary to complete that work. If the proposed project is a
funding match for another disaster recovery or infrastructure development program, please identify the
agency, program funds, and project reference number that CDBG-DR funding is intended to support. Also
describe any critical deadlines that must be met to accomplish this work.
This Proposed Project is for the Local FEMA Match for costs for WELCO07 (510 ). 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 which is attached and addresses the work that
was completed .
2. Community Priority: Please describe why this project is a priority for your organization.
This Proposed Project is a priority for Weld County to utilize the CDBG funding as the Local
FEMA Match to offset the costs for the proactive work done by the County to reduce
hazardous conditions to the community .
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 12 of 20
CDBG-DR infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
3. Project Cost Summary: Please summarize the major cost components of the project. Please round all values to the
nearest dollar.
a. Planning / Engineering / Design $
b. Environmental Compliance $ The value of general and/or
c. Real Property Acquisition / Demolition $ professional labor wages must
be tabulated in accordance
d. Closing Costs / Legal Fees $ with the Davis Bacon Act of
e. Housing Program Assistance $ 1931
f. Construction Costs $
g. Project Delivery Costs $
h. Other (specify below) $ 166.006.62
See Protect Worksheet Cost (attached; 1. total of a-h $ 166,006.62
.) . Duplication of Benefits (if unknown at time of application enter zero). $ 0.00
k. Subtract j. from i. to determine Total Project Cost $ 166,006.62
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: $ 166,006 62
Federal Cost Share: $ 124.504 96
State Cost Share: $ 20.750.83
$ 20.750.83
Local Cost Share
5. Basis of Cost Estimate: Briefly describe how the cost estimates listed in #3 above were developed (e.g. lump sum, unit cost,
quotation, etc.).
The Cost Estimates were developed above from actual work that was properly procured
and conducted . They come directly off of what was included on the FEMA approved PW
and the costs are broken down by type of work and site .
6. Project Management: Describe how you will manage the costs and schedule, and how you will ensure successful
performance.
The work for this Proposed Project has been completed or is pending completion . The
12 . 5% CDBG Local Match will be applied towards the Weld County Match for FEMA PW's
and the costs that were previously incurred during the disaster.
Note: The applicant must agree to furnish quarterly reports during the entire time the project is in active status. Quarters end
on March 31st, June 30th, September 30th, and December 31st. Reports are due to the State within 15 days after the end of
each quarter.)
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 13 of 20
CDBG-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. If yes, who will provide the maintenance?
N/A
d. What is the estimated cost of maintenance on an annual basis?
0
Note: Cost of maintenance is considered an application prioritization weighting factor. Projects with high maintenance
costs have a greater risk of future failure due to deferred maintenance. Therefore, the responses provided above should be
as complete and verifiable as possible in order to minimize the likelihood of ranking point reductions due to maintenance
concerns.
8. Additional Comments: Enter any additional comments related to the proposed project's 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.
In/nlrl C'ni into nnnrotoc i inrior tho mnct rnctrinti‘ ,n nrnnnrty toy lirnitQtintn in thn ctotn Pncirinil
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 14 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
PART B - APPLICATION : PROJECT MILESTONES / TIMELINES / TASKS
I . Timeline / Tasks
Insert the proposed work schedule as tasks to accomplish the overall goal of the proposed activity (i.e., appraisals, title
search, closing, etc.), and provide a description of the task's purpose. This timeline will be used as a measurement tool
for progress in the project's implementation and is included in the required Quarterly Reports. Also, FEMA uses the
timeline for determining the approved period of performance. It will be the basis used to justify delays or extensions, if
necessary, and should be estimated carefully. The first and last entries are state requirements and have already been
entered.
Task 1 :
Timeframe: 3 Months
Grant Process and Environmental Review
Task 2: Emergency Repairs- The initial emergency repairs were made directly 1 Completed
9 Y P 9 Y P Timeframe:
Task 3: Permanent Repairs - Because the emergency repairs werequick repait Completed
P 9 Y P P Timeframe:
Task 4:
I imeframe:
Task 5:
I itnelranic:
Task 6:
Timeframe:
Task 7:
Timeframe:
Task 8:
Timeframe:
Task 9:
i mefrarne:
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 l in�cfraill�.
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 submittal. Page 15 of 20
I
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
2. Start Date & Pre-Award Costs: The start date for any project begins upon GRANT AGREEMENT approval by the
State Controller. If a different start date or timeframe is needed, provide an explanation below. Also indicate if any pre-
award activities or costs have been incurred or authorized.
The proposed project is for local FEMA match dollars and the 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 have been
incurred through the preparation of this NOI Application .
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 16 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
Please note that Part B is required for the final Application submittal. Part B sections
may optionally be completed and submitted with the NOI. Please update any Part A
section information when submitting you full Application.
PART B — APPLICATION : ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
1. Environmental Review Background Information & Environmental Review Worksheet:
In accordance with 24 CFR Part 58.22 (see below), all federally funded projects must accomplish an environmental review
prior to beginning any work on a project. These HUD regulations are in place for two purposes:
1 . To ensure federal funds are used to place people of low and moderate income in environmentally safe
conditions; and
2. To ensure federal funds are NOT used to negatively impact environmental conditions that exist near a
project site.
Please note the following limitations on CDBG-DR grant activities pending environmental clearance per 24 CFR Part 58.22.
(a) Neither a recipient nor any participant in the development process, including public or private nonprofit or for-profit
entities, or any of their contractors, may commit HUD assistance under a program listed in Sec. 58. 1(b) on an activity or
project until HUD or the state has approved the recipient's RROF and the related certification from the responsible
entity. In addition, until the RROF and the related certification have been approved, neither a recipient nor any
participant in the development process may commit non-HUD funds on or undertake an activity or project under a
program listed in Sec. 58. 1(b) if the activity or project would have an adverse environmental impact or limit the choice
of reasonable alternatives.
(b) N/A for DOLA/CDPS projects.
(c) If a recipient is considering an application from a prospective sub-recipient or beneficiary and is aware that the
prospective sub-recipient or beneficiary is about to take an action within the jurisdiction of the recipient that is
prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section, then the recipient will take appropriate action to ensure that the objectives
and procedures of NEPA are achieved.
(d) An option agreement on a proposed site or property is allowable prior to the completion of the environmental review
if the option agreement is subject to a determination by the recipient on the desirability of the property for the project as
a result of the completion of the environmental review in accordance with this part and the cost of the option is a
nominal portion of the purchase price. There is no constraint on the purchase of an option by third parties that have not
been selected for HUD funding, have no responsibility for the environmental review and have no say in the approval or
disapproval of the project.
(e) Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP). In accordance with section 11(d)(2)(A) of the Housing
Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 12805 note), an organization, consortium, or affiliate receiving
assistance under the SHOP program may advance non-grant funds to acquire land prior to completion of an
environmental review and approval of a Request for Release of Funds (RROF) and certification, notwithstanding
paragraph (a) of this section. Any advances to acquire land prior to approval of the RROF and certification are made at
the risk of the organization, consortium, or affiliate and reimbursement for such advances may depend on the result of
the environmental review. This authorization is limited to the SHOP program only and all other forms of HUD
assistance are subject to the limitations in paragraph (a) of this section.
(1) Relocation. Funds may be committed for relocation assistance before the approval of the RROF and related
certification for the project provided that the relocation assistance is required by 24 CFR part 42.
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 17 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
Environmental Review Worksheet
Check ALL of the activities listed below that will be included as part of the project,
REGARDLESS OF THE FUNDING SOURCE:
Q Information and financial services
O Administrative and management activities
O Environmental and other studies, resource identification, and the development of plans and strategies
Most engineering and design costs associated with eligible projects
■ Inspections and testing of properties for hazards or defects
b • Project planning
E„4 ¢ 3 ❑ Purchase of insurance
≥ um O Purchase of tools
a At . 0 Technical assistance and training
>C .c .5. n Interim assistance to arrest the effects of an imminent threat or physical deterioration in which the assistance
W w 7, does not alter environmental conditions.
'`" p Public services that will not have a h sical impact or result in any physical changes (e.g., employment,physical PP Y child
. care, health, education, counseling, welfare)
0 Assistance for temporary or permanent improvements that do not alter environmental conditions and are limited
to protection, repair, or restoration activities necessary only to control or arrest the effects from disasters or
imminent threats to public safety including those resulting from physical deterioration
(Must also complete the Regulatory Checklist at the end of Exhibit IV-A)
m
TA Operating costs e , maintenance, security, operation, utilities, furnishings, equipment, su lies, staff training� � ( g Y P gPP
Z = and recruitment, other incidental costs)
Ux n Relocation costs
iti
p Acquisition, repair, improvement, reconstruction, or rehabilitation when the facilities and improvements are in
place and will be retained in the same use without change in size or capacity of more than 20 percent
❑ Special projects directed to the removal of material and architectural barriers that restrict the mobility of and
accessibility to elderly and handicapped persons
II Acquisition (including leasing) or disposition of, or equity loans on, an existing structure
-- fl Acquisition (including leasing) of vacant land provided the structure or land acquired, financed, or disposed of
will be retained for the same use
(:1 Acquisition, repair, improvement, reconstruction, or rehabilitation when the facilities and improvements are in
place, but will change in size or capacity of more than 20 percent
n Acquisition, repair, improvement, reconstruction, or rehabilitation when the facilities and improvements are in
r-
law place, but will involve a change in land use, such as from non-residential to residential, commercial to
industrial, or from one industrial use to another
fri Demolition
✓� New construction
This checklist must be included with the CDBG application.
Please direct questions to the appropriate contact person below:
DOLA/DLG DHSEM
Tamra Norton, Environmental Compliance Officer Steven Boand, State Disaster Recovery Manager
Department of Local Affairs Department of Public Safety
1313 Sherman Street, Room 521, Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
Denver, CO 80203 9195 E Mineral Ave, Suite 200
303-866-6398 Centennial, CO 80112
720.852.6713
tamra.norton@state.co.us steven.boand@state.co.us
DPS/DOLA USE ONLY:
Required level of environmental review: 0 Exempt 0 CENST 0 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
s
.y
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 . 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
q
CDBG-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 WELCO07 (510 ). 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 / permanent work that were a direct result of the severe
flooding .
A Scope of Work and detailed project budget is included within the PW (see attached ).
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 20 of 20
•
N
to
Ql
N
E
0
u
C
E
0
u
E
-0
C
to
a)
to
I-
C)
C N
C
0 E
y N
n a, 3
a 0
N y `
c E 0) a
o ° E
w ` v E
a E C 2
aJ J m2
u
E w l' J
d •
C E a o
C 0
O e
• o c 2 a
u al yc O
C.1 o .; a J a
E E 'V a 0 >0 m
o a 0 v o
C C E c —
0
3 3 3 - ` 0
O 0 0 3 0 oa
w w W a rO
0 0 0 C C C
c c ' 0 E
3 J J 1O O
O 0 0 aJ 21
✓ U U a a a.
> t3
m z
C � al
C] O O
O O O
x 2 - 2 2
O o 2 O O
J J J J J
3e a o ae e o e o o de o 0 0 0 o ppe o 0 ,e o o o o e e a e e0 0
O ri O 10 tO U7 tO O n n O O O O 1D LO Ot 10 O el O 0 V t0 n CO n ti 0 0 CO C CO � n n O O) O 1�
Q N N ti .-1 re re C N N n n 0 el el .-i u'1 el n N n in in .-1 eel N 00 in in e4 u1 el 0 0 "I 70 JI O
a m N m m M or M 00 O 00 m N n n m a0 ro W O W co cciN n 00 n n O V) N m n n V) n V) V) in CO m co. m N
CO IN M M CO Vl VI M M 00 M M M M M O n M M M N 4/1 N N N (V N O 00 M CO V)
O
O
2
O
J
VI V) Vl Vl Ul Vl al V) O O V) Ul V) V) V) Vl O Vl O if) ul V1 ✓1 Vl 0 0 0 0 Vl V) O Vl 0 0 0 Vl Vl to V) O
Vl m ei ri m rm e1 LA 00 00 n n N en ri ri in ri n m n in of m CO LO co r4 u) ul 1D Lino in ID o n Vl r In CO
> n m m m M M M n m al .-4 r+ n M m M In M n m ri 0 0 m n n m O o 0 n 0 n 0 0 n n N n Cr)
M m m m M ei -+ N ^I M M M N m N N N M .-1 N ri N nl (14 N nJ .-J .1 ri
2
D
O
O
2
O
J
Vl Vl 0 0 0 0 0 to in al O O al 0 0 0 0 0 V) V) 0 0 0 0 to O an 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ✓1 al al in Vl
ern LC t0 tD in U) t0 m 0 0 0 0 m l0 t0 tD 0 t0 to tD 0 Vl Lin tD 0 to 0 0 Vl Ul m M M r-I .-1 a m 0 M o
C
2 N n 0 0 0 0 0 n V V Ct V N. 0 0 0 M o V IN o •D tO 0 re 0 '7 N t0 tO 0 4.0 0 V v o n CO N Q
N N N N N r-i m re ri N N N .-t N r-I N .-I r-1 r-1
J
Vl 0 V) V7 VI V)N. O t LA VI Vl O O LAVl Ul V) O U-1 ul 0 O m Vl LAO V) Vl O Vl Vl Vl V) al O O al V) rM ✓1 m
N NJ N N N N N
0 1D to tO lD tOt n M M N N n LO tD LI3N N CO n O N V) VI U O m LA) M O V) m Vl m n n M tO l0 n M
ID N Nt0 0 0 Ca 00 lD n N MN. co -4 ei N ul tO 0 .--I .--I e-I tD r-1 ID (-4 N W ID O tO O
e-I .--1 .--I r- .-1 .-I r-1 r-1 el
}
O
J
Vl Vle V1 In V) Ul V! V) 0 0 V) V) VI V) V) VI V in O u-)) l V) V) Vl VI 0 VI 0 0 Vl Ir V) Vl V) 0 0 0 V) O Vl 0
3V) ri 00 00 co co CO V) Vl Lin Vl V1 ul CO CO 00 m m 0o C000 r n n CO 4.13 in n CO n W m m n Vl O ut Vl
V) CA n n n n n in U) t0 ID U) V) n n n O n rn tO n M N N V tO N N l N Vl
O tD
J
r-I IN c--I r-I el re re .--I re N N re .-4 re .ti N re .-I N N r-I re r-I M N .-I r-1 re .-I N .--I N .--I .--I c-i .--, re a--I re
O V) .-i .-I r-1 re r. 0 0 0 re re 0 ri re lel N re ul In ri 0 0 r+ N M 0 tO 0 0 In 0 M CO CO 0 0 01 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ri r1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r-I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ri O r~
LO O Vl ul in in in U) O 0 Vl in tO M in V) V) in n n al 00 CO m N N o o CO 00 el 00 r1 al m lD t0 O 1D
0 O N N N N N O N N N N O N N N N N 0 0 N 0 0 N N N N N 0 r-1 N 0 N 0 0 0 O N 0 N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
000000000000000000000000 O O O O 000000 000 O O a
M M M M M M (YI m M m m M m M M M M MMMMMCAMMMMTMMMMMMMM M M M M
N N N N N N N N nJ N N N N (V N N N N N N N N nJ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
re r1 re .-+ re re ri .-a .ti --I .-I r1 --I .d r-I .-1 .-1 r1 el .r .r r-1 r1 r1 el r+ re re re .--1 re re rl r-1 re rd r-i ri re el
CO CO 00 CO CO CO 0C CO 00 00 CO 00 CO CO 00 00 CO 00 CO CO CO CO W CO CC CO 00 CO 00 00 00 00 CO 00 00 0) CO CO CO CO
u u 0 0 0 00 o 0 0 00000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O
O V1 V) Vf N Vl V) Vt Vl VI V) Vl V) t/1 V) V) N V) ill V) N V) V) N V) V) 4.11 N N an V) V) VI V) VI LA to VI VI N V)
CO 0 O 0 0 O O O 00000000o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 O 0 O O O O O 0 O O 0
N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C 0 0 0 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
d rl VI Vl V1 in in in in V) Vl Lin Vl V) Vl m in in al in V) VI Vl Vl LinV) in V) V) V) Vl in tin in V) Vl VI Vl LinV1 V)
r'U r'I el re el re 1 ry re r1 r e re re r l r1 re r-1 r-1 el r-1 r-1 r-1 ri r-I re r1 re el re re r-1 r1 r-1 el re r1 rl ri .-1 re
el r1 ri N M C LA ri ri .-I r+ ri .-1 r. N M .-i N —1 NI re .i ^J r1 -i nJ en O .-i N PI Q r1 .-1 ri .y -i ri ri ri
C
O
a
u
O
J
ri .-n •t 7 7 t Vt In tD n CO a) o r1 re -1 N eN vl ✓) to 00 03 a) re ri- r-I M M CA M et .-1 M cr to tO n 03
-i re ri r1 -i r+ -i .H re el e-1 e-I N N N N N N N N4 NJ M m M M m m en
a
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a « « « « « « < < « « < < « <
✓ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
m W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W LU W W W W W W W LU W W LU W W W W W W W
Q LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL U- LL LL LL LL LL LL LL u- LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL
W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n co 00 O
core
• V) .O-1 N O O V) M CO t00 O Vl V) 4-4ON N in ID M 0 O 0 CO m m r1 0 O O in •-• O-I m LA Nal al co N Vl N al sr in co to
al ri m M N m m CO ICI CO CO In in t0 n C M N C11 co O m M N N co M m LO n tO co N ri O 03 ri lO in ri O
13 V) O ri r1 O O O O M M CO 00 O CO 00 CO 0 0 0 ri 00 M M O N m 0 ri VI V) Vl Vl m m N O O n ul a
« 'Q O M M M M M O el el n n O m M M M M O O N. N N M M N el O N N N N N O O V O N Q O
= coo o 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 o O O o 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0
it 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c) 0 70 -4 Kt V '7 '7 rt V rt C V O V V O C Vt Q Q O •7 Q O V C O V O V
J
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CO 00 O tin 0 0 01 t0 CO en m m NJ n in N M U3 03 m m n O N .-1 0 Vl N M in in N 0 O m m N O 00 V)
03 el CO CO 01 Crl IN 0 CO O O O O 0 0 0 in
re CO 00 00 CO O CO CO N V) 0 0 00 n m m CO IN V) M N n 00 re 1/40 01 0 CO N
diCO 00 03 in M M 0 ri 00 ere 'Cr 0) N t0 V m m ow t0 00 t0 In el m N N
m in V O O V O 0 0 N 0 0 0 00 CO CO el r1 ri N 0 m m 0 CO ei M O N N CO N. M Q M 1/40 O N (71 V)
• U) LO N N N N N n O O 00 co n O Q V a V tD tO CO Co 00 N 00 O O m OO 00 CO 00 O CO 00 V) n m t0 O
a 0 0 O O 0 V 0 0 Vl ut O 0 0 0 O 4 0 O 4 O O 0 O 0 V in ut 0 0 0 0 0 0l o O o o o o m
m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C r♦ N ri ri re ri re ri r1 el ri ri re re r♦ el ri re ri r-I r-i N m r1 re N ri ri r1 el e-1 ei re re rti ti r1 r-I ei N
0 •
J
, 4 _ "� 3t. s.r 4.t v`' 4 , a
,
till
r L
i00.4 •t: a' ii' , k.. J
r' .b ' �_
a,
_ _
li
iii lt
i
IA , * ' ' g "
.61 - $1*. •1•••••••
?kill
t w_
.
,s r
41
-. .; =; ' o ash M -1- ,
•
.. ell el el cqt —_t• Nt• �t nt 7t
DI 1
I I I' ' I Y
" '-. W yW� W W W W W W W
.� LL LL LL LL LL LL LL IL LL -
' l �t iicaI
LL LL /UU:
.` '• SP. r' ..i•I.YY_ •4. rte . .; .r
•
{ . , 7; �, 44.E}J�.�:,+a i.• 0..la •
1C7; :*.f.: '4°)
A - _. _ _.. - *' / 0 r.. " 2_ iii:1 .. . ,
ii.- 14 c if-, , I ... i '- , . i iiiiii -
i0
• At
U H1TTt
t
Q Q 1
= LLl t 3.•
- O
J
♦ tt
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 1 of 38
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00510(2) P
Applicant Name: Application Title:
WELD (COUNTY) WELCO07 - BRIDGE - 20.5 -3B OVER BOULDER CREEK
Period of Performance Start: Period of Performance End:
09-14-2013
Subgrant Application - Entire Application
Application Title: WELCO07 - BRIDGE - 20.5 -3B OVER BOULDER CREEK
Application Number: PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00510(2)
Application Type: Subgrant Application (PW)
Preparer Information
Prefix
First Name Ken
Middle Initial
Last Name Beebe
Title
Agency/Organization Name FEMA - DHS
Address 1 9195 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 rudisill@weldgov.com
City Greeley
State CO
ZIP 80632
https://isource.fema.net/emm ie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTi le=&topTi le=dsHeader&b.. . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 2 of 38
Phone 970-304-6540
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: WELCO07
Standard Project Number/Title: 399 - Road System Damage
Please Indicate the Project Type: Neither Alternate nor Improved
Application Title: WELCO07 - BRIDGE - 20.5 -3B OVER BOULDER CREEK
Category: C. ROADS & BRIDGES
Percentage Work Completed? 90.0 %
As of Date: 01 -18-2014
Comments
Attachments
Damage Facilities (Part 1 of 2)
Facility Site
Number Facility Name Address County City State ZIP Previously Action
Damaged?
1 CR 20.5-3B OVER BOULDER CREEK Weld CO No
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do`?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 3 of 38
Comments
Attachments
User Date Document Description Hard Copy File File Name Action
Type Reference
SHIRLEY 01 -18- BRIDGE WELCO07 - Bridge
SANDERS 2014 Miscellaneous INSPECTION Inspection Report- 1 .pdf View
BROWN (6.65 Mb)
SHIRLEY 01 -18- BRIDGE WELCO07 - Bridge
SANDERS 2014 Miscellaneous INSPECTION Inspection Report-2.pdf View
BROWN (2.58 Mb)
SHIRLEY 01 -18- BRIDGE WELCO07 - Bridge
SANDERS 2014 Miscellaneous INSPECTION Inspection Report-3.pdf View
BROWN (805.29 kb)
SHIRLEY 01 -18- BRIDGE WELCO07 - Bridge
SANDERS 2014 Miscellaneous INSPECTION Inspection Report-4.pdf View
BROWN (3. 11 Mb)
KATHLEEN 02-05- Photos Applicant Photos.pdf View
RUVARAC 2014 (2.79 Mb)
KATHLEEN 02-05-
Photos Photos.pdf(577.90 kb) View
RUVARAC 2014
Facility Name: CR 20.5-3B OVER BOULDER CREEK
Address 1 :
Address 2:
County: Weld
City:
State: CO
ZIP:
Was this site previously damaged? No
Percentage Work Completed? 90.00 %
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00510(0):
CR 20.5
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00510( 1 ):
***** Version 1 *****
Location: PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00510(2 ):
***** Version 2 *****
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00510(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 bridge WEL020.5-003.0B over Boulder Creek, in Section 17. T2N,
R68W.
II
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. .. 10/28/2014
i
amilme
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 4 of 38
On November 15, 2013, Kathleen Ruvarac, FEMA TAC Bridge
Specialist. David Ray. FEMA Hazard Mitigation Specialist, Glenn
Cadman, California Emergency Management Agency assisting the State
of Colorado Emergency Management Agency. and Donald Dunker. Weld
County Public Works Engineer, performed a site investigation at this
location to document damages. The bridge was open and repairs
completed at the time of inspection.
The 132.5 ft long x 32 ft wide concrete and steel structure traverses the
Boulder Creek in Weld County, CO. The bridge is a double (2) span
concrete/steel bridge consisting of a 4 inch asphalt overlay on corrugated
steel deck, Eight (8) - W33x130 steel girders. concrete abutments and
wing walls, and one ( 1 ) concrete intermediate pier. The deck is flanked
on both sides with a galvanized W rail beam on 6 inch x 4 inch steel
posts welded to the exterior girders.
The damages to the facility include scour and washout on the north side
of the intermediate pier exposing approximately 3 feet of pier wall .
Additionally. 50 ft of barbed wire tied to the wingwall at the southwest
corner was damaged. The bridge was closed after the event.
Embankment material lost at the intermediate pier is estimated to be 32 ft
in length along pier x 30 ft in width in east span x 3 ft in depth = 111 . 1
CY.
The Applicant has provided pictures of the facility after the event and
Damage Description and during repair operations. These photos are attached to this project
worksheet.
Dimensions:
Due to the high water elevation in the creek at the time of inspection, the
full extent of damages incurred as a result of this disaster may not have
been observed and documented.
The applicant provided previous bridge inspection reports for the facility
dated June 30, 2010 and May 21 . 2012. The bridge in built in 1978 and
had a sufficiency rating of 91 .6 in 2010 and 83.8 in 2012. Scour was
noted at the northwest wingwall. The channel conditions noted flow is
directed at the northwest wing and is at a bend in the alignment. The
bridge inspection reports identified recommended maintenance activities
to clean debris around bearing and on abutment seat and add large rip
rap at the Northwest wingwall.
The applicant noted additional rubble rip rap was washed away
downstream during this event at the northwest wingwall. The field
measurement is 15 ft in length x 6 ft in width x 1 .5 ft in depth/27 = 5 CY.
The deck condition is noted as very good (8) on a scale of 0 to 9. The
superstructure and substructure are noted as satisfactory (6). The
channel was observed beginning to slump (6).
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00510(1 ):
***** Version 1 *****
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00510(2):
***** Version 2 *****
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00510(0):
WORK COMPLETED
1 ) Contracts:
The applicant hired a contractor, Mountain Constructors, Inc. . P.O. Box
405. Platteville, CO 80538 (970) 786-6161 . Invoice attached to project
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do''menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 5 of 38
worksheet for work performed 10-2 through 10-14, 2013 = $22,670.58.
Hauled and dumped with (5 CY) Rubble Rip Rap at the northwest
wingwall.
5 CY Rip Rap x $83. 17/CY (CDOT Item Number 506-00218) = $415.85
compared with $600.00 contractor's invoice.
Dewatering operations. clearing and grubbing and embankment material
fill at the north side of the intermediate pier.
Dewatering - $400.00 contractor's invoice
Clearing and grubbing - $6,000.00 contractor's invoice
Filled in scour hole at intermediate pier with (72. 5 TNS. 39.8 CY)
Aggregate base course with a unit weight of 135 lbs/cf (placed and
compacted) and 71 .4 CY embankment (granular fill) material (placed and
compacted ). Total Material — 111 . 1 CY — Weld County Construction
Criteria typical section with material density used in calculation attached
to project worksheet as supporting documentation.
71 .4 CY Embankment Material x $10.00/CY (CDOT Item Number 203-
00062) = $714.00 compared with contractor's invoice $2, 141 .70
72.5 TNS Aggregate Base Course x $33.70/TN (CDOT Item Number
304-06000 x2 due to economies of scale as compared with number of
CDOT annual projects) = $2,443.25 compared with contractors invoice
$2, 141 .70
Scope of Work: The project specialist compared the repair cost for labor and construction
of similar bridge repairs with the bid and subsequent invoice received
from Mountain Constructors, Inc. for $22,670.58 and found the costs for
Mobilization $8.000.00 and Traffic Control $3,500.00 totaling $ 11 .500.00,
approximately 50%
of the repair cost of the facility. These costs are deemed to be high and
the project worksheet
reimbursement is reduced for Mobilization to $4,000.00 and Traffic
Control to $1 ,750.00. The costs for mobilization and traffic control were
brought to the applicants attention and the applicant indicated their intent
to request a reimbursement from the contractor for the excessive
mobilization and traffic control costs. The applicant indicated that the
charges slipped through after the contractor's contract was reduced .
Total contract $22.670.58 reduced to $16,920.58
The applicant hired an environmental consulting firm to prepare
application for ACOE Section 404
Nationwide permit, Tiglas Ecological Services, 5015 Swainsona Drive,
Loveland. CO 80537. Invoice attached to project worksheet for work
performed 9-29-2013 = $600.00
Total Contracts: $ 17,520.58
2) Force Account:
The applicant utilized force account labor and equipment to monitor
facility and install barrier walls during the flood event and repair
operations.
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b.. . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 6 of 38
Labor - $4,013.49
Equipment- $301 .50
Total: $4,314.99
WORK TO BE COMPLETED
1 ) Install 50 ft of barbed wire with metal posts at the southwest wingwall
— 50 ft x $2.08/LF (607-01000
Fence Barbed Wire with Metal Posts CDOT Avg. Unit Price 2013) _
$104.00
Project Notes
1 . Following the September 2013 flooding, applicant used contract
services and/or force account resources to re-open roads/bridges and
repair damage as soon as possible. At several damage sites, repairs
appear to have returned the facility to its pre-disaster design , function
and capacity with no known remaining work to be completed. However
at other sites due to the onset of winter conditions, applicant was unable
to complete the restoration , thus leaving work to be completed. Finally,
at some sites, applicant has expressed concern that unanticipated work
may be still be required as a result of conditions beyond their control,
such as possible subsequent settlement resulting from saturated soil
conditions following the flood or where high water levels or
erosion/deposition prevented a complete damage assessment.
2. This PW addresses all validated flood related damages at the
specified site. including completed work and work to be completed (which
damages were known to the applicant and reported to FEMA by the
effective date of this PW). In the event that applicant identifies
subsequent, currently unknown flood related damage at such site,
applicant is advised to contact the State of Colorado Office of Emergency
Management to report the damage and request an inspection prior to its
repair. In the event that the State validates the damage as a direct result
of the September 2013 flooding, the State will request FEMA prepare a
version of this PW to address the eligible cost of repair.
3. Applicant has substantially completed 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. CO State representative
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.
4. 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
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTi le=&topTi le=dsHeader&b... 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 7 of 38
related to the work in this sub-grant.
5. 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.
6. The applicant must obtain all required federal, state, and local permits
prior to the commencement of work.
7. 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.
8. Project was reviewed for 406 Hazard Mitigation and a copy of 406
HMP proposal is attached with this project.
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
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00510( 1 ):
***** Version 1 *****
This version is written to capture additional hazard mitigation (an
additional $1860.55 for 21 .3 tons of rip rap @ $83. 17/CY & 29 SY of
geotextile fabric @ $3.07/SY) that was not included in the original HMP
and additional engineering ( 14.75% of $7,384. 13 = $1 .090.00) to
complete the hazard mitigation for the scour at the West abutment wall at
the site (32 LF x 3 LF x 6.0 VF ). There will also be the following costs
included and costs have been taken from the applicant's historical costs:
1 . 1 - Day traffic control: $ 1 .500.00
2. Sanitary Facility: $300.00
3. Dewatering (2 days): $3000.00
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00510(2):
***** Version 2 *****
This version of the PW is being written in regard to the applicant's
request submitted by e-mail dated June 04, 2014. This request is based
on the applicants consultant determining what would be needed to fully
restore the bridge to pre-existing conditions. The applicant is requesting
$92,090.75 (see Opinion of Estimated Cost) for construction and
$38,537.00 for engineering services. This request was first addressed
and documented in version 1 of this PW. Since version 1 was written the
applicant has contacted the State Emergency Management and FEMA
with their concerns why they think version 1 does not re-store the bridge
back to pre-existing conditions. FEMA. after several discussions with the
applicant and understanding why they are requesting $92.090. 75 for
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do`'menuTi le=&topTile=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 8 of 38
construction and $38.537.00 for engineering, FEMA has determined that
their total request is fair and reasonable and is eligible for FEMA funding.
The total eligible cost for Construction is $92.090.75.
The total eligible cost for engineering is $38,537.00.
This PW is now deemed to be a Large Project.
Version 1 costs for $5,890.00 will be de-obligated because all costs for
this request are now captured in version 2 of this PW.
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
406 Hazard Mitigation Plan
WORK TO BE COMPLETED
The applicant has indicated that installing rip rap and
geotextile fabric at the north side of the intermediate pier
downstream of the bridge will fill the scour at the bridge
facility and alleviate future damages at the site.
1 ) Geotextile Fabric - 32 ft in length along pier x 12 ft in width
towards the channel ( 10 ft in width + 2 ft overlap) x 2 sides
of the channel = 85.3 SY x $3.07/SY (420-00112 Geotextile
— Drainage- Class 3 CDOT Avg. Unit Price 2013) = $261 .87
2) Rip Rap - 32 ft in length x 10 ft in width towards the
channel x 6 ft in depth x 2 sides of the channel = 142.2 CY X
$83. 17/CY (506-00218 Rip Rap 18 inch CDOT Avg. Unit
Price 2013) _ $11 ,826.77
Please provide the Scope of Work for the Total = $261 .87 + $ 11 .826. 77 = $12 ,088.64
estimate:
(maximum 4000 characters) This HMP is considered cost effective 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 the project.
Appendix A. 5. Gabion baskets, rip rap, sheet piling. and
geotextile fabric installation- installation to control erosion.
Bridge Repair Cost - Contractor Invoice - $ 16,920.58
The net cost of mitigation/cost of damages is 71 % < 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?
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 9 of 38
GIS Coordinates
Project Location Latitude Longitude
BRIDGE CR 20.5 40. 13863 - 105.02043
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)?
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)
FLOOD MAP 08013C0300J
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. ,
footprint, material, location, capacity, use of function )? No
5. Does the applicant have a hazard mitigation proposal or would the applicant like technical Yes
assistance for a hazard mitigation proposal?
If you would like to make any comments.. please enter them below.
(maximum 4000 characters)
HMP ATTACHED
6. Is the damaged facility on the National Register of Historic Places or the state historic No
listing? 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 No
work?
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 REVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED
Attachments
User Date Document Description Hard Copy File File Name Action
Type Reference
KATHLEEN 02-05- Floodplain Firmette.pdf( 137.39 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?
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatch Destination.do?menuTi le=&topTi le=dsHeader&b... 10/28/20 14
a f
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 10 of 38
If you answered Yes to the above question, the next two questions are required
8/6/14 - Mark W. Petitt, 406 Specialist Revised HMP for
Version 1 (see Attachments - "PW510 - WELDCO07 HMP
Version 1 .pdf') Additional geotextile and riprap for west
abutment. CR 20.5-3B over Boulder Creek - LAT: 40. 13863
LONG: -105.02043 The applicant has indicated that
installing rip rap and geotextile fabric at the north side of the
intermediate pier downstream of the bridge and on the west
abutment (version 1 location) to fill the scour at the bridge
facility and alleviate future damages at the site. 1 ) Geotextile
Fabric - 32 ft in length along pier x 12 ft in width towards the
channel ( 10 ft in width + 2 ft overlap) x 2 sides of the channel
= 85.3 SY x $3.07/SY (420-00112 Geotextile — Drainage-
Class 3 COOT Avg. Unit Price 2013) = $261 .87 Version 1 -
Additional geotextile fabric - 32 ft x 8 ft = 29 sy x $3.07/sy =
$89.03 Total Geotextile Fabric = $350.90 2) Rip Rap - 32 ft
in length x 10 ft in width towards the channel x 6 ft in depth x
2 sides of the channel = 142.2 CY X $83. 17/CY (506-00218
Rip Rap 18 inch CDOT Avg . Unit Price 2013) = $11 .826. 77
Version 1 - Additional rip rap - (32 ft x 6 ft x 3 ft)/ 27 = 21 .3
cy x $83. 17/cy = $1 ,771 .52 Total Rip Rap = $ 13,598.30
Please provide the Scope of Work Mitigation Cost = $13,949.20 Repair Cost = $16.920.58
for the estimate: Mitigation % = 82.44% This Hazard Mitigation Proposal
(HMP) is 82.44% of the repair and restoration costs. In
accordance with FEMA Recovery Policy 9526. 1 . VII . B.2.
"certain mitigation measures (are) determined to be cost
effective, as long as the mitigation measure does not exceed
100% of the eligible cost of the eligible repair work on the
project." The proposed mitigation measures at this site
includes Appendix A paragraph #A.5 "Gabion baskets, rip
rap. sheet piling, and geotextile fabric installation -
Installation to control erosion" This HMP is cost effective and
technically feasible. If this HMP is approved. and the
mitigation is not performed. the Applicant must apply for a
change in the Scope or Work and de‐obligation of
the HMP funding (RE: 9526. 1 .VII .C. ). Failure to complete the
work of the HMP may limit future FEMA funding of repairs at
the site, in the event that a similar disaster event results in
similar damage at the site (PA Guide A‐:43). This
HMP is for estimating purposes only. If the site's final
placement and configuration are different than the
preliminary estimate. the applicant should submit a change
in scope request. This HMP is subject to further review prior
to award.
Would you like to add the Hazard Mitigation Yes
Proposal as a cost line item to the project cost?
Hazard Mitigation Proposal - 0909
Unit Unit of Unit Subgrant Cost
# Code Material and/or Description Quantity Measure Price Budget Type Estimate Action
Class
*** Version 0 ***
1 9999 Geotextile fabric (COOT 2013, 85.3 SY $ 3.07 $ 261 .87
420-00112)
2 9999 Rip rap, 18in (COOT 2013, 506- 142.2 CY $ 83. 17 $ 11 .826.77
00218)
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTi le=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 11 of 38
*** Version 1 ***
3 9999 Version 1 addition Dry 18" Rip Rap 21 .3 CY $ 83. 17 $ 1 .771 .52
(CDOT 2013.. 506-00218)
4 9999 Version 1 addition Geotextile 29 SY $ 3.07 $ 89.03
Fabric (CDOT 2013. 420-00112)
Total Cost: $ 13,949.19
Comments
Attachments
User Date Document Description Hard Copy File File Name Action
Type Reference
SHIRLEY 01 - 18- Mitigation HAZARD WELCO07 - 406 HMP
SANDERS 2014 Document MITIGATION Plan .pdf(46.31 kb) View
BROWN PLAN
08-06- Mitigation PW510 - WELDCO07
MARK PETITT 2014 Proposal Version 1 HMP HMP Version 1 .pdf(92.25 View
kb)
Cost Estimate
Is this Project Worksheet for Cost Estimate Format
(Preferred) Repair
Sequence Code Material and/or Unit Unit of Unit Price Subgrant Type Cost Action
Description Quantity Measure Budget Class Estimate
*** Version 0 ***
Other
1 0000 Work Completed Other $ 0.00
2 9003 Contract Costs 1 LS 17,520.58 CONTRACTUAL Other $ 17,520.58
3 9007 Labor 1 LS $ PERSONNEL Other $ 2,745. 10
2,745. 10
4 9008 Equipment 1 LS $ 200.00 EQUIPMENT Other $ 200.00
5 0000 Work to be Completed Other $ 0.00
6 9999 REPAIR 1 LS $ 104.00 CONSTRUCTION Other $ 104.00
Direct
7 9901 Administrative 1 LS $ 860.00 INDIRECT Other $ 860.00
Costs CHARGES
(Subgrantee)
*** Version 1 ***
Other
Contract -
Engineer
8 9999 Services per 1 LS $ Other $ 1 ,090.00
FEMA 322 1 ,090.00
Curve B Page
60 = 14.75% of
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 12 of 38
new repair
Traffic Control
9 9999 1 LS $ Other $ 1 ,500.00
( 1 Day) 1 ,500.00
10 9999 Sanitary Facility 1 LS $ 300.00 Other $ 300.00
Water Control
11 9999 and Dewatering 1 LS $ Other $ 3,000.00
(2 days) 3,000.00
't'"t Version 2 ***
Other
12 9999 De-obligate 1 LS $ Other S -5,890.00
Version 1 5.890.00
13 9999 Construction 1 LS $ Other $ 92,090.75
92,090.75
14 9999 Engineering 1 LS $ Other $ 38,537.00
38,537.00
CEF Cost
15 9000 Estimate (See 1 LS $ 0.00 CONSTRUCTION Other $ 0.00
Attached
Spreadsheet)
Total Cost : $ 152,057.43
Insurance Adjustments (Deductibles. Proceeds and Settlements) - 5900/5901
Material and/or Unit Unit of Unit Subgrant Cost
Sequence Code Description Quantity Measure Price Budget Type Estimate Action
Class
Total Cost : $ 0.00
Hazard Mitigation Proposal - 0909
Material and/or Unit Unit of Unit Subgrant Cost
Sequence Code Description Quantity Measure Price Budget Type Estimate Action
Class
*** Version 0 ***
1 9999 Geotextile fabric (COOT 85.3 SY $ 3.07 $ 261 .87
2013, 420-00112)
2 9999 Rip rap, 18in (CDOT 142.2 CY $ $ 11 ,826.77
2013, 506-00218) 83. 17
*** Version 1 *'t*
Version 1 addition Dry
3 9999 18" Rip Rap (COOT 21 .3 CY 83. 17 $ 1 , 771 .52
2013, 506-00218)
Version 1 addition
4 9999 Geotextile Fabric (COOT 29 SY $ 3.07 $ 89.03
2013, 420-00112)
Total Cost : $ 13,949.19
Total Cost Estimate: $ 166,006.62
(Preferred Estimate Type + Insurance Adjustments + Hazard Mitigation Proposal)
Comments
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatch Destination.do?menuTile=&topTi le=dsHeader&b. .. 10/28/2014
— —
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 13 of 38
Attachments
User Date Document Type Description Hard Copy File File Name Action
Reference
KATHLEEN 02-05- Miscellaneous WELCO07_DAC.pdf( 18.80 View
RUVARAC 2014 kb)
KATHLEEN 02-05- Invoice WELCO07_Cost Estimate View
RUVARAC 2014 Data.pdf(949.29 kb)
KATHLEEN 02-05- Contract Bid documents Bridge 20.5- View
RUVARAC 2014 Document 3B.pdf( 1 .75 Mb)
Existing Insurance Information
Insurance Type Policy No. Bldg/Property Content Insurance Deductible Years
Amount Amount Amount Amount Required
Comments
Insurance Policy on record at JFO
Attachments
Comments and Attachments
Name of Section Comment Attachment
Preparer Information BridgeOBoulderCkFM0802660850C[21.pdf
Contact Information PW510Environmental Permit LO.pdf
WELCO07 - Bridge Inspection Report-1 .pdf
WELCO07 - Bridge Inspection Report-2.pdf
Damage Facilities WELCO07 - Bridge Inspection Report-3.pdf
WELCO07 - Bridge Inspection Report-4.pdf
Applicant Photos.pdf
Photos.pdf
Special Considerations Firmette.pdf
Mitigation WELCO07 - 406 HMP Plan.pdf
PW510 - WELDCO07 HMP Version 1 .pdf
WELCO07 DAC.pdf
Cost Estimate WELCO07 Cost Estimate Data.pdf
Bid documents Bridge 20.5-3B.pdf
Insurance Information Insurance Policy on record
at JFO
WELCO07 DDD SOW.pdf
WELCO07 90-91 Form.pdf
Signed by Applicant WELCO07 Bridge 20.5-3B PW.pdf
PW 510 - Entire Application.pdf
Form 90-91 PW 510-1 - Entire Application.pdf
AMEND - Log Item 14-28-4145 - PW 510.pdf
VER. 2 PW 00510 Cover Sheet Edited.docx
510 version 2 ICON Engineering Cost Exhibit B.pdf
510 Version 2 Robert Reid Letter and Opinion of Probable
Cost.pdf
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
_
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 14 of 38
Bundle Reference # (Amendment #) Date Awarded
PA-08-CO-4145-State-0089(88) 10-24-2014
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
WELCO07 123-99123- 10-09-2014 C
FEMA 4145 - DR -CO 00
APPLICANT: WELD (COUNTY) WORK COMPLETE AS OF:
01 -18-2014 : 90 %
Site 1of1
DAMAGED FACILITY:
COUNTY: Weld
CR 20.5-3B OVER BOULDER CREEK
LOCATION: LATITUDE: LONGITUDE:
40. 13863 -105.02043
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00510(0):
CR 20.5
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00510(1 ):
Rlft♦ Version 1
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00510(2):
"*" Version 2 «<,.
DAMAGE DESCRIPTION AND DIMENSIONS:
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00510(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 bridge WEL020.5-003.0B over Boulder Creek, in Section 17, T2N, R68W.
On November 15, 2013, Kathleen Ruvarac, FEMA TAC Bridge Specialist, David Ray, FEMA Hazard Mitigation Specialist, Glenn Cadman,
California Emergency Management Agency assisting the State of Colorado Emergency Management Agency, and Donald Dunker. Weld
County Public Works Engineer. performed a site investigation at this location to document damages. The bridge was open and repairs
completed at the time of inspection.
The 132.5 ft long x 32 ft wide concrete and steel structure traverses the Boulder Creek in Weld County, CO. The bridge is a double (2)
span concrete/steel bridge consisting of a 4 inch asphalt overlay on corrugated steel deck, Eight (8) - W33x130 steel girders. concrete
abutments and wing walls, and one (1 ) concrete intermediate pier. The deck is flanked on both sides with a galvanized W rail beam on 6
inch x 4 inch steel posts welded to the exterior girders.
The damages to the facility include scour and washout on the north side of the intermediate pier exposing approximately 3 feet of pier wall.
Additionally, 50 ft of barbed wire tied to the wingwall at the southwest corner was damaged. The bridge was closed after the event.
Embankment material lost at the intermediate pier is estimated to be 32 ft in length along pier x 30 ft in width in east span x 3 ft in depth
=111 . 1 CY.
The Applicant has provided pictures of the facility after the event and during repair operations. These photos are attached to this project
worksheet.
Due to the high water elevation in the creek at the time of inspection, the full extent of damages incurred as a result of this disaster may not
have been observed and documented.
The applicant provided previous bridge inspection reports for the facility dated June 30. 2010 and May 21 , 2012. The bridge in built in 1978
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTi Ie=dsHeader&b... 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 15 of 38
and had a sufficiency rating of 91 .6 in 2010 and 83.8 in 2012. Scour was noted at the northwest wingwall. The channel conditions noted
flow is directed at the northwest wing and is at a bend in the alignment. The bridge inspection reports identified recommended maintenance
activities to clean debris around bearing and on abutment seat and add large rip rap at the Northwest wingwall.
The applicant noted additional rubble rip rap was washed away downstream during this event at the northwest wingwall. The field
measurement is 15 ft in length x 6 ft in width x 1 .5 ft in depth/27 = 5 CY.
The deck condition is noted as very good (8) on a scale of 0 to 9. The superstructure and substructure are noted as satisfactory (6). The
channel was observed beginning to slump (6).
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00510(1 ):
***** Version 1
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00510(2):
***** Version 2 *****
SCOPE OF WORK:
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00510(0):
WORK COMPLETED
1 ) Contracts:
The applicant hired a contractor, Mountain Constructors, Inc., P.O. Box 405, Platteville, CO 80538 (970) 786-6161 . Invoice attached to
project worksheet for work performed 10-2 through 10-14, 2013 = $22,670.58.
Hauled and dumped with (5 CY) Rubble Rip Rap at the northwest wingwall.
5 CY Rip Rap x $83.17/CY (CDOT Item Number 506-00218) = $415.85 compared with $600.00 contractor's invoice.
Dewatering operations, clearing and grubbing and embankment material fill at the north side of the intermediate pier.
Dewatering - $400.00 contractor's invoice
Clearing and grubbing - $6,000.00 contractor's invoice
Filled in scour hole at intermediate pier with (72.5 TNS, 39.8 CY) Aggregate base course with a unit weight of 135 lbs/cf (placed and
compacted) and 71 .4 CY embankment (granular fill) material (placed and compacted). Total Material - 111 .1 CY - Weld County
Construction Criteria typical section with material density used in calculation attached to project worksheet as supporting documentation.
71 .4 CY Embankment Material x $10.00/CY (CDOT Item Number 203-00062) = $714.00 compared with contractor's invoice $2,141 .70
72.5 TNS Aggregate Base Course x $33.70/TN (CDOT Item Number 304-06000 x2 due to economies of scale as compared with number of
CDOT annual projects) = $2,443.25 compared with contractor's invoice $2,141 .70
The project specialist compared the repair cost for labor and construction of similar bridge repairs with the bid and subsequent invoice
received from Mountain Constructors, Inc. for $22,670.58 and found the costs for Mobilization $8,000.00 and Traffic Control $3,500.00
totaling $11 ,500.00, approximately 50%
of the repair cost of the facility. These costs are deemed to be high and the project worksheet
reimbursement is reduced for Mobilization to $4,000.00 and Traffic Control to $1 ,750.00. The costs for mobilization and traffic control were
brought to the applicant's attention and the applicant indicated their intent to request a reimbursement from the contractor for the excessive
mobilization and traffic control costs. The applicant indicated that the charges slipped through after the contractor's contract was reduced.
Total contract $22,670.58 reduced to $16,920.58
The applicant hired an environmental consulting firm to prepare application for ACOE Section 404
Nationwide permit, Tiglas Ecological Services, 5015 Swainsona Drive, Loveland, CO 80537. Invoice attached to project worksheet for work
performed 9-29-2013 = $600.00
Total Contracts: $17,520.58
2) Force Account:
The applicant utilized force account labor and equipment to monitor facility and install barrier walls during the flood event and repair
operations.
Labor - $4,013.49
Equipment- $301 .50
Total: $4,314.99
WORK TO BE COMPLETED
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 16 of 38
1 ) Install 50 ft of barbed wire with metal posts at the southwest wingwall - 50 ft x $2.08/LF (607-01000
Fence Barbed Wire with Metal Posts CDOT Avg. Unit Price 2013) = S104.00
Project Notes
1 . Following the September 2013 flooding, applicant used contract services and/or force account resources to re-open roads/bridges and
repair damage as soon as possible. At several damage sites, repairs appear to have returned the facility to its pre-disaster design, function
and capacity with no known remaining work to be completed. However at other sites due to the onset of winter conditions, applicant was
unable to complete the restoration, thus leaving work to be completed. Finally, at some sites, applicant has expressed concern that
unanticipated work may be still be required as a result of conditions beyond their control, such as possible subsequent settlement resulting
from saturated soil conditions following the flood or where high water levels or erosion/deposition prevented a complete damage
assessment.
2. This PW addresses all validated flood related damages at the specified site, including completed work and work to be completed (which
damages were known to the applicant and reported to FEMA by the effective date of this PW). In the event that applicant identifies
subsequent, currently unknown flood related damage at such site, applicant is advised to contact the State of Colorado Office of Emergency
Management to report the damage and request an inspection prior to its repair. In the event that the State validates the damage as a direct
result of the September 2013 flooding, the State will request FEMA prepare a version of this PW to address the eligible cost of repair.
3. Applicant has substantially completed 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, CO State representative 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. The applicant must obtain all required federal, state, and local permits prior to the commencement of work.
7. 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.
8. Project was reviewed for 406 Hazard Mitigation and a copy of 406 HMP proposal is attached with this project.
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
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00510(1 ):
***** Version 1 *****
This version is written to capture additional hazard mitigation (an additional $1860.55 for 21 .3 tons of rip rap @ $83. 17/CY & 29 SY of
geotextile fabric @ $3.07/SY) that was not included in the original HMP and additional engineering (14.75% of $7,384 13 = $1 ,090.00) to
complete the hazard mitigation for the scour at the West abutment wall at the site (32 LF x 3 LF x 6.0 VF). There will also be the following
costs included and costs have been taken from the applicant's historical costs:
1 . 1 - Day traffic control: $1 ,500.00
2. Sanitary Facility: $300.00
3. Dewatering (2 days): $3000.00
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00510(2):
***** Version 2 *****
This version of the PW is being written in regard to the applicant's request submitted by e-mail dated June 04, 2014. This request is based
on the applicant's consultant determining what would be needed to fully restore the bridge to pre-existing conditions. The applicant is
requesting $92,090.75 (see Opinion of Estimated Cost) for construction and $38,537.00 for engineering services. This request was first
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 17 of 38
addressed and documented in version 1 of this PW. Since version 1 was written the applicant has contacted the State Emergency
Management and FEMA with their concerns why they think version 1 does not re-store the bridge back to pre-existing conditions. FEMA.
after several discussions with the applicant and understanding why they are requesting $92,090.75 for construction and $38,537.00 for
engineering, FEMA has determined that their total request is fair and reasonable and is eligible for FEMA funding.
The total eligible cost for Construction is $92,090.75.
The total eligible cost for engineering is $38,537.00.
This PW is now deemed to be a Large Project.
Version 1 costs for $5,890.00 will be de-obligated because all costs for this request are now captured in version 2 of this PW
Does the Scope of Work change the pre-disaster
conditions at the site? Yes No Special Considerations included? Yes [1] No
Hazard Mitigation proposal included? Yes
Is there insurance coverage on this facility? Lj Yes ' No
No
PROJECT COST
ITEM CODE NARRATIVE QUANTITY/UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
*** Version 0 ***
Other
1 0000 Work Completed 0/LS $ 0.00 $ 0.00
2 9003 Contract Costs 1 /LS $ 17.520.58 $ 17,520.58
3 9007 Labor 1 /LS $ 2,745. 10 $ 2. 745. 10
4 9008 Equipment 1 /LS $ 200.00 $ 200.00
5 0000 Work to be Completed 0/LS $ 0.00 $ 0.00
6 9999 REPAIR 1 /LS $ 104.00 $ 104.00
7 9901 Direct Administrative Costs 1 /LS $ 860.00 $ 860.00
(Subgrantee)
*** Version 1 ***
Other
Contract - Engineer Services per
8 9999 FEMA 322 Curve B Page 60 = 1 /LS $ 1 .090.00 $ 1 ,090.00
14.75% of new repair
9 9999 Traffic Control ( 1 Day) 1 /LS $ 1 ,500.00 $ 1 ,500.00
10 9999 Sanitary Facility 1 /LS $ 300.00 $ 300.00
11 9999 y Water Control and Dewatering (2 1 /LS $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00
' Version 2 ***
Other
12 9999 De-obligate Version 1 1 /LS $ -5,890.00 $ -5,890.00
13 9999 Construction 1 /LS $ 92.090.75 $ 92,090.75
14 9999 Engineering 1 /LS $ 38.537.00 $ 38.537.00
15 9000 CEF 7. emate (See Attached 1 /LS $ 0.00 $ 0.00
et)
16 0909 Hazard Mitigation Proposal 1 /LS $ 13,949. 19 $ 13,949. 19
TOTAL COST $ 166,006.62
PREPARED BY Ken Beebe TITLE SIGNATURE
APPLICANT REP. Roy Rudisill TITLE Director - OEM SIGNATURE
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTi le=&topTi le=dsHeader&b... 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 18 of 38
WELD (COUNTY) : PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00510
Conditions Information
Review Name Condition Type Condition Name Description Monitored Status
If ground disturbing activities
occur during construction .
applicant will monitor ground
Standard disturbance and if any potential
Final Review Other (EHP) Condition #3 archeological resources are No Approved
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
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
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.
Applicant is responsible for
Executive Order coordinating with the local
floodplain manager. All
Final Review Other (EHP) 11988 required permits should be No Approved
Floodplains 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
Endangered with weed free material and
Final Review Other (EHP) Species Act native seed mixtures. c. No Approved
(ESA) Consult the Service before
finalizing a seed and plant list.
18. Bury riprap, then plant with
native riparian vegetation. 19.
Rehabilitate adjacent habitats
impacted by floodwaters to
restore connectivity and
prevent future impacts from
erosion or sedimentation . 20.
Consider monitoring the
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
I
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 19 of 38
revegetated areas for success.
The Service can help establish
success criteria during the
consultation process.
PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION: 7.
Contact the Service
immediately by telephone at
(303) 236-4773 if a Preble's is
found alive, dead, injured, or
hibernating within the project
area. Please also contact the
Service if any other listed
species are found within the
project area. 8. To the
maximum extent practicable.
limit disturbing (e.g . , crushing.
trampling) or removing (e.g. ,
cutting, clearing) all vegetation,
such as willows, trees, shrubs,
and grasses within riparian and
adjacent upland habitats. a.
Restrict the temporary or
permanent removal of
vegetation to the footprint of
the project area. b. Minimize
the use of heavy machinery
and use smaller equipment
when possible. c. Soil
compaction: Temporarily line
Endangered access routes with geotextiles
Final Review Other (EHP) Species Act or other materials, especially in No Approved
(ESA) wet, unstable soils to protect
roots and the seed bank. 9.
Use the attached table to track
the acres or square feet of
riparian and upland habitats
temporarily or permanently
affected by the response
activities. a. Temporary
Impacts: Native vegetation and
habitats will reestablish
following rehabilitation (e.g. ,
access route that is
rehabilitated with native, weed-
free seeds and plants). b.
Permanent Impacts: Riparian
or upland habitats will not
return as a result of project
activities (e.g. , road surface,
concrete footings) 10. Track
the volumes of any water from
onsite sources stored or used
for dust abatement, soil
compaction. concrete mixing .
or other activities. 11 . Locate,
store, stage. operate. and
refuel equipment outside of
riparian or adjacent upland
habitats. a. Operate equipment
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 20 of 38
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
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
Final Review adjacent upland habitats. a.
Before construction , identify
and prioritize riparian and
adjacent upland habitats within
the project area. Design the
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 21 of 38
project so that it avoids these
habitats whenever possible. b.
Minimize the amount of
concrete, riprap, bridge
footings, and other "hard."
impermeable engineering
features within the stream
channel and riparian or
adjacent upland habitats. c.
Use bioengineering techniques
to stabilize stream banks. d.
Minimize the number and
footprint of access routes,
staging areas, and work areas.
e. Locate access routes,
staging areas. and work areas
within previously disturbed or
modified non-habitat areas. f.
Maintain habitat connectivity
under bridges or through
culverts by installing ledges or
dry culverts adjacent to the
culverts with water flow. g.
Avoid fragmenting linear
riparian corridors. 2. Install
limits of work fencing (e.g. ,
orange barrier netting or silt
fencing), signage. or other
Endangered visible markers to delineate
Other (EHP) Species Act access routes and the project No Approved
(ESA) area from habitats. Use this
fencing to enforce no-entry
zones. 3. Hold a
preconstruction briefing for
onsite personnel to explain the
limits of work and other
conservation measures. 4.
Follow regional stormwater
guidelines and design best
management practices (BMPs)
to control contamination.
erosion, and sedimentation,
such as silt fences, silt basins,
gravel bags. and other controls
needed to stabilize soils in
denuded or graded areas,
during and after construction.
5. Locate utilities along existing
road corridors, and if possible,
within the roadway or road
shoulder. a. Bury overhead
utilities whenever possible. b.
Directionally bore utilities and
pipes underneath habitats. 6.
Develop and implement a
habitat restoration plan that
addresses site preparation,
planting techniques. control of
non-native weeds, native seed
mixtures, and post-
haps://isource.fema.net/emm e/dispatchDestination.do7menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 22 of 38
construction monitoring.
The applicant should
implement appropriate FWS
conservation measures
identified in the Emergency
Consultation between FEMA
and USFWS, dated September
Endangered 24, 2013, to the extent
Final Review Other (EHP) Species Act possible: including apost- No Approved
(ESA) construction estimate of 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
Endangered 24, 2013, to the extent
Final Review Other (EHP) Species Act possible; including apost- No Approved
(ESA) construction estimate of 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.
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
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDesti nation.do?menuTi le=&topTi le=dsHeader&b... 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 23 of 38
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.
Endangered Follow regional stormwater
Final Review Other (EHP) Species Act guidelines and design best No Approved
(ESA) 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,
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
Ammilimw
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 24 of 38
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 reestablish
following rehabilitation (e.g. ,
access route that is
rehabilitated with native, weed-
free seeds and plants). b.
Permanent Impacts: Riparian
Endangered or upland habitats will not
return as a result of project
Final Review Other (EHP) Species Act activities e. No Approved
(ESA) ( 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 waste to
minimize site disturbance and
avoid attracting predators. 14.
Cover exposed holes or piles
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do:'menuTi le=&topTi le=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 25 of 38
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.
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.
Endangered Consult the Service before
Final Review Other (EHP) Species Act finalizing a seed and plant list. No Approved
(ESA) 18. Bury riprap, then 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.
Executive Order Applicant is responsible for
Final Review Other (EHP) 11988 - coordinating with the local No Approved
Floodplains floodplain manager. All
required permits should be
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 26 of 38
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.
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
Standard disturbance and if any potential
Final Review Other (EHP) Condition #3 archeological resources are No Approved
discovered, will immediately
cease construction in that area
and notify the State and
FEMA.
The applicant should
implement appropriate FWS
conservation measures
identified in the Emergency
Consultation between FEMA
and USFWS. dated September
Endangered 24, 2013. to the extent
Final Review Other (EHP) Species Act possible: including apost- No Approved
(ESA) construction estimate of 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.
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,"
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do'.'menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. .. 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 27 of 38
impermeable engineering
features within the stream
channel and riparian or
adjacent upland habitats. c.
Use bioengineering techniques
to stabilize stream banks. d.
Minimize the number and
footprint of access routes,
staging areas, and work areas.
e. Locate access routes.
staging areas, and work areas
within previously disturbed or
modified non-habitat areas. f.
Maintain habitat connectivity
under bridges or through
culverts by installing ledges or
dry culverts adjacent to the
culverts with water flow. g.
Avoid fragmenting linear
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
Endangered fencing to enforce no-entry
zones. 3. Hold a
Final Review Other (EHP) Species Act preconstruction briefing for No Approved
(ESA) onsite personnel to explain the
limits of work and other
conservation measures. 4.
Follow regional stormwater
guidelines and design best
management practices (BMPs)
to control contamination,
erosion, and sedimentation,
such as silt fences, silt basins,
gravel bags, and other controls
needed to stabilize soils in
denuded or graded areas,
during and after construction.
5. Locate utilities along existing
road corridors. and if possible.
within the roadway or road
shoulder. a. Bury overhead
utilities whenever possible. b.
Directionally bore utilities and
pipes underneath habitats. 6.
Develop and implement a
habitat restoration plan that
addresses site preparation,
planting techniques, control of
non-native weeds, native seed
mixtures, and post-
construction monitoring.
PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION : 7.
Contact the Service
immediately by telephone at
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 28 of 38
(303) 236-4773 if a Preble's is
found alive, dead, injured, or
hibernating within the project
area. Please also contact the
Service if any other listed
species are found within the
project area. 8. To the
maximum extent practicable,
limit disturbing (e.g. . crushing,
trampling) or removing (e.g. ,
cutting, clearing) all vegetation.
such as willows, trees, shrubs,
and grasses within riparian and
adjacent upland habitats. a.
Restrict the temporary or
permanent removal of
vegetation to the footprint of
the project area. b. Minimize
the use of heavy machinery
and use smaller equipment
when possible. c. Soil
compaction: Temporarily line
access routes with geotextiles
or other materials, especially in
wet. unstable soils to protect
roots and the seed bank. 9.
Use the attached table to track
the acres or square feet of
Endangered riparian and upland habitats
Final Review Other (EHP) Species Act temporarily or permanently No Approved
(ESA) affected by the response
activities. a. Temporary
Impacts: Native vegetation and
habitats will reestablish
following rehabilitation (e.g. .
access route that is
rehabilitated with native, weed-
free seeds and plants). b.
Permanent Impacts: Riparian
or upland habitats will not
return as a result of project
activities (e.g. , road surface,
concrete footings) 10. Track
the volumes of any water from
onsite sources stored or used
for dust abatement. soil
compaction, concrete mixing,
or other activities. 11 . Locate,
store, stage. operate, and
refuel equipment outside of
riparian or adjacent upland
habitats. a. Operate equipment
from previously disturbed or
modified roadbeds or road
shoulders above the riparian
habitats. b. Limit the number of
entrance and exit points
leading into the project area. c.
Stockpile topsoil and debris
outside the riparian corridor
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatch Destination.do?menuTi le=&topTi le=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
eimmins
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 29 of 38
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
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.
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
Endangered vegetation. b. Fill and reseed
Final Review Other (EHP) Species Act with weed free material and No Approved
(ESA) native seed mixtures. c.
Consult the Service before
finalizing a seed and plant list.
18. Bury riprap, then plant with
native riparian vegetation. 19.
Rehabilitate adjacent habitats
impacted by floodwaters to
restore connectivity and
prevent future impacts from
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 30 of 38
erosion or sedimentation . 20.
Consider monitoring the
revegetated areas for success.
The Service can help establish
success criteria during the
consultation process.
Applicant is responsible for
Executive Order coordinating with the local
floodplain manager. All
Final Review Other (EHP) 11988 - required permits should be No Approved
Floodplains 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.
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
Standard disturbance and if any potential
Final Review Other (EHP) Condition #3 archeological resources are No Approved
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
Standard disturbance and if any potential
EHP Review Other (EHP) Condition #3 archeological resources are No Recommended
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.
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTi le=&topTile=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 31 of 38
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 permits should be No Recommended
Floodplains 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.
Endangered Consult the Service before
EHP Review Other (EHP) Species Act finalizing a seed and plant list. No Recommended
(ESA) 18. Bury riprap, then 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.
PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION : 7.
Contact the Service
immediately by telephone at
(303) 236-4773 if a Preble's is
found alive, dead, injured, or
hibernating within the project
area. Please also contact the
Service if any other listed
species are found within the
project area. 8. To the
maximum extent practicable,
limit disturbing (e.g. , crushing.
trampling) or removing (e.g. ,
cutting, clearing) all vegetation,
such as willows. trees, shrubs,
and grasses within riparian and
adjacent upland habitats. a.
Restrict the temporary or
permanent removal of
vegetation to the footprint of
the project area. b. Minimize
the use of heavy machinery
and use smaller equipment
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatch Destination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 32 of 38
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 abatement, soil
compaction, concrete mixing.
or other activities. 11 . Locate,
Endangered store, stage. operate, and
EHP Review Other (EHP) Species Act refuel equipment outside of No Recommended
(ESA) 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
the spread of invasive weeds;
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 33 of 38
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. bridge
footings. and other "hard,"
impermeable engineering
features within the stream
Endangered channel and riparian or
EHP Review Other (EHP) Species Act adjacent upland habitats. c. No Recommended
(ESA) Use bioengineering techniques
to stabilize stream banks. d.
Minimize the number and
footprint of access routes,
staging areas. and work areas.
e. Locate access routes,
staging areas. and work areas
within previously disturbed or
modified non-habitat areas. f.
Maintain habitat connectivity
under bridges or through
culverts by installing ledges or
dry culverts adjacent to the
culverts with water flow. g .
Avoid fragmenting linear
riparian corridors. 2. Install
limits of work fencing (e.g. ,
orange barrier netting or silt
fencing), signage. or other
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTi le=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 34 of 38
visible markers to delineate
access routes and the project
area from habitats. Use this
fencing to enforce no-entry
zones. 3. Hold a
preconstruction briefing for
onsite personnel to explain the
limits of work and other
conservation measures. 4.
Follow regional stormwater
guidelines and design best
management practices (BMPs)
to control contamination,
erosion, and sedimentation,
such as silt fences. silt basins,
gravel bags, and other controls
needed to stabilize soils in
denuded or graded areas.
during and after construction.
5. Locate utilities along existing
road corridors, and if possible,
within the roadway or road
shoulder. a. Bury overhead
utilities whenever possible. b.
Directionally bore utilities and
pipes underneath habitats. 6.
Develop and implement a
habitat restoration plan that
addresses site preparation,
planting techniques, control of
non-native weeds, native seed
mixtures, and post-
construction monitoring.
The applicant should
implement appropriate FWS
conservation measures
identified in the Emergency
Consultation between FEMA
and USFWS, dated September
Endangered 24, 2013, to the extent
post-
EHP Review Other Species Act possible; including a EHP
(EHP) construction estimate of the No Recommended
(ESA) amount of habitat affected by
the emergency response. an
evaluation of how conservation
recommendations were
implemented. and the results
of implementation in
minimizing adverse effects.
Internal Comments
No. Queue User Date/Time Reviewer Comments
10/17/2014 Version 2 is written to update construction and
Final PETKOVSEK 10- 17-2014 engineering cost for actual cost. No issues found. Move
23 Review JEAN 08:50 PM forward as eligible. JMP
GMT
Mitigation contained within this version is found eligible in final
review.
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 35 of 38
Ron Pevan
8/7/14 - No issues as written. LJL
10-14-2014 10/14/14 - This now a large project that is less tan 90%
22 Grantee LAWSON 08:32 PM completed at the time of writing version 2. A CEF needs to be
Review LESTER GMT applied to this project as a FEMA cost code "9000" entry that
has a true cost itemized in Part A and forward cost applied as
needed. Please revise this to be correct. LJL
Grantee LAWSON 10- 10-2014
21 Review LESTER 12:23 AM 8/7/14 - No issues as written. LJL
GMT
WELD (COUNTY) CAT C, 90% complete, Bridge over Boulder
Creek was built in 1978. It is a 133ft.x 32 ft. concrete and steel
structure. Repairs are completed, mitigation will be added.
The damages to the facility include scour and washout on the
north side of the intermediate pier exposing approximately 3' of
pier wall. Embankment material and rip rap loss: 32' x 30' x
3'. Mitigation : add rip rap and add geotextile fabric on the
north side of the Bridge to fill the scour and protect the area. -
tcookro - 03/10/2014 14: 14:03 GMT
Note: Barbed wire tied to the wingwalls was damaged . Barbed
wire was replaced scour and embankment (dewatered ) were
restored. - tcookro - 03/10/2014 17:05: 37 GMT
***VERSION 1 *** This version adds additional Geotextile
Fabric and Rip Rap to the HMP. with work including
dewatering the creek. diverting traffic, and placing the
materials at the scour area. This PW was reviewed by EHP
staff on 3/10/2014. It was submitted to EHP after rework for
the addition of material used in the HMP. These changes do
not affect the original scope of work and no additional EHP
review is required. - dsharon - 08/06/2014 19:20:06 GMT
***Version 2***This PW was reviewed by EHP staff on
03/10/2014 and 08/06/2014. It was submitted to EHP after
10-09-2014 rework for administrative changes (cost adjustments). These
EHP PATTERSON changes do not affect the original scope of work and no
{ 20 Review MOLLY 1GMT PM additional EHP review is required. - mpatter7 - 10/09/2014
22:03: 31 GMT
USACE Permit attached. - tcookro - 03/11 /2014 18:43: 14 GMT
Project site work is not in a mapped wetland. - tcookro -
03/11 /2014 18:57:07 GMT
Entire community will benefit from project completion . -
tcookro - 03/10/2014 16:52:35 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
the ESA. - tcookro - 03/10/2014 17:29:09 GMT
Project is located in Zone A. FIRM panel 0802660850C . 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. - tcookro - 03/11 /2014 19:00: 17 GMT
The scope of work has been reviewed and meets the criteria of
the 2013 signed Programmatic Agreement, Appendix B: Ill . E.
H and I agreed to by FEMA and the SHPO. - tcookro -
03/10/2014 17: 10: 55 GMT
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menu 1 ile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 36 of 38
Insurance JOHNSON 10-09-2014 VERSION 2 — The additional construction and engineering
19 Review KENNETH 07:09 PM costs will not alter the prior insurance policy coverage
GMT comments or the insurance requirement comments.
10-09-2014
Mitigation The Version 1 Hazard Mitigation Proposal is approved with the
18 Review PETITT MARK GMT PM additional Version 2 damages. Mark W. Petitt, 406 Specialist
Insurance JOHNSON 10-09-2014 VERSION 1 — The additional hazard mitigation scope of work
17 Review KENNETH 05:46 PM and costs will not alter the prior insurance policy coverage
GMT comments or the insurance requirement comments.
10-09 2014
Mitigation The Hazard Mitigation Proposal is approved. Mark W. Petitt.
16 Review PETITT MARK GMT PM 406 Specialist
8-6-14:Completed Initial review, no issues were identified:
Initial TREZONA 10-09-2014 work appears eligible.
15 Review SCOTT GMT PM 10-9-2014:Completed Initial review, no issues were identified:
work appears eligible.
Award 09-08-2014
14 Review SYSTEM 08:45 PM ACCEPTED
GMT
08- 15-2014 Mitigation contained within this version is found eligible in final
Final PEVAN review.
13 Review RONALD GMT PM
Ron Pevan
Grantee LAWSON 08-07-2014
12 Review LESTER 02: 10 PM 8/7/14 - No issues as written. LJL
GMT
WELD (COUNTY) CAT C, 90% complete, Bridge over Boulder
Creek was built in 1978. It is a 133ft.x 32 ft. concrete and steel
structure. Repairs are completed, mitigation will be added.
The damages to the facility include scour and washout on the
north side of the intermediate pier exposing approximately 3' of
pier wall. Embankment material and rip rap loss: 3Z x 30' x
3'. Mitigation : add rip rap and add geotextile fabric on the
north side of the Bridge to fill the scour and protect the area. -
tcookro - 03/10/2014 14: 14:03 GMT
Note: Barbed wire tied to the wingwalls was damaged. Barbed
wire was replaced scour and embankment (dewatered) were
restored. - tcookro - 03/10/2014 17:05:37 GMT
08-06-2014 ***VERSION 1 *** This version adds additional Geotextile
11 EHP PATTERSON 07:32 PM Fabric and Rip Rap to the HMP, with work including
Review MOLLY GMT dewatering the creek, diverting traffic, and placing the
materials at the scour area. This PW was reviewed by EHP
staff on 3/10/2014. It was submitted to EHP after rework for
the addition of material used in the HMP. These changes do
not affect the original scope of work and no additional EHP
review is required. - dsharon - 08/06/2014 19:20:06 GMT
USACE Permit attached. - tcookro - 03/11/2014 18:43: 14 GMT
Project site work is not in a mapped wetland. - tcookro -
03/11 /2014 18:57:07 GMT
Entire community will benefit from project completion. -
tcookro - 03/10/2014 16:52:35 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
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTi le=&topTi le=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 37 of 38
Meadow Jumping Mouse, Ute's Lady's Tress and Colorado
Butterfly Bush, and Designated Critical Habitat protected under
the ESA. - tcookro - 03/10/2014 17:29:09 GMT
Project is located in Zone A, FIRM panel 0802660850C , 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. - tcookro - 03/11 /2014 19:00: 17 GMT
The scope of work has been reviewed and meets the criteria of
the 2013 signed Programmatic Agreement, Appendix B: Ill . E,
H and I agreed to by FEMA and the SHPO. - tcookro -
03/10/2014 17: 10:55 GMT
08-06-2014
Mitigation The Hazard Mitigation Proposal is approved. Mark W. Petitt,
10 Review PETITT MARK GMT PM 406 Specialist
08-06-2014
Mitigation The Hazard Mitigation Proposal is approved - Brian W. Drost,
9 Review PETITT MARK 02: 15 PM 406 Specialist
GMT
Insurance JOHNSON 08-06-2014 VERSION 1 — The additional hazard mitigation scope of work
8 Review KENNETH 02: 13 PM and costs will not alter the prior insurance policy coverage
GMT comments or the insurance requirement comments.
A review of the documentation provided has identified that
Weld County is insured for property damages through ;
Colorado Counties Casualty and Property Pool . Policy Number
020412751 .
This policy does not provide coverage for dams, dikes,
Insurance JOHNSON 08-06-2014 bridges, culverts, roadways, streets, walks, paved surfaces.
7 Review KENNETH 02:03 PM tunnels, canals, land.
GMT The insurance policy will not provide coverage for costs
identified in this PW
There will not an insurance reduction for this PW.
The FEMA eligible damages are not to building, contents,
equipment, or vehicles; therefore, there will not be an
insurance commitment required.
08-06-2014
Initial TREZONA 8-6-14:Completed Initial review. no issues were identified:
6 Review SCOTT GMT PM work appears eligible.
Award 03- 18-2014
5 Review SYSTEM 10:45 PM ACCEPTED
GMT
Note:Applicant, CO State representative 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
03- 16-2014 payment will be required for final reconciliation and or closeout
4 Final PALACIO 02:50 PM process. Final Reviewer finds eligible the application and
Review JOSE GMT approves the funding of this CAT-C project worksheet based
on the applicant having performed all required procurement
procedures, perform all required special considerations
recommendations such as permits to address EHP
considerations and securing all actual cost documentation for
the financial reconciliation of this project. Task Force Leader-
J. Palacio 03/16/2014
WELD (COUNTY) CAT C, 90% complete, Bridge over Boulder
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?men uTi le=&topTi le=dsHeader&b... 10/28/2014
_ �.
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 38 of 38
Creek was built in 1978. It is a 133ft.x 32 ft. concrete and steel
structure. Repairs are completed, mitigation will be added.
The damages to the facility include scour and washout on the
north side of the intermediate pier exposing approximately 3' of
pier wall. Embankment material and rip rap loss: 32' x 30' x
3'. Mitigation: add rip rap and add geotextile fabric on the
north side of the Bridge to fill the scour and protect the area. -
tcookro - 03/10/2014 14: 14:03 GMT
Note: Barbed wire tied to the wingwalls was damaged. Barbed
wire was replaced scour and embankment (dewatered) were
restored. - tcookro - 03/10/2014 17:05:37 GMT
USACE Permit attached. - tcookro - 03/11 /2014 18:43: 14 GMT
Project site work is not in a mapped wetland. - tcookro -
03/11 /2014 18:57:07 GMT
Entire community will benefit from project completion . -
EHP PATTERSON 03-11 -2014 tcookro - 03/10/2014 16:52:35 GMT
3 Review MOLLY 08:29 PM Action is addressed under the attached Emergency
GMT 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. - tcookro - 03/10/2014 17:29:09 GMT
Project is located in Zone A, FIRM panel 0802660850C , 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. - tcookro - 03/11 /2014 19:00: 17 GMT
The scope of work has been reviewed and meets the criteria of
the 2013 signed Programmatic Agreement, Appendix B: Ill . E,
H and I agreed to by FEMA and the SHPO. - tcookro -
03/10/2014 17: 10: 55 GMT
03- 10-2014
Mitigation DROST The Hazard Mitigation Proposal is approved - Brian W. Drost.
2 Review BRIAN GMT PM 406 Specialist
A review of the documentation provided has identified that
Weld County is insured for property damages through:
Colorado Counties Casualty and Property Pool, Policy Number
020412751 .
This policy does not provide coverage for dams, dikes,
Insurance JOHNSON 02-10-2014 bridges. culverts. roadways. streets. walks, paved surfaces.
1 Review KENNETH 10:53 PM tunnels, canals, land.
GMT The insurance policy will not provide coverage for costs
identified in this PW
There will not an insurance reduction for this PW.
The FEMA eligible damages are not to building, contents,
equipment, or vehicles: therefore, there will not be an
insurance commitment required.
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
Hello