The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20151506.tiff RESOLUTION RE: APPROVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION FOR VARIOUS BRIDGE REPAIR (PART 2) (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 Various Bridge Repair (Part 2) (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 Various Bridge Repair (Part 2) (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. 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: 4k ;(1 EXCUSED Barbara Kirkmeyer, Chair Weld County Clerk to the Board Mike Freeman, Pro-Tern BY: A I : ! / t .►. � D:p f y Clerk to the B.-rd ��% Sean P. onway APPROVED S TO FOR :.nr�. 11861 ( '� u ie . Cozad County Attorney `? • ' • XCUSED g 4/��N®u Steve Moreno Date of signature: 2015-1506 CC Ate#;OEf,yl Li/ EM0016 BC0045 ,i"` , Colorado Division of Homeland Security Grant NOI / Application ' Emergency Management CDBG - DR y g CDBG DR Recover Colorado Infrastructure Program THIS SECTION FOR STATE USE ONLY �. DHSEM Identification Number: Colorado Point of Contact: CDBG-DR Program Manager Date NOI (Part A) Received: Colorado DHSEM 9195 East Mineral Avenue, Suite 200 Date Application (Part B) Received: Centennial, Colorado 80112 Office: 720.852.6713 Date Next Steps Letter Transmitted: Fax: 720.852.6750 cdps dhsem cdbg@state.co.us PART A - NOI : PROJECT OVERVIEW 1 . Applicant Legal Name: Weld County. Colorado 2. Applicant Type: ✓ Local Government Private Non-Profit (Attach copy of 501c3, if applicable) 3. Project Title: County Match FEMA Projects - WELCO21 (687) 4. Proposed Project Total Cost: 102,055.30 CDBG-DR-I Request: 12.756.91 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 I/tip' Telephone Number MAY 2 7 2015 � en _ Signature of Authorized Applicant Agent Date Signed 2015- 1506 Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 1 of 20 UDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management PART A - NOI : APPLICANT INFORMATION 1 . Applicant Legal Name: Weld County. Colorado 2. FIPS Code: 123 DUNS Number: 07575-7955 3. U.S. Congressional District: 4th Congressman Name: 4. State Senatorial District: 1 Senator Name: Mr. Cory Gardner 5. State Legislative District: 50 Representative Name: Mr. Ken Buck 6. Primary Point of Contact: The Primary Point of Contact is the person responsible for coordinating the implementation of this proposal, if approval is granted. N1 Mr. 19 Mrs. • First Name: Roy Last Name: Rudisill Title: Director Organization: Weld County Office of Emercency Manacemc Street Address: 1150 O Street City: Greeley State: Colorado Zip Code: 80631 Telephone: l i I U )iUd Fax: (y / U )iitJ- i a Mobile: (U / U ) 35 -U E-mail Address: rrudisill(c�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. ✓ \ ir. \li , First Name: Barb Last Name: Connolly Title: Controller Organization: Weld County Accounting Street Address: 1 150 O Street City: Greeley stale: Colorado Zip Code: 80631 Telephone: (y f U ).i I v ly f U )OOO- f 6 Mobile: E-mail Address: bconnolly(g7co .weld . 8. Application Prepared by : Ms. Mr. Mrs First Name: Kyle I .ast Name: Jones Title: Planner Organization: ARCADIS-US Street Address: City: Tallahass( State: FL Zip Code: 32309 Telephone: (bDU)b I ; x: Mohilc: ,225 ) 2U2-3 F-mail Address: kyle . .oneS C(T�,arcadis- 9. Authorized Applicant Agent: Ms. Ni Mr. \li .. II First Name: Barbara Last Name: Kirkmeyer Title: CommiSSi' Organization: Weld County Street Address: 1150 O Street, P .O . Box 758 City: Greeley State: Colorado Zip Code: 80631 Telephone: (J I L ) 061 v Mobile: E-mail Address: bkirkmeyer(cr�co .welc 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/CI r'nn '1 (ac?-7 \ .nnr-J r e-n-“ninr rin+r. lnrl nr.nrtn of %unrI Q 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 . 328960 and longitude is - 104 .889710 . The attached spreadsheet shows the Lat/Long coordinates for all of the Project Worksheets and depicts the damage site locations as identified in the correlating Project Worksheets . 3. Population Served: Briefly describe the demographics of the population served or protected by this project. Include the percent of the overall community population benefiting from this project. Explain your response. An estimated 90% or more of the community benefited from the proactive work by Weld County and the removal of hazardous debris and the emergency work/repairs made to the roadways , bridges, equipment and culverts. The population benefiting from this Match Project will include an LMI level population percentage that will be directly or indirectly impacted through this project. This NOI and the associated PW impacted the entire County and demographic area . White : 67 .6% , Hispanic: 28 . 3% . Other: 1 . 6% , Asian : 1 . 3% , Black : 0 . 8% , Native American : 0 .4% . Weld County consists of 99 , 317 households with a median househo d income of $56.589 and :he maiori:v of We d Coun:v is owner-occupied with a 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 20 of 36 Projects Submitted . Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 3 of 20 CDBC-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management PART A - NOI : CDBG-DR FUNDING QUALIFICATIONS Community Development Block Grant — Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funding can be approved for a project in which ALL of the following requirements are met The physical location of the activity must be within a county listed in Table 1 of the program Recover Colorado Infrastructure Grant Program Guidelines (Guidelines). 1. Connection to Disaster Recovny CDBG's Disaster Recovery funds must be used for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, long-term recovery, restoration of infrastructure and housing, economic revitalization, and mitigation from future damages.. The activity must show a direct link to damages received during one or more of the events listed in Table 1 of the Guidelines. Please provide a brief explanation of how the proposed acquisition activity: ( 1) was a result of the disaster event; (2) will restore infrastructure or revitalize the economy; or will (3) mitigate future damages. During the incident period of September 11 , 2013 to September 30, 2013 , Weld County, Colorado received heavy rainfall and debris in the creeks , streams and rivers which caused surface gravel removal and scour damage to numerous roads and bridges in Weld County. This NOI Application request addresses emergency work and the damages that were a mi ., nut / . „4 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 38 . 16% . However, this percentage does not accurately capture the total number of service areas that are either directly or indirectly impacted by the FEMA Match Projects . The entire community benefited from the proactive emergency work by Weld County and the removal of hazardous debris and the work/repairs made to the roadways , bridges, equipment and culverts thus the County believes that a higher LMI % should be given for this FEMA match Projects . The general vicinity of FEMA Match Projects encompasses the entire County and greatly benefits the entire LMI population for this project, which is why the County believes that this project not only meets, but exceeds the 50% requirement for meeting the National Objective . The emergency work/repairs that were made under the WELCO PW's for the Local FEMA Match drastically reduced hazardous conditions for the general public and enabled Weld County to focus on resiliency efforts post storm . It is believed that the service area for Project Site Locations benefited multiple LMI tract sections and thus a higher weighted percentage of over 50% should be noted for this p Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 4 of 20 CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 3. Compliance 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: te/ 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 v/ 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 .uhmiital. l'auc 5 of 20 CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management PART A - NOI: COMPREHENSIVE RISK ANALYSIS INFORMATION 1. Community Hazards Review: Please list and briefly describe in rank order of importance the natural or man-made hazards in your (the Applicant's) service area. The hazards identified within this Project for the FEMA County Match for WELCO21 (687 ) would be ranked in the following manner: Flood , Erosion and Subsidence . The hazards caused significant damage and posed a severe risk to the community for the designated incident period . 2. High Risk Hazards Addressed by the Project: Describe how, and the degree to which, the proposed project mitigates high risk hazards. Include damage history, source and type of problem, frequency of event(s), and severity of damage information, if available. Hazard 1 Flooding caused the most severe damage to Weld County during the designated incident period and this Project addressed and mitigated against severe flood damage to local roadways , bridges, culverts, removed hazardous debris along roadways . In addition , County Officials ensured repairs were made to paved and gravel roadways for the safety of the community and addressed river embankments/dangerous conditions to the public and made repairs to emergency response vehicles that were damaged during the Incident Period . The repairs made brought the damaged infrastructure back to its pre-disaster condition in accordance with regulations . hazard 2 Erosion also caused a severe issue for the County. This Project addressed and mitigated against severe erosion damage to local roadways, shoulders, and embankments. The work that was conducted by the County mitigated against any immediate threat/hazard to the damaged infrastructure and restored the infrastructure back to its pre-disaster condition in accordance with regulations . ktt at.h am continuations or additional items as an kttachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 6 of 20 I as CDBG-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 WELCO21 (687 ) 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 %An-wenn:n/-1 if thn re-it infti In --11-1 nrtt t-mIrnn thin nrn-mnfitin mn- c' i Ernce that thnti did 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 Sit r an a CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 6. Community Process: Does the proposed project include a community planning or involvement process that increases community resiliency? If so, please briefly describe the process. This Proposed Project was initiated by County Officials in an effort to achieve resiliency from the severe storms and also to minimize risk to the community, Weld County addressed the severe flood damage to the roadways and infrastructure by ensuring that dangerous conditions for the public were addressed and mitigated properly and efficiently . 7. Reduction in the Costs of Future Response or Recovery: Will the proposed project result in a reduction in the cost of response or recovery from an incident occurring due to one or more of the hazards identified in Item #1 or #2? If so, please briefly describe how response or recovery costs will be reduced. For a small scale flooding incident, yes; however, the flooding that occurred during the designated incident period was catastrophic and the PW associated with the NOI FEMA Local Match Request were completed to address the damages . 8. 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 WELCO21 (687 ) from CDBG-DR in regards to expenses from CAT C Damage Categories for the designated incident period for FEMA-DR 4145 . 9. Mitigation Planning: Does your community have a current FEMA approved multi-hazard mitigation plan? ✓ 1 cs No Location of proposed project in mitigation plan strategies: Page 139 Section/Part Mitigation Stra Is the community a member of good standing with the National Flood Insurance Program? id Yes No Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 8 of 20 CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 10. Community Plan Compliance: Does the proposed project comply with and/or address an issue recognized in key community plans? Key plans include, but are not limited to: a Comprehensive Master Plan, a Stormwater Management Plan, a Hazard Mitigation Plans, or key community codes. If so, please describe how the project integrates into the plan(s). Yes; the Proposed Project complies with all local community plans and this Project integrates into the Plans because the County addressed the damages to local roadways and infrastructure and mitigated damages that posed a serious risk/hazard to the community during the incident period . This FEMA PW was initiated by Weld County and via this Proposed Project, the County requests that CDBG funds be applied towards the local FEMA Match for this Project . 11. Environmental / Historic Preservation Issues: Please describe any significant environmental, historic, or cultural features that may be affected by the project. Please also describe any features that may be improved by the project. All environmental issues are addressed on the attached Project Worksheet as supporting documentation . The significant EHP issues were in regards to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and EHP Standard Conditions. All items were addressed and any additional supporting backup documentation can be provided upon request . 12. Permitting: Please list the local, state, and federal permits that will be required to complete tlik pro_icci . All permitting was addressed on the attached Project Worksheet as supporting documentation . The significant permitting issues were in regards to the Endangered Species Act ( ESA) and EHP Standard Conditions . All items were addressed and any additional supporting backup documentation can be provided upon request. Please see below for environmental permits that were obtained . Floodplain Permit AflA fle rrr # Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 9 of 20 CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 13. Community Resilience: Please describe how this project will increase the resilience of your community. As defined in the Guidelines: "Resilience incorporates hazard mitigation and land use planning strategies; critical infrastructure, environmental and cultural resource protection; and sustainability practices to reconstruct the built environment, and revitalize the economic, social, and natural environments." In an effort to achieve resiliency from the severe storms and minimize risk to the general public, Weld County addressed severe damage to local roadways , bridges , culverts. removed hazardous debris roadways , made repairs to paved and gravel roadways , addressed river embankments/dangerous conditions to the public and made repairs to emergency response vehicles that were damaged during the Incident Period . This Proposed Project addresses proactive work initiated by Weld County during FEMA-DR 4145 enabled the community to recover in an expeditious manner and increased the resilience of the community by incorporating nearly every aspect of sustainability and revitalizing the community . The community was able to recover quicker due to the proactive work done through this Proposed Project and the associated PW's. 14. Maps Please attach the following maps with the project site and structures marked on the map. Use SAME ID number as in the Individual Property Worksheets. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). If the FIRM for your area is not published, please attach a copy of the Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM). City or county scale map (large enough to show the entire project area) USGS 1 :24,000 topo map Parcel Map (Tax Map, Property Identification Map, etc.) Overview photographs. The photographs should be representative of the project area, including any relevant streams, creeks, rivers, etc., and drainage areas which affect the project site of will be affected by the project. 15. Additional Comments (Optional): Enter any additional comments related to the proposed project's ability to reduce hazard risk and increase community resiliency. This proposed project reduced the hazard risk to the community and increased resiliency by the work conducted through the PW in correlation with FEMA-DR 4145 . CDBG funds are being requested to be applied to the local FEMA Match ( 12 . 5% ) for the PW. All maps are located in project files that were previously submitted and will be provided upon request. The entire r.nmmilnity benefited from the nrnartive wnrk by Weld Cniintv and the remnval r� Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 10 of 20 CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management PART A - NOI: DECISION MAKING PROCESS 1. Decision-Making Process: Describe the process you used to decide that this project is the best solution to the problem. Explain why this project is the best alternative you considered. Address questions such as: • Are you focusing on the area in your community that has the greatest potential for losses? • Have you considered the risks to critical facilities and structures and benefits to be obtained by mitigating this vulnerability? • Have you considered those areas or projects that present the greatest opportunities given the current situation(s) of interest in your community? • Are you addressing a symptom or the source of the problem? Addressing the source of the problem is a long-term solution which provides the most mitigation benefits. • If impacts to the environment, natural, cultural or historic resources have been identified, explain how your alternatives and proposed project address, minimize, or avoid these impacts. The Site locations within this WELCO PW in the Proposed Project were identified due to the high dollar amount of funds that were expended by Weld County to ensure the safety of the community and also restore county infrastructure back to its pre-disaster condition . This Proposed Project has site locations across the entire community and service area and it was determined that a large percentage of the LMI population was impacted by the severe flooding incident and the proactive work by County Officials enabled the community to recover quicker. thus allowing the community to sustain resiliency and return operations to normal . 2. Acquisition Projects - Describe the community's methodology for selecting the properties to be acquired in this application and how each is ranked (highest to lowest): N/A Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 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. H 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 WELCO21 (687 ). These costs were incurred as a result of FEMA-DR 4145. During the incident period of September 11 , 2013 to September 30 , 2013, Weld County, Colorado received heavy rainfall and debris in the creeks, streams and rivers which caused severe flooding to and along roadways and surface streets, and also severely damaged local infrastructure . This NOI Application request addresses the emergency work / damages that were a direct result of the severe flooding . A Scope of Work is included within the PW and addresses the work that was completed . 2. Community Priority: Please describe why this project is a priority for your organization. This Proposed Project is a priority for Weld County to utilize the CDBG funding as the Local FEMA Match to offset the costs for the proactive work done by the County to reduce hazardous conditions to the community. Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 12 of 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) $ 102.055.30 See Project Worksheet Cost (attached ; i. Total of a-h $ 102,055.30 j. Duplication of Benefits (if unknown at time of application enter zero). $ 0 00 k. Subtract j. from i. to determine Total Project Cost $ 102.055.30 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: $ 102,055.30 Federal Cost Share: $ 76.541 .48 State Cost Share: $ 12,756.91 $ 12.756.91 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 c-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 . It should be noted that a version request was submitted for this project for work that has yet to be completed . The total obligated amount could change which would change the 12 .5% Local FEMA Match . 9. Financial / Fiscal Health Factors: Please indicate the total budget (all funds) of your organization. Please describe the impact of disaster recovery efforts to date on this budget. In addition, if this objective is selected based on the local governments inability to finance the activity, the municipality must also include in the application package a resolution stating this fact and supporting documentation such as budgetary information, a description of TABOR restrictions, and the most recent audit report or approved exemption from audit. Weld County's total 2015 budget is $307 ,031 . 089 . 00 . The impact of the September, 2013 flooding has primary been on the damage to the county's road and bridge system . The damage has resulted in Weld County having to transfer $5 million from the Contingency Fund to the Public Works Fund in 2013 and in 2014 for a total of $ 10 million dollars . Without assistance from FEMA, FWHA, and CDBG the amount would have several million more . The impact has also forced the county to shift local resources from projects unrelated to flooding to deal with the emergency situations created by the flood in both the 2013 and 2014 fiscal years . Even in 2015 the county is still using local resources to recover from the flooding . Fortunately, Weld County has always been fiscally conservative and budgeted responsibly . Had the county not taken the responsible approach to its finances county service would have had to have been cut to cope with the flood recovery . 1A/o r ('r,i int , nnor'atnc i inror thn mn t roctrirti�,n nrnnprt , tr, it t' t a a Ro it od Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail ,,uhmittal• Page 14 of 20 v- 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 i Completed 9 Y P 9 Y P Timeframe: Task 3: Permanent Repairs - Becuase the emergency repairs werequick repaii Completed P 9 Y P p Timeframe: Task 4: Additional Permanent Repairs - All the necessary repairs were not corn 6 Months Timeframe: Task 5: Time Task 6: Timeframe: Task 7: Timeframe: Task 8: Timeframe: Task 9: Timeframe: Final Inspection Report and Project Closeout Task 10: The Final Inspection Report is a review of the activity's paper documentation. showing the project was implemented as required. Once the review is completed. the 3 Months report and findings will be provided to the grantee for review and concurrence. The Timeframe: State submits the concurrence to FEMA as part of a closeout package to formally Total Project Timeframe: 12 Months Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page IS of 20 • CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 2. Start Date & Pre-Award Costs: The start date for any project begins upon GRANT AGREEMENT approval by the State Controller. If a different start date or timeframe is needed, provide an explanation below. Also indicate if any pre- award activities or costs have been incurred or authorized. The proposed project is for local FEMA match dollars and the majority of the work is completed ; however, another round of construction will be performed this summer. The repairs for this site began as soon as the flood waters receded and the county crews were able to access the site . The initial phase of repairs were emergency in nature and began in September of 2013 and concluded during November of that same year. Permanent repairs for this site commenced the following year at the beginning of construction season and concluded in October of 2014 because of weather constraints . The final repairs will be completed in October of 2015 . Additionally, cost were incurred through the preparation of this NOI Application . Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 16 of 20 CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Please note that Part B is required for the final Application submittal. Part B sections may optionally be completed and submitted with the NOI. Please update any Part A section information when submitting you full Application. PART B — APPLICATION : ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 1. Environmental Review Background Information & Environmental Review Worksheet: In accordance with 24 CFR Part 58.22 (see below), all federally funded projects must accomplish an environmental review prior to beginning any work on a project. These HUD regulations are in place for two purposes: 1 . To ensure federal funds are used to place people of low and moderate income in environmentally safe conditions; and 2. To ensure federal funds are NOT used to negatively impact environmental conditions that exist near a project site. Please note the following limitations on CDBG-DR grant activities pending environmental clearance per 24 CFR Part 58.22. (a) Neither a recipient nor any participant in the development process, including public or private nonprofit or for-profit entities, or any of their contractors, may commit HUD assistance under a program listed in Sec. 58. 1(b) on an activity or project until HUD or the state has approved the recipient's RROF and the related certification from the responsible entity. In addition, until the RROF and the related certification have been approved, neither a recipient nor any participant in the development process may commit non-HUD funds on or undertake an activity or project under a program listed in Sec. 58. 1(b) if the activity or project would have an adverse environmental impact or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives. (b) N/A for DOLA/CDPS projects. (c) If a recipient is considering an application from a prospective sub-recipient or beneficiary and is aware that the prospective sub-recipient or beneficiary is about to take an action within the jurisdiction of the recipient that is prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section, then the recipient will take appropriate action to ensure that the objectives and procedures of NEPA are achieved. -(d) An option agreement on a proposed site or property is allowable prior to the completion of the environmental review if the option agreement is subject to a determination by the recipient on the desirability of the property for the project as a result of the completion of the environmental review in accordance with this part and the cost of the option is a nominal portion of the purchase price. There is no constraint on the purchase of an option by third parties that have not been selected for HUD funding, have no responsibility for the environmental review and have no say in the approval or disapproval of the project. (e) Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP). In accordance with section 11(d)(2)(A) of the Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 12805 note), an organization, consortium, or affiliate receiving assistance under the SHOP program may advance non-grant funds to acquire land prior to completion of an environmental review and approval of a Request for Release of Funds (RROF) and certification, notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section. Any advances to acquire land prior to approval of the RROF and certification are made at the risk of the organization, consortium, or affiliate and reimbursement for such advances may depend on the result of the environmental review. This authorization is limited to the SHOP program only and all other forms of HUD assistance are subject to the limitations in paragraph (a) of this section. (1) Relocation. Funds may be committed for relocation assistance before the approval of the RROF and related certification for the project provided that the relocation assistance is required by 24 CFR part 42. Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 17 of 20 CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Environmental Review Worksheet Check ALL of the activities listed below that will be included as part of the project, REGARDLESS OF THE FUNDING SOURCE: Information and financial services SI Administrative and management activities 0 Environmental and other studies, resource identification, and the development of plans and strategies 0 Most engineering and design costs associated with eligible projects 0 ■ Inspections and testing of properties for hazards or defects b • Project planning EmQ 3 ❑ Purchase of insurance ≥ ❑ Purchase of tools W E ❑ Technical assistance and training X Z .5 O Interim assistance to arrest the effects of an imminent threat or physical deterioration in which the assistance w does not alter environmental conditions. TAI Public services that will not have a h sical impact or result in any physical changes (e.g., employment,PY PP Y child care, health, education, counseling, welfare) TA 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) as p Operating costs (e.g., maintenance, security, o eration utilities, furnishings, equipment, su lies, staff training g operation, g , PP z and recruitment, other incidental costs) VX ❑ Relocation costs p Acquisition, repair, improvement, reconstruction, or rehabilitation when the facilities and improvements are in place and will be retained in the same use without change in size or capacity of more than 20 percent ❑ Special projects directed to the removal of material and architectural barriers that restrict the mobility of and s accessibility to elderly and handicapped persons I Acquisition (including leasing) or disposition of, or equity loans on, an existing structure Acquisition (including leasing) of vacant land provided the structure or land acquired, financed, or disposed of will be retained for the same use LI Acquisition, repair, improvement, reconstruction, or rehabilitation when the facilities and improvements are in place, but will change in size or capacity of more than 20 percent ❑ Acquisition, repair, improvement, reconstruction, or rehabilitation when the facilities and improvements are in • place, but will involve a change in land use, such as from non-residential to residential, commercial to J industrial, or from one industrial use to another Demolition ,i TA 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 9195E Mineral Ave, Suite 200 303-866-6398 Centennial, CO 80112 tamra.norton@state.co.us 720.852.6713 steven.boand@state.co.us DPS/DOLA USE ONLY: Required level of environmental review: O Exempt O CENST O CESTO EA Reviewed by: Date of Review: Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 18 of 20 CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 2. Supplemental Environmental Review Information Enter any additional comments related to environmental concerns for the proposed project if desired. Please list and attach any documents or studies that have been prepared that support the Environmental Review Worksheet responses. All environmental issues are addressed on the attached Project Worksheet as supporting documentation . The significant EHP issues were in regards to the Endangered Species Act ( ESA) and EHP Standard Conditions. All items were addressed and any additional supporting backup documentation can be provided upon request. Please see below for environmental permits that were obtained . Floodplain Permit 404 Nationwide Permit Migratory Birds Permit (if needed ) Threatened and Endangered Species Permit Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 19 of 20 ('DBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management PART B - APPLICATION : DETAILED PROJECT BUDGET 1. Detailed Project Budget: Please enter or attach a detailed and comprehensive final proposed budget for the project. Please note that CDBG-DR funds may be limited to the amount submitted with the NOI pending the availability of additional funding This Proposed Project is for the Local FEMA Match for costs for WELCO21 (687 ). These costs were incurred as a result of FEMA-DR 4145 . During the incident period of September 11 , 2013 to September 30 , 2013 , Weld County, Colorado received heavy rainfall and debris in the creeks , streams and rivers which caused severe flooding to and along roadways and surface streets. and also severely damaged local infrastructure . This Application request addresses the emergency work / damages that were a direct result of the severe flooding . A Scope of Work and detailed project budget is included within the PW and addresses the work that was completed . It is important to note that a version request has been made for this Project Worksheet and the attached Project Worksheet may not reflect FINAL costs. Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 20 of 20 N Is N 7 Ii) E 0 u C E CU E 0 c ea aJ m I- c iiia u No a E 17' g 0 u a J OCO v J 01 CL E 8 A fo 2 0 m v c J CD -13 E E c -o 0 a 00 I° 0 - O y J Q u `C E t ow- 3 O o 0 o y a o 0 3 o m V V ,Q 10 0 0 0 C C C c E c 0 E v D > > o O O O a) aJ a) U U U a- Li a > H °° a O 0 0 ar O 0 0 S — 2 2 O O O O J J J J J 0 ee a oe oe o oe of �e o ,e e o 0 0 0 Oe. oe o e o 0 0 3'- e o ce ae ce o 0 0 o e� e ,_--;: 0t o a O .-� 0 0 tO tD t0 O N n0 O O 0 CD 0 U tD O 1-I O V V t0 N CO n ri V ao V 00 IN t\ t` O Ol co n t~.J 7 N r1 rl rl r1 r1 ettN N N. N Cr rl r1 r1 Lrl r1 r. N n 1l1 to I'-1 rl re N 00 V1 Jn r1 Vl r1 V Cr re V Vl V CL 01 00 00 CO CO CO CO 01 N N N IN IT CO Co 00 0 CO CO CO IN CO 0 to N M IN N 01 N. VI II1 J1 CO 01 CO 01 N aO N M m m rn rn op in in M M 00 M M M M M V N. M M m N in N N N N N V co m 0O in O O 3 0 -J in in in in in in in in O O in in In in in Vl 0 in 0 in in in en en 0 0 0 0 in in O in 0 0 0 in in In in O in Cl r-I .-I cI r1 .-I ill CO 00 IN N. in ti .-I .-I in .-I N Cl V1 ul r1 01 tD a0 N to in in in tO tD tD in 0 In Co N OO M M m in m N m Q1 4 e-4 N M m M in M N W H O O en N r\ 01 V O O N o N o o N fN fry r- 01 M en en m m c-I .--I N N M R1 M N M N N N M .-I N r♦ N N N N N .--I r1 r-1 1--I r1 Z O 0 2 O J m vl 0 0 0 0 O In In ill o o in 0 0 0 0 0 in in 0 0 0 0 V1 o in 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 in Vl in in In M t0 t0 tD tO iD 0 m 0 0 O 0 M lD t0 0 0 0 tD if] 0 in in tD 0 m 0 O in in m M m -+ H V rn o M O N I-% O O O o o N V V V V N O O O M O V N Q tD ID O .-I O Cr N tD NO O ID O Cr V O N co N (N N N N N .--I -4 r-I IN N N .1 N r1 N rl in o N. o lit IND IIC tto t�D in m m oN ON N IC I in UD D coO t0D in 0 ON Vn1 in1 0 V 0011 in o tin in Q in 01 Vin in 00) NN NN IInn N m N m ID N . N N N N N lb 0 0 CO CO ID N N N N N M I\ Op -y - NJ In tD N CO tO V ID 0 c0 re re re re re .-1 .--I .-I re -I .-I re -4 .--I O in al in in in in al ill 0 0 ✓1 In 111 ✓1 in in in en o in in in in in 0 ul 0 0 Vl In u1 to Ln 0 0 0 in 0 in 0 co Co Co co 03 in in in in in in CO CO CO Ol CO CO rl in N N CO tD CO in N N CO N- co O1 Ol N to 0 in in O in m N N N N N. in tD tD tD tD to N N t\ V N. m ID N M MI ID N N N in r-44 in LID r-I N c-I rl c-I r1 -I rl r-I r-I N hl .1 c-I N c-I :^J rl e-I N N rY r1 el en N r-1 r-, .-I .-I N N re rl re re -I rI r4 r-I rl r1 rip 0 0 0 r i .--I O r1 re r1 N r-I in in rl 0 0 rl N M O iD 0 0 In O to 00 00 0 0 CI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rl r1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rI 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O r, 0 r1 lD N ✓1 Ln in in ill lD O 0 to ill lD ✓1 in In in in IN IN in CO CO Vl el re 0 0 co CO rI co .-I Ol Ql iD tD O to O O O N IN N N N O N N N N o N N N N N O O N .--I rd N N N N N r .-I N r-1 N -I ti .-I O N O N 0 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 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 m m m m m m m m m m m m M m m m m m m m m rn m m m m M m m m m m m m m m m m M m NJ N N N N N N N NJ NJ N N Ni N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NJ N N N N N N N - rr .-1 r-I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r-I rl r-I r-I . . . . . .-I .-I r-1 .-I .-I el r4 rl .-I .-1 r-I .-1 -I r-I CO CO CO 03 00 CO 0o CO CO 00 CO 03 CO CO CO 00 00 00 03 CO r0 00 CO 04 00 CO CO 03 r0 CO CO cc OO CO O CO CO CO 00 CO u 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 in to VI 1) N in in in in in in in Vl V1 In in in an in in VI 4.11 VI N 4/1 N V1 in in Vl in in VI in in Vl V1 VI in 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 0 0 7 0 7 7 0 7 7 m O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O o 0 O O O O O O o 0 o O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 O in 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 tn 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 O 0 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 0J in in in in Vl to to in in In in in in in in in in in u1 Vl in in in in in to in Vl in in in in in in in in to to In ill r-I r4 rI rl e-1 eH .-I .-I rl .-I r-I - .-1 rI e-1 -i r1 r-1 - rl rl e-I -I .-I r1 r-1 r-I rl re r1 re re re r'I rl rY rl r-1 r-I r-I nJ en =7 In .--I NI M r-I N r1 N .--I .--I N .--I r-I N M O r-I N M Q -I .-+ rl TI rl I-I `-I rl C 0 00 I) O J ti M V Q V '7 Q u) tD N . CO 01 0 -I c1 -I N N in In lD CO 00 01 -I .ti — r m en en en *7 - M 4 in ID N 00 J -I .'-I .-'I .-I -I -I ^I .-I r+ ^'I ra -I N N N N N N N N N M M m M m M M 0" a a a a a < a a a a a < a a a a a a a a < a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a d 2 2 2 5 2 2 22 2 2 2 22 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 2 2 2 2 2 5 2 2 2 2 22 2 2 2 2 m IL tu W W W W W W IL W W W IL W W W W IL W W W W W IL IL IL W W IL W IL IL W u. IL IL tu W W IL Q LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL is. is. LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL CO 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 CO V co in V Ol N N 01 m IN m N N V M O .--I in N . m m N Vl M M iD .--i 0 O in 01 m O Ol 01 CO o1 V in 00 r• W r• 0) m N Ol tT CO t0 co CO M M tO N V M N Cl 00 O M rn NJ 0 CO IN W M ct lD N tD 00 N r1 Cr 00 re tD in r1 V 17 in O e-I ti 0 0 0 Cr M M 00 CO V CO CO CO 'Cr V O rI CO M M O N 01 O r I In in in in 0 0 N O V N In M 7 V V m m en m m V r1 r1 t\ n V m m m m m V V IN N N m m N .-I o N N N N N O O V V r1 V O o O O o O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O 0 O O O or o O O O o O 0 O O 0 O O O O O en v V a v V a Cr v Cr v Cr Cr Cr Cr Cr v Cr Cr a Cr Cr V a v Cr It Cr Cr v rr Cr Cr a v a v v a v v V 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 O O O o 0 0 0 0 V CO CO 0 in 0 0 Cl t0 CO en of 01 NJ IN in N M tO CO 01 01 N O N 0 V1 N M VI in V M Dl rV cr Co in N. O V V V V V -I 0 0 4- Q O -I e-I -1 CO CO CO in m m or Cr1D V0 t0 In ri 03 01 IN 01 Cl01 0 tD CO e-I Cl N Na .0 01 in V V V V V O O N 0 0 0 00 03 Co .-I .-I -I N O 0l Ol V CO I-4 In O N N 00 N M V CO tD O N 01 in tD lD N N N N N n O O CO CO r` V V V V V tD ID CO 00 CO N 00 O O Lb CO CO CO CO O W CO In IN 01 CO O te V V V V V V V V in in V V V V V V V V a V V V V V V in in V V V V V in V V V V V v an m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000000000000000000000 C r1 re r1 I-I rI r-1 e-1 r-1 rJ r4e-J rI r-1 e-1 r1 4-4 r r-l I r r-l rl r� r1 re rl r1 rl re r1 rl r1 rl rl rl rl r-1 rJ rl re re rl 0 . ;. -. ft • R 4.1 •HNI a Ir iiI a •- L !'.��"ya�Ir. _.fix 4 - wiii LL LL w w w • . •T '- i a t N }� o • tu et � �p. a• A,, W W W w yW� W .Y ` 1 y� WW (_ _...,_.-' LL LL• . - F +rII rLie �') ^I �� in _ .. © O Is, 9 a Tr 8 ui , :II;r * . :-: ,t ' . rj 44. i• is . • ■ sr rli jamfist .•*it Laillik , � tri ‘,.."'t '7---.1 _.cH- -::...4.-' . 1 CA o 75 tj oi ' - - s O -,f • • CErn) LL_ LL_ , Y `. • G) T •• Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page I of 33 ► P,!-08 CG . J 45-I N-00687(0) P App icant Name: Application Title: WELD (COUNTY) WELCO21 - Various Bridges - Part 2 Period of Performance Start: Period of Performance End: 09-14-2013 Subgrant Application - Entire Application Application Title: WELCO21 - Various Bridges - Part 2 Application Number: PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00687(0) Application Type: Subgrant Application (PW) I Preparer Information Prefix First Name KATHLEEN Middle Initial Last Name RUVARAC Title TAC Bridge Specialist Agency/Organization Name FEMA - OHS Address 1 9200 E. MINERAL AVE. Address 2 City CENTENNIAL State CO Zip 80112 Email deanna.butterbaugh@state.co.us Is the application preparer the Point of Contact? No Point of Contact Information Prefix First Name Roy Middle Initial Last Name Rudisill Title Director-OEM Agency/Organization Weld County Address 1 1150 O Street Address 2 City Greeley State CO ZIP 80632 Phone 910-304-6540 https://connect l .dhs.gov/emm ie/,DanaInfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination .do?... 5/6/2014 alma Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 2 of 33 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: WELCO21 Standard Project Number/Title: 399 - Road System Damage Please Indicate the Project Type: Neither Alternate nor Improved Application Title: WELCO21 - Various Bridges - Part 2 Category: C.ROADS & BRIDGES Percentage Work Completed? 27.0 As of Date: 11 -13-2013 Comments Attachments User Date Document Description Hard Copy File File Name Action Type Reference KATHLEEN 02-27- Map WELCO21_Location Map.pdf View RUVARAC 2014 (138. 15 kb) Damage Facilities (Part 1 of 2) Facility Site Number Facility Name Address County City State ZIP Previously Action Damaged? https://connectl .dhs.gov/emm ie/,Danalnfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatch Destination .do?... 5/6/2014 a Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 3 of 33 1 BR 19-46.5A over Little Thompson River Weld CO No 2 BR 5-42A over Little Thompson River Weld CO No 3 BR 16.5-1 B over Boulder Creek Weld CO No 4 BR 17-4A over Big Dry Creek Weld CO No Comments Attachments Hard Copy User Date Document Type Description File File Name Action Reference KATHLEEN 02-27- WELCO21 Photo Sheet RUVARAC 2014 Photos 01 .pdf(156.24 kb) View KATHLEEN 02-27- Photos Applicant photos.pdf(1 .28 Mb) View RUVARAC 2014 KATHLEEN 02-27- Bridge BR-19-46. 5A _Bridge RUVARAC 2014 Survey/Document Inspection Report.pdf(2.99 View Mb) KATHLEEN 02-27- Narrative WELCO21_ DDD_SOW.pdf View RUVARAC 2014 (83.22 kb) I MARK SPAHR 04-09- Map Site 2 Site 2 LOCATION_MAP.pdf View 2014 Location Map (185.91 kb) MARK SPAHR 04-09- Photos Site 2 Photos Site 2 PHOTOS.pdf(278.64 View y 2014 kb) MARK SPAHR 04-09- Map Site 3 Site 3_Location_Map.pdf View 2014 Location Map (117.69 kb) 04-09- Site 3 Photo Site 3 Photo Sheet_01 .pdf MARK SPAHR 2014 Photos Sheet ( 124.82 kb) — b) View 04-09- Site 3 Site 3 Applicant's_Photos.pdf MARK SPAHR 2014 Photos Applicant (1 .99 Mb) View Photos 04-09- Site 4 Site 4 LOCATION_MAP.pdf MARK SPAHR 2014 Map Location Map (122.59 kb) View MARK SPAHR 04-09- Photos Site 4 Photos Site 4 PHOTOS_PAGE.pdf View 2014 (214.92 kb) MARK SPAHR 04-14- Project Worksheet WELCO21 WELCO021 Signed.pdf(4.27 View 2014 Signed 90-91 Mb) Facility Name: BR 19-46. 5A over Little Thompson River Address 1 : Address 2: County: Weld City: State: CO ZIP: Was this site previously damaged? No https://connectl .dhs.gov/emm ie/,Danalnfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 4 of 33 Percentage Work Completed? 67.00 % PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00687(0): Site 1 : Bridge WEL019.0-046.5A over Little Thompson River. in Section 9. T4N . R67W. Location: Lat: N40.32896 Long: -W104.88671 PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00687(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. Site 1 addresses damages to Bridge WEL019.0-046.5A over Little Thompson River. in Section 9. T4N. R67W. On November 13, 2013, Kathleen Ruvarac, FEMA TAC Bridge Specialist. David Ray. FEMA Hazard Mitigation Specialist. Gary Moore. FEMA Environmental. Historic Preservation Specialist and Donald Dunker. Weld County Public Works Engineer. performed a site investigation at this location to document damages. The bridge was open and repairs completed at the time of inspection. Flooding of the Little Thompson River resulted in damages on CR 19.0 include washout of asphalt. roadway base and embankment material on the northbound and southbound travel lanes and behind the wingwalls of the Bridge WEL019.0-046.5A. The 54.75 ft long x 30. 18 ft wide steel structure traverses the Little Thompson River in Weld County. CO. The bridge is a double (2) span bridge consisting of an 11 inch asphalt overlay on corrugated steel deck. Seventeen (17) — S15x42.9 steel girders in the north span and Eighteen — S15x 42.9 steel girders in the south span. sheet pile backwall supported by six (6) with 8 inch x 8 inch H piles abutments and wing walls. and one (1 ) intermediate pier with six (6) 8 inch x 8 inch steel piles with a 4 inch x 1 .5 Damage Description and Dimensions: inch steel pile cap. The deck is flanked on both sides with a galvanized W rail beam on 8 inch steel posts. Asphalt Patch 1 on southbound roadway and shoulder measured 14 ft L x 12ftW = 168SFx0.50ftD = 84.OCFx146 LB/CF x1 ton/2000 LB = 6. 1 tons asphalt Embankment Material lost in asphalt patch 1 is estimated 14 ft L x 12 ft W x 3.5 ft D = 21 .8 CY. Asphalt Patch 2 on southbound roadway and shoulder measured 5 ft L x 6 ft W = 30 SF x 0.5 ft D = 15.0 CF x 146 LB/CF x 1 ton/2000 LB = 1 . 1 tons asphalt Embankment Material lost in asphalt patch 2 is estimated 5 ft Lx 6 ft W x 3.5ftD = 3.9CY. Asphalt Patch 3 on top of deck measured 66 ft L x 31 ft W = 2. 046 SF x 0.515 ft D = 1 . 053.7 CF x 146 LB/CF x 1 ton/2000 LB = 76.9 tons asphalt Embankment material was also washed away by the flood waters behind each wingwall (NE. SE, SW) and is estimated to be 5 ft L x 10 ft W x 3 ft D x3 wings = 16.7CY Embankment material was washed out along the northbound shoulders (east side of the road) and is field measured to be 550 (NE) + 312 (SE) ft L x5ftWx1ftD = 159.6CY https://connect I .dhs.gov/emmie/,Danainfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination .do?. . . 5/6/2014 I Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 5 of 33 Site 1 : Total Asphalt = 84. 1 Tons. Total Embankment Material = 202.0 CY Rip Rap was washed away at the north and south abutments estimated to be 30 ft L x 10 ft W towards the channel x 3ftD D x2 abutments = 66.7 CY and 4 wingwalls 5 ft L x 10 ft W towards channel x3ftDx4 wings = 22.2 CY. total 88.9 CY Guardrail end treatment at bridge guide rail ends were damaged at the four corners of the bridge. Vegetative debris at the site requires clean up and removal. The quantity is estimated to be 100ftinLx60ftinWx5ftinD = 1 . 111 . 1 CY. Recent bridge inspection report was provided by the applicant dated May 22, 2012. The bridge was built in 1960 and had a sufficiency rating of 50.4. Structurally Deficient in 2012. 2012 inspection notes of elements include: bridge deck and approach railing inadequate, metal deck beams, sheet pile rusting. The deck condition is noted as poor (4) on a scale of 0 to 9. The superstructure is noted as satisfactory (6) and substructure is noted as poor (4). The channel banks were observed to be in need of minor repairs (7). Maintenance items included bridge deck repair or replacement, structure replacement. railing replacement, encasing abutments. The Applicant has provided pictures of the facilities documenting damages. These photos are attached to this project worksheet. I PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00687(0) : WORK TO BE COMPLETED 1 - Fill embankment material lost in roadway travel lanes. embankment and shoulders -202.0 CY x 1 .82 (Conversion Factor CY ABC Class 6 Material to Tons = 367.6 tons - 368 tons x $33.70/ton (CDOT Item Number 304- 06000 Aggregate Base Course Class 6 x 2 due to economies of scale as compared with number of CDOT annual projects) = $ 12.401 .60 2 - Replace asphalt on northbound travel lanes = 84. 1 tons x $81 .70/ton (COOT Item Number 403-33741 Hot Bituminous Pavement (Grading S) (75) (PG 64-22) = $6.870.97. The applicant indicated that the debris would be disposed of at its landfill in Kennesburg. Colorado. Tree limbs. etc. would be disposed of at A-1 Organics Rattler Ridge. 12002 CR 59. Kennesburg, CO. Solid Waste would be disposed of at Waste Management - Buffalo Ridge Landfill. 11655 CR 59. Keenesburg . CO. Scope of Work: 3- Replace Rip Rap north and south abutments = 88. 9 CY x $83. 17/CY (Rip Rap 18 inch COOT Item Number 506-00218) = $7,393.81 4 — Replace guardrail end treatments at 4 corners of bridge = 4 EA x $1 ,664.67 =$ 6.658.68 (COOT Item Number 606-02005 End anchorage (flared) 5 — Debris removal at site —1 , 111 . 1 CY x $5.00/CY estimated cost = $5. 555.50. The applicant indicated that the debris would be disposed of at its landfill in Kennesburg. Colorado. Tree limbs, etc. would be disposed of at A-1 Organics Rattler Ridge, 12002 CR 59. Kennesburg, CO. Solid Waste would be disposed of at Waste Management - Buffalo Ridge Landfill, 11655 CR 59. Keenesburg, CO. 6 — Traffic Control at site - $3,500.00 lump sum estimated Site 1 Total = $42, 380. 56 cost estimate prepared by project specialist using 2013 COOT Average Unit Prices https://connect I .dhs.gov/emmie/,Danalnfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination .do?... 5/6/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 6 of 33 Hazard Mitigation Proposal Is effective mitigation feasible on this site? Yes If you answered Yes to the above question, the next question is required Will mitigation be performed on this site? Yes If you answered Yes to the above question, the next question is required Do you wish to attach a Hazard Mitigation Yes Proposal? If you answered Yes to the above question. the next two questions are required Work To Be Completed [Site 1 ] The applicant has indicated that the installation of turf reinforcement mat on the roadside shoulders and embankment slopes will re-direct channel flow across the slopes reducing erosion at the facility and alleviating future damages. 1 ) Turf Reinforcement Mat — 900 ft in length x 7 ft average width within the right of way on the east shoulder (downstream side) = 700 SY x 1 .2 factor for toe in excess of material = 840 SY x $10.00/SY (CDOT Item Number 216-00301 ) = $8.400.00 This HMP is considered cost effective per FEMA Disaster Assistance Policy 9526. 1 . Section VII . B. 2. Certain mitigation Please provide the Scope of Work for the estimate: measures (Appendix A). determined cost effective. as long as (maximum 4000 characters) 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. Items SOW #1 and 2 = $19.272. 57 $8.400. 00/$ 19,272.57 = 43.6% The net cost of mitigation/cost of damages is 43.6% < 100%. This HMP is for cost estimating purposes only. The Final design is the obligation of the Applicant and/or their agent. Would you like to add the Hazard Mitigation No Proposal as a cost line item to the project cost? GIS Coordinates Project Location Latitude Longitude BR 19-46. 5A 40.32896 -104. 88671 Facility Name: BR 5-42A over Little Thompson River Address 1 : Address 2: County: Weld City: State: CO ZIP: Was this site previously damaged? No Percentage Work Completed? 100.00 % PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00687(0): https://connectl .dhs.gov/emmie/,Danatnfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatch Destination.do?... 5/6/2014 I Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 7 of 33 Site 2: Bridge 5-42A over the Little Thompson River Lat: 40.29311 Long: -105.01790 Location: PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00687(0): On November 19th , 2013. Kathleen Ruvarac. FEMA TAC Bridge Specialist and David Ray. FEMA Hazard Mitigation Specialist performed a site investigation at this location to document damages. The repair was substantially completed at the time of inspection. 1 . Damaged asphalt east shoulder 69 FT X 4. 5 FT X 0. 33 FT = 102.47 CF. 2. Ditch filled in with silt and gravel SW. 175 FT. 3. Ditch filled in with silt and gravel NE. 1133 FT. 4. Shoulder erosion SE. 267 FT X 4 FT X 1 FT = 1 ,068.00 CF /27 = 39.56 CY. Damage Description and Dimensions: 5. Shoulder erosion SW. 237 FT X 4 FT X 1 FT = 948.00 CF /27 = 35. 11 CY. 6. Shoulder erosion NE . 529 FT X 4 FT X 1 FT = 2, 116.00 CF /27 = 78.37 CY. 7. Rip rap 181N at wingwalls. 40 FT X 5 FT X 3 FT = 600.00 CF /27 = 22.22 CY. Site 2 TOTAL: Asphalt 102.47CF, Ditch 1 .308FT. shoulder erosion 153.04CY. and rip rap 22.22CY. PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00687(0): WORK COMPLETED: 1 . Repair Damaged asphalt east shoulder 102.47 CF X 130LB/CF = 13, 320.45 LB /2000= 6.66 TON X $81 .70 /TON = $544. 12. 403-33741 CDOT 2. Repair Ditch filled in with silt and gravel SW. 175 FT X $3.40 /FT = $595.00. FEMA 3070 3. Repair Ditch filled in with silt and gravel NE. 1133 FT X $3.40 /FT = $3,852.20. FEMA 3070 Scope of Work: 4. Repair Shoulder erosion SE. Aggregate Base Course (Class 6) 1 ,068.00 CF /27 = 39.56 CY X 1 .82 = 71 .99 TON X $33.70 /TON = $2.426. 10. 304-06000 CDOT 5. Repair Shoulder erosion SW, Aggregate Base Course (Class 6), 948.00 CF /27 = 35. 11 CY X 1 .82 = 63.90 TON X $33.70 /TON = $2, 153.50. 304-06000 CDOT 6. Repair Shoulder erosion NE. Aggregate Base Course (Class 6). 2, 116.00 CF /27 = 78.37 CY X 1 .82 = 142.63 TON X $33.70 /TON = $4.806.77. 304-06000 CDOT 7. Repair rip rap 181N at wing walls, 600.00 CF /27 = 22.22 CY X https://connect I .dhs.gov/emm ie/,Danalnfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination .doL.. 5/6/2014 e Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 8 of 33 $83. 17 /CY = $1 . 848.22. 506-00218 CDOT Site 2 TOTAL COST = $ 16.225.92. 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 Please provide the Scope of Work for the estimate: See attached HMP (maximum 4000 characters) Would you like to add the Hazard Mitigation Yes Proposal as a cost line item to the project cost? GIS Coordinates Project Location Latitude Longitude BR 5-42A over Little Thompson River 40.29311 -105. 0179 Facility Name: BR 16. 5-1 B over Boulder Creek Address 1 : Address 2: County: Weld City: State: CO ZIP: Was this site previously damaged? No Percentage Work Completed? 35.00 % PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00687(0) : Site 3: Bridge WELO 16. 5-001 -0B over Boulder Creek. in Section 30. T2N. R68W. Location: Lat: 40. 10906 Long: -105.03695 PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00687(0): On November 14. 2013. Kathleen Ruvarac. FEMA TAC Bridge Specialist. David Ray. FEMA Hazard Mitigation Specialist. Gary Moore. FEMA Environmental . Historic Preservation Specialist and Donald Dunker. Weld County Public Works Engineer. performed a site investigation at this location to document damages. The bridge was open and repairs partially completed at the time of inspection. Flooding of Boulder Creek resulted in embankment material washed away from the east abutment and wingwalls of Bridge WEL016.5-001 .0B. Washout of roadway base and surface gravel east of the bridge is covered https://connectl .dhs.gov/emm ie/,Danaln fo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatch Destination .do?... 5/6/201 4 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 9 of 33 in Project Worksheet WELCO03. The 126.8 ft long x 31 .9 ft wide concrete structure traverses the Boulder Creek in Weld County. CO. The bridge is a double (2) span bridge consisting of a 2 inch asphalt overlay on 6 inch precast double tee girder r top flange. four (4) — 3 ft - 8 inch x 8 ft concrete double tee girders in each span supported by concrete abutments and wingwalls and one ( 1 ) intermediate pier. The deck is flanked on both sides with a galvanized W rail beam on 8 inch steel posts. 1 . Embankment material was washed away from the east abutment estimated to be 50 ft L x 10 ft W towards the channel x 3 ft D = 55.6 CY. Due to extensive damage at the site. Rip rap will be installed on the channel side of the east abutment and wingwalls in lieu of embankment material. Mitigation will be acheived as a good construction practice. 2. Erosion at the base of the east abutment and wingwall estimated to be 30LF x 3FT wide x 6FT deep = 540CF/27 = 20CY 3. Erosion at the base of the pier [called Pier 2 in the bridge report] estimated to be 25LF x 5FT wide x 2.5FT deep = 312.5CF/27 = 11 .57CY use 12CY 4. In addition. vegetative debris accumulated at the site. estimated 60 ft L x Damage Description and Dimensions: 23.4 ft W x 10 ft D == 520 CY Recent bridge inspection report was provided by the applicant dated May 21 , 2012. The bridge was built in 1983 and had a sufficiency rating of 96. 9 in 2012. 2012 inspection notes of elements include: bridge deck and approach railing inadequate, pavement on deck is cracking. potholes on deck. debris and vegetative control. The deck condition is noted as satisfactory (6) on a scale of 0 to 9. The superstructure and substructures are noted as good (7). The channel banks were observed to be slumping (6). Maintenance items included sealing of crack in deck overlay at ends of deck. railing replacement, removal of island formed in channel downstream of pier P2. Applicant submitted Bridge Inspection Report dated 11 /1 /13 that indicates scour at the east bridge abutment. In addition. Streambed History data was submitted that shows approximately 6FT of scour occurred at the east abutment since the 2012 report, therefore Item #2 above was added after a site visit occurred on 3/21 /14. The Applicant has provided pictures of the facilities documenting damages. These photos are attached to this project worksheet. This site is not part of a FHWA roadway system PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00687(0): WORK TO BE COMPLETED: 1 . Install Rip Rap at the east abutment and wingwalls = 55.6 CY x $83. 17/CY (Rip Rap 18 inch CDOT Item Number 506-00218) = $4,624.25 2a. Install Aquadam [8FT High] or similar barrier to control water. 50LF x $75/LF = $3,750 + $500 [collar] + $350 [Double Closed End adder] = $4,600 2b. Install dewatering pump/generator assembly [FEMA Code 8311 ] 1 EA x 2Days x 24HR/Day x $8.00/HR = $384.00 https://connect I .dhs.gov/emmie/,Danalnfo=isource.fema.net.SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014 S _ Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 10 of 33 2c. Install formwork [30LF x 6FT = 180SF]: $2. 000 lump sum estimate 2d. Install flowable fill [20CY]. 20CY x $ 107.41 [CDOT 206-00065] = 2, 148.20 3. Install rock at the upstream side of the pier [12CY]. 12CY x $83. 17/CY [CDOT 506-00218] _ $998.04 4. Vegetative debris removal. 520 CY x $5.00/CY estimated cost = Scope of Work: $1600.00. The applicant indicated that the debris would be disposed of at its landfill in Kennesburg. Colorado. Tree limbs, etc. would be disposed of at A-1 Organics Rattler Ridge, 12002 CR 59. Kennesburg, CO. Solid Waste would be disposed of at Waste Management - Buffalo Ridge Landfill, 11655 CR 59. Keenesburg, CO. Site 3 Total = $14.754.49 cost estimate prepared by project specialist using 2013 CDOT Average Unit Prices 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 No Proposal? If you answered Yes to the above question. the next two questions are required Please provide the Scope of Work for the estimate: Mitigation will be achieved as a good construction practice. (maximum 4000 characters) No HMP attached. Would you like to add the Hazard Mitigation No Proposal as a cost line item to the project cost? GIS Coordinates Project Location Latitude Longitude BR 16.5-1B over Boulder Creek 40. 10906 -105.03695 Facility Name: BR 17-4A over Big Dry Creek Address 1 : Address 2: County: Weld City: State: CO ZIP: Was this site previously damaged? No Percentage Work Completed? 50.00 % PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00687(0) : Site 4: Bridge WELO17.0-004.0A over Big Dry Creek in Section 29. TIN , Location: R67W. https://connectl .dhs.gov/emm ie/,Dana I n to=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatch Destination.do?. .. 5/6/2014 I r Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 11 of 33 PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00687(0): On November 14th, 2013, Kathleen Ruvarac, FEMA TAC Bridge Specialist and David Ray. FEMA Hazard Mitigation Specialist and Donald Dunker, Weld County employee, performed a site investigation at this location to document damages. The repair was substantially completed at the time of inspection. Damages to the facility include the following: 1 . Embankment wash out south abutment. 31 FT X 7 FT X 2 FT = 434 CF /27 = 16.07 CY Damage Description and Dimensions: 2 . Ditches filled with sand and gravel. 440 FT 3 . Rip rap wash out at abutments and wingwalls. 96 FT X 3.5 FT X 4 FT = 1 ,344 CF /27 = 49.78 CY 4 . Surface gravel wash out roadway deck (21N). 27 FT X 33 FT X 0. 17 FT = 151 CF /27 = 5.61 CY Site 4 TOTAL: Embankment 16.07 CY, Ditches 440 FT. Riprap 49.78 CY AND Surface gravel 5.61 CY. FA-08-CO-414 5-P W-00687(0): WORK COMPLETED: 1 a. Embankment wash out south abutment. 16.07 CY X 1 .82 = 29.25 TONS X $33.70 = $985.89 CDOT 506-00218 1 b. Structure Backfill (Flow-Fill) (Used to stabilize the soil. 40.00 CY X $90.07 = $3.602.80 CDOT 206-00065 2. Ditches filled with sand and gravel. 440FT. X $3.40 = $1 .496.00 FEMA 3070 3. Rip rap. recycled concrete, wash out at abutments and wingwalls. 49.78 CY x1 .82 = 90.60 TONS X $ 15.00 = $1 .358.93 (Unit price of $7. 50 X 2 = $15.00 to allow for installation cost.) Site 4 WORK COMPLETED TOTAL: $7.443.62 WORK TO BE COMPLETED: 3a. Remove recycled concrete [Item 3 above in Work Completed] that was placed temporarily at the time of the repair immediately after the event. 49.78CY x 1 .82 = 90.60 TONS x $7.50/T = $679.50 (Unit price of $7.50/T is the same as the installation cost shown in Item 3) 3b. Install rip rap. 49.78CY x $83. 17/CY = $4. 140.20 CDOT 506-00218 3c. Install topsoil over rip rap. 96FT x 3.5FT = 336SF x [4'`/12] = 1120F/27 = 4.2CY x $10. 11 /CY = $42.46 CDOT 207-00205 3d. Install seeding. 336SF/43560 = 0.0077 AC x $545.81 /AC = $4.20 CDOT 212-00006 3e. Install soil retention blanket. 336SF/9 = 37.33SY x $2. 15/SY = $80.27 CDOT 216-00042 https://connectl .dhs.gov/emm ie/,Danalnfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchUcstination.do?.. . 5/6/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 12 of 33 4. Surface gravel wash out roadway deck (2(N). 5.61 CY X 1 .82 = 10.21 TONS X $33.70/TON = $344.08 [CDOT 304-06000 x 2 as agreed for Weld County projects] Site 4 WORK TO BE COMPLETED TOTAL: $5.290.71 . Direct Administrative Costs: An estimate for this PW is included as follows: 20hrs x $50/hr = $1 ,000. PROJECT NOTES [applicable to all Sites in this PW]: 1 . During repair or reconstruction, applicant may incur additional costs related to clearing and grubbing. placement of topsoil. erosion and sedimentation control, dewatering. sanitary facilities mobilization and flagging/traffic control. Such costs are generally addressed in the "in-place' unit costs of repair or reconstruction items. and not specifically addressed in the Scope of Work. However. if a project requires an extraordinary use of any such items. to where a specific reference in the PW should be considered, applicant is advised to contact Colorado Department of Emergency Management requesting a revision to the PW's Scope of Work. 2. Applicant has completed a substantial percentage of the work but will not have cost data available within the fourteen day Pocket Guide rule. Per Field Operations Pocket Guide. Section 7, Cost Estimates, Page 26. "If the applicant has not produced cost data within two weeks of the site inspection. the Project Specialist will prepare the PW on the basis of an estimate for the work accomplished". Applicant and FEMA personnel jointly conducted all inspections and agreed to use CDOT costs for in-place costs to derive estimates on this project worksheet. Applicant understands that all Scope of Work: actual support documentation, invoices. FA records. contract and proof of payment will be required for final reconciliation and or closeout process. Attached is the CDOT average in-place cost for materials. 3. The Applicant will notify FEMA and the State of their intent to perform permanent work related to this site before any work commences in the field. Failure to do so may jeopardize the sub-grant for permanent work related to the work in this sub-grant. 4. Pursuant to 44 CFR 13.42. Grantees and Subgrantees are required to retain records, including source documentation. to support expenditures/costs incurred against the grant award, for 3 years from the date of submission to FEMA of the final Financial Status Report. 5. The applicant must obtain all required federal, state. and local permits prior to the commencement of work. 6. The subgrantee is requesting direct administrative costs that are directly chargeable to this specific project. Associated eligible work is related to administration of the PA project only and in accordance with 44 CFR 13.22. These costs are treated consistently and uniformly as direct costs in all federal awards and other subgrantee activities and are not included in any approved indirect costs. 7. Payment for small projects is made at the time of project approval, based on validated documentation included in the PW, including documents. site visit observations and/or photos. At the time that this PW was written. no documentation was available regarding DAC. Since DAC can only be validated through documentation provided by the applicant, no allowance was included. 8. Project was reviewed for 406 Hazard Mitigation and a hazard mitigation https://connect l .dhs.gov/emmie/, Danalnto=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination .do?. .. 5/6/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 13 of 33 proposal is attached to this project worksheet. 9. The applicant is aware that all projects are subject to an insurance review as stated in 44 C. F. R. Sections 206.252 and 206.253. If applicable. an insurance determination will be made either as anticipated proceeds or actual proceeds in accordance with the applicant's insurance policy that may affect the total amount of the project. 10. The applicant is required to adhere to State and Federal Government Procurement rules and regulations and maintain adequate records to support the basis for all purchasing of goods and materials and contracting services for projects approved under the Public Assistance program. as stated in 44 CFR 13.36. The applicant has advised they have followed their normal procurement procedures. 11 . At the applicants request. WELCO 21 . 22. 26. and 32 have been combined into this PW with Reference No. WELCO21 . WELCO 22. 26, and 32 were rewritten for $0. Hazard Mitigation Proposal Is effective mitigation feasible on this site? No If you answered Yes to the above question, the next question is required Will mitigation be performed on this site? No If you answered Yes to the above question, the next question is required Do you wish to attach a Hazard Mitigation No Proposal? If you answered Yes to the above question. the next two questions are required Please provide the Scope of Work for the estimate: (maximum 4000 characters) Would you like to add the Hazard Mitigation No Proposal as a cost line item to the project cost? GIS Coordinates Project Location Latitude Longitude BR 17-4A over Big Dry Creek 40.0167 -104.90482 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) Zone A - Areas of 100 year flood; base flood elevations and flood hazard factors not determined. Flood Map 0802660750C dated September 28, 1982. Refer to other attached flood maps for flood data 3. Is the damaged facility or item of work located within or adjacent to a Coastal Barrier Resource No System Unit or an Otherwise Protected Area? 4. Will the proposed facility repairs/reconstruction change the pre-disaster conditions (e.g. . No footprint. material, location, capacity, use of function)? 5. Does the applicant have a hazard mitigation proposal or would the applicant like technical No assistance for a hazard mitigation proposal? https://connect I .dhs.gov/emmie/,Danalnfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014 Nmmgmaimms Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 14 of 33 6. Is the damaged facility on the National Register of Historic Places or the state historic listing? Is No 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 tracts No of forestland? 8. Are there any hazardous materials at or adjacent to the damaged facility and/or item of work? No 9. Are there any other environmental or controversial issues associated with the damaged facility Yes and/or item of work? If you would like to make any comments. please enter them below. (maximum 4000 characters) EHP to conduct review Attachments Hard Copy User Date Document Type Description File File Name Action Reference KATHLEEN 02 RUVARAC 27- Floodplain Firmette.pdf(306.84 kb) View 2014 MARK 04- SPAHR 09- Floodplain Site 2 Firmette Site 2 FIRMETTE.pdf(421 .83 kb) View 2014 MARK 04 SPAHR 09- Floodplain Site 3 Firmette Site 3 Firmette.pdf(252.48 kb) View 2014 MARK 04- Bridge Site 3 Bridge Site 3 BR-16.5-1 B- SPAHR 09- Survey/Document Inspection Bridge_Inspection_Report.pdf View 2014 Report (3.37 Mb) MARK 04- SPAHR 09- Floodplain Site 4 Firmette Site 4 FIRMETTE.pdf(279. 13 kb) View 2014 For Category C, D, E, F, and G Projects only Is effective mitigation feasible on this project? Yes If you answered Yes to the above question, the next question is required Will mitigation be performed on any sites in this Yes project? If you answered Yes to the above question , the next question is required Do you wish to attach a Hazard Mitigation Yes Proposal? If you answered Yes to the above question . the next two questions are required Work To Be Completed The applicant has indicated that the installation of turf reinforcement mat on the roadside shoulders and embankment slopes will re-direct channel flow across the slopes reducing erosion at the facility and alleviating future damages. 1 ) Turf Reinforcement Mat — 900 ft in length x 7 ft Please provide the Scope of Work average width within the right of way on the east shoulder for the estimate: (downstream side) = 700 SY x 1 .2 factor for toe in excess of material = 840 SY x $ 10.00/SY (CDOT Item Number 216- 00301 ) = $8,400.00 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 https://connect 1 .dhs.gov/emm ie/,Dana[nfo=isource. tema.net,SSL+dispatch [)estination.do?.. . 5/6/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 15 of 33 project. Appendix A. 5. Gabion baskets. rip rap, sheet piling, and geotextile fabric installation- installation to control erosion. SOW Items #1 and 2 = $19.272.57 $8,400.00/$ 19.272.57 = 43.6% The net cost of mitigation/cost of damages is 43.6% < 100%. This HMP is for cost estimating purposes only. The Final design is the obligation of the Applicant and/or their agent. Would you like to add the Hazard Mitigation Yes Proposal as a cost line item to the project cost? Hazard Mitigation Proposal - 0909 Unit Unit of Unit Subgrant Cost # Code Material and/or Description Quantity Measure Price Budget Type Estimate Action Class *** Version 0 *** 1 9999 Site 1 - Turf Reinforcement Mat 840 SY $ 10.00 $ 8,400.00 (CDOT 216-00301 - 2013) 2 9999 Site 2 Turf Reinforcement Mat 656 SY $ 10.00 $ 6. 560.00 Total Cost: $ 14,960.00 Comments Attachments User Date Document Type Description Hard Copy File File Name Action Reference KATHLEEN 02-27- Environmental/Historic EHP email approval RUVARAC 2014 Document of TRM .pdf(94.76 View kb) MARK SPAHR 04-09- Mitigation Proposal WELCO21 Sites WELCO21 HMP View 2014 1 & 2 HMP Rev 1 .pdf(50.42 kb) Cost Estimate Is this Project Worksheet for (Preferred) Repair Material Unit Unit of Subgrant Cost Sequence Code and/or Quantity Measure Unit Price Budget Class Type Estimate Action Description *** Version 0 *** Work Completed Site 2 - BR5- 1 9999 42A over Little 1 LS $ CONSTRUCTION Work $ 16,225.92 Thompson 16.225.92 Completed River Site 4 - BR 2 9999 17-4A over 1 LS $ CONSTRUCTION Work $ 7,443.62 Big Dry Creek 7.443.62 Completed Work To Be Completed Site 1 - BR 19-46.5A over Work To https://connect I .dhs.goviemmie/,Danalnto=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination .do?... 5/6/2014 if Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 16 of 33 Little Be $ 3 9999 Thompson 1 LS 42. 380. 56 CONSTRUCTION Completed $ 42,380.56 River Site 3 - BR Work To $ 4 9999 16.5-1B over 1 LS 14.754.49 CONSTRUCTION Be $ 14.754.49 Boulder Creek Completed Site 4 - BR Work To 5 9999 17-4A over 1 LS $ CONSTRUCTION Be $ 5,290.71 Big Dry Creek 5.290.71 p Com leted Other Direct 6 9901 Administrative 1 LS $ INDIRECT Other $ 1 .000.00 Costs 1 . 000.00 CHARGES (Subgrantee) Total Cost : $ 87,095.30 Insurance Adjustments (Deductibles. Proceeds and Settlements) - 5900/5901 Unit Unit of Unit Subgrant Cost Sequence Code Material and/or Description Quantity Measure Price Budget Type Estimate Action Class Total Cost : $ 0.00 Hazard Mitigation Proposal - 0909 Unit Unit of Unit Subgrant Cost Sequence Code Material and/or Description Quantity Measure Price Budget Type Estimate Action Class *** Version 0 *** Site 1 - Turf 1 9999 Reinforcement Mat (CDOT 840 SY $ 10.00 $ 8.400.00 216-00301 - 2013) Site 2 Turf Reinforcement 2 9999 Mat 656 SY $ 10.00 $ 6.560.00 Total Cost : $ 14,960.00 Total Cost Estimate: $ 102,055.30 (Preferred Estimate Type + Insurance Adjustments + Hazard Mitigation Proposal) Comments Attachments Document Hard Copy User Date Type Description File File Name Action Reference 02 KATHLEEN Weld County - 2013 CDOT Average Unit RUVARAC 27- Miscellaneous Prices. df(37.37 kb) View 2014 p MARK 04- Calculation Site 2 Site 2 SPAHR 09- Sheet Calculation CALCULATION_SPREADSHEET.pdf View2014 Sheet (73.51 kb) MARK Calculation Site 4 CALCULATION SHEET.pdf(78.47 04- Site 4 kb)— \,f iew SPAHR 09- Sheet Calculation https://connect 1 .dhs.gov/emmie/,Danalnfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination .do?... 5/6/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 17 of 33 2014 Sheet Existing Insurance Information Insurance Type Policy No. Bldg/Property Content Insurance Deductible Years Amount Amount Amount Amount Required Comments Policy on file at JFO Attachments Comments and Attachments Name of Section Comment Attachment Project Description WELCO21 Location Map.pdf WELCO21 Photo Sheet 01 .pdf Applicant photos.pdf BR-19-46.5A Bridge Inspection Report.pdf WELCO21 DDD SOW.pdf Site 2 LOCATION MAP.pdf Damage Facilities Site 2 PHOTOS.pdf Site 3 Location Map.pdf Site 3 Photo Sheet 01 .pdf Site 3 Applicant's Photos.pdf Site 4 LOCATION MAP.pdf Site 4 PHOTOS PAGE.pdf WELCO021 Signed.pdf Firmette.pdf Site 2 FIRMETTE.pdf Special Considerations Site 3 Firmette.pdf Site 3 BR-16. 5-1B-Bridge Inspection Report.pdf Site 4 FIRMETTE.pdf Mitigation EHP email approval of TRM.pdf WELCO21 HMP Rev 1 .pdf Weld County - 2013 CDOT Average Unit Prices.pdf Cost Estimate Site 2 CALCULATION SPREADSHEET.pdf Site 4 CALCULATION SHEET.pdf Insurance Information Policy on file at JFO Bundle Reference # (Amendment #) Date Awarded PA-08-CO-4145-State-0044(43) 04-15-2014 Subgrant Application - FEMA Form 90-91 Note: The Effective Cost Share for this application is 75% FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY PROJECT WORKSHEET DISASTER PROJECT NO. PA ID NO, DATE CATEGORY WELCO21 123-99123- 11-13-2013 C FEMA 4145 - DR -CO 00 APPLICANT WELD (COUNTY) WORK COMPLETE AS OF 11 -13-2013 27 % https://connect I .dhs.gov/emm ie/.Dana[nfo=isource. fema.net.SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/20 14 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 18 of 33 Site 1 of 4 DAMAGED FACILITY: COUNTY: Weld BR 19-46.5A over Little Thompson River LOCATION: LATITUDE: LONGITUDE: 40.32896 -104.88671 PA-0 8-C O-4145-P W-0068 7(0): Site 1 : Bridge WEL019.0-046.5A over Little Thompson River, in Section 9, T4N, R67W. Lat: N40.32896 Long: -W104.88671 DAMAGE DESCRIPTION AND DIMENSIONS: PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00687(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. Site 1 addresses damages to Bridge WEL019.0-046.5A over Little Thompson River, in Section 9, T4N, R67W. On November 13, 2013, Kathleen Ruvarac, FEMA TAC Bridge Specialist, David Ray, FEMA Hazard Mitigation Specialist, Gary Moore, FEMA Environmental. Historic Preservation Specialist and Donald Dunker, Weld County Public Works Engineer, performed a site investigation at this location to document damages. The bridge was open and repairs completed at the time of inspection. Flooding of the Little Thompson River resulted in damages on CR 19.0 include washout of asphalt, roadway base and embankment material on the northbound and southbound travel lanes and behind the wingwalls of the Bridge WEL019.0-046.5A. The 54.75 ft long x 30.18 ft wide steel structure traverses the Little Thompson River in Weld County, CO. The bridge is a double (2) span bridge consisting of an 11 inch asphalt overlay on corrugated steel deck, Seventeen (17) — S15x42.9 steel girders in the north span and Eighteen — S15x 42.9 steel girders in the south span, sheet pile backwall supported by six (6) with 8 inch x 8 inch H piles abutments and wing walls, and one (1 ) intermediate pier with six (6) 8 inch x 8 inch steel piles with a 4 inch x 1 .5 inch steel pile cap. The deck is flanked on both sides with a galvanized W rail beam on 8 inch steel posts. Asphalt Patch 1 on southbound roadway and shoulder measured 14 ft L x 12 ft W = 168 SF x 0.50 ft D = 84.0 CF x 146 LB/CF x 1 ton/2000 LB = 6.1 tons asphalt Embankment Material lost in asphalt patch 1 is estimated 14 ft L x 12 ft W x 3.5 ft D = 21 .8 CY. Asphalt Patch 2 on southbound roadway and shoulder measured 5 ft L x 6 ft W = 30 SF x 0.5 ft D = 15.0 CF x 146 LB/CF x 1 ton/2000 LB = 1.1 tons asphalt Embankment Material lost in asphalt patch 2 is estimated 5 ft Lx 6 ft W x 3.5 ft D = 3.9 CY. Asphalt Patch 3 on top of deck measured 66 ft L x 31 ft W = 2,046 SF x 0.515 ft D = 1 ,053.7 CF x 146 LB/CF x 1 ton/2000 LB = 76.9 tons asphalt Embankment material was also washed away by the flood waters behind each wingwall (NE, SE, SW) and is estimated to be 5 ft L x 10 ft W x 3 ft D x 3 wings = 16.7 CY Embankment material was washed out along the northbound shoulders (east side of the road) and is field measured to be 550 (NE) + 312 (SE) ftLx5ftWx1 ftD = 159.6 CY Site 1 : Total Asphalt = 84.1 Tons, Total Embankment Material = 202.0 CY Rip Rap was washed away at the north and south abutments estimated to be 30 ft L x 10 ft W towards the channel x 3 ft D x2 abutments = 66.7 CY and 4 wingwalls 5 ft L x 10 ft W towards channel x 3 ft D x 4 wings = 22.2 CY, total 88.9 CY Guardrail end treatment at bridge guide rail ends were damaged at the four corners of the bridge. Vegetative debris at the site requires clean up and removal. The quantity is estimated to be 100 ft in L x 60 ft in W x 5 ft in D = 1 ,111 .1 CY. Recent bridge inspection report was provided by the applicant dated May 22, 2012. The bridge was built in 1960 and had a sufficiency rating of 50.4, Structurally Deficient in 2012. 2012 inspection notes of elements include: bridge deck and approach railing inadequate. metal deck beams, sheet pile rusting. The deck condition is noted as poor (4) on a scale of 0 to 9. The superstructure is noted as satisfactory (6) and substructure is noted as poor (4). The channel banks were observed to be in need of minor repairs (7). Maintenance items included bridge deck repair or replacement, structure replacement. railing replacement, encasing abutments. The Applicant has provided pictures of the facilities documenting damages. These photos are attached to this project worksheet. SCOPE OF WORK: PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00687(0): https://connectl .dhs.gov/emm ie/,DanaInfo=isource.fema.net.SSL+dispatch Destination.do?... 5/6/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 19 of 33 WORK TO BE COMPLETED 1 — Fill embankment material lost in roadway travel lanes, embankment and shoulders —202.0 CY x 1 .82 (Conversion Factor CY ABC Class 6 Material to Tons = 367.6 tons - 368 tons x $33.70/ton (CDOT Item Number 304-06000 Aggregate Base Course Class 6 x 2 due to economies of scale as compared with number of CDOT annual projects) = $12,401 .60 2 — Replace asphalt on northbound travel lanes = 84.1 tons x $81 .70/ton (CDOT Item Number 403-33741 Hot Bituminous Pavement (Grading S) (75) (PG 64-22) = $6,870.97. The applicant indicated that the debris would be disposed of at its landfill in Kennesburg, Colorado. Tree limbs, etc. would be disposed of at A-1 Organics Rattler Ridge, 12002 CR 59, Kennesburg, CO. Solid Waste would be disposed of at Waste Management - Buffalo Ridge Landfill, 11655 CR 59, Keenesburg, CO. 3- Replace Rip Rap north and south abutments = 88.9 CY x $83.17/CY (Rip Rap 18 inch CDOT Item Number 506-00218) = $7,393.81 4 — Replace guardrail end treatments at 4 corners of bridge = 4 EA x $1 ,664.67 =$ 6.658.68 (CDOT Item Number 606-02005 End anchorage (flared) 5 — Debris removal at site —1 . 111.1 CY x $5.00/CY estimated cost = $5.555.50. The applicant indicated that the debris would be disposed of at its landfill in Kennesburg, Colorado. Tree limbs, etc. would be disposed of at A-1 Organics Rattler Ridge, 12002 CR 59, Kennesburg, CO. Solid Waste would be disposed of at Waste Management - Buffalo Ridge Landfill. 11655 CR 59. Keenesburg, CO. 6 — Traffic Control at site - $3.500.00 lump sum estimated Site 1 Total = $42,380.56 cost estimate prepared by project specialist using 2013 CDOT Average Unit Prices Site 2 of 4 DAMAGED FACILITY: COUNTY: Weld BR 5-42A over Little Thompson River LOCATION: LATITUDE: LONGITUDE: 40.29311 -105.0179 PA-08-CO-4145-PW 00687(0): Site 2: Bridge 5-42A over the Little Thompson River Lat: 40.29311 Long: -105.01790 DAMAGE DESCRIPTION AND DIMENSIONS: PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00687(0): On November 19th, 2013, Kathleen Ruvarac, FEMA TAC Bridge Specialist and David Ray, FEMA Hazard Mitigation Specialist performed a site investigation at this location to document damages. The repair was substantially completed at the time of inspection. 1. Damaged asphalt east shoulder 69 FT X 4.5 FT X 0.33 FT = 102.47 CF. 2. Ditch filled in with silt and gravel SW, 175 FT. 3. Ditch filled in with silt and gravel NE. 1133 FT. 4. Shoulder erosion SE, 267 FT X 4 FT X 1 FT = 1 ,068.00 CF /27 = 39.56 CY. 5. Shoulder erosion SW, 237 FT X 4 FT X 1 FT = 948.00 CF /27 = 35.11 CY. 6. Shoulder erosion NE, 529 FT X 4 FT X 1 FT = 2,116.00 CF /27 = 78.37 CY. 7. Rip rap 18IN at wingwalls. 40 FT X 5 FT X 3 FT = 600.00 CF /27 = 22.22 CY. Site 2 TOTAL: Asphalt 102.47CF. Ditch 1 .308FT. shoulder erosion 153.04CY, and rip rap 22.22CY. SCOPE OF WORK: PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00687(0): WORK COMPLETED: 1. Repair Damaged asphalt east shoulder 102.47 CF X 130LB/CF = 13,320.45 LB /2000= 6.66 TON X $81.70 /TON = $544. 12. 403-33741 CDOT https://connect l .dhs.gov/emm ie/,DanaInfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatch Destination.do?... 5/6/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 20 of 33 2. Repair Ditch filled in with silt and gravel SW, 175 FT X $3.40 /FT = $595.00. FEMA 3070 3. Repair Ditch filled in with silt and gravel NE, 1133 FT X $3.40 /FT = $3,852.20. FEMA 3070 4. Repair Shoulder erosion SE, Aggregate Base Course (Class 6) , 1,068.00 CF /27 = 39.56 CY X 1.82 = 71 .99 TON X $33.70 /TON = $2,426. 10. 304-06000 CDOT 5. Repair Shoulder erosion SW, Aggregate Base Course (Class 6), 948.00 CF /27 = 35.11 CY X 1 .82 = 63.90 TON X $33.70 /TON = $2,153.50. 304-06000 CDOT 6. Repair Shoulder erosion NE. Aggregate Base Course (Class 6), 2,116.00 CF /27 = 78.37 CY X 1 .82 = 142.63 TON X $33.70 /TON = $4,806.77. 304-06000 CDOT 7. Repair rip rap 18IN at wing walls, 600.00 CF /27 = 22.22 CY X $83.17 /CY = $1 ,848.22. 506-00218 CDOT Site 2 TOTAL COST = $16,225.92. Site 3 of 4 DAMAGED FACILITY: COUNTY: Weld BR 16.5-1B over Boulder Creek LOCATION: LATITUDE: LONGITUDE: 40. 10906 -105.03695 PA-08-CO-4145-P W-00687(0): Site 3: Bridge WEL0 16.5-001-0B over Boulder Creek, in Section 30, T2N, R68W. Lat: 40.10906 Long: -105.03695 DAMAGE DESCRIPTION AND DIMENSIONS: PA-08-CO-4145-PW 00687(0): On November 14, 2013, Kathleen Ruvarac, FEMA TAC Bridge Specialist, David Ray, FEMA Hazard Mitigation Specialist, Gary Moore, FEMA Environmental, Historic Preservation Specialist and Donald Dunker, Weld County Public Works Engineer, performed a site investigation at this location to document damages. The bridge was open and repairs partially completed at the time of inspection. Flooding of Boulder Creek resulted in embankment material washed away from the east abutment and wingwalls of Bridge WEL016.5-001.0B. Washout of roadway base and surface gravel east of the bridge is covered in Project Worksheet WELCO03. The 126.8 ft long x 31.9 ft wide concrete structure traverses the Boulder Creek in Weld County, CO. The bridge is a double (2) span bridge consisting of a 2 inch asphalt overlay on 6 inch precast double tee girder top flange, four (4) — 3 ft - 8 inch x 8 ft concrete double tee girders in each span supported by concrete abutments and wingwalls and one (1) intermediate pier. The deck is flanked on both sides with a galvanized W rail beam on 8 inch steel posts. 1. Embankment material was washed away from the east abutment estimated to be 50 ft L x 10 ft W towards the channel x 3 ft D = 55.6 CY. Due to extensive damage at the site, Rip rap will be installed on the channel side of the east abutment and wingwalls in lieu of embankment material. Mitigation will be acheived as a good construction practice. 2. Erosion at the base of the east abutment and wingwall estimated to be 30LF x 3FT wide x 6FT deep = 540CF/27 = 20CY 3. Erosion at the base of the pier [called Pier 2 in the bridge report] estimated to be 25LF x 5FT wide x 2.5FT deep = 312.5CF/27 = 11.57CY use 12CY 4. In addition, vegetative debris accumulated at the site, estimated 60 ft L x 23.4 ft W x 10 ft D = 520 CY Recent bridge inspection report was provided by the applicant dated May 21 , 2012. The bridge was built in 1983 and had a sufficiency rating of 96.9 in 2012. 2012 inspection notes of elements include: bridge deck and approach railing inadequate, pavement on deck is cracking, potholes on deck, debris and vegetative control. The deck condition is noted as satisfactory (6) on a scale of 0 to 9. The superstructure and substructures are noted as good (7). The channel banks were observed to be slumping (6). Maintenance items included sealing of crack in deck overlay at ends of deck, railing replacement, removal of island formed in channel downstream of pier P2. Applicant submitted Bridge Inspection Report dated 11/1/13 that indicates scour at the east bridge abutment. In addition, Streambed History data was submitted that shows approximately 6FT of scour occurred at the east abutment since the 2012 report, therefore Item #2 above was added after a site visit occurred on 3/21/14. The Applicant has provided pictures of the facilities documenting damages. These photos are attached to this project worksheet. https://connect I .dhs.gov/emmie/,Dana[nfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 21 of 33 This site is not part of a FHWA roadway system SCOPE OF WORK: PA-08-CO-4145-PW 00687(0): WORK TO BE COMPLETED: 1. Install Rip Rap at the east abutment and wingwalls = 55.6 CY x $83.17/CY (Rip Rap 18 inch CDOT Item Number 506-00218) _ $4,624.25 2a. Install Aquadam [8FT High] or similar barrier to control water. 50LF x $75/LF = $3,750 + $500 [collar] + $350 [Double Closed End adder] = $4.600 2b. Install dewatering pump/generator assembly [FEMA Code 8311] lEA x 2Days x 24HR/Day x $8.00/HR = $384.00 2c. Install formwork [30LF x 6FT = 180SF]: $2,000 lump sum estimate 2d. Install flowable fill [20CY]. 20CY x $107.41 [CDOT 206-00065] = 2,148.20 3. Install rock at the upstream side of the pier [12CY]. 12CY x $83.17/CY [CDOT 506-00218] = $998.04 4. Vegetative debris removal, 520 CY x $5.00/CY estimated cost = $2,600.00. The applicant indicated that the debris would be disposed of at its landfill in Kennesburg, Colorado. Tree limbs. etc. would be disposed of at A-1 Organics Rattler Ridge, 12002 CR 59, Kennesburg, CO. Solid Waste would be disposed of at Waste Management - Buffalo Ridge Landfill, 11655 CR 59, Keenesburg, CO. Site 3 Total = $14,754.49 cost estimate prepared by project specialist using 2013 CDOT Average Unit Prices Site 4 of 4 DAMAGED FACILITY: COUNTY: Weld BR 17-4A over Big Dry Creek LOCATION: LATITUDE: LONGITUDE: 40.0167 -104.90482 PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00687(0): Site 4: Bridge WELO17.0-004.0A over Big Dry Creek in Section 29, TIN, R67W. DAMAGE DESCRIPTION AND DIMENSIONS: I PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00687(0): On November 14th, 2013, Kathleen Ruvarac, FEMA TAC Bridge Specialist and David Ray, FEMA Hazard Mitigation Specialist and Donald Dunker, Weld County employee, performed a site investigation at this location to document damages. The repair was substantially completed at the time of inspection. Damages to the facility include the following: 1 . Embankment wash out south abutment. 31 FT X 7 FT X 2 FT = 434 CF /27 = 16.07 CY 2 . Ditches filled with sand and gravel. 440 FT 3 . Rip rap wash out at abutments and wingwalls. 96 FT X 3.5 FT X 4 FT = 1 ,344 CF /27 = 49.78 CY 4 . Surface gravel wash out roadway deck (2lN). 27 FT X 33 FT X 0.17 FT = 151 CF /27 = 5.61 CY Site 4 TOTAL: Embankment 16.07 CY, Ditches 440 FT, Riprap 49.78 CY AND Surface gravel 5.61 CY. SCOPE OF WORK: PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00687(0): WORK COMPLETED: la. Embankment wash out south abutment. 16.07 CY X 1.82 = 29.25 TONS X $33.70 = $985.89 CDOT 506-00218 lb. Structure Backfill (Flow-Fill) (Used to stabilize the soil. 40.00 CY X $90.07 = $3,602.80 CDOT 206-00065 https://connectl .dhs.gov/emm ie/,DanaInfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 22 of 33 2. Ditches filled with sand and gravel, 440FT. X $3.40 = $1 ,496.00 FEMA 3070 3. Rip rap, recycled concrete, wash out at abutments and wingwalls. 49.78 CY x1 .82 = 90.60 TONS X $15.00 = $1 ,358.93 (Unit price of $7.50 X 2 = $15.00 to allow for installation cost.) Site 4 WORK COMPLETED TOTAL: $7,443.62 WORK TO BE COMPLETED: 3a. Remove recycled concrete [Item 3 above in Work Completed] that was placed temporarily at the time of the repair immediately after the event. 49.78CY x 1.82 = 90.60 TONS x $7.50/T = $679.50 (Unit price of $7.50/T is the same as the installation cost shown in Item 3) 3b. Install rip rap. 49.78CY x $83.17/CY = $4,140.20 CDOT 506-00218 3c. Install topsoil over rip rap. 96FT x 3.5FT = 336SF x [4712] = 112CF/27 = 4.2CY x $10.11/CY = $42.46 CDOT 207-00205 3d. Install seeding. 336SF/43560 = 0.0077 AC x $545.81/AC = $4.20 CDOT 212-00006 3e. Install soil retention blanket. 336SF/9 = 37.33SY x $2.15/SY = $80.27 CDOT 216-00042 4. Surface gravel wash out roadway deck (2IN). 5.61CY X 1 .82 = 10.21TONS X $33.70/TON = $344.08 [CDOT 304-06000 x 2 as agreed for Weld County projects] Site 4 WORK TO BE COMPLETED TOTAL: $5,290.71 . Direct Administrative Costs: An estimate for this PW is included as follows: 20hrs x $50/hr = $1 ,000. PROJECT NOTES [applicable to all Sites in this PW]: 1. During repair or reconstruction, applicant may incur additional costs related to clearing and grubbing, placement of topsoil, erosion and sedimentation control, dewatering, sanitary facilities mobilization and flagging/traffic control. Such costs are generally addressed in the "in-place" unit costs of repair or reconstruction items, and not specifically addressed in the Scope of Work. However, if a project requires an extraordinary use of any such items, to where a specific reference in the PW should be considered, applicant is advised to contact Colorado Department of Emergency Management requesting a revision to the PWs Scope of Work. 2. Applicant has completed a substantial percentage of the work but will not have cost data available within the fourteen day Pocket Guide rule. Per Field Operations Pocket Guide, Section 7, Cost Estimates, Page 26, "If the applicant has not produced cost data within two weeks of the site inspection, the Project Specialist will prepare the PW on the basis of an estimate for the work accomplished". Applicant and FEMA personnel jointly conducted all inspections and agreed to use CDOT costs for in-place costs to derive estimates on this project worksheet. Applicant understands that all actual support documentation, invoices, FA records, contract and proof of payment will be required for final reconciliation and or closeout process. Attached is the CDOT average in-place cost for materials. 3. The Applicant will notify FEMA and the State of their intent to perform permanent work related to this site before any work commences in the field. Failure to do so may jeopardize the sub-grant for permanent work related to the work in this sub-grant. 4. Pursuant to 44 CFR 13.42, Grantees and Subgrantees are required to retain records, including source documentation. to support expenditures/costs incurred against the grant award, for 3 years from the date of submission to FEMA of the final Financial Status Report. 5. The applicant must obtain all required federal, state, and local permits prior to the commencement of work. 6. The subgrantee is requesting direct administrative costs that are directly chargeable to this specific project. Associated eligible work is related to administration of the PA project only and in accordance with 44 CFR 13.22. These costs are treated consistently and uniformly as direct costs in all federal awards and other subgrantee activities and are not included in any approved indirect costs. 7. Payment for small projects is made at the time of project approval, based on validated documentation included in the PW, including documents, site visit observations and/or photos. At the time that this PW was written, no documentation was available regarding DAC. Since DAC can only be validated through documentation provided by the applicant, no allowance was included. 8. Project was reviewed for 406 Hazard Mitigation and a hazard mitigation proposal is attached to this project worksheet. 9. The applicant is aware that all projects are subject to an insurance review as stated in 44 C.F.R. Sections 206.252 and 206.253. If applicable, an insurance determination will be made either as anticipated proceeds or actual proceeds in accordance with the applicant's insurance policy that may affect the total amount of the project. 10. The applicant is required to adhere to State and Federal Government Procurement rules and regulations and maintain adequate records to support the basis for all purchasing of goods and materials and contracting services for projects approved under the Public Assistance program, as stated in 44 CFR 13.36. The applicant has advised they have followed their normal procurement procedures. 11 . At the applicant's request, WELCO 21 , 22, 26, and 32 have been combined into this PW with Reference No. WELCO21. WELCO 22, 26, and 32 were rewritten for $0. Does the Scope of Work change the pre-disaster conditions at the site? Yes No Special Considerations included? Yes No Hazard Mitigation proposal included? Yes No Is there insurance coverage on this facility? Yes No https://connect I .dhs.gov/emmie/,Danalnfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatch Destination.do?... 5/6/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 23 of 33 PROJECT COST ITEM CODE NARRATIVE QUANTITY/UNIT UNIT PRICE COST *** Version 0 *'`'F Work Completed 1 9999 Site 2 - BR 5-42A over Little 1 /LS $ 16.225.92 $ 16,225.92 Thompson River 2 9999 Site 4 - BR 17-4A over Big Dry 1 /LS Creek $ 7.443.62 $ 7.443.62 Work To Be Completed 3 9999 Site 1 - BR 19-46.5A over Little 1 /LS $ 42. 380.56 $ 42,380.56 Thompson River 4 9999 Site 3 - BR 16.5-1 B over Boulder 1 /LS $ 14.754.49 $ 14,754.49 Creek 5 9999 Site 4 - BR 17-4A over Big Dry 1 /LS $ 5.290.71 $ 5.290.71 Creek Other 6 9901 Direct Administrative Costs 1 /LS $ 1 . 000.00 $ 1 .000.00 (Subgrantee) 7 0909 Hazard Mitigation Proposal 1 /LS $ 14.960.00 $ 14,960.00 TOTAL COST $ 102. 055.30 PREPARED BY KATHLEEN RUVARAC TITLE TAC Bridge Specialist SIGNATURE APPLICANT REP. Roy Rudisill TITLE Director-OEM SIGNATURE WELD (COUNTY) : PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00687 Conditions Information Review Name Condition Type Condition Name Description Monitored Status This review does not address all federal, state and local requirements. Acceptance of federal funding requires recipient Final Review Other (EHP) Standard to comply with all federal. state No Approved Condition #2 and local laws. Failure to obtain all pp 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. Gravel/borrow materials for work to be completed must be obtained National Historic from one of the following pre- Final Review Other (EHP) Preservation Act approved sources: (SHPO No Approved (NHPA) approved source. CO Licensed Pit. commercial source. contractor or county Stockpiles). Applicant is responsible for https://connect l .dhs.gov/emmie/,Dana1nfo=isource.fema .net,SSL+dispatchDestination.do?. . . 5/6/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 24 of 33 Executive Order coordinating with the local Final Review Other (EHP) 11988 - floodplain manager. All required No Approved permits should be maintained as pp Floodplains part of the permanent record. For any "Asbestos Containing Material'', lead-based paint and/or other hazardous materials found during remediation or repair State Hazardous activities, the Applicant must Final Review Other (EHP) Materials and comply with all Federal. State. and No Approved Solid Waste local abatement and disposal pp Laws requirements. Applicants are responsible for ensuring contracted removal of hazardous debris also follows these guidelines. Asphalt must be recycled as a blended base material or State Hazardous appropriately separated and Final Review Other (EHP) Materials and disposed of in an approved No Approved Solid Waste disposal site or landfill in pp Laws accordance with the CDPHE authorized waste management regulations. If ground disturbing activities occur during construction, applicant will monitor ground Final Review Other (EHP) Standard disturbance and if any potential No Approved Condition #3 archeological resources are pp discovered. will immediately cease construction in that area and notify the State and FEMA. POST-CONSTRUCTION : 17. Upon project completion, revegetate all disturbed areas with native shrubs. trees. and grasses. a. Rip compacted access routes prior to replanting with native vegetation. b. Fill and reseed with weed free material and native seed mixtures. c. Consult the Endangered Service before finalizing a seed Final Review Other (EHP) Species Act and plant list. 18. Bury riprap. then No Approved (ESA) plant with native riparian vegetation . 19. Rehabilitate adjacent habitats impacted by floodwaters to restore connectivity and prevent future impacts from erosion or sedimentation. 20. Consider monitoring the revegetated areas for success. The Service can help establish success criteria during the consultation process. 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 https://connect / .dhs.gov/emmie/,Danalnfo=isource. fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination.do?. . . 5/6/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 25 of 33 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 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. Endangered weed-free seeds and plants). b. Final Review Other (EHP) Permanent Impacts: Riparian or Species Act upland habitats will not return as a No Approved (ESA) result of project activities (e.g. . road surface. concrete footings) 10. Track the volumes of any water from onsite sources stored or used for dust abatement, soil compaction. concrete mixing. or other activities. 11 . Locate. store. stage, operate, and refuel equipment outside of riparian or adjacent upland habitats. a. Operate equipment from previously disturbed or modified roadbeds or road shoulders above the riparian habitats. b. Limit the number of entrance and exit points leading into the project area. c. Stockpile topsoil and debris outside the riparian corridor and protect from stream flows or runoff. 12. During the Preble's active season (May 1 through November 1 ). work only during daylight hours to avoid disrupting Preble's nocturnal activities. 13. Promptly remove 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 https://connect 1 .dhs.gov/emm ie/,Dana[nfo=isource. fema.net,SSL+dispatchDesti nation .do`'. .. 5/6/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 26 of 33 entrapment. 15. Use best management practices (BMPs) to limit construction-related disturbance. such as soil compaction. erosion. and sedimentation , and to prevent the spread of invasive weeds: a. Soil compaction: Establish one access route for workers. vehicles. and machinery. preferably along a previously disturbed surface or route. b. Soil compaction: Temporarily line access routes with geotextiles or other materials. especially in wet, unstable soils. c. Weed control: Wash and inspect vehicles and equipment before entering or leaving the project area so that they are free of noxious weed seeds and plant parts. d. Weed control: Use only weed free certified materials. including gravel, sand. top soil. seed , and mulch. 16. Complete construction before beginning restoration or enhancement activities. PRE-CONSTRUCTION DESIGN : 1 . Design the project to avoid and minimize the permanent and temporary impacts to riparian and adjacent upland habitats. a. Before construction . identify and prioritize riparian and adjacent upland habitats within the project area. Design the project so that it avoids these habitats whenever possible. b. Minimize the amount of concrete. riprap. bridge footings. and other "hard." impermeable engineering features within the stream channel and riparian or adjacent upland Endangered habitats. c. Use bioengineering Final Review Other (EHP) Species Act techniques to stabilize stream No Approved (ESA) 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 https://connect I .dhs.gov/emmie/,Danalnfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination .do:'.. . 5/6/2014 p Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 27 of 33 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 24. 2013. to the extent Endangered possible: including a post- Final Review Other (EHP) Species Act construction estimate of the No Approved (ESA) amount of habitat affected by the emergency response. an evaluation of how conservation recommendations were implemented. and the results of implementation in minimizing adverse effects. The applicant is responsible for verifying and compliance with all permit requirements. including permit conditions. pre-construction notification requirements and regional conditions as provided by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The applicant is Clean Water Act responsible for implementing, Final Review Other (EHP) (CWA) monitoring. and maintaining all No Approved Best Management Practices (BMP's) and Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) conditions of applicable Nation Wide Permits (NWP). This is to include any requirements per the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 401 Water Quality Certification for Clean Water Act https://connect l .dhs.gov/emmie/,Danalnfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 28 of 33 permits. State Hazardous Debris must be appropriately Final Review Other (EHP) Materials and separated and disposed of in an No Approved Solid Waste approved disposal site or landfill. Laws If ground disturbing activities occur during construction, applicant will monitor ground EHP Review Other (EHP) Standard disturbance and if any potential No Recommended Condition #3 archeological resources are discovered. will immediately cease construction in that area and notify the State and FEMA. This review does not address all federal, state and local requirements. Acceptance of federal funding requires recipient EHP Review Other (EHP) Standard to comply with all federal, state No Recommended Condition #2 and local laws. Failure to obtain all appropriate federal, state and local environmental permits and clearances may jeopardize federal funding. Any change to the approved Standard scope of work will require re- EHP Review Other (EHP) Condition #1 evaluation for compliance with No Recommended NEPA and other Laws and Executive Orders. Gravel/borrow materials for work to be completed must be obtained National Historic from one of the following pre- EHP Review Other (EHP) Preservation Act approved sources: (SHPO No Recommended (NHPA) approved source. CO Licensed Pit, commercial source. contractor or county Stockpiles) . Applicant is responsible for Executive Order coordinating with the local EHP Review Other (EHP) 11988 - floodplain manager. All required No Recommended Floodplains permits should be maintained as part of the permanent record. For any "Asbestos Containing Material', lead-based paint and/or other hazardous materials found during remediation or repair State Hazardous activities. the Applicant must EHP Review Other (EHP) Materials and comply with all Federal. State. and No Recommended Solid Waste local abatement and disposal Laws requirements. Applicants are responsible for ensuring contracted removal of hazardous debris also follows these guidelines. Asphalt must be recycled as a State Hazardous blended base material or EHP Review Other (EHP) Materials and appropriately separated and No Recommended Solid Waste disposed of in an approved Laws disposal site or landfill in accordance with the CDPHE https://connect I .dhs.gov/emmie/, Danalnfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 29 of 33 authorized waste management regulations. State Hazardous Debris must be appropriately EHP Review Other (EHP) Materials and separated and disposed of in an No Recommended Solid Waste approved disposal site or landfill. Laws POST-CONSTRUCTION: 17. Upon project completion, revegetate all disturbed areas with native shrubs. trees, and grasses. a. Rip compacted access routes prior to replanting with native vegetation. b. Fill and reseed with weed free material and native seed mixtures. c. Consult the Endangered Service before finalizing a seed and EHP Review Other (EHP) Species Act plant list. 18. Bury riprap. then p plant with native riparian No Recommended (ESA) vegetation. 19. Rehabilitate adjacent habitats impacted by floodwaters to restore connectivity and prevent future impacts from erosion or sedimentation. 20. Consider monitoring the revegetated areas for success. The Service can help establish success criteria during the consultation process. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION : 7. Contact the Service immediately by telephone at (303) 236-4773 if a Preble's is found alive. dead. injured. or hibernating within the project area. Please also contact the Service if any other listed species are found within the project area. 8. To the maximum extent practicable. limit disturbing (e.g. , crushing. trampling) or removing (e.g. , cutting, clearing) all vegetation, such as willows, trees, shrubs. and grasses within riparian and adjacent upland habitats. a. Restrict the temporary or permanent removal of vegetation to the footprint of the project area. b. Minimize the use of heavy machinery and use smaller equipment when possible. c. Soil compaction: Temporarily line access routes with geotextiles or other materials. especially in wet. unstable soils to protect roots and the seed bank. 9. Use the attached table to 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 littps://connectl .dlis.gov/emm ie/,Danaln tb=isource.lema.net.SSL+dispatchDestination .do?... 5/6/2014 smomaw Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 30 of 33 rehabilitation (e.g. . access route that is rehabilitated with native. weed-free seeds and plants). b. Permanent Impacts: Riparian or upland habitats will not return as a result of project activities (e.g. . road surface, concrete footings) 10. Track the volumes of any water from onsite sources stored or used for dust abatement. soil compaction , concrete mixing. or other activities. 11 . Locate. store. stage. operate, and refuel equipment outside of riparian or adjacent upland habitats. a. Operate equipment from previously disturbed or modified roadbeds or road shoulders above the riparian habitats. b. Limit the number of entrance and exit points leading into the project area. c. Stockpile topsoil and debris outside the riparian corridor and protect from stream flows or runoff. 12. During the Preble's active season (May 1 through November 1 ). work only during daylight hours to avoid disrupting Preble's nocturnal activities. 13. Endangered Promptly remove waste to EHP Review Other (EHP) Species Act minimize site disturbance and avoid attracting predators. 14. No Recommended (ESA) 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. https://connect I .dhs.gov/emm is . Dana In tu=isource.fema. net.SSL+dispatchDestination .do?... 5/6/2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 31 of 33 PRE-CONSTRUCTION DESIGN: 1 . Design the project to avoid and minimize the permanent and temporary impacts to riparian and adjacent upland habitats. a. Before construction. identify and prioritize riparian and adjacent upland habitats within the project area. Design the project so that it avoids these habitats whenever possible. b. Minimize the amount of concrete. riprap. bridge footings. and other "hard," impermeable engineering features within the stream channel and riparian or adjacent upland habitats. c. Use bioengineering techniques to stabilize stream banks. d. Minimize the number and footprint of access routes. staging areas, and work areas. e. Locate access routes. staging areas. and work areas within previously disturbed or modified non-habitat areas. f. Maintain habitat connectivity under bridges or through culverts by installing ledges or dry culverts adjacent to the culverts with water flow. g. Endangered Avoid fragmenting linear riparian EHP Review Other (EHP) Species Act corridors. 2. Install limits of work No Recommended (ESA) fencing (e.g. . orange barrier netting or silt fencing). signage, or other visible markers to delineate access routes and the project area from habitats. Use this fencing to enforce no-entry zones. 3. Hold a preconstruction briefing for onsite personnel to explain the limits of work and other conservation measures. 4. Follow regional stormwater guidelines and design best management practices (BMPs) to control contamination. erosion. and sedimentation, such as silt fences. silt basins, gravel bags, and other controls needed to stabilize soils in denuded or graded areas, during and after construction. 5. Locate utilities along existing road corridors. and if possible. within the roadway or road shoulder. a. Bury overhead utilities whenever possible. b. Directionally 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. https://connect 1 .dhs.gov/emm ie/, Danalnfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination .do?.. . 5/6/20 14 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 32 of 33 The applicant is responsible for verifying and compliance with all permit requirements. including permit conditions, pre-construction notification requirements and regional conditions as provided by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The applicant is responsible for implementing. EHP Review Other (EHP) Clean Water Act monitoring, and maintaining all (CWA) Best Management Practices No Recommended (BMP's) and Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) conditions of applicable Nation Wide Permits (NWP). This is to include any requirements per the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 401 Water Quality Certification for Clean Water Act permits. The applicant should implement appropriate FWS conservation measures identified in the Emergency Consultation between FEMA and USFWS. dated September 24. 2013, to the extent Endangered possible: including a post- EHP Review Other (EHP) Species Act 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 5 Award SYSTEM 04-15-2014 ACCEPTED Review 05:45 PM GMT Note: Applicant. State and FEMA personnel jointly conducted all inspections and agreed to use CDOT costs for in-place costs to derive estimates on this project worksheet.Attached is the CDOT average in-place cost for materials. Final Reviewer Final PALACIO 04-14-2014 finds eligible the application and approves the funding of this 4 Review JOSE 04: 33 PM GMT 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 04/14/2014 Cat C, 67% complete. Weld County, Weld County. Applicant will make repairs to a county bridge and approaches by removing debris from the site. replacing fill material on roadway shoulder and embankment, replacing roadway asphalt. replacing rip rap on the north and south bridge abutments, replacing guardrail end treatments at the four corners of the bridge, and controlling traffic at the site during construction. Mitigation : Applicant proposes to install turf https://connect I .dhs.gov/emmie/,Danalnfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/20 14 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 33 of 33 reinforcement mat on the roadway shoulders and embankment slopes to reduce erosion at the facility. - cwalz123 - 03/17/2014 14: 33: 09 GMT Project activities have the potential to impact Waters of the United States or wetlands. Project involves dredge. fill, excavation and/or modification. - cwalz123 - 03/17/2014 14:39: 13 GMT Project site work is not in a mapped wetland. - cwalz123 - 03/17/2014 15:23:28 GMT The entire community will benefit from the completion of this project. - cwalz123 - 03/17/2014 15:23:42 GMT Action is addressed under the attached Emergency Consultation between FEMA and USFWS, dated September 24. 2013. The consultation includes conservation measures 3 EHP Review EAKINS 03-17-2014 intended to minimize impacts to the federally listed Preble's WYNN 06: 07 PM GMT Meadow Jumping Mouse, Ute's Lady's Tress and Colorado Butterfly Bush, and Designated Critical Habitat protected under the ESA. - cwalz123 - 03/17/2014 14: 36: 33 GMT Work involves removal, staging, transporting . and/or disposal of debris. (Includes culverts) - cwalz123 - 03/17/2014 14:40:29 GMT Project location is in Zone A. FIRM 0802660750C dated 09/28/1982. Per 44 CFR Part 9. 5 (d) (2). project has been reviewed and Steps 1 . 2, 3. 4. 5. 6 and 8 of 8-Step review completed. See attached. - cwalz123 - 03/17/2014 15: 06:49 GMT The scope of work has been reviewed and meets the criteria of the 2013 signed Programmatic Agreement. Item III : Section A, B , H. P agreed to by FEMA and the SHPO. - cwalz123 - 03/17/2014 14: 35: 59 GMT 2 Mitigation PETITT 03-17-2014 The hazard mitigation proposal is approved. Mark W. Petitt. Review MARK 01 : 17 PM GMT 406 Specialist Applicant's property insurance through the CAPP risk pool 1 Insurance GILLIAM 03-17-2014 affords no coverage for bridges. roadways or embankments. Review ROBERT 01 : 06 PM GMT Insurance proceeds are not anticipated. and there is no insurance purchase requirement. littps://connectl .dhs.gov/emm ie/.Danalnfo=isource.fema.net.SSL+dispatch Destination.do?... 5/6/2014 Hello