HomeMy WebLinkAbout20151510.tiff RESOLUTION
RE: APPROVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION FOR
BRIDGE 19/4B OVER BIG DRY CREEK (FEMA) AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to
Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of
administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, the Board has been presented with a Community Development Block Grant
Application for Bridge 1914B over Big Dry Creek (FEMA) from the County of Weld, State of
Colorado, by and through the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, to the Colorado
Department of Public Safety, Division of Homeland Security Emergency Management,
commencing upon full execution, with further terms and conditions being as stated in said
application, and
WHEREAS, after review, the Board deems it advisable to approve said application, a
copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Weld Co Bridge 1914B over Big Dry Creek (FEMA) from the County of Weld, State of Colorado,
by and through the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, to the Colorado
Department of Public Safety, Division of Homeland Security Emergency Management, be, and
hereby is, approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the Chair be, and hereby is, authorized
to sign said application.
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted
by the following vote on the 27th day of May, A.D., 2015.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
t , ��,/ // WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: �1,gt1! j,d4,0:4k. EXCUSED
Barbara Kirkmeyer, Chair
Weld County Clerk to the Board
F 0 0 c � r1n.�—�
Mike Freeman, Pro-Tem
BY:
D . 4y Clerk to t Boar" -,cTh
• ? • .. �%.ean�P. Conway�,}
;4tAPPROVE4 AS TO FOR (idP•
ulie A. Cozad
County Attorney � � EXCUSED
/g J Steve Moreno
Date of signature: "�
CC,tOEM; Acct (Sig 2015-1510
EM0016
BC0045
Colorado Division of Homeland Security Grant NOI / Application
list Emergency Management CDBG-DR Recover Colorado
Infrastructure Program
THIS SECTION FOR STATE USE()NIX
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
cdos dhsem cdbgt7a,state.co.us
PART A - NOI:
PROJECT OVERVIEW
I. Applicant Legal Name: Weld County, Colorado
2. Applicant
Type: ✓ Local Government Private Non-Profit(Attach copy of 501e3, if applicable)
3. Project Title: County Match FEMA Projects-WELCO33(689)
4. Proposed Project Total Cost: 73,988.94
CDBG-DR-I Request: 9,248.62
5. Certifications:
The undersigned assures fulfillment of all requirements of the CDBG-DR Recover Colorado Infrastructure Program as
contained in the program guidelines and that all information contained herein is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge. The governing body of the applicant has duly authorized the document,commits to the non-Federal and State
share identified in the Budget, and hereby applies for the assistance documented in this application. Also, the applicant
understands that the project may proceed ONLY AFTER a GRANT AGREEEMENT is approved.
Mike Freeman, Pro—Tern Weld County Commissioner (970)356-4000
Ilyed Nano a/Authorized Applicant,term f ale Telephone Number
WAY 272015
Signumre n/;1 utlmrlced Applicant Agent Dole Signed
2015-1510
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page I of 20
C DIBC-DIR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
PART A - NOI: APPLICANT INFORMATION
I. Applicant Legal Name: Weld County, Colorado
2. FIPS Code: 123 DUNS Number: 07575-7955
3. U.S.Congressional District: 4th Congressman Name:
4. State Senatorial District: 1 Senator Name: 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.
Ms. ❑ Mr.❑✓ Mrs.❑First Name: Roy Last Name: Rudisill
Title: Director Organization: Weld County Office of Emergency Manageme
Street Address: 1150 O Street
City: Greeley State: Colorado Zip Code: 80631
Telephone: (y/U)JUS Fax: (y/U)bib-/(y Mobile: (9/D) 381-0 E-mail Address: rrudisillco.weld.co
7. Alternate Point of Contact:
The Alternate Point of Contact is the person that can address questions or concerns in the Primary Point of Contact's
absence.
Ms. ❑ Mr.❑ Mis. First Name: Barb Last Name: Connolly
Title: Controller Organization: Weld County Accounting
Street Address: 1150 O Street
City: Greeley State: Colorado Zip Code: 80631
Telephone: (y/U).S F;x: l /U)J3b-/6 Mobile: E-mail Address: bconnolly(&co.weld.
K. Application Prepared by:
Ms.❑ Mr.n Mrs❑ First Name: Kyle Last Name: Jones
Title: Planner Organization: ARCADIS-US
Street Address:
City: TallahassE State: FL zip code: 32309
Telephone: (i U)t5 E x: Mobile: (22b) 2U2 3 F,-mail Address: kvle.iones(@arcadis-
9. Authorized Applicant Agent:
Ms. ❑ Mr.❑ Mrs.❑First Name: Barbara Last Name: Kirkmeyer
Title: COmmiSSh Organization: Weld County
Street Address: 1150 O Street, P.O. Box 758
City: Greeley State: Colorado Zip Code: 80631
Telephone: (y/ -)' 6 F;x: Mobile: E-mail Address: bkirkmeyer(U7co.welt
The Authorized Applicant Agent MUST be the chief executive officer, mayor, etc. This person must be able to sign
contracts,authorize funding allocations or payments,etc.
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and c-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
I. 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 (copies
provided upon request). 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
nini/n....u....H.... ..dll .di.-..,,.... IAICI r'nQQJsont .....-1 0
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 40.028780 and longitude is -104.886130. The attached spreadsheet shows
the Lat/Long coordinates for all of the Project Worksheets and depicts the damage site
locations as identified in the correlating Project Worksheets.
3. Population Served: Briefly describe the demographics of the population served or protected by this project. Include
the percent of the overall community population benefiting from this project. Explain your response.
An estimated 90% or more of the community benefited from the proactive work by Weld
County and the removal of hazardous debris and the emergency work/repairs made to the
roadways, bridges, equipment and culverts. The population benefiting from this Match
Project will include an LMI level population percentage that will be directly or indirectly
impacted through this project. This NOI and the associated PW impacted the entire County
and demographic area. White: 67.6%, Hispanic: 28.3%, Other: 1.6%, Asian: 1.3%, Black:
0.8%, Native American: 0.4%. Weld County consists of 99,317 households with a median
household income of$56 589 and the majority of Weld County is owner-occupied with O
4. Priority of this Project: If you are submitting more than one CDBG-DR Infrastructure NOI, what is the relative
priority of this project? Please indicate the priority as: Priority#of## Projects Submitted.
Priority 24 of 36 Projects Submitted.
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 3 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
PART A- NOI: CDBG-DR FUNDING QUALIFICATIONS
Community Development Block Grant— Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funding can be approved for a project in which
ALL of the following requirements are met The physical location of the activity must be within a county listed in Table I of
the program Recover Colorado Infrastructure Grant Program Guidelines(Guidelines).
I. Connection to Disaster Reouvery
CDBG's Disaster Recovery funds must be used for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, long-term recovery,
restoration of infrastructure and housing, economic revitalization, and mitigation from future damages.. The activity
must show a direct link to damages received during one or more of the events listed in Table I of the Guidelines. Please
provide a brief explanation of how the proposed acquisition activity: (I) was a result of the disaster event; (2) will
restore infrastructure or revitalize the economy;or will (3)mitigate future damages.
During the incident period of September 11, 2013 to September 30, 2013, Weld County,
Colorado received heavy rainfall and debris in the creeks, streams and rivers which caused
surface gravel removal and scour damage to numerous roads and bridges in Weld County.
This NOI Application request addresses emergency work and the damages that were a
4:.-..... ........la ..F 41... .......��.. i1.....J:..... Tr... ....��..L.Q..... rNAI IL...4 :.. : ,4,.,J ..d,ti LL.:.. �..... ....i
2. Compliance with National Objectives
State recipients receiving allocations under the CDBG-DR program must certify that their projected use of funds
will ensure, and maintain evidence, that each of its activities assisted with CDBG-DR funds meets at least one of
the three National Objectives.
a) Which of the National Objectives are met by proposed project?
tf Will benefit low and moderate income(LMI)persons; or
7 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.
h) Flow will the proposed project meet the above checked National Objective(s).
See attached LMI data for the Project.
In addition to the LMI data attached, the State of Colorado (according to ACS
2008-2012 5Y) lists Weld County at a 41.0% LMI. In reviewing the LMI data for this
Project NOI, the PW associated LMI % was 25.47%. However, this percentage does not
accurately capture the total number of service areas that are either directly or indirectly
impacted by the FEMA Match Projects. The entire community benefited from the
proactive emergency work by Weld County and the removal of hazardous debris and
the work/repairs made to the roadways, bridges, equipment and culverts thus the
County believes that a higher LMI % should be given for this FEMA match Projects.
The general vicinity of FEMA Match Projects encompasses the entire County and
greatly benefits the entire LMI population for this project, which is why the County
believes that this project not only meets, but exceeds the 50% requirement for meeting
the National Objective. The emergency work/repairs that were made under the WELCO
PW's for the Local FEMA Match drastically reduced hazardous conditions for the
general public and enabled Weld County to focus on resiliency efforts post storm. It is
believed that the service area for Project Site Locations benefited multiple LMI tract
sections and thus a higher weighted percentage of over 50% should be noted for this a
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 4 of 20
CDBC-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 he completed if the project does not meet this National Objective.
The primary objective for using CDB(3 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: j j I jurisdiction wide f1 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 CDB(3-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 o
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)
piAs determined by the American Community Survey(Public Facilities projects)
riAnnual income as defined for Public Housing and Section 8
Annual income as reported under the Census long form
Adjusted gross income as defined for reporting under IRS
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 5 of 20
CDBC-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
PART A - NOI: COMPREHENSIVE RISK ANALYSIS INFORMATION
1. Community Hazards Review: Please list and briefly describe in rank order of importance the natural or man-made
hazards in your(the Applicant's) service area.
The hazards identified within this Project for the FEMA County Match for WELCO33 (689)
would be ranked in the following manner: Flood, Erosion and Subsidence.
The hazards caused significant damage and posed a severe risk to the community for the
designated incident period.
2. High Risk Hazards Addressed by the Project:
Describe how,and the degree to which,the proposed project mitigates high risk hazards. Include damage history,source
and type of problem, frequency of event(s),and severity of damage information, if available.
Hazard 1
Flooding caused the most severe damage to Weld County during the designated incident
period and this Project addressed and mitigated against severe flood damage to local
roadways, bridges, culverts, removed hazardous debris along roadways. In addition,
County Officials ensured repairs were made to paved and gravel roadways for the safety of
the community and addressed river embankments/dangerous conditions to the public and
made repairs to emergency response vehicles that were damaged during the Incident
Period. The repairs made brought the damaged infrastructure back to its pre-disaster
condition in accordance with regulations.
Hazard 2
Erosion also caused a severe issue for the County. This Project addressed and mitigated
against severe erosion damage to local roadways, shoulders, and embankments. The work
that was conducted by the County mitigated against any immediate threat/hazard to the
damaged infrastructure and restored the infrastructure back to its pre-disaster condition in
accordance with regulations.
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and c-mail submittal. rage 6 of 211
CDRC-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 WELCO33 (689) 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
...nr.-nnnr1 if khn re, h....l nnk knLnn the, nrewthen r..nno, khn.. rlfrl O
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
CDBC-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 WELCO33 (689) from CDBG-DR
in regards to expenses from CAT C Damage Categories for the designated incident period
for FEMA-DR 4145.
9. Mitigation Planning:
Does your community have a current FEMA approved multi-hazard mitigation plan? [1 Yes No
Location of proposed project in mitigation plan strategies: Page 139 Section/Part Mitigation Stra
Is the community a member of good standing with the National Flood Insurance Program? 1 Yes No
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 8 of 20
CDISC-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 arc not limited to: a Comprehensive Master Plan, a Stormwater Management Plan,
a Hazard Mitigation Plans, or key community codes. Ifso, please describe how the project integrates into the plan(s).
Yes; the Proposed Project complies with all local community plans and this Project
integrates into the Plans because the County addressed the damages to local roadways
and infrastructure and mitigated damages that posed a serious risk/hazard to the
community during the incident period. This FEMA PW was initiated by Weld County and via
this Proposed Project, the County requests that CDBG funds be applied towards the local
FEMA Match for this Project.
11. Environmental/Historic Preservation Issues: Please describe any significant environmental,historic,or cultural features
that may be affected by the project. Please also describe any features that may be improved by the project.
All environmental issues are addressed on the attached Project Worksheet as supporting
documentation. The significant EHP issues were in regards to the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) and EHP Standard Conditions. All items were addressed and any additional
supporting backup documentation can be provided upon request.
12. Permitting: Please list the local, state,and federal permits that will be required to complete this project.
All permitting was addressed on the attached Project Worksheet as supporting
documentation. The significant permitting issues were in regards to the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) and EHP Standard Conditions. All items were addressed and any
additional supporting backup documentation can be provided upon request. Please see
below for environmental permits that were obtained.
Floodplain Permit
non
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 9 of 20
CDRC-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
13. Community Resilience: Please describe how this project will increase the resilience ofyour 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 124,000 topo map
Parcel Map(Tax Map,Property Identification Map,etc.)
Overview photographs. The photographs should be representative of the project area,including any relevant
streams,creeks, rivers,etc.,and drainage areas which affect the project site of will be affected by the project.
15. Additional Comments(Optional): Enter any additional comments related to the proposed project's ability to reduce
hazard risk and increase community resiliency.
This proposed project reduced the hazard risk to the community and increased resiliency by
the work conducted through the PW in correlation with FEMA-DR 4145. CDBG funds are
being requested to be applied to the local FEMA Match (12.5%) for the PW.
All maps are located in project files that were previously submitted and will be provided
upon request.
The entire community henefited from the nrnactive work by Weld County and the removal re
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 10 of 20
CDRC-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
PART A - NOI: DECISION MAKING PROCESS
I. 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 I I of 20
CDRG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
PART A - NOI: SCOPE OF WORK / BUDGET OVERVIEW / FINANICAL FACTORS
1. Project Scope: Please provide a comprehensive and detailed description of the scope of the proposed project.
Describe each of the project components and the steps necessary to complete that work. If the proposed project is a
funding match for another disaster recovery or infrastructure development program, please identify the
agency, program funds, and project reference number that CDBG-DR funding is intended to support. Also
describe any critical deadlines that must be met to accomplish this work.
This Proposed Project is for the Local FEMA Match for costs for WELCO33 (689). 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
I Construction Costs $
g. Project Delivery Costs $
h. Other(specify below) $ 73,988.94
See Project Worksheet Cost (attached) L Total of a-h $ 73,988.94
j. Duplication of Benefits(if unknown at time of application enter zero). $ 0.00
k. Subtract j. from i- to determine Total Project Cost $ 73,988.94
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: $ 73,988.94
Federal Cost Share: $ 55,491.70
State Cost Share: $9,248.62
$9.248.62
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 3l sst. Reports are due to the State within 15 days after the end of
each quarter.)
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 13 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
7. Project Maintenance Requirements: The following questions are to give assurance on the project's maintenance over
its useful life. Please answer each question and give a brief explanation.
a. 1 f the project involves the acquisition of real property,what is the proposed land use after acquisition?(i.e.,Agriculture,
Recreation, Vacant Land,Park, Wetlands,etc.)
N/A
b. Will the project require periodic maintenance?
No
c. If yes,who will provide the maintenance?
N/A
d. What is the estimated cost of maintenance on an annual basis?
0
Note: Cost of maintenance is considered an application prioritization weighting factor. Projects with high maintenance
costs have a greater risk of future failure due to deferred maintenance. Therefore,the responses provided above should be
as complete and verifiable as possible in order to minimize the likelihood of ranking point reductions due to maintenance
concerns.
8. Additional Comments: Enter any additional comments related to the proposed project's funding, if desired.
CDBG funds are needed for the 12.5% Local FEMA Match and the associated PW that is
included in the NOI-Application.
9. Financial / Fiscal Health Factors: Please indicate the total budget (all funds) of your organization. Please describe the
impact of disaster recovery efforts to date on this budget. In addition, if this objective is selected based on the local
governments inability to finance the activity,the municipality must also include in the application package a resolution stating
this fact and supporting documentation such as budgetary information, a description of TABOR restrictions, and the most
recent audit report or approved exemption from audit.
Weld County's total 2015 budget is $307,031,089.00. The impact of the September, 2013
flooding has primary been on the damage to the county's road and bridge system. The
damage has resulted in Weld County having to transfer $5 million from the Contingency
Fund to the Public Works Fund in 2013 and in 2014 for a total of $10 million dollars. Without
assistance from FEMA, FWHA, and CDBG the amount would have several million more.
The impact has also forced the county to shift local resources from projects unrelated to
flooding to deal with the emergency situations created by the flood in both the 2013 and
2014 fiscal years. Even in 2015 the county is still using local resources to recover from the
flooding. Fortunately, Weld County has always been fiscally conservative and budgeted
responsibly. Had the county not taken the responsible approach to its finances county
service would have had to have been cut to cope with the flood recovery.
1Alalrl Cn..nhi nnnrninc !inrlar the mnni rn.-irintivo nrnnnriv Inv limit-Minn in ihn r•tnin Rnnirl n,fl
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 14 of 20
CDBC-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
PART B -APPLICATION: PROJECT MILESTONES / TIMELINES / TASKS
1. 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 I:
Grant Process and Environmental Review Timeframe: 3 Months
Task 2: Emergency Repairs-The initial emergency repairs were made directly ICompleted
9 Y P 9 Y PTimeframe:
Task 3: Permanent Repairs- Becuase the emergency repairs werequick re ail Completed
p 9 y p repaii p
Task 4:
Timeframe:
Task :
Timeframe:
Task 6:
Timeframe:
Task 7:
Timeframe:
Task 8:
Timeframe:
Task 9:
Timeframe:
Final Inspection Report and Project Closeout
Task 10:
The Final Inspection Report is a review of the activity's paper documentation,
showing the project was implemented as required. Once the review is completed, the 3 Months
report and findings will be provided to the grantee for review and concurrence. The Time Rome:
State submits the concurrence to FEMA as part of a closeout package to formally
Total Project Timeframe: 6 Months
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page IS of 20
CDBC-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
2. Start Date& Pre-Award Costs: The start date for any project begins upon GRANT AGREEMENT approval by the
State Controller. I fa different start date or timeframe is needed,provide an explanation below.Also indicate if any pre-
award activities or costs have been incurred or authorized.
The proposed project is for local FEMA match dollars and the work has already been
completed. The repairs for this site began as soon as the flood waters receded and the
county crews were able to access the site. The initial phase of repairs were emergency in
nature and began in September of 2013 and concluded during November of that same year.
Permanent repairs for this site commenced the following year at the beginning of
construction season and concluded in October of 2014. Additionally, cost have been
incurred through the preparation of this NOI Application.
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. rage 16 of 20
CDBC-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:
I. To ensure federal funds are used to place people of tow 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(6) on an activity or
project until HUD or the state has approved the recipient's RROF and the related certification from the responsible
entity. In addition, until the RROF and the related certification have been approved, neither a recipient nor any
participant in the development process may commit non-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 I lomeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP). In accordance with section I I(d)(2)(A) of the Housing
Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 12805 note), an organization, consortium, or affiliate receiving
assistance under the SHOP program may advance non-grant funds to acquire land prior to completion of an
environmental review and approval of a Request for Release of Funds (RROF) and certification, notwithstanding
paragraph (a) of this section. Any advances to acquire land prior to approval of the RROF and certification 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.
(I) Relocation. Funds may be committed for relocation assistance before the approval of the RROF and related
certification for the project provided that the relocation assistance is required by 24 CFR part 42.
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 17 of 20
CDRC-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
Environmental Review Worksheet
Check ALL of the activities listed below that will be included as part of the project,
REGARDLESS OF THE FUNDING SOURCE:
U Information and financial services
D Administrative and management activities
• Environmental and other studies, resource identification,and the development of plans and strategies
SI Most engineering and design costs associated with eligible projects
• Inspections and testing of properties for hazards or defects
• Project planning
Q .`a ❑ Purchase of insurance
≥ ❑ Purchase of tools
❑ Technical assistance and training
>e'• E .6 ❑ Interim assistance to arrest the effects of an imminent threat or physical deterioration in which the assistance
W
m o does not alter environmental conditions.
✓❑ Public services that will not have a physical impact or result in any physical changes(e.g.,employment,child
care,health,education, counseling, welfare)
�- ❑� Assistance for temporary or permanent improvements that do not alter environmental conditions and are limited
to protection, repair,or restoration activities necessary only to control or arrest the effects from disasters or
imminent threats to public safety including those resulting from physical deterioration
(Must also complete the Regulatory Checklist at the end of Exhibit[V-A)
t ? Q Operating costs(e.g., maintenance, security, operation, utilities. furnishings,equipment,supplies, staff training
Z = and recruitment, other incidental costs)
Us ❑ Relocation costs
❑� Acquisition, repair, improvement,reconstruction,or rehabilitation when the facilities and improvements are in
U place and will be retained in the same use without change in size or capacity of more than 20 percent
❑ Special projects directed to the removal of material and architectural barriers that restrict the mobility of and
Gy accessibility to elderly and handicapped persons
U ❑ 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
U 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
C
W place,but will involve a change in land use, such as from non-residential to residential,commercial to
n
industrial, or from one industrial use to another
m ❑ Demolition
❑ New construction
This checklist must be included with the CDBG application.
Please direct questions to the appropriate contact person below:
DOLA/DLC DHSEM
Steven 13oand,State Disaster Recovery Manager
-fans Norton,Itnvironmental Compliance Officer Department of Public Safety
Department of Local Affairs _
I}11 Sherman Street.Room 521, Divtswn of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
Denver,CO 80207 9195 P.Mineral Ave,Suite 200
103-866-639H Centennial,CO 8111 12
720.852.6713
tamra.nortonLstate.co.us steven.boand(astate.co.us
UPS/DOLA USE ONLY:
Required level of environmental review: O Exempt O CENST O CESTO EA
Reviewed by:
Date of Review:
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page IS of 211
CDBC-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
0
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 19 of 20
CDBC-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
PART B - APPLICATION: DETAILED PROJECT BUDGET
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 WELCO33 (689). These
costs were incurred as a result of FEMA-DR 4145. During the incident period of September
11, 2013 to September 30, 2013, Weld County, Colorado received heavy rainfall and debris in
the creeks, streams and rivers which caused severe flooding to and along roadways and
surface streets, and also severely damaged local infrastructure. This Application request
addresses the emergency work / damages that were a direct result of the severe flooding.
A Scope of Work and detailed project budget is included within the PW and addresses the
work that was completed.
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 20 of 20
E
_ N E
0 3
° E
E F o
o E v a O 3
E z -_
3 3 3
E
Lgjig Hi;T. 0 00
0 0 > 0 0
Mggegg , , egmM g5 e °m °-, ° oMg1a o mfl
ow ^ m m m m i m m w m m m m m a ^ m m m N 4 N N ,. N N a w �., . E4
F
3
0
0
0
f
0
o N NN NN F1A P .. N N N ... N UT '° -
3 0 ^ 3 o 0 3 ^ o 3 3 8 o o ^ o o 0 o N 3 o 3 o o e o ^ ^ a
3
0
o r m ^ ^ 3 3 3 3 2 ^ �. ^ a ^ m e ^ m N ^ N N N N
�, �, m � � r r r r �, � �, m m m ..
laRMEMPARIMECOMARWARRiiQAMUIR
a a a a a a ¢ a a a a a a a a a a a a a
a
w w 2 w w f F F f w > w w w w w w F f 4 f f 2 F F F F 2 w w w f F F w > w w w w
• �'
. er• 1 • 1 _ elit
0 70
',' i ._ y • . �. w w w�� I" r n`�•111! LL LL LL � e k!rielliiltit ii :41
99Frrt—t- - :41 '' .. .
a it c • 'pi ellirehi•
i .. . . os,it. 1, .0i,
2.
NIA
.\ r . . t.1 .lAra r
4 r.4.• : - • - •
. , < fp tawk
�N' v��.k
Y TA ' �T
• *Si :N2
^ • 1 - ' fly � .t •
• a �� •—i NI rl M' pl
„i
m — • Cl.
77: •
_ a a a < a s
a ` •J - - LL LL LL LL LL LL
u.
w
= fit • •iu a #^ w w / / ,_ /
_ 1• �l
t
�
•
i
C N y _•
3 traIii I —
•
j `/ VO b• fit~ _. i 1 j _ ...
LL
U U
N N
Q r.
C = c
0 - to
co
a) 1O 9 C
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page I of 22
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00689(2) F'
Applicant Name: Application Title:
WELD(COUNTY) WELCO33-BR 19-46 over Big Dry Creek
Period of Performance Start: Period of Performance End:
09-14-2013
Subgrant Application - Entire Application
Application Title: WELCO33-BR 19-4B over Big Dry Creek
Application Number: PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00699(2)
Application Type: Subgrant Application(PW)
Preparer Information
Prefix
First Name Ken
Middle Initial
Last Name Beebe
Title
Agency/Organization Name FEMA
Address 1 9200 EAST MINERAL AVE.
Address 2
City CENTENNIAL
State CO
Zip 80112
Email Deanna.Butterbaugh@state.co.us
Is the application preparer the Point of Contact? No
Point of Contact Information
Prefix
First Name Roy
Middle Initial
Last Name Rudisill
Title Director-OEM
Agency/Organization Weld County
Address 1 PO BOX 758
Address 2
City Greeley
State CO
ZIP 80632
https://isource.fema.net/emmic/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 2 of 22
Phone 970-304-6540
Fax
Email rrudisill@weldgov.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: WELCO33
Standard Project Number/Title: 399- Road System Damage
Please Indicate the Project Type: Neither Alternate nor Improved
Application Title: WELCO33-BR 19-4B over Big Dry Creek
Category: C.ROADS & BRIDGES
Percentage Work Completed? 50.0 %
As of Date: 11-14-2013
Comments
Attachments
User Date Document Description Hard Copy File File Name Action
Type Reference
KATHLEEN 02-27- Map Location WELCO33_Location Map.pdf View
RUVARAC 2014 (104.64 kb)
Damage Facilities (Part 1 of 2)
Site
https:iiisource.fema.netiemmie'dispatchDestination.do:'menuTi le=&topTile=dsHeader&h... 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 3 of 22
Facility Facility Name Address County City State ZIP Previously Action
Number Damaged?
1 BR 19-4B over Big Dry Creek Weld CO No
Comments
Attachments
User Date Document Type Description Hard Copy File File Name Action
Reference
KATHLEEN 02-27- Photos WELCO33_Photo Sheet View
RUVARAC 2014 01.pdf(181.44 kb)
KATHLEEN 02-27- Photos Applicant's Photos.pdf View
RUVARAC 2014 (1.21 Mb)
KATHLEEN 02-27- Bridge BR-19-4B Rep View—Bridge
RUVARAC 2014 Survey/Document Inspection
Mb)
Facility Name: BR 19-4B over Big Dry Creek
Address 1:
Address 2:
County: Weld
City:
State: CO
ZIP:
Was this site previously damaged? No
Percentage Work Completed? 95.00 %
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00689(0):
This project worksheet addresses damages to Bridge WEL019.0-004-B
over Big Dry Creek, in Section 28,T1 N, R67W.
Lat: N40.02878
Long: -W104.88613
Location: PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00689(1):
*'***Version 1
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00689(2):
Version 2*****
PA-08-C O-4145-PW-00689(0):
During the incident period of September 11, 2013 to September 30, 2013,
Weld County, Colorado received heavy rainfall and debris in the creeks,
streams and rivers which caused damage to numerous roads and bridges
in Weld County. This project worksheet addresses damages to Bridge
WEL019.0-004-B over Big Dry Creek, in Section 28, T1 N, R67W.
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
https: iisource.fema.netiemmicidispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... I O/28i2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 4 of 22
location to document damages. The bridge was open and repairs
completed at the time of inspection.
Lat: N40.02878
Long: -W104.88613
Flooding of the Big Dry Creek resulted in damages on CR 19.0 include
washout of asphalt, roadway base and embankment material within the
deck area and in front of the backwall in the northbound lane of Bridge
W EL019.0-004.08.
The 29.8 ft long x 32 ft wide steel structure traverses the Big Dry Creek in
Weld County, CO. The bridge is a single (1) span bridge consisting of a 7
inch asphalt overlay on corrugated steel deck, seven (7)—W24x68 steel
girders, sheet pile backwall supported by eight (8)with 10 inch x 10 inch
steel H piles abutments and wing walls. The deck is flanked on both sides
with a galvanized W rail beam on 5.25 inch x 8 inch steel posts.
Asphalt Patch on the northbound and southbound travel lanes measured
31 ft Lx 14.5 ft W=449.5 SF x 0.6 ft D = 269.7 CF x 146 LB/CF x1
ton/2000 LB = 19.7 tons asphalt
Embankment Material lost within the deck area and in front of the backwall
in the northbound lane is estimated 15 ft L x 14.5 ft W x 8.1 ft D = 65.3
CY.
Rip Rap was washed away at the north and south abutments estimated to
Damage Description and Dimensions. be 40 ft L x 10 ft W towards the channel x 3 ft D x2 abutments = 88.9 CY
Recent bridge inspection report was provided by the applicant dated May
21, 2012. The bridge was built in 1984 and had a sufficiency rating of 62.4,
Structurally Deficient in 2012.
2012 inspection notes of elements include: bridge deck and approach
railing inadequate, pavement on deck is cracking, potholes on deck,
beams, sheet pile light rusting. R3-R4 rust on south backwall (A1),
Backwall at north abutment (A2) is bulging with rust from mudline up 3
feet. Rust showing on piles at and below water line. Southwest wingwall is
encased in asphalt, northwest wingwall is bulging at the top approx. 1 ft.
The deck condition is noted as satisfactory(6)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 sealing of crack in deck overlay at ends
of deck, railing replacement, encasing piles and abutment backwalls in
concrete.
The Applicant has provided pictures of the facilities documenting
damages. These photos are attached to this project worksheet.
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00689(1):
***** Version 1 *****
PA-08-CO-4145-P W-00689(2):
*****Version 2 * ***
PA-08-CO-4145-P W-00689(0):
WORK TO BE COMPLETED:
1 —Fill embankment material lost in roadway travel lanes, embankment
and shoulders—65.3 CY x 1.82 (Conversion Factor CY ABC Class 6
Material to Tons = 118.8 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) = $4,003.56
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b_. I O/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 5 of 22
2—Replace asphalt on travel lanes = 19.7 tons x $81.70/ton (CDOT Item
Number 403-33741 Hot Bituminous Pavement (Grading S)(75) (PG 64-
22) = $1,609.49. 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
Total = $13,006.86 cost estimate prepared by project specialist using 2013
CDOT Average Unit Prices
Project Notes
1. During repair or reconstruction, applicant may incur increased costs
related to clearing and grubbing, placement of topsoil, erosion and
sedimentation control, sanitary facilities, dewatering mobilization and
flagging/traffic control. Such costs are generally addressed in the "in-place"
unit costs of repair or reconstruction items, and not specifically addressed
in the Scope of Work. However, if a project requires an extraordinary use
of any such items, to where a specific reference in the PW should be
considered, applicant is advised to contract Colorado Department of
Emergency Management requesting a revision to the PW's Scope of
Work.
2. Applicant has completed a substantial percentage of the work but will
not have cost data available within the fourteen day Pocket Guide rule. Per
Field Operations Pocket Guide, Section 7, Cost Estimates, Page 26, "If the
applicant has not produced cost data within two weeks of the site
inspection, the Project Specialist will prepare the PW on the basis of an
Scope of Work: 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
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 6 of 22
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
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00689(1):
*****Version 1 *****
This version is written to capture additional costs that were not identified in
the original project or sub-grant application.
This version is written to also capture a hazard mitigation proposal for
project 00689.
Work to be Completed:
The original scope of work did not include any excavation for the
placement of rip-rap, cost for muck excavation identified in CDOT costs
(203-00100)at$13.77 per cubic yard. Approximate dimensions for
excavation for placement of rip-rap at the west side of the bridge on the
north end is 20ft long x 5ft wide x 1 ft deep (20 x 5 x 1 = 100 divided by 27
= 3.7cy or rounding up 4cy)dimensions for excavation for placement of rip-
rap at the west side of the bridge on the south ends are approximately 30ft
long x 15ft wide x 15ft deep (30 x 15 x 15 = 6,750 divided by 27 = 250cy)
for a total of 254cy of excavation to place rip-rap.
CDOT costs (203-00100)muck excavation @$13.77 per cubic yard x
254cy= $3,497.58
The original scope of work did not include fill dirt(or top soil)to cover the
rip-rap after placement. Approximate dimensions for placement of fill dirt
at the west side of the bridge on the north end is 20ft long x 30ft wide x 2ft
deep (20 x 30 x 2 = 1,200 divided by 27 = 44cy) dimensions for excavation
for placement of fill dirt at the west side of the bridge on the south ends are
approximately 20ft long x 30ft wide x 2ft deep (20 x 30 x 2 = 1,200 divided
by 27 =44cy)for a total of 88cy.
CDOT costs (207-00205)topsoil @ $10.69 per cubic yard x 88cy =
$940.72. The proposed erosion control mitigation measure for the
referenced site will be accomplished by installing filter fabric underneath
the rip-rap, top-soil to cover the voids and vegetated-mat over the rip-rap
to reduce rip-rap displacement and future erosion in similar events. Using
this erosion control mitigation technique will also reduce the impact on the
Preble's Mouse habitat or range as required by the Endangered Species
Act(ESA)& regulations in the state of Colorado.
Cost for engineering is being added in this Version utilizing figure 4 in the
322 on page 60 which states (curve B, compensation for basic services
expressed as a percentage of construction cost for projects of average
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 7 of 22
complexity)which states over$10,000.00 but under$50,000.00 adds a
15% cost on the final project dollar.
15% x$18,868.16 (the final dollar for this project with Version costs added
in total) = $2,830.22
The original scope of work did not take into consideration the need for
traffic control during the repair process. Project specialist estimates 2
days at 10 hours per day to be potentially sufficient to complete the
repairs.
CDOT costs(630-00003)uniformed traffic control @ $71.15 per hour, 2
days x 10 hours = 20 hours x$71.15 = $1,423.00
Total cost for this Version: $8,691.52
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00689(2):
***** Version 2 ' ***
This version of the PW is being written in regard to the applicant's request
to update the cost of Construction and Engineering based on actual costs.
See version 1 for original request. It should be noted that the bid estimate
included a bid item "Concrete Facing" and was bid at$66,234.00 which the
applicant is not claiming. The low bid cost for construction is $93,542.00
minus $66,234.00 (concrete facing) equal $27,308.00 and awarded to
AISA Civil. After several discussions with the applicant and understanding
why they are requesting $27,308.00 for construction and $18,150.94 for
engineering, FEMA has determined that their total request is fair and
reasonable and is eligible for FEMA funding.
The total eligible cost for Construction is$27,308.00.
The total eligible cost for engineering is $18,150.94.
NOTE: The applicant has submitted a bid sheet document with all bids
and a detailed document showing a breakdown of hours and costs for
engineering. The applicant has stated in an e-mail that there are no costs
submitted for engineering in regard to the concrete facing on the abutment.
Version 1 costs for Material and Contract ($940.72 + 7,750.80 =
$8,691.52)will be de-obligated because all costs for this request are
captured in version 2.
Comments and Attachments
689 version 2 -Bid Summary
689 version 2—Bohannan Huston Hourly Breakdown and Cost Estimate
(Exhibit B)
689 version 2— Bid Tab for Bridge 19/46
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 Project was reviewed for 406 Hazard Mitigation and cost for
https://isource.fema.net'emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 8 of 22
estimate: the replacement of rip rap is included in the permanent repair
(maximum 4000 characters) cost estimate.
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 19-4B over Big Dry Creek 40.02878 -104.88613
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 between limits of the 100 year flood; base flood elevations and flood hazard factors not
determined. Flood Map Panel 0802660980C dated September 28, 1982
3. Is the damaged facility or item of work located within or adjacent to a Coastal Barrier No
Resource System Unit or an Otherwise Protected Area?
4. Will the proposed facility repairs/reconstruction change the pre-disaster conditions (e.g., No
footprint, material, location, capacity, use of function)?
5. Does the applicant have a hazard mitigation proposal or would the applicant like technical No
assistance for a hazard mitigation proposal?
6. Is the damaged facility on the National Register of Historic Places or the state historic listing? No
Is it older than 50 years?Are there more, similar buildings near the site?
7. Are there any pristine or undisturbed areas on, or near, the project site?Are there large 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
User Date Document Description Hard Copy File File Name Action
Type Reference
KATHLEEN 02-27- Floodplain Firmette.pdf(181.17 View
RUVARAC 2014 kb)
For Category C, D, E, F, and G Projects only
Is effective mitigation feasible on this project? Yes
If you answered Yes to the above question, the next question is required
Will mitigation be performed on any sites in this Yes
project?
If you answered Yes to the above question, the next question is required
Do you wish to attach a Hazard Mitigation Yes
Proposal?
https://i source.fema.net/emm i e/di spatch Destination.do?menuT i le=&topTi le=ds H eader&b... 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency F-Grants Page 9 of 22
If you answered Yes to the above question, the next two questions are required
7/2/14 - Mark W. Petitt, 406 Specialist Revised HMP (see
Attachments)Site#1: Severe flooding in Weld County during
the incident period of SEPTEMBER 11th, 2013 TO
SEPTEMBER 30th, 2013 resulted in flooding of the Big Dry
Creek which resulted in damages to CR 19.0 include washout
of asphalt, roadway base and embankment material within the
deck area and in front of the backwall in the northbound lane
of Bridge WEL019.0-004.08. Asphalt Patch on the
northbound and southbound travel lanes measured 31 ft L x
14.5 ft W=449.5 SF x 0.6 ft D = 269.7 CF x 146 LB/CF x1
ton/2000 LB = 19.7 tons asphalt Embankment Material lost
within the deck area and in front of the backwall in the
northbound lane is estimated 15 ft L x 14.5 ft W x 8.1 ft D =
65.3 CY. Rip Rap was washed away at the north and south
abutments on the west side, estimated to be 40 ft L x 10 ft W
towards the channel x 3 ft D x 2 abutments= 88.9 CY. This
mitigation proposal includes placing approximately 210
square yards (21 x 30 = 630 divided by 9 =70sy x 3 = 210sy)
of GEOTEXTILE FABRIC at three corners of the bridge (on
the west side of the bridge both north and south ends and on
the east side of the bridge on the north end) along with
additional rip-rap at the same locations measuring
approximately 30ft long x 20ft wide x 3ft deep (30 x 20 x 3 =
1,800cf/27 = 67cy x 3= 201 cy total). THIS MITIGATION
WILL ELIMINATE OR GREATLY REDUCE THE CHANCES
THAT THIS TYPE OF DAMAGE WILL OCCUR AT THIS
LOCATION DURING A FUTURE, SIMILAR EVENT. The cost
Please provide the Scope of Work of these mitigation measures is: $15,523.14 The cost of
for the estimate: returning the site to pre-disaster condition is: $18,200.80 Cost
Effectiveness Ratio: 85.29% This Hazard Mitigation Proposal
(HMP) is 85.29% of the repair and restoration costs. In
accordance with FEMA Recovery Policy 9526.1, VII. B.2.
"certain mitigation measures (are) determined to be cost
effective, as long as the mitigation measure does not exceed
100% of the eligible cost of the eligible repair work on the
project."The proposed mitigation measures at this site
includes Appendix A paragraph#A.5. This HMP is cost
effective and technically feasible. The proposed erosion
control mitigation measure for the referenced site will be
accomplished by installing filter fabric underneath the rip-rap,
top-soil to cover the voids and vegetated-mat over the rip-rap
to reduce rip-rap displacement and future erosion in similar
events. Using this erosion control mitigation technique will
also reduce the impact on the Preble's Mouse habitat or
range as required by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) &
regulations in the state of Colorado. If this HMP is approved,
and the mitigation is not performed, the Applicant must apply
for a change in the Scope or Work and de‐obligation
of the HMP funding (RE: 9526.1.VII.C.). Failure to complete
the work of the HMP may limit future FEMA funding of repairs
at the site, in the event that a similar disaster event results in
similar damage at the site (PA Guide A‐43). This HMP
is for estimating purposes only. If the site's final placement
and configuration are different than the preliminary estimate,
the applicant should submit a change in scope request. This
HMP is subject to further review prior to award.
Would you like to add the Hazard Mitigation No
Proposal as a cost line item to the project cost?
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 10 of 22
Comments
5/28/14 The applicant has accomplished mitigation through good construction practices at no additional cost to
FEMA.Therefore, the placeholder status has been removed. J.Malone/406
Attachments
User Date Document Description Hard Copy File File Name Action
Type Reference
STEFANIE 07-02- Version 1 Version 1 Copy of HMP
SCHNEIDER 2014 HMP Weld County.xlsx(51.40 kb) View
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 To Be Completed
Aggregate Work To
1 9999 Base Course 118.8 TON $ 33.70 CONSTRUCTION Be $4,003.56
Completed
Work To
2 9999 Asphalt 19.7 TON $81.70 CONSTRUCTION Be $ 1,609.49
Completed
Work To
3 9999 Rip Rap 88.9 CY $ 83.17 CONSTRUCTION Be $ 7,393.81
Completed
***Version 1 ***
Other
4 9009 Material 1 LS $940.72 SUPPLIES Other $940.72
5 9001 Contract 1 LS 7,750.80 CONTRACTUAL Other $ 7,750.80
6 0909 Mitigation 1 LS 15,523.14 OTHER Other $ 15,523.14
***Version 2 ***
Other
7 9999 De obligate 1 LS $ Other $-8,691.52
Version 1 8,691.52
8 9999 Construction 1 LS 27,308.00 Other $27,308.00
9 9999 Engineering 1 LS 18,150.94 Other $ 18,150.94
Total Cost : $ 73,988.94
Insurance Adjustments (Deductibles, Proceeds and Settlements)-5900/5901
Subgrant
Se uence Code Material and/or Descri tion Unit Unit of Unit Budget Type Cost
qAction
p Quantity Measure Price Clas Estimate
s
https:, isource.tema.net/emnlie'dispatchDestination.do"menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10128/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency F-Grants Page I I of 22
Total Cost : $0.00
Hazard Mitigation Proposal -0909
Subgrant
Sequence Code Material and/or Description Unit Unit of Unit Bud Budget Type Cost Action
q p Quantity Measure Price Clas yp Estimate
s
Total Cost : $0.00
Total Cost Estimate: $73,988.94
(Preferred Estimate Type+Insurance Adjustments)
Comments
Attachments
User Date Document Description Hard Copy File File Name Action
Type Reference
KATHLEEN 02-27- Weld County-2013 CDOT
RUVARAC 2014 Miscellaneous Average Unit Prices.pdf View
(37.37 kb)
STEFANIE 07-02- Version 1 PW 689 Version 1 Cost View
SCHNEIDER 2014 Cost Data Data.pdf(1011.36 kb)
Existing Insurance Information
Insurance Type Policy No. Bldg/Property Content Insurance Deductible Years
Amount Amount Amount Amount Required
Comments
On file at JFO
Attachments
Comments and Attachments
Name of Section Comment Attachment
Preparer Information WELCO33 signed.pdf
Project Description WELCO33 Location Map.pdf
WELCO33 Photo Sheet 01.pdf
Damage Facilities Applicant's Photos.pdf
BR-19-4B Bridge Inspection
Report.pdf
Special Considerations Firmette.pdf
5/28/14 The applicant has accomplished mitigation
Mitigation through good construction practices at no additional Version 1 Copy of HMP Weld
cost to FEMA.Therefore, the placeholder status has County.xlsx
been removed.J.Malone/406
Weld County - 2013 CDOT
Cost Estimate Average Unit Prices.pdf
PW 689 Version 1 Cost Data.pdf
Insurance Information On file at JFO
https:':/isource.fema.net:/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?mentiTile=&topTile=dsHeader&h... 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 12 of 22
PW 689 V.0-1 - Entire
Application.pdf
VER 2 PW 00689 Cover Sheet
Corrected.docx
689 version 2 Bid Summary.pdf
689 version 2 Bid Tab for Bridge
194B.pdf
689 version 2 Bohannan Huston
Hourly Breakdown and Cost
Estimate (Ehxibit B).pdf
Version 2 PW 689 123639 0 6.pdf
Form 90-91 Version 2 PW 689 BHI Work Order
2 Signed.pdf
Version 2 PW 689 Bohannan
Huston executed agreement.pdf
Version 2 PW 689 Drawings.pdf
Version 2 PW 689 Dry Creek Bid
Tabs.xls
Version 2 PW 689 DRY CREEK
FLOOD RECOVERY PROJECT-
118.pdf
Version 2 PW 689 Special
Provisions 1.pdf
Version 2 PW 689 Special
Provisions 2.pdf
Bundle Reference#(Amendment#) Date Awarded
PA-08-CO-4145-State-0089(88) 10-24-2014
Subgrant Application - FEMA Form 90-91
Note: The Effective Cost Share for this application is 75%
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
PROJECT WORKSHEET
DISASTER PROJECT NO. PA ID NO. DATE CATEGORY
WELCO33 123-99123- 10-09-2014 C
FEMA 4145 - DR -CO 00
APPLICANT:WELD(COUNTY) WORK COMPLETE AS OF:
11-14-2013:50
Site 1 of 1
DAMAGED FACILITY.
COUNTY: Weld
BR 19-4B over Big Dry Creek
LOCATION LATITUDE LONGITUDE:
40.02878 -104.88613
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00689(0):
This project worksheet addresses damages to Bridge WEL019.0-004-B over Big Dry Creek.in Section
28,T1N,R67W.
Lat N40.02878
Long: -W104 88613
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00689(1):
Version 1
https:-:isource tema.netiemmie/dispatchDestination.do'n1enuTile=&topTile=dsHcader&b... 10/28 2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 13 of 22
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00689(2):
Version 2'^"
DAMAGE DESCRIPTION AND DIMENSIONS:
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00689(0).
During the incident period of September 11,2013 to September 30,2013,Weld County,Colorado received heavy rainfall and debris in the
creeks,streams and rivers which caused damage to numerous roads and bridges in Weld County. This project worksheet addresses
damages to Bridge WEL019.0-004-B over Big Dry Creek,in Section 28,TIN, R67W.
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 completed at the time of inspection.
Lat: N40.02878
Long. -W104.88613
Flooding of the Big Dry Creek resulted in damages on CR 19.0 include washout of asphalt,roadway base and embankment material within the
deck area and in front of the backwall in the northbound lane of Bridge WEL019.0-004.08.
The 29.8 ft long x 32 ft wide steel structure traverses the Big Dry Creek in Weld County,CO. The bridge is a single(1)span bridge consisting
of a 7 inch asphalt overlay on corrugated steel deck,seven(7)—W24x68 steel girders,sheet pile backwall supported by eight(8)with 10 inch
x 10 inch steel H piles abutments and wing walls.The deck is flanked on both sides with a galvanized W rail beam on 5.25 inch x 8 inch steel
posts.
Asphalt Patch on the northbound and southbound travel lanes measured 31 ft L x 14.5 ft W=449.5 SF x 0.6 ft D=269.7 CF x 146 LB/CF x 1
ton/2000 LB=19.7 tons asphalt
Embankment Material lost within the deck area and in front of the backwall in the northbound lane is estimated 15 ft L x 14.5 ft W x 8.1 ft D=
65.3 CY
Rip Rap was washed away at the north and south abutments estimated to be 40 ft L x 10 ft W towards the channel x 3 ft D x 2 abutments=
889 CV
Recent bridge inspection report was provided by the applicant dated May 21,2012.The bridge was built in 1984 and had a sufficiency rating of
62 4, Structurally Deficient in 2012.
2012 inspection notes of elements include:bridge deck and approach railing inadequate, pavement on deck is cracking,potholes on deck,
beams,sheet pile light rusting.R3-R4 rust on south backwall(Al), Backwall at north abutment(A2)is bulging with rust from mudline up 3
feet. Rust showing on piles at and below water line.Southwest wingwall is encased in asphalt.northwest wingwall is bulging at the top approx.
1 ft.The deck condition is noted as satisfactory(6)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 sealing of crack in deck
overlay at ends of deck, railing replacement,encasing piles and abutment backwalls in concrete.
The Applicant has provided pictures of the facilities documenting damages. These photos are attached to this project worksheet.
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00689(1)'.
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00689(2):
"^'Version 2
SCOPE OF WORK:
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00689(0):
WORK TO BE COMPLETED'.
1 -Fill embankment material lost in roadway travel lanes,embankment and shoulders-65.3 CY x 1.82(Conversion Factor CY ABC Class 6
Material to Tons=118.8 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)=$4,003.56
2—Replace asphalt on travel lanes=19.7 tons x$81 70/ton(CDOT Item Number 403-33741 Hot Bituminous Pavement(Grading S)(75)(PG
64-22)=$1,609.49.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
Total=$13,006.86 cost estimate prepared by project specialist using 2013 CDOT Average Unit Prices
Project Notes
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do'?mcnuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 14 of 22
1. During repair or reconstruction.applicant may incur increased costs related to clearing and grubbing, placement of topsoil,erosion and
sedimentation control,sanitary facilities,dewatering mobilization and flagging/traffic control.Such costs are generally addressed in the"in-
place"unit costs of repair or reconstruction items,and not specifically addressed in the Scope of Work.However,if a project requires an
extraordinary use of any such items,to where a specific reference in the PW should be considered,applicant is advised to contract Colorado
Department of Emergency Management requesting a revision to the PW's Scope of Work.
2. Applicant has completed a substantial percentage of the work but will not have cost data available within the fourteen day Pocket Guide
rule. Per Field Operations Pocket Guide,Section 7.Cost Estimates.Page 26,"If the applicant has not produced cost data within two weeks of
the site inspection,the Project Specialist will prepare the PW on the basis of an estimate for the work accomplished".Applicant and FEMA
personnel jointly conducted all inspections and agreed to use CDOT costs for in-place costs to derive estimates on this project worksheet.
Applicant understands that all actual support documentation,invoices, FA records,contract and proof of payment will be required for final
reconciliation and or closeout process.Attached is the COOT 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
PA-08-CO-4145-P W-00689(1)_
Version 1 '-****
This version is written to capture additional costs that were not identified in the original project or sub-grant application.
This version is written to also capture a hazard mitigation proposal for project 00689.
Work to be Completed'
The original scope of work did not include any excavation for the placement of rip-rap.cost for muck excavation identified in COOT costs(203-
00100)at$13.77 per cubic yard. Approximate dimensions for excavation for placement of rip-rap at the west side of the bridge on the north
end is 20ft long x 5ft wide x 1 ft deep(20 x 5 x 1 = 100 divided by 27=3.7cy or rounding up 4cy)dimensions for excavation for placement of
rip-rap at the west side of the bridge on the south ends are approximately 30ft long x 15k wide x 15ft deep(30 x 15 x 15=6.750 divided by 27
=250cy)for a total of 254cy of excavation to place rip-rap.
CDOT costs(203-00100)muck excavation @$13.77 per cubic yard x 254cy=$3,497.58
The original scope of work did not include fill dirt(or top soil)to cover the rip-rap after placement. Approximate dimensions for placement of fill
dirt at the west side of the bridge on the north end is 20k long x 30ft wide x 2ft deep(20 x 30 x 2=1,200 divided by 27=44cy)dimensions for
excavation for placement of fill dirt at the west side of the bridge on the south ends are approximately 20ft long x 30ft wide x 2ft deep(20 x 30 x
2= 1,200 divided by 27=44cy)for a total of 88cy.
CDOT costs(207-00205)topsoil @$10.69 per cubic yard x 88cy=$940.72.The proposed erosion control mitigation measure for the
referenced site will be accomplished by installing filter fabric underneath the rip-rap,top-soil to cover the voids and vegetated-mat over the rip-
rap to reduce rip-rap displacement and future erosion in similar events. Using this erosion control mitigation technique will also reduce the
impact on the Preble's Mouse habitat or range as required by the Endangered Species Act(ESA)8 regulations in the state of Colorado,
Cost for engineering is being added in this Version utilizing figure 4 in the 322 on page 60 which states(curve B,compensation for basic
services expressed as a percentage of construction cost for projects of average complexity)which states over$10,000.00 but under
$50,000.00 adds a 15%cost on the final project dollar.
15%x$18,868 16(the final dollar for this project with Version costs added in total)_$2,830.22
The original scope of work did not take into consideration the need for traffic control during the repair process. Project specialist estimates 2
days at 10 hours per day to be potentially sufficient to complete the repairs.
CDOT costs(630-00003)uniformed traffic control @$71 15 per hour,2 days x 10 hours=20 hours x$71.15=$1,423.00
Total cost for this Version' $8,691.52
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00689(2).
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency F-Grants Page 15 of 22
*****Version 2
This version of the PW is being written in regard to the applicant's request to update the cost of Construction and Engineering based on actual
costs. See version 1 for original request. It should be noted that the bid estimate included a bid item"Concrete Facing"and was bid at
$66,234.00 which the applicant is not claiming. The low bid cost for construction is$93,542.00 minus$66,234.00(concrete facing)equal
$27,308.00 and awarded to AISA Civil. After several discussions with the applicant and understanding why they are requesting$27,308.00 for
construction and$18,150.94 for engineering, FEMA has determined that their total request is fair and reasonable and is eligible for FEMA
funding
The total eligible cost for Construction is$27,308.00.
The total eligible cost for engineering is$18,150.94.
NOTE The applicant has submitted a bid sheet document with all bids and a detailed document showing a breakdown of hours and costs for
engineering. The applicant has stated in an e-mail that there are no costs submitted for engineering in regard to the concrete facing on the
abutment.
Version 1 costs for Material and Contract($940.72+7,750.80=$8,691.52)will be de-obligated because all costs for this request are captured
in version 2.
Comments and Attachments
689 version 2-Bid Summary
689 version 2-Bohannan Huston Hourly Breakdown and Cost Estimate(Exhibit B)
689 version 2-Bid Tab for Bridge 19/48
Does the Scope of Work change the pre-disaster
conditions at the site? Yes No Special Considerations included? Yes No
Hazard Mitigation proposal included? Yes No Is there insurance coverage on this facility? Yes No
PROJECT COST
ITEM CODE NARRATIVE QUANTITY/UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
'Version 0***
Work To Be Completed
1 9999 Aggregate Base Course 118.8/TON $33.70 $4,003.56
2 9999 Asphalt 19.7/TON $ 81.70 $ 1,609.49
3 9999 Rip Rap 88.9/CY $83.17 $ 7,393.81
*** Version 1 ***
Other
4 9009 Material 1/LS $940.72 $940.72
5 9001 Contract 1/LS $ 7,750.80 $ 7,750.80
6 0909 Mitigation 1/LS $ 15,523.14 $ 15,523.14
***Version 2 ***
Other
7 9999 De-obligate Version 1 1/LS $ -8,691.52 $ -8,691.52
8 9999 Construction 1/LS $27,308.00 $27,308.00
9 9999 Engineering 1/LS $ 18,150.94 $ 18,150.94
TOTAL $ 73,988.94
COST
PREPARED BY Ken Beebe TITLE SIGNATURE
APPLICANT REP. Roy Rudisill TITLE Director-OEM SIGNATURE
WELD (COUNTY) : PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00689
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency F-Grants Page 16 of 22
Conditions Information
Review Name Condition Type Condition Name Description Monitored Status
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
permits.
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 appropriate federal, state and
local environmental permits and
clearances may jeopardize
federal funding.
Any change to the approved
Standard scope of work will require re-
Final Review Other(EHP) Condition#1 evaluation for compliance with No Approved
NEPA and other Laws and
Executive Orders.
Applicant is responsible for
Executive Order coordinating with the local
Final Review Other (EHP) 11988- floodplain manager. All required No Approved
Floodplains permits should be maintained as
part of the permanent record.
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
Final Review Other(EHP) Clean Water Act Army Corps of Engineers No Approved
(CWA) (USACE). The applicant is
responsible for implementing,
monitoring, and maintaining all
Best Management Practices
(BMP's) and Pre-Construction
Notification (PCN)conditions of
applicable Nation Wide Permits
(NWP). This is to include any
https://isource.fema.net/em m i c/di spatch Desti nati on.do?menuT i l e=&topTi le=dsH eader&b... I 0/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 17 of 22
requirements per the Colorado
Department of Public Health and
Environment 401 Water Quality
Certification for Clean Water Act
permits.
Any change to the approved
Standard scope of work will require re-
Final Review Other(EHP) Condition#1 evaluation for compliance with No Approved
NEPA and other Laws and
Executive Orders.
This review does not address all
federal, state and local
requirements. Acceptance of
federal funding requires recipient
Final Review Other(EHP) Standard to comply with all federal, state No Approved
Condition#2 and local laws. Failure to obtain
all appropriate federal, state and
local environmental permits and
clearances may jeopardize
federal funding.
If ground disturbing activities
occur during construction,
applicant will monitor ground
Final Review Other(EHP) Standard disturbance and if any potential No Approved
Condition#3 archeological resources are pp
discovered, will immediately
cease construction in that area
and notify the State and FEMA.
If ground disturbing activities
occur during construction,
applicant will monitor ground
Final Review Other (EHP) Standard disturbance and if any potential No Approved
Condition#3 archeological resources are
discovered, will immediately
cease construction in that area
and notify the State and FEMA.
Applicant is responsible for
Executive Order coordinating with the local
Final Review Other(EHP) 11988- floodplain manager. All required No Approved
Floodplains permits should be maintained as
part of the permanent record.
Any change to the approved
Standard scope of work will require re-
Final Review Other(EHP) Condition#1 evaluation for compliance with No Approved
NEPA and other Laws and
Executive Orders.
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 appropriate federal, state and
local environmental permits and
clearances may jeopardize
federal funding.
If ground disturbing activities
occur during construction,
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 18 of 22
applicant will monitor ground
disturbance and if any potential
Final Review Other(EHP) Standard archeological resources are No Approved
Condition #3 discovered, will immediately
cease construction in that area
and notify the State and FEMA.
If ground disturbing activities
occur during construction,
applicant will monitor ground
EHP Review Other EHP Standard disturbance and if any potential
( ) Condition#3 archeological resources are No Recommended
discovered, will immediately
cease construction in that area
and notify the State and FEMA.
This review does not address all
federal, state and local
requirements. Acceptance of
federal funding requires 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.
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.
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,
EHP Review Other(EHP) (CWA) monitoring, and maintaining all No Recommended
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
permits.
Internal Comments
No. Queue User Date/Time Reviewer Comments
https://isource.fema.net/cmmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 19 of 22
10/17/2014 Version 2 is written to update construction and
engineering cost for actual costs. No issues found. Move
forward as eligible. JMP
Version 1 -This version is written to capture additional costs
that were not identified in the original project or sub-grant
application and to include hazard mitigation proposal for
Final PETKOVSEK 10-17-2014 project 00689.Cost seems to be reasonable and work to be
23 Review JEAN 08:46 PM disaster related. J.Palacio-DGS 7/15/2014
GMT
Final Reviewer finds eligible the application and approves the
funding of this project worksheet based on the applicant
having performed all required procurement procedures,
perform all required special considerations recommendations
such as permits to address EHP considerations and securing
all actual cost documentation for the financial reconciliation of
this project. Task Force Leader-J. Palacio 04/11/2014
Version for additional costs and HMP. No DAC included. No
Grantee LAWSON 10-10-2014 other issues
22 10:40 AM 10/10/14 -This is a large project and requires that an CEF be
Review LESTER GMT applied to this project that is less than 90% complete. Please
revise. LJL
10-10-2014
Grantee LAWSON Version for additional costs and HMP. No DAC included. No
21 Review LESTER GMT AM other issues
Cat C, 50% complete. Weld County, Weld County. Applicant
replaced fill embankment material and asphalt to repair
roadway travel lanes and replaced rip rap on the north and
south abutments to repair the bridge to pre-disaster
condition. -cwalz123 -03/17/2014 17:30:22 GMT
***Version 1*** Applicant will excavate muck from bridge
abutments for placement of rip rap. Applicant will cover rip rap
with topsoil. Mitigation: Applicant proposes to place geotextile
fabric underneath rip rap and a vegetated mat over the rip rap
to reduce the chance of erosion from a similar event. -
cwalz123- 07/07/2014 21:01:14 GMT
***Version 2***This PW was reviewed by EHP staff on
03/17/2014 and 07/07/2014. It was submitted to EHP after
rework for administrative changes (cost adjustments). These
changes do not affect the original scope of work and no
additional EHP review is required. -mpatter7- 10/09/2014
EHP PATTERSON 10-09-2014 21:52:31 GMT
20 Review MOLLY 09156 PM Project activities have the potential to impact Waters of the
GT United States or wetlands. Project involves dredge, fill,
excavation and/or modification. -cwalz123-07/07/2014
21:12:44 GMT
Project site work is in mapped wetlands. Project has no
potential to impact the wetland function or resources and
substantially restores site to pre-disaster condition. No further
wetland review is required under the 8-step process. -
cwalz123-03/17/2014 17:46:53 GMT
The entire community will benefit from the completion of this
project. - cwalz123-03/17/2014 17:47:05 GMT
Action is addressed under the attached Emergency
Consultation between FEMA and USFWS, dated September
24, 2013. The consultation includes conservation measures
intended to minimize impacts to the federally listed Preble's
Meadow Jumping Mouse, Ute's Lady's Tress and Colorado
Butterfly Bush, and Designated Critical Habitat protected under
the ESA. -cwalz123 -03/17/2014 17:40:32 GMT
hops://jsource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 20 of 22
Project is located in Zone A, FIRM 0802660980C dated
09/28/1982. Per 44 CFR Part 9.5 (g)Step 1: Project repairs
are determined to have no effect on floodplain or wetlands
provided that the repairs remain in the existing footprint and do
not impact previously undisturbed areas. No further floodplains
review is required. -cwalz123-03/17/2014 17:46:37 GMT
The scope of work has been reviewed and meets the criteria of
the 2013 signed Programmatic Agreement, Item III; Section B,
H agreed to by FEMA and the SHPO. - cwalz123-03/17/2014
17:35:54 GMT
Insurance JOHNSON 10-09-2014 VERSION 2—The additional construction and engineering
19 Review KENNETH 07:21 PM costs will not alter the prior insurance policy coverage
GMT comments or the insurance requirement comments.
Mitigation 10-09-2014 The Version 1 hazard mitigation proposal is
18 Review PETITT MARK GMIT PM W. Petitt, 406 Specialist g P P approved. Mark
nsurance JOHNSON 10-09-2014 VERSION 1 —The additional scope of work and costs will not
17 Review KENNETH 06:59 PM alter the prior insurance policy coverage comments or the
GMT insurance requirement comments.
Mitigation 10-09-2014 mitigation proposal is The hazard
16 PETITT MARK O6:41 PM approved. Mark W. Petitt,
Review GMT 406 Specialist
7-2-2014: Completed Initial review, no issues were identified;
Initial TREZONA 10-09-2014 work appears eligible.
15 06:30 PM
Review SCOTT GMT 10-9-2014: Completed Initial review, no issues were identified;
work appears eligible.
Award 08-01-2014
14 Review SYSTEM 02:45 PM ACCEPTED
GMT
Version 1 -This version is written to capture additional costs
that were not identified in the original project or sub-grant
application and to include hazard mitigation proposal for
project 00689.Cost seems to be reasonable and work to be
disaster related. J.Palacio-DGS 7/15/2014
Final PALACIO 07-15-2014
13 Review JOSE 04:32 PM Final Reviewer finds eligible the application and approves the
GMT funding of this project worksheet based on the applicant
having performed all required procurement procedures,
perform all required special considerations recommendations
such as permits to address EHP considerations and securing
all actual cost documentation for the financial reconciliation of
this project. Task Force Leader-J. Palacio 04/11/2014
Grantee 07-08-2014 Version for additional costs and HMP. No DAC included. No
12 Review PATEL KAJAL GMT PM other issues
Cat C, 50% complete. Weld County, Weld County. Applicant
replaced fill embankment material and asphalt to repair
roadway travel lanes and replaced rip rap on the north and
south abutments to repair the bridge to pre-disaster
condition. -cwalz123-03/17/2014 17:30:22 GMT
***Version 1*** Applicant will excavate muck from bridge
abutments for placement of rip rap. Applicant will cover rip rap
with topsoil. Mitigation: Applicant proposes to place geotextile
fabric underneath rip rap and a vegetated mat over the rip rap
to reduce the chance of erosion from a similar event. -
cwalz123-07/07/2014 21:01:14 GMT
https:i/isource.fema.net/emmic/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 21 of 22
Project activities have the potential to impact Waters of the
United States or wetlands. Project involves dredge, fill,
excavation and/or modification. - cwalz123-07/07/2014
21:12:44 GMT
Project site work is in mapped wetlands. Project has no
potential to impact the wetland function or resources and
substantially restores site to pre-disaster condition. No further
wetland review is required under the 8-step process. -
cwalz123 -03/17/2014 17:46:53 GMT
The entire community will benefit from the completion of this
project. -cwalz123-03/17/2014 17:47:05 GMT
Action is addressed under the attached Emergency
07-08-2014
EHP Consultation between FEMA and USFWS, dated September
24, 2013. The consultation includes conservation measures
11 EAKINS WYNN 03:02 PM
Review GMT intended to minimize impacts to the federally listed Preble's
Meadow Jumping Mouse, Ute's Lady's Tress and Colorado
Butterfly Bush, and Designated Critical Habitat protected under
the ESA. -cwalz123 -03/17/2014 17:40:32 GMT
Project is located in Zone A, FIRM 0802660980C dated
09/28/1982. Per 44 CFR Part 9.5 (g) Step 1: Project repairs
are determined to have no effect on floodplain or wetlands
provided that the repairs remain in the existing footprint and do
not impact previously undisturbed areas. No further floodplains
review is required. -cwalz123-03/17/2014 17:46:37 GMT
The scope of work has been reviewed and meets the criteria of
the 2013 signed Programmatic Agreement, Item III; Section B,
H agreed to by FEMA and the SHPO. - cwalz123-03/17/2014
17:35:54 GMT
Insurance JOHNSON 07-02-2014 VERSION 1 —The additional scope of work and costs will not
10 08:27 PM alter the prior insurance policy coverage comments or the
Review KENNETH GMT insurance requirement comments.
Mitigation 07-02-2014 The hazard mitigation proposal is approved. Mark W. Petitt,
9 Review PETITT MARK GMT PM 406 Specialist
The applicant is interested in 406 mitigation and has requested
this be addressed at a later date when they have a better
understanding of what they will be proposing. They have been
Mitigation 07-02-2014 advised that 406 mitigation cannot be applied if it requires
8 PETITT MARK 07:31 PM removing complete work and it will be evaluated for eligibility
Review GMT as per FEMA Recovery Policy 9526.1. Furthermore, the
submission of the mitigation proposal will have to be
coordinated through the Colorado Division of Emergency
Management. Mark W. Petitt, 406 Specialist
07-02-2014 Applicant's property insurance through the CAPP risk pool
Insurance JOHNSON affords no coverage for bridges, roadways or embankments.
7 Review KENNETH GMT PM Insurance proceeds are not anticipated, and there is no
insurance purchase requirement.
07-02-2014
Initial TREZONA 7-2-2014: Completed Initial review, no issues were identified;
6 Review SCOTT GMT PM work appears eligible.
Award 04-15-2014
5 Review SYSTEM 05:45 PM ACCEPTED
GMT
Final Reviewer finds eligible the application and approves the
Final PALACIO 04-11-2014 funding of this project worksheet based on the applicant
4 Review JOSE GMT PM having performed all required procurement procedures,
perform all required special considerations recommendations
such as permits to address EHP considerations and securing
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 22 of 22
all actual cost documentation for the financial reconciliation of
this project. Task Force Leader-J. Palacio 04/11/2014
Cat C, 50% complete. Weld County, Weld County. Applicant
replaced fill embankment material and asphalt to repair
roadway travel lanes and replaced rip rap on the north and
south abutments to repair the bridge to pre-disaster
condition. -cwalz123- 03/17/2014 17:30:22 GMT
Project site work is in mapped wetlands. Project has no
potential to impact the wetland function or resources and
substantially restores site to pre-disaster condition. No further
wetland review is required under the 8-step process. -
cwalz123-03/17/2014 17:46:53 GMT
The entire community will benefit from the completion of this
project. - cwalz123-03/17/2014 17:47:05 GMT
Action is addressed under the attached Emergency
EHP DELAUNE 03-17-2014 Consultation between FEMA and USFWS, dated September
3 06:00 PM 24, 2013. The consultation includes conservation measures
Review JONATHAN GMT intended to minimize impacts to the federally listed Preble's
Meadow Jumping Mouse, Ute's Lady's Tress and Colorado
Butterfly Bush, and Designated Critical Habitat protected under
the ESA. -cwalz123 -03/17/2014 17:40:32 GMT
Project is located in Zone A, FIRM 0802660980C dated
09/28/1982. Per 44 CFR Part 9.5 (g)Step 1: Project repairs
are determined to have no effect on floodplain or wetlands
provided that the repairs remain in the existing footprint and do
not impact previously undisturbed areas. No further floodplains
review is required. -cwalz123-03/17/2014 17:46:37 GMT
The scope of work has been reviewed and meets the criteria of
the 2013 signed Programmatic Agreement, Item III; Section B,
H agreed to by FEMA and the SHPO. -cwalz123- 03/17/2014
17:35:54 GMT
The applicant is interested in 406 mitigation and has requested
this be addressed at a later date when they have a better
understanding of what they will be proposing.They have been
Mitigation 03-17-2014 advised that 406 mitigation cannot be applied if it requires
2 Review PETITT MARK 01:38 PM removing complete work and it will be evaluated for eligibility
GMT as per FEMA Recovery Policy 9526.1. Furthermore, the
submission of the mitigation proposal will have to be
coordinated through the Colorado Division of Emergency
Management. Mark W. Petitt, 406 Specialist
03-17-2014 Applicant's property insurance through the CAPP risk pool
Insurance GILLIAM affords no coverage for bridges, roadways or embankments.
1 Review ROBERT GMT 12 PM Insurance proceeds are not anticipated, and there is no
insurance purchase requirement.
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/28/2014
Hello