HomeMy WebLinkAbout20151522.tiff RESOLUTION
RE: APPROVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION FOR
COUNTY ROAD 19.5 (FEMA) AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to
Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of
administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, the Board has been presented with a Community Development Block Grant
Application for County Road 19.5 (FEMA) from the County of Weld, State of Colorado, by and
through the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, to the Colorado Department of
Public Safety, Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, commencing upon
full execution, with further terms and conditions being as stated in said application, and
WHEREAS, after review, the Board deems it advisable to approve said application, a
copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Weld County, Colorado, that the Community Development Block Grant Application for County
Road 19.5 (FEMA) from the County of Weld, State of Colorado, by and through the Board of
County Commissioners of Weld County, to the Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division
of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, be, and hereby is, approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the Chair be, and hereby is, authorized
to sign said application.
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted
by the following vote on the 27th day of May, A.D., 2015.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: G�� EXCUSED
a ,�[L Barbara Kirkmeyer, Chair
Weld County Clerk to the Board
r �11 Ds2
Mike Freeman, Pro-Tem
BY. f .' �_& • . I. 1 !1,�_i��,�•�� ��
De Clerk to the =•ard
', ean P. Conway
APPROVED AS TO FORM 1861k.Cu 'd""'
`�
lie A. Cozad
County Attorney � �� 1, EXCUSED
Steve Moreno
Date of signature:_
C,OEM*/ `°/a 2015-1522
I y EM0016
BC0045
-, cN Colorado Division of Homeland Security Grant NOI / Application
. Emergency Management CDBG - DR Recover Colorado
9 Y 9
Infrastructure Program
THIS SECTION FOR STATE USE ONLY
DHSEM Identification Number: Colorado Point of Contact:
CDBG-DR Program Manager
Date NOI (Part A) Received: Colorado DHSEM
9195 East Mineral Avenue, Suite 200
Date Application (Part B) Received: Centennial, Colorado 80112
Office: 720.852.6713
Date Next Steps Letter Transmitted: Fax: 720.852.6750
cdps dhsem cdbstate.co.us
PART A - NOI :
PROJECT OVERVIEW
1 . Applicant Legal Name: Weld County. Colorado
2. Applicant
✓ Local Government Private Non-Profit (Attach copy of 501c3, if applicable)
Type:
3. Project Title: County Match FEMA Projects - WELCO23 (663)
4. Proposed Project Total Cost: 240,519.76
CDBG-DR-I Request: 30,064.97
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.
Weld County Commissioner (970) 356-4000
Mike Freeman , Pro-Tem
Typed Name of Authorized Applicant Agent i!tit Telephone Number
MAY 2 7 2015
Signature al Authorized Applicant Agent Date Signed
2015-1522
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page of 20
y
:-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
PART A - NOI: APPLICANT INFORMATION
1 . Applicant Legal Name: Weed 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. \Ir. ✓ Mrs. First Name: Roy Last Name: Rudisill
Title: Director Organization: Weld County Office of Emergency Managemc
Street Address: 1 150 O Street
City: Greeley State: Colorado Zip Code: 80631
Telephone: ( f u ),Jitp- / e Mobile: (9 /U ) 38 -U E-mail Address: rrudisill(a�co .weld . co
7. Alternate Point of Contact:
The Alternate Point of Contact is the person that can address questions or concerns in the Primary Point of Contact's
absence.
Ms. O \ Ir. \1i .. First Name: Barb Last Name: Connolly
Title: Controller Organization: Weld County Accountina
Street Address: 1 150 O Street
City: Greeley State: Colorado Zip Code: 80631
Telephone: ( f U )..5 I . \ : lyIuNiO- f Mobile: E-mail Address: bconnollyco .weld .
Cnl
8. Application Prepared hn :
Ms. MI \lr. Mrs First Name: Kyle I astName: Jones
Title: Planner Organization: ARCADIS-US
Street Address:
City: Tallahassf State: FL Lip Code: 32309
Telephone: (uu )u ; I . \. mobil, ;225) 2U2-1/4i E-mail Address: kyle . iones(@arcadis-
9. Authorized Applicant Agent :
Ms. O MAI s. II First Name: Barbara Last Name: Kirkmeyer
Title: COMMISSii Organization: Weld County
Street Address: 1 150 O Street, P . O. Box 758
City: Greeley State: Colorado Zip Code: 80631
Telephone: ly uN°15 I : x: Mobile: E-mail Address: bkirkmeyer(C�co . welt
The Authorized Applicant Agent MUST be the chief executive officer, mayor, etc. This person must be able to sign
contracts, authorize funding allocations or payments, etc.
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 2 of 20
q
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
PART A - NOI: PROJECT DESCRIPTION & NATIONAL OBJECTIVES MET
1. Project — Eligible Activity Description:
Describe the proposed project. Explain how the proposed project will address recovery and/or resilience needs in your
community either independently or as part of a larger project. Include a description of the desired outcome and the
recovery objective(s) to be achieved. This narrative should describe the CDBG-DR Eligible Activity.
In an effort to achieve resiliency from the severe storms and minimize risk to the general
public, Weld County addressed severe damage to local roadways , bridges, culverts,
removed hazardous roadway debris, made emergency repairs to paved and gravel
roadways , addressed river embankments/dangerous conditions to the public and made
repairs to emergency response vehicles that were damaged during the Incident Period .
FEMA Categories A, B , C , and E were addressed in the Weld County FEMA Match . CDBG
funds are needed to be applied towards the Weld County FEMA Local Match for the
emergency work that was identified on previously submitted Project Worksheets . All
projects covered under the Weld County Project Worksheets were vital for Weld County to
clear hazardous debris from roadways/creeks/streams and enhance their infrastructure ,
river embankments, equipment and roadways . This particular NOI/Application will discuss
1A /CI rnnQ faaQ \ 9-Inn Clrninn+ 1A/nrIinhnnf in ntfr,nknr-I r` r+rl nnnfninn r4ntnilnd_rnr,nn of urnrl, 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 .257450 and longitude is - 104 . 879730 . 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°/s , Hispanic: 28 . 3% , Other: 1 . 6% . Asian : 1 . 3% , Black :
0 .8% , Native American : 0 .4% . Weld County consists of 99 . 317 households with a median
househo d income of S56. 589 and The maiori:v of We d Coun:v is owner-occupied wi :h p
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#4 Projects Submitted.
Priority 16 of 36 Projects Submitted .
Attach any continuations or additional item as an Attachment to the electronic application anti c-mail submittal. Page 3 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
PART A - NOI : CDBG-DR FUNDING QUALIFICATIONS
Community Development Block Grant — Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funding can be approved for a project in which
ALL of the following requirements are met The physical location of the activity must be within a county listed in Table 1 of
the program Recover Colorado Infrastructure Grant Program Guidelines (Guidelines).
1. Connection to Dieter Recovery
CDBG's Disaster Recovery funds must be used for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, long-term recovery,
restoration of infrastructure and housing, economic revitalization, and mitigation from future damages.. The activity
must show a direct link to damages received during one or more of the events listed in Table 1 of the Guidelines. Please
provide a brief explanation of how the proposed acquisition activity: (1) was a result of the disaster event: (2) will
restore infrastructure or revitalize the economy: or will (3) mitigate future damages.
During the incident period of September 11 . 2013 to September 30, 2013 , Weld County,
Colorado received heavy rainfall and debris in the creeks , streams and rivers which caused
surface gravel removal and scour damage to numerous roads and bridges in Weld County .
This NOI Application request addresses emergency work and the damages that were a
"I;n,eat re,e,. .14. .-.�. ..r• F1 i.e•need n 4.; .-. nut/ et...4 .,- „i 0
2. Compliance with National Objectives
State recipients receiving allocations under the CDBG-DR program must certify that their projected use of funds
will ensure, and maintain evidence, that each of its activities assisted with CDBG-DR funds meets at least one of
the three National Objectives.
a) Which of the National Objectives are met by proposed project?
./ Will benefit low and moderate income (LMI) persons; or
Will aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; or
✓ Is an Urgent Need in which meet community development needs having a particular urgency because
existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community where
other financial resources are not available to meet such needs.
b) How will the proposed project meet the above checked National Objective(s).
See attached LMI data for the Project.
In addition to the LMI data attached , the State of Colorado (according to ACS
2008-2012 5Y ) lists Weld County at a 41 . 0% LMI . In reviewing the LMI data for this
Project NOI , the PW associated LMI % was 7 . 54% . However, this percentage does not
accurately capture the total number of service areas that are either directly or indirectly
impacted by the FEMA Match Projects . The entire community benefited from the
proactive emergency work by Weld County and the removal of hazardous debris and
the work/repairs made to the roadways , bridges, equipment and culverts thus the
County believes that a higher LMI % should be given for this FEMA match Projects .
The general vicinity of FEMA Match Projects encompasses the entire County and
greatly benefits the entire LMI population for this project, which is why the County
believes that this project not only meets . but exceeds the 50% requirement for meeting
the National Objective . The emergency work/repairs that were made under the WELCO
PW's for the Local FEMA Match drastically reduced hazardous conditions for the
general public and enabled Weld County to focus on resiliency efforts post storm . It is
believed that the service area for Project Site Locations benefited multiple LMI tract
sections and thus a higher weighted percentage of over 50% should be noted for this p
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 4 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
3. Compliance with the primary objective. As indicated in the Guidelines: "A proposed project's benefits to LMI
persons will be an important factor in evaluating potential infrastructure projects. A total of 20% of the Recover
Colorado Infrastructure project funding must benefit LMI persons. Due to the very low percentage of LMI projects
submitted in the first round of infrastructure funding, it is estimated that approximately 25% to 30% of the funding
available in this second allocation must meet the LMI requirement to make up for the deficit."
This section does not need to be completed if the project does not meet this National Objective.
The primary objective for using CDBG Disaster Recovery funds is benefitting, by at least 51 percent, persons of low and
moderate income. The following section provides the information necessary to complete this requirement.
a) Is the proposed activity: / jurisdiction wide in specified target area
If you checked specified target area, which data source was used? (Note: select the smallest unit of Census data that
encompasses your proposed target area.)
b) Enter the number of households involved in the proposed project. 99,317
c) In the space below, describe how the applicant will comply with the requirement that at least 51 percent of CDBG-DR
dollars will principally benefit low- and moderate-income households and persons.
Weld County will comply with the 51 % requirement due to the fact that the PW
associated under this NOI Project for the FEMA County Match is targeted to areas of the
county that qualify as LMI . The justification behind this methodology is that multiple 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)
As determined by the American Community Survey (Public Facilities projects)
Annual income as defined for Public Housing and Section 8
7' Annual income as reported under the Census long form
Adjusted gross income as defined for reporting under IRS
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 5 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
PART A - NOI: COMPREHENSIVE RISK ANALYSIS INFORMATION
1. Community Hazards Review: Please list and briefly describe in rank order of importance the natural or man-made
hazards in your (the Applicant's) service area.
The hazards identified within this Project for the FEMA County Match for WELCO23 (663)
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 .
I lazarcl 2
Erosion also caused a severe issue for the County. This Project addressed and mitigated
against severe erosion damage to local roadways , shoulders, and embankments . The work
that was conducted by the County mitigated against any immediate threat/hazard to the
damaged infrastructure and restored the infrastructure back to its pre-disaster condition in
accordance with regulations .
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 6 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
Hazard 3
Subsidence was another critical hazard that caused dangerous conditions for the
community . This Project addressed and mitigated against severe subsidence damage to
local roadways, shoulders , bridges and embankments. The work that was conducted by the
County mitigated against any immediate threat/hazard to the damaged infrastructure and
restored the infrastructure back to its pre-disaster condition in accordance with regulations .
Note: If your proposed project addresses more than three Hazards, please provide that information as an
attachment.
3. Elimination of Risk: Does the proposed project result in the elimination of a hazard from your (the Applicant's) service
area? If so, please describe. If not, please estimate the degree to which this project will mitigate the risk from the hazards
identified in Item #2.
The Proposed FEMA Local Match for WELCO21 (687 ) does not completely eliminate the
hazards identified from the service area . The Proposed FEMA Match Project does allow
Weld County to receive a percentage of funds back that the County expended during one of
the most costly disasters in Colorado history however. These types of hazards that
occurred in Weld County and throughout Colorado are truly an act of mother nature and the
County was as prepared as it could have been but the severity/duration of the incident was
of an unprecedented nature . Weld County cannot eliminate the risk of future flooding ,
erosion or land subsidence, but Local Officials can ensure that their community is prepared
for future incident, take the necessary precautions and that their infrastructure is restored
4. Environmental Quality Improvements: Does the proposed project result in an improvement in the quality of the natural
environment in your (the Applicant's) service area? If so, please describe.
Yes; the damages that attributed to the designated incident period and FEMA-DR 4145
were addressed via the previously submitted PW and the work conducted to restore the
infrastructure back to its pre-disaster condition was implemented . The work done at this
site location (see previous attachment for lat/long coordinates) addressed not only
improvements/repairs made to the infrastructure , but also improvements and repairs to the
river embankments and any potential erosion or subsidence issues that could have
1 Aen ren n nll if 1kn (`n1 intxi In»d not tea Le nn tR1z nrrtnrtiv,n mn'me i irnc tl-i'mt t17nit did
5. Climate Change Improvements: Does the proposed project reduce or ameliorate a projected impact of climate change
in Colorado? If so, please briefly describe the benefit of the project.
This Proposed Project reduces a projected impact climate change due to the proactive
mitigation measures that were undertaken by Weld County during the designated incident
period . This was accomplished by ensuring that the damaged site location was addressed
as soon , but as safely, as possible , and not to sustain any further impacts to the site
locations or environment that would enable the damage to enhance the projected impact of
any potential climate changes.
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Nos 7 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
6. Community Process: Does the proposed project include a community planning or involvement process that increases
community resiliency? If so, please briefly describe the process.
This Proposed Project was initiated by County Officials in an effort to achieve resiliency
from the severe storms and also to minimize risk to the community, Weld County addressed
the severe flood damage to the roadways and infrastructure by ensuring that dangerous
conditions for the public were addressed and mitigated properly and efficiently .
7. Reduction in the Costs of Future Response or Recovery: Will the proposed project result in a reduction in the cost
of response or recovery from an incident occurring due to one or more of the hazards identified in Item #1 or #2? If so,
please briefly describe how response or recovery costs will be reduced.
For a small scale flooding incident, yes; however, the flooding that occurred during the
designated incident period was catastrophic and the PW associated with the NOI FEMA
Local Match Request were completed to address the damages .
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 WELCO23 (663 ) from CDBG-DR
in regards to expenses from CAT C Damage Categories for the designated incident period
for FEMA-DR 4145 .
9. Mitigation Planning:
Does your community have a current FEMA approved multi-hazard mitigation plan? ✓ Yes \0
Location of proposed project in mitigation plan strategies: Page 139 Section/Part Mitigation Stra
ra
Is the community a member of good standing with the National Flood Insurance Program? 1 N o
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 8 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
10. Community Plan Compliance: Does the proposed project comply with and/or address an issue recognized in key
community plans? Key plans include, but are not limited to: a Comprehensive Master Plan, a Stormwater Management Plan,
a Hazard Mitigation Plans, or key community codes. If so, please describe how the project integrates into the plan(s).
Yes; the Proposed Project complies with all local community plans and this Project
integrates into the Plans because the County addressed the damages to local roadways
and infrastructure and mitigated damages that posed a serious risk/hazard to the
community during the incident period . This FEMA PW was initiated by Weld County and via
this Proposed Project, the County requests that CDBG funds be applied towards the local
FEMA Match for this Project.
11. Environmental / Historic Preservation Issues: Please describe any significant environmental, historic, or cultural features
that may be affected by the project. Please also describe any features that may be improved by the project.
All environmental issues are addressed on the attached Project Worksheet as supporting
documentation . The significant EHP issues were in regards to the Endangered Species Act
( ESA) and EHP Standard Conditions. All items were addressed and any additional
supporting backup documentation can be provided upon request.
12. Permitting: Please list the local, state, and federal permits that will be required to complete 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
/MA KIr+;nr- &, rJn Onerni+ O
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 9 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
13. Community Resilience: Please describe how this project will increase the resilience of your community. As defined in the
Guidelines: "Resilience incorporates hazard mitigation and land use planning strategies; critical infrastructure, environmental
and cultural resource protection; and sustainability practices to reconstruct the built environment, and revitalize the economic,
social, and natural environments."
In an effort to achieve resiliency from the severe storms and minimize risk to the general
public, Weld County addressed severe damage to local roadways, bridges, culverts,
removed hazardous debris roadways , made repairs to paved and gravel roadways ,
addressed river embankments/dangerous conditions to the public and made repairs to
emergency response vehicles that were damaged during the Incident Period .
This Proposed Project addresses proactive work initiated by Weld County during FEMA-DR
4145 enabled the community to recover in an expeditious manner and increased the
resilience of the community by incorporating nearly every aspect of sustainability and
revitalizing the community. The community was able to recover quicker due to the proactive
work done through this Proposed Project and the associated PW's.
14. Maps
Please attach the following maps with the project site and structures marked on the map. Use SAME ID number as in
the Individual Property Worksheets.
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). If the FIRM for your area is not published, please attach a copy of the Flood
Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM).
City or county scale map (large enough to show the entire project area)
USGS 1 :24,000 topo map
Parcel Map (Tax Map, Property Identification Map, etc.)
Overview photographs. The photographs should be representative of the project area, including any relevant
streams, creeks, rivers, etc., and drainage areas which affect the project site of will be affected by the project.
15. Additional Comments (Optional): Enter any additional comments related to the proposed project's ability to reduce
hazard risk and increase community resiliency.
This proposed project reduced the hazard risk to the community and increased resiliency by
the work conducted through the PW in correlation with FEMA-DR 4145 . CDBG funds are
being requested to be applied to the local FEMA Match ( 12 . 5% ) for the PW.
All maps are located in project files that were previously submitted and will be provided
upon request.
The entire community benefited from the nroactive 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
Ails a
CDBC-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
PART A - NOI: DECISION MAKING PROCESS
1. Decision-Making Process:
Describe the process you used to decide that this project is the best solution to the problem. Explain why this project is
the best alternative you considered. Address questions such as:
• Are you focusing on the area in your community that has the greatest potential for losses?
• Have you considered the risks to critical facilities and structures and benefits to be obtained by mitigating this
vulnerability?
• Have you considered those areas or projects that present the greatest opportunities given the current situation(s)
of interest in your community?
• Are you addressing a symptom or the source of the problem? Addressing the source of the problem is a long-term
solution which provides the most mitigation benefits.
• If impacts to the environment, natural, cultural or historic resources have been identified, explain how your alternatives
and proposed project address, minimize, or avoid these impacts.
The Site locations within this WELCO PW in the Proposed Project were identified due to
the high dollar amount of funds that were expended by Weld County to ensure the safety of
the community and also restore county infrastructure back to its pre-disaster condition . This
Proposed Project has site locations across the entire community and service area and it
was determined that a large percentage of the LMI population was impacted by the severe
flooding incident and the proactive work by County Officials enabled the community to
recover quicker. thus allowing the community to sustain resiliency and return operations to
normal .
2. Acquisition Projects - Describe the community's methodology for selecting the properties to be acquired in this application
and how each is ranked (highest to lowest):
N/A
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 11 of 20
CDBC-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 WELCO23 (663 ). These
costs were incurred as a result of FEMA-DR 4145 . During the incident period of September
11 , 2013 to September 30 , 2013 , Weld County, Colorado received heavy rainfall and debris
in the creeks , streams and rivers which caused severe flooding to and along roadways and
surface streets, and also severely damaged local infrastructure . This NOI Application
request addresses the emergency work / damages that were a direct result of the severe
flooding .
A Scope of Work is included within the PW and addresses the work that was completed .
2. Community Priority: Please describe why this project is a priority for your organization.
This Proposed Project is a priority for Weld County to utilize the CDBG funding as the Local
FEMA Match to offset the costs for the proactive work done by the County to reduce
hazardous conditions to the community .
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 12 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
3. Project Cost Summary: Please summarize the major cost components of the project. Please round all values to the
nearest dollar.
a. Planning / Engineering / Design $
b. Environmental Compliance $ The value of general and/or
c. Real Property Acquisition / Demolition $ professional labor wages must
be tabulated in accordance
d. Closing Costs / Legal Fees $ with the Davis Bacon Act of
e. Housing Program Assistance $ 1931
f. Construction Costs $
g. Project Delivery Costs $
h. Other (specify below) $ 240.519.76
See Protect Worksheet Cost ;attached) i. Total of a-h $ 240.519.76
j . Duplication of Benefits (if unknown at time of application enter zero). $ 0 00
k. Subtract j. from i. to determine Total Project Cost $ 240.519.76
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: $ 240.519.76
Federal Cost Share: $ 180.389.82
State Cost Share: $ 30,064 97
$ 30.064 97
Local Cost Share
5. Basis of Cost Estimate: Briefly describe how the cost estimates listed in #3 above were developed (e.g. lump sum, unit cost,
quotation, etc.).
The Cost Estimates were developed above from actual work that was properly procured
and conducted . They come directly off of what was included on the FEMA approved PW
and the costs are broken down by type of work and site .
6. Project Management: Describe how you will manage the costs and schedule, and how you will ensure successful
performance.
The work for this Proposed Project has been completed or is pending completion . The
12 . 5% CDBG Local Match will be applied towards the Weld County Match for FEMA PW's
and the costs that were previously incurred during the disaster.
Note: The applicant must agree to furnish quarterly reports during the entire time the project is in active status. Quarters end
on March 31st, June 30th, September 30th, and December 31st. Reports are due to the State within 15 days after the end of
each quarter.)
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 13 of 20
Aimm
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
7. Project Maintenance Requirements: The following questions are to give assurance on the project's maintenance over
its useful life. Please answer each question and give a brief explanation.
a. If the project involves the acquisition of real property, what is the proposed land use after acquisition? (i.e., Agriculture,
Recreation, Vacant Land, Park, Wetlands, etc.)
N/A
b. Will the project require periodic maintenance?
No
c. If yes, who will provide the maintenance?
N/A
d. What is the estimated cost of maintenance on an annual basis?
0
Note: Cost of maintenance is considered an application prioritization weighting factor. Projects with high maintenance
costs have a greater risk of future failure due to deferred maintenance. Therefore, the responses provided above should be
as complete and verifiable as possible in order to minimize the likelihood of ranking point reductions due to maintenance
concerns.
8. Additional Comments: Enter any additional comments related to the proposed project's funding, if desired .
CDBG funds are needed for the 12 . 5% Local FEMA Match and the associated PW that is
included in the NOI-Application . It should be noted that a version request was submitted for
this project for work that has yet to be completed . The total obligated amount could change
which would change the 12 . 5% Local FEMA Match .
9. Financial / Fiscal Health Factors: Please indicate the total budget (all funds) of your organization. Please describe the
impact of disaster recovery efforts to date on this budget. In addition, if this objective is selected based on the local
governments inability to finance the activity, the municipality must also include in the application package a resolution stating
this fact and supporting documentation such as budgetary information, a description of TABOR restrictions, and the most
recent audit report or approved exemption from audit.
Weld County's total 2015 budget is $307 .031 , 089 . 00 . The impact of the September, 2013
flooding has primary been on the damage to the county's road and bridge system . The
damage has resulted in Weld County having to transfer $5 million from the Contingency
Fund to the Public Works Fund in 2013 and in 2014 for a total of $ 10 million dollars . Without
assistance from FEMA, FWHA. and CDBG the amount would have several million more .
The impact has also forced the county to shift local resources from projects unrelated to
flooding to deal with the emergency situations created by the flood in both the 2013 and
2014 fiscal years . Even in 2015 the county is still using local resources to recover from the
flooding . Fortunately, Weld County has always been fiscally conservative and budgeted
responsibly . Had the county not taken the responsible approach to its finances county
service would have had to have been cut to cope with the flood recovery.
wo r Cni in-v nnoro •oc ► rotor - no mnct roc-rir-kio nrnnortsi -ov imi otinn in no c-�to Rociro�
Attach any continuations or additional item as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 14 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
PART B - APPLICATION : PROJECT MILESTONES / TIMELINES / TASKS
I . Timeline / Tasks
Insert the proposed work schedule as tasks to accomplish the overall goal of the proposed activity (i.e., appraisals, title
search, closing, etc.), and provide a description of the task's purpose. This timeline will be used as a measurement tool
for progress in the project's implementation and is included in the required Quarterly Reports. Also, FEMA uses the
timeline for determining the approved period of performance. It will be the basis used to justify delays or extensions, if
necessary, and should be estimated carefully. The first and last entries are state requirements and have already been
entered.
Task I :
Grant Process and Environmental Review Timeframe: 3 Months
Task 2: Emergency Repairs- The initial emergency repairs were made directly 1 Completed
9 Y P 9 Y P Y Timeframe:
Task 3 : Permanent Repairs - Becuase the emergency repairs were quick repair limeframe: Completed
Task 4: Additional Permanent Repairs - All the necessary repairs were not corn 6 Months
Time frame:
Task 5:
Timeframe:
Task 6:
Timeframe:
Task 7:
Timeframe:
Task 8:
Timeframe:
Task 9:
Timefame:
Final Inspection Report and Project Closeout
Task 10:
The Final Inspection Report is a review of the activity's paper documentation.
showing the project was implemented as required. Once the review is completed. the 3 Months
report and findings will be provided to the grantee for review and concurrence. The Timeframe:
State submits the concurrence to FEMA as part of a closeout package to formally
Total Project Timeframe: 12 Months
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 15 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
2. Start Date & Pre-Award Costs: The start date for any project begins upon GRANT AGREEMENT approval by the
State Controller. If a different start date or timeframe is needed, provide an explanation below. Also indicate if any pre-
award activities or costs have been incurred or authorized.
The proposed project is for local FEMA match dollars and the majority of the work is
completed ; however, another round of construction will be performed this summer. The
repairs for this site began as soon as the flood waters receded and the county crews were
able to access the site . The initial phase of repairs were emergency in nature and began in
September of 2013 and concluded during November of that same year. Permanent repairs
for this site commenced the following year at the beginning of construction season and
concluded in October of 2014 because of weather constraints . The final repairs will be
completed in October of 2015 . Additionally. cost have been incurred in the preparation of
this NOI/Application .
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 16 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
Please note that Part B is required for the final Application submittal. Part B sections
may optionally be completed and submitted with the NOI. Please update any Part A
section information when submitting you full Application.
PART B — APPLICATION : ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
1. Environmental Review Background Information & Environmental Review Worksheet:
In accordance with 24 CFR Part 58.22 (see below), all federally funded projects must accomplish an environmental review
prior to beginning any work on a project. These HUD regulations are in place for two purposes:
1 . To ensure federal funds are used to place people of low and moderate income in environmentally safe
conditions; and
2. To ensure federal funds are NOT used to negatively impact environmental conditions that exist near a
project site.
Please note the following limitations on CDBG-DR grant activities pending environmental clearance per 24 CFR Part 58.22.
(a) Neither a recipient nor any participant in the development process, including public or private nonprofit or for-profit
entities, or any of their contractors, may commit HUD assistance under a program listed in Sec. 58. 1(b) on an activity or
project until HUD or the state has approved the recipient's RROF and the related certification from the responsible
entity. In addition, until the RROF and the related certification have been approved, neither a recipient nor any
participant in the development process may commit non-HUD funds on or undertake an activity or project under a
program listed in Sec. 58. 1(b) if the activity or project would have an adverse environmental impact or limit the choice
of reasonable alternatives.
(b) N/A for DOLA/CDPS projects.
(c) If a recipient is considering an application from a prospective sub-recipient or beneficiary and is aware that the
prospective sub-recipient or beneficiary is about to take an action within the jurisdiction of the recipient that is
prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section, then the recipient will take appropriate action to ensure that the objectives
and procedures of NEPA are achieved.
(d) An option agreement on a proposed site or property is allowable prior to the completion of the environmental review
if the option agreement is subject to a determination by the recipient on the desirability of the property for the project as
a result of the completion of the environmental review in accordance with this part and the cost of the option is a
nominal portion of the purchase price. There is no constraint on the purchase of an option by third parties that have not
been selected for HUD funding, have no responsibility for the environmental review and have no say in the approval or
disapproval of the project.
(e) Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP). In accordance with section 11(dX2)(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.
(f) Relocation. Funds may be committed for relocation assistance before the approval of the RROF and related
certification for the project provided that the relocation assistance is required by 24 CFR part 42.
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 17 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
Environmental Review Worksheet
Check ALL of the activities listed below that will be included as part of the project,
REGARDLESS OF THE FUNDING SOURCE:
Information and financial services
0 Administrative and management activities
0 Environmental and other studies, resource identification, and the development of plans and strategies
v • Most engineering and design costs associated with eligible projects
a ■ Inspections and testing of properties for hazards or defects
b • Project planning
Q ❑ Purchase of insurance
> ❑ Purchase of tools
W - ❑ Technical assistance and training
❑ Interim assistance to arrest the effects of an imminent threat or physical deterioration in which the assistance
; does not alter environmental conditions.
`t, p Public services that will not have a physical impact or result in any physical changes (e.g., employment, child
PY PPY g
0 care, health, education, counseling, welfare)
SI Assistance for temporary or permanent improvements that do not alter environmental conditions and are limited
to protection, repair, or restoration activities necessary only to control or arrest the effects from disasters or
imminent threats to public safety including those resulting from physical deterioration
(Must also complete the Regulatory Checklist at the end of Exhibit IV-A)
Operating costs (e.g., maintenance, security, operation, utilities, furnishings, equipment, supplies, staff training
Z = and recruitment, other incidental costs)
VrE
x ❑ Relocation costs
LU
p Acquisition, repair, improvement, reconstruction, or rehabilitation when the facilities and improvements are in
place and will be retained in the same use without change in size or capacity of more than 20 percent
❑ Special projects directed to the removal of material and architectural bathers that restrict the mobility of and
accessibility to elderly and handicapped persons
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
❑ q q � P
will be retained for the same use
0 Acquisition, repair, improvement, reconstruction, or rehabilitation when the facilities and improvements are in
D place, but will change in size or capacity of more than 20 percent
O Acquisition, repair, improvement, reconstruction, or rehabilitation when the facilities and improvements are in
place, but will involve a change in land use, such as from non-residential to residential, commercial to
industrial, or from one industrial use to another
s Demolition
✓ New construction
This checklist must be included with the CDBG application.
Please direct questions to the appropriate contact person below:
DOLA/DLG DHSEM
Steven Boand, State Disaster Recovery Manager
Tamra Norton, Environmental Compliance Officer Department of Public Safety
Department of Local Affairs Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
1313 Sherman Street, Room 521, 9195 E Mineral Ave, Suite 200
Denver, CO 80203 Centennial, CO 80112
303-866-6398 720.852.6713
tamra.norton@state.co.us steven.boand@state.co.us
DPS/DOLA USE ONLY:
Required level of environmental review: O Exempt O CENST O CESTO EA
Reviewed by:
Date of Review:
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 18 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application 2. Supplemental Environmental Review Information Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
Enter any additional comments related to environmental concerns for the proposed project if desired. Please list and attach any
documents or studies that have been prepared that support the Environmental Review Worksheet responses.
All environmental issues are addressed on the attached Project Worksheet as supporting
documentation . The significant EHP issues were in regards to the Endangered Species Act
( ESA) and EHP Standard Conditions . All items were addressed and any additional supporting
backup documentation can be provided upon request. Please see below for environmental
permits that were obtained .
Floodplain Permit
404 Nationwide Permit
Migratory Birds Permit (if needed )
Threatened and Endangered Species Permit
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 19 of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
PART B - APPLICATION : DETAILED PROJECT BUDGET
1. Detailed Project Budget: Please enter or attach a detailed and comprehensive final proposed budget for the project.
Please note that CDBG-DR funds may be limited to the amount submitted with the NOI pending the availability of
additional funding
This Proposed Project is for the Local FEMA Match for costs for WELCO23 (663 ) . These
costs were incurred as a result of FEMA-DR 4145 . During the incident period of September
11 , 2013 to September 30 , 2013 , Weld County. Colorado received heavy rainfall and debris in
the creeks . streams and rivers which caused severe flooding to and along roadways and
surface streets , and also severely damaged local infrastructure . This Application request
addresses the emergency work / damages that were a direct result of the severe flooding .
A Scope of Work and detailed project budget is included within the PW and addresses the
work that was completed . It is important to note that a version request has been made for this
Project Worksheet and the attached Project Worksheet may not reflect FINAL costs .
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 20 of 20
AlIMMIMMIMMIMMr
N
to
41
0
c
E
J
v
m
E
c
to
v
m
d
c c o
o E
c a 0 0
N
m N E v a
0
u
• E 2 o
N J m
C
Em — v
• 31 D o
N 5O
0 ar
O c 2 v
` m m 3 0 E
03 m d c
a 0 am 0M
J
v
c 0 m o 3 0
E E -0 a O
O '0 0 J 0
• c Ex
m ra 0
3 3 3 .C o
O o o " o m
3 m r0
O 0 0 c c
c c OE
J J J La 0 hi.
o o0cmw aa
. mm uuu
m h,
z
C � LLI
A O 0 O
x — 2
o o 2 O O
-J J J J J
* * * * o * * * * e 0 0 W t o �e t o 0 C a * * 03 N cr 03** o * t C ;e N N N 0 0e O N
• C N N O-1 O-1 C N ID 1/40 N N N W-1 ID
On N On Vi ul N n-1 N 00 u1 ul n-1 C V1 C N
a 01 co co CO 00 CO 00 01 N N n n 01 00 co CO O 00 CO Co n n n OD O vl N M n n M n ul ul to W 01 co CT N
W n M M M M M CO in 111 m M O in M M m m C n m MMNN N NNNWMW
0
CC
3
0
-J
M Vl u1 to 000000000000000
111 01 N N M N N u1 CO 00 n n to N N to N n 01 N M ul 01 ID CO N 111 1A tD u1 t0 ID lD N to 0 M CO
> n O M m m m M n 01 GI N N N m m m ul M N. CO N O O M n n Ol C O O N O N O 0 n n N n 01
M M M M m N N N N M m M N M N N N CA N N N N N N
D
0
0
2
3
0
J
ul to 0 0 0 00 to in u1 0 0 to 0 0 0 0 0 ul in 0 0 0 0 to O u1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u1 to to ut ul
m t0 to to to tD tD M O 0 0 0 M t0 t0 in O 10 W t0 O to to tD O M O O ell ut m in M N N Cr M O M O
• N. n o o o o o N C C C C N O O O M 0 C N C tD t0 0 M O C N tD t0 O tD O C C O n 00 n C
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
J
C N O ID t0 t0 tD 1D n m M N N n tD t0 tD m t0 n O 0 u1 ut ID in in Le) C Omi M O u1 ul 01 ul 01 0 N ul n t0 N m
1D N N N N N N ID O O 00 CO tD N N N N N M n W N N N u1 tD O N N N t0 N t0 N N CO t0 C tD 0
CO N N N N N N N N N N N N N
0
J
3 u1 to to to in ul N to O O to ul ul ul u) ul M in O ul ul to m v, o ul O O to u1 U1 M u1 O 0 0 u1 O in O
u1 N CO CO CO CO CO 1!1 u1 ut ul In to CO CO CO 01 Co co N ut n n Co to co u1 n n CO N 00 01 01 N ul 0 u1 N
O M m N n n n n u1 ID tD W t0 ut n n % C N m lD n m N 1/40 N N NNW
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M N N N N N N N N N N M N N N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 f
n VI to ul u1 ul ID O o u1 to ID N ut to u1 inn n ut 00 CO u1 N N0 O CO OO N CO N 01 01 tD tD O t0 O
0 0 N N N N N 0 N N N N 0 0 N N N N 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 N 0 N
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
m M M M M M m n1 m m m m M M M M M M M M M M M M m M M M m m m m M m M m m m m rn
N N N f,'.44 N N N N N Al N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N tV N N N N N N N N
0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
00 00 00 00 00 00 CO CO CO CO CO CO 00 00 00 00 CO 00 CO CO CO CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 CO CO 00 00 0 00 CO 00 00 CO
0 0 0 u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0
In In N In ul In N N to to N ul M to to u1 H ut N N N to to to N ul N N N N ul N to u1 N IA N N N
w 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0
m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
mi 30000000000000000000000000000000000000000
C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
01 1n ut V1 to to IA VI ul in u1 VI VI ut V1 to to In M u1 ut Ul vl to ul M ul VI v1 u1 111 to to ut ul Le) ul N M to u1
tJ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N t-/ N N N N N N N N N N . . . . . . . N N N N N
N N N N M C ul N N N N N N N N M N N ."t N N N N N N N M C N N M C N N N N N N N N
C
O
w
m
u
O
J
3 N M 0 'C C C v to 10 n 00 m 0 N N N N N ui to to c0 C0 01 N N N N m M m m Cr N m Cru1 t0 n o0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N m en m M M m m
C.
c a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
w 2222222222222222222222222222222222222222
w U ' W W W W W W ' W W W W W W ' W LU W W W W W W W U W W L W W W W W W U W W
CA lL W Ul U W UJ LLl LLl UJ Ul W LU W LLl lL LLl 4l tL W W U.. 111 lL W U u, lL LLl W lL 1L UJ W lL W lL W IL W
U- LL U. LL LL U. U- LL LL U- LL LL LL U- LL LL LL U. U- LL LL U.. LL LL LL LL LL U- LL LL U- LL U. LL U. LL LL LL U. LL
0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 Do
03 N
. el
• M ed N C `Cr Vl M 00 10 C C ul ul N N ul tD M O C 0 00 01 01 N 0 O C u1 N 01 Ln N N NN c t0
m N 01 M N 01 01 00 tD 00 m en en to N C M N T CO 0 m en N n 00 en 01 tD n 10 CO N N C O N tD to N C
N N N C o O O O C COC C on M M 00 00 CO co C C o N co m o N 01 o N to to M in 01 01 N C n in01
N J C M m m m M v n n v M M M in m C n N N M M N N 0 N N N Ni N O O C v N v o
m C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 44 44. 44444444
J
C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O C C C
O Co 0 to O O Q1 to m T 01 N n ul N M t0 W 01 01 n 0 N N 0 in N M M ul n C C M 01 N co to
y N rl 0 C C C O C .C-t 0 0 � .M-+ el CD 00 CO CO 00 00 VOl CO CO O rg c 00 NO CO C 01 N t(0 C 01 T O 00 tO 00 to M ONE 0l CO NI
ch ul C C C C C O O N 0 0 0 CO W 00 N O 01 01 a CO N M O n n CO n m C W tD O n m
J LO t0 N N N N N n o o co co n C C C N C N W tD 00 CO CO N CO O O 01 CO OD CO CO O 00 00 ul n 01 u) O
v o v o o v o o M C o 0 0 0 o v C v C v v C o v In Ui ova v o M o 0 o v v o 1n
m o 0 0 o O o 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C N N N N N N N N .-I N N N N N N N N N N N N ti rl N N N N e-r N N r1 eti N t-1 N N rr r1 N t-1
J
•
, lir a • • . szi. ,
,� _ �� e' of u'I r r ( • f A I-,
a • . ... .
u' u- , LLW. .
:* y
\ _ ; ; I air".
• ,11114. ,� _ ``
• ' y
00r' . . J: s... �x
%..' . N•
f V I
J ' , J�
aa t• i t A.. t.
Pa jp ,
W 111
•
•
..3 ji.•
AO 3 i t . -a -
or
1
— ep 'i a < a a < .pi _ .
tjj Ill LIJ OA
i = ^, J i
It. ^ . .• i(..I
W W 1: r, ' fit..
t r P. { �IP _1 _ .
Y + 1r' 1� -
•
a•..
•
i a :: :S"H:r 11
lir .."7,
J 0 F• .
r.
il
U U . _ 5: vN N LL
ai iiill .. .
2 : 's ' ) . i '•
0-
C u_ t .0 .. il; 8 Q
t ' t
` _ .
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 1 of 25
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00663(2) P
Applicant Name: Application Title:
WELD (COUNTY) WELCO23 - CR 19.5 Road
Period of Performance Start: Period of Performance End:
09-14-2013
Subgrant Application - Entire Application
Application Title: WELCO23 - CR 19.5 Road
Application Number: PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00663(2)
Application Type: Subgrant Application (PW)
Preparer Information
Prefix
First Name Ken
Middle Initial
Last Name Beebe
Title Project Specialist
Agency/Organization Name FEMA - DHS
Address 1 9200 E. MINERAL AVE.
Address 2
City CENTENNIAL
State CO
Zip 80112
Email deanna.butterbaugh@state.co.us
Is the application preparer the Point of Contact? No
Point of Contact Information
Prefix
First Name Roy
Middle Initial
Last Name Rudisill
Title Director-OEM
Agency/Organization Weld County
Address 1 1150 O Street
Address 2
City Greeley
State CO
ZIP 80632
Phone 910-304-6540
Fax
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do`?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 2 of 25
Email rrudisill@weld.gov.com
Alternate Point of Contact Information
Prefix
First Name
Middle Initial
Last Name
Title
Agency/Organization
Address 1
Address 2
City
State
ZIP
Phone
Fax
Email
Project Description
Disaster Number: 4145
Pre-Application Number: PA-08-CO-4145-RPA-0088
Applicant ID: 123-99123-00
Applicant Name: WELD (COUNTY)
Subdivision:
Project Number: WELCO23
Standard Project Number/Title: 399 - Road System Damage
Please Indicate the Project Type: Neither Alternate nor Improved
Application Title: WELCO23 - CR 19.5 Road
Category: C.ROADS & BRIDGES
Percentage Work Completed? 70.0 %
As of Date: 11 -13-2013
Comments
Attachments
User Date Document Description Hard Copy File File Name Action
Type Reference
KATHLEEN 02-25- Location WELCO23 Location Map.pdf
RUVARAC 2014 Map Map (124.26 kb) View
Damage Facilities (Part 1 of 2)
Facility Site
Number Facility Name Address County City State ZIP Previously Action
Damaged?
1 CR 19.5 Weld CO No
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. .. 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 3 of 25
Comments
Attachments
User Date Document Description Hard Copy File File Name Action
Type Reference
KATHLEEN 02-25- WELCO23 CR19.5-36A- St. Vrain
RUVARAC 2014 Photos River Photo Sheet 01 .pdf( 147.53 kb) View
KATHLEEN 02-25-
Photos Applicants Photos.pdf( 1 .93 Mb) View
RUVARAC 2014
KATHLEEN 02 25- Narrative WELCO23 DDD SOW.pdf(78. 10 kb) View
RUVARAC 2014 - -
ANTHONY 05-08- Project Version 1 - Version 1 - WELCO23 -DDD and SOW View
SAWNEY 2014 Worksheet SOW Rev 6.docx(23.56 kb)
Facility Name: CR 19.5
Address 1 :
Address 2:
County: Weld
City:
State: CO
ZIP:
Was this site previously damaged? No
Percentage Work Completed? 70.00
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00663(0):
This project worksheet addresses damages to CR 19.5 roadway south of
Bridge WEL019.5-036.0A over St. Vrain River. in Section 3, T3N, R67W.
CR 19.5 Roadway
Lat: N40.25641
Long: -W104.87923
Location: PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00663( 1 ):
****Version 1 *"*
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00663(2):
***** Version 2 *****
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00663(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 CR 19.5
roadway south of Bridge WEL019.5-036.0A over St. Vrain River, in Section 3.
T3N. R67W.
On November 13, 2013, Kathleen Ruvarac, FEMA TAC Bridge Specialist,
David Ray, FEMA Hazard Mitigation Specialist, Gary Moore, FEMA
Environmental, Historic Preservation Specialist and Donald Dunker. Weld
County Public Works Engineer, performed a site investigation at this location
to document damages. The road was open and repairs completed at the time
of inspection.
Flooding of the St. Vrain River resulted in damages on CR 19.5 include
washout of asphalt, roadway base and embankment material on the
northbound travel lanes at two (2) locations south of the bridge.
littps://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTi le=dsHeader&b... 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 4 of 25
Asphalt Patch 1 on northbound roadway and shoulder measured 210 ft L x 14
ft W = 2,940 SF x 0.525 ft D = 1 ,543.5 CF x 146 LB/CF x 1 ton/2000 LB =
112.7 tons asphalt
Embankment Material lost in asphalt patch 1 is estimated 210 ft L x 14 ft W x
3 ft D = 326.7 CY.
Asphalt Patch 2 on northbound roadway and shoulder measured 94 ft L x 10
ft W = 940 SF x 0.525 ft D = 493.5 CF x 146 LB/CF x 1 ton/2000 LB = 36.0
tons asphalt
Embankment Material lost in asphalt patch 2 is estimated 94 ft Lx 10 ft W x 3
ft D = 104A CY.
Embankment material was also washed away by the flood waters at three
additional locations on the east and west shoulders outside of the limits of the
asphalt patches.
East shoulder = 1 ,561 ft L x 25 ft W x 1 ft D = 1 ,445.4 CY and 541 ft L x 12 ft
Wx 1 ftD = 240.4 CY
West Shoulder = 1 ,363 ft L x 5 ft W x 1 ft D = 252.4 CY
Total Asphalt = 148.7 Tons, Total Embankment Material = 2,369.3 CY
50 LF of guardrail above the culvert was damaged due to embankment
material which was washed away with the flood waters.
The Applicant has provided pictures of the facilities documenting damages.
These photos are attached to this project worksheet.
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00663(1 ):
****Version 1 ****
On March 21 , 2014, Paul Hesse, FEMA TAC Project Specialist, David Ray,
FEMA Hazard Mitigation Specialist, Shelley Bayard de Volo, FEMA
Environmental, Historic Preservation Specialist and Clay Kimmi, Weld County
Damage Description and Dimensions: Public Works Engineer performed a second site investigation at this location
to document damages that were not presented to FEMA at the first site visit.
The following items were observed at the site visit:
4. Location: 40.25659, -104.87955
Damage: Debris deposited on the west side of the concrete box culvert and
inside culvert
Dimension: 50LF x 4FT wide x 0.5FT deep/27 = 3.7CY [inside box culvert]
50LF x 8FT wide x 0.5FT deep/27 = 7.4CY [west side of box culvert]
Debris Total = 3.7CY + 7.4CY = 11 .1 CY use 12CY
Note: This debris is incidental to the project.
Location 2: Bridge
5. Location: 40.25813, -104.88035
Damage: Erosion of rip rap at the toe of slope [northwest wingwall] of bridge.
Dimension: 50LF x 10FT wide x 3FT deep/27 = 55.5CY use 60CY
Note: The applicant representative showed FEMA erosion of the northern
embankment upstream of the bridge. This includes a section of rip rap within
the first 50FT upstream of the bridge which is an improved and maintained
area immediately adjacent to the bridge and within its right-of-way and this
damage is included in this PW. Further upstream and outside of the
applicant's right-of-way, beginning at a point approximately 50FT upstream of
the bridge and continuing upstream in a westerly direction an additional
160FT, there is significant embankment erosion in an area that was
unimproved and unmaintained until it reached a fence line where it becomes
privately owned. Applicant expressed concern that continued embankment
erosion in this area may result in significant rechannelization of the stream, to
the point that the bridge may experience significant damage, or the stream
channel may become significantly misaligned with the bridge structure. Some
stream rechannelization did occur on private property, however the stream is
still aligned with the bridge.
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTi le=dsHeader&b... 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 5 of 25
Location 3: CMP Culvert
6. Location: 40.25210, -104.87827
Damage: One length of 36IN CMP was misaligned vertically at the first joint
[west side]
Dimension: 36IN CMP x 20LF [pipe not damaged, band damaged]
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00663(2):
***** Version 2 *****
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00663(0):
WORK TO BE COMPLETED
1 — Fill embankment material lost in roadway travel lanes, embankment and
shoulders — 2,369.3 CY x 1 .82 (Conversion Factor CY ABC Class 6 Material
to Tons = 4,312. 1 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) = $145,317.77
2 — Install asphalt on northbound travel lanes = 148.7 tons x $81 .70/ton
(CDOT Item Number 403-33741 Hot Bituminous Pavement (Grading S) (75)
(PG 64-22) = $12, 148.79
3- Reset 50 LF of guardrail above culvert x $18.34/LF (CDOT Item Number
606-00301 ) = $917.00
Total = $158,383.56 cost estimate prepared by project specialist using 2013
CDOT Average Unit Prices
Project Notes
1 . During repair or reconstruction, applicant may incur incidental costs
related to clearing and grubbing, placement of topsoil, erosion and
sedimentation control, sanitary facilities mobilization and flagging/traffic
control. Such costs are generally addressed in the "in-place" unit costs of
repair or reconstruction items, and not specifically addressed in the Scope of
Work. However, if a project requires an extraordinary use of any such items,
to where a specific reference in the PW should be considered, applicant is
advised to 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
Scope of Work: have cost data available within the fourteen day Pocket Guide rule. Per Field
Operations Pocket Guide, Section 7, Cost Estimates, Page 26, "If the
applicant has not produced cost data within two weeks of the site inspection,
the Project Specialist will prepare the PW on the basis of an estimate for the
work accomplished". Applicant and FEMA personnel jointly conducted all
inspections and agreed to use CDOT costs for in-place costs to derive
estimates on this project worksheet. Applicant understands that all actual
support documentation, invoices, FA records, contract and proof of payment
will be required for final reconciliation and or closeout process. Attached is the
CDOT average in-place cost for materials.
3. The Applicant will notify FEMA and the State of their intent to perform
permanent work related to this site before any work commences in the field.
Failure to do so may jeopardize the sub-grant for permanent work related to
the work in this sub-grant.
4. Pursuant to 44 CFR 13.42, Grantees and Subgrantees are required to
retain records, including source documentation, to support expenditures/costs
incurred against the grant award, for 3 years from the date of submission to
FEMA of the final Financial Status Report.
5. The applicant must obtain all required federal, state, and local permits
prior to the commencement of work.
6. The subgrantee is requesting direct administrative costs that are directly
chargeable to this specific project. Associated eligible work is related to
administration of the PA project only and in accordance with 44 CFR 13.22.
These costs are treated consistently and uniformly as direct costs in all
federal awards and other subgrantee activities and are not included in any
approved indirect costs.
7. Project was reviewed for 406 Hazard Mitigation and a hazard mitigation
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. .. 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 6 of 25
proposal is attached to this project worksheet.
8. The applicant is aware that all projects are subject to an insurance review
as stated in 44 C.F.R. Sections 206.252 and 206.253. If applicable, an
insurance determination will be made either as anticipated proceeds or actual
proceeds in accordance with the applicant's insurance policy that may affect
the total amount of the project.
9. The applicant is required to adhere to State and Federal Government
Procurement rules and regulations and maintain adequate records to support
the basis for all purchasing of goods and materials and contracting services
for projects approved under the Public Assistance program, as stated in 44
CFR 13.36. The applicant has advised they have followed their normal
procurement procedures.
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00663(1 ):
****Version 1 ****
This version is written to add additional sites that were missed during the
initial site inspections.
WORK TO BE COMPLETED
4 — Remove debris incidental to project and dispose at an approved facility:
Labor: 2ea x 4hrs = 8hrs x $50/hr = $400
Equipment: 4hrs [$60/hr Cost Code 8722 + $38/hr Cost Code 8573] = $392
Total: 400 + 392 = $792
Location 1 Total (Version 0 and1 ): 145,317.77 + 12, 148.79 + 917 + 792 =
$159, 175.56
Note: Debris will be disposed of at Weld County landfill in Kennesburg, CO.
Tree limbs, etc. will be disposed of at A-1 Organics Rattler Ridge, 12002
CR59, Kennesburg, CO. Solid waste will be disposed of at Waste
Management — Buffalo Ridge Landfill, 11655 CR59, Kennesburg, CO.
Location 2: Bridge
5 — Install rip rap at toe of slope of northwest wingwall:
60CY x $83. 17/CY [CDOT 506-00218] = $4,990.20
Note: Applicant proposed several approaches to provide additional armoring
of the northern embankment starting at a point approximately 50FT upstream
of the bridge and continuing upstream. The unimproved, unmaintained
portion of the embankment including what appears to involve erosion of
private property for a total length of 160FT does not appear to meet FEMA's
Public Assistance eligibility criteria nor does it appear to meet 406 Hazard
Mitigation criteria. The eroded area is outside of the applicant's right of way,
and appears to be on private property. The eroded embankment is an
unimproved and unmaintained natural feature on private property. Physical
damage at the bridge itself was estimated at the loss of 60cy of rip rap, at a
value of $4,992.20.
Location 3: CMP Culvert
6 — Remove first section of CMP to first joint on west side of CR19.5. Replace
pipe band and reinstall.
Labor: 3ea x 6hrs = 18hrs x $50/hr = $900
Equipment: 6hrs x $38/hr Cost Code 8573 = $228
Material: $50/band and fasteners
Location 3 Total: 900 + 228 + 50 = $1 , 178
Total = $159, 175.56 + $4,990.20 + $1 ,178.00 = $165,343.76 cost estimate
prepared by project specialist using 2013 CDOT Average Unit Prices
NOTE: Revised HMP in the amount of $46,676.00 is attached. Obligated
value in Version (0) is $27,067.01 . Only change is in the quantity of TRM.
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00663(2):
***** Version 2 *****
This version of the PW is being written in regard to the applicant's request in
an e-mail dated August 15, 2014 requesting changes to the scope of work
(SOW).
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do lmenuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 7 of 25
The applicants request is for adding additional riprap at Location 2 which is
Bridge WELO19.5-036.0A based on the applicant's engineer performing site
investigations and discovered additional damage that was not included in the
PW. Riprap along the toe of the NE embankment was washed away and a
small scour hole formed as a result of the 2013 floods. The engineer
recommended that the area be regarded and more riprap installed.
Additionally, the engineer identified riprap at the north abutment under the
bridge was also washed away.
The PW identifies 60 CY of riprap needed on the NW wing wall. The
consulting engineer identifies 310 CY of riprap needed to repair all of the
damage on the north abutment. The applicant is requesting 310 CY - 60 CY
(PW) = 250 CY. The applicant is suggesting the unit price of the 18 inch
riprap be $110.00 per CY based on similar flood projects in Weld Co.
Therefore 250 CY X $ 110.00 = $27,500.00. FEMA has reviewed all of the
documentation and has determined the $27,500.00 be FEMA eligible.
Comments and Attachments
663 version 2 19-5 Scour Hole Before
663 version 2 EM-BR19-5-36A Prelim Plan
663 version 2 Missing Riprap
663 version 2 Scour Hole After
Hazard Mitigation Proposal
Is effective mitigation feasible on this site? Yes
If you answered Yes to the above question, the next question is required
Will mitigation be performed on this site? Yes
If you answered Yes to the above question , the next question is required
Do you wish to attach a Hazard Mitigation Proposal? Yes
If you answered Yes to the above question, the next two questions are required
Work To Be Completed
The applicant has indicated that the installation of turf
reinforcement mat on the roadside shoulders and embankment
slopes will re-direct channel flow across the slopes reducing
erosion at the facility and alleviating future damages.
1 ) Turf Reinforcement Mat — 2,000 ft in length x 10 ft average
width within the right of way on the east shoulder (downstream
side) = 2,222.2 SY x 1 .2 factor for toe in excess of material =
2,666.7 SY x $10.00/SY (CDOT Item Number 216-00301 ) =
$26,667.00
This HMP is considered cost effective per FEMA Disaster
Assistance Policy 9526. 1 , Section VII. B. 2. Certain mitigation
Please provide the Scope of Work for the estimate: measures (Appendix A), determined cost effective. as long as
(maximum 4000 characters) the mitigation measure does not exceed 100% of the eligible
cost of the eligible repair work on the project.
Appendix A. 5. Gabion baskets, rip rap, sheet piling, and
geotextile fabric installation- installation to control erosion.
SOW Items #1 and 2 = $157,446.49
$26.667.00/$157,466.49 = 16.9%
The net cost of mitigation/cost of damages is 16.9% < 100%.
This HMP is for cost estimating purposes only. The Final design
is the obligation of the Applicant and/or their agent.
****Version 1 ****
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. .. 10/28/2014
S _
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 8 of 25
Location # 1 :
As a result of the flooding during the incident period of
September 11 through September 30, 2013 Weld County road
CR 19.5 at 40.25745 -104.87973 was over topped, damaging
the road, shoulders and ditches. To reduce future damages at
the referenced site the applicant proposes to install TRM on the
road shoulder 1500FT X 20FT = 30000/9 = 3334SY X $14.00=
$46,676.00
MITIGATION COST = $46,676.00
REPAIR COST = $159, 175.56
MITIGATION % = 29.32%
Mitigation is cost-effective per RP9526. 1 , VII, B, 2, Appendix A,
I, A, 5 - 100%-Rule
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
CR 19.5 South of Bridge 40.25745 -104.87973
Special Considerations
1 . Does the damaged facility or item of work have insurance coverage and/or is it an insurable risk No
(e.g., buildings, equipment, vehicles, etc)?
2. Is the damaged facility located within a floodplain or coastal high hazard area and/or does it have Yes
an impact on a floodplain or wetland?
If you would like to make any comments, please enter them below.
(maximum 4000 characters)
Zone A - Areas of 100 year flood; base flood elevations and flood hazard factors not determined. Flood Map
0802660750C dated September 28, 1982
3. Is the damaged facility or item of work located within or adjacent to a Coastal Barrier Resource No
System Unit or an Otherwise Protected Area?
4. Will the proposed facility repairs/reconstruction change the pre-disaster conditions (e.g., footprint, No
material, location, capacity, use of function)?
5. Does the applicant have a hazard mitigation proposal or would the applicant like technical No
assistance for a hazard mitigation proposal?
6. Is the damaged facility on the National Register of Historic Places or the state historic listing? Is it No
older than 50 years? Are there more, similar buildings near the site?
7. Are there any pristine or undisturbed areas on, or near, the project site? Are there large tracts of No
forestland?
8. Are there any hazardous materials at or adjacent to the damaged facility and/or item of work? No
9. Are there any other environmental or controversial issues associated with the damaged facility Yes
and/or item of work?
If you would like to make any comments, please enter them below.
(maximum 4000 characters)
EHP to conduct review
Attachments
User Date Document Type Description Hard Copy File File Name Action
Reference
KATHLEEN 02-25- Floodplain Firmette.pdf(277.54 kb) View
RUVARAC 2014
KATHLEEN 02-25- Environmental/Historic EHP email approval of View
RUVARAC 2014 Document TRM.pdf(94.76 kb)
https://isource.ferna.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 9 of 25
For Category C, D, E, F, and G Projects only
Is effective mitigation feasible on this project? Yes
If you answered Yes to the above question, the next question is required
Will mitigation be performed on any sites in this Yes
project?
If you answered Yes to the above question, the next question is required
Do you wish to attach a Hazard Mitigation Proposal? Yes
If you answered Yes to the above question, the next two questions are required
5/8/14 - Mark W. Petitt, 406 Specialist HMP revised for version 1
Replace EMMIE #00663 Version (0) HMP with the following:
VERSION (1 ) Location # 1 : As a result of the flooding during the
incident period of September 11 through September 30, 2013
Weld County road CR 19.5 at 40.25745 -104.87973 was over
Please provide the Scope of Work topped, damaging the road, shoulders and ditches. To reduce
for the estimate: future damages at the referenced site the applicant proposes to
install TRM on the road shoulder 1500FT X 20FT = 30000/9 =
3334SY X $14.00= $46,676.00 MITIGATION COST =
$46,676.00 REPAIR COST = $159,175.56 MITIGATION % =
29.32% Mitigation is cost-effective per RP9526. 1 , VII, B, 2,
Appendix A, I, A, 5 - 100%-Rule
Would you like to add the Hazard Mitigation Yes
Proposal as a cost line item to the project cost?
Hazard Mitigation Proposal - 0909
Unit Unit of Subgrant Cost
# Code Material and/or Description Quantity Measure Unit Price Budget Type Estimate Action
Class
*** Version 0 ***
1 9999 Turf Reinforcement Mat (CDOT 216- 2666.7 SY $ 10.15 $ 27,067.01
00301 , as of 03/31/13)
*** Version 1 ***
2 9999 Deobligate Version 0 1 LS $ - $ -
27,067.01 27,067.01
3 9999 TRM 3334 SY $ 14.00 $ 46,676.00
Total Cost: $ 46,676.00
Comments
Attachments
User Date Document Description Hard Copy File File Name Action
Type Reference
KATHLEEN 02-25- Narrative WELCO23 HMP. df View
RUVARAC 2014 _ P (59.95 kb)
ANTHONY 05-08- Mitigation Version 1 - Version 1 - WELCO23 - View
SAWNEY 2014 Proposal HMP HMP.pdf(43.39 kb)
Cost Estimate
Is this Project Worksheet for
(Preferred) Repair
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 10 of 25
Sequence Code Material and/or Unit Unit of Subgrant Type Cost
Unit Price Action
Description Quantity Measure Budget Class Estimate
**" Version 0 *'`*
Work To Be Completed
Aggregate Work To
1 9999 Base Course 4312. 1 TON $ 33.70 CONSTRUCTION Be $ 145,317.77
Completed
Work To
2 9999 Asphalt 148. 7 TON $ 81 .70 CONSTRUCTION Be $ 12, 148. 79
Completed
Reset Work To
3 9999 Guardrail 50 LF $ 18.34 CONSTRUCTION Be $ 917.00
Completed
Direct Work To
4 9999 Administrative 40 HR $ 25.00 PERSONNEL Be $ 1 ,000.00
Costs Completed
**i' Version 1 ***
Other
5 9999 Deobligate 1 LS $ Other $ -159,383.56
Version 0 159.383.56
6 9999 Location 1 1 LS 159, 175.56 Other $ 159, 175.56
7 9999 Location 2 1 LS $ 4,990.20 Other $ 4,990.20
8 9999 Location 3 1 LS $ 1 , 178.00 Other $ 1 , 178.00
Direct
9 9901 Administrative 1 LS $ 1 ,000.00 PERSONNEL Other $ 1 ,000.00
Costs
(Subgrantee)
*** Version 2 **'r
Other
C10 9999 ShOa1�nge in 1 LS 27.500.00 Other $ 27,500.00
Total Cost : $ 193,843.76
Insurance Adjustments (Deductibles, Proceeds and Settlements) - 5900/5901
Unit Unit of Unit Subgrant Cost
Sequence Code Material and/or Description Budget Type Action
Quantity Measure Price Class Estimate
Total Cost : $ 0.00
Hazard Mitigation Proposal - 0909
Unit Unit of Subgrant Cost
Sequence Code Material and/or Description Quantity Measure Unit Price Budget Type Estimate Action
Class
*** Version 0 ***
Turf Reinforcement Mat
1 9999 (CDOT 216-00301 . as of 2666.7 SY $ 10. 15 $ 27,067.01
03/31 /13)
*** Version 1 ***
2 9999 Deobligate Version 0 1 LS 27,067.01 $ -27,067.01
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTi le=&topTile=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
•
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 11 of 25
3 9999 TRM 3334 SY $ 14.00 $ 46.676.00
Total Cost : $ 46,676.00
Total Cost Estimate: $ 240,519.76
(Preferred Estimate Type + Insurance Adjustments + Hazard Mitigation Proposal)
Comments
Attachments
User Date Document Description Hard Copy File File Name Action
Type Reference
KATHLEEN 02-25- Calculation Direct
RUVARAC 2014 Sheet Administrative Cost WELCO23_dac.pdf(18.74 kb) View
Estimate
KATHLEEN 02-25- CDOT Average Unit Weld County - 2013 CDOT
RUVARAC 2014 Miscellaneous Price Sheet Average Unit Prices.pdf(37.37 View
kb)
Existing Insurance Information
Insurance Type Policy No. Bldg/Property Content Insurance Deductible Years
Amount Amount Amount Amount Required
Comments
Policy on file at JFO
Attachments
Comments and Attachments
Name of Section Comment Attachment
Project Description WELCO23 Location Map.pdf
WELCO23 CR19.5-36A- St. Vrain River Photo Sheet 01 .pdf
Damage Facilities Applicants Photos.pdf
WELCO23 DDD SOW.pdf
Version 1 - WELCO23 -DDD and SOW Rev 6.docx
Special Considerations Firmette.pdf
EHP email approval of TRM.pdf
Mitigation WELCO23 HMP.pdf
Version 1 - WELCO23 - HMP.pdf
Cost Estimate WELCO23 dac.pdf
Weld County - 2013 CDOT Average Unit Prices.pdf
Insurance Information Policy on file at JFO
PW 663 V.0-1 - Entire Application.pdf
AMEND - Loci Item 14-27-4145 - PW 663.pdf
Form 90-91 VER. 2 PW 00663 Cover Sheet.docx
19-5-Scour-Hole-BEFORE-38077-61336.pdfP .pdf
EM-BR19-5-36A-Prelim-Plan-Set-copy-38251 -22865.pdf
Scour hole after.bmp
Bundle Reference # (Amendment #) Date Awarded
PA-08-CO-4145-State-0089(88) 10-24-2014
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 12 of 25
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
WELCO23 123-99123- 10-09-2014 C
FEMA 4145 - DR -CO 00
APPLICANT: WELD (COUNTY) WORK COMPLETE AS OF:
11-13-2013 : 70 %
Site 1of1
DAMAGED FACILITY:
COUNTY: Weld
CR 19.5
LOCATION: LATITUDE: LONGITUDE:
40.25745 -104.87973
PA-08-CO-4145-P W-00663(0):
This project worksheet addresses damages to CR 19.5 roadway south of Bridge WEL019.5-036.0A over
St. Vrain River, in Section 3, T3N, R67W.
CR 19.5 Roadway
Lat: N40.25641
Long: -W104.87923
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00663(1 ):
****Version 1****
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00663(2):
***** Version 2 *****
DAMAGE DESCRIPTION AND DIMENSIONS:
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00663(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 CR 19.5
roadway south of Bridge WEL019.5-036.0A over St. Vrain River, in Section 3, T3N, R67W.
On November 13, 2013, Kathleen Ruvarac, FEMA TAC Bridge Specialist, David Ray, FEMA Hazard Mitigation Specialist, Gary Moore, FEMA
Environmental, Historic Preservation Specialist and Donald Dunker, Weld County Public Works Engineer, performed a site investigation at this
location to document damages. The road was open and repairs completed at the time of inspection.
Flooding of the St. Vrain River resulted in damages on CR 19.5 include washout of asphalt, roadway base and embankment material on the
northbound travel lanes at two (2) locations south of the bridge.
Asphalt Patch 1 on northbound roadway and shoulder measured 210 ft L x 14 ft W = 2,940 SF x 0.525 ft D = 1 ,543.5 CF x 146 LB/CF x 1 ton/2000
LB = 112.7 tons asphalt
Embankment Material lost in asphalt patch 1 is estimated 210 ft Lx 14 ft W x 3 ft D = 326.7 CY.
Asphalt Patch 2 on northbound roadway and shoulder measured 94 ft L x 10 ft W = 940 SF x 0.525 ft D = 493.5 CF x 146 LB/CF x 1 ton/2000 LB =
36.0 tons asphalt
Embankment Material lost in asphalt patch 2 is estimated 94 ft Lx 10 ft W x 3 ft D = 104.4 CY.
Embankment material was also washed away by the flood waters at three additional locations on the east and west shoulders outside of the limits of
the asphalt patches.
East shoulder = 1 ,561 ft L x 25 ft Wx1 ft D = 1 ,445.4 CY and 541 ft L x 12 ft W x 1 ft D = 240.4 CY
West Shoulder = 1,363 ft L x 5 ft W x1 ftD = 252.4CY
Total Asphalt = 148.7 Tons, Total Embankment Material = 2,369.3 CY
50 LF of guardrail above the culvert was damaged due to embankment material which was washed away with the flood waters.
The Applicant has provided pictures of the facilities documenting damages. These photos are attached to this project worksheet.
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00663(1 ):
****Version 1**"
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 13 of 25
On March 21, 2014, Paul Hesse, FEMA TAC Project Specialist, David Ray, FEMA Hazard Mitigation Specialist, Shelley Bayard de Volo, FEMA
Environmental, Historic Preservation Specialist and Clay Kimmi, Weld County Public Works Engineer performed a second site investigation at this
location to document damages that were not presented to FEMA at the first site visit. The following items were observed at the site visit:
4. Location: 40.25659, -104.87955
Damage: Debris deposited on the west side of the concrete box culvert and inside culvert
Dimension: 5OLF x 4FT wide x 0.5FT deep/27 = 3.7CY [inside box culvert]
5OLF x 8FT wide x 0.5FT deep/27 = 7.4CY [west side of box culvert]
Debris Total = 3.7CY + 7.4CY = 11 .1 CY use 12CY
Note: This debris is incidental to the project.
Location 2: Bridge
5. Location: 40.25813, -104.88035
Damage: Erosion of rip rap at the toe of slope [northwest wingwall] of bridge.
Dimension: 5OLF x 10FT wide x 3FT deep/27 = 55.5CY use 60CY
Note: The applicant representative showed FEMA erosion of the northern embankment upstream of the bridge. This includes a section of rip rap
within the first SOFT upstream of the bridge which is an improved and maintained area immediately adjacent to the bridge and within its right-of-way
and this damage is included in this PW. Further upstream and outside of the applicant's right-of-way, beginning at a point approximately 50FT
upstream of the bridge and continuing upstream in a westerly direction an additional 160FT, there is significant embankment erosion in an area that
was unimproved and unmaintained until it reached a fence line where it becomes privately owned. Applicant expressed concern that continued
embankment erosion in this area may result in significant rechannelization of the stream, to the point that the bridge may experience significant
damage, or the stream channel may become significantly misaligned with the bridge structure. Some stream rechannelization did occur on private
property, however the stream is still aligned with the bridge.
Location 3: CMP Culvert
6. Location: 40.25210, -104.87827
Damage: One length of 36IN CMP was misaligned vertically at the first joint [west side]
Dimension: 36IN CMP x 2OLF [pipe not damaged, band damaged]
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00663(2):
Version 2
SCOPE OF WORK:
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00663(0):
WORK TO BE COMPLETED
1 — Fill embankment material lost in roadway travel lanes, embankment and shoulders — 2,369.3 CY x 1 .82 (Conversion Factor CY ABC Class 6
Material to Tons = 4,312.1 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) = $145,317.77
2 — Install asphalt on northbound travel lanes = 148.7 tons x $81 .70/ton (CDOT Item Number 403-33741 Hot Bituminous Pavement (Grading S) (75)
(PG 64-22) = $12,148.79
3- Reset 50 LF of guardrail above culvert x $18.34/LF (CDOT Item Number 606-00301) = $917.00
Total = $158,383.56 cost estimate prepared by project specialist using 2013 CDOT Average Unit Prices
Project Notes
1. During repair or reconstruction, applicant may incur incidental costs related to clearing and grubbing, placement of topsoil, erosion and
sedimentation control, sanitary facilities mobilization and flagging/traffic control. Such costs are generally addressed in the "in-place" unit costs of
repair or reconstruction items, and not specifically addressed in the Scope of Work. However, if a project requires an extraordinary use of any such
items, to where a specific reference in the PW should be considered, applicant is advised to contract Colorado Department of Emergency
Management requesting a revision to the PW's Scope of Work.
2. Applicant has completed a substantial percentage of the work but will not have cost data available within the fourteen day Pocket Guide rule. Per
Field Operations Pocket Guide, Section 7, Cost Estimates, Page 26, "If the applicant has not produced cost data within two weeks of the site
inspection, the Project Specialist will prepare the PW on the basis of an estimate for the work accomplished". Applicant and FEMA personnel jointly
conducted all inspections and agreed to use CDOT costs for in-place costs to derive estimates on this project worksheet. Applicant understands that
all actual support documentation, invoices, FA records, contract and proof of payment will be required for final reconciliation and or closeout process.
Attached is the CDOT average in-place cost for materials.
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. Project was reviewed for 406 Hazard Mitigation and a hazard mitigation proposal is attached to this project worksheet.
8. The applicant is aware that all projects are subject to an insurance review as stated in 44 C.F.R. Sections 206.252 and 206.253. If applicable, an
insurance determination will be made either as anticipated proceeds or actual proceeds in accordance with the applicant's insurance policy that may
affect the total amount of the project.
9. The applicant is required to adhere to State and Federal Government Procurement rules and regulations and maintain adequate records to
support the basis for all purchasing of goods and materials and contracting services for projects approved under the Public Assistance program, as
stated in 44 CFR 13.36. The applicant has advised they have followed their normal procurement procedures.
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00663(1 ):
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTi le=dsHeader&b... 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 14 of 25
****Version 1 ****
This version is written to add additional sites that were missed during the initial site inspections.
WORK TO BE COMPLETED
4 — Remove debris incidental to project and dispose at an approved facility:
Labor: 2ea x 4hrs = 8hrs x $50/hr = $400
Equipment: 4hrs [$60/hr Cost Code 8722 + $38/hr Cost Code 8573] = $392
Total: 400 + 392 = $792
Location 1 Total (Version 0 and1 ): 145,317.77 + 12.148.79 + 917 + 792 = $159,175.56
Note: Debris will be disposed of at Weld County landfill in Kennesburg. CO. Tree limbs, etc. will be disposed of at A-1 Organics Rattler Ridge. 12002
CR59. Kennesburg, CO. Solid waste will be disposed of at Waste Management - Buffalo Ridge Landfill, 11655 CR59, Kennesburg, CO.
Location 2: Bridge
5 - Install rip rap at toe of slope of northwest wingwall:
60CY x $83.17/CY [CDOT 506-00218] = $4,990.20
Note: Applicant proposed several approaches to provide additional armoring of the northern embankment starting at a point approximately 50FT
upstream of the bridge and continuing upstream. The unimproved. unmaintained portion of the embankment including what appears to involve
erosion of private property for a total length of 160FT does not appear to meet FEMA's Public Assistance eligibility criteria nor does it appear to meet
406 Hazard Mitigation criteria. The eroded area is outside of the applicant's right of way. and appears to be on private property. The eroded
embankment is an unimproved and unmaintained natural feature on private property. Physical damage at the bridge itself was estimated at the loss
of 60cy of rip rap. at a value of $4,992.20.
Location 3: CMP Culvert
6 — Remove first section of CMP to first joint on west side of CR19.5. Replace pipe band and reinstall.
Labor: 3ea x 6hrs = 18hrs x $50/hr = $900
Equipment: 6hrs x $38/hr Cost Code 8573 = $228
Material: $50/band and fasteners
Location 3 Total: 900 + 228 + 50 = $1 , 178
Total = $159.175.56 + $4,990.20 + $1 , 178.00 = $165,343.76 cost estimate prepared by project specialist using 2013 CDOT Average Unit Prices
NOTE: Revised HMP in the amount of $46,676.00 is attached. Obligated value in Version (0) is $27,067.01 . Only change is in the quantity of TRM.
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00663(2):
***** Version 2 **`*`
This version of the PW is being written in regard to the applicant's request in an e-mail dated August 15, 2014 requesting changes to the scope of
work (SOW).
The applicant's request is for adding additional riprap at Location 2 which is Bridge WELO19.5-036.0A based on the applicant's engineer performing
site investigations and discovered additional damage that was not included in the PW. Riprap along the toe of the NE embankment was washed
away and a small scour hole formed as a result of the 2013 floods. The engineer recommended that the area be regarded and more riprap installed.
Additionally, the engineer identified riprap at the north abutment under the bridge was also washed away.
The PW identifies 60 CY of riprap needed on the NW wing wall. The consulting engineer identifies 310 CY of riprap needed to repair all of the
damage on the north abutment. The applicant is requesting 310 CY - 60 CY (PW) = 250 CY. The applicant is suggesting the unit price of the 18
inch riprap be $110.00 per CY based on similar flood projects in Weld Co.
Therefore 250 CY X $110.00 = $27,500.00. FEMA has reviewed all of the documentation and has determined the $27,500.00 be FEMA eligible.
Comments and Attachments
663 version 2 19-5 Scour Hole Before
663 version 2 EM-BR19-5-36A Prelim Plan
663 version 2 Missing Riprap
663 version 2 Scour Hole After
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 4312. 1 /TON $ 33. 70 $ 145,317.77
2 9999 Asphalt 148.7/TON $ 81 .70 $ 12, 148.79
3 9999 Reset Guardrail 50/LF $ 18.34 $ 917.00
4 9999 Direct Administrative Costs 40/HR $ 25.00 $ 1 ,000.00
*** Version 1 ***
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTi le=&topTi le=dsHeader&b... 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 15 of 25
Other
5 9999 Deobligate Version 0 1 /LS $ -159,383.56 $ -159.383.56
6 9999 Location 1 1 /LS $ 159, 175.56 $ 159, 175.56
7 9999 Location 2 1 /LS $ 4,990.20 $ 4.990.20
8 9999 Location 3 1 /LS $ 1 , 178 00 $ 1 , 178.00
9 9901 Direct Administrative Costs 1 /LS $ 1 ,000.00 $ 1 ,000.00
(Subgrantee)
' Version 2 '
Other
10 9999 Change in SOW 1 /LS $ 27,500.00 $ 27,500.00
11 0909 Hazard Mitigation Proposal 1 /LS $ 46,676.00 $ 46,676.00
TOTAL COST $ 240,519.76
PREPARED BY Ken Beebe TITLE Project Specialist SIGNATURE
APPLICANT REP. Roy Rudisill TITLE Director-OEM SIGNATURE
WELD (COUNTY) : PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00663
Conditions Information
Review Name Condition Type Condition Name Description Monitored Status
POST-CONSTRUCTION : 17. Upon
project completion, revegetate all
disturbed areas with native shrubs,
trees, and grasses. a. Rip compacted
access routes prior to replanting with
native vegetation. b. Fill and reseed
with weed free material and native
seed mixtures. c. Consult the Service
Endangered before finalizing a seed and plant list.
Final Review Other (EHP) Species Act 18. Bury riprap, then plant with native No Approved
(ESA) riparian vegetation. 19. Rehabilitate
adjacent habitats impacted by
floodwaters to restore connectivity
and prevent future impacts from
erosion or sedimentation. 20.
Consider monitoring the revegetated
areas for success. The Service can
help establish success criteria during
the consultation process.
This review does not address all
federal, state and local requirements.
Acceptance of federal funding
Standard requires recipient to comply with all
Final Review Other (EHP) Condition #2 federal, state and local laws. Failure No Approved
to obtain all appropriate federal, state
and local environmental permits and
clearances may jeopardize federal
funding.
Any change to the approved scope of
Final Review Other (EHP) Standard work will require re-evaluation for No Approved
Condition #1 compliance with NEPA and other
Laws and Executive Orders.
Gravel/borrow materials for work to
be completed must be obtained from
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 16 of 25
National Historic one of the following pre-approved
Final Review Other (EHP) Preservation Act sources: (SHPO approved source. No Approved
(NHPA) CO Licensed Pit, commercial source,
contractor or county Stockpiles).
Applicant is responsible for
Executive Order coordinating with the local floodplain
Final Review Other (EHP) 11988 - manager. All required permits should No Approved
Floodplains be maintained as part of the
permanent record .
Debris must be appropriately
separated and disposed of in an
approved disposal site or landfill.
Asphalt must be recycled as a
blended base material or
appropriately separated and
disposed of in an approved disposal
site or landfill in accordance with the
State Hazardous CDPHE authorized waste
Final Review Other (EHP) Materials and management regulations. For any No Approved
Solid Waste Laws "Asbestos Containing Material", lead-
based paint and/or other hazardous
materials found during remediation or
repair activities, the Applicant must
comply with all Federal , State, and
local abatement and disposal
requirements. Applicants are
responsible for ensuring contracted
removal of hazardous debris also
follows these guidelines.
The applicant should implement
appropriate FWS conservation
measures identified in the
Emergency Consultation between
FEMA and USFWS, dated
Endangered September 24, 2013, to the extent
Final Review Other (EHP) Species Act possible; including a post No Approved
(ESA) construction estimate of the amount
of habitat affected by the emergency
response, an evaluation of how
conservation recommendations were
implemented , and the results of
implementation in minimizing adverse
effects.
POST-CONSTRUCTION : 17. Upon
project completion. revegetate all
disturbed areas with native shrubs,
trees, and grasses. a. Rip compacted
access routes prior to replanting with
native vegetation. b. Fill and reseed
with weed free material and native
seed mixtures. c. Consult the Service
Endangered before finalizing a seed and plant list.
Final Review Other (EHP) Species Act 18. Bury riprap. then plant with native No Approved
(ESA) riparian vegetation. 19. Rehabilitate
adjacent habitats impacted by
floodwaters to restore connectivity
and prevent future impacts from
erosion or sedimentation. 20.
Consider monitoring the revegetated
areas for success. The Service can
help establish success criteria during
the consultation process.
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 17 of 25
The applicant is responsible for
verifying and compliance with all
permit requirements, including permit
conditions. pre-construction
notification requirements and regional
conditions as provided by the US
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
The applicant is responsible for
Clean Water Act implementing, monitoring, and
Final Review Other (EHP) (CWA) maintaining all Best Management No Approved
Practices (BMP's) and Pre-
Construction Notification (PCN )
conditions of applicable Nation Wide
Permits (NWP). This is to include any
requirements per the Colorado
Department of Public Health and
Environment 401 Water Quality
Certification for Clean Water Act
permits.
Compliance with the Bald and
Golden Eagle Act is required. PRIOR
to initiating work, the Applicant must
Bald and Golden call Colorado Parks and Wildlife's
Final Review Other (EHP) Eagle Protection Bird Conservation Coordinator (Dave No Approved
Act (BGEPA) Klute at 303-291 -7320) and Sandy
Vana Miller at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (303-236-4773) to
receive guidance.
POST-CONSTRUCTION: 17. Upon
project completion, revegetate all
disturbed areas with native shrubs.
trees. and grasses. a. Rip compacted
access routes prior to replanting with
native vegetation. b. Fill and reseed
with weed free material and native
seed mixtures. c. Consult the Service
Endangered before finalizing a seed and plant list.
Final Review Other (EHP) Species Act 18. Bury riprap. then plant with native No Approved
(ESA) riparian vegetation. 19. Rehabilitate
adjacent habitats impacted by
floodwaters to restore connectivity
and prevent future impacts from
erosion or sedimentation. 20.
Consider monitoring the revegetated
areas for success. The Service can
help establish success criteria during
the consultation process.
The applicant should implement
appropriate FWS conservation
measures identified in the
Emergency Consultation between
FEMA and USFWS, dated
Endangered September 24, 2013, to the extent
Final Review Other (EHP) Species Act possible; including a post-
p construction estimate of the amount No Approved
(ESA) of habitat affected by the emergency
response, an evaluation of how
conservation recommendations were
implemented , and the results of
implementation in minimizing adverse
effects.
Any change to the approved scope of
hops://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b.. . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 18 of 25
Standard work will require re-evaluation for
Final Review Other (EHP) Condition #1 compliance with NEPA and other No Approved
Laws and Executive Orders.
This review does not address all
federal, state and local requirements.
Acceptance of federal funding
Standard requires recipient to comply with all
Final Review Other (EHP) Condition #2 federal. state and local laws. Failure No Approved
to obtain all appropriate federal, state
and local environmental permits and
clearances may jeopardize federal
funding.
If ground disturbing activities occur
during construction, applicant will
Standard monitor ground disturbance and if
Final Review Other (EHP) any potential archeological resources No Approved
Condition #3 are discovered , will immediately
cease construction in that area and
notify the State and FEMA.
If ground disturbing activities occur
during construction, applicant will
Standard monitor ground disturbance and if
Final Review Other (EHP) Condition #3 any potential archeological resources No Approved
are discovered, will immediately
cease construction in that area and
notify the State and FEMA.
The applicant should implement
appropriate FWS conservation
measures identified in the
Emergency Consultation between
FEMA and USFWS, dated
Endangered September 24, 2013, to the extent
Final Review Other (EHP) Species Act possible; including apost- No Approved
(ESA) construction estimate of the amount
of habitat affected by the emergency
response, an evaluation of how
conservation recommendations were
implemented, and the results of
implementation in minimizing adverse
effects.
Debris must be appropriately
separated and disposed of in an
approved disposal site or landfill.
Asphalt must be recycled as a
blended base material or
appropriately separated and
disposed of in an approved disposal
site or landfill in accordance with the
State Hazardous CDPHE authorized waste
Final Review Other (EHP) Materials and management regulations. For any No Approved
Solid Waste Laws -Asbestos Containing Material", lead-
based paint and/or other hazardous
materials found during remediation or
repair activities, the Applicant must
comply with all Federal, State, and
local abatement and disposal
requirements. Applicants are
responsible for ensuring contracted
removal of hazardous debris also
follows these guidelines.
Any change to the approved scope of
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
IrmilFederal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 19 of 25
Standard work will require re-evaluation for
Final Review Other (EHP) compliance with NEPA and other No Approved
Condition #1 Laws and Executive Orders.
This review does not address all
federal, state and local requirements.
Acceptance of federal funding
Standard requires recipient to comply with all
Final Review Other (EHP) Condition #2 federal, state and local laws. Failure No Approved
to obtain all appropriate federal, state
and local environmental permits and
clearances may jeopardize federal
funding.
If ground disturbing activities occur
during construction, applicant will
Standard monitor ground disturbance and if
Final Review Other (EHP) any potential archeological resources No Approved
Condition #3 are discovered, will immediately
cease construction in that area and
notify the State and FEMA.
If ground disturbing activities occur
during construction, applicant will
Standard monitor ground disturbance and if
EHP Review Other (EHP) Condition #3 any potential archeological resources No Recommended
are discovered, will immediately
cease construction in that area and
notify the State and FEMA.
This review does not address all
Ifederal, state and local requirements.
Acceptance of federal funding
Standard requires recipient to comply with all
EHP Review Other (EHP) Condition #2 federal, state and local laws. Failure No Recommended
to obtain all appropriate federal, state
and local environmental permits and
clearances may jeopardize federal
funding.
Any change to the approved scope of
EHP Review Other (EHP)
Standard work will require re-evaluation for
Condition #1 compliance with NEPA and other N° Recommended
Laws and Executive Orders.
Gravel/borrow materials for work to
National Historic be completed must be obtained from
EHP Review Other (EHP) Preservation Act one of the following pre-approved
sources: (SHPO approved source, No Recommended
(NHPA)
CO Licensed Pit, commercial source,
contractor or county Stockpiles).
Compliance with the Bald and
Golden Eagle Act is required. PRIOR
to initiating work. the Applicant must
Bald and Golden call Colorado Parks and Wildlife's
EHP Review Other (EHP) Eagle Protection Bird Conservation Coordinator (Dave No Recommended
Act (BGEPA) Klute at 303-291 -7320) and Sandy
Vana Miller at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (303-236-4773) to
receive guidance.
Debris must be appropriately
separated and disposed of in an
approved disposal site or landfill.
Asphalt must be recycled as a
blended base material or
appropriately separated and
https://isource. fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTi le=dsHeader&b. .. 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 20 of 25
disposed of in an approved disposal
site or landfill in accordance with the
CDPHE authorized waste
management regulations. For any
"Asbestos Containing Material", lead-
State Hazardous based paint and/or other hazardous
EHP Review Other Materials and materials found during remediation or
(EHP) repair activities. the Applicant must No Recommended
Solid Waste Laws comply with all Federal, State, and
local abatement and disposal
requirements. Applicants are
responsible for ensuring contracted
removal of hazardous debris also
follows these guidelines.
The applicant should implement
appropriate FWS conservation
measures identified in the
Emergency Consultation between
FEMA and USFWS. dated
Endangered September 24, 2013, to the extent
EHP Review Other (EHP) Species Act possible: including a post-
EHP construction estimate of the amount No Recommended
(ESA) of habitat affected by the emergency
response. an evaluation of how
conservation recommendations were
implemented, and the results of
implementation in minimizing adverse
effects.
POST-CONSTRUCTION: 17. Upon
project completion. revegetate all
disturbed areas with native shrubs.
trees, and grasses. a. Rip compacted
access routes prior to replanting with
native vegetation. b. Fill and reseed
with weed free material and native
seed mixtures. c. Consult the Service
Endangered before finalizing a seed and plant list.
EHP Review Other (EHP) Species Act 18. Bury riprap, then plant with native No Recommended
(ESA) riparian vegetation. 19. Rehabilitate
adjacent habitats impacted by
floodwaters to restore connectivity
and prevent future impacts from
erosion or sedimentation. 20.
Consider monitoring the revegetated
areas for success. The Service can
help establish success criteria during
the consultation process.
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).
EHP Review Other (EHP) Clean Water Act The applicant is responsible for
No Recommended
(CWA) 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
requirements per the Colorado
Department of Public Health and
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTi le=&topTile=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 21 of 25
Environment 401 Water Quality
Certification for Clean Water Act
permits.
Applicant is responsible for
Executive Order coordinating with the local floodplain
EHP Review Other (EHP) 11988 - manager. All required permits should No Recommended
Floodplains be maintained as pad of the
permanent record.
Internal Comments
No. Queue User Date/Time Reviewer Comments
10/21 /2014 Version 2 is written to add a scope change to
repair additonal damage and to add hazard mitigation to the
scope. Version cost is below the threshold requiring a CEF.
No issues found. Move forward as eligible. JMP
Note:Version was created to address sites not previously
Final PETKOVSEK 10-21 -2014 inspected along with associated mitigation measures. Final
24 Review JEAN 02:05 PM GMT Reviewer finds eligible the application and approves the
funding of this CAT-C project worksheet based on the
applicant having performed all required procurement
procedures, perform all required special considerations
recommendations such as permits to address EHP
considerations and securing all actual cost documentation for
the financial reconciliation of this project. Task Force Leader-
J . Palacio 05/16/2014
Update the work completed percentage or the scope to
accurately depict the work that has been completed. The
scope only lists work to be completed ,however Percentage of
Work Completed is listed as 95%. If the work completed
percentage is below 90% a CEF should be attached. Version
23 Grantee LAWSON 10-14-2014 added damages that were not presented to FEMA at the first
Review LESTER 06:22 PM GMT site visit.
10/14/14 - This is a large project that is less than 90%
complete at the time of the original application. Please include
all of the eligible cost associated with version 2 in the
requirement of an applied CEF. Please include all forward cost
factors should have been applied in version-0. LJL
Update the work completed percentage or the scope to
accurately depict the work that has been completed. The
Grantee LAWSON 10-10-2014 scope only lists work to be completed ,however Percentage of
22 Review LESTER 12:23 AM GMT Work Completed is listed as 95%. If the work completed
percentage is below 90% a CEF should be attached. Version
added damages that were not presented to FEMA at the first
site visit.
Category C, 95% Complete, Weld County. The applicant used
force account and contract labor and equipment to make
repairs to failed road embankments and shoulders using
aggregate base course, patch damaged sections of asphalt,
and reset an existing guardrail along county road 19.5.
Mitigation: The applicant will install a turf reinforcement mat on
the roadside shoulders and embankments in order to re-direct
channel flow and reduce localized erosion.
- dsharon - 03/03/2014 22:44:21 GMT
VOID PREVIOUS COMMENT.
Category C, 95% Complete, Weld County. The applicant used
force account and contract labor and equipment to dispose of
incidental debris, make repairs to failed road embankments
and shoulder using aggregate base course, patch damaged
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatch Destination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 22 of 25
sections of asphalt, reset an existing guardrail, reinstall eroded
rip rap at the toe of the northwest wingwall of a bridge, and
remove and replace a section of damaged CMP culvert along
county road 19.5. Debris was disposed of at the Weld County
Landfill, Buffalo Ridge Landfill , and Organics Rattler Ridge.
Mitigation: The applicant will install a turf reinforcement mat on
the roadside shoulders and embankments in order to re-direct
channel flow and reduce localized erosion.
- dsharon - 05/12/2014 17: 12: 18 GMT
**Version 2**In addition to the above comments. the applicant
will also regrade and add additional riprap (250 CY total) on
the NE embankment and scour hole, the northern bridge
abutment, and the NW wing wall. - mpatter7 - 10/09/2014
21 :44:27 GMT
A bald or golden eagle nest has been identified within 1 -mile of
the project area. - mpatter7 - 10/09/2014 21 :38: 15 GMT
Project activities have the potential to impact Waters of the
United States or wetlands. Project involves dredge, fill,
excavation and/or modification. - mpatter7 - 10/09/2014
21 :37:08 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. -
dsharon - 03/03/2014 22:43: 12 GMT
The entire community will benefit from the completion of this
project. - dsharon - 03/03/2014 22:43:36 GMT
Action is addressed under the attached Emergency
EHP PATTERSON 10-09-2014 Consultation between FEMA and USFWS, dated September
21 Review MOLLY 09:46 PM GMT 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. - dsharon - 03/03/2014 22:39: 15 GMT
**Version 2**The scope of work has been reviewed and meets
the No Effect criteria (Table 2, Items 25 and 27) and the May
Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect criteria (Table 3, Items 7,
11 , and 42) outlined in the July 22, 2014 Programmatic
Consultation Agreement signed by FEMA and the USFWS.
The project returns the damaged facility to pre-flood function,
location and capacity: access is through previously disturbed
areas or uses a route that avoids destruction of live or dormant
vegetation; and. project disturbance is limited to areas devoid
of vegetation resulting from Disaster related disturbance. See
Conditions for Conservations Measures that must be
implemented for projects to qualify as NLAA under the July 22,
2014 Programmatic Consultation Agreement. - mpatter7 -
10/09/2014 21 :36:20 GMT
Work involves removal, staging, transporting, and/or disposal
of debris. (Includes culverts) - dsharon - 05/12/2014 17:09:37
GMT
Project is located in Zone A, FIRM panel 0802660750C, dated
September 28th, 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. - dsharon - 03/03/2014
22:42:55 GMT
The scope of work has been reviewed and meets the criteria of
the 2013 signed Programmatic Agreement, It
Insurance JOHNSON 10-09-2014 VERSION 2 - The additional riprap will not alter the prior
20 Review KENNETH 07: 15 PM GMT insurance policy coverage comments or the insurance
requirement comments.
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatch Destination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b. . . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 23 of 25
19 Mitigation PETITT MARK 10-09-2014 The Version 1 Hazard Mitigation Proposal is approved. Mark
Review 06: 19 PM GMT W. Petitt, 406 Specialist
18 Mitigation PETITT MARK 10-09-2014 The Hazard Mitigation Proposal is approved - Mark W. Petitt.
Review 06:06 PM GMT 406 Specialist
17 Insurance JOHNSON 10-09-2014 The additional work and costs will not alter the prior insurance
Review KENNETH 05:46 PM GMT coverage comments or the insurance requirement comments.
5-8-14 reviewed Version 1 for QA-QC. Looks good. HB
16 Initial TREZONA 10-09-2014
Review SCOTT 05:36 PM GMT 10-9-2014:Completed Initial review, no issues were identified ;
work appears eligible.
15 Initial SCHNEIDER 10-09-2014 5-8-14 reviewed Version 1 for QA-QC. Looks good. HB
Review STEFANIE 05:08 PM GMT
14 Award SYSTEM 05-27-2014 ACCEPTED
Review 10:46 PM GMT
Note:Version was created to address sites not previously
inspected along with associated mitigation measures. Final
Reviewer finds eligible the application and approves the
funding of this CAT-C project worksheet based on the
Final 05-19-2014 applicant having performed all required procurement
13 Review PALACIO JOSE 03: 11 PM GMT 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 05/16/2014
Update the work completed percentage or the scope to
accurately depict the work that has been completed. The
Grantee 05-14-2014 scope only lists work to be completed ,however Percentage of
12 Review PATEL KAJAL 03: 11 PM GMT Work Completed is listed as 95%. If the work completed
percentage is below 90% a CEF should be attached. Version
added damages that were not presented to FEMA at the first
site visit.
Category C, 95% Complete, Weld County. The applicant used
force account and contract labor and equipment to make
repairs to failed road embankments and shoulders using
aggregate base course, patch damaged sections of asphalt,
and reset an existing guardrail along county road 19.5.
Mitigation: The applicant will install a turf reinforcement mat on
the roadside shoulders and embankments in order to re-direct
channel flow and reduce localized erosion.
- dsharon - 03/03/2014 22:44:21 GMT
VOID PREVIOUS COMMENT.
Category C. 95% Complete, Weld County. The applicant used
force account and contract labor and equipment to dispose of
incidental debris. make repairs to failed road embankments
and shoulder using aggregate base course, patch damaged
sections of asphalt, reset an existing guardrail, reinstall eroded
rip rap at the toe of the northwest wingwall of a bridge, and
remove and replace a section of damaged CMP culvert along
county road 19.5. Debris was disposed of at the Weld County
Landfill, Buffalo Ridge Landfill , and Organics Rattler Ridge.
Mitigation: The applicant will install a turf reinforcement mat on
the roadside shoulders and embankments in order to re-direct
channel flow and reduce localized erosion.
- dsharon - 05/12/2014 17: 12: 18 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
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 10/28 . 2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 24 of 25
wetland review is required under the 8-step process. -
dsharon - 03/03/2014 22:43: 12 GMT
The entire community will benefit from the completion of this
project. - dsharon - 03/03/2014 22:43:36 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. - dsharon - 03/03/2014 22:39: 15 GMT
Work involves removal, staging, transporting, and/or disposal
of debris. (Includes culverts) - dsharon - 05/12/2014 17:09:37
GMT
EHP 05-12-2014 Project is located in Zone A, FIRM panel 0802660750C, dated
11 Review EAKINS WYNN 06: 17 PM GMT September 28th, 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. - dsharon - 03/03/2014
22:42:55 GMT
The scope of work has been reviewed and meets the criteria of
the 2013 signed Programmatic Agreement, Item Number III :
Sections A, B, E, G, and P agreed to by FEMA and the
SHPO. - dsharon - 03/03/2014 22:38:59 GMT
VOID PREVIOUS COMMENT
The scope of work has been reviewed and meets the criteria of
the 2013 signed Programmatic Agreement. Item I : Section C,
and Item III ; Sections A, B, C, E, G, H. and P agreed to by
FEMA and the SHPO. - dsharon - 05/12/2014 17:07:42 GMT
10 Insurance JOHNSON 05-12-2014 The additional work and costs will not alter the prior insurance
Review KENNETH 02:55 PM GMT coverage comments or the insurance requirement comments.
Applicant's property insurance through the CAPP risk pool
9 Insurance JOHNSON 05-08-2014 affords no coverage for roadways or embankments. Insurance
Review KENNETH 09: 16 PM GMT proceeds are not anticipated, and there is no insurance
purchase requirement.
8 Mitigation PETITT MARK 05-08-2014 The Hazard Mitigation Proposal is approved - Mark W. Petitt,
Review 08:36 PM GMT 406 Specialist
7 Mitigation PETITT MARK 05-08-2014 The Hazard Mitigation Proposal is approved - Brian W. Drost.
Review 08:30 PM GMT 406 Specialist
6 Initial BURD HOWARD 05-08-2014 5-8-14 reviewed Version 1 for QA-QC. Looks good. HB
Review 08:22 PM GMT
5 Award SYSTEM 05-01 -2014 ACCEPTED
Review 09:57 PM GMT
Note:applicant has indicated that their HMP request may be
modified upon recommendation of Contracted Engineer firm,
review mitigation measures. Final Reviewer finds eligible the
application and approves the funding of this CAT-C project
4 Final PALACIO JOSE 04-21 -2014 worksheet based on the applicant having performed all
Review 10: 17 PM GMT 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 04/18/2014
Category C, 95% Complete, Weld County. The applicant used
force account and contract labor and equipment to make
repairs to failed road embankments and shoulders using
aggregate base course. patch damaged sections of asphalt,
and reset an existing guardrail along county road 19.5.
https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTi le=&topTile=dsHeader&b.. . 10/28/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 25 of 25
Mitigation: The applicant will install a turf reinforcement mat on
the roadside shoulders and embankments in order to re-direct
channel flow and reduce localized erosion.
- dsharon - 03/03/2014 22:44:21 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. -
dsharon - 03/03/2014 22:43: 12 GMT
The entire community will benefit from the completion of this
project. - dsharon - 03/03/2014 22:43:36 GMT
Action is addressed under the attached Emergency
Consultation between FEMA and USFWS. dated September
3 EHP PATTERSON 03-04-2014 24, 2013. The consultation includes conservation measures
Review MOLLY 10:38 PM GMT intended to minimize impacts to the federally isted Preble's
Meadow Jumping Mouse, Ute's Lady's Tress and Colorado
Butterfly Bush, and Designated Critical Habitat protected under
the ESA. - dsharon - 03/03/2014 22:39: 15 GMT
Project is located in Zone A, FIRM panel 0802660750C, dated
September 28th, 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. - dsharon - 03/03/2014
22:42:55 GMT
The scope of work has been reviewed and meets the criteria of
the 2013 signed Programmatic Agreement, Item Number III :
Sections A, B, E. G, and P agreed to by FEMA and the
SHPO. - dsharon - 03/03/2014 22:38:59 GMT
2 Mitigation DROST BRIAN 03-03-2014 The Hazard Mitigation Proposal is approved - Brian W. Drost,
Review 09:30 PM GMT 406 Specialist
Applicant's property insurance through the CAPP risk pool
1 Insurance GILLIAM 03-03-2014 affords no coverage for roadways or embankments. Insurance
Review ROBERT 02:08 PM GMT 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