HomeMy WebLinkAbout20151509
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
PART B - APPLICATION: PROJECT MILESTONES / TIMELINES / TASKS
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?: Emergency Repairs-The initial emergency repairs were made directly I Completed
9 Y P 9 Y P Y Timeframe:
Task 3: Permanent Repairs- Becuase the emergency repairs werequick re aiiCompleted
P 9 Y P P Timeframe:
Task 4: Additional Permanent Repairs-All the necessary repairs were not com 6 Months
Timeframe:
Task 5:
Timeframe:
Task 6: Timeframe:
Task 7:
Timeframe:
Task 8: Timeframe:
Task 9:
Timeframe:
Final Inspection Report and Project Closeout
Task 10:
The Final Inspection Report is a review of the activity's paper documentation,
showing the project was implemented as required. Once the review is completed, the 3 Months
report and findings will be provided to the grantee for review and concurrence. The 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 I5 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 dilTerent 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 through the preparation
of this NOI application.
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 16 of 20
CMG-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
I. Environmental Review Background Information& Environmental Review Worksheet:
In accordance with 24 CFR Part 58.22 (see below), all federally funded projects must accomplish an environmental review
prior to beginning any work on a project.These HUD regulations are in place for two purposes:
I. To ensure federal funds are used to place people of 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(6) on an activity or
project until HUD or the state has approved the recipient's RROF and the related certification from the responsible
entity. In addition, until the RROF and the related certification have been approved, neither a recipient nor any
participant in the development process may commit non-MUD funds on or undertake an activity or project under a
program listed in Sec. 58.1(6) 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
ifthe 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 I I(d)(2)(A) of the Housing
Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996(42 U.S.C. 12805 note),an organization, consortium, or affiliate receiving
assistance under the SHOP program may advance non-grant funds to acquire land prior to completion of an
environmental review and approval of a Request for Release of Funds (RROF) and certification, notwithstanding
paragraph (a)of this section. Any advances to acquire land prior to approval of the RROF and certification arc made at
the risk of the organization, consortium, or affiliate and reimbursement for such advances may depend on the result of
the environmental review. This authorization is limited to the SHOP program only and all other forms of HUD
assistance are subject to the limitations in paragraph(a)of this section.
(I) Relocation. Funds may be committed for relocation assistance before the approval of the RROF and related
certification for the project provided that the relocation assistance is required by 24 CFR part 42.
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 17 of 20
CDRG-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
❑ Administrative and management activities
0 Environmental and other studies,resource identification,and the development of plans and strategies
0 Most engineering and design costs associated with eligible projects
• Inspections and testing of properties for hazards or defects
.o • Project planning
Q ❑ Purchase of insurance
Sp > ro ❑ Purchase of tools
7 27 s ❑ Technical assistance and training
k� .E ❑ Interim assistance to arrest the effects of an imminent threat or physical deterioration in which the assistance
.'
does not alter environmental conditions.
Public services that will not have a physical impact or result in any physical changes(e.g., employment, child
care, health,education,counseling,welfare)
_- ❑ Assistance for temporary or permanent improvements that do not alter environmental conditions and are limited
to protection,repair,or restoration activities necessary only to control or arrest the effects from disasters or
imminent threats to public safety including those resulting from physical deterioration
(Must also complete the Regulatory Checklist at the end of Exhibit/V-A)
• ? Q Operating costs(e.g., maintenance,security,operation, utilities, furnishings,equipment,supplies, staff training
and recruitment,other incidental costs)
U z ❑ Relocation costs
❑� Acquisition,repair, improvement,reconstruction,or rehabilitation when the facilities and improvements arc in
U place and will be retained in the same use without change in size or capacity of more than 20 percent
❑ Special projects directed to the removal of material and architectural barriers that restrict the mobility of and
U] S accessibility to elderly and handicapped persons
U ❑ Acquisition (including leasing)or disposition of,or equity loans on,an existing structure
m ❑ Acquisition(including leasing)of vacant land provided the structure or land acquired, financed,or disposed of
will be retained for the same use
❑ Acquisition,repair, improvement,reconstruction,or rehabilitation when the facilities and improvements arc in
place,but will change in size or capacity of more than 20 percent
❑ Acquisition,repair, improvement,reconstruction, or rehabilitation when the facilities and improvements arc in
*T ,., 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
"
tz1 Demolition
✓❑ New construction
This checklist must be included with the CDRG application.
Please direct questions to the appropriate contact person below:
DOLA/DI.C DHSEM
i amra Norton,Environmental Compliance Officer Steven 13oand.State Disaster Recovery Manager
Department of Public Safety
Department of Local Affairs Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
1313 Sherman Street,Room 521, 9195 It Mineral Ave,Suite 200
Denver,CO 80203 Centennial,CO 80112
303-866-6398
720.852,6713tamra.nortordedstatc.co.us
steven.boandfcpstate.co.us
UPS/DOLA USE ONLY:
Required level of environmental review: O Exempt O CENST O CESTO EA
Reviewed by:
Date of Review:
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page IS of 20
CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
2. Supplemental Environmental Review Information
Enter any additional comments related to environmental concerns for the proposed project if desired. Please list and attach any
documents or studies that have been prepared that support the Environmental Review Worksheet responses.
All environmental issues are addressed on the attached Project Worksheet as supporting
documentation. The significant EHP issues were in regards to the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) and EHP Standard Conditions. All items were addressed and any additional supporting
backup documentation can be provided upon request. Please see below for environmental
permits that were obtained.
Floodplain Permit
404 Nationwide Permit
Migratory Birds Permit (if needed)
Threatened and Endangered Species Permit
O
Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e.mail submittal. Page 19 of 20
CDRG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
PART B - APPLICATION: DETAILED PROJECT BUDGET
I. Detailed Project Budget: Please enter or attach a detailed and comprehensive final proposed budget for the project.
Please note that CDBG-DR funds may be limited to the amount submitted with the NOI pending the availability of
additional funding
This Proposed Project is for the Local FEMA Match for costs for WELCO16 (661). 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
E
E
3
G E°u Q
o E 9 °
E9 mF
> v
o E
i -_
3 3 3
- - - 3 .-645 •82E V
> C
a o O
i 2 2 f
992 o 0
A ;e ' � Mo # R ' 450, AM' a � M < eM �e aae o Poo 5rtmg
0
3
3
a
0 ^ m mmm m E ti r r m m m r m « ( r m .. r .. r rv ^ ^ N .. ti N
0
0
0
2
3
0
o a ^ o 8 o 0 o N o o a a o ^ ^ a
a '^° .. .. ., .. m .. ^ m .. ti .. .. u .arvry who
3
3
0
I ^ �, 8 8 8 o o 8 2
d'' a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a Q Q Q a
i'> > > > w > > > > > > 8 > > > > > > > > w F f > > > > > f f F > > > > > > > w
ez
4 •...... t at IS a ►
a I I 01 01 m r t
' r4
• B LL LLWLLI ( III :.
n ip• '- - t: • . , z ^ 'raj` ' // • '11 ~.r it .
- - S' ' ,
..t. ' *0 ..
u. • xi L ti
0 le1i% e 1 Ri s
• •N • JT a ' _ r I o % •1
'F I 1 J �+ 4•• 'r,
:v P .l a - it c ' iM
4/0 ill,
j n t i ti ' .
:-: .744 .. ,5k---
•
' ' n1 Cy1 --I n1• TPSj ;e"
•
�J 1
_ W W LL
LL LL
LL U.W i
f)
i, ,� •
I
.. _ § 1 @i
LL W W ( 7.' '' • 0 _
/ I
! 01 ii. • a ,
4.
t � •
n v - • - In
({��) • S .
I
r1
• p x - r^
•
V C 6
«F ' t E
. 0 !TI
r
U U
N N
O p f
Q < i
5 z c 0 4-
12,
u_ idi
® '
En
L
CT)
O l
Federal Emergency Management Agency [-Grants Page I of 36
li ►P SOS?as1a-00661(0) P
Applicant Name: Application Title:
WELD(COUNTY) WELCO16-Various Bridges-Part 1
Period of Performance Start: Period of Performance End:
09-14-2013
Subgrant Application - Entire Application
Application Title: WELCo16-Various Bridges-Part 1
Application Number: PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(0)
Application Type: Subgrant Application(PW)
Preparer Information
Prefix
First Name KATHLEEN
Middle Initial
Last Name RUVARAC
Title TAC BRIDGE SPECIALIST
Agency/Organization Name FEMA
Address 1 9200 EAST MINERAL AVE.
Address 2
City CENTENNIAL
State CO
Zip 80112
Email Deanna.Butterbaugh@state.co.us
Is the application preparer the Point of Contact? No
Point of Contact Information
Prefix
First Name Roy
Middle Initial
Last Name Rudisill
Title Director- OEM
Agency/Organization Director- OEM
Address 1 PO BOX 758
Address 2
City Greeley
State CO
ZIP 80632
Phone 970-304-6540
https://connectI.dhs.gov/emmie/.Danalnfo=isource.fema.net.SSL+dispatch Destination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency F-Grants Page 2 of 36
Fax
Email rrudisill@weldgov.com
Alternate Point of Contact Information
Prefix
First Name
Middle Initial
Last Name
Title
Agency/Organization
Address 1
Address 2
City
State
ZIP
Phone
Fax
Email
Project Description
Disaster Number: 4145
Pre-Application Number: PA-08-CO-4145-RPA-0088
Applicant ID: 123-99123-00
Applicant Name: WELD(COUNTY)
Subdivision:
Project Number WELCO16
Standard Project Number/Title: 399- Road System Damage
Please Indicate the Project Type: Neither Alternate nor Improved
Application Title: WELCO16-Various Bridges- Part 1
Category: C.ROADS & BRIDGES
Percentage Work Completed? 67.0%
As of Date: 11-13-2013
Comments
Attachments
User Date Document Description Hard Copy File File Name Action
Type Reference
KATHLEEN 02-25- Map Location map WELCO16_Location Map.pdf View
RUVARAC 2014 (130.78 kb)
04-03- Location Map[from WELCO16[20]
MARK SPAHR 2014 Map WELCO20] _Location_Map_1.pdf(108.69 View
kb)
04-03- Location Map 2 WELCOI6[20]
MARK SPAHR 2014 Map [from WELCO20] _Location_Map_2.pdf(110.76 View
kb)
https://connectl.dhs.uoviemmie/.DanaIn tb=isource.fema.net.SSLAispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency F-Grants Page 3 of 36
Damage Facilities (Part 1 of 2)
Facility Site
Number Facility Name Address County City State ZIP Previously Action
Damaged?
1 BR 13-54A over Big Thompson River Weld CO No
2 BR 23-8A over Big Dry Creek Weld CO No
3 BR 8-21A over Big Dry Creek Weld CO No
4 BR 23-6C over Big Dry Creek Weld CO No
5 BR 21-6A over Big Dry Creek Weld CO No
6 BR 4-15A over Big Dry Creek Weld CO No
7 BR 15-2A over Big Dry Creek Weld CO No
Comments
Attachments
Hard Copy
User Date Document Type Description File File Name Action
Reference
KATHLEEN 2-
205- Map Photos WELCO16_CR13 over Big Thompson View
RUVARAC 2014 River Photos.pdf(502.13 kb)
KATHLEEN 02 Applicant
RUVARAC 25- Photos Photos Applicant Photos.pdf(1.20 Mb) View
2014
KATHLEEN 02
RUVARAC 25- Narrative WELCO16_DDD_SOW.pdf(83.45 kb) View
2014
KATHLEEN 25- Building Bridge Inspection Report.pdf(2.89 Mb) View
RUVARAC 2014 Survey/Document
Photos
MARK 03- Photos Locations 2-7 WELCO16 [20]_Photos_Locations 2- Vie
w
ew
SPAHR 2014 [from 7.pdf(947.54 kb)
WELCO20]
Bridge
MARK 04-
Bridge Inspection Location_2_BR_23-
SPAHR 2014 Survey/Document Report- 8A_Inspection_Report.pdf(1.94 Mb) view
Location 2
Bridge
04- Location 3 BR 8-
MARK Bridge Inspection —
SPAHR 2014 Survey/Document Report- 21A_Bridgepe ibon_Report.pdf View
2Location 3 —(1.60 )
Bridge
04- Location_ _
4 BR 23-
MARK 03 Bridge Inspection 6C_Bridge_Inspection_Report.pdf(1.62 View
SPAHR 2014 Survey/Document Report- Mb)
Location 4
Bridge
04- Location_ _
5BR 4-
MARK 03 Bridge Inspection 15 A Bridge_Inspection_Report.pdf View
SPAHR 2014 Survey/Document Report- — — (1.24 Mb)
Location 5
04- Bridge Location_6_BR_21- View
MARK 03- Bridge Inspection 6A_Bridge_Inspection_Report.pdf(1.10
https://connectl.dhs.gov/emmie/.Dana[nfo=isource.fema.net.SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency F-Grants Page 4 of 36
SPAHR 2014 Survey/Document Report- Mb)
Location 6
Bridge
04- Location 7 BR 15-
_ _
MARK 03 Bridge Inspection 2A Bridge_Inspection_Report.pdf(1.26 View
SPAHR 2014 Survey/Document Report- — Mb)
Location 7
Facility Name: BR 13-54A over Big Thompson River
Address 1:
Address 2:
County: Weld
City:
State: CO
ZIP:
Was this site previously damaged? No
Percentage Work Completed? 50.00
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(0):
Location 1
Bridge 13-54A over Big Thompson River, in Section 19, T5N, R68W.
Location: Lat: N40.38280
Long: -W104.94500
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(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 13 north
roadway approaches and Bridge 13-54A over Big Thompson River, in
Section 19, T5N, R68W.
On November 13, 2013, Kathleen Ruvarac, FEMA TAC Bridge Specialist,
David Ray, FEMA Hazard Mitigation Specialist, Gary Moore, FEMA
Environmental, Historical, Preservation Specialist, and Donald Dunker, Weld
County Public Works Engineer, performed a site investigation at this location
to document damages. The road and bridge was open and repairs
completed at the time of inspection.
Lat: N40.38280
Long: -W104.94500
Flooding of the Big Thompson River resulted in damages on CR 13 include
washout of asphalt, roadway base and embankment material on the north
roadway approach. The double span concrete bridge, 125 ft in length x 67 ft
in width, traverses the Big Thompson River and consists of a two (2) inch
asphalt deck on a 7.5 inch concrete deck supported by twelve (12)—58 ft—
4 inch long 5.5 ft wide x 18 inch deep prestressed concrete box girders in
each span, one (1) concrete pier with four(4)—3 ft diameter concrete
columns and a 4 ft x 4 ft x 10 inch thick concrete cap and two (2) 2 ft 8 inch
thick concrete abutments. The bridge is flanked on both sides with a
galvanized w-beam on steel posts.
Embankment Material lost in north roadway approach travel lanes
measuring 76 ft L x 40 ft W x 4.7 ft D = 529.2 CY.
https://connect I.dhs.gov/emmie/.Danalnlo=isource.fema.net.SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency F-Grants Page 5 of 36
One asphalt patch on roadway measured 76 ft L x 40 ft W= 3,040 SF x
0.575 ft D = 1,748 CF x 146 LB/CF x 1 ton/2000 LB = 127.6 tons asphalt
Asphalt material behind the southeast section of guardrail and steel posts
was raveled due to the flood water overtopping the roadway and shoulder,
exposing the previously embedded portion of the posts. The quantity of
material to be placed on the shoulder is 92 ft L x 2 ft W x 0.33 ft D= 2.2 CY
=4.0 tons asphalt.
Ditch cleaning each side of the road to reshape ditches at the site is
estimated to be 484 ft in length on the northeast shoulder and 501 ft in
length on the northwest shoulder adjacent to the travel lanes, and 50 ft in
length on the southeast shoulder totaling 1,035 LF.
Turf Reinforcement Mat installed on the NE shoulder(downstream)was
damaged during the flood and subsequent filling operations at the site,
estimated to be 110 ft L x 16 ft W= 195.6 SY. Turf Reinforcement Mat
installed on the SE shoulder(downstream)was damaged during the flood
and subsequent filling operations at the site, estimated to be 92 ft L x 20 ft
W=204.4 SY, totaling 400 SY.
Rip Rap was washed away at the northeast wingwall of the north abutment
is estimated to be 35 ft L x 3 ft W towards the channel x 1.5 ft D = 5.8 CY.
Rip rap was washed away at the southwest wingwall of the south abutment
and is estimated to be 35 ft in length x 3 ft W towards the channel x 3 ft D =
11.7 CY, totaling 17.5 CY.
Damage Description and Dimensions: Barbed wire fence with treated wooden posts was damaged on both the
east(100 ft) and west side (100 ft) of the bridge, total 200 ft in length.
A small amount of debris material was observed at the bridge site and is
estimated to be 10 CY, approximately one truck load of material.
Recent bridge inspection report was provided by the applicant dated May
22, 2012. The bridge was built in 2009 and had a sufficiency rating of 90.7 in
2012.
2012 inspection notes of elements include: bridge deck pavement crack
sealing, vertical hairline cracks on concrete curbs, light water stains on
prestressed girders, small spall on column 2D pier. One inch wide cracks in
asphalt at approach ends. The deck condition is noted as good condition (7)
on a scale of 0 to 9. The superstructure and substructure were noted as
very good condition (8). The channel banks were observed to be protected
or well vegetated (8). Maintenance items included bridge deck repair
sealing cracks in asphalt surface.
The Applicant has provided pictures of the road and bridge facilities
documenting damages. These photos are attached to this project
worksheet.
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(0):
WORK COMPLETED
Location 1:
1 —Fill void in roadway travel lanes, embankment and north approach—
529.2 CY x 1.82 (Conversion Factor CY ABC Class 6 Material to Tons=
963.1 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) = $32,456.47
Scope of Work: 2— Install asphalt on north roadway approach and southeast shoulder
behind guardrail = 131.6 tons x$81.70/ton (CDOT Item Number 403-33741
Hot Bituminous Pavement(Grading S) (75) (PG 64-22) = $10,751.72
3—Ditch re-shaping on the NE, NW and SE shoulders = 1,035 LF x
$3.40/LF (FEMA Cost Code 3070 Ditch Cleaning and shaping) = $3,519.00
4- Install Turf Reinforcement Mat on NE and SE shoulders =400 SY X
10.00/SY (CDOT Item Number 216-00301) = $4,000.00
5— Install Rip Rap north and south abutments, 17.5 CY x$83.17/CY (Rip
Rap 18 inch CDOT Item Number 506-00218) = $1,455.48
https://connect I.dhs.gov/emm ie/.Danalnfo=isource.lema.net.SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 6 of 36
6—Install 200 LF of barbed wire fence with treated wooden posts x 5.50/LF
(CDOT Item Number 607-01055) = $1,100.00
7—Remove debris at site 10.0 CY x$5.00/CY estimate = $50.00
Total = $53,332.67 cost estimate prepared by project specialist using 2013
CDOT Average Unit Prices
Hazard Mitigation Proposal
Is effective mitigation feasible on this site? I No
If you answered Yes to the above question, the next question is required
Will mitigation be performed on this site? I No
If you answered Yes to the above question. the next question is required
Do you wish to attach a Hazard Mitigation No
Proposal?
If you answered Yes to the above question, the next two questions are required
Please provide the Scope of Work for the estimate:
(maximum 4000 characters)
Would you like to add the Hazard Mitigation No
Proposal as a cost line item to the project cost?
GIS Coordinates
Project Location Latitude Longitude
BR 13-54A over Big Thompson River 40.3828 -104.945
Facility Name: BR 23-8A over Big Dry Creek
Address 1:
Address 2:
County: Weld
City:
State: CO
ZIP:
Was this site previously damaged? No
Percentage Work Completed? 50.00 %
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(0):
Location 2 —Bridge 23-8A over Big Dry Creek
Lat: N40.04414
Location: Long: -W104.84853
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(0):
Location 2—Bridge 23-8A over Big Dry Creek
Lat: N40.04414
Long: -W104.84853
Flooding of the Big Dry Creek resulted in damages on CR 23 include
washout of rip rap material on the channel side of the wingwalls and
abutments at Bridge WEL023.0-008.0A.
Rip Rap was washed away at the abutments is estimated to be 32+20 ft=
52 ft L x 5ftW towards the channel x3ft D x2 abutments = 57.8 CY
The 39.25 ft long x 32.0 ft wide steel structure traverses the Big Dry Creek in
https://connectl.dhs.gov/emmie/.Danalnfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 7 of 36
Weld County, CO. The bridge is a single (1) span bridge consisting of a 10
inch asphalt overlay on corrugated steel deck, Seven (7)—W27x94 steel
girders, seven (7) HP [H-Piles] 10x57 steel piles with HP 10x57 steel cap
with 3 inch x 18 inch vertical steel sheet pile backwall at the abutments and
(1) HP 10x57 Pile w/3 inch x 18 inch vertical steel sheet piling wing walls.
The deck is flanked on both sides with a galvanized W rail beam bolted to
steel posts.
Recent bridge inspection report was provided by the applicant dated May
21, 2012. The bridge was built in 1982 and had a sufficiency rating of 79.9 in
Damage Description and Dimensions: 2012.
2012 inspection notes of elements include: bridge deck and approach railing
inadequate, pavement crack sealing, install signage, debris in channel. The
deck condition is noted as fair (5) on a scale of 0 to 9. The superstructure is
noted as satisfactory (6) and substructure is noted as fair(5). The channel
banks were observed to be slumping (6). Maintenance items included
sealing cracks in deck overlay, railing replacement, install object markers at
all corners and remove debris from channel.
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(0):
WORK TO BE COMPLETED
Location 2
Scope of Work: 1 -Replace Rip Rap 57.8 CY x $83.17/CY (Rip Rap 18 inch CDOT Item
Number 506-00218) = $4,807.23
Hazard Mitigation Proposal
Is effective mitigation feasible on this site? No
If you answered Yes to the above question, the next question is required
Will mitigation be performed on this site? I No
If you answered Yes to the above question, the next question is required
Do you wish to attach a Hazard Mitigation No
Proposal?
If you answered Yes to the above question, the next two questions are required
Please provide the Scope of Work for the estimate:
(maximum 4000 characters)
Would you like to add the Hazard Mitigation No
Proposal as a cost line item to the project cost?
GIS Coordinates
Project Location Latitude Longitude
Bridge 23-8A over Big Dry Creek 40.04414 -104.84853
Facility Name: BR 8-21A over Big Dry Creek
Address 1:
Address 2:
County: Weld
City:
State: CO
ZIP:
https://connect).dhs.gov/emmie/,Danalnfo=isource.fema.net.SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 8 of 36
Was this site previously damaged? No
Percentage Work Completed? 50.00 %
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(0):
Location 3—Bridge 8-21A over Big Dry Creek
Lat: N40.04356
Location: Long: -W104.84942
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(0):
Flooding of the Big Dry Creek resulted in damages on CR 8 include washout
of rip rap material on the channel side of the wingwalls and abutments at
Bridge WEL008.0-021.0A.
Rip Rap was washed away at the abutments is estimated to be 32.5+16 ft=
48.5 ft Lx 5 ft W towards the channel x 3 ft D x2 abutments = 53.9 CY
The 39.0 ft long x 32.5 ft wide steel structure traverses the Big Dry Creek in
Weld County, CO. The bridge is a single (1) span bridge consisting of a 1
inch gravel over 4 inch asphalt overlay on corrugated steel deck, Ten (10)—
W24x76 steel girders, HP 10x57 steel piles with HP 10x57 steel cap with 3
inch x 18 inch vertical steel sheet pile backwall at the abutments and (1) HP
10x57 Pile w/3 inch x 18 inch vertical steel sheet piling wing walls. The deck
is flanked on both sides with a galvanized W rail beam bolted to steel posts.
Damage Description and Dimensions: Recent bridge inspection report was provided by the applicant dated May
21, 2012. The bridge was built in 1983 and had a sufficiency rating of 97 in
2012.
2012 inspection notes of elements include: bridge deck and approach railing
inadequate. lapped bridge rail connection, damaged concrete in abutment,
dirt and gravel berms along both sides of deck, light rust on girders. The
deck condition is noted as satisfactory(6)on a scale of 0 to 9. The
superstructure and substructure were noted as satisfactory(6). The channel
banks were observed to be in need of minor repairs(7). Maintenance items
included railing replacement, install 4 bolts in lapped w beam rail
connection, consider encasing abutments in concrete, install object markers
at all corners and remove gravel berms from deck.
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(0):
Location 3
1 -Replace Rip Rap 53.9 CY x$83.17/CY(Rip Rap 18 inch COOT Item
Scope of Work: Number 506-00218)=$4,482.86
Hazard Mitigation Proposal
Is effective mitigation feasible on this site? INo
If you answered Yes to the above question, the next question is required
Will mitigation be performed on this site? I No
If you answered Yes to the above question, the next question is required
Do you wish to attach a Hazard Mitigation No
Proposal?
If you answered Yes to the above question. the next two questions are required
Please provide the Scope of Work for the estimate:
https://connect l.dhs.gov/emm ie/.Danaln tu=isource.tema.net.SSL+dispatch Destination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency F-Grants Page 9 of 36
(maximum 4000 characters)
Would you like to add the Hazard Mitigation No
Proposal as a cost line item to the project cost?
GIS Coordinates
Project Location Latitude Longitude
Bridge 8-21A over Big Dry Creek 40.04356 -104.84942
Facility Name: BR 23-6C over Big Dry Creek
Address 1:
Address 2:
County: Weld
City:
State: CO
ZIP:
Was this site previously damaged? No
Percentage Work Completed? 50.00
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(0):
Location 4—Bridge 23-6C over Big Dry Creek
Lat: N40.04103
Location: Long: -W104.84859
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(0):
Flooding of the Big Dry Creek resulted in damages on CR 23include
washout of rip rap material on the channel side of the wingwalls at Bridge
WEL023.0-6C.
Rip Rap was washed away in front of the wingwalls is estimated to be 40 ft
Lx 6 ft W towards the channel x 3 ft D x 2 abutments= 53.3 CY use 55CY
The 39.25 ft long x 32.0 ft wide steel structure traverses the Big Dry Creek in
Weld County, CO. The bridge is a single (1) span bridge consisting of an 8
inch asphalt overlay on corrugated steel deck, Seven (7)—W27x102 steel
girders, six (6)with 10 inch x 10.25 inch H piles abutments with horizontal
10 inch steel h cap with vertical 3.25 ft x 18 inch steel sheet pile backwall
and 1 ft- 10 inch steel H pile and horiztonal whaler with vertical steel sheet
pile wing walls. The deck is flanked on both sides with a galvanized W rail
beam bolted to steel posts.
Damage Description and Dimensions:
Recent bridge inspection report was provided by the applicant dated May
21, 2012. The bridge was built in 1995 and had a sufficiency rating of 91.2,
Structurally Deficient, in 2012.
2012 inspection notes of elements include: bridge deck and approach railing
inadequate, pavement crack sealing, light rust on bottom of girders, w-beam
steel posts, and steel sheet pile abutments. The deck condition is noted as
poor(4) on a scale of 0 to 9. The superstructure is noted as satisfactory (6)
and substructure is noted as good (7). The channel banks were observed to
be in need of minor repairs (7). Maintenance items included sealing crack in
deck overlay and railing replacement.
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(0):
WORK TO BE COMPLETED:
Location 4
https://connectl .dhs.gov/emmie/,Danalnfo=isource.fema.net,SSI+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency [-Grants Page 10 of 36
1 -Replace Rip Rap 55CY x$83.17/CY (Rip Rap 18 inch CDOT Item
Number 506-00218)= $4,574.35
Scope of Work:
Hazard Mitigation Proposal
• Is effective mitigation feasible on this site? I No
If you answered Yes to the above question, the next question is required
Will mitigation be performed on this site? I No
If you answered Yes to the above question,the next question is required
Do you wish to attach a Hazard Mitigation No
Proposal?
If you answered Yes to the above question, the next two questions are required
Please provide the Scope of Work for the estimate:
(maximum 4000 characters)
Would you like to add the Hazard Mitigation No
Proposal as a cost line item to the project cost?
GIS Coordinates
Project Location Latitude Longitude
Bridge 23-6C over Big Dry Creek 40.04103 -104.8485
Facility Name: BR 21-6A over Big Dry Creek
Address 1:
Address 2:
County: Weld
City:
State: CO
ZIP:
Was this site previously damaged? No
Percentage Work Completed? 50.00 %
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(0):
Location 5—Bridge 21-6A over Big Dry Creek
Lat: N40.03720
Location: Long: -W104.86711
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(0):
Flooding of the Big Dry Creek resulted in damages on CR 21 include
washout of rip rap material on the channel side of the abutments and
wingwalls at Bridge WEL021.0-006.0A. Loss of embankment material on
the North east shoulder exposed 20 LF of 24 inch CMP estimated to be 20 ft
Lx10ftWx4ftD = 29.6CY.
Rip Rap was washed away in front of the abutments and wingwalls is
estimated to be 32 ft+20 ft= 52 ft Lx 5 ft W towards the channel x 3 ft D x
2 abutments= 57.8 CY
The 49.7 ft long x 32.1 ft wide concret/steel structure traverses the Big Dry
Creek in Weld County, CO. The bridge is a single (1) span bridge consisting
of a 4 inch asphalt overlay on top of cast in place concrete topping slab on 2
inch tope flange of double tee girders, four(4) 30 inch deep double tee
girders, six(6) ten inch H piles with concrete walls between with precast
https://connectl.dhs.gov/emm ie/,Danalnfo=isource.fema.net.SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 11 of 36
concrete cap abutment and concrete wingwalls. The deck is flanked on both
sides with a galvanized W rail beam bolted to steel posts.
Recent bridge inspection report was provided by the applicant dated May
21, 2012. The bridge was built in 1970 and had a sufficiency rating of 97.0 in
2012.
2012 inspection notes of elements include: bridge deck and approach railing
Damage Description and Dimensions: inadequate, pavement crack sealing, light rust on bottom of girders.The
deck condition is noted as satisfactory(6) on a scale of 0 to 9. The
superstructure and the substructure are noted as satisfactory(6). The
channel banks were observed to be protected or well vegetated.
Maintenance items included sealing crack in deck overlay, railing
replacement. fill holes in shoulders at southwest and northwest corners of
deck, install object markers at all corners.
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(0):
WORK TO BE COMPLETED:
Location 5
1 —Fill embankment material lost on northeast shoulder—29.6 CY x 1.82
(Conversion Factor CY ABC Class 6 Material to Tons= 53.9 tons x
$33.70/ton (CDOT Item Number 304-06000 Aggregate Base Course Class 6
Scope of Work: x 2 due to economies of scale as compared with number of CDOT annual
projects)=$1,816.43
2—Replace Rip Rap 57.8/CY x $83.17/CY (Rip Rap 18 inch CDOT Item
Number 506-00218) = $4,807.23
WORK TO BE COMPLETED TOTAL= $6,623.66
Hazard Mitigation Proposal
Is effective mitigation feasible on this site? INo
If you answered Yes to the above question, the next question is required
Will mitigation be performed on this site? I No
If you answered Yes to the above question, the next question is required
Do you wish to attach a Hazard Mitigation No
Proposal?
If you answered Yes to the above question, the next two questions are required
Please provide the Scope of Work for the estimate:
rnaximum 4000 characters)
Would you like to add the Hazard Mitigation No
Proposal as a cost line item to the project cost?
GIS Coordinates
Project Location Latitude Longitude
Bridge 21-6A over Big Dry Creek 40.0372 -104.86711
Facility Name: BR 4-15A over Big Dry Creek
Address 1:
Address 2:
https://connect l.dhs.gov/emmie/.Danalnl.=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination.do'?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency F-Grants Page I2 of 36
County: Weld
City:
State: CO
ZIP:
Was this site previously damaged? No
Percentage Work Completed? 50.00
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(0):
Location 6— Bridge 4-15A over Big Dry Creek
Lat: N40.01472
Location: Long: -W104.91122
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(0):
Flooding of the Big Dry Creek resulted in damages on CR 4 include washout
of surface gravel on bridge deck at Bridge WEL004.0-015.OA.
1. Loss of surface gravel is estimated to be 30 ft L x 32 ft W x 0.33 ft D =
11.7 CY.
2. Rip rap and soil/seed cover washed away at each wingwalls/embankment
estimated to be [10LF x 5FT wide x 3FT deep/27] x 4 =22.2CY use 23CY
[rip rap]. Soil washed away estimated to be[10FT x 5FT wide x 4/12FT
deep/27] x 4 = 2.47CY use 3CY
The 33.75 ft long x 32.0 ft wide steel structure traverses the Big Dry Creek in
Weld County, CO. The bridge is a single (1) span bridge consisting of a 1
inch gravel on 4 inch asphalt overlay on corrugated steel deck, twelve (12)—
W21x62 steel girders, 10 inch x 8 inch H-cap on six(6) 10 inch piles with
sheet pile backwall abutments and 10 inch H pile with waler and sheet pile
Damage Description and Dimensions: backwall wing walls. The deck is flanked on both sides with a galvanized W
rail beam bolted to steel posts.
Recent bridge inspection report was provided by the applicant dated May
21, 2012. The bridge was built in 2003 and had a sufficiency rating of 97 in
2012.
2012 inspection notes of elements include: bridge deck and approach railing
inadequate, pavement crack sealing, light rust on bottom of girders, heavy
rust at water level of steel sheet pile abutments. The deck condition is noted
as satisfactory (6) on a scale of 0 to 9. The superstructure is noted as good
(7) and substructure is noted satisfactory (7). The channel banks were
observed to be slumping (6). Maintenance items included railing
replacement, remove gravel berms along both sides of the deck, and line
southeast bank with wire enclosed rock for 100 ft upstream of bridge.
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(0):
WORK TO BE COMPLETED:
Location 6
1 —Replace surface gravel lost on deck—11.7 CY x 1.82 (Conversion Factor
CY ABC Class 6 Material to Tons= 21.3 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) = $717.81
2a. Install rip rap at wingwalls: 23CY x $83.17/CY [Rip rap 18 inch CDOT
Item Number 506-00218] = $1,912.91
https://connect).dhs.gov/emmie/.Dana[nfo=isource.fema.net.SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 13 of 36
2b. Install topsoil over rip rap. 3CY x$10.11/CY = $30.33 CDOT 207-00205
2c. Install seeding. [10LF x 5FT] x 4 = 200SF/43560=0.009AC use
0.005AC x$545.81/AC =$2.73 CDOT 212-00006[use$10.00]
Scope of Work. 2d. Install soil retention blanket. 200SF/9= 22.2SY x$2.15/SY=$47.73
COOT 216-00042
WORK TO BE COMPLETED TOTAL = $2,718.78
Hazard Mitigation Proposal
Is effective mitigation feasible on this site? INo
If you answered Yes to the above question, the next question is required
Will mitigation be performed on this site? I No
If you answered Yes to the above question, the next question is required
Do you wish to attach a Hazard Mitigation No
Proposal?
If you answered Yes to the above question, the next two questions are required
Please provide the Scope of Work for the estimate:
(maximum 4000 characters)
Would you like to add the Hazard Mitigation No
Proposal as a cost line item to the project cost?
GIS Coordinates
Project Location Latitude Longitude
Bridge 4-15A over Big Dry Creek 40.01472 -104.91122
Facility Name: BR 15-2A over Big Dry Creek
Address 1:
Address 2:
County: Weld
City:
State' CO
ZIP:
Was this site previously damaged? No
Percentage Work Completed? 50.00
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(0):
Location 7—Bridge 15-2A over Big Dry Creek
Lat: N40.00872
Location: Long: -W104.92390
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(0):
Flooding of the Big Dry Creek resulted in damages on CR 15 include
vegetative debris accumulating at Bridge WEL015.0-002.0A.
1.Vegetative debris is estimated to be 32 + 10 + 10 = 52ftLx35ftWx4ft
https://connectl.dhs.govlemm ie/.Danalntb=isource.lema.net.SSIL-FdispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 14 of 36
D = 269.6 CY.
2. Rip rap washed away at the following wingwalls [Total 45CY]:
2a. Northwest: 20LF x 10FT x 3FT deep/27= 22.2CY use 23CY
2b. Northeast: 20LF x 5FT x 3FT deep/27= 11.1 CY use 11 CY
2c. Southeast: 20LF x 5FT x 3FT deep/27 = 11.1 CY use 11 CY
3. Soil/seed cover on Item 2 [rip rap]washed away [20LF x 10FT] +[2oLF x
5FT] + [2oLF x 5FT] = 400SF x 4/12FT deep/27=4.9CY use 5CY
The 36.53 ft long x 32.0 ft wide steel structure traverses the Big Dry Creek in
Weld County, CO. The bridge is a single (1) span bridge consisting of a 3
inch gravel on 4 inch asphalt overlay on corrugated steel deck, Eight(8)—
W27x102 steel girders, 12 inch H piles on six(6)with 12 inch H piles with
sheet pile backwall abutments and 2tow (2) 12 inch H pile with waler and
sheet pile backwall wing walls. The deck is flanked on both sides with a
Damage Description and Dimensions: galvanized W rail beam bolted to steel posts.
Recent bridge inspection report was provided by the applicant dated May
21, 2012. The bridge was built in 2003 and had a sufficiency rating of 97 in
2012.
2012 inspection notes of elements include: bridge deck and approach railing
inadequate, pavement crack sealing, light rust on bottom of girders, w-beam
steel posts, and steel sheet pile abutments. The deck condition is noted as
good (7) on a scale of 0 to 9. The superstructure and substructure are
noted as good (7). The channel banks were observed to be in need of minor
repairs (7). Maintenance items included sealing crack in deck overlay,
railing replacement, install object markers on all corners, place wire
enclosed gabions along southwest bank to repair slumping and erosion.
Photos of the bridge facilities are included in the bridge inspection report
attached to this project worksheet.
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(0):
Location 7
WORK COMPLETED
1 —Debris removal at site—269.6 CY x$5.00/CY estimated cost=
$1,348.00. The applicant indicated that the debris would be disposed of at
its landfill in Kennesburg, Colorado. Tree limbs, etc. would be disposed of at
A-1 Organics Rattler Ridge, 12002 CR 59, Kennesburg, CO. Solid Waste
would be disposed of at Waste Management- Buffalo Ridge Landfill, 11655
CR 59, Keenesburg, CO.
WORK COMPLETED TOTAL= $1,348.00
WORK TO BE COMPLETED:
2. Install rip rap at NW, NE, and SE wingwalls: 45CY x$83.17/CY [Rip rap
18 inch CDOT Item Number 506-00218] = $3,742.65
3a. Install topsoil over rip rap. 5CY x $10.11/CY = $50.55 CDOT 207-00205
3b. Install seeding. 400SF/43560 = 0.009AC use 0.01AC x$545.81/AC =
$5.45 CDOT 212-00006 [use$10.001
https://connectl.dhs.gov/emmie/.Danalnfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency F-Grants Page I S of 36
3c. Install soil retention blanket. 400SF/9=44.45Y x$2.15/SY = $95.46
CDOT 216-00042
WORK TO BE COMPLETED TOTAL = $3,898.66
PROJECT NOTES:
1. During repair or reconstruction, applicant may incur additional costs
related to clearing and grubbing, dewatering, 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
Scope of Work: permanent work related to this site before any work commences in the field.
Failure to do so may jeopardize the sub-grant for permanent work related to
the work in this sub-grant.
4. Pursuant to 44 CFR 13.42, Grantees and Subgrantees are required to
retain records, including source documentation, to support
expenditures/costs incurred against the grant award, for 3 years from the
date of submission to FEMA of the final Financial Status Report.
5. The applicant must obtain all required federal, state, and local permits
prior to the commencement of work.
6. The subgrantee is requesting direct administrative costs that are directly
chargeable to this specific project. Associated eligible work is related to
administration of the PA project only and in accordance with 44 CFR 13.22.
These costs are treated consistently and uniformly as direct costs in all
federal awards and other subgrantee activities and are not included in any
approved indirect costs.
7. Payment for small projects is made at the time of project approval,
based on validated documentation included in the PW, including documents,
site visit observations and/or photos. At the time that this PW was written,
no documentation was available regarding DAC. Since DAC can only be
validated through documentation provided by the applicant, no allowance
was included.
8. Project was reviewed for 406 Hazard Mitigation and a proposal is
attached to this project worksheet. Applicant may offer other opportunities
for 406 HM following a review by their engineering consultants.
https://connectl.dhs.gov/emmie/.Danalnfo=isource.fema.net.SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 16 of 36
9. The applicant is aware that all projects are subject to an insurance
review as stated in 44 C.F.R. Sections 206.252 and 206.253. If applicable,
an insurance determination will be made either as anticipated proceeds or
actual proceeds in accordance with the applicant's insurance policy that may
affect the total amount of the project.
10. The applicant is required to adhere to State and Federal Government
Procurement rules and regulations and maintain adequate records to
support the basis for all purchasing of goods and materials and contracting
services for projects approved under the Public Assistance program, as
stated in 44 CFR 13.36. The applicant has advised they have followed their
normal procurement procedures.
11. At the Applicant's request, WELCO16 and WELCO20 have been
combined into this PW with Reference No. WELCO16. Locations 2-7 were
formerly Sites 1-6 in WELCO20. WELCO20 was rewritten for$0.
Hazard Mitigation Proposal
Is effective mitigation feasible on this site? I No
If you answered Yes to the above question. the next question is required
Will mitigation be performed on this site? I No
If you answered Yes to the above question, the next question is required
Do you wish to attach a Hazard Mitigation No
Proposal?
If you answered Yes to the above question, the next two questions are required
Please provide the Scope of Work for the estimate:
(maximum 4000 characters)
Would you like to add the Hazard Mitigation No
Proposal as a cost line item to the project cost?
GIS Coordinates
Project Location Latitude Longitude
Bridge 15-2A over Big Dry Creek 40.00872 -104.9239
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 Yes
have an impact on a floodplain or wetland?
If you would like to make any comments, please enter them below.
(maximum 4000 characters)
Zone B-Areas between limits of the 100 year flood and and 500 year flood; etc. Flood Map Panel 0802660615C
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., No
footprint, material, location, capacity, use of function)?
5. Does the applicant have a hazard mitigation proposal or would the applicant like technical Yes
assistance for a hazard mitigation proposal?
6. Is the damaged facility on the National Register of Historic Places or the state historic listing? Is No
it older than 50 years?Are there more, similar buildings near the site?
https://connectl.dhs.gov/emmie/,Danalnfo=isource.fema.net.SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency'[-Grants Page 17 of 36
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(279.87 View
RUVARAC 2014 kb)
KATHLEEN 02-25- Environmental/Historic EHP email approval of View
RUVARAC 2014 Document TRM.pdf(94,76 kb)
04-03- Floodmap[from Firmette_1.pdf(230.79
MARK SPAHR 2014 Floodplain WELCO20] kb) View
MARK SPAHR 04-03- Floodplain Floodmap[from Firmette_2.pdf(187.55 View
2014 WELCO20] kb)
MARK SPAHR 04-03- Floodplain Floodmap[from Firmette_3.pdf(187.69 View
2014 WELCO20] kb)
For Category C, D, E, F, and G Projects only
Is effective mitigation feasible on this project? Yes
If you answered Yes to the above question, the next question is required
Will mitigation be performed on any sites in this No
project?
If you answered Yes to the above question. the next question is required
Do you wish to attach a Hazard Mitigation No
Proposal?
If you answered Yes to the above question, the next two questions are required
Please provide the Scope of Work
for the estimate:
Would you like to add the Hazard Mitigation No
Proposal as a cost line item to the project cost?
Comments
Attachments
Hard Copy
User Date Document Type Description File File Name Action
Reference
04- EHP approval
MARK 03 Environmental/Historic [from EHP_email_approval_of_TRM.pdf View
SPAHR 2014 Document WELCO20] (94.76 kb)
Cost Estimate
Is this Project Worksheet for
https://connect1.dhs.`gov'emmie/.Danalnfo=isource.tema.net.SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 18 of 36
(Preferred) Repair
Material Unit Unit of Subgrant Cost
Sequence Code and/or Quantity Measure Unit Price Budget Class Type Estimate Action
Description
***Version 0 ***
Work Completed
Site 1 Location
1 - BR 13-54A
1 9999 over Big 1 LS $ CONSTRUCTION Work $ 53,332.67
Thompson 53,332.67 Completed
River
Site 7 Location
2 9999 7-BR 15-2A 1 LS $ CONSTRUCTION Work $ 1,348.00
over Big Dry 1,348.00 Completed
Creek
Work To Be Completed
Site 2 Location Work To
23-82
3 9999 2- BR
r Big Dry 1 LS 4 807.23 CONSTRUCTION Be $4,807.23
oCreek Completed
Site 3 Location
Work To
4 9999 over BR Big Dry 1 LS 4,482.86 CONSTRUCTION Be $4.482.86
Creek Completed
Site 4 Location
Work To
5 9999 4-BR 23-6C 1 LS $ CONSTRUCTION Be $4,574.35
over Big Dry 4,574,35 Completed
Creek
Site 5 Location
Work To
5-6 9999 ov BR
Dry 1 LS 6,623.66 CONSTRUCTION Be $6,623.66
Creek Completed
Site 6 Location
Work To
7 9999 6- BR 4-15A 1 LS $ CONSTRUCTION Be $2,718.78
over Big Dry 2,718.78 Completed
Creek
Site 7 Location
Work To
8 9999 7-BR 15-2A 1 LS $ CONSTRUCTION Be $ 3,898.66
over Big Dry 3,898.66 Completed
Creek
Direct Subgrantee Admin Cost
Direct Direct
9 9901 Administrative 1 LS $ INDIRECT Subgrantee $ 1,000.00
Costs 1,000.00 CHARGES
(Subgrantee) Admin Cost
Total Cost: $ 82,786.21
Insurance Adjustments(Deductibles, Proceeds and Settlements)-5900/5901
Subgrant
Se uence Code Material and/or Descri tion Unit Unit of Unit Budget Type Cost Action
4 p Quantity Measure Price Clas yp Estimate
s
Total Cost: $0.00
l I l
https://connect/.dhs.gov/emm ie/,Danaln fo=-isource.tenia.net,SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 19 of 36
Total Cost Estimate: 82 786.21
(Preferred Estimate Type+Insurance Adjustments)
Comments
Attachments
Document Hard Copy
User Date Type Description File File Name Action
Reference
KATHLEEN 02 CDOT Weld County-2013 COOT Average Unit
RUVARAC 25 Miscellaneous Average Unit Prices.pdf(37.37 kb) View
2014 Price Sheet
MARK 04- Additional CDOT unit Weld_County_
SPAHR 03 Information prices[from _2013_CDOT_Average_Unit_Prices.pdf View
2014 WELCO20] (37.37 kb)
Existing Insurance Information
Insurance Type Policy No. Bldg/Property Content Insurance Deductible Years
Amount Amount Amount Amount Required
Comments
On file at JFO
Attachments
Comments and Attachments
Name of Section Comment Attachment
WELCO16 Location Map.pdf
Project Description WELCO16[201 Location Map 1.pdf
WELCO16 [201 Location Map 2.pdf
WELCO16 CR13 over Big Thompson River Photos.pdf
Applicant Photos.pdf
WELCO16 DDD SOW.pdf
Bridge Inspection Report.pdf
WELCO16 [20] Photos Locations 2-7.pdf
Damage Facilities Location 2 BR 23-8A Inspection Report.pdf
Location 3 BR 8-21A Bridge Inspection Report.pdf
Location 4 BR 23-6C Bridge Inspection Report.pdf
Location 5 BR 4-15 A Bridge Inspection Report.pdf
Location 6 BR 21-6A Bridge Inspection Report.pdf
Location 7 BR15-2A Bridge Inspection Report.pdf
Firmette.pdf
EHP email approval of TRM.pdf
Special Considerations Firmette 1.pdf
Firmette 2.pdf
Firmette 3.pdf
Mitigation EHP email approval of TRM.pdf
Cost Estimate Weld County-2013 CDOT Average Unit Prices.pdf
Weld County - 2013 CDOT Average Unit Prices.pdf
Insurance Information On file at JFO
Bundle Reference#(Amendment#) Date Awarded
https://connect 1.dhs.gov/emmie/.DanaInfo=isource.fema.net.SSL+dispatch Destination.do'?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency F-Grants Page 20 of 36
IPA-08-CO-4145-State-0051(50) 105-01-2014
Subgrant Application - FEMA Form 90-91
Note: The Effective Cost Share for this application is 75%
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
PROJECT WORKSHEET
DISASTER PROJECT NO. PA ID NO. DATE CATEGORY
WELCOI6 123-99123- 12-05-2013 C
FEMA 4145 I- IDR I-CO 00
APPLICANT. WELD(COUNTY) WORK COMPLETE AS OF.
11-13-2013 67%
Site 1 of 7
DAMAGED FACILITY.
COUNTY. Weld
BR 13-54A over Big Thompson River
LOCATION. LATITUDE. LONGITUDE.
40.3828 -104.945
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(0).
Location 1
Bridge 13-54A over Big Thompson River. in Section 19.T5N, R68W.
Lat N40.38280
Long. -W104.94500
DAMAGE DESCRIPTION AND DIMENSIONS.
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(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 13 north roadway approaches and Bridge 13-54A over Big Thompson River. in Section 19,T5N. R68W.
On November 13. 2013 Kathleen Ruvarac. FEMA TAC Bridge Specialist. David Ray.FEMA Hazard Mitigation Specialist,Gary Moore,FEMA
Environmental. Historical,Preservation Specialist,and Donald Dunker. Weld County Public Works Engineer. performed a site investigation at this
location to document damages. The road and bridge was open and repairs completed at the time of inspection.
Lat N40.38280
Long. -W104.94500
Flooding of the Big Thompson River resulted in damages on CR 13 include washout of asphalt,roadway base and embankment material on the
north roadway approach.The double span concrete bridge. 125 ft in length x 67 ft in width.traverses the Big Thompson River and consists of a
two(2)inch asphalt deck on a 7.5 inch concrete deck supported by twelve(12)—58 ft—4 inch long 5.5 ft wide x 18 inch deep prestressed
concrete box girders in each span. one(1)concrete pier with four(4)—3 ft diameter concrete columns and a 4 ft x 4 ft x 10 inch thick concrete
cap and two(2)2 ft 8 inch thick concrete abutments. The bridge is flanked on both sides with a galvanized w-beam on steel posts.
Embankment Material lost in north roadway approach travel lanes measuring 76 ft L x 40 ft W x 4.7 ft D=529.2 CY.
One asphalt patch on roadway measured 76 ft L x 40 ft W=3.040 SF x 0.575 ft D= 1,748 CF x 146 LB/CF x 1 ton/2000 LB= 127.6 tons asphalt
Asphalt material behind the southeast section of guardrail and steel posts was raveled due to the flood water overtopping the roadway and
shoulder exposing the previously embedded portion of the posts.The quantity of material to be placed on the shoulder is 92 ft L x 2 ft W x 0.33 ft
D=2.2 CY=4.0 tons asphalt.
Ditch cleaning each side of the road to reshape ditches at the site is estimated to be 484 ft in length on the northeast shoulder and 501 ft in length
on the northwest shoulder adjacent to the travel lanes,and 50 ft in length an the southeast shoulder totaling 1,035 LF.
Turf Reinforcement Mat installed on the NE shoulder(downstream)was damaged during the flood and subsequent filling operations at the site,
estimated to be 110 ft L x 16 ft W= 195.6 SY.Turf Reinforcement Mat installed on the SE shoulder(downstream)was damaged during the flood
and subsequent filling operations at the site. estimated to be 92 ft L x 20 ft W=204.4 SY.totaling 400 SY.
Rip Rap was washed away at the northeast wingwall of the north abutment is estimated to be 35 ft L x 3 ft W towards the channel x 1.5 ft D=5.8
CY. Rip rap was washed away at the southwest wingwall of the south abutment and is estimated to be 35 ft in length x 3 ft W towards the channel
x 3 ft D= 11.7 CY.totaling 17.5 CY.
Barbed wire fence with treated wooden posts was damaged on both the east(100 ft)and west side(100 ft)of the bridge.total 200 ft in length.
A small amount of debris material was observed at the bridge site and is estimated to be 10 CY. approximately one truck load of material.
Recent bridge inspection report was provided by the applicant dated May 22. 2012.The bridge was built in 2009 and had a sufficiency rating of
90.7 in 2012.
2012 inspection notes of elements include bridge deck pavement crack sealing vertical hairline cracks on concrete curbs light water stains on
https://connectl.dhs.gov/emmie/,Danalntb=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination.do7... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency El-Grants Page 21 01 36
prestressed girders, small spall on column 2D pier.One inch wide cracks in asphalt at approach ends. The deck condition is noted as good
condition(7)on a scale of 0 to 9. The superstructure and substructure were noted as very good condition(8).The channel banks were observed
to be protected or well vegetated(8). Maintenance items included bridge deck repair sealing cracks in asphalt surface.
The Applicant has provided pictures of the road and bridge facilities documenting damages. These photos are attached to this project worksheet.
SCOPE OF WORK.
PA-08-CO-4145-P W-00661(0)
WORK COMPLETED
Location 1
1 —Fill void in roadway travel lanes.embankment and north approach—529.2 CY x 1.82(Conversion Factor CY ABC Class 6 Material to Tons=
963.1tons 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)_$32.456.47
2—Install asphalt on north roadway approach and southeast shoulder behind guardrail= 131.6 tons x$81.70/ton(CDOT Item Number 403-33741
Hot Bituminous Pavement(Grading S)(75)(PG 64-22)=$10,751.72
3—Ditch re-shaping on the NE.NW and SE shoulders=1,035 LF x$3.40/LF(FEMA Cost Code 3070 Ditch Cleaning and shaping)=$3,519.00
4-Install Turf Reinforcement Mat on NE and SE shoulders=400 SY X 10.00/SY(CDOT Item Number 216-00301)=$4.000.00
5—Install Rip Rap north and south abutments, 17.5 CY x$83.17/CY(Rip Rap 18 inch CDOT Item Number 506-00218)=$1,455 48
6—Install 200 LF of barbed wire fence with treated wooden posts x 5.50/LF(CDOT Item Number 607-01055)=$1.100.00
7—Remove debris at site 10.0 CY x$5.00/CY estimate=$50.00
Total=$53.332.67 cost estimate prepared by project specialist using 2013 CDOT Average Unit Prices
Site 2 of 7
DAMAGED FACILITY.
COUNTY. Weld
BR 23-8A over Big Dry Creek
LOCATION. LATITUDE. LONGITUDE.
40.04414 -104.84853
PA-08-CO-4145-P W-00661(0).
Location 2 —Bridge 23-8A over Big Dry Creek
Lat:N40.04414
Long. -W104.84853
DAMAGE DESCRIPTION AND DIMENSIONS.
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(0).
Location 2—Bridge 23-8A over Big Dry Creek
Lat N40.04414
Long: -W104.84853
Flooding of the Big Dry Creek resulted in damages on CR 23 include washout of rip rap material on the channel side of the wingwalls and
abutments at Bridge WEL023.0-008.0A.
Rip Rap was washed away at the abutments is estimated to be 32+20 ft=52 ft L x 5 ft W towards the channel x 3 ft D x 2 abutments=57.8 CY
The 39.25 ft long x 32.0 ft wide steel structure traverses the Big Dry Creek in Weld County. CO. The bridge is a single(1)span bridge consisting
of a 10 inch asphalt overlay on corrugated steel deck,Seven(7)—W27x94 steel girders,seven(7)HP[H-Piles] 10x57 steel piles with HP 10x57
steel cap with 3 inch x 18 inch vertical steel sheet pile backwall at the abutments and(1)HP 10x57 Pile w/3 inch x 18 inch vertical steel sheet
piling wing walls.The deck is flanked on both sides with a galvanized W rail beam bolted to steel posts.
Recent bridge inspection report was provided by the applicant dated May 21 2012 The bridge was built in 1982 and had a sufficiency rating of
79.9 in 2012.
2012 inspection notes of elements include,bridge deck and approach railing inadequate pavement crack sealing, install signage. debris in
channel. The deck condition is noted as fair(5)on a scale of 0 to 9. The superstructure is noted as satisfactory(6)and substructure is noted as
fair(5). The channel banks were observed to be slumping(6). Maintenance items included sealing cracks in deck overlay railing replacement.
install object markers at all corners and remove debris from channel.
SCOPE OF WORK.
PA-08-CO-4145-P W-00661(0).
WORK TO BE COMPLETED
Location 2
https://connectl .dhs.gov/emmieLDanalnfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency F-Grants Page 22 of 36
1 -Replace Rip Rap 57.8 CY x$83.17/CY(Rip Rap 18 inch CDOT Item Number 506-00218)=$4,807 23
Site 3 of 7
DAMAGED FACILITY.
COUNTY. Weld
BR 8-21A over Big Dry Creek
LOCATION. LATITUDE. LONGITUDE.
40.04356 -104.84942
P A-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(0)'.
Location 3—Bridge 8-21A over Big Dry Creek
Lat: N40.04356
Long. -W104.84942
DAMAGE DESCRIPTION AND DIMENSIONS.
P A-08-CO-4145-P W-00661(0).
Flooding of the Big Dry Creek resulted in damages on CR 8 include washout of rip rap material on the channel side of the wingwalls and
abutments at Bridge WEL008.0-021.0A.
Rip Rap was washed away at the abutments is estimated to be 32.5+16 ft=48.5 ft L x 5 ft W towards the channel x 3 ft D x 2 abutments=53.9
CY
The 39.0 ft long x 32.5 ft wide steel structure traverses the Big Dry Creek in Weld County, CO. The bridge is a single(1)span bridge consisting of
a 1 inch gravel over 4 inch asphalt overlay on corrugated steel deck.Ten(10)—W24x76 steel girders. HP 10x57 steel piles with HP 10x57 steel
cap with 3 inch a 18 inch vertical steel sheet pile backwall at the abutments and(1)HP 10x57 Pile w/3 inch x 18 inch vertical steel sheet piling
wing walls.The deck is flanked on both sides with a galvanized W rail beam bolted to steel posts.
Recent bridge inspection report was provided by the applicant dated May 21.2012.The bridge was built in 1983 and had a sufficiency rating of 97
in 2012.
2012 inspection notes of elements include, bridge deck and approach railing inadequate lapped bridge rail connection,damaged concrete in
abutment,dirt and gravel berms along both sides of deck,light rust on girders.The deck condition is noted as satisfactory(6)on a scale of 0 to 9.
The superstructure and substructure were noted as satisfactory(6).The channel banks were observed to be in need of minor repairs(7).
Maintenance items included railing replacement. install 4 bolts in lapped w beam rail connection,consider encasing abutments in concrete,install
object markers at all corners and remove gravel berms from deck.
SCOPE OF WORK.
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(0)'.
Location 3
1 -Replace Rip Rap 53.9 CY x$83.17/CY(Rip Rap 18 inch CDOT Item Number 506-00218)=$4,482.86
Site 4 of 7
DAMAGED FACILITY.
COUNTY. Weld
BR 23-6C over Big Dry Creek
LOCATION. LATITUDE. LONGITUDE.
40.04103 -104.8485
PA-08-CO-4145-P W-00661(0)
Location 4—Bridge 23-6C over Big Dry Creek
Lat. N40.04103
Long. -W104.84859
DAMAGE DESCRIPTION AND DIMENSIONS.
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(0).
Flooding of the Big Dry Creek resulted in damages on CR 23include washout of rip rap material on the channel side of the wingwalls at Bndge
WEL023.0-6C.
Rip Rap was washed away in front of the wingwalls is estimated to be 40 ft L x 6 ft W towards the channel x 3 ft D x 2 abutments=53.3 CY use
https://connectI.dhs.gov/emmie/.Danalnfo=isource.fema.net.SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 23 of 36
SSCY
The 39.25 ft long x 32.0 ft wide steel structure traverses the Big Dry Creek in Weld County. CO. The bridge is a single(1)span bridge consisting
of an 8 inch asphalt overlay on corrugated steel deck.Seven(7)—W27x102 steel girders,six(6)with 10 inch x 10.25 inch H piles abutments with
horizontal 10 inch steel h cap with vertical 3.25 ft x 18 inch steel sheet pile backwall and 1 ft—10 inch steel H pile and horiztonal whaler with
vertical steel sheet pile wing walls.The deck is flanked on both sides with a galvanized W rail beam bolted to steel posts.
Recent bridge inspection report was provided by the applicant dated May 21 2012. The bridge was built in 1995 and had a sufficiency rating of
91.2. Structurally Deficient,in 2012.
2012 inspection notes of elements include bridge deck and approach railing inadequate,pavement crack sealing,light rust on bottom of girders,
w-beam steel posts and steel sheet pile abutments. The deck condition is noted as poor(4)on a scale of 0 to 9. The superstructure is noted as
satisfactory(6)and substructure is noted as good(7).The channel banks were observed to be in need of minor repairs(7). Maintenance items
included sealing crack in deck overlay and railing replacement.
SCOPE OF WORK.
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(0)
WORK TO BE COMPLETED.
Location 4
1 -Replace Rip Rap 55CY x$83.17/CY(Rip Rap 18 inch CDOT Item Number 506-00218)=$4.574.35
Site 5 of 7
DAMAGED FACILITY.
COUNTY. Weld
BR 21-6A over Big Dry Creek
LOCATION. LATITUDE. LONGITUDE.
40.0372 -104.86711
PA-08-CO-4145-P W-00661(0).
Location 5—Bridge 21-6A over Big Dry Creek
Lat: N40.03720
Long: -W104.86711
DAMAGE DESCRIPTION AND DIMENSIONS.
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(0)'.
Flooding of the Big Dry Creek resulted in damages on CR 21 include washout of rip rap material on the channel side of the abutments and
wingwalls at Bridge WEL021.0-006.0A. Loss of embankment material on the North east shoulder exposed 20 LF of 24 inch CMP estimated to be
20 ft L x 10 ft W x 4 ft D.29.6 CY.
Rip Rap was washed away in front of the abutments and wingwalls is estimated to be 32 ft+20 ft=52 ft Lx 5 ft W towards the channel x 3 ft D x
2 abutments=57.8 CY
The 49.7 ft long x 32.1 ft wide concret/steel structure traverses the Big Dry Creek in Weld County.CO. The bridge is a single(1)span bridge
consisting of a 4 inch asphalt overlay on top of cast in place concrete topping slab on 2 inch tope flange of double tee girders.four(4)30 inch
deep double tee girders. six(6)ten inch H piles with concrete walls between with precast concrete cap abutment and concrete wingwalls.The
deck is flanked on both sides with a galvanized W rail beam bolted to steel posts.
Recent bridge inspection report was provided by the applicant dated May 21. 2012.The bridge was built in 1970 and had a sufficiency rating of
97.0 in 2012.
2012 inspection notes of elements include:bridge deck and approach railing inadequate,pavement crack sealing. light rust on bottom of girders.
The deck condition is noted as satisfactory(6)on a scale of 0 to 9. The superstructure and the substructure are noted as satisfactory(6).The
channel banks were observed to be protected or well vegetated. Maintenance items included sealing crack in deck overlay railing replacement.
fill holes in shoulders at southwest and northwest corners of deck, install object markers at all corners.
SCOPE OF WORK.
PA-08-CO-4145-P W-00661(0).
WORK TO BE COMPLETED
Location 5
1 —Fill embankment material lost on northeast shoulder—29.6 CY x 1.82(Conversion Factor CY ABC Class 6 Material to Tons=53.9 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
https://connectl.dhs.gov/emmie/,Danalnfo=isource.fema.net.SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency F-Grants Page 24 of 36
annual projects)=$1-816.43
2—Replace Rip Rap 57.8/CY x$83.17/CY(Rip Rap 18 inch CDOT Item Number 506-00218)=$4,807.23
WORK TO BE COMPLETED TOTAL=$6 623.66
Site 6 of 7
DAMAGED FACILITY.
COUNTY. Weld
BR 4-15A over Big Dry Creek
LOCATION. LATITUDE. LONGITUDE.
40.01472 -104.91122
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(0).
Location 6—Bridge 4-15A over Big Dry Creek
Let N40.01472
Long. -W104.91122
DAMAGE DESCRIPTION AND DIMENSIONS.
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-0066110)'.
Flooding of the Big Dry Creek resulted in damages on CR 4 include washout of surface gravel on bridge deck at Bridge WEL004.0-015.0A.
1. Loss of surface gravel is estimated to be 30 ft L x 32 ft W x 0.33 ft D=11.7 CY.
2.Rip rap and soil/seed cover washed away at each wingwalls/embankment estimated to be[10LF x 5FT wide x 3FT deep/27]x 4=22.2CY use
23CY[rip rap]. Soil washed away estimated to be[10FT x 5FT wide x 4/12FT deep/27]x 4=2.47CY use 3CY
The 33.75 ft long x 32.0 ft wide steel structure traverses the Big Dry Creek in Weld County.CO. The bridge is a single(1)span bridge consisting
of a 1 inch gravel on 4 inch asphalt overlay on corrugated steel deck.twelve(12)—W21 x62 steel girders, 10 inch x 8 inch H-cap on six(6) 10
inch piles with sheet pile backwall abutments and 10 inch H pile with water and sheet pile backwall wing walls.The deck is flanked on both sides
with a galvanized W rail beam bolted to steel posts.
Recent bridge inspection report was provided by the applicant dated May 21.2012. The bridge was built in 2003 and had a sufficiency rating of 97
in 2012.
2012 inspection notes of elements include bridge deck and approach railing inadequate,pavement crack sealing,light rust on bottom of girders.
heavy rust at water level of steel sheet pile abutments.The deck condition is noted as satisfactory(6)on a scale of 0 to 9. The superstructure is
noted as good(7)and substructure is noted satisfactory(7). The channel banks were observed to be slumping(6). Maintenance items included
railing replacement. remove gravel berms along both sides of the deck,and line southeast bank with wire enclosed rock for 100 ft upstream of
bridge.
SCOPE OF WORK.
PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661(0).
WORK TO BE COMPLETED.
Location 6
1—Replace surface gravel lost on deck—11.7 CY x 1.82(Conversion Factor CY ABC Class 6 Material to Tons=21.3 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)=
$717.81
2a. Install rip rap at wingwalls. 23CY x$83.17/CY[Rip rap 18 inch CDOT Item Number 506-00218]=$1 912.91
2b.Install topsoil over rip rap. 3CY x$10.11/CY=$30.33 CDOT 207-00205
2c Install seeding. [10LF x SET]x 4=2005F/43560=0.009AC use 0.005AC x$545.81/AC=$2.73 CDOT 212-00006[use$10.00]
2d. Install soil retention blanket. 200SF/9=22.2SY x$2.15/SY=$47.73 CDOT 216-00042
WORK TO BE COMPLETED TOTAL=$2 718.78
Site 7 of 7
DAMAGED FACILITY.
COUNTY Weld
https://connectl.dhs.gov/emmie/,Dana[nfo=isource.fema.net,SSl,+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency F-Grants Page 25 of 36
BR 15-2A over Big Dry Creek
LOCATION LATITUDE. LONGITUDE.
40.00872 -104.9239
PA-08-CO-4145-P W-00661(0)
Location 7—Bridge 15-2A over Big Dry Creek
Lat N40.00872
Long. -W104.92390
DAMAGE DESCRIPTION AND DIMENSIONS.
PA-08-CO-4145-P W-00661(0).
Flooding of the Big Dry Creek resulted in damages on CR 15 include vegetative debris accumulating at Bridge WEL015.0-002.0A.
1.Vegetative debris is estimated to be 32+ 10+ 10=52 ft L x 35 ft W x 4 ft D=269.6 CY.
2. Rip rap washed away at the following wingwalls[Total 45CY].
2a Northwest. 20LF x 10FT x 3FT deep/27=22.2CY use 23CY
2b. Northeast.20LF x 5FT x 3FT deep/27= 11.1 CV use 11CY
2c.Southeast:20LF x 5FT x 3FT deep/27= 11.1 CY use 11CY
3. Soil/seed cover on Item 2[rip rap]washed away[20LF x 10FT]+[20LF x 5FT[+[20LF x 5FT]=400SF x 4/12FT deep/27=4.9CY use 5CY
The 36.53 ft long x 32.0 ft wide steel structure traverses the Big Dry Creek in Weld County. CO. The bridge is a single(1)span bridge consisting
of a 3 inch gravel on 4 inch asphalt overlay on corrugated steel deck, Eight(8)—W27x102 steel girders. 12 inch H piles on six(6)with 12 inch H
piles with sheet pile backwall abutments and 2tow(2) 12 inch H pile with waler and sheet pile backwall wing walls.The deck is flanked on both
sides with a galvanized W rail beam bolted to steel posts.
Recent bridge inspection report was provided by the applicant dated May 21. 2012. The bridge was built in 2003 and had a sufficiency rating of 97
in 2012.
2012 inspection notes of elements include bridge deck and approach railing inadequate,pavement crack sealing,light rust on bottom of girders,
w-beam steel posts.and steel sheet pile abutments.The deck condition is noted as good(7)on a scale of 0 to 9. The superstructure and
substructure are noted as good(7).The channel banks were observed to be in need of minor repairs(7). Maintenance items included sealing
crack in deck overlay railing replacement,install object markers on all corners,place wire enclosed gabions along southwest bank to repair
slumping and erosion.
Photos of the bridge facilities are included in the bridge inspection report attached to this project worksheet.
SCOPE OF WORK.
PA-08-CO-4145-P W-00661(0)
Location 7
WORK COMPLETED
1—Debris removal at site—269.6 CV x$5.00/CY estimated cost=$1.348.00.The applicant indicated that the debris would be disposed of at its
landfill in Kennesburg.Colorado.Tree limbs,etc.would be disposed of at A-1 Organics Rattler Ridge, 12002 CR 59. Kennesburg. CO. Solid
Waste would be disposed of at Waste Management-Buffalo Ridge Landfill. 11655 CR 59. Keenesburg,CO.
WORK COMPLETED TOTAL=$1,348.00
WORK TO BE COMPLETED:
2.Install rip rap at NW.NE.and SE wingwalls.45CV x$83.17/CY[Rip rap 18 inch CDOT Item Number 506-00218]=$3.742.65
3a.Install topsoil over rip rap. 5CY x$10.11/CY=$50.55 CDOT 207-00205
3b Install seeding. 400SF/43560=0.009AC use 0.01AC x$545.81/AC=$5.45 CDOT 212-00006[use$10.00]
3c. Install soil retention blanket. 400SF/9=44.4SV x$2.15/SY=$95.46 CDOT 216-00042
WORK TO BE COMPLETED TOTAL=$3.898.66
PROJECT NOTES.
1. During repair or reconstruction, applicant may incur additional costs related to clearing and grubbing.dewatenng,placement of topsoil.
https://connectl.dlis.gov/emm ie/DanaInfo=isource.fema.net.SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 26 of 36
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 PWs Scope of Work.
2. Applicant has completed a substantial percentage of the work but will not have cost data available within the fourteen day Pocket Guide rule.
Per Field Operations Pocket Guide, Section 7. Cost Estimates. Page 26. If the applicant has not produced cost data within two weeks of the site
inspection,the Project Specialist will prepare the PW on the basis of an estimate for the work accomplished".Applicant and FEMA personnel
jointly conducted all inspections and agreed to use CDOT costs for in-place costs to derive estimates on this project worksheet.Applicant
understands that all actual support documentation. invoices. FA records contract and proof of payment will be required for final reconciliation and
or closeout process.Attached is the CDOT average in-place cost for materials.
3. The Applicant will notify FEMA and the State of their intent to perform permanent work related to this site before any work commences in the
field. Failure to do so may jeopardize the sub-grant for permanent work related to the work in this sub-grant.
4. Pursuant to 44 CFR 13.42.Grantees and Subgrantees are required to retain records including source documentation.to support
expenditures/costs incurred against the grant award.for 3 years from the date of submission to FEMA of the final Financial Status Report
5. The applicant must obtain all required federal state. and local permits prior to the commencement of work.
6. The subgrantee is requesting direct administrative costs that are directly chargeable to this specific project. Associated eligible work is
related to administration of the PA project only and in accordance with 44 CFR 13.22. These costs are treated consistently and uniformly as
direct costs in all federal awards and other subgrantee activities and are not included in any approved indirect costs.
7. Payment for small projects is made at the time of project approval based on validated documentation included in the PW,including
documents site visit observations and/or photos. At the time that this PW was written no documentation was available regarding DAC. Since
DAC can only be validated through documentation provided by the applicant,no allowance was included.
8. Project was reviewed for 406 Hazard Mitigation and a proposal is attached to this project worksheet.Applicant may offer other opportunities
for 406 HM following a review by their engineering consultants.
9. The applicant is aware that all projects are subject to an insurance review as stated in 44 C.F.R. Sections 206.252 and 206.253.If applicable.
an insurance determination will be made either as anticipated proceeds or actual proceeds in accordance with the applicant's insurance policy
that may affect the total amount of the project.
10. The applicant is required to adhere to State and Federal Government Procurement rules and regulations and maintain adequate records to
support the basis for all purchasing of goods and materials and contracting services for projects approved under the Public Assistance program,
as stated in 44 CFR 13.36.The applicant has advised they have followed their normal procurement procedures.
11.At the Applicant's request,WELC016 and WELCO20 have been combined into this PW with Reference No. WELCOI6, Locations 2-7 were
formerly Sites 1-6 in WELCO20. WELCO20 was rewritten for$0.
Does the Scope of Work change the pre-disaster
conditions at the site? Yes No Special Considerations included? Yes No
Hazard Mitigation proposal included? Yes No Is there insurance coverage on this facility? Yes No
PROJECT COST
ITEM CODE NARRATIVE QUANTITY/UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
***Version 0 ***
Work Completed
1 9999 Site 1 Location 1 - BR 13-54A over 1/LS $53,332.67 $ 53,332.67
Big Thompson River
2 9999 Site 7 Location 7- BR 15-2A over 1/LS $ 1,348.00 $ 1,348.00
Big Dry Creek
Work To Be Completed
3 9999 Site 2 Location 2 - BR 23-82 over 1/LS $4,807.23 $4,807.23
Big Dry Creek
4 9999 Site 3 Location 3- BR 8-21A over 1/LS $4,482.86 $4.482.86
Big Dry Creek
5 9999 Site 4 Location 4- BR 23-6C over 1/LS $4,574.35 $4,574.35
Big Dry Creek
6 9999 Site 5 Location 5- BR 21-6A over 1/LS $ 6,623.66 $ 6,623.66
Big Dry Creek
https://connectI.dhs.gov/emmie/.Danalnfo=isource.Yema.net.SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 27 of 36
7 9999 Site 6 Location 6- BR 4-15A over 1/LS $2,718.78 $2,718.78
Big Dry Creek
8 9999 Site 7 Location 7- BR 15-2A over 1/LS $ 3,898.66 $ 3,898.66
Big Dry Creek
Direct Subgrantee Admin Cost
9 9901 Direct Administrative Costs 1/LS
(Subgrantee) $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
TOTAL COST $ 82,786.21
PREPARED BY KATHLEEN RUVARAC TITLE TAC BRIDGE SPECIALIST SIGNATURE
APPLICANT REP. Roy Rudisill TITLE Director-OEM SIGNATURE
WELD(COUNTY) : PA-08-CO-4145-PW-00661
Conditions Information
Review Name Condition Type Condition Name Description Monitored Status
This review does not address all
federal, state and local
requirements. Acceptance of
federal funding requires recipient to
Final Review Other(EHP) Standard comply with all federal, state and No Approved
Condition#2 local laws. Failure to obtain all
appropriate federal, state and local
environmental permits and
clearances may jeopardize federal
funding.
Any change to the approved scope
Final Review Other(EHP) Standard of work will require re-evaluation for No Approved
Condition#1 compliance with NEPA and other
Laws and Executive Orders.
Applicant is responsible for
Executive Order coordinating with the local
Final Review Other(EHP) 11988- floodplain manager. All required No Approved
Floodplains permits should be maintained as
part of the permanent record.
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
State Hazardous disposal site or landfill in
Materials and accordance with the CDPHE
Final Review Other(EHP) Solid Waste authorized waste management No Approved
Laws regulations. For any"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
https://connectI .dhs.gov/emmie/.Danalnfo=isource.fema.net,SSI,+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 28 of 36
follows these guidelines.
If ground disturbing activities occur
during construction, applicant will
monitor ground disturbance and if
Final Review Other (EHP) Standard any potential archeological No Approved
Condition#3 resources are discovered, will
immediately cease construction in
that area and notify the State and
FEMA.
Emergency Consultation -
Recommended Conservation
Measures PRE-CONSTRUCTION
DESIGN: 1. Design the project to
avoid and minimize the permanent
and temporary impacts to riparian
and adjacent upland habitats. a.
Before construction, identify and
prioritize riparian and adjacent
upland habitats within the project
area. Design the project so that it
avoids these habitats whenever
possible. b. Minimize the amount of
concrete, riprap, bridge footings,
and other"hard," impermeable
engineering features within the
stream channel and riparian or
adjacent upland habitats. c. Use
bioengineering techniques to
stabilize stream banks. d. Minimize
the number and footprint of access
routes, staging areas, and work
areas. e. Locate access routes,
staging areas, and work areas
within previously disturbed or
Endangered modified non-habitat areas. f.
Final Review Other(EHP) Species Act Maintain habitat connectivity under No Approved
(ESA) bridges or through culverts by
installing ledges or dry culverts
adjacent to the culverts with water
flow. g.Avoid fragmenting linear
riparian corridors. 2. Install limits of
work fencing (e.g., orange barrier
netting or silt fencing), signage, or
other visible markers to delineate
access routes and the project area
from habitats. Use this fencing to
enforce no-entry zones. 3. Hold a
preconstruction briefing for onsite
personnel to explain the limits of
work and other conservation
measures. 4. Follow regional
stormwater guidelines and design
best management practices (BMPs)
to control contamination, erosion,
and sedimentation, such as silt
fences, silt basins, gravel bags, and
other controls needed to stabilize
soils in denuded or graded areas,
during and after construction. 5.
Locate utilities along existing road
corridors, and if possible,within the
roadway or road shoulder. a. Bury
https://conneetl.dhs.gov/emm ie/DanaInfo=isourcetema.net.SSI+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency F-Grants Page 29 of 36
overhead utilities whenever
possible. b. Directionally bore
utilities and pipes underneath
habitats. 6. Develop and implement
a habitat restoration plan that
addresses site preparation, planting
techniques, control of non-native
weeds, native seed mixtures, and
post-construction monitoring.
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION: 7.
Contact the Service immediately by
telephone at (303) 236-4773 if a
Preble's is found alive, dead.
injured, or hibernating within the
project area. Please also contact
the Service if any other listed
species are found within the project
area. 8. To the maximum extent
practicable, limit disturbing (e.g.,
crushing. trampling) or removing
(e.g.. cutting, clearing) all
vegetation, such as willows, trees,
shrubs, and grasses within riparian
and adjacent upland habitats. a.
Restrict the temporary or
permanent removal of vegetation to
the footprint of the project area. b.
Minimize the use of heavy
machinery and use smaller
equipment when possible. c. Soil
compaction: Temporarily line
access routes with geotextiles or
other materials, especially in wet,
unstable soils to protect roots and
the seed bank. 9. Use the attached
table to track the acres or square
feet of riparian and upland habitats
temporarily or permanently affected
by the response activities. a.
Temporary Impacts: Native
vegetation and habitats will
reestablish following rehabilitation
(e.g., access route that is
rehabilitated with native, weed-free
seeds and plants). b. Permanent
Impacts: Riparian or upland
habitats will not return as a result of
project activities (e.g.. road surface.
concrete footings)
The applicant should implement
appropriate FWS conservation
measures identified in the
Emergency Consultation between
Endangered FEMA and USFWS, dated
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
https://connect l .dhs.gov/emmie/.Danalnfb=isource.fema.net.SSL+dispatchDestination.do'?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 30 of 36
implementation in minimizing
adverse effects.
The applicant is responsible for
verifying and compliance with all
permit requirements, including
permit conditions, pre-construction
notification requirements and
regional conditions as provided by
the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE). The applicant is
Clean Water Act responsible for implementing,
Final Review Other(EHP) (CWA) monitoring, and maintaining all Best No Approved
Management Practices (BMP's)
and Pre-Construction Notification
(PCN) conditions of applicable
Nation Wide Permits (NWP). This is
to include any requirements per the
Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment 401 Water
Quality Certification for Clean
Water Act permits.
10. Track the volumes of any water
from onsite sources stored or used
for dust abatement, soil
compaction, concrete mixing, or
other activities. 11. Locate. store,
stage, operate, and refuel
equipment outside of riparian or
adjacent upland habitats. a.
Operate equipment from previously
disturbed or modified roadbeds or
road shoulders above the riparian
habitats. b. Limit the number of
entrance and exit points leading
into the project area. c. Stockpile
topsoil and debris outside the
riparian corridor and protect from
stream flows or runoff. 12. During
the Preble's active season (May 1
through November 1), work only
Endangered during daylight hours to avoid
Final Review Other(EHP) Species Act disrupting Preble's nocturnal No Approved
(ESA) activities. 13. Promptly remove
waste to minimize site disturbance
and avoid attracting predators. 14.
Cover exposed holes or piles of
loose dirt with boards, tarps, or
other materials to prevent
entrapment. 15. Use best
management practices (BMPs)to
limit construction-related
disturbance, such as soil
compaction, erosion, and
sedimentation, and to prevent the
spread of invasive weeds; a. Soil
compaction: Establish one access
route for workers, vehicles, and
machinery, preferably along a
previously disturbed surface or
route. b. Soil compaction:
Temporarily line access routes with
geotextiles or other materials,
https://connect .dhs.gov/emmie/.Danalnfo=isource.fema.net.SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency [-Grants Page 31 of 36
especially in wet, unstable soils. c.
Weed control: Wash and inspect
vehicles and equipment before
entering or leaving the project area
so that they are free of noxious
weed seeds and plant parts. d.
Weed control: Use only weed free
certified materials, including gravel,
sand, top soil, seed, and mulch. 16.
Complete construction before
beginning restoration or
enhancement activities. POST-
CONSTRUCTION: 17. Upon
project completion, revegetate all
disturbed areas with native shrubs,
trees, and grasses. a. Rip
compacted access routes prior to
replanting with native vegetation. b.
Fill and reseed with weed free
material and native seed mixtures.
c. Consult the Service before
finalizing a seed and plant list. 18.
Bury riprap, then plant with native
riparian vegetation. 19. Rehabilitate
adjacent habitats impacted by
floodwaters to restore connectivity
and prevent future impacts from
erosion or sedimentation. 20.
Consider monitoring the
revegetated areas for success. The
Service can help establish success
criteria during the consultation
process.
If ground disturbing activities occur
during construction, applicant will
monitor ground disturbance and if
EHP Review Other(EHP) Standard any potential archeological No Recommended
Condition#3 resources are discovered, will
immediately cease construction in
that area and notify the State and
FEMA.
This review does not address all
federal, state and local
requirements. Acceptance of
federal funding requires recipient to
EHP Review Other(EHP) Standard comply with all federal, state and No Recommended
Condition #2 local laws. Failure to obtain all
appropriate federal, state and local
environmental permits and
clearances may jeopardize federal
funding.
Any change to the approved scope
EHP Review Other(EHP) Standard of work will require re-evaluation for No Recommended
Condition #1 compliance with NEPA and other
Laws and Executive Orders.
Applicant is responsible for
Executive Order coordinating with the local
EHP Review Other(EHP) 11988- floodplain manager. All required No Recommended
Floodplains permits should be maintained as
part of the permanent record.
https://connectI.dhs.gov/emmie/.Danajnfo=isource.fema.net.SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency 8-Grants Page 32 of 36
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
State Hazardous accordance with the CDPHE
Materials and authorized waste management
EHP Review Other(EHP) Solid Waste regulations. For any"Asbestos No Recommended
Laws 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.
10. Track the volumes of any water
from onsite sources stored or used
for dust abatement. soil
compaction, concrete mixing, or
other activities. 11. Locate, store,
stage, operate, and refuel
equipment outside of riparian or
adjacent upland habitats. a.
Operate equipment from previously
disturbed or modified roadbeds or
road shoulders above the riparian
habitats. b. Limit the number of
entrance and exit points leading
into the project area. c. Stockpile
topsoil and debris outside the
riparian corridor and protect from
stream flows or runoff. 12. During
the Preble's active season (May 1
Endangered through November 1), work only
during daylight hours to avoid
EHP Review Other(EHP) Species Act disrupting Preble's nocturnal No Recommended
(ESA) activities. 13. Promptly remove
waste to minimize site disturbance
and avoid attracting predators. 14.
Cover exposed holes or piles of
loose dirt with boards, tarps, or
other materials to prevent
entrapment. 15. Use best
management practices (BMPs)to
limit construction-related
disturbance, such as soil
compaction, erosion, and
sedimentation, and to prevent the
spread of invasive weeds; a. Soil
compaction: Establish one access
route for workers, vehicles. and
machinery, preferably along a
previously disturbed surface or
route. b. Soil compaction:
Temporarily line access routes with
geotextiles or other materials,
https://connectI.dhs.gov/emmie/.Dana[nfo=isource.fema.net.SSL-fdispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency F-Grants Page 33 of 36
especially in wet, unstable soils. c.
Weed control: Wash and inspect
vehicles and equipment before
entering or leaving the project area
so that they are free of noxious
weed seeds and plant parts. d.
Weed control: Use only weed free
certified materials, including gravel,
sand, top soil, seed, and mulch. 16.
Complete construction before
beginning restoration or
enhancement activities. POST-
CONSTRUCTION: 17. Upon
project completion, revegetate all
disturbed areas with native shrubs,
trees, and grasses. a. Rip
compacted access routes prior to
replanting with native vegetation. b.
Fill and reseed with weed free
material and native seed mixtures.
c. Consult the Service before
finalizing a seed and plant list. 18.
Bury riprap,then plant with native
riparian vegetation. 19. Rehabilitate
adjacent habitats impacted by
floodwaters to restore connectivity
and prevent future impacts from
erosion or sedimentation. 20.
Consider monitoring the
revegetated areas for success. The
Service can help establish success
criteria during the consultation
process.
Emergency Consultation -
Recommended Conservation
Measures PRE-CONSTRUCTION
DESIGN: 1. Design the project to
avoid and minimize the permanent
and temporary impacts to riparian
and adjacent upland habitats. a.
Before construction, identify and
prioritize riparian and adjacent
upland habitats within the project
area. Design the project so that it
avoids these habitats whenever
possible. b. Minimize the amount of
concrete, riprap, bridge footings,
EHP Review and other"hard," impermeable
engineering features within the
stream channel and riparian or
adjacent upland habitats. c. Use
bioengineering techniques to
stabilize stream banks. d. Minimize
the number and footprint of access
routes, staging areas, and work
areas. e. Locate access routes.
staging areas, and work areas
within previously disturbed or
modified non-habitat areas. f.
Maintain habitat connectivity under
bridges or through culverts by
installing ledges or dry culverts
https:/,/connectl.dhs.gov/emmie/,Danalnfo=isource.fema.net,SSL+dispatchDestination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency F:Grants Page 34 of 36
adjacent to the culverts with water
flow. g. Avoid fragmenting linear
riparian corridors. 2. Install limits of
work fencing (e.g., orange barrier
netting or silt fencing), signage, or
other visible markers to delineate
access routes and the project area
from habitats. Use this fencing to
enforce no-entry zones. 3. Hold a
preconstruction briefing for onsite
personnel to explain the limits of
work and other conservation
measures. 4. Follow regional
stormwater guidelines and design
best management practices (BMPs)
to control contamination, erosion,
and sedimentation, such as silt
fences, silt basins, gravel bags, and
other controls needed to stabilize
soils in denuded or graded areas,
during and after construction. 5.
Locate utilities along existing road
corridors, and if possible, within the
roadway or road shoulder. a. Bury
overhead utilities whenever
possible. b. Directionally bore
utilities and pipes underneath
habitats. 6. Develop and implement
a habitat restoration plan that
addresses site preparation, planting
Endangered techniques, control of non-native
Other(EHP) Species Act weeds, native seed mixtures, and No Recommended
(ESA) post-construction monitoring.
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION: 7.
Contact the Service immediately by
telephone at (303) 236-4773 if a
Preble's is found alive, dead,
injured, or hibernating within the
project area. Please also contact
the Service if any other listed
species are found within the project
area. 8. To the maximum extent
practicable. limit disturbing (e.g.,
crushing, trampling) or removing
(e.g., cutting, clearing) all
vegetation, such as willows, trees,
shrubs, and grasses within riparian
and adjacent upland habitats. a.
Restrict the temporary or
permanent removal of vegetation to
the footprint of the project area. b.
Minimize the use of heavy
machinery and use smaller
equipment when possible. c. Soil
compaction: Temporarily line
access routes with geotextiles or
other materials, especially in wet,
unstable soils to protect roots and
the seed bank. 9. Use the attached
table to track the acres or square
feet of riparian and upland habitats
temporarily or permanently affected
by the response activities. a.
https://connectl.dhs.gov/emm ie/Danaln lb—isourcelema.net.SSL.+dispatch Destination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 35 or 36
Temporary Impacts: Native
vegetation and habitats will
reestablish following rehabilitation
(e.g., access route that is
rehabilitated with native, weed-free
seeds and plants). b. Permanent
Impacts: Riparian or upland
habitats will not return as a result of
project activities (e.g., road surface,
concrete footings)
The applicant is responsible for
verifying and compliance with all
permit requirements, including
permit conditions, pre-construction
notification requirements and
regional conditions as provided by
the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE). The applicant is
Clean Water Act responsible for implementing,
EHP Review Other(EHP) Clean monitoring, and maintaining all Best No Recommended
Management Practices (BMP's)
and Pre-Construction Notification
(PCN) conditions of applicable
Nation Wide Permits (NWP). This is
to include any requirements per the
Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment 401 Water
Quality Certification for Clean
Water Act permits.
The applicant should implement
appropriate FWS conservation
measures identified in the
Emergency Consultation between
FEMA and USFWS, dated
September 24, 2013. to the extent
Endangered possible; including a post-
EHP Review Other(EHP) Species Act construction estimate of the 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.
Internal Comments
No. Queue User Date/Time Reviewer Comments
5 Award SYSTEM 05-01-2014 ACCEPTED
Review 09:57 PM GMT
Final Reviewer finds eligible the application and approves the
funding of this CAT-C project worksheet based on the
applicant having performed all required procurement
4 Final PALACIO 04-18-2014 procedures, perform all required special considerations
Review JOSE 11:48 PM GMT 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, Weld County.
Applicant used contract services and/or force account
https://connect I.dhs.gov/emm ie/,Danaln fo=isource.tema.net,SSL+dispatch Destination.do?... 5/6/2014
Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants Page 36 of 36
resources to re-open and repair to pre-disaster condition a
bridge(BR 13-54A)over the Big Thompson River.Applicant
will:fill a void in roadway travel lanes,embankment,and north
approach using aggregate Course class 6;install asphalt on
roadway approach and shoulder;re-shape the ditch on
shoulders;install turf reinforcement mat on shoulders;install
rip rap on abutments;install barbed wire fence with treated
wooden posts;and remove debris.Mitigation—none. -
msmith73-03/03/2014 20:56:58 GMT
Project activities have the potential to impact Waters of the
United States or wetlands. Project involves dredge,fill,
excavation and/or modification.-msmith73-03/03/2014
21:13:19 GMT
Project site work is not in a mapped wetland.-msmith73-
03/03/2014 21:22:07 GMT
The entire community will benefit from the completion of this
project.-msmith73-03/03/2014 18:59:31 GMT
EHP PATTERSON 03-04-2014 Action is addressed under the attached Emergency
3 Review MOLLY 11:18 PM GMT Consultation between FEMA and USFWS,dated September
24.2013.The consultation includes conservation measures
intended to minimize impacts to the federally listed Preble's
Meadow Jumping Mouse,Ute's Lady's Tress and Colorado
Butterfly Bush,and Designated Critical Habitat protected under
the ESA.-msmith73-03/03/2014 20:50:00 GMT
Work involves removal,staging,transporting,and/or disposal
of debris.(Includes culverts)-msmith73-03/03/2014 18:52:19
GMT
Project is located in Zone B,FIRM panel 082660615C,dated
9/28/1982. Per 44 CFR Part 9.5(g)Step 1:Project repairs are
determined to have no effect on floodplain or wetlands
provided that the repairs remain in the existing footprint and do
not impact previously undisturbed areas.No further floodplains
review is required.-msmith73-03/03/2014 21:08:58 GMT
The scope of work has been reviewed and meets the criteria of
the 2013 signed Programmatic Agreement,Item I,Section A,
Item III,Section A,E,F,G,H,I,and N,agreed to by FEMA
and the SHPO.-msmith73-03/03/2014 18:42:42 GMT
Mitigation 03-03-2014 This repair/restoration project has been reviewed for mitigation
2 Review DROST BRIAN 04:04 PM GMT opportunities and there is no opportunity because work has
been completed-Brian W.Drost,406 Specialist
Applicant's property insurance through the CAPP risk pool
1 Insurance GILLIAM 03-03-2014 affords no coverage for bridges,roadways or embankments.
Review ROBERT 02:18 PM GMT Insurance proceeds are not anticipated,and there is no
insurance purchase requirement.
https://connectI.dhs.gov/emmie/.DanaIntu=isource.fema.net,SSL+djspatchDestinatjon.do?... 5/6/2014
Hello