HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES.2706.08-06-2012BILL NO. 12-103
RESOLUTION NO. C�F /0
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION TO THE
MISSOURI STATE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 2012, AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL
NECESSARY GRANT PROGRAM DOCUMENTS
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE
GIRARDEAU, MISSOURI, AS FOLLOWS:
ARTICLE 1. The City Manager, for and on behalf of the City
of Cape Girardeau, Missouri, is hereby authorized to execute a
grant program application to the Missouri State Emergency
Management Agency Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) 2012
for the City of Cape Girardeau, Missouri, and is hereby
authorized to execute all necessary grant program documents. A
copy of said Application is attached to this Resolution and made
a part hereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS � DAY OF 2012.
Harry E. Rediger, Mayor
MISSOURI STATE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Application
(Note: Prior to completion please contact the State Hazard Mitigation
Officer at (573) 526-9228 for the most recent version of the application.)
What is the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program?
Authorized under Section 404 of the Stafford Act, the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP) administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides
grants to States and local governments to implement long-term mitigation measures after a
major disaster declaration. The purpose of the program is to reduce loss of life and property
due to natural disasters and to enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the
immediate recovery from a disaster.
How much funding is available?
HMGP is a post -disaster program with funding amounts calculated from the total amount of
disaster assistance from both the Public Assistance (PA) and the Individual and Households
Program (IHP) in each federally declared disaster. Once PA and IHP totals are estimated,
FEMA determines the available HMGP funding. Mitigation funding in a state with an Enhanced
Hazard Mitigation Plan is determined using a sliding scale, but is 20% of the uninsured cost of
a disaster. All projects are cost shared at 75% federal funding and a 25% non-federal match is
required.
Completing the HMGP Application:
This application will enable you to apply for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. This
application is designed to capture the necessary information to meet program requirements.
You're encouraged to take your time, read through the questions carefully and provide as
much detail as possible. This will enable the process to be the most efficient.
You may obtain an electronic copy of the following application by contacting the State Hazard
Mitigation Officer at (573)526-9228.
Page 1 of 30 Last Revised — 04/24/08
MISSOURI STATE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
Application
I. Applicant Information
Date:07/27/2012
New Application i __ Revised Application
A. Multi -Hazard Local Mitigation Plan (LMP) Status: Approved
IF Approved:
a) Plan Type: Multi -Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan
b) Date of Approval by FEMA: 08/26/2011
c) Date of Adoption: 09/06/2011
B. Project Title: Improvements to Cape La Croix Creek
Name of Applicant: City of Cape Girardeau County: Cape Girardeau
C. Applicant Type: Local Type of Application: Construction Project
D. Federal Tax ID Number: ................ 43-6000593 DUNS Number: 103216610
E. State Legislative District(s): ............ 147
F. Congressional District(s): ............... 8
G. Member in good standing with the National Flood Insurance Program: � Yes 1-1 No
H. Point of Contact:
i� Mr. l Ms. C Mrs. First Name: Kelly Last Name: Green
Title: Assistant Citv Manaaer- Develoament Services
Organization: City of Cape Girardeau
Street Address: 401 Independence
City: Cape Girardeau State: MO Zip Code: 63703
Telephone: (573) 339 — 6327 Fax: (573) 339 - 6303
E-mail Address: klareen(a)citvofcape.ora
Alternate Point of Contact:
Ev Mr. Ms. F— Mrs. First Name: Scott Last Name: Meyer
Title: City Manager
Organization: City of Cape Girardeau
Street Address: 401 Independence
City: Cape Girardeau State: MO Zip Code: 63703
Telephone: 573 339 - 6320 Fax: 573 339 - 6302
E-mail Address: smeVer(Dcityofcape.org
J. Estimated Funding:
Federal
75%
Non -Federal
0%
Applicant
0%
Other
25%
Total
100%
$9,252,000
_$__
L__
$3,058,400
$12,336,000
Page 2 of 30 Last Revised— 04/24/08
II. Detailed Description of the Proposed Project
A. Describe the problem to be mitigated: Cape La Croix Creek at its present location and
state contributes to the formation of sinkholes which pose long term risks to the city's
infrastructure, public and private utilities, and the operations of Buzzi Unicem USA.
Please see Attached Exhibits A, B, and C for more detailed information regarding the
problem.
B. Provide a detailed description of the proposed project: Exhibits B and C show how
reshaping and lining the existing channel will act as a long term improvement. The engineer
has recommended lining the channel with a composite liner consisting of an upper strata of 80
mil textured high density polyethylene bonded to a supporting aeosynthetic clay liner (GCL).
The GCL consists of a high quality sodium bentonite adhered to a smooth high-density
polyethylene geomembrane with a spunbonded geotextile to protect the bentonite during
installation. The combination of this material with the 24 inches of clay will provide a very
strong, very reliable material. After the liner is installed, 8 inches of fiber reinforced shot-crete
pavement will be placed over the entire channel section. Please refer to Exhibits B & C for
more detailed information. This project will prevent the water from infiltrating through the karst
geology and in turn stabilize the soils.
C. Does the project conform to the State and Local mitigation goals and/or plans? Yes
Explain (Cite location in plan(s) to support your answer): Page 198- Rehabilitate areas
affected near sinkholes to reduce further degradation. This was rated at a high priority.
D. Will the proposed mitigation measure provide an independent solution to the problem?
Yes Explain: If the channel was reshaped and lined properly, then the source of
water will be cut off therefore stabilizing the soils.
E. How does the proposed mitigation measure address a repetitive problem or a problem that
poses a significant risk to public health and safety if left unresolved? Explain: The
sinkholes have created road failures, potable water line failures, and private utility failures.
These do pose a significant risk to the public health and safety and will continue to pose
significant risks if the problem is not addressed.
F. Discuss the negative impacts on the area if the proposed project is not approved: There is
a bridge, a public street, two railroads, potable water lines sewer lines private utilities
and the largest cement producing company in the Southeast Missouri area located in the
vicinity of the sinkholes. All of these facilities are at risk as long as the channel is not
lined. The CBA shows the amount of funds that have been expended by different entities
to rdatP
G. Describe damage caused by previous and current disasters and associated costs: See
CBA and associated attachments.
H. Hazards to be Mitigated/Level of Protection:
1. Select the type(s) of hazards the proposed project will mitigate:
1— Agricultural (— Drought
i✓ Land Subsidence F- Mud/Landslide
F Terrorism
Earthquake Flooding
!— Severe Winter Storms F- Thunderstorms
I— Tornado lv Wildfires
Page 3 of 30 Last Revised— 04/24/08
2. Fill in the number of people and amount of property protected by the project:
Number of People: 2500
Number of Residential Properties: 1 Value of Residential Properties: $4,320,000
Number of Commercial Properties:5 Value of Commercial Properties: $60,000.000
Number of Public Properties : 3 Value of Public Properties: $50,000
Value of Public Infrastructure $20,000,000
Total Number of Properties: 9 Total Value of Structures:$84,370,000
Provide the level of protection the proposed project will provide the total number of
properties. (i.e. "23 structures protected against the 100 -year (1 %) flood" or "1
structure will have near absolute protection against 250 mph wind speeds").
List data in Flood Levels (10, 25, 50, 100, etc) or wind speeds (mph).
Structure(s) protected against the year flood.
Structures will have near absolute protection against mph wind speeds.
This section is not applicable to this prosect. The prosect will provide protection to
public and private infrastructure and for Buzzi Unicem USA regardless of flood levels
or wind speeds.
4. The proposed project will provide protection against the hazard(s) specified above
for 100 years.
II. Detailed Description of the Proposed Project continued
Please explain the methodology used to determine the useful life of the project. (You
can check the FEMA -standard for most project types.) Appendix D, Project Useful Life
Summary, of the FEMA Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) Reference Guide dated June, 2009,
indicates that the standard value for Useful Life for Major Infrastructure project, including
Major Drainage Systems, should be 50 years. The acceptable range of useful life
ranges from 30 to 50 years.
The prosect useful life, with proper maintenance, should extend to 100 years. Product
literature and industry practice is to estimate the usable life of HDPE liner materials to
have a 200 to 300 year life subject to puncture or other failure. By placing 24 inches of
clay material beneath the HDPE, and 8 inches of concrete above the HDPE, puncture
failures should be readily avoided. Chemical tests have indicated that HDPE materials,
when protected from ultraviolet light retain their integrity and structural properties well in
excess of 200 years. The GCL material to be installed in conjunction with the HDPE,
when provided with a upper confining pressure of 100 psf, has documented results
reducing water penetration equal to 10E-9 cm/sec., which is equivalent to an additional 3
feet of clay material for the purposes of preventing water infiltration. The concrete
paving will serve the dual purpose of providing confining pressure and physical
protection.
To allow the HDPE material to reach its useful lifespan, it is to be protected with a
concrete protective layer or armoring 8 inches thick. To prevent puncturing of the
Page 4 of 30 Last Revised — 04/24/08
material, a shotcrete sprayed application be utilized, which will allow paving without
forming. Shotcrete is not a product but a process that installs concrete through a spray
nozzle at a high velocity. As a result of the application process, the concrete will have a
higher density, reduced permeability, higher durability, and longer service life. The
service life is further enhanced by the application of polypropylene fibers mixed and
integrally placed with the concrete. This type of fiber reinforcement provides significant
reduction in spalling and improvement in slab -on -grade integrity over conventional
reinforcing. The service life will be even further enhanced by the initial application of a
chemical sealant. The prosect operation and maintenance requirements will further call
for annual review of the pavement condition, and cleaning and resealing as needed.
5. Engineered Projects Only (e.g. Bank Stabilization, Small structural projects):
Note: A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) may be needed on this type of project. Any
changes to the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) need to be reflected on the flood
maps, which is accomplished through the LOMR process. The construction of this
project may lower the 100 -year flood elevation and thus, possibly lower the flood
insurance rates for structures in the project area.
Attach to this page ALL engineering calculations used to determine the above level
of protection. List all attachments below.
1. This work has not been completed vet as final design has not been completed.
The engineer is confident that the BFE will not be raised. It is most likely that
the BFE will remain at 351. We are well aware of the LOMR processes as we
act as the Floodplain Administrator for our community. We will be sure to go
through the process as necessary.
2.
3.
4.
5.
III. Project Location
A. Site Address: (NOTE: If Acquisition, please use the Property Site Inventory Form.)
1. City: Cape Girardeau State: MO Zip Code: 63703
2. Latitude of project location (decimal degrees): 37.2782
3. Longitude of project location (decimal degrees): 89.5338
4. Latitude and Longitude verification: Other Specify other: ngs.noaa.gov
Please specify the following in the Lat/Long comments below:
For projection, indicate North American Datum (NAD) 83 or World Geodetic System
(WGS) 84
For accuracy, indicate Low, Very Low, Moderate or value in Feet or Meters
When using street address, exclude P.O. boxes and 911 addresses.
Lat/Long Comments: NAD 83
B. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing Project Site:
® Attach a copy of the panel(s) from the FIRM, and if available, the Floodway Map,
with the project site and structures marked on the map (FIRMs are typically available
Page 5 of 30 Last Revised— 04/24/08
from your local floodplain administrator who may be located in the planning, zoning,
or engineering office. Maps can also be ordered from the Map Service Center at
(800) 358-9616 or http://www.fema.gov/. See Exhibit I for the two panels.
Using the FIRM, determine the flood zone(s) of the project site (Check all zones in the
project area).
NFIP Community Number: 290458 Panel Number(s): 0268E and 0269E
F- VE or V 1-30 - C or X (unshaded) W AE or A l-30
AO or AH F B or X (shaded) Floodway
A (no base flood elevation given)
III. Project Location continued
❑ FIRM is not published; please attach a copy of the Flood Hazard Boundary Map
(FHBM) for your area, with the project site and structures marked on the map.
C. Attach City or County Map with Project Site and Photographs (These are examples of the
types of maps that can be used; additional space is provided to specify additional maps or
references included in the application.) Check the appropriate boxes to indicate the
attached maps:
® Attached copy of a city or county scale map (large enough to show the entire project
area) with the project site and structures marked on the map. See Exhibit B- Sheet
C3.1
® Attached USGS 1:24,000 topographical map with project site marked on the map.
See Exhibit E
❑ For acquisition or elevation projects, include a copy of the Parcel Map (Tax Map,
Property Identification Map, etc.) with each property in the project clearly marked on
the map. Use SAME ID as used on the Individual Housing Data Sheet. NA
® Attached are overview photographs. The photographs should be representative of
the project area, including any relevant streams, creeks, rivers, etc. and drainage
areas which affect the project site or will be affected by the project. See Exhibit A -
Appendix D
❑ For State Historical Preservation Officer's review, please attach photographs of the
properties (photographs showing all four sides of structure and at least 2
photographs of outbuildings) at opposing angles so they may determine whether it is
of historical value. NA
El
Attach a copy of each site photograph here
(Use additional pages as needed)
CLEARLY LABEL EACH PHOTO
Page 6 of 30 Last Revised — 04/24/08
HMGP Property Site Inventory Form (PSI)- Not Applicable
Use one page for each property
Owner Information:
First Name: Last Name: Co -Owner:
Property Address:
City: State: MO Zip Code: County:
Title Holder Post Mitigation (community undertaking project):
Mitigation Property Site Action: Select... Mitigation Property Site Comments:
Property Information:
Age of Structure (year built): Type of Residence: Select...
Pre -Event Fair Market Value: Structure Type: Select...
Parcel Number: Foundation Type: Select...
Property Tax Id: Basement: Select...
Latitude: Base Flood Elevation:
Longitude: First Floor Elevation:
SHPO Cleared:0 Select... Number of feet the lowest floor elevation of the structure is
SHPO Cleared Date:O being raised above Base Flood Elevation (Only applicable
when Property Action is Elevation):
Benefit Cost Analysis: r— Yes i_ No Damage Category: Select...
Performed: By Whom: Post Mitigation Property Use:
Benefit Cost Ratio: If commercial property what is the primary usage, explain
Total Square Feet of Living Space: below in comments.
Average cost per square foot for residential & commercial construction in the community:
National ooinsurance Proqram norma ion:
Flood Source: Select... Structure Located in: Select...
Note: An NFIP repetitive loss structure is defined as building with 2 or more insured losses greater than $1,000
within a 10 -year period.
Repetitive Loss Structure: Select... 2-3 insured Losses cumulatively — building fair market value
Repetitive Loss Number: 3 2-3 insured Losses cumulatively > building fair market value
4 or more insured losses since 1978
F Not Applicable
NFIP Policy Number:0 Insurance Policy Provider: 0
Is there a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) available? F Yes No
Is the property site marked on the map? Select...
Flood Zone Designation:
F- VE or V 1-30 [— C or X (unshaded) — AE or A 1-30 r- AO or AH
B or X (shaded) I- Floodway .- A (no base flood elevation given)
FIRM Community Information: Map Specific Information for Selected Community:
Community: Panel Number: Date:
Legal Description: 0
Comments:
0 (This information is not required until the project is approved, but would be helpful if you can provide it
at the time of application.)
Page 7 of 30 Last Revised— 04/24/08
IV. History of Hazards/Damages in the Area to be Protected*
"For Acquisitions and Elevations, provide an overview in this section and specific damages to each property in the
Individual Property Worksheets.
In this section describe all past damages from hazardous events in the project area. Include
presidentially declared disasters as well as events that did not result in a Presidential
declaration.
A. Overview of Past Damages:
Provide a detailed history of damages in the area, including direct and indirect costs.
Include information for as many past incidents as possible. Attach any supporting
documents. Direct costs should include damages to structures and infrastructure in the
project area as a result of the hazard. Indirect costs should include the cost to the local
government to respond to victims of the hazard in the project area, any interruption to local
businesses, and losses of public services.
Date
Level of Event-
Damages
Indirect Costs (Describe)
Mississippi River
5/07
33.7
$4,977- Looking for the bottom
of the sinkhole
09/07-02/08
27.9
$ 9,203- Fill in the Sinkholes
09/07-02/08
27.9
$3,851,758- Pumping and
Grouting at Buzzi Unicem USA
02/08
24
$4,791- Dig out Sinkholes
08/08
35
$44,129.22- Patch Street Back
01/09
30
$6,440- Backfill Slope
Protection
01/09
30
$1,525,806- Pumping and
Grouting at Buzzi Unicem USA
07/09-09/09
31.4
$86,986- Repair Creek Bank
2010
NA
$30,489- Pumping at Buzzi
Unicem USA
05/11
46.1
$13,467- Install Temporary
Water Line
10/11
17
$25,301- Install Permanent
Water Line
11/11
17
$10,915- Fill Sinkhole and
Exploratory Excavation
2011
46.1
$1.923,598- Pumping and
Grouting at Buzzi Unicem USA
1/12
18.7
$10,223- Repairs to Bridge
Deck and Approach
03/12
27.7
$11,323- Repair to Sprigg
Street
04/12
25.3
$123,940- Repair to Sprigg
Street
® List all Supporting Documentation Attached pertaining to Past Damages:
1. See BCA for Supporting Documentation
Page 7 of 30 Last Revised — 04/24/08
2. Exhibit F shows additional Pictures of Damages.
3.
4.
Provide a narrative below describing historical damages in the proposed project area: As
described in Exhibit A, the sinkholes have created many problems with the public and
private infrastructure and the Buzzi Unicem USA operations. The sinkholes have created
street failures, potable water line failures, and private utility failures along with flooding into
Buzzi Unicem USA's quarry. As shown in the BCA, many repairs have been necessary
due to the destruction that the sinkholes have caused.
Page 8 of 30 Last Revised— 04/24/08
V.
Scope of Work/Budget
In this section, provide the details of all costs of the
project. As this information
is used
for the
Benefit -Cost Analysis, reasonable cost estimates are
essential.
As project administrative
costs
are calculated on a sliding scale, do not include this in
the budget. Do not include
contingency costs in the budget.
A. Materials/Services:
Item
Quantit
#
Item:
y
Unit
Unit Cost
Total Cost
1
High Plastic Clay for 24" Clay Liner
41,000
CY
$6.00
$246,000.00
2
Earth Fill for Channel East of Sprigg Street
88,000
CY
$1.50
$132,000.00
3
80 Mil HDPE Liner
550,000
SF
$0.60
$330,000.00
4
Geosynthetic Clay Liner
550,000
SF
$0.60
$330,000.00
5
8" Thk. Fiber Reinforced Concrete for Channel Paving
60,300
SY
$24.50
$1,477,350.00
6
Fiber Concrete for Channel Shoulder and Turn -down
1,330
CY
$96.50
$128,345.00
7
Steel Reinforcement for Channel Shoulder / Turn Down
31,700
LB
$1.30
$41,210.00
8
Concrete for Discharge Device at Mississippi River
410
CY
$88.50
$36,285.00
9
Reinforcing Steel for Discharge Structure
29,300
LB
$1.30
$38,090.00
10
USACE Rip -Rap Stone, Delivered on Site
6,075
Ton
$35.00
$212,625.00
11
MoDot Type 2 Revetment, Delivered on Site
6,000
Ton
$22.00
$132,000.00
12
15" Thk. Structural Concrete for Bridge Approaches
178
SY
$35.86
$6,383.08
13
Steel Reinforcing for Concrete Bridge Approaches
12,500
LB
$1.30
$16,250.00
14
Bypass Pumping (600', 5000 GPM Average)
70
WK
$13,000.00
$910,000.00
15
Ground Penetrating Radar Surveys
7
WK
$8,500.00
$59,500.00
16
8" Thk. Concrete Street Pavement
670
SY
$20.22
$13,547.40
17
Silt Fencing, Steel Post and Fabric
14,400
LF
$1.35
$19,440.00
18
Temporary Traffic Barricades
4
EA
$400.00
$1,600.00
19
Erosion Control Fabric
44,270
SY
$0.90
$39,843.00
20
Straw Mulch
560
Bale
$4.96
$2,777.60
Page
9 of 30
Last Revised— 04/24/08
21 K-31 / Ryegrass Seed Mix 4000
Total for Materials and Services:
Ib $1.94 $7,760.00
$ 4,181,006.08
B. Labor (Include equipment costs):
Labor and Equipment:
Item
#
Item:
HRS
Rate:
Total Cost
100
JD 350 Excavator to Clear Banks and Demo. Site
480
$189.57
$90,993.60
101
Operator for Item 100
480
$46.22
$22,185.60
102
Cat D6 LPG to push up / Burn Brush
180
$168.01
$30,241.80
103
Operator for Item 102
180
$46.22
$8,319.60
104
Laborers for Item 102
240
$34.45
$8,268.00
105
Cat D6 LGP to Shape Channel
2,080
$168.01
$349,460.80
106
Operator for Item 105
2,080
$46.22
$96,137.60
107
Tandem Dump Truck for Hauling Earth Fill
5,867
$42.00
$246,414.00
108
Driver for Tandem Dump Truck Hauling Earth Fill
5,867
$36.69
$215,260.23
109
Tandem Dump Truck for Hauling Low Perm. Clay
3,644
$42.00
$153,048.00
110
Driver for Tandem Dump Truck Hauling Low Perm. Clay
3,644
$36.69
$133,698.36
111
JD 350 Excavator to Load Borrow Material
1,308
$189.57
$247,957.56
112
Operator for Item 111
1,308
$46.22
$60,455.76
113
Laborers for Installation of Temporary Erosion Control
160
$34.45
$5,512.00
114
JD 290 with Rock Pick to remove Bedrock
480
$198.55
$95,304.00
115
Operator for Item 114
480
$46.22
$22,185.60
116
JD 290 to Fix Features revealed by Item 15
320
$166.55
$53,296.00
117
Operator for Item 116
320
$46.22
$14,790.40
118
Laborer for Item 116-117
640
$34.45
$22,048.00
119
JD 290 Ex. To Move / Shape Clay (107-110)
960
$166.55
$159,888.00
Page
10 of 30
Last
Revised— 04/24/08
120
Cat D6 LGP to Shape Clay (107-110)
2,880
$168.01
$483,868.80
121
Tractor with Sheeps-Foot to compact clay (107-110)
1,440
$117.00
$168,480.00
122
Operator for (119-121)
5,280
$46.22
$244,041.60
123
Laborers to Install HDPE Liner
2,880
$34.45
$99,216.00
124
Laborers to Install GCL Liner
2,880
$34.45
$99,216.00
125
Welders to seam liners
1,640
$45.03
$73,849.20
126
Cement Finishers for Shot Crete Liner
5,880
$36.65
$215,502.00
127
Laborers for Shot Crete Liner
5,880
$34.45
$202,566.00
128
Nozzel, Compressor, Hoses, etc. for Shot Crete (4 sets)
2,940
$64.00
$188,160.00
129
Pump Trucks for Shot Crete Liner
3,024
$176.12
$532,586.88
130
Operator for Item 129
3,024
$46.22
$139,769.28
131
Light Towers for Shot Creting (24 hour / day, 7 days)
1,176
$26.00
$30,576.00
132
Laborers to Seal Shot Crete
640
$34.45
$22,048.00
133
JD 290 for Discharge Structure
140
$166.55
$23,317.00
134
Operator for Item 133
140
$46.22
$6,470.80
135
Carpenters for Forming Discharge Structure
480
$45.03
$21,614.40
136
Iron Workers To Reinforce Discharge Structure
360
$49.42
$17,791.20
137
Finishers to Install Concrete for Discharge Structure
240
$36.65
$8,796.00
138
Pump Truck for Discharge Structure
SO
$176.12
$8,806.00
139
Operator for Pump Truck
50
$46.22
$2,311.00
140
JD 290 to Excavate Shoulder and Turn Down
560
$166.55
$93,268.00
141
Operator for Item #140
560
$46.22
$25,883.20
142
Carpenters to Form Channel Shoulders and Turn Down
960
$45.03
$43,228.80
143
Iron Workers to Place Steel for Shoulder / Turn Down
480
$49.42
$23,721.60
144
Finishers to Install Concrete for Shoulder / Turn Down
760
$36.65
$27,854.00
Page
11 of 30
Last Revised— 04/24/08
14S
JD 290 to Prep Bridge Approach Slabs
24
$166.55
$3,997.20
146
Operator for Item #145
24
$46.22
$1,109.28
147
Carpenters to form approach pavement
80
$45.03
$3,602.40
148
Iron Workers to Place Steel for Bridge Approach
80
$49.42
$3,953.60
149
Finishers to Place Concrete for Approach Pavement
160
$36.65
$5,864.00
150
Laborers for Traffic Control at Bridge
160
$34.45
$5,512.00
151
1D 350 Excavator to Place USACE A -Stone
280
$189.57
$53,079.60
152
Operator to Place USACE A Stone - Item 151
280
$46.22
$12,941.60
153
JD 350 Excavator to Place MoDot Type 2 Revetment
160
$189.57
$30,331.20
154
Operator for Item 153
160
$46.22
$7,395.20
155
Cat D6 LGP to Regrade / Restore Finish Surfaces
480
$168.01
$80,644.80
156
Operator for Item 155
320
$46.22
$14,790.40
157
Laborer to Install Erosion Control Mat
480
$34.45
$16,536.00
158
Laborers to Seed / Mulch
360
$34.45
$12,402.00
159
Contractor's Layout Man (Carpenter)
3150
$45.03
$141,844.50
160
Contractor's Administration
6300
$45.00
$283,500.00
161
Contractor's Superintendent
3150
$60.00
$189,000.00
162
Contractor's Profit
10%
$5,704,910.45
$570,491.05
Total for Labor and Equipment: $6,275,401.50
Page 12 of 30
Unit Cost
C. Fees Paid (Include any other costs associated with the project):
Item
$10,000.00
$30,000.00
$30,000.00
#
Item:
Quantity
Unit
300
Archeologic Testing
1
LS
301
Archeologic Excavations
1
LS
302
Seismic Resistivity Survey of Channel Location
1
LS
303
Indiana Bat Study
1
LS
304
Streambank Study for Jurisdiction and Mitigation
1
LS
305
Wetlands Study and Jurisdictional Determination
1
LS
306
Historical Section 106 Assessment
1
LS
307
Wetlands and Streambank Mitigation Land
20
Ac.
Page 12 of 30
Unit Cost
Total Cost
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
$30,000.00
$30,000.00
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
$3,500.00
$3,500.00
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$8,000.00
$160,000.00
Last Revised —
04/24/08
308
Wetlands Plantings
20
Ac.
$1,250.00
$25,000.00
309
Initial Wetlands Maintenance
20
Ac.
$1,500.00
$30,000.00
310
Construction Easements
14
Ac.
$2,500.00
$35,000.00
311
Surveying Services for Design, Easements / ROW
1
LS
$46,000.00
$46,000.00
312
Geotechnical Investigation for Project
1
LS
$28,800.00
$28,800.00
313
Design Engineering for Project
6.00
%
$10,456,407.58
$627,384.45
314
Construction Inspection and Materials Testing
70
WK
$5,980.00
$418,600.00
315
Engineering Contract Administration
74
WK
$3,450.00
$255,300.00
316
FEMA / CDGB / DRA Grant Administration
1
LS
$150,000.00
$150,000.00
Total Fees Paid:
Totals .
A. Materials/Services: $ 4,181,006.08
B. Labor: $ 6,275,401.50
C. Fees Paid: $ 1,879,584.45
Grand Total (Total Project Costs): $ 12,335,992.03
$1,879,584.45
Page 13 of 30 Last Revised— 04/24/08
V. Scope of Work/Budget continued
D. Funding Sources: (round figures to the nearest dollar) the maximum FEMA share for a
HMGP project is 75%. The other 25% must be paid by the local sponsor. Note: You
cannot match federal funds with federal funds; the only exception is Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding.
Funding Sources
Funding
Amount
Percentage of
Total Cost
Federal Share (Estimated FEMA Share):
$9,252,000
75%
Non -Federal Share (See below for required details to document):
$3,058,400
25%
TOTAL Proposed Project Cost:
$12,336,000
100%
Non -Federal Share Information: (Use Source 1, additional source space is available if
multiple sources are contributing to the proposed project (Source 2 and Source 3).
Match Assurance: If more than one source is providing the non-federal share (and/or the
source of the non-federal share is different than the applicant completing and signing this
application) please provide letters from each source committing to their share(s) of the
non-federal funding.
Description
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Comments
(Specify Other
Source
1. Source Agency:
Other
2. Source Name of Non-
Federal Share:
Buzzi Unicem
USA
3. Type of Non -Federal
Share:
Labor and
Supplies
Additionally, the City has applied for grants through Delta Reaional Authoritv ($250.000
and CDBG ($500,000). It is unknown at this time if the funding will be available. See
Exhibits G and H for supporting letters regarding additional grants. The City of Cape
Girardeau anticipates to help with the match as much as possible in the way of
administering the project and other possible in kind work.
E. Project Work Schedule: List the major milestones and timeframes (in monthly
increments) for this project:
Example: Description: Demolition of 6 structures and removal of debris. Timeframe:
1 month.
Item # Milestone Description
1 Design Data Acquisition
Preparation and Submission of Environmental Permit and related
2 clearance applications
Initial Environmental and related clearance reviews from
3 regulatory agencies
Response to Environmental Reviews / Preparation of Mitigation
4 Plan
5 Final Permitting from all regulatory agencies
Page 14 of 30
Notes: Timeframe
3 Months
1.5 Months
1.5 Months
2 Months
10 Months
Last Revised — 04/24/08
6 Detailed Design / Plan Production
7 Advertise for Bids
8 Award Construction
Total Time from funding approval to beginning of construction:
100 Section 1 - Install Cofferdam, and bypass pumping facilities
101 Section 1 - Shape Channel
Section 1 - GPR Surveys, and Remediation of near surface karst
102 features
103 Section 1 - Install 24 inch thick clay liner
104 Section 1 - Install HDPE Liners
105 Section 1 - Install shot-crete
Section 1 - Surface Restoration of adjacent work area, remove
106 coffer dam
Section 1 - Total Working Time for Section 1:
200 Section 2 - Total Working Time for Section 2:
300 Section 3 - Total Working Time for Section 3:
400 Section 4 - Total Working Time for Section 4:
500 Section 5 - Total Working Time for Section 5:
600 Section 6 - Total Working Time for Section 6:
700 Construct Reinforced Concerete Discharge Section
800 Install Rip -Rap, General Surface cleanup and restoration
900 Project Closeout
Total Time for Construction of Project:
The project will be require working in sections while bypass
pumping the base flow of Cape La Croix Creek around each work
Notes: section.
The length of each section will vary according to the contractor
who is selected and their method of prosecuting the work. For the
purpose of the programming schedule, the assumption was made
that a total of 6 work sections of slightly less than 600 feet each
Notes: would be required.
This schedule is estimated as final design is not completed.
Notes: Weather/flooding impacts are not calculated in this schedule.
Simultaneous
with Items 2-
5
15 Months
1 Month
1 Month
20 Months
1 Week
1 Week
2 Weeks
2 Weeks
2 Week
1 Week
1 Week
10 Weeks
10 Weeks
10 Weeks
10 Weeks
10 Weeks
10 Weeks
4 Weeks
2 Weeks
4 Weeks
70 Weeks /
16 to 17
Months
Page 15 of 30 Last Revised— 04/24/08
VI. Environmental Documentation
The applicant must provide certain environmental documentation to the State before the State
and FEMA can adequately review any proposed project. Some projects require specific
documentation depending upon the project type and its potential effects on the physical,
biological and built environment. The following sections will help ensure you provide the
necessary documentation for the project you are proposing. Each of the sections below will
begin with a specific question, in which you will provide either a Yes, No, or Not Known
response. In each section, if you select Yes or Not Known for any of the answers, please
indicate why in the comments section provided and any information about this project that could
assist SEMA and FEMA in its review.
A. National Historic Preservation Act — Historical Buildings and Structures:
Does your project affect or is it in close proximity to any buildings or structures 50
years or more in age? NO
If yes, you must confirm that you have provided the following:
❑ The property address and original date of construction for each property
affected (unless this information is already noted in the Properties section).
❑ A minimum of two color photographs showing at least three sides of each
structure (please label the photos accordingly).
❑ A diagram or USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map displaying the relationship
of the property(s) to the project area.
To help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project, please indicate below any other
information you are providing:
❑ Information gathered about potential historic properties in the project area,
including any evidence indicating the age of the building or structure and
presence of buildings or structures that are listed or eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places or within or near a National Register listed
or eligible historic district. Sources for this information may include the State
Historic Preservation Officer, and/or the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO/THPO), your local planning office, historic preservation organization, or
historical society.
❑ Consideration of how the project design will minimize adverse effects on known
or potential historic buildings or structures, and any alternatives considered or
implemented to avoid or minimize effects on historic buildings or structures.
Please address and note associated costs in your project budget.
❑ For Acquisition/demolition projects affecting historic buildings or structures,
have you provided any data regarding the consideration and feasibility of
elevation, relocation, or flood proofing as alternatives to demolition?
❑ List all Supporting Documentation Attached pertaining to Historic Buildings or
Structures:
1.
2.
3.
Page 16 of 30 Last Revised — 04/24/08
VI. Environmental Documentation continued
❑ Additional Comments regarding Historic Buildings and Structures:
B. National Historic Preservation Act — Archeological Resources:
Does your project involve disturbance of ground? Yes
If yes, you must confirm that you have provided the following:
® A description of the ground disturbance by giving the dimensions (area,
volume, depth, etc.) and location. See Exhibit C- Page 13-14 and Sheet A -c
® The past use of the area to be disturbed, noting the extent of previously
disturbed ground. See Exhibit D
® A USGS 1:24,000 scale or other site map showing the location and extent of
ground disturbance. See Exhibit C- Sheet A -c
To help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project, please indicate below any other
information you are providing:
® Any information about potential historic properties, including archeological
sites, in the project area. Sources of this information may include
SHPO/THPO, and/or the Tribes cultural resources contact if no THPO is
designated. Include, if possible, a map showing the relation of any identified
historic properties to the project area. See Exhibit D
® List all Supporting Documentation Attached pertaining to Archeological
Resources:
1. Exhibit D
2.
3.
❑ Additional Comments regarding Historic Buildings and Structures:
C. Endangered Species Act and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act:
1. Are federally listed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat present
in the area affected by the project? Yes
If yes, you must confirm that you have provided the following:
® Information you obtained to identify species in or near the project area.
Provide the source and date of the information cited. The ACOE has indicated
verbally to the engineer that the Indiana Bat is located in nearby trees. There
is money allocated in the project budget to complete a stud\/.
To help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project, please indicate below any other
information you are providing:
❑ Any request for information and associated response from the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the Missouri Department of
Page 17 of 30 Last Revised — 04/24/08
Conservation, regarding potential listed species present and potential of the
project to impact those species. Not at this time.
VI. Environmental Documentation continued
❑ List all Supporting Documentation Attached pertaining to the Endangered
Species Act and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act:
1.
2.
3.
❑ Additional Comments regarding Endangered Species Act and Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act:
2. Does your project remove or affect vegetation? Yes
If yes, you must confirm that you have provided the following:
® Description of the amount (area) and type of vegetation to be removed or
affected. See Exhibit C- Sheet A -c
® A site map showing the project area and the extent of vegetation affected. See
Exhibit C- Sheet A -c
® Photographs or digital images that show both the vegetation affected and the
vegetation in context of it surroundings. See Exhibit A- Appendix D
To help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project, please indicate below any other
information you are providing:
❑ List all Supporting Documentation Attached pertaining to Vegetation:
1.
2.
3.
❑ Additional Comments regarding vegetation:
3. Is your project in, near (within 200 feet), or likely to affect any type of waterway or
body of water? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Known
If yes, and project is not within an existing building, you must confirm that you have
provided the following:
® A USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map showing the project activities in
relation to all nearby water bodies (within 200 feet). See Exhibit E
® Any information about the type of water body nearby including: its dimensions,
the proximity of the project activity to the water body, and the expected and
possible changes to the water body, if any. Identify all water bodies regardless
whether you think there may be an effect. See Exhibit A- Pages 3-13
® A photograph or digital image of the site showing both the body of water and
the project area. See Exhibit B- Page 13
Page 18 of 30 Last Revised— 04/24/08
VI. Environmental Documentation continued
To help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project, please indicate below any other
information you are providing:
❑ Evidence of any discussions with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
and/or the Missouri Department of Conservation concerning any potential
impacts if there is the potential for the project to affect any water body.
❑ List all Supporting Documentation Attached pertaining to Waterway or Water
Body:
1.
2.
3.
❑ Additional Comments regarding Waterway or Water Body near your project:
D. Clean Water Act, Rivers and Harbors Act, and Executive Order 11990 (Protection of
Wetlands):
1. Will the project involve dredging or disposal of dredged material, excavating, adding
fill material or result in any modification to water bodies or wetlands designated as
"waters of the U.S." as identified by the US Army Corps of Engineers or on the
National Wetland Inventory? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Known
If yes, you must confirm that you have provided the following:
® Documentation of the project location on a USGS 1:24,000 scale topographic
map or image and a copy of National Wetlands Inventory map or other
available wetlands mapping information. Exhibit C Sheet A -b and Exhibit E
To help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project, please indicate below any other
information you are providing:
❑ Request for information and response letter from the US Army Corps of
Engineers and/or State resource agencies regarding the potential for wetlands,
and applicability of permitting requirements.
❑ Evidence of alternatives considered to eliminate or minimize impacts to
wetlands.
❑ List all Supporting Documentation Attached pertaining to Water Bodies or
Wetlands:
1.
2.
3.
❑ Additional Comments regarding Water Bodies or Wetlands for your project:
Page 19 of 30 Last Revised— 04/24/08
VI. Environmental Documentation continued
E. Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management):
1. Does a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM),
hydrologic study, or some other source indicate that the project is located in or will
affect a 100 year floodplain, a 500 year floodplain if a critical facility, an identified
regulatory floodway, or an area prone to flooding? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Known
If Yes, please indicate in the comments section below any documentation to identify
the means or the alternatives considered to eliminate or minimize impacts to
floodplains (See the 8 step process found in 44 CFR Part 9.6.) to help FEMA evaluate
the impact of the project.
❑ Comments regarding Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management): Pages 10-15
of Exhibit B show alternative protects that were considered. Exhibit C, Page 21,
explains why the current option was chosen.
2. Does the project alter a watercourse, water flow patterns, or a drainage way,
regardless of its floodplain designation? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Known
If Yes, please indicate below any other information you are providing to help FEMA
evaluate the impact of the project:
❑ Hydrologic/hydraulic information from a qualified engineer to demonstrate how
drainage and flood flow patterns will be changed and to identify down and
upstream effects. This work has not been completed yet. This will be part of the
final design.
❑ Evidence of any consultation with US Army Corps of Engineers (may be included
under Part D of the Environmental Information).
❑ Request for information and response letter from the State water resource
agency, if applicable, with jurisdiction over modification of waterways.
❑ List all Supporting Documentation Attached pertaining to Altering Watercourse,
Water Flow Patterns, or Drainage Ways:
1.
2.
3.
❑ Additional Comments regarding altering Watercourse, Water Flow Patterns, or
Drainage Way for your project:
F. Farmland Protection Policy Act:
Will the project convert more than 5 acres of "prime or unique" farmland outside city
limits to a non- agricultural use? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Not Known
❑ List all Supporting Documentation Attached pertaining to the Farmland
Protection Policy Act:
1.
Page 20 of 30 Last Revised— 04/24/08
2.
3.
❑ Additional Comments regarding the Farmland Protection Policy Act and your
project:
VI. Environmental Documentation continued
G. RCRA and CERCLA (Hazardous and Toxic Materials):
1. Is there a reason to suspect there are contaminants from a current or past use on the
property associated with the proposed project? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Known
If Yes, please indicate below any other information you are providing to help FEMA
evaluate the impact of the project:
❑ Comments and any relevant documentation.
❑ Results of any consultations with State or local agency to obtain permit with
requirements for handling, disposing of or addressing the effects of hazardous or
toxic materials related to project implementation.
❑ List all Supporting Documentation Attached pertaining to Hazardous and Toxic
Materials:
1.
2.
3.
❑ Additional Comments regarding Hazardous and Toxic Materials and your project:
2. Are there any studies, investigations, or enforcement actions related to the property
associated with the proposed project? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Known
If Yes, please indicate below any other information you are providing to help FEMA
evaluate the impact of the project:
❑ Comments and any relevant documentation.
❑ Results of any consultations with State or local agency to obtain permit with
requirements for handling, disposing of or addressing the effects of hazardous or
toxic materials related to project implementation.
❑ List all Supporting Documentation Attached pertaining to Studies, Investigations,
or Enforcement Actions:
1.
2.
3.
❑ Additional Comments regarding Studies, Investigations, or Enforcement Actions
related to your project:
Page 21 of 30 Last Revised — 04/24/08
3. Do any project construction or operation activities involve the use of hazardous or
toxic materials? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Not Known
If yes, please indicate below any other information you are providing to help FEMA
evaluate the impact of the project:
❑ Comments and any relevant documentation.
VI. Environmental Documentation continued
❑ Results of any consultations with State or local agency to obtain permit with
requirements for handling, disposing of or addressing the effects of hazardous or
toxic materials related to project implementation.
❑ List all Supporting Documentation Attached pertaining to Hazardous and Toxic
Materials:
1.
2.
3.
❑ Additional Comments regarding Hazardous and Toxic Materials related to your
project:
4. Do you know if any of the current or past land -uses of the property affected by the
proposed project or of the adjacent properties are associated with hazardous or toxic
materials? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Known
If Yes, please indicate below any other information you are providing to help FEMA
evaluate the impact of the project:
❑ Comments and any relevant documentation.
❑ Results of any consultations with State or local agency to obtain permit with
requirements for handling, disposing of or addressing the effects of hazardous or
toxic materials related to project implementation.
❑ List all Supporting Documentation Attached pertaining to Current or Past Land
Uses:
1.
2.
3.
❑ Additional Comments regarding current or past land uses related to your project:
H. Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice for Low Income and Minority Populations:
1. Are there low income or minority populations in the project's area of effect or adjacent
to the project area? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Known
Page 22 of 30 Last Revised — 04/24/08
If yes, you must confirm that you have provided the following:
❑ Description of any disproportionate and adverse effects to these populations.
To help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project, please indicate below any other
information you are providing:
❑ Description of the population affected and the portion of the population that
would be disproportionately and adversely affected. Please include specific
efforts to address the adverse impacts in your proposal narrative and budget.
VI. Environmental Documentation continued
❑ List all Supporting Documentation Attached pertaining to Executive Order 12898
& your project:
1.
2.
3.
❑ Additional Comments regarding Executive Order 12898:
I. Other Environmental/Historic Preservation Laws or Issues:
1. Are there other environmental/historic preservation requirements associated with this
project that you are aware of? ® Yes ❑ No
If yes, please provide a description of the requirements, issues or public involvement
effort: Appropriate Army Corps of Engineer Permits will be necessary.
2. Are there controversial issues associated with this project? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Not
Known No Public Meetings have occurred to date.
If yes, please provide a description of the requirements, issues or public involvement
effort:
3. Have you conducted any public meeting or solicited public input or comments on your
specific proposed mitigation project? ❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, please provide a description of the requirements, issues or public involvement
effort:
❑ List all Supporting Documentation Attached pertaining to Other
Environmental/Historic Preservation Issues:
1.
2.
3.
❑ Additional Comments regarding other Environmental/. Historic Preservation
Issues:
J. Summary and Cost of Potential Impacts:
Page 23 of 30 Last Revised— 04/24/08
Having answered the questions in parts A. through I., have you identified any aspects
of your proposed project that have the potential to impact environmental resources or
historic properties? ® Yes ❑ No
If yes, you must confirm that you have:
® Evaluated these potential effects and provided the materials required in Parts A
through I that identify the nature and extent of potential impacts to environmental
resources and/or historic properties.
® Consulted with appropriate parties to identify any measures needed to avoid or
minimize these impacts.
VI. Environmental Documentation continued
® Considered alternatives that could minimize both the impacts and the cost of the
project.
® Made certain that the costs of any measures to treat adverse effects are
realistically reflected in the project budget estimate.
® List all Supporting Documentation Attached pertaining to potential impacts:
1. Exhibit B, C, and D
2.
3.
❑ Please enter additional Comments here:
VII. Maintenance Schedule and Associated Costs
A. Provide a maintenance schedule including cost information: Operation and maintenance should
be minimal for the first two vears after construction. The maintenance budget should be allocated
at $0.005 / square foot for the liner, and an additional $.005 / square foot for the shotcrete. The
sum of $5,000 plus a contingency of $5,000 equals $10,000. $10,000 per year should be
budgeted for the entire system prosect. The creek should be inspected twice per year to look for
possible settling along the channel. As long as the channel is in good condition, no Preventative
Maintenance is necessary.
Identify entity that will perform any long-term maintenance: City of Cape Girardeau
2. If the entity/responsibly party for regular long-term maintenance is different than the
entity signing and certifying this application, please attach a letter from the entity
accepting performance responsibility. Check the appropriate box below:
❑ Yes, letter is attached from responsibly entity/party identified above.
❑ No, a maintenance letter is not attached. If FEMA approves this application, the
entity certifying this application is responsible for long-term maintenance for the
proposed mitigation project.
Page 24 of 30 Last Revised -04/24/08
3. Additional Maintenance Comments:
VIII. Alternative Actions (This application will not be reviewed if this section is incomplete)
A. It is important to demonstrate that you have balanced engineering feasibility, cost, and
avoidance of adverse environmental impacts considering a range of reasonable
alternatives. The section below will help you document the process in which you have
selected the most feasible alternative. Describe the process you used to decide that this
project is the best solution to the problem. Below are some sample questions to consider
as you write your narrative in the following comments section:
o Have you considered the risks to critical facilities and structures and benefits to be
obtained by mitigating this vulnerability?
o Have you considered those areas or projects that present the greatest opportunities
given the current situation and interest in your community?
o Are you addressing a symptom or the source of the problem? Addressing the source
of the problem is a long-term solution which provides the most mitigation benefits.
VIII. Alternative Actions continued
o If impacts to the environmental/historic preservation, natural, cultural, or historic
resources have been identified, explain how your alternatives and proposed project
avoid, minimize, or mitigate these impacts.
Process in which the proposed project was determined the best solution to the problem:
Exhibit B shows the five alternative protects that were evaluated. On April 3, 2012,
representatives from the City of Cape Girardeau, Koehler Engineering, SEMO Regional
Planning, Buzzi Unicem USA, Cape Chamber of Commerce, Army Corps of Engineers,
SEMA, FEMA, and DED came together to discuss the different prosect options and the
environmental/regulatory/permitting issues. The stakeholders discussed what the best lonq
term solution which would provide the most mitigation benefits would be. Mr. Chris Koehler,
PE further evaluated additional archeological studies after the meeting. Since that time, Mr.
Koehler has recommended that we proceed with the option proposed in this application.
Most of the same stakeholders met again on July 25, 2012 to further discuss the Addendum
to the report (Exhibit C). At that time, there was general consensus among all stakeholders
that the final recommended option was the best option to provide mitigation to the water
intrusion from Cape La Croix Creek.
B. You are required to show at least two alternatives to the project you are proposing, one as a
default is a "No Action Alternative". List two feasible alternative projects to mitigate the
hazards faced in the project area:
No Action Alternative
Provide discussion of the impacts on the project area if no action is taken: The
sinkholes will continue to form ieopardizing public and private utilities and
infrastructure and Buzzi Unicem USA will continue to have water infiltrate the quarry,
in turn hampering their production.
Page 25 of 30 Last Revised — 04/24/08
2. Other Feasible Alternative: Relocate the Existing Creek Channel North
Discuss viable and practicable alternatives to the project including scope of work,
engineering details (if applicable), estimated budget and the impacts of this
alternative.
a. Other Feasible Project Description and Scope of Work:
Describe, in detail, the proposed project. Also, explain how the proposed project
will solve the problem(s) and/or provide protection from the hazard(s). See
Exhibit B Page 14-18 and Exhibit C- Page 15
b. Other Feasible Prosect Location:
® Attach a map or diagram showing the alternative site in relation to the
proposed project site.- See Exhibit C- Sheet 1 of 1
® Photographs of alternative site.
This is picture is on Sprigg Street looking west across the field where the relocated Creek would run.
Page 26 of 30 Last Revised —04/24/08
This picture is on Sprigg Street looking north. This is likely where the new bridge would need to be built
if the Creek were relocated.
This picture is on Sprigg Street looking South. This is likely where the new bridge would need to be built
if the Creek were relocated.
Page 27 of 30 Last Revised— 04/24/08
This picture is on Sprigg Street looking East across the area where the relocated Creek would run.
Alternative Actions continued
Funding Sources: (round figures to the nearest dollar) The maximum FEMA
share for a HMGP project is 75%. The other 25% must be paid by the local
sponsor. Note: You cannot match federal funds with federal funds; the only
exception is Community Development Block Grant (CDBG).
Funding Sources for the ALTERNATIVE Project
Funding
Amount
Percentage of
Total Cost
Federal Share (Estimated FEMA Share):
$9,750,000
75%
Non -Federal Share (See below for required details to document):
$3,250,000
25%
TOTAL Estimated Alternative Project Cost:
$13,000,000
100%
Non -Federal Share Information: (Use Source 1, additional source space is available if multiple sources
would contribute to the alternative project (Source 2).
Impacts of Other Feasible Alternative Project:
Discuss the impact of this alternative on the project area. Include comments on
these issues: Environmental Justice; Endangered Species; Wetlands; Hydrology
Page 28 of 30 Last Revised— 04/24/08
Comments
Description
Source 1
Source 2
(Specify Other
Source)
4. Source Agency:
Other
Select...
5. Source Name of Non -Federal
Buzzi Unicem,
Share:
USA
6. Type of Non -Federal Share:
Labor and Supplies
Select...
Impacts of Other Feasible Alternative Project:
Discuss the impact of this alternative on the project area. Include comments on
these issues: Environmental Justice; Endangered Species; Wetlands; Hydrology
Page 28 of 30 Last Revised— 04/24/08
(Upstream and Downstream Impacts); Floodplain/Floodway; Historic Issues;
Hazardous Materials: Exhibit C Sheet 1 of 1 shows very clearly how much risk is
involved in relocating the creek between two archaeological sites. Additionally,
there is a wetland conflict with this option as shown in Exhibit C Sheet A -b.
IX. Assurances
Please read the following statements and initial indicating acceptance and agreement with each
statement. Highest ranking official of the local jurisdiction must initial each assurance and sign
application.
All structures purchased under this grant program must be removed from the
parcel of land in question. The land that is acquired through this grant program will
be owned by the entity making application and must be restricted as to future use.
By submitting this application, the subapplicant asserts that an evaluation has
been conducted of all potential non -open space needs for this land including use
for flood control. The subapplicant has determined that there are no such needs
identified and therefore, the subapplicant is, with full knowledge, willing to commit
to the purchase of this land and the placement of a permanent and irrevocable
deed restriction that will prohibit future non -open space used including levees,
flood walls and other flood control structures. The enclosed excerpt from the
Robert T. Stafford Act, as amended, has been reviewed and is understood.
(If applicable)
IX. Assurances continued
The local, non-federal share is recognized to be the responsibility of the
subapplicant. By making application, the subapplicant asserts that should federal
funding be provided to carry out the scope of work identified, the required local,
non-federal match will be provided.
X. Certifications
To the best of my knowledge and belief, all data in this application is true and correct. The
governing body of the subapplicant has duly authorized this document, and hereby applies for
assistance documented in this application. By signing this document you will act as the
subapplicant's agent in the performance of this grant. Also, the subapplicant understands that no
construction on the project may proceed until FEMA approval is received.
Scott Meyer
Typed Name of Authorized Representative/Applicant Agent
Signature of Authorized Representative/Applicant Agent
Citv Manaqer
Title
(573) 339 —6320
Telephone Number
Date Signed
Page 29 of 30 Last Revised— 04/24/08