The URL can be used to link to this page

FEMA-2020 05 26 RESPONSE TO RFI - 4379 Northampton Ice Pond-FINAL5.27.20FEMA HMA – Grant Application Review SUB‐APPLICANT RESPONSES DR‐ 4379 (Pre‐Submission)May 26, 2020 Ice Pond Resiliency Improvements – Northampton, MA Page 1 of 8 SUB‐APPLICANT RESPONSES TO FEMA REVIEW COMMENTS (responses are in blue font—document must be viewed in color) May 26, 2020 GZA / City of Northampton Re: FEMA Review Comments letter to Sarah White, SHMO, dated March 11, 2020 Administrative 1.Issue: Exhibit M is a signed maintenance agreement, however, page 28 of the application is from the GZA Conceptual Design Summary which indicates that; “Some of the work will oc‐ cur on property owned by the Ice Pond Homeowners Association.” The document indicates that the City believes they will be “amenable” to the project and allow the City access for construction and future maintenance. There is no indication that an easement is being dis‐ cussed. FEMA requires a permanent easement to ensure construction of the proposed pro‐ ject and future maintenance is feasible. With no easement in place then the maintenance agreement cannot be considered valid. Action: •Provide an executed permanent easement. A copy of the fully executed easement, as recorded in the Registry of Deeds, is attached. Scope of Work Issue: The scope of work sequence details provided under Task 5: on pg. 8‐9 include: Mobili‐ zation; Installation of sediment and erosion controls; Site preparation; Control & diversion of water; Excavation of existing channel and mouth of low‐level outlet conduit; Installation of precast or cast‐in‐place cement concrete debris rack structure, including galvanized steel debris racks; Construction of cast‐in‐place cement concrete wingwalls and mass‐block low retaining walls to bring adjacent areas to future grade for maintenance access; Backfill and grading of accessways; Construction of gravel and bituminous‐concrete paved accessways; Loam and seed; Installation of fencing and gates; and Removal of sediment and erosion con‐ trols. The GZA Conceptual Design Summary (dated 3/15/19) starting on pg. 22 of the appli‐ cation has some details on the Proposed Conceptual Design, which includes an overlay with locations of some of this work. Page 27 of the application indicates that the design includes a retrofit at both the low‐level outlet and the drop inlet structure, providing each with an inclined bar grating and a new accessway. The Conceptual Design drawing includes “Retrofit Existing Drop Inlet With Grate Structure” which appears to be on the existing embankment of Rocky Hill Road. This drawing also includes, “Provide New Inlet Structure to Prevent Clog‐ ging” which appears to be where the current water source enters the embankment and goes under Rocky Hill Road. Photographs provided on pages 11‐15 show a “low‐level outlet” FEMA HMA – Grant Application Review SUB‐APPLICANT RESPONSES DR‐ 4379 (Pre‐Submission)May 26, 2020 Ice Pond Resiliency Improvements – Northampton, MA Page 2 of 8 and also a “high‐level spillway outlet”. It is hard to match the scope of work on pages 8‐9 with the details provided in the GZA Conceptual Design, including the Conceptual Design drawing and the connection to the structures provided in the photos. Upon review of the application for Environmental and Historic Preservation (EHP) compli‐ ance, additional information is required for FEMA staff to complete our review. This addi‐ tional information requested will allow us to better understand the full extent of the im‐ pacts this project will have on the environmental and (potential) historic resources. This in‐ formation will also allow us to complete necessary consultation requirements with the State Historic Preservation Office and determine whether consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services is needed for the designated Northern Long‐eared Bat. Action: Provide the following information; •Clarify the relationship between the installation of precast or cast‐in‐place cement concrete debris rack structure, including galvanized steel debris racks identified on page 8, the new inlet structure, the retrofitting the low‐level outlet and the retrofit‐ ting existing drop inlet with grate structure identified on pg. 10 and 27 in the Con‐ ceptual Design drawing. Please refer to the attached Figures 5 and 6, dated May 2020. These two figures are provided to clarify the relationship between the various existing and proposed pro‐ ject elements. Figure 5 “Cross‐Section Through the Original Spillway and Low‐Level Outlet for the Former "Ice Pond" depicts the original configuration of the project el‐ ements. The “drop inlet” structure originally served as the spillway for the former Ice Pond, and the low‐level drain was kept closed by the gate valve within the drop inlet. Figure 6 “Cross‐Section Through the Original Spillway and Low‐Level Outlet for the Former "Ice Pond" Depicting Proposed Resiliency Improvements” describes the retrofits proposed by the project. o Clarify whether the low‐level outlet is identified on the Conceptual Design drawing (pg. 10 and 27 of the application) as the location of the “New In‐ let Structure to Prevent Clogging”. That is correct. The wording choices between “inlet” and “outlet” can be confusing. Essentially, the new structure will protect the inlet to the 16” iron pipe, which formerly served as the low‐level outlet / drain for the for‐ mer Ice Pond. o Clarify if any work proposed to alter the high‐level spillway structure. Is the work portrayed on the Conceptual Design drawings as “Retrofit Exist‐ ing Drop Inlet with Grate Structure”? The high level spillway structure will not be altered other than to affix a new bar screen / debris rack to replace a light‐duty rebar grid across the opening, providing a more resilient means of restricting debris and also FEMA HMA – Grant Application Review SUB‐APPLICANT RESPONSES DR‐ 4379 (Pre‐Submission)May 26, 2020 Ice Pond Resiliency Improvements – Northampton, MA Page 3 of 8 protecting the public from unauthorized access or danger from falling into the structure. o Provide full details of the retrofitting at the low‐level outlet and the drop inlet The new structure at the low‐level outlet will simply be cast around the upstream end of the 16” pipe. Although the cost opinion assumed cast‐in‐ place, a precast option would be feasible, which could shorten the installa‐ tion time and reduce the time required for control and diversion of water. The new bar screen / debris rack across the opening to the high‐level spill‐ way structure will simply be affixed to the structure using drill‐and‐grout stainless steel bolts (“Hilti”‐type). It will replace the existing light‐duty re‐ bar grid across the opening that can be seen in Photo 8 on page 14 of the application. o Is any work proposed to alter the high‐level spillway structure? If so, en‐ sure full details are included in construction drawings. As described above, the new bar screen / debris rack will simply be affixed to the structure using drill‐and‐grout stainless steel bolts. •Delineate the boundaries of all areas to be disturbed by construction, access routes/drives (temporary and permanent), and staging. Indicate locations in the de‐ sign plans or map/aerial photograph. Attached, please find a revised page 29 of the application. A LIMIT OF WORK has been added to the drawing. All activities will be confined to the limits shown. •Include dimensions of all ground disturbing activities (length x width x depth). The LIMIT OF WORK encompasses approximately 17,500 square feet. The ground within most of this area can be assumed to be disturbed by the work. While the LIMIT OF WORK is an irregular polygon, the rough dimensions of the area are 70 feet by 250 feet. •Provide details of any additional elements required to build the improvements that may include headwalls, rip rap, bioengineering elements, erosion control, etc. Indi‐ cate location of these elements in the design plans or map/aerial photograph. The attached revised page 29 of the application depicts location for riprap and ero‐ sion control barriers. The attached Figure 6 includes a note regarding the new riprap. •Tree removal (approx. 20 trees more than 4” diameter) is indicated in the applica‐ tion; indicate on a map or aerial photograph where tree removal will occur. Provide method of tree removal (flush cut, root ball removal, etc.). FEMA HMA – Grant Application Review SUB‐APPLICANT RESPONSES DR‐ 4379 (Pre‐Submission)May 26, 2020 Ice Pond Resiliency Improvements – Northampton, MA Page 4 of 8 The tree removal will be conducted somewhat evenly dispersed within the LIMIT OF WORK. Although individual trees have not been delineated, the vegetative density of the area can be realized by viewing Photos 8 and 9 within the application. Of the 20 trees, approximately half will be cut flush with the ground, while the other half will be completely removed including stump removal and root grubbing. The em‐ bankment which formed the former Ice Pond is largely clear of trees over 2”, with a few exceptions. •Where will fencing and gates be installed? Indicate fence boundaries and gate loca‐ tion(s) on design drawings or an aerial map. The attached revised page 29 of the application depicts location for the fence and gate. •Describe all in water work that will occur including time of year. The in‐water work is limited to installation of a small bypass pumping system that will be used only during the immediate installation of the new inlet structure. As noted above, a precast option for this structure is entirely possible and could accel‐ erate installation time. With the flow of Rocky Hill Pond Brook temporarily diverted by pumping, the foundation for the new inlet structure would be excavated, crushed stone pad installed, and the new structure set onto the pad. Grouting around the annulus of the pipe would complete the installation to the point that the temporary diversion would no longer be required. Time of year will be somewhat dictated by the overall project schedule and time of bidding. While ideally the work could take place during the late‐summer low flow periods, the dry‐weather stream flows are minor year‐round and can be easily di‐ verted during the active work period. StreamStats indicates an August 50% duration flow of 0.16 cubic feet per second (70± gallons per minute) and an annual 50% dura‐ tion flow of 0.59 cubic feet per second (260± gallons per minute). Flows in these ranges could be easily diverted by a portable water pump that most New England sitework contractors maintain in their small tools inventory. Please also refer to the attached Dewatering Plan notes, which will govern the contractor’s control and di‐ version of water activities. •Provide information, including location, of temporary construction elements includ‐ ing temporary erosion control elements. Indicate locations in the design plans or map/aerial photograph. The attached revised page 29 of the application depicts location for erosion control barriers and staging area within the LIMIT OF WORK. •Provide information about cofferdams and diversion pumping, including locations, materials to be used, and method of installation. Please refer to the attached Dewatering Plan notes, which will govern the contrac‐ tor’s control and diversion of water activities. FEMA HMA – Grant Application Review SUB‐APPLICANT RESPONSES DR‐ 4379 (Pre‐Submission)May 26, 2020 Ice Pond Resiliency Improvements – Northampton, MA Page 5 of 8 •Are any improvements proposed for the 16‐inch culvert and/or structures passing under Rocky Hill Road? If so, ensure full details are included in construction draw‐ ings. No improvements to the 16‐inch culvert are proposed or believed necessary. •Where will loam and seed be placed? Indicate areas on design drawings or an aerial map. Any areas within the LIMIT OF WORK that are disturbed by the work and that are not otherwise surfaced by the new access ways or other work will receive loam and seed for permanent stabilization as turf grass. Budget/Cost Estimate 1.Issue: The Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Project Implementation Costs (pg.37 of the appli‐ cation) includes costs that are not accounted for in Exhibit D: Project Cost Estimate Work‐ sheet yet each total is $350,000. Further, the Engineer’s Opinion document has a grand to‐ tal of $349,863, which includes a contingency, and just rounds the total up to $350,000. It is not allowable to round total project costs up under any circumstances. The Project Cost Estimate includes lines for Project Initiation, Project Management and Re‐ sources, Appraisals and Easements, Contractor Procurement, Construction, and MEMA Re‐ view/Closeout. The Engineer’s Opinion cost document includes costs for; Mobilization/De‐ mobilization/Eng. Layout, Site Preparation & Site Demolition, Earthwork, Site Improve‐ ments, Landscape Work, Engineering Services for Bidding‐Construction‐Permit Compliance, Appraisals and Easements, and Contingency. As indicated on page 6 and 7 of the applica‐ tion, engineering design and permitting have been provided under a separate grant. Actions: •Revise the budget so that the Project Cost Estimate Worksheet portrayed in Exhibit D and the Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Project Implementation Costs are con‐ sistent and only include eligible costs, including the following corrections; o Rectify the discrepancy in Appraisal and Easement costs Completed. In the original application, a portion of the contingency had been assigned to this task in the Exhibit D: Project Cost Estimate Work‐ sheet. See attached revised Exhibit D: Project Cost Estimate Worksheet (page 35 of the application). The Project Total remains $350,000. As discussed further below, note that the revised Exhibit D: Project Cost Estimate Worksheet reflects a modification to the Scope of Work tasks de‐ scribed on pages 8‐9 of the application. The original Task 4: Contractor Procurement and Task 5: Construction have been combined into a new Task 2: Contractor Procurement and Construction. The original Task 3: Ap‐ praisals & Easements has been removed (see earlier discussion on this FEMA HMA – Grant Application Review SUB‐APPLICANT RESPONSES DR‐ 4379 (Pre‐Submission)May 26, 2020 Ice Pond Resiliency Improvements – Northampton, MA Page 6 of 8 topic). And Task 1 becomes Sub‐recipient Management Costs, as per Northampton’s previous request. Attached are revised pages 8‐9 of the application reflecting these changes. o Explain how Engineering Services for Permit Compliance are not covered in the MVP grant as identified as covering engineering for design and per‐ mitting. Engineering services for “permit compliance” describes the required per‐ mit‐related work‐start notifications and coordination with the local Con‐ servation Commission. This is not a large effort; however, it was not in‐ cluded in the MVP grant activities and is assumed to be conducted by the City’s engineering consultant as the project moves into contractor pro‐ curement and construction. The descriptions within the construction cost estimate and Scope of Work task descriptions have been revised to better reflect these activities. o Avoid rounding any project totals for any reasons. Even if costs are esti‐ mated, contingency has been added to cover unforeseen costs. Completed. The Project Total remains $350,000. 3.Issue: The Project Cost Estimate Worksheet includes costs for; Project Initiation, Project Management and Resources and MEMA Review/Closeout. MEMA receives management costs from FEMA to administer the HMGP grants. Pages 8 and 9 of the application breaks down these tasks considered as Project Initiation, Project Management and Resources, and MEMA Review/Closeout. The details provided in the application describe administrative tasks that would be covered under Sub‐recipient Management Costs. FEMA considers these costs as sub‐recipient or recipient management costs as defined by FEMA under the Disaster Relief and Recovery Act (DRRA) definition. Section 324(a) of the DRRA defines management costs as any indirect cost, any direct administrative cost, and any other administrative expense associated with a specific project under a major disaster, emergency or disaster preparedness or mitigation activity or measure. As afforded by the FEMA HMGP Management Costs (Interim) Policy (FEMA policy 104‐11‐1), management costs are now available to Sub‐recipients. Northampton has requested Sub‐recipient man‐ agement costs for this proposed project, in the amount $17,500. Action: • Remove the costs associated with Project Initiation ($1,600), Project Management and Resources ($3,100), and MEMA Review/Closeout ($3,100) from the Total Project Budget/Cost Estimate. Completed. A revised construction‐related budget is attached and has been re‐ named “Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Costs for Contractor Procurement and Construction, Including Construction‐Phase Engineering” (pages 36 & 37 of the FEMA HMA – Grant Application Review SUB‐APPLICANT RESPONSES DR‐ 4379 (Pre‐Submission)May 26, 2020 Ice Pond Resiliency Improvements – Northampton, MA Page 7 of 8 application). The above‐referenced costs have been removed. This revised con‐ struction budget essentially represents the budgeted costs for the new Task 2: Con‐ tractor Procurement and Construction, and the total ($332,500) is reflected in the revised Exhibit D: Project Cost Estimate Worksheet. Note that in addition to remov‐ ing management‐related tasks, the “Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Costs for Contractor Procurement and Construction, Including Construction‐Phase Engineer‐ ing” construction‐related budget/cost estimate has been refined to reflect updated local unit pricing of some items within the work, and the quantity of chain link fence has been reduced. Additionally, as discussed previously in this response, the City has already closed on the easement, and that item has been removed from the con‐ struction‐related cost budget and the Exhibit D: Project Cost Estimate Worksheet. •Revise the contingency based on the reduced Total Project Budget/Cost Estimate. An approx. 5% contingency has been included in the revised “Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Costs …” and is applied only to the construction‐related budget/cost estimate, as refined. •Submit an updated Sub‐recipient Management Cost Application. The available man‐ agement costs (5%) will be altered with the reduced project total. The project total cost of $350,000 has not changed. An updated Sub‐recipient Man‐ agement Cost Application is not necessary, and the total for this activity remains $17,500. •If desired, the Project Initiation, Project Management and Resources and MEMA Re‐ view/Closeout may be added to the Sub‐recipient Management Cost budget (as they are allowable under that budget). If added then provide a revised Sub‐recipient Management Cost Budget in the Sub‐recipient Management Cost Application. Not Applicable. The revised Exhibit D: Project Cost Estimate Worksheet now in‐ cludes the Sub‐recipient Management Cost of $17,500 as “Task 1”. City Attachments Listing (in order of reference): 1.Ice Pond Easement/taking (Hampshire Registry, Book 13642, Page 289). 2.New Figure 5 “Cross‐Section Through the Original Spillway and Low‐Level Outlet for the Former "Ice Pond." 3.New Figure 6 “Cross‐Section Through the Original Spillway and Low‐Level Outlet for the Former "Ice Pond" Depicting Proposed Resiliency Improvements.” 4.Revised Page 29 of the application. 5.New Dewatering Plan. 6.Revised Page 35 Exhibit D: Project Cost Estimate Worksheet. FEMA HMA – Grant Application Review SUB‐APPLICANT RESPONSES DR‐ 4379 (Pre‐Submission) May 26, 2020 Ice Pond Resiliency Improvements – Northampton, MA Page 8 of 8 7. Revised Page 8 of the application. 8. Revised Page 9 of the application. 9. Revised/renamed Pages 36 & 37 “Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Costs for Contractor Procurement and Construction, Including Construction‐Phase Engineer‐ ing.” 0 0 2.5 5.0 10.0 VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 5' 10 20 40 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 20' CROSS-SECTION THROUGH THE ORIGINAL SPILLWAY AND LOW-LEVEL OUTLET FOR THE FORMER "ICE POND" FIGURE 5. HMGP 4379 - City of Northampton Ice Pond Resiliency Improvements 0 0 2.5 5.0 10.0 VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 5' 10 20 40 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 20' CROSS-SECTION THROUGH THE ORIGINAL SPILLWAY AND LOW-LEVEL OUTLET FOR THE FORMER "ICE POND" DEPICTING PROPOSED RESILIENCY IMPROVEMENTS FIGURE 6. HMGP 4379 - City of Northampton Ice Pond Resiliency Improvements ICE POND HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION MASSACHUSETTS COMMONWEALTH OF CITY OF NORTHAMPTON DEPT OF FOOD & AGRICULTURE 210210 215215215 2152 352 1 0 2 3 0 210215 22 5 220 220 210 2 1 5 'Rocky Hill Road - Ice Pond 40 0 4020 SCALE IN FEET Provide New Inlet Structure to Prevent Clogging Retrofit Existing Drop Inlet With Grate Structure Rocky Hill Road10' Proposed Access Drive Proposed Segmental Block Wall 29 Note: this page has been excerpted from the "Conceptual Design Summary - Northampton Designs with Nature to Reduce Storm Damage"report, dated March 15, 2019, and prepared under an MVP action grant. LIMIT OF WORK 17,500± SF EROSION CONTROL BARRIER 500± LF STAGING AREA 3,500± SF RIPRAP SLOPE 250± SF NEW FENCE AND GATE 40± LF Page 29 revised May 2020 DEWATERING PLAN May 2020 Ice Pond Resiliency Improvements – Northampton, MA Page 1 of 2 DEWATERING PLAN Ice Pond Resiliency Improvements – Northampton, MA May 21, 2020 GZA / City of Northampton Note: This plan has been prepared as a stand-alone document provided to FEMA in their review of the DR- 4379 HMGP Pre-Application. This Dewatering Plan and its requirements will be conveyed upon the selected contractor to perform the work. 1) Following construction contract award and prior to any land-disturbing activities at the site, the contractor will be required to prepare and submit for approval the contractor's specific De- watering Plan to the satisfaction of the City and all permitting authorities and that is in accordance with these requirements. 2) As of the date this dewatering plan was prepared, no time of year (TOY) restrictions have been imposed for work at the site. 3) Work area isolation and bypass of water around the areas of alteration: a) The contractor shall provide a written dewatering plan that shall detail what means and materials will be employed by the contractor for work area isolation and bypass of water around the areas of alteration. b) During construction, active work areas shall be isolated from upstream and downstream wetlands and watercourses. Such isolation may be facilitated by the use of temporary cof- ferdams (see note 3) h), below). c) Normal flows within Rocky Hill Pond Brook shall be bypassed around the active work area by using bypass pumping. d) Bypass pumps as necessary to maintain the bypass of water around the areas of alteration shall be installed within Rocky Hill Pond Brook, immediately upstream of the work area for the installation of the new inlet structure at the 16”-dia. iron pipe, with the discharge hose(s) extending to points downstream of the active work areas, most likely opening to the drop inlet. e) A USGS Streamstats (v4.3.11) evaluation of Rocky Hill Pond Brook at the work area re- veals a statistical annual “d50” low flow of 0.59 cubic feet per second (260± gallons per minute) and an August 50% duration flow of 0.16 cubic feet per second (70± gallons per minute). f) Work below the mean annual high water line (MAHWL) of Rocky Hill Pond Brook shall be timed to take place during low- or no-flow conditions, when the flow of the brook can be bypassed around the active work area by utilization of bypass pumps as necessary. The contractor shall have on-hand, at the site and in working order, a minimum bypass pumping capacity of at least 2 cfs (900± gpm). Low flow conditions are defined as flow within the Rocky Hill Pond Brook at the work site that are at or below the contractor's actual bypass capacity, considering the contractor-supplied bypass pumping infrastructure. g) When bypass pumping is necessary or desired, the intake hose(s) shall be placed on a stable surface or floated to prevent sediment from entering the hose. The bypass discharge shall be placed on a non-erodible, energy dissipating surface prior to rejoining the stream flow and shall not cause erosion. Inserting the discharge hoes into the drop inlet structure will DEWATERING PLAN May 2020 Ice Pond Resiliency Improvements – Northampton, MA Page 2 of 2 suffice for these purposes. Filtering of bypass water shall be performed if the bypass water has become sediment-laden as a result of the proposed construction activities. h) A temporary hand-placed sandbag cofferdam shall be employed. Systems which would require the dumping of soil or rock into areas below MAHWL are specifically excluded. The location of the sandbag cofferdam shall be within the LIMIT OF WORK and imme- diately upgradient of the active work area for the installation of the new inlet structure. 4) Dewatering of the work area a) The contractor will be require to provide a written dewatering plan that details what means and materials will be employed by the contractor for the dewatering of the immediate work area at the new intake structure and the removal of sediments from those dewatering activ- ities. b) The contractor shall dewater the active work area to remove accumulated groundwater and surficial runoff. During dewatering of the active work area, all sediment-laden water shall be filtered to remove sediment. Geotextile de-watering filter bags will be the preferred means to remove sediment from dewatering waters. Possible other options for sediment removal may include baffle systems, frac tanks, or other appropriate methods. c) Standing water within the active work areas shall be removed via pumping to the geotextile de-watering filter bag, using flow rates in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. Once the work area has been initially dewatered, a low-level sump with washed crushed stone shall be installed to allow for the use of a pump to maintain a dry work area during the construction process. At a minimum, the dewatering pump shall be a 2-inch trash (mud) pump or equivalent. Sufficient pumping capacity shall be available on site 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to maintain adequate dewatering rates. Flows from the dewatering pumps shall be conveyed via flexible hose (4-inch max. diameter) to the filter bag for treatment prior to discharge. The dewatering pumping rate shall not exceed the manufacturer's treat- ment rate of the filter bag. d) The filter bag shall provide for sediment capture and velocity dissipation for dewatering discharges and allow filtered water to pass through the geotextile material, discharging from the bag. The filter bag shall be placed within the LIMIT OF WORK. Water shall be directed to flow overland from the filter basin outlet, discharging downgradient in an up- land area within the LIMIT OF WORK. e) Discharge water will be considered clean only if it does not result in a visually-identifiable degradation of water clarity. 5) Stabilization a) Areas from the toe to the top of the side slopes shall be temporarily stabilized during con- struction to reduce the potential for erosion and the transport of sediments into the areas to be dewatered. All areas disturbed due to construction activities shall be restored to pro- posed conditions and fully stabilized prior to accepting flows. b) The systems for bypass of water around the area of alteration and dewatering of the work area shall remain in place and continue to operate as needed to prevent sediment-laden water from discharging to Rocky Hill Pond Brook or associated wetlands until active in- brook work is completed. Sumps shall be removed and all areas restored using the material taken from the work area set back in place. EXHIBIT D: PROJECT COST ESTIMATE WORKSHEET A detailed cost estimate (2 pages) is attached in this section after this table 35 Name of Sub-Recipient Grant Program City of Northampton HMGP-4372/HMGP-4379 CFDA # Federal Identification Number Budget (Check One) Budget Period Strategic Funds Management 04-6001406 New X___ Revised ___ From: FY19 To: FY22 Yes ______ No ______ FEMA Ob# Task Activity/Cost Classification A. Eligible and Approved Total Cost B. Local Share*C. Federal Share** 1 Sub-Recipient Management Costs (including initiation, management, procurement) $ 17,500 $ 4,375 $ 13,125 2 Contractor Procurement and Con- struction $ 332,500 $ 83,125 $ 249,375 Subtotal $ 350,000 $ 87,500 $ 262,500 Project (Program ) income Total $ 350,000 $ 87,500 $ 262,500 * Local Share, per regulation, is at most 25% of total eligible and approved costs ** Federal share, per regulation, is at least 75% of total eligible and approved costs Please provide a dollar amount that you anticipate spending in each fiscal year listed below for the federal funds only FY 19 $0 FY 20 $100,000 FY 21 $100,000 FY22 $62,500 For Strategic Funds Management, the Federal Funds obligations will be broken down by tasks and duration of the tasks. Mitigation Project Milestone Work Schedule Ob# FEMA Amendment # Duration (Months) Federal Share Amount Date of obligation Contract end Page 35 revised May 2020 8 The genesis and basis of the Ice Pond Resiliency Improvements project is perhaps best described in the Conceptual Design Summary (GZA, March 15, 2019) prepared under the MVP grant. Excerpts from the summary report are included in Exhibit B-3. Project Drawings. A summary of the tasks required to carry out the work for construction of the proposed Ice Pond Resiliency Improvements project is as follows. Task 1: Sub-recipient Management Costs: The City will initiate the project by completing the following objectives: Project Initiation: Finalize the contract for the project with the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) Issue Request for Proposals for Engineering Services and engage a Consultant for assistance with construction bidding (public procurement) and engineering services during construction for the Project. Upon initiation of the State contract, a kick-off meeting will be held by the City of Northampton with the MEMA Grants Specialist to address the following: o Confirm the project scope of work for the project, o Discuss the schedule and budget to make sure both are consistent with the grant application o Conduct a site visit to document the existing conditions of the site and discuss the tasks and methods for carrying out the work for the project Project Management and Resources: The City of Northampton’s Director of Planning and Sustainability will serve as the point of contact and Project lead for this project. The Director will manage the day-to-day oversight of the project to ensure that all quarterly reports and invoices are made to MEMA on a timely basis. Additional staff and resources will be provided by the Northampton Department of Pub- lic Works that will include but not be limited to: administrative support related to contract management, grant reporting, public notices, project team meetings, and other activities related to project development. The City will also provide meeting spaces for meetings outlined in the SOW. MEMA Compliance Review and Close-out: At the conclusion of the project, the Northampton Planning and Sustainability Department will coordinate a final site visit with MEMA to confirm all work was satisfactorily performed per the scope of work included in the grant application. Upon construction final completion, the City of Northampton will pay the final payment in full, submit for final reimbursement and draft a project closeout letter for submission to MEMA. Task 2: Contractor Procurement and Construction: With the assistance of its engineering consultant, the City of Northampton will prepare a detailed Project Manual, with complimentary drawings and speci- fications, and issue an invitation for bids to engage a licensed contractor to perform the construction work. The Northampton Department of Public Works will oversee the bidding and construction process. The engineering consultant will prepare the comprehensive bidding & contract documents; and assist with bid administration [pre-bid meeting, addenda, bid tabulation, recommendation for award]. The construction contract will be awarded to the lowest responsible, responsive bidder. Page 8 revised May 2020 9 With the assistance of its engineering consultant, the City of Northampton’s Department of Public Works will oversee the construction process. The engineering consultant will assist with the pre-construction meeting; submittal tracking and review; periodic construction observation; attendance at regular project meetings; work-start notifications and coordination with permitting authorities; material testing; item and quantity confirmation; responding to requests for information, issuing drawing revisions as necessary, as- built drawing reviews; final inspection; etc. As follows is the anticipated construction sequence. Mobilization Installation of sediment and erosion controls Site preparation Control & diversion of water Excavation at existing channel and mouth of low-level outlet conduit Installation of precast or cast-in-place cement concrete debris rack structure, including galvanized steel debris racks Construction of cast-in-place cement concrete wingwalls and mass-block low retaining walls to bring adjacent areas to future grade for maintenance access Backfill and grading of accessways Construction of gravel and bituminous-concrete paved accessways Loam and seed Installation of fencing and gates Removal of sediment and erosion controls Maintenance of Completed Project After the close-out of this project, the Northampton Department of Public Works presents the following maintenance schedule for the useful life of the project. Maintenance Schedule: The Northampton Department of Public Works, working with its agents, will integrate the inspection and maintenance of the newly constructed Ice Pond resiliency Improvements into the existing maintenance procedures for the entire City infrastructure. The maintenance plan will include the following tasks for the useful life of the project. On a monthly basis and immediately before and during significant runoff-producing events, the Northampton Department of Public Works or its agents will inspect the Ice Pond low-level outlet trash rack and the high-level spillway outlet and arrange for the removal and disposal of debris as needed. Bi-annually, the Northampton Department of Public Works or its agents will remove unwanted vegetation from the areas immediately adjacent to the outlet trash racks and accessways. The annual maintenance costs associated with this maintenance schedule are estimated to be $1,500/year. Page 9 revised May 2020 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE EXT. TOTAL MOBILIZATION / DEMOBILIZATION / ENG. LAYOUT (10%±)1 LS $33,000 $33,000 $33,000 SITE PREPARATION & SITE DEMOLITION $62,500 CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE / ACCESS / SECURITY 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 0.30 AC $50,000 $15,000 CONTROL & DIVERSION OF WATER 14 DAYS $2,000 $28,000 PERIMETER EROSION CONTROL 500 LF $19 $9,500 EARTHWORK (Associated earthwork is included in cost of site improvements & utility work below)$47,200 STRIP, STACK, SCREEN, & RESPREAD ON-SITE TOPSOIL 300 CY $32 $9,600 EXCESS EXCAVATION - TRUCK OFF SITE - DISPOSAL 100 CY $50 $5,000 GRAVEL BORROW 200 CY $50 $10,000 3/4" CRUSHED STONE 50 CY $60 $3,000 GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC 5,000 SF $0.80 $4,000 ROUGH GRADE SITE 13,000 SF $0.40 $5,200 FINE GRADE SITE 13,000 SF $0.80 $10,400 SITE IMPROVEMENTS $141,150 LARGE-BLOCK WALL ($/SF-WALL FACE)300 SF $70 $21,000 DENSE GRADED CRUSHED STONE ACCESS (INCL. STONE BASE)5,500 SF $7.00 $38,500 4,000 PSI CEMENT CONCRETE, incl. reinf. steel 15 CY $1,800 $27,000 GALVANIZED STEEL TRASH RACKS 3,600 LB $10 $36,000 RIPRAP 20 CY $125 $2,500 BEDDING STONE 5 CY $60 $300 HANDRAIL / GUARD 25 LF $190 $4,750 6-FT CHAIN LINK FENCE 40 LF $90 $3,600 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET 3,000 SF $2.50 $7,500 ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COSTS FOR CONTRACTOR PROCUREMENT AND CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION-PHASE ENGINEERING ICE POND RESILIENCY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT City of Northampton, Massachusetts for HMGP Sub-Application r1. May 26, 2020 GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. GZA's Opinion of Project Implementation Costs is subject to the assumptions and limitations referenced in the Conceptual Design Summary of March 15, 2019 Page 1 Page 36 revised May 2020 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE EXT. TOTAL ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COSTS FOR CONTRACTOR PROCUREMENT AND CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION-PHASE ENGINEERING ICE POND RESILIENCY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT City of Northampton, Massachusetts for HMGP Sub-Application r1. May 26, 2020 LANDSCAPE WORK $5,250 STREAMSIDE LANDSCAPE AND PLANTING ALLOWANCE 300 SF $2.50 $750 GENERAL SEEDING / TURF ESTABLISHMENT 6,000 SF $0.45 $2,700 PLANTING OF MISC. TREES AND SHRUBS 6 EA $300 $1,800 $289,100 $29,000 $318,100 $14,400 $332,500 SUB-TOTAL = GRAND TOTAL (2019 DOLLARS) = ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, CONSTRUCTION CLOSE-OUT ( @ 10%± ) = (preparation of comprehensive bidding & contract documents; bid administration [pre-bid, addenda, bid tabulation, recommendation for award]; pre-construction meeting; submittal tracking and review; periodic construction observation; attendance at regular project meetings; work-start notifications and coordination with permitting authorities; material testing; item and quantity confirmation; as-built drawing reviews; final inspection; etc.) CONTINGENCY COST ( @ 5%± ) SUB-TOTAL = GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. GZA's Opinion of Project Implementation Costs is subject to the assumptions and limitations referenced in the Conceptual Design Summary of March 15, 2019 Page 2 Page 37 revised May 2020