Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
HUD National Disaster Resiliency Competition Submission
Copyright 2014 City of Dubuque Consent Items # 14. ITEM TITLE: HUD National Disaster Resiliency Competition Submission SUMMARY: City Manager recommending approval to submit a Phase II application to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development National Disaster Resilience Competition. SUGGESTED DISPOSITION: Suggested Disposition: Receive and File; Approve ATTACHMENTS: Description Type ❑ HUD National Disaster Resilience Competition Application-MVM Memo City Manager Memo ❑ Cover Memo Staff Memo ❑ Iowa NDRC Final Submission Sec 1 Supporting Documentation ❑ Attachment BCA Supporting Documentation ❑ Attachment Certifications Supporting Documentation ❑ Attachment Consultation Summary Supporting Documentation ❑ Attachment Crosswalk Supporting Documentation ❑ Attachment Crosswalkkjt Supporting Documentation ❑ Attachment Leverage Documentation Supporting Documentation ❑ Attachment Maps&Diagrams Supporting Documentation ❑ Attachment Mid-URN Supporting Documentation ❑ Attachment Partner Documents Part 1 of 2 Supporting Documentation ❑ Attachment Partner Documents Part 2 of 2 Supporting Documentation ❑ Attachment Waivers Supporting Documentation ❑ Exhibits Capacity Supporting Documentation ❑ Exhibits Executive Summary Supporting Documentation ❑ Exhibits Leverage Supporting Documentation ❑ Exhibits Need-Extent Supporting Documentation ❑ Exhibits Regional Coord-Commitment Supporting Documentation ❑ Exhibits Soundness of Approach Supporting Documentation ❑ Exhibits Threshold Supporting Documentation THE CITY OF Dubuque U E I erica .i Masterpiece on the Mississippi 2007-2012-2013 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager SUBJECT: HUD National Disaster Resilience Competition Application DATE: November 10, 2015 In March 2015, the City was part of an Iowa Economic Development Authority Phase I application to the National Disaster Resilience Competition. The Iowa Economic Development Authority was invited on to Phase II, the final round of the competition. The competition is designed to help communities recover from prior disasters and improve their ability to withstand and recover more quickly from future disasters. This support will help applicants consider future risks and vulnerabilities in planning and decision-making, and assist them in applying for Housing and Urban Development funding. Sustainable Community Coordinator Cori Burbach recommends City Council approval to submit a Phase II application to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development National Disaster Resilience Competition. The application has been submitted by the Iowa Economic Development Authority and Iowa Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. Dubuque would be a subrecipient of the grant. Dubuque's portion of the application includes the following: 1. Single & Multi-Unit, Rental and Owner-Occupied Residential Rehabs: The proposed program would include rehabilitation for 160 single-unit, owner- occupied homes, 100 units under the Urgent Need National Objective, 93 single- unit rentals, and 144 small multi-family residential units, all within the targeted Bee Branch areas. 2. Bee Branch Railroad Culvert Infrastructure Improvements 3. 22nd Street/Kaufmann Avenue Storm Sewer Improvements. 4. 17th & Locus Street Storm Sewer Improvements. The total requested amount for Dubuque projects is $39,832,781 . City leverage totals of$22,400,000 have already been committed to the Bee Branch Creek Watershed Project and the Lead & Healthy Homes Program. I concur with the recommendation and respectfully request Mayor and City Council approval. ' Mic ael C. Van Milligen MCVM:jh Attachment cc: Barry Lindahl, City Attorney Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager Teri Goodmann, Assistant City Manager Cori Burbach, Sustainable Community Coordinator 2 THE CITY OF Dubuque UBgkE 111 111-America Ci i I. Masterpiece on the Mississippi 2007-2012-2013 TO: Michael Van Milligen, City Manager FROM: Cori Burbach, Sustainable Community Coordinator SUBJECT: HUD National Disaster Resilience Competition Application DATE: November 10, 2015 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memo is to submit for Council approval a Phase II application to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) National Disaster Resilience Competition. The application is submitted by the Iowa Economic Development Authority (IEDA) and Iowa Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (HSEMD); Dubuque would be a subrecipient of the grant. BACKGROUND In March 2015, the City was part of an IEDA Phase I application to the National Disaster Resilience Competition. IEDA was invited onto Phase II, the final round of the competition. The City worked with state partners and the Iowa Flood Center throughout the summer and fall to prepare the Phase II application. The competition defines a resilient community as able to resist and rapidly recover from disasters or other shocks with minimal outside assistance. Reducing current and future risk is essential to the long-term vitality, economic well-being, and security of all communities. By identifying future risk and vulnerabilities, resilient recovery planning can maximize preparedness, save lives, and bring benefits to a community long after recovery projects are complete The NDRC is a two-phase process that will competitively award nearly $1 billion in HUD Disaster Recovery funds to eligible communities. All states with counties that experienced a Presidentially Declared Major Disaster in 2011, 2012 or 2013 are eligible to submit applications that address unmet needs as well as vulnerabilities to future extreme events, stresses, threats, hazards, or other shocks in areas that were most impacted and distressed. The competition is designed to help communities recover from prior disasters and improve their ability to withstand and recover more quickly from future disasters. This support will help applicants consider future risks and vulnerabilities in planning and decision-making, and assist them in applying for HUD funding. DISCUSSION Iowa's application highlights the need to address remaining impacts from the flooding experienced in downtown Dubuque and continuing vulnerabilities to future flooding across the state. The application cites property owners with limited resources, which hinders their ability to perform home maintenance and renovations to decrease environmental health and safety issues from flooding such as dampness and mold growth, electrical hazards, and structural issues. A comprehensive "Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency Program" is outlined to help residents meet unmet structural needs, and engagement and education to empower individuals to be part of the creation of more resilient housing through onsite stormwater management principles and sustainable, healthy homes behaviors. Dubuque's portion of the application includes the following requests: 1 . Single & Multi-Unit, Rental and Owner-Occupied Residential Rehabs: The proposed program would include rehabilitation for 160 single-unit, owner-occupied homes, 100 units under the Urgent Need National Objective, 93 single-unit rentals, and 144 small multi-family residential units, all within the targeted Bee Branch areas. 2. Bee Branch Railroad Culvert Infrastructure Improvements. The proposed improvements involve the installation of six 8-foot diameter culverts utilizing tunneling methods from the Lower Bee Branch Creek, approximately 165 feet through Canadian Pacific railroad right-of-way, to a proposed junction box. It also includes the construction of five 12-foot wide by 10-foot high box storm sewers from the proposed junction box two hundred feet north towards Garfield Avenue and the Upper Bee Branch Creek. 3. 22 nd Street/Kaufmann Ave Storm Sewer Improvements: The storm sewer would be a 10-foot by 6-foot reinforced concrete box culvert. In addition, 80 standard single grate inlets would be provided with local storm sewer and connections to the new box culvert. 4. 17th & Locus St Storm Sewer Improvements: The proposed West Locust Street corridor storm sewer is to be a 10-foot by 5-foot RCBC from 17th Street to approximately 280 feet west of Angella Street, 10-foot by 4-foot RCBC from 280 feet west of Angella Street to 400 feet west of Kirkwood Street, and 8-foot by 4-foot RCBC from 400 feet west of Kirkwood Street to Rosedale Avenue. BUDGETIMPACT The total requested amount for Dubuque projects is $39,832,781 . City leverage totals $22,400,000; these funds have already been committed to the Bee Branch Creek Watershed project and the Lead & Healthy Homes program. Please see City of Dubuque partner letter for detailed description of those funds. REQUESTED ACTION I respectfully request City Council approval of the attached application. 2 Cc: Teri Goodmann, Assistant City Manager Laura Carstens, Planning Services Director Mary Rose Corrigan, Public Health Specialist Deron Muehring, Civil Engineer Alvin Nash, Housing & Community Development Director Erica Haugen, Assisted Housing Specialist 3 The Iowa Watershed Approach for Urban and Rural Resilience HUD National Disaster Resilience Competition State of Iowa Application Phase II Application October 2015 Exhibit A Executive Summary State of Iowa Iowa PhaseII_Executive Summary.pdf Executive Summary: The Iowa Watershed Approach Driving across Iowa in high summer offers a lovely vista mile after mile of lush green rolling hills and flatlands, with tidy fields of corn and soybeans stretching toward the horizon. This beautiful landscape is home to some of the most fertile and productive land in the world, supporting an agriculture industry whose production levels are unmatched worldwide. But Iowa's modern agriculture landscape has altered the movement of water within the state's watersheds and reduced the land's natural resiliency, which impacts peak water flows, flooding, and water quality, especially during extreme weather events. Before the first plow turned over Iowa's grassland, the tall grass prairie, with its deep root systems, stabilized the thick black topsoil. These roots held water like a sponge, slowing runoff. Today, Iowa's hydrology has been altered. Where the land once had natural resilience to storm events, the soil now erodes more easily during heavy rainfall events. As a result of landscape changes, waterways move water more quickly, which heightens flooding risks. Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous),too, move through the waterways, especially during flood events, unintentionally affecting water quality and drinking water supplies, recreation, tourism, and biotic diversity. From 2011-2013, Iowa suffered eight Presidential Disaster Declarations, encompassing 73 counties and more than 70% of the state. In July 2011, more than 200 homes in Dubuque's Bee Branch neighborhood sustained severe flood damage. In 2013, hundreds of Storm Lake homes flooded. Dangerous untreated sewage backed up into homes and the nearby lake. In June 2013, two heavy rain events washed out roads across Benton County, reducing residents' access to emergency services and causing $5M in infrastructure damage;the same storm resulted in 2.5-5 tons of soil loss per acre in Tama County. Devastating as these events were, 2011-2013 do not represent Iowa's worst flood years. Long-term data show that heavy precipitation and flooding events are increasing in frequency 1 across the Midwest, and models predict this trend will continue in the future. Under these circumstances, a new paradigm for flood resilience is needed one that decreases flood risk, improves water quality, and increases resilience. The Iowa Watershed Approach (IWA) is, at its core, a watershed-scale program based on a holistic approach recognizing that: 1)heavy precipitation and flooding events are increasing in frequency; 2) upstream activities impact downstream communities; 3) upstream and downstream communities need to voluntarily work together; 4) when possible, flooding should be addressed at its source, using science-based, reasonable, cost-effective practices; 5) improving community resilience to floods requires risk mitigation and community-directed initiatives and planning; and 6)program strategies must also respect, protect, and sustain Iowa's valuable agricultural economy, which provides food, fuel, and fiber for the world and sustains family incomes for many Iowans. The State of Iowa proposes a program through which Iowans will work together to address factors that contribute to floods. This approach is consistent with other statewide programs in Iowa to reduce flooding and improve water quality, such as the Iowa Flood Mitigation Program and the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. We will improve quality of life and health through upstream watershed investments tied to community resilience programming activities. This will result in a state-of-the-art adaptive model to make Iowa's vulnerable populations more resilient to changing flood hazard conditions, today and for the next century. The IWA will accomplish six specific goals: 1) reduce flood risk; 2) improve water quality; 3) increase resilience; 4) engage stakeholders through collaboration and outreach/education; 5) improve quality of life and health, especially for vulnerable populations; and 6) develop a program that is scalable and replicable throughout the Midwest and the United States. Nine distinct watersheds representing different Iowa landforms will serve as project sites for the IWA. Each will form a Watershed Management Authority, develop a hydrologic assessment 2 and watershed plan, and implement projects in the upper watershed to reduce the magnitude of downstream flooding and to improve water quality during and after flood events. Landowners will pay 25% of the construction cost for projects on their land, further demonstrating their commitment to land stewardship, the environment, and their downstream neighbors. Dubuque is well into its own IWA initiative within the context of an urban watershed impacted by devastating floods (six flood-related Presidential Disaster Declarations from 1999- 2011). The city's Bee Branch Creek was enclosed as a storm sewer more than a century ago. The confined system was too small, moved water too quickly, and did not filter out nutrients or allow water to infiltrate the ground. Dubuque recently daylighted the creek, returning it to a more natural state. The city now proposes an infrastructure project and the Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency Program to repair flood damaged homes and make them more resilient to floods. The IWA will also help communities prepare for, respond to, recover from, and adapt to floods. This program will assess resilience in the targeted watersheds, engage communities in discussions about their unique resilience needs, and help communities formulate and begin to act on resilience action plans. Formative and summative assessments will guide programmatic improvements, as well as monitor and encourage participation by under-represented groups. The IWA represents a vision for Iowa's future a future that voluntarily engages stakeholders throughout the watershed to achieve common goals, while moving toward a more resilient state. It is a replicable model for other communities where the landscape has lost its natural resilience to floods. Although the IWA targets watersheds impacted by floods from 2011-2013, the impacts will ripple downstream from Iowa to the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico. This program is not only about Iowans helping Iowans, but also about demonstrating Iowans' commitment to agricultural stewardship, to the environment, to their neighbors, and to the future. 3 Exhibit B Threshold Requirement State of Iowa Iowa_PhaseII_Threshold.pdf Threshold The State of Iowa submits this update to MID-URN Threshold for its Phase 2 application. This is Iowa's only application to this program. The Phase 1 MID-URN threshold submission for infrastructure and environmental unmet recovery needs are still current. The Iowa Watershed Approach will include Eligible Activities to address our unmet recovery needs including: Housing Rehabilitation 105(a) (4) [see Project#1: Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency Program, with activities to make homes more resilient to flooding]; Public Facilities and Improvements 105(a)(2) [see Projects #2-10: Watershed Projects and Infrastructure Projects, with activities to improve natural and community resilience to flooding]; and Planning and Capacity Building 105 (a)(12) [see Program 2, Community Resilience Programming, as incorporated into Projects #1-10, with public engagement programs designed to improve local community resilience to flooding]. These Eligible Activities are also scoped to accomplish the National Objectives of L/M Income Housing(LMH), L/M Income, Area Benefit(LMA) and Urgent Need (UN). These Eligible Activities and National Objectives are described fully in relation to the program service areas in the Soundness of Approach. The first 6 sub-county areas are additions to the MID-URN Threshold area from Phase 1. After many stakeholder engagement meetings, additional impacts and unmet recovery needs are documented. The methodology to determine most impacted and distressed sub-county areas by environmental degradation is supported by experts from the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the USDA and the Department of Agronomy at Iowa State University. See Phase 1 Iowa Environmental Degradation Determination Methodology. These eligible areas within our identified target watersheds are now included in the Phase 2 Iowa Watershed Approach. 4 Watersheds Projects The target area identified as most impacted and distressed is Fremont County, Census Tract 9701 Block Groups 1 and 2 as a result of DR-1998 that occurred in 2011. This sub-county area qualifies as impacted under Environmental Degradation. The designated sub-county area had excessive soil loss as a result of the impacts of disaster DR-1998. This soil loss resulted in increased sediment delivery to waterways in the immediate vicinity, and further downstream effects. This in turn introduced nutrients into the stream system, including nitrates and phosphorus, which would otherwise be available as nutrients required to maintain crop productivity. This adds to the Gulf of Mexico hypoxia problem, a national environmental concern. The excessive loss of topsoil during the disaster event period degraded the productive capability of the land, resulting in permanently lower crop yield potential, even with the addition of even more nutrients and other costly inputs, which places economic revitalization at risk. The reduced productive capability as a result of the loss of topsoil reduces system resilience and means that further inputs (fertilizer) will need to be introduced to help offset a portion of the degradation impacts on lost soil productivity, introducing additional economic burdens on producers in the area, and perpetuating the environmental degradation of this area and interrelated areas downstream. If another comparable event occurs, the area can expect to see accelerated loss of soil productivity, and loss of nutrients which accelerates the environmental degradation downstream. See DR-1998 Most Impacted data for maps and supporting analysis documentation This sub-county area is an area that has prior documented environmental distress with the presence of a Category 4 or Category 5 Impaired Waters (as defined by section 303 of the Clean Water Act) stream segment within the East Nishnabotna River - Fourmile Creek, Fisher Creek, Ledgewood Creek and Mill Creek; West Nishnabotna Spring Valley Creek, Deer Creek, Honey Creek, Lower Walnut Creek, Hunter Branch, Outlet Walnut Creek, Camp Creek, 5 and Spring Branch-West Nishnabotna River watershed. The impairment was increased through the events that occurred in disaster DR-1998, magnifying existing problems in the watershed, and downstream of this sub-county area. This watershed contains part of the sub-county area, which indicates that it is negatively affected by and also negatively affects the sub-county area. The target area identified as most impacted and distressed is Iowa County, Census Tract 9601 - Block Groups 1, and 3; as a result of DR-4119 that occurred in 2013. This sub-county area qualifies as impacted under Environmental Degradation. The designated sub-county area had excessive soil loss as a result of the impacts of disaster DR-4119. This soil loss resulted in increased sediment delivery to waterways in the immediate vicinity, and further downstream effects. This in turn introduced nutrients into the stream system, including nitrates and phosphorus, which would otherwise be available as nutrients required to maintain crop productivity. This adds to the Gulf of Mexico hypoxia problem, a national environmental concern. The excessive loss of topsoil during the disaster event period degraded the productive capability of the land, resulting in permanently lower crop yield potential, even with the addition of even more nutrients and other costly inputs, which places economic revitalization at risk. The reduced productive capability as a result of the loss of topsoil reduces system resilience and means that further inputs (fertilizer) will need to be introduced to help offset a portion of the degradation impacts on lost soil productivity, introducing additional economic burdens on producers in the area, and perpetuating the environmental degradation of this area and interrelated areas downstream. If another comparable event occurs,the area can expect to see accelerated loss of soil productivity, and loss of nutrients which accelerates the environmental degradation downstream. See DR-4119 Most Impacted data for maps and supporting analysis documentation. This sub-county area is an area that has prior documented environmental distress with the presence of a Category 4 or Category 5 Impaired Waters (as defined by section 303 of 6 the Clean Water Act) stream segment within the Clear Creek- Upper Clear Creek and Middle Clear Creek; English River- Jordan Creek, Deep River, Middle English River, Middle South English River, Gritter Creek, Devils Run, Middle North English River, Lower North English River, Lower South English River, Outlet North English River, Deer Creek and Birch Creek watershed. The impairment was increased through the events that occurred in disaster DR-4119, magnifying existing problems in the watershed, and downstream of this sub county area. This watershed contains part of the sub-county area, which indicates that it is negatively affected by and also negatively affects the sub-county area. The target area identified as most impacted and distressed is Johnson County, Census Tract 103.01 - Block Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4; Census Tract 2 Block Groups 1-3;Census Tract 4 Block Groups 1-3 and Census Tract 23 Block Groups 1-2, and Census Tract 5 Block Groups 1-4 as a result of DR-4119 that occurred in 2013. This sub-county area qualifies as impacted under Environmental Degradation. The designated sub-county area had excessive soil loss as a result of the impacts of disaster DR-4119. This soil loss resulted in increased sediment delivery to waterways in the immediate vicinity, and further downstream effects. This in turn introduced nutrients into the stream system, including nitrates and phosphorus, which would otherwise be available as nutrients required to maintain crop productivity. This adds to the Gulf of Mexico hypoxia problem, a national environmental concern. The excessive loss of topsoil during the disaster event period degraded the productive capability of the land, resulting in permanently lower crop yield potential, even with the addition of even more nutrients and other costly inputs, which places economic revitalization at risk. The reduced productive capability as a result of the loss of topsoil reduces system resilience and means that further inputs (fertilizer) will need to be introduced to help offset a portion of the degradation impacts on lost soil productivity, introducing additional economic burdens on producers in the area, and perpetuating the 7 environmental degradation of this area and interrelated areas downstream. If another comparable event occurs,the area can expect to see accelerated loss of soil productivity, and loss of nutrients which accelerates the environmental degradation downstream. See DR-4119 Most Impacted data for maps and supporting analysis documentation. This sub-county area is an area that has prior documented environmental distress with the presence of a Category 4 or Category 5 Impaired Waters (as defined by section 303 of the Clean Water Act) stream segment within the Clear Creek- Middle Clear Creek and Lower Clear Creek watershed. The impairment was increased through the events that occurred in disaster DR-4119, magnifying existing problems in the watershed, and downstream of this sub county area. This watershed contains part of the sub- county area, which indicates that it is negatively affected by and also negatively affects the sub- county area. The target area identified as most impacted and distressed is Mills County, Census Tract 401 - Block Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 as a result of DR-1998 that occurred in 2011. This sub-county area qualifies as impacted under Environmental Degradation. The designated sub-county area had excessive soil loss as a result of the impacts of disaster DR-1998. This soil loss resulted in increased sediment delivery to waterways in the immediate vicinity, and further downstream effects. This in turn introduced nutrients into the stream system, including nitrates and phosphorus, which would otherwise be available as nutrients required to maintain crop productivity. This adds to the Gulf of Mexico hypoxia problem, a national environmental concern. The excessive loss of topsoil during the disaster event period degraded the productive capability of the land, resulting in permanently lower crop yield potential, even with the addition of even more nutrients and other costly inputs, which places economic revitalization at risk. The reduced productive capability as a result of the loss of topsoil reduces system resilience and means that further inputs (fertilizer) will need to be introduced to help offset a portion of the 8 degradation impacts on lost soil productivity, introducing additional economic burdens on producers in the area, and perpetuating the environmental degradation of this area and interrelated areas downstream. If another comparable event occurs, the area can expect to see accelerated loss of soil productivity, and loss of nutrients which accelerates the environmental degradation downstream. See DR-1998 Most Impacted data for maps and supporting analysis documentation. This sub-county area is an area that has prior documented environmental distress with the presence of a Category 4 or Category 5 Impaired Waters (as defined by section 303 of the Clean Water Act) stream segment within the West Nishnabotna River - City of Carson, Mud Creek, Middle Silver Creek, Lower Silver Creek, Willow Slough, Farm Creek, Lower Indian Creek, Outlet Silver Creek, White Cloud, Deer Creek, Spring Valley Creek, Hunter Branch and Honey Creek watershed. The impairment was increased through the events that occurred in disaster DR-1998, magnifying existing problems in the watershed, and downstream of this sub- county area. This watershed contains part of the sub-county area, which indicates that it is negatively affected by and also negatively affects the sub-county area. The target area identified as most impacted and distressed is Pocahontas County, Census Tract 7801 - Block Groups 1, 2, 3; Census Tract 7802 - Block Group 1; Census Tract 7803 - Block Groups 1 and 3 as a result of DR-1977 that occurred in 2011. This sub-county area qualifies as impacted under Environmental Degradation. The designated sub-county area had excessive soil loss as a result of the impacts of disaster DR-1977. This soil loss resulted in increased sediment delivery to waterways in the immediate vicinity, and further downstream effects. This in turn introduced nutrients into the stream system, including nitrates and phosphorus, which would otherwise be available as nutrients required to maintain crop productivity. This adds to the Gulf of Mexico hypoxia problem, a national environmental concern. The excessive loss of topsoil during the disaster event period degraded the productive 9 capability of the land, resulting in permanently lower crop yield potential, even with the addition of even more nutrients and other costly inputs, which places economic revitalization at risk. The reduced productive capability as a result of the loss of topsoil reduces system resilience and means that further inputs (fertilizer) will need to be introduced to help offset a portion of the degradation impacts on lost soil productivity, introducing additional economic burdens on producers in the area, and perpetuating the environmental degradation of this area and interrelated areas downstream. If another comparable event occurs,the area can expect to see accelerated loss of soil productivity, and loss of nutrients which accelerates the environmental degradation downstream. See DR-1977 Most Impacted data for maps and supporting analysis documentation. This sub-county area is an area that has prior documented environmental distress with the presence of a Category 4 or Category 5 Impaired Waters (as defined by section 303 of the Clean Water Act) stream segment within the North Raccoon River- Headwaters Cedar Creek, Headwaters Little Cedar Creek, Drainage Ditch 21-Cedar Creek, Little Cedar Creek, Drainage Ditch 74-Cedar Creek, Prairie Creek, Drainage Ditch 29, Drainage Ditch 1, Upper Drainage Ditch No 9, and Drainage Ditch 37-Cedar Creek watershed. The impairment was increased through the events that occurred in disaster DR-1977, magnifying existing problems in the watershed, and downstream of this sub county area. This watershed contains part of the sub- county area, which indicates that it is negatively affected by and also negatively affects the sub- county area. The target area identified as most impacted and distressed is Winneshiek County, Census Tract 9501 - Block Groups 1, 2, 3, 4; as a result of DR-4135 that occurred in 2013. This sub- county area qualifies as impacted under Environmental Degradation. The designated sub-county area had excessive soil loss as a result of the impacts of disaster DR-4135. This soil loss resulted in increased sediment delivery to waterways in the immediate vicinity, and further downstream 10 effects. This in turn introduced nutrients into the stream system, including nitrates and phosphorus, which would otherwise be available as nutrients required to maintain crop productivity. This adds to the Gulf of Mexico hypoxia problem, a national environmental concern. The excessive loss of topsoil during the disaster event period degraded the productive capability of the land, resulting in permanently lower crop yield potential, even with the addition of even more nutrients and other costly inputs, which places economic revitalization at risk. The reduced productive capability as a result of the loss of topsoil reduces system resilience and means that further inputs (fertilizer) will need to be introduced to help offset a portion of the degradation impacts on lost soil productivity, introducing additional economic burdens on producers in the area, and perpetuating the environmental degradation of this area and interrelated areas downstream. If another comparable event occurs, the area can expect to see accelerated loss of soil productivity, and loss of nutrients which accelerates the environmental degradation downstream. See DR-4135 Most Impacted data for maps and supporting analysis documentation. This sub-county area is an area that has prior documented environmental distress with the presence of a Category 4 or Category 5 Impaired Waters (as defined by section 303 of the Clean Water Act) stream segment within the Upper Iowa River - Bear Creek, North Bear Creek, North Canoe Creek, Canoe Creek, Freeport, Trout River, Trout Creek, Pine Creek, Cold Water Creek, Daisy Valley, Silver Creek, Martha Creek, Ten Mile Creek, Dry Run Creek and Nordness watershed. The impairment was increased through the events that occurred in disaster DR-4135, magnifying existing problems in the watershed, and downstream of this sub-county area. This watershed contains part of the sub-county area, which indicates that it is negatively affected by and also negatively affects the sub-county area As part of the Threshold Update, the following sub-counties additionally qualify under the disaster impact criteria: Environmental Degradation. They had excessive soil loss as a result of 11 the impacts of their disaster. Their soil loss resulted in increased sediment delivery to waterways in their immediate vicinity, and further downstream effects. This in turn, introduced nutrients into the stream system, including nitrates and phosphorus (see counties above). They all have prior documented environmental distress with the presence of Category 4 or Category 5 Impaired Waters (see also prior counties). Allamakee County: Census Tract 9602 - Block Group 1, Block Group 2 and Block Group 3 as a result of DR-4135 that occurred in 2013. See DR-4135 Most Impacted data for maps and supporting analysis documentation. This sub-county area is an area that has prior documented environmental distress with the presence of a Category 4 or Category 5 Impaired Waters (as defined by section 303 of the Clean Water Act) stream segment within the Upper Iowa River(Clear Creek, Waterloo Creek, Bear Creek, Paint Creek, Coon Creek, Patterson Creek, Silver Creek and French Creek watershed). Buchanan County: Census Tract 9506 - Block Group 1, Block Group 2, Block Group 3 and Block Group 4 as a result of DR-4135 that occurred in 2013. See DR-4135 Most Impacted data for maps and supporting analysis documentation. This sub-county area is an area that has prior documented environmental distress with the presence of a Category 4 or Category 5 Impaired Waters (as defined by section 303 of the Clean Water Act) stream segment within in Middle Cedar River stream segments - Spring Creek, Lime Creek, Bear Creek, and McFarlane State Park; Upper Wapsipinicon River - Malone Creek, Smith Creek, Pine Creek, Winthrop-Buffalo Creek, Silver Creek-Buffalo Creek, Dry Creek, Walton Creek, Sand Creek, and Nugents Creek-Buffalo Creek. Delaware County, Census Tract 9504 - Block Group 3 and Block Group 4 as a result of DR-4135 that occurred in 2013. See DR-4135 Most Impacted data for maps and supporting analysis documentation. This sub-county area is an area that has prior documented environmental distress with the presence of a Category 4 or Category 5 Impaired Waters (as defined by section 303 of the Clean Water Act) stream segment within in stream segment within the Upper Wapsipinicon River- Silver Creek- 12 Buffalo Creek, Nugents Creek-Buffalo Creek watershed. Tama County, Census Tract 2901 - Block Group 1, Block Group 2; Census Tract 2902 - Block Group 1, Block Group 2, Block Group 3; Census Tract 2903 - Block Group 1 and Block Group 2 as a result of DR-4126 that occurred in 2013. See DR-4126 Most Impacted data for maps and supporting analysis documentation. This sub-county area is an area that has prior documented environmental distress with the presence of a Category 4 or Category 5 Impaired Waters (as defined by section 303 of the Clean Water Act) stream segment within in stream segment within the Middle Cedar River- Mosquito Creek, Little Wolf Creek, Devils Run-Wolf Creek, Fourmile Creek, Twelvemile Creek, Rock Creek, Village of Reinbeck-Black Hawk Creek, Rock Creek, Deadwaters Miller Creek, Wolf Creek, Coon Creek and Rock Creek watershed. All sub-county areas identified in this narrative above have an aggregate Unmet Recovery Need in the form of Environmental Degradation, and are the result of losses of topsoil as a direct result of eligible disaster events. Because topsoil takes generations to regenerate,the loss of this resource can be considered permanent as the needs of continued production outstrip nature's ability to replenish the soil. Utilizing a benchmark value for one potentially beneficial conservation practice program implemented to a limited degree within the state by the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, it has been estimated that it would cost $69,786,201.15 to repair the damage from environmental degradation in all of these areas. For further details on the determination of this estimate, see Environmental Distress Data. City of Dubuque/ Bee Branch Most Impacted and Distressed Threshold: The target area identified as most impacted and distressed is the City of Dubuque as a result of Severe Storms and Flooding(DR-4018)that occurred in 2011. The area is a sub-county area within Dubuque County, which was declared Major Disaster Area under the Stafford Act. 13 Name of Area: Citv of Dubuque: Dubuque exhibits Most Impacted Characteristics and Most Distressed Characteristics, which affect the ability of the area to recover from severe storms and flooding(DR-4018)that occurred in 2011, as demonstrated below: Most Impacted Characteristics: Housing: Following the July 2011 storms, the City of Dubuque received reports of damage to 200+homes concentrated in the Bee Branch Creek target area. Impacts included flooded basements, collapsed foundations, destroyed furnaces and water heaters, and other structural damages. Substantiating data includes city records of calls to pump flooded homes, as well as records of calls for volunteer assistance. See httys:Hdrive.google.com/open?id=OB4GkEW8yVGbtWXISRIF5TF24U2c for Dubuque records supporting the Most Impacted Characteristics criteria. Most Distressed Characteristics: Housing: Census tracts 1, 4, 5, 6, and 11.02 are in the flood- prone area. Approximately 69% of the people in the flood-prone area are at less than 80% median income. Substantiating data includes percentage of low and moderate income information for Census tracts 1, 4, 5, 6, 11.02. For maps showing the most impacted area, see Phase I Attachment E, B-10 CDBG Target Areas 2014—with Bee Branch. Dubuque routinely spends a significant portion of its CDBG resources in the area identified for disaster assistance. See https://diive.aooale.com/open?id=OB4GkEWgyyGbtampYV2alNmZxdOk for Census Bureau data supporting the Most Distressed Characteristics criteria. Unmet Recovery Needs Threshold: While Dubuque did receive earmarked CDBG Disaster Recovery funds to address the July 2011 storms,the City has Unmet Recovery Needs that have not been addressed by federal, state, or other sources, in the area(s) identified in this letter as "most impacted and distressed." Housing: A windshield survey of the impacted Bee Branch Creek area was conducted in October and November of 2014. The windshield survey visually assessed exterior damage to 14 housing units within the Bee Branch Watershed. The units that were inspected were identified using requests for assistance made to the City of Dubuque immediately following the 2011 floods. The preliminary windshield survey identified 22 households with remaining damage in the Bee Branch Watershed, as demonstrated in the Phase 1 application. For the Phase 2 application, additional housing inspections were conducted August and September 2015. The goal of these inspections was to focus on the needs of those most impacted by the 2011 storms and to reach as many homeowners in the heavily affected areas as possible. To reach these homeowners, the City completed a direct-mailing effort to over 200 households that requested assistance after being inundated with water during the 2011 storms. The additional outreach resulted in a combined total of 40 identified households that remain damaged as a result of the 2011 storms. The Housing and Community Development Department's housing inspectors conducted at minimum an exterior inspection of the property, and in most cases an in- depth inspection to document damages and identify ways the properties could be made resilient to future flooding events. A list of units inspected with remaining damage can be viewed here: https:Hdrive.google.com/file/d/OB4GkEW 8yVGbtemJ4bTU4OFJVb2s/view?pli=1 The results of the windshield survey and resiliency inspections may be viewed here: https:Hdrive.google.com/file/d/OB4GkEW8yVGbtQOJlcmRMbmjueGc/view?pli=1 The City of Dubuque's Housing Rehabilitation Inspector interviewed the owners of the surveyed properties to verify the damages were caused by the 2011 storms. Two homeowners did not own the residence at the time of the flood, the remaining owners verified the damage was related to the 2011 storms and they have been unable to make all necessary repairs due to insufficient resources from insurance. The Iowa Economic Development Authority completed a duplicate of benefits check on 13 of the households to verify insurance and SBA assistance. These property owners confirmed 15 damage was due to the disaster and insurance/FEMA/SBA benefits were not sufficient to complete repairs. Of the 13 households where insurance claims were verified, five received compensation for hail damage, one for personal items, and six received no compensation from insurance. No homeowners received SBA assistance and there was no FEMA individual assistance available for residents of Dubuque. The Iowa Economic Development Authority provided a letter confirming the verifications that can be viewed here: httys:Hdrive.google.com/file/d/OB4GkEW8vVGbtaS 1 KMG1FdWZiUTO/view?nli=1 While many property owners made some repairs to their homes, nearly all are still at risk for infiltration during heavy rains. When repairs were made,few, if any, measures were implemented to make the homes more resilient. An integrated approach combining green infrastructure and improvements to increase health and safety of the structures is needed. The resiliency needs are identified in the housing inspections, and include: addition of sump pumps with battery back-up; installation of back-flow preventers to eliminate the risk of sewage backup; foundation repairs and water-proofing applications for basements; elevated furnaces and water heaters; and replacement of deteriorated windows/repair of window wells. The most effective efforts to increase resiliency will be achieved when improvements are made to neighboring or adjoining properties. This "neighborhood" approach to overall health, safety, and resiliency of homes will benefit residents in multiple ways. The proposed Health Homes Bee Branch Resiliency Project will increase education and outreach raising awareness of what it means to live in a watershed. The combined rehabilitation, education, and infrastructure improvements will contribute to Dubuque's goal of preserving and rehabilitating quality, affordable housing inhabited by many of Dubuque's low and moderate-income residents. Access to all linked data: httns://drive.google.com Username: ResilientIowaAgmail.com Password: HudlIowa 16 Exhibit C Capacity State of Iowa Iowa PhaseII Capacity.pdf Capacity The Iowa Economic Development Authority is leading the State of Iowa's application to HUD's National Disaster Resilience Competition (NDRC), with three key management partners: Homeland Security and Emergency Management, the Iowa Flood Center, and the City of Dubuque. As demonstrated,these four partners have the experience and expertise to ensure the proposed Iowa Watersheds Approach is highly successful and serves as a model for the future. a. Past Experience and Capacity of Applicant Iowa Economic Development Authority (IEDA): IEDA has managed Iowa's Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)Program since the 1980s and has successfully administered nearly $1B in 2008 CDBG-DR funding, including the largest property buyout program in the history of the United States. Since 2011, IEDA has partnered with U. of Iowa's Iowa Flood Center and state, local, and regional partners jointly awarded $10.5M to plan, design, and implement Iowa's current CDBG-DR "Iowa Watersheds Project" (see example project below). Additional IEDA disaster recovery activities include traditional infrastructure projects, rehabilitation of nearly 600 housing units, and construction assistance for almost 5,000 new housing units in Iowa's 85 disaster-affected counties. IEDA has disaster policies and procedures in place that are annually monitored by HUD-DR for compliance with the following: overall grant/project management, procurement of contractors and professional services, contract management, duplication of benefits, quality assurance,financial management systems drawing DR funds from the federal system, reporting to the Disaster Recovery Grant Reporting(DRGR) system, project monitoring, and other federal requirements specific to administration of CDBG-DR grants. Iowa will use the existing DR administrative structure, which includes current disaster recovery staff experienced in project 17 management of traditional infrastructure, housing rehabilitation, and watershed projects to ensure this program's rapid launch and successful completion. The Iowa Flood Center (IFC) of IIHR Hydroscience & Engineering(IIHR),the Universitv of Iowa(UD: IIHR, of which the IFC is a subprogram, is a renowned hydraulics laboratory with 95 years of expertise in river hydraulics and hydrology. Its activities encompass all aspects of the hydrologic cycle from precipitation to surface and groundwater flow,to river processes, to water quantity and quality. IIHR manages about $20M/year in grant and contract funding. One of IIHR's hallmarks is its long history of local, national, and international partnerships. The IFC is highly qualified to lead the scientific and technical elements of this program's watershed projects. Following the historic floods of 2008,the State of Iowa laid the groundwork for long-term disaster recovery and resilience through establishment of the IFC. Since 2009, the IFC has developed an extensive network of stream-stage sensors and rain gauges, a radar network, and other remote-sensing instruments deployed across Iowa in support of flood-related monitoring and modeling. The IFC develops detailed interactive flood inundation maps for the state's most vulnerable river communities and is working with FEMA and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)to recreate and improve Iowa's regulatory floodplain maps. The IFC also developed the nation's most comprehensive user-friendly, publically-accessible flood- related online platform, the Iowa Flood Information System (IFIS). Users can monitor precipitation, river and stream levels, flood warnings, and many other real-time variables in the context of their watershed (see Phase II, Soundness of Approach). All IFC activities take into consideration the impact of changing precipitation and temperature patterns in Iowa(see Phase II, Need Factor). Example Project: The Iowa Watershed Project(2011-2016): Primary Partners: IFC and IEDA. IEDA incorporated a watershed resiliency program as part of its 2008 CDBG Disaster 18 Recovery grant. As identified in Iowa's 2008 Action Plan, the project had three components: watershed planning, watershed projects, and floodplain education. The core of the IEDA watershed resiliency program is the Iowa Watersheds Project(IWP), which forms the foundation and serves as the model for this proposal. The largest component of the IWP is planning and project implementation within watersheds. In 2010, Iowa lawmakers passed legislation authorizing the creation of Watershed Management Authorities (WMAs)to improve watershed planning and to develop a more coordinated approach for flood mitigation (See Phase 2, Soundness of Approach). The IDNR worked with a consortium of local governments to establish WMAs; IEDA required frequent progress reports and created criteria to evaluate the prospective WMAs. Formation of the WMAs was the first step of the IWP. The primary component involved working directly in the watersheds with each WMA. IEDA contracted with each WMA's lead county and provided guidance on federal procurement standards, environmental compliance, Davis-Bacon and related compliance issues,fiscal management, additional CDBG regulatory compliance, and audit responsibilities. IEDA helped each WMA's lead county hire a qualified CDBG administrator to assist with compliance. IEDA also contracted with IFC to provide technical guidance, including a detailed assessment of each watershed and assistance in selecting, siting, design, and construction of specific watershed improvements on privately owned property. IEDA worked with the lead counties to help landowners secure contracts for constructed projects. IEDA will play a similar role as defined in the management structure for this competition. For the IWP, IEDA developed the policy and procedures for the watershed program and handled contract management with counties, IDNR, and the IFC IEDA has staff who process draws for 19 recipients,track fiscal compliance, evaluate project outcomes, report these outcomes to HUD via DRGR, and monitor the projects for CDBG compliance. Under IEDA leadership, the IWP will be completed on time. Program successes to date include: all expected WMAs are formed; IFC engineers completed a hydrologic assessment for each partner watershed; researchers and stakeholders developed a plan for each watershed; projects were constructed in 2015; and monitoring instrumentation (stream-stage sensors, water- quality monitoring sensors) are in place and collecting data. The IWP is based on scientific evidence that Iowa is experiencing an increase in the frequency of high-volume precipitation events and floods (see Phase II, Need Factor). It is also based on past research experience, physically-based models, and demonstration sites that illustrate the efficacy of retaining water at multiple locations in the watershed to reduce the magnitude of downstream floods. This decreases the financial costs of flooding, reduces other flood-related risks to local community services and to individuals (water-borne disease, mental stress, injury, fatality), reduces soil erosion, and enhances environmental resilience to flooding. Professor and IIHR Director Larry Weber, co-founder of the IFC, conceived the IWP and manages its technical elements in collaboration with IEDA and many partners. IIHR engineers with expertise in watershed processes and watershed-scale modeling conducted the watershed assessments. Key collaborators in this program include local Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD), the IDNR, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), NGOs, local producers, and other local stakeholders. The partner watersheds were selected based on their applications to participate, in which they described their capacity to form a WMA and their commitment to sustainability and cooperation. Landowners and other stakeholders in each watershed made the final decisions regarding project placement and priorities. All projects are environmentally sound. Two criteria guided selection of the project sites: 1) locations with the 20 greatest potential to reduce downstream flooding as identified by the watershed assessment and watershed plan; and 2) landowner participation. Landowners contribute a 25% cost share for projects on their land and sign a long-term project maintenance agreement. All sites were reviewed for potential cultural resources prior to project implementation or construction as appropriate. The IWP is successful because of strong collaboration among a wide range of partners with project management skills, technical and scientific expertise, and broad experience. However, Iowa landowners and producers play a particularly important role in the IWP's success; they are eager to engage in projects that are environmentally sound and good for their land, and that improve the quality of life for Iowans. The City of Dubuque is experienced in data analysis to mitigate and prepare for natural disasters. The city works with a multi-disciplinary team of public, private, and nonprofit partners at the state and local levels to implement large-scale infrastructure projects, create a more resilient community, and execute a community-wide disaster response and recovery. The City of Dubuque has the necessary capacities in project and contract management, quality assurance, financial management and procurement, and internal control to quickly launch and implement major projects related to housing rehabilitation and infrastructure design and construction. The management structure defined below outlines how the Housing& Community Development(H&CD), Engineering, Sustainability & Resiliency, Neighborhood Development, Finance, Public Health, Planning Economic Development, Human Rights, Public Information, and Geographic Information Services (GIS) departments coordinate activities to ensure rapid program design and launch, continued quality control, and adequate checks and balances. The H&CD department oversees CDBG, inspection and licensing, lead hazard control, healthy homes production, homeowner programs, rental assistance (Section 8), shelter plus care, 21 urban revitalization, and crime-free multi-housing. H&CD staff administer programs with approximately $1.2M in federal CDBG funds each year for housing, economic development, neighborhood and public services, public facilities, and planning/administration. Engineering staff provide design, survey, and inspection services for construction projects, including bridge construction, stormwater management, and green alleys. GIS staff develop and manage the geographic information system and provide technical expertise, including the use of climate data to predict impact on infrastructure and neighborhoods. Working with NGOs, individuals, and neighborhood groups, the Human Rights Department implements programs to ensure equitable access to services and support civic engagement. The city is also involved in the Dubuque Co. Local Emergency Planning Committee and coordinates with regional entities to prepare for and respond to disasters. Example Project: Bee Branch Watershed Flood Mitigation Project(2001present) Primary Partner: Citv of Dubuque. Dubuque and its partners have demonstrated extensive technical capacity and community engagement and inclusiveness experience, as illustrated by the Bee Branch Watershed Flood Mitigation Project. Fifty percent of Dubuque residents live or work in the Bee Branch watershed, which encompasses historic neighborhoods and some of Dubuque's most affordable workforce housing. Buried as a storm sewer in the 1890s, Bee Branch Creek Watershed was very susceptible to flash floods. The Bee Branch Watershed Flood Mitigation Project is a multi-phased,fiscally-responsible, and environmentally-sound program to protect at-risk neighborhoods from the regional trend toward more frequent extreme precipitation events. After severe flooding in Dubuque in 1999, especially in the Bee Branch Watershed, the city and its partners developed a Drainage Basin Master Plan to identify future vulnerabilities based on these weather patterns. Improvements associated with the Bee Branch Project are consistent with the improvements outlined in the 22 Drainage Basin Master Plan, which was updated in 2013. Collaborations with local stakeholders led to a shift in Dubuque's traditional disaster recovery path from urban infrastructure-centered project development to a more holistic integrated watershed systems management approach. A 16-member community advisory committee collaborated with city staff and consultants to design the pathway of the now daylighted creek, which has been returned to its natural above-ground setting. Dubuque hired a Bee Branch Communications Specialist to share information with the affected neighborhoods in a variety of formats and to gather and respond to neighborhood feedback and concerns Dubuque has also successfully administered a HUD-funded Lead Hazard Control Program since 1997,targeted in this at-risk neighborhood. Through June 30, 2014, 413 properties were enrolled, 241 lead inspection/risk assessments conducted, and 185 properties completed and cleared. HUD has continuously rated Dubuque as high performing for meeting and/or exceeding all benchmarks and goals through the "green" designation assessed in all quarterly performance reports of both recent grant programs. When complete, the Bee Branch Project will leverage more than $200M from federal agencies, the state, grants, private funding, stormwater utility fees, and a new State Flood Mitigation Sales Tax Increment financing program to implement green infrastructure and prevent an estimated $582M in future damage to public and private property. Homeland Security and Emergency Management(HSEMD): HSEMD has managed Iowa's Disaster Programs since the 1960s and currently oversees the daily activities of 14 open presidential disaster responses across Iowa, which include projects totaling more than $213 in Stafford and Act National Flood Insurance Act funding. HSEMD has in place policies and procedures that are annually monitored by FEMA for compliance with overall grant/project management, procurement, contract management, duplication of benefits, quality assurance, 23 financial management systems, project monitoring, reporting, and all other federal requirements specific to administering grants. If awarded, HSEMD will use its existing administrative structure, which includes current disaster recovery staff experienced in the project management of traditional infrastructure, property acquisitions/relocations to ensure rapid program design, implementation, and completion. The organizational structure of the countywide emergency management commissions for response, recovery, and mitigation planning and implementation enhance HSEMD's capacity in Iowa. These commissions, made up of local leaders, provide input for the implementation of resilient recovery strategies and participate in educational and outreach opportunities for watershed-based hazard mitigation. Because disasters start locally, county emergency management coordinators and agencies play a vital role in preparation for, response to, and recovery from disasters both natural and manmade. Local emergency management agencies are the backbone of the state's emergency management system. They provide coordination of local resources and work in partnership with HSEMD to ensure emergency management teams are well-equipped,trained, and exercised. County boards of supervisors, city councils, and county sheriffs establish a commission to carry out the provisions of Iowa law (Iowa Code, Chapter 29C). Each local commission appoints an emergency management coordinator to fulfill the commission's duties. Two or more county commissions may form a multi-county emergency management agency. HSEMD's experience and close connection with local emergency management agencies make it particularly well-suited to help lead the proposed disaster planning and technical assistance activities and the public resilience programs (See Soundness of Approach, Program 2). Example Project: Citv of Des Moines and WRA Flood Protection Project(2015-2035): Primary Partner: HSEMD. This Iowa Flood Mitigation Program project aims to develop a flood 24 control plan to protect critical facilities and public and private property, as well as to preserve the health and safety of Des Moines residents. HSEMD was integral in the development of the proposal and (current) project implementation. Specific post-award activities by HSEMD include the solicitation, review, consolidation, validation, and submission of applicant's reports (financial, progress, and performance-oriented). HSEMD also: uses qualitative and quantitative metrics to determine how well the program is being implemented and whether it is achieving its described goals, objectives, activities, and services; and makes sure individual projects achieve overarching program goals. HSEMD will play a similar role in monitoring the technical and programmatic activities of the Iowa Watershed Approach (IWA). b. Management Structure and Lead Personnel Iowa Economic Development Authority: IEDA's Community Development Division operates under the leadership of Director Debi Durham, who reports directly to the Governor. If awarded an NDRC project, IEDA will be responsible for day-to-day CDBG administration, including writing policy and procedures, awarding funds, contracting, processing expenditure requests, monitoring, close-outs, and quarterly reporting in DRGR. The team will include: Tim Waddell, Community Development Division Administrator, responsible for policy development and adherence; Leslie Leager, Division Coordinator, responsible for CDBG policy and regulatory research, approval of Requests for Release of Funds (as the environmental specialist), and quality control/assurance oversight; Peggy Russell, Disaster Recovery Team Leader, responsible for tracking and evaluating program/projects/outcomes and coordinating HUD and Office of Inspector General monitoring visits and audits; Tim Metz, responsible for contract coordination and tracking allocations; Khristy Smith, responsible for DRGR data entry and action plans, QPR submittals, closing contracts, and tracking audits; Joe Bohlke, responsible for managing infrastructure projects and acting as the CDBG procurement specialist; Ann Schmid, 25 I C' )WA® Director rhto am de lonment Community Development Divi- General Administration Division sion Administrator Administrator Tim Waddell Terry Roberson Policy Development Accountant Division Coordinator Team Leader—Disaster Recovery I{atie Caggiano Leslie Leager Peggy Russell CDBG Environmental Specialist Tracking&Evaluation ofProgram/ Quality ControllAssuronce Projects/Outcomes Contract&Compli- Disaster Infiasnucture Proj Mgr ance Manager Joe Bohlke Tim Metz CDBG Procurement Specialist Contracting Monitoring Legend for partner org charts Closeout Coordinator ester Housing Project Manager Directly responsible for GR Smith DRAnn Schmid program implementation DRGR/Audils CDBG Housing&Relocation (current staff) Specialist Monitoring Directly responsible for CDBG Project Mgr Dan Narber program implementation CDBG Davis Bacon Specialist (new hire) Disaster Watershed Proj Mgr Jeff Supporting role Geerts Green Structures Coordinator Monitoring Reimbursement Coordinator Hay- ley Crozier DOB Coordinator,Process Disaster Draws responsible for managing housing projects and serving as the CDBG acquisition and relocation specialist; Dan Narber, the CDBG Davis-Bacon Specialist; Jeff Geerts, responsible for managing watershed projects and serving as green infrastructure specialist; Haley Crozier, responsible for processing expenditure requests and completing the duplications of benefits (DOB)for awarded projects; and Katie Caggiano, Accountant, responsible for fiscal and internal audits. 26 Iowa IIHR.-Hydrosdence&Engineering Flood Director L.Weber W�Center Iowa Flood Center Research Engineers/ Administration&Research Support Director W.Krajewski Scientists,Faculty Affiliates Dir.of Engineering Dir.ofDev.& Outreach Coordinator Environmental Hydraulics(13) Services Comm. B.Zimmerman Fluid Dynamics(16) T.Lyons C.Langel 25 Engineers Environmental Engineering(8) +9 staff +3 staff ......................................................................................... &Scientists Air&Water Resources(15) Dir.of Finances Dir.of Research Water Sustainability (8) &HR Computing T.Gaffey M.Wilson +3 staff +3 staff The Iowa Flood Center (IFC) of IIHR. Hydroscience & Engineering(IIHR),the University of Iowa: The IFC is managed under the auspices of IIHR. The Director of IIHR reports to the Dean of the College of Engineering, who reports to the UI Provost. The provost reports to the UI President, who reports to the Iowa Board of Regents. Dr. Larry Weber, UI Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, will lead all IFC activities. As Director of IIHR, Weber oversees and makes final decisions regarding IIHR's overall fiscal management, personnel, and vast facilities and equipment resources. He oversees management of the IFC and the Iowa Geological Survey, both organized under IIHR. In addition to 10 years of experience as IIHR Director, Weber has managed his own portfolio of sponsored projects totaling more than $50M over the past 20 years. He is the IFC's principle investigator for the Iowa Watersheds Project. Weber's extensive background in project management will be instrumental in making sure this project is successfully completed on time. Other key IFC personnel implementing this project will include: Drs. Antonio Arenas and Marcela Politano, Engineers, leading hydraulic analysis and modeling; Drs. Keith Schilling and Chris Jones, Geologists, leading nutrient monitoring and modeling; Dr. Ibrahim Demir, Engineer, leading informatics and online visualization; Mark Wilson, Principal Engineer, leading research computing for numerical modeling exercises; Teresa Gaffey, Director 27 of Finance and Human Resources, responsible for managing the programmatic budget; and Breanna Zimmerman, IFC Communications Coordinator, responsible for coordinating and communicating with WMAs. More than 10 additional BS- and MS-level engineers with expertise in river hydraulics, remote-sensing, numerical (computer)modeling, floodplain mapping, water quality, and informatics will help implement the program; many are certified floodplain managers. The City of Dubuque operates under the city manager form of government. Although multiple departments will be involved in program implementation,the primary departments responsible for project management will be Housing& Community Development(H&CD) and Engineering. When grant funds are issued, the city will hire several new staff members who will work under the direction of Housing Director Alvin Nash: a new Resiliency Supervisor, a Resiliency THE CITY OF DUB �.., City Manager Masterpiece on the Mississippi Mike Van Milligen 23 additional City Housing Director City Engineer Gus departments Alvin Nash Psihoyos nSustainablemmunity HousingTnspec- Resiliency Civil Engineer Il ator [ions,Lead& Supervisor (Storm,Sanitary) bach Healthy Homes (8 Deron Muehring staff) Resiliency Resiliency Engineering Bee Branch Coromunica- g g Community Devel- Assistant Inspectors(2) Technicians& tions Specialist tY Kristin Hill opment Specialist Inspectors(6) Erica Haugen Home Public Health Specialist (8 staff) Advocate Environmental Mary Rose Corrigan Engineer Rehabilitation Pro- Denise Thrig Community Engagement gram(4 staff) Coordinator Project Manager Nikola Pavelic Assisted Housing Administrative Steve Brown Program(8 staff) Staff(3) Circles Program Engineers,Inspec- (3 staff) tors,Technicians (17) Assistant, two Resiliency Inspectors, and a Home Advocate. Director Nash currently oversees 28 expansive inspection, rehabilitation, assisted housing, family self-sufficiency, urban revitalization, and financing programs, all of which were involved in Dubuque's recovery from previous floods. H&CD directors, inspectors, and support staff will work collaboratively with the new Resiliency Division. The Resiliency Supervisor will manage Dubuque's relationship with IEDA and act as Dubuque's program manager. The Assistant and Inspectors will coordinate to identify and inspect impacted homes, manage contractor implementation of work, and report on outcomes of the program. The Home Advocate will serve as liaison to the community and complete community education and outreach for resilient homes and neighborhoods. The H&CD Community Development Specialist and Rehabilitation Programs Inspector will support the new staff. The Engineering Department is staffed by more than 30 people, including seven licensed Professional Engineers. In Fiscal Year 2015, the department administered $53M in capital improvements for the planning, design, and construction of streets, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and other public improvements. The department has a long history of working with local, state, and federal agencies on permitting and funding. More recently,the department administered state and federal funding, including federal CDBG, Federal Highway Administration, EPA SRF, and TIGER programs. In addition to these departments, the following positions will be part of Dubuque's management structure: a Bee Branch Communications Specialist who will integrate the program's resiliency outreach into neighborhood-wide educational programs and engagement, including outreach to neighborhood associations, schools, and businesses; a Sustainable Community Coordinator who will lead Dubuque's climate adaptation and resiliency work, provide technical expertise, and integrate the program into the development of Dubuque's climate adaptation plan; a Community Engagement Coordinator who will assist in developing plans to engage residents in sustainable living education, targeting 29 vulnerable or traditionally unengaged populations, and developing partnerships with nonprofit and religious service providers; and a Public Health Specialist who will monitor the health outcomes in the impacted area, serve as liaison to the health care community, and provide health oversight and education. Homeland Security and Emergencv Management: HSEMD Director Mark Schouten reports 0MVLAND SF c�� Iowa Homeland Security Advisor o Mark Schouten,Director Recovery Division Administrator �R�NCY M`r's Pat Hall Public Assistance Hazard Mitigation Grants Manager Legislative Liaison Program Manager, Program Manager Infmstmcture Pro- Dennis Harper ject Officers(S) NDRC Technical Resource Manager Jessica Turba Planning(5) GIS(5) Hazard Mitigation Infmstmcture Flood Mifigation Watershed Public Project Officers(5) Project Officers Program Officers Technical Information (s) (z) snpport(I) officers(z) directly to the Governor. Schouten will lead the strategic decision-making process regarding the implementation of tasks assigned to HSEMD under the IWA, with support from the department's Legislative Liaison (John Benson), Disaster Recovery Administrator (Pat Hall), and supporting Bureau Chiefs for Recovery Operations (Aimee Bartlett), Hazard Mitigation(Dennis Harper), and Public Assistance (Katie Waters). The functional tasks associated with the IWA will be accomplished through the daily activities of Public Information Officers, Hazard Mitigation Project Officers, Infrastructure Project Officers, Geographic Information Technology Specialists, Watershed Analysts, and Hazard Mitigation and Disaster Recovery planners. HSEMD maintains these positions for Hazard Mitigation and Disaster Recovery work, and they will be available to 30 carry out resiliency program activities. The staff managing disaster recovery and hazard mitigation programs have decades of experience working with communities, developing projects, and monitoring project outcomes. Legend HUD —)► Funding I� Management Team Collaborative Entities CEA HSEMD IEDA UI IFC CAPs City of Dubuque Cities and Counties (on behalf of Watershed Management Authorities) U N I ISU Contractors TPc EXT IWC INRC Contractors DNR/IDALS/ Agencies Eng. Firms/ NGO/ Grant CAPs: Community Action Programs Technology Administrator Planning CEA: Center for Evaluation and Assessment Assistants Consultants EXT: ISU Extension and Outreach INRC: Iowa Nutrient Research Center IWC: Iowa Water Center TPC: UNI Tallgrass Prairie Center Program Management: The management organizational chart demonstrates the structure of the Iowa Watersheds Approach management team (in green) and the flow of funds (arrows). IEDA will lead and oversee all aspects of the IWA program, ensure its timely and successful completion, monitor CDBG compliance in all areas, and make all final financial decisions. The IFC and the City of Dubuque, based on their technical expertise and stakeholder connections, will lead technical and programmatic implementation. HSEMD will provide technical support in HUD 31 programmatic implementation and coordinate disaster preparedness and hazard mitigation activities. In the rural watersheds, the WMAs will make project selection and siting decisions, based on the required criteria (See Phase II, Soundness of Approach, Program 1), and make recommendations to IEDA for contract funding for project design and construction. A WMA Advisory Board will provide technical guidance and assistance to the WMAs and advise the program management team on challenges and strategies. Each WMA will procure a COG(Council of Government)or other qualified grant administrator to oversee local distribution of CDBG funds and ensure compliance with CDBG regulations. References IEDA Dubu ue Amanda Plunkett Shannon Steinhauer RN BSN 326 Briar ate Dr. 451 7th Street SW, Room 8236 Lebanon, OH 45036 Washington, DC 20410 513-255-4209 202-402-6885 Amanda.b.nlunkeL4L&:tnail.com Shannon.E.Steinbauer@hud.gov IEDA and IFC HSEMD Lora Friest Scott Sanders, City Manager 101 E. Greene St. 400 Robert D. Ray Dr. Postville, IA 52162 Des Moines, IA 50309 563-864-7112 515-283-4507 Lora.friestAnortheastiowarcd/org sesanders dm ov.or 32 Exhibit D Need/Extent of the Problem State of Iowa Iowa PhaseII Need-Extent.pdf Need/Extent of the Problem a. Unmet Recovery Needs and Target Geography Environmental MID-URN from 2011-2013 impact 24 of Iowa's 99 counties, reflecting Iowa's primary land use agriculture. The scattered distribution of environmental MID-URN areas is reflective of 2011-2013 storm patterns. Most of Iowa is vulnerable to, and has suffered from, significant soil loss and water-quality degradation from major(and even moderate)flood events in recent history. As noted in Phase I and Phase II Threshold and Phase I Need, much of Iowa's most impacted and distressed rural areas suffer from environmental damages caused by soil erosion and transport during floods. In 2013, storms in Tama County, for example, resulted in an estimated loss of 2.5-5.0 tons of soil per acre. This exceeds any conceivable sustainable annual soil loss and poses a threat to Iowa's economy and environment. This unmet recovery need distribution and extent as related to soil loss described in Phase I is unchanged, other than additional added areas (Phase II, Threshold). These areas continue to experience irreplaceable soil loss during high flow events. This also harms water quality in MID-URN areas and downstream. As also described in Phase I, much of Iowa's rural MID-URN areas also suffer environmental degradation from impaired water quality. This also remains unchanged, other than added areas (Phase II, Threshold); it poses a threat to the environment, city drinking water, recreation, and tourism. If unchecked, water quality will continue to degrade, especially during high flow events. The Iowa Watersheds Approach (IWA) area served is narrowed to nine watersheds, including one in Dubuque (Attachment E, Map 1 and Attachment F, Census Tract List). Rural watersheds and counties include: West Nishnabotna(Mills, Fremont): East Nishnabotna (Fremont): North Raccoon (Buena Vista, Pocahontas); Middle Cedar(Tama, Benton); Clear 33 Creek(Iowa, Johnson); English (Iowa); Upper Wapsipinicon (Buchanan, Delaware); and the Upper Iowa(Allamakee, Winneshiek). The IWA addresses needs by reducing future flood damage through implementation of projects to increase the land's flood resilience. IWA will significantly reduce water flow (decreasing soil loss and infrastructure damage) and water-quality degradation during high flow events. Leverage funds include 25% of construction costs (direct leverage)from all landowners and complementary projects (supporting leverage)to reduce flow, improve water quality, and protect resources. Community programming will focus on increasing local flood resilience. The IWA will impact environmental, economic, and resilience needs at many levels. Built projects will benefit the area(local benefit to MID-URIC through: the retention of soil and nutrients, which benefits the landowner economically (greater yields, reduced nutrient application costs); recreational benefits (e.g., cleaner water for swimming or fishing); and environmental benefits (e.g., habitat formation, reduced erosion). The hydrologic assessments and watershed plans will provide a vision for the larger (multi-county)watersheds. Projects will collectively benefit the region by: reducing peak streamflow, which lessens environmental damage (streambank erosion) and infrastructure damage; improving water quality (e.g., for drinking water, recreational use); improving quality of life; bolstering economies (tourism activities —fishing, swimming, boating); preserving Iowa's agricultural foundation; and retaining businesses that might otherwise be damaged by floodwaters. These benefits will propagate beyond Iowa, impacting major waterways south to the Gulf of Mexico and its hypoxia zone. The health of Iowa's agricultural resources impacts markets globally; Iowa ranks second nationally in the export of agricultural commodities, with about $11.313 in exports in 2012. Direct leverage from the Iowa Flood Center($1M) will support watershed data collection, monitoring, and modeling. Direct support from the Iowa Farm Bureau will support outreach 34 dissemination in the target watersheds. Many collaborators have offered supporting leverage representing complementary projects, outreach, and infrastructure (Phase II, Leverage). Infrastructure MID-URN from 2011-2013. The IWA includes projects to address significant unmet infrastructure needs in Dubuque, Coralville, and Storm Lake. The City of Dubuque experienced severe flooding in July 2011, causing substantial damage, especially in the historic Bee Branch Creek Watershed. The Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency Program (BBHHRP) addresses unmet recovery needs identified in Phase 1 (Attachment E, Map 2). Dubuque's 2014 windshield survey identified 23 units with damage from 2011. Few, if any, efforts have been made to make the homes more flood resilient. hi 2015, 24 inspections and interviews confirmed homes damaged by the 2011 flood. The BBHHRP is aligned with the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Project. Census tracts 1, 4, 5, 6, and 11.02 qualify as LMI (Attachment E, Map 2). The target area includes the area's most affordable housing. Direct leverage includes $800K for a Lead & Healthy Homes project. Supporting leverage ($500K) will fund micro-lending and first-time homeowners. Dubuque's unmet infrastructure needs include three storm water management projects to safely convey water. About 900 homes remain at risk for future flooding until these projects are complete. Dubuque will leverage $21.6M in direct funds for the three infrastructure projects and $39M in supporting leverage for other watershed improvements. A Storm Lake infrastructure project will help to address MID-URN in an LMI area flooded in 2011 and 2013. Flash flooding severely damaged its storm water system; water and sewage backed up into homes and were released into the environment, causing a health hazard and environmental degradation. Storm Lake commits $2,158,250 in direct leverage toward upgrading its storm sewer system. Upstream watershed projects in Outlet Creek will complement these activities and further reduce flooding in Storm Lake. 35 Coralville has also seen repeated flooding(including 2013) in the MID-URN area. Modifications to two storm water pump stations (the weak links in a new flood protection system) are the final step to protect more than 178 acres of businesses and multi-family residences in a vulnerable LMI area. Coralville commits $611,600 in direct leverage for project implementation. b. Resilience Needs Within Recovery Needs Based on soil loss estimates by an ISU agronomy professor(BCA narrative), the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship estimates it would cost more than $69.78M to repair environmental degradation related to soil loss caused by qualifying disasters in all the MID-URN areas in the target watersheds. IWA projects would have drastically reduced soil erosion and introduction of soil (and nutrients) into surface water. The MID-URN areas in the target rural watersheds comprise about 90 HUC 12 watersheds out of about 1,660 statewide. The IWA proposes activities in 40. Inclusion of the remaining 50 in the target MID-URN areas would require an additional $82.7M in design and construction costs (including cost sharing); about $2.413 would be needed to implement the IWA in the rest of Iowa. Except for the 2011 Missouri River flood, Iowa flood victims did not qualify for federal individual property damage assistance during this period. The Iowa Individual Assistance Grant Program, which allocates up to $5K to individuals making less than 200% of the federal poverty level, provided the following assistance in target county areas in 2013: Johnson, $31,500; Allamakee and Winneshiek, $164,000; Buchanan, $40,700; and Buena Vista(primarily Storm Lake), $222,700. Infrastructure damage in the target watersheds from the qualifying events included: $2.75M in the Upper Iowa; $4.95M in the Middle Cedar; and $5.6M in the North Raccoon. Several hundred homes in Storm Lake (unofficial sources indicate up to 1,500) and 200 homes in Bee 36 Branch Creek reported damage. All of these areas would have experienced reduced flooding and thus reduced infrastructure damage if the watersheds projects had been in place to retain water. Infrastructure damage in Buena Vista County could have been substantially avoided with the combination of watershed projects and improvements to Storm Lake's storm sewer system. Crop-loss data are readily available for two areas impacted by flooding in 2011. The Iowa Farm Bureau estimated $52.2M in crop loss in Fremont County(E. Nishnabotna) and $22.2M in Mills County(W. Nishnabotna). Vulnerable populations in Iowa, including minorities (8.5%), elderly(18.4%), disabled (11.4%), and those in poverty(12.4%), are often disproportionately affected by floods. Flood impacts on vulnerable populations may include loss of affordable housing, loss of work, strained food budgets, mental and physical health impacts, and transportation difficulties. Dubuque's Bee Branch flood-prone MID-URN area includes census tracts 1, 4, 5, 6, and 11.02, representing about 35% of Dubuque's population. About 60% of residents are renters. The city's main method of providing affordable housing for qualifying residents is the Housing Choice Voucher Program. Participants may use vouchers anywhere in Dubuque; however, usage is concentrated in the target area(Attachment E, Map 3). Dubuque has small but concentrated non-English speaking and minority populations. According to American Community Survey (ACS) estimates, 3% of Dubuque residents are non-English speaking. Of these, 27%reside in the flood-prone area. In 2015, Dubuque completed an Analysis of Impediments to fair housing. HUD considers a subarea of a micropolitan impacted if its proportion of residents of color (non- Hispanic White) exceeds 50%. No Dubuque block groups (BG) qualify. Another benchmark pertains to the percentage of residents in poverty. For micropolitan areas, this is either 40%, or a benchmark three times the average tract poverty level of the jurisdiction. HUD defines an area a Racial/Ethnic Concentrated Area of Poverty (R/E-CAP) if it exceeds benchmark values for race 37 and poverty. Using ACS five-year (2008-2012) estimates, the average BG poverty rate was 12.58%, yielding a benchmark poverty concentration ratio of 37.7. Again, no Dubuque BG qualifies as R/E-CAP; however the 40%racial benchmark is too high for an eastern-central plains micropolitan area. Using 20%, two BGs cross thresholds for poverty and racial concentration: Tract 5- BG 4 has an estimated R/E concentration of 36.4% and a below-poverty level percent of 51.4%. Track 1 BG 1 has corresponding values of 23.7 R/E and 43.7% (Attachment E, Map 4). This is where the most vulnerable populations live, and the areas most impacted by 2011 flooding. The Bee Branch flood mitigation project will protect nearly 1,400 flood-prone homes and businesses and prevent an estimated $582M in damage over its 100-year life. This does not include environmental, health, and other difficult-to-quantify benefits (see BCA Narrative). The ACS reports that the median household income in the North Raccoon River Watershed MID-URN area is $47,589, compared to $51,843 in Iowa(2009-2013). Storm Lake has a meat packing industry and higher minority(non-white) and Hispanic populations than the rest of Iowa. In the MID-URN area, 22.4% of residents identify as Hispanic (32% in Tracts 9604 and 9605) compared to 5.1% in Iowa, and 18.6%non-white compared to 8.5% statewide. Vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, were most impacted during DR-4126 as they struggled to find help removing damaged materials from their homes. The MID-URN areas of the Upper Iowa River Watershed have a median household income of$56,910. This includes L/M income areas of Allamakee County(Tract 9602), where 10.4% of the population is in poverty and the unemployment rate is higher than in neighboring areas. In 2013, homeowners faced water in their basements caused by flash flooding on saturated soils. According to community action agency partners, low income homeowners experienced a gap in resources. Many do not live in the floodplain and are not eligible for flood insurance. Like many 38 rural LMI areas in Iowa, Allamakee County is facing declining population and loss of or lack of employers. Households with mobility have relocated; those unable to relocate remain. The median annual household income in MID-URN areas of the Upper Wapsipinicon River Watershed in Buchanan and Delaware counties is $61,377. The median annual household income in MID-URN areas of the Middle Cedar River Watershed in Benton and Tama counties is $56,904. Tract 9604 in Benton County includes a higher population of disabled persons (18.4%)with the presence of a special needs facility. The median annual household income in MID-URN areas of the English River Watershed in Iowa County is $61,830. The MID-URN area served by the Clear Creek Watershed project in Johnson and Iowa counties has 55.3% UM income, but is not entirely residential. The Coralville infrastructure protects a qualifying LMI area(54.49%), with demographics as follows [average income/ minority(non-white) percentage]: Tract 2: $39,583 /24.2%; Tract 4: $40,381 /33.2%; Tract 5: $50,420/ 17.7%; Tract 23: $44,300/ 12.6%, as compared to $53,424/ 14.4% countywide. The median annual household income in MID-URN areas of the East Nishnabotna River Watershed in Fremont County is $55,476. The median annual household income in MID-URN areas of the West Nishnabotna River Watershed in Fremont and Mills counties is $54,250. The disabled population (17.3%) is larger than the state average (11.4%). One identified area served (Tract 401, BG 1) in Mills County includes 53.66% UM income. c. Appropriate Approaches Flooding is the most significant and costly hazard facing Iowa. From 1960-2009, flood events were responsible for more than $12B in losses. Disaster recovery efforts must include programs within and across watersheds to reduce flood impacts and support engagement activities to make communities more resilient. Four lines of evidence demonstrate the appropriateness of the Iowa Watershed Approach: 1) increasing trends in precipitation and 39 flooding; 2)the success of the current Iowa Watersheds Project and Bee Branch activities; 3) past evidence of success using upstream projects to decrease downstream flooding; and 4) community-led development of resilience strategies. Precipitation and flooding trends: The central United States is experiencing a marked increase in the frequency of heavy precipitation and flood events. University of Iowa(UI) researchers analyzed data from 774 USGS stream gauges and found an increasing trend in flood frequency during the past 50 years, especially through a wide geographic tract from N. Dakota and S. Dakota down through Iowa and Missouri and east to Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio (Mallakpour, I., and G. Villarim, "The changing nature of flooding across the central United States,"Nature Climate Change, 5, 250-254, 2015). This study also demonstrated a similar increase in the frequency of heavy rainfall days and in temperature data across the same region. Scientists at Iowa State University's (ISU) Climate Science Program, who have been examining precipitation and flooding trends across Iowa for decades, have reached similar conclusions. Research at UI, ISU, and other institutions is underway to develop and analyze new models incorporating recent trends into future scenarios. The models consistently demonstrate a continued upward trend in extreme precipitation and flood events in Iowa. This means that the probability of a 100-year flood occurring in Dubuque, for example, is now more than 1% each year. In the face of changing precipitation patterns and Iowa's fragile and heavily-managed landscape, reducing flood risk requires complementary approaches that improve infrastructure resilience and counteract the impacts of intensive land use and changing precipitation patterns. Current Iowa Watersheds Project and Bee Branch Activities: The proposed Iowa Watersheds Approach mirrors the Iowa Watersheds Project(IWP). The IWP is successful because it: engages a wide range of stakeholders; follows a logical progression; and results in a suite of projects 40 proven to reduce flow and improve water quality. The hydrologic models used to assess each watershed and develop watershed plans can be updated over time through adjustment of precipitation and flooding patterns as observed or expected. This may result in adjustments to selection, siting, and size of future watershed projects. Dubuque's approach also considers the entire watershed and the latest climate data. The city participated in Iowa's risk and vulnerability assessment to identify optimal programs and projects to improve disaster recovery and resilience in its distressed areas. These sources framed the development of the Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency Program and led the city to develop a watershed approach targeting infrastructure improvements and resiliency programs for at-risk residents. Evidence of past success: The IWA's success can be assessed by studying a more mature project the Soap Creek Watershed in Southeast Iowa. Stakeholders there have been working together since 1985 to reduce flood damage to farmland and roads. They developed a watershed plan and, over 30 years, built 132 water retention basins. IFC models show a 28%reduction in streamflow at the watershed outlet, with even greater localized reductions. IFC hydrologists estimate these structures also reduced downstream sediment and nutrient delivery by 20-25%. The Soap Creek WMA claims $892K/year reduction in agricultural flood damage and $155,800/year reduction in non-agricultural flood damage. Programming to Increase Resilience: Community resilience engagement activities will help communities prepare for, plan for, respond to, recover from, and adapt to floods. This program is appropriate because: 1) local stakeholders will determine and startto address their own unique resilience needs; 2) an evaluation component will continually evaluate needs and impacts to guide programming; 3) communities will have access to the latest scientific data; and 4) programs will engage many partners, including Watershed Management Authorities, Emergency Management Coordinators, Community Action Programs, and others. 41 Exhibit E - Soundness of Approach State of Iowa Iowa PhaseII_SoundnessOfApproach.pdf Soundness of Approach a. Soundness of Approach Description As a hybrid proposal (with both programs and projects),this section is organized as follows: 1)two programmatic descriptions the activities in the upper watersheds and community resilience programming; 2)programmatic assessment approach; and 3)project descriptions. Program 1: The Iowa Watershed Approach The Iowa Watershed Approach (IWA) will improve environmental and societal resilience and reduce downstream risk from major storm events through environmentally- and scientifically-sound projects in the upper watershed to increase infiltration and retain water. By addressing water-quantity and -quality issues upstream through cost-effective best practices, the IWA will realize environmental, social, and economic benefits at the project sites and downstream, including flood risk reduction for downstream housing and infrastructure projects. The IWA requires strong community support and dedicated stakeholders and landowners, because 99% of Iowa's land is privately owned. This program will help Iowa move toward its statewide goal of 30%reduction in streamflow and 45% surface-water nutrient load reduction. Specific goals are listed with each project description. In five years, Iowa will have a well- refined, replicable program, and all participating watersheds will have a long-term vision. Communities, infrastructure, and housing will be less vulnerable and more resilient to future storm events. Collaborators/Feasibility: Iowa has a rich field of partners and collaborators across the state with expertise in agriculture, land management and best management practices, soil science, water quality, sustainability, education and engagement, river hydraulics, climatology, program/project design and evaluation, and assessment. In addition to the IWA management organizations, project implementation will include the following in most watersheds (see also 42 Phase I, Capacity): Iowa State University(Iowa Water Center, Extension and Outreach, and Iowa Nutrient Research Center) and University ofNorthern Iowa (Tallgrass Prairie Center)for technical support, collection and analyses of data, development and distribution of educational materials, and other support; Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) for technical support, capacity-building, and project design, outreach, and leadership on WMA formation; Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship (IDALS) and National Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) for technical support, capacity-building, project design, and outreach; County Soil and Water Conservation Districts for technical support and outreach; and The Nature Conservancy, Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, Iowa Soybean Association, Iowa Farm Bureau, Iowa Agricultural Water Alliance, local Resource Conservation &Development offices, Iowa Department of Transportation, Iowa Association of Counties, and Silver Jackets Flood Risk Management Team for technical support and guidance to the WMAs. The University of Iowa Center for Evaluation and Assessment(CEA) will conduct a comprehensive formative and summative evaluation of the IWA for program improvement and to document outcomes (see page 18). CEA provides third-party evaluation, assessment, and other services. Since 1992, CEA has successfully completed more than 150 evaluations for many clients and sponsors, including FIPSE, NSF, NIH, NIMH, the U.S. Department of Education, and others. Program 1 includes eight specific programmatic components: 1. Watershed Selection: Six HUC 8 and two HUC 10 watersheds will participate in the IWA based on: 1)the location and extent of their MID-URN and LMI areas; 2) stakeholder commitment/engagement(see Attachment D and project details); 3)representation of Iowa's landforms (Attachment E, Map 5); and 4) other factors, such as watersheds prioritized by the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. Individual project descriptions include additional details for each watershed. 43 2. Formation of a Watershed Management Authoritv (WMA): Two or more eligible political subdivisions within a watershed can form a WMA through a Chapter 28E Agreement. WMA activities include: assessment and reduction of flood risk; assessment and improvement of water quality; flood risk planning and activities; educational activities; and allocation of funds for water quality and flood mitigation. The IDNR will guide WMA formation in each watershed. The WMAs are the nucleus of the IWA. They comprise stakeholders from throughout the watershed, offering a range of perspectives and experience to achieve common goals. WMAs will be responsible for their site and project selections. A WMA coordinator will be hired for each watershed to manage activities, schedule events, facilitate communication, and assist with engagement, resilience, and assessment activities (see Program 2). One county will serve as the subrecipient from IEDA on behalf of each WMA. That county will use a qualified grant administrator to subaward funds and monitor programs. The CEA will document flood risk planning activities and monitor WMA activities. It will also collaborate with WMA coordinators to observe events and activities and collect survey data from stakeholders. 3. Producer Engagement, Outreach, and Planning: Producer engagement is incorporated program-wide. Activities related to engineered projects will include, for example, public engagement events, site tours/field days, and public presentations at municipal and county meetings. A statewide WMA Advisory Board will be formed with at least one advisor from each WMA and representative(s)from Dubuque Bee Branch Creek. Collaborators will represent a wide range of expertise. The board will: review progress; strategize common challenges; make implementation recommendations; discuss long-term solutions for statewide flood peak reduction and water-quality improvements; and share resilience programming strategies and successes. The board will initially meet quarterly. An annual public symposium will share information and build support. 44 Three Iowa State University(ISU)units and their partners will develop and deliver programming to WMA stakeholders and producers in the target watersheds. ISUExtension and Outreach will deliver research-based information on practice effectiveness in target areas. Communication efforts will include fact sheets, broadcast interviews, videos, and interactive webinars. Farmer champions will facilitate farmer-to-farmer learning. Content creators will also draw upon the latest information from ISU's Climate Science Program. At ISU's Iowa Learning Farm (a partnership among ISU, IDALS, IDNR, and USDA-NRCS), farmers, schoolchildren, and others will learn about issues in each watershed. ISU will also develop a Watershed Academy to build capacity among the WMA coordinators to improve the effectiveness and repeatability of successful practices. Iowa Nutrient Research Center (see Phase II, Long-term Commitment)faculty will evaluate the effectiveness of stacking practices to reduce nutrient loss to surface water in the watersheds. ISU Extension and Outreach will distribute educational materials on these practices to producers in the target watersheds. The University of Northern Iowa's (UNI) Tallgrass Prairie Center has more than 25 years of experience in the beneficial use of native perennial vegetation. UNI will provide multiple layers of assistance to producers on the establishment and management of native vegetation across a range of agricultural practices. They will share scientifically-based information through workshops, print and online technical guides and videos, an online seed mix calculator, and consultation. Demonstration sites for teaching and learning will be the cornerstone of the effort. Simple, small-scale experiments and side-by-side contrasting practices will communicate basic principles that can be readily applied in many contexts and locations. Statewide partners include the Iowa State STRIPS Project,the Association for Integrated Roadside Management, Iowa Native Plant Society, NRCS, INRC, and the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture. 45 The CEA will monitor a sample of events in each watershed, as well as collaborator interactions and multimedia delivery of research-based material to producers and stakeholders. 4. Watershed Monitoring: IFC researchers will deploy stream-stage sensors and water-quality sensors in each target watershed. The sensors transmit data to the IFC at set intervals (generally every 10-15 minutes), which are automatically posted to a publically-available online visualization platform (see Program 2). Sensors will collect data for the duration of the program and beyond. Researchers will deploy additional sensors following selection of HUC 12 project sites to monitor results from individual or stacked practices. A hydrologic network with rain gauges, soil moisture and temperature probes, and shallow wells will also be deployed. 5. Hvdrologic Assessment: A hydrologic assessment of each watershed is necessary to understand the hydrology, assess flood and water-quality risks, and evaluate scenarios to maximize results. The selected watersheds represent Iowa's varied topography, soils, and land use. The data- and simulation-driven assessments include a review of the water cycle across each watershed and require a large amount of data from collaborators. The IFC will develop HEC- HMS hydrologic models for each basin and run simulations for each watershed. The draft hydrologic assessment will be presented to stakeholders for final public input, and its online availability will be widely promoted. The IFC will retain the original data and models so each plan can be updated to reflect land use and precipitation changes, new floodplain maps, etc. 6. Watershed Plan: The watershed plan includes an analysis of hypothetical scenarios to reduce downstream flow and improve water quality. It will incorporate stakeholder input and serve as a guide for the selection of sub-watersheds (HUC 12s) and project sites. The number of projects needed to reach water-quantity and -quality goals for each HUC 8 or HUC 10 is beyond the scope of this proposal. Instead, each plan will be a vision for the future of that watershed. The WMAs will use the plans to develop priorities, to support future funding requests to other 46 sponsors, and to monitor progress.Data and models will be retained so the plan can be adjusted in the future to accommodate changes in key parameters, such as shifting precipitation patterns. 7. Selection of Construction Projects and Project Design: WMAs will select several HUC 12s in each project watershed for implementation of projects. The location, type, and number of projects in each watershed will be based on the hydrological assessment, watershed plan, stakeholder input, and maximization of peak flow reductions and water-quality improvements in the MID-URN areas. Each WMA will select the sub-watershed and site locations for project construction based on at least these very specific criteria: 1)to maximize impact on MID-URN areas; 2)to maximize impact on vulnerable populations; 3)to collaborate with stakeholders/landowners willing to commit to a 25% cost share and a long-term (20-year) maintenance agreement; and 4)to work with landowners committed to other sustainable land use practices and BMPs to further the project goals. A local agency, NGO, or engineering firm will complete project designs. Multiple entities in Iowa have experience designing watershed projects to accepted standards. Each WMA's lead county will hire a grant administrator (e.g., Council of Government)to oversee the distribution of CDBG funds for project design and construction. The administrator will ensure CDBG program compliance, including clearance on environmental, cultural, and Section 106 reviews; public involvement; Davis-Bacon labor standards compliance; and procurement of services, advertisement, and administration of public bid letting. The administrator will also ensure financial records are maintained and work closely with IEDA to meet all HUD regulations. When ground disturbance is expected,the administrator will be responsible for delineating the Area of Potential Effects and using sufficient methods to identify potential cultural resources, including archaeological sites. He or she will present findings to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)for review and comment. 47 CEA will monitor collaborations among stakeholders in selecting construction projects and will survey stakeholders/landowners on their commitment to sustainable land-use practices. 8. Construction: IEDA and IFC staff, local agencies, WMA coordinators, and grant administrators will work closely with stakeholders and producers in each watershed through the contractor selection and project construction phase. Many local contractors have experience implementing and constructing these practices. HUD funds will cover 75% of the project cost; landowners will contribute the remaining 25%. Based on IFC and partner experience, there will be no shortage of interested landowners. The practices available to the WMAs and producers (listed below) are not all equally suitable for all regions in Iowa, a hypothetical suite of projects is listed with each watershed project. A conservative lifespan of 20 years is assumed for each structure/project. Most of the noted benefits are based on data from the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy (WQ=water quality improvement; SF =streamflow reduction). Benefits may vary based on size and landform. • Wetland Construction slows down and filters precipitation runoff, allowing sediment and nutrients to settle out before reaching lakes, rivers, streams, and aquifers. This lowers downstream flood peaks, reduces erosion, and improves water quality. Wetlands may be restored through a variety of techniques (excavation, surface drain removal, low embankments, etc.)to restore the original hydrology. Wetland construction will be based on NRCS standards (MRCS Code 657). (WQ=52-70%; SF= 10-20%) • Farm Ponds effectively collect and hold surface flow, allow particles (soil)to settle, and remove nutrients. They are generally 0.25-20 acres and may be embankment ponds (a dammed stream) or excavation (digging out the pond or the surrounding area to form levees). Pond construction will be based on NRCS construction standards (MRCS Code 378). (Benefits are size-dependent: WQ=30-70%; SF = 10 30%) 48 • Storm Water Detention Basins capture and detain water during a precipitation event, lessening downstream flooding. They remain dry between flood events. A storm water detention basin's construction is based on expected 10- or 20-year precipitation events for the area (WQ=20%; SF =30%) • Terraces are earthen embankments or combination ridges and channels constructed across a hillslope to reduce erosion, trap soil, and retain runoff to enhance infiltration. The number of acres terraced will vary. Construction will be based on accepted NRCS construction standards (MRCS Code 600). (WQ=77%; SF = 5%) • Sediment Detention Basins capture and detain sediment-laden runoff long enough for the sediment to settle out. Building techniques and benefits are similar to ponds. Unlike ponds, they are dry between precipitation events. Basin construction will be based on NRCS construction standards (MRCS Code 350). (WQ=85%; SF= 5%) • Floodplain Restoration restores flood-prone land to its original function storing flood waters. Floodplain restoration restores, protects, maintains, and enhances the function of floodplains, while conserving natural values such as fish and wildlife habitat, water quality, flood water retention, and groundwater recharge. It typically involves removal of levees and ceasing agricultural practices in portions of the floodplain. (WQ= 85%; SF=20%) • Channel Bank Stabilization (Nishnabotna River System) involves reshaping the streambank up to 1,500 feet in length to a 2:1 slope and armoring the lower half of the banks with clean, rounded, well-graded riprap or other material. If the site has too much curve, bendway weirs help redirect the river current away from the banks. The upper half of the streambank is seeded to establish permanent vegetative cover. (WQ= 80%; SF = 5%) • Buffer Strips are small strips of land with permanent vegetation (trees, shrubs, or other plants)used as environmental barriers between crop fields and other land usage. Buffers 49 help reduce runoff, sediment delivery, and downstream flooding; improve wildlife habitat and water quality; and contribute to productivity. (WQ=91%; SF = 10%) • Saturated Buffers direct field tile drainage into a buffer as shallow groundwater flow. As the water flows through the buffer, denitrification and uptake by the perennial plants in the buffer remove nitrate, preventing it from entering surface waters. (WQ=50%; SF = 5%) • Perennial Cover decreases soil erosion, increases biological carbon sequestration, provides wildlife and pollinator habitat, and improves water quality. (WQ=75%; SF =40%) • Oxbow Restoration rebuilds disconnected oxbow ponds in the floodplain. Oxbows provide floodwater storage, nutrient processing, and shallow water habitat for wildlife. (WQ=56% (N) ; SF=N/A) • Bioreactors are carbon-containing structures that intercept subsurface drains (tiles) or groundwater and improve water quality by reducing the concentration of nitrate-nitrogen. Construction will be based on NRCS standards (MRCS Code 747). (WQ=43%; SF= 5%) • Prairie STRIPS are the strategic integration of small strips of prairie in crop fields in the form of in-field contour buffer strips and edge-of-field filter strips, which can yield disproportionate benefits for soil, water, and biodiversity. (WQ=66-90%; SF=37%) The CEA will monitor stakeholder involvement in project planning and execution. The CEA will also conduct surveys of downstream residents to assess their knowledge of and attitudes about improved quality of life, such as their perceptions of increased recreational opportunities and improvement of drinking water. Stakeholders will be asked to identify what has changed for them in a way that allows them to report information the team may or may not have anticipated. Programmatic Options: Water quantity and quality are inextricably linked; during most flood events in Iowa, the water contains elevated nutrient loads. Thus, floods pose both a physical and health hazard at a time when people and the environment are most vulnerable. The timing of this 50 program is critical, as Iowa is experiencing a trend toward increased heavy precipitation events (see Phase II, Need/ Extent). The flexibility of this approach will allow Iowa to build upon this program for cumulative impacts in the future as local needs and conditions change. Risks and Vulnerabilities: The IWA will help make Iowa's important agricultural economy more sustainable. Failure to implement the proposed (or similar)practices would likely result in continued degradation of the land and water, especially in the face of current climatological trends. This would likely result in loss of agricultural productivity, increased water treatment costs, and the loss of biodiversity, recreational opportunities, and tourism. Scalability and Replicability: This program is scalable and replicable, appropriate for implementation at a variety of scales represented by the broad range of watersheds and infrastructure projects. Data collected throughout the program will help quantify costs of implementing this program across the Midwest for different water-quality or -quantity impacts. To this end, the program will develop a comprehensive guide for other watersheds and communities striving to replicate the IWA. Goals and Metrics Timelines, and Local Consultation are specified in each project description. Programmatic and scientific evaluation is described on pages 58-60. Eligible Activitv—NDRC Watershed Projects: Watershed Projects meet the Eligible Activitv of Public Facilities and Improvements— 105(a)(2): For a century, Iowa law has recognized drainage systems as valued public facilities. Traditional flood protection/drainage infrastructure includes levees, floodwalls, and reservoirs. In rural areas, it also includes farm ponds, stream channelization tile drainage of farm fields, constructed earth terraces, debris basins, and conservation practices. Iowa proposed three pilot Iowa watershed construction projects to HUD in 2011. hi June 2011,the HUD-Disaster office in D.C. approved the watershed projects, which they determined met the Eligible Activity of Public Facilities and Improvements. NDRC 51 watershed construction projects will mirror the pilot projects. The public facilities will be constructed on private land, but will include a 20-year ownership easement to the county to maintain the structures. They meet the National Objective Urgent Need (UN). Program 2: Community Resilience Programming Community Resilience Programming is needed to increase community resilience to floods. The IWA proposes use of the Zurich Insurance Flood Resilience Program framework to implement the Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment(VCA)methodology to assess flood resilience in target watersheds. The International Federation of Red Cross (IFRC) and Red Crescent Societies have used the VCA methodology worldwide for more than a decade. It helps to: 1) assess risks and hazards facing communities and their capacity to manage them; 2) involve communities, local authorities, and development organizations in the assessment from the outset; 3) create action plans to prepare for and respond to identified risks; and 4) identify risk-reduction activities to prevent or lessen the effects of future hazards (www.ifrc.org/vca). The IWA will partner with communities in the MID-URN areas to increase resilience by facilitating activities that help communities prepare for, respond to, recover from, and adapt to floods. The National Academy of Science (NAS)publication "Disaster Resilience —A National Imperative" suggests an approach to: 1) develop and encourage processes for sharing information; 2)build public awareness and understanding of risk; 3) gather community input; and 4) develop tools to monitor progress toward resilience. Floods affect more people globally than the combined effects of earthquakes,tornados, droughts, and hurricanes. Further, a focus on pre-event risk reduction, rather than post-event relief, promotes greater resilience. The Zurich resilience framework measures community resilience as functions of robustness, redundancy, resourcefulness, and rapidity, as well as the community's social, human, financial, natural, and physical environments. The IWA will pair the Zurich framework with the CEA's focus on 52 watershed-specific needs assessments informing situated strategic planning as a comprehensive approach to needs and outcomes assessment, planning, and implementation. Program Partners and Feasibility: The WMA coordinators will be the critical communication hubs. The IWA will work with groups like the Iowa Community Action Association and several regional Community Action Programs (CAPS) to leverage existing capacity-building platforms and networks for flood resiliency programming. The CAPS represent"boots on the ground,"with established local relationships and trust. The CEA will guide the use of tools and assessment metrics to measure the effectiveness of program activities to improve resilience. The IFC, with expertise in data analysis and visualization, will provide watershed-monitoring tools to share and access information.Homeland Security and Emergency Management(HSEMD), in coordination with local emergency management agency (EMA) coordinators, will develop strategies and local flood preparedness. Resilience Assessments and Tools to Guide Programming and Monitor Progress: The IWA team will work with stakeholders in each target watershed using the VCA frameworks and assessments. Preliminary activities will focus on qualitative and quantitative indicators of community resilience. The investigation will include individual or group interviews and annual surveys of selected constituents in the most vulnerable areas. Baseline data will guide WMAs as they select initial programming and interventions in the target communities. Qualitative data will clarify how stakeholders and community collaborators identify and understand the breadth of resilience issues. This will guide assessment of outcomes/impacts of programming and interventions, recognizing that: 1)the process of defining resilience goals and assessment requires collaboration and cooperation to build trust and highlight existing needs and capacities; and 2)regular monitoring of resilience can guide planning and decision making, and help assess progress toward resilience goals. A staggered annual survey will gather information from each 53 watershed. The IWA team will refine the process annually to understand changes in community resilience and provide actionable information. Resilience Awareness, Communication, and Planning(Primary Audience: community citizens. Secondary Audience: local decision makers, agencies): The WMA coordinators and local collaborators (e.g. CAPs)will partner with local leaders and individuals to develop community-specific activities to engage residents, especially vulnerable populations, in discussions about flood resilience. Engagement formats will vary(presentations, workshops, site visits,focus groups)until each community determines the most effective methods. Residents will be notified through existing events/groups, postings at key locations, local television and newspaper coverage, direct mail, and even door-to-door campaigns. Rural areas with low population densities will be engaged at the community scale, but also at county fairs and other regional events. Incentives will be considered to encourage participation. Early engagement activities will focus on sharing experiences and perspectives, building participation and relationships, and discussing flood resilience. Discussion prompts might include: How did a specific flood or storm event impact individuals, and how did it vary among different people and neighborhoods? What were the greatest challenges during the event and during recovery? Who did people trust for information and help (and why)? Initial discussions will help frame subsequent activities in which participants use their experience and knowledge to plan for the future. Example program topics might include: How does an individual or community assess risk? How can individuals make their homes or businesses more flood resilient? What actions should the community, county, and watershed consider for improved resilience? The focus will ultimately shift to preparing for, planning for, responding to, recovering from, and adapting to floods. 54 Community programs will include opportunities for people who cannot attend to provide input(e.g., an online app and/or materials at a local library or civic center) and a means for recording and saving key programmatic outcomes. WMAs will have access to evaluation materials and event summaries, recordings, and other archived information, with highlights posted on the watershed website.As communities work through the process of resilience assessment and planning, the WMA will facilitate the creation of a flood resilience action plan for each target community. Platform for Sharing Data and Experience (Primary Audience: local decision makers, EMA. Secondary Audience: Citizens): The IWA will develop a platform to visualize hydrologic and water-quality data and to share watershed information. As previously described, sensors in each target watershed will monitor precipitation and water quantity and quality. The IWA will share data for each watershed via a convenient information system. The system will be based on the Iowa Flood Information System (IFIS), built on the familiar Google Maps platform, which allows users to access and visualize data, including flood stages and warnings. The system will provide invaluable up-to-date information to decision makers and EMAs during a flood. Demonstrations of the online platform at community programs will help stakeholders visualize and understand their home or business as a physical location within the watershed. It will incorporate an app for stakeholders to upload place-specific information. For example,the system might encourage users to respond to a topic of the week, current events, or other prompts to provide appropriate, actionable information. It is, in essence, a crowd-sourcing tool to collect water-related issues, photos, and stories that will be invaluable to the community and to IWA partners. It will be available at local libraries, community centers, and other public venues for users who do not have Internet access. Community input may help identify priorities to improve flood resilience. For example, EMAs might monitor this platform prior to and during an event 55 for information about particularly susceptible groups and areas. The online platform will be just one element of the expanded WMA websites to help connect people in the watershed. The IFC will implement the visualization platform, and the WMA coordinators will manage content. Capacitv Building through Planning and Technical Assistance. Comprehensive Emergency Management Planning ensures that emergency services, local authorities, and other organizations communicate effectively and coordinate their efforts toward hazard mitigation and disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. Section 29C of the Iowa Code provides the authority for Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management(HSEMD) and the county emergency management commissions to plan for emergencies. HSEMD and the Emergency Management Agency (EMA) coordinators will be key partners in resilience programming, especially as communities work toward local strategies and flood resilience action plans. Their participation in the resilience program will facilitate development of a"whole community" approach and culture to disaster resilience. This will allow the IWA to tailor its efforts to engage the community, neighborhood, or individual, creating a template for future events in Iowa. As the target communities consider their resilience needs,the EMA coordinators will provide guidance in identifying sound government policies and practices to further build disaster resilience. This may include: providing datasets for communities to analyze as part of their risk- assessment and -reduction activities; identifying critical asset inventories; building a flexible, scalable recovery structure for pre- and post-disaster decision making; and conducting loss avoidance studies for hazard mitigation, land-use, and comprehensive planning. Engagement activities and materials will be tailored to each community and its vulnerable population(s). Assessment of future risk cannot be based solely on records of past events. An accurate evaluation offuture risk must also take into account relevant new or changing conditions, and the availability of new and refined data and tools. The IWA's many resources will be invaluable 56 to HSEMD and EMA's efforts to update Iowa's Enhanced Mitigation Plan and the Iowa Disaster Recovery Plan. IWA collaborators will help identify unmet needs and build a statewide science- based flood risk assessment for implementing a resilience mitigation strategy. For example, HSEMD and EMA will work closely with ISU's Climate Science Program and the IFC to understand the latest science on precipitation and temperature trends across Iowa. The WMAs will provide valuable information on the local landscape and hydrology and how these change as new practices are implemented. The IFC's new floodplain maps for Iowa(see Phase II, Long- term Commitment)will be an important resource in refining risk. The accompanying new one- meter-resolution depth grids for the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, 100-, 200-, and 500-year floodplains will allow planners to consider flood extent and depth. The IFC's flood inundation maps provide planners with an exceptional level of detail for any potential flood stage. The CEA's community resilience tools and metrics will reveal unique vulnerabilities in each partner community, feeding directly into HSEMD and EMA's planning and technical assistance activities. State and Regional Impact: Although these key activities occur in the identified MID-URN areas, the programs provide a unique opportunity for the state to broaden its perspective to: 1) better understand communities' capacity to recover from potential future disasters; 2)refine strategies to identify the most critical disaster resilience challenges; 3) build and continue to refine this process for activities in other watersheds; and 4) develop future strategies to improve disaster resilience. Information from these activities will support development of a vision for the future, similar to the watershed hydrologic plans, as Iowa continues to seek ways to improve disaster resilience. Timeline: The staggered start engages three watersheds during each of the first three years of the five-year program, with the following timeline. Year 1: Contract with CAP, conduct initial qualitative and quantitative baseline data collection of local resilience issues. Year 2: [Repeat 57 Year 1 for three new WMAs] and engagement program development and implementation, launch pilot of visualization platform, watershed-wide community engagement events to discuss resilience, initial HSEMD and EMA disaster planning events, development of resilience assessment, and annual resilience survey and reporting. Year 3: [Repeat Year 1 for final three WMAs] and continued engagement program development and implementation, visualization platform enhancements in response to feedback, engagement events to discuss resilience, HSEMD and EMA disaster planning events, and annual resilience survey and reporting. Year 4: Same as Year Three (no new WMAs). Year 5: Maintain visualization platform, finalize disaster resilience action plans, and final resilience survey and reporting. Replicability: This program is scalable and replicable at a wide variety of scales (neighborhoods, small communities, or large cities). Specifically, the IWA is a replicable model to enhance the social, economic, hydrologic, and environmental resiliency of rural America and will influence future policies for rural and downstream development and urban-rural collaboration. The IWA will prepare a full program description and evaluation guide at the project conclusion. IWA staff will also share their experiences widely at public and agency events. IWA Program and Project Assessment and Evaluation Scientific Assessment: IFC staff will project post-construction results using a detailed, coupled surface water groundwater model, HydroGeoSphere. Collection and analysis of sensor data will continue for one or more years after construction to verify that water-quality and -quantity improvement goals are met, to validate the hydrologic models, and to improve model performance. Analysis of field data and use of hydrologic models will guide future projects in the watershed and inform planning and policy decisions in watersheds throughout the Midwest. 58 The Iowa Water Center (IWC) at ISU will use its Daily Erosion Project(DEP), along with field measurements, to monitor the success of built projects to reduce erosion and water runoff and to develop and distribute informative materials on practices to reduce soil loss in modern agricultural operations. DEP is an erosion model that generates daily estimates of soil erosion and water runoff at the HUC 12 watershed level using high-resolution National Weather Service NEXRAD radar data to estimate precipitation, and remotely-sensed soil and land management data to parameterize the model. The IWC will perform a detailed assessment of each selected HUC 12 before, during, and after the completion of built projects. Programmatic Assessment: The CEA will design and implement methodologies to describe and document the environmental, social, and economic benefits of the IWA as informed by preliminary needs assessments and ongoing interactions with local and program stakeholders. In conjunction with a stakeholder needs assessment, CEA will facilitate stakeholder development of an initial logic model for program activities. The collaborative needs assessment and preliminary logic models within each watershed will lay the groundwork for defining success by identifying the information needs or "evaluation questions" and will also facilitate future program replications in other watersheds. Evaluation processes based on community-defined indicators of success will inform program improvements. CEA staff will conduct interviews and focus groups with local stakeholders, surveying people directly involved in engagement programming, and observing a large sample of programs over the program's duration in Dubuque and rural watersheds. This qualitative and quantitative information, aligned with community-defined success indicators, will provide formative information for the purposes of project improvement and monitoring, as well as summative findings to inform scale-up and provide evidence of project value. CEA will provide rapid- response evaluation information to project staff, regular formal and informal reports to project 59 personnel and the WMA Advisory Board, and annual reports. Along with the annual reports, CEA will conduct a systematic internal formative quality control and assurance review to ensure the evaluation remains responsive to users and collaborators and adapts to the needs of the program and individual watersheds. CEA will also produce a final report for project sponsors and a replicable plan to evaluate similar future projects. b. Benefit Cost Analysis The total IWA benefit is $1,224,507,991 with a benefit-cost ratio of 7.07 (see Attachment F). c. Scaling/Scoping Full Request Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Dubuque Healthy Homes $11,091,767 $9,124,460 $8,427,665 $8,318,826 Dubuque Infrastructure $28,100,000 $28,100,000 $23,100,000 $11,500,000 Coralville Infrastructure $1,834,800 $1,834,800 $1,834,800 $1,834,800 Storm Lake Infrastructure $6,474,750 $6,474,750 $6,474,750 $6,474,750 Watershed Projects $50,055,000 $41,352,713 $31,459,292 $22,422,409 Data Collection/Modeling/etc. $8,400,000 $6,972,000 $5,303,179 $3,440,000 WMA Coordinators $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,250,000 $1,500,000 Planning + Admin $22,037,911 $20,484,957 $17,937,491 $13,066,199 TOTAL $130,994,228 $117,313,680 $96,787,177 $68,556,984 Overall BCA 7.07 6.41 5.36 5.12 The table above shows three additional scenarios. Planning projects would retain as much of the assessment, stakeholder education, and resiliency programming as possible. For the Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency Program, alternative one proposes to reduce the scope to 400 units in 60 36 months. Alternative two reduces the scope to 320 units in 30 months. Under alternative three, IWA proposes 375 units, but at 25%budget scale-back for each structure in 36 months. For Dubuque infrastructure, in alternative two,the Bee Branch 17th Street/West Locust Storm Sewer Improvements would be started by 2019, but only the first 3,100 feet of the 3,700-foot- long project could be completed. Under alternative three, construction of the Bee Branch 22nd Street/Kaufmann Avenue Storm Sewer Improvements would be limited to an initial proportionate section until additional funds are secured. The West Locust improvements would be delayed until the city is able to budget for the improvements. Reduced funding for the watershed projects reflects a reduction in the number of HUC 12s in the target watersheds. Priority would be given to retaining HUC 12s that serve vulnerable areas. Goals/metrics for the selected HUC 12s would not change. In alternative two,the WMA coordinator would be shared in the E. and W. Nishnabotna Rivers and between the English River and Clear Creek. In alternative three, each watershed would have a half-time coordinator. Scaling/Scoping alternatives two and three meet the 50% LMI requirement. d. Program Schedule Project descriptions include schedules. The IWA will be complete in Sept 2021 (see waiver). e. Budget Table See bottom of neat page for total budget request from CDBG. f Consistency and Other Planning Documents See Attachment D, Consultation Summary, pages D-122 to D-124; Attachment C, Certifications. Ten Iowa Watershed Approach Projects Background for Projects 1-2: City of Dubuque, Bee Branch Creek Dubuque is one of the oldest cities in the Midwest. With a population just under 60,000, Dubuque is set along the Mississippi River and serves as a commercial, industrial, educational, 61 and cultural hub for the Tri-States Area. Dubuque is known for its hilly terrain, unique architecture, and picturesque river setting. IWA activities in Dubuque will focus in the Bee Branch MID-URN area. The Bee Branch Creek Watershed is critical to the city; nearly 50% of Dubuque's residents live and work in the historic 6.5-square mile basin. The watershed is a highly developed urban area, with just 3% agricultural land and 23% open space. The Bee Branch watershed is relatively steep, with an average terrain slope of approximately 37%. The overall slope of the main channel in the upland areas is approximately 2%, while the slope of the main channel in the flat Couler Valley area to the outlet is approximately 0.5%. Elevations in the basin range from 594 feet NGVD at the Mississippi River to 962 feet NGVD in the upper reaches. The drainage system consists of both natural channel and closed conduit sections. Storm water runoff moves through the watershed Budget Table Activity Natl. CDBG City Producer/ Type Obj. Budget Direct Other Direct Dates Accomplish. Watershed Cons. UN $61,455,000 $15,876,250 07/16-09/21 25%flow Watershed Plan. N/A $15,635,491 $1,067,951 07/16-09/21 ? resilience Infrastructure LMA $36,409,550 $24,369,850 12/16-07/20 flood risk Housing Rehab LMH $8,871,667 $800,000 07/16-09/21 400 units Housing Rehab UN $2,220,100 07/16-09/21 100 Units Application NA $164,600 Admin. NA $6,237,820 Total $130,994,228 $25,169,850 $16,944,201 62 primarily via storm sewer systems. The lower reaches of the Bee Branch Creek were confined to a buried storm sewer from the turn of the 20th century until recently. Between 1999 and 2011, the Bee Branch received six Presidential Disaster Declarations for floods, with total damage of nearly $70M. The residents, homeowners, and business owners have suffered trauma, health impacts from occupying flood-damaged structures, depreciated home values, and loss of economic prosperity. (From 2004-09, commercial property values grew by 39% citywide, but fell 6% in flood-prone areas.) The series of flooding events, combined with aging housing, has contributed to lower housing and commercial property values. This has taken a toll on neighborhood residents, many of whom are unable to find quality, affordable housing outside this area. The neighborhood is primarily residential; about 60% of residents live in rental units. An estimated 1,300+ Dubuque homes and businesses in the watershed are prone to flooding, including 70 businesses that employ more than 1,400 people and have more than $500M in annual sales. The Bee Branch Watershed is entirely within city limits. Work in the Bee Branch Watershed during the past 14 years represents an urban strategy to watershed management that mirrors the comprehensive IWA. In 2001, the Drainage Basin Master Plan for the Bee Branch Creek was developed to "daylight'the creek to an expanded open channel waterway, creating a more natural and resilient environment. The goals were to reduce flooding, preserve historic and affordable housing, maintain affordability, preserve neighborhood and community resources, minimize health and safety risks, and create an environment promoting higher quality of life. During heavy rain, flood waters remain in the green space along the creek instead of flooding streets and homes. The project has progressed quickly. In 2003, the Carter Road Detention Basin was created, followed by another in 2009. A series of permeable alleys was installed throughout the flood-prone area of the Bee Branch; more are planned. 63 The Disaster(DR-4018): The Bee Branch Creek Watershed has experienced significant flooding, particularly in recent years. In July 2011, a storm event stalled over Northeast Iowa and dropped more than 14 inches of rain in less than 12 hours on parts of the city. The aftermath was devastating. The city's storm drains were unable to handle the water, and substantial flash flooding occurred,tearing up roads and bridges, flooding homes and businesses, and claiming two lives. The reports included 32 sewer back-ups, 259 requests for basement pumping, and 47 sanitary/storm sewer maintenance requests. The Bee Branch watershed was hit hardest. Project Description 41: Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency Program With Bee Branch Creek improvements in place to reduce and slow floodwaters and run-off, Dubuque is now able to turn its attention and resources to the nearly 1,300 homes and businesses that have suffered damage from numerous recent flooding events. Many homeowners have experienced flooding on such a regular basis that they have fallen behind on repairs, suffer from chronic mold and mildew problems, and live with the residual structural effects of flood waters that climbed to their basement ceilings. Little if any support exists for residents and small businesses struggling to recover from this devastation. The Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency Program (BBHHRP) is designed to support residential properties with flood damage from the 2011 storms in the low to moderate income areas of Dubuque that are strategically aligned with and extending to and from the Bee Branch Creek restoration project. National Objective, MID-URN, and Vulnerable Populations: The program will provide homeowner rehabilitation for 160 units under the Low Moderate Housing (LMH) CDBG National Objective, homeowner rehabilitation for 100 units under the Urgent Need National Objective, Residential Rehabilitation for 96 units under the Low Moderate Housing Objective, and rehabilitation for 144 small multi-family housing structures within the target areas of the BBHHRP [Eligible Activity: Housing Rehabilitation— 105(a)(4)]. Each home will be assessed 64 through a Healthy Home Resiliency Approach, which aims to reduce or avoid potential losses from hazards, ensure prompt and appropriate assistance to victims of disaster, and achieve rapid and effective recovery. The project will help government, businesses, nonprofits, and residents plan for and reduce the impact of disasters, react during and immediately after a disaster, and take steps to recover after a flood. The BBHHRP will use four basic strategies to increase resiliency in the homes and neighborhoods: 1) Preventive measures —minimizing the effects of disaster; 2) Preparedness — planning response during disaster; 3) Response—minimizing the hazards created by disaster; and 4) Recovery—returning the community to its pre-disaster state or better. Each housing unit will be inspected to identify the seven principles of a healthy home (dry, clean, pest-free, safe, contaminant-free, ventilated, and maintained), and resiliency work will be completed to address: foundation repairs, foundation raising or shifting to accommodate water levels, water and sewage services, furnace replacement, basement windows, mold and mildew remediation, lead remediation, water heater replacement, soil modification, lateral connection repairs, asbestos, sidewalk and curb cuts, sump pumps, and downspouts. A variety of community resources will improve housing, repair damages, and make homes more resilient to future flooding. The program will address individual homeowners' needs by increasing education, awareness, and resources needed to live in an urban watershed. Like the community resilience programs in the rural communities, CEA will work with the Bee Branch Healthy Homes Advocate to assess general resilience needs and challenges faced by residents and businesses in the Bee Branch Watershed. From this information,the Homes Advocate will work one-on-one with residents to complete a comprehensive assessment at the household level. The Homes Advocate will assist with education and referrals to increase understanding of what it means to live in a watershed, 65 and what resources and services are available to support development, employment, and neighborhood revitalization. Clear and compelling evidence shows that unsafe, unhealthy housing leads to wealth depletion, abandoned properties, housing instability, potential homelessness, and increased risk of housing-based illnesses. Evidence also shows that healthy and safe hosing in the most distressed and impacted communities improves health, social, and economic outcomes for families —ultimately creating safer neighborhoods. Dubuque will partner with the Community Foundation to inform, motivate, and educate residents, homeowners, and businesses on how to break the links among unhealthy housing, unhealthy families, and unhealthy neighborhoods. An informed and engaged community is a healthy community. Current and Future Risks: Work to date in the watershed has decreased the residents' flood risk. But failure to implement BBHHRP leaves people at continued exposure to risks associated with living or working in unsafe, unhealthy structures. Work in the structures will make them more resilient to future flood events; community resilience programming will help people be more prepared for and resilient to future floods. Vulnerable Populations: The target area contains some of Dubuque's oldest and most affordable housing. More than 66% of the households qualify as LML More than 21% of residents in the area received Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP or Food Stamps) in the past 12 months, and 28% of households contain one or more persons with a disability. Fifteen percent of the residents belong to racial or ethnic minority groups, which is more than double the representation of R/E minority groups for all of Dubuque County(7%). Metrics:Resiliency Value: At least one improvement in each home will increase the home's resilience to flooding(e.g., stronger foundation, relocation of furnace). Social Value: This neighborhood is inhabited by the most at-risk residents, who often cannot afford to miss work or 66 find new housing after flooding. Home improvements will result in increased opportunities for resilient, affordable housing for these populations and reduced mental stress associated with the life disruptions common during flood events. Economic Value: Improvements to housing structures will lead to measurable increases in property values. Environmental Value: Reduction of mold and mildew will lead to improved indoor air quality and reduced asthma rates among residents. The CEA will help to evaluate the activities and metrics. Replicable Model: Dubuque's approach to extreme flooding in the Bee Branch Watershed represents a forward-thinking, holistic, and replicable strategy that will result in reduced local flood risk, healthier and more resilience structures, and more resilient residents. Timeline: July August 2016: Hire and train/certification of inspection and support staff; August October 2016: Identify benchmarks, goals performance indicator; develop/refine policies and procedures; August 2016—December 2018: Outreach/recruitment/enrollment of 400 residential property owners, home inspections, individual property owners' contracts executed; October 2018—April 2021: BBHHRP units completed and cleared; September 2016April2021: Home advocacy interventions in enrolled BBHHRP units; April 2021—September 2021: Close out and completion of contracts, final completion clearance on any remaining units, evaluation; October 2017—September 2021: Home advocacy post-evaluation of BBHHRP interventions. Budget: The BBHHRP budget of about $11M represents: Rehabilitation of 160 single-unit resident properties at about$16K/structure (LMH Objective); rehabilitation of 100 single-unit resident(homeowner)properties at about $32K/structure (Urgent Need); rehabilitation of 96 single-unit resident properties at about $16K/structure (LMH Objective); and rehabilitation of 144 multi-unit/multi-family properties at about $16K/structure (LMH Objective). Delivery of the Healthy Homes programmatic core by the Home Advocate is included in project delivery costs. Benefit Cost Analvsis: 2.38. 67 Project Description 42: Bee Branch Watershed Infrastructure Improvements Imagine waiting out a tornado warning in the apparent safety of your basement. Suddenly, heavy rains produce flash flooding, and floodwaters start pouring in around you. Should you stay in a flooded basement or take your children upstairs? Unfortunately, Bee Branch Watershed residents have faced situations such as this repeatedly since 1999, most recently during the July 2011 rainstorm that prompted a Presidential Disaster Declaration. The National Climatic Data Center lists 65 flood events in Dubuque County from 1950- 2012. Prior to 1973, when construction of a 6.4-mile-long earthen levee and concrete floodwall system was completed along the Mississippi River,the flooding experienced by Dubuque residents was primarily related to the Mississippi River and usually forecast well in advance. Flash flooding, however, occurs with little or no warning. Disasters related to the Mississippi River are rare since 1973. However, intense rainstorms have caused six disasters in Dubuque since 1999. In addition to private infrastructure damage in 2011, the storm overwhelmed and damaged Dubuque's storm sewer system tasked with conveying the burgeoning creek through the city's at-risk neighborhoods. The damage extends from the Lower Bee Branch Creek just south of Garfield Avenue through the flood prone area, crossing under Garfield Avenue, Rhomberg Avenue, Lincoln Avenue, and E. 22nd Street, all the way to W. 32nd Street. The system includes significant contributing limbs,from west at E. 22nd Street and from the east at E. 24th Street. The damaged portion of the system,twin 10-foot wide by 12-foot high pipes, occurred where the storm sewer system outlets into the Lower Bee Branch Creek just south of Garfield Avenue, where the sewer crosses under an active Canadian Pacific railroad yard. The 20-foot end section of the storm sewer partially collapsed. Repaired to its pre-disaster condition, the system remains inadequate to handle even storms that are much smaller than the 2011 event. Based on an 68 engineering study by Strand Associates, more than 900 properties are likely to be flooded on average once every 10 years. The current capacity of the lower watershed's storm sewer system is limited to handling minor nuisance rains, such as the once-in-five-year events. Based on the 2011 Presidential Disaster Declaration and the five that preceded it, the system clearly does not provide adequate drainage. As a result, flooding has repeatedly damaged hundreds of properties. Strand Associates determined that improvements to the existing system could significantly reduce the flood-prone area to only a handful of properties, which would experience less severe damage. Using the same principles associated with the Iowa Watersheds Approach, a plan for the Bee Branch Watershed was developed as part of the Drainage Basin Master Plan. The watershed plan reflects a holistic and fiscally responsible approach to increasing the resiliency of the community, mitigating flooding and improving water quality, stimulating investments, and enhancing the quality of life in the flood-prone neighborhoods in the MID-URN area. The watershed plan includes two upstream detention basins, pervious pavement in alleys, and daylighting the buried Bee Branch Creek to allow storm water to move safely through the area. The system has two remaining shortcomings: 1) getting the floodwaters safely into the newly restored creek; and 2) getting the floodwaters from the upper reach of the Bee Branch Creek through an active, multi-track railroad yard to the lower reach of the Bee Branch Creek. Three Projects: The proposed mitigation strategy has three components. The most important Bee Branch infrastructure improvement is the Bee Branch Railroad Culvert Infrastructure Improvement Project, which will augment the storm sewer drainage system damaged in July 2011 that currently conveys storm water through the Canadian Pacific railroad yard at 506 Garfield Avenue. The improvement involves the installation of six 8-foot-diameter culverts using tunneling methods from the Lower Bee Branch Creek approximately 165 feet through Canadian 69 Pacific Railroad right-of-way to a proposed junction box. It also includes the construction of five 12-foot wide by 10-foot high box storm sewers from the proposed junction box 200 feet north toward Garfield Avenue and the Upper Bee Branch Creek. The second most important infrastructure improvement is the Bee Branch Kaufmann Avenue Storm Sewer Improvements Project. Based on Strand's hydraulic modeling of the existing system using XPS WMM, the storm sewer between Hempstead and Central Street has less than a 10-year storm capacity. It is clearly the "bottleneck" of the Kaufmann Avenue drainage system. The proposed new system will comprise a 10-foot by 6-foot reinforced concrete box culvert designed to handle the 25-year storm through the Kaufmann Avenue Project Corridor. The layout allows for all storm water to be conveyed through the storm sewer just west of Kane Street. During a 25-year event, some overland flow from the upstream portions of the watershed will drain along Kaufmann Avenue into the project corridor. Large high-capacity inlets (three were assumed for the construction cost) will be placed in the terrace along Kaufmann Avenue to capture this overland drainage. In addition, 80 standard single-grate inlets will be provided with the local storm sewer and connecting to the new box culvert. The project requires the reconstruction of the street and the relocation of existing underground utilities along the right-of- way. The third most important infrastructure improvement is the Bee Branch West Locust Storm Sewer Improvements Project. Based on the results of Strand's modeling, no portions of the existing West Locust Street storm sewer systems have the capacity for a 25-year event, which would require the replacement of the entire system with new piping. The proposed West Locust Street corridor storm sewer will be a 10-foot by 5-foot RCBC from 17th Street to approximately 280 feet west of Angella Street; 10-foot by 4-foot RCBC from 280 feet west of Angella Street to 400 feet west of Kirkwood Street; and 8-foot by 4-foot RCBC from 400 feet west of Kirkwood 70 Street to Rosedale Avenue. This layout allows for all storm water to be conveyed within the storm sewer just west of Rosedale Avenue. During a 25-year design storm, excess overland flow from upstream portions of the watershed will drain along Rosedale Avenue into the West Locust Street project corridor. Large high-capacity inlets will be placed in the terrace along West Locust Street near Rosedale Avenue to capture the overland drainage. In addition, 100 standard single grate inlets and 28 high-capacity inlets will be provided with the local storm sewer and connecting to the new storm sewer system. The project requires the reconstruction of the street and the relocation of existing underground utilities along the right-of-way. National Objective, MID-URN, and Vulnerable Populations: These infrastructure projects meet the National Objective of L/M Income Area Benefit(LMA). The projects help address unmet needs in an area that was subject to a Presidential Disaster Declaration in 2011. The target MID-URN area of Bee Branch Creek, which is also an LMI area, will have significantly reduced flood risk following completion of these projects. Consultation: In response to the repeated disasters, the City of Dubuque engaged engineering consultants, state and federal partners, citizen advisory committees, and the general public to help create, fund, and implement a watershed plan to address the flooding. The plan outlines multiple improvements throughout the Bee Branch Watershed that will benefit upstream and downstream properties. Dubuque hired a full-time communications specialist to develop and implement communication plans to inform and engage residents and stakeholders impacted by the various Bee Branch Watershed improvement projects. The plan identifies goals, messages, and objectives for communicating with the residents, schools, businesses, churches, daycares, and community centers most impacted by construction. The proposed improvements through Canadian Pacific property reflect input of Canadian Pacific engineers and staff. 71 Metrics:Resiliency Value: Infrastructure improvements will hold water onsite for slow release, as opposed to quickly flushing it downstream. This will lead to a measurable reduction in peak storm water flow. A reduction of expected property damages from future flash flooding events is also expected. Social Value: As a STAR certified community, Dubuque aims to ensure that at least 85% of residents live within a half-mile walk of a park or other green infrastructure. Completion of these infrastructure projects will help meet this goal. Economic Value: Measureable increases in property values are expected in the Bee Branch neighborhood to rates that are more in line with the rest of Dubuque. Environmental Value: Detention of water onsite will lead to a measurable improvement in water quality downstream as the water is captured and cleaned via permeable surfaces. Timeline: The City of Dubuque will manage the design and the hiring of a contractor to construct the improvements on the following schedule: Railroad Culvert Infrastructure Improvement Project: July 2016December2016: Establish agreements with landowners, selection of contractors; January 2017March2017: Contractor submittal review and construction preparatory work: April 2017—September 2018: Construction. Kaufmann Avenue Storm Sewer Improvements Project: July 2017—December 2017: Selection of contractor; April 2017—September 2017: Construction. West Locust Storm Sewer Improvements Project: July 2020—December 2020: Selection of contractor; April 2021—September 2021: Construction. Budget: The estimated construction cost of the Railroad Culvert Infrastructure Improvement Project is $17,900,000. The estimated construction cost of Bee Branch KaufmannAvwrue Storm Sewer Improvements Project is $11,500,000. The estimated construction cost of Bee Branch West Locust Storm Sewer Improvements Project is $7,600,000. Benefit Cost Analvsis: 2.10 72 Project Description 43: Upper Iowa River Watershed The 1,000-square-mile (640,900 acres)Upper Iowa River, a tributary of the Mississippi River, originates in Minnesota, but 78% of its watershed is in Northeast Iowa(Attachment E, Map 6). The Upper Iowa River Watershed (UIRW) is part of the Driftless Region of Iowa. Its karst topography features limestone bluffs that rise 250 to 450 feet above the valley floor, dozens of coldwater trout streams, nearly 3,000 sinkholes and waterfalls, and hundreds of springs. Cropland accounts for more than 40% of the watershed, which also includes grassland (35%) and hardwood forests (19%). The EPA and Iowa recognize the UIRW as aPriority Watershed. Iowa designates 244 miles of the Upper Iowa River as High-quality Resource Waters or High-quality Waters, and the Upper Iowa was among the initial rivers included in the National Wild and Scenic River System. The UIRW is a popular tourist destination. It has excellent walleye and bass fishing, but is best known for its 152 miles of coldwater trout streams, which lure anglers from around the world. A study conducted by Trout Unlimited found recreational angling in the Driftless Area generates more than SIB in annual economic benefit to local communities. The Upper Iowa is a popular water trail: National Geographic Adventure Magazine listed canoeing the Upper Iowa as one of the top 100 adventures in the United States. More than 150 protected species of animals and plants live in the watershed, which also harbors endangered ecosystems. Unfortunately, frequent flooding and severe erosion are causing serious damage to the streams and river. Additional Mitigating Information: NE Iowa Resource Conservation and Development, SWCDs in Iowa and Minnesota, state and federal agencies, NGOs, businesses, and landowners formed the UIRW Alliance in 1999 to improve water quality and watershed health. Since then, they have conducted one of the longest water monitoring projects in Iowa, documenting the water-quality benefits of their projects, which include reforestation and CRP plantings on highly 73 erodible slopes, animal feedlot renovation, stream bank stabilization, wetland restoration, and other practices. The group is now working toward a WMA to strengthen the partnership. Northeast Iowa RC&D published the "Upper Iowa River Watershed: Assessment and Management Strategies" in 2004 to document the watershed's condition and guide actions to improve water quality. Parts of the report are dated, but will provide foundational information for the IWA's new hydrologic assessment and watershed plan. The North Bear Creek(NBC)Project, a UIRW subwatershed, demonstrated reduction of storm water discharge by constructing 18 small retention structures in the upper reaches of the NBC watershed. Four structures use the road as a detention structure or dam, improving the width, visibility, and safety of the road while also protecting downstream creeks, the river, and infrastructure from flash floods, sedimentation, and nutrient loading. Partners are eager to carry out similar projects using roads in other strategic locations of the UIRW. The Disaster(DR-4135): Torrential rains on June 21, 2013,triggered flash flood warnings for more than half of Iowa's 99 counties. Another major storm followed on June 23. Flash flooding and rapid runoff damaged road networks, homes, and businesses; caused the evacuation of campgrounds; and damaged trout habitat. Storm damage severely impacted the tourism industry, which is the second largest area employer. The most impacted region includes Tracts 9601, 9602, 9603, and 9604 in Allamakee County, where infrastructure damage totaled $2,752,381 (Phase I, Exhibit B). Overland and creek flooding washed out more than 10 miles of roadway in the UIRW. Many rural roads remain closed today because of flood damage that occurred in 2013 and more recently. Repeated flooding has strained county budgets; county officials cannot keep up with the need to replace bridges and culverts. 74 Environmental degradation has also occurred in distressed regions of the watershed in Winneshiek and Allamakee counties. Nearly the entire UIRW suffers from environmental distress, with the presence of Category 4 or Category 5 Impaired Waters as defined by section 303 of the Clean Water Act. Nutrient and sediment loading of streams and rivers increased through disaster DR-4135, magnifying existing problems in the watershed and downstream. The impaired waters include the main stem of the river and multiple tributaries. Impairments include the presence of bacteria(e. coli), nitrates, and turbidity, all with detrimental effects for the river's ecosystem (particularly trout) and the region's tourism economy. In addition to environmental and infrastructure damages, this disaster directly impacted individuals throughout the watershed. DR-4135 did not trigger federal individual assistance programs, so Allamakee County organized an assistance program funded by donations to help low income populations recover. The program received applications from more than 40 homeowners and 10 businesses to replace water heaters, furnaces, carpet, drywall, and other materials in their residences or businesses. The county only had funds to fulfill 30% of requests. The Iowa Individual Assistance Grant Program also made 194 awards totaling $164K for personal property and home repair assistance in the area. The Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship (IDALS) estimated that it would cost $9,247,220 to repair the damage from environmental degradation. National Objective, MID-URN, and Vulnerable Populations: The project meets the National Objective of Urgent Need. The project will help address unmet needs in an area subject to a Presidential Disaster Declaration in 2013. As a result of DR-4135, the MID-URN area of the UIRW encompasses nearly the entire watershed in Winneshiek and Allamakee counties, as demonstrated in Phase I, Exhibit B. The entire HUC 8 is compromised by water-quality issues and is vulnerable to flash flooding and erosion. No selected service area qualifies as LMI, but 75 several census tracts in western Allamakee County include L/M income populations; at least two HUC 12s will be selected for projects with a direct benefit to these populations. Perennial Cover/Grass 28 Prairie STRIPS 5 The UIRW is no stranger Floodplain Restoration 10 Terrace 10 to flood events similar to DR- Small Farm Pond (0.25-2 acres) 10 Buffer Strips 10 4135. According to the NWS, f Medium Farm Pond (2-5 acres) 30 Bioreactor 5 all or parts othe UIRW have experienced flooding in each Large Farm Pond (5+ acres) 3 Small Wetland 10 of the past eight years. In Sediment Detention Basin 20 Large Wetland 4 2013 alone,the NWS issued Storm Water Detention Basin 10 Saturated Buffer 4 13 flash flood warnings for the watershed. Thus, while the proposed projects in Winneshiek and Allamakee counties will target the unmet needs from DR-4135, they will also help to address annual flooding and water- quality challenges in the watershed. The WMA will select up to six HUC 12 watersheds for project implementation. An example distribution of the types and numbers of likely projects appears above. The WMA will finalize selection and distribution of projects. Resilience programming will especially focus in the vulnerable tracts in western Allamakee County. Consultation: A public engagement event on August 20, 2015, in Winneshiek County drew representatives from Winneshiek and Allamakee County Boards of Supervisors, agencies and NGOs (MRCS, NE Iowa RC&D, SWCD offices, Farm Bureau, Seed Savers), and landowners/private citizens. The Fillmore County, Minn., SWCD District Administrator noted that this project complements watershed projects in the Minnesota reaches of the UIRW. Minnesota has partnered with Iowa in the UIRW for more than a decade. Landowners and others expressed their enthusiasm for more retention structures and for preservation of natural resources. Participants expressly stated that farmers should drive this program. 76 Metrics:Resiliency Value: Activities in the targeted watersheds will reduce flood flows by 25%, thereby reducing damage to repetitive loss sites of the past(agricultural lands, roads, infrastructure, homes) at the outlet of each HUC 12. Environmental Value: Project water-quality goals call for the reduction of nitrate loads by 30% and phosphorus loads by 20% at the outlet of each HUC 12. Social Value: This project will result in improved resilience to flooding, especially in the UM income area,through programs to promote awareness and develop a community-wide flood resilience action plan.Economic Revitalization: This project will have an (unquantifiable) benefit to the local economy through preservation of coldwater fishing streams. Researchers will evaluate these metrics by collecting hydrologic data with support from the CEA. Timeline: July 2016—March 2017: Meetings, forums, submission and acceptance of Chapter 28E Agreement documents for formation of new WMA; April 2017—September 2020: Social Resilience Programming core activities (community engagement, networking, needs assessment); April 2017—December 2017: Collection of data and development of hydrologic assessment of the full HUC 8 watershed; January 2018—June 2018: Development of hydrologic plan for eligible areas, modeling of different project scenarios; July 2018—September 2018: WMA selects final sites and projects for implementation; October 2018March2019: Establish agreements with landowners, select contractors; April 2019—September 2020: Design and construct projects; October 2020—September 2021: Post-construction data collection and analysis, work with WMA members to help them define future steps. Budget: The estimated costs associated with the construction and design in the UIRW totals $9,207,500 ($6,990,000 from HUD, $2,217,500 in landowner contribution). Other items include: $350,000 for hydrologic assessment and watershed plan; $375,000 for WMA coordinator; and $1,200,000 for data collection, modeling, and analysis. Benefit Cost Analysis: 7.34 77 Project Description 44: The Upper Wapsipinicon River Watershed Although the Upper Wapsipinicon River Watershed (UWRW) begins in Southeast Minnesota, most of this long narrow watershed is in the northeast corner of Iowa, encompassing 991,980 acres and portions of 11 Iowa counties (Attachment E, Map 7). The watershed lies in the Iowan Surface Region, characterized by broad, gently-rolling slopes and heavily wooded floodplains. This agricultural watershed, of which more than 85% is in row crops, pasture, or grass, is also heavily used for recreation, including fishing, canoeing, hunting, and wildlife watching. According to a survey by ISU's Center for Agriculture and Rural Development, visitors made approximately 226,801 trips to the Wapsipinicon River in 2009 and spent $6M on outdoor recreation activities. Additional mitigating information: The Wapsipinicon River is a State of Iowa Protected Water Area(PWA)known for its public greenbelt corridor, which includes floodplain forests and wetlands, steep bluffs, and wildlife habitat, all with associated water-quality benefits. The Iowa DNR found the Wapsipinicon River to have the longest continuous stretch of natural and scenic river corridor in the Iowan Surface Region. Voluntary public lands acquisition in response to flood damage, water-quality issues, and recreational interests over the last several years has enhanced the river's riparian ecosystem. In Buchanan County alone,the local County Conservation Board manages 10 areas adjoining the river, and the Iowa DNR manages five riverside areas. Sixteen of the 27 communities in the watershed are located on, or adjacent to, a stream or river, providing recreational and economic opportunities that are impacted by flooding. There are currently 159 miles of impaired waters in the UWRW, including 17 segments of impaired streams, most of which are on the Wapsipinicon River or Buffalo Creek(main tributary to the Wapsipinicon). In September 2014, 13 communities, eight counties, and nine Soil and Water Conservation Districts united to form the Upper Wapsipinicon River Watershed 78 Management Authority(WMA). Many of these partners report being motivated by the declining water quality and increased in-stream sedimentation in the Upper Wapsipinicon River and its tributaries. Because the watershed is long and narrow, most of the communities are on or close to river or stream corridors and are therefore concerned about the increased frequency and extent of flooding. At a recent WMA meeting,the Independence representative expressed frustration with the sedimentation in the river and the constant threat of flooding, potentially so destructive to downtown infrastructure. The Independence representative reminded the WMA partners that the city has already physically buried the main floor of their downtown businesses in an attempt to deal with flooding issues. One of the first actions of the UWR WMA was to plan, fund, and implement a comprehensive, watershed-wide, water-quality testing effort. The UWR WMA now monitors 20 sites. With assistance from Coe College and NE Iowa Resource Conservation and Development Inc., water-quality data are recorded and analyzed, and will soon be published on the Upperwapsi.com website. The WMA communities are also meeting as a committee of the larger group to share information, learn about what other communities are doing to deal with storm water runoff and water-quality issues, and to inform WMA planning. These efforts demonstrate a commitment to achieving, measuring, and sharing long-term success in the UWR WMA. The Disaster(RD-4135): Torrential rains that began on June 21, 2013, caused the National Weather Service (NWS)to issue flash flood warnings for more than half of Iowa's 99 counties. Parts of the northern end of the UWRW received up to six inches of rain overnight; by morning, residents of Independence, the largest community in the watershed, were sandbagging around businesses and homes. Iowa's wettest spring on record had left the region with already saturated soils; with the latest heavy rains,the NWS forecasted that the UWR in Independence would crest at record levels. Multiple businesses and residences were evacuated, and community members 79 spent the night filling sandbags and building sandbag levees. However,the flat topography and nature of flash floods created forecasting challenges with this event. The river eventually crested above flood stage, but not as high as forecasters had projected. IDALS estimated that it would cost $9,228,674 to repair the damage from environmental degradation; the Iowa Individual Assistance Grant Program made 50 awards totaling $40,700 for personal property and home repair assistance in the area. National Objective,MID-URN, and Vulnerable Populations: The project meets the National Objective of Urgent Need. The project will help address unmet needs in an area subject to a Presidential Disaster Declaration in 2013. The flood hit portions of lower Buchanan County, Tract 9506, in the UWRW the hardest; these areas qualified as impacted under criterion D of Appendix G—Environmental Degradation. In the community of Quasqueton, eight inches of rain fell in less than three hours. The designated sub-county area had excessive soil loss as a result of the heavy rains, resulting in increased sediment delivery to waterways in the immediate vicinity, as well as additional downstream effects. If another event occurs, the area can expect to see further loss of nutrients and soil, which will reduce farmland productivity, impact the local economy, and accelerate environmental degradation downstream. The sub-county area, Tract 9506 in Buchanan County, has prior documented environmental distress in the form of a Category 5 Impaired Waters. The presence of nutrients increased because of the heavy rainfall that occurred in Disaster DR-4135, magnifying existing problems in the watershed and downstream of this sub-county area. Buffalo Creek is impaired as the result of its declining freshwater mussel population. (Freshwater mussels are important filter feeders. Their decline in species diversity is likely from siltation, destabilization of stream substrate, stream flow instability, and high in-stream levels of nutrients.) 80 Perennial Cover/Grass 15 Prairie STRIPS 5 A sample distribution of the Oxbow Restoration 5 Terrace 9 types and numbers of projects for the Upper Wapsipinicon River is Floodplain Restoration 3 Buffer Strips 25 listed (left). The WMA will finalize Small Farm Pond (0.25-2 acres) 14 Bioreactor 5 the selection and distribution of Medium Farm Pond (2-5 acres) 25 Small Wetland 4 projects based on the selection Large Farm Pond (5+ acres) 2 Large Wetland 2 criteria. Projects in the UWRW will Sediment Detention Basin 20 Saturated Buffer 5 target practices that focus on runoff Storm Water Detention Basin 171reduction to lessen flooding and retain topsoil and sediment; these practices could include farm ponds and retention ponds, which capture and store water temporarily, allowing it to be released downstream more slowly. Resilience programming will include both Buchanan and Delaware counties, with the initial assessment helping to identify the most vulnerable areas for programmatic focus. This will likely include the communities of Quasqueton, Rowley, and/or Robinson. Consultation: During the community engagement meeting held on August 5, 2015, watershed residents demonstrated their support for the IWA. Discussion centered on ways to communicate information on current efforts, which focus on protecting the corridor and reducing flood risk. Residents emphasized the strong engagement the watershed receives from stakeholders and producers in the area Meeting attendees showed enthusiasm and dedication for implementing the project, as well as eagerness to provide assistance and resources. Metrics:Resiliency Value: This approach in the targeted watersheds will reduce flood flows by 25%, thereby reducing damage to repetitive loss sites of the past(agricultural lands, roads, infrastructure, homes) at the outlet of the selected HUC 12s. Environmental Value: Project water-quality goals include reduction of nitrate loads by 30% and phosphorus loads by 20% at 81 the outlet of the HUC 12s. Social Value: This project will result in improved resilience to flooding, especially in the MID-URN areas, through programs to promote awareness and a community-wide flood resilience action plan.Economic Revitalization: Expected economic revitalization includes increased use (and associated tourism income) of the river as a source of recreation (See BCA, unquantifiable benefits). Further, implemented projects will help to retain soil on the land, preserving Iowa's agricultural economy. Researchers will evaluate these metrics through the collection of scientific data, and through the activities of the CEA. Project Timeline: July 2016—March 2017: Collection of data(topography, soil conditions, etc.) and development of hydrologic assessment of the full HUC 8 watershed; April 2017— September 2017: Development of hydrologic plan for eligible areas, modeling of different project scenarios; July 2018—June 2021: Implementation of Resilience Programming in the project area(community engagement, networking, needs assessment); October 2017—December 2017: WMA selects final sites and projects for implementation; January 2018—June 2018: Establish agreements with landowners, selection of contractors; July 2018—June 2020: Construction of projects. July 2020: June 2021: Post-construction data collection and analysis; July 2021—September 2021: Final reports, work with WMA members to help define future steps and funding. Budget: The estimated costs associated with the construction and design in the UWRW totals $6,122,500 ($4,660,000 from HUD, $1,462,500 in landowner contribution). Other items include: $550,000 for hydrologic assessment and watershed plan; $375,000 for WMA coordinator; and $800,000 for data collection, modeling, and analysis. Benefit Cost Analvsis: 18.93 82 Project Description 45: Middle Cedar River Watershed The Middle Cedar River Watershed (MCRW) is a 1.5M-acre watershed that spans parts of 10 counties in Eastern Iowa(Attachment E, Map 8). It encompasses primarily the Iowan Surface landform, characterized by long, gently rolling hills and well-developed stream networks. The MCRW is part of the Cedar River Basin that stretches from Minnesota to Southeast Iowa, where it meets the Iowa River. The MCRW includes some of the richest farmland in the nation. Seventy-three percent of the land is dedicated to row crop agriculture and seed corn production. The MCRW also supports a substantial portion of Iowa's urban areas, including Cedar Rapids (the second largest city in Iowa), Waterloo, and Cedar Falls. The river runs through these metropolitan areas and provides a sense of place. Each community is exploring opportunities to invest in river enhancements and reduce environmental impacts, from policy changes that disallow development in the floodplain and integration of green infrastructure (Cedar Falls)to consideration of recreational amenities such as whitewater parks (Waterloo). The river is of particular interest to Cedar Rapids, which uses shallow groundwater under the influence of the river for its municipal water supply. Additional Mitigating Information: Interest in opportunities to mitigate flood risk and improve water quality runs high in the MCRW. The Cedar River Watershed Coalition formed in response to the 2008 flood and brought together concerned citizens, farmers, soil and water commissioners, and local governmental staff and elected officials. The County Conservation Boards organized another large-scale initiative to develop the Cedar River Watershed Education Program. The program produced television and radio PSAs to educate homeowners and farmers about ways to reduce runoff. The IWA will complement and enhance these programs. In 2013, the MCRW was identified as a priority watershed under the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. The statewide Water Quality Initiative (WQI) selected five HUC 12s in the 83 Middle Cedar for initial implementation of projects aimed at improving water quality. The City of Cedar Rapids led a 2015 effort to organize the Middle Cedar Partnership Project(MCPP)to directly support WQI watershed projects. The MCPP received $2M from USDA-NRCS through the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) and leveraged another $2.3M in partner contributions. The MCPP has drawn support from 16 partners, including state agencies, agribusinesses, nonprofits, local conservation districts, and universities. The WQI and MCPP projects in the Middle Cedar will complement IWA projects, further reducing downstream flooding and improving water quality. WQI and MCPP projects will benefit from the hydrologic assessment and watershed plan developed by the IWA. An effort is currently underway to form a WMA for the MCRW that would unite 47 cities, 10 counties, and 10 soil and water conservation districts. The group will pursue an aggressive timeline for WMA formation. Several counties and cities in the MCRW have indicated support, and those already active in other WMAs will provide leadership and assistance. Two Disasters (DR-4126. DR-4135): Portions of the MCRW were impacted by two severe weather events that resulted in Presidential Disaster Declarations in 2013. The most significant and damaging of these occurred in 2013, when severe storms produced more than 10 inches of rain in late May and early June. Locals feared river levels would reach those of the historic 2008 flood. Cities deployed HESCO barriers, and residents filled and placed sandbags to protect their homes and businesses. The Cedar River at Vinton crested at 18.5 feet, the fourth highest crest at this location, causing widespread damage throughout the community and rural areas. Three weeks later, severe storms hit the region again; the area experienced significant runoff from agricultural fields and urban infrastructure into already high streams and rivers. While river levels fell short of the 2008 flood, damages were significant. In Benton County alone, infrastructure damages totaled $4,955,844 (Phase I, Attachment B). Widespread overland 84 flooding washed out gravel roads throughout the county as well as several recreational areas, including many miles of a rails-to-trails park maintained by Benton County Conservation. In Vinton a deteriorating wood truss bridge was inundated for 72 hours, closing a main link between the community and rural residents. The lost bridge and multiple road washouts required significant detours and additional travel time for emergency responders,threatening the health and safety of rural residents. In adjacent Tama County, which was hit by the same events,the loss of valuable topsoil trumped infrastructure damage. Heavy rains on saturated soils resulted in significant runoff, leading to the loss of tons of topsoil and the leeching of nutrients into the drainage network across the entire watershed. In the MCRW within Tama County, soil losses from DR-4126 were estimated at 2.5-5.0 tons of soil per acre. IDALS estimated that it would cost $27,426,813 to repair the damage from environmental degradation. National Objective,MID-URN, and Vulnerable Populations: The project meets the National Objective of Urgent Need. It will help address unmet needs in an area subject to two Presidential Disaster Declarations in 2013. The MID-URN area of the MCRW, impacted by flooding, includes portions of Benton, Tama, and Buchanan counties, as demonstrated in Phase I and Phase II, Exhibit B. The population in Census Tracts 9602, 9603, and 9604 in the Hinkie, Mud, Opossum, and Wildcat Creek watersheds, within the MID-URN area in Benton County, represent an LMA area, but the area is not primarily residential; proposed projects in those four HUC 12s will have a direct benefit to this area. The project will reduce flood damages to infrastructure, agricultural lands, and urban areas of Vinton and improve water quality for local residents. Local homes will benefit from flood risk reduction. 85 Local transportation infrastructure will incur less damage (in the four identified HUC 12s, flooding washed out gravel roads, making them impassable at more than 25 locations and causing dangerous loss of public and emergency access). The WMA will select Perennial Cover/Grass 60 Oxbow Restoration 4 six additional HUC 12s in Floodplain Restoration 5 Terrace 10 Benton and Tama counties Small Farm Pond (0.25—2 acres) 20 Buffer Strips 30 for a total of 10 HUC 12 Medium Farm Pond (2-5 acres) 50 Bioreactor 5 watersheds. An example Large Farm Pond (5+ acres) 20 Small Wetland 10 distribution of the type and Sediment Detention Basin 20 Large Wetland 20 number of projects likely to be implemented in the Storm Water Detention Basin 20 Saturated Buffer 7 MCRW is listed above. The WMA will finalize the project sites and types based on the selection criteria. The cumulative impact of MCRW activities will also include improved municipal water for Cedar Rapids. Resilience programming will include Tama, Benton, and Buchanan counties, with the initial assessment helping to identify the most vulnerable areas for programmatic focus. This will likely include the communities of Vinton and Tracr. Metrics:Resiliency Value: This approach in the targeted watersheds will reduce flood flows by 25%, thereby reducing damage to repetitive loss sites of the past(agricultural lands, roads, infrastructure, homes), at the outlet of each HUC 12. Environmental Value: Water-quality goals call for the reduction of nitrate loads by 30% and phosphorus loads by 20% at the outlet of each HUC 12. Social Value: This project will result in improved resilience to flooding, especially in the Vinton L/M income area, through programs to promote awareness and a community-wide flood resilience action plan.Economic Revitalization: IWA projects will help reduce future soil 86 loss and erosion, helping to preserve agricultural productivity. Metrics will be evaluated by the collection of scientific data, and activities of the Center for Evaluation and Assessment. Local input: IFC staff participated in a Benton County Board of Supervisors meeting on Sept. 1, 2015, and a Black Hawk County Conservation Board meeting on August 26, 2015. Both groups expressed enthusiasm for the program; they particularly appreciated the fact that participation is voluntary and that they could hire a WMA Coordinator. Participants suggested that these efforts might include levees and voluntary land acquisition as possibilities. (Levees are currently not part of this program, but land acquisition may be considered.) Project Timeline: July 2016—March 2017: Meetings, forums, and the submission and acceptance of Chapter 28E Agreement documents for formation of new Watershed Management Authority; July 2016—June 2019: Social Resilience Programming core activities (community engagement, networking, needs assessment); April 2017—December 2017: Collection of data (topography, soil conditions, etc.) and development of hydrologic assessment of the full HUC 8 watershed; January 2018—June 2018: Development of hydrologic plan for eligible areas, modeling of different project scenarios; July 2018—September 2018: WMA selects final sites and projects for implementation; October 2018—March 2019: Establish agreements with landowners, selection of contractors; April 2019—September 2020: Construction of projects; October 2020— September 2021: Post-construction data collection and analysis, work with WMA members to help them define future steps. Budget: Estimated costs associated with the construction and design totals $16,800,000 ($12,775,000 from HUD; $4,025,000 in landowner contributions). Other items include: $550,000 for hydrologic assessment and watershed plan; $375,000 for WMA coordinator; and $2,000,000 for data collection, modeling, and analysis. Benefit Cost Analvsis: 12.79. 87 Project Description 46: Clear Creek Watershed with Coralville Infrastructure The Clear Creek Project includes projects in the upper watershed (Attachment E, Map 9)to reduce flooding and improve water quality, and infrastructure projects in Coralville to protect commercial and residential property from flooding. The impact of these two activities will be cumulative in Coralville, which will have flood protection by infrastructure to the 500-year flood, and upstream measures that will reduce flood flow and provide additional protection. The Clear Creek Watershed (CCW) covers 66,132 acres (104 square miles), spanning parts of Iowa and Johnson counties in Southeast Iowa Clear Creek empties into the Iowa River at Coralville. The watershed lies entirely within the Southern Iowa Drift Plain, comprised of glacial deposits broken up by many small creeks that have molded the landscape into rolling hills and valleys. Abundant rainfall and fertile soils allowed the conversion of the natural prairie and forested landscape to large-scale intensive agriculture, consisting mainly of a corn-soybean rotation. Eighty-four percent of cropland in the upper portions of the watershed is classified as highly erodible. Intensive agriculture on these soils in a moist climate, coupled with stream channelization in the headwaters and increasing urbanization in the lower portions of the watershed, contribute to flash flooding and water-quality degradation after intense spring storms. Additional Mitigating Information: A WMA is in the final stages of formation in the CCW, led by the cities of Coralville, Iowa City, North Liberty, Tiffin, and Oxford; Johnson County; and the Soil & Water Conservation Districts (S WCD) in both Johnson and Iowa counties. These groups agreed to work together to improve and protect the CCW. The Clear Creek Watershed Enhancement Board (CCWEB)has also been active since 1998. Two Disasters (DR-4119. DR-4126): Torrential rains on April 17, 2013, resulted in the declaration of DR-4119. Coralville reported six inches of rain in 24 hours. Following Iowa's wettest spring on record, these storms created significant runoff. A USGS gauge near Coralville 88 reported a crest of nearly 7,000 cfs (normally 100 cfs). Flooding caused severe washouts and loss of roadway materials on 60 road sections in Johnson County at a cost of$114K. More severe weather hit the area in late May and early June 2013. Impacts from the second disaster focused more on flooding of the Iowa River. Coralville and Iowa City, at Clear Creek's outlet to the Iowa River, braced for potentially historic flooding. Volunteers filled sandbags to protect public facilities and private homes, and the University of Iowa deployed seven miles of HESCO barriers along its riverfront campus. Meanwhile, Clear Creek in Coralville experienced backwater effects as the Iowa River reached its fourth highest crest in history. Damage to Coralville recreational trails totaled $374K. Numerous homes took on water, including many that had never before flooded. Federal assistance was not available for individual assistance for property damage. The Iowa Individual Assistance Grant Program made 47 modest awards totaling $31.5K for personal property and home repair assistance in Johnson County after these floods. IDALS estimated it would cost $4,676,492 to repair damage from soil loss. Coralville Infrastructure: The City of Coralville is set along Clear Creek where it joins the Iowa River a position that leaves it particularly vulnerable to flooding. Flooding originates from either(or both) Clear Creek and backwater from the Iowa River. Recent floods (from 1993 to 2013)have had a devastating impact on the local economy, causing many businesses to relocate. Unprotected storm sewer discharge points along the creeks and river leave systems vulnerable to backwater. The city determined that it was imperative to construct flood mitigation projects, especially for the existing storm sewer system, to protect businesses and residents from future floods. Today Coralville is finished or nearly finished implementing most of these flood protection improvements, but two major projects remain incomplete: a flood wall on the south side of Clear Creek and the reconstruction of Stormwater Pump Stations (PS) 7 and 8. These pump stations are now the "weak links" in Coralville's Flood Protection System. Failure to 89 update these pump stations may allow flood water to bypass the other flood protection improvements and cause catastrophic flooding. The proposed infrastructure project in Coralville is to modify PS 7 and 8 to the same design level as all other Coralville flood mitigation projects. This is the most cost-effective solution to provide consistent flood protection throughout Coralville (the city regulates to the 500-year flood plus one foot freeboard)to minimize property risks. Without these improvements, flood risk in these regions remains unchanged from 2013. The flood-vulnerable area includes 178 acres of developed land with 116 properties, including commercial buildings and multi-family residences, critical infrastructure, U.S. Highway 6 (a major transportation corridor), an AT&T Point of Presence building(covering communications for all of Southeast Iowa), and a Mediacom Internet switch gear. PS 7 protects about 42.8 acres of developed property and PS 8 protects about 135.9 acres. This project will benefit every property owner and tenant within these regions (Attachment E, Maps 10-11, Diagrams 1-2). National Objective, MID-URN, and Vulnerable Populations: Infrastructure: The project will help address unmet needs in an area subject to Presidential Disaster Declarations in 2013. The project meets the National Objective of L/M income, Area Benefit(LMA). This area qualifies as most impacted and distressed due to continued flood damage, including two 2013 floods (DR- 4119, DR-4126). It qualifies as an unmet recovery need; the pumps remain unmodified and unable to protect previously impacted areas from future flooding. Watershed Projects: Portions of Johnson County, Tract 103.01, and Iowa County, Tract 9601, were hardest hit in the CCW, suffering environmental degradation from DR-4119. The project meets the National Objective of Urgent Need (UN). The service area represents an LMA area, but the area is not primarily residential. The sub-county area had excessive soil loss as a result of the heavy rains. An estimated 0.16-0.30 tons of soil were lost per acre, resulting in increased sediment delivery to waterways. Excessive topsoil loss degraded the productive 90 Perennial Cover/Grass 10 Prairie STRIPS 5 capability of the land, endangering the local Oxbow Restoration 2 Terrace 5 agricultural economy. The Floodplain Restoration 3 Buffer Strips 7 event also introduced Small Farm Pond (0.25-2 acres) 10 Bioreactor 5 nutrients into the streams, Medium Farm Pond (2-5 acres) 24 Small Wetland 5 including nitrates and Large Farm Pond (5+ acres) 5 Large Wetland 3 phosphorus. Sediment Detention Basin 15 Saturated Buffer 5 IWA projects will be Storm Water Detention Basin 10 realized in Upper and Middle Clear Creek based on the distribution of MID-URN. Examples of the types and numbers of projects are listed in the above table. The WMA will finalize project selection and distribution based on criteria(see Soundness of Approach, Program 1). The IWA will provide resources to existing partners and stakeholder groups and build on current collaborations. Community resilience programming (see Soundness of Approach, Program 2) in the CCW will help improve local flood resilience. Metrics:Resiliency Value: The watershed projects will reduce flood flows at the outlet of Middle Clear Creek by 25%,thereby reducing damage to repetitive loss sites (agricultural lands, roads, infrastructure, homes). The Coralville infrastructure project will protect at least 116 properties. Environmental Value: Project water-quality goals call for reduction of nitrate loads by 30% and phosphorus loads by 20% at the outlet of Middle Clear Creek. Social Value: This project will result in improved resilience to flooding, especially in the Coralville LMA, through programs to promote awareness and a community flood resiliency action plan. Economic Revitalization: IWA projects will reduce future soil loss and erosion, preserving agricultural productivity. Infrastructure mitigation will also create an estimated 16 jobs in Coralville in year 91 one (see BCA). These metrics will be evaluated by the collection of hydrologic data, and through the activities of the CEA. Local Input: An August 2015 event at the Johnson County Administration Building featured community discussion of the IWA and inclusion of the CCW in the proposal. The Johnson County Board of Supervisors supports IWA for the resources it will provide to CCW residents and the connections it will build among urban and rural communities. Participants noted the need for funding to apply practices to retain soil health, improve water quality, and reduce flooding. Timeline: Watershed Projects: July 2016—March 2017: Meetings with partners, construction of shovel-ready practices; April 2017—December 2017: Collection of data(topography, soil conditions, etc.) and development of hydrologic assessment of the full HUC 8 watershed; January 2018—June 2018: Development of hydrologic plan for eligible areas, modeling of different project scenarios; July 2018—September 2018: WMA selects final sites and projects for implementation; July 2018-June 2021: Social Resilience Programming core activities; October 2018March2019: Establish agreements with landowners, selection of contractors; April 2019— September 2020: Construction of projects; October 2020—September 2021: Post-construction data collection and analysis, work with WMA members to define future steps. Infrastructure: July October 30, 2016: Engineering design plans and specifications; November 2016—December 2016: Permitting; January February 2017: Construction and Letting; March 2017—October 2018: Construction; NovemberDecember2018: Acceptance and Closeout. Budget: Watershed Projects: Estimated costs associated with construction and design total $6,148,750 ($4,660,000 from HUD; $1,488,750 from landowner contributions). Other items: $375K for hydrologic assessment and watershed plan; $375K for WMA coordinator; and $800K for data collection, modeling, and analysis. Infrastructure: $2,446,400 (HUD + direct leverage). BCA: 6.81 (4.77 for Watershed Projects and 12.89 for Infrastructure). 92 Project Description 47: English River Watershed The English River Watershed is a 639-square mile watershed that encompasses parts of six counties in Southeast Iowa(Attachment E, Map 9). The English River Watershed (ERW) is part of the Lower Iowa River and is characteristic of an agricultural watershed within the Southern Iowa Drift Plain. This landform is typified by an undulating landscape with tabular uplands and a complex dendritic network of incised river and stream valleys. The ERW is an agricultural watershed that is home to about 21,700 people, the majority of whom live in several small communities. Most of the farmland has been modified with tile drainage and two-thirds of the landscape is row crop. A quarter of the area is grassland or pasture, and approximately 6% is timber. Additional Mitigating Information and Unique Partners: The English River Watershed Management Authority(ERWMA) was formed in 2013 to address flooding and water-quality issues. The IDNR awarded the ERWMA a grant through the Section 319 program to develop a comprehensive watershed management plan to develop a roadmap for future mitigation efforts. The watershed plan is out for public comment and will be finalized in late 2015. The watershed plan identifies two key natural resource concerns: water quality and flooding. As with most Iowa watersheds, nutrient loss is problematic in the ERW. As part of the comprehensive watershed plan development process, the Iowa Soybean Association performed water-quality testing three times in 2014 at 20 sites in the watershed. Results indicated seven of subwatersheds in the English River Valley had elevated nitrate levels (greater than 10 ppm). Significant spikes were observed in April and July, which may correlate to heavy rain events. The highest nitrate levels were found in the Upper North English, Camp, and Deer Creek subwatersheds across multiple seasons. Phosphorus is also of concern in the ERW, causing nuisance algal blooms in Lake Iowa in the ERW. 93 The IFC conducted a hydrologic analysis of the ERW as part of the watershed plan development. According to the analysis, flood events have occurred in one-third of the last 75 years; 13 of those floods occurred between May and July. The hydrologic analysis also provided information on areas of the watershed most vulnerable to high runoff or high flood potential, and identified areas where increased filtration, through practices like ponds, could provide the most potential flood relief. Areas with high average runoff were generally located in the upper and middle portion of the watershed. The comprehensive watershed plan also includes a survey of ERW residents, both urban and rural. Of the 688 randomly sampled watershed landowners, nearly 25 percent participated in the survey, providing their unique perspectives as farmers, urban homeowners, business owners, and taxpayers. Nearly 42% of responders had watershed properties that were impacted by flooding in the last 10 years, but only 33% indicated that they were concerned about future flooding. In addition, 42% of respondents indicated that they were unsure whether enough was being done to address flooding in Iowa, and 27%felt that not enough was being done. In general, respondents agreed (either"strongly" or "somewhat") with the following statements: 1) We need to improve water quality(85%); 2) We need to improve soil health (84%); 3) We need to provide more education for landowners on water-quality issues (76%); and 4) We need to increase incentives for farmers to protect soil and water (71%). The Disaster(DR-4119): Heavy rains in April 2013 resulted in the English River at Kalona cresting at 22.47 feet, the second highest crest for the river at that location. In Iowa County, the MID-URN area of this watershed, nearly 38 miles of roads in the ERW were washed out. The heaviest rains from this storm moved through the southern half of Iowa County in the ERW, where some areas experienced up to eight inches of rain during the event(Phase I, Attachment B-17). These rains in April came on the heels of Iowa's wettest spring on record and 94 resulted in significant runoff and loss of valuable topsoil on agricultural fields. An estimated 0.5 tons of soil for every acre of farmland was lost during this disaster. Valuable carbon and nitrogen that crops rely on for production washed away with soil. These soils help make Iowa(and the Midwest)the agricultural breadbasket of the country; soil loss threatens the economic vitality of this watershed. As a result of the overland flooding and the loss of topsoil, ditches filled to capacity because of the significant amount of soil moving with the runoff. Locations throughout the county required assistance and unanticipated costs to remove the topsoil from the ditches so waters could properly drain. Additional societal costs included sedimentation of downstream water bodies and heightened turbidity, which interrupted the natural cycles of aquatic life and reduced the aesthetic value for recreation in the watershed. IDALS estimated that it would cost $3,211,683 to repair the damage from environmental degradation. National Objective, MID-URN, and Vulnerable Populations: The project meets the National Objective of Urgent Need. The project helps address unmet needs in an area subject to a Presidential Disaster Declaration in 2013. The MID-URN area of the ERW is in the upper reaches of the watershed, with unmet needs located in southern Iowa County because of the localized heavy rain and significant topsoil loss from DR-4119. Projects will be implemented in this area because of the damages sustained during DR-4119 and the long history of flooding challenges in this watershed. An example distribution of the types and numbers of likely projects for the ERW is listed below. Projects and practices in the ERW will target practices, such as retention ponds, that focus on runoff reduction to decrease flooding and retain topsoil and sediment; these can be used to capture and store water temporarily, allowing it to be released more slowly downstream. The 95 WMA will finalize the exact selection and distribution of projects based on the selection criteria These practices will have long-term flood reduction and water-quality benefits for landowners, Perennial Cover/Grass 20 Prairie STRIPS 6 nearby residents, and Oxbow Restoration 3 Terrace 10 downstream residents. The target area served does not Floodplain Restoration 5 Buffer Strips 10 qualify as LMI, but Iowa Small Farm Pond (0.25-2 acres) 10 Bioreactor 5 County Tract 3705 Block Medium Farm Pond (2-5 acres) 30 Small Wetland 10 Group 1 in North English Large Farm Pond (5+ acres) 10 Large Wetland 5 represents an LJM income Sediment Detention Basin 20 Saturated Buffer 5 area that will directly benefit Storm Water Detention Basin 10 from this project. The initial assessment will be used to help identify the most vulnerable areas for the resilience programming focus. This will likely include the communities of North English and Millersburg. Consultation: Information on the IWA was presented at a public Iowa County Board of Supervisors meeting on August 28, 2015. After describing the program, participants reiterated that they are interested in project implementation funding(not just planning and monitoring). Iowa County participants were also concerned about the role of a"Watershed Management Authority,"how their community would benefit from projects, and whether other groups, such as NRCS and USACE, were involved. Questions were answered to their satisfaction. Metrics:Resiliency Value: This approach in the targeted watersheds will reduce flood flows by 25%, thereby reducing damage to repetitive loss sites of the past(agricultural lands, roads, infrastructure, homes) at the outlet of each HUC 12. Environmental Value: Project water-quality goals call for the reduction of nitrate loads by 30% and phosphorus loads by 20% at the outlet of 96 each HUC 12. Social Value: This project will result in improved resilience to flooding, including the English River LMI area, through programs to promote awareness and a community-wide flood resilience action plan. These metrics will be evaluated by the collection of scientific data (water quality and quantity), and activities of the CEA. Project Timeline: July 2016—March 2017: Collection of data(topography, soil conditions, etc.) and development of a(refined)hydrologic assessment of the full HUC 8 watershed; April 2017—September 2017: Development of hydrologic plan for eligible areas, modeling of different project scenarios; July 2018—June 2021: Implementation of Resilience Programming (community engagement, networking, needs assessment) in the project area, October 2017— December 2017: WMA selects final sites and projects for implementation; January 2018—June 2018: Establish agreements with landowners, selection of contractors; July 2018—June 2020: Construction of projects. July 2020—June 2021: Post-construction data collection and analysis; July 2021—September 2021: Final reports, work with WMA members to help define future steps and funding. Budget: The estimated costs associated with the construction and design in the ERW totals $9,208,750 ($6,990,000 from HUD; $2,218,750 in landowner contributions). Other items include: $250,000 for hydrologic assessment and watershed plan; $375,000 for WMA coordinator; and $1,200,000 for data collection, modeling, and analysis. Benefit Cost Analvsis: 5.17 97 Project Description 48: North Raccoon River and Storm Lake Infrastructure The North Raccoon River in Central Iowa is a tributary of the Des Moines River, flowing mainly through the Des Moines Lobe landform, which retains imprints of glacial occupation, such as abundant moraines and shallow wetland basins (potholes) (Attachment E, Map 12). This "prairie pothole" landscape is dominated by flat land and poor surface drainage. The North Raccoon River Watershed (NRRW) is heavily tiled. Row crop production (corn and soybeans) accounts for 85% of its land area. The North Raccoon is used for swimming, canoeing, and fishing. The NRRW landscape is considered the most important and threatened waterfowl habitat in North America, supporting more than 300 migratory bird species. Additional Mitigating Information: The 2011 Raccoon River Watershed Water Quality Master Plan informs and guides efforts to improve environmental conditions and maintain the vigor of local agricultural production. The plan will provide foundational information for the hydrologic assessment and watershed plan. In 2013, the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy named the NRRW a priority watershed. Many organizations are currently active in the Water Quality Initiative (WQI) project in the NRRW watershed. This project and others, such as a recent Department of Energy award to Antares Group Inc., will complement IWA projects, resulting in significant data sharing among groups. Two Disasters (DR-1977, DR-4126): In May 2013, Buena Vista County experienced high winds,tornadoes, and heavy rainfall countywide, with an average of seven inches of rain. Some areas received 8-10 inches in 48 hours. Spring 2013 was the wettest on record statewide, and soils were already saturated. The storms resulted in runoff from agricultural fields and urban infrastructure into streams and rivers already flowing high. In Buena Vista County alone, these storms resulted in $5,635,426 in infrastructure damages (see Phase I, Threshold). More than 30 secondary roads were washed out, and nearly five miles of roads had to be replaced at a cost of 98 $.SM. Many properties in the City of Storm Lake were impacted. The Iowa Individual Assistance Grant Program made 242 awards (less than $5K each)totaling $222,700 for personal property and home repair assistance in Buena Vista County after the 2013 flood. April 2011 storms caused major topsoil loss in Pocahontas County (see Phase II, Threshold) and increased sediment delivery to waterways, introducing nutrients into the stream system that would otherwise have been available for crops. IDALS estimated that it would cost $8,123,344 to repair the damage from environmental degradation. Watershed Projects: Outlet Creek, which includes Alta and Storm Lake, will be selected as a target HUC 12 to minimize the impact of heavy rains on these communities, to mitigate damage to secondary road networks and agricultural land, and to improve water quality. This will Perennial Cover/Grass 28 Buffer Strips 10 complement proposed infra- structure work in Storm Oxbow Restoration 10 Bioreactor 4 Lake. Headwaters Cedar Small Farm Pond (0.25-2 acres) 8 Small Wetland 15 Creek in Pocahontas will be Medium Farm Pond (2-5 acres) 4 Large Wetland 7 selected as one HUC 12 to Sediment Detention Basin 5 Saturated Buffer 4 support and complement the Storm Water Detention Basin 5 WQI in that watershed. The WMA will select two more HUC 12s in Buena Vista and Pocahontas counties. A sample distribution of the type and number of likely projects in the NRRW is listed above. The WMA will finalize selection and distribution of projects based on selection criteria Infrastructure: Storm Lake is prone to flooding, resulting in frequent damage to public and private property(Attachment E, Maps 13-24). The city is undertaking a multifaceted approach to make the community more flood resilient. This includes a sanitary sewer flood mitigation upgrade to the wastewater treatment plant and conveyance system to reduce sewer backups 99 into homes and avoid release of untreated wastewater into the environment. These projects are necessary before subsequent work can move forward. The effort comprises eight phases. Activity 1: Spooner and Seneca Street storm sewers are inadequate to convey atypical two-inch rainfall event. Heavy rains in 2011 and 2013 caused system deterioration and damage to private residences. The city will reconstruct the roadways with pervious (or permeable) pavement and a storm water quality system, which stores and conveys storm water to the former railroad line controlled by the city. The system will include a treatment train with bio- swales and other features to improve water quality. Activity 2: 4th Street and Oates Street experienced severe flooding contaminated with high concentrations of e. coli. Storm water improvements to the area will include installation of pervious pavers along with bio-retention cells and rain gardens to reduce flooding and nutrient load entering the lake. Activity 3: The trunk sanitary sewer on 7th and Geneseo will be replaced. The current 10" sanitary sewer line is undersized, causing severe surcharging during two-year rain events. This causes significant backups and flooding in the neighborhood. It also requires localized bypass pumping. The project would replace the undersized system with a 15" sewer line from the intersection of 7th and Ontario to the trunk sewer by Highway 7. Activity 4: Storm water improvements in the Memorial Park area directly above the lake inlet will reduce flooding on Highway 7. Flooding has damaged retail establishments to the detriment of Storm Lake's economy. Improvements include a treatment train of bio-swales in conjunction with pervious pavement at the ballfield parking lot to collect, treat, and convey the storm water to the lake. Activity 5: The area near Mae and 1st Street east to the Memorial Street Lift Station is very susceptible to surcharging and bypass events, as well as frequent, significant backups and floods. A cured-in-place pipe (CIDP), a lining of the 24" and 18" sanitary trunk sewers, will be put in place from Mae and 1st Street east to the Memorial Street Lift Station to help to prevent release 100 of raw sewage directly into the lake and avoid sewer backups into homes. Activity 6: Flooding of the 10th and Ontario storm water system impacts numerous LMI property owners. The addition of storm water capacity on city-owned property across from the Field of Dreams (FOD) sports complex will reduce flooding. Bio-swales and retention basins along the FOD parking area and a storm water basin north of the field will protect the area from a 100-year storm. Activity 7: 4th Street from Western to Barton Streets experiences flash flooding that inundates homes during nearly all rain events. Reconstruction of the streets with pervious pavement and replacement of the existing storm sewer will reduce flooding and significantly improve the quality of the storm water runoff to the lake. Activity 8: Construction of wetland ponds will complement projects partially funded by the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and help settle out nutrients before the water is released to the Raccoon River. National Objective, MID-URN, and Vulnerable Populations: The project meets the National Objective of Urgent Need and will address unmet needs in areas subject to 2011 and 2013 Presidential Disaster Declarations. The target MID-URN area of the NRRW is in Buena Vista and Pocahontas counties. Buena Vista County qualifies under significant remaining infrastructure damage, especially in Storm Lake. The infrastructure projects meet the National Objective of LMA. Pocahontas County qualifies under environmental damage. Local Input: A community meeting in Storm Lake on Sept. 22, 2015, brought together representatives from NRRW city and county entities. Participants expressed concerns about water-quality degradation and recognized the IWA's potential. This project will help stakeholders protect and enhance their natural resources. Metrics:Resiliency Value: The IWA in the targeted watersheds will reduce flood flows by 25%, thereby reducing damage to repetitive loss sites of the past(agricultural lands, roads, infrastructure, homes) at the outlet of each HUC 12. Infrastructure updates in Storm Lake will 101 increase local property values. Environmental Value: Water-quality goals call for the reduction of nitrate loads by 30% and phosphorus loads by 20% at the outlet of each HUC 12. Social Value: This project will result in improved flood resilience, especially in Storm Lake, by promoting awareness and a community-wide flood resilience action plan. Economic Revitalization: IWA projects will reduce future soil loss and erosion, preserving agricultural productivity. hi Storm Lake, this project will help prevent flooding of homes and businesses. Project Timeline: Watershed Projects: July 2016—March 2017: Meetings, forums, submission and acceptance of Chapter 28E Agreement documents for formation of new WMA; April 2017— September 2020: Social Resilience Programming; June 2018—June 2021: Collection of data and development of hydrologic assessment of the full HUC 8 watershed; January 2018June2018: Development of hydrologic plan for eligible areas, modeling of scenarios; July 2018—September 2018: WMA selects final sites and projects for implementation; October 2018—March 2019: Establish agreements with landowners, selection of contractors; April 2019—September 2020: Projects construction; October 2020—September 2021: Post-construction data collection and analysis, work with WMA members to help them define future steps. Infrastructure: July 2016— December 2017: Phases 2-7 (simultaneous); July 2017December2018: Phases 1 and 8. Budget: Watershed Projects: Estimated construction/design costs total $6,146,250 ($4,660,000 from HUD; $1,486,250 in landowner contributions). Other items include: $350,000 for hydrologic assessment and watershed plan; $375,000 for WMA coordinator; and $800,000 for data collection, modeling, and analysis. Infrastructure: Phase 1: $1,787,000; Phase 2: $895,000; Phase 3: $295,000; Phase 4: $430,000; Phase 5: $1,228,000; Phase 6: $1,943,000; Phase 7: $780,000; Phase 8: 1,275,000. BCA: 14.71 (30.68 for Watershed Projects and 1.17 for Infrastructure) 102 Project Description 49: East Nishnabotna River Watershed The East Nishnabotna Watershed (ENW) encompasses 696,400 acres and touches 10 counties in Southwest Iowa(Attachment E, Map 25). The ENW is part of the Nishnabotna Basin that drains to the Missouri River, a crucial water body that provides feeding, breeding, and resting areas for hundreds of species of birds and fish. Located in the Southern Iowa Drift Plain Region with broad rolling uplands and deep valleys, the ENW's adjoining woodland areas provide abundant habitat for wildlife and are frequently used for recreation. Abundant archaeological sites and artifacts from the area provide insight into pre-historic life in the region. In the early 1900s, farmers began to transform the landscape from prairie to farmland. Channel straightening during this time altered the naturally meandering streams. About 75% of the lower 100 miles of the East Nishnabotna River were straightened. The fertile loess soils are intensively farmed and susceptible to erosion and streambank degradation. The predominant land use is for row crops; about 76% of the watershed is in corn and soybeans. Additional Mitigating Information and Unique Partners: In 2011, a comprehensive plan was developed for seven counties in the Loess Hills region in Western Iowa, including Fremont County in the East Nishnabotna. The plan looked at changes in the area during the last 20 years and set goals for the future. It found that from 1992-2006, cropland in the Loess Hills region increased by more than 50,000 acres, and impervious surfaces increased by 30,000 acres. The Loess Hills Alliance is one local group working to restore woodland and prairie areas. The IWA will build upon the 2011 comprehensive plan and complement work of the Loess Hills Alliance. The ENW was selected by the Iowa Water Resources Coordinating Council as a high priority area for implementing conservation practices outlined in Iowa's Nutrient Reduction Strategy. The Bluegrass and Crabapple Project in the ENW received $1.2M in project funds to 103 demonstrate practices to improve water quality, network with landowners, and provide education and outreach opportunities. The IWA will also build upon existing assessment and modeling work completed by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE). The USACE will share site information for practices that are "shovel ready"to help mitigate flooding and improve water quality. The IFC and the USACE will partner to ensure consistent hydrologic assessment and modeling in the ENW. East Nishnabotna IWA projects will also build upon the current work of the Golden Hills Resource Conservation and Development(RC&D). The RC&D's Hungry Canyon Alliance (HCA) is dedicated to working with landowners to implement streambank stabilization structures. The HCA estimates that for every $1 invested in streambed stabilization structures, about 0.98 tons of soil are protected from erosion. The IWA will provide additional resources to help implement streambank stabilization structures that will serve the dual purpose of benefiting soil health and improving water quality by decreasing sediment transportation. The Disaster: In 2011, the Missouri River experienced record-setting floods, affecting six Southwest Iowa counties, including the East Nishnabotna in Fremont County. Above average rain in the fall of 2010, followed by record-setting winter snowfall and spring rain, caused the flooding. Super-saturated soils were unable to absorb the immense amount of precipitation. Intense flooding covered roads and bridges with debris, undermined roads and culverts, and damaged bridges. In a report released by the Iowa DOT, estimated costs to repair flood damage to transportation infrastructure on primary and secondary roads in the affected counties in Southwest Iowa totaled $63.5M. The Iowa Farm Bureau calculated damage to fields and lost crop income at $52.2M in Fremont County alone. Moving flood waters carry with them hazardous chemicals and diseases, and currents also carry materials that can cause personal injuries. Standing, stagnant water following a flood event 104 also poses a threat to public health and wildlife. The degradation of water quality in Fremont County in the ENW following the 2011 Missouri River floods led to its Presidential Disaster Declaration in June 2011. IDALS estimated that it would cost $1,932,648 to repair the damage from environmental degradation. Proposed Project in the East Nishnabotna: Based on the distribution of environmental MID- URN, the project will target two HUC 12s (Mill and Ledgewood creeks) in Fremont County to implement built projects. Practices will be aimed at protecting the soil and increasing its water holding capacity, channel bank stabilization, reducing runoff and downstream flooding, and improving water quality. The presence of impaired waters in Fremont County threatens recreation, tourism, and wildlife, and thus could have an economic impact on the watershed. This project will work to make the distressed area more resilient to future flood events that can compromise water quality and impact public health during floods. An example of the suite Channel Bank Stabilization 15 Prairie STRIPS 5 of practices to be Perennial Cover/Grass 8 Terrace 5 installed in the Oxbow Restoration 5 Buffer Strips 4 watershed is listed left). Floodplain Restoration 2 Bioreactor 1 Implemented practices Small Farm Pond(0.25-2 acres) 2 Small Wetland 1 substantially lessen Medium Farm Pond(2-5 acres) 2 Large Wetland 1 flood impacts on the watershed, which will Sediment Detention Basin 2 Saturated Buffer 1 directly reduce the Storm Water Detention Basin 2 amount of runoff leading to water-quality impairments. Residents downstream of installed practices will benefit from reduced peak flows during flood events, safer drinking water for communities dependent on 105 shallow groundwater, and recreation opportunities. Conservation practices will provide habitat for many unique species of plants and animals residing in the diverse ecology found only in this part of Iowa. National Objective, MID-URN, and Vulnerable Populations: The project meets the National Objective of Urgent Need. The project will help address unmet needs in an area subject to a Presidential Disaster Declaration in 2011. The presence of water-quality 303d impairments resulted in the MID-URN classification for Tract 9701 in Fremont County. Several segments of the East Nishnabotna are listed on Iowa's 303d impaired waters list per the Clean Water Act including the entire 28-mile stretch of the river that runs east to west and spans the full width of Tract 9710. This stretch of the East Nishnabotna is impaired due to heightened levels of e. coli and does not support recreational uses. The MID-URN areas of the watershed are located in Fremont County, where four HUC 12s will be identified to implement practices designed to reduce flood risk, improve water quality, and improve resiliency to future disaster events. The IWA will address the needs of the East Nishnabotna Watershed in response to the 2011 Missouri River floods. The project will create a replicable model that the East Nishnabotna Watershed can rely on to secure additional funding and resources to carry out project implementation for years to come. The initial assessment will be used to help identify the most vulnerable areas for the resilience programming focus. This will likely include Farragut. Consultation: A Phase II community engagement meeting was held on Sept. 14, 2015. Participants recognized an immediate correlation between the current needs of the watershed and the work proposed by the IWA. Residents of the county embraced the project description for the multiple benefits it will provide to their livelihood and for protection of the natural resources they enjoy and rely upon. 106 Metrics:Resiliency Value: This approach in the targeted watersheds will reduce flood flows by 25%, thereby reducing damage to repetitive loss sites of the past at the outlet of each HUC 12. Environmental Value: Project water-quality goals are reduction of nitrate loads by 30% and phosphorus loads by 20% at the outlet of each HUC 12. Social Value: This project will result in improved resilience to flooding, especially in the MID-URN areas,through programs to promote awareness and develop a community-wide flood resilience action plan. Economic Revitalization: IWA projects will help reduce future soil loss and erosion, helping to preserve agricultural productivity. These metrics will be evaluated through the collection of scientific data and the activities of the Center for Evaluation and Assessment. Project Timeline: July 2016—March 2017: Meetings, forums, submission and acceptance of Chapter 28E Agreement documents for formation of new Watershed Management Authority; April 2017June2020: Social Resilience Programming (community engagement, networking, needs assessment); April 2017December2017: Collection of data(topography, soil conditions, etc.) and development of hydrologic assessment of the full HUC 8 watershed; January 2018— June 2018: Development of hydrologic plan for eligible areas, modeling of different project scenarios; July 2018—September 2018: WMA selects final sites and projects for implementation; October 2018—March 2019: Establish agreements with landowners, selection of contractors; April 2019—September 2020: Construction of projects; October 2020—September 2021: Post- construction data collection and analysis, work with WMA to define future steps. Budget: The estimated costs associated with the construction and design in the ENW totals $3,076,250 ($2,330,000 from HUD, $746,250 in landowner contributions). Other items include: $350,000 for hydrologic assessment and watershed plan; $375,000 for WMA coordinator; and $400,000 for data collection, modeling, and analysis. Benefit Cost Analvsis: 25.51 107 Project Description 410: West Nishnabotna River Watershed The West Nishnabotna River in Southwest Iowa is atributary of the Missouri River (Attachment E, Map 25). The watershed includes 489,500 acres within the Southern Iowa Drift Plain Region, with its steeply rolling uplands and wide valleys. This area consists of thick loess deposits with underlying glacial till and is highly erodible and susceptible to severe stream degradation. The river is used heavily for recreation, tourism, provides many historic and cultural resources, and includes the only state-designated water trail in Southwest Iowa. Currently, 80% of the watershed is cropland. Prior to the 1900s, the West Nishnabotna River meandered naturally, with gently sloping stream banks and wet prairies. Channel straightening in the early 1900s affected about 90 percent of the lower 100 miles of the river. An estimated $1.1B in damage has since accrued from damaged bridges, utility lines, culverts, farmland, and sediment deposition from post- channelization streambank erosion. Today, the West Nishnabotna River Water Trail is one of the most physically altered state water trails in Iowa, with 15-foot high banks and no riparian zone. Additional Mitigating Information: The West Nishnabotna River provides numerous recreational opportunities paddling, canoeing, camping, fishing, hunting, and wildlife watching. Besides the Missouri River, the West Nishnabotna is the most heavily used recreational river in the area A report by ISU's Center for Agricultural and Rural Development ("Iowa Rivers & River Corridors Recreation Survey") showed 134,755 trips reported and total spending of$3,654,920 in 2010. In May 2014,the West Nishnabotna River Trail Plan was created, examining existing conditions of the water trail and providing recommendations for improvements. This plan will provide information for the IWA hydrologic assessment. In 2013, the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy identified the West Nishnabotna River Watershed (WNRW) as a high priority area for implementing best management practices 108 (BMPs)for reducing nitrogen and phosphorous loads. The Walnut Creek Watershed Project encompasses three HUC 12s in the watershed that receive Water Quality Initiative funding. The project includes $1M to be used for building partner relationships and demonstrating BMPs. These projects will complement the IWA by increasing awareness of watershed management, building upon existing producer relationships, and continuing momentum for implementing environmentally-sound land management practices. There are several strong partners in the WNRW, including the Golden Hills Resource Conservation and Development(RC&D). The RC&D's Hungry Canyons Alliance Project provides state and federal money to 23 counties in Western Iowa, including those within the WNRW. Since 1992, the program has provided $20.5M for technical assistance for grade control structures and streambed stabilization practices. Local stakeholder groups, including Mills and Fremont County Conservation Boards, Boards of Supervisors, and local NRCS Service Centers will be essential resources for project development. The IWA hydrologic assessment and watershed plan will build upon existing hydrologic modeling and inundation mapping projects recently completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Disaster(DR-1998): From late May through August 2011, the Missouri River Basin experienced widespread record flooding that severely impacted six counties in Western Iowa. As the Missouri River swelled, a levee near Hamburg, Iowa, broke, sending an immense amount of raging water toward the small town and to the north, displacing about 300 residents from their homes and businesses. The extreme flood caused five fatalities and major damage to communities, livelihoods, infrastructure, transportation, agriculture, and public health. Flooding closed more than 100 miles of secondary roads in Iowa, as well as several interchanges along Interstate 29 (I-29). Bridges, roads, and culverts were washed out or left covered with a thick layer of mud and debris. The estimated cost of the damages was more than $213. The Iowa DOT 109 estimated that repairs to flood damaged transportation infrastructure on primary and secondary roads in the affected Iowa counties would cost$63.5M. The Iowa Farm Bureau calculated damage to fields and lost crop income at $22.2M in Mills County alone. The MID-URN classification for Tract 401 in Mills County is based on water-quality impairments. Several segments and tributaries of the West Nishnabotna are listed on Iowa's 303d impaired waters list including a 15.5-mile stretch of the West Nishnabotna and the 5.5-mile long Mud Creek, both in Mills County. This stretch of the West Nishnabotna is impaired due to high levels of e. coli and thus cannot currently support recreational uses. Mud Creek is impaired due to the lack of biological diversity. DR-1998 exacerbated both of these impairments, making the already dangerous floodwaters an even greater risk to health and the environment. IDALS estimated that it would cost $5,939,324 to repair the damage from environmental degradation. Two HUC 12s in Mills County, including a portion of Mud Creek and Willow Slough-West Nishnabotna River, have been selected as project watersheds because the service area(Census Tract 401, Block Group 1) is also an LMA area,though it is not residential. This area has many remaining challenges since the 2011 flood, including both a displacement of families after the flood, not all of whom have returned, and a shortage of affordable housing. National Objective, MID-URN, and Vulnerable Populations: The project meets the National Objective of Urgent Need. The project will help address unmet needs in an area receiving a Presidential Disaster Declaration in 2011. It will address environmental MID-URN. The two selected HUC 12s in Mills County will directly benefit vulnerable populations through decreased flow and improved water quality, and may also improve local shallow wells. Channel bank stabilization, oxbow reconnection, and floodplain restoration will help slow erosion. The WMA will select four additional HUC 12s based on the required criteria. An example of the type and number of practices to be implemented in the WNRW is listed below. The project will set a 110 precedent for future work in the watershed to help communities become more resilient to disasters, connecting the watershed, reducing flood risk, and improving water quality and environmental resilience. Resilience programming will include both Fremont and Mills counties, with the initial assessment helping to identify the most vulnerable areas for programmatic focus. One focus area will include the Mud Creek HUC 12 in north Mills County. Channel Bank Stabilization 52 Prairie STRIPS 10 Consultation: A Perennial Cover/Grass 20 Terrace 10 community engagement event was held on Sept. 14, 2015. Oxbow Restoration 5 Buffer Strips 10 Participants recognized an Floodplain Restoration 9 Bioreactor 3 immediate correlation Small Farm Pond (0.25-2 acres) 5 Small Wetland 3 between the current needs of Medium Farm Pond (2-5 acres) 5 Large Wetland 1 the watershed and the work Sediment Detention Basin 5 Saturated Buffer 2 proposed by the IWA. Storm Water Detention Basin 10 Residents embraced the project description for the multiple benefits it will provide to their livelihood and to protect the natural resources upon which they rely. Metrics:Resiliency Value: This approach in the targeted watersheds will reduce flood flows by 25%, thereby reducing damage to repetitive loss sites of the past(agricultural lands, roads, infrastructure, homes) at the outlet of each HUC 12. Environmental Value: Project water-quality goals call for the reduction of nitrate loads by 30% and phosphorus loads by 20% at the outlet of each HUC 12. Social Value: This project will result in improved resilience to flooding, especially in the LMI area, through programs to promote awareness and a community-wide flood resilience action plan (See Soundness of Approach, Program 2). Economic Revitalization: Soil erosion is a 111 significant problem in the WNRW and a threat to agricultural productivity. IWA projects will help reduce soil loss and erosion, maintaining Iowa's important agricultural economy. We will evaluate these metrics by the collection of hydrologic data(water quality and quantity), and with assistance from the Center for Evaluation and Assessment. Project Timeline: July 2016—March 2017: Meetings, forums, submission and acceptance of Chapter 28E Agreement documents for formation of new Watershed Management Authority; April 2017—September 2020: Social Resilience Programming core activities (community engagement, networking, needs assessment); April 2017December2017: Collection of data(topography, soil conditions, etc.) and development of hydrologic assessment of the full HUC 8 watershed; January 2018June2018: Development of hydrologic plan for eligible areas, modeling of different project scenarios; July 2018—September 2018: WMA selects final sites and projects for implementation; October 2018—March 2019: Establish agreements with landowners, selection of contractors; April 2019—September 2020: Construction of projects; October 2020—September 2021: Post- construction data collection and analysis, work with WMA members to help define future steps. Budget: The estimated costs associated with the construction and design in the ENW totals $9,221,250 ($6,990,000 from HUD; $2,231,250 in landowner contributions). Other items include: $350,000 for hydrologic assessment and watershed plan; $375,000 for WMA coordinator; and $1,200,000 for data collection, modeling, and analysis. Benefit Cost Analvsis: 16.11 112 Exhibit F Leverage State of Iowa Iowa PhaseII_Leverage.pdf Leverage Iowa's application includes $42,114,051 in direct and $158,309,984 in supporting leverage. Watershed Direct Supporting Use Letter All Rural $15,876,250 Projects State of Iowa Bee Branch $800,000 H. Homes City of Dubuque Bee Branch $21,600,000 $37,719,000 Infrast. City of Dubuque/Iowa DNR Bee Branch $400,000 H. Homes City of Dubuque Bee Branch $100,000 H. Homes City of Dubuque Bee Branch $1,447,000 Infrast. Iowa DNR All Rural $1,0001000 Planning Iowa Flood Center/IIHR All Rural $3,620,000 Planning Iowa Natural Heritage Fndn All Rural $67,951 Planning Iowa Farm Bureau All Rural $112,500 Planning Iowa Corn Upper Iowa $51,595 Projects Ia Dept. of Ag and Land Stewardship U. Wa si $300,000 Infrast. Iowa DNR M. Cedar $586,859 Infrast. Iowa DNR M. Cedar $350,000 wetland Iowa DNR M. Cedar $62,955,894 Infrast. Cities of Cedar Rapids + Cedar Falls M. Cedar $2,020,938 Projects City of Cedar Rapids M. Cedar $286,235 Projects Iowa Soybean Association 113 M. Cedar $77,500 Projects Iowa Agricultural Water Alliance M. Cedar $526,755 Projects Ia Dept. of Ag and Land Stewardship Cedar $436,690 Projects Iowa Soybean Association M. Cedar $155,000 Projects Iowa Soybean Association M. Cedar $83,563 Projects The Nature Conservancy English $100,000 Infrast. Iowa DNR N. Raccoon $82,000 Infrast. Iowa DNR N. Raccoon $26,049,743 Infrast. City of Des Moines N. Raccoon $2,158,250 $883,060 Infrast. City of Storm Lake N. Raccoon $713,000 Outreach Iowa Soybean Association N. Raccoon $500,000 Projects Antares Group, Inc. N. Raccoon $34,500 Projects _Iowa Agricultural Water Alliance N. Raccoon $238,000 Projects Ia Dept. of Ag and Land Stewardship C. Creek $125,000 Park Iowa DNR C. Creek $611,600 $17,482,801 Infrast. Cities of Iowa Cit + Coralville E. Nish $71,078 Wetlands Iowa DNR W. Nish $46,430 Wetlands Iowa DNR W. Nish $109,966 Infrast. Iowa DNR Other $644,877 Projects Ia Dept. of Ag and Land Stewardship TOTAL $42,114,051 $158,309,984 114 Exhibit G Regional Coordination and Long-term Commitment State of Iowa Iowa PhaseII RegionalCoord-Commitment.pdf Regional Coordination and Long-term Commitment Iowa is on a path of discovery and forward-thinking research, programs, and actions related to flood research, mitigation, and resilience. The IWA will build on existing flood-related programs, helping to establish a new chapter in the way Iowa considers and prioritizes science- based strategies to address water-quantity and -quality issues. Lessons Learned (Subfactor: general): The Iowa Watersheds Approach (IWA). Lawmakers recently established the Iowa Flood Center (IFC) at the University of Iowa as the nation's first center devoted solely to flood-related research and education. The state funds the IFC at $1.5M/year. Early IFC successes include: more than doubling the number of stream-stage sensors in the state; developing an easy-to-use online visualization platform for monitoring precipitation and flooding in real time; updating floodplain maps for most of the state using high- resolution LiDAR data(complete in 2016); and developing flood inundation maps for many vulnerable river communities. IFC's success is due in large part to collaborations with the Iowa DNR, Iowa DOT, Iowa Economic Development Authority, U.S. Geological Survey, National Weather Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and many communities, counties, and NGOs. In 2010, using $8.8M from a HUD Disaster Recovery Enhancement Fund award, Iowa initiated the Iowa Watersheds Project(see Phase II, Capacity)under the IFC as a means of reducing flood risk, reducing soil erosion, and improving water quality. The IWA builds on the experiences and success of the Iowa Watersheds Project and will increase the number of participating watersheds from three to twelve. At the conclusion of this program, all participating watersheds will have a vision for prioritizing future projects. Raising Standards (Subfactor: resilience actions): Watershed Management Authorities (WMA): In 2010, Iowa passed legislation authorizing the creation of WMAs as a mechanism for cities, counties, Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs), and other stakeholders to 115 engage in cooperative watershed planning and management, especially as related to decreasing flooding and improving water quality. The IDNR helps WMAs through formation and with other assistance. Over the past three years, the IDNR has provided $500K in direct financial assistance to help WMAs develop comprehensive watershed management plans. IDNR staff members also help develop proposals, interpret data, give presentations, and offer GIS and mapping services. Raising Standards (Subfactor: resilience actions): The Iowa Flood Mitigation Board. The Iowa General Assembly created the Flood Mitigation Board, and Governor Branstad signed it into law in 2012. The board is charged with creating a Flood Mitigation Program for Iowa. This program allows certain governmental entities to submit flood mitigation projects to the board for review and possible funding. To date, Iowa has allocated$660M to the Iowa Flood Mitigation Board for flood mitigation activities across Iowa. Lessons Learned, Subfactor: General (Improving Knowledge Base). The IFC and Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)began updating 100- and 500-year floodplain boundaries throughout Iowa in 2010. In many counties,these data are being used to create new Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS)for use with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In areas where FEMA does not have capacity to review and adopt the data, the IDNR and other stakeholders are using floodplain boundaries for management and planning. The IFC and the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation have also used the statewide floodplain mapping data to develop a series of enhanced data products, including one-meter-resolution depth grids for the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, 100-, 200-, and 500-year floodplains and floodplain scour data. These data better demonstrate and communicate risk, helping communities and property owners make informed land-management and disaster response decisions. Raising Standards: All Iowa communities that participate in the NFIP observe the state standard of the 100-year water surface elevation plus one foot. Several communities in the target 116 watersheds have adopted higher requirements. In the Upper Wapsipinicon, Black Hawk County adopted an additional three foot freeboard requirement; the city of Independence also has a three foot freeboard requirement. In the Middle Cedar, Cedar Falls requires that all development must be above, or protected to, the 500-year flood. Palo and La Porte Cities have a two foot freeboard requirement. In Clear Creek, Coralville has a one foot above the 500-year flood elevation. Resilience Actions: Four of the target watersheds have new planning documents to better prepare for future flooding. The Middle Cedar, North Raccoon, and East and West Nishnabotna Watersheds all finished the drafts or final versions of their"Flood Risk Reports" in 2015. These reports provides non-regulatory information to help local or tribal officials, floodplain managers, planners, emergency managers, and others better understand their flood risk, take steps to mitigate risks, and communicate those risks. Resilience Actions: Iowa is one of only 12 states with a FEMA-approved Enhanced State Mitigation Plan, demonstrating that Iowa has developed a comprehensive state-wide mitigation program and is capable of managing increased funding to achieve mitigation goals (see Consistency with other Documents, Attachment D, Consultation Summary, D-122 to D-124). Resilience Actions Related to Financing and Economic Issues: Iowa Nutrient Research Center(INRC). Most areas in Iowa with environmental MID-URN from 2011-2013 experienced water-quality degradation. Iowa finalized its Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy in 2013. Iowa also passed new legislation that year forming a new Iowa Nutrient Research Center(INRC). The state funds the INRC at 1.3M/year to evaluate the performance of current and emerging nutrient management practices. In addition to applied research projects, INRC supports the operation of a real-time continuous water-quality monitoring network and online information system to distribute nutrient data to the general public, producers, and agencies. This network and information system ensures that programmatic funding invested in conservation practices in 117 Iowa will measurably benefit water-quality improvement. INRC research will inform IWA projects to maximize their benefits to water-quality issues, especially during storm events. Raising Standards (Subfactor: resilience actions): The Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. The Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy (INRS), developed in 2013 as a science-based approach to nutrient management, further demonstrates Iowa's commitment to the improvement of water quality, especially in response to the Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan's goal of 45%reduction in riverine N and P load. State- and federally-funded projects are underway in nine priority watersheds. In 2015,the state allocated $9.6M to the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship for its Water Quality Initiative (WQI). This program offers cost-sharing to farmers trying new water-quality practices, continues work in priority watersheds to achieve water- quality improvements, and expands urban conservation efforts. Resilience Actions Related to Plan Updates or Alignment(Federal Highwav Administration's Climate Change Vulnerabilitv Assessment Program). The Iowa DOT participates in the FHWA's pilot program to assess and evaluate the vulnerability of six highway/bridge locations in central Iowa using 19 global climate change models. Iowa State University (ISU) led the research in partnership with the IFC. The models were used to simulate peak discharges using a hydrologic model that creates future flowrates for consideration of design guidelines or methodologies. Researchers conducted a detailed hydraulic analysis for the replacement of I-35 South Skunk River bridges and associated roadway to improve the interstate's resiliency to overtopping. Bridge updates to be constructed in 2016 will feature a design that increases resiliency to increasing patterns of extreme weather events. Other states recently expressed interest in working with the IDOT, ISU, and IFC to apply this methodology. Resilience Actions: Iowa is a leader in the production of renewable energy both wind energy and biofuels and the state has a long history of supporting innovation in clean energy 118 through a suite of state policies. For example, tax credits are available for eligible facilities that produce and/or sell wind energy. Iowa ranks 3`d in the U.S. in wind production; over 28% of the energy produced in Iowa comes from wind turbines. Iowa is also the nation's leading biofuels producer. In 2013 Dubuque adopted its 50%by 2030 Community Climate Action Plan, a strategic plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 50%from 2003 levels by 2030. In August 2015,the City Council adopted the creation of a citizen Resiliency Commission to provide oversight and guidance regarding resiliency planning as a top priority. Dubuque will also develop and begin implementation of a climate adaptation strategy by 2018. Lessons Learned (Subfactor: general): Citv of Dubuque. Dubuque is committed to a more resilient future and is putting in place infrastructure, policies, and funding mechanisms to meet these goals. This combination of policy and investment, informed by the development of the city's Drainage Basin Master Plan, disaster experiences, and data from the IFC, form the basis of Dubuque's watershed approach to flood management. Dubuque received $98M from the Iowa Flood Mitigation Board. This is part of the $200M committed to the Bee Branch Creek flood mitigation project, which will protect nearly 1,400 homes and businesses. It will prevent an estimated $582M in damage over its 100-year design life. Dubuque adopted policies and created funding streams to ensure that the project continues to protect homes and businesses. For example, a storm water detention policy prevents developments from creating new flooding problems. Property owners pay fees based on their property's impervious ground coverage area; these fees finance storm water management investments. Property owners who implement storm water best management practices are eligible for credits and incentives. Dubuque is part of the Catfish Creek WMA. The board adopted its Watershed Management Plan in 2014, a 20+year commitment focused on flood control structures, managing habitat, preserving and creating wetlands within the floodplain, managing natural green infrastructure, 119 and encouraging best agriculture practices. With SIAM from the State Revolving Fund, the WMA will implement streambank and riparian restoration on the South Fork of Catfish Creek to reduce total suspended solids by 2,186 tons/year, total phosphorous by 1,858 lbs/year, and total nitrogen by 3,716 lbs/year. The CCWMA also created a cost-share program for property owners to develop practices that focus on water quality/flood reduction on their land. Watershed planning is part of the Dubuque County Regional Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2013 as a policy document. Additional support through countywide storm water ordinances, developed in partnership with the Dubuque S WCD, further their work. Raising Standards: Citv of Dubuque. Dubuque has implemented improved and consistent design standards and specifications for infrastructure, including storm drainage and sanitary sewer systems. The Statewide Urban Design and Specification Standards (SUDAS), as adopted in 2014, provide engineers, developers, and contractors with tools to increase sustainability and strengthen infrastructure. The standards are subject to annual review and amended to reflect increased understanding of storm events and best practices. Raising Standards: Citv of Dubuque. In 2014, The Community Foundation of Greater Dubuque (CFGD)joined The Funders' Network Philanthropic Preparedness, Resiliency, & Emergency Partnership (PPREP). The group's purpose is to build community foundation leadership and capacity to create more resilient communities. The CFGD already prepared five disaster preparedness workbooks for Dubuque County and four affiliate counties. CFGD staff attended multiple events and learned alongside peer organizations about disaster preparedness and response. As a result of this work, CFGD's understanding, skill, and capacity have helped to position them to assist local communities as they prepare for, respond to, and recover from potential natural disasters. 120 Attachment F—Benefit Cost Analysis State of Iowa Iowa PhaseII BCA.pdf MID-URN Target Geography: Eligible target counties and subcounty areas Upper Iowa River Watershed: Winneshiek County (Census Tract 9504, Block Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4; and Census Tract 9501, Block Groups 1, 2, 3, 4) and Allamakee County (Sub- Census Tract numbers 9601, 9602, 9603, and 9604). Upper Wapsipinicon River Watershed: Buchanan County (Census Tract 9506, Block Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4) and Delaware County(Census Tract 9504m Block Groups 3 and 4). Middle Cedar River Watershed: Benton County (Census Tract numbers 9601, 9602, 9603, and 9604) and Tama County(Census Tract 2901, Block Groups 1 and 2; Census Tract 2902, Block Groups 1, 2, and 3; Census Tract 2903, Block Groups 1 and 2) Lower Iowa River, Clear Creek: Johnson County(Census Tract 2, Block Groups 1, 2, and 3; Census Tract 4, Block Groups 1, 2, and 3; Census Tract 5, Block Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4; Census Tract 23, Block Groups 1 and 2; Census Tract 103.1, Block Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4) and Iowa County(Census Tract 9601, Block Groups 1 and 3; Census Tract 9604, Block Groups 2 and 3). Lower Iowa River, English River: Iowa County(Census Tract 9604, Block Groups 2 and 3; Census Tract 9603, Block Groups 1, 2, and 3). North Raccoon River Watershed: Buena Vista Co (Census Tract numbers 9602, 9603, 9604, 9605, and 9606) and Pocahontas Co (Census Tracts 7801, 7802, and 7803). East Nishnabotna River Watershed: Fremont County (Census Tract 9701, Block Groups 1 and 2). West Nishnabotna River Watershed: Fremont County (Census Tract 9701, Block Groups 1 and 2) and Mills County(Census Tract 401, Block Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4) Citv of Dubuque: Dubuque County(Census Tracts 1, 4, 5, 6, and 11.02) F-1 Benefit-Cost Analysis Quantifiable Calculations This proposal and the Benefit-Cost Analysis were created with inputs from and data analysis by all the proposal partners and collaborators. The authors enlisted the support of environmental scientists familiar with the costs of flood mitigation and nutrient reduction practices, environmental economic experts, and the published economic reports and studies for these types of projects. The project investigators were significantly involved in preparing the costs and estimating the benefits throughout this process. Dubuque Data: The Dubuque projects will eliminate future flooding of housing and businesses located along the Bee Branch Creek in the city's lower-income north end neighborhood. This area has experienced seven major flash floods since 1999 with six Presidential Disaster Declarations. The Dubuque BCA uses HUD, FEMA, and Circular A-94 default values for all calculations where available. Thus, housing projects use a life expectancy of 30 years;three 10-year flood events are assumed in the next 30 years. The BCA accounts for avoided damages to housing and businesses based on actual past flood events and resultant damages. The BCA uses the same IMPLAN software and data as the Storm Lake and Coralville program to generate an analysis of the economic impact resulting from the projects, with discounts applied per Circular A-94 based on the anticipated years of construction. IMPLAN input-output(I-O) models are composed of government-collected data for Dubuque County and projects the impact based on the specific type of project. The benefits are non-duplicating for any project, and costs are 2015 estimates. Water-quality Data: Keith Schilling and Chris Jones of the Iowa Geological Survey (part of IIHR Hydroscience & Engineering at the University of Iowa) prepared the cost-benefit ratio based on the proposed work's impact on water quality in target watersheds. The projected F-2 environmental value of this project is based on water and soil resources, wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity, and predicted benefits for human health. The variables considered for the purpose of this study included the water-quality parameters (nitrate treatment and treatment for microbial pathogens such as Cryptosporidium and Giardia), loss of soil resources (soil erosion through tillage, cultivation, and land left bare after harvest), loss to the Louisiana fishing industry because of hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico), and damages to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Homeland Security and Emergency Management(HSEMD) staff conducted additional analyses using this data; they extend the benefit-cost analysis for the projected lifetime of the structures. Soil Loss: IWA partner Dr. Rick Cruse of the Iowa Water Center at Iowa State University prepared the benefit cost ratio of the effects of mitigating soil erosion in the target watersheds. Homeland Security and Emergency Management(HSEMD) staff performed additional analyses using this preliminary data. Reduced Stream Stage: IIHR Director and Professor Larry Weber and Nathan Young, Research Engineer at IIHR/IFC, projected the anticipated stream flow reduction and resulting stream stage reduction in the target watersheds. Homeland Security and Emergency Management (HSEMD) staff calculated the impact of the reduced flow on structures for the projected lifetime of the structures. Infrastructure Projects: David Swenson, an Associate Scientist in the Department of Economics at Iowa State University prepared the economic impact BCA of the infrastructure in Coralville and Storm Lake using IMPLAN software and information provided by the IWA proposal team. Mark Schneider of the East Central Intergovernmental Association completed the economic impact BCA of the infrastructure for the City of Dubuque. The BCA includes the full project costs, including direct leverage. F-3 Current Situation and Problem to be Solved The State of Iowa is subject to many hazards, including flooding,tornadoes, damaging straight line winds, and ice and winter storms. Iowa's most impacted and distressed areas suffer from impaired water quality due to soil erosion, nutrient runoff, and bacterial contamination, especially during extreme precipitation and flooding events. Phase 2, Need/Extent of the Problem, contains detailed information of the geographic makeup and populations served by the communities with the most need and therefore selected as part of this grant application. The impacts of significant flooding in Iowa's watersheds include damages to homes, businesses, and infrastructure. Agricultural practices within the state, as well as a trend toward increasing intensity and frequency of precipitation events, contribute to the magnitude of these floods. To address the issue of persistent severe flooding, soil erosion, and nutrient loss/redeposition, this proposal recommends a combination of construction, conservation, and rehabilitation/restoration projects in select HUC 12 watersheds throughout Iowa(See Phase II, Soundness of Approach, Project 1). These projects will demonstrate the effectiveness of planned, concentrated activities on reducing flooding and the associated environmental and societal costs of disaster events. Environmental conditions at the project sites vary by location. Qualified sites were chosen based on the presence of impaired streams as categorized by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources under the criteria established by Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Traditional habitats (tallgrass prairie, lowland wood)have been converted to open fields for agricultural uses, and many streams and rivers have been straightened, accelerating the delivery of water, sediment, and nutrients downstream. Row crop farming is the predominate use of land in Iowa, and the sites chosen reflect this primary use. F-4 Intensive row crop agriculture contributes excess nutrients in Iowa's waterways, as do impervious surfaces in urban areas that increase the amount and rate of water runoff. In rural areas, row cropping practices create vast empty fields that no longer possess the ability to absorb the quantity of water that they once could because of the loss of organic materials, microorganisms,fauna, and flora(soil tilth). The urban and rural growth trends contribute directly to increasing flood risk, which directly and negatively affects the related housing stock, businesses,transportation and utility infrastructure, and entire communities that developed along rivers. The Iowa Economic Development Authority,the Iowa Flood Center, Homeland Security and Emergency Management, and the City of Dubuque propose a multi-faceted approach to reducing flood risk and increasing individual and community flood resiliency through a suite of practices aimed at reducing flow during extreme hydrologic events. These practices include rehabilitation of floodplains and surrounding neighborhoods through the implementation of green engineering techniques, and watershed planning and construction activities that strategically target areas that can best serve flood reduction goals for entire HUC 12 watersheds. Specifically, the IWA will accomplish six goals: 1)reduce flood risk; 2) improve water quality; 3) increase resilience; 4) engage stakeholders through collaboration and outreach/education; 5) improve quality of life and health, especially for vulnerable populations; and 6) develop a program that is scalable and replicable throughout the Midwest and the United States. The IWA will accomplish these goals through; 1) a progression of built projects, including projects in the upstream portions of endangered Iowa watersheds, infrastructure projects, and Healthy Homes Resiliency Approach; and 2) engagement of stakeholders in programs at all levels to guide decisions and inform programs to increase flood resilience. The development of data-driven systems, methodologies, metrics, and reporting will enhance, guide, and refine these F-5 programs. In the majority of watersheds identified under the IWA proposal, WMAs will choose a slate of strategies based on the individual needs of the watershed based on slope, soils, land use, and location within the watershed. More "traditional"projects are proposed as well, including a storm sewer system retrofit project in Storm Lake (Project 8) and storm water pump stations retrofit in Coralville (Project 6). Each project will work in combination with the other projects in the watershed to increase resiliency and reduce risk both locally and throughout the watershed. Many of the proposed actions in the upper watersheds could remain in place in perpetuity with little or no additional support; however, a conservative 20-years project life is assumed, based on the 20-year maintenance agreement with landowners. The proposed projects will directly affect the amount of water entering the streams during and after a precipitation event; the proposed project implementation will spread this benefit across a large geographic area. However, the greatest effect will be felt in the immediate area of the smallest streams (in this case, HUC 12s) with a diminishing flooding effect as the streams join into larger rivers. However, project components also reduce environmental degradation, which will also have a significant impact downstream. The timeline for completion is included in each project description. The discount rate used in the benefit cost analysis calculations is the standard 7%rate established by OMB Circular A-94 through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's benefit cost analysis toolkit. Risks: Research has shown a trend toward more frequent, intense precipitation events (Phase II, Need/Extent of the Problem). The primary result of these precipitation changes is flooding causing minor to severe damage to transportation and utility infrastructures and environmental degradation (erosion and transportation of soil, nutrients, etc.). Without remediation, flooding of homes and basements along the Bee Branch Creek in the City of Dubuque, for example, will F-6 continue. Homeowners in these low-income areas are unable to fully repair their houses. In addition, the continued effects of soil erosion will degrade farmland in rural areas, requiring the use of more chemical fertilizers to maintain production, increasing nutrient concentrations in surface water and ultimately resulting in increased costs of water treatment for downstream communities and loss of habitat and biodiversity from Iowa to the Gulf of Mexico. Benefits and costs of this proposal: The benefit cost analysis estimates that $1,224,507,991 in costs can be avoided in the event of an equivalent qualifying disaster event by implementing the proposed projects. For each project type evaluated, a unique set of costs and benefits were used. See the attached BCA table for each analysis conducted. Lifecycle Costs These costs include: Project/Investment costs. Resiliency value Dubuque: The following calculations assume three 10-year flood events in the next 30 years. Utilitv treatment Outage: An average outage per event as per table below: 2.5days/6 events = .417 days/event # of People Duration Date Impacted (days) 05/17/99 1250 0.5 06/08/99 1250 0.25 06/04/02 1250 0.5 06/16/04 1250 0.25 05/30/08 1250 0.5 07/23/10 1250 0.5 Total Days 2.5 F-7 Loss of Wastewater treatment for hypothetical 3 floods over 30 years: .417 days/event 1250 people * 3 events * $126/day (loss of wastewater utility/day) _ $197,032.50 Loss of Electricity for hypothetical 3 floods over 30 years: .417 days/event * 1250 people * 3 events * $41/day(loss of electric utility/day) _ $64,113.75 Road Closures: Average days per event as per table below: 0.708 days/6 events — .12 days/event Additional Name of Additional Time of Road Duration Miles of Detour Date Closed da s Detour minutes Detour Route 22nd & Jackson south to East 22nd 20th, 20th north to Garfield, 05/17/99 Street 0.125 0.80 5.00 Garfield North to Windsor, Windsor East 22nd west to 24th, 24th south to 06/08/99 Street 0.083 0.80 5.00 Jackson East 22nd Jackson east to 22nd & 06/04/02 Street 0.125 0.80 5.00 reverse route East 22nd 06/16/04 Street 0.083 0.80 5.00 East 22nd 05/30/08 Street 0.125 0.80 5.00 East 22nd 07/23/10 Street 0.167 0.80 5.00 Total days 0.708 Iowa DOT records show 22nd Street carries 2200 cars/day. Detour is 0.8 miles. Mileage is $0.55/vehicle/mile (FEMA default rate). Average additional travel time is 5 minutes. Total time is $38.15/vehicle/hour. F-8 Detour time costs: (2200 cars * 0.12 days)/(60 minutes * 5 minutes * 3 events) = S66 Mileage Costs: 2200 cars * 0.12 days * 5 miles * $0.55 = $726/event * 3 events = $2178 Loss of Life: FEMA default value =0.32 lives/event. Application default value for loss of life = $6,600,000. Assume three events. 3 events * 0.32 per flood * $6,600,000 = $6,336,000 Asthma Health Care: 25,900,000 people with asthma at an annual cost of$56B= $2,162/person/year (US EPA 3/13 fact sheet and AAFA.org). Univ of CA- Berkley Study 2010 - general population experiences 4% asthma rate. Flooded properties experience 8% asthma rate. Project area beneficiaries include 1,250 people. General population with asthma= 1250*.04= 50. Flood properties with mold/mildew= 1250*0.8 = 100. Project area will have 50 more people than average with asthma. 50 people * $1262 * 3 events = $324,300. Mental Stress and Loss of Productivity represent FEMA standard values. Watersheds: The authors used the FEMA Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) Tool, Full Data Flood module (drainage improvement project category)to calculate the benefits to residential, commercial, and agricultural structures in the floodplains. In addition,they used standard FEMA depth damage functions in all cases, and selected a 20-year useful project life so that the BCA is congruent with maintenance agreements for various structures. The following data inputs were used: • Generic Residential Structure: Information about a generic residential structure in Iowa was determined by analyzing more than 1,100 residences located in the Special Flood Hazard Area(SFHA) or 100-year floodplain, which were acquired through the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). Average square footage was found to be 1,298. Data from the International Code Council (ICC) indicate that a conservative construction cost (building replacement value)per square foot is $125. Residential structures in Iowa have F-9 basements more commonly than not, so the presence of a basement was assumed. Single- story structures are also the most common, and the most conservative input for the FEMA BCA tool in calculating benefits. Generic residential structure location within each watershed was chosen based on where data were available, and where actual residences exist. Structure location is necessary to obtain data from the FEMA Flood Insurance Study(FIS). Where FIS data were not available, flood volume reduction data were used in its place. Where flood volume reduction data and/or FIS data were not available, the authors substituted average benefits per residential structure, calculated using benefits within the studied watersheds where FIS/reduction data are available. • Generic Commercial Structure. The authors determined information about a generic commercial structure in Iowa by analyzing more than 40 commercial properties located in the SFHA acquired through the HMGP. Conservative average square footage is 3,400, and ICC data indicate $140/sq. ft. construction cost is reasonable. The type of structure was assumed to be engineered, and primary use of building was assumed to be "office one-story," the combination thereof provides the most conservative level of benefits possible. Using this data, afigure of$19,627 in benefits for each commercial structure was used, regardless of the project/watershed in question. This was necessary to complete the analysis conservatively and on time, while avoiding over-complication. • Generic Agricultural Outbuilding. Generic agricultural structure data were determined by measuring several standard farm outbuildings located in the SFHA. Square footage averaged 9,775, and ICC data indicated $55/sq. ft. construction costs. Type of structure used is pre- engineered and primary use of building is "warehouse, non-refrigerated"to reflect reality as closely as possible. Using this data, the authors used a figure of$14,490 in benefits per farm F-10 outbuilding regardless of the project/watershed in question. This was necessary in the interest of completing the analysis conservatively and on time while avoiding over-complication. • Motel Structure. One watershed included three motels. Benefits for the motels were used in place of standard commercial structure benefits. Buildings were measured and averaged to 19,450 square feet, and ICC data were used to validate $145/sq. ft. construction cost. The building was assumed to be engineered, primary use "motel." • Mental Stress and Anxiety Benefits. For residential structures,two persons were used in calculating treatment costs for mental stress and anxiety. Average occupancy of a residential structure in Iowa is 2.5 persons. • Lost Productivity Benefits. For residential structures, one worker was used to calculate productivity loss costs. The assumption is that each residence houses at least one worker who would be unable to work for a short period immediately following damage to his or her residence. For commercial/motel structures, two workers unable to work for the period of time following a flood were assumed for each commercial operation. Agricultural structures used one worker for this element of the analysis. • Elevation and Discharge Data. Information from FEMA Flood Insurance Studies (FIS) and Flood Profiles, as well as Hydrology/Hydraulics reduction data provided by Larry Weber and Nate Young, were used where stream and flood data were required (before-mitigation and after-mitigation elevation and discharge data were based on FIS and Weber/Young flow reduction data). Where a percent reduction to flood volumes is expected, discharges were reduced by that percentage, and elevations were reduced by a factor of the reduction to discharge reduction. All benefitting structures are located within the SFHA, so grade elevation or first floor elevation must be equal to or lower than base flood elevation. To remain conservative, the F-11 first floor elevation was assumed to equal the base flood elevation. In reality, first floor elevations will be lower than base flood elevations in nearly all cases. Had an assumption of "less than base flood elevation"been made where first floor elevation data were required, benefits would have been considerably higher for this portion of the BCA. Where streambed data were unknown,the base flood elevation minus 10 feet was used. In order to calculate benefits per watershed, the number of each type of structure within the SFHA of each watershed was required. These were determined using one or more of the following techniques: o GIS: Where GIS data are available (SFHA and Structures), analysts and local Emergency Management Coordinators/Floodplain Administrators tallied the number of each structure type. o FEMA RiskMAP: Where available, FEMA RiskMAP data were used to arrive at the number of NFIP policies within each watershed. Policyholders were assumed to be within the SFHA or an area that would benefit from reduction in flood volume. o Preliminary Flood Maps: Effective flood maps were not available for several watersheds. In this case, preliminary flood maps or surface water flood risk overlays were used. Best available data were used in all cases. Environmental Value Water Quality (non-soil): Projected environmental value of this project is based on water and soil natural resources, wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity, and human health predicted benefits. The calculations used to estimate the value of these improvements as they pertain to water quality are based on a study conducted by Tegtmeier and Duffy at Iowa State University (Tegtmeier, Erin and Michael Duffy. "External Costs of Agricultural Production in the United States,"International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2004). Tegtmeier and F-12 Duffy estimate the costs of U.S. agricultural production based on the approximately 168.8 million hectares in production. Each external cost of production was divided by 168.8 million hectares and then multiplied by the acreage of each watershed as determined by GIS mapping. The study considered water-quality parameters (nitrate treatment and treatment for microbial pathogens such as Cryptosporidium and Giardia), loss to the Louisiana fishing industry, and damages to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. The results presented in the table below represent one year under normal flow conditions. The BCA numbers are calculated over 20 years based on landowner maintenance agreements and using a 7% discount rate. These numbers could increase dramatically under high flow conditions. otal Lrop V Nitrate Contrib. tom Pathogen UJWArea (Hectare) Treatment Gulf Treatment Cost T Mar Creek b6..a 32730.000 $36,003 $1,027,722 $22,584 Wr HIMM East Nishnab- 205888.545 $226,477 $6,464,900 $142,063 English River- 95329.050 $104,862 $2,993,332 $65,777 Wdl� 459957.745 $505,954 $14,442,673 $317,371 495288.907 $544,818 $15,552,072 $341,749 86980.065 $95,678 $2,731,174 $60,016 Upper�MM 289558.247 $318,514 $9,092,129 $199,795 -shnabotna 328677.400 $361,545 $10,320,470 $226,787 WildflWW Tota?VOSt HUC Name Ecosystem (One Year) 0 Clear Creek $229,110 $2,820,999 F-13 $1,441,220 $17,745,534 $667,303 $8,216,411 $3,219,704 $39,643,758 $3,467,022 $42,688,951 $608,860 $7,496,812 $2,026,908 $24,957,025 $2,300,742 $28,328,705 • Environmental Value (soil loss): Dr. Richard Cruse, Professor in the Agronomy Department at Iowa State University, prepared information to quantify the impact of soil erosion and transportation. Dr. Cruse is also director of the Iowa Water Center. His specific research focuses on: soil physical properties; soil and water conservation; soil and crop management; applied soil physics; and soil fertility. Benefits associated with reduced sediment delivery are based on estimated hillslope soil erosion rates, delivery of that soil offsite, and sediment removal costs from offsite locations. Period-specific soil erosion rates for selected HUC 12s within the project area were obtained from the Daily Erosion Project(DEP) (http://www.dailyerosion.org). The DEP is a Water Erosion Prediction Project-based program (WEPP) estimating hillslope soil loss daily for each HUC 12 in Iowa. The project uses spatially and temporally specific precipitation, land management, and soil input data Hillslope soil loss obtained from DEP for a landscape dominated by corn and soybeans is adjusted for perennial cover based on the cropping factor (C) ratios used in the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation. Soil eroded from hillslopes (DEP derived and C factor adjusted) was multiplied by a Sediment Deliver Ratio (SDR)used by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)to estimate offsite sediment delivery. Trapping F-14 efficiencies of structures used in this proposal were also based on values used by the IDNR. The SDR to structures was set to 0.7, which equals the highest SDR of the HUC 8s in this project; this relatively high value was selected because structures are typically in field or close to sediment sources. Offsite sediment removal costs are based on sediment excavation costs obtained from the Iowa Department of Transportation; these are estimated as $10.00 per ton of sediment. Dr. Cruse's data were shared with professional staff with Homeland Security and Emergency Management(HSEMD)for calculation of the benefit cost analysis. Social Value See non-quantifiable benefits. Economic Revitalization Regional Flood Protection and Watershed Project Economic Effects. Terminology: Because the accompanying tables contain information that may be new to readers, a short introduction to input-output terminology is in order. The types of economic impact data are as follows: o Output. This is the value of industrial productivity over the course of a year. It represents the worth of what was produced whether it was sold or not. For public institutions, output is usually represented by annual expenditures. In this instance, output represents the annual value of the construction projects and other supporting payments to engineering firms or local government agencies. o Labor income. These are wage and salary payments to workers, including employer- provided benefits. Management payments to proprietors are also counted as labor income payments. F-15 o Value added. This includes all labor income (mentioned above), plus payments to investors (dividends, interests, and rents), and indirect tax payments to governments. Value added is the equivalent of Gross Domestic Product(GDP), which is the standard measure of economic activity nationwide. o Jobs. There are many kinds of jobs. I-O models measure the annualized job value in different industries. Many industries have mostly full-time jobs, but many others have part-time and seasonal jobs. I-O models do not convert jobs into full-time equivalencies, but they do convert them into annualized equivalencies. As many people have more than one job, there are always more jobs in an economy than there are employed persons. The levels of economic impact data are as follows: o Direct values. These are the aforementioned data types for the industry being evaluated. In this evaluation, the annual project related expenditures in the project counties are the direct values. o Indirect values. All direct firms require intermediate inputs into production. They must buy supplies, utilities, fuels, other agricultural or manufactured inputs, transportation, and services,just to name afew. o Induced values. When the workers in the direct industry(in this case, primarily civil engineering construction) and those in the supplying sectors (as described above) convert their labor income into household spending,they induce a third round of economic activity. Induced values are sometimes called the household values. o Total values. The sum of direct, indirect, and induced activity constitute the total economic effect being measured. In short, it gives us the economic sums of the studied industry or project, its suppliers, and all affected households. F-16 Findings Project 41 Dubuque Housing Rehabilitation Impacts The housing component of the project will cost $11.89M. The project will be completed in four years, 2016-2019. Construction of the housing component of the project will employ 82.1 workers making $3.78M in labor incomes and will result in direct economic output of $10.6M. These businesses will require $2.6M in regionally sourced inputs that will require 23.9 jobs making $965K in labor incomes. When direct and indirect workers spend their paychecks, they will buy $3M in goods and services, which will support 29.3 jobs and $1M in labor income. The table below displays the results of the analysis. Dubuque Housing Construction/Rehab Impacts Jobs Labor Income Value Added Output Direct 83.1 $3,829,172 $4,763,429 $10,716,983 Indirect 24.2 $976,959 $1,515,564 $2,594,455 Induced 29.6 $1,044,653 $1,832,591 $3,057,646 Total 136.9 $5,850,785 $8,111,585 $16,369,084 Findings Project 42a Dubuque Railroad Culvert Infrastructure The estimated cost of the railroad culvert component of the project is $18M. The project will be competed in two years, spring 2018 to September 2020. Construction of the culvert component of the project will employ 84.4 workers making $4.1M in labor incomes and will result in direct economic output of$16.2M. These businesses will require $4.6M in regionally sourced inputs that will require 46.5 jobs making $1.8M in labor incomes. When direct and indirect workers spend their paychecks, they will buy $3.7M in goods and services, which will support 36.1 jobs and $7.2M in labor income. The table below displays the results of the analysis. F-17 Culvert Construction Impacts Jobs Labor Income Value Added Output Direct 84.4 $4,117,892 $5,289,748 $16,207,456 Indirect 46.5 $1,808,366 $2,827,365 $4,621,230 Induced 36.1 $1,273,774 $2,231,847 $3,726,562 Total 167.0 $7,200,032 $10,348,959 $24,555,247 Dubuque Storm Water Improvements—E. 22nd St./Kaufmann Ave. The estimated cost of the E. 22nd St. Kaufmann Ave storm sewer is $11.5M. The project will be completed in 18 months, April 2018 to September 2020. Construction of the project will employ 51.2 workers making $2.5M in labor incomes and will result in direct economic output of$9.8M. These businesses will require $2.8M in regionally sourced inputs that will require 28.2 jobs making $1.1M in labor incomes. When direct and indirect workers spend their paychecks, they will buy $2.26M in goods and services, which will support 21.9 jobs and $4.4M in labor income. The table below displays the results of the analysis. East 22nd St./Kaufmann Ave. Storm Sewer Construction Impacts Jobs Labor Income Value Added Output Direct 51.2 $2,496,577 $3,207,044 $9,826,183 Indirect 28.2 $1,096,368 $1,714,162 $2,801,738 Induced 21.9 $772,258 $1,353,114 $2,259,323 Total 42.2 $4,365,203 $6,274,320 $14,887,244 F-18 Dubuque Storm Water Improvements W. 17th St./W. Locust St. The estimated cost of the W. 17th Street/W. Locust Street Storm Sewer component is $20.2M. The project will be completed in 18 months, April 2016 to September 2017. Construction of the project will employ 98.8 workers making $4.8M in labor incomes and will result in direct economic output of$18.96M. These businesses will require $5.4M in regionally sourced inputs that will require 54.5 jobs making $2.1M in labor incomes. When direct and indirect workers spend their paychecks, they will buy $4.3million in goods and services, which will support 42.2 jobs and $1.5M in labor income. The table below displays the results. West 17th St./West Locust St. Storm Sewer Construction Impacts Jobs Labor Income Value Added Output Direct 98.8 $4,819,647 $6,191,206 $18,969,468 Indirect 54.5 $2,116,541 $3,309,194 $5,408,762 Induced 42.2 $1,490,846 $2,612,189 $4,361,629 Total 195.5 $8,427,034 $12,112,589 $28,739,859 Findings Storm Lake Flood Infrastructure(Part of Project 8) The regional economic effects attributable to the Storm Lake Flood Protection Project were evaluated using an IMPLAN, Inc., input-output modeling system populated with a Buena Vista County dataset. This civil engineering construction project will take two years to complete. The model treats all activity completed by fall 2016 as year one of the project, and all activity to be completed by fall 2017 as project year two. The results, therefore, represent the expected annual number of jobs and amounts of income, value added, and total industrial output supported in the region for the duration of the project. F-19 The total economic effects for year one of the Storm Lake infrastructure projects (eight phases) are displayed below. In the first year, the project will cost $5.415M in primarily civil engineering construction activity. That sector of the local economy will require 27.3 jobs earning $1.007M in labor income. The direct construction activity will require $1.34M in inputs from the regional economy. The supplying firms will therefore require nine jobholders earning $530,035 in labor income. When the direct and indirect jobholders convert their labor income into household spending, they will induce another $646,402 in output in the region, which in turn will pay $194,411 in labor income to an additional 5.9 jobs. Summed, this activity will boost the regional economy in year one by $7.4M in total output and create $2.26M in value added (or regional GDP), of which $1.731M would be labor income to 42.2 job holders. Storm Lake Flood Protection Project Economic Effects: Year 1 Jobs Labor Income Value Added Output Direct 27.3 $1,006,736 $1,126,655 $5,415,000 Indirect 9.0 $530,035 $761,210 $1,340,445 Induced 5.9 $194,411 $372,708 $646,402 Total 42.2 $1,731,182 $2,260,573 $7,401,848 The table belowError! Reference source not found.contains the expected economic effects for the second year of the project, with construction-related spending of$3.218M. After all effects are multiplied through, the project will sustain $4.4M in total output and contribute $1.343M in value added (or regional GDP)to the area economy, of which $1.029M will be labor income to 25.1 jobholders. F-20 Storm Lake Flood Protection Project Economic Effects: Year 2 Jobs Labor Income Value Added Output Direct 16.2 $598,278 $669,543 $3,218,000 Indirect 5.4 $314,987 $452,368 $796,593 Induced 3.5 $115,534 $221,491 $384,141 Total 25.1 $1,028,799 $1,343,403 $4,398,734 Findings Coralville Flood Control Project(Part of Project 6) This is similar to the Storm Lake project; however, all activity is to be completed in 18 months. For modeling purposes, that means two-thirds of the economic effects will occur in year 1, and one-third will occur in year 2. The tables are displayed below. Coralville Flood Protection Project Economic Effects: Year 1 Jobs Labor Income Value Added Output Direct 9.1 $566,841 $606,813 $2,038,667 Indirect 4.0 $180,401 $312,313 $569,881 Induced 3.1 $104,363 $209,672 $354,422 Total 16.2 $851,606 $1,128,798 $2,962,970 Coralville Flood Protection Project Economic Effects: Year 2 Jobs Labor Income Value Added Output Direct 4.6 $283,421 $303,407 $1,019,334 Indirect 2.0 $90,201 $156,157 $284,941 Induced 1.6 $52,182 $104,836 $177,211 F-21 Total 8.1 $425,803 $564,399 $1,481,485 Risks to Ongoing Benefit: The proposed watershed projects are designed to decrease downstream flooding and improve water quality to help offset land management practices and trends toward increased precipitation and flooding. The unique nature of the proposed projects means that as long as they are designed properly (see design standards for each project type in Phase II, Soundness of Approach, Program 1) and allowed to continue to function to designed capabilities,the majority of these projects should make the landscape more resilient to future events of greater intensity and magnitude. Challenges with Implementation: There are few risks to the proposed program. Participation is voluntary, and landowner interest is high. The proposed projects are proven effective. The IFC participated in public engagement events and/or board of supervisors meetings in all the target watersheds (East and West Nishnabotna meeting was joint). Most groups were already familiar with the success of the current Iowa Watersheds Project. Some are starting to work toward a WMA or have some similar program upon which their WMA will be based. The Iowa Watersheds Project BCA: 7.07 Projects: The BCA for each of the separate ten projects: 1. Bee Branch Healthy Homes 2.38 6. Clear Creek 4.77 2. Bee Branch Infrastructure 2.1 7. English River 5.17 3. Upper Iowa 7.34 8. North Raccoon 30.68 4. Upper Wapsipinicon 18.93 9. East Nishnabotna 27.66 5. Middle Cedar River 12.79 10. West Nishnabotna 15.34 Scaling/Scoping:Alternative 1: 6.41;Alternative 2: 5.36; Alternative 3: 5.01 F-22 Non-quantifiable Benefits Economic Revitalization (Tourism): Natural resources, associated outdoor recreation, and tourism generate billions of dollars in Iowa, supporting job creation in the state. A 2013 study found that traveler spending in Iowa totaled $7.613 during 2012 and supported 64,400 jobs. Of the total Iowa tourism dollars, the watersheds targeted in this project are responsible for approximately $200M. The largest contributor is the Upper Iowa River Watershed, where Allamakee and Winneshiek counties were responsible for $68M in tourism expenditures, much of it related to fishing. Changes to the watershed as a result of large-scale flooding such as the events of 2008 and 2013 adversely affects local residents dependent on tourism income. The IWA will not only improve downstream conditions during a flood, but will also improve water quality during regular flow conditions. This may result in impaired waters becoming habitable again for fish species requiring cold clear water. This, in turn, will benefit the local tourism economy(and local recreation). Environment: It is difficult to quantify the value of the quality-of-life benefits of natural resource amenities. The resulting improved water quality from this project will enhance biotic diversity, including aquatic macroinvertebrates, fish, reptiles, and amphibians. Some of the specific implemented projects, such as prairie STRIPS, will provide habitat for a range of birds, mammals, and insects, such as the monarch butterfly, which is declining in numbers due to loss of milkweed. Re-established wetlands in the North Raccoon River Watershed (NRRW) will provide habitat for migrating waterfowl. (In 2011, the participation rate of wildlife viewers in Iowa was among the highest in the nation at 44%. The Prairie Pothole region is home to more than 50% of North America's migratory waterfowl and a favorite area for birdwatchers.) Thus, new wetlands in the NRRW may provide benefits to birds and increase local tourism. The values and linked benefits between them are endless. F-23 A 2007 study at Iowa State University(Otto, M., Manchuk, D., Jintanakul, K., and Kling, C., "The Economic Value of Iowa's Natural Resources," Iowa State University Department of Economics, December 2007) estimated the economic value of these resources beyond tourism expenditures and calculated the net economic benefits of new investments in resource preservation. The economic value is determined from the difference between what consumers would be willing to pay for the experience and what they actually pay. The study found that this value is $1.1B dollars for Iowa. We expect strong positive impacts on the environment (++) based on the number of projects to be implemented and past impacts of these types of projects. Social Value (Community Resilience): The IWA, especially the community resiliency programming, will result in improved resilience to flooding, especially for vulnerable populations,through programs to promote awareness and community-wide flood resilience action plans. The field of community resilience and metrics to measure them is still a developing area, led in part by the National Academy of Science and the Rockefeller Foundation. Initial and ongoing assessment and benchmarking will help to ensure the program's success. Expected specific outcomes will include greater understanding of: community geographical context within a watershed; specific actions a community can take to increase resilience; local social services available to help in the event of a flood; how to stay safe in the event of a flood; how to make homes and businesses more resilient; and the impact on flood risk of increasing trends in precipitation and flooding. All of these outcomes, in concert with the many proposed activities to decrease flood risk, will help Iowans anticipate, prepare for, and adapt to changing conditions, as well as to withstand, respond to, and recover rapidly from a flood. We expect strong positive impacts (++). Social value (Health): There is an undeniable link between home environment, income, and health. A holistic approach as presented in the BBHHRP is aimed at breaking the cycle of F-24 substandard housing, poor health, and unemployment/underemployment. It is more than a healthy home; it is turning a green and healthy home into a successful household. Since the late 1970s, Dubuque has worked to remove lead and lead-based paint from historic homes and has significantly decreased the incidence of lead poisoning in children. The economic impact can also be measured: for every 1 microgram per deciliter of lead in the blood, an individual experiences $2,552 in costs. Environmental risks such as mold and mildew, currently in some homes affected by the 2011 flood and recurring rain events, can affect health, productivity, development in children, and viability in the elderly. These risks are usually not visible. Cockroaches, moisture, and dust mites, found in many affected homes, are triggers for half of the 25 million Americans who have asthma. Twenty-five percent of health risks come from the home environment. Therefore, programs such as the BBHHRP that impact housing quality are the perfect scenario for primary preventions. Overall, we expect strong positive health impacts (++) based on improvements to infrastructure that lessen the likelihood that homes will take on rainwater, and improvements that will leave the affected homes more resilient and healthy. Social value (Cultural): Iowa has a rich archaeological record, with sites across the state ranging in age from Paleoindian (as early as around 11,000 B.C.)through the late prehistoric and historic. A common denominator for most known sites in Iowa is their proximity to water. The closer you are to a water source, especially within 100 meters,the more likely you are to find an archaeological site. The IWA will not only take appropriate measures to identify and protect archaeological sites during project implementation (Soundness of Approach, Program 1), but its activities will also help prevent site destruction due to erosion. Both identified and yet-to-be identified archaeological sites will benefit from decreased streambank erosion, which damages and destroys archaeological sites. F-25 BCA Costs and Benefits: Full Budget Request Page #in Factor Narratives Qualitative Description of Quantitative Apsment(basis/ Costs and Benefits by Category Effect and Rationale for methodology for calculating Monetized Monetized Effect Uncertainty or BCA Attachment Including in BCA Effect with data sources Life Cycle Costs City of Dubuque Housing Rehab Soundness of Approach Estimated cost based on number of $11,891,767 1 Project 1 expected units, includes direct leverage City of Dubuque Culvert Project Soundness of Approach Estimated project cost, includes direct $18,000,000 1 Project leverage City of Dubuque Storm Sewer Soundness of Approach Estimated project cost $11,500,000 1 Kaufman Project 2 City of Dubuque Storm Sewer Soundness of Approach Estimated project cost, includes direct $20,200,000 1 17th&W. Locust Project leverage Winneshiek County-Upper Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $10,782,500 1 Iowa Project 3 including landowner direct leverage Howard County-Upper Wapsi Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $7,297,500 1 Project 4 including landowner direct levera e Benton County-Middle Cedar Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $19,175,000 1 Project 5 includinglandowner direct levera e Johnson County-Clear Creek Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $7,323,750 1 Project 6 includinglandowner direct levera e City of Coralville-Pump Station Soundness of Approach Estimated project cost, includes direct $2,446,400 1 Infrastructure Project Project leverage Iowa County-English River Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $10,783,750 1 Project 7 including landowner direct leverage Buena Vista County-North Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $7,321,250 1 Raccoon Project 8 including landowner direct levera e City of Storm Lake - Soundness of Approach Estimated project cost, includes direct $8,633,000 1 Infrastructure Projects Project 8 ileverage F-26 BCA Costs and Benefits: Full Budget Request Fremont County-East Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $3,851,250 1 Nishnabotna Project 9 includinglandowner direct levera e Mills County-West Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $10,796,250 1 Nishnabotna Project 10 includinglandowner direct levera e Planning Costs Soundness ofApproach $16,868,042 1 Total Admin(includes pre-award $6,237,820 1 expenses) TOTAL COSTS $173,108,279 Resilient Value City of Dubuque-Loss of Waste BCA Narrative,pages 6-7 Reducing flooding will FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Water utility-FEMA BCA prevent storm water from $197,033 2 default rate flooding the sanitary sewer Loss of wastewater service was calculated system. City of Dubuque-Loss of BCA Narrative,pages 6-7 Reduced vulnerability of FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Electric utility-FEMA BCA electrical infrastructure due $64,114 2 default rate to future,repeated disasters. Loss of electrical service was calculated City of Dubuque-Road Closures BCA Narrative,pages 7-8 During flooding events FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. (mileage) experienced if infrastructure improvements are not made, Data sources include Iowa DOT traffic $2,178 2 road closures will impact counts and locally-identified detour routes. community mobility. City of Dubuque-Road closures BCA Narrative,pages 7-8 During flooding events FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. (time) experienced if infrastructure improvements are not made, Data sources include Iowa DOT traffic $66 2 road closures will impact counts and locally-identified detour routes. community mobility. City of Dubuque-Loss of Life BCA Narrative,page 8 Prevention of loss of life (flash flood)-FEMA BCA caused by repeated,future $6,336,000 2 default rate I iflooding F-27 BCA Costs and Benefits: Full Budget Request City of Dubuque-Asthma- BCA Narrative,page 8 Mold and mildew present in FEMA BCA Tool used to monetize. health costs affected homes lead to resident asthma and related US EPA and University of California health care costs. Berkley Study(2010)used to determine $324,300 2 asthma rates. Annual treatment costs established by Visiting Nurses Association and American Lung Association. City of Dubuque-NPV Business FEMA BCA Tool was used Reduction in expected FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. flood damages to monetize. property damages due to future disasters. Reduced vulnerability of waste water $572,571 2 infrastructure due to future, repeated disasters. City of Dubuque-NPV loss of FEMA BCA Tool was used Reduction in expected FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. revenue(businesses) to monetize. property damages due to future disasters. Reduced vulnerability of waste water $2,709,714 2 infrastructure due to future, repeated disasters. City of Dubuque-NPV Public FEMA BCA Tool was used Reduction in expected FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Infrastructure costs to monetize. property damages due to future disasters. Reduced vulnerability of waste water $756,568 2 infrastructure due to future, repeated disasters. City of Dubuque-Mental Stress BCA Narrative,page 8 Mental stress is a known FEMA standard value. result of natural disasters as residents cope with unexpected economic costs, $7,329,000 2 relocation,disruption of daily schedule,potential loss of income etc. F-28 BCA Costs and Benefits: Full Budget Request City of Dubuque-Loss of BCA Narrative,page 8 Loss of productivity is a FEMA standard value. Productivity community and individual outcomes as businesses are closed,residents need to $26,208,000 2 rebuild, do not have access to services etc. City of Dubuque-NPV future FEMA BCA Tool was used Reducing flooding impact to FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. flood damages-7%discount rate to monetize. homes via infrastructure and home improvements will Data sources include FEMA Flood increase property values and Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood avoid recovery costs to Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes taxpayers Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, GIS $3,908,791 2 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. Winneshiek County-Upper BCA Narrative,Pages 7-10 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Iowa-Reduction of Expected Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Property Damages and Structures in Floodplain properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood Displacement floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, GIS $24,671,632 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. F-29 BCA Costs and Benefits: Full Budget Request Howard County-Upper Wapsi- BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Reduction of Expected Property Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Damages and Displacement Structures in Floodplain properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, GIS $7,025,664 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. Benton County-Middle Cedar- BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Reduction of Expected Property Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Damages and Displacement Structures in Floodplain properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, GIS $33,264,816 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. Johnson County-Clear Creek- BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Reduction of Expected Property Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Damages and Displacement Structures in Floodplain properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, GIS $5,811,422 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. F-30 BCA Costs and Benefits: Full Budget Request Iowa County-English River- BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Reduction of Expected Property Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Damages and Displacement Structures in Floodplain properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, GIS $1,122,391 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. Buena Vista County-North BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Raccoon-Reduction of Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Expected Property Damages and Structures in Floodplain properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood Displacement floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, GIS $11,398,387 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. Fremont County-East BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Nishnabotna-Reduction of Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Expected Property Damages and Structures in Floodplain properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood Displacement floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, GIS $2,338,477 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. F-31 BCA Costs and Benefits: Full Budget Request Mills County-West BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Nishnabotna-Reduction of Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Expected Property Damages and Structures in Floodplain properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood Displacement floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, GIS $9,165,302 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. TOTAL RESILIENCY $143,206,425 BENEFITS Environmental Value IN- City of Dubuque City of Storm BCA Narratve,Pages 22-24 Reducing the flooding will N/A Lake Infrastructure prevent flooded sanitary sewers from discharging ++ untreated wastewater into local creeks. Upper Iowa River-Reduction in BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to monetize. sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated bill slope soil Delivery erosion rates,delivery of that Data sources include: Richard M. Cruse, soil offsite,and sediment Professor&Director Iowa Water Center removal costs from,offsite Iowa State University,Larry J. Weber, $17,478,460 1 locations. Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa,Daily Erosion Report.org, Mesonet,Iowa Department of Transportation F-32 BCA Costs and Benefits: Full Budget Request Upper Wapsipinicon-Reduction BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to monetize. in sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated bill slope soil Delivery erosion rates,delivery of that Data sources include: Richard M. Cruse, soil offsite,and sediment Professor&Director Iowa Water Center removal costs from,offsite Iowa State University,Larry J. Weber, $7,837,632 1 locations. Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa,Daily Erosion Report.org, Mesonet,Iowa Department of Transportation Middle River-Reduction in BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to monetize. sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated bill slope soil Delivery erosion rates,delivery of that Data sources include: Richard M. Cruse, soil offsite,and sediment Professor&Director Iowa Water Center removal costs from,offsite Iowa State University,Larry J. Weber, $16,190,302 1 locations. Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa,Daily Erosion Report.org, Mesonet,Iowa Department of Transportation Clear Creek-Reduction in BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to monetize. sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated bill slope soil Delivery erosion rates,delivery of that Data sources include: Richard M. Cruse, soil offsite,and sediment Professor&Director Iowa Water Center removal costs from,offsite Iowa State University,Larry J. Weber, $15,210,843 1 locations. Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa,Daily Erosion Report.org, Mesonet,Iowa Department of Transportation F-33 BCA Costs and Benefits: Full Budget Request English River-Reduction in BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to monetize. sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated bill slope soil Delivery erosion rates,delivery of that Data sources include: Richard M. Cruse, soil offsite,and sediment Professor&Director Iowa Water Center removal costs from,offsite Iowa State University,Larry J. Weber, $14,026,951 1 locations. Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa,Daily Erosion Report.org, Mesonet,Iowa Department of Transportation North Raccoon River- BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to monetize. Reduction in sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated bill slope soil Delivery erosion rates,delivery of that Data sources include: Richard M. Cruse, soil offsite,and sediment Professor&Director Iowa Water Center removal costs from,offsite Iowa State University,Larry J. Weber, $2,327,600 1 locations. Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa,Daily Erosion Report.org, Mesonet,Iowa Department of Transportation West/EastNishnabotna River- BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to monetize. Reduction in sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated bill slope soil Delivery erosion rates,delivery of that Data sources include: Richard M. Cruse, soil offsite,and sediment Professor&Director Iowa Water Center removal costs from,offsite Iowa State University,Larry J. Weber, $33,051,534 1 locations. Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa,DailyErosionReport.org, Mesonet, Iowa Department of Transportation F-34 BCA Costs and Benefits: Full Budget Request Upper Iowa-Damage to Water BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water quality Net present value of benefits was calculated Resources,Wildlife& 13 -Water Quality Benefits (nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate of Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $37,033,801 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the Universitv of Iowa. Upper Wapsipinicon-Damage BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water quality Net present value of benefits was calculated to Water Resources,Wildlife& 13 -Water Quality Benefits (nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate of Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $123,286,209 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the Universitv of Iowa. Middle Cedar-Damage to BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water quality Net present value of benefits was calculated Water Resources,Wildlife & 13 -Water Quality Benefits (nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate of Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $195,837,788 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the Universitv of Iowa. Clear Creek-Damage to Water BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water quality Net present value of benefits was calculated Resources,Wildlife& 13 -Water Quality Benefits (nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate of Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $13,935,564 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the Universitv of Iowa. F-35 BCA Costs and Benefits: Full Budget Request English River-Damage to Water BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water quality Net present value of benefits was calculated Resources,Wildlife& 13 -Water Quality Benefits (nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate of Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $40,588,577 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the Universitv of Iowa. North Raccoon-Damage to BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water quality Net present value of benefits was calculated Water Resources,Wildlife & 13 -Water Quality Benefits (nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate of Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $210,880,858 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the Universitv of Iowa. East Nishnabotna-Damage to BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water quality Net present value of benefits was calculated Water Resources,Wildlife & 13 -Water Quality Benefits (nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate of Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $87,661,872 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the Universitv of Iowa. West Nishnabotna-Damage to BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water quality Net present value of benefits was calculated Water Resources,Wildlife & 13 -Water Quality Benefits (nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate of Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $139,942,105 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the Universitv of Iowa. F-36 BCA Costs and Benefits: Full Budget Request Environmental:Enhanced biotic Pages 24-24-BCA Non-quantifiable value of N/A diversity, including aquatic Narrative-Unquantifiable environmental impacts macroinvenebrates, fish,reptiles, environmental benefits ++ 1 and amphibians.New habitat for birds,mammals, insects. TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL $955,290,096 BENEFITS Community Development/Social Value City of Dubuque, City of Storm BCA Narrative,Pages 23- Prevention of loss of life and N/A Lake,and City of Coralville 24 the reduction in human Infrastructure suffering as a result of wastewater and mold ++ 2 exposure caused by repeated, future flooding. Benefits low and moderate income persons. Community increase resilience in BCA Narrative,Pages 23- Non-quantifiable value of N/A each target community(Program 24 increased resilience ++ 2 2, Community Resilience) TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/SOCIAL VALUE BENEFITS Economic Revitalization City of Dubuque-Economic BCA Narrative,Page 15-16 Impact on the local economy IMPLAN software with Dubuque County Impact-Housing based on job creation and dataset was used. value added to the economy $16,169,663 2 during project construction. City of Dubuque-Economic BCA Narrative,Page 17 Impact on the local economy IMPLAN software with Dubuque County Impact-Culvert based on job creation and dataset was used. value added to the economy $24,555,247 2 during project construction. F-37 BCA Costs and Benefits: Full Budget Request City of Dubuque-Economic BCA Narrative,Page 16-17 Impact on the local economy INIPLAN software with Dubuque County Impact- Storm sewer Kaufmann based on job creation and dataset was used. Ave. value added to the economy $14,887,244 2 during project construction. City of Dubuque-Economic BCA Narrative,Page 17-18 Impact on the local economy INIPLAN software with Dubuque County Impact- Storm Sewer 17th&W. based on job creation and dataset was used. Locust value added to the economy $28,739,859 2 during project construction. City of Coralville -Pump Station BCA Narrative,Page 21 Impact on the local economy INIPLAN software with Johnson County based on job creation and dataset was used. value added to the economy $31,538,032 1 during project construction. City of Storm Lake - 8 Infrastruct BCA Narrative,Pages 20- Impact on the local economy INIPLAN software with Buena Vista County 21 based on job creation and dataset was used. value added to the economy $10,121,425 2 during project construction. Economic Revitalization in each BCA Narrative,Page 23 Non-quantifiable value of N/A Target Watershed improving water to enhance ++ 2 recreation,sport, and related future tourism TOTAL ECONOX1IC REVITALIZATION BENEFITS $126,011,470 TOTAL BENEFITS $1,224,507,991 BENEFIT-COST RATIO 1 7.07 F-38 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 1 Page#in Factor Narratives Qualitative Description of Quantitative Assessment(basis/ Costs and Benefits by Category Effect and Rationale for methodology for calculating Monetized Monetized Effect Uncertainty or BCA Attachment Including in BCA Effect with data sources) Life Cycle Costs City of Dubuque Housing Soundness of Approach Estimated cost based on number of $9,124,460 1 Rehab Project 1 expected units, includes direct leverage City of Dubuque Culvert Soundness of Approach Estimated project cost, includes direct $18,000,000 1 Project Project leverage City of Dubuque Storm Sewer Soundness of Approach Estimated project cost $11,500,000 1 Kaufman Project 2 City of Dubuque Storm Sewer Soundness of Approach Estimated project cost, includes direct $15,200,000 1 17th&W. Locust Project 2 leverage Winneshiek County-Upper Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $7,946,000 1 Iowa Project 3 includinglandowner direct levera e Howard County-Upper Wapsi Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $7,030,394 1 Project 4 including landowner direct leverage Benton County-Middle Cedar Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $17,543,787 1 Project 5 includinglandowner direct levera e Johnson County-Clear Creek Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $7,148,380 1 Project 6 including landowner direct leverage City of Coralville-Pump Soundness of Approach Estimated project cost, includes direct $2,446,400 1 Station Infrastructure Project Project 7 leverage Iowa County-English River Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $9,368,013 1 Project 8 includinglandowner direct levera e Buena Vista County-North Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $5,962,422 1 Raccoon Project 9 including landowner direct leverage F-39 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 1 City of Storm Lake - Soundness of Approach Estimated project cost, includes direct $8,633,000 1 Infrastructure Projects Project 10 leverage Fremont County-East Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $3,493,935 1 Nishnabotna Project 11 includinglandowner direct levera e Mills County-West Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $9,080,531 1 Nishnabotna Project 12 including landowner direct leverage Planning Costs $15,936,542 1 Total Administration $5,616,946 1 TOTAL COSTS $154,030,810 Resiliency Value City of Dubuque -Loss of BCA Narrative,pages 6-7 Reducing flooding will FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Waste Water utility-FEMA prevent storm water from $157,624 2 BCA default rate flooding the sanitary sewer Loss of wastewater service was calculated system. City of Dubuque -Loss of BCA Narrative,pages 6-7 Reduced vulnerability of FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Electric utility-FEMA BCA electrical infrastructure due $51,292 2 default rate to future,repeated disasters. Loss of electrical service was calculated City of Dubuque -Road BCA Narrative,pages 7-8 During flooding events FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Closures(mileage) experienced if infrastructure improvements are not made, Data sources include Iowa DOT traffic $2,176 2 road closures will impact counts and locally-identified detour routes. community mobility. City of Dubuque -Road BCA Narrative,pages 7-8 During flooding events FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. closures(time) experienced if infrastructure improvements are not made, Data sources include Iowa DOT traffic $66 2 road closures will impact counts and locally-identified detour routes. community mobility. F-40 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 1 City of Dubuque -Loss of Life BCA Narrative,page 8 Prevention of loss of life (flash flood)-FEMA BCA caused by repeated, future $6,336,000 2 default rate flooding City of Dubuque -Asthma- BCA Narrative,page 8 Mold and mildew present in FEMA BCA Tool used to monetize. health costs affected homes lead to resident asthma and related US EPA and University of California health care costs. Berkley Study(2010)used to determine $259,440 2 asthma rates. Annual treatment costs established by Visiting Nurses Association and American Lung Association. City of Dubuque -NPV FEMA BCA Tool was used Reduction in expected FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Business flood damages to monetize. property damages due to future disasters. Reduced vulnerability of waste water $572,572 2 infrastructure due to future, repeated disasters. City of Dubuque -NPV loss of FEMA BCA Tool was used Reduction in expected FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. revenue(businesses) to monetize. property damages due to future disasters. Reduced vulnerability of waste water $2,709,712 2 infrastructure due to future, repeated disasters. City of Dubuque -NPV Public FEMA BCA Tool was used Reduction in expected FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Infrastructure costs to monetize. property damages due to future disasters. Reduced vulnerability of waste water $756,568 2 infrastructure due to future, repeated disasters. F-41 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 1 City of Dubuque -Mental BCA Narrative,page 8 Mental stress is a known FEMA standard value. Stress result of natural disasters as residents cope with unexpected economic costs, $5,863,200 2 relocation, disruption of daily schedule,potential loss of income, etc. City of Dubuque -Loss of BCA Narrative,page 8 Loss of productivity is a FEMA standard value. Productivity community and individual outcomes as businesses are closed,residents need to $20,966,400 2 rebuild, do not have access to services, etc. City of Dubuque -NPV future FEMA BCA Tool was used Reducing flooding impact to FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. flood damages-7%discount to monetize. homes via infrastructure and rate home improvements will Data sources include FEMA Flood increase property values and Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood avoid recovery costs to Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes taxpayers Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, GIS $3,127,032 2 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. Winneshiek County-Upper BCA Narrative,Pages 7-10 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Iowa-Reduction of Expected Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Property Damages and Structures in Floodplains properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood Displacement floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, GIS $18,503,724 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. F-42 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 1 Howard County-Upper Wapsi BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Reduction of Expected Property Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Damages and Displacement Structures in Floodplains properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, GIS $5,269,248 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. Benton County-Middle Cedar BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Reduction of Expected Property Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Damages and Displacement Structures in Floodplains properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, GIS $26,611,853 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. Johnson County-Clear Creek- BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Reduction of Expected Property Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Damages and Displacement Structures in Floodplains properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, GIS $5,811,422 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. F-43 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 1 Iowa County-English River- BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Reduction of Expected Property Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Damages and Displacement Structures in Floodplains properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, GIS $934,952 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. Buena Vista County-North BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Raccoon-Reduction of Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Expected Property Damages Structures in Floodplains properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood and Displacement floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, GIS $8,548,790 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. Fremont County-East BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Nishnabotna-Reduction of Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Expected Property Damages Structures in Floodplains properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood and Displacement floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, GIS $1,753,858 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. F-44 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 1 Mills County-West BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Nishnabotna-Reduction of Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Expected Property Damages Structures in Floodplains properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood and Displacement floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, GIS $7,634,697 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. TOTAL RESILIENCY $115,870,626 BENEFITS Environmental Value City of Dubuque City of Storm BCA Narratve,Pages 22-24 Reducing the flooding will N/A Lake Infrastructure prevent flooded sanitary sewers from discharging ++ 2 untreated wastewater into local creeks. Upper Iowa River-Reduction BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to in sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated hill slope soil monetize. Delivery erosion rates, delivery of that soil offsite, and sediment Data sources include:Richard M. Cruse, removal costs from, offsite Professor&Director Iowa Water Center $13,108,845 1 locations. Iowa State University;Larry J. Weber, Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa;Daily Erosion Report.org, Mesonet,Iowa Department of !Transportation F-45 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 1 Upper Wapsipinicon- BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to Reduction in sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated hill slope soil monetize. Delivery erosion rates, delivery of that soil offsite, and sediment Data sources include:Richard M. Cruse, removal costs from, offsite Professor&Director Iowa Water Center $5,878,224 1 locations. Iowa State University;Larry J. Weber, Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa;Daily Erosion Report.org, Mesonet,Iowa Department of Transportation Middle River-Reduction in BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated hill slope soil monetize. Delivery erosion rates, delivery of that soil offsite, and sediment Data sources include:Richard M. Cruse, removal costs from, offsite Professor&Director Iowa Water Center $12,952,242 1 locations. Iowa State University;Larry J. Weber, Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa;Daily Erosion Report.org, Mesonet,Iowa Department of Transportation Clear Creek-Reduction in BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated hill slope soil monetize. Delivery erosion rates, delivery of that soil offsite, and sediment Data sources include:Richard M. Cruse, removal costs from, offsite Professor&Director Iowa Water Center $13,689,759 1 locations. Iowa State University;Larry J. Weber, Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa;Daily Erosion Report.org, Mesonet,Iowa Department of Trans ortation F-46 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 1 English River-Reduction in BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated hill slope soil monetize. Delivery erosion rates, delivery of that soil offsite, and sediment Data sources include:Richard M. Cruse, removal costs from, offsite Professor&Director Iowa Water Center $11,684,450 1 locations. Iowa State University;Larry J. Weber, Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa;Daily Erosion Report.org, Mesonet,Iowa Department of Transportation North Raccoon River- BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to Reduction in sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated hill slope soil monetize. Delivery erosion rates, delivery of that soil offsite, and sediment Data sources include:Richard M. Cruse, removal costs from, offsite Professor&Director Iowa Water Center $1,745,700 1 locations. Iowa State University;Larry J. Weber, Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa;Daily Erosion Report.org, Mesonet;Iowa Department of Transportation West/EastNishnabotna River- BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to Reduction in sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated hill slope soil monetize. Delivery erosion rates, delivery of that soil offsite, and sediment Data sources include:Richard M. Cruse, removal costs from, offsite Professor&Director Iowa Water Center $24,788,651 1 locations. Iowa State University;Larry J. Weber, Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa, DailyErosionReport.org; Mesonet;Iowa De artment of Transportation F-47 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 1 Upper Iowa-Damage to Water BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water quality Net present value of benefits was calculated Resources,Wildlife& 13 -Water Quality Benefits (nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate o Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $27,775,351 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the University of Iowa. Upper Wapsipinicon-Damage BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water quality Net present value of benefits was calculated to Water Resources,Wildlife& 13 -Water Quality Benefits (nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate o Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $92,464,657 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the University of Iowa. Middle Cedar-Damage to BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water quality Net present value of benefits was calculated Water Resources,Wildlife & 13 -Water Quality Benefits (nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate o Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $156,670,230 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the University of Iowa. Clear Creek-Damage to Water BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water quality Net present value of benefits was calculated Resources,Wildlife& 13 -Water Quality Benefits (nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate o Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $13,935,564 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the University of Iowa. F-48 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 1 English River-Damage to BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water quality Net present value of benefits was calculated Water Resources,Wildlife & 13 -Water Quality Benefits (nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate o Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $33,823,814 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the University of Iowa. North Raccoon-Damage to BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water quality Net present value of benefits was calculated Water Resources,Wildlife & 13 -Water Quality Benefits (nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate o Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $158,160,644 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the University of Iowa. East Nishnabotna-Damage to BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water quality Net present value of benefits was calculated Water Resources,Wildlife & 13 -Water Quality Benefits (nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate o Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $65,746,404 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the University of Iowa. F-49 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 1 West Nishnabotna-Damage to BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water quality Net present value of benefits was calculated Water Resources,Wildlife & 13 -Water Quality Benefits (nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate o Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $116,618,421 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the University of Iowa. Environmental: Enhanced biotic Pages 24-24-BCA Non-quantifiable value of N/A diversity, including aquatic Narrative-Unquantifiable environmental impacts macroinvertebrates, fish, environmental benefits ++ 1 reptiles, and amphibians.New habitat for birds,mammals, insects. TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS $749,042,955 Community Development/Social Value City of Dubuque, City of Storm BCA Narrative,Pages 23- Prevention of loss of life and N/A Lake, and City of Coralville 24 the reduction in human Infrastructure suffering as a result of wastewater and mold ++ 2 exposure caused by repeated, future flooding. Benefits low and moderate income persons. Community increase resilience BCA Narrative,Pages 23- Non-quantifiable value of N/A in each target community 24 increased resilience ++ 2 (Program 2, Community Resilience Economic Revitalization F-50 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 1 City of Dubuque -Economic BCA Narrative,Page 15-16 Impact on the local economy IMPLAN software with Dubuque County Impact-Housing based on job creation and dataset was used. value added to the economy $12,559,870 2 during project construction. City of Dubuque -Economic BCA Narrative,Page 17 Impact on the local economy IMPLAN software with Dubuque County Impact- Culvert based on job creation and dataset was used. value added to the economy $24,555,247 2 during project construction. City of Dubuque -Economic BCA Narrative,Page 16-17 Impact on the local economy IMPLAN software with Dubuque County Impact- Storm sewer based on job creation and dataset was used. Kaufmann Ave. value added to the economy $14,887,244 2 during project construction. City of Dubuque -Economic BCA Narrative,Page 17-18 Impact on the local economy IMPLAN software with Dubuque County Impact- Storm Sewer 17th& based on job creation and dataset was used. W. Locust value added to the economy $28,739,859 2 during project construction. City of Coralville-Pump Statio BCA Narrative,Page 21 Impact on the local economy IMPLAN software with Johnson County based on job creation and dataset was used. value added to the economy $31,538,032 1 during project construction. City of Storm Lake - 8 Infrastru BCA Narrative,Pages 20- Impact on the local economy IMPLAN software with Buena Vista 21 based on job creation and County dataset was used. value added to the economy $10,121,425 2 during project construction. F-51 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 1 Economic Revitalization in BCA Narrative,Page 23 Non-quantifiable value of N/A each Target Watershed improving water to enhance 2 recreation, sport, and related future tourism TOTAL ECONOX1IC REVITALIZATION $122,401,677 BENEFITS TOTAL BENEFITS $987,315,258 BENEFIT-COST RATIO 6.41 F-52 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 2 Page#in Factor Narratives Qualitative Description of Quantitative Assessm sis/ Costs and Benefits by Category or BCA Attachment Effect and Rationale for methodology for calculating Monetized Monetized Effect Uncertainty Including in BCA Effect with data sources Life Cycle Costs City of Dubuque Housing Rehab Soundness of Approach Estimated cost based on number of $9,227,665 1 Project 1 expected units, includes direct leverage City of Dubuque Culvert Project Soundness of Approach Estimated project cost, includes direct $18,000,000 1 Project 2 leverage City of Dubuque Storm Sewer Soundness of Approach Estimated project cost $11,500,000 1 Kaufman Project 2 City of Dubuque Storm Sewer Soundness of Approach Estimated project cost, includes direct $15,200,000 1 17th&W. Locust Project 2 leverage Winneshiek County-Upper Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $7,033,222 1 Iowa Project 3 including landowner direct leverage Howard County-Upper Wapsi Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $5,329,469 1 Project 4 including landowner direct leverage Benton County-Middle Cedar Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $14,050,450 1 Project 5 including landowner direct leverage Johnson County-Clear Creek Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $5,435,846 1 Project 6 including landowner direct leverage City of Coralville-Pump Station Soundness of Approach Estimated project cost, includes direct $2,446,400 1 Infrastructure Project Proect 6 leverage Iowa County-English River Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $6,716,740 1 Project 7 including landowner direct leverage Buena Vista County-North Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $4,589,075 1 Raccoon Project 8 including landowner direct leverage City of Storm Lake- Soundness of Approach Estimated project cost, includes direct $8,633,000 1 Infrastructure Projects Project 8 leverage F-53 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 2 Fremont County-East Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $2,395,457 1 Nishnabotna Project 9 including landowner direct leverage Mills County-West Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $6,569,712 1 Nishnabotna Project 10 including landowner direct leverage Planning Costs Soundness of Approach $14,396,529 1 Total Administration $4,639,493 1 TOTAL COSTS $136,163,058 Resiliency Value City of Dubuque-Loss of Waste BCA Narrative,pages 6-7 Reducing flooding will FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Water utility-FEMA BCA prevent storm water from $118,314 2 default rate flooding the sanitary sewer Loss of wastewater service was calculated system. City of Dubuque-Loss of BCA Narrative,pages 6-7 Reduced vulnerability of FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Electric utility-FEMA BCA electrical infrastructure due $39,047 2 default rate to future,repeated disasters. Loss of electrical service was calculated City of Dubuque-Road BCA Narrative,pages 7-8 During flooding events FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Closures(mileage) experienced if infrastructure improvements are not made, Data sources include Iowa DOT traffic $2,043 2 road closures will impact counts and locally-identified detour routes. community mobility. City of Dubuque-Road closures BCA Narrative,pages 7-8 During flooding events FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. (time) experienced if infrastructure improvements are not made, Data sources include Iowa DOT traffic $61 2 road closures will impact counts and locally-identified detour routes. community mobility. City of Dubuque-Loss of Life BCA Narrative,page 8 Prevention of loss of life (flash flood)-FEMA BCA caused by repeated, future $5,944,752 2 default rate flooding F-54 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 2 City of Dubuque-Asthma- BCA Narrative,page 8 Mold and mildew present in FEMA BCA Tool used to monetize. health costs affected homes lead to resident asthma and related US EPA and University of California health care costs. Berkley Study(2010)used to determine $194,736 2 asthma rates. Annual treatment costs established by Visiting Nurses Association and American Lung Association. City of Dubuque-NPV Business FEMA BCA Tool was used Reduction in expected FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. flood damages to monetize. property damages due to future disasters. Reduced vulnerability of waste water $537,215 2 infrastructure due to future, repeated disasters. City of Dubuque-NPV loss of FEMA BCA Tool was used Reduction in expected FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. revenue(businesses) to monetize. property damages due to future disasters. Reduced vulnerability of waste water $2,542,389 2 infrastructure due to future, repeated disasters. City of Dubuque-NPV Public FEMA BCA Tool was used Reduction in expected FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Infrastructure costs to monetize. property damages due to future disasters. Reduced vulnerability of waste water $709,850 2 infrastructure due to future, repeated disasters. City of Dubuque-Mental Stress BCA Narrative,page 8 Mental stress is a known FEMA standard value. result of natural disasters as residents cope with unexpected economic costs, $4,400,918 2 relocation, disruption of daily schedule,potential loss of income etc. F-55 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 2 City of Dubuque-Loss of BCA Narrative,page 8 Loss of productivity is a FEMA standard value. Productivity community and individual outcomes as businesses are closed,residents need to $15,737,380 2 rebuild, do not have access to services etc. City of Dubuque-NPV future FEMA BCA Tool was used Reducing flooding impact to FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. flood damages -7% discount to monetize. homes via infrastructure and rate home improvements will Data sources include FEMA Flood increase property values and Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood avoid recovery costs to Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes taxpayers Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young,GIS $2,347,151 2 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. Winneshiek County-Upper BCA Narrative,Pages 7-10 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Iowa-Reduction of Expected Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Property Damages and Structures in Floodplain properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood Displacement floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young,GIS $15,419,770 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. F-56 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 2 Howard County-Upper Wapsi- BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Reduction of Expected Property Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Damages and Displacement Structures in Floodplain properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young,GIS $3,512,832 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. Benton County-Middle Cedar- BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Reduction of Expected Property Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Damages and Displacement Structures in Floodplain properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young,GIS $19,958,890 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. JohnsonCounty-Clear Creek- BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Reduction of Expected Property Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Damages and Displacement Structures in Floodplain properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young,GIS $3,632,139 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. F-57 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 2 Iowa County-English River- BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Reduction of Expected Property Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Damages and Displacement Structures in Floodplain properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young,GIS $654,354 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. Buena Vista County-North BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Raccoon-Reduction of Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Expected Property Damages and Structures in Floodplain properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood Displacement floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young,GIS $6,417,292 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. Fremont County-East BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Nishnabotna-Reduction of Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Expected Property Damages and Structures in Floodplain properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood Displacement floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young,GIS $1,169,239 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. F-58 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 2 Mills County-West BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Nishnabotna-Reduction of Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Expected Property Damages and Structures in Floodplain properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood Displacement floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young,GIS $4,582,651 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. TOTAL RESILIENCY BENEFITS $87,921,023 Environmental Value City of Dubuque City of Storm BCA Narratve,Pages 22-24 Reducing the flooding will N/A Lake Infrastructure prevent flooded sanitary sewers from discharging ++ untreated wastewater into local creeks. Upper Iowa River-Reduction in BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated hill slope soil monetize. Delivery erosion rates, delivery of that soil offsite, and sediment Data sources include: Richard M. Cruse, removal costs from, offsite Professor&Director Iowa Water Center $10,924,038 1 locations. Iowa State University;Larry J. Weber, Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa;Daily Erosion Report.org; Mesonet;Iowa Department of Transportation F-59 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 2 Upper Wapsipinicon-Reduction BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to in sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated hill slope soil monetize. Delivery erosion rates, delivery of that soil offsite, and sediment Data sources include: Richard M. Cruse, removal costs from, offsite Professor&Director Iowa Water Center $3,918,816 1 locations. Iowa State University;Larry J. Weber, Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa;Daily Erosion Report.org; Mesonet;Iowa Department of Transportation Middle River-Reduction in BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated hill slope soil monetize. Delivery erosion rates, delivery of that soil offsite, and sediment Data sources include: Richard M. Cruse, removal costs from, offsite Professor&Director Iowa Water Center $9,714,181 1 locations. Iowa State University;Larry J. Weber, Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa;Daily Erosion Report.org; Mesonet;Iowa Department of Transportation Clear Creek-Reduction in BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated hill slope soil monetize. Delivery erosion rates, delivery of that soil offsite, and sediment Data sources include: Richard M. Cruse, removal costs from, offsite Professor&Director Iowa Water Center $9,506,777 1 locations. Iowa State University;Larry J. Weber, Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa;Daily Erosion Report.org; Mesonet;Iowa Department of Transportation F-60 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 2 English River-Reduction in BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated hill slope soil monetize. Delivery erosion rates, delivery of that soil offsite, and sediment Data sources include: Richard M. Cruse, removal costs from, offsite Professor&Director Iowa Water Center $8,177,712 1 locations. Iowa State University;Larry J. Weber, Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa;Daily Erosion Report.org; Mesonet;Iowa Department of Transportation North Raccoon River- BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to Reduction in sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated hill slope soil monetize. Delivery erosion rates, delivery of that soil offsite, and sediment Data sources include: Richard M. Cruse, removal costs from, offsite Professor&Director Iowa Water Center $1,310,439 1 locations. Iowa State University;Larry J. Weber, Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa;Daily Erosion Report.org; Mesonet;Iowa Department of Transportation West/East Nishnabotna River- BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to Reduction in sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated hill slope soil monetize. Delivery erosion rates, delivery of that soil offsite, and sediment Data sources include: Richard M. Cruse, removal costs from, offsite Professor&Director Iowa Water Center $16,525,767 1 locations. Iowa State University;Larry J. Weber, Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa; DailyErosionReport.org; Mesonet;Iowa Department of Trans ortation F-61 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 2 Upper Iowa-Damage to Water BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water Net present value of benefits was calculated Resources,Wildlife& 13-Water Quality Benefits quality(nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate of Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $23,146,126 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the Universitv of Iowa. Upper Wapsipinicon-Damage BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water Net present value of benefits was calculated to Water Resources,Wildlife& 13-Water Quality Benefits quality(nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate of Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $61,643,104 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the Universitv of Iowa. Middle Cedar-Damage to BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water Net present value of benefits was calculated Water Resources,Wildlife& 13-Water Quality Benefits quality(nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate of Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $117,502,673 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the Universitv of Iowa. Clear Creek-Damage to Water BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water Net present value of benefits was calculated Resources,Wildlife& 13-Water Quality Benefits quality(nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate of Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $8,709,728 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the Universitv of Iowa. F-62 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 2 English River-Damage to Water BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water Net present value of benefits was calculated Resources,Wildlife& 13-Water Quality Benefits quality(nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate of Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $23,676,670 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the Universitv of Iowa. North Raccoon-Damage to BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water Net present value of benefits was calculated Water Resources,Wildlife& 13-Water Quality Benefits quality(nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate of Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $118,620,483 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the Universitv of Iowa. East Nishnabotna-Damage to BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water Net present value of benefits was calculated Water Resources,Wildlife& 13-Water Quality Benefits quality(nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate of Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $43,830,936 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the Universitv of Iowa. West Nishnabotna-Damage to BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water Net present value of benefits was calculated Water Resources,Wildlife& 13-Water Quality Benefits quality(nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate of Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $69,971,052 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the Universitv of Iowa. F-63 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 2 Environmental: Enhanced biotic Pages 24-24-BCA Non-quantifiable value of N/A diversity, including aquatic Narrative-Unquantifiable environmental impacts macroinvertebrates, fish,reptiles, environmental benefits + 1 and amphibians.New habitat for birds,mammals, insects. TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS $527,178,502 Community Development/Social Value City of Dubuque, City of Storm BCA Narrative,Pages 23- Prevention of loss of life and N/A Lake, and City of Coralville 24 the reduction in human Infrastructure suffering as a result of wastewater and mold 2 exposure caused by repeated, future flooding.Benefits low and moderate income ersons. Community increase resilience in BCA Narrative,Pages 23- Non-quantifiable value of N/A each target community(Program 24 increased resilience 2 2, Community Resilience) TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/SOCIAL VALUE BENEFITS Economic Revitalization City of Dubuque-Economic BCA Narrative,Page 15-16 Impact on the local economy IMPLAN software with Dubuque County Impact-Housing based onjob creation and dataset was used. value added to the economy $12,559,870 2 during project construction. City of Dubuque-Economic BCA Narrative,Page 17 Impact on the local economy IMPLAN software with Dubuque County Impact-Culvert based on job creation and dataset was used. value added to the economy $24,555,247 2 during project construction. F-64 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 2 City of Dubuque-Economic BCA Narrative,Page 16-17 Impact on the local economy INIPLAN software with Dubuque County Impact- Storm sewer Kaufmann based onjob creation and dataset was used. Ave. value added to the economy $14,887,244 2 during project construction. City of Dubuque-Economic BCA Narrative,Page 17-18 Impact on the local economy INIPLAN software with Dubuque County Impact- Storm Sewer 17th&W. based onjob creation and dataset was used. Locust value added to the economy $21,626,032 2 during project construction. City of Coralville-Pump Station BCA Narrative,Page 21 Impact on the local economy INIPLAN software with Johnson County based onjob creation and dataset was used. value added to the economy $31,538,032 1 during project construction. City of Storm Lake-8 Infrastruct BCA Narrative,Pages 20- Impact on the local economy INIPLAN software with Buena Vista 21 based onjob creation and County dataset was used. value added to the economy $10,121,425 2 during project construction. Economic Revitalization in each BCA Narrative,Page 23 Non-quantifiable value of N/A Target Watershed improving water to enhance ++ 2 recreation, sport,and related future tourism TOTAL ECONONIIC REVITALIZATION BENEFITS $115,287,850 TOTAL BENEFITS $730,387,375 BENEFIT-COST RATIO 5.36 F-65 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 3 Page#in Factor Narratives Qualitative Description of Quantitative Assessment(basis/ Costs and Benefits by Category Effect and Rationale for methodology for calculating Monetized Monetized Effect Uncertainty or BCA Attachment Including in BCA Effect with data sources Life Cycle Costs City of Dubuque Housing Rehab Soundness of Approach Estimated cost based on number of expected $8,318,826 1 Project 1 units, includes direct leverage City of Dubuque Culvert Project Soundness of Approach Estimated project cost,includes direct $18,000,000 1 Project leverage City of Dubuque Storm Sewer Soundness of Approach Estimated project cost $6,400,000 1 Kaufman Project 2 City of Dubuque Storm Sewer Soundness of Approach Estimated project cost,includes direct $8,700,000 1 17th&W. Locust Project leverage Winneshiek County-Upper Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $5,037,562 1 Iowa Project 3 including landowner direct leverage Howard County-Upper Wapsi Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $3,788,667 1 Project 4 including landowner direct leverage Benton County-Middle Cedar Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $11,315,647 1 Project 5 includinglandowner direct levera e Johnson County-Clear Creek Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $4,937,281 1 Project 6 including landowner direct leverage City of Coralville -Pump Station Soundness of Approach Estimated project cost,includes direct $2,446,400 1 Infrastructure Project Project? leverage Iowa County-English River Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $3,757,333 1 Project 8 including landowner direct leverage Buena Vista County-North Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $2,627,714 1 Raccoon Project 9 includinglandowner direct levera e City of Storm Lake- Soundness of Approach Estimated project cost,includes direct $8,633,000 1 Infrastructure Projects Project 10 1 leverage F-66 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 3 Fremont County-East Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $1,780,240 1 Nishnabotna Project 11 including landowner direct leverage Mills County-West Nishnabotna Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $3,101,715 1 Project 12 including landowner direct leverage Planning Costs $10,869,532 1 Total Administration $3,295,198 1 TOTAL COSTS $103,009,115 Resiliency Value City of Dubuque-Loss of Waste BCA Narrative,pages 6-7 Reducing flooding will FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Water utility-FEMA BCA prevent storm water from $197,033 2 default rate flooding the sanitary sewer Loss of wastewater service was calculated system. City of Dubuque-Loss of BCA Narrative,pages 6-7 Reduced vulnerability of FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Electric utility-FEMA BCA electrical infrastructure due $64,114 2 default rate to future,repeated disasters. Loss of electrical service was calculated City of Dubuque-Road Closures BCA Narrative,pages 7-8 During flooding events FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. (mileage) experienced if infrastructure improvements are not made, Data sources include Iowa DOT traffic $2,178 2 road closures will impact counts and locally-identified detour routes. community mobilit . City of Dubuque-Road closures BCA Narrative,pages 7-8 During flooding events FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. (time) experienced if infrastructure improvements are not made, Data sources include Iowa DOT traffic $66 2 road closures will impact counts and locally-identified detour routes. community mobility. City of Dubuque-Loss of Life BCA Narrative,page 8 Prevention of loss of life (flash flood)-FEMA BCA caused by repeated,future $6,336,000 2 default rate flooding F-67 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 3 City of Dubuque-Asthma- BCA Narrative,page 8 Mold and mildew present in FEMA BCA Tool used to monetize. health costs affected homes lead to resident asthma and related US EPA and University of California health care costs. Berkley Study(2010)used to determine $324,300 2 asthma rates. Annual treatment costs established by Visiting Nurses Association and American Lung Association. City of Dubuque-NPV Business FEMA BCA Tool was used Reduction in expected FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. flood damages to monetize. property damages due to future disasters. Reduced vulnerability of waste water $572,571 2 infrastructure due to future, repeated disasters. City of Dubuque-NPV loss of FEMA BCA Tool was used Reduction in expected FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. revenue(businesses) to monetize. property damages due to future disasters. Reduced vulnerability of waste water $2,709,714 2 infrastructure due to future, repeated disasters. City of Dubuque-NPV Public FEMA BCA Tool was used Reduction in expected FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Infrastructure costs to monetize. property damages due to future disasters. Reduced vulnerability of waste water $756,568 2 infrastructure due to future, repeated disasters. City of Dubuque-Mental Stress BCA Narrative,page 8 Mental stress is a known FEMA standard value. result of natural disasters as residents cope with unexpected economic costs, $7,329,000 2 relocation,disruption of daily schedule,potential loss of income etc. F-68 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 3 City of Dubuque-Loss of BCA Narrative,page 8 Loss of productivity is a FEMA standard value. Productivity community and individual outcomes as businesses are closed,residents need to $26,208,000 2 rebuild, do not have access to services etc. City of Dubuque-NPV future FEMA BCA Tool was used Reducing flooding impact to FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. flood damages-7%discount rate to monetize. homes via infrastructure and home improvements will Data sources include FEMA Flood increase property values and Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood avoid recovery costs to Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes taxpayers Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, GIS $3,908,791 2 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. Winneshiek County-Upper BCA Narrative,Pages 7-10 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Iowa-Reduction of Expected Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Property Damages and Structures in Floodplain properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood Displacement floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes I+E33:E3712996 Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, GIS 08 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. F-69 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 3 Howard County-Upper Wapsi- BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Reduction of Expected Property Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Damages and Displacement Structures in Floodplain properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, GIS $2,634,624 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. Benton County-Middle Cedar- BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Reduction of Expected Property Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Damages and Displacement Structures in Floodplain properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, GIS $13,305,926 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. Johnson County-Clear Creek- BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Reduction of Expected Property Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Damages and Displacement Structures in Floodplain properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, GIS $3,632,139 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. F-70 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 3 Iowa County-English River- BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Reduction of Expected Property Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Damages and Displacement Structures in Floodplain properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, GIS $327,738 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. Buena Vista County-North BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Raccoon-Reduction of Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Expected Property Damages and Structures in Floodplain properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood Displacement floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, GIS $3,567,695 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. Fremont County-East BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Nishnabotna-Reduction of Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Expected Property Damages and Structures in Floodplain properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood Displacement floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, GIS $876,929 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. F-71 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 3 Mills County-West Nishnabotna BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. -Reduction of Expected Property Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Damages and Displacement Structures in Floodplain properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, GIS $2,676,268 1 Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. TOTAL RESILIENCY $75,429,653 BENEFITS Environmental Value City of Dubuque City of Storm BCA Narratve,Pages 22-24 Reducing the flooding will N/A Lake Infrastructure prevent flooded sanitary sewers from discharging ++ untreated wastewater into local creeks. Upper Iowa River-Reduction in BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to monetize. sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated bill slope soil Delivery erosion rates,delivery of that Data sources include: Richard M. Cruse, soil offsite,and sediment Professor&Director Iowa Water Center removal costs from,offsite Iowa State University,Larry J. Weber, $8,005,135 1 locations. Director IIHR Hydroscience,The University of Iowa,Daily Erosion Report.org, Mesonet,Iowa Department of Transportation F-72 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 3 Upper Wapsipinicon-Reduction BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to monetize. in sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated bill slope soil Delivery erosion rates,delivery of that Data sources include: Richard M. Cruse, soil offsite,and sediment Professor&Director Iowa Water Center removal costs from,offsite Iowa State University,Larry J. Weber, $2,939,112 1 locations. Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa,Daily Erosion Report.org, Mesonet;Iowa Department of Transportation Middle River-Reduction in BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to monetize. sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated bill slope soil Delivery erosion rates,delivery of that Data sources include: Richard M. Cruse, soil offsite,and sediment Professor&Director Iowa Water Center removal costs from,offsite Iowa State University,Larry J. Weber, $6,476,121 1 locations. Director IIHR Hydroscience,The University of Iowa,Daily Erosion Report.org, Mesonet;Iowa Department of Transportation Clear Creek-Reduction in BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to monetize. sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated bill slope soil Delivery erosion rates,delivery of that Data sources include: Richard M. Cruse, soil offsite,and sediment Professor&Director Iowa Water Center removal costs from,offsite Iowa State University,Larry J. Weber, $9,506,777 1 locations. Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa,Daily Erosion Report.org, Mesonet;Iowa Department of Transportation F-73 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 3 English River-Reduction in BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to monetize. sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated bill slope soil Delivery erosion rates,delivery of that Data sources include: Richard M. Cruse, soil offsite,and sediment Professor&Director Iowa Water Center removal costs from,offsite Iowa State University,Larry J. Weber, $4,095,870 1 locations. Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa,Daily Erosion Report.org, Mesonet;Iowa Department of Transportation North Raccoon River-Reduction BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to monetize. in sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated bill slope soil Delivery erosion rates,delivery of that Data sources include: Richard M. Cruse, soil offsite,and sediment Professor&Director Iowa Water Center removal costs from,offsite Iowa State University,Larry J. Weber, $728,539 1 locations. Director IIHR Hydroscience,The University of Iowa,Daily Erosion Report.org, Mesonet;Iowa Department of Transportation West/EastNishnabotna River- BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to monetize. Reduction in sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated bill slope soil Delivery erosion rates,delivery of that Data sources include: Richard M. Cruse, soil offsite,and sediment Professor&Director Iowa Water Center removal costs from,offsite Iowa State University,Larry J. Weber, $9,651,048 1 locations. Director IIHR Hydroscience,The University of Iowa,DailyErosionReport.org, Mesonet; Iowa Department of Transportation F-74 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 3 Upper Iowa-Damage to Water BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water quality Net present value of benefits was calculated Resources,Wildlife& 13 -Water Quality Benefits (nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate of Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $16,973,825 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience &Engineering at the Universitv of Iowa. Upper Wapsipinicon-Damage BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water quality Net present value of benefits was calculated to Water Resources,Wildlife& 13 -Water Quality Benefits (nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate of Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $46,232,328 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the Universitv of Iowa. Middle Cedar-Damage to Water BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water quality Net present value of benefits was calculated Resources,Wildlife& 13 -Water Quality Benefits (nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate of Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $78,335,115 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the Universitv of Iowa. Clear Creek-Damage to Water BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water quality Net present value of benefits was calculated Resources,Wildlife& 13 -Water Quality Benefits (nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate of Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $8,709,728 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the Universitv of Iowa. F-75 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 3 English River-Damage to Water BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water quality Net present value of benefits was calculated Resources,Wildlife& 13 -Water Quality Benefits (nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate of Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $11,838,335 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience &Engineering at the Universitv of Iowa. North Raccoon-Damage to BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water quality Net present value of benefits was calculated Water Resources,Wildlife & 13 -Water Quality Benefits (nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate of Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $65,900,268 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the Universitv of Iowa. East Nishnabotna-Damage to BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water quality Net present value of benefits was calculated Water Resources,Wildlife & 13 -Water Quality Benefits (nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate of Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $32,873,202 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the Universitv of Iowa. West Nishnabotna-Damage to BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water quality Net present value of benefits was calculated Water Resources,Wildlife & 13 -Water Quality Benefits (nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate of Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $40,816,447 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the Universitv of Iowa. F-76 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 3 Environmental:Enhanced biotic Pages 24-24-BCA Non-quantifiable value of N/A diversity, including aquatic Narrative-Unquantifiable environmental impacts macroinvenebrates, fish,reptiles, environmental benefits ++ 1 and amphibians.New habitat for birds,mammals, insects. TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL $343,081,849 BENEFITS Community Development/ Social Value City of Dubuque, City of Storm BCA Narrative,Pages 23- Prevention of loss of life and N/A Lake,and City of Coralville 24 the reduction in human Infrastructure suffering as a result of wastewater and mold ++ 2 exposure caused by repeated, future flooding. Benefits low and moderate income persons. Community increase resilience in BCA Narrative,Pages 23- Non-quantifiable value of N/A each target community(Program 24 increased resilience ++ 2 2, Community Resilience) TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/SOCIAL VALUE BENEFITS Economic Revitalization City of Dubuque-Economic BCA Narrative,Page 15-16 Impact on the local economy IMPLAN software with Dubuque County Impact-Housing based on job creation and dataset was used. value added to the economy $11,450,911 2 during project construction. City of Dubuque-Economic BCA Narrative,Page 17 Impact on the local economy IMPLAN software with Dubuque County Impact-Culvert based on job creation and dataset was used. value added to the economy $24,555,247 2 during project construction. F-77 BCA Costs and Benefits: Scaling/Scoping Alternate 3 City of Dubuque-Economic BCA Narrative,Page 16-17 Impact on the local economy IMPLAN software with Dubuque County Impact- Storm sewer Kaufmann based on job creation and dataset was used. Ave. value added to the economy $8,285,075 2 during project construction. City of Dubuque-Economic BCA Narrative,Page 17-18 Impact on the local economy IMPLAN software with Dubuque County Impact- Storm Sewer 17th&W. based on job creation and dataset was used. Locust value added to the economy $12,117,857 2 during project construction. City of Coralville -Pump Station BCA Narrative,Page 21 Impact on the local economy IMPLAN software with Johnson County based on job creation and dataset was used. value added to the economy $31,538,032 1 during project construction. City of Storm Lake- 8 Infrastruct BCA Narrative,Pages 20- Impact on the local economy IMPLAN software with Buena Vista County 21 based on job creation and dataset was used. value added to the economy $10,121,425 2 during project construction. Economic Revitalization in each BCA Narrative,Page 23 Non-quantifiable value of N/A Target Watershed improving water to enhance ++ 2 recreation,sport, and related future tourism TOTAL ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION BENEFITS $98,068,547 TOTAL BENEFITS $516,580,049 BENEFIT-COST RATIO 5.01 F-78 Project #1 : Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency Program Page#in Factor Narratives Qualitative Description of Quantitative A (basis/ Costs and Benefits by Category Effect and Rationale for methodology for calculating Monetized Monetized Effect Uncertainty or BCA Attachment Including in BCA Effect with data sources) Life Cycle Costs City of Dubuque Housing Rehab Soundness of Approach estimated cost based on number of expected $11,891,767 1 Project 1 units TOTAL COSTS $11,891,767 Resiliency Value City of Dubuque -Loss of BCA Narrative,pages 6-7 Reducing flooding will FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Waste Water utility-FEMA prevent storm water from $49,258 2 BCA default rate flooding the sanitary sewer Loss of wastewater service was calculated system. City of Dubuque -Loss of BCA Narrative,pages 6-7 Reduced vulnerability of FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Electric utility-FEMA BCA electrical infrastructure due $16,028 2 default rate to future,repeated disasters. Loss of electrical service was calculated City of Dubuque -Road BCA Narrative,pages 7-8 During flooding events FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Closures(mileage) experienced if infrastructure improvements are not made, Data sources include Iowa DOT traffic $545 2 road closures will impact counts and locally-identified detour routes. community mobility. City of Dubuque -Road closures BCA Narrative,pages 7-8 During flooding events FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. (time) experienced if infrastructure improvements are not made, Data sources include Iowa DOT traffic $17 2 road closures will impact counts and locally-identified detour routes. community mobility. City of Dubuque -Loss of Life BCA Narrative,page 8 Prevention of loss of life (flash flood)-FEMA BCA caused by repeated, future $1,584,000 2 default rate flooding F-79 Project #1 : Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency Program City of Dubuque -Asthma- BCA Narrative,page 8 Mold and mildew present in FEMA BCA Tool used to monetize. health costs affected homes lead to resident asthma and related US EPA and University of California health care costs. Berkley Study(2010)used to determine $81,075 2 asthma rates. Annual treatment costs established by Visiting Nurses Association and American Lung Association. City of Dubuque -NPV FEMA BCA Tool was used Reduction in expected FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Business flood damages to monetize. property damages due to future disasters. Reduced vulnerability of waste water $143,143 2 infrastructure due to future, repeated disasters. City of Dubuque -NPV loss of FEMA BCA Tool was used Reduction in expected FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. revenue(businesses) to monetize. property damages due to future disasters. Reduced vulnerability of waste water $677,429 2 infrastructure due to future, repeated disasters. City of Dubuque -NPV Public FEMA BCA Tool was used Reduction in expected FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Infrastructure costs to monetize. property damages due to future disasters. Reduced vulnerability of waste water $189,142 2 infrastructure due to future, repeated disasters. City of Dubuque -Mental Stress BCA Narrative,page 8 Mental stress is a known FEMA standard value. result of natural disasters as residents cope with unexpected economic costs, $1,832,250 2 relocation, disruption of daily schedule,potential loss of income, etc. F-80 Project #1 : Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency Program City of Dubuque -Loss of BCA Narrative,page 8 Loss of productivity is a FEMA standard value. Productivity community and individual outcomes as businesses are closed,residents need to $6,552,000 2 rebuild, do not have access to services, etc. City of Dubuque -NPV future FEMA BCA Tool was used Reducing flooding impact to FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. flood damages-7%discount to monetize. homes via infrastructure and rate home improvements will Data sources include FEMA Flood increase property values and Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood avoid recovery costs to Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes taxpayers Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, $977,198 2 GIS Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. Community Development/Social Value Increase resilience in each target BCA Narrative,Pages 23- Non-quantifiable value of N/A community(Program 2, 24 increased resilience ++ 2 Community Resilience) Economic Revitalization City of Dubuque -Economic BCA Narrative,Page 15-16 Impact on the local economy IMPLAN software with Dubuque County Impact-Housing based on job creation and dataset was used. value added to the economy $16,169,663 2 during project construction. TOTAL ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION BENEFITS $16,169,663 TOTAL BENEFITS $28,271,747 BENEFIT-COST RATIO 2.38 F-81 Project 42: Bee Branch Infrastructure Page#in Factor Narratives Qualitative Description of Qua ive Assessment(basis/ Costs and Benefits by Category Effect and Rationale for methodology for calculating Monetized Monetized Effect Uncertainty or BCA Attachment Including in BCA Effect with data sources) Life Cycle Costs City of Dubuque Culvert Project Soundness of Approach Estimated project cost, includes direct $18,000,000 1 Project 2 leverage City of Dubuque Storm Sewer Soundness of Approach Estimated project cost $11,500,000 1 Kaufman Project 2 City of Dubuque Storm Sewer Soundness of Approach Estimated project cost, includes direct $20,200,000 1 17th&W. Locust Project 2 leverage TOTAL COSTS $49,700,000 Resiliency Value City of Dubuque -Loss of BCA Narrative,pages 6-7 Reducing flooding will FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. $147,774 Waste Water utility-FEMA prevent storm water from 2 BCA default rate flooding the sanitary sewer Loss of wastewater service was calculated system. City of Dubuque -Loss of BCA Narrative,pages 6-7 Reduced vulnerability of FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. $48,085 Electric utility-FEMA BCA electrical infrastructure due 2 default rate to future,repeated disasters. Loss of electrical service was calculated City of Dubuque -Road BCA Narrative,pages 7-8 During flooding events FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. $1,634 Closures(mileage) experienced if infrastructure improvements are not made, Data sources include Iowa DOT traffic 2 road closures will impact counts and locally-identified detour routes. community mobility. City of Dubuque -Road closures BCA Narrative,pages 7-8 During flooding events FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. $50 (time) experienced if infrastructure improvements are not made, Data sources include Iowa DOT traffic 2 road closures will impact counts and locally-identified detour routes. community mobility. F-82 Project 42: Bee Branch Infrastructure City of Dubuque -Loss of Life BCA Narrative,page 8 Prevention of loss of life $4,752,000 (flash flood)-FEMA BCA caused by repeated, future 2 default rate flooding City of Dubuque -Asthma- BCA Narrative,page 8 Mold and mildew present in FEMA BCA Tool used to monetize. $243,225 health costs affected homes lead to resident asthma and related US EPA and University of California health care costs. Berkley Study(2010)used to determine 2 asthma rates. Annual treatment costs established by Visiting Nurses Association and American Lung Association. City of Dubuque -NPV FEMA BCA Tool was used Reduction in expected FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. $429,428 Business flood damages to monetize. property damages due to future disasters. Reduced vulnerability of waste water 2 infrastructure due to future, repeated disasters. City of Dubuque -NPV loss of FEMA BCA Tool was used Reduction in expected FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. $2,032,286 revenue(businesses) to monetize. property damages due to future disasters. Reduced vulnerability of waste water 2 infrastructure due to future, repeated disasters. City of Dubuque -NPV Public FEMA BCA Tool was used Reduction in expected FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. $567,426 Infrastructure costs to monetize. property damages due to future disasters. Reduced vulnerability of waste water 2 infrastructure due to future, repeated disasters. City of Dubuque -Mental Stress BCA Narrative,page 8 Mental stress is a known FEMA standard value. $5,496,750 result of natural disasters as residents cope with unexpected economic costs, 2 relocation, disruption of daily schedule,potential loss of income, etc. F-83 Project 42: Bee Branch Infrastructure City of Dubuque -Loss of BCA Narrative,page 8 Loss of productivity is a FEMA standard value. $19,656,000 Productivity community and individual outcomes as businesses are closed,residents need to 2 rebuild, do not have access to services, etc. City of Dubuque -NPV future FEMA BCA Tool was used Reducing flooding impact to FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. $2,931,593 flood damages-7%discount to monetize. homes via infrastructure and rate home improvements will Data sources include FEMA Flood increase property values and Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood avoid recovery costs to Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes taxpayers Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, 2 GIS Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. Environmental Value City of Dubuque City of Storm BCA Narratve,Pages 22- Reducing the flooding will N/A Lake Infrastructure 24 prevent flooded sanitary sewers from discharging untreated wastewater into localcreeks. Community Development/Social Value City of Dubuque,City of Storm BCA Narrative,Pages 23- Prevention of loss of life and N/A Lake, and City of Coralville 24 the reduction in human Infrastructure suffering as a result of wastewater and mold exposure caused by repeated, ++ 2 future flooding. Benefits low and moderate income persons. F-84 Project 42: Bee Branch Infrastructure Community increase resilience BCA Narrative,Pages 23- Non-quantifiable value of N/A in each target community 24 increased resilience ++ 2 (Program 2, Community Resilience) TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/SOCIAL VALUE BENEFITS Economic Revitalization City of Dubuque -Economic BCA Narrative,Page 17 Impact on the local economy IMPLAN software with Dubuque County Impact- Culvert based on job creation and dataset was used. value added to the economy $24,555,247 2 during project construction. City of Dubuque -Economic BCA Narrative,Page 16-17 Impact on the local economy IMPLAN software with Dubuque County Impact- Storm sewer Kaufmann based on job creation and dataset was used. Ave. value added to the economy $14,887,244 2 during project construction. City of Dubuque -Economic BCA Narrative,Page 17-18 Impact on the local economy IMPLAN software with Dubuque County Impact- Storm Sewer 17th& based on job creation and dataset was used. W. Locust value added to the economy $28,739,859 2 during project construction. TOTAL ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION BENEFITS $68,182,350 TOTAL BENEFITS $104,488,601 BENEFIT-COST RATIO 2.10 F-85 Project 43: Upper Iowa Page#in Factor Narratives Qu ive Description of Quantitative Assessment(basis/ Costs and Benefits by Category Effect and Rationale for methodology for calculating Monetized Monetized Effect Uncertainty or BCA Attachment Including in BCA Effect with data sources) Life Cycle Costs Winneshiek County-Upper Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $10,782,500 1 Iowa Project 3 including landowner direct leverage TOTAL COSTS $10,782,500 Resiliency Value Winneshiek County-Upper BCA Narrative,Pages 7-10 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Iowa-Reduction of Expected -Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Property Damages and Structures in Floodplains properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood Displacement floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, $24,671,632 1 GIS Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. Environmental Value Upper Iowa River-Reduction in BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated hill slope soil monetize. Delivery erosion rates, delivery of that soil offsite, and sediment Data sources include:Richard M. Cruse, removal costs from, offsite Professor&Director Iowa Water Center $17,478,460 1 locations. Iowa State University,Larry J. Weber, Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa,Daily Erosion Report.org, Mesonet,Iowa Department of Transportation F-86 Project 43: Upper Iowa Upper Iowa-Damage to Water BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water Net present value of benefits was calculated Resources,Wildlife& 13 -Water Quality Benefits quality(nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will of 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $37,033,801 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the University of Iowa. TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL $54,512,261 BENEFITS Community Development/Social Value Community increase resilience BCA Narrative,Pages 23- Non-quantifiable value of N/A in each target community 24 increased resilience ++ 2 (Program 2, Community Resilience) TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/SOCIAL VALUE BENEFITS Economic Revitalization Retention of soil/agricutural BCA Narrative,Pages 23- Non-quantifiable value N/A productivity. Increased revenue 24 ++ 2 from tourism, especially coldwater fishing TOTAL BENEFITS I I I I $79,183,893 BENEFIT-COST RATIO 1 7.34 F-87 Project 44: Upper Wapsipinicon Page#in Factor Narratives Qualitative Description of Qu ative Assessment(basis/ Costs and Benefits by Category Effect and Rationale for methodology for calculating Monetized Monetized Effect Uncertainty or BCA Attachment Including in BCA Effect with data sources) Life Cycle Costs Howard County-Upper Wapsi Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $7,297,500 1 Project 4 including landowner direct leverage TOTAL COSTS $7 297 500 Resiliency Value Howard County-Upper Wapsi- BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Reduction of Expected Property -Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Damages and Displacement Structures in Floodplains properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, $7,025,664 1 GIS Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. TOTAL RESILIENCY $7,025,664 BENEFITS Environmental Value F-88 Project 44: Upper Wapsipinicon Upper Wapsipinicon-Reduction BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to in sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated hill slope soil monetize. Delivery erosion rates, delivery of that soil offsite, and sediment Data sources include:Richard M. Cruse, removal costs from, offsite Professor&Director Iowa Water Center $7,837,632 1 locations. Iowa State University,Larry J. Weber, Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa,Daily Erosion Report.org, Mesonet,Iowa Department of Transportation Upper Wapsipinicon-Damage BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water Net present value of benefits was calculated to Water Resources,Wildlife& 13 -Water Quality Benefits quality(nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will of 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $123,286,209 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the University of Iowa. Environmental: Enhanced biotic Pages 24-24-BCA Non-quantifiable value of N/A diversity, including aquatic Narrative-Unquantifiable environmental impacts macroinvertebrates, fish, environmental benefits ++ 1 reptiles, and amphibians.New habitat for birds,mammals, insects. TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL $131,123,841 BENEFITS Community Development/Social Value Community increase resilience BCA Narrative,Pages 23- Non-quantifiable value of N/A in each target community 24 increased resilience ++ 2 (Program 2, Community Resilience) TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/SOCIAL VALUE BENEFITS Economic Revitalization F-89 Project 44: Upper Wapsipinicon Retention of soil/agricutural BCA Narrative,Pages 23- Non-quantifiable value N/A ++ 2 productivity. 24 TOTAL BENEFITS $138,149,505 BENEFIT-COST RATIO 18.93 F-90 Project 45: Middle Cedar Page#in Factor Narratives Qualitative Description of Quantitative Assessment(basis/ Costs and Benefits by Category Effect and Rationale for methodology for calculating Monetized Monetized Effect Uncertainty or BCA Attachment Including in BCA Effect with data sources) Life Cycle Costs Benton County-Middle Cedar Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $19,175,000 1 Project 5 including landowner direct leverage TOTAL COSTS $19,175,000 Resiliency Value Benton County-Middle Cedar- BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Reduction of Expected Property -Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Damages and Displacement Structures in Floodplains properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, $33,264,816 1 GIS Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. TOTAL RESILIENCY $33,264,816 BENEFITS Environmental Value F-91 Project 45: Middle Cedar Middle River-Reduction in BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated hill slope soil monetize. Delivery erosion rates, delivery of that soil offsite, and sediment Data sources include:Richard M. Cruse, removal costs from, offsite Professor&Director Iowa Water Center $16,190,302 1 locations. Iowa State University,Larry J. Weber, Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa,Daily Erosion Report.org, Mesonet,Iowa Department of Transportation Middle Cedar-Damage to BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water Net present value of benefits was calculated Water Resources,Wildlife & 13 -Water Quality Benefits quality(nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will of 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $195,837,788 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the University of Iowa. Environmental: Enhanced biotic Pages 24-24-BCA Non-quantifiable value of N/A diversity, including aquatic Narrative-Unquantifiable environmental impacts macroinvertebrates, fish, environmental benefits ++ 1 reptiles, and amphibians.New habitat for birds,mammals, insects. TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL $212,028,090 BENEFITS Community Development/Social Value Community increase resilience BCA Narrative,Pages 23- Non-quantifiable value of N/A in each target community 24 increased resilience ++ 2 (Program 2, Community Resilience) TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/SOCIAL VALUE BENEFITS F-92 Project 45: Middle Cedar Economic Revitalization Retention of soil/agricutural BCA Narrative,Pages 23- Non-quantifiable value N/A ++ 2 productivity. 24 TOTAL ECONOX1IC REVITALIZATION BENEFITS $0 TOTAL BENEFITS $245,292,906 BENEFIT-COST RATIO 12.79 F-93 Project 46: Clear Creek / Coralville Page#in Factor Narratives Qualitative Description of Quantitative Assessment(basis/ Costs and Benefits by Category Effect and Rationale for methodology for calculating Monetized Monetized Effect Uncertainty or BCA Attachment Including in BCA Effect with data sources) Life Cycle Costs Johnson County-Clear Creek Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $7,323,750 1 Project 6 including landowner direct leverage City of Coralville-Pump Soundness of Approach Estimated project cost, includes direct $2,446,400 1 Station Infrastructure Project Project 6 leverage TOTAL COSTS $9,770,150 Resiliency Value Johnson County-Clear Creek- BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Reduction of Expected Property -Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Damages and Displacement Structures in Floodplains properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, $5,811,422 1 GIS Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. TOTAL RESILIENCY $5,811,422 BENEFITS Environmental Value F-94 Project 46: Clear Creek / Coralville Clear Creek-Reduction in BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated hill slope soil monetize. Delivery erosion rates, delivery of that soil offsite, and sediment Data sources include:Richard M. Cruse, removal costs from, offsite Professor&Director Iowa Water Center $15,210,843 1 locations. Iowa State University,Larry J. Weber, Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa,Daily Erosion Report.org, Mesonet,Iowa Department of Transportation Clear Creek-Damage to Water BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water Net present value of benefits was calculated Resources,Wildlife& 13 -Water Quality Benefits quality(nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will of 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $13,935,564 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the University of Iowa. TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL $29,146,407 BENEFITS Community Development/Social Value City of Dubuque, City of Storm BCA Narrative,Pages 23- Prevention of loss of life and N/A Lake, and City of Coralville 24 the reduction in human Infrastructure suffering as a result of wastewater and mold ++ 2 exposure caused by repeated, future flooding. Benefits low and moderate income persons. Community increase resilience BCA Narrative,Pages 23- Non-quantifiable value of N/A in each target community 24 increased resilience ++ 2 (Program 2, Community Resilience) F-95 Project 46: Clear Creek / Coralville TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/SOCIAL VALUE BENEFITS Economic Revitalization City of Coralville-Pump Station BCA Narrative,Page 21 Impact on the local economy IMPLAN software with Johnson County based on job creation and dataset was used. value added to the economy $31,538,032 1 during project construction. Economic Revitalization in each BCA Narrative,Page 23 Non-quantifiable value of N/A Target Watershed improving water to enhance ++ 2 recreation, sport, and related future tourism TOTAL ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION BENEFITS $31,538,032 TOTAL BENEFITS $66,495,861 BENEFIT-COST RATIO 6.81 F-96 Project 47: English River Page#in Factor Narratives Qualitative Description of Qu ative Assessment(basis/ Costs and Benefits by Category Effect and Rationale for methodology for calculating Monetized Monetized Effect Uncertainty or BCA Attachment Including in BCA Effect with data sources) Life Cycle Costs Iowa County-English River Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $10,783,750 1 Project 7 including landowner direct leverage TOTAL COSTS $10,783,750 Resiliency Value Iowa County-English River- BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Reduction of Expected Property -Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Damages and Displacement Structures in Floodplains properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, $1,122,391 1 GIS Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. TOTAL RESILIENCY $1,122,391 BENEFITS Environmental Value English River-Reduction in BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated hill slope soil monetize. Delivery erosion rates, delivery of that soil offsite, and sediment Data sources include:Richard M. Cruse, removal costs from, offsite Professor&Director Iowa Water Center $14,026,951 1 locations. Iowa State University,Larry J. Weber, Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa,Daily Erosion Report.org, Mesonet,Iowa Department of Transportation F-97 Project 47: English River English River-Damage to BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water Net present value of benefits was calculated Water Resources,Wildlife & 13 -Water Quality Benefits quality(nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will of 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $40,588,577 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the University of Iowa. TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL $54,615,528 BENEFITS Community Development/Social Value City of Dubuque, City of Storm BCA Narrative,Pages 23- Prevention of loss of life and N/A Lake, and City of Coralville 24 the reduction in human Infrastructure suffering as a result of wastewater and mold ++ 2 exposure caused by repeated, future flooding. Benefits low and moderate income persons. Community increase resilience BCA Narrative,Pages 23- Non-quantifiable value of N/A in each target community 24 increased resilience ++ 2 (Program 2, Community Resilience) TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/SOCIAL VALUE BENEFITS Economic Revitalization Economic Revitalization in each BCA Narrative,Page 23 Non-quantifiable value of N/A Target Watershed improving water to enhance ++ 2 recreation, sport, and related future tourism F-98 Project 47: English River TOTAL ECONOXIIC REVITALIZATION BENEFITS $0 TOTAL BENEFITS $55,737,919 BENEFIT-COST RATIO 5.17 F-99 Project 48: North Raccoon River/ Storm Lake Page#in Factor Narratives QulWive Description of Quantitative Assessment(basis/ Costs and Benefits by Category Effect and Rationale for methodology for calculating Monetized Monetized Effect Uncertainty or BCA Attachment Including in BCA Effect with data sources) Life Cycle Costs Buena Vista County-North Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $7,321,250 1 Raccoon Project 8 including landowner direct leverage City of Storm Lake - Soundness of Approach Estimated project cost, includes direct $8,633,000 1 Infrastructure Projects Project 8 leverage TOTAL COSTS $15,954,250 Resiliency Value Buena Vista County-North BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Raccoon-Reduction of -Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Expected Property Damages and Structures in Floodplains properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood Displacement floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, $11,398,387 1 GIS Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. TOTAL RESILIENCY $11,398,387 BENEFITS Environmental Value F-100 Project 48: North Raccoon River/ Storm Lake North Raccoon River- BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to Reduction in sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated hill slope soil monetize. Delivery erosion rates, delivery of that soil offsite, and sediment Data sources include:Richard M. Cruse, removal costs from, offsite Professor&Director Iowa Water Center $2,327,600 1 locations. Iowa State University,Larry J. Weber, Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa,Daily Erosion Report.org, Mesonet,Iowa Department of Transportation North Raccoon-Damage to BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water Net present value of benefits was calculated Water Resources,Wildlife & 13 -Water Quality Benefits quality(nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will of 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $210,880,858 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the University of Iowa. TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL $213,208,458 BENEFITS Community Development/Social Value City of Dubuque, City of Storm BCA Narrative,Pages 23- Prevention of loss of life and N/A Lake, and City of Coralville 24 the reduction in human Infrastructure suffering as a result of wastewater and mold ++ 2 exposure caused by repeated, future flooding. Benefits low and moderate income persons. Community increase resilience BCA Narrative,Pages 23- Non-quantifiable value of N/A in each target community 24 increased resilience ++ 2 (Program 2, Community Resilience) F-101 Project 48: North Raccoon River/ Storm Lake TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/SOCIAL VALUE BENEFITS Economic Revitalization City of Storm Lake - 8 BCA Narrative,Pages 20- Impact on the local economy IMPLAN software with Buena Vista Infrastructure Projects 21 based on job creation and County dataset was used. value added to the economy $10,121,425 2 during project construction. Economic Revitalization in BCA Narrative,Page 23 Non-quantifiable value of N/A North Raccoon River improving water to enhance ++ 2 recreation, sport, and related future tourism TOTAL ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION BENEFITS $10,121,425 TOTAL BENEFITS $234,728,270 BENEFIT-COST RATIO 14.71 F-102 Project 49: East Nishnabotna Page#in Factor Narratives Qualitative Description of Qu ative Assessment(basis/ Costs and Benefits by Category Effect and Rationale for methodology for calculating Monetized Monetized Effect Uncertainty or BCA Attachment Including in BCA Effect with data sources) Life Cycle Costs Fremont County-East Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $3,851,250 1 Nishnabotna Project 9 including landowner direct leverage TOTAL COSTS $3,851,250 Resiliency Value Fremont County-East BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Nishnabotna-Reduction of -Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Expected Property Damages and Structures in Floodplains properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood Displacement floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, $2,338,477 1 GIS Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. TOTAL RESILIENCY $2,338,477 BENEFITS Environmental Value West/EastNishnabotna River- BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to Reduction in sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated hill slope soil monetize. Delivery erosion rates, delivery of that soil offsite, and sediment Data sources include:Richard M. Cruse, removal costs from, offsite Professor&Director Iowa Water Center $8 262,884 1 locations. Iowa State University,Larry J. Weber, Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa, DailyErosionReport.org, Mesonet,Iowa Department of Transportation F-103 Project 49: East Nishnabotna East Nishnabotna-Damage to BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water Net present value of benefits was calculated Water Resources,Wildlife & 13 -Water Quality Benefits quality(nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will of 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $87,661,872 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the University of Iowa. TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL $95,924,756 BENEFITS Community Development/Social Value Community increase resilience BCA Narrative,Pages 23- Non-quantifiable value of N/A in each target community 24 increased resilience ++ 2 (Program 2, Community Resilience) TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/SOCIAL VALUE BENEFITS Economic Revitalization Economic Revitalization in each BCA Narrative,Page 23 Non-quantifiable value of N/A Target Watershed improving water to enhance ++ 2 recreation, sport, and related future tourism TOTAL ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION BENEFITS $0 TOTAL BENEFITS $98,263,233 BENEFIT-COST RATIO 25.51 F-104 Project#10: West Nishnabotna Page#in Factor Narratives Qualitative Description of Qu ative Assessment(basis/ Costs and Benefits by Category Effect and Rationale for methodology for calculating Monetized Monetized Effect Uncertainty or BCA Attachment Including in BCA Effect with data sources) Life Cycle Costs Mills County-West Soundness of Approach Cost of project design+construction, $10,796,250 1 Nishnabotna Project 10 including landowner direct leverage TOTAL COSTS $10,796,250 Resiliency Value Mills County-West BCA Narrative,Pages 8-11 Reducing floodwater volume FEMA BCA Tool was used to monetize. Nishnabotna-Reduction of -Flow Reduction& will reduce damages to Expected Property Damages and Structures in Floodplains properties located in the Data sources include FEMA Flood Displacement floodplain during flood Insurance Studies,Flood Profiles,Flood events. Insurance Rate Maps,HUD Stage Changes Data from Larry Weber&Nate Young, $9,165,302 1 GIS Data,Emergency Management Coordinators,Floodplain Administrators, FEMA RiskMAP Reports,Preliminary Flood Maps and International Code Council. TOTAL RESILIENCY $9,165,302 BENEFITS Environmental Value West/EastNishnabotna River- BCA Narrative,Pages 13- Reduction of sediment based FEMA BCA Tool 5.1 was used to Reduction in sediment delivery 14-Reduction in Sediment on estimated hill slope soil monetize. Delivery erosion rates, delivery of that soil offsite, and sediment Data sources include:Richard M. Cruse, removal costs from, offsite Professor&Director Iowa Water Center $24,788,651 1 locations. Iowa State University,Larry J. Weber, Director IIHR Hydroscience, The University of Iowa, DailyErosionReport.org, Mesonet,Iowa Department of Transportation F-105 Project#10: West Nishnabotna West Nishnabotna-Damage to BCA Narrative,Pages 11- Improvement in water Net present value of benefits was calculated Water Resources,Wildlife & 13 -Water Quality Benefits quality(nitrate and microbial using Microsoft Excel and a discount rate Ecosystem Biodiversity pathogen treatment)will of 7%. reduce damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity. Data was provided by Keith Schilling and $139,942,105 2 Chris Jones,Research Geologists at the Iowa Geological Survey within IIHR- Hydroscience&Engineering at the University of Iowa. Environmental: Enhanced biotic Pages 24-24-BCA Non-quantifiable value of N/A diversity, including aquatic Narrative-Unquantifiable environmental impacts macroinvertebrates, fish, environmental benefits ++ 1 reptiles, and amphibians.New habitat for birds,mammals, insects. TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL $164,730,756 BENEFITS Community Development/Social Value City of Dubuque, City of Storm BCA Narrative,Pages 23- Prevention of loss of life and N/A Lake, and City of Coralville 24 the reduction in human Infrastructure suffering as a result of wastewater and mold ++ 2 exposure caused by repeated, future flooding. Benefits low and moderate income persons. Community increase resilience BCA Narrative,Pages 23- Non-quantifiable value of N/A in each target community 24 increased resilience ++ 2 (Program 2, Community Resilience) TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/SOCIAL VALUE BENEFITS Economic Revitalization F-106 Project#10: West Nishnabotna Economic Revitalization in each BCA Narrative,Page 23 Non-quantifiable value of N/A Target Watershed improving water to enhance ++ 2 recreation, sport, and related future tourism TOTAL ECONOX1IC REVITALIZATION BENEFITS $0 TOTAL BENEFITS I I I S173,896,058 BENEFIT-COST RATIO 16.11 F-107 Attachment C—CDBG-NDR Application Certifications State of Iowa Iowa PhaseIl Certifications.pdf Attachment C CDBG-NDR Application Certifications The State certifies that: a. It will affirmatively further fair housing, which means that it will conduct an analysis to identify impediments to fair housing choice within its jurisdiction and take appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified through that analysis, and maintain records reflecting the analysis and actions in this regard(see 24 CFR 570.487(b)(2) and 570.601(a)(2)). In addition,the grantee certifies that agreements with subrecipients will meet all civil rights related requirements pursuant to 24 CFR 570.503(b)(5). b.It has in effect and is following a residential anti-displacement and relocation assistance plan in connection with any activity assisted with funding under the CDBG program. c. It is in compliance with restrictions on lobbying required by 24 CFR part 87, together with disclosure forms, if required by part 87. d.The Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience application is authorized under State and local law(as applicable) and that the State, and any contractor, subrecipient, or designated public agency carrying out an activity with CDBG—NDR funds, possess(es)the legal authority to carry out the program for which it is seeking funding, in accordance with applicable HUD regulations and this NOFA. e.The activities to be administered with funds under this NOFA are consistent with its Application. f. It will comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the URA, as amended, and implementing regulations at 49 CFR part 24, except where waivers or alternative requirements are provided for in this NOFA. g. It will comply with section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701u), and implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 135. h.It is following a detailed citizen participation plan that satisfies the requirements of 24 CFR 91.105 or 91.115, as applicable(except as provided for in notices providing waivers and alternative requirements for this grant).Also, each UGLG receiving assistance from the State will follow a detailed citizen participation plan that satisfies the requirements of 24 CFR 570.486(except as provided for in notices providing waivers and alternative requirements for this grant). i. Each State receiving a direct award under this Notice certifies that it has consulted with affected UGLGs in counties designated in covered major disaster declarations in the non- entitlement, entitlement, and tribal areas of the State in determining the uses of funds, including method of distribution of funding, or activities carried out directly by the State. C-1 j. It is complying with each of the following criteria: (1)Funds will be used solely for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, long-term recovery, restoration of infrastructure and housing, and economic revitalization in the most impacted and distressed areas for which the President declared a major disaster in the aftermath of an event occurring in 2011, 2012, Or 2013,pursuant to the Stafford Act. (2)With respect to activities expected to be assisted with CDBG—NDR funds,the Application has been developed so as to give the maximum feasible priority to activities that will benefit low- and moderate-income families. (3)The aggregate use of CDBG—NDR funds shall principally benefit low-and moderate- income families in a manner that ensures that at least 50 percent of the grant amount is expended for activities that benefit such persons,unless waived by HUD based on a finding of compelling need. (4)It will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted with CDBG— NDR grant funds, by assessing any amount against properties owned and occupied by persons of low-and moderate-income, including any fee charged or assessment made as a condition of obtaining access to such public improvements,unless: (a) disaster recovery grant funds are used to pay the proportion of such fee or assessment that relates to the capital costs of such public improvements that are financed from revenue sources other than under this title; or(b)for purposes of assessing any amount against properties owned and occupied by persons of moderate income,the grantee certifies to the Secretary that it lacks sufficient CDBG funds (in any form)to comply with the requirements of clause(a). k. It(and any subrecipient or recipient))will conduct and carry out the grant in conformity with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) and the Fair Housing Act(42 U.S.C. 3601-3619) and implementing regulations. 1. It has adopted and is enforcing the following policies and will require any UGLG that receives grant funds to certify that it has adopted and is enforcing: (1) A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations; and (2) A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location that is the subject of such nonviolent civil 1 rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction. M. It(and any subrecipient or recipient)has the capacity to carry out the activities proposed in its Application in a timely manner; or will develop a plan to increase capacity where such capacity is lacking. n.It will not use grant funds for any activity in an area delineated as a special flood hazard area or equivalent in FEMA's most recent and current data source unless it also ensures that the action is designed or modified to minimize harm to or within the floodplain in accordance with Executive Order 11988 and 24 CFR part 55.The relevant data source for this provision is the latest issued I t C-2 FEMA data or guidance,which includes advisory data(such as Advisory Base Flood Elevations) or preliminary and final Flood Insurance Rate Maps. o.Its activities concerning lead-based paint will comply with the requirements of 24 CFR part 35, subparts A, B, J, K, and R. p.It will comply with applicable laws. q.It has reviewed the requirements of this NOFA and requirements of Public Law 113-2 applicable to funds allocated by this Notice, and that it has in place proficient financial controls and procurement processes and has established adequate procedures to prevent any duplication of benefits as defined by section 312 of the Stafford Act,to ensure timely expenditure of funds,to maintain comprehensive Web sites regarding all disaster recovery activities assisted with these funds, and to detect and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of funds. Signature/Authorized Official Date Title i I C-3 OMB Approval No.2506-0112(Exp.7/31/2012) Certification of Consistency U.S. Department of Housing with the Consolidated Plan and Urban Development I certify that the proposed activities/projects in the application are consistent with the jurisdiction's current, approved Con solidated Plan. (Type or clearly print the following information:) Applicant Name: State of Iowa Project Name: Iowa Watershed Approach for Urban and Rural Resilience Location of the Project: Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 East Grand Avenue Des Moines,Iowa 50309 Name of the Federal Program to which the applicant is applying: National Resilient Disaster Recovery Phase TWO Name of State of Iowa Certifying Jurisdiction: Certifying Official of the Jurisdiction Timothy R.Waddell Name: Title: Division Administrator Signature: Date: Page 1 of 1 form HUD-2991 (3/98) C-4 Attachment D—Consultation Summary State of Iowa Iowa PhaseII ConsultationSummary.pdf Consultation Summary Chart Figure 1 1 2 3 4 Agency or Stakeholder Agency Type- Target Type of Outreach Method of Notification (if Group(if applicable) Population (If applicable) applicable)-Materials Provided City of Coralville Public -Municipal Phone Requested and received Governments - Clear Creek commitment from city to Watershed discuss NDRC program and Clear Creek Watershed project with city staff and Council of Government. City of Coralville Public -Municipal Email Submitted response to Governments - Clear Creek request for Clear Creek Watershed Watershed infrastructure projects. City of Iowa City Public -Municipal Email Delivered NDRC summary Governments - Clear Creek and Clear Creek Watershed Watershed proposal for community consideration. East Central Iowa Council of Public - County Meeting Delivered NDRC summary Governments Governments - Clear Creek and Clear Creek Watershed Watershed proposal for community consideration. Johnson County Public - County Phone Presented NDRC overview Governments - Clear Creek and encouraged county Watershed participation as sub-recipient for Clear Creek Watershed project. D-1 Consultation Summary Chart Figure 1 1 2 3 4 Agency or Stakeholder Agency Type- Target Type of Outreach Method of Notification (if Group(if applicable) Population (If applicable) applicable)-Materials Provided Johnson County Public - County Meeting Delivered NDRC summary Governments - Clear Creek and Clear Creek Watershed Watershed proposal for community consideration. City of Shenandoah Public -Municipal Meeting Presented NDRC overview Governments -East and and encouraged county West Nishnabotna River participation as sub-recipient Watershed for East and West Nishnabotna Watershed project. Fremont County Public - County Meeting Presented NDRC overview Governments -East and and encouraged county West Nishnabotna River participation as sub-recipient Watershed for East and West Nishnabotna Watershed project. Mills County Public - County Meeting Presented NDRC overview Governments -East and and encouraged county West Nishnabotna River participation as sub-recipient Watershed for East and West Nishnabotna Watershed project. D-2 Consultation Summary Chart Figure 1 1 2 3 4 Agency or Stakeholder Agency Type- Target Type of Outreach Method of Notification (if Group(if applicable) Population (If applicable) applicable)-Materials Provided Valley News Today Media-East and West Meeting Presented NDRC overview Nishnabotna River and encouraged county Watershed participation as sub-recipient for East and West Nishnabotna Watershed project. City of Kalona Public -Municipal Meeting Discussed NDRC proposal Governments -English and inclusion of the English River Watershed River Watershed East Central Iowa Council of Public - County Meeting Discussed NDRC proposal Governments Governments -English and inclusion of the English River Watershed River Watershed English River Watershed Public -Multi-Jurisdictional Phone Discussed NDRC proposal Management Authority English River Watershed and inclusion of the English River Watershed Iowa County Public - County Meeting Discussed NDRC proposal Governments -English and inclusion of the English River Watershed River Watershed Benton County Public - County Meeting Presented NDRC overview Governments -Middle and encouraged county Cedar River Watershed participation as sub-recipient for Middle Cedar Watershed project. D-3 Consultation Summary Chart Figure 1 1 2 3 4 Agency or Stakeholder Agency Type- Target Type of Outreach Method of Notification (if Group(if applicable) Population (If applicable) applicable)-Materials Provided Black Hawk County Public - County Meeting Presented NDRC overview Governments -Middle and encouraged county Cedar River Watershed participation as sub-recipient for Middle Cedar Watershed project. City of Cedar Rapids Public -Municipal Meeting Presented NDRC overview Governments -Middle and encouraged county Cedar RiverWatershed participation as sub-recipient for Middle Cedar Watershed project. City of Vinton Public -Municipal Meeting Presented NDRC overview Governments -Middle and encouraged county Cedar River Watershed participation as sub-recipient for Middle Cedar Watershed project. Vinton Cedar Valley Times Media-Middle Cedar River Meeting Presented NDRC overview Watershed and encouraged county participation as sub-recipient for Middle Cedar Watershed project. Antares Group Inc Private-Renewable Energy Meeting Presented NDRC overview North Raccoon River and encouraged county Watershed participation as sub-recipient for North Raccoon Watershed project. D-4 Consultation Summary Chart Figure 1 1 2 3 4 Agency or Stakeholder Agency Type- Target Type of Outreach Method of Notification (if Group(if applicable) Population (If applicable) applicable)-Materials Provided Buena Vista County Public - County Meeting Presented NDRC overview Governments -North and encouraged county Raccoon River Watershed participation as sub-recipient for North Raccoon Watershed project. City of Storm Lake Public -Municipal Email Submitted response to Governments -North request for North Raccon Raccoon River Watershed Watershed infrastructure projects. Pocahontas County Public - County Meeting Presented NDRC overview Governments -North and encouraged county Raccoon River Watershed participation as sub-recipient for North Raccoon Watershed project. Sac County Public - County Meeting Presented NDRC overview Governments -North and encouraged county Raccoon River Watershed participation as sub-recipient for North Raccoon Watershed project. D-5 Consultation Summary Chart Figure 1 1 2 3 4 Agency or Stakeholder Agency Type- Target Type of Outreach Method of Notification (if Group(if applicable) Population (If applicable) applicable)-Materials Provided Allamakee County Public - County Meeting Presented NDRC overview Governments -Upper Iowa and encouraged county River Watershed participation as sub-recipient for Upper Iowa Watershed project. City of Decorah Public -Municipal Meeting Presented NDRC overview Governments -Upper Iowa and encouraged county River Watershed participation as sub-recipient for Upper Iowa Watershed project. City of New Albin Public -Municipal Meeting Presented NDRC overview Governments -Upper Iowa and encouraged county River Watershed participation as sub-recipient for Upper Iowa Watershed project. City of Preston, MN Public -Municipal Meeting Presented NDRC overview Governments -Upper Iowa and encouraged county River Watershed participation as sub-recipient for Upper Iowa Watershed project. City of Waukon Public -Municipal Meeting Presented NDRC overview Governments -Upper Iowa and encouraged county River Watershed participation as sub-recipient for Upper Iowa Watershed project. D-6 Consultation Summary Chart Figure 1 1 2 3 4 Agency or Stakeholder Agency Type- Target Type of Outreach Method of Notification (if Group(if applicable) Population (If applicable) applicable)-Materials Provided Howard County Public - County Meeting Presented NDRC overview Governments -Upper Iowa and encouraged county River Watershed participation as sub-recipient for Upper Iowa Watershed project. Northeast Iowa Resource Public -Non Profit-Upper Meeting Presented NDRC overview Conservation& Iowa River Watershed and encouraged county Development participation as sub-recipient for Upper Iowa Watershed project. Turkey River Watershed Public - County Meeting Presented NDRC overview Management Authority Governments -Upper Iowa and encouraged participation River Watershed as sub-recipient for Upper Iowa Watershed project. Winneshiek County Public - County Meeting Presented NDRC overview Governments -Upper Iowa and encouraged county River Watershed participation as sub-recipient for Upper Iowa Watershed project. Black Hawk County Public - County Meeting Discussed NDRC proposal Governments -Upper and inclusion of the Upper Wapsipinicon River Wapsipinicon Watershed Watershed project. D-7 Consultation Summary Chart Figure 1 1 2 3 4 Agency or Stakeholder Agency Type- Target Type of Outreach Method of Notification (if Group(if applicable) Population (If applicable) applicable)-Materials Provided Bremer County Public - County Meeting Discussed NDRC proposal Governments -Upper and inclusion of the Upper Wapsipinicon River Wapsipinicon Watershed Watershed project. Buchanan County Public - County Meeting Discussed NDRC proposal Governments -Upper and inclusion of the Upper Wapsipinicon River Wapsipinicon Watershed Watershed project. Chickasaw County Public - County Meeting Discussed NDRC proposal Governments -Upper and inclusion of the Upper Wapsipinicon River Wapsipinicon Watershed Watershed project. City of Central City Public -Municipal Meeting Discussed NDRC proposal Governments -Upper and inclusion of the Upper Wapsipinicon River Wapsipinicon Watershed Watershed project. City of Elma Public -Municipal Meeting Discussed NDRC proposal Governments -Upper and inclusion of the Upper Wapsipinicon River Wapsipinicon Watershed Watershed project. City of Independence Public -Municipal Meeting Discussed NDRC proposal Governments -Upper and inclusion of the Upper Wapsipinicon River Wapsipinicon Watershed Watershed project. D-8 Consultation Summary Chart Figure 1 1 2 3 4 Agency or Stakeholder Agency Type- Target Type of Outreach Method of Notification (if Group(if applicable) Population (If applicable) applicable)-Materials Provided City of Quasquetan Public - County Meeting Discussed NDRC proposal Governments -Upper and inclusion of the Upper Wapsipinicon River Wapsipinicon Watershed Watershed project. City of Tripoli Public -Municipal Meeting Discussed NDRC proposal Governments -Upper and inclusion of the Upper Wapsipinicon River Wapsipinicon Watershed Watershed project. Delaware County Public - County Meeting Discussed NDRC proposal Governments -Upper and inclusion of the Upper Wapsipinicon River Wapsipinicon Watershed Watershed project. Iowa Northland Regional Public - County Meeting Discussed NDRC proposal Council of Governments Governments -Upper and inclusion of the Upper Wapsipinicon River Wapsipinicon Watershed Watershed project. Linn County Public - County Meeting Discussed NDRC proposal Governments -Upper and inclusion of the Upper Wapsipinicon River Wapsipinicon Watershed Watershed project. Upper Wapsipinicon Public -Multi-Jurisdictional Meeting Discussed NDRC proposal Watershed Management Upper Wapsipinicon River and inclusion of the Upper Authority Watershed Wapsipinicon Watershed project. D-9 Consultation Summary Chart Figure 1 1 2 3 4 Agency or Stakeholder Agency Type- Target Type of Outreach Method of Notification (if Group(if applicable) Population (If applicable) applicable)-Materials Provided City of Dubuque (Planning, Public -Municipal Meetings Multiple meetings which Housing& Community took place in person and by Development, Engineering, phone regarding the Health, Sustainability, BBHIIRP. Grant Economic Development application and project Departments) materials provided. Community Foundation of Philanthropic organization- Meetings Invitation to develop home Greater Dubuque foundation outreach program. Shared project scopes, narratives, budgets East Central Intergovernmen Public - Council of Meetings Multiple meetings to Governments develop BBHHRP. Materials focused on budget, watershed, and BCA development Dubuque residents N/A-residents of disaster In-person home inspections, Posted opportunities on City affected areas neighborhood association website, email listservs, meetings, post cards, social social media, delivered hard media, website, public copy materials to service hearing providers in neighborhoods. Online survey regarding outstanding needs marketed through City and partner electronic correspondence D-10 Consultation Summary Chart Figure 1 1 2 3 4 Agency or Stakeholder Agency Type- Target Type of Outreach Method of Notification (if Group(if applicable) Population (If applicable) applicable)-Materials Provided Dubuque Community Public - Citizen commission Public hearing Public notice (newspaper, Development Advisory hard copy, electronic) of Commission hearing to present proposed projects and gather feedback Phone call and email(s) Discussed the IWA community Hawkeye Area Community Nonprofit dedicated to resiliency programming, Action Program,Inc. empowering and improving the sought input, and requested lives of families living with the information about local everyday barriers of poverty qualifying disasters Phone call and email(s) Discussed the IWA community West Central Community resiliency programming, Action Nonprofit to enhance the sought input, and requested quality of life for communities, information about local families and individuals qualifying disasters Phone call and email(s) Discussed the IWA community Nonprofit to build stronger resiliency programming, communities by addressing the sought input, and requested Upper Des Moines effects of poverty on information about local Opportunity individuals and families qualifying disasters D-11 Consultation Summary Chart Figure 1 1 2 3 4 Agency or Stakeholder Agency Type- Target Type of Outreach Method of Notification (if Group(if applicable) Population (If applicable) applicable)-Materials Provided Nonprofit to provide energy Phone call and email(s) assistance,WIC, Discussed the IWA community weatherization,family resiliency programming, development,affordable sought input, and requested housing services to eligible information about local Operation Threshold families and individuals qualifying disasters Phone call and email(s) Nonprofit to strengthen low Discussed the IWA community income people become more resiliency programming, self-sufficient, strengthen sought input, and requested North Iowa Community Action families and improve living information about local Organization conditions qualifying disasters Phone call and email(s) Discussed the IWA community Nonprofit to create positive resiliency programming, community change by sought input, and requested investing in effective solutions information about local United Way of Eastern Iowa that improve peoples lives qualifying disasters Phone call and email(s) Discussed the IWA community resiliency programming, sought input, and requested Iowa Community Action Nonprofit committed to information about local Association 1helping low-income Iowans qualifying disasters D-12 Consultation Summary Chart Figure 1 1 2 3 4 Agency or Stakeholder Agency Type- Target Type of Outreach Method of Notification (if Group(if applicable) Population (If applicable) applicable)-Materials Provided National Academy of Phone Meeting Discussed the IWA Sciences The National Academies of community resiliency Sciences,Engineering,and programming and especially Medicine are private,nonprofit metrics and measurements. institutions that provide expert NAS provided information advice on some of the most on the Zurich model. pressing challenges facing the nation and the world. Iowa Residents Public - State Government- Public hearing Public notice (newspaper, Iowa Economic hard copy, electronic) of Development Authority hearing to present proposed projects and gather feedback D-13 4 J��hns m JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA (;ounty BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING AGENDA . AUGUST 27, 2015 Second Floor Boardroom Informal Meeting 9:01 AM JOHNSON COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 913 SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET IOWA CITY, IA 52240 PHONE: 319-356-6000 www.JOHNSON-COUNTY.com www.JOHNSONCOUNTYIAIQM2.com MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Location Meetings are generally held in the Johnson County Administration JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA Building Second Floor Boardroom, 913 South Dubuque Street, ELECTED OFFICIALS Iowa City, Iowa 52240. However, meeting locations do vary. Supervisor Mike Carbery Please view each agenda to confirm the correct location. Chairperson Pat Harney Agenda Packets Supervisor Terrence Neuzil Supervisor Janelle Rod To be in compliance with Iowa Code Section 21.4, Board of SullivanVice-Chairperson Rod SulliSupervisors meeting agendas are posted on the bulletin board outside the Board Office a minimum of 24 hours prior to the Attorney Janet Lyness scheduled meeting. After such time has passed, the posted Auditor Travis Weipert agenda will not change, however, agenda packet attachments may Recorder Kim Painter be modified or added until the start ofthe meeting. Sheriff Lonny Pulkmbek Treasurer Tom Kriz Order of Discussion Board members reserve the right to move items from the order listed on the agenda. A person may address matters not on the agenda during the COUNTY DEPARTMENTS 'Inquiries and Reports from the Public" item. Please be aware that the Board is limited in their ability to respond to such inquiries and Ambulance the Iowa Code prohibits the Board from deliberating or acting on City Assessor items not appearing on the agenda. Conservation CountyAssessor Additional Information Emergency Management Supplemental documents to agenda items are public record and Finance PP 9 Human Resources are attached to the online agenda packet, with the exception of Information Technology those corresponding to executive sessions. Minutes of formal Medical Examiner meetings are published in accordance with the Iowa Code. Mental Health/Disability ityServices PhThe Board of Supervisors regular weekly formal and informal Physical l Plant meetings are recorded and televised on Cable Television City Public Planning H Zoning Health Channel 4 and can be viewed via webcast on SEATS www.johnsoncountyia.igm2.com. Assistance will be provided to Secondary Roads those requiring accommodations for disabilities, in compliance with Social Services the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Please request Veterans Affairs accommodations in advance by contacting Board Secretary Angela Laffey at 319-356-6000. Johnson County Iowa Published: 812612015 08:30 AM Page 1 D-14 Agenda Board of Supervisors August 27, 2015 INFORMAL MEETING -AGENDA A. CALL TO ORDER FOLLOWING THE FORMAL MEETING B. SECONDARYROADS 1. Review/discuss quotes received for Fall 2015 Crack Sealing Program 2. Other C. SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION 1. Clear Creek Watershed Management Authority, including, but not limited to, the proposed Clear Creek Watershed Coalition (CCWC) Articles of Agreement and by- laws 2. National Disaster Resilience Competition through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for Clear Creek Watershed 3. Other D. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1. Reports and Inquiries E. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT ANDY JOHNSON 1. Reports and Inquiries F. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1. Reports and Inquiries 2. Other G. DISCUSSION FROM THE PUBLIC H. ADJOURNMENT Johnson County Iowa Published: 8/26/2015 08:30 AM Page 2 D-15 Clear Creek Watershed Management Authority Approving the Agreement July - August 2015 6 ND C.1.a Clear Creek Watershed, _ aCou Iowa & Johnson Countiese - Drz x ost Aa _ Amanv ` P o Aerial View, 2014 �Amanv zr n Middle to f° Amann 76t Clear Creek Watershed scum 66,136 acres or 101 sq.miles Green .� L t Amann 3ecsn _T swAry IAxE x°■ �r 36 ort sr _ _ Np61H y Q Upper South - - fi e z r s Amann -1 esrea ��. ¢ 3 140TH IT ryF w 757 '� HDm a 1fi9TH ST 1 r P ) O O O N e35CIN-ST —I- 311T _T• 'F d sT° ¢ � zsorH IT < tll > s NorM "'} LihertY aha U n f}09 QUe Couro r. J E 7 Ti�np CoralMeville 2307H sT ■ n r tl330TH ST 966 � 1r V ii,r o ST 230Th IT j 3 TH „�t\ Williams6ury sT Middle Clear Creek SubwatershedI niv\siey zpOTv HUC12 ID:070801090101 -Iwv-xa - Heig6rs o a 245TH IT 24,698 acres or 39 sq.miles - IOWa 2507H ST UPper Clear Creek Subwatershed 4COTH ST 0 lower Clear Creek Subwatershed city HUC12ID:070802090101 < C, wit Cosgrove HUC12 ID:070802090103 22,570 acres or 35 sq.miles a' „ rr 18,868 acres or 29 sq.miles 0 260 xoxx.I xo 78 BrL r re H 14� Legend W .. D 7 0 °SPGE Si p s Hills Clear CreekRatershed #0� Interstate Highway Street or Secondary Road 1NrTH IT tEQ�w w> Clear Creek Subwatersheds *00' Federal Highway /- Named Streams � Municipal Boundary o 480TH r p P y /� State Highway r'T 1l F.W.Kent Park < N,0° ■ Unincorporated Village n"' County Highway Amana Heritage Society r e a tee,-q- 500•H ST _ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Miles .1 316/2013 Ept MW Dr i4e"Y Packet Pg. 4 Highlights of CCWC Agreement • Watershed Management Authority created and named Clear Creek Watershed Coalition (CCWC) • Cooperative organization NOT separate legal entity • Agreement language based on existing examples • Reviewed by counsel for Johnson County, North Liberty, Oxford/Tiffin, and SWCDs Possible Members • Iowa County • Johnson County • Cities of Coralville, North Liberty, Tiffin, Oxford, Iowa City • Iowa Soil & Water Conservation District Johnson Soil & Water Conservation District 9 FAQ about CCWC Agreement iq Agreement does not bind any member to do anything in particular except communicate There is no fee structure built into the agreement Any action the CCWC wants to undertake would require a member entity to initiate on their behalf • This agreement shows a willingness of the members to consider conditions outside their boarders Clear Creek Watershed Coalition • Seeking participants to the CCWC Need signed documents and appointment of a representative and an alternate to the CCWC board of directors • Hold first CCWC Board meeting to approve by-laws Coralville contract w/ ECICOG to apply for watershed planning grant on behalf of the CCWC Questions? Jennifer Fend East Central Iowa Council of Governments 319-365-9941 ext. 131 iennifer.fencIO-ecicog.org C.1.b CLEAR CREEK WATERSHED COALITION ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 28E by and between the eligible political subdivisions that adopt these Articles of Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement"), including the cities of Coralville, Iowa City, North Liberty, Oxford and Tiffin; the counties of Iowa and Johnson; the Iowa County Soil & Water Conservation District; and the Johnson County Soil & Water Conservation District (hereinafter "Members"). WHEREAS, Chapters 28E and 466B of the Code of Iowa (2015), as amended, authorize the Members to establish a Watershed Management Authority to enable cooperation in watershed planning and improvements for the mutual advantage of the Members; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 46613.23 of the Code of Iowa (2015), said Watershed Management Authority may perform any or all of the following activities: 1. Assess flood risks in the watershed; 2. Assess the water quality in the watershed; 3. Assess options for reducing flood risks and improving water quality in the watershed; 4. Monitor federal flood risk planning and activities; 5. Educate citizens regarding water quality and flood risks; 6. Allocate monies made available to the authority for the purposes of water quality and flood mitigation; and 7. Make and enter into contracts and agreements and execute all instruments necessary or incidental to the performance of the duties of the authority; and WHEREAS, the Members have determined it is in their mutual best interest to enter into an agreement pursuant to Chapter 28E of the Code of Iowa (2015) to establish a Watershed Management Authority and to outline the responsibilities of the parties. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED HEREIN, THE MEMBERS AGREE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1 — IDENTITY OF THE MEMBERS AND WATERSHED 1.1 The counties of Iowa and Johnson are each a political subdivision of the State of Iowa. Their respective addresses are: Iowa County, 970 Court Avenue, Marengo, IA 52301 Johnson County, 913 South Dubuque Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Clear Creek Watershed Coalition Agreement 1 Final Draft—July 8, 2015 D-23 Packet Pg. 10 C.1.b 1.2 The cities of Coralville, Iowa City, North Liberty, Oxford, and Tiffin are each a political subdivision of the State of Iowa. Their respective addresses are: City of Coralville, 1512 7th Street, PO Box 5127, Coralville, IA 52241 City of Iowa City, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 City of North Liberty, 3 Quail Creek Circle, P.O. Box 77, North Liberty, IA 52317 City of Oxford, PO Box 481, Oxford, IA 52322 City of Tiffin, 300 Railroad Street, PO Box 259, Tiffin, IA 52340 1.3 The Soil and Water Conservation Districts of Iowa and Johnson counties are each a political subdivision of the State of Iowa as defined in Iowa Code Section 161A.3(6) and a soil and water conservation district established pursuant to Iowa Code Section 161A.5(1). Their addresses are: Iowa County Soil & Water Conservation District 435 N Highland Street, Williamsburg, IA 52361 Johnson County Soil & Water Conservation District 51 Escort Lane, Iowa City, IA 52240 1.4 The Clear Creek Watershed (the "Watershed"), the district which is the subject of this Agreement, is depicted on the graphic attached hereto as Exhibit "A". SECTION 2 - NAME 2.1 The official name of this entity shall be the "Clear Creek Watershed Coalition" (hereinafter "CCWC"). SECTION 3 - LEGAL STATUS 3.1 The CCWC shall be a voluntary joint undertaking of the political subdivisions within the Watershed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 466B and 28E of the Code of Iowa. 3.2 It is the intention of this Agreement that there be no new or additional legal or administrative entity created by this Agreement, nor that the inherent governmental powers of any Member be affected in any way beyond the terms of this Agreement. SECTION 4—GOVERNING BODY 4.1 A joint board of the Members known as the Clear Creek Watershed Coalition Board of Directors (hereinafter "Board") shall be responsible for fulfilling the purpose of the CCWC. 4.2 Each Member shall be entitled to appoint one representative to serve on the Board and an alternate to serve in the place of the appointed representative in their absence. 4.3 The specific powers and duties of the Board shall be defined in the CCWC's by-laws to address Board officers, terms, meetings, and administrative functions. Clear Creek Watershed Coalition Agreement 2 Final Draft—July 8, 2015 D-24 Packet Pg. 11 C.1.b SECTION 5 — DURATION 5.1 This Agreement shall be in effect in perpetuity until or unless terminated pursuant to Section 11. SECTION 6— PURPOSE OF THE CCWC 6.1 The Members generally will cooperate with one another with respect to the Watershed and engage in the activities authorized by Section 46613.23. CCWC's activities will include, but not be limited to, the following: a. Utilizing watershed level assessments and planning; b. Increasing communication and coordination among the Members in addressing flooding and water quality in the Watershed; C. Supporting the Members' efforts to manage storm water runoff to prevent erosion, increase infiltration, promote groundwater recharge and mitigate flooding; d. Promoting efforts to protect and enhance beneficial uses of waterways within the Watershed such as fish and wildlife habitat and water recreation; e. Promoting uniform policies for surface and groundwater management; f. Increasing public education regarding flooding and water quality; g. Seeking funding opportunities to support the mission of the CCWC; and h. Providing a forum for the exchange of ideas among the Members. SECTION 7— POWERS AND DUTIES OF MEMBERS 7.1 The Members of this Agreement shall retain all powers and duties conferred by law and shall assist each other in the exercise of such powers and the performance of this Agreement. Any Member may accept a specific responsibility to assist with achieving the goals of the CCWC. Said responsibilities include, but are not limited to: a. Identifying opportunities for funding or in-kind support for the undertaking of watershed planning, assessments, and improvements within the Watershed; b. Serving as the fiscal agent for the CCWC when it receives funding; C. Identifying opportunities for infrastructure development and planning capable of assessing and mitigating flood risks and improving water quality in the watershed; d. Identifying best management practices for water quality improvements and to prevent erosion, increase infiltration, promote groundwater recharge and mitigate flooding; e. Participating in educational and outreach programs regarding water quality and flood risks; f. Providing support for the administration of projects, as agreed to by the Members; Clear Creek Watershed Coalition Agreement 3 Final Draft—July 8, 2015 D-25 Packet Pg. 12 C.1.b g. Securing financing, including grants, loans and issuance of bonds or loan agreements as deemed necessary to achieve the objectives of the CCWC; h. Coordinating with local utilities; and i. Designing and bidding of projects and administration of contracts. SECTION 8 — MANNER OF FINANCING 8.1 With a Member(s) acting as the fiscal agent, the Board may solicit, accept and receive donations, endowments, gifts, grants, reimbursements and other such funds or in-kind contributions, as necessary to support work pursuant to this Agreement. It is agreed and understood by the Members hereto that no financial obligations upon any Member are intended to be created hereby. 8.2 No action to contribute funds by a Board member of the CCWC is binding on the Member that he or she represents without official approval by the governing body of that Member. No Member may be required to contribute funds to the CCWC. 8.3 The Board will review each opportunity for funding or in-kind support. After review of the opportunity, a fiscal agent will be nominated. The fiscal agent shall be a Member or other organization meeting the fiscal agent standards outlined by the funding source. SECTION 9 — EMINENT DOMAIN & OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY 9.1 The CCWC shall not have the power of eminent domain and shall not own any interest in real or personal property. All interests in property shall be held in the name of a Member. SECTION 10—AMENDMENTS 10.1 This Agreement may be amended at any time by the Members. All amendments shall be in writing, adopted by resolution and signed by all Members, and filed in an electronic format with the Iowa Secretary of State as required by Iowa Code Section 28E.8. 10.2 Eligible political subdivisions may request to join the CCWC by filing written notice with the CCWC and adopting this Agreement by resolution. The request to become a new Member will be considered approved when the additional signature page has been filed in an electronic format with the Iowa Secretary of State as required by Iowa Code Section 28E.8. 10.3 Withdrawal of any Member may be accomplished by filing written notice with the CCWC and the other Members 60 days before the effective date of withdrawal. No Member may withdraw from this Agreement until the withdrawing Member has met its full obligations as of the effective date of withdrawal. SECTION 11 —TERMINATION 11.1 This Agreement may be terminated upon a majority vote of the Members. If the Agreement is to be terminated, a notice of the intent to terminate the CCWC shall be sent to all Members at least 90 days before the date of termination. Clear Creek Watershed Coalition Agreement 4 Final Draft—July 8, 2015 D-26 Packet Pg. 13 C.1.b SECTION 12 —GENERAL PROVISIONS 12.1 Entire Agreement: This Agreement contains the entire agreement and integrates all of the terms and conditions contained in and incidental to such Agreement. No modifications or waiver of any provision in this Agreement shall be valid unless in writing and signed by all of the Members. If, for any reason, any provisions of this Agreement shall be inoperative, the validity and effect of the other provisions shall not be affected thereby. 12.2 Severability: If any provision of this Agreement is found to be invalid by any court, administrative agency or tribunal of competent jurisdiction, the invalidity of any such provision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions hereof. 12.3 Assignment: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Members and their respective successors and assigns. Members are limited by law to counties, cities, and soil and water conservation districts. SECTION 13 —GOVERNING LAW 13.1 This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted under the laws of the State of Iowa. SECTION 14— EFFECTIVE DATE, EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS AND RECORDATION 14.1 This Agreement shall take effect upon execution by the Members as required by law and filing in an electronic format with the Iowa Secretary of State as required by Iowa Code Section 28E.8. The Members agree to timely execute any documents necessary to carry out the terms of this Agreement. The Members further agree that this document may be executed outside the presence of the other Members and in separate counterparts. Clear Creek Watershed Coalition Agreement rj Final Draft—July 8, 2015 D_27 Packet Pg. 14 C.1.b SECTION 15 —AUTHORIZATION AND SIGNATURE PAGES 15.1 Each party to this Agreement shall supply to the CCWC a signed original of the resolution or approved minutes from the Soil & Water Conservation Districts which adopted this Agreement. 15.2 The Members agree that this Agreement has attached to it signature pages which shall be assembled and filed together with the Agreement and shall together constitute one and the same instrument. A completed copy of the Agreement with executed signature pages shall be sent to each Member. Dated this day of 12015 Johnson County, Iowa BY: Chair, Board of Supervisors ATTEST: County Auditor Clear Creek Watershed Coalition Agreement 6 Final Draft—July 8, 2015 D_28 Packet Pg. 15 Clear Creek Watershed, _ o e CPu 12 IT H IT S4NHN Iowa & Johnson Counties wll5 ewer ��'xo ° ■ A-000 ■ �t Aerial View, 2014 V MAHA C? MltldleAmnno vx Amono Clear Creek Watershed soorn 66,136 acres or 101 sq. miles come x ` aix sr Amon: 'IrIH s, Swnv rAx[ RP■ > W� Upper snxrn < Amana r e '" s.e ' 1117. 5, HO VeS rPo _ 3 E40LH Si F 1>SiSi■ d250i:M-Si—� 0iN Si > e " North � Liberty 041" v ' ryh" coorome arx si �■ (' I r- j'� s3oix s7 985 ae o .1 sso7x sr 'i'C. £ r ,. EEALH IT � c winiamsburg a- - 5 ® Middle Clear Creek Suhwaterxhed u ere;ry HUC12 ID.070802090102 e E4six s7",. 24,698 acres or 39 sy.miles - y,. Iowa IT Upper Clear Creek Subwatershed 400r H IT ■ lower,Clear Creek Sobwa[ershed City 507 HUC121D:070801090101 co,groxe HUC12ID.0708020 901 03 22,.570 acres or 35 sy.miles '< x " „ r It 18,868acor 19 sy.miles ° HO 3 3 d F NoxFEi so 18 149 Legend 12 ¢ oIA11 IT E Clear Creek Watershed Interstate Highway Street or Secondary Road i 280T IT Clear Creek Subwatersheds �� Federal Highway z- Named Streams E�x� ei e` Pomell 0 480711 Sr -� Municipal Boundary �� State Highway r,J� F.W.Kent Park x w =° '" u�I,�,11 0 ■ 11nincorpomtcdVillage County Highway Amana Heritage Society B�J!■e o m 0 1 2 3 0 5 6 Miles owN O xP 5401H Si C.1.d Board of Directors Clear Creek Watershed Coalition Administrative By-Laws 1. ADOPTION OF BY-LAWS These administrative by-laws are hereby established for the Clear Creek Watershed Coalition in accordance with Section 4.3 of the 28E Agreement establishing the Clear Creek Watershed Coalition, which was filed with the Secretary of the State of Iowa on DATE. The Clear Creek Watershed Coalition shall be governed by a Board of Directors, as stipulated in Article 4 of the 28E Agreement. 2. PURPOSE The Clear Creek Watershed Coalition will enable cooperation in pursuit of the activities outlined in Article 6 of the 28E Agreement for the mutual benefit of the Political Subdivisions involved. The by-laws create an organized structure to manage the activities of the Clear Creek Watershed Coalition and to serve as a communications link with participating Political Subdivisions. 3. DEFINITIONS A. Political Subdivisions—A city, county, or soil and water conservation district. For the purposes of these by-laws, a political subdivision shall be limited to the County of Iowa, the County of Johnson, the City of Coralville,the City of Iowa City, the City of North Liberty, the City of Oxford, the City of Tiffin, the Iowa County Soil & Water Conservation District, and the Johnson County Soil & Water Conservation District. B. Coalition—The organization, known as the Clear Creek Watershed Coalition, is a Watershed Management Authority created by the 28E Agreement referenced herein. It is a voluntary joint undertaking of the Political Subdivisions within the Clear Creek Watershed pursuant to the provisions of Chapters 466B and 28E of the Code of Iowa. C. Board—The Board of Directors of the Coalition comprised of authorized representatives from each participating Political Subdivision. D. Member—A Political Subdivision that has adopted the 28E Agreement that forms the Clear Creek Watershed Coalition. E. Director—Authorized representative of a participating Political Subdivision (Member). F. 28E Agreement—Legal document(Iowa Intergovernmental Agreement) signed by each participating Political Subdivision to form a Watershed Management Authority pursuant to the provisions of Chapters 466B and 28E of the Code of Iowa. 4. GOVERNANCE The affairs of the Coalition shall be conducted by the Board. Each Member shall appoint one representative to serve as a Director, and all Directors comprise the Board. Each Director has one vote. A designated alternate or proxy may vote in the Director's absence. Clear Creek Watershed Coalition By-laws Page 1 of 5 7/8/2015 D-30 I Packet Pg. 17 C.1.d The Directors shall serve staggered four year terms. The initial Board shall determine, by lot,the initial terms to be shortened and lengthened, as necessary,to achieve staggered terms. Representatives selected to serve on the Board may succeed themselves and there shall be no limit on the number of terms that a person may serve. If a Director resigns or is removed, a successor shall be appointed for the duration of the unexpired term of that Director. 5. POWERS AND DUTIES OF BOARD The Clear Creek Watershed Coalition is created and established by the 28E Agreement pursuant to Iowa Code Chapters 466B and 28E. Its powers and duties shall be those established in said 28E Agreement. Membership in the Coalition and voting representation on its Board is limited to Political Subdivisions within the Clear Creek Watershed that have adopted the 28E Agreement. The Board may exercise all powers necessary and incidental to further the aims and objectives of the Coalition as set forth in the 28E Agreement and/or agreed upon by the Board. The Board may establish work committees which shall act in an advisory capacity to the Board. These committees may contain persons who are not members of the Coalition. The Board shall not make a policy that would require a Member to change its policies or require a Member to contribute funds without official action of approval by that Member's governing body. No Member may be required to contribute funds to the Coalition and no action to contribute funds by a Director appointed by the Member is binding on the Member without approval by the governing board of that Member. 6. OFFICERS The officers of the Board shall consist of Chairperson, Vice Chairperson (Chair Elect), Secretary, and Treasurer. The offices of the Secretary and Treasurer may be combined and held by the same person. The officers shall be elected by the Board. The terms of the officers shall be for one year or until their successors are elected. The Chairperson and the Vice Chairperson (Chair Elect) shall rotate between a representative from a city and a representative from either a county or a Soil & Water Conservation District. The Secretary and/or Treasurer need not be but may be a Director of the Board. A recording secretary and/or a deputy treasurer, which need not be a Director, may be appointed by the Board. Clear Creek Watershed Coalition By-laws Page 2 of 5 7/8/2015 D-31 Packet Pg. 18 C.1.d 7. DUTIES OF THE OFFICERS Chairperson: The Chairperson shall: 1. Preside at the meetings of the Board and prepare an agenda in consultation with others. 2. Decide all points of order or procedure unless otherwise directed by a majority of the Directors in session at the time. 3. Appoint any committees that may be deemed necessary. 4. Represent the Coalition where attendance is requested or where attendance is deemed necessary to further the aims and objectives of the Coalition. 5. Sign documents of the Clear Creek Watershed Coalition. 6. Perform other duties as deemed necessary. Vice-Chairperson: The Vice-Chairperson shall: 1. Assume the duties of the Chairperson in the event of the absence or disability of the Chairperson. 2. Succeed to the position of Chairperson for the unexpired term in the event said position becomes vacant, in which case the Board of Directors shall select a successor to the position of Vice-Chairperson for the unexpired term. Secretary: The Secretary, or designee, shall: 1. Attend all meetings of the Board and act as Clerk by recording votes, keeping minutes, managing correspondence, and making said records available to all Members of the Coalition and the public. 2. Send out all notices required by these by-laws and by the Code of Iowa. 3. Attend to any other duties as directed by the Board of Directors. Treasurer: The Treasurer, or designee, shall: 1. Attend all meetings and make a report at each Board meeting. 2. Assist in preparation of the budget, help develop fund raising plans, and make financial information available to the Members and the public. 3. Attend to any other duties as directed by the Board of Directors. In the event that both the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson are absent, the Secretary shall serve as the pro-tem Chairperson and, if necessary, a temporary secretary shall be appointed. The pro-tem chair shall be authorized to conduct the meeting and to sign any documents requiring signatures when said documents were the result of any action by the Board at the particular meeting. 8. MEETINGS A. Regular Meetings The Board shall generally meet quarterly at such time and place as may be designated by the Chairperson, and said meetings shall be known as the regular meetings of the Board. A majority of the Directors of the Board shall constitute a quorum. No official business of the Coalition shall take place in the absence of a quorum. Directors and/or their alternates (proxies) are expected to attend meetings whenever possible. Absences in excess of three consecutive, regularly scheduled meetings will result in notification to the Member that they may wish to consider a reappointment. Clear Creek Watershed Coalition By-laws Page 3 of 5 7/8/2015 D-32 I Packet Pg. 19 C.1.d The annual meeting of the Board shall take place in the first quarter of the calendar year. The election of the Chairperson and Vice-chairperson shall take place at the annual meeting. The treasurer and the secretary for the Board shall be elected by the Board. B. Special Meetings Special meetings may be called by the chairperson or at the written request of two members of the Board. Notice of the special meeting shall be given by the secretary to the members of the Board at least 72 hours prior to such meeting and shall state the purpose of the meeting. C. Public All regular, special, and committee meetings, records and accounts shall be open to the public in accordance with the Code of Iowa. All meeting agendas shall be posted per the Members usual procedure. All meetings of the Board and its committees shall be conducted according to the latest edition of Robert's Rules of Order unless otherwise provided in these by-laws. D. Motions Any member of the Board of Directors may make motions. The Chairperson or the Secretary shall restate the motion, after having been seconded, before a vote is taken. Discussion on the motion will be held prior to the vote. E. Voting The concurring vote of not less than a majority of the full Board shall be required to reach a decision. Minutes will show members who are absent. All members of the Board in attendance, including the chairperson, are required to cast a vote for each motion, unless a member has a conflict of interest. If a member elects to abstain from voting due to a conflict, he or she shall indicate the reason for doing so on the record at the meeting. Elections shall be by ballot or in such manner as the Board determines. Successful candidates shall be elected by a majority of the Board. For Committee meetings, a majority of those present shall constitute a quorum of the Committee. F. Unfinished Business Where all matters cannot be disposed of on the day set for meeting due to length of the meeting or extenuating circumstances, the Board may adjourn until a subsequently specified meeting date. Electronic Meetings Iowa Code Chapter 21.8, addressing Electronic Meetings, requires the following when a majority of the Directors participating in a meeting are participating by phone and/or conference call: Iowa Code Chapter 21.8 A governmental body may conduct a meeting by electronic means only in circumstances where such a meeting in person is impossible or impractical and only if the governmental body complies with all of the following: Clear Creek Watershed Coalition By-laws Page 4 of 5 7/8/2015 D-33 I Packet Pg. 20 C.1.d 1. The governmental body provides public access to the conversation of the meeting to the extent reasonably possible. 2. The governmental body complies with sections 21.4. For the purposes of this paragraph, the place of the meeting is the place from which the communication originates or where public access is provided to the conversation. 3. Minutes are kept of the meeting. The minutes shall include a statement explaining why a meeting in person was impossible or impractical. 4. A meeting conducted in compliance with this section shall not be considered in violation of this chapter. 5. A meeting by electronic means may be conducted without complying with paragraph "a" of subsection 1 if conducted in accordance with all of the requirements for a closed session contained in section 21.5. 9. FINANCE A financial report shall be approved at the annual meeting. The Board may solicit, accept and receive donations, endowments, gifts, grants, reimbursements and other such funds as necessary to support work pursuant to this 28E Agreement. 1. No action to contribute funds by a Director of the Coalition is binding on the Member that he or she represents without official approval by the governing board of that Member. No Member may be required to contribute funds to the Coalition, except to fulfill any obligation previously made by official action by the governing body of the Member. 2. All funds received for use by the Coalition shall be held as a special fund by the fiscal agent designated by the Board of Directors of the Coalition. When funds are provided as a grant or loan directed to a Member of the Coalition for a project administered by that Member, the funds shall be retained and administered by that Member. 10. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES Disputes that arise concerning violations of policies and guidelines or concerning the terms of the 28E Agreement shall be heard by the Board. 11. AMENDMENTS Amendments to the bylaws may be proposed by any member of the Board. Amendments can be proposed and discussed at a meeting of the Board, but such amendments cannot be adopted until the subsequent meeting. All amendments shall be in writing and shall be provided to all Board members at least seven days prior to the meeting when a vote will be taken to adopt the amendment. A majority vote of all of the Board members shall be required to adopt an amendment. The amendment shall take effect immediately upon adoption, unless otherwise specified by the Board. Adopted this day of 12015. Signed: Attest: Chairperson Secretary Clear Creek Watershed Coalition By-laws Page 5 of 5 7/8/2015 D-34 Packet Pg. 21 Johnson County Board of Supervisors Meeting—Clear Creek Watershed Johnson County Administration Building 8/27/2015 11:15am Participants: Participants in attendance included Supervisors Terry Neuzil, Mike Carberry, Pat Harney, Janelle Rettic and Executive Assistant, Andy Johnson; Larry Weber and Breanna Zimmerman with the University of Iowa's, Iowa Flood Center; Mary Beth Stevenson with IDNR; Jennifer Fencl with East Central Iowa Council of Governments (ECICOG); Kate Giannini with Johnson County; and Jessica Rilling with Iowa Valley Resource Conservation and Development(RC&D). Discussion: The Iowa Flood Center(IFC) was invited to attend a meeting with the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to discuss the National Disaster Resilience Competition (NDRC)funding opportunity on August 27, 2015. IFC approached the Johnson County BOS to ask them to serve as the lead partner for the proposed project in the Clear Creek Watershed. A large portion of the CCW is located in Johnson County and the county is very involved in the CCW, making it the most likely entity to serve as the lead partner. Jennifer Fencl with East Central Iowa Council of Governments (ECICOG) attended the meeting to let the board know that the Clear Creek Watershed is near the end of the formation of their Watershed Management Authority(WMA), or better known as the Clear Creek Watershed Coalition (CCWC). Fencl is waiting to hear from Iowa County as to whether or not they wish to join the newly formed CCWC. Larry Weber, representing the University of Iowa- Iowa Flood Center, was invited to present to the Supervisors following Fencl and invited a liaison for the Johnson County BOS to attend a meeting the following day with the Iowa County BOS to discuss the National Disaster Resilience Competition (NDRC)funding proposal. Weber will present to the Iowa County BOS to ask for their participation in the CCWC and the proposed project in the English River Watershed, since each watershed touches Iowa County. Supervisor Pat Harney noted they would identify which board member is the liaison for Iowa County and notify IFC. Prior to the meeting, Breanna Zimmerman had provided a document summarizing the NDRC proposal and a link to the Phase 2 Fact Sheet to share with the supervisors. Larry Weber began his presentation by providing some additional background on the NDRC funding proposal. Weber noted that IFC is working in a partnership with Homeland Security and Emergency Management(HSEMD) and Iowa Economic Development Authority(IEDA)to submit an application for the State of Iowa. There is currently SIB available to states with counties that experienced a declared presidential disaster between 2011, 2012, and 2013. The funding source is made available through the U.S. Housing and Urban Development(HUD) and the Rockefeller Foundation. Iowa submitted a phase I application and was invited to submit to phase II, along with approximately 40 other applicants. D-35 Weber said the proposed project will focus on improving resiliency in watersheds selected based on certain qualifying criteria. Watersheds were selected based on their environmental and infrastructure MID-URN and their proximity to LMI areas. The project will look to form a WMA or work with existing WMA's in each identified watershed. The WMA's will be critical in helping to advance resiliency and gain momentum for each watershed project. The project will include a hydrologic assessment of the entire watershed, watershed planning and modeling, implementing conservation practices, and pre and post construction monitoring. Conservation practices implemented may have a primary water quality benefit with a secondary benefit to flood resiliency, or have a primary benefit to flooding with a secondary benefit to water quality. The total request will be between $100 to $130M. Current selected watersheds include the Upper Iowa, Upper Wapsipinicon, Dubuque, East Nishnabotna, West Nishnabotna, North Raccoon, Clear Creek, English River, and Middle Cedar. Dubuque will receive a large portion of the overall allocated funding. It is unlikely that the requested amount will be awarded, but HUD will negotiate the total funded amount. In order to include the CCW in the application, a lead partner needs to be identified that will help administer the project if funded. In order to include Johnson County as the sub-recipient for the project, a letter of intent to participate and a partnership agreement will need to be completed within the next few weeks to include Johnson County and the Clear Creek Watershed in the proposal. Weber referred back to the original HUD project IFC received funding for. IFC,the nation's only state-funded flood center, received $8.8M from HUD for the Iowa Watersheds Project in 2010. The current Iowa Watersheds Project is a great demonstration for the NDRC proposal and shows the ability and experience the State of Iowa has to effectively coordinate and manage a project of this magnitude. Questions/Comments: Upon informing Supervisors of the NDRC proposal, Weber opened up the meeting for questions or comments. Below is a list of the discussion that took place: - Janelle Rettic (Supervisor): Who would select project types and locations? • Weber stated that local soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs) and IFC modeling will help define areas to implement practices that would provide the most benefit. - Rettic: Would the Clear Creek Watershed Coalition (CCWC) select practices? • Weber noted that the CCWC would propose projects for specific locations and present them to the BOS for final review. The BOS would lead the procurement and bidding process. The local SWCD's would help get landowner interest. - Kate Giannini (Johnson County): Would there be administrative funds for a watershed coordinator housed out of an SWCD or county office? D-36 • Weber stated there is a 5% allocation for administrative expenses. Some of these funds are kept by IEDA and some funds are allocated to sub-recipients to support administrative costs for the county. Rettic: Supports the NDRC funding proposal and having Johnson County as the lead entity. "It would be great for the State of Iowa if we could win this competition and bring home some projects." Weber: It is vital for the state to keep WMAs going. HUD will select between 15-20 projects out of 40 to receive funding. Mike Carberry(Supervisor): It would be interesting to see if money would be available to help fund research on energy crops, like the miscanthus project, that retain water. The general consensus by all Supervisors was to serve as the fiscal agent for the project. Weber noted that Zimmerman would be sending a template for the partnership agreement and letter of intent to participate that would need to be completed and returned in the next few weeks. D-37 C.1.e RESOLUTION RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT CREATING THE CLEAR CREEK WATERSHED COALITION WHEREAS,the City/County/SWCD of BLANK desires to enter into an Agreement that would establish a Watershed Management Authority within the Clear Creek Watershed to enable cooperation in watershed planning and improvements pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 46613.23 and; WHEREAS,Chapter 28E of the Code of Iowa provides the authority for public agencies to enter into agreements for their mutual advantage and; WHEREAS,this Agreement is made and entered into by the eligible political subdivisions that adopt these Articles of Agreement, including the cities of Coralville, North Liberty,Tiffin, Oxford, Iowa City; the counties of Iowa and Johnson; and the Iowa County Soil &Water Conservation District and the Johnson County Soil &Water Conservation District; NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY/COUNTY/SWCD OF BLANK, IOWA: 1. The Board Chair/Mayor/District Chair and the Auditor/City Clerk/Secretary are hereby authorized to sign and execute the Articles of Agreement for the Clear Creek Watershed Coalition,a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Said Agreement is hereby approved as to form and content and is found to be in the best interest of the City/County/SWCD of BLANK, Iowa and the eligible political subdivisions that adopt these Articles of Agreement, including the cities of Coralville, North Liberty,Tiffin, Oxford, Iowa City; the counties of Iowa and Johnson; and the Iowa County Soil &Water Conservation District and the Johnson County Soil &Water Conservation District. 3. The Auditor/City Clerk/Secretary is hereby authorized to file a copy of this Resolution and Agreement with the Secretary of State,as required by Chapter 28E, Iowa Code. It was moved by and seconded by the Resolution be adopted. PASSED and APPROVED this day of 2015. ATTEST: TITLE TITLE D-38 Packet Pg. 22 Asked for letter of intent to participate; need within the next few weeks to include in proposal Background on IFC o Nations only state-funded flood center o Received $8.8 million from Housing and Urban Development(HUD) for the Iowa Watersheds Project in 2010 o Current Iowa Watersheds Project is a great demonstration for the NDRC Questions/Comments: o Janelle Rettic (JR): Who would select project types and locations? LW: Local soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs) and IFC modeling will help define areas to implement practices that would provide the most benefit o JR: Would the Clear Creek Watershed Coalition (CCWC) select practices? LW:The CCWC would propose projects for specific locations to the BOS.The BOS would lead the procurement and bidding process. The local SWCD's would help get landowner interest. o Kate Giannini (KG): Would there be administrative funds for a watershed coordinator housed out of an SWCD or county office? LW:There is a 5%allocation for administrative expenses. Some of these funds are kept by IEDA and some funds are allocated to sub-recipients to support administrative costs for the county. o JR: Supports NDRC funding proposal and Johnson County as the lead entity. "It would be great for the State of Iowa if we could win this competition and bring home some projects." o LW: It is vital for the state to keep WMAs going. HUD will select between 15-20 projects out of 40 to receive funding. o Mike Carberry (MC): It would be interesting to see if money would be available to help fund research on energy crops, like the miscanthus project, that retain water. o General consensus from all BOS's to be the fiscal agent from the project. HUD has a template for the letter of intent to participate that will be shared with them. D-39 From: Resilience [HSEMD] Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 11:59 AM To: Allamakee03Cnty [HSEMD County]; Benton06Cnty [HSEMD County]; BuchananlOCnty [HSEMD County]; Buenavistal lCnty [HSEMD County]; Cedarl6Cnty [HSEMD County]; Cherokeel8Cnty [HSEMD County]; C1ay21Cnty [HSEMD County]; Clinton23Cnty [HSEMD County]; Delaware28Cnty [HSEMD County]; Deutmeyer, Kelley [DOT Contact]; Dickinson30Cnty [HSEMD County]; doug.elliottAecia.org; Dubuque3lCnty [HSEMD County]; gyouellAmapacog.org; Ida47Cnty [HSEMD County]; Iowa48Cnty [HSEMD County]; Jasper50Cnty [HSEMD County]; Johnson52Cnty [HSEMD County]; kblanshanAinrcog.org; Lang, Dwight [DOT Contact]; Lee56Cnty [HSEMD County]; Lyon60Cnty [HSEMD County]; Marion63Cnty [HSEMD County]; Marsha1164Cmy [HSEMD County]; mnorrisAseirpc.com; Pocahontas76Cnty [HSEMD County]; Pottawattamie78Cnty [HSEMD County]; Poweshiek79Cnty [HSEMD County]; rhoweAuerpc.org; rhunsakerAreRion l2cog.org; Sac8lCnty [HSEMD County]; Tama 86Cnty [HSEMD County]; ted.kourousisAnwipdc.org; Weldon, Cliff[DOT Contact]; Winneshiek96Cnty [HSEMD County]; Wymore, Marty [DOT Contact] Subject: National Disaster Resilience Competition - PLEASE DISTRIBUTE ASAP! NATIONAL DISASTER RESILIENCE COMPETITION Iowa Phase 11 Application Request for Information Description The Iowa Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management is seeking information from local jurisdictions interested and capable of building a more resilient State as a component of Iowa's application to the U.S. Department Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience Competition (CDBG-NDRC). THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) ONLY. This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes. Respondees are advised that Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management will not pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in response to this RFI; all costs associated with responding to this RFI will be solely at the interested party's expense. Not responding to this RFI does not preclude participation in any future RFP, if issued. It is the intent of the Iowa NDRC Application Team to use an RFI process to identify potential infrastructure projects that could be integrated into a Phase II application, as well as to gather relevant information regarding building resilience in the state. Background The National Disaster Resilience Competition is a HUD-sponsored program, which will allocate $999,108,000 to a pool of 67 approved applicants to build post-disaster resilience throughout the D-40 United States. $180 million has been set aside for Super Storm Sandy impacted communities. The remainder of the funding will be made available to approved applicants that had presidentially declared disasters in 2011, 2012 or 2013, including some predefined communities and 48 states. With eight presidentially declared disasters during that time, the State of Iowa is an approved applicant and submitted a Phase I application on March 23, 2015. Phase I was the "framing"phase of the competition in which applicants needed to demonstrate that they met specific threshold criteria, had capacity to effectively administer funds, and exhibited continued need from a qualified disaster. During Phase I,the State of Iowa identified target areas according to the requirements of the National Disaster Resilience Competition, established an approach toward resilience, and discussed intended process for developing Phase II projects and programs. The Iowa Phase I application can be found in its entirety at Iowa- NDRC - Phase I Application HUD's NOFA criteria were utilized to identify the following twenty-six Iowa counties as potential National Disaster Resilience Competition target areas for "infrastructure-related projects": Allamakee Benton Buchanan Buena Vista Cedar Cherokee Clay Clinton Delaware Dickinson Dubuque Ida Iowa Jasper Johnson Lee Lyon Marion Marshall Pocahontas Pottawattamie Poweshiek Sac Sioux Tama Winneshiek HUD is expected to announce which applicants are invited into a Phase II application process at the end of May 2015. Once announced, applicants will have 120 days to prepare a Phase II application. Because of the quick timeline for Phase II application preparation, a Request for Information process is being launched prior to Phase II announcements to permit ample time to work with project partners to prepare the most compelling and competitive application that can create transformational progress toward disaster resilience in Iowa. The State of Iowa NDRC Application Team has established the following timeline for preparation of a Phase II application: Date Beginning Date Ending Milestone April 13, 2015 May 13, 2015 RFI Accepted May 13, 2015 May 31, 2015 Evaluation of potential projects by Resilience Steering Committee June 1, 2015 July 31, 2015 Project application development and consultations with project partners August 1, 2015 August 31, 2015 Public comment period on Phase II application September 2015 TBD Submission of Phase II application (exact date TBD by HUD) D-41 Responses Interested parties are requested to respond to this RFI by no later than 4:00 pm CDT on Wednesday, May 13, 2015. The attached RFI form (pdf) must be used to submit responses to the Iowa NDRC Application Team. Submit responses to resilienceAiowa.gov. Please be advised that all submissions become the property of the Iowa NDRC Application Team and will not be returned. The Iowa NDRC Application Team may or may not choose to meet with interested parties. Questions and Technical Assistance Questions and/or requests for technical assistance regarding this announcement shall be submitted in writing to resilienceAiowa.gov by 4:00 pm CDT on Thursday, April 23, 2015. HUD has put together a number of resources regarding community resilience and the NDRC. Materials include the White House Fact Sheet, Competition Overview, and the Notice of Funding Announcement(NOFA). Training materials, webinars, and Community& Economic Resilience resources can be found at httns://www.hudexchange.info/cdbg-dr/resilient-recoverv. Summary THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) ONLY to identify potential infrastructure projects for inclusion in the State of Iowa's National Disaster Resilience Competition Phase II application and to better define resiliency opportunities and challenges in the State. The information provided in the RFI is subject to change and is not binding. No commitment has been made to procure any of the items discussed, and release of this RFI should not be construed as such a commitment or as authorization to incur cost for which reimbursement would be required or sought. All submissions become the property of the Iowa NDRC Application Team and will not be returned. Information contained in RFI responses may lead to potential partnership in a final NDRC application. RFI responses may be made public and should not include sensitive information. Distribution We ask that the county emergency management coordinators and councils of government forward this information to the communities in their service area to achieve the widest distribution possible. Iowa NDRC Application Team D-42 Organization Name: City of Coralville County: Johnson Address: 1512 7th Street, Coralville, IA Phone: 319.248.1720 POC: Dan Holderness, P.E., City Engineer Contact Email: dholderness@ci.coralville.ia.us Project Name: Istormwater Pump Stations#7 and #8- Iowa River-Lower(HUC 8) Project Summary The proposed mitigation project will modify two of the City's existing stormwater pump stations (Nos. 7 &8) along Clear Creek to provide flood protection to levels equivalent to the 2008 flooding plus one foot(same design level as all other City flood mitigation projects constructed since the 2008 flooding).The proposed improvements will raise weir walls and add backflow prevention; add a shared and elevated back-up power supply, gate operators, and motor controls; reinforce baffles; replace internal flap gates with sluice gates; add duckbills at discharge pipes; and improve level measurements. D-43 Proje Is ctivities The goal of this proposed mitigation project is to construct the final piece of the City's overall flood mitigation P after the 2008 floods which will protect the significant areas impacted by previous year's flooding. The emainder of the city impacted by the 2008 flood along the Iowa River, Clear Creek and Biscuit Creek have been protected to the 2008 flood elevation plus 1 foot. The main activities of this project are proposed improvements that will raise weir walls and add backflow prevention;add a shared and elevated back-up power supply, gate operators, and motor controls; reinforce baffles; replace internal flap gates with sluice gates;add duckbills at discharge pipes;and improve level measurements. Anticipated Project Start and Completion Dates: 1Q16 3Q16 Project Location (Lat/Long): 41.6698 -91.573 Project Engineering and Design Percent Completion Range: 60% 80% Geographic Area and Population Served bythis Project The geographic area protected by Stormwater Pump Station No. 7 is 42.89 acres. The population protected by Stormwater Pump Station No. 7 is 500 people of which 34%are non-white according to 2010 Census data. The geographic area protected by Stormwater Pump Station No. 8 is 135.92 acres. The population protected by Stormwater Pump Station No. 8 is 470 people of which 30%are non-white according to 2010 Census data. D-44 Project to Any Unmet Recovery Needs 7with Pump Stations #7 and #8 Improvements Project will complete the flood mitigation plan e city after the 2008 floods. $75 million of flood mitigation projects have been completed to r$10 million of mitigation projects ongoing. This project is the final phase of the flood o provide flood protection to Coralville residents and businesses to the 2008 flood elevation plus one foot. Project Benefits Vulnerable Populations Our project benefits a significant concentration of ethnic businesses, and low to moderate income persons- including students-that reside and live in the area that will be protected by this flood mitigation project. 2010 Census data indicate 34%of the population protected by Pump Station No. 7 and 30%of the population protected by Pump Station No. 8 are non-white. Project Creates Greater Resilience in the Target Area The target area of our proposed project-the developed portion of Coralville affected by Clear Creek-has been impacted by floods in 1990, 1991, 1993 and 2008. After the 1993 flood, 20%of the existing businesses did not return to their original locations. After the 2008 flood,40%of the existing businesses did not return to their original locations. The city council determined that it was imperative to construct flood mitigation projects such that businesses and residents residing in this impacted area would be assured that their investments in their businesses and homes would be protected from future floods. D-45 rates Approach will Build Greater Resilience The developed portion of Coralville affected by Clear Creek has flooded in 1990, 1991, 1993 and 2008.The 1990 and 1991 floods were floods caused by excessive rainfall in the Clear Creek watershed, while the 1993 and 2008 floods were caused by backup on Clear Creek associated with floods on the Iowa River.These floods have caused excessive damage to surrounding commercial and residential properties. Stormwater Pump Stations#7 and #8 require improvements to provide flood protection to levels equivalent to 2008 flooding plus one foot.The 2008 flood waters overtopped the interior weirs, surging behind the flood protection and into the interior storm sewer systems these pump stations were designed to protect. Flood mitigation projects that were constructed after the 2008 flood and prior to the 2013 and 2014 high water events on the Iowa River have performed as designed and prevented flood waters from entering private and public properties and causing damage. Project Innovation Our project is innovative and sustainable because we will be reusing the existing concrete pump station structures, and stormwater pumps at Pump Station No. 8. Project Partners Roles IDOT Original construction cost of Pump Station No. 7 as an essen HSEMD Original construction of Pump Station No. 8 in 2001 with fun NA NA NA NA Committed Funding Source(s) Amount(s) Coralville Local Funds $478,640 NA NA NA NA NA NA Anticipated funding request: $1,914,560 D-46 From: Zimmerman, Breanna R To: "Kada.Focht(alia.usda.aov"; "Kavle.Ausdemore(alia.nacdnet.net 'brian.amss(alia.usda.aov'': "Kevin.Seevers(nlia.nacdnet.net";"caniel.case(alia.nacdnet.net"; "Day id.Brand(alia.nacdnet.net "michelle(a)aoldenhillsrcd.ora"; John(alaoldenhillsrcd.ora"; "enaineer(a)millscoia.us 'ddavis(alco.fn=_mcnt.a.us"; "rcrouch(almi Isco ia.us" Cc: "Bob.Waters(a)Iowaaariculture.aov"; Lanael.Carmen M:Weber, Lam J: Mary Beth Stevenson (Mawbeth.Stevenson(a)dnr.iowa.aov) Subject: RE: National Disaster Resilience Competition-East&West Nishnabotna Date: Wednesday,August 26,2015 3:42:00 PM Attachments: NDRC Summarv.docx CantureAPG Importance: High All, I would like to invite you all to participate in a conference call that has been scheduled for Friday, August 28th at 2:30pm to discuss the National Disaster Resilience Competition funding opportunity the State of Iowa is applying for with coordination from the Iowa Flood Center.See below for call in information: Conference Dial In: 1-888-619-1583 Participant Conference Entry Code: 9330437928 The State of Iowa has been invited to phase 11 of the NDRC funding opportunity. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) and the Rockefeller Foundation have made resources available to communities to help them become more resilient to disasters. In Iowa, our funding proposal is focused on flooding and working within select watersheds to help them manage water and reduce flood impacts on areas with unmet recovery needs and low to moderate income communities. This project is entirely voluntary and will address the special needs of each watershed selected. The purpose of the conference call is to discuss the proposed project in the East and West Nishnabotna Watersheds and schedule a public meeting as soon as possible to obtain input and community feedback. Attached is the NDRC summary and a map foryour reference. Follow this link for more information about phase 11. htttp-//portal.hud.goy/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=NDRCFactSheetFINAL.2df This is a very unique opportunity for Iowa. Our objective is to create a state program that can be replicated and that will have long-term, lasting effects. Please feel free to invite others to participate in the call that I may have missed. Please let me know if you are planning to join the call on Friday at 2:30pm. If you have questions before the meeting, feel free to contact me, as I realize this is a lot of information to digest. I can be reached via this email or by phone at 319-384-1729. 1 look forward to your participation in the call on Friday and talking with you more about the project. Thankyou! D-47 Breanna R. Zimmerman Iowa Flood Center Outreach Coordinator Iowa Flood Center I University of Iowa 133-7 C. Maxwell Stanley Hydraulics Laboratory Iowa City, Iowa 52242 Ph: 319-384-1729 www.iowaflood center.ore D-48 East and West Nishnabotna Conference Call 8/28/15 @ 2:30pm Topic: NDRC Proposal Participants: Iowa Flood Center—Larry Weber, Breanna Zimmerman, Carmen Langel On call—Bob Waters (IDALS), David Brand (SWCD), Michelle Franks (Golden Hills RC&D),John Thomas (Golden Hills RC&D),Grimm Jenkins (Red Oak Field Office), Kevin Seevers(SWCD) Brain Gross (SWCD) Discussion: o Larry Weber(LW) introduced IIHR—Hydroscience and Engineering and the Iowa Flood Center (I FC) o LW introduced the background information on the NDRC o States with Declared Presidential Disasters between 2011-2013 are eligible to compete for$1 billion in available funding o Watersheds were selected based on environmental and infrastructure unmet recovery needs (URN) and low to moderate income communities (LMI); URN data was collected using impaired waters data and soil loss data o We will ask for approximately$100-$125 million; 50%of funds must be used to benefit LMI communities o Watersheds currently included in the project: Upper Wapsipinicon, East Nishnabotna, West Nishnabotna, Upper Iowa, Middle Cedar, North Raccoon, Clear Creek, English River, and Dubuque; Dubuque will receive a certain percentage of funds due to URN and LMI areas o Planning to spend $6.75 million in the West Nishnabotna for the construction of practices; Will spend $2.25 million in the East Nishnabotna for project construction Money for planning, hydrologic assessment,deploying sensors,etc. is not included in the above amounts.These items will be funded out of a separate budget for the project. o The budget includes$75,000/year/watershed o Constructed projects will include: wetlands, ponds, streambank restorations, terraces, sediment basins, bioreactors, grassed waterways, etc.; Practices would be based on a one-time payment; Practices implemented will have a primary flood reduction benefit with a secondary benefit to waters quality,or can have a primary benefit to waters quality with a secondary benefit to flood reduction Questions/Comments: o How is LMI determined? Carmen Langel (CL): Must spend 50%of the funds on LMI communities. LMI is defined based on census data collected from Homeland Security. o Bob Waters (BW): Can you only work in areas with URN? LW: Correct. Areas with URN are the only areas we can spend money in. o Can a local SWCD be a sub-recipient? LW: No, typically a county. We need to verify this information. o Could money the county receives be given to a SWCD for assistance? D-49 LW: SWCD's will be vital partners in this project. We need to verify this information as well. o BW: Happy to help move the project forward and offer support. o John Thomas (JT): Landowners currently have been doing streambank restoration projects at a 0%cost share rate. LW: We would offer a 75%cost share rate,with 25% landowner contribution. o JT: We have already held a few restoration meetings with landowners to address some of the issues in the watersheds. D-50 Sign-in Sheet NDRC - East and West Nishnabotna 9/14/2015 Name Affiliation Email Address& Phone IN two CA-% 99.h ocern 3353 310 1e.c, z e d z z iC ladle ilti�s C�oc -n Fe� ifs z/a -5 Hwq le Pd r x/6q C/o N26S �� l.-S . -��� .�7a�" f h✓ 3.3a2 / �S+ . �,r;} ,�/3 Rabh;er�C�ammL a@Ccs, .,;6, 119Gf1, w cmon cc, 6 % i 9 frerw ,ia. USSdo 'GS o2 71Z-37Y- 13 Lf 6 �„�dl 16 �f ,� 6L 7 N') Mlvg Ca S.,t!)N'Vi7 W" 17- Ai, kl aJ,- .tT $r, gU,Y 4� 'ul '••,•rj,JN1E y- .F}N l3 i]Qi 1 °hSJ1• C71Z -SZ-7-3 o y S/�E�tl /dOfNf �" s oo cu- C� s P.✓a3, P a Bok 33V i t Cli ��+ Axl_ gGYCSj 4,CA 1AA AO, H T - SfItJAAJlILvirf �/� S O01 Ila P iod� .ca. s�eydaz4, J / O D-51 Cav1ut - IvUt (s CWV:rt t 5' -4 - 31y�-o vy, v cvl+- C% ue", Zimmerman, Breanna R From: Zimmerman, Breanna R Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 1:19 PM To: rcrouch@millscoia.us'; 'rkohn@millscoia.us'; 'Imayberry@millscoia.us'; 'rhickey@co.fremont.ia.us'; 'ehendrickson@co.fremont.ia.us'; 'cmorgan@co.fremont.ia.us'; 'mark.e.nelson@usace.army.mil'; 'Karla.Focht@ia.usda.gov'; 'Kayle.Ausdemore@ia.nacdnet.net'; 'brian.gross@ia.usda.gov'; 'Kevin.Seevers@ia.nacdnet.net'; 'daniel.case@ia.nacdnet.net'; 'David.Brand@ia.nacdnet.net'; 'michelle@goldenhillsrcd.org'; 'john@ golden hillsrcd.org'; 'engineer@millscoia.us'; 'ddavis@co.fremont.ia.us'; 'rcrouch@millscoia.us'; 'Bo b.W aters@Iowaag ricu Itu re.g ov' Subject: Meeting Monday, September 14th @ 10am - East &West Nishnabotna Attachments: N D RC_Su mma ry.docx All, A meeting has been scheduled for Monday.September 14"at loam at Hamburg City Hall (1201 Main St. Hamburg, IA 51640). The meeting will begin with a presentation from the USACE regarding updates on their current project in the Nishnabotna's looking at hydrologic modeling, assessment, and inundation mapping. Following a presentation by Mark Nelson with USAGE, I will give a presentation on the National Disaster Resilience Competition (NDRC)funding proposal.This proposal involves both the East and West Nishnabotna, and primarily the counties of Mills and Fremont. Please let me know if you are able to attend this meeting. I apologize for the short notice, but as many of you know, we are in the process of wrapping up the proposal the end of this month. If you have questions, please let me know. I look forward to meeting many of you in person and continuing discussions about these two watersheds. Thank you! Breanna R. Zimmerman Iowa Flood Center Outreach Coordinator Iowa Flood Center I University of Iowa 133-7 C. Maxwell Stanley Hydraulics Laboratory Iowa City, Iowa 52242 Ph: 319-384-1729 www.iowafloodcenter.org �5ob 3vi2 - 'Tt D 2 t D-52 NDRC community engagement meeting—E. and W. Nishnabotna Hamburg, IA City Hall 8/14/2015 10:OOam Participants: Breanna Zimmerman—Iowa Flood Center *See sign-in sheet Discussion: - Mark Nelson (MN) with USACE gave a presentation about a project in the Nishnabotna Basin looking at hydrologic assessment work and inundation mapping. - Following MN's discussion, Breanna Zimmerman (BZ) gave a presentation regarding the NDRC funding proposal as it relates to the E. and W. Nishnabotna. o Background on IFC and current Iowa Watersheds Project o IFC is assisting with a proposal for the State of Iowa in coordination with HSEMD and the IEDA o $1billion available through HUD for States with counties that experienced a Declared Presidential Disaster between 2011-2013 0 40 applicants were invited to submit a phase II proposal; 15-20 are expected to be funded o Project will focus on resiliency and helping communities adapt to changes in weather patterns o Watersheds were selected based on MID-URN and presence of LMI; MID-URN and LMI identified in Phase I; MID-URN selected looking at damages to infrastructure,soil loss data,and impaired waters data o Project will begin with WMA formation, hydrologic assessment/modeling for the entire HUC 8 watershed, practice implementation, and monitoring before and after practice implementation o Practices will have a primary water quality benefit with secondary flood reduction benefit, or primary flood reduction benefit with secondary water quality benefit o Request: $100-$125 million o Current watersheds: Upper Iowa, Upper Wapsi, English River, Clear Creek, Middle Cedar, Dubuque (Catfish Creek), N. Raccoon, E. Nishnabotna,W. Nishnabotna o Requesting$6.75 in W. Nishnabotna; $2.25 in E. Nishnabotna o Separate funds for watershed coordinator; $75,000 requested for each year of the project o County serving as sub-recipient will receive 2%of funds to assist with administrative costs;will be required to contract with local COG o Proposed Mills County to be the sub-recipient for the W. Nish; Fremont County serve as sub-recipient for the E. Nish; Both county's serve as the only areas with MID-URN or LMI o Asked for letter of intent to participate and partnership agreement; will need a quick decision from counties D-53 Questions/Comments: o MN: Hamburg, IA experienced significant effects from 2011 Missouri River floods. How do they not meet MID-URN? BZ: Eligible areas to receive funding were defined in Phase I of the proposal by HSEMD. Although Hamburg is not eligible to directly receive funding through this project, it is located downstream of the service area where practices will be implemented. The City of Hamburg will still benefit from the project since practices will be implemented upstream aimed at flood reduction and water quality improvement. o Michelle Franks (MF): What role can RC&D play in the project? BZ:The RC&D will be an important partner in the project because of the existing knowledge of the watersheds and partnerships with other organizations, stakeholders, and landowners. The COG selected to administer funds will be able to provide sub-awards to RC&D's,SWCD's, NRCS,etc. to help carry out the project. o BZ: Looking at the proposed list of potential projects, are there any that the group feels we should prioritize more over others? MF: Proposed practices all seem reasonable. Streambank stabilization practices are going to be important for the project. o Bob Waters (BW): Could we include water drainage management to the list of practices? BZ:Yes, that could be done. We can also likely include grade control structures. The WMA will ultimately have the decision on what types/amounts of practices to fund. o MN: Was glad to hear the presentation about the funding opportunity. Thought the presentation added a lot of value to the meeting. Thanked Mark and the other USACE staff for allowing IFC to join their meeting. o BZ: Are there any comments regarding the proposal to have Fremont and Mills County be the sub-recipients for the project? Earl Hendrickson (EH): Fremont County will sign the letters.This project would be a great opportunity for us. D-54 t � N to — �.. . West � N15hn8botn8 is F' �I SM GOMERY ADAMS East Nfsh n a b� 777tna feew 0r I`[^ G OR FREM _ PAGE (\]` ion l..,.. iij, tlPage of�Owj.a an... z huo Di P 1 E ® mmm.00e 0 2)555 it i65 Yt :. 11 Mika Sy y BuddeSeeEONes vmn`" ae 1 in = 11 miles D-55 IOWA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 970 COURT AVE MARENGO IA 52301 (319) 642-3041 AGENDA Friday,August 28, 2015 -- 9:00 A.M. Approve the Agenda Approve the Minutes Communications Open Forum 9:30 a.m.—Nick Amelon, County Engineer 1. Set Public Hearing for vacation of N Ave. 10:00 a.m.—Aaron Sandersfeld, Transportation Director 1. Approve new driver 2. Monthly Update 10:30 a.m.—Larry Weber 1. HUD Funding OTHER 1. Tabled Items 2. Liquor License 3. Appropriations 4. Building Maintenance 5. Payroll and Claims 6. Manure management plans 7. Mental Health Advocate 8. Courthouse Security 9. Fireworks Permit Application-Travis Messer, Applicant **All times on the agenda are approximate and subject to change,with the exception of Public Hearings D-56 Iowa County Board of Supervisors Meeting— English River Watershed 970 Court Ave. I Marengo, IA 8/28/2015 10:30am Participants: Participants in attendance included Iowa County Supervisors Ray Garringer, Dale Walter, Kevin Heitshusen, Vicki Pope, and John Gharing; Larry Weber and Breanna Zimmerman with the University of Iowa's, Iowa Flood Center (IFC); Mary Beth Stevenson with IDNR; Jennifer Fencl with East Central Iowa Council of Governments (ECICOG); and Ryan Schlabaugh, City Administrator for the City of Kalona. Discussions: On August, 28, IFC staff were invited to attend a meeting with the Iowa County Board of Supervisors to discuss the National Disaster Resilience Competition (NDRC)funding opportunity. IFC approached the Iowa County BOS to ask them to agree to serve as the lead partner for the proposed project in the English River Watershed. A large portion of the ERW is located in Iowa County and only area in this county meets the eligibility criteria to be included in the proposal. Larry Weber with the University of Iowa introduced IIHR-Hydroscience & Engineering and IFC to meeting attendants. IFC has been providing research and information to communities on flood mitigation and resiliency since its establishment in 2009 following the 2008 floods. Weber provided details pertaining to the original Iowa Watersheds Project that began in 2010. IFC received $8.8M from HUD and selected four watersheds to perform hydrologic assessment work, modeling, monitoring, and the implementation of practices. The four watersheds identified were Soap/Chequest, Turkey River, Upper Cedar, and Middle South Raccoon. The project emphasized working with WMA's. The project included a hydrologic assessment, modeling and planning work, and constructing practices aimed at reducing stream flow and retaining water in the upper portion of the watersheds to prevent downstream flooding. Practices are currently in the construction phase. Landowner participation was completely voluntary and includes a 75 percent cost share rate, with 25 percent of costs covered by the landowner. This current project is a great demonstration for the NDRC. Weber continued on to provide background on the NDRC proposal. In September 2014, the NDRC was announced, making$1B available for disaster recovery and resiliency in the U.S. States with a declared presidential disaster from 2011, 2012, or 2013 were eligible to submit a Phase I application. IEDA and HSEMD submitted the pre-application for the state of Iowa and was one of 40 other applications selected to submit a Phase II proposal. A small team working on the Phase II proposal attended a 2.5 day resiliency academy workshop in Chicago. The team described the proposed project for the competition and its unique watershed approach with local community involvement. Weber stated that he felt the proposal was among the best upon leaving the workshop. D-57 The requested amount for the proposal will be around $100 to $125M. Watersheds across the state have been selected based on the presence of environmental and infrastructure MID-URN and LMI communities. The project must show at least a 51 percent benefit to LML For every dollar spent that benefits LMI, we are able to spend $1 in an area with MID-URN, but no LMI presence. MID-URN was determined in Phase I by HSEMD and eligible areas are defined by data collected on soil quality and impaired waters. Weber announced the current watersheds included in the proposal are the Middle Cedar, Upper Iowa, Upper Wapsipinicon, North Raccoon, West Nishnabotna, East Nishnabotna, Clear Creek, English River, and Dubuque. The project will include a hydrologic assessment of each watershed, hydrologic modeling, construction of practices, and pre and post construction monitoring. IFC will assist with technical assessment work, outreach and education, and attending routine watershed meetings. The local soil and water conservation district(SWCD) offices, will be important partners for practice implementation and the landowner connections that are already established. The entire Clear Creek Watershed qualifies under MID-URN. In the English River Watershed, the only eligible area that qualifies lies in Iowa County. Weber noted a strong interest in including both watersheds in the proposal. The funding request for Clear Creek would be around $4.5M. hi the English River, we will request an amount somewhere near $6.75M. It is unlikely that the project will be awarded for the full amount, but funding amount is negotiable. HUD will likely fund between 15 and 20 proposals. Weber emphasized the benefit of having a WMA to bridge the urban and rural communities. Iowa County needs to participate in both watersheds and show support for the WMA's or Clear Creek Watershed Coalition. Weber noted that the formation of a WMA will demonstrate the ability to work together as a cohesive unit. The formation of WMAs make grant opportunities more competitive and are recognized for bringing people together in a watershed. Weber reviewed the project timeline. The proposal will be released for a 15 day public comment period at the end of September. The Phase II application is due the end of October. Awards will be notified in January or February. Funding will likely be allocated in July, upon when project construction may begin. The proposal is for a five year project. IFC has been traveling and presenting to each watershed that has been identified as being the lead partner. In order to serve as the lead partner for the project, Iowa County will need to submit a letter of intent to participate and a partnership agreement within the neat few weeks. HUD has provided a template to be used for letters and agreements will be drafted for each county. Questions/Comments: - Kevin Heitshusen (Iowa County Supervisor): What can the money be spent on? • Weber noted that practices that have a primary benefit to water quality with a secondary benefit to flood reduction, or practices that have a primary benefit to D-58 flood reduction with a secondary benefit to water quality, are eligible. Practices would include retention ponds, wetlands, grassed waterways, saturated buffers, etc. These will be one time payments for practices, so cover crops, WRP, CSP programs would not be eligible. Practices would follow NRCS specifications. Heitshusen: Why isn't money flowed through the S WCD office? • Weber explained that money originates through HUD and follows CDBG requirements. The Sub-recipients typically become the county and the county contracts with a local COG to help facilitate the project. A total of$75,000/year has been budgeted for the life of the project for a watershed coordinator to help promote the project, work with landowners, and implement practices. Ray Garringer (Iowa County Supervisor): Does the county act as the fiscal agent? • Weber stated that the county that agrees to participate would help administer the project and any funds received. These counties may be eligible to receive 5% of the overall funds given to their watershed to help with administrative costs. Heitshusen: If Clear Creek were to receive $20 million, how would the money be divided per county? • Weber described how the CCW consists of 3 HUC 12s. The overall hydrologic assessment and plan will show the best areas to implement practices that will provide the greatest benefit. In Clear Creek, there is money available across the entire watershed. We will need to work with local S WCDs to sell practices and gather landowner participation. John Gharing(Iowa County Supervisor): Is the NRCS on board with this project? • Weber explained that we have their support and the S WCDs. It is important to have their partnership. Gharing: Is the Corp of Engineers involved? • Weber noted that they are much less involved. Gharing: Does Kalona have an invested interest? • Ryan Schlabaugh (Kalona City Administator): Not necessarily, but the English River Watershed is interested. ERWMA just completed their comprehensive watershed plan and it is currently open for public comment. The plan includes Iowa County, regardless of the fact that Iowa County is not currently participating in the ERWMA. Kalona feels that if entities above it are improved, Kalona will benefit. RS stressed that they want Iowa County to be a partner. Iowa County would play a key role in this project for the English River because money will only be able to be spent in Iowa County. RS noted that the groundwork has been completed with the comprehensive watershed plan and they are ready to move forward with the English River Watershed project. Jennifer Fencl (ECICOG): Jennifer noted she is still working on wrapping up the CCWC agreement. She encouraged Iowa County's participation to partner and join the coalition. The agreement will be filed in September and at that time Fencl will begin working on a grant to receive some watershed development and planning assistance dollars. The NDRC would help create a hydrologic assessment for the watershed. D-59 • LW: Encourages BOS to look at the long-term benefits of joining the WMA and participating in the NDRC proposal. Weber: If Iowa County choses to participate in the NDRC, we need a letter of intent to participate within the neat few weeks before the end of September. We need to know where we can spend money and whether or not that will be in Iowa County. Schlabaugh: Noted that he would be willing to help facilitate things with the ERWMA and Iowa County for this project. The Iowa County BOS stated they would be in touch to notify IFC of their decision to serve as the lead partner for the NDRC proposal and the ERW. D-60 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING September 1, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. Benton County Board of Supervisors Room 9:00 A.M. Call to Order 2. 9:05 a.m. Barb Greenlee: Set land use hearing date for Pat and Nancy Jorgensen part SW Ya SW Ya Sec 32-86-10 3. 9:15 a.m. Marc Greenlee Re: Land use hearing for Robert Moore part of N 1/2 of NE 1/4 Sec 2-85-9 4. 9:30 a.m. Conservation Board re: management of county-owned property in SEI/4 of the SEI/4 of Sec 18-82-10 and Creation of Water Management Authority in Benton County 5. 10:10 a.m. Update on county website and designation of global administrator(s) 6. Approve minutes 7. 10:20 a.m. Engineer Re: Utility Permit for Mediacom in Canton Twp Resolution: Bridge Embargo removal on new bridge 8. Approve payment for squad car(s) 9. Approve hire of part-time communication specialists; approve change from part-time to full-time status for communication specialist and correction officer; approve change of Whitney Stout from full-time to part-time Communication Specialist 10. Approve Class B Liquor License for Blairstown Sauerkraut Days Beer Tent 11. Accept resignation of Connie Pickering from Pioneer Cemetery Commission 12. Appoint Coleen Dickerson, Dan Johnson & Elana Johnson as Medical Examiner - Investigators; Remove Trey Meyers as Medical Examiner- Investigator due to resignation 13. Discussion on initial draft of ATV/UTV ordinance 14. Approve Annual TIF Report for FY15 15. Work Session - Employee Handbook 16. Reports - committee meetings, liaison, Etc. 17. New Business/Public Interest Comments D-61 18. Adjourn D-62 Benton County Board of Supervisors Meeting— Middle Cedar Watershed Vinton Courthouse 9/1/15 9:30am Participants: Participants in attendance included Supervisors Terry Hertle, Todd Wiley and Jason Sanders; Benton County Auditor, Jill Marlow; Larry Weber and Breanna Zimmerman with the University of Iowa's, Iowa Flood Center(IFC); Matt Purdy, Benton County Conservation Board Executive Director; Chris Ward, Vinton City Administrator; John Watson, Mayor of Vinton; Jim Brown, NRCS; Russ Lindberg, Benton County SWCD Commissioner; Jim Morrison, Press; Zach Parmater, Benton County Conservation; and Logan Hahn, Benton County Conservation. Discussion: The Iowa Flood Center(IFC) was invited to attend a meeting with the Benton County Supervisors to discuss the National Disaster Resilience Competition (NDRC)funding opportunity on September 1, 2015 at 9:30am. IFC approached Benton County Supervisors to ask them to serve as the lead partner for the proposed project in the Middle Cedar River Watershed. A large portion of eligible work area is located in Benton County, making it the most ideal choice to help administer the proposed project in the Middle Cedar. Matt Purdy, Executive Director with the Benton County Conservation Board, gave a brief introduction to begin the meeting. Purdy was approached by Mary Beth Stevenson with IDNR about the NDRC funding proposal and the creation of a WMA. The WMA is a 28E agreement that seeks support and participation from county, city, and government agencies such as the local soil and water conservation districts. Purdy displayed a map of the watershed and identified four main HUC 12's that could be included in the NDRC; Mud, Hinkle, Opossum, and Wildcat. Larry Weber introduced the NDRC proposal and the inclusion of the Middle Cedar River Watershed. In September 2014, HUD, in coordination with the Rockefeller Foundation, announced $1B available for states with declared presidential disasters between 2011 and 2013 to compete for funding. About 55 states applied to Phase I and 40 were selected to participate in Phase IL IFC is working in coordination with HSEMD to submit a Phase II proposal for the state of Iowa The funding request will be around $100 to $125M. If funded, about $30M would automatically be allocated towards the City of Dubuque because of the large MID-URN in the area. The proposed project will include a hydrologic assessment for the entire watershed, planning, construction or practices, and pre and post construction monitoring. Areas where practices will be implemented are dependent on the presence of environmental and infrastructural MID-URN and must provide at least a 50 percent benefit to LMI communities. There are currently nine watersheds that have been identified; Upper Iowa, Upper Wapsipinicon, Middle Cedar, Clear Creek, English River, East Nishnabotna, West Nishnabotna, North Raccoon, and Dubuque. In D-63 the Middle Cedar, $12.375M has been budgeted for the construction of conservation practices. Practices would include retention ponds, streambank stabilizations, bioreactors, saturated buffers, grassed waterways, wetlands, and other practices aimed at soil and water quality improvements and benefits to flood reduction. There would also be money available for small urban communities, like Vinton, for urban conservation practices what would help reduce runoff and improve water quality. Questions/Comments: Upon providing background information on the proposal, the meeting was opened up for discussion to allow for comments or questions. Below is the discussion that took place: - Todd Wiley(Supervisor): What does this project mean for Benton County? • Weber stated that Benton County would be the most likely sub-recipient for the project because of the location of eligible HUC 12s where we are allowed to construct practices. IEDA will submit the proposal on behalf of the State of Iowa IFC's role will be to assist with the hydrologic assessment and community outreach in the watersheds. The sub-recipient needs to be a county and IEDA will require that the county work with a local COG with CDBG experience to help administer the project. - Terry Hertle (Supervisor): Are the programs voluntary? • Weber informed participants that the program will be entirely voluntary. The program will seek out volunteer landowners to implement practices. In the current Iowa Watersheds Project, there is more interest in implementing practices that there is funding available to landowners. - Jill Marlow (Auditor): Do you have the authority to condemn land? • Weber stated that there will be no authority for anyone to condemn land, nor is there an interest in doing so for this project. - Weber: There will be money available for a watershed coordinator at the amount of $75k/year. We want to have a strong relationship with local SWCD offices and will be looking to them for guidance. Money for the coordinator can draw upon existing resources in the county to fill a coordinator position or can be used to recruit a new coordinator. The county will have the decision to select the coordinator to fill the position. There is a separate budget item for a watershed coordinator. - Weber: HUD will fund approximately 15-20 teams and no team should expect to receive the full amount requested. Our team will put together a few different packages of requested funds for the project. - Wiley announced he had a conversation with Jennifer Fencl with ECICOG about the proposal. Fencl commented that they would be interested in helping administer a project like this. Wiley noted that Fencl seemed very supportive of the proposal. Wiley stated that it makes sense to have Benton County be the lead for the project since that is where the eligible work areas are. The supervisors need to find out the expenses associated with involving the COG. D-64 Mayor: The City of Vinton should be very interested in this proposal and what it could do for the community. Mud and Hinkle Creek both run through the City. The Mayor commented on the conservationists who serve on the City Council and hopes that the supervisors will help take the lead on the project. The Mayor thinks they would be interested in signing the 28E agreement and forming a WMA. Wiley: Can the WMA be formed over a period of time, or does it need to be formed before the project is submitted? • Weber: No, the WMA does not need to be formed before we submit the proposal. With the timeline of the project, we will not know whether or not we will receive funding until February or March of 2016 and will not start projects until the neat summer. A good goal would be to have it formed within the neat 6 months. • Wiley stated he thinks the WMA is necessary to move the project forward and involve partners. Even though participation in the WMA is voluntary, Wiley believes they will receive nearly 100 percent participation. • Mayor: I hope that Benton County will take the lead. • Purdy (Benton County Conservation Board): The WMA meetings could be held at the Nature Center. What does the landowner get from voluntary participation in the project? • Weber: In Soap Creek, landowners have been implementing retention ponds in the watershed for years. They came together and recognized the need to take action on their own. Many of these landowners now enjoy the recreational benefits of the pond. They can also use the pond for watering livestock and people are also starting to think about using the structures for irrigation. Weber: We will create a plan for the Middle Cedar and the selected HUC 12s we choose to work in, but also will have a plan for the communities in these watersheds. This plan would show what we want to do over a long period of time and will be able to be used for future years. Russ Lindberg(Benton SWCD Commissioner): Farmers don't have to participate, however many of them are becoming more conscientious of benefits to water quality and conservation. It will be important to hire someone who can help the program run efficiently. It will be important to hire a qualified coordinator. Jim Brown (MRCS): The voluntary approach is important. You don't want landowners to feel like something is mandatory. Wiley: Are you short on volunteers to participate in programs, or short on money? • Brown: Short on money. Weber: The project won't receive any funding until the start of the fiscal year. Projects that are ready to go can be implemented prior to having hydrologic assessment completed. Wiley: This project gives us access to funds for planning. When other funding opportunities become available, we will be ready to apply and will be more competitive. Weber: Before the proposal is submitted, we will need a letter of intent to participate and a partnership agreement from the sub-recipient. D-65 After good discussion regarding the proposal and the responsibilities of the lead partner,the meeting adjourned. Zimmerman (IFC)will be in contact with Benton County to discuss the letter and partnership agreement in greater detail. Templates for both documents are being created for each county. D-66 Middle Cedar Meeting Black Hawk County Conservation Board 10 am-11:30 am Participants:See attached sign-in sheet Discussion: - Sherm asked for some initial background on the project parameters;MBS provided an overview of the regions/watersheds eligible for the proposal - Sherm provided background on WMAs in general and the overall benefits of WMAs,including flood mitigation and water quality improvement - John M iller asked about the timing of the NDRC proposal - Larry provided broader context and overview on the NDRC opportunity o A leading reason why IA is a top contender for the NDRC is because of WMA formation— WMAs that work with SWCDs,NRCS,landowner involvement,and thereby provide benefit to downstream communities o Also the university involvement that provides assessment and analysis of mitigation and resiliency opportunities o IFC is providing leadership on proposal development in partnership with HSEMD and IEDA o The funding will be in the range of$125-$145 million,with the understanding that the budget would likely be revised/negotiated downward;IEDA will be the recipient of the funding.A significant portion of that will be directed to Dubuque(—$30 million). - Questions: o Vern Fish(VF):can land be acquired through this project for wetlands creation or other practices be put on public land? Larry Weber(LW):Acquiring land is an option.But the key thing is to be strategic. o Sherm Lundy(SL):Can payments be made out over a number of years?We need flexibility and time in how money can be used in order to realistically put projects on the ground. LW:It's a 2-year project.But there is a waiver that can be requested(and IA already has done so)to extend the project out to 6 years.All funds will be swept by September 30 2022.The IA waiver has requested 5 years,for completion 9/30/2021.All projects will need to have both a flood mitigation and water quality benefit.A nutrient removal wetland for example could be created,even saturated buffers,biocells. o John Miller(JM):Levees? LW:Possibly...we'll need to consider that carefully.Soil retention needs to be an important part. o Matt Purdy(MP):Benton County is starting at ground level.We need a plan that we can sell to the public,akin to what Storm Lakejust completed for green stormwater management. D-67 LW:Planning/assessment will be a component.Not more than 20%can be used for planning.Some admin funds will be available for local admins.$75,000 for a project coordinator is being included in the budget. o JM:Can there be an opportunity for one coordinator for two WMAs?Thinking about Upper Wapsi. LW:The budget tentatively has slated$10-$12 million for Middle Cedar,which may not stretch very far.And we need to keep in mind that not all watersheds are eligible for us to work in. o JM:Regarding levies.Local communities may advocate for them thinking that they will be the best solution.We should be cautious about putting money towards levy building. LW:This project is about resiliency.This includes education,awareness,how a community responds to a disaster.Levies tend to encourage people to build in floodplains,which is not always in line with a resiliency-based approach. o JM:What about removing structures from the floodplain? • LW:That is probably more in line with a FEMA funded program.Doesn't necessarily add much for resiliency in terms of storage. • VF:Removing structures may be necessary for putting in a wetland,which could be in line with this... o VF:Question about which watersheds are eligible. ILW shared targeted watershed map and described the eligibility requirements of LMI and unmet recovery need.Benton,Tama,parts of Buchanan County qualify based on this.Project funds need to be spent in LMR areas that directly benefit LMI.That's 75%of Benton County.Hinkle,Mud,Wildcat,Opossum Creeks in Benton provide LMI benefit.URN:The 3 WQI watersheds(with the possible exclusion of Pratt Creek due to LMI challenges);Coon Creek,Devils Run —Wolf,12-mile and 4-mile Creeks(all US Laport City);also Lime Creek in Buchanan County.� canment[mbsl]:arse,emew for accuracy • Note that while not every HUC-12 will benefit nowfrom this,putting in place the WMA framework will help set the table for future projects and funding. o SL:And we need to think about pooling resources/fundingto increase work in all parts of the watershed. o VF:Having the project coordinator is critical... o MP:the creeks in Benton County that are direct benefit to LMI are places where there is already interest in doing a watershed development project/plan. LW:leverage and capacity is important.This could help that.If working in urban area,must show leverage of 2:1.In rural areas,could be a leverage of 1:1.The project is looking at Flood Mitigation board funding,WQI,DNR funding,etc... o MBS:What is the definition for urban vs.rural?Some communities in IA are considered 'rural'communities based on the census. CW:But Benton County is part of the Cedar Rapids Metro Statistical Area(MSA) so may be considered urban...may need clarification. o LW:specific project locations won't be identified for the projects,but the proposal will lay out the criteria for project selection under a broader program of watershed resiliency.Benefit-Cost Analysis needs to be a part of the proposal which includes environmental benefits,eco services o VF:Black Hawk owns land in Tama County,could they acquire land in the Wolf Creek watershed to add totheir existing complex? D-6R LW:possibly yes. o VF:Could Spring Creek be added, in Benton County? LW:Yes. - Next Steps: o Local partners need to assist with communicating the project. o Need to have the partnership letter,ideally signed by Benton County • Matt Purdy expects the Benton BOS next meeting,September 1,to have a discussion.Vinton has a council meeting tomorrow night and this could be discussed to show support for Benton County stepping up • SL:Need to include the commissioners • JM:if Benton can't do it,Black Hawk and Linn should discuss who would step up • SL:Also need to set the date for an organizational WMA meeting o Next Middle Cedar Meeting: • Possibly hold in Benton County/Vinton,September 16`h 5:30 pm • MBS to help coordinate next meeting D-69 Iowa Flood Center From: Stevenson, Marybeth [DNR] <Marybeth.Stevenson@dnr.iowa.gov> Sent: Thursday,August 13, 2015 2:15 PM To: Langston, Linda; Sandy Pumphrey;Vern Fish;Sherman Lundy;jmiller@co.black- hawk.ia.us;Zimmerman, Breanna R;tlhjkh@southslope.net; donaldcheryl@southslope.net;watsonjohnr@yahoo.com; City Vinton; tdwiley@fmtcs.com; Benton Co Auditor-Jill Marlow; Benton County [County Engineer]; Weber, Larry J; Langel, Carmen M Subject: RE: National Disaster Resilience Competition - Middle Cedar Hello everyone, A meeting has been set for Wednesday,August 26th at 10:00 am at the Black Hawk County Conservation Board administrative office in Waterloo (1346 West Airline Hwy, Waterloo, Iowa 50703)to discuss this potential funding opportunity. If you or other representatives from your city/county are able to attend,we'd appreciate it. The meeting agenda will include: - Background,timeline,targeted areas, and additional details on the overall funding opportunity - Partner agreement - Public meeting requirement - Middle Cedar WMA - Any follow-up questions or discussion from the group Please feel free to share this with others who should receive it. Thanks, and look forward to speaking with everyone further. Mary Beth Stevenson MARY BETH STEVENSON Iowa-Cedar River Basin Coordinator Iowa Department of Natural Resources P 319.325.8593 ma rvbeth.stevenson C@dn r.iowa.¢ov 323-4 Stanley Hydraulics Laboratory I Iowa City, IA 52242-1585 WWW.IOWADNR.GOV On Aug 7, 2015,at 3:53 PM,Stevenson, Marybeth [DNRj <Marvbeth.Stevenson@dnr.iowa.eov>wrote Linda and Sandy, I am touching base regarding a funding opportunity the State of Iowa is applying for(with strong support from the Iowa Flood Center)through the National Disaster Resilience Competition being offered through HUD. I have attached a summary document explaining the funding source and a bit about the proposed project. I had a chance to talk to Sandy already about this, and Linda, I worked through your staff to set up a quick call for Thursday afternoon at 1 pm. 1 D-70 As described in the attachment,the proposed project targets watersheds where there are "unmet disaster recovery needs" from the 2011, 2012, and 2013 Presidential Disaster Declarations, as well as low to moderate income (LMI) communities.The Middle Cedar watershed meets those criteria. If the proposal is successful,then the project would entail the development of a watershed plan and assessment and constructing flood mitigation projects that would have the greatest impact on LMI areas as possible. In order to be included in the proposal,two things need to happen: 1—there must be a partner agreement signed by a local governmental entity(county) within the affected area; and 2—a public meeting that is documented, where public input on the proposed program is sought. There is no financial match required, but we are hoping to leverage other existing watershed /flood recovery/ resilience activities to demonstrate commitment at the local level. Within the Middle Cedar, Benton County and Linn County also have LMI areas and unmet disaster recovery needs. I'm going to be contacting them as well to let them know, and I'd like to plan a conference call or meeting for all the potential partners next week or the week after to discuss our next steps to include the Middle Cedar. At this time no further action is needed from you, but please feel free to contact me with questions. I'll be in touch again soon with details on a follow-up meeting that will involve all the relevant parties. Please feel free to forward this information on to whomever else in Linn County should receive it. Thanks in advance, look forward to talking more with you. -Mary Beth MARY BETH STEVENSON Iowa-Cedar River Basin Coordinator Iowa Department of Natural Resources P 319.325.8593 marybeth.stevenson@dnr.iowa.gov <image001.jpg> 323-4 Stanley Hydraulics Laboratory I Iowa City, IA 52242-1585 WWW.IOWADNR.GOV <image002.jpg>u<image004.jpg> Leading Iowans in Caring for Our Natural Resources. <NDRC_Summary.docx> 2 D-71 Sign-in Sheet NDRC& Middle Cedar WMA Planning Meeting 8/26/2015 Name Affiliation Email Address & Phone MAr1� Yh }c cv�d� IONR �2ll .s'-ueobo,C rhar� 3�3-N bld L IA 5 as 1pa WOO_ ov 3cq 3a5-8W 0,�., s.,. Joys O L l3HSi..1C p� �n joss N.bclu �e a.��cd�r}. d�Sl� � la DrmL �N nz,�- Wadcll.;� S�7Jal (r /�Fjvl Giti 5� rw /� vGrW/� �9aL.w� u,-'i a) 5'h rrr �n1CCl� rena 9Pr, M //U3 50- 52,0- 98cY G,ty o{- (Ib W, 3!d .5,�-, fro Box.S29 ,'0„ 3 - Lt 7 Z— � �c � G� ,�5 S,�taNtQlti✓r,�@ Cp�w-�^Q�SIS, �FJA ISt``1h2 S� �" CaCC KCeru„ r Ttit�//s2o co i 3, C. �. � stOcss 3 AbeL)� o—.�� Ire C!/.e i D-72 Sign-in Sheet NDRC - North Raccoon River Watershed 9/22/2015 2pm-Storm Lake Courthouse Name Affiliation Email Address & Phone arel< /VGnnG nn\I OA Ls dErek.ni.n5�yaiw.nc�dr�i.nP'F 330a IY�'�si -r/sem; a Sw�rft (,AI�.JZ/i rj' I-160 7ta-33�-3��d Ex-r. 3 t�w3 L11 dA•L loobl1�e. S a �A Pa r1'ck �vswG2 Qh '/a . atr;cic�*a,n4cdh to 17 Al, 1-4ka ! we 7ij-732 96x3 -`1'0,eo o nom{ S f�rrr. lake S.4 SoS7i9 La r re g, Kolbe Nes o�a �arre{}e.kplb� " L L �awrIAa�s �6 ld 2,3 �.?'Dr us TDO �' eri .s '� Gvm Fq y 99Cna./•'- s2, �u e la- S Pc s :IA .5Za7�/ /.2 -335--.3/,r, 1� zf-- ee ^ � QyJ.e 0/Jl`/on-�"6S .5,9 .E/✓•SJ Cd-dG47 v� ec rhar•'/,n/ll.xi' �f1t. $�/5'-�i 1r /3'/Z Pd&K o2710 �m L�.Wtt -IA- 56S 01 ee.�jCtrV'rl�' 17t�/1'K��� I - o �`n �� /j.t-". C'b LGn i A� I'e',(�.^.z.3tt'i olio✓!�r f� P2 / (� Ct (!P re (Q U �, S an vCcls4Glr® y�iYruo. ��. 7/� Bret WilbAson B,Y, Ca FA ine r bw0K; o bvcou„t ; LOM 7/Z- 2v9- 3 PiA a r Mbun w aG�en e> . Lt--,s / - S-33 Cl D-73 Phase 2 Watersheds - North Raccoon B R I E N CLAY PALO ALTO KO SUTH HANCOCK --------------------- ---------------- --------- ---- ------- Marathon I H eadw:asters North Raccoon(River Laufens `II Rembrandt Head at rs Cedar Creek I Lateral 6-North Raccoon RryiwerSLateral 2rAlbertCiiy /X/ p ,H,e` ({ waters Lei tale Cedar Creek /�' Drainage Ditch 21-Cedar Creey/k/' HUMBOLDT Lateral-3-No.\ Xa\�\nj River, `y,' C E R O E TruesdaIe Drainage Ditch 67 VV H T OCAHONTAS I Poor Farm Creek Alta Dra image Dit'cFh�101\ accoon •R i�v er Vafina � ,StormLake \ L"ittle Cedar Cree�kDrainage Ditch 74-Cedar Creek \ Lake Is de Outlet CrX Nk Newell I Fonda Dra insg a Ditch 29 � P.radue Creek �' Upper Drainage Ditch No 9 i Pomeroy Buck Run Manson Drainage Ditch 37-Cedar Creek O � Nwmaha� f �Krnoke Drainage Ditch 1 +�.-� t Drainage Ditch 81 JLower Drainage D{i t'c h� 13 Sac City-N1orth Oyacco'fn River 6/Jolley Headwaters W�e_st Fork Cam yC re eke East Cedar Creek Knlerlm � i/r, O )+ I D ra ina,g�e rD itc h.20-Ced ar'C,re eek ( i } Sao City, Lytton � Drainage Ditch 13-Lake Creek ff g �"^S\ ` Wedshs Slou' h Headwaters Camp Creek WEBS ER s• {� West Fork Camp C k� RockwellCityH M I LITO N Indian Cre a k�North R Jccoon River tl q �un I n i 7 A FA 0 Somers A Drainage �D itch 73-Nort h"�R'a cco.on River Headwaters Purgatory Cre e,.O / Sherwood Callender `l 'Creek- 1r 'Creek fly O "D ra i,ag`e Ditch lO fLakeWest Cedar Cre ek Rinafd Headwater s�Hardin Creek Camp Creek( /) I Prairie Creek Rands Headwaters West Buttr.ick Creek Lake'Viewer Yette; D ra'i'n age rD ifch 2,5-North Raccoon River Lake Creek Gowrie Lohrville Farnhamville O Lake City n H Drainage D i t c hirak Pond arcourt ,5 7 ,� O_ ■ \ 0 ` n fJ Auburn /j+�{"�`. H'eadwate/rs East Buttro%k Creek Rainbow B6.n,d Count:y�Park-N�o rth Racoon River Purgatory C�eek r/r Wall Lake Inlet rCedar Creek _ Lanyon Happy Run-Hardin Cree400 3k I - Marrowbone Cre e'k-North Recco.on RLIye'r-f---------- r-•�.r,���� -—-—-- Wes t Butt ri ck Creek - "I-------------- Elk Run-North Raccoon R'iroer C R A W F O R D Lanesboro tl ! CAR (}RE E East Fork Hardin CreekEasttrick Creek BOONE Legend Map Symbols ELAND 19 Unincorporated �0 Final Phase 2 HUC12 ITE O <10,000 OO 10,000-49,999 1 F in a l Ph a s e 2 H U C 10 ® 50,000-99,999 ~ ATE 0 2.755.5 11 16.5 22 QFinal Phase 2 HUC 8 0 LMI Areo 10Areas Miles County Borders m NDRC Service Area mMI� MironmentalArea l in 11 miles IJN �'Gg PPG MI R rastructure Area NCY Nt NDRC community engagement meeting—North Raccoon Storm Lake, IA Courthouse 9/22/2015 2pm Participants: Participants included Larry Weber with the University of Iowa, Iowa Flood Center, and interested stakeholders (see attached sign-in-sheet). Discussion: The Iowa Flood Center(IFC) attended a meeting at the Storm Lake Courthouse on September 22, 2015 to discuss the National Disaster Resilience Competition (NDRC)funding opportunity. Interested stakeholders attended the meeting, including representatives from both Buena Vista and Pocahontas County. These two counties have been identified as the two areas in the North Raccoon River Watershed (NRRW)that meet certain eligibility requirements of the NDRC. Larry Weber with IFC approached interested stakeholders from Buena Vista and Pocahontas to gain support for the NDRC proposal and identify a lead partner for the proposed project in the NRRW. Prior to the meeting, a conference call was held on September 4, 2015 to discuss the project with a small group of interested stakeholders in the watershed. Participants had access to a summary of the NDRC, a map of the watershed, and a link to the Phase 2 Fact Sheet. Weber began the meeting by providing background information about IFC. IFC was founded in 2009 in response to the 2008 flooding disaster. Legislation recognized a need to gather research on flooding to allow us to be better prepared for future disasters. In 2010, IFC was awarded $8.8M from HUD for the Iowa Watersheds Project that funded the construction of conservation practices aimed at flood risk reduction in four watersheds in Iowa; Soap/Chequest, Turkey River, Middle Raccoon, and Upper Cedar. The projects are currently construction practices. Weber went on to discuss the NDRC proposal and the inclusion of the NRRW. IFC is working with Homeland Security to submit the NDRC proposal for the state of Iowa. There is currently $1B in funding available to all states with a declared presidential disaster between 2011 and 2013. New York and New Jersey will automatically receive $120M for Superstorm Sandy disaster recovery. Iowa submitted the Phase I application and was invited to submit Phase II, along with 40 other applicants. Approximately 15 to 20 proposals are expected to receive funding. Weber explained the focus of the project is centered on resiliency and helping communities prepare for future disasters. Watersheds across the state of Iowa were selected to be included in the proposal based on qualifying criteria, including the presence of environmental or infrastructural MID-URN and at least a 50 percent benefit to LML Qualifying criteria were based on soil loss and impaired waters data, as well as documented damages from a presidentially declared disaster. D-75 Buena Vista and Pocahontas County have been identified as the two areas in the NRRW that meet these eligibility requirements. The project will focus on the formation of a WMA, hydrologic assessment and modeling work, practice implementation, and pre and post construction monitoring. The WMA would invite all county, city, and SWCD's to participate. Practices implemented will address primary flood concerns with a secondary benefit to water quality, or primary water quality concerns with a secondary benefit to flooding. At least 75 percent cost share assistance will be available for landowners who volunteer to participate. The remaining 25 percent will be the landowner's responsibility. Practices like bioreactors could receive upwards of 90 percent cost share since there is no direct benefit for the landowner. Practices may include terraces, buffers, grassed waterways, bioreactors, wetlands, or farm ponds. Any practice that does not have an annualized and provides the necessary benefits may be eligible. Nine different watersheds across Iowa are currently included in the proposal. They include the North Raccoon, East Nishnabotna, West Nishnabotna, Dubuque, Clear Creek, English River, Middle Cedar, Upper Iowa, and Upper Wapsipinicon. A small team working on the proposal attended a workshop in Chicago to discuss the NDRC. The team from Iowa was encouraged to ask for around $100. The request in the NRRW will be around $4.5M that will be used for practice implementation. Additionally, $75/year will be budgeted for a watershed coordinator that will help facilitate the project. The county that agrees to serve as the lead partner for the project in the NRRW will receive 2 percent of funds to help with administrative costs. The lead county will need to contract with a local COG with CDBG experience to help administer the project. From the lead county, a letter of intent to participate and a partnership agreement will need to be completed in order to include the watershed in the proposal. Because of the large LMI area in Storm Lake, it is proposed that Buena Vista County be the sub-recipient of any funds that may be awarded for the NRRW. Questions/Comments: Weber opened the meeting up for further discussion and encouraged the audience to ask questions or provide comments in response to the proposal. - Bill Beldon (Antares Group):What is the expected length of the project? • Weber: The project originally had atimeline of 2 years. We are asking for an extension that would make the project last 5 years. The project money's will have to be spent by September 30, 2021. - Beldon: Will the agreement with the landowners have maintenance agreements? • Weber: Yes, the projects will follow NRCS specifications and landowners will be required to sign maintenance agreements. - Anonymous: Are farm ponds open to the public fishing? • Weber: There could be an easement put in place that would allow for public use of some of the practices implemented. However, this decision would be entirely up the landowner. - Anonymous: Can you "redo" existing ponds? D-76 • Weber: Only if providing maintenance to existing practices would have a benefit to flood reduction or water quality. Bob Waters (IDALS): In order to get credit for the LMI dollars, does the HUC have to be directly above that area? • Weber: We are requesting a waiver to re-define how LMI is interpreted so that we can expand our service area. Derek Namanny(IDALS): If you can devise plans in LMI areas, does that mean you can use the moneys in other areas, such as the City of Storm Lake? • Weber: For every $1 we spend in an area that benefits LMI, we are able to spend $1 in an area with no LMI benefit, but that has environmental or infrastructure MID-URN. Buena Vista expressed interest in serving as the lead partner. Weber stated that a member from the NDRC team would be in contact to provide a template for the letter and partnership agreement that will be needed to submit the proposal. Weber noted that the letter and partnership need to be completed as soon as possible. D-77 North Raccoon River Watershed - Conference Call 9/4/15 8am Participants: Iowa Flood Center- Larry Weber, Breanna Zimmerman, Carmen Langel On call: Bob Waters Zac Anderson - Sac County Larrette Kolbe Anita Patrick Brett Wilkinson Antares Group - Bill Belden Discussion: - Larry Weber (LW) gave an introduction over IIHR- Hydroscience& Engineering and the Iowa Flood Center. - LW gave participants on the call some background information on the current Iowa Watersheds Project; IFC received $8.8 million in funding and it was used in four watersheds across the state, the Upper Cedar, Turkey River, Soap/Chequest, and Middle Raccoon. The funding was used to conduct a hydrologic assessment of each watershed and create a hydrologic model; $4.5 million was used to implement conservation practices aimed at water retention and flood reduction, including ponds and wetlands. - LW gave background information on the current National Disaster Resilience Competition (NDRC) funding proposal. Only states with Declared Presidential Disasters from 2011-2013 were eligible to submit a phase 1 application. Funding is available through Housing and Urban Development (HUD). There is $1 billion available in funding,with $180 already obligates to New York and New Jersey for Super Storm Sandy recovery. $820 million is available to all other states. - 40 teams were selected to submit a phase II proposal - A few team members working on the proposal attended a conference in Chicago to work on their proposal. The people from HUD were impressed with the Iowa story and the "working together,"tone of our proposal. LW felt it was one of the strongest proposals leaving the conference. - At the conference, the team was advised to ask for a request between $100-$125 million. - Watersheds included in the proposal are the North Raccoon, Dubuque, East Nishnabotna, West Nishnabotna, Clear Creek, English River, Middle Cedar, Upper Iowa, and the Upper Wapsipinicon. - The project would be similar to the original Iowa Watersheds Project, and will include a hydrologic assessment, modeling, monitoring, and construction of practices. D-78 We must work in areas with environmental or infrastructure unmet recovery needs (URN); 50% of funding must be spent to benefit low to moderate income (LMI) communities. Our team has been making calls or attending meetings in each of the watersheds to inform potential partners about the project. We are anticipating asking for $4.5 million for the North Raccoon; Funds would have to be spent in Buena Vista and Pocahontas counties. Ouestions/Comments: - Bill Belden (BB) with the Antares Group noted that they were just awarded $9 million from the Department of Energy. Much of the work that will be done will include modeling from a sustainability perspective. o LW: We may have data of value to the project. IFC might be able to help with monitoring/modeling. There is a lot of common interest between the DOE funding and NDRC funding. - BB: Can you help with DOE project as it relates to water quality? Where could sensors be located? o LW: Most of our water quality sensors are located on the perimeter of Iowa. Others target WQI projects. - BB: Would like to continue dialogue about the possibilities with these two projects sooner rather than later. o LW: We will chat later in September. - LW: Noted that there would be a 75/25 percent cost share rate for practices. Practices would included ponds,wetlands, terraces, bioreactors, saturated buffers, etc. o BB: Could a third party cover the remaining 25% landowner contribution? o LW: There is no required match.We need to demonstrate leverage at the federal, state, and private level.We would like to know what funding will go towards BV and Poahontas counties that we can use as leverage. - Who would do the engineering work(anonymous): o LW: We have technical assistance dollars included in the budget. The funding could go to local NRCS-SWCD offices, local engineering firms that follow NRCS specs, or local, recently retired NRCS field staff who could be contracted out. - In the current WQI projects, there is money for perennial energy crops, bioreactors, and filter strips. o LW: Practices like bioreactors maybe eligible for 90/10 or 100 percent cost share incentives since the landowner is not receiving a direct benefit. - If someone could help cover the landowner contribution portion of the practices, that would be helpful. - LW: The project will be submitted for public comment at the end of September. Following a 15-day public comment period,we will make any changes based off comments and submit the final draft approximately one week before it is due on October 271h. A decision will be made in D-79 January (likely February or March), and around 15-20 projects will be selected. Funding for projects will be available beginning next summer and money should be received at the start of the fiscal year in July. LW: At this point, we are looking for sub-recipients for each of the watersheds who can help administer the projects. The sub-recipients need to be a City of County. The County who receives funds can distribute to other groups, such as a COG with CDBG experience that can help with administration. Two percent of funds received in each watershed will be available for administration costs. CL: We are looking at projects in Storm Lake since there is a large LMI population there.We haven't been able to reach the 50% benefit yet. LW: Would Buena Vista or Pocahontas be willing to help with the project? There is slightly more are of URN in Buena Vista. o Either county would have the capacity to assist with the project. o Someone will reach out to a Board of Supervisor in each county. LW: Both counties should be proposed about the project. We will need a letter of intent to participate from whichever county agrees to be the sub- recipient.We will also need a partner agreement. Both of these documents will be put together by Iowa Economic Development Authority (IEDA). LW: We have identified 3 HUC 12's to focus practice implementation.We will look for local decision to help decide which areas to work in. CL: We are working on writing 5 page narratives for each of the watersheds. In our draft, we will describe which areas are most likely to be selected.We can have the draft for the North Raccoon sent out for input on the proposed project. LW: In the 5 page narrative,we want to include places of impact, personal stories, cultural resources,vulnerable populations, or LMI areas that were most impacted by a disaster between 2011-2013. We need help from the locals to tell each of these watersheds stories. LW: We will limit work in the North Raccoon to 3 or 4 HUC 12s. We don't want to spread our funding too thinly. Anita Patrick(AP): The HUC 12's outlined on the map are good options for practice implementation. LW: We need to focus on community in these areas. We will need to tie Storm Lake into the narrative. LW: WQI projects are more about outreach and education and do not supply as many dollars for putting practices on the ground. What kind of pond projects will be implemented? o LW: Shallow water ponds and farm ponds. In our existing watersheds, the ponds are used for recreation by the landowner. IFC will provide a bulleted list of what is needed by BV and/or Pocahontas County. o IFC will help reach out to Supervisors in the area to explain the project and help determine who the sub-recipient will be. D-80 From: Resilience [HSEMD] Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 11:59 AM To: Allamakee03Cnty [HSEMD County]; Benton06Cnty [HSEMD County]; BuchananlOCnty [HSEMD County]; Buenavistal lCnty [HSEMD County]; Cedarl6Cnty [HSEMD County]; Cherokeel8Cnty [HSEMD County]; C1ay21Cnty [HSEMD County]; Clinton23Cnty [HSEMD County]; Delaware28Cnty [HSEMD County]; Deutmeyer, Kelley [DOT Contact]; Dickinson30Cnty [HSEMD County]; doug.elliottAecia.org; Dubuque3lCnty [HSEMD County]; gyouellAmapacog.org; Ida47Cnty [HSEMD County]; Iowa48Cnty [HSEMD County]; Jasper50Cnty [HSEMD County]; Johnson52Cnty [HSEMD County]; kblanshanAinrcog.org; Lang, Dwight [DOT Contact]; Lee56Cnty [HSEMD County]; Lyon60Cnty [HSEMD County]; Marion63Cnty [HSEMD County]; Marsha1164Cmy [HSEMD County]; mnorrisAseirpc.com; Pocahontas76Cnty [HSEMD County]; Pottawattamie78Cnty [HSEMD County]; Poweshiek79Cnty [HSEMD County]; rhoweAuerpc.org; rhunsakerAreRion l2cog.org; Sac8lCnty [HSEMD County]; Tama 86Cnty [HSEMD County]; ted.kourousisAnwipdc.org; Weldon, Cliff[DOT Contact]; Winneshiek96Cnty [HSEMD County]; Wymore, Marty [DOT Contact] Subject: National Disaster Resilience Competition - PLEASE DISTRIBUTE ASAP! NATIONAL DISASTER RESILIENCE COMPETITION Iowa Phase 11 Application Request for Information Description The Iowa Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management is seeking information from local jurisdictions interested and capable of building a more resilient State as a component of Iowa's application to the U.S. Department Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience Competition (CDBG-NDRC). THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) ONLY. This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes. Respondees are advised that Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management will not pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in response to this RFI; all costs associated with responding to this RFI will be solely at the interested party's expense. Not responding to this RFI does not preclude participation in any future RFP, if issued. It is the intent of the Iowa NDRC Application Team to use an RFI process to identify potential infrastructure projects that could be integrated into a Phase II application, as well as to gather relevant information regarding building resilience in the state. Background The National Disaster Resilience Competition is a HUD-sponsored program, which will allocate $999,108,000 to a pool of 67 approved applicants to build post-disaster resilience throughout the D-81 United States. $180 million has been set aside for Super Storm Sandy impacted communities. The remainder of the funding will be made available to approved applicants that had presidentially declared disasters in 2011, 2012 or 2013, including some predefined communities and 48 states. With eight presidentially declared disasters during that time, the State of Iowa is an approved applicant and submitted a Phase I application on March 23, 2015. Phase I was the "framing"phase of the competition in which applicants needed to demonstrate that they met specific threshold criteria, had capacity to effectively administer funds, and exhibited continued need from a qualified disaster. During Phase I,the State of Iowa identified target areas according to the requirements of the National Disaster Resilience Competition, established an approach toward resilience, and discussed intended process for developing Phase II projects and programs. The Iowa Phase I application can be found in its entirety at Iowa- NDRC - Phase I Application HUD's NOFA criteria were utilized to identify the following twenty-six Iowa counties as potential National Disaster Resilience Competition target areas for "infrastructure-related projects": Allamakee Benton Buchanan Buena Vista Cedar Cherokee Clay Clinton Delaware Dickinson Dubuque Ida Iowa Jasper Johnson Lee Lyon Marion Marshall Pocahontas Pottawattamie Poweshiek Sac Sioux Tama Winneshiek HUD is expected to announce which applicants are invited into a Phase II application process at the end of May 2015. Once announced, applicants will have 120 days to prepare a Phase II application. Because of the quick timeline for Phase II application preparation, a Request for Information process is being launched prior to Phase II announcements to permit ample time to work with project partners to prepare the most compelling and competitive application that can create transformational progress toward disaster resilience in Iowa. The State of Iowa NDRC Application Team has established the following timeline for preparation of a Phase II application: Date Beginning Date Ending Milestone April 13, 2015 May 13, 2015 RFI Accepted May 13, 2015 May 31, 2015 Evaluation of potential projects by Resilience Steering Committee June 1, 2015 July 31, 2015 Project application development and consultations with project partners August 1, 2015 August 31, 2015 Public comment period on Phase II application September 2015 TBD Submission of Phase II application (exact date TBD by HUD) D-82 Responses Interested parties are requested to respond to this RFI by no later than 4:00 pm CDT on Wednesday, May 13, 2015. The attached RFI form (pdf) must be used to submit responses to the Iowa NDRC Application Team. Submit responses to resilienceAiowa.gov. Please be advised that all submissions become the property of the Iowa NDRC Application Team and will not be returned. The Iowa NDRC Application Team may or may not choose to meet with interested parties. Questions and Technical Assistance Questions and/or requests for technical assistance regarding this announcement shall be submitted in writing to resilienceAiowa.gov by 4:00 pm CDT on Thursday, April 23, 2015. HUD has put together a number of resources regarding community resilience and the NDRC. Materials include the White House Fact Sheet, Competition Overview, and the Notice of Funding Announcement(NOFA). Training materials, webinars, and Community& Economic Resilience resources can be found at httns://www.hudexchange.info/cdbg-dr/resilient-recoverv. Summary THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) ONLY to identify potential infrastructure projects for inclusion in the State of Iowa's National Disaster Resilience Competition Phase II application and to better define resiliency opportunities and challenges in the State. The information provided in the RFI is subject to change and is not binding. No commitment has been made to procure any of the items discussed, and release of this RFI should not be construed as such a commitment or as authorization to incur cost for which reimbursement would be required or sought. All submissions become the property of the Iowa NDRC Application Team and will not be returned. Information contained in RFI responses may lead to potential partnership in a final NDRC application. RFI responses may be made public and should not include sensitive information. Distribution We ask that the county emergency management coordinators and councils of government forward this information to the communities in their service area to achieve the widest distribution possible. Iowa NDRC Application Team D-83 Organization Name: Storm Lake County: Buena Vista Address: 620 Erie Street, Storm Lake, IA Phone: 712.732.8000 POC: James Patrick, City Manager Contact Email: patrick@stormlake.org Project Name: IStorm Lake Flood Mitigation Projects- Raccoon River(HUC 8) Project Summary his is a multifaceted project that addresses several disaster damaged areas and areas that require enhancement to make the City more disaster resilient.The City of Storm Lake bas a history of storm water Flooding.The City is just finishing a$27 million sanitary sewer flood mitigation upgrade to the treatment plant and conveyance system to avoid backups in homes and bypass events throughout the community. miticult of the 2011 and 2013 disasters,it became evident that there still are significant repars iand disaster mitigation measures that need to be addressed.The City is currently spending over$6 million to gate some of the most significant flooding and damage resulting from the 2011 and 2013 disasters.During the 2013 disaster,the City received significant volumes of water that caused additional damage to aer pipes,streets,and culverts.TMs project is broken down into six critical projects or phases requiring funding to continue the disaztcr repair and make the community more re,lient to future events. bea5 projects are no less critical than the on es the City is currently addressing but they require funding before they can be remedied. The current constructs on was necessary to be accompli abed first since oat of tread projects are up stream. Storm water modeling and engineering investigations completed in 2012 determined that significant improvements were needed to alleviate flooding in the North Central portion of the City.This area is generally bounded by 10 Street on the south,13th Street on the north and Erie Street on the west and Seneca Street on the Seat The city has proceed to implement approximately$2,100,000 of improvements in this corridor to alleviate flooding and repair infrastructure damaged by major storm events.The first phase of the repairs are achedu led for construction in 2015.The improvements will be creation of a storm water system to provide an outlet for the flood waters that occur frequently in this corridor.The proposed improvements are generally identified with the report titled"Storm water Management and Water Quality Improvements:North Central W aterahed".The first part of the project addresses repairs needed to Spooner Street and Seneca Street and is ready for construction.The 2nd part of this project would be repairs to Seneca and Spooner Streets once the downstream storm water improvements are completed.Storm sewer for this area was provided by small field tile and storm sewer that was not adequate to convey typical 2 inch rainfall events causing major surface flooding and sewer backups in the corridor.The heavy rains in 2012 and 2013 caused Seneca and Spooner Streets to further deteriorate and further damaged private residents.To alleviate tread issues,it is proposed to reconstruct the roadways with a pervious pavement and storm water quality system that stores and conveys storm water from the corridor to the former railroad corridor controlled by the city.The city system to be constructed in 2015 will be a treatment train with mr,5walea,and other water quality features to treat and convey storm water to Poor Farm Creek.Thin proposed Dread of the project is a continuation of a major storm water mitigation project called the North Central Storm Water Mitigation Project(part of the$6 million mprovementa).Funding in the amount of$1,930,000 is needed to complete thin project. Pbaze(2)is a CHIP lining of 24"and 18"Sanitary Trunk Sewers from Mae and 1st Street east to the Memorial Street Gk Station.This area of the city was part of the early developed area of the community. Over the years,two separate trunk sanitary sewers were constructed to provide conveyance to the original treatment plant that was later abandoned and converted to a large Lift Station(Memorial Lift Station) that originally conveyed all sanitary flow to the wastewater treatment plant relocated to a point on the comb east aide of the lake.This area is very susceptible to surcharging and bypass events and significant backups and flooding in a residential neighborhood along Mae Street during 2 year rain events.This releases sewage directly to Lake Storm Lake and causes backups in homes.This area receives significant flooding of private property.The surcharging of this line has caused damage to the sewer interceptors that cause the backup/bypass even, An alternate would be to replace the ex&ting Rnea but based on their alignments across private property,depths and the extent of other utility conflicts,it is recommended that the Rnea receive CHIP lining. Due to higher priority projects and limited budget,tMa project is waiting for funding of approximately$1,235,000. Pbaze(3)Erie Street and Parking Int Reconstruction,Milwaukee to 6th Street.Erie Street sustained considerable damage caused by significant rain events in recent years,especially the disasters of 2011 and 2013. Repairs in the amount of$23,500 were made to the road and parking Iota to make them usable on a abort term but repaving is required due to the damage sustained.The roadway corridor is without storm sewer and drains to an overloaded storm sewer system along Milwaukee Avenue(Hwy])north of the business corridor.In order to make the necessary permanent repairs it is necessary to design and Ion eruct a storm water and pavement sym m m stethat baa low impact on the downstreasysteat Milwaukee Avenue.The design will include pervious pavements,Do5walea,tree wells and other water quality mprovements that clean and slow the release of storm water along the corridor. Funding is hoped to be received for a portion of the work in lune 2015.Should funds not be received,the repairs will need to be delayed until some future date when funds are available.The estimated coatis $1,600,000. Phase(4)is to replace the box culvert under ii Highway 71 north of the City. Poor Farm Creek flows through tMa box culvert.Due to the 2013 flood damage,a 4 foot diameter sinkhole was discovered in be west shoulder of the highway.Upon further observation,the walls near the floor of the structure have fully deteriorated,exposing holes Swell 5 severely corroded/failing reinforcement mats.The holes in the walls showed evidence of roadway fill material spilling into the barrel and onto the floor leaving large voids behind the culvert walls. Estimated coat is$500,000. Pbaze(5)7th Street and Geneseo Street Sanitary Sewer Replacement.The City experienced significant bypass events from the manhole at 7th Street and Gen Saco Street due to storm damage as a result of the 2011 and 2013 disasters.This project consists of the replacement of a 10"sewer from the intersection of fifth and Gen Saco north on Geneseo approximately 460 feet to a connection with the 18-Trunk Sewer ocated at the comb edge of the former railroad ROW north of Hwy I Lail waukce Ave.).The new line is a 15"sanitary sewer pipe.The work in cludea street removal/replacement,420'of gravity 15"pipe,bore and jack with casing of Hwy],structures and bypass pumping at an estimated cost of$221,000. Pbaze 6 Fact Central Storm Water Improvements add ressca uvea at the main entrance into the City.Highway I(Lakcabor5 Dr.),during a 5 year rain event,will be 2 feet underwater and limit vehicle traffic into/out of the City. During the 2011 and 2013 disasters damage was done to private property(businesses)as well as to the highway. It contributed untreated nutrient laden runoff to the Lake.The work con 505 of two separate pieces of work,the flrsHa the extension of the Eaat Central improvements from where it ends on the north aide of east 4th at the former railroad ROW north and west with storm water quality and storm sewer to its intersection with Geirenger Road.Improvements would be made from Memorial Road comb of the Armory west across private property to the ball fields and includes construction of bio-awale,storm sewer,pervious parking lot and other work with con necton to ex&ting storm sewer on south aide of ball NSld, To alleviate this flooding requires retention ponds/basins to be constructed upstream of this area to retain storm water,treat it,and allow a slow release to the lake.Estimated coat is$660,000. D-84 Project Goals and Main Activities 7Cityisg to improve the health safety and well being of our residents and businesses. The City is prone has experienced substantial damage to public and private property. In the last five years, the trated on correcting storm related issues with substantial investment to improve the sewer m and wastewater treatment capacity to reduce basement backups and other bypass events that significantly affect City residents. The City created a storm water and waste water best management template, with the assistance of Iowa Economic Development Authority, to identify the areas of concern, look at best management practices, and prioritize the phasing of mitigation efforts. As a result, the City is currently spending $6 million in storm water management projects to further reduce flooding in neighborhoods and the industrial park that has caused significant damage to personal property. The goal of this project request is to continue the progress that has been made to fix disaster damage and improve the City's resiliency to future storm events. This will protect the health of residents and protect property from damage. There is still significant work that needs to be accomplished to mitigate the flooding and to make the community more resilient to future disasters. The City cannot bond further right now, nor can the community with over 60% LMI afford increased debt payments. The City needs this funding to fix existing damage and correct the most critical storm water issues. Anticipated Project Start and Completion Dates: 3Q15 1Q18 Project Location (Lat/Long): 42.64049 -95.19693 Project Engineering and Design Percent Completion Range: 20% 40% Geographic Area and Population Served bythis Project The project will serve the greater Storm Lake community, a community of 10,600 based on 2010 census numbers. Storm Lake is the most ethnically diverse city in Iowa with at least 27 different ethnic groups represented. The community is a regional hub for a population of approximately 80,000. Storm Lake is a growing rural community and the economy is primarily agricultural based. There are 3123 houses in Storm Lake and in a recent LMI survey of 496 homes with an 81% response (401 households), the community is 60% LMI and 40% non-LMI. D-85 Project Tie-back to Any Unmet Recove eeds 7'd= 1Id¢[ea 11.1 Ma[aaaremssereal alsaRer aamgea areazanaareasMa[rryulremnan¢mm[to mdo,Me CttymorealsaRer reAllen[TheCtty olRoim Lake Hasa nlRoryo!Rolm wMerllooaing In ImlaRa podeG ofMe(ft,Th, (ft,I, In aft—oG[om,Ia so me of Me m o1 slgnttlmn[flood.,and aamge Our.;Me 2015 aIsaz4r,Me Cttyre —dd 100 year. ,tthdt b,,,d aaattlonal aamge[o rower pope;Ire t,,and-1-ft,.As a result of ,d 2013 IId"', rcberemeerlaenlMalMereztlllare A;nmrenl repalrsana alsaz4rmM;It,meawresMalneeam beaaarersea.The Ory naslsmrrentlyspmam;wer$6mllllon AnsMeIDllana IDlSalsanersm mm;rtesomeor 11Id",ooam;dna alsaner aamge.o r ;me2o15 alsaneq me0[y re¢Nea a loorear erennnrt mama aaamonal aamgem sewerplpe;meet z,dna mbertc Them An ottlml major pmleRz orpnamsrryuRe,,nam;m mnonue repolyd"-dkeMemmmulmm e1ue11mm1ureerenLc mempmleRzarelolers vMm11na1MeolesMeOryls minaaaresl l;bul repwremlam;be(oreMevmlberememea. memrrellproleRzmunbenllsneanrn ,,dll do.,Ream ofth--t pnazes.Ph...111 aasrezmsrepalrsleeaeamspoo ler 5trre[d,dS..emStreK Tnlsls d follow of proleR ofdmdo,to,, dt,rmM;atlll prole¢muea meboM«1tral Sto—carter MMgdto,Proj,d $.-Illlo I,lmpromnelG.Thlsarm remespolaea carter upm Mebo¢om ormrsaunl;a Mrremtlimm erelc Thos par[orMeprole¢waslotllauaea auetn Mezmpeala lad ornlalms.meNOM«1tral Prole¢naam be n.mo m.,�eml.upme.m norm wafer artefine2o15mm..,a.w.a,t1.1a.m.;.mereI..,reameleYnemeImpom.,morml.p.olea.Pna.el2l.aareme.a.m.;em rowelmre.mpm..mu.ee W.u.a.Bm;awl;me2on.,a m1immemlG.TheseI termptnrs dre somgnmeto...Aagm;b,dbypa -,t,ala mum Ag11m1i bammmt badop,b,dflood,,;,,,d,,t,bl Ngnbmnooas dlo,;Md,Strrets esnooGmree fret,me anfrom m b,nmes ,,d I,releama d—dy,to LakeRo,.Lake.Pnaze 151 aasrem.aa magez,,td—dof,E,d Slrre[of,hood-1 of mlfml do—towl.E of naz s,Ib,,,dmislaembledd.g, b...d byfneslgnlmn[d,evens of 2013 ala 2015 to foe fmrN rvrfam ala gutRrs.Nile a tofMedd.g,—be1,,buteato Merol,,of2015.Th,Rreetna.naa Rmtold,,pb,,,tomdo,It ydbl,,mm eoftte.ma,t,l(,lonm ¢ m l g urs bel d,,t,f,,d Pc aed due to e damage flea.Thy proj,ddr,.to,plam a aeRnorMeaAretwh,lealm prw,d,,;to,..1,,wlum.ala polludltload r,d,d,o,,wttnln Meao.,to,,dyt,¢a,d do—,d—z,bd,yo- Ph...(0)is ,pl...Me box abMinvert.oder 0 azole.. d;nwry Sl n oM of Me Ctty.Pooar rew.MMl. k flow. box.heft O M to e 20f3 flood damage,a 0 foot ala.,t,, lknole war alzmrereM a 1, e Wertzhoulaer of May ll e nlgnwo,fuMryMwa erob.ea[Io1, e lls....Me floor of Me u re nave fulN tl dl,,,o.Meeypoz,;hol-d,. 11a.mmreN mrtat Mwa od,d/fb,1,,g....to. me.m 1,Th,nole... e llszho.,dMry MMaae...ofroaaw011 m1rrdI sp,ll,,g l,to e hart..ala olio e�loo.l ,;la -d,hennM a e-heft aPh...5l The Cttyex m ma1g111tbyp.. t.fmmthe d,holeMRretmrel nSt. a,dGe.e. S[ etof,toto-dd,g........It of the 201f ala 2015 dyd1...Thydo, d,tob,,plama due toz,blb,tlal dam ger Thy I,of, ofMe(d',nlgh,1p.lo.M,,b,d Is wb,,go1f,,d,,g5 Pna.e(6)both.em.Is....I Me mall..[room,to Me Ctyd;nwry 5(Lakeshore 0..,a u.l.g a 5yea.d,event w111 betf,1u,av cant..ala I...t,-hol,tmttllllto/oat of Me Ctty.Durl ne2011 ala 2015 alsa14rs damg,wardoletop-1,p.opeM(b.heroI.a.w11 arto thenog h.by.It m,tnbute,u,tre.Ra n,t tlade,,,onto Me lake To a11MaRMl.flood,,;repul...reR1tlo1 po,d,/bb,,,,to be m1Au¢ea a pAeam oftnlz area to r1d,Rorm canter,trent it ala allow a slow release to the lake. Project Benefits Vulnerable Populations Storm Lake is the most ethnically diverse city in Iowa with at least 27 different ethnic groups represented. The community is a regional hub for a population of approximately 80,000. There are 3123 houses in Storm Lake and in a recent LMI survey of 496 homes with an 81% response (401 households), it showed that the community is 60% LMI and 40% non-LMI. Project Creates Greater Resilience in the Target Area The damage experienced during the 2011 and 2013 disasters was a direct result of insufficient capacity to properly manage storm water resulting in flooding, infiltration into sanitary sewer creating bypass events and backups into private homes, and damage to public infrastructure. The City, with the assistance of the Iowa Economic Development Authority and the technical skills of Conservation Design Forum, created a water, storm water, and waste water Best Management Practices Plan which reviewed each of these project areas and recommended green infrastructure approaches to manage storm water. The plan placed an emphasis on green infrastructure practices that mimic natural processes to restore natural hydrology, improve water quality, and increase biodiversity. This approach is intended to provide multiple benefits in addition to water quality improvements and flood attenuation, and will maximize the value of every dollar invested in the capital improvements. In particular, these projects allow the City to better manage and treat storm water and waste water thereby reducing the impacts on public and private property. D-86 Data that Demonstrates Approach will Build Greater Resilience 7thed Green Infrastructure Plan for Storm Lake Water andthe Engineer's evaluation. The Water, waste water Best Management Practices Plan studied the City of Storm Lake evaluating the d areas that needed improvements to build resiliency in the City. These projects are derived list of projects addressing issues and damage in the City. Project Innovation This project is innovative first of all since it is derived from a pilot Green Infrastructure Plan, the first in the State in which capital projects were designed using innovative approaches to water management. In the on-going storm water projects, bio-swells, rain gardens, treatment trains, micro settling pools are used with reductions in the amount of piping. The use of native vegetation to absorb water and reduce the velocity have also been incorporated. The City has two sewer interceptor projects listed in this request which will be lined at a significantly reduced cost from replacement. Most of all, water quality is taken into consideration for each storm water management practice the City undertakes due to our proximity to the lake. Project Partners Roles IEDA Plan development IDALS Funding and technical assistance Buena Vista University Assist with bio-swells &storm water sampling Storm Lake United Coordinates business and industry Committed Funding Source(s) Amount(s) I DALS $80,000 Bonding $5,000,000 Capital Budget $1,500,000 NA NA Anticipated funding request: $6,146,000 D-87 • Q. I noticed on the map that the Decorah Area might not be eligible based on the criteria. Is Decorah Area eligible? A. No but they can benefit from upstream activity.Also as a part of the watershed management authority, they will be part of planning process that helps them. • C. I don't think we're talking about resilience. Resilience is getting back to where you were before after a disaster, but we need to be"anti-fragile", which means we need to be stronger than we were before the disaster. My wife and I see the need to do this because we live along Canoe Creek in the Upper Iowa River Watershed and in the 8 years we have lived there we have had 3 severe floods that have wiped out the county road bridge over the creek right by our property.We see the erosion that occurs during the flooding exacerbating the problem, making the floods worse as we go on. • I agree that a comprehensive program,water quality and water quantity, needs to be developed. Issues start at the top of the hill, not at the bottom and so we need to address issues at the top of the landscape. • The Upper Iowa Drainage District,which is at the end of the Upper Iowa River, notices the sedimentation occurring in the UIR. Back in the late 1950s people/farmers got tired of getting flooded all the time, so they straightened the last 6 miles of the river or so of the river. That and the associated levees allowed us to safely farm the fields adjacent to the river. However, today where we are supposed to have an 8 foot deep channel we are lucky if it is 6 inches deep in some places and we have lost 10-15 feet on either side. • As the Fillmore Co SWCD District Administrator I can give you a Minnesota perspective on the UIRW. This is good timing for us as we are in the midst of preparing a watershed plan for the Root and the Upper Iowa is being included in that process. By the end of this year we hope to have a draft watersheds plan that includes the UIRW. Minnesota SWCDs have been partnering with Iowa SWCDs in the UIRW for over a decade. The development of an Iowa WMA and the planning will help us continue this work at a time when the MN partners are just ramping up. • Q.Why not Howard County?Why wouldn't they be eligible? A. Larry explained there were threshold values for unmet need and LMI that were decided upon by the state. Q. But if MN and Winneshiek Co are doing things why would we leave out Howard County,which is right in the middle.A. Howard County can and should still participate in the WMA as the Disaster Resilience funding is just one type of funding that WMAs and partners can access. Development of policy and proposed voluntary actions can also impact the entire watershed. • Is the main objective to stop the water where it falls, not stop it later? I'm a landowner and I have 5 structures. Five for holding storm water runoff and my cattle also access some of them for water. Because I have put these structures in, seldom does the water move down into Trout River. It stays where it falls. That is what we need to do more of. • I'm a commissioner with the Pioneer Cemeteries of Winneshiek Co and on the Winneshiek County Preservation Committee. I see great opportunities for flood prevention projects to help protect and preserve historic sites along the D-88 river. I can think of several but one I would note in particular is the Spillville Mill but there are many cultural and historic sites along the UIR river that are battered by flooding and could be saved through flood prevention. • A number of years ago the UIR was almost included in the National Wild and Scenic River System.Anything the citizens and people can do to bring attention and/or money to help protect and restore this beautiful resource is something that all of us here today are willing to put in time and resources to see accomplished.We need to see what we can do sooner rather than later. • Even though Decorah may not qualify for funding it appears that there are areas "up north"that might qualify and benefit Decorah. • Q. If 51% has to be spent on low-income housing... (A. Larry- corrected with a discussion of low to moderate income categories. - explained that if the retention ponds are built upstream of a LMI area then they would qualify etc.) • When you look at the map (developed to determine eligible areas for the Disaster Resilience Competition), they are dominated by "census tracks", which have absolutely no relation to water and that is what is confusing the issue. • Its important to look at this (Disaster Resilience funding) as just one block of money. If we form a watershed authority there are other partners and opportunities waiting for us.We can partner with many partners that already know us like the RC&D, TUDARE, NRCS and other entities that can get allot of projects funded and are already concentrating on water quality. This map may show limitations but there are a lot of other entities that can get funding to us and becoming a WMA will put us higher on everyone's list. We need to show everyone that we are working together on in the Upper Iowa River Watershed, because we have and we do. • Q. Is this just looking at structural practices or are you looking at management practices also like cover crops etc? (Larry explained current program rules. One-time money results in one-time capital investments. Might build a pond and put a terrace upstream of a structure but there aren't reoccurring funds for things like cover crops in the Nat Dis Resl funding. IDALS and others have been implementing the recurring programs.) • Q.What are the next steps A. John - get all the political entities that are ready and willing, to sign the 28E. Then we will be a WMA and be on the radar and we can have these people with their ears to the ground to go after available funding.Anyone that wants to take the draft 28e back to their group can do that (passed out draft 28e). County Attorneys will want to look this draft over. If they find language they don't like then we can change it but everyone must approve the revisions. • How do we create a management authority? What are our next steps?A. Lora explained the process again. Noted that WMAs can inform policy. • The UIR Watershed has a long history of working together, SWCDs, TU, PF, Counties and dozens of other groups. We know how to do it and this puts us in a good position to move forward. • Do we need all the towns in the WMA to participate? D-89 • Just need two entities. It could be just a community and a county or a county and an SWCD. • Some of the towns may come on board others may think that because they don't flood this isn't relevant. There are some of the towns on the periphery of the watershed that aren't worried about flooding but they can be key players in help everyone else.We need to make sure they understand that because they are further up in the watershed they are even more important to this effort. • In the TRW several of us went to dozens of communities and explained the process. The TRWMA had a cutoff date for joining and then they have not invited entities in after that. The Upper Wapsi had an initial sign-on but then all the members that signed-on initially went out and recruited more and there was a second sign-on. • Q. How is the WMA Board formed?Who gets to sit on the WMA Board. Who decides who is on the WMA Board?A. Invitation, appointment and each member selects their own representative. UIR is looking at 13 legal entities that must and have been invited but we only actually are required to have 2. • Q. How is the Executive Committee formed and represented.A. In the TRWMA the Board included criteria in their Bylaws regarding the make-up and duties of the E.C. etc. The Entire WMA committee meets quarterly. The E.C. meets as needed. • Q. If you join,what are you committed to? A.Attending meetings. • Q. Is there any match money required for grants.A.Yes, some grants require match but others do not. • Q. Is this a local board or will there be state/DNR people on it telling us what to do? A. Local - each member appointed by member entity. • Eventually I would like to see this be farmer driven. There are some 32 watersheds in the UIR. It could be divided into 4 segments where everyone would know everyone else. Winneshiek Co could be divided into three areas. • A large contributor of the water is the ag land and water quality. • We should strive for farmer participation.We have gotten up to 75 participation in the watershed in some type of practice. • IN the TRW-we surveyed 1500 people and included producers and communities to get a viewpoint from each.We had a 30% response rate. Best feedbacks were in the comments and for the last question,which was "Would you be willing to do something on your land?" 60% in both ag and urban groups said they would do something. It was a statistically valid survey with a 95% confidence rate that the response would be the same in the entire TRW.We need people to provide technical assistance - because we have 60% of 30,000 people that want to do something but who is there to go out and connect with those thousands of people to do something. • Winneshiek County Board of Supervisors will put the UIR WMA 28e agreement on their agenda for Monday the 241h of August and consider writing the letter for the national resilience competition on Monday. D-90 Public Meeting: National Disaster Resilience Competition - Upper Iowa River Watershed Thursday,August 20 2015-Winneshiek County Courthouse Name Organization Address City Sign Up for Email Information? O --rRIA IIA/1 CA �:ber TTSS�i-Z rf Wtbe/ P4. .\ . Cn Alii_' C-11,U 0� ,e rrl 0 p 4 N ' 2�Z6 Z3T O cn na,ras�u.sson C' C= ;S D-91 I Public Meeting: National Disaster Resilience Competition - Upper Iowa River Watershed Thursday,August 20 2015 -Winneshiek County Courthouse Name Organization Address city Sign Up for Email Information? Merin c�so on. lay Vte NA 27� QZ. • ve/5 L) CCar\PN 5ojo L -� W,V)A �n,e(c SwCp . L W/w/v Go• ,er�eErCPnri . a�26 /73 �°u� (�ucc�P/l., I inc-:1:40sk non GO-7S. 1n I I I carob mei �$7� mu Y �!(j q, .` '1'�( rf/� f /�Y{ Lemli •` /c�.<1n Zg>�c! 1r oc�c� yc�c RC 221IQ 0.1 We\\R wrap I"odd.dunc '4"u. cr ro g s prll�moks2 SwC7 COS5 C � NW Wain on scrc,.bu �C;a.nucdne et ° wr w o 11 /}N Alalt- /u9,",r//FZ co s4���+mss /O�r //R/b 76 W// t f 4 v 06 ����a��/-�c..A oee Crlf /✓� 1552ILCKGva�\1U.�(Z l/P� w Jy W.((;d✓ kr rP� /W'l� M 1 1 wa, 2ri Jolter /\ O0.0 G2 LL+� ow <r .224V /'i dd Je C2l 2i a.-i <coi� Yei LCco,e.-/,, CEvEjs�z¢. n�tnza/�. C� 2p D-92 NAME EN REPRESENTED EMAILADDRESS DE ATE OR ALTERNATE Rk6RLE' -'�aC�43;.v 1nyf,' q/� wt)Qa b25 nMtl-Ccs yC. 7-e�K segue Qo s� o m`� � c�L 11 Ova fL kY'Y �7 u Lie Ql.cs '1a.<w.� � 1icl�<.alllntas ��•�.u�1-- D-93 NAME ENTRY REPRESENTED EMAILADDRESS DELAGATEOR // ALTERNATE TIT '� L Ng 67er C Fk, d ti fl 2 ///''2 P/ / //'' ! 1JffdG�(�J. •s.�r. - o �� ,� d �--{�'f/�Q SCL (ti. tcN 3 CCC,— ]4 ,• � Ge,4 L'n Ca..n4 Cw. enntr / Q I{- l:..v<.,..1 e .Del� nC 6a.he�ard:i4, ��` D-94 u S -DolS- NAME ENTT'REPRESENTED EM LADDRESS DELAGATE OR lE TE i J L: "l, Hv eS i O� 4 4A(A 6cr4A� T15-61. �4�.L LI �ivin tPun� OwSC1�iM� l.L�ucC.0 I�Lind�kint.r. D-9$ NDRC community engagement meeting—Upper Wapsipinicon 8/5/2015 1:30pm—3:30pm Participants: Lora Friest with Northeast Iowa Resource Conservation and Development(RC&D) and interested stakeholders (see attached sign-in sheet). Discussion: A meeting was held on August 5, 2015 to discuss the National Disaster Resilience Competition (NDRC)funding proposal and the inclusion of the Upper Wapsipinicon River Watershed (UWRW) in the project. Lora Friest with the Northeast Iowa RC&D approached interested stakeholders to explain the proposed project in the UWRW. In order to include the watershed in the proposal, a lead partner needs to be identified that will agree to help administer the project. Howard County has been identified as the most likely lead partner to assist with the project. Friest provided a summary explaining the NDRC proposal and used a PowerPoint presentation to describe the project(see attached). After the presentation, the meeting was opened up for discussion and an opportunity was provided to attendees to ask questions or provide comments. Questions/Comments: - What can the funding be used for? - Should we show the dedication of the watershed by giving them information about what we have already done? In particular, protection of the corridor but also other things we have done to reduce flood risk? - There is a DVD with stories from the Cedar River in Cedar Rapids that could be helpful for the application. - Will some of the funding be used to slow the water down? Talking to S WCD Commissioners,they have used a lot of funding to catch water outside of the cities in swales and ponds, etc. We have a lot of pasture in the Upper Wapsi Watershed that are sitting empty and could be used as water reservoirs to hold water. - Central City policy requires developers to set aside a certain amount of land per development as a retention basin for storm water runoff. This might be a model for other communities in our watershed or in the State. It helps hold back storm water until it can drain down slowly. - In the process of holding the water back, you are also filtering out the solids and the water that is released is cleaner and that is a big factor. This is really important because as river water levels raise higher due to siltation,the flooding spreads out further. - Unique to our watershed is that we have extensive educational programming in nature centers and other education with private landowners. We are unique in D-96 eastern Iowa with more educational programming and facilities that operate. The Upper Wapsi WMA could have a great model for outreach. In the Upper Wapsi Watershed, we have many landowners that are open to voluntary implementation of practices that slow down water and improve water quality. We have better participation and support from landowners than other parts of the state. The Upper Wapsi WMA will be engaging many stakeholder groups including producer groups and others. There are four or five council of governments, serving at least 14 or 15 of our communities, involved in the Upper Wapsi that could bring resources to the table and we want to be involved. The group was informed of the neat steps that would need to be taken. A letter of intent to participate and a partnership agreement would need to be approved by the county that agrees to be the lead entity. A member of the NDRC proposal team will be in touch with the representative from Howard County to send them a drafted letter and partnership agreement to be put on an upcoming Board of Supervisors meeting for approval. D-97 National Disaster Resilience Competition (NDRC) Applicant: State of Iowa Funder: US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), in collaboration with the Rockefeller Foundation. Funding Level: The National Disaster Resilience Competition (NDRC) will make nearly $1 billion available to communities that have been impacted by natural disasters in recent years. Applicants: 40 applicants were invited to submit a full proposal to compete for these funds. HUD indicated that 15-20 applicants would likely be funded in this competition, so the odds for each applicant are reasonable. Program Goals • Help communities recover from prior disasters and improve their ability to withstand and recover more quickly from future disasters, hazards, and shocks. • Consider future risks and vulnerabilities in planning and decision-making. • Help communities better understand their risks and identify ways in which they can protect the long-term well-being and safety of residents. Iowa will propose a project designed to enhance disaster resilience. The project will fully articulate resilience-enhancing disaster recovery or revitalization projects and programs addressed in their Phase I proposal. Background Cities and towns face significant economic and social risks from extreme weather events. These risks are projected to increase substantially due to climate change, sea level rise, and increased development in coastal areas and other vulnerable locations. In spite of advances in disaster preparedness, extreme weather is now affecting the safety, health, and economies of entire regions.American communities cannot effectively reduce their risks and vulnerabilities without considering future extreme events and the effects of climate change in their everyday planning and decision-making. The competition will encourage communities to not only consider how they can recover from a past disaster but also how to avoid future disaster losses. Applicants will need to link or"tie- back"their proposals to the disaster from which they are recovering, as well as demonstrate how they are reducing future risks and advancing broader community development goals within in their target geographic area(s) D-98 Eligible Applicants All states with counties that experienced a Presidentially Declared Major Disaster in 2011, 2012 or 2013 were eligible to submit Phase 1 applications that address unmet needs as well as vulnerabilities to future extreme events, stresses, threats, hazards, or other shocks in areas that were most impacted and distressed as a result of the effects of the Qualified Disaster. Defining Resilience A resilient community is able to resist and rapidly recover from disasters or other shocks with minimal outside assistance. Reducing current and future risk is essential to the long- term vitality, economic well-being, and security of all communities. By identifying future risk and vulnerabilities, resilient recovery planning can maximize preparedness, save lives, and bring benefits to a community long after recovery projects are complete. This competition encourages American communities to consider not only the infrastructure needed to become resilient, but also the social and economic characteristics that allow communities to quickly bounce back after a disruption. For example, applicants need to consider how their projects will promote community development goals, ensure meaningful public engagement and participation, and build collaborations with neighboring jurisdictions and stakeholders who are critical partners in preventing, mitigating, and recovering from disasters. Objectives of the National Disaster Resilience Competition The NDRC will build on the successful model of Rebuild by Design, which emphasized innovative designs and community engagement to develop resilient projects to recover from Hurricane Sandy. The NDRC expands the reach of that approach to a national scale. Through the NDRC, HUD seeks to meet the following six objectives: 1. Fairly and effectively allocate the CDBG Disaster Recovery funds. 2. Create multiple examples of modern disaster recovery that applies science-based and forward-looking risk analysis to address recovery, resilience, and revitalization needs. 3. Leave a legacy of institutionalizing the implementation of thoughtful, sound, and resilient approaches to address future risks in state and local decision making and planning. 4. Provide resources to help communities plan and implement disaster recovery that makes them more resilient to future threats or hazards, including extreme weather events and climate change, while also improving quality of life for existing residents and making communities more resilient to economic stresses or other shocks. D-99 5. Fully engage and inform community stakeholders about the impacts of climate change and assist in developing pathways to resilience based on sound science. 6. Leverage investments from the philanthropic community to help communities define problems, set policy goals, explore options, and craft solutions for local and regional resilient recovery strategies. Phase L• The Framing Phase Iowa demonstrated how their concept helps Iowa communities recover from the effects of the covered disaster (flooding), advances community development objectives such as economic revitalization, and improves the community's ability to absorb and rapidly recover from the effects of future extreme rainfall events. (Constraint—address unmet recovery needs stemming from the effect of the community's Presidentially-declared major disaster from 2011, 2012, or 2013 and proposal must primarily benefit the most impacted and distressed areas related to the Qualified Disaster.) Phase 2: The Implementation Phase Draft synopsis statement: We propose a program through which Iowans will work together to address factors upstream that contribute to downstream floods. We will improve quality of life and health statewide through upstream watershed improvements tied to community revitalization efforts. This will result in a state-of-the art adaptive model to make Iowa's vulnerable populations and environment more resilient in changing climate today and for the next century. Funding Request: Around $100 - Million Plan Components: Unmet Housing and Infrastructure Needs Watershed Approach Through this program,we will engage 10-12 watersheds in Iowa that were identified as having unmet recovery needs from the 2011-2013 disasters. With each watershed,we will go through a process similar to the Iowa Watersheds Project (formation of WMA, hydrologic assessment,watershed plan, selection of sub- watersheds for constructed projects, project construction, and monitoring/evaluation). Watersheds that have already progressed through some of these steps will be further along in the process and will reach the project construction phase sooner. D-100 As per the proposal notice,we must meet certain criteria. So watershed (and sub-watershed) selection criteria will include: • The extent and location of unmet recovery needs • The extent and location of LMI and other vulnerable communities/groups in the watershed • Community interest and engagement • Potential for leveraging other related projects in the watershed We are currently seeking input on the criteria above, and specifically: • What is the local interest and enthusiasm for forming a WMA in this watershed? • We seek help identifying the most vulnerable populations in your watershed who may benefit from this program. This may be based on a wide range of criteria from socio-economic to ethnicity, age, education level, etc. Are there any groups who are especially susceptible to flooding? • As we develop the proposal, what is the best way to stay in touch with folks in this watershed and to garner their opinion/input? Leveraging Dollars Planning Partners will be working with State of Iowa leadership to identify state dollars that can be used for leverage. Prioritization of Watersheds If your watershed qualifies and is selected to part of the Iowa proposal application, a partner agreement with a local governmental agency must be executed prior to the proposal submittal. This governmental agent should be identified soon so the partner agreement can be discussed and developed. Phase II Fact sheet http_//12ortal.hud.gov/hudl2ortal/documents/huddoc?id=NDRCFactSheetFINAL.12df Iowa's Phase II application will be available online for public review and comment in mid to late September. D-101 ATIONAL DISASTER RESILIENCE COMPETITION An Iowa Perspective Breanna Zimmerman University of Iowa — Iowa Flood Center Outreach Coordinator Iowa City, Iowa 319-384-1729 ' • � • IIHI� • IIHR is a unit o e of I College of Engineering • Founded in 1920 — leading fluids-related research and Ull i engineering labs • IFC Funded at IIHR in `09 • IFC is nation's first university- based center for research related to floods IOWA FLOOD INFORMATION SYSTEM ° .n • • cep •� \ tie III It ava. _ . � • � ,• cis o i : o °� ��i, o o • . +'' IOWA WATERSHEDS PROJECT ,I , i F. . • Award $S.SM from HUD for project ➢ Goals: maximize soil water holding capacity, minimize erosion and sedimentation, manage runoff upstream, reduce flood damage • Current projects: Soap/Chequest, Middle Raccoon River, Turkey River, Upper Cedar • Phase 1: Hydrologic assessment/modeling • Phase ItConstruction of projects in three HUC 12s (Otter Creek, Beaver Creek, South Chequest Creek) NDRC • Funder: US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), in collaboration with the Rockefeller Foundation • $ 1 billion funds available • Applicant: State of Iowa • Phase II Applicants: 40 applicants invited; 15-20 expected to be funded • IFC working with HSEMD and IEDA PROGRAM GOALS • Help communities recover from prior disasters and their ability to withstand and recover more quickly fro future disasters, hazards, and shocks • Consider future risks and vulnerabilities in planning and decision-making • Help communities better understand their risks and identify ways in which they can protect the long-term well-being and safety of residents JUSTIFICATION • Cities and towns face significant economic an from extreme weather events • These risks are expected to increase substantially due to climate and environmental factors beyond the control of the vulnerable populations • We can not effectively reduce our risks and vulnerabilities without considering future extreme events in planning and decision-making PROGRAM QUALIFICATIONS • Applicants must link or "tie-back" their proposals to the disaster from which they are recovering • Eligibility includes states and counties that experienced a Presidential Declared Major Disaster in 2011, 2012, 2013 • Need to show 50(+)% benefit to LMI communities • Areas with environmental or infrastructure URN'S are eligible to receive funds RESILIENCE • A community is able to resist and rapidly recover from disaster with minimal outside assistance • Consideration should include infrastructure needs, as well as the social and economic characteristics that allow communities to recover quickly from disruptions RESILIENCE • Applicants must consider how projects • Promote community development goals • Ensure meaningful public engagement and participation • Build collaborations with neighboring jurisdictions and stakeholders who are critical partners in preventing, mitigating and recovering from disasters NDRC OBJECTIVES • Fairly and effectively allocate federal CDBG Disaste Recovery funds • Create multiple examples of modern disaster recovery that applies science-based and forward-looking risk analysis to address recovery, resilience, and revitalization needs • Provide resources to help communities plan and implement disaster recovery that make them more resilient to future threats including extreme weather events NDRC OBJECTIVES • Improve quality of life for exiting residents • Make communities more resilient to economic stresses o othershocks • Leverage investments from the philanthropic community to help communities define problems, set policy goals, explore options, and craft solutions for local and regional resilient recovery strategies . .161 . . . 4 apno s co All ca rI reek Ali 118, CIA o. a k.. fn II a.M1_, n e s .. 01,9111, .'Go WA.AI.A Ial.v. I.,,Ierl n o a INS FIRTI 114 Watershed Management Authorities with 28E Agreements PM „... ._... _. ..,..... WMA FORMATION • Conduct planning on a watershed scale, which has greater benefits for water quality improvement and flood risk reduction • Foster multi-jurisdictional partnership and cooperation • Leveraging resources such as funding, technical expertise • Facilitate stakeholder involvement in watershed management • Better communication about priorities, projects, and resource concerns • Invite all cities, counties, and Soil and Water Conservation Districts to participate in the WMA hnp: //www.iowadnr. gov/Environment/Wateroualjty/WatershedM anagementAuthorities.aslx HYDROLOGIC ASSESSMENT • Hydrologic assessment of each entire watershed • Iowa Flood Center will develop hydrologic models for e basin and run simulations to understand the potential effectiveness of various hypothetical mitigation strategies • The hydrologic assessments will include a comparison of the water cycle across the watersheds and an analysis of hypothetical watershed scenarios that seek to reduce flood damages including changes to infiltration in the watershed and increased storage on the landscape INPUT NEEDED • What is the local interest and enthusiasm for forming or continuing to work with a WMA in this watershed? • Who are the most vulnerable populations in your watershed who may benefit from this program? This may be based on a wide range of criteria from socio-economic to ethnicity, age, education level, etc. • Are there any groups who are especially susceptible to flooding? • As the proposal is developed, what is the best way to stay in touch with folks in this watershed and to garner their opinion/input? NEXT STEPS • Input to the State • If your watershed qualifies and is selected to part of the Iowa proposal application, a partner agreement with a local governmental agency must be executed prior to the proposal submittal This governmental agent should be identified soon so the partner agreement can be discussed and developed. • A fact sheet is available and the application will be available for public review and comment in mid to late September at: • httn://i)ortal.hud.gov/hudi)ortal/documents/huddoc?id=N DRCFactSheetFINAL.ndf PUBLIC COMMENTS Comment Summary The State of Iowa's Phase II Application for the National Disaster Resiliency Competition was released for Public Comment on October 5, 2015. The public comment period for the document ran from October 5 through October 19, 2015. The posting of the application was hosted on the Iowa Economic Development Authority's website and a media advisory was distributed for publication. In addition to the above, a public hearing was hosted by the Iowa Economic Development Authority on October 12, 2015 at 10:00 AM. at their office in Des Moines, Iowa. No questions or comments were received from the public on Iowa's Phase II Application. D-121 Consistency with Other Planning Documents 1) Consolidated Plan: See HUD 2991 with Attachment C, Certifications 2) Mitigation Plan: Iowa is one of only 12 states with a FEMA-approved Enhanced State Mitigation Plan (see attached letter), demonstrating that Iowa has developed a comprehensive state-wide mitigation program, including all of the target MID-URN areas. U.S.Department of Homeland Security Region VII 9221 Ward Parkway,Suite 300 Kansas City,MO 64114-3372 af��f �.k FEMA Gvo scC' July 1,2014 Mr. Mark Schouten, Director Iowa Homeland Security& Emergency Management 7105 NW 70th Avenue Camp Dodge, Building W-4 Johnston, Iowa 50131 Re: Approval of the Iowa State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Dear Mr. Schouten: Thank you for submitting the Iowa State Enhanced State Mitigation Plan for consideration and review. I am pleased to inform you that the Enhanced State Mitigation Plan is approved as of July 1, 2014. The State Mitigation Plan was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 44 CFR Part 201 — Hazard Mitigation Planning and the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, dated January 2008. This letter also informs you of a change to the approval period for State Mitigation Plans. On April 25, 2014, the Final Rule amending the Mitigation Planning regulations (44 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 201), specifically 44 C.F.R. §§ 201.3(b)(5), 201.3(c)(2), 201.3(c)(3), 201.3(e)(3), 201.4(d), 201.5(a), 201.5(c)(1), and 201.5(c)(2), was published in the Federal Register (80 FR 22873). The Rule reduces the frequency of Standard State and Enhanced State Mitigation Plan updates by extending the update requirement from three (3) to five (5) years. This change became effective May 27, 2014. Therefore, the Iowa State Mitigation Plan will be extended for a period of two years for a total of five (5) years through September 18, 2018 Based on this approval, for disaster declarations after this date, Iowa is to receive increased funds under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) of up to twenty percent of the total estimated eligible Stafford Act disaster assistance. In accordance with the five-year revision requirement, your enhanced plan and status is in effect until September 18, 2018—five years from the date of FEMA's approval of the Standard Plan. FEMA approval of your Enhanced State mitigation plan ensures the continued availability within your State of non-emergency Stafford Act funding (Hazard Mitigation Assistance planning and project grants, Fire Management Assistance, and Public Assistance categories C-G). All requests for funding, however, will be evaluated individually according to the specific eligibility and other requirements of the particular program under which the application is submitted. Although the Enhanced status is approved, the approval is based upon continued demonstration of improvement to the grants management performance capability and the requirement in 44 CFR 201.6(d)(1) that requires local plans be submitted to the State for initial review and coordination. www.fema.gov Schouten Letter July 1, 2014 Page 2 The next review and update of your Hazard Mitigation Plan must be approved by FEMA and adopted by the State no later than September 18, 2018. During that review, we expect the State to address any data limitations noted in the plan, and to document progress made on the implementation of the State's mitigation strategy and the Planning Process. In addition, FEMA approval of your Enhanced State mitigation plan is based partially on a review of your mitigation program management performance [44 CFR 201.5 (b)(2)(iii A-D)]. It is important to be aware that when you submit your updated plan for FEMA approval, in accordance with our regulatory requirement, the review of your mitigation program management performance will cover the full period of time between this approval and the next submission of your plan. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Michael Scott, Director, Mitigation Division at (816) 283-7004. Sincerely, 7c�lJ 1 flzy"�� Beth Freeman Regional Administrator Enclosure Attachment H Crosswalk State of Iowa Iowa PhaseII Crosswalk.pdf Appendix J: CDBG-RDR Crosswalk Checklist(Table of Contents) Applicant Name (must match name of eligible applicant): State of Iowa Primary Responsible Agency:Iowa Economic Development Authority Competition Phase:II Exhibit PHASE 2 Document/filename Page Crosswalk Checklist/Table of Contents Iowa_PhaseII_ExecutiveSu 1-3 A Executive Summary mary.pdf Iowa_PhaseII_Threshold.pdf 4-16 B Threshold Narrative See also Google Drive (links provided) General Section Iowa PhaseII Threshold. df 4 Eligible Applicant 4 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, Eligible County 11, 12, 13 Most Impacted and 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, Distressed Tar et Area 11 12 13 14 Eligible Activity 4 Proposal 4 Incorporates Resilience National Objective 4 Overall Benefit 4 Iowa_PhaseII_Threshold.pdf 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 Tie-back Iowa_PhaseII_SoundnessOf 64, 71, 74-75, 79- Approach.pdf 80, 84-86, 89-91, 94-95, 98-99, 104-106, 109-111 One application per Iowa_PhaseII_Threshold.pdf 4 Applicant Iowa_PhaseII_Certifications. C-1 to C-4 Certifications pdf C Factor 1 - Capacity Iowa_PhaseII_Capacity.pdf 17-32 Subfactor: Past experience 17-25 Subfactor: Management 25-32 structure Iowa_PhaseII_Need- 33-41 D Factor 2- Need Extent.pdf Subfactor: Target Iowa_PhaseII_Need- 33-36 area/unmet needs Extent.pdf Iowa PhaseII BCA F-1 Subfactor: Resilience need 36-39 Subfactor: Best actions 39-41 E Factor 3- Soundness of Iowa_PhaseII_SoundnessOf 42-112 Approach Approach.pdf Subfactor: Project/frame 42-43, 52-53, correspond Subfactor: Increases 52-57, resilience Subfactor: 42, 51, 58, 60, 67, Model/replicable/holistic 69 51, 57, 67, 72, 82, Subfactor: Schedule 77, 82, 87, 92, 97, 102, 107, 111, Iowa_PhaseII_SoundnessOf 61-62, 67, 72, 77, Approach.pdf 82, 87, 92, 97, 102, 107, 112 Subfactor: Budget & Iowa_PhaseII_LeverageDoc B-1 to B-5 umentation.pdf Subfactor: Plan Iowa_PhaseII_SoundnessOf 61 consistency Approach.pdf Iowa_PhaseII_Consultation D-122 to D-124 Summary.pdf F Factor 4 - Leverage owa PhaseII_Leverage.pdf 113-114 G Factor 5-Long-Term Iowa_PhaseII_RegionalCoo 115-120 Commitment d-Commitment.pdf No page limit Partner Documentation for Iowa_PhaseII_Partnerpocs. A-1 to A-106 Each Partner pdf Leverage Documentation Iowa_PhaseII_LeverageDoc B-6 to B-36 mentation.pdf owa_PhaseII_Consultation D-1 to D-120 Consultation Summary Summary.pdf Optional Maps, Drawings, Iowa_PhaseII_Maps&Diag E-1 to E-30 Renderings rams. df Waiver Requests owa PhaseII_Waivers.pdf G-1 to G-4 Benefit-Cost Analysis Iowa PhaseII BCA.pdf F-1 to F-107 Crosswalk Checklist Iowa PhaseII Crosswalk.pd H-1 to H-3 SF-424Forms-grants.gov N/A Sources and Uses Iowa_PhaseII_LeverageDoc B-1 to B-5 of Funds umentation.pdf Comment Summary by Iowa_PhaseII_Consultation D-121 Topic, List of Summary.pdf Comments, and Applicant Response MID-URN Summary Iowa_PhaseII_MID- I-1 to I-84 Checklist URN.pdf Google Drive (links provided) Attachment H Crosswalk State of Iowa Iowa PhaseII Crosswalk.pdf Appendix J:CDBG-RDR Crosswalk Checklist(Table of Contents) Applicant Name (must match name of eligible applicant): State of Iowa Primary Responsible Agency:Iowa Economic Development Authority Competition Phase:II Exhibit PHASE 2 Document/filename Page Crosswalk Checklist/Table of Contents owa_PhaseII_ExecutiveSu 1-3 A Executive Summary mary.pdf Iowa_PhaseII_Threshold.pdf 4-16 B Threshold Narrative See also Google Drive (links provided) General Section lowa PhaseII Threshold. df 4 Eligible Applicant 4 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, Eligible County 11, 12, 13 Most Impacted and 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, Distressed Target Area 11 12 13 14 Eligible Activity 4 Proposal 4 Incorporates Resilience National Objective 4 Overall Benefit 4 Iowa_PhaseII_Threshold.pdf 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 Tie-back Iowa_PhaseII_SoundnessOf 64, 71, 74-75, 79- Approach.pdf 80, 84-86, 89-91, 94-95, 98-99, 104-106, 109-111 One application per Iowa_PhaseII_Threshold.pdf 4 Applicant Iowa_PhaseII_Certifications. C-1 to C-4 Certifications pdf C Factor 1 - Capacity Iowa_PhaseII_Capacity.pdf 17-32 Subfactor: Past experience 17-25 Subfactor: Management 25-32 structure Iowa_PhaseII_Need- 33-41 D Factor 2- Need Extent.pdf Subfactor: Targe Iowa_PhaseII_Need- 33-36 area/unmet need Extent.pdf Iowa PhaseII BCA F-1 Subfactor: Resilience need 36-39 Subfactor: Best actions 39-41 E Factor 3 -Soundness of Iowa_PhaseII_SoundnessOf 42-112 Approach Approach.pdf Subfactor: Project/frame 42-43, 52-53, correspond Subfactor: Increases 52-57, resilience Subfactor: 42, 51, 58, 60, 67, Model/replicable/holistic 69 51, 57, 67, 72, 82, Subfactor: Schedule 77, 82, 87, 92, 97, 102, 107, 111, Iowa_PhaseII_SoundnessO 61-62, 67, 72, 77, Approach.pdf 82, 87, 92, 97, 102, 107, 112 Subfactor: Budget & Iowa_PhaseII_LeverageDoc B-1 to B-5 umentation.pdf Subfactor: Plan Iowa_Phasell SoundnessOf 61 consistency Approach.pdf Iowa_PhaseII_Consultation D-122 to D-124 Summary.pdf F Factor 4 - Leverage owa_PhaseII_Leverage.pdf 113-114 G Factor 5 -Long-Term Iowa_PhaseII_RegionalCoo 115-120 Commitment d-Commitment.p df No page limit Partner Documentation for Iowa_PhaseII_Partnerpocs. A-1 to A-106 Each Partner pdf Leverage Documentation Iowa_PhaseII_LeverageDoc B-6 to B-36 mentation.pdf owa_PhaseII_Consultation D-1 to D-120 Consultation Summary Summary.pdf Optional Maps, Drawings, Iowa_PhaseII_Maps&Ding E-1 to E-30 Renderings rams.pdf Waiver Requests owa_PhaseII_Waivers.pdf resilientrecovervA ud. ov Benefit-Cost Analysis Iowa_PhaseII_BCA.pdf F-1 to F-107 Crosswalk Checklist owa PhaseII Crosswalk.pd H-1 to H-3 SF-424 orms- rants. ov N/A Sources and Uses Iowa_PhaseII_LeverageDoc B-1 to B-5 of Funds umentation.pdf Comment Summary by Iowa_PhaseII_Consultation D-121 Topic, List of Summary.pdf Comments, and Applicant Response MID-URN Summary Iowa_PhaseII_MID- I-1 to I-84 Checklist URN.pdf oogle Drive (links rovided) Attachment B Leverage Documentation State of Iowa Iowa PhaseII LeverageDocumentation.pdf Sources and Uses Project Costs The following project implementation expenses represent CDBG grant request funds, city direct leverage for infrastructure and housing activities, and landowner direct leverage for watershed project implementation. These activities are specifically described in the project descriptions (see project numbers under "Use of Funds"). Direct leverage from the participating cities is for direct infrastructure construction. Landowner leverage (State of Iowa leverage letter) represents 25%required landowner leverage. Total project implementation costs, including direct leverage, is $150,002,417. Source of Funds Use of Funds Project# and CDBG PROJECT CDBG city Landowner Activity Type City of Dubuque $11,091,767 $800,000 1. Housing Rehab 2. Flood Drainage/Infrastructure City of Dubuque $28,100,000 $21,600,000 Improvements Winneshiek Co.- 3. Watershed Design, Upper Iowa $8,190,000 $2,217,500 Construction, Monitoring Winneshiek Co.- Upper Iowa $375,000 3. Watershed Coordinator Howard Co.-Upper 4. Watershed Design, Wa si $5,460,000 $1,462,500 Construction, Monitoring Howard Co.-Upper Wapsi $375,000 4. Watershed Coordinator Benton Co.-Middle 5. Watershed Design, Cedar $14,775,000 $4,025,000 Construction, Monitoring Benton Co.-Middle Cedar $375,000 5. Watershed Coordinator B-1 Johnson Co.-Clear 6. Watershed Design, Creek $5,460,000 $1,488,750 Construction, Monitoring Johnson Co.-Clear Creek $375,000 6. Watershed Coordinator 6. Flood City of Coralville- Drainage/Infrastructure Infrastructure $1,834,800 $611,600 Improvements Iowa Co.-English 7. Watershed Design, River $8,190,000 $2,218,750 Construction, Monitoring Iowa Co.-English River $375,000 7. Watershed Coordinator Buena Vista Co.-N 8. Watershed Design, Raccoon $5,460,000 $1,486,250 Construction, Monitoring Buena Vista Co.-N Raccoon $375,000 8. Watershed Coordinator City of Storm Lake- 8. Infrastructure Infrastructure $6,474,750 $2,158,250 Improvements Fremont Co.-E 9. Watershed Design, Nishnabotna $2,730,000 $746,250 Construction, Monitoring Fremont Co.-E Nishnabotna $375,000 9. Watershed Coordinator Mills Co.-W. 10. Watershed Design, Nishnabotna $8,190,000 $2,231,250 Construction, Monitoring Mills Co.-W. Nishnabotna $375,000 10. Watershed Coordinator Total Award + Direct $108,956,317 $25,169,850 $15,876,250 Leverage B-2 Planning Costs The planning expenses include: WMA Formation and Capacitv Building: See Soundness of Approach, Program 1, programmatic component 2. Iowa Department of Natural Resources staff time to support formation of Watershed Management Authorities. Also capacity-building activities as described. (Stakeholder) Engagement and Outreach: See Soundness of Approach, Program 1, programmatic component 3. Iowa State University, University of Northern Iowa, and the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship will engage in program development and delivery. Budget includes staff time, materials, and travel for development of engagement and educational programs in support of the WMAs and especially the participating landowners. The Iowa Farm Bureau offers direct leverage for delivery of program information in target areas. WMA Advisory Board Activities/Events/Symnosium: See Soundness of Approach, Program 1, programmatic component 3. IFC staff time, materials, and travel by staff and participants for frequent WMA advisory board meetings, field site events, and public symposium. Hvdrologic Network: See Soundness of Approach, Program 1, programmatic component 4. IFC equipment, travel, and staff time for deployment of a hydrologic network and data collection. Hvdrologic Assessments and Watershed Plans: See Soundness of Approach, Program 1, programmatic components 5 and 6. IFC staff time, travel, computing, and supplies related to development of these plans. IFC direct leverage represents hydrologic assessment data collection and assessment development. Resiliency Programming: See Soundness of Approach, Program 2. IFC and Center for Evaluation and Assessment(CEA) staff time and travel for programmatic assessment, development, and delivery. B-3 Outreach: Emergencv Planning: See Soundness of Approach, Program 2. HSEMD staff time, travel, and supplies for comprehensive emergency management planning with emergency management agencies and communities. Evaluation and Assessment: See Soundness of Approach, page 59. CEA staff time,travel, and supplies for assessment of the overall IWA program. Total planning costs, including direct leverage, is $15,800,091. Source of Funds Uses of Funds Farm PLANNING ACTIVITY CDBG IFC Bureau CDBG Activity Type WMA Formation and IDNR: WMA Formation and Capacity Building $640,000 Capacity Building ISU: Program Development and Engagement and Outreach $3,250,000 $67,951 Delivery IDALS: Program Development and Engagement and Outreach $250,000 Delivery UNI: Program Development and Engagement and Outreach $675,000 Delivery WMA Advisory Board IFC: Events, Meetings, Activities $500,000 Symposiums IFC: Sensor Deployment, Data Hydrologic Network $750,000 Collection IFC: Watershed Hydrologic Hydrologic Assessments $1,525,000 $1,000,000 Assessment Watershed Plan $1,600,000 IFC: Watershed Plans IFC: Assessment, Development, Resiliency Programming $3,988,348 Delivery Outreach: Emergency Planning $1,974,280 HSEMD: Emergency Planning UI: Evaluation of Process and Evaluation and Assessment $482,863 Metrics B-4 PreAward Expenses $164,600 HSEIVID, IFC, Dubuque $15,800,091 $1,000,000 $67,951 Total Award +Direct Leverage Total Sources and Uses • Total project implementation costs: $150,002,417. • Total planning costs: $15,800,091. • Total administrative expenses: $6,237,820 • Total project, planning, and administration: $173,108,279 B-5 / ,OF TBEST 9 W o Terry E. Branstad OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR Kim Reynolds GOVERNOR LT. GOVERNOR October 16, 2015 The Honorable Julian Castro Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 451 7th Street S.W. Washington, DC 20410 Dear Secretary Castro: The state of Iowa is pleased to submit its application as part of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's National Disaster Resilience Competition. Resiliency is a guiding principle that can appeal to individuals across the ideological spectrum to ensure holistic and coordinated approaches to meet public policy challenges and unmet needs that reduce long-term costs to hardworking taxpayers. The goals of our project, the Iowa Watershed Approach, are to reduce flood risk and improve water quality in Iowa by implementing a suite of projects upstream that retain water and increase infiltration. This project is consistent with other collaborative statewide programs in Iowa to reduce flooding and improve water quality, such as the Iowa Flood Mitigation Program and the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. Strong correlation between flood reduction and nutrient reduction provides a great opportunity to strengthen urban and rural resiliency within targeted watersheds in a cost-effective manner that delivers many ancillary benefits that further stretch finite, hardworking taxpayer dollars. State of Iowa leaders support a collaborative approach to flood mitigation and water quality that empowers partnerships, bridges the urban-rural divide, is science-based, and data-driven. The Iowa Watershed Approach, as outlined in the state's grant application, would further drive such collaboration to primarily advance two important public policy objectives—reduced flood risk and improved water quality. Further, it will also expand wildlife habitat, increase recreation and tourism, and enhance Iowa's long-term ability to feed and fuel a growing world population. Iowa's project directly engages local private agricultural producers in eight targeted rural watersheds for the construction of rural projects that will reduce peak water flows downstream. The state's application also includes Dubuque infrastructure and housing rehabilitation components as part of the Bee Branch project. The rural watershed projects will directly benefit resiliency in the rural landscape and also bolster resiliency in downstream communities and natural resources throughout the watershed by mitigating flooding and improving water quality. In short, the Iowa Watershed Approach represents Iowa's vision for the future, transitioning away from just hardening structures downstream and taking strategic steps throughout the watershed to bolster overall B-6 Office of the Mayor THE CITY OF Dubuque City Hall 50 West 13`"Street R ��' Dubuque, IA 52001-4864 DUB L IldunericaCit' www.cityofdubuque.org Ila Masterpiece on the Mississippi zW .2012,201 September 30, 2015 Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 East Grand Ave Des Moines, IA 50309 Re: Intent to Participate This letter is to confirm the mutual intent of both Iowa Economic Development Authority and the City of Dubuque to collaborate and enter into a subrecipient agreement, contract, or other agreement, as applicable, contingent upon the award of funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience (CDBG-NDR) competition, to carry out eligible activities as provided in the Iowa Economic Development Authority CDBG-NDR application. Dubuque, Iowa is a community of approximately 58,000 located along the bluffs of the Mississippi River. Since 2006, the City Council has made becoming a more sustainable, resilient community their Top Priority. The Sustainable Dubuque vision, as identified by a community task force and endorsed by the Council, is that, "Dubuque is a viable, livable and equitable community. We embrace economic prosperity, environmental integrity, and social/cultural vibrancy in order to create a more sustainable legacy for generations to come." Since 2000, the City has experience six presidential disaster declarations. Low-lying areas are prone to flooding. To limit the effects of extreme precipitation events, the City has implemented a master plan for the Bee Branch Creek watershed. The Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency Program is the next phase in that strategic plan. The City of Dubuque would be the subrecipient of funds for execution of projects to complete the Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency Program. This includes the development of a new Resiliency Division within the Housing & Community Development Department, which will include hiring five new staff which will be supported by existing staff with CDBG and other expertise and the Sustainable Community Coordinator. This also includes leadership from the Engineering Department, and the management of appropriately qualified subcontractors to complete three infrastructure projects: the Bee Branch Railroad Culvert project, Kaufman and Locust Street storm sewer projects. The City commits the following amounts as direct financial commitments for implementation of the program for a total of$22,400,000 million: 1 . $21 ,600,000 in contracts that will be awarded upon receipt of this grant for the implementation of the proposed infrastructure projects, as part of the Upper Bee B-8 Branch Creek Watershed project. The City of Dubuque will borrow funding for this project, and the loan will be repaid with budgeted stormwater fees collected from Dubuque residents and businesses. 2. $800,000 in Lead & Healthy Homes funds to be targeted in the identified neighborhood. The City also makes the following supporting commitments for a total of $38,219,000: 1. $29,541,000 in contracts awarded following the release of the NOFA for the construction of the green flood management infrastructure of the Upper Bee Branch Creek Watershed project. The City of Dubuque has borrowed funding from the Clean Water State Revolving fund, and the loan will be repaid with stormwater fees collected from Dubuque residents and businesses. (' this commitment is also noted in the partnership letter from the Iowa DNR as an SRF loan) 2. $8,178,000 in contracts awarded following the release of the NOFA for the construction of 70 pervious alleys in the Bee Branch Creek Watershed project. The City of Dubuque has borrowed funding from the Clean Water State Revolving fund, and the loan will be repaid with stormwater fees collected from Dubuque residents and businesses. ('this commitment is also noted in the partnership letter from the Iowa DNR as an SRF loan) 2. $400,000 in Iowa Finance Authority funds to be targeted in the identified neighborhood to assist first time homeowners. 3. $100,000 in formula CDBG funds to be used for strategic micro-lending in the identified neighborhoods. It is understood that this letter is an expression of our intent and a binding partner agreement detailing the terms and conditions of the proposed partnership must be executed before the use of any CDBG-NDR funds, if awarded. Sincerely, J YL/I D. Buol ayor B-9 Fields of OpportunitiesSTATE OF IOWA TERRY E. BRANSTAD, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES KIM REYNOLDS, LT. GOVERNOR CHUCK GIPP, DIRECTOR September 23, 2015 Ms. Debra Durham Director Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 E Grand Ave Des Moines, IA 50309 Ms. Durham, As part of the National Disaster Resilience Competition, a letter documenting supporting activities in the geographic targets areas is required. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources is firmly committed to carrying out activities that directly support the overall proposal by the State of Iowa, but are not part of the sources and uses of the proposed CDBG-DR assisted project. As part of the efforts to reduce flood risk in targeted watershed areas, these activities are taking place in the next three years with funds firmly committed as of September 18, 2014. Date of Funding Firmly Description of Supporting Activity Activity Committed 9/18/2014 $8,178,000 Clean Water State Revolving financial assistance to the City of Dubuque for the construction of pervious alleys in the Bee Branch Creek watershed for the purpose of storm water management and flood control 6/19/2015 $29,541,000 Clean Water State Revolving Fund financial assistance to the City of Dubuque for the daylighting of the Bee Branch Creek for the purpose of storm water management and flood control 12/16/2014 $1,447,000 Clean Water State Revolving Fund financial assistance to the City of Dubuque for storm water management practices in the Catfish Creek watershed 12/16/2014 $300,000 Clean Water State Revolving Fund financial assistance to the City of Fairbank for storm water management practices in the Upper Wapsi inicon watershed 12/16/2014 $250,000 Clean Water State Revolving Fund financial assistance to the City of Newhall for storm water management practices in the Middle Cedar watershed 6/19/2015 $294,000 Clean Water State Revolving Fund financial assistance to the City of Cedar Rapids for storm water management practices in the Middle Cedar watershed 12/16/2014 $100,000 Clean Water State Revolving Fund financial assistance to the City of Kalona for storm water management practices in the English River watershed 7/31/2015 $37,000 Clean Water State Revolving Fund financial assistance to the City of Laurens for storm water management practices in the North Raccoon watershed 6/16/2015 $45,000 Clean Water State Revolving Fund financial assistance to the City of Lake View for storm water management practices in the North Raccoon watershed www.iowadnr.gov B-10 10/9/2014 $125,000 City of Coralville was awarded a REAP City Park and Open Space grant to acquire land for a park in the Clear Creek watershed 9/17/2015 $300,000 City of Cedar Rapids was awarded a REAP City Park and Open Space grant to acquire land for a nature preserve in the Middle Cedar watershed 9/17/2015 $50,000 City of Dunkerton was awarded a REAP City Park and Open Space grant to acquire land for a restored prairie and wetland restoration in the Middle Cedar watershed 9/17/2015 $71,078 City of Avoca was awarded a REAP City Park and Open Space rant to preserve wetlands in the East Nishnabotna watershed 11/9/2015 $42,859 Lake Restoration Program funding at Pleasant Creek State Recreation Area for dam infrastructure repair in the Middle Cedar watershed 8/21/2015 $46,430 Lake Restoration Program funding at Prairie Rose State Park for wetland construction in the West Nishnabotna watershed 5/15/2015 $109,966 Lake Restoration Program funding at Prairie Rose State Park for construction of water control structure in the West Nishnabotna watershed TOTAL $40,937,333 The Iowa Department of Natural Resources is committed to working collaboratively with our rural watershed partners to reduce peak flow and improve water quality in the State of Iowa. Based on the requirements of the National Disaster Resiliency Competition, no staff-time or in-kind contributions are part of the local funds committed to these activities. Sincerely, C1 'J, a`% Chuck Gipp, Director B-11 October 8, 2015 Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 East Grand Ave Des Moines, IA 50309 Re: Intent to Participate This letter is to confirm the mutual intent of both the Iowa Economic Development Authority and the University of Iowa to collaborate and enter into a partner agreement [or other agreement], contingent upon the award of funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience (CDBR-NDR) competition, to carry out eligible activities as provided in the Iowa Economic Development Authority's CDBG-NDR application. With just over 31,000 students,the University of Iowa is one of the nation's top public research universities, managing $431M in external research funding in fiscal year 2014. The Iowa Flood Center is this nation's first research and education center devoted solely to the study of floods. The Center for Evaluation and Assessment provides third-party evaluation, assessment, and other research services to a broad range of clients working in multiple programmatic areas. The University of Iowa will be a subrecipient to IEDA. The Iowa Flood Center(IFC) of the University of Iowa will provide leadership on the technical and scientific aspects of the Iowa Watersheds Approach, especially for the rural watershed projects. Specifically, the IFC will: lead activities related to the hydrologic assessment in each watershed; collect data, run and validate models, and develop a visualization platform and a hydrologic network; working closely with all WMAs and convene regular meetings of the IWA advisory board; work closely with ISU and UNI on outreach and engagement activities; and lead social resiliency programming. The University of Iowa Center for Assessment and Evaluation (CEA) will conduct programmatic evaluation and assessment of the overall program. CEA will also participate in, assess, benchmark, and help to guide development of the resiliency program in each watershed. IIHR Hydroscience & Engineering and the Iowa Flood Center of the University of Iowa commit to $1,000,000 in direct leverage to the project. These funds are available directly to the project for implementation of project goals. B-12 It is understood that this letter is only an expression of our intent and a binding partner agreement [or other agreement] detailing the terms and conditions of the proposed partnership must be executed before the use of any CDBG-NDR funds, if awarded. Sincerely, /J Erin L.SfOlhers acting for Reed Daniel Reed,V�P�for Research Larry Weber Daniel Reed Director, IIHR Vice President for Research and Economic Development B-13 505 5th Avenue, Suite 444 Des Moines, IA 50309-2321 www. inhf.org M& E-mail: info@inhf.org Iowa Phone:515.288.1846 Natural Heritage Toll Free:800.475.1846 Foundation Fax:515.288.0137 October 1, 2015 Mark Schouten, Director Iowa Dept. of Homeland Security& Emergency Management 7900 Hickman Road, Suite 500 Windsor Heights, IA 50324 To whom it may concern: This letter is to confirm the mutual intent of both Iowa Department of Homeland Security and Emergency management and the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation (INHF)to collaborate and enter into a partner agreement, contingent upon the award of funds from the CDBG-NDR competition,to carry out eligible activities as provided in the Iowa HSEM DCBG-NDR application. INHF fits into this project in three main areas of collaboration and supporting leverage: Permanent land protection: INHF is very active in leading and assisting permanent protection of natural lands and restored lands that have tremendous impact on flood resiliency.We partner with public agencies and other organizations to complete these projects. Since September 17, 2014,we have been a partner in protection of 10 such sites in the Upper Iowa, Upper Wapsipinicon, Middle Cedar and North Raccoon NRCD target areas. These projects can provide$3.4 million in supporting leverage to this grant project—and many more sites will be protected by 2017, offering potentially$3 to $5 million in additional leverage. Landowner outreach training: INHF is skilled in working with Iowa landowners in regard to promoting permanent land protection opportunities and helping them learn about the tax benefits of choosing land donation, bargain sale or conservation easements for permanent protection. We are willing to work with any interested Watershed Management Areas to teach them our tools in landowner outreach. INHF is willing to coach, encourage and train local conservation professionals in landowner outreach and the access and use of land protection tools including the targeting technology INHF developed with the Flood Center at the University of Iowa for efficient restoration of floodplain function.The training we can provide has an estimated leverage value of$20,000. C.(,RED1 ' P�O 0 B-14 Direct landowner outreach: INK is embarking on an effort to upgrade our"Landowners Options" outreach to landowners and their advisors, so that they can consider permanent land protection methods. Between June 2015 and December 2016, we are committing $200,000 in cash and staff resources to this effort.Our outreach covers all of Iowa, and we are available to assist interested landowners with any Iowa land decisions—including those in the grant's target areas. It is understood that this letter is only an expression of our intent and a binding partner agreement detailing the terms and conditions of the proposed partnership must be executed before the use of an CDBG-NDR funds, if awarded. Sincerely, Anita O'Gara Vice President& Development Director B-15 October 15, 2015 Ms. Debra Durham,Director Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 E Grand Ave Des Moines,IA 50309 Dear Director Durham: Iowa crop and livestock farmers have a lot of demands today, including balancing food, fiber and fuel production with water quality protection. Limited financial resources for some federal and state conservation programs,variable weather and new national and state nutrient reduction goals, challenge the management capabilities of fanners in meeting these needs. The Iowa Farm Bureau Federation is the state's largest general farm organization with more than 157,000 members. Our policy supports voluntary approaches to water quality protection and improvement. We support development of watershed plans that encourage education and demonstration of proven,voluntary agricultural practices that protect water quality. That's why the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation is very supportive of the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy and the Iowa Department of Agriculture's Water Quality Initiative. The state's collaborative Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy and its Water Quality Imitative is off to a great start in its first two years. Farmers in 16 targeted, smaller watersheds have combined more than$11.7 million in their own funding with$7.4 million in state money. More than 95 local organizations are participating in these projects as they set appropriate local goals,timelines and implementation plans. The IFBF is also supportive of other collaborative approaches that can leverage this success. With this in mind,the IFBF supports the Iowa Economic Development Authority's application for a HUD-National Resilient Disaster Recovery Phase 2 grant. It fits with the IFBF's support for local watershed projects and the general interests of our members. This collaborative watershed approach can help accelerate our early implementation success of the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. Farm Bureau is committed to working with the farmers and partners of the targeted watersheds in implementing the strategy and increasing adoption of voluntary conservation practices through these collaborative projects. As the goals of this project are consistent with IFBF policy, we anticipate working with the partners to provide an in-kind value of at least $67,951 for information, education and outreach programs, including:Production of one Iowa Minute featuring one of the projects (a 60-second television news feature that highlights the role of agriculture in Iowans' lives,reaching 2.6 million households in Iowa, Omaha and parts of Illinois and Missouri; airing for approximately 4 weeks), One Farm Bureau Spokesman story (circulation more than 90,000 members,media and decision makers),one Family Living story(circulation more than 45,000 ag- supporting members),write and submit a Letter to the Editor featuring a project,write article and post to Conservation Counts and IFBF web sites,and promote the project through our Facebook and Twitter social media channels. The IFBF looks forward to partnering further through the continued use of our organization's communication, outreach and other support programs to extend the scope of the project application and related collaborative projects. Sincerely, Rick Robinson Environmental Policy Advisor B-16 / r IOWA' i;',-CORN October 20, 2015 Ms. Debra Durham, Director Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 E Grand Ave Des Moines, IA 50309 Dear Ms. Durham: As chairman of Iowa Corn's Animal Agriculture and the Environment (AAE) committee, I support the State of Iowa's application to the National Disaster Resilience Competition (NDRC). The Iowa Watershed Approach is a practical approach for urban and rural communities to address flooding, water quality, and overall resilience of Iowa's land and water. Iowa Corn is a joint organization of the Iowa Corn Growers Association (ICGA) and Iowa Corn Promotion Board, representing 8000 ICGA members and all corn checkoff contributors in Iowa. The AAE committee handles all livestock and environmental issues including soil and water conservation. This application meets our committee goal of protecting and improving crop land, water, and natural resources. Because the project supports this goal, Iowa Corn commits the following resources as supporting leverage to help promote the activities described in the (NDRC) application: • We will promote the project and its educational events via our weekly electronic newsletter that reaches approximately 3000 corn farmers at least 4 times per year. ($5000 per year for 5 years) • We will post project events on our website, iowacorn.org, under "news and events". ($2500 per year for 5 years) • We will allow watershed coordinators to speak or distribute informational materials at crop fairs, field days, or other events. We host at least 50 of these events per year and will collaborate with the project where the events overlap project target areas. (10 events per year at $1000 per event for 5 years) Iowa Corn commits approximately$112,500 over 5 years. We look forward to working with the agencies and other watershed partners to implement this holistic, practical approach to land and water management. Sincerely, 12,1V Dean Meyer, chairman Animal Agriculture and the Environment committee 5505 NW 88"ST. JOHNSTON, IOWA USA 50131 PHONE: 515-225-9242 IOWACORN.ORG roww DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-,� IOWA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND LAND STEWARDSHIP -`` Bill Northey, Secretary of Agriculture 7AW LMD STEWMDWP October 1,2015 Ms.Debra Durham Director Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 E Grand Ave Des Moines, IA 50309 Ms. Durham, As part of the National Disaster Resilience Competition, a letter documenting supporting activities in the geographically targeted areas is required. The Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship is firmly committed to carrying out activities that directly support the overall proposal by the State of Iowa, but are not part of the sources and uses of the proposed CDBG-DR assisted project. As part of the efforts to reduce flood risk in targeted watershed areas, these activities are taking place in the next 3 years with local funds firmly committed as of September 18, 2014. Date of Funding Firmly Description of Supporting Activity Activity Committed Water Quality Initiative-Benton/Tama Targeted Demonstration 9/18/2014- $195,000.00 Project(Benton&Tama Counties). Installation of erosion control 12/31/2016 structures and completion of agricultural management practices identified in the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. Water Quality Initiative-Miller Creek Targeted Demonstration Project 9/18/2014- $251,971.00 (Black Hawk and Tama Counties). Installation of erosion control 12/31/2016 structures and completion of agricultural management practices identified in the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. Water Quality Initiative-Bluegrass &Crabapple Targeted 9/18/2014- $196,000.00 Demonstration Project(Audubon County). Installation of erosion 6/30/2017 control structures and completion of agricultural management practices identified in the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. Water Quality Initiative-Walnut Creek Targeted Demonstration 9/18/2014- $294,000.00 Project(Montgomery&Pottawattamie Counties. Installation of 6/30/2017 erosion control structures and completion of agricultural management practices identified in the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. Water Quality Initiative-Elk Run Creek Targeted Demonstration 4/1/2015- $114,000.00 Project(Carroll County). Installation of erosion control structures and 3/31/2018 completion of agricultural management practices identified in the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. Water Quality Initiative-Headwaters North Raccoon Targeted 4/15/2015- $238,000.00 Demonstration Project(Buena Vista County).Installation of erosion 3/31/2018 control structures and completion of agricultural management practices identified in the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. 9/18/2014- $40,877.50 Publicly Owned Lakes Cost-Share Program. Installation of erosion 6/30/2016 control structures in the Prairie Rose Lake watershed(Shelby County). Henry A. Wallace Building •Des Moines,Iowa 50319 • 515-281-5321 • agri@iowaagriculture.gov The Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship is an equal opportunity employer and provider B-18 ioww j DEPARTNENT OF AGRICULTURE IOWA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND LAND STEWARDSHIP Bill Northey, Secretary of Agriculture DANA WVo srr-wAxD�rry., 9/18/2014- $79,784.50 Watershed Protection Fund-Installation of erosion control structures 6/30/2016 in the Dry Run Creek watershed(Black Hawk County). 9/18/2014- $51,595.00 Watershed Protection Fund-Installation of erosion control structures 6/30/2016 in the Silver Creek watershed(Howard&Winneshiek Counties). TOTAL $ 1,461,228.00 The Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship is committed to working collaboratively with our rural watershed partners to reduce peak flow and improve water quality in the State of Iowa.Based on the requirements of the National Disaster Resiliency Competition, no staff-time or in-kind contributions are part of the local funds committed to these activities. Sincerely, James Gillespie Director,Division of Soil Conservation and Water Quality Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship Henry A. Wallace Building •Des Moines,Iowa 50319 • 515-281-5321 • agri@iowaagriculture.gov The Iowa Department ofAgriculture and Land Stewardship is an equal opportunity employer and provider B-19 CEDAR RAPIDS City of Five Seasons September 10,2015 Ms. Debra Durham Director Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 E Grand Ave Des Moines,IA 50309 Dear Ms.Durham, As part of the National Disaster Resilience Competition, a letter documenting supporting activities in the geographic targets areas is required. The City of Cedar Rapids is firmly committed to carrying out activities that directly support the overall proposal by the State of Iowa, but are not part of the sources and uses of the proposed CDBG-DR assisted project. As part of the efforts to reduce flood risk for the City of Cedar Rapids,these activities are taking place in the next 5 years with local funds firmly committed as of July 1,2015. Date of Local Funding Description of Supporting Activity Activity Firmly Committed 2015-2019 $56,911,028.00 • NewBo/Sinclair areas-from 8d'Ave Bridge to new Alliant power station. Construct levee improvements. • Czech Village area-From 12`h Ave Bridge to the former landfill site. Construct a levee and related improvements. • Portions of the Tree of 5 Seasons Park site will construct a flood wall and related improvements to reduce flood risk to citizens and city assets. The City of Cedar Rapids is committed to working collaboratively with our rural watershed partners to reduce peak flow and improve water quality in the State of Iowa. These local funds are only a small portion of the investment being made in the City of Cedar Rapids.Based on the requirements of the National Disaster Resiliency Competition,no staff-time or in-kind contributions are part of the local funds committed to these activities. cerel effrey .Pomeranz City Manager Office of the Cedar Rapids City Manager City Hall•101 First Street SE•Cedar Rapids,lorva 52401 • (319)286-5080•FAX(319)286-5144 B-20 CEDAR'RAPIDS City of Five Seasons October 14,2015 Ms. Debra Durham Director Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 E Grand Ave Des Moines,IA 50309 Ms. Durham, As part of the National Disaster Resilience Competition, a letter documenting supporting activities in the geographic targets areas is required. The City of Cedar Rapids is firmly committed to carrying out activities that directly support the overall proposal by the State of Iowa, but are not part of the sources and uses of the proposed CDBG-DR assisted project. As part of the efforts to reduce flood risk for the city of Cedar Rapids, these activities are taking place in the Middle Cedar River over the next 4 years with local funds firmly committed as of June 5, 2015. These funds will serve as supporting leverage to the state's application: Date of Local Funding Description of Supporting Activity Activity Firmly Committed 2015-2019 $2,020,938 • Develop watershed plans to include monitoring and evaluation to optimize effective BMP placement. • hnplement BMPs through financial and technical assistance to reduce nitrate loads to the Cedar River and reduce flooding. • Conduct outreach activities with landowners/producers in five selected HUC 12 watersheds. The City of Cedar Rapids is committed to working collaboratively with our rural watershed partners on the Middle Cedar Partnership Project(MCPP)to reduce peak flow and improve water quality in the State of Iowa. These local funds are only a small portion of the MCPP investment being made by the city of Cedar Rapids, U.S.D.A. - NRCS, and 14 other partners. Based on the requirements of the National Disaster Resiliency Competition, no staff-time or hr-kind contributions are part of the local funds committed to these activities. Sincerely, `�� Ste* er City of Cedar Rapids Utilities Director I MCPP Project Director Utilities Departngagl-Water Division 1111 Shaver Road NE • Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52402-4593 • (319) 286-5910 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR CITY OF CEDAR FALLS, IOWA 220 CLAY STREET CEDAR FALLS,IOWA 50613 PHONE: 319-273-8600 FAX: 319-268-5126 www.cedarfalls.com TOW-- September 22,2015 Ms. Debra Durham Director Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 E Grand Ave Des Moines, IA 50309 Ms. Durham, As part of the National Disaster Resilience Competition, a letter documenting supporting activities in the geographic targets areas is required. The City of Cedar Falls is firmly committed to carrying out activities that directly support the overall proposal by the State of Iowa, but are not part of the sources and uses of the proposed CDBG-DR assisted project. As part of the efforts to reduce flood risk for the City of Cedar Falls, these activities are taking place in the next 4 years with local funds firmly committed as of July 1, 2015. Date of Local Funding Description of Supporting Activity Activity Firmly Committed 2015-2018 $6,044,866.00 • Engineering design and EHP review. • Complete EHP review and Right of Way acquisition. Begin Construction of additional levee and/or floodwall extensions,modifications to existing storm sewer gatewells, modifications to closure structures(pedestrian and street openings), and modifications to areas with sandbag closure plans. • Complete construction. The City of Cedar Falls is committed to working collaboratively with our rural watershed partners to reduce peak flow and improve water quality in the State of Iowa. These local funds are only a small portion of the investment being made in the City of Cedar Falls. Based on the requirements of the National Disaster Resiliency Competition, no staff-time or in-kind contributions are part of the local funds committed to these activities. Sincerely, 14'4--- Jon Crews, Mayor B-22 "OUR CITIZENS ARE OUR BUSINESS" August 24, 2015 Debi Durham, Director Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 E Grand Ave Des Moines, IA 50309 Re: Iowa Soybean Association Supporting Leverage for Iowa Economic Development Authority HUD- National Resilient Disaster Recovery Phase 2 DRAFT Application Dear Debi Durham: The Iowa Soybean Association (ISA) is a Non-Governmental Organization representing 40,000 soybean farmers statewide. I am responsible for oversight of Objective 2 of the ISA strategic plan, which is to continuously improve natural resource management practices and environmental quality. Some of our programs and projects have funding that is available that directly addresses needs and proposed solution suite in terms of planning, data collection and evaluation as well as communications and outreach helping farmers implement management practices that will overlap the NDRC proposed project areas. ISA is collaborating with a number of public and private entities and organizations to improve water quality and enhance flood mitigation efforts in the North Raccoon River watershed and the Upper and Middle Cedar River Watershed areas. This includes long-term targeted watershed plan development, nutrient management planning with area farmers, soil and nutrient loss and risk analysis, hydrology assessments, conservation practice demonstrations, stream assessments, and wildlife habitat planning. Additionally, ISA supports comprehensive communication and outreach activities to help inform area farmers and share this story more broadly. We currently collaborate with Soil and Water Conservation Districts in Sac, Carroll, Greene, Calhoun, Dallas and Polk Counties in the North Raccoon watershed; and Bremer, Chickasaw, Floyd, Mitchell, Blackhawk, Tama, Benton and Linn Counties in the Upper and Middle Cedar River watershed's; USDA- Natural Resources Conservation Service; National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; Pheasant Forever, Iowa State University, Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship; Iowa Flood Center; Sand County Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation. ISA hopes to continue building support and providing leadership in this area. The following is a list of specific project and activities with supporting leverage of financial resources committed during timeframe September 17, 2014 and will be expended no later than Sept 1 2021 per NDRC application guidance. Water Quality Initiative—Elk Run North Raccoon: In coordination with Agriculture's Clean Water Alliance, ISA-EPS is working in the Elk Run watershed to engage with farmers and landowners, discuss and demonstrate practices identified it the State Nutrient Reduction Strategy, monitoring and evaluate practice effectiveness, and provide knowledge sharing. The project connects with other urban/rural projects in the region to help learn and share knowledge on efforts being made to improve water quality in both the urban and rural sectors. Supporting leverage amount of financial resources including sponsors and farmers: $713,000. B-23 Water Quality Initiative -Rock Creek Upoer Cedar Watershed: In coordination with Iowa Department of Agriculture Land Stewardship connected with implementation of the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. ISA-EPS involvement includes water monitoring/analysis, edge of field practice installations, communications,marketing, and outreach. Supporting leverage amount of financial resources including sponsors and farmers: $436,690. Middle Cedar watershed: Through a grant provided by the Walton Family Foundation and the Sand County Foundation, ISA-EPS is coordinating the development and implementation of HUC-12 watershed plans within the Middle Cedar watershed, prepare conservation plans for farmers in targeted watersheds, addressing soil and water resource concerns, and include newly emerging profitability mapping; and disseminate information through communications,marketing, and outreach. Supporting leverage amount of financial resources including sponsors and farmers: $155,000. Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) Middle Cedar watershed: This project seeks to advance implementation of water quality improvement, nutrient and flood reduction practices in targeted areas of the Middle Cedar watershed. The RCPP project will increase implementation of select in-field and edge-of-field conservation practices by partnering with city of Cedar Rapids, with local producers and conservation groups. In-kind funding is leveraged via Water Quality Initiative and partner funding. ISA- EPS is coordinating with the City of Cedar Rapids, including watershed planning, individual conservation plan development, and outreach/education. Supporting leverage amount of financial resources including sponsors and farmers: $286,235. The above narrative lists the primary projects activities and funding that will support leverage investments of$1,590,253 in the NDRC project areas. We look forward to collaborating with Iowa Economic Development Authority and partners in anticipation of NDRC being funded. Further,we stand ready to engage with partners if the opportunity presents itself to contract to support implementation of specific NDRC project activities. Sincerely, P � e/ , !� � / Roger Wolf Director of Environmental Programs & Services B-24 IAWA '.00� IOWA AGRICULTURE WATER ALLIANCE October 19, 2015 Debi Durham, Director Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 E Grand Ave. Des Moines, IA 50309 RE: Iowa Agriculture Water Alliance Supporting Leverage for Iowa Economic Development Authority HUD-National Resilient Disaster Recovery Phase 2 DRAFT Application Dear Ms. Durham: The Iowa Agriculture Water Alliance (IAWA) is a non-governmental organization which was founded jointly by the Iowa Soybean Association,the Iowa Corn Growers Association,and the Iowa Pork Producers Association. The mission of IAWA is to increase the pace and scale of farmer-led efforts to improve water quality. IAWA is collaborating with partners in the Upper Cedar, Middle Cedar and North Raccoon HUC-8 watersheds that are noted in the attached Phase 2 application. The following is a list of specific projects and activities with supporting leverage of financial resources committed during the timeframe beginning September 17, 2014 and will be expended no later than September 1, 2021 per National Disaster Resilience Competition (NDRC)guidance. Water Quality Initiative- Elk Run, North Raccoon: IAWA is a project partner in this WQI,and is providing $34,500 in cash contributions to fund edge of field water quality practices. Supporting leverage amount of financial resources:$34,500. Water Quality Initiative—Rock Creek, Upper Cedar: IAWA is a project partner in this WQI, and is providing$77,500 in cash contributions to fund edge of field water quality practices along with state of the art real-time monitoring. Supporting leverage amount of financial resources:$77,500. The above narrative lists the primary projects and activities and funding that will leverage investments of$112,000 in the NRDC project areas. IAWA is involved in several other projects that may result in additional funding for conservation practices that improve water quality and reduce the risk of flooding during the proposed NRDC grant period. B-25 We look forward to collaborating with the Iowa Economic Development Authority and partners in anticipation of the NRDC being funded. Further,we stand ready to engage with partners if the opportunity presents itself to contract to support implementation of NRDC project activities. Sincerely, Sean McMahon Executive Director B-26 heNature The Nature Conservancy in Iowa Tel (515) 244-5044 nature.org/iowa Conservancy O 505-5th Avenue,STE 930 fax (515) 244-8890 Protecting nature. Preserving life' Des Moines,IA 50309 October 13, 2015 Debra Durham Director Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 E. Grand Ave Des Moines, IA 50309 Re: Letter of support and supporting leverage commitment Ms. Durham, This letter is written in support of the Iowa Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management's (Iowa HSEM) "Iowa Watershed Communities Approach"Phase 2 proposal for the Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience (CDBG-NDR) competition. The Nature Conservancy is strongly supportive of the approach being taken by Iowa HSEM to implement watershed-scale programs to reduce flood risk, improve water quality, improve quality of life and health, engage and empower stakeholders, and to increase local resilience to future floods. We look forward to collaborating on the project in Iowa and specifically in the Middle Cedar watershed, one of the target watersheds for the proposal. The Nature Conservancy, an international non-profit conservation organization, has been committed to watershed work in Iowa since 2003. We work with private and public partners across the state to implement science-based solutions including reconnecting rivers to their floodplains, restoration of wetlands, and increased adoption of conservation practices on farmland that can improve water quality, reduce flood risk and enhance habitat. Since 1999, the Conservancy has been working along the Cedar River and currently owns over 1,800 acres of floodplain in the lower basin. In Apri12015,the Conservancy established a full-time project manager in the upper part of the Cedar Basin to work with partners to develop and implement solutions to improve water quality and altered hydrology. Specific to the proposed project, the Conservancy is offering the following funding that is available to carry out activities that directly support the overall proposal,but are not part of the sources and uses of the proposed CDBG-DR assisted project, in the Middle Cedar Watershed during the proposed project period September 1, 2014— September 30, 2021: n/ l 'RECYCLED JC meftd=Wal cyua m.i«r.i ®1aawpon-cony MermaWOW p .d.F,, ,a SC FSC-CO51259 B-27 Date of Activity Funding Description of Supporting Activity Firmly Committed October 9, 2015— $40,000 Assisting the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land October 30, 2017 Stewardship with building a"CREP"(Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program)treatment wetland in Grundy County in the Middle Cedar Basin. The wetland is being designed to store water and to reduce nitrates from an approximately 623 acre drainage area. October 1, 2014— $43,563 Analysis of multiple ecosystem services by agricultural December 31, 2015 conservation practices and modeling flood risk estimates under varying scenarios of ag practices evaluated using the SWAT model within the Middle Cedar watershed. Total $83,563 As per the requirements of the NDRC,no staff time or in-kind contributions are part of the funds committed to these activities. In addition to these activities being offered,the Conservancy is exploring the potential for oxbow restorations to provide improved wildlife and fish habitat as well as water quality and flood storage benefits. A recently completed GIS analysis identified 140 former oxbows in a portion of the Middle Cedar basin of which 75 sites appear to high potential for restoration. We anticipate significant investment over the next 6 years in restoring oxbows, although these planned investments are not included in our specific leveraged support. The Conservancy is also a contributing partner to the $2.IM Middle Cedar Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) grant to install best management practices that help improve water quality, water quantity and soil health in the watershed. We are excited to partner on the Iowa Watershed Communities Approach project with Iowa HSEM. Sincerely, Jan l�ng Iowa State Direc or The Nature Conservancy B-28 September 17, 2015 CITY OF DES MOINES OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER Ms. Debra Durham,Director Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 East Grand Avenue Des Moines, IA 50309 Ms. Durham, I am delighted to offer this letter of support for the State of Iowa's application to the National Disaster Resilience Competition. The City of Des Moines and WRA are firmly committed to carrying out activities and construction of capital improvements that directly support the overall proposal by the State of Iowa, but as I understand it are not part of the sources and uses of the proposed CDBG-DR assisted project. The State has been a great partner for the City of Des Moines and the WRA as we have accomplished an enormous amount of flood mitigation work and treatment of sanitary flow for nearly the entire metro area. As part of the efforts to reduce flood risk for the City of Des Moines and WRA,these activities are taking place in the next 4 years with local funds firmly committed as of July 1, 2015. Date of Local Funding Activity Firmly Description of Supporting Activity Committed 2016-2019 $26,049,743.00 Phase 3: Des Moines River Levee Improvement Phasel. Upstream Mitigation Study will examine and recommend mitigation strategies to reduce flood risk. Red Bridge elevation to reduce water level restrictions. WRA Ingersoll Run Outlet and WRF Plant Core Protection. These local funds are only a small portion of the investment currently being made in the City of Des Moines and WRA. In addition to the above listed projects we have programmed millions to move toward completion of the separation of sanitary and storm sewers and make general improvements to internal stormwater drainage across our community. I want to draw specific attention to the fact that the City of Des Moines is committed to working collaboratively with our rural watershed partners to reduce peak flow and improve water quality in the State of Iowa. Given the science of the river flows,we understand fully that investing citizens of Des Moines capital funds to mitigate flooding is likely best spent miles away upstream. Based on the requirements of the National Disaster Resiliency Competition, no staff-time or in-kind,contributions are part of the local funds committed to these activities. Sincerely Scott E. Sanders City Manager Office of the City Manager•T 515.283.4141 •citymanager®dmgov.arg B- CMy H.0400 Robed D.Ray Drive•Des Moines.W 50309•www.dmgov.org September 10, 2015 -if �JII P Rfgh$ in! City of Storm Lake Ms. Debra Durham PO Box 1086 Director Storm Lake, IA 50588 Iowa Economic Development Authority p(712) 732-8000 200 E Grand Ave Des Moines, IA 50309 f (712) 732-4114 Ms. Durham, As part of the National Disaster Resilience Competition, a letter documenting supporting activities in the geographic targets areas is required. The City of Storm Lake is firmly committed to carrying out activities that directly support the overall proposal by the State of Iowa, but are not part of the sources and uses of the proposed CDBG-DR assisted project. As part of the efforts to reduce flood risk for the City of Storm Lake,these activities are taking place in the next 2 years with local funds firmly committed as of July 1, 2015. Date of Local Funding Description of Supporting Activity Activity Firmly Committed 2015-2016 $883,060.00 • Phase 2: North Central Storm Water Project: Removes water from another large residential subdivision again utilizing rain gardens, grass waterways, and detention basins prior to out letting to the natural outlet point Poor Farm Creek. Phase 3: Expansion Blvd Storm Water Project, includes the removal of water from the City's main industrial park through the use of rain gardens, grass waterways, and detention basins. The City of Storm Lake is committed to working collaboratively with our rural watershed partners to reduce peak flow and improve water quality in the State of Iowa. These local funds are only a small portion of the investment being made in the City of Storm Lake. Based on the requirements of the National Disaster Resiliency Competition,no staff-time or in-kind contributions are part of the local funds committed to these activities. Sincerely, 6 es Patrick City Manager Joe September 25, 2015 _f "�Jp R1ght in! City of Storm Lake Ms. Debra Durham PO Box 1086 Director Storm Lake, IA 50588 Iowa Economic Development Authority p (712) 732-8000 200 E Grand Ave Des Moines, IA 50309 f (712) 732-4114 Ms. Durham, As part of the National Disaster Resilience Competition, a letter documenting direct financial commitments in the geographic target areas is required. As identified in the table below, the City of Storm Lake is firmly committed to providing$2,158,250 in funds for a Flood Protection project to support the CDBG-NDR proposal located in the City of Storm Lake, Buena Vista County, Iowa target area. Date of Resilience Activity Committed Cash Date Funds Activity Funding Source Commitment Firmly Committed July 2016 Flood Mitigation Project Municipal Capital $2,158,250 July 2016 Budget Flood Mitigation Project Total $8,633,000 As part of the efforts to reduce flood risk for the City of Storm Lake,these activities are taking place in the next 3 years with local funds firmly committed as outlined above. The City of Storm Lake is committed to working collaboratively with our rural watershed partners to reduce peak flow and improve water quality in the State of Iowa. These local funds are only a small portion of the investment being made in the City of Storm Lake. Based on the requirements of the National Disaster Resiliency Competition,no staff-time or in-kind contributions are part of the local funds committed to these activities. incere� James Patrick City Manager NTARES* October id, cars nctip Incorporated Ma. Debra Durham Director Iowa emmenic Development Authority 0o E Grand Ave Des Moines, IA 50309 Ma. Durham, As part fthe National Disaster Resilience Competition, a letter documenting supporting activities in thegeographictargets areas is required. no Antares Group is finely committed fitted to carrying out activities that direetlympportthe oveallmoposal by the State of Iowa,but are not part of the sources and uses oftheproposed CDEG-DR assisted tryst Aspart ofthe sports to reduce flood risk and improve water qualityin the North Raccoon Risen Watershed, these activities aretaldng placein theuppe portions ofthewateshed ove'the=t4 years with localfiruls firmymmmitted as of August sr, cors. chore finds wdl same as supporting leverage to the state's application: Date of Local Funding Desorption of Supporting Activity Activity Firmly Committed 2ors-2019 $500,000 Collaborate with local partnere, stem molders, and producers in theNRRW toimplement sustainable practices on me landscape. Establish conservation buffer stripe and blomergy crops bass v l mitigate food risk, improve reaMency, and improve water qualityin targeted areae of the watershed. no Antares Group is committed to working mllabomfively with our coral watershed partners to rfiuce pan flow and improve water quality in the State of Iowa. nose Local bonds are only a small portion of the insentient being made in the NRRW. Eased on the requirements of the National Disaster Feslieney Competition,no staff-timeorin-End contributions are part of the local finds committed to there activities. Sincerely, W9u.. W1xm8 EM Edam Antares Group l Sr. Agricultural Specialist Mumma, Iowa Lanham . . - ®, , , CITY OF IOWA CITY raw®ams September 18,2015 Ms. Debra Durham Director Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 E Grand Ave Des Moines,IA 50309 Ms. Durham, As part of the National Disaster Resilience Competition,a letter documenting supporting activities in the geographic targets areas is required.The City of Iowa City is firmly committed to carrying out activities that directly support the overall proposal by the State of Iowa,but are not part of the sources and uses of the proposed CDBG-DR assisted project. As part of the efforts to reduce flood risk for the City of Iowa City,these activities are taking place in the next 2 years with local funds firmly committed as of July 1,2015. Date of Local Funding Description of Supporting Activity Activity Firmly Committed 2015-2016 $8,324,573.00 Phase 2: Demolition of the flood prone North Wastewater Treatment Facility. Engineering and Design of Wetland Development & Ralston Creek Improvements. • Phase 3: Bid&Award Wetland Development&Ralston Creek Improvements. Expanding new flood capacity with wetland development and Ralston Creek improvements. The City of Iowa City is committed to working collaboratively with our rural watershed partners to reduce peak flow and improve water quality in the State of Iowa. These local funds are only a small portion of the investment being made in the City of Iowa City. Based on the requirements of the National Disaster Resiliency Competition, no staff-time or in-kind contributions are part of the local funds committed to these activities. l%Jja/fa� 1G� T Markus, City Mana er City of Iowa City B-33 i CORALVILLE September 10, 2015 Ms. Debra Durham Director Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 E Grand Ave Des Moines, IA 50309 Dear Ms. Durham: As part of the National Disaster Resilience Competition, a letter documenting supporting activities in the geographic targets areas is required. The City of Coralville is firmly committed to carrying out activities that directly support the overall proposal by the State of Iowa, but are not part of the sources and uses of the proposed CDBG-DR assisted project. As part of the efforts to reduce flood risk for the City of Coralville, these activities are taking place in the next 3 years with local funds firmly committed as of July 1, 2015. Date of Local Funding Description of Supporting Activity Activity Firmly Committed 2015- $9,148,228.00 . Elevation of 5'h Street, a major 2017 cast-west collector street and public transit route. • Construction of permanent and removable floodwalls on the south side of Clear Creek from the Clear Creek bridge on Hwy 6 to I"Ave, City Administration PO Box 5127 1512 7th Street Coralville, Iowa 52241-0127 319-248-1700 Fax: 319-248-1894 B-34 The City of Coralville is committed to working collaboratively with our rural watershed partners to reduce peak flow and improve water quality in the State of Iowa. These local funds are only a small portion of the investment being made in the City of Coralville. Based on the requirements of the National Disaster Resiliency Competition, no staff- time or in-kind contributions are part of the local funds committed to these activities. Sincerely, Kelly Hayworth City Administrator B-35 i CORALVILE September 23,2015 Ms. Debra Durliam Director Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 E Grand Ave Des Moines, IA 50309 Dear Ms. Durham: As part of the National Disaster Resilience Competition, a letter documenting direct financial commitments in the geographic target areas is required. The City of Coralville is firmly committed to providing$611,600 in funds for a Flood Protection project to support the CDBG-NDR proposal located in the City of Coralville,Johnson County, Iowa target area. As part of the efforts to reduce flood risk for the City of Coralville,these activities are taking place in the next two years with local funds firmly committed as of August 11,2015. The City of Coralville is committed to working collaboratively with our rural watershed partners to reduce peak flow and improve water quality in the State of Iowa. These local funds are only a small portion of the investment being made in the City of Coralville. Based on the requirements of the National Disaster Resiliency Competition, no staff-time or in-kind contributions are pail of the local funds committed to these activities. Sincerely, K ly Hay th City Administrator City Administration PO Box 5127 1512 71h Street Coralville, Iowa 52241.0127 319-248.1700 Fax: 319-248-1894 B-36 Attachment E - Maps and Diagrams State of Iowa Iowa PhaseII Maps&Diagrams.pdf Attachment E, Map 1 Phase 2 Watersheds - Final Selections r -- ---- — - LYON OSCEOLA ICKIN SOI EMMET V I N N E B A G I WORTH ITCH_ Up, p e r o wa(. 'KAKEty aY KO S SU TH - --aIN N�tsn. 1 Xr } - V J SIOUX OB RIEN CLAY ALO ALT AN COCK ERRO G FLROOOVO CKA ------I 4SS J YETTE !FRANKLIN BR � CLALTON1 U MB OLD PLYMOUTH ITER0KE B VI T OCAHrONTAS WRIGHT V- _ Upper Wapsi-pinicon R _ h Dubuque /Bee Branch S_ �IAMILTON4 •A " I 'l WOODBURY IDA S C ALHOUN ,ESTER� IHARDIN AW AR UBUQUE INo ,rth Raccoon fiddle Cedar - — — f li JACKSON I TAMA B :NTO INN ONES MONONA i,CRAW FOR RROL PEEN � BOONI STORY MARSHAL U9 - - ---I--- —`, _ i - -- - C L I N T 0 N it Iowa 'SbTNS0N CEDAR f dUBQ P°� s� KG1ea Cr f ?HARRISON � SIT LBY uTHRIE DA POLK JASPEP { Lr C e e k ) L ' SCOTT I. v� oTTnw- T --�--- ---a,�---- -Eon..g l_ILS_h_RII U..er �Mu scATINE� P ADAM UII f.�. '-=` West Nil s h n a b o/t�n a MADISON WARREN MARION �MAHASKA KEOKUK ASH IN GT N�- EastN ' s hna; botn�a OUIBA M��LLSApAMS UNION ICLARKE LUCAS !MON ROE APEFLO EFFERSHENRY E RIY pS M OI N S I`I`�R SITAYLORI I N G G O L DOD E C A T U Ri WAYNEAPPANOOSk DAVIS AN BURE -.•I I 11I ILEE L_ -- — - - - -'-- --' --- -------L------ " Legend Map symbols ELAN PQM �spG QFinal Prase2Huc r2 CMFIIal Prrase 2 HU c r 0 A T 1 0 12.5 25 50 75 100 OFInal Prase2Huce Mile uCounty Borders E-1 1 in = 48 miles ,MA�� Attachment E, Map 2 Bee Branch Most Distressed Areas 101 1102 52 32 4 / 3 _ 11 01 � 151- 61 .. 1205 1201 7.01 9 0 12 02 20 i 8.02 801 10104 LEGEND 20 13 Bee Branch Drainage Basin Census Tracts 2010 9aweauo+a ftl 101 OS m ✓eazeed b;y NMB201 -0+B]_Nzo ,a oar 10101 Most Distressed Areas 61 42 Dubuque City Limits MG%ea.M V•YeNf�w[n umoT rvtl•un•n Y�NeM�sn•.�wy yG 151 -� mbmMin.•r•wr•n� ...0 w•gw•y - •Inr• Wa•xwx�aa f�n'u+•^Wn�+-naa�•ir f� _. —^^• N •r - • ' Low/Moderate Income Age2 ata urce: American Community Survey 2006-2010 Attachment E, Map 3, Dubuque Housing Choice Attachment E. Map 4, Etivdc and Poverty Distribution Voucher Program Distribution Tact 6 Block Group 2,Tract S Work Group 3, 1 and Tatl lBlock Group 3are close to the 3J]% v level for pwerry and exceed the 20%henchmark � ror 3amai/Emmccp cantaron. TaRSSInick Grii d' _ Estimated Facial/Ethnic • concentration at 36.4%and 1 abelow poverty �{ rorver:4514%.L. IEGFND Be,Ron m malas ,Be,, . ._ _. QHousing chow,crusher Patio Tran 1: d son...He Do;2010 _ _� Estimated Racial/Ethnic i. enation of 233%Erl t ,u. Q et rwi meue � P-. act a below Poverty Mo Cry Linn111111level of 43.7%. E paned See Branch uaini se bac:, Dos q E-3 Attachment E, Map 5 Phase 2 Watersheds - Landform Regions Ma I \ � IN Mir U'p, p e l o w a�� } ! —I I I i I i i i I I ``, _ ! I.�■i Upper W.a , i-pin.icon ._, jjjjj*� L Dubuq�ue /B� e Branch N-o-.� a iM i d l d a■rI - --- -- - - - - -� I ------------- �- j , CrieaLr reek i _-- E-n_ Li1sg�h Rn`we 1 _ West Nis hdab a ) ls East Nhnab0tn��a - J ------------------- I I y I Legend Landform Regions �W�Ho5 i� �y.EWN06B Final PFrase2HUC 12 �@z NbAvz Wm o MnrnrmPm R.rAllwAl Pam CG 1 M=,-" auo.,om,P- M.-RnerAlmvvam Pm,.. g 9A F—I Phase z Mu c Po �maratmaw �p—.11.. c`v'mP m ATE .,�.m mAPmm. o izs 25 so 75 mo �Fmei Presez Huce Mlle L—� County Boudee, E-4 1 in = 48 miles ,,Mwa�' Attachment E, Map 6 Phase 2 Watersheds - Upper Iowa \ Noor Bear Creek µgvi r it erchester / Pine Creek Burr Oak Cold Waier Creek HighlantivillR North Canoe Creek Bour Creep Clear Crank Upper lova Peer River \ \ BIUR1on Silver Creek airline Creek Upper lova Riv an River Falcon Springs ale lM1f Iite Ar U Iova River I Upper 1 o w a ek French Creek Silver Creek \ Patteson Creek Ten Mile Creek City of Oe a pperlmva Rrver ommunM of Free r Riv r NESHI K pecoraM1 - ALLAMAKEE Ridgeway O :a+Crook Upper lova River But Run Trout Creek Trout River Trout ask Too tRiver I ona I muniy or Nordin I Legend " ' f Et.Ary Unro do orated 0 Final Phase 2 HUC 8 0 <19,999 r ® 101000-491999 p FIIIBI Phase 2 HUC 00 • 5010991999 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 HUC 12 Bp0I103h P5 ® 99 y, _ M I DSelect URa eRNmoAreas Mile {O. COOIIL%BOr(IB6 mM10.VRN EnvironmentArea in m MID ff�nlastmcmre Area 1 in _ 6 miles P Attachment E, Map ? Phase 2 Watersheds - Upper Wa si inicon e Creek Count, ark Wapsipin in Rir I ck reek Wright chBuff Creek no Cr Hunter Crank Oo no, VI Li a of irl tlle Wap ipinicon Riv E 1BrancM1 Bultalo Cr it 0 n Oft or Creek Elk Run C rp Creek-A psipinicon 0 ervilleB tlgeSM apt in River Pine Creek P na Cr it Village f n1M1mpBuffa Creek Raymond j O asap Malone Cree per ipinicon River VNnorop Clpentlen , Hn tl Elk Heights A (((((( B CK HAW UCHAN DELA A4V Intlian Creep ink to CiverSpring Creek Up e e r W a p s q p_i-n i c o n All All betiville Creek Wapsipinicon R illerC Lime Creek Ouesqueen Silver Creek Buffalo Creek Rowley Muit ekCedar River Bear Creek Cedar River Sand Creek Robinson` M�r�d�t h e C e d a r Ory k Waps pmimn River f La Pone— C OBrandon Wolf Creek 'McFarlane State Pad(Cedar or 0 Wal er Hon Cr Wapsipinicon Rfrer Coggon RoM Crook Cedar Rfue .Mount Auburn Blue Cruel D 1 Paris Pairieburg Paid Creek Cetlar • O Urbain INN 11 ONES Dudgeon Lake ShNWItlMe Managem ,re a Coda River Ear Branch Blue Creek l4�t Otler Creek Heaoer Crank pmcon River PallCreek _ Central City Ear 0 r Creek 0 elms Creek But to Creek Wide.B rRiver' Center Point tsidni Ri- HinkleCreekUudit Creek Cetlar River Bei tlr Legend Map ' Et.Ary • ummeomoatetl Final Phase 2 HUC 8 . o <19,999 r ® 191999-491999 p �FIIIaI Pha6E 2 HUC 00 • 591999-991999 i 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 HUC 12 B90903II P5 ® >,99i9RN y, ®ml D URN 'restrct re lama Miles {O. �Belec@tl BeMCeAmas mMI0.VRN IrRa9mtlwe Area t� � County Borders ®Wort-od12 1 In = 6 miles P Attachment E, Map s Phase 2 Watersheds - Middle Cedar aU�ers aCK seas Sink Creek-Conlin eft na Cr ek Pine Creek Fork Black Hank Creek Indian Creek l YlDL.of ml p a,,Creek ".co reek Black it wasbburn ,G'IbeMire of Cr IotlM1 Fork Black Hw Hutlso, • MaloneC k- sin a River Hollantl 4 WapsipiniconR Si r Creek Domain Cre etre i Creep ack Hank C ek Miller Creek Spring .reek�waGru GBlackrundy Hank Creek Ouasqueron Gruntly Center 9 CK I NUCHACrooRey ELA WARE NANO MinRaM1a Cre Harel, Mor,Crook Mud Cr Cedar River GRUNOY 'MorrNoWorries Sand Creek Robinson RenrbeW Black • e'^tlwalers Miller Creek tolotle,uiiy Brandon ryCr -Wapsipinicon Ric r C B Creep Ricer p Nuge eek- at at — Mosquito Creek Rock Creek - Mc rhinestone C do icer - - - - — - -yyalkeF -- \ p Wa on in apsipinicon Ricer Lincoln Boo ing rn L' v..1 as T Nemile Creek • WolfCretlr ,Mount Puburn Blue Paris Pourmile Crrek Prairie reek Cetl r Urbana ml °°M1 Blue reek • tllageo n dWON r H®non Cree psipinicon R'v Rock Crook Cetlar Riva Dudgeon Lake A ItlliteMma enl Nrea etlar River ikRun-rcleftook Creek Tcasr Cerner Pointy amOtler Cree Gatlbmok Prpnn Creek Coon Creek Middle Cedar Umnon Wildcat RCetlar Garrison Hinkle Creek 0 NeiCreek- at'1 E l Oft r Creek 0 r Crank Ie Bear Cr Toehold �I1 Mud Creek Opossum Creek SM1ellsburg TAMA BENT Palo O � Wildcat Creek ' _______ Hiawatha HALL Litlle Bear Creek O� Heatlwaners Paine Creek %n Horne Ory Creek SilverCre Cedar River Celia r,Rapitls s Keygone NeaM1all Nkins O O ageoFvanIPrairie M son Creek Creek Praire Paid Fairaz map Prairie Creek 'BIaGs9wn N¢wav Legend " ILAN • Unme¢rp¢anetl „�B�G B21..Rd SGIC2 Ar,d, O <19,999 p as 191999-491999 p �FInai Phase 2 HUC 8 • 591999-991999 4 �� �� * 1 * �FIIIEI Ph BSE 2 HUC 40 ® ®wwooQ1HHUoc rz Miles HUG 12 BounOarE CMKI CtlarRCPP ProletlArea 6 mmlo ronmemaoarea Count Border mmo mrsrunure Area Ill = $ 171125 cp�y"s Attachment E, Map 9 Phase 2 Watersheds - English River/Clear Creek Wesel TAM BENTON LINN I Conroy �{ • Mi C Cl Creek urs Upper Clear �N ortl J O H N IoWA Thin WA C /ear Creek DE B I'� maresso'Clevalree C9remole Head were rvenM1 Engli hRiver Upper NorlM1 English Ricer ar ESZN � nUeopM1 Engl's is. Oaik Run id No in Ill Orep River Beep River rL rl ngrsr R' Parnell O Millersburg O E mg Middle English River l i s-h R i v err Door Creep To vm otT tlon gNnorth English R' r or Sent i English R er ' .Grp Leek N G nghh O Ire sM1 River Ansn Lovrer South English River Creek£ngl River RiversideIs South English River Kal on9 0 En I's Wnms Nkllma NkNor Lime reek Camp Creek MAHASKA KEOKUK $T N I I Legend virtual ELAN • Jmnmrporetetl 0�' „ SBE,� S212rt.d S2NIC2 AIEd5 O <19,999 p ® 191999-491999 p �F11,ef Phaee H H(J 0 8 • 591999-991999 g 2 4 9 12 1g * S * �FIIIEI Ph BSE 2 HUC 40 ® WAIH99 ®MIDURNEn Miles HOG 12 69u90aAes Ca MID Environmental Area t� 6 County Borders mMIHD l�mresrnnnre area 1 In = 8 miles P Attachment E, Map 10 Coralville Stormwater Service Area v �. - R2 s sus Tract 2, F Clear Creek - JOhnSon County,Iowa Service Area � R ry� f J R3 .: r I '�'L�R r•s' x{23 `f f r- �� c2 C-PUDi C-PUDi 2�. 1 `•'�"1s` Black Group 3, "Census Tracy 2,' 'Johnson County Iowa C2 / C2 y }. ill y Coralvllle Stormwater -vers r a( Service Area r�I �` of Iowa !r d Bbck Group 3, Census Tract 4, Uni [ �;Flap pp Johnson County,Iowa Flo p �t . Legend v , t Cora Nille Zoning Areas - LMI Bbckgroups Notes Clear Cr kSensic Areatj. MCor lville Stionnumater5ervi.Area OCensus Black Groups • E-9 Attachment E, Map 11 City of Coralville Flood Protection Regions City of Coralville r, V—;-W& ,p Flood Mitigation _• � —r 4 Recommended Flood 4 PS s Protection System with Flood Protection Regions Figure 16 Legend Z f Flood Protection Region r+ 4.c C `1 '� i�f ) •` q ' ubsta4ion e June 2008 Flood LimitPS 9 June 2008 Flood Limit+1 ft f, r Switch Gear ■ 3rd St Sanitary Constructed Berm P" ¢ ilml— Constructed Floodwall AT&T10 - Proposed Floodwall r Pump Station J �� F 0 Complete PSf7' PS $ ® In Progress f . Mldpmerlcan Swltch ` , x SPS 8 W Proposed Work Hwy 6 Storm Sewer System `S� r Duckbill Iowa State Bank -- w 1st Ave ■ Gate : • Other r S * Critical Infrastructure r PS ky q Floodway w� ° ► o soo t o00 r �^ Feel _ - r� 1 inch=500 feet � tI1L3JJkNuI�GTJ_ � � -► _ , �31' ' r n oxaa .moi com _ . s..vi,„m.aomrivs mz as Fan iI � / .� i v � 0 ® W r Ei HRGreen - E-10 Attachment E, Diagram la �d"" NOTES: _I—-* v- , / "-", - - - - _ ___ EFLGFvX -s T301/30D SHALL BE ESTES DURING / EXISTING WELLS - - __ _ _- - CONSTRUCTION. y, MW-30S �/ - _ _----/--'-- D. IF ANY OF THESE WELLS ARE MAGEO THE WELL(S) /\ MW 30 '? FINISHED CRAOETHN6-5—- SHALL BE PLUGGED AND ABA ONES AND REPLACED WITH' MW-300 til HE OF THE REMOVABLE 1 / A NEW WELL WITH PRIOR A ROYAL OF ENGINEER, AND/ WALL/ Ju/ 's GENERATAORIICE OF E A NCLOSURE / L SUBM T ABAN ONE ATER WELL PLUGGING RECOCOST TO OWNER. RD FO - 2 Z SHALL BE SLOPED SO AS (IDNR FORM P -1226) TO ENGINEER, AS NEEDED. TO DRAIN AWAY FROM THE / li. SUBMIT ION LL RECORD FORM TO ENGINEER, AS g ENTRANCE AT 1.09. NEEDED. E2166872,23 / 2. SEE ELECTRICAL ETS FOR CONNECTIONS BETWEEN GE RATOR/' / AND / p \ TRANSFORM REMOVE AND REPLACE HMA 3, ALL PRO D PAVEMENT AND GRADING BEALL M H THE'/ PAVEMENT. MATCH EXISTING EXISTI RFACES, \ / GRADE UNIT S OTED OTHERWISE. 4. P 0 E SILT FENCE FOR ANY STOCK PILES ND ANY \ CHAINLIN E 12 FEEL WIDE v 8 �1'p 0 / E IRING EROSION GENERATOR ENCLOSURE FEET TALL, E OAS FIGURE 9060.3 / AND PAD, SEE S035 FOR NTROL. PROVIDE INLET PROTESXTION F ANY S(ORM IWTAKES PER, / PLANS & SECTIONS EOUIREMENTS. �/' � 1D'-0" R MOVABLE WALL OPEN / / GENERATOR ENCLOSURE ALL GRAIN PIPE FITTINGS SHALL B RESTRAINED MEyrIAN ICAL J(dINTS. / �. / -FLOOR DRAIN WITH CAST IRON \ / \ REMOVE AND REPLACE / GRA? SEETE AND 4/COODAPTER, / \ GRAVE DRIVENET / 1. F< 4" DIP DRAIN PIPE p / 6 IS,, Sq0 / CONNECT DRAIN TO' / STORM SEWER WORSEWER INTAKE MILLI / 1 TO WED `p CT EXISTING POLLARD/ / G' \ ,\ �\ / (TVP of 2) cam , \� / / O ___ / N'.614258.31 / E216691 B 40 0 / / i V I E FIT ROTEa E END or�� s`t, _ �, , — —,paR"�s os' / INc- ITL° Pu TAn N TO EITEvangn; M 65Ka 9, oivsTRuc A BERM To`YIiE e j sr ,� EITEVATIO ' SHOWN. EXCA NDATiOA OF BE 0 T ❑ PTH 0 2 FT BEEOW � GRASE AN aq h a ' U IMPERVIO RU TURAN FILL TO E ENdI E E21fi VOL OF E B NO EXCAVATED F ON N:fi14 4.92 ' TRANSFORMER PAD AND SPILL ADD 0.5 0 GRA L TO TOP'BE BERM WH EaEV fi5�.5O CN E216688J. 2 �, os" P0. REMLIVE STOCK ------ L CONTAINMENT MOAT PER CE yE o' /%� cF b' MID-AMERI;AN REDUIREIRMENTS ( / 1 GRAVEL PR U /EXIST AND REPLACE c c DRIN ERElposslB WHICH IS INOIDEN 'bRIVEW GRANULA LASS A CRUSHE STO WHERE a SITE RAVEL/ art ' - - .dEREMOVE /f \H ECURED us�rHE PA 'oRIv A , /�8�M'N -__-_ — AAPAVEMENT REPLACE HVA 6, C[ASS A CR D STONE" LA1:E `I h 4'�_ EV. fi58.5 `� / F TEN$AR AS Y%140 GEOG EMBANKME OILS AND G ON-G I A REPLACE SE F/SOIL .E -2cW N:8166922.8 tel-GRAVEL IT p-'sEEO >y a` �E:zlfifi9zzee / 3' '�,i ;'� V A A` DUCKBILL (INCIDENUUAF) / / o V os pv / /. i rc � ADJUSTMENT R � G /\ PROTECT EXISTING" N RZPCACEM T OF' / / �s _ f"HANDHO TO MATSfj STORM SEWER MISTAKE o FINAL DE JS TO BE RTA IT F/O PUMP STATION N6. 2END OF E Is ING FLOODWALL PROTECT C)VERH EAD ECTRICAV WORK FZi$ -\ ELEV 65/,94 ELECTRICAL WIRES PI ITTENATE 3. // �/) \ PROT UNDERGROUND X/ \ FEE INE PROTHOT EXIST G \ PDXES POLE = �L�"p\y���-- ' 'mss h ' EV. 658.50 / a ' '+`_ '" , lope /h / ! T/SLAB EL. 658.E SEE SHEEP 520 'FOR �[' AT PUMP STATION - F \ '9S S. - S'ROTECT EXIST 48 DIATRCP , PILASTER DETAE �1.� 2 , STORM LINE b / Y'YOU PAD / x \ REL r 48" DIA Duck BILL CONTRACTOR SHALL SITES.D`58.50 - FROM DE PUMP 5/ATIO/7 ' ROTECT,,,RAILROAD \_ , (SEE 0200 D MOUNT NEW ° PPERIY. NO ACCESS / �' DWALL ON REGENT ALLOWED u ON P ERTV -—-- CK OUTFALL PROT ON CLASS ROC / E REVIIMI`NT STBNE 40' NG, a /CONCRETE JOINTING IS 0 3O' WIDE/, 2' DEEP. , 'All C TO BE INCIDENTAL TD-'PAVEMENT, PCC Y" No = / AND sHAITIT FOIT16w JDAS DESIGN N�ANUAL / N: 14168.02 f �'l /U / a / P:216fi894.42 cg / 3FIT O v SITE LAYOk1T`� B6ACEi 1"'=10' — xo N DRAWN BY. FILM JOB DATE. 2011 BAR Is DHE INCH ON V E BY REVISION DESCRIPTION SHEET No APPROVED. MJR JOB NUMBER. 193290J02 a rrlcwl Oreawlrvcs; n mdR gooervoum NO. 1 CIVIL (� CAD DATE 9/13/2011 6:26:25 AM IF NOT ONE INCH. HRGreen.cam Ec, :, CORALVILLE 0700 / ADausT SCALE ACCCRDIN.HY HRGreen IOWA PUMP STATION NO. 7 SITE PLAN >� CAD FILE', 0:\19329OJ02\CAD\DOgs\c\C200 PUMP STATION NO. 7 SITE PLAN.4wg Attachment E, Diagram lb // + / / mus RE � y„ ,. NET BEIM YYNCA6 WITH TO SOIL A DO DEAN DO / •% z. 0FEE iPLI WITS 9V1L BE ll,E SEE 4 ERIY MING I r FENCE ARAN rvr sm« SIGN o A EAPre°Rump EROSION BE /// \\ , SRP IM RN LER EYE. OFOR BE/ y \\ '/'J' <. ... L IX NG P M, CLXBS I� R ALL PRO,ECfbN lip E REVEIMEM �• OA EEE 0 BE R RIGNEO AH' V LONE. 15-M yMpj, 3• MEP ql C - REHOVE All ROR FA6PN.SBODA E ' SNEER '\ - Ipgn EN61YATd1A&C.. y!N - mOTwE. mDDvcReSG'OI INCIMNia �TO CED WAS.. �) L'i 31091 SIRGGPL ES \ READWE ANO RENEGADE EX1E11NG \ Q IRNL NAiCH EXSTNC DI D RETAMINO MALL D, BE RE8 CRE. PRIDE SLLVAMC \ .NATER \ EAS NECESS 0HGOO BRADIC \ EL000 LL Ix w�cE. PRCIEOT STATON \ OTSi EM6LwG MN6J \ ' ��VrE IRIHEEORN PAO I.STEEL 0001) A PRNEI:l EY6lw6 FENCE _ 1ZRYER ,O M 9 \ \ AF14CAlE fi0' IXi WCNBILL �NIPLAMERNXN FlNN II Pl1MA SPONOK 6 (SEE 0300)AND MOYM 1 r0 ..A. XEAbNALL PROIEDT"WING X_ENYFINI \ir PROIECE RSI LOT \ - _egoIEE EVISiwc sraau 9vE \ qyI NO9 / 1 BIIDEcr w' R�' BEEN. ' C . EWLLL WELD s �,\ \\ \l BIDDER IXi1ROLf MEN, LQ q /�✓ NVIMM(Y!r DR REP4Cg1EEII, \ 4 .N� PROTECT_13` REP STORM SEWER \ Of RVYMS E TO NATCX qWY �� • -W Eo fiE INCIMIR \ -\ i ;?M K RICK 7 EOR�0 yyy QERNATE] ; / \ )} EEE SHEET 5800 ECR j PROSIER OEIM$ \ PROIECf EARNED. FLOOD w L '•� \ g / u i S / / 2 Bf, FEE 5q I I SJ at LAYOUT DOWN PY JLnf JER WEE.. NI COPI—aN pprE $ APPRCJEO. More UPS GLANDES. I Wo � N�yI, ® cINL sXEEr Nn v rE. ,EnLZE, 6 HRGreen.wm CRY OF CORALVILLF CiB�� <,EI s/ 1 oxM<vDO PUMP STATION NO. 858E PIAN 2 Av FlIEi o ,e]seoaor rno o.s E Pump srnnaN No 3 31tE zlnx e.cLv HROIECn CORALVILLE, ICDA Attachment E, Diagram 2a a. °. EL. 665.88.. .. qe EL. 665 BB ° a R. REMOVABLEPOMP LIFT BEAM. EL 661.38 SEE 5034 FOR DESIGN ° INFORMATION. REMOVABLE PUMP LIFT BEAM. SEE 5034 FOR DESIGN EL 661.30 ' INFORMATION. RADE SEE CIVIL - CUT & REMOVE EXISTING GUSSE FILAFES. PROVIDE NEW I PUMP TUBES WITH NEW GU SEf 9 ME�NEW --_ — & EXISTING TUBES WITH A COMFLEfE' — RAI N WELD. aA ° WELDING SHALL BE DONE IN AC ORD WITH AWS 0.1.1. DIMENSION OF THE NEW TUBE 5 A L IELD VERIFIED BY ° THE CONTRACTOR. ESTIMATE LE OF THE TUBE FROM B070M OF EXISTING GUSSET PLNTE 10 NEW TOP SUB (NOT L i INCLUDING HEIGHT OF NEW GUSSET PTE) IS a° ° APPROXIMATELY 6.41. THE WELD SH LL BE COATED USING AN EPDXY SYSTEM As SPECIFIED IN IHE SPECIFICATION INSTALL NEW PUMPS PER1 €cTlory 11150 AND SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE (TYP OICATIOrvs SECTION 1ns0. COATING PROVIDED IN THE NEIN uM TUBE. THE WELD TYP OF 2) 'HALL BE SANDED SO AS NOT TO IN ERFERE WITH PUMP CUT & REMOVE E%SHkP GUSSET IATES. PR OV HE REMOVAL AND REINSTALLATION. 4D" PUMP TUBES WITH NEW CUSS T PITCHES, CONN NE1' Y & EXISTING TUBESJWhLA COMPL E PENETRATION W WELDING SHALL BE DONE IN ACCO DANCE WITH AWS D. DIMENSION OF THE NEW TUBE SHA L BE FIELD VERIFIED B INSTALL NEW PUMPS PER THE CONTRACTOR.�STIMATE LEND H OF THE TUBE FROM BOTTOM DF EXISTING GUSSET PUT TO NEW TOP SUB (NOT SPECIFICATIONS SECTION INCLUDING HEIGHT-OF�4€W GUSSET PLATE) Is �T150. (NP OF z) APPROXIMATELY 5.41'. THE WELD HALL BE COATED USING UG ON 648_26 AN EPDXY SYSTEM- RECI LIED THE SPECIFICATION ...., w. SECTION 11150 AND SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE ° ':. •v� _ ' LEAD ON fi4J 43 COATING PROVIDED IN THE NEW PUMP TUBE. THE WELD _ SHALL BE SANDED SO AS NOT TO INTERFERE WITH PUMP REMOVAL AND REINSTALUTION. UG OFF 64576 _ LEAD OFF 64526 _ P701 P702 I PROTECT EXISTING PUMP TUBES & ANTI-SWIRL PLATES. .. ..a..- ... ... :::. ! EL 640_00 n -TE SISTINE PUMP TUBES & ANTI-SWIRL PLATES. E—W SECTION (LOOKING SOUTH) N—S SECTION (LOOKING EAST) 1 PUMP STATION NO. 7 2 PUMP STATION NO. 7 SCALE: 3/8"=1'-O' SCALE: 3/8'-1'-D' i i d DRAWN BY: JPC JOBDATE 2011 e4R Is ONE INCH DN N0. DATE Bt' REVISION DESCRIPTION STEEL NO. OFFICIAL DRAWINGS. 1 9/14/11 PEM ADD ENDIIM 1 PROCESS w APPROVED: AEG9/1 JOB NUMBER: 193290J07 D ,• CITY OF CORWALLE P7 1 0 y cn0 Dnre 9/13/2011 9:15:2E AM ANMUST ID I&E E11"HIINCLY. HRGfeen.COm PUMP STATION NO. 7 SECTIONS x CAD FILE: 0'.\19329OJ07\CAD\Dw9s\P\P710 PUMP STATION NO, 7 SECTIONS.dwg HRGreen CORALV LLE, IOWA Attachment E Diagram 2b HE 1 161 ES COM"G�E ��C�ORk RUSES 1 _ C i F aEJ 1EEI � I s W—E SI (LOOKING NORTH) STAT g � PUMP STATION N NO. 7 SCALE lEEI-C 11.1 E, JPJ JOB WIE. s aXs Wcx au _ pgiE NPRWEa /� s3 �rvsa sJ�Vn ® PROCESS SHE[i N0. .2 2C NUMBER ' HRGmm.com CRY OF CORALNLLE P71 SE0 FILE eii3/�oi e. o uE";�� ud PUMP STATION NO. 7 SECTIONS FILE o.v93osao>\LEo\E.g.\P`,P3,I SEcL.dwg� HRGmen coaawiLLE town Attachment E, Diagram 2c IT 101, F-1 F7B / / \ AM NOTE EXPLING PJMPP ARE TO BE REMOV & DELIVERED TO THE ROBINS PUMPS PER DIRECTED RA WE OWNER. SPIU IGPIMS SMOURN 11150 I LEADION!-EI 1 m P001 nI ULF ..DN PUMP TUTUBEL E ) TUBE MPL)PBM PLATE, PUMP TUBES ANPUPTEET EXIST BAN D EN rnd PLATES ER WOLF E PLATES, PUMP N86 d ANTI SW PL PARTIES R Pure PUMPS VAR (PEOFI IcwTIONs SECTION 11150 m r a) W—E SECTION (LOOKING NORTH) S—N SECTION (LOOKING WEST) 1 PUMP STATION NO. 8 PUMP SWIM NO. 8 c 1/."-11-1. SAUTE E ILLA I._o 4 ®f� 6 E. RAW JM JOB MlE NIl MUM1�S�MK IOW b:l. GTE BY 1LLNAL11-06 RCVI0N 9HET tW .W xOMEB'. AP. ED. NUMBER, ]9.Il 0�1' PROCESS y av Gre BnerzvlL I.:Izae PM °�cwdrwn. ® H�' '�O CITY aN� PMIIP SpTION N0. 8 SECTION$ P81 9 O v PLO a\Lsauwv�luv�v.unv\Pela PUMP srmax rva a SCOUN s.auc HRCj1KW CpRALVILL£, IMA Attachment E, Diagram 2d i i d q W—E SECTION (LOOKING NONM) PUMP STATION NO. 8 §F� R cewx en. d% � a2 m11 ��elxlx>t. xn ma[ xr gfV.4M vvrniPnv� PROCESS 4VROKP. .YII AR XIINmL IYdPG 1' rro xsre eneimll Irw:ea w `�.�cn - HRTSeBn.wm 7-10 kQLVL.E, ITY OF CORlY.wI l c PUMP STATION N0. 8 SECINIlB u0 FlIG IX 199R9Pq fiD V611 Nwv 51max rq a 4C1 HNQ1991 R IG A Attachment E, Map 12 Phase 2 Watersheds - North Raccoon CLAY PALO ALTO c" Marathon Headvalers North Raccoon River Laurens Rembantll Lareal 6North Raccoon River Laleal2 Hera he Nber1 City go Ditch 21Codareek Lateral L ral 3NtlM1 Raccoon r T BUENA VISI Truesdale 't 0ainage DitcM1 61 POCAHONTAS North Raccoon Poor Lam Creek Damage Ditch 74 CalarChe Nh 0 LRe Cedar Creek Oainage 0itch 101 North Race in River Cyarin9 A®arm Lkei 0 gatCreek O kes tla w O Nevell Paine Creek HandaUainage 0i1cb29 Upper Oainage 00aft No ___.____ _ _—_ ___—__ ,q rveab tomo d Buck Run - Pomeroy IT OU O C Oai age 00c 01 Oain'ageDitch 9-CalarCree Hatlware Vit PodC ek L theme gsprang 3 arc got nage Ditch Had he P 1COed Legend • Unincorporated B212Ct.d B21IC2 Aryl, 0 <19000 p ® 191999-491999 p �Finel Pheee 2 HUC 8 • s9,999-99,999 * i * [=F11e1 Phase 2 HUC ao Ar ,00 000 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 SEA wAI HUY 12 Miles HOC 12 3111 m MID URN Environmental Area County Borders rV mMICRW1 atl ,rrnnraArea 1 in = 6 miles Attachment E, Map 13 City of Storm Lake Project Locations g •,•:.:, - ....... .... . .. CatY of Slam Lake WasteWatei7reatrn�ent F aliry" ^ I � 1.2 Right In! 6 j — City of Storm Lake, Iowa $ 1 I end I.l sPponu meet Ranpnawmpn - - - f 3 Seneca Street Remnatrutl on t 3 Seneca Street Remna dlon _ 3.7N end Gene St Runk Senlbry S—.rReplacement 5 1st Weet and Mae Street Twnk Sewer LnnB 7 {N end Bu Street Storm ,lmPrwemerAs mC Oates Street Sbrmvnbrlmpo emenb L:T _ - - {.MemaOal Park S—ftr lmprmemenh 1 f and 0nh6 Sbrmwater Improve t .. - _ 8.Waa4 Trealmmt Fadllty Wetland Pond - 7 SWBu Mc C nlyA N NRGIS13 3. y/.. .. enp a a. 2 5- - - IfT ..' 8' 2 ' ® 0 750 1,500 mmmn====mmmff=Feet Project Locations h i" SePbmW 2015 E-18 Attachment E, Map 14 City of Storm Lake Inundation Areas •pl c �/i - Prone fit0-4 Orai—rtma9eArtas Art48.6 zl GN 1 46.6 aliE 1 ^:tiA ■r3 -rhi �$' r.. tit 2 113.3 3 171.1 d 18.2 f - 6 %.0 f c'�Junp I?�ght Ia! t , + a 164.6 s 11s, City of Storm Lake, Iowa 10 Conservation Design Forum 555_o Best Management Practices 13 2703 tt 95.3 l is b6.] 16 63.1 17 40.6 16 61.9 19 29.0 41] 7 \ 21 42.2 144 1 .5 .] 10 1• I { e fil 4 7 ,2 ) T� f _ 14 ,s Legend "1 s r ` 2-Year Inundation(3.0") 10-Year Inundation(4.48") Little Storm Lake e, - > i] e,,:� .,.16 r r _ � : 700-Near Inundation 7.81" r 20 +•' 18— -t''•E ..� Flood Prone Drainage Areas Ilk 9 19 4 S:r �zz l`i 4 nv� 1 - 0 1,800 .. ,immmmr=Feet t vrw `a - 1 r , •T• + - Storm Lake ! i r Existing Inundation for f r S.W 2-, 10-, & 100-Year, ar 2s _ �+ 24-Hour Storm Events it t1 o soo € Figure 3A - mmmz=Feet - r 80 E-19 Attachment E, Map 15 City of Storm Lake Phase 1 ie nto Existing'Storm from .. Ir - North Central Improvements Permeable Paver Street Under Drain Existing Bio Cell SPOONER STREET - Reduced Street Width Existing Bio Cell Red Extended e - r. ' Bio Filtration Cell AW Existing- lir �. 25'TOTAI � .f Curb Inlet for Heavy Storm Events SPOONER STREET Bio Filtration Cell _ A B•pLTOIAN 8. MENK NYC. _ CIttOFSTORMJOWA a .••• wn® m I oeortcr rxnle�rs-mu 1.1 �... � au wiaw"40"141 "O'ER STREET RECONSTRUCOON E-20 Attachment E, Map 16 City of Storm Lake Phase 1 7- -lei � - Permeable Paver Street ' Existing Bio Cell Tie Into Existing Storm from Under_Drain North Central Improvements - SENECA STREET II Bio Filtration � I l I--�--✓ - ��r I 1 i. - Bio Filtration Ce tion Cell) _Bio FiltratiomCellJ Reduced Street Width j _ EiNchargeto be lnValled with North.Central Improvements.: " 18".11 ere.11—sore 2E'TOTAL - Curb Inlet for Heavy Stonqimts -s- SENECA STREET JI Bio Filtration -- — j. - -� -� -' s Cell -'Bio Filtratlo4�felF , Cell - -. _ BOLTON 8. Mn sEsNr,rK, NC' . -- CITY aOF ST0FAM U1E,IOWA ^ _ 11 SENECASULM IrECONSiROCTON E-21 Attachment E, Map 17 City of Storm Lake Phase 1 tPW 25-TOTAL q �I SENECA STREET I I - I Permeable Paver Street . _ \, \\\ Permeable Paver Parking Lot • ' - _ /,IA/ ByO LTO N6v MEN,K INC. CITYOFSTORHI IIOWA.i�11N0 E'OF m Wurv,yn OIE Fxxl&n.T 1.3 SENECq STPEET RECONSTRUCTION E-22 Attachment E, Map 18 City of Storm Lake Phase 2 77 V �Regrade Ball Fief AT I i [ Manipulate Grades to A2comodate the --- - - Bio Filtration off Capture of Surface Flow From Park Capture Runoff - Oates Street From Parking Lot High Water Line y C,� ater ine - + —� - o _ Ififil tion Basin f 725"Storm o r Si 1 Permeable Paver Street with Connect Systems with Pipe Network _ Tie Into Existing Storm Curb&Gutter- Under Existing Parking Inlet Structures Along North Curb . 44 _.j 18' e..oeo aoxc I -r �um� 9 Yl� 3V TOTAL —iF m All BOLTON Sa MENK. INC. — CITY OF STORM LAKE,IOWA II{,p1 S4� ce...nxv [.m�..�a s,,,..vo� vxvAaEwl�eus-zoos nr Y— 4TH&OATES ST.STORM WATER IMPROVEMENTS .2 E-23 Attachment E, Map 19 City of Storm Lake Phase 3 j w � - 1 3 y t � 4 ! I W. -'— - JACK 3AUGER 15"SAN–T0.ENCHlE55 CASING – v uux e sux GENESEO ST i mems d9 I.uOanu`>pI �1 � t i [xnenxoon[oroa(Fuw—��'�� �'�'`�---ll.. o- 1114530 u'Uz'11� zsawluJ - p-' - 17 -. - ' -77 tip - dw do J BOLTON 8. MENK, INC. CIWOFMRMI E,IOWA "ag® CnrmlXNp Figlmm!!u m _�M� PP ERFNHMMS 3015 .,m. .w 111x" µ3 """ �1F�&GENESEO STREET SAN ITARYREPtAaMENT E-24 Attachment E, Map 20 City of Storm Lake Phase 4 .� Z, r W - _ 1.25"RaInEvent-- r MEMORIAL PARK -- Parking Collect Water off Drain Structure Bio Cell with Rock Outfall ,] Permeable Paver - Memorial Road ' - _ - ng Lot LI T �� � � Connect System with ShortI- r- PipeSegmenSam `�y-- - Retain 6ci3tmgirees--' Flood Stage Water Level 1 - ;. - Bio Swale.with Under Drain and Drop Structures 'a -- —�- - Flood Stage Water Level ` -_-- _ __. Tie Into Existing Storm _v _ �Retain ExistingTreNes--;---�.-.-- 1.25"Storm Event a evomerur —_ MGMY 24, 1IILi .�� Axw�ut Prwrnsrr Pwvrr lBm Cru Burzr.� umrweaxrmr "retro Paxuc lm t' r .p �' rsrn,rz"nr.rw Al`BMOLTON 8. MENK INC. CITY OF STORM IAKE,IOWrE� A ^�® ��1 Cem�lrlµ[n0rnxra h Survryen VI101FCi F%IIIBIiS-205 MEMORIALPARK STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS 4 E-25 Attachment E, Map 21 City of Storm Lake Phase 5 ,; pit rr <I E.'I TSTREET - `rte. •—� - ` E--�`STREfT I PARKSTRE I STREET_L w r '� srnRox \ � I \ 1 �. _ 1 \ 11 d l - r\ 5 LEGEND: \\ •��\ \� 1 — - E%ISTNG SANITAgY MAIN + �r E%6TNG FOFCFMPIN 30'OPP NNING SV 30-CIPP[WING .nn,® IBCLTCN S. MENK. INC- CM OF STORM LAKE,IOWA n Fm RUTIbesuX4q Fnylmm!Sunryen pppIECT E%X18(15-3015 nS IST&MAE STREET T0.0NK SANTFARV SEWER LINING E-26 Attachment E, Map 22 City of Storm Lake Phase 6 Ove rRow Structure Tie Into ExistingStatm^w„- ___ I' inimal Grading Over Existing Storm'. IgkWater Line 1nfiRration Basin Diof Soccer Fieieldsds into System iStorFn Water Directed to East Basin re-Filling-West-Basin—.-- West e-Filling-West,Basin_. West Basin Only Used on Rock Check Dam/Weir w - Large Storm Events Bio Cell r Pipe Under Road to Bio Swale Connecting Cells - – � - Connect Systems - r - - Capture Storm Water from Road and - Under Drain System Direct into Treatment Train W 10TH STREET - —' - - Retain Existing Playground& Parking Lot �! -- FloodStage- I I RegradedWater Baseball Diamond Outfield Ie g e Used for Water Stange-on Large Events i r PermeablePaving Parking with Over Flow Directed to Swale _ etain Existing Garaen-prots� - -- -Bio-Swale Used for-T.25"Storm..__..-= E30LTON 8. MENK. WG CMCFSTORM LAKE,IOWA Ilpq.® �' rl1� �w Coniullinq Cngl^ean k Surv�y�an TAS %101lR FXNIBIR-1015 1111 +'':urmA LOTH&ONTARIO STORM WATER IMPROVEMEMS E-27 Attachment E, Map 23 City of Storm Lake Phase 7 i r 3T TOTAL 'ExistingStreet,is in Poor Condition. Permeable PawrsUsed on Barton _ N ,• +" - _ _ N'� I Street Reconstruction to Mitigate 1 Stress on 4th Street ' -� � t tj ' 1. Permeable Pavers Along 4th Street ate:&More Water to Control Fnfikr Flood Events ' +}�.R. 5 ; Bio Filtration Cell - n {I� 6io�Filtratlon Cell �— ,�- '• — fpr-- - � _ Leinto Existing Storm _ Bfiltration Basin —' Storm Sewer Outflow into H - J Storm Lake - Storm Lake _ BOLTON 8a MENK�IN`C. — I_ OTY Of STORM IANE,IOWA x+11 rxm[n nlxrerts-xoss t --i- - 4TH BARYON STORM SEWER IMVROVEMENTS 7 E-28 Attachment E, Map 24 City of Storm Lake Phase 8 Flow From Treatment Plant DQMNGWA96A4 PGM Shallow Wetland Pool<3'Deep • � nvn=ismw r,11G r'` y MMR,Tvc. ! UePt 'v ne: Outfall to Creek p 'P�'i���l "�F — - + sz4': /,ABOLTON 8. MENK, INC. __-- .— ❑VpDI SI7M�nu AnL,aInUWn W WETI NDPOND E-29 Attachment E, Map 25 Phase 2 Watersheds - West/East Nishnabotna POTTAWATTAMIE Mi Silve reek r CA SS '— '—'— — CtlYol Ca n Wast ohn of — - - Mud Crook Hentlerson ElliottG O run Creek Lo Silver Crank N rintlian eek O'bRN er Wy p Coe eek Eve phenolate war illow5lo h st Monoplane or Stennett addle Walnut Cr MO ERV MILL Hastings t°ver Indian Colek AGA Outlet Stl Creek O Red Oak O O outl- N'sM1nabN Riv BrancM1 iN'sM1nabotn River saM1an Deer Creep rMinor Cr Spnn alley CrookWastM1rvabot River Cc urrg mp Cree Hu pi ch Randolph Clmogen e CF a exEve 'sM1rvabot or C reekWasth abNno Essex O Hon Creek Mtlerson Rover ofFreman • ON IN WaInut Creek Four Crank- shnabot aRiver ,�•f Shenandoah Stlney PAGE �TAYLOF F REM ONT Spn Be ch shnabot Lor Faragut O River M1er eek edq tlCreek-EatN aM1nabot Riverton O Legendis orpoated �0 Final Phase 2 HUC 8 r [MFlnal Pha6E 2 HUC 10 0 2 4 8 12 16HOC,2600n03AP5 RN00 000 0N Enmronmemal Area Miles�5212Ct2tl 52MC2AIEd5 RN Inore9mtlure AreaCounty Borders 1- � 1 In = 8 utiles Attachment I MID-URN Checklists State of Iowa Iowa PhaseII_MID-URN.pdf MID-URN Summary Checklist Instructions Please complete this summary checklist for each target area for grant expenditure in your application and submit it accompanying your most impacted and distressed threshold response narrative. The most impacted and distressed threshold response narrative must be included your application - Exhibit B. This summary checklist is provided to assist Applicants to ensure their responses to this requirement are complete, however, for comprehensive most impacted and distressed and Unmet Recovery Needs (MID-URN) threshold instructions, Applicants must refer to Appendix G to the NDRC NOFA. Step 1: Determine which summary checklist should be used for each target area to be included in the application: Summary Checklist A- Target area is a county that was previously determined by HUD to be most impacted (see httl2://www.HUDUSER.org/CDBGRDRLpnendixA) Summary Checklist B - Target Area is a sub-county area (such as a place name, census designated place, tribal area, or census tract) within a county or county equivalent declared by the President to be a major disaster area under the Stafford Act for a disaster event occurring in calendar years 2011, 2012, or 2013 Step 2: For each target area in your application, complete the appropriate checklist, and provide each completed checklist in your most impacted and distressed threshold response accompanying your application's Exhibit B. Be sure to include the target area name on each checklist. Summary Checklist A- Each target area must meet at least one Unmet Recovery Need criterion, supported with the corresponding data source and documentation as described in Appendix G. Summary Checklist B - Each target area must meet: • At least one most impacted criterion, supported with the corresponding data source and documentation as described in Appendix G; AND • At least one distressed criterion, supported with the corresponding data source and documentation as described in Appendix G; AND • At least one Unmet Recovery Need criterion, supported with the corresponding data source and documentation as described in Appendix G. HUD Alternative Access to Links: Google Drive: https://drive.google.com User: ResilientIowa@gmail.com Password: Hud1lowa I-1 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Housing: Currently running a CDBG-DR or other recovery housing ❑ Link: ❑ The prior CDBG-DR funding allocations, program: along with other funding sources, are ❑ Analysis that shows the program waiting list AND ❑ Page number(s) in inadequate for addressing remaining housing ❑ A reasonable estimate of aggregated average unmet repair application: repair needs in each most impacted and needs exceeds the existing CDBG-DR fund available. distressed target area AND: ❑ Twenty or more households displaced by Not currently running a CDBG-DR or other housing recovery the disaster OR program: ❑ Twenty homes still damaged by the ❑ Briefly explain why prior allocations of CDBG-DR funding, disaster together with other funding sources, are inadequate to provide housing AND: ❑ Provide recent emergency management data indicating households are still displaced from the disaster OR ❑ Provide Methodologically sound`windshield survey"of the target area within a HUD-identified most impacted county conducted since January 2014 AND ❑ A list of 20 addresses of units identified with remaining damage ❑ At least 9 of these addresses confirming(i)the damage is due to the disaster and(ii)they have inadequate resources from insurance/FEMA/SBA for completing repairs I-2 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Infrastructure: []An engineering report OR ❑ a FEMA Project Worksheet(s) ❑ Link: ❑ There is damage to permanent public with an estimated repair amount infrastructure from the qualifying disaster ❑ Page number(s) in (i.e. FEMA Category C to G)that has not AND application: been repaired due to inadequate resources, in or serving the target area(s)within a HUD- ❑A sources and uses statement for the repairs showing the identified most impacted target area AND funding shortfall(total repair costs may include the extra cost ❑ Describe the damage, location of the to repair this infrastructure resiliently)AND damage permanent public infrastructure ❑Your explanation of why existing CDBG-DR resources, relative to the most impacted and together with other funding sources, are inadequate to meet distressed target area(s),the amount of this repair need funding required to complete repairs, and the reason there are inadequate funds AND ❑ A minimum $400,000 in unfunded permanent infrastructure repair needs I-3 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Economic Revitalization: ❑ Unmet repair needs narrative for businesses: ❑ Link: ❑ There are continuing unmet economic ❑ "Windshield survey"showing a minimum of 5 businesses revitalization recovery needs due to the with remaining repair needs AND ❑ Page number(s) in disaster in the target area(s)within a HUD- ❑ A survey of 5 business owners confirming damage due to application: identified most impacted county that cannot the disaster and repairs not completed due to not receiving be addressed with existing resources, adequate resources from insurance and(if applicable) including CDBG-DR funds already allocated other federal funds AND AND ❑ Addresses of businesses with continuing needs AND demonstrate one of the followin¢: OR ❑A minimum of 5 businesses with remaining repair needs; ❑ Decreased revenues narrative for business(es): ❑ Business revenues continued to be ❑ Analysis by a reputable public or private source showing decreased by 10 percent or more relative continuing economic damage to the target area within a to revenues prior to the disaster for one or HUD-identified most impacted county due to the disaster more modest-sized employers (10 or or a survey of business(es)who provide(i)number of more employees) due to the disaster; OR employees before the storm and current; (ii)total gross ❑ Three or more smaller businesses show revenues in year before disaster and total gross revenues revenues 10 percent less than prior in most recent year; and(iii) a description of how the revenues reduction in revenues is related to the disaster AND ❑ One modest size employer(10 or more employees)or AND three smaller businesses (fewer than 10 employees)must ❑ Provide a narrative statement describing the show most recent year total gross revenues of 10 percent extent of those needs and how the needs are less than the year before the disaster and there needs to be connected with the disaster and the target a clean connection to the disaster AND area within a HUD-identified most impacted ❑ Names and addresses of impacted businesses county I-4 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Environmental Degradation: ❑ A detailed report from a reputable public or private ❑ Link: ❑ There is environmental damage from the organization describing the remaining damage with a qualifying disaster that has not yet been certification after March 2014 indicating that there is ❑ Page number(s) in addressed and cannot be addressed with remaining damage of$400,000 or more application: existing resources AND ❑ Describe the remaining damage and how the damage is connected with the qualifying disaster and the target area within a HUD- identified most impacted county AND ❑ Describe the remaining damage to the environment with a cost estimate for making repairs or restoration that is $400,000 or greater and support with references to any studies supporting them I-5 MOST IMPACTED CHARACTERISTICS: considers the damage resulting from the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Bee Branch LMA Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Housing damage due to ❑ Appendix C list of disasters ® Link: eligible disaster: with concentrations of housing https://drive.google.comLpen?id=0B4GkEW8yVGbtWX1SRIFSTF 4g U2c ❑ Damage to a minimum damage meeting this requirement ❑ Page number(s) in application: of 100 homes OR OR ® Serious damage to a ® Local data: minimum of 20 homes ® Data shows concentrated damage meeting standard,AND ® HUD agrees with its validity Infrastructure: ❑ An engineering report OR ❑ Link: ❑ Damage from the ❑ FEMA Project Worksheet eligible disaster to with an estimated repair ❑ Page number(s) in application: permanent infrastructure amount OR in a sub-county area ❑ Other evidence of an estimate estimated at$2 million or of expenditures to make greater repairs Economic Revitalization: ❑ Describe how the ❑ Link: ❑ At least one percentage employment loss or harm point higher local stems from the Qualified ❑ Page number(s) in application: unemployment rate in the Disaster(applicant may impacted area six to 12 support a short description months after the with local data or surveys) qualifying disaster compared to the same month in the year prior to the disaster in that area OR ❑ Specific information that I-6 50 or more people were no longer employed in or near the most impacted area for six months or longer due to the disaster OR ❑ Other harm to the economy due to the disaster Environmental ❑ Support with references to any ❑ Link: Degradation studies supporting the claim of ❑ Must describe the future risk ❑ Page number(s) in application: damage to the environment from the qualifying disaster putting the housing, infrastructure and/or economic drivers in the area at risk of great harm for a future disaster. MOST DISTRESSED CHARACTERISTICS: considers stress or deficit factors prior to the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Bee Branch LMA Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Disaster impacted low- and ® CDBG low-and moderate-income ® Link: moderate-income summary data httys://drive.google.com/open?id=OB4GkEW8yVGbtampYV2glNmZxdOk households: ❑ Page number(s) in application: ® More than 50 percent of people in the target area are at less than 80 percent of the area median income Loss/shortage of affordable ❑ Provide a 1-2 paragraph ❑ Link: rental housing: description, with supporting data, I-7 MOST DISTRESSED CHARACTERISTICS: considers stress or deficit factors prior to the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Bee Branch LMA Criteria Data Source Data Documentation ❑ Disaster-impacted target to demonstrate this characteristic ❑ Page number(s) in application: area has a minimum of 100 renters with income less than 50 percent of median in a target area AND: ❑ 60 percent or more of these have severe housing programs OR ❑As a result of the effects of the disaster there is new high risk of damage to more than 100 assisted rental housing units from a future event the intended intervention would protect against Disaster impacted a federal ❑ Demonstrate this characteristic and ❑ Link: target area or economically provide supporting documentation fragile area: (must choose at ❑ Page number(s) in application: least one to meet this criteria) ❑ Tribal area ❑ HUD Promise Zone site ❑ HUD Strong Cities Strong Communities site AND/OR ❑ Has an unemployment rate more than 125 percent of the national average unemployment rate I-8 MOST DISTRESSED CHARACTERISTICS: considers stress or deficit factors prior to the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Bee Branch LMA Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Disaster impacted an area ❑ State-maintained Brownfield site ❑ Link: with prior documented list OR environmental distress: ❑ Other documentation of prior ❑ Page number(s) in application: ❑ Disaster impacted an area environmental distress with prior documented environmental distress (e.g., affected area contains or is adjacent to and negatively affected by a contaminated property cleaned, undergoing cleanup, or proposed for cleanup) Housing: ❑ Appendix C list of disasters with ❑ Link: ❑ A concentration of housing concentrations of housing damage damage in a sub-county meeting this requirement OR ❑ Page number(s) in application: area due to the eligible ❑ Local data: disaster causing damage or ❑ Data shows concentrated serious damage to at least damage meeting standard,AND 10 percent of the homes ❑ HUD agrees with validity located there I-9 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Bee Branch LMA Criteria Data Source Data Documentation I-10 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Bee Branch LMA a. =maL= Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Housing: Currently running a CDBG-DR or other recovery ® Link: ❑ Twenty or more housing program: List of addresses identified with remaining damage: households are still ❑ Analysis that shows the program waiting list httvs://drive.google.com/open?id=OB4GkEW8yVGbtemJ4bTU displaced from housing AND 40FJVb2s due to the disaster and will ❑ A reasonable estimate of aggregated average not be served by existing unmet repair needs exceeds the existing Results of Windshield Survey: programs OR CDBG-DR fund available. https://drive.go ogle.corn/op en?id=OB4GkEW8, V� ® There are twenty or more 011cmRMbmJUeGc still damaged housing Not currently running a CDBG-DR or other units in or near a most housing recovery program: Addresses confirming damage is due to the disaster and there impacted and distressed ❑ Briefly explain why prior allocations of CDBG- are insufficient resources to make needed repairs: sub-county target area that DR funding,together with other funding https://drive.google.com/open?id—OB4GkEW8yVGbtaS1KMG were damaged by the sources, are inadequate to provide housing 1FdWZiUTO disaster and cannot be AND: repaired with existing ❑ Provide recent emergency management data ❑ Page number(s) in application: programs indicating households are still displaced from the disaster OR ® Provide methodologically sound"windshield survey"of the most impacted and distressed target area conducted since January 2014 AND ® A list of 20 addresses of units identified with remaining damage ® At least 9 of these addresses confirming (i)the damage is due to the disaster and (ii)they have inadequate resources from insurance/FEN A/SBA for completing repairs I-11 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Bee Branch LMA Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Infrastructure: []An engineering report OR ❑ a FEMA Project ❑ Link: ❑ There is damage to Worksheet(s)with an estimated repair amount permanent public ❑ Page number(s) in application: infrastructure from the AND qualifying disaster(i.e. FEMA Category C to G) ❑A sources and uses statement for the repairs that has not been repaired showing the funding shortfall(total repair costs due to inadequate may include the extra cost to repair this resources, in or serving infrastructure resiliently)AND the most impacted and ❑your explanation of why existing CDBG-DR distressed target area(s) resources,together with other funding sources, AND are inadequate to meet this repair need ❑ Describe the damage, location of the damage to permanent public infrastructure relative to the most impacted and distressed target area(s), the amount of funding required to complete repairs, and the reason there are inadequate funds AND ❑ A minimum $400,000 in unfunded permanent infrastructure repair needs I-12 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Bee Branch LMA Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Economic Revitalization: ❑ Unmet repair needs narrative for businesses: ❑ Link: ❑ There are continuing ❑ "Windshield survey"showing a minimum of unmet economic 5 businesses with remaining repair needs ❑ Page number(s) in application: revitalization recovery AND needs due to the disaster ❑ A survey of 5 business owners confirming in or near the most damage due to the disaster and repairs not impacted and distressed completed due to not receiving adequate sub-county target area(s) resources from insurance and(if applicable) that cannot be addressed other federal funds AND with existing resources, ❑ Addresses of businesses with continuing including CDBG-DR needs funds already allocated AND OR AND demonstrate one of the ❑ Decreased revenues narrative for business(es): followin¢: EIA minimum of 5 El Analysis by a reputable public or private businesses with source showing continuing economic damage to the target area within a HUD-identified remaining repair needs; El Business revenues most impacted county due to the disaster or a survey of business(es)who provide(i) continued to be number of employees before the storm and decreased by 10 current; (ii)total gross revenues in year percent or more before disaster and total gross revenues in relative to revenues most recent year; and(iii) a description of prior to the disaster for how the reduction in revenues is related to one or more modest- the disaster AND sized employers (10 or ❑ One modest size employer(10 or more more employees) due employees) or three smaller businesses to the disaster; OR (fewer than 10 employees)must show most ❑ Three or more smaller recent year total gross revenues of 10 percent businesses show less than the year before the disaster and revenues 10 percent there needs to be a clean connection to the less than prior revenues disaster AND I-13 AND ❑ Names and addresses of impacted businesses UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Bee Branch LMA Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Environmental ❑ A detailed report from a reputable public or ❑ Link: Degradation: private organization completed since June 2013 ❑ There is environmental describing the remaining damage with a ❑ Page number(s) in application: damage from the certification date after March 2014 indicating qualifying disaster that that there is remaining damage of$400,000 or has not yet been more addressed and cannot be addressed with existing resources AND ❑ Describe the remaining damage and how the damage is connected with the qualifying disaster and the most impacted and distressed sub-county target area AND ❑ Describe the remaining damage to the environment with a cost estimate for making repairs or reconstruction that is $400,000 or greater and support with references to any studies supporting them I-14 MOST IMPACTED CHARACTERISTICS: considers the damage resulting from the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Fremont County, Census Tract 9701 Block Groups 1 &2 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Housing damage due to eligible disaster: ❑ Appendix C list of disasters with concentrations of housing ❑ Link: ❑ Damage to a minimum of 100 homes OR damage meeting this requirement OR ❑ Serious damage to a minimum of 20 homes ❑ Local data: ❑ Page number(s) in ❑ Data shows concentrated damage meeting standard,AND application: ❑ HUD agrees with its validity Infrastructure: ❑ An engineering report OR ❑ Link: ❑ Damage from the eligible disaster to ❑ FEMA Project Worksheet with an estimated repair amount permanent infrastructure in a sub-county area OR ❑ Page number(s) in estimated at$2 million or greater ❑ Other evidence of an estimate of expenditures to make application: repairs Economic Revitalization: ❑ Describe how the employment loss or harm stems from the ❑ Link: ❑ At least one percentage point higher local Qualified Disaster(applicant may support a short description unemployment rate in the impacted area six with local data or surveys) ❑ Page number(s) in to 12 months after the qualifying disaster application: compared to the same month in the year prior to the disaster in that area OR ❑ Specific information that 50 or more people were no longer employed in or near the most impacted area for six months or longer due to the disaster OR ❑ Other harm to the economy due to the disaster I-15 Environmental Degradation ✓ Support with references to any studies supporting the ✓ Link: ✓ Must describe the damage to the claim of future risk Iowa Learning Farms environment from the qualifying disaster putting the housing, Iowa State University Iowa Learning Farms DR-1998 Most Impacted infrastructure and/or economic drivers in the area at risk of great harm for a Iowa Environmental future disaster. Degradation Determination Methodology ❑ Page number(s) in application: MOST DISTRESSED CHARACTERISTICS: considers stress or deficit factors prior to the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Fremont County, Census Tract 9701 Block Groups 1 &2 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Disaster impacted low- and moderate-income ❑ CDBG low-and moderate-income summary data ❑ Link: households: []More than 50 percent of people in the target ❑ Page number(s) in area are at less than 80 percent of the area application: median income Loss/shortage of affordable rental housing: ❑ Provide a 1-2 paragraph description, with supporting data,to ❑ Link: ❑ Disaster-impacted target area has a minimum demonstrate this characteristic of 100 renters with income less than 50 ❑ Page number(s) in percent of median in a target area AND: application: ❑ 60 percent or more of these have severe housing programs OR ❑As a result of the effects of the disaster there is new high risk of damage to more than 100 assisted rental housing units from a future event the intended intervention would I-16 MOST DISTRESSED CHARACTERISTICS: considers stress or deficit factors prior to the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Fremont County, Census Tract 9701 Block Groups 1 &2 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation protect against Disaster impacted a federal target area or ❑ Demonstrate this characteristic and provide supporting ❑ Link: economically fragile area: (must choose at documentation least one to meet this criteria) ❑ Page number(s) in ❑ Tribal area application: ❑ HUD Promise Zone site ❑ HUD Strong Cities Strong Communities site AND/OR ❑ Has an unemployment rate more than 125 percent of the national average unemployment rate Disaster impacted an area with prior State-maintained Brownfield site list OR ✓ Link: documented environmental distress: ✓ Other documentation of prior environmental distress Iowa ✓ Disaster impacted an area with prior Department of Natural Resources Category 4 and 5 Environmental Distress documented environmental distress (e.g., Impaired Waters list Data affected area contains or is adjacent to and negatively affected by a contaminated property cleaned,undergoing cleanup, or ❑ Page number(s) in proposed for cleanup) application: Housing: ❑ Appendix C list of disasters with concentrations of housing ❑ Link: ❑ A concentration of housing damage in a sub- damage meeting this requirement OR county area due to the eligible disaster ❑ Local data: ❑ Page number(s) in causing damage or serious damage to at least ❑ Data shows concentrated damage meeting standard,AND application: 10 percent of the homes located there ❑ HUD agrees with validity I-17 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Fremont County, Census Tract 9701 Block Groups 1 &2 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Housing: Currently running a CDBG-DR or other recovery housing ❑ Link: ❑ Twenty or more households are still program: displaced from housing due to the disaster ❑ Analysis that shows the program waiting list AND ❑ Page number(s) in and will not be served by existing programs ❑ A reasonable estimate of aggregated average unmet repair application: OR needs exceeds the existing CDBG-DR fund available. ❑There are twenty or more still damaged housing units in or near a most impacted and Not currently running a CDBG-DR or other housing recovery distressed sub-county target area that were program: damaged by the disaster and cannot be ❑ Briefly explain why prior allocations of CDBG-DR funding, repaired with existing programs together with other funding sources, are inadequate to provide housing AND: ❑ Provide recent emergency management data indicating households are still displaced from the disaster OR ❑ Provide methodologically sound"windshield survey"of the most impacted and distressed target area conducted since January 2014 AND ❑ A list of 20 addresses of units identified with remaining damage ❑ At least 9 of these addresses confirming(i)the damage is due to the disaster and(ii)they have inadequate resources from insurance/FEN A/SBA for completing repairs I-18 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Fremont County, Census Tract 9701 Block Groups 1 &2 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Infrastructure: []An engineering report OR ❑ a FEMA Project Worksheet(s) ❑ Link: ❑ There is damage to permanent public with an estimated repair amount infrastructure from the qualifying disaster ❑ Page number(s) in (i.e. FEMA Category C to G)that has not AND application: been repaired due to inadequate resources, in or serving the most impacted and distressed ❑A sources and uses statement for the repairs showing the target area(s)AND funding shortfall(total repair costs may include the extra cost ❑ Describe the damage, location of the to repair this infrastructure resiliently)AND damage to permanent public ❑Your explanation of why existing CDBG-DR resources, infrastructure relative to the most together with other funding sources, are inadequate to meet impacted and distressed target area(s),the this repair need amount of funding required to complete repairs, and the reason there are inadequate funds AND ❑ A minimum $400,000 in unfunded permanent infrastructure repair needs I-19 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Fremont County, Census Tract 9701 Block Groups 1 &2 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Economic Revitalization: ❑ Unmet repair needs narrative for businesses: ❑ Link: ❑ There are continuing unmet economic ❑ "Windshield survey"showing a minimum of 5 businesses revitalization recovery needs due to the with remaining repair needs AND ❑ Page number(s) in disaster in or near the most impacted and ❑ A survey of 5 business owners confirming damage due to application: distressed sub-county target area(s)that the disaster and repairs not completed due to not receiving cannot be addressed with existing resources, adequate resources from insurance and(if applicable) including CDBG-DR funds already allocated other federal funds AND AND ❑ Addresses of businesses with continuing needs AND demonstrate one of the followin¢: OR ❑A minimum of 5 businesses with remaining repair needs; ❑ Decreased revenues narrative for business(es): ❑ Business revenues continued to be ❑ Analysis by a reputable public or private source showing decreased by 10 percent or more relative continuing economic damage to the target area within a to revenues prior to the disaster for one or HUD-identified most impacted county due to the disaster more modest-sized employers (10 or or a survey of business(es)who provide(i)number of more employees) due to the disaster; OR employees before the storm and current; (ii)total gross ❑ Three or more smaller businesses show revenues in year before disaster and total gross revenues revenues 10 percent less than prior in most recent year; and(iii) a description of how the revenues reduction in revenues is related to the disaster AND ❑ One modest size employer(10 or more employees)or AND three smaller businesses (fewer than 10 employees)must ❑ Provide a narrative statement describing the show most recent year total gross revenues of 10 percent extent of those needs and how the needs are less than the year before the disaster and there needs to be connected with the disaster and the most a clean connection to the disaster AND impacted and distressed sub-county target ❑ Names and addresses of impacted businesses area I-20 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Fremont County, Census Tract 9701 Block Groups 1 &2 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Environmental Degradation: ✓ A detailed report from a reputable public or private ✓ Link: ✓ There is environmental damage from the organization completed since June 2013 describing the qualifying disaster that has not yet been remaining damage with a certification date after March Unmet Recovery Need addressed and cannot be addressed with 2014 indicating that there is remaining damage of$400,000 existing resources AND or more ✓ Describe the remaining damage and how ❑ Page number(s) in the damage is connected with the qualifying . Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land application: disaster and the most impacted and Stewardship 2015 Iowa Water Quality Initiative distressed sub-county target area AND Legislative Report(Program Oversubscription) ✓ Describe the remaining damage to the environment with a cost estimate for . Iowa Floods: The"New Normal"? making repairs or reconstruction that is $400,000 or greater and support with . Cost Estimate references to any studies supporting them • Iowa Daily Erosion Project I-21 MOST IMPACTED CHARACTERISTICS: considers the damage resulting from the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Iowa County Census Tract 9601-Block Groups 1 and 3 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Housing damage due to eligible disaster: ❑ Appendix C list of disasters with concentrations of housing ❑ Link: ❑ Damage to a minimum of 100 homes OR damage meeting this requirement OR ❑ Serious damage to a minimum of 20 homes ❑ Local data: ❑ Page number(s) in ❑ Data shows concentrated damage meeting standard,AND application: ❑ HUD agrees with its validity Infrastructure: ❑ An engineering report OR ❑ Link: ❑ Damage from the eligible disaster to ❑ FEMA Project Worksheet with an estimated repair amount permanent infrastructure in a sub-county area OR ❑ Page number(s) in estimated at$2 million or greater ❑ Other evidence of an estimate of expenditures to make application: repairs Economic Revitalization: ❑ Describe how the employment loss or harm stems from the ❑ Link: ❑ At least one percentage point higher local Qualified Disaster(applicant may support a short description unemployment rate in the impacted area six with local data or surveys) ❑ Page number(s) in to 12 months after the qualifying disaster application: compared to the same month in the year prior to the disaster in that area OR ❑ Specific information that 50 or more people were no longer employed in or near the most impacted area for six months or longer due to the disaster OR ❑ Other harm to the economy due to the disaster I-22 Environmental Degradation ✓ Support with references to any studies supporting the ✓ Link: ✓ Must describe the damage to the claim of future risk Iowa Learning Farms environment from the qualifying disaster putting the housing, Iowa State University Iowa Learning Farms DR-4119 Most Impacted infrastructure and/or economic drivers in the area at risk of great harm for a Iowa Environmental future disaster. Degradation Determination Methodology ❑ Page number(s) in application: MOST DISTRESSED CHARACTERISTICS: considers stress or deficit factors prior to the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Iowa County Census Tract 9601-Block Groups 1 and 3 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Disaster impacted low- and moderate-income ❑ CDBG low-and moderate-income summary data ❑ Link: households: []More than 50 percent of people in the target ❑ Page number(s) in area are at less than 80 percent of the area application: median income Loss/shortage of affordable rental housing: ❑ Provide a 1-2 paragraph description, with supporting data,to ❑ Link: ❑ Disaster-impacted target area has a minimum demonstrate this characteristic of 100 renters with income less than 50 ❑ Page number(s) in percent of median in a target area AND: application: ❑ 60 percent or more of these have severe housing programs OR ❑As a result of the effects of the disaster there I-23 MOST DISTRESSED CHARACTERISTICS: considers stress or deficit factors prior to the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Iowa County Census Tract 9601-Block Groups 1 and 3 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation is new high risk of damage to more than 100 assisted rental housing units from a future event the intended intervention would protect against Disaster impacted a federal target area or ❑ Demonstrate this characteristic and provide supporting ❑ Link: economically fragile area: (must choose at documentation least one to meet this criteria) ❑ Page number(s) in ❑ Tribal area application: ❑ HUD Promise Zone site ❑ HUD Strong Cities Strong Communities site AND/OR ❑ Has an unemployment rate more than 125 percent of the national average unemployment rate Disaster impacted an area with prior State-maintained Brownfield site list OR ✓ Link: documented environmental distress: ✓ Other documentation of prior environmental distress Iowa ✓ Disaster impacted an area with prior Department of Natural Resources Category 4 and 5 Environmental Distress documented environmental distress (e.g., Impaired Waters list Data affected area contains or is adjacent to and negatively affected by a contaminated ❑ Page number(s) in property cleaned,undergoing cleanup, or application: proposed for cleanup) Housing: ❑ Appendix C list of disasters with concentrations of housing ❑ Link: ❑ A concentration of housing damage in a sub- damage meeting this requirement OR county area due to the eligible disaster ❑ Local data: ❑ Page number(s) in causing damage or serious damage to at least ❑ Data shows concentrated damage meeting standard,AND application: 10 percent of the homes located there ❑ HUD agrees with validity I-24 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Iowa County Census Tract 9601-Block Groups 1 and 3 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Housing: Currently running a CDBG-DR or other recovery housing ❑ Link: ❑ Twenty or more households are still program: displaced from housing due to the disaster ❑ Analysis that shows the program waiting list AND ❑ Page number(s) in and will not be served by existing programs ❑ A reasonable estimate of aggregated average unmet repair application: OR needs exceeds the existing CDBG-DR fund available. ❑There are twenty or more still damaged housing units in or near a most impacted and Not currently running a CDBG-DR or other housing recovery distressed sub-county target area that were program: damaged by the disaster and cannot be ❑ Briefly explain why prior allocations of CDBG-DR funding, repaired with existing programs together with other funding sources, are inadequate to provide housing AND: ❑ Provide recent emergency management data indicating households are still displaced from the disaster OR ❑ Provide methodologically sound"windshield survey"of the most impacted and distressed target area conducted since January 2014 AND ❑ A list of 20 addresses of units identified with remaining damage ❑ At least 9 of these addresses confirming(i)the damage is due to the disaster and(ii)they have inadequate resources from insurance/FEN A/SBA for completing repairs I-25 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Iowa County Census Tract 9601-Block Groups 1 and 3 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Infrastructure: []An engineering report OR ❑ a FEMA Project Worksheet(s) ❑ Link: ❑ There is damage to permanent public with an estimated repair amount infrastructure from the qualifying disaster ❑ Page number(s) in (i.e. FEMA Category C to G)that has not AND application: been repaired due to inadequate resources, in or serving the most impacted and distressed ❑A sources and uses statement for the repairs showing the target area(s)AND funding shortfall(total repair costs may include the extra cost ❑ Describe the damage, location of the to repair this infrastructure resiliently)AND damage to permanent public ❑Your explanation of why existing CDBG-DR resources, infrastructure relative to the most together with other funding sources, are inadequate to meet impacted and distressed target area(s),the this repair need amount of funding required to complete repairs, and the reason there are inadequate funds AND ❑ A minimum $400,000 in unfunded permanent infrastructure repair needs I-26 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Iowa County Census Tract 9601-Block Groups 1 and 3 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Economic Revitalization: ❑ Unmet repair needs narrative for businesses: ❑ Link: ❑ There are continuing unmet economic ❑ "Windshield survey"showing a minimum of 5 businesses revitalization recovery needs due to the with remaining repair needs AND ❑ Page number(s) in disaster in or near the most impacted and ❑ A survey of 5 business owners confirming damage due to application: distressed sub-county target area(s)that the disaster and repairs not completed due to not receiving cannot be addressed with existing resources, adequate resources from insurance and(if applicable) including CDBG-DR funds already allocated other federal funds AND AND ❑ Addresses of businesses with continuing needs AND demonstrate one of the followin¢: OR ❑A minimum of 5 businesses with remaining repair needs; ❑ Decreased revenues narrative for business(es): ❑ Business revenues continued to be ❑ Analysis by a reputable public or private source showing decreased by 10 percent or more relative continuing economic damage to the target area within a to revenues prior to the disaster for one or HUD-identified most impacted county due to the disaster more modest-sized employers (10 or or a survey of business(es)who provide(i)number of more employees) due to the disaster; OR employees before the storm and current; (ii)total gross ❑ Three or more smaller businesses show revenues in year before disaster and total gross revenues revenues 10 percent less than prior in most recent year; and(iii) a description of how the revenues reduction in revenues is related to the disaster AND ❑ One modest size employer(10 or more employees)or AND three smaller businesses (fewer than 10 employees)must ❑ Provide a narrative statement describing the show most recent year total gross revenues of 10 percent extent of those needs and how the needs are less than the year before the disaster and there needs to be connected with the disaster and the most a clean connection to the disaster AND impacted and distressed sub-county target ❑ Names and addresses of impacted businesses area I-27 MOST IMPACTED CHARACTERISTICS: considers the damage resulting from the Qualified Disaster UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Iowa County Census Tract 9601-Block Groups 1 and 3 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Environmental Degradation: ✓ A detailed report from a reputable public or private ✓ Link: ✓ There is environmental damage from the organization completed since June 2013 describing the qualifying disaster that has not yet been remaining damage with a certification date after March Unmet Recovery Need addressed and cannot be addressed with 2014 indicating that there is remaining damage of$400,000 existing resources AND or more ❑ Page number(s) in ✓ Describe the remaining damage and how application: the damage is connected with the qualifying . Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land disaster and the most impacted and Stewardship 2015 Iowa Water Quality Initiative distressed sub-county target area AND Legislative Report(Program Oversubscription) ✓ Describe the remaining damage to the environment with a cost estimate for . Iowa Floods: The"New Normal"? making repairs or reconstruction that is $400,000 or greater and support with . Cost Estimate references to any studies supporting them • Iowa Daily Erosion Project I-28 Response must include at least one criterion For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Johnson County Census Tract 103.01 Block Groups 1,2,3,4; Census Tract 2 Block Groups 1-3, Census Tract 4 Block Groups 1-3; Census Tract 23 Block Groups 1-2, Census Track 5 Block Groups 1-4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Housing damage due to eligible disaster: ❑ Appendix C list of disasters with concentrations of housing ❑ Link: ❑ Damage to a minimum of 100 homes OR damage meeting this requirement OR ❑ Serious damage to a minimum of 20 homes ❑ Local data: ❑ Page number(s) in ❑ Data shows concentrated damage meeting standard,AND application: ❑ HUD agrees with its validity Infrastructure: ❑ An engineering report OR ❑ Link: ❑ Damage from the eligible disaster to ❑ FEMA Project Worksheet with an estimated repair amount permanent infrastructure in a sub-county area OR ❑ Page number(s) in estimated at$2 million or greater ❑ Other evidence of an estimate of expenditures to make application: repairs Economic Revitalization: ❑ Describe how the employment loss or harm stems from the ❑ Link: ❑ At least one percentage point higher local Qualified Disaster(applicant may support a short description unemployment rate in the impacted area six with local data or surveys) ❑ Page number(s) in to 12 months after the qualifying disaster application: compared to the same month in the year prior to the disaster in that area OR ❑ Specific information that 50 or more people were no longer employed in or near the most impacted area for six months or longer due to the disaster OR ❑ Other harm to the economy due to the disaster I-29 Environmental Degradation ✓ Support with references to any studies supporting the ✓ Link: ✓ Must describe the damage to the claim of future risk Iowa Learning Farms environment from the qualifying disaster putting the housing, Iowa State University Iowa Learning Farms DR-4119 Most Impacted infrastructure and/or economic drivers in the area at risk of great harm for a Iowa Environmental future disaster. Degradation Determination Methodology ❑ Page number(s) in application: MOST DISTRESSED CHARACTERISTICS: considers stress or deficit factors prior to the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Johnson County Census Tract 103.01 Block Groups 1,2,3,4; Census Tract 2 Block Groups 1-3, Census Tract 4 Block Groups 1-3; Census Tract 23 Block Groups 1-2, Census Track 5 Block Groups 1-4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Disaster impacted low- and moderate-income ❑ CDBG low-and moderate-income summary data ❑ Link: households: []More than 50 percent of people in the target ❑ Page number(s) in area are at less than 80 percent of the area application: median income Loss/shortage of affordable rental housing: ❑ Provide a 1-2 paragraph description, with supporting data,to ❑ Link: ❑ Disaster-impacted target area has a minimum demonstrate this characteristic of 100 renters with income less than 50 ❑ Page number(s) in percent of median in a target area AND: application: ❑ 60 percent or more of these have severe housing programs OR ❑As a result of the effects of the disaster there is new high risk of damage to more than 100 I-30 MOST DISTRESSED CHARACTERISTICS: considers stress or deficit factors prior to the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Johnson County Census Tract 103.01 Block Groups 1,2,3,4; Census Tract 2 Block Groups 1-3, Census Tract 4 Block Groups 1-3; Census Tract 23 Block Groups 1-2, Census Track 5 Block Groups 1-4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation assisted rental housing units from a future event the intended intervention would protect against Disaster impacted a federal target area or ❑ Demonstrate this characteristic and provide supporting ❑ Link: economically fragile area: (must choose at documentation least one to meet this criteria) ❑ Page number(s) in ❑ Tribal area application: ❑ HUD Promise Zone site ❑ HUD Strong Cities Strong Communities site AND/OR ❑ Has an unemployment rate more than 125 percent of the national average unemployment rate Disaster impacted an area with prior State-maintained Brownfield site list OR ✓ Link: documented environmental distress: ✓ Other documentation of prior environmental distress Iowa ✓ Disaster impacted an area with prior Department of Natural Resources Category 4 and 5 Environmental Distress documented environmental distress (e.g., Impaired Waters list Data affected area contains or is adjacent to and negatively affected by a contaminated ❑ Page number(s) in property cleaned,undergoing cleanup, or application: proposed for cleanup) Housing: ❑ Appendix C list of disasters with concentrations of housing ❑ Link: ❑ A concentration of housing damage in a sub- damage meeting this requirement OR county area due to the eligible disaster ❑ Local data: ❑ Page number(s) in causing damage or serious damage to at least ❑ Data shows concentrated damage meeting standard,AND application: 10 percent of the homes located there ❑ HUD agrees with validity I-31 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Johnson County Census Tract 103.01 Block Groups 1,2,3,4; Census Tract 2 Block Groups 1-3, Census Tract 4 Block Groups 1-3; Census Tract 23 Block Groups 1-2, Census Track 5 Block Groups 1-4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Housing: Currently running a CDBG-DR or other recovery housing ❑ Link: ❑ Twenty or more households are still program: displaced from housing due to the disaster ❑ Analysis that shows the program waiting list AND ❑ Page number(s) in and will not be served by existing programs ❑ A reasonable estimate of aggregated average unmet repair application: OR needs exceeds the existing CDBG-DR fund available. ❑There are twenty or more still damaged housing units in or near a most impacted and Not currently running a CDBG-DR or other housing recovery distressed sub-county target area that were program: damaged by the disaster and cannot be ❑ Briefly explain why prior allocations of CDBG-DR funding, repaired with existing programs together with other funding sources, are inadequate to provide housing AND: ❑ Provide recent emergency management data indicating households are still displaced from the disaster OR ❑ Provide methodologically sound"windshield survey"of the most impacted and distressed target area conducted since January 2014 AND ❑ A list of 20 addresses of units identified with remaining damage ❑ At least 9 of these addresses confirming(i)the damage is due to the disaster and(ii)they have inadequate resources from insurance/FEN A/SBA for completing repairs I-32 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Johnson County Census Tract 103.01 Block Groups 1,2,3,4; Census Tract 2 Block Groups 1-3, Census Tract 4 Block Groups 1-3; Census Tract 23 Block Groups 1-2, Census Track 5 Block Groups 1-4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Infrastructure: []An engineering report OR ❑ a FEMA Project Worksheet(s) ❑ Link: ❑ There is damage to permanent public with an estimated repair amount infrastructure from the qualifying disaster ❑ Page number(s) in (i.e. FEMA Category C to G)that has not AND application: been repaired due to inadequate resources, in or serving the most impacted and distressed ❑A sources and uses statement for the repairs showing the target area(s)AND funding shortfall(total repair costs may include the extra cost ❑ Describe the damage, location of the to repair this infrastructure resiliently)AND damage to permanent public ❑Your explanation of why existing CDBG-DR resources, infrastructure relative to the most together with other funding sources, are inadequate to meet impacted and distressed target area(s),the this repair need amount of funding required to complete repairs, and the reason there are inadequate funds AND ❑ A minimum $400,000 in unfunded permanent infrastructure repair needs I-33 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Johnson County Census Tract 103.01 Block Groups 1,2,3,4; Census Tract 2 Block Groups 1-3, Census Tract 4 Block Groups 1-3; Census Tract 23 Block Groups 1-2, Census Track 5 Block Groups 1-4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Economic Revitalization: ❑ Unmet repair needs narrative for businesses: ❑ Link: ❑ There are continuing unmet economic ❑ "Windshield survey"showing a minimum of 5 businesses revitalization recovery needs due to the with remaining repair needs AND ❑ Page number(s) in disaster in or near the most impacted and ❑ A survey of 5 business owners confirming damage due to application: distressed sub-county target area(s)that the disaster and repairs not completed due to not receiving cannot be addressed with existing resources, adequate resources from insurance and(if applicable) including CDBG-DR funds already allocated other federal funds AND AND ❑ Addresses of businesses with continuing needs AND demonstrate one of the followin¢: OR ❑A minimum of 5 businesses with remaining repair needs; ❑ Decreased revenues narrative for business(es): ❑ Business revenues continued to be ❑ Analysis by a reputable public or private source showing decreased by 10 percent or more relative continuing economic damage to the target area within a to revenues prior to the disaster for one or HUD-identified most impacted county due to the disaster more modest-sized employers (10 or or a survey of business(es)who provide(i)number of more employees) due to the disaster; OR employees before the storm and current; (ii)total gross ❑ Three or more smaller businesses show revenues in year before disaster and total gross revenues revenues 10 percent less than prior in most recent year; and(iii) a description of how the revenues reduction in revenues is related to the disaster AND ❑ One modest size employer(10 or more employees)or AND three smaller businesses (fewer than 10 employees)must ❑ Provide a narrative statement describing the show most recent year total gross revenues of 10 percent extent of those needs and how the needs are less than the year before the disaster and there needs to be connected with the disaster and the most a clean connection to the disaster AND impacted and distressed sub-county target ❑ Names and addresses of impacted businesses area I-34 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Johnson County Census Tract 103.01 Block Groups 1,2,3,4; Census Tract 2 Block Groups 1-3, Census Tract 4 Block Groups 1-3; Census Tract 23 Block Groups 1-2, Census Track 5 Block Groups 1-4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Environmental Degradation: ✓ A detailed report from a reputable public or private ✓ Link: ✓ There is environmental damage from the organization completed since June 2013 describing the qualifying disaster that has not yet been remaining damage with a certification date after March Unmet Recover addressed and cannot be addressed with 2014 indicating that there is remaining damage of$400,000 existing resources AND or more ❑ Page number(s) in ✓ Describe the remaining damage and how application: the damage is connected with the qualifying . Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land disaster and the most impacted and Stewardship 2015 Iowa Water Quality Initiative distressed sub-county target area AND Legislative Report(Program Oversubscription) ✓ Describe the remaining damage to the environment with a cost estimate for . Iowa Floods: The"New Normal"? making repairs or reconstruction that is $400,000 or greater and support with . Cost Estimate references to any studies supporting them • Iowa Daily Erosion Project I-35 MOST IMPACTED CHARACTERISTICS: considers the damage resulting from the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Mills County, Census Tract 401 Block Groups 1-4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Housing damage due to eligible disaster: ❑ Appendix C list of disasters with concentrations of housing ❑ Link: ❑ Damage to a minimum of 100 homes OR damage meeting this requirement OR ❑ Serious damage to a minimum of 20 homes ❑ Local data: ❑ Page number(s) in ❑ Data shows concentrated damage meeting standard,AND application: ❑ HUD agrees with its validity Infrastructure: ❑ An engineering report OR ❑ Link: ❑ Damage from the eligible disaster to ❑ FEMA Project Worksheet with an estimated repair amount permanent infrastructure in a sub-county area OR ❑ Page number(s) in estimated at$2 million or greater ❑ Other evidence of an estimate of expenditures to make application: repairs Economic Revitalization: ❑ Describe how the employment loss or harm stems from the ❑ Link: ❑ At least one percentage point higher local Qualified Disaster(applicant may support a short description unemployment rate in the impacted area six with local data or surveys) ❑ Page number(s) in to 12 months after the qualifying disaster application: compared to the same month in the year prior to the disaster in that area OR ❑ Specific information that 50 or more people were no longer employed in or near the most impacted area for six months or longer due to the disaster OR ❑ Other harm to the economy due to the disaster I-36 Environmental Degradation ✓ Support with references to any studies supporting the ✓ Link: ✓ Must describe the damage to the claim of future risk Iowa Learning Farms environment from the qualifying disaster putting the housing, Iowa State University Iowa Learning Farms DR-1998 Most Impacted infrastructure and/or economic drivers in the area at risk of great harm for a Iowa Environmental future disaster. Degradation Determination Methodology ❑ Page number(s) in application: MOST DISTRESSED CHARACTERISTICS: considers stress or deficit factors prior to the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Mills County, Census Tract 401 Block Groups 1-4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Disaster impacted low- and moderate-income ❑ CDBG low-and moderate-income summary data ❑ Link: households: []More than 50 percent of people in the target ❑ Page number(s) in area are at less than 80 percent of the area application: median income Loss/shortage of affordable rental housing: ❑ Provide a 1-2 paragraph description, with supporting data,to ❑ Link: ❑ Disaster-impacted target area has a minimum demonstrate this characteristic of 100 renters with income less than 50 ❑ Page number(s) in percent of median in a target area AND: application: ❑ 60 percent or more of these have severe housing programs OR ❑As a result of the effects of the disaster there is new high risk of damage to more than 100 assisted rental housing units from a future I-37 MOST DISTRESSED CHARACTERISTICS: considers stress or deficit factors prior to the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Mills County, Census Tract 401 Block Groups 1-4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation event the intended intervention would protect against Disaster impacted a federal target area or ❑ Demonstrate this characteristic and provide supporting ❑ Link: economically fragile area: (must choose at documentation least one to meet this criteria) ❑ Page number(s) in ❑ Tribal area application: ❑ HUD Promise Zone site ❑ HUD Strong Cities Strong Communities site AND/OR ❑ Has an unemployment rate more than 125 percent of the national average unemployment rate Disaster impacted an area with prior State-maintained Brownfield site list OR ✓ Link: documented environmental distress: ✓ Other documentation of prior environmental distress Iowa ✓ Disaster impacted an area with prior Department of Natural Resources Category 4 and 5 Environmental Distress documented environmental distress (e.g., Impaired Waters list Data affected area contains or is adjacent to and negatively affected by a contaminated ❑ Page number(s) in property cleaned,undergoing cleanup, or application: proposed for cleanup) Housing: ❑ Appendix C list of disasters with concentrations of housing ❑ Link: ❑ A concentration of housing damage in a sub- damage meeting this requirement OR county area due to the eligible disaster ❑ Local data: ❑ Page number(s) in causing damage or serious damage to at least ❑ Data shows concentrated damage meeting standard,AND application: 10 percent of the homes located there ❑ HUD agrees with validity I-38 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Mills County, Census Tract 401 Block Groups 1-4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Housing: Currently running a CDBG-DR or other recovery housing ❑ Link: ❑ Twenty or more households are still program: displaced from housing due to the disaster ❑ Analysis that shows the program waiting list AND ❑ Page number(s) in and will not be served by existing programs ❑ A reasonable estimate of aggregated average unmet repair application: OR needs exceeds the existing CDBG-DR fund available. ❑There are twenty or more still damaged housing units in or near a most impacted and Not currently running a CDBG-DR or other housing recovery distressed sub-county target area that were program: damaged by the disaster and cannot be ❑ Briefly explain why prior allocations of CDBG-DR funding, repaired with existing programs together with other funding sources, are inadequate to provide housing AND: ❑ Provide recent emergency management data indicating households are still displaced from the disaster OR ❑ Provide methodologically sound"windshield survey"of the most impacted and distressed target area conducted since January 2014 AND ❑ A list of 20 addresses of units identified with remaining damage ❑ At least 9 of these addresses confirming(i)the damage is due to the disaster and(ii)they have inadequate resources from insurance/FEMA/SBA for completing repairs I-39 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Mills County, Census Tract 401 Block Groups 1-4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Infrastructure: []An engineering report OR ❑ a FEMA Project Worksheet(s) ❑ Link: ❑ There is damage to permanent public with an estimated repair amount infrastructure from the qualifying disaster ❑ Page number(s) in (i.e. FEMA Category C to G)that has not AND application: been repaired due to inadequate resources, in or serving the most impacted and distressed ❑A sources and uses statement for the repairs showing the target area(s)AND funding shortfall(total repair costs may include the extra cost ❑ Describe the damage, location of the to repair this infrastructure resiliently)AND damage to permanent public ❑Your explanation of why existing CDBG-DR resources, infrastructure relative to the most together with other funding sources, are inadequate to meet impacted and distressed target area(s),the this repair need amount of funding required to complete repairs, and the reason there are inadequate funds AND ❑ A minimum $400,000 in unfunded permanent infrastructure repair needs I-40 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Mills County, Census Tract 401 Block Groups 1-4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Economic Revitalization: ❑ Unmet repair needs narrative for businesses: ❑ Link: ❑ There are continuing unmet economic ❑ "Windshield survey"showing a minimum of 5 businesses revitalization recovery needs due to the with remaining repair needs AND ❑ Page number(s) in disaster in or near the most impacted and ❑ A survey of 5 business owners confirming damage due to application: distressed sub-county target area(s)that the disaster and repairs not completed due to not receiving cannot be addressed with existing resources, adequate resources from insurance and(if applicable) including CDBG-DR funds already allocated other federal funds AND AND ❑ Addresses of businesses with continuing needs AND demonstrate one of the followin¢: OR ❑A minimum of 5 businesses with remaining repair needs; ❑ Decreased revenues narrative for business(es): ❑ Business revenues continued to be ❑ Analysis by a reputable public or private source showing decreased by 10 percent or more relative continuing economic damage to the target area within a to revenues prior to the disaster for one or HUD-identified most impacted county due to the disaster more modest-sized employers (10 or or a survey of business(es)who provide(i)number of more employees) due to the disaster; OR employees before the storm and current; (ii)total gross ❑ Three or more smaller businesses show revenues in year before disaster and total gross revenues revenues 10 percent less than prior in most recent year; and(iii) a description of how the revenues reduction in revenues is related to the disaster AND ❑ One modest size employer(10 or more employees)or AND three smaller businesses (fewer than 10 employees)must ❑ Provide a narrative statement describing the show most recent year total gross revenues of 10 percent extent of those needs and how the needs are less than the year before the disaster and there needs to be connected with the disaster and the most a clean connection to the disaster AND impacted and distressed sub-county target ❑ Names and addresses of impacted businesses area I-41 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Mills County, Census Tract 401 Block Groups 1-4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Environmental Degradation: ✓ A detailed report from a reputable public or private ✓ Link: ✓ There is environmental damage from the organization completed since June 2013 describing the qualifying disaster that has not yet been remaining damage with a certification date after March Unmet Recovery Need addressed and cannot be addressed with 2014 indicating that there is remaining damage of$400,000 existing resources AND or more ❑ Page number(s) in ✓ Describe the remaining damage and how application: the damage is connected with the qualifying . Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land disaster and the most impacted and Stewardship 2015 Iowa Water Quality Initiative distressed sub-county target area AND Legislative Report(Program Oversubscription) ✓ Describe the remaining damage to the environment with a cost estimate for . Iowa Floods: The"New Normal"? making repairs or reconstruction that is $400,000 or greater and support with . Cost Estimate references to any studies supporting them • Iowa Daily Erosion Project I-42 MOST IMPACTED CHARACTERISTICS: considers the damage resulting from the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Pocahontas County Census Tract 7801 Block Groups 1-3, Census Tract 7802 Block Group 1, Census Tract 7803 Block Groups 1&3 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Housing damage due to eligible disaster: ❑ Appendix C list of disasters with concentrations of housing ❑ Link: ❑ Damage to a minimum of 100 homes OR damage meeting this requirement OR ❑ Serious damage to a minimum of 20 homes ❑ Local data: ❑ Page number(s) in ❑ Data shows concentrated damage meeting standard,AND application: ❑ HUD agrees with its validity Infrastructure: ❑ An engineering report OR ❑ Link: ❑ Damage from the eligible disaster to ❑ FEMA Project Worksheet with an estimated repair amount permanent infrastructure in a sub-county area OR ❑ Page number(s) in estimated at$2 million or greater ❑ Other evidence of an estimate of expenditures to make application: repairs Economic Revitalization: ❑ Describe how the employment loss or harm stems from the ❑ Link: ❑ At least one percentage point higher local Qualified Disaster(applicant may support a short description unemployment rate in the impacted area six with local data or surveys) ❑ Page number(s) in to 12 months after the qualifying disaster application: compared to the same month in the year prior to the disaster in that area OR ❑ Specific information that 50 or more people were no longer employed in or near the most impacted area for six months or longer due to the disaster OR ❑ Other harm to the economy due to the disaster I-43 Environmental Degradation ✓ Support with references to any studies supporting the ✓ Link: ✓ Must describe the damage to the claim of future risk Iowa Learning Farms environment from the qualifying disaster putting the housing, Iowa State University Iowa Learning Farms DR-1977 Most Impacted infrastructure and/or economic drivers in the area at risk of great harm for a Iowa Environmental future disaster. Degradation Determination Methodology ❑ Page number(s) in application: MOST DISTRESSED CHARACTERISTICS: considers stress or deficit factors prior to the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Pocahontas County Census Tract 7801 Block Groups 1-3, Census Tract 7802 Block Group 1, Census Tract 7803 Block Groups 1&3 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Disaster impacted low- and moderate-income ❑ CDBG low-and moderate-income summary data ❑ Link: households: []More than 50 percent of people in the target ❑ Page number(s) in area are at less than 80 percent of the area application: median income Loss/shortage of affordable rental housing: ❑ Provide a 1-2 paragraph description, with supporting data,to ❑ Link: ❑ Disaster-impacted target area has a minimum demonstrate this characteristic of 100 renters with income less than 50 ❑ Page number(s) in percent of median in a target area AND: application: ❑ 60 percent or more of these have severe housing programs OR ❑As a result of the effects of the disaster there I-44 MOST DISTRESSED CHARACTERISTICS: considers stress or deficit factors prior to the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Pocahontas County Census Tract 7801 Block Groups 1-3, Census Tract 7802 Block Group 1, Census Tract 7803 Block Groups 1&3 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation is new high risk of damage to more than 100 assisted rental housing units from a future event the intended intervention would protect against Disaster impacted a federal target area or ❑ Demonstrate this characteristic and provide supporting ❑ Link: economically fragile area: (must choose at documentation least one to meet this criteria) ❑ Page number(s) in ❑ Tribal area application: ❑ HUD Promise Zone site ❑ HUD Strong Cities Strong Communities site AND/OR ❑ Has an unemployment rate more than 125 percent of the national average unemployment rate Disaster impacted an area with prior State-maintained Brownfield site list OR ✓ Link: documented environmental distress: ✓ Other documentation of prior environmental distress Iowa ✓ Disaster impacted an area with prior Department of Natural Resources Category 4 and 5 Environmental Distress documented environmental distress (e.g., Impaired Waters list Data affected area contains or is adjacent to and negatively affected by a contaminated ❑ Page number(s) in property cleaned,undergoing cleanup, or application: proposed for cleanup) Housing: ❑ Appendix C list of disasters with concentrations of housing ❑ Link: ❑ A concentration of housing damage in a sub- damage meeting this requirement OR county area due to the eligible disaster ❑ Local data: ❑ Page number(s) in causing damage or serious damage to at least ❑ Data shows concentrated damage meeting standard,AND application: 10 percent of the homes located there ❑ HUD agrees with validity I-45 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Pocahontas County Census Tract 7801 Block Groups 1-3, Census Tract 7802 Block Group 1, Census Tract 7803 Block Groups 1&3 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Housing: Currently running a CDBG-DR or other recovery housing ❑ Link: ❑ Twenty or more households are still program: displaced from housing due to the disaster ❑ Analysis that shows the program waiting list AND ❑ Page number(s) in and will not be served by existing programs ❑ A reasonable estimate of aggregated average unmet repair application: OR needs exceeds the existing CDBG-DR fund available. ❑There are twenty or more still damaged housing units in or near a most impacted and Not currently running a CDBG-DR or other housing recovery distressed sub-county target area that were program: damaged by the disaster and cannot be ❑ Briefly explain why prior allocations of CDBG-DR funding, repaired with existing programs together with other funding sources, are inadequate to provide housing AND: ❑ Provide recent emergency management data indicating households are still displaced from the disaster OR ❑ Provide methodologically sound"windshield survey"of the most impacted and distressed target area conducted since January 2014 AND ❑ A list of 20 addresses of units identified with remaining damage ❑ At least 9 of these addresses confirming(i)the damage is due to the disaster and(ii)they have inadequate resources from insurance/FEN A/SBA for completing repairs I-46 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Pocahontas County Census Tract 7801 Block Groups 1-3, Census Tract 7802 Block Group 1, Census Tract 7803 Block Groups 1&3 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Infrastructure: []An engineering report OR ❑ a FEMA Project Worksheet(s) ❑ Link: ❑ There is damage to permanent public with an estimated repair amount infrastructure from the qualifying disaster ❑ Page number(s) in (i.e. FEMA Category C to G)that has not AND application: been repaired due to inadequate resources, in or serving the most impacted and distressed ❑A sources and uses statement for the repairs showing the target area(s)AND funding shortfall(total repair costs may include the extra cost ❑ Describe the damage, location of the to repair this infrastructure resiliently)AND damage to permanent public ❑Your explanation of why existing CDBG-DR resources, infrastructure relative to the most together with other funding sources, are inadequate to meet impacted and distressed target area(s),the this repair need amount of funding required to complete repairs, and the reason there are inadequate funds AND ❑ A minimum $400,000 in unfunded permanent infrastructure repair needs I-47 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Pocahontas County Census Tract 7801 Block Groups 1-3, Census Tract 7802 Block Group 1, Census Tract 7803 Block Groups 1&3 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Economic Revitalization: ❑ Unmet repair needs narrative for businesses: ❑ Link: ❑ There are continuing unmet economic ❑ "Windshield survey"showing a minimum of 5 businesses revitalization recovery needs due to the with remaining repair needs AND ❑ Page number(s) in disaster in or near the most impacted and ❑ A survey of 5 business owners confirming damage due to application: distressed sub-county target area(s)that the disaster and repairs not completed due to not receiving cannot be addressed with existing resources, adequate resources from insurance and(if applicable) including CDBG-DR funds already allocated other federal funds AND AND ❑ Addresses of businesses with continuing needs AND demonstrate one of the followin¢: OR ❑A minimum of 5 businesses with remaining repair needs; ❑ Decreased revenues narrative for business(es): ❑ Business revenues continued to be ❑ Analysis by a reputable public or private source showing decreased by 10 percent or more relative continuing economic damage to the target area within a to revenues prior to the disaster for one or HUD-identified most impacted county due to the disaster more modest-sized employers (10 or or a survey of business(es)who provide(i)number of more employees) due to the disaster; OR employees before the storm and current; (ii)total gross ❑ Three or more smaller businesses show revenues in year before disaster and total gross revenues revenues 10 percent less than prior in most recent year; and(iii) a description of how the revenues reduction in revenues is related to the disaster AND ❑ One modest size employer(10 or more employees)or AND three smaller businesses (fewer than 10 employees)must ❑ Provide a narrative statement describing the show most recent year total gross revenues of 10 percent extent of those needs and how the needs are less than the year before the disaster and there needs to be connected with the disaster and the most a clean connection to the disaster AND impacted and distressed sub-county target ❑ Names and addresses of impacted businesses area I-48 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Pocahontas County Census Tract 7801 Block Groups 1-3, Census Tract 7802 Block Group 1, Census Tract 7803 Block Groups 1&3 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Environmental Degradation: ✓ A detailed report from a reputable public or private ✓ Link: ✓ There is environmental damage from the organization completed since June 2013 describing the qualifying disaster that has not yet been remaining damage with a certification date after March Unmet Recover addressed and cannot be addressed with 2014 indicating that there is remaining damage of$400,000 existing resources AND or more ❑ Page number(s) in ✓ Describe the remaining damage and how application: the damage is connected with the qualifying . Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land disaster and the most impacted and Stewardship 2015 Iowa Water Quality Initiative distressed sub-county target area AND Legislative Report(Program Oversubscription) ✓ Describe the remaining damage to the environment with a cost estimate for . Iowa Floods: The"New Normal"? making repairs or reconstruction that is $400,000 or greater and support with . Cost Estimate references to any studies supporting them • Iowa Daily Erosion Project I-49 MOST IMPACTED CHARACTERISTICS: considers the damage resulting from the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Winneshiek County Census Tract 9501- Block Groups 1-4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Housing damage due to eligible disaster: ❑ Appendix C list of disasters with concentrations of housing ❑ Link: ❑ Damage to a minimum of 100 homes OR damage meeting this requirement OR ❑ Serious damage to a minimum of 20 homes ❑ Local data: ❑ Page number(s) in ❑ Data shows concentrated damage meeting standard,AND application: ❑ HUD agrees with its validity Infrastructure: ❑ An engineering report OR ❑ Link: ❑ Damage from the eligible disaster to ❑ FEMA Project Worksheet with an estimated repair amount permanent infrastructure in a sub-county area OR ❑ Page number(s) in estimated at$2 million or greater ❑ Other evidence of an estimate of expenditures to make application: repairs Economic Revitalization: ❑ Describe how the employment loss or harm stems from the ❑ Link: ❑ At least one percentage point higher local Qualified Disaster(applicant may support a short description unemployment rate in the impacted area six with local data or surveys) ❑ Page number(s) in to 12 months after the qualifying disaster application: compared to the same month in the year prior to the disaster in that area OR ❑ Specific information that 50 or more people were no longer employed in or near the most impacted area for six months or longer due to the disaster OR ❑ Other harm to the economy due to the disaster I-50 Environmental Degradation ✓ Support with references to any studies supporting the ✓ Link: ✓ Must describe the damage to the claim of future risk Iowa Learning Farms environment from the qualifying disaster putting the housing, Iowa State University Iowa Learning Farms DR-4135 Most Impacted infrastructure and/or economic drivers in the area at risk of great harm for a Iowa Environmental future disaster. Degradation Determination Methodology ❑ Page number(s) in application: MOST DISTRESSED CHARACTERISTICS: considers stress or deficit factors prior to the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Winneshiek County Census Tract 9501- Block Groups 1-4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Disaster impacted low- and moderate-income ❑ CDBG low-and moderate-income summary data ❑ Link: households: []More than 50 percent of people in the target ❑ Page number(s) in area are at less than 80 percent of the area application: median income Loss/shortage of affordable rental housing: ❑ Provide a 1-2 paragraph description, with supporting data,to ❑ Link: ❑ Disaster-impacted target area has a minimum demonstrate this characteristic of 100 renters with income less than 50 ❑ Page number(s) in percent of median in a target area AND: application: ❑ 60 percent or more of these have severe housing programs OR ❑As a result of the effects of the disaster there is new high risk of damage to more than 100 assisted rental housing units from a future I-51 MOST DISTRESSED CHARACTERISTICS: considers stress or deficit factors prior to the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Winneshiek County Census Tract 9501- Block Groups 1-4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation event the intended intervention would protect against Disaster impacted a federal target area or ❑ Demonstrate this characteristic and provide supporting ❑ Link: economically fragile area: (must choose at documentation least one to meet this criteria) ❑ Page number(s) in ❑ Tribal area application: ❑ HUD Promise Zone site ❑ HUD Strong Cities Strong Communities site AND/OR ❑ Has an unemployment rate more than 125 percent of the national average unemployment rate Disaster impacted an area with prior State-maintained Brownfield site list OR ✓ Link: documented environmental distress: ✓ Other documentation of prior environmental distress Iowa ✓ Disaster impacted an area with prior Department of Natural Resources Category 4 and 5 Environmental Distress documented environmental distress (e.g., Impaired Waters list Data affected area contains or is adjacent to and negatively affected by a contaminated ❑ Page number(s) in property cleaned,undergoing cleanup, or application: proposed for cleanup) Housing: ❑ Appendix C list of disasters with concentrations of housing ❑ Link: ❑ A concentration of housing damage in a sub- damage meeting this requirement OR county area due to the eligible disaster ❑ Local data: ❑ Page number(s) in causing damage or serious damage to at least ❑ Data shows concentrated damage meeting standard,AND application: 10 percent of the homes located there ❑ HUD agrees with validity I-52 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Winneshiek County Census Tract 9501- Block Groups 1-4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Housing: Currently running a CDBG-DR or other recovery housing ❑ Link: ❑ Twenty or more households are still program: displaced from housing due to the disaster ❑ Analysis that shows the program waiting list AND ❑ Page number(s) in and will not be served by existing programs ❑ A reasonable estimate of aggregated average unmet repair application: OR needs exceeds the existing CDBG-DR fund available. ❑There are twenty or more still damaged housing units in or near a most impacted and Not currently running a CDBG-DR or other housing recovery distressed sub-county target area that were program: damaged by the disaster and cannot be ❑ Briefly explain why prior allocations of CDBG-DR funding, repaired with existing programs together with other funding sources, are inadequate to provide housing AND: ❑ Provide recent emergency management data indicating households are still displaced from the disaster OR ❑ Provide methodologically sound"windshield survey"of the most impacted and distressed target area conducted since January 2014 AND ❑ A list of 20 addresses of units identified with remaining damage ❑ At least 9 of these addresses confirming(i)the damage is due to the disaster and(ii)they have inadequate resources from insurance/FEN A/SBA for completing repairs I-53 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Winneshiek County Census Tract 9501- Block Groups 1-4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Infrastructure: []An engineering report OR ❑ a FEMA Project Worksheet(s) ❑ Link: ❑ There is damage to permanent public with an estimated repair amount infrastructure from the qualifying disaster ❑ Page number(s) in (i.e. FEMA Category C to G)that has not AND application: been repaired due to inadequate resources, in or serving the most impacted and distressed ❑A sources and uses statement for the repairs showing the target area(s)AND funding shortfall(total repair costs may include the extra cost ❑ Describe the damage, location of the to repair this infrastructure resiliently)AND damage to permanent public ❑Your explanation of why existing CDBG-DR resources, infrastructure relative to the most together with other funding sources, are inadequate to meet impacted and distressed target area(s),the this repair need amount of funding required to complete repairs, and the reason there are inadequate funds AND ❑ A minimum $400,000 in unfunded permanent infrastructure repair needs I-54 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Winneshiek County Census Tract 9501- Block Groups 1-4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Economic Revitalization: ❑ Unmet repair needs narrative for businesses: ❑ Link: ❑ There are continuing unmet economic ❑ "Windshield survey"showing a minimum of 5 businesses revitalization recovery needs due to the with remaining repair needs AND ❑ Page number(s) in disaster in or near the most impacted and ❑ A survey of 5 business owners confirming damage due to application: distressed sub-county target area(s)that the disaster and repairs not completed due to not receiving cannot be addressed with existing resources, adequate resources from insurance and(if applicable) including CDBG-DR funds already allocated other federal funds AND AND ❑ Addresses of businesses with continuing needs AND demonstrate one of the followin¢: OR ❑A minimum of 5 businesses with remaining repair needs; ❑ Decreased revenues narrative for business(es): ❑ Business revenues continued to be ❑ Analysis by a reputable public or private source showing decreased by 10 percent or more relative continuing economic damage to the target area within a to revenues prior to the disaster for one or HUD-identified most impacted county due to the disaster more modest-sized employers (10 or or a survey of business(es)who provide(i)number of more employees) due to the disaster; OR employees before the storm and current; (ii)total gross ❑ Three or more smaller businesses show revenues in year before disaster and total gross revenues revenues 10 percent less than prior in most recent year; and(iii) a description of how the revenues reduction in revenues is related to the disaster AND ❑ One modest size employer(10 or more employees)or AND three smaller businesses (fewer than 10 employees)must ❑ Provide a narrative statement describing the show most recent year total gross revenues of 10 percent extent of those needs and how the needs are less than the year before the disaster and there needs to be connected with the disaster and the most a clean connection to the disaster AND impacted and distressed sub-county target ❑ Names and addresses of impacted businesses area I-55 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Winneshiek County Census Tract 9501- Block Groups 1-4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Environmental Degradation: ✓ A detailed report from a reputable public or private ✓ Link: ✓ There is environmental damage from the organization completed since June 2013 describing the qualifying disaster that has not yet been remaining damage with a certification date after March Unmet Recovery Need addressed and cannot be addressed with 2014 indicating that there is remaining damage of$400,000 existing resources AND or more ❑ Page number(s) in ✓ Describe the remaining damage and how application: the damage is connected with the qualifying . Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land disaster and the most impacted and Stewardship 2015 Iowa Water Quality Initiative distressed sub-county target area AND Legislative Report(Program Oversubscription) ✓ Describe the remaining damage to the environment with a cost estimate for . Iowa Floods: The"New Normal"? making repairs or reconstruction that is $400,000 or greater and support with . Cost Estimate references to any studies supporting them • Iowa Daily Erosion Project I-56 MOST IMPACTED CHARACTERISTICS: considers the damage resulting from the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Allamakee County Census Tract 9602 - Block Group 1, Block Group 2 and Block Group 3 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Housing damage due to eligible disaster: ❑ Appendix C list of disasters with concentrations of housing ❑ Link: ❑ Damage to a minimum of 100 homes OR damage meeting this requirement OR ❑ Serious damage to a minimum of 20 homes ❑ Local data: ❑ Page number(s) in ❑ Data shows concentrated damage meeting standard,AND application: ❑ HUD agrees with its validity Infrastructure: ❑ An engineering report OR ❑ Link: ❑ Damage from the eligible disaster to ❑ FEMA Project Worksheet with an estimated repair amount permanent infrastructure in a sub-county area OR ❑ Page number(s) in estimated at$2 million or greater ❑ Other evidence of an estimate of expenditures to make application: repairs Economic Revitalization: ❑ Describe how the employment loss or harm stems from the ❑ Link: ❑ At least one percentage point higher local Qualified Disaster(applicant may support a short description unemployment rate in the impacted area six with local data or surveys) ❑ Page number(s) in to 12 months after the qualifying disaster application: compared to the same month in the year prior to the disaster in that area OR ❑ Specific information that 50 or more people were no longer employed in or near the most impacted area for six months or longer due to the disaster OR ❑ Other harm to the economy due to the disaster I-57 Environmental Degradation ✓ Support with references to any studies supporting the ✓ Link: ✓ Must describe the damage to the claim of future risk Iowa Learning Farms environment from the qualifying disaster putting the housing, Iowa State University Iowa Learning Farms DR-4135 Most Impacted infrastructure and/or economic drivers in the area at risk of great harm for a Iowa Environmental future disaster. Degradation Determination Methodology ❑ Page number(s) in application: MOST DISTRESSED CHARACTERISTICS: considers stress or deficit factors prior to the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Allamakee County Census Tract 9602 - Block Group 1, Block Group 2 and Block Group3 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Disaster impacted low- and moderate-income ❑ CDBG low-and moderate-income summary data ❑ Link: households: []More than 50 percent of people in the target ❑ Page number(s) in area are at less than 80 percent of the area application: median income Loss/shortage of affordable rental housing: ❑ Provide a 1-2 paragraph description, with supporting data,to ❑ Link: ❑ Disaster-impacted target area has a minimum demonstrate this characteristic of 100 renters with income less than 50 ❑ Page number(s) in percent of median in a target area AND: application: ❑ 60 percent or more of these have severe housing programs OR ❑As a result of the effects of the disaster there is new high risk of damage to more than 100 assisted rental housing units from a future I-58 MOST DISTRESSED CHARACTERISTICS: considers stress or deficit factors prior to the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Allamakee County Census Tract 9602 - Block Group 1, Block Group 2 and Block Group3 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation event the intended intervention would protect against Disaster impacted a federal target area or ❑ Demonstrate this characteristic and provide supporting ❑ Link: economically fragile area: (must choose at documentation least one to meet this criteria) ❑ Page number(s) in ❑ Tribal area application: ❑ HUD Promise Zone site ❑ HUD Strong Cities Strong Communities site AND/OR ❑ Has an unemployment rate more than 125 percent of the national average unemployment rate Disaster impacted an area with prior State-maintained Brownfield site list OR ✓ Link: documented environmental distress: ✓ Other documentation of prior environmental distress Iowa ✓ Disaster impacted an area with prior Department of Natural Resources Category 4 and 5 Environmental Distress documented environmental distress (e.g., Impaired Waters list Data affected area contains or is adjacent to and negatively affected by a contaminated ❑ Page number(s) in property cleaned,undergoing cleanup, or application: proposed for cleanup) Housing: ❑ Appendix C list of disasters with concentrations of housing ❑ Link: ❑ A concentration of housing damage in a sub- damage meeting this requirement OR county area due to the eligible disaster ❑ Local data: ❑ Page number(s) in causing damage or serious damage to at least ❑ Data shows concentrated damage meeting standard,AND application: 10 percent of the homes located there ❑ HUD agrees with validity I-59 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Allamakee County Census Tract 9602 - Block Group 1, Block Group 2 and Block Group3 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Housing: Currently running a CDBG-DR or other recovery housing ❑ Link: ❑ Twenty or more households are still program: displaced from housing due to the disaster ❑ Analysis that shows the program waiting list AND ❑ Page number(s) in and will not be served by existing programs ❑ A reasonable estimate of aggregated average unmet repair application: OR needs exceeds the existing CDBG-DR fund available. ❑There are twenty or more still damaged housing units in or near a most impacted and Not currently running a CDBG-DR or other housing recovery distressed sub-county target area that were program: damaged by the disaster and cannot be ❑ Briefly explain why prior allocations of CDBG-DR funding, repaired with existing programs together with other funding sources, are inadequate to provide housing AND: ❑ Provide recent emergency management data indicating households are still displaced from the disaster OR ❑ Provide methodologically sound"windshield survey"of the most impacted and distressed target area conducted since January 2014 AND ❑ A list of 20 addresses of units identified with remaining damage ❑ At least 9 of these addresses confirming(i)the damage is due to the disaster and(ii)they have inadequate resources from insurance/FEN A/SBA for completing repairs I-60 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Allamakee County Census Tract 9602 - Block Group 1, Block Group 2 and Block Group3 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Infrastructure: []An engineering report OR ❑ a FEMA Project Worksheet(s) ❑ Link: ❑ There is damage to permanent public with an estimated repair amount infrastructure from the qualifying disaster ❑ Page number(s) in (i.e. FEMA Category C to G)that has not AND application: been repaired due to inadequate resources, in or serving the most impacted and distressed ❑A sources and uses statement for the repairs showing the target area(s)AND funding shortfall(total repair costs may include the extra cost ❑ Describe the damage, location of the to repair this infrastructure resiliently)AND damage to permanent public ❑Your explanation of why existing CDBG-DR resources, infrastructure relative to the most together with other funding sources, are inadequate to meet impacted and distressed target area(s),the this repair need amount of funding required to complete repairs, and the reason there are inadequate funds AND ❑ A minimum $400,000 in unfunded permanent infrastructure repair needs I-61 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Allamakee County Census Tract 9602 - Block Group 1, Block Group 2 and Block Group3 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Economic Revitalization: ❑ Unmet repair needs narrative for businesses: ❑ Link: ❑ There are continuing unmet economic ❑ "Windshield survey"showing a minimum of 5 businesses revitalization recovery needs due to the with remaining repair needs AND ❑ Page number(s) in disaster in or near the most impacted and ❑ A survey of 5 business owners confirming damage due to application: distressed sub-county target area(s)that the disaster and repairs not completed due to not receiving cannot be addressed with existing resources, adequate resources from insurance and(if applicable) including CDBG-DR funds already allocated other federal funds AND AND ❑ Addresses of businesses with continuing needs AND demonstrate one of the followin¢: OR ❑A minimum of 5 businesses with remaining repair needs; ❑ Decreased revenues narrative for business(es): ❑ Business revenues continued to be ❑ Analysis by a reputable public or private source showing decreased by 10 percent or more relative continuing economic damage to the target area within a to revenues prior to the disaster for one or HUD-identified most impacted county due to the disaster more modest-sized employers (10 or or a survey of business(es)who provide(i)number of more employees) due to the disaster; OR employees before the storm and current; (ii)total gross ❑ Three or more smaller businesses show revenues in year before disaster and total gross revenues revenues 10 percent less than prior in most recent year; and(iii) a description of how the revenues reduction in revenues is related to the disaster AND ❑ One modest size employer(10 or more employees)or AND three smaller businesses (fewer than 10 employees)must ❑ Provide a narrative statement describing the show most recent year total gross revenues of 10 percent extent of those needs and how the needs are less than the year before the disaster and there needs to be connected with the disaster and the most a clean connection to the disaster AND impacted and distressed sub-county target ❑ Names and addresses of impacted businesses area I-62 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Allamakee County Census Tract 9602 - Block Group 1, Block Group 2 and Block Group3 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Environmental Degradation: ✓ A detailed report from a reputable public or private ✓ Link: ✓ There is environmental damage from the organization completed since June 2013 describing the qualifying disaster that has not yet been remaining damage with a certification date after March Unmet Recovery Need addressed and cannot be addressed with 2014 indicating that there is remaining damage of$400,000 existing resources AND or more ❑ Page number(s) in ✓ Describe the remaining damage and how application: the damage is connected with the qualifying . Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land disaster and the most impacted and Stewardship 2015 Iowa Water Quality Initiative distressed sub-county target area AND Legislative Report(Program Oversubscription) ✓ Describe the remaining damage to the environment with a cost estimate for . Iowa Floods: The"New Normal"? making repairs or reconstruction that is $400,000 or greater and support with . Cost Estimate references to any studies supporting them • Iowa Daily Erosion Project I-63 MOST IMPACTED CHARACTERISTICS: considers the damage resulting from the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Buchanan County Census Tracts 9506 Block Groups 1,2,3,4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Housing damage due to eligible disaster: ❑ Appendix C list of disasters with concentrations of housing ❑ Link: ❑ Damage to a minimum of 100 homes OR damage meeting this requirement OR ❑ Serious damage to a minimum of 20 homes ❑ Local data: ❑ Page number(s) in ❑ Data shows concentrated damage meeting standard,AND application: ❑ HUD agrees with its validity Infrastructure: ❑ An engineering report OR ❑ Link: ❑ Damage from the eligible disaster to ❑ FEMA Project Worksheet with an estimated repair amount permanent infrastructure in a sub-county area OR ❑ Page number(s) in estimated at$2 million or greater ❑ Other evidence of an estimate of expenditures to make application: repairs Economic Revitalization: ❑ Describe how the employment loss or harm stems from the ❑ Link: ❑ At least one percentage point higher local Qualified Disaster(applicant may support a short description unemployment rate in the impacted area six with local data or surveys) ❑ Page number(s) in to 12 months after the qualifying disaster application: compared to the same month in the year prior to the disaster in that area OR ❑ Specific information that 50 or more people were no longer employed in or near the most impacted area for six months or longer due to the disaster OR ❑ Other harm to the economy due to the disaster I-64 Environmental Degradation ✓ Support with references to any studies supporting the ✓ Link: ✓ Must describe the damage to the claim of future risk Iowa Learning Farms environment from the qualifying disaster putting the housing, Iowa State University Iowa Learning Farms DR-4135 Most Impacted infrastructure and/or economic drivers in the area at risk of great harm for a Iowa Environmental future disaster. Degradation Determination Methodology ❑ Page number(s) in application: MOST DISTRESSED CHARACTERISTICS: considers stress or deficit factors prior to the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Buchanan Census Tract 9506 Block Groups 1,2,3, 4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Disaster impacted low- and moderate-income ❑ CDBG low-and moderate-income summary data ❑ Link: households: []More than 50 percent of people in the target ❑ Page number(s) in area are at less than 80 percent of the area application: median income Loss/shortage of affordable rental housing: ❑ Provide a 1-2 paragraph description, with supporting data,to ❑ Link: ❑ Disaster-impacted target area has a minimum demonstrate this characteristic of 100 renters with income less than 50 ❑ Page number(s) in percent of median in a target area AND: application: ❑ 60 percent or more of these have severe housing programs OR ❑As a result of the effects of the disaster there is new high risk of damage to more than 100 I-65 MOST DISTRESSED CHARACTERISTICS: considers stress or deficit factors prior to the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Buchanan Census Tract 9506 Block Groups 1,2,3, 4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation assisted rental housing units from a future event the intended intervention would protect against Disaster impacted a federal target area or ❑ Demonstrate this characteristic and provide supporting ❑ Link: economically fragile area: (must choose at documentation least one to meet this criteria) ❑ Page number(s) in ❑ Tribal area application: ❑ HUD Promise Zone site ❑ HUD Strong Cities Strong Communities site AND/OR ❑ Has an unemployment rate more than 125 percent of the national average unemployment rate Disaster impacted an area with prior State-maintained Brownfield site list OR ✓ Link: documented environmental distress: ✓ Other documentation of prior environmental distress Iowa ✓ Disaster impacted an area with prior Department of Natural Resources Category 4 and 5 Environmental Distress documented environmental distress (e.g., Impaired Waters list Data affected area contains or is adjacent to and negatively affected by a contaminated ❑ Page number(s) in property cleaned,undergoing cleanup, or application: proposed for cleanup) Housing: ❑ Appendix C list of disasters with concentrations of housing ❑ Link: ❑ A concentration of housing damage in a sub- damage meeting this requirement OR county area due to the eligible disaster ❑ Local data: ❑ Page number(s) in causing damage or serious damage to at least ❑ Data shows concentrated damage meeting standard,AND application: 10 percent of the homes located there ❑ HUD agrees with validity I-66 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Buchanan County Census Tract 9506 Block Groups 1,2,3, 4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Housing: Currently running a CDBG-DR or other recovery housing ❑ Link: ❑ Twenty or more households are still program: displaced from housing due to the disaster ❑ Analysis that shows the program waiting list AND ❑ Page number(s) in and will not be served by existing programs ❑ A reasonable estimate of aggregated average unmet repair application: OR needs exceeds the existing CDBG-DR fund available. ❑There are twenty or more still damaged housing units in or near a most impacted and Not currently running a CDBG-DR or other housing recovery distressed sub-county target area that were program: damaged by the disaster and cannot be ❑ Briefly explain why prior allocations of CDBG-DR funding, repaired with existing programs together with other funding sources, are inadequate to provide housing AND: ❑ Provide recent emergency management data indicating households are still displaced from the disaster OR ❑ Provide methodologically sound"windshield survey"of the most impacted and distressed target area conducted since January 2014 AND ❑ A list of 20 addresses of units identified with remaining damage ❑ At least 9 of these addresses confirming(i)the damage is due to the disaster and(ii)they have inadequate resources from insurance/FEN A/SBA for completing repairs I-67 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Buchanan County Census Tract 9506 Block Groups 1,2,3, 4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Infrastructure: []An engineering report OR ❑ a FEMA Project Worksheet(s) ❑ Link: ❑ There is damage to permanent public with an estimated repair amount infrastructure from the qualifying disaster ❑ Page number(s) in (i.e. FEMA Category C to G)that has not AND application: been repaired due to inadequate resources, in or serving the most impacted and distressed ❑A sources and uses statement for the repairs showing the target area(s)AND funding shortfall(total repair costs may include the extra cost ❑ Describe the damage, location of the to repair this infrastructure resiliently)AND damage to permanent public ❑Your explanation of why existing CDBG-DR resources, infrastructure relative to the most together with other funding sources, are inadequate to meet impacted and distressed target area(s),the this repair need amount of funding required to complete repairs, and the reason there are inadequate funds AND ❑ A minimum $400,000 in unfunded permanent infrastructure repair needs I-68 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Buchanan County Census Tract 9506 Block Groups 1,2,3, 4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Economic Revitalization: ❑ Unmet repair needs narrative for businesses: ❑ Link: ❑ There are continuing unmet economic ❑ "Windshield survey"showing a minimum of 5 businesses revitalization recovery needs due to the with remaining repair needs AND ❑ Page number(s) in disaster in or near the most impacted and ❑ A survey of 5 business owners confirming damage due to application: distressed sub-county target area(s)that the disaster and repairs not completed due to not receiving cannot be addressed with existing resources, adequate resources from insurance and(if applicable) including CDBG-DR funds already allocated other federal funds AND AND ❑ Addresses of businesses with continuing needs AND demonstrate one of the followin¢: OR ❑A minimum of 5 businesses with remaining repair needs; ❑ Decreased revenues narrative for business(es): ❑ Business revenues continued to be ❑ Analysis by a reputable public or private source showing decreased by 10 percent or more relative continuing economic damage to the target area within a to revenues prior to the disaster for one or HUD-identified most impacted county due to the disaster more modest-sized employers (10 or or a survey of business(es)who provide(i)number of more employees) due to the disaster; OR employees before the storm and current; (ii)total gross ❑ Three or more smaller businesses show revenues in year before disaster and total gross revenues revenues 10 percent less than prior in most recent year; and(iii) a description of how the revenues reduction in revenues is related to the disaster AND ❑ One modest size employer(10 or more employees)or AND three smaller businesses (fewer than 10 employees)must ❑ Provide a narrative statement describing the show most recent year total gross revenues of 10 percent extent of those needs and how the needs are less than the year before the disaster and there needs to be connected with the disaster and the most a clean connection to the disaster AND impacted and distressed sub-county target ❑ Names and addresses of impacted businesses area I-69 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Buchanan County Census Tract 9506 Block Groups 1,2,3, 4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Environmental Degradation: ✓ A detailed report from a reputable public or private ✓ Link: ✓ There is environmental damage from the organization completed since June 2013 describing the qualifying disaster that has not yet been remaining damage with a certification date after March Unmet Recovery Need addressed and cannot be addressed with 2014 indicating that there is remaining damage of$400,000 existing resources AND or more ❑ Page number(s) in ✓ Describe the remaining damage and how application: the damage is connected with the qualifying . Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land disaster and the most impacted and Stewardship 2015 Iowa Water Quality Initiative distressed sub-county target area AND Legislative Report(Program Oversubscription) ✓ Describe the remaining damage to the environment with a cost estimate for . Iowa Floods: The"New Normal"? making repairs or reconstruction that is $400,000 or greater and support with . Cost Estimate references to any studies supporting them • Iowa Daily Erosion Project I-70 MOST IMPACTED CHARACTERISTICS: considers the damage resulting from the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Delaware County Census Tract 9504 Block Groups 3, 4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Housing damage due to eligible disaster: ❑ Appendix C list of disasters with concentrations of housing ❑ Link: ❑ Damage to a minimum of 100 homes OR damage meeting this requirement OR ❑ Serious damage to a minimum of 20 homes ❑ Local data: ❑ Page number(s) in ❑ Data shows concentrated damage meeting standard,AND application: ❑ HUD agrees with its validity Infrastructure: ❑ An engineering report OR ❑ Link: ❑ Damage from the eligible disaster to ❑ FEMA Project Worksheet with an estimated repair amount permanent infrastructure in a sub-county area OR ❑ Page number(s) in estimated at$2 million or greater ❑ Other evidence of an estimate of expenditures to make application: repairs Economic Revitalization: ❑ Describe how the employment loss or harm stems from the ❑ Link: ❑ At least one percentage point higher local Qualified Disaster(applicant may support a short description unemployment rate in the impacted area six with local data or surveys) ❑ Page number(s) in to 12 months after the qualifying disaster application: compared to the same month in the year prior to the disaster in that area OR ❑ Specific information that 50 or more people were no longer employed in or near the most impacted area for six months or longer due to the disaster OR ❑ Other harm to the economy due to the disaster I-71 Environmental Degradation ✓ Support with references to any studies supporting the ✓ Link: ✓ Must describe the damage to the claim of future risk Iowa Learning Farms environment from the qualifying disaster putting the housing, Iowa State University Iowa Learning Farms DR-4135 Most Impacted infrastructure and/or economic drivers in the area at risk of great harm for a Iowa Environmental future disaster. Degradation Determination Methodology ❑ Page number(s) in application: MOST DISTRESSED CHARACTERISTICS: considers stress or deficit factors prior to the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Delaware County Census Tract 9504 Block Group 3 and 4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Disaster impacted low- and moderate-income ❑ CDBG low-and moderate-income summary data ❑ Link: households: []More than 50 percent of people in the target ❑ Page number(s) in area are at less than 80 percent of the area application: median income Loss/shortage of affordable rental housing: ❑ Provide a 1-2 paragraph description, with supporting data,to ❑ Link: ❑ Disaster-impacted target area has a minimum demonstrate this characteristic of 100 renters with income less than 50 ❑ Page number(s) in percent of median in a target area AND: application: ❑ 60 percent or more of these have severe housing programs OR ❑As a result of the effects of the disaster there is new high risk of damage to more than 100 assisted rental housing units from a future I-72 MOST DISTRESSED CHARACTERISTICS: considers stress or deficit factors prior to the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Delaware County Census Tract 9504 Block Group 3 and 4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation event the intended intervention would protect against Disaster impacted a federal target area or ❑ Demonstrate this characteristic and provide supporting ❑ Link: economically fragile area: (must choose at documentation least one to meet this criteria) ❑ Page number(s) in ❑ Tribal area application: ❑ HUD Promise Zone site ❑ HUD Strong Cities Strong Communities site AND/OR ❑ Has an unemployment rate more than 125 percent of the national average unemployment rate Disaster impacted an area with prior State-maintained Brownfield site list OR ✓ Link: documented environmental distress: ✓ Other documentation of prior environmental distress Iowa ✓ Disaster impacted an area with prior Department of Natural Resources Category 4 and 5 Environmental Distress documented environmental distress (e.g., Impaired Waters list Data affected area contains or is adjacent to and negatively affected by a contaminated ❑ Page number(s) in property cleaned,undergoing cleanup, or application: proposed for cleanup) Housing: ❑ Appendix C list of disasters with concentrations of housing ❑ Link: ❑ A concentration of housing damage in a sub- damage meeting this requirement OR county area due to the eligible disaster ❑ Local data: ❑ Page number(s) in causing damage or serious damage to at least ❑ Data shows concentrated damage meeting standard,AND application: 10 percent of the homes located there ❑ HUD agrees with validity I-73 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Delaware County Census Tract 9504 Block Group 3 and 4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Housing: Currently running a CDBG-DR or other recovery housing ❑ Link: ❑ Twenty or more households are still program: displaced from housing due to the disaster ❑ Analysis that shows the program waiting list AND ❑ Page number(s) in and will not be served by existing programs ❑ A reasonable estimate of aggregated average unmet repair application: OR needs exceeds the existing CDBG-DR fund available. ❑There are twenty or more still damaged housing units in or near a most impacted and Not currently running a CDBG-DR or other housing recovery distressed sub-county target area that were program: damaged by the disaster and cannot be ❑ Briefly explain why prior allocations of CDBG-DR funding, repaired with existing programs together with other funding sources, are inadequate to provide housing AND: ❑ Provide recent emergency management data indicating households are still displaced from the disaster OR ❑ Provide methodologically sound"windshield survey"of the most impacted and distressed target area conducted since January 2014 AND ❑ A list of 20 addresses of units identified with remaining damage ❑ At least 9 of these addresses confirming(i)the damage is due to the disaster and(ii)they have inadequate resources from insurance/FEN A/SBA for completing repairs I-74 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Delaware County Census Tract 9504 Block Group 3 and 4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Infrastructure: []An engineering report OR ❑ a FEMA Project Worksheet(s) ❑ Link: ❑ There is damage to permanent public with an estimated repair amount infrastructure from the qualifying disaster ❑ Page number(s) in (i.e. FEMA Category C to G)that has not AND application: been repaired due to inadequate resources, in or serving the most impacted and distressed ❑A sources and uses statement for the repairs showing the target area(s)AND funding shortfall(total repair costs may include the extra cost ❑ Describe the damage, location of the to repair this infrastructure resiliently)AND damage to permanent public ❑Your explanation of why existing CDBG-DR resources, infrastructure relative to the most together with other funding sources, are inadequate to meet impacted and distressed target area(s),the this repair need amount of funding required to complete repairs, and the reason there are inadequate funds AND ❑ A minimum $400,000 in unfunded permanent infrastructure repair needs I-75 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Delaware County Census Tract 9504 Block Group 3 and 4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Economic Revitalization: ❑ Unmet repair needs narrative for businesses: ❑ Link: ❑ There are continuing unmet economic ❑ "Windshield survey"showing a minimum of 5 businesses revitalization recovery needs due to the with remaining repair needs AND ❑ Page number(s) in disaster in or near the most impacted and ❑ A survey of 5 business owners confirming damage due to application: distressed sub-county target area(s)that the disaster and repairs not completed due to not receiving cannot be addressed with existing resources, adequate resources from insurance and(if applicable) including CDBG-DR funds already allocated other federal funds AND AND ❑ Addresses of businesses with continuing needs AND demonstrate one of the followin¢: OR ❑A minimum of 5 businesses with remaining repair needs; ❑ Decreased revenues narrative for business(es): ❑ Business revenues continued to be ❑ Analysis by a reputable public or private source showing decreased by 10 percent or more relative continuing economic damage to the target area within a to revenues prior to the disaster for one or HUD-identified most impacted county due to the disaster more modest-sized employers (10 or or a survey of business(es)who provide(i)number of more employees) due to the disaster; OR employees before the storm and current; (ii)total gross ❑ Three or more smaller businesses show revenues in year before disaster and total gross revenues revenues 10 percent less than prior in most recent year; and(iii) a description of how the revenues reduction in revenues is related to the disaster AND ❑ One modest size employer(10 or more employees)or AND three smaller businesses (fewer than 10 employees)must ❑ Provide a narrative statement describing the show most recent year total gross revenues of 10 percent extent of those needs and how the needs are less than the year before the disaster and there needs to be connected with the disaster and the most a clean connection to the disaster AND impacted and distressed sub-county target ❑ Names and addresses of impacted businesses area I-76 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Delaware County Census Tract 9504 Block Group 3 and 4 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Environmental Degradation: ✓ A detailed report from a reputable public or private ✓ Link: ✓ There is environmental damage from the organization completed since June 2013 describing the qualifying disaster that has not yet been remaining damage with a certification date after March Unmet Recovery Need addressed and cannot be addressed with 2014 indicating that there is remaining damage of$400,000 existing resources AND or more ❑ Page number(s) in ✓ Describe the remaining damage and how application: the damage is connected with the qualifying . Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land disaster and the most impacted and Stewardship 2015 Iowa Water Quality Initiative distressed sub-county target area AND Legislative Report(Program Oversubscription) ✓ Describe the remaining damage to the environment with a cost estimate for . Iowa Floods: The"New Normal"? making repairs or reconstruction that is $400,000 or greater and support with . Cost Estimate references to any studies supporting them • Iowa Daily Erosion Project I-77 MOST IMPACTED CHARACTERISTICS: considers the damage resulting from the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Tama County Census Tract 2901 Block Group 1 and 2, Census Tract 2902 Block Group 1,2,3, Census Tract 2903 Block Groups 1,2 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Housing damage due to eligible disaster: ❑ Appendix C list of disasters with concentrations of housing ❑ Link: ❑ Damage to a minimum of 100 homes OR damage meeting this requirement OR ❑ Serious damage to a minimum of 20 homes ❑ Local data: ❑ Page number(s) in ❑ Data shows concentrated damage meeting standard,AND application: ❑ HUD agrees with its validity Infrastructure: ❑ An engineering report OR ❑ Link: ❑ Damage from the eligible disaster to ❑ FEMA Project Worksheet with an estimated repair amount permanent infrastructure in a sub-county area OR ❑ Page number(s) in estimated at$2 million or greater ❑ Other evidence of an estimate of expenditures to make application: repairs Economic Revitalization: ❑ Describe how the employment loss or harm stems from the ❑ Link: ❑ At least one percentage point higher local Qualified Disaster(applicant may support a short description unemployment rate in the impacted area six with local data or surveys) ❑ Page number(s) in to 12 months after the qualifying disaster application: compared to the same month in the year prior to the disaster in that area OR ❑ Specific information that 50 or more people were no longer employed in or near the most impacted area for six months or longer due to the disaster OR ❑ Other harm to the economy due to the disaster I-78 Environmental Degradation ✓ Support with references to any studies supporting the ✓ Link: ✓ Must describe the damage to the claim of future risk Iowa Learning Farms environment from the qualifying disaster putting the housing, Iowa State University Iowa Learning Farms DR-4126 Most Impacted infrastructure and/or economic drivers in the area at risk of great harm for a Iowa Environmental future disaster. Degradation Determination Methodology ❑ Page number(s) in application: MOST DISTRESSED CHARACTERISTICS: considers stress or deficit factors prior to the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Tama County Census Tract 2901 Block Group 1 and 2, Census Tract 2902 Block Group 1,2,3, Census Tract 2903 Block Groups 1,2 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Disaster impacted low- and moderate-income ❑ CDBG low-and moderate-income summary data ❑ Link: households: []More than 50 percent of people in the target ❑ Page number(s) in area are at less than 80 percent of the area application: median income Loss/shortage of affordable rental housing: ❑ Provide a 1-2 paragraph description, with supporting data,to ❑ Link: ❑ Disaster-impacted target area has a minimum demonstrate this characteristic of 100 renters with income less than 50 ❑ Page number(s) in percent of median in a target area AND: application: ❑ 60 percent or more of these have severe housing programs OR ❑As a result of the effects of the disaster there is new high risk of damage to more than 100 I-79 MOST DISTRESSED CHARACTERISTICS: considers stress or deficit factors prior to the Qualified Disaster - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Tama County Census Tract 2901 Block Group 1 and 2, Census Tract 2902 Block Group 1,2,3, Census Tract 2903 Block Groups 1,2 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation assisted rental housing units from a future event the intended intervention would protect against Disaster impacted a federal target area or ❑ Demonstrate this characteristic and provide supporting ❑ Link: economically fragile area: (must choose at documentation least one to meet this criteria) ❑ Page number(s) in ❑ Tribal area application: ❑ HUD Promise Zone site ❑ HUD Strong Cities Strong Communities site AND/OR ❑ Has an unemployment rate more than 125 percent of the national average unemployment rate Disaster impacted an area with prior State-maintained Brownfield site list OR ✓ Link: documented environmental distress: ✓ Other documentation of prior environmental distress Iowa ✓ Disaster impacted an area with prior Department of Natural Resources Category 4 and 5 Environmental Distress documented environmental distress (e.g., Impaired Waters list Data affected area contains or is adjacent to and negatively affected by a contaminated ❑ Page number(s) in property cleaned,undergoing cleanup, or application: proposed for cleanup) Housing: ❑ Appendix C list of disasters with concentrations of housing ❑ Link: ❑ A concentration of housing damage in a sub- damage meeting this requirement OR county area due to the eligible disaster ❑ Local data: ❑ Page number(s) in causing damage or serious damage to at least ❑ Data shows concentrated damage meeting standard,AND application: 10 percent of the homes located there ❑ HUD agrees with validity I-80 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Tama County Census Tract 2901 Block Groups 1,2, Census Tract 2902 Block Groups 1,2,3, Census Tract 2903 Block Grou s 1,2 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Housing: Currently running a CDBG-DR or other recovery housing ❑ Link: ❑ Twenty or more households are still program: displaced from housing due to the disaster ❑ Analysis that shows the program waiting list AND ❑ Page number(s) in and will not be served by existing programs ❑ A reasonable estimate of aggregated average unmet repair application: OR needs exceeds the existing CDBG-DR fund available. ❑There are twenty or more still damaged housing units in or near a most impacted and Not currently running a CDBG-DR or other housing recovery distressed sub-county target area that were program: damaged by the disaster and cannot be ❑ Briefly explain why prior allocations of CDBG-DR funding, repaired with existing programs together with other funding sources, are inadequate to provide housing AND: ❑ Provide recent emergency management data indicating households are still displaced from the disaster OR ❑ Provide methodologically sound"windshield survey"of the most impacted and distressed target area conducted since January 2014 AND ❑ A list of 20 addresses of units identified with remaining damage ❑ At least 9 of these addresses confirming(i)the damage is due to the disaster and(ii)they have inadequate resources from insurance/FEN A/SBA for completing repairs I-81 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Tama County Census Tract 2901 Block Groups 1,2, Census Tract 2902 Block Groups 1,2,3, Census Tract 2903 Block Grou s I,2 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Infrastructure: []An engineering report OR ❑ a FEMA Project Worksheet(s) ❑ Link: ❑ There is damage to permanent public with an estimated repair amount infrastructure from the qualifying disaster ❑ Page number(s) in (i.e. FEMA Category C to G)that has not AND application: been repaired due to inadequate resources, in or serving the most impacted and distressed ❑A sources and uses statement for the repairs showing the target area(s)AND funding shortfall(total repair costs may include the extra cost ❑ Describe the damage, location of the to repair this infrastructure resiliently)AND damage to permanent public ❑Your explanation of why existing CDBG-DR resources, infrastructure relative to the most together with other funding sources, are inadequate to meet impacted and distressed target area(s),the this repair need amount of funding required to complete repairs, and the reason there are inadequate funds AND ❑ A minimum $400,000 in unfunded permanent infrastructure repair needs I-82 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Tama County Census Tract 2901 Block Groups 1,2, Census Tract 2902 Block Groups 1,2,3, Census Tract 2903 Block Grou s 1,2 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Economic Revitalization: ❑ Unmet repair needs narrative for businesses: ❑ Link: ❑ There are continuing unmet economic ❑ "Windshield survey"showing a minimum of 5 businesses revitalization recovery needs due to the with remaining repair needs AND ❑ Page number(s) in disaster in or near the most impacted and ❑ A survey of 5 business owners confirming damage due to application: distressed sub-county target area(s)that the disaster and repairs not completed due to not receiving cannot be addressed with existing resources, adequate resources from insurance and(if applicable) including CDBG-DR funds already allocated other federal funds AND AND ❑ Addresses of businesses with continuing needs AND demonstrate one of the followin¢: OR ❑A minimum of 5 businesses with remaining repair needs; ❑ Decreased revenues narrative for business(es): ❑ Business revenues continued to be ❑ Analysis by a reputable public or private source showing decreased by 10 percent or more relative continuing economic damage to the target area within a to revenues prior to the disaster for one or HUD-identified most impacted county due to the disaster more modest-sized employers (10 or or a survey of business(es)who provide(i)number of more employees) due to the disaster; OR employees before the storm and current; (ii)total gross ❑ Three or more smaller businesses show revenues in year before disaster and total gross revenues revenues 10 percent less than prior in most recent year; and(iii) a description of how the revenues reduction in revenues is related to the disaster AND ❑ One modest size employer(10 or more employees)or AND three smaller businesses (fewer than 10 employees)must ❑ Provide a narrative statement describing the show most recent year total gross revenues of 10 percent extent of those needs and how the needs are less than the year before the disaster and there needs to be connected with the disaster and the most a clean connection to the disaster AND impacted and distressed sub-county target ❑ Names and addresses of impacted businesses area I-83 UNMET RECOVERY NEED - Response must include at least one criterion - For each criteria category selected, the corresponding data source and data documentation response must be provided Target Area Name: Tama County Census Tract 2901 Block Groups 1,2, Census Tract 2902 Block Groups 1,2,3, Census Tract 2903 Block Grou s 1,2 Criteria Data Source Data Documentation Environmental Degradation: ✓ A detailed report from a reputable public or private ✓ Link: ✓ There is environmental damage from the organization completed since June 2013 describing the qualifying disaster that has not yet been remaining damage with a certification date after March Unmet Recover addressed and cannot be addressed with 2014 indicating that there is remaining damage of$400,000 existing resources AND or more ❑ Page number(s) in ✓ Describe the remaining damage and how application: the damage is connected with the qualifying . Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land disaster and the most impacted and Stewardship 2015 Iowa Water Quality Initiative distressed sub-county target area AND Legislative Report(Program Oversubscription) ✓ Describe the remaining damage to the environment with a cost estimate for . Iowa Floods: The"New Normal"? making repairs or reconstruction that is $400,000 or greater and support with . Cost Estimate references to any studies supporting them • Iowa Daily Erosion Project I-84 Attachment A—Partner Documentation State of Iowa Iowa_PhaseII Paitnerpocs.pdf OKce of the Mayor THE=YT l Dubuque City Hall 50y Hall "Street DUB E'i 1� Dubuque, IA 52001 4864 IIII wNa.dJy.1dub.q.,,g Masterpiece on the Mississippi September 30, 2015 Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 East Grand Ave Des Moines, IA 50309 Re: Intent to Participate This letter is to confirm the mutual intent of both Iowa Economic Development Authority and the City of Dubuque to collaborate and enter into a subrecipient agreement, contract, or other agreement, as applicable, contingent upon the award of funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience (CDBG-NDR) competition, to carry out eligible activities as provided in the Iowa Economic Development Authority CDBG-NDR application. Dubuque, Iowa is a community of approximately 56,000 located along the bluffs of the Mississippi River. Since 2006, the City Council has made becoming a more sustainable, resilient community their Top Priority. The Sustainable Dubuque vision, as identified by a community task force and endorsed by the Council, is that, "Dubuque is a viable, livable and equitable community. We embrace economic prosperity, environmental integrity, and social/cultural vibrancy in order to create a more sustainable legacy for generations to come." Since 2000, the City has experience six presidential disaster declarations. Low-lying areas are prone to flooding. To limit the effects of extreme precipitation events, the City has implemented a master plan for the Bee Branch Creek watershed. The Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency Program is the next phase in that strategic plan. The City of Dubuque would be the subrecipient of funds for execution of projects to complete the Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency Program. This includes the development of a new Resiliency Division within the Housing & Community Development Department, which will Include hiring five new staff which will be supported by existing staff with CDBG and other expertise and the Sustainable Community Coordinator. This also includes leadership from the Engineering Department, and the management of appropriately qualified subcontractors to complete three infrastructure projects: the Bee Branch Railroad Culvert project, Kaufman and Locust Street storm sewer projects. The City commits the following amounts as direct financial commitments for implementation of the program for a total of$22,400,000 million: 1. $21,600,000 in contracts that will be awarded upon receipt of this grant for the implementation of the proposed infrastructure projects, as part of the Upper Bee A-1 Branch Creek Watershed project. The City of Dubuque will borrow funding for this project, and the loan will be repaid with budgeted stormwater fees collected from Dubuque residents and businesses. 2. $800,000 in Lead & Healthy Homes funds to be targeted in the identified neighborhood. The City also makes the following supporting commitments for a total of$38,219,000: 1. $29,541,000 in contracts awarded following the release of the NOFA for the construction of the green flood management infrastructure of the Upper Bee Branch Creek Watershed project. The City of Dubuque has borrowed funding from the Clean Water State Revolving fund, and the loan will be repaid with stormwater fees collected from Dubuque residents and businesses. (*this commitment is also noted in the partnership letter from the Iowa DNR as an SRF loan) 2. $8,178,000 in contracts awarded following the release of the NOFA for the construction of 70 pervious alleys in the Bee Branch Creek Watershed project. The City of Dubuque has borrowed funding from the Clean Water State Revolving fund, and the loan will be repaid with stormwater fees collected from Dubuque residents and businesses. (*this commitment is also noted in the partnership letter from the Iowa DNR as an SRF loan) 2. $400,000 in Iowa Finance Authority funds to be targeted in the identified neighborhood to assist first time homeowners, 3. $100,000 in formula CDBG funds to be used for strategic micro-lending in the identified neighborhoods. It is understood that this letter is an expression of our intent and a binding partner agreement detailing the terms and conditions of the proposed partnership must be executed before the use of any CDBG-NDR funds, if awarded. Sincerely, J R D. Buol Mayor A-2 Appendix D PARTNERHSIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN Iowa Economic Development Authority(Applicant) AND City of Dubuque(Partner) FOR Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience Competition (CDBG-NDR) TIES AGREEMENT, entered this day of—, ` 20 IS by and between the_Iowa Economic Development Authority(herein called the 'Applicant")and the City of Dubuque (herein called the"Partner"), WHEREAS,the Applicant has applied for funds brom the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013,Public Law 113-2, for the Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience(CDBG-NDR)competition;and WHEREAS,the Applicant wishes to engage the Partner to assist the Applicant in using such funds if awarded; NOW,THEREFORE, it is agreed between the parties hereto,contingent upon the award of CDBG-NDR funds to the Applicant,that; L SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT/DEVELOPER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT If the Applicant is awarded a CDBG-NDR grant from HUD,the Applicam/Grantee shall execute a written subrecipient agreement,developer agreement,contract,or other agreement,as applicable, with the Partner,for the use of the CDBG-NDR funds before disbursing any CDBG-NDR funds to the Partner.The written agreement must conform with all CDBG-NDR requirements and shall require the Partner to comply with all applicable CDBG-NDR requirements, including those found in Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013(Public Law 113-2),title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974(42 USC 5302 at seq.),the CDBG program regulations at 24 CFR part 570,the Notice of Funding Availability for HUD's National Community Development Block Grant Resilient Disaster Recovery Allocation and any subsequent published amendments (the CDBG-NDR NOFA),and the Applicant's CDBG-NDR NOFA application. IL SCOPE OF SERVICE A, Activities The Partner will be responsible for using CDBG NDR funds to cavy out activities in a manner satisfactory to the Applicant and consistent with any standards required as a condition of providing these funds. Such use will be in compliance with the CDBG-NDR NOFA, the Applicant/Grantee's application for CDBG-NDR assistance and the Applicant/Grantee's Grant Agreement for CDBG-NDR. Such use will include the following activities: I A-3 Program/Project Delivery Activity#1 CDBG Activity: Flood Drainage Improvements National Objective: LMA Activity Description: Bee Branch Railroad Culvert Infrastructure Improvement Project. Construction of a rail road culvert at the base of Dubuque's Bee Branch Watershed (506 Garfield Ave). The proposed improvements involve the installation of six 8-foot diameter culverts utilizing tunneling methods from the Lower Bee Branch Creek, approximately 165 feet through Canadian Pacific railroad right-of-way, to a proposed junction box. It also includes the construction of five 12-foot wide by 10-foot high box storm sewers from the proposed junction box two hundred feet north towards Garfield Avenue and the Upper Bee Branch Creek. The City of Dubuque will manage the design and the hiring of a contractor to construct the improvements. Geographic Target: Improvement location: 506 Garfield Ave. Targeted impact area: Census tracts 1,4,5,6, and 11.2 are in the flood-prone area, and the service area for the proposed project includes the low and moderate income areas of the Bee Branch Watershed, which extends to surround the flood-prone area, and includes those census tracts and block groups where 51%or more of the residents are below 50%Area Median Income within the Bee Branch Drainage Basin. (See attached map and census tracts/block groups). Activity#2 CDBGActivity: Water/Sewer Improvements National Objective: LMA Activity Description: 22nd Street/Kaufmann Ave Storm Sewer Improvements Project. The storm sewer would be a 10-foot by 6-foot reinforced concrete box culvert. In addition, 80 standard single grate inlets would be provided with local storm sewer and connections to the new box culvert.Due to the size of the proposed storm sewer improvements,the project requires the reconstruction of the street and the relocation of existing underground utilities along the street right-of-way. The City of Dubuque will manage the design and the hiring of a contractor to construct the improvements. Geographic Target: Improvement location: 22nd Street/Kaufmann Ave. Targeted impact area: Census tracts 1,4,5,6, and 11.2 are in the flood-prone area, and the service area for the proposed project includes the low and moderate income areas of the Bee Branch Watershed, which extends to surround the flood-prone area, and includes those census tracts and block groups where 51% or more of the residents are below 50% Area Median Income within the Bee Branch Drainage Basin. (See attached map and census tracts/block groups). Activity#3 CDBG Activity: Water/Sewer Improvements National Objective: LMA Activity Description: 17'x'&Locust St(West Locust)Storm Sewer Improvements. The proposed West Locust Street corridor storm sewer is to be a 10-foot by 5-foot RCBC from 17th Street to approximately 280 feet west of Angella Street, 10-foot by 4-foot RCBC from 280 feet west of Angella Street to 400 feet west of Kirkwood Street,and 8-foot by 4-foot RCBC from 400 feet west of Kirkwood Street to Rosedale Avenue.This layout allows for all stormwater to be conveyed within the storm sewer just west of Rosedale Avenue. Large high capacity inlets will need to be placed in the terrace along West Locust Street near 2 A-4 i Rosedale Avenue to capture this overland drainage.In addition, 100 standard single grate inlets and 28 high capacity inlets would be provided with local storm sewer and connections to the new storm sewer system.Due to the size of the proposed storm sewer improvements,the project requires the reconstruction of j the street and the relocation of existing underground utilities along the street right-of-way. The City of Dubuque will manage the design and the hiring of a contractor to construct the improvements. Geographic Target: Improvement location: 17`h & Locust St. Targeted impact area: Census tracts 1,4,5,6, and 11.2 are in the flood-prone area, and the service area for the proposed project includes the low and moderate income areas of the Bee Branch Watershed, which extends to surround the flood-prone area, and includes those census tracts and block groups where 51%or more of the residents are below 50%Area Median Income within the Bee Branch Drainage Basin. (See attached map and census tracts/block groups). Activity#4 CDBG Activity: Rehab.-Single-Unit Residential National Objective: LMH Activity Description: The program will provide homeowner rehabilitation for 160 units under the Low Moderate Housing CDBG National Objective,located within the target areas of the Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency Program (BBHHRP). Geographic Target: Census tracts 1,4,5,6, and 11.2 are in the flood-prone area, and the service area for the proposed project includes the low and moderate income areas of the Bee Branch Watershed,which extends to surround the flood- prone area,and includes those census tracts and block groups where 51%or more of the residents are below 50% Area Median Income within the Bee Branch Drainage Basin. (See attached map and census tractsiblock groups). Activity#5 CDBG Activity: Rehab:Single-Unit Residential National Objective: Urgent Need Activity Description: The program will provide homeowner rehabilitation for 100 units under the Urgent Need National Objective,located within the target areas of the Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency Program(BBHHRP). Geographic Target: Census tracts 1,4,5,6, and 11.2 are in the flood-prone area, and the service area for the proposed project includes the low and moderate income areas of the Bee Branch Watershed, which extends to surround the flood- prone area,and includes those census tracts and block groups where 51%or more of the residents are below 50% Area Median Income within the Bee Branch Drainage Basin.(See attached map and census tracts/block groups). Activity 96 CDBG Activity: Rehab:Single-Unit Residential Rentals National Objective:LMH Activity Description: The program will provide residential rental rehabilitation for Residential Rehabilitation for 93 units under the Low Moderate Housing Objective, located within the target areas of the Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency Program(BBHHRP). Geographic Target:Census tracts 1,4,5,6,and 11.2 are in the flood-prone area, and the service area for the proposed project includes the low and moderate income areas of the Bee Branch Watershed, which extends to surround the flood- prone area,and includes those census tracts and block groups where 51%or more 3 A-5 of the residents are below 50%Area Median Income within the Bee Branch Drainage Basin. (See attached map and census tracts/block groups), Activity#7 CDBG Activity: Rehab: Multi-Unit Residential National Objective: LMH Activity Description: The program will provide rehabilitation for 144 units in small multi-family housing structures located within the target areas of the Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency Program(BBHHRP). Geographic Target: Census tracts 1,4,5,6, and 11.2 are in the flood-prone area, and the service area for the proposed project includes the low and moderate income areas of the Bee Branch Watershed, which extends to surround the flood- prone area,and includes those census tracts and block groups where 51%or more of the residents are below 50% Area Median Income within the Bee Branch Drainage Basin. (See attached map and census tracts/block groups). B. Project Schedule CDBG-NDR funding is subject to strict statutory deadlines for expenditure. In accordance with section 904(c)of title IX of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013, a Grantee is required to expend all CDBG-NDR funds within two years of the date that HUD signs the grant agreement. Consistent with this duty, the Partner is required to complete all CDBG-NDR assisted activities identified in section II.A above within 24 months. The Partner agrees to implement the following schedule. The timeline is based on the Partner's participation in the waiver request submitted by the State of Iowa to extend the grant implementation timeframe from two to five years. Infrastructure implementation schedule: 1. Flood Drainage improvements(Rail Road Culvert @ 506 Garfield) • December 2016: Landlord agreements secured, selection of contractors • July 2018: Construction complete 2, 22 d Street/Kaufman improvements • July 2020: Construction complete 3. 17°i&Locust improvements • July 2020: Construction complete 4. Home rehabilitation implementation schedule(includes activities#4-7 above): • July August 2016: Hiring and training/certification of inspection and support staff • August—October 2016: Identify benchmarks, goals performance indicator; develop/refine Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency Project policies and procedures. • August 2016—December 2018: Outreach/Recruitment/Enrollment of 400 residential property owners; Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency Inspections; Individual property owners contracts executed. • October 2018 April 2021: Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency units completed and cleared. • September 2016 April 2021: Home advocacy interventions in enrolled BBHHRP units. 4 A-6 • April 1021—September 2021: Close out and completion of contracts; Final completion clearance on any remaining units; Evaluation. • October 2017—December 2021: Home advocacy post-evaluation of Healthy Homes interventions. C. Staffine The following existing City staff have the requisite experience to implement the activities as described in the Capacity section of the grant application: • City Manager Michael Van Milligen, Housing Director Alvin Nash, and City Engineer Gus Psihoym are qualified to oversee and manage the implementation of the City of Dubuque's proposed activities. • Civil Engineer II Deron Muehring and Engineering Project Manager Steve Brown have successfully lead the implementation of the Bee Branch Watershed infrastructure projects completed to date, and will be primarily responsible for implementation of the proposed infrastructure projects,including contractor and grant management. • Community Development Specialist Erica Haugen administers the City's existing CDBG program and assists in management of all Housing & Community Development programs, She is knowledgeable and skilled in grant management and administration, and will assist the newly-hired staff in executing the residential improvement portions of the proposed program. • Sustainable Community Coordinator Cori Burbach, Bee Branch Communications Specialist Kristin Hill, Public Health Specialist Mary Rose Corrigan, and Community Engagement Coordinator Nikola Pavelic will be available for consultation and coordination of activities in the areas of resiliency and performance measurement, Bee Branch Watershed outreach, Healthy Homes implementation,and community engagement,respectively. • Five new staff will be hived in the Housing & Community Development department to implement the residential improvement portion of the proposed program The Resiliency Supervisor will report directly to Housing Director Nash and manage the work of the four other staff and the implementation of the proposed program. Any changes in the Key Personnel assigned or their general responsibilities under this project are subject to the prior approval of the Applicant/Grantee. III. BUDGET Nad Activity Description CDBG-R City Obj Flood Drainage Improvements/Bee Branch Culvert TLMA Improvements(Activity#1) $9,000,000 $9,000,000 lilMA 220 St/KauYmanm Ave Improvements Activit #2 $7,600,000 $3,900,000 LMA 17th&Locus St Improvements(Activity#3) $11,500,000 $8,700,000 (LMH Rehab: Single-Unit Residential Activit #4) $3,552,142 $316;832 PUN Rehab: Single-Unit Residential Activit #5 $2,220,100 R.MH Rehab: Single-Unit Residential Activit #6) $1,802,901 $198,020 .LMH Rehab:Muld-Unit Residential Activit # $3,516,624 $285,148 NA Planning—PreAgreementA lication Expenses $52,100 a 2%Administration $799,832 n Total Award $40,043,699 $22 400 000 5 A-7 Grantee may require a more detailed budget breakdown than the one contained herein, and the Partner shall provide such supplementary budget information in a timely fashion in the form and content prescribed by the Applicam/Grantee. Any amendments to the budget must be approved in writing by both the Applicant/Grantee and the Partner. IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS The hiring of additional staff and execution of proposed projects is contingent on the award of the HUD NDRC grant. V. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby and all other parts of this Agreement shall nevertheless be in full force and effect. V1. SECTION HEADINGS AND SUBHEADINGS The section headings and subheadings contained in this Agreement are included for convenience only and shall not limit or otherwise affect the terms of this Agreement. VII. WAIVER The Applicant's failure to act with respect to a breach by the Partner does not waive its right to act with respect to subsequent or similar breaches. The failure of the Applicant to exercise or enforce any right or provision shall not constitute a waiver of such right or provision. VIII. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement between the Partner and the Applicant for the use of CDBG-NDR funds, supersedes all prior a contemporaneous communications and proposals, whether electronic, oral, or written between the Partner and the Applicant/Gmntce with respect to this Agreement. By way of signing this agreement, the Partner is bound to perform the agreements within this agreement or any HUD approved amendment thereof Any amendment to this agreement must receive prior approval by HUD. 6 A-8 Date t,. 3G. I. - IN WITNESS WFIEREOF,the Patties have executed this contract as of the date first written above. wa Economic Development Authority City of Dubuque. By By Title CITY MANAGER Attes[ CITY C L• C r —/ / Countersigned By F ANCE OFFICER APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: / ,,`` CC p/ •ed.L D.H ( � — (D QV Li✓ 7 6q i ASSTSTANi TTCITY ATTORNEY AFFIIRN•IATNE ACTION APPROVAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE SUPERVISOR i it i A-9 _ �Jt p Rigtrt in! Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 East Grand Ave City of Storm Lake Des Moines, IA 50309 PO Box 1086 Storm Lake,IA 50588 Re:Intent to Participate p(712)732-8000 This letter is to confirm the mutual intent of both Iowa Economic f (712)732-4114 Development Authority and the City of Storm Lake to collaborate and enter into a sub-recipient agreement, developer agreement contract, or other agreement, as applicable, contingent upon the award of funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience (CDBG-NDR) competition, to curry out eligible activities as provided in the Iowa Economic Development Authority CDBG- NDR application. The City of Storm Lake would be the sub-recipient of funds for execution of the retrofitting of eight phases of the City's storm sewer system. The project will include hiring an engineering firm for the development of final engineering and designs, prepare construction documents and bidding services, permitting and fees, construction administration and observation, and the adminishation/management of the grant funds. The City will hive a qualified construction firm to complete the construction. It is understood that this is letter is only an expression of our intent and a binding partner agreement or other agreement detailing the terms and conditions of the proposed partnership must be executed before the use of any CDBG-NDR funds, if awarded. Cit�mot of Storm Lake i ! D rgnatrr Antr ze Representxnveo Pmt01! ner Dale17 Appendix D PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN Iowa Economic Development Authority(Applicant) AND City of Storm Lake(Partner) FOR Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience Competition (CDBG-NDR) THIS AGREEMENT,entered this day of Oct •201'Z by and between the Iowa Economic Development Authority(herein called the"Applicant")and the city of Storm Lake (herein called the"Partner"). WHEREAS,the Applicant has applied for funds fiem the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013,Public Law 113-2,for the Community Development Block Great National Disaster Resilience(CDBG-NDR)competition;and WHEREAS,the Applicant wishes to engage the Partner to assist the Applicant in using such funds if awarded; NOW,THEREFORE,it is agreed between the parties hereto,contingent upon the award of CDBG-NDR funds to the Applicant,that; I. SDBRECIPTENT AGREEMENT/DEVELOPER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT If the Applicant is awarded a CDBG-NDR grant from HUD,the Applicant/Grantee shall execute a written subrecipient agreement,developer agreement,contract,or other agreement,as applicable, with the Partner,Tor the use of fie CDBG-NDR funds before disbursing any CDBG-NDR fonds to the Partner.The written agreement must conform with all CDBG-NDR requirements mid shall require the Partner to comply with all applicable CDBG-NDR requirements,including those found hr Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013 (Public Law 113-2),title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974(42 USC 5302 et seq.),the CDBG program regulations at 24 CFR part 570,the Notice of Funding Availability for HUD's National Community Development Block Grant Resilient Disaster Recovery Allocation and any subsequent published amendments (the CDBG-NDR NOFA),and the Applicant's CDBG-NDRNOFA application. It. SCOPE OF SERVICE A. Activities The Partner will be responsible for using CDBG-NDR fiords to carry out activities in a manner satisfactory to the Applicant and consistent with airy standards required as a condition of providing these funds. Such use will be in compliance with the CDBG-NDR NOFA, the Applicant/Grantee's application for CDBG-NDR assistance and the Applicant/Caentee's Grant Agreement for CDBG-NDR. Such use will include the following activities: 7 A-11 ` Program/Project Delivery The proposed Storm Lake improvement projects will mitigate flooding in the targeted service areas for a 10%rainfall event.The implementation of rain gardens,wetland pond, and pervious pavers to mitigate stormwater damage and reduce nutrients to the lake and rivers make these projects a natural model for other communities. Activity#1 CDBG Activity: Stormwater Improvements National Objective: LMA Activity Description: Stormwater improvements including replacing storm sewer, installing pervious pavers,bio cells and bio swales. Geographic Target: 1011&Ontario Streets Activity#2 CDBG Activity: Line Sanitary Sewer National Objective: LMA Activity Description: A CIPP lining of 3,500 feet of 24" and 3,200 18" sanitary sewer. Geographic Target: Extends from the intersection of Ise Street and Mae Street east to the Memorial Street Lift Station. Activity#3 CDBG Activity: Stormwater Improvements National Objective: LMA Activity Description:This activity reconstructs Seneca and Spooner streets with a pervious pavement and storm water quality system including a treatment train of bio swales and bio filtration cells to treat and convey stormwater to Poor Farm Creek. Geographic Target: Seneca and Spooner Streets Activity 44 CDBG Activity: Replacement of Storm Sewer National Objective: LMA Activity Description: Replacement of 3201f of storm sewer including pervious paver and bio cells. Geographic Target: 01 and Oats Streets. Activity#5 CDBG Activity: Storinwater Improvements National Objective: LMA Activity Description: Stormwater improvements including storm sewer replacement,pervious pavers and bio cells. Geographic Target: Memorial Park Activity#b CDBG Activity: Replace Storm Sewer National Objective: LMA Activity Description: Replace storm sewer including installing permeable pavers and bio cells. Geographic Target: 4"' Street from Western Street to Barton Street k Activity#7 CDBG Activity: Replacement of Sanitary Sewer National Objective: LMA 2 A-12 Activity Description: Replacement of 10" trunk sanitary sewer main with a 15" sewer, Geographic Target: from the intersection of71h and Ontario to the existing I8" trunk sewer located approximately 500 feet north of Geneseo by Hwy 7. Activity#8 CDBG Activity: Wastewater Treatment Facility&Wetland Pond National Objective: LMA Activity Description: Storm sewer replacement including wetland pond with three wetland restorers to handle stmmwater. Geographic Target: Site of existing water heatme tfacility. B. Project Schedule CDBG-NDR funding is subject to strict statutory deadlines for expenditure, In accordance with section 904(c)of title IX of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013,a Grantee is required to expend all CDBG-NDR funds within two years of the date that HOD signs the grant agreement. Consistent with this duty, the Partner is required to complete all CDBG-NDR assisted activities identified in section ILA above within 24 months. The Partner agrees to implement the following contingent upon HOD approval of requested waiver to expend funds within 24 months: - - -Storarwaterlm revements- West 10' &Ontario Streets(Activity#1 Spring 2017 Fall 2018 Lining of Sanitary Sewer'—Mae& I-Streets(Activity 42Spring 2016 Fall 2017 Roadway Reconstruction—Seneca&Spenser Sheets(Activity 93Spring 2016 Fall 2017 Replacement of Storm Sewer—4ih&Oats Sheets Activit #4 Spring 2016 Fall 2017 Smrmwater Improvements—Memorial Park Activi #5 Spring 2016 Fall 2017 Replacement of Storm Sewer—Bast 46&Barton Sheets(Activity#6) Spring2016 Fall 2017 Replacement of'Sanilary Se,7a`&Genesee Streets(Activity#7) SpriagM6 Fall 2017 WastewaterTreetment Facility Wetland Pond(Activity#8) Spring 2017 Fall 2018 C. Staffine j Partner will notify, Applicant of any charges in the Key Personnel assigned or their general responsibilities under this project. 3 A-13 IIS;%UDGET [Nate that the original proposed budget may he adjusted .should HUD award less than the an vast requested in the application. LMA Stormwater Improvements—West 10a'&Ontario Streets Aefivi 01 $1,457,250 $485150 LMA Lining of Sanitary Sewer—Mae&P'Streets Ac6i #2 MUM $307,000 LMA Ikosalway Reconstruction—Seneca&Spanner Streets Active #3 $1,340,250 $446,750 LMA Replacement of Storm Sewer-4'^&Oats Streets(Activity#4) $671,250 $223,750 LMA Stormwater Improvements—Memorial Perk(Activity 95 $322,500 $107,500 LMA Replacenrent of Storm Sewer—East 4a&Barton Streets(Activity# $585000 $195,000 LMA Ra lacement of Sanitar Sewer-7a'&Genesee She Activity#7 $221 Z50 $73,750 LMA Wastewatee Treatment Facili Wetland Pond(Activity Activi #6 $956,250 $318,750 Total CDEG Award S6,474,7 Tend Direct Funding provided by City $2,158,25tl The Applicant/Grantes may require a more detailed budget breakdown than the one contained herein, and the partner shall provide such supplementary budget information in a timely fashion in the form and content prescribed by the ApplicantlC-antee. Any amendments to the budget most be approved in writing by both the ApplicantiCn•antee and the Partner. IV, SPECIAL.CONDITIONS None. V. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby and all other parts of this Agreement shall nevertheless be in full force and effect. VL. SECTION HEADINGS AND SUBIMADINGS The section headings and subheadings contained in this Agreement are included for convenience only and shall not limit or otherwise affect the terms of this Agreement. VII. WAIVER The Applicant's failure to act with respect to a breach by the Partner does not waive its right to act with respect to subsequent or similar breaches. The failure of the Applicant to exercise or enforce any right or provision shall not constitute a waiver of such right m provision. 4 A-14 VIII. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement between the Partner and the Applicant for the use of CDBG-NDR funds, supersedes all prior or contemporaneous communications and proposals,whether electronic,oral, or written between the Partner and the Applicant/Grantee with respect to this Agreement. By way of signing this agreement, the Partner is bound to perform the agreements within this agreement or any HUD approved amendment thereof. Any amendment to this agreement must receive prior approval by HUD. Date 1D/18hal5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties have executed this contract as of the date first written above. Iowa Economic Development Authority City ofStorm L ke By p4 1 Thl 1 'VA` goo c Attest ASSI9TA WT[CITY/GQUN-Tsf] CLERK Cormtersigred: d /- .ttZ6/ By cI Qvl C', , )bbt l`Hil INAN FFICER Title FiVtl4�C E• ��e,�ec-fnr APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: J4Fed,I.D.# 0 /SSS T[CITY/GeUNT7]ATTORNEY OR—LEGAL COUNSEL AFFIRMATIVE ACTION APPROVAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE SUPERVISOR 5 A-15 1 C® ALVILLE October 13,2015 Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 East Grand Ave Des Moines, IA 50309 Re: Intent to Participate This letter is to confirm the mutual intent of both Iowa Economic Development Authority and the City of Coralville to collaborate and enter into a sub-recipient agreement,developer agreement, contract, or other agreement, as applicable, contingent upon the award of funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience (CDBG-NDR) competition,to carryout eligible activities as provided in the Iowa Economic Development Authority CDBG-NOR application. The City of Coralville would be the sub-reciptent of funds forthe execution of the retrofitting of the City's stormwater pump stations #7 and#8. The project will include hiring an engineering firm for the development of final engineering and designs,prepare construction documents and bidding services, permitting and fees,construction administration and observation,and the administration/management of the grant funds. The City will hire a qualified construction firm to complete the construction. It is understood that this is letter is only an expression of our intent and a binding partner agreement or other agreement detailing the terms and conditions of the proposed partnership must be executed before the use of any CDBG-NDR funds,if awarded. City of Coralvil a] 13 US- Au hor zed R went iv of Partner Date City Administration PO Box 5127 1512 7th Street Coralville,Iowa 52241-0127 319-248-1700 Fax:319-248-1894 A-16 Appendix D PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN Iowa Economic Development Authority(Applicant) AND City of Coralville(Partner) FOR Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience Competition (CDBG-NDR) THIS AGREEMENT, entered this IJ day of 0 Ta 20 IJ- by and between the Iowa Economic Development Authority(herein called the"Applicanf7 and the city of Comlville (herein called the"Partner'). WHEREAS,the Applicant has applied for fluids from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013,Public Law 113-2, for the Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience(CDBG-NDR)competition; and WHEREAS,the Applicant wishes to engage the Partner to assist the Applicant in using such funds if awarded; NOW,THEREFORE,it is agreed between the parties hereto,contingent upon the award of CDBG-NDR funds to the Applicant,that; I L SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT/DEVELOPERAGREEMENT/CONTRACT If the Applicant is awarded a CDBG-NDR grant from HUD,the Applicant/Grantm shall execute a written subrecipient agreement,developer agreement,contract,or other agreement,as applicable, with the Partner,for the use of the CDBG-NDR fonds before disbursing any CDBG-NDR funds to the Partner.The written agreement must conform with all CDBG-NDR requirements and shall require the Partner to comply with all applicable CDBG-NDR requirements,including those found in Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013 (Public Law 113-2),title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974(42 USC 5302 et seq.),the CDBG program regulations at 24 CFR part 570,the Notice of Funding Availability for HUD's National Community Development Block Grant Resilient Disaster Recovery Allocation and any subsequent published amendments (the CDBG-NDR NOFA),and the Applicant's CDBG-NDR NOFA application. H. SCOPE OF SERVICE A. Activities The Partner will be responsible for using CDBG-NDR funds to cant'out activities in a manner satisfactory to the Applicant and consistent with any standards required as a condition of providing these funds. Such use will be in compliance with the CDBG-NDR NOFA, the Applicant/Grantee's application for CDBG-NDR assistance and the Applicant/Grantee's Gant Agreement for CDBG-NDR. Such use will include the fallowing activities: 1 A-17 Program/Project Delivery The project will modify two of the City's existing stormwater pump stations(number 7&8) along Clear Creek to provide flood protection to levels consistent with the design levels of City flood mitigationpmjects constructed since 2008. (100 year flood plain level plus one foot). The improvements will raise weir walls and add backflow prevention: add a shared and elevated back- up power supply,gate operators,and motor controls;reinforce bafNes;replace internal flap gates with sluice gates;add duckbills at discharge pipes;and improve level measurements. Activity#1 CDBG Activity: Stormwater Pump Station Improvements National Objective: LMA Activity Description: The purpose of this activity is to fund a stormwater improvement project consisting of modifying two stormwater pump stations. Geographic Target: Pump Station #8 is located at 322 2"s Street and Pump Station#7 is located at 324 2"s Street. B. Project Schedule CDBG-NDR funding is subject to strict statutory deadlines for expenditure. In accordance with section 904(c)of title DI of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013,a Grantee is required to expend all CDBG-NDR funds within two years of the date that HUD signs the grant agreement. Consistent with this duty, the Partner is required to complete all CDBG-NDR assisted activities identified in section D.A above within 24 months. The Partner agrees to implement the following contingent upon HUD approval of requested waiver to expend funds within 24 months: Projects will be completed within 18 months from the date of award by IBDA. G Staffme Partner will notify Applicant of any changes in the Key Personnel assigned or their general responsibilities under this project. FUDGE [Note that the original proposed budget Pray be adjusted should HUD award less than the amount requested in the application, "Natl Obj CDBG Activity Description :CDBG City. Total LMA Storrawater Pump Station lm mvements $1,834800 $611,600 $2,446,400 Total CDBG Award $1,834,800 Total Direct Pundia Provided by Ci $611,600 2 A-18 The Applicant/Grantee may require a more detailed budget breakdown than the one contained herein, and the Partner shall provide such supplementary budget information in a timely fashion in the form and content prescribed by the Applicant/Grantee. Any amendments to the budget must be approved in writing by both the Applicant/Grantee and the Partner. IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS None. V. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby and all other parts of this Agreement shall nevertheless be in full force and effect, VI. SECTION HEADINGS AND SUBHEADINGS The section headings and subheadings contained in this Agreement are included for convenience only and shall not limit or otherwise affectthe terms of this Agreement. VH. WAIVER The Applicant's failure to act with respect to a breach by the Partner does not waive its right to act with respect to subsequent or similar breaches. The failure of the Applicant to exercise or enforce any right or provision shall not constitute a waiver of such tight or provision. VDT. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement between the Partner and the Applicant for the use of CDBG-NDR funds, supersedes all prior or contemporaneous communications and proposals,whether electronic,oral, or written between the Partner and the Applicant/Grantee with respect to this Agreement, By way of signing this agreement, the Partner is bound to perform the agreements within this agreement or any BUD approved amendment thereof, Any amendment to this agreement must receive prior approval by HUD. _ 3 A-19 Date IDII: (o 16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties have executed this contract as of the date first written above. Iowa Economic Development Authority City of Coralville I� By � By Title ty Attest_!//" L` ASSf3`hYifi�YAGG F-1jj CLERK Countersigned: ✓J v� By 7'a!.y Roel l t 'FINANCE OFFICER Title APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Fed.I.D.# 4.L - E o0480 N A6Si9:hA'tff[C1TY/69NAI-R]ATTORNEY OR LEGAL COUNSEL AFFIR TIVE ACTI PPROVAL CO RACT COI 'L NCE SUPERVISOR 4 A-20 THE Division of Sponsored Programa 2 Gilmore Hall UNIVERSITY 1.City,Iowa 52M2-u20 OF IOWA 319-335-2P3 Po 319-335-1330 dspRuloxa.etlu -.____-_ � hnpd/research.uloxa.edu/dsp October 8, 2015 Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 East Grand Ave Des Moines, IA 50309 Re: Intent to Participate I This letter is to confirm the mutual intent of both the Iowa Economic Development Authority and the University of Iowa to collaborate and enter into a partner agreement [or other agreement], contingent upon the award of funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience(CDBR-NDR)competition,to cavy out eligible activities as provided in the Iowa Economic Development Authority's CDBG-NDA application. With just over 31,000 students,the University of Iowa is one of the nation's top public research universities,managing$431M in external research funding in fiscal year 2014. The Iowa Flood Center is this nation's first research and education center devoted solely to the study of Floods. The Center for Evaluation and Assessment provides third-party evaluation, assessment, and other research services to a broad range of clients working in multiple programmatic areas. The University of Iowa will be a subrecipient to IEDA. The Iowa Flood Center(IFC) of the University of Iowa will provide leadership on the technical and scientific aspects of the Iowa Watersheds Approach,especially for the rural watershed projects. Specifically, the IFC will: lead activities related to the hydrologic assessment in each watershed; collect data, run and validate models,and develop a visualization platform and a hydrologic network;working closely with all WMAs and convene regular meetings of the IWA advisory board;work closely with ISO and UNI on outreach and engagement activities;and lead social resiliency programming.The University of Iowa Center for Assessment and Evaluation(CEA)will conduct programmatic evaluation and assessment of the overall program. CEA will also participate in, assess, benchmark, and help to guide development of the resiliency program in each watershed. IIHR—Hydroscience&Engineering and the Iowa Flood Center of the University of Iowa commit to $1,000,000 in direct leverage to the project. These funds are available directly to the project for implementation of project goals. OFFICE OF THE VICE PIESIDENT roR HrsmacH A-21 It is understood that this letter is only an expression of our intent and a binding partner agreement [or other agreement] detailing the terms and conditions of the proposed partnership must be executed before the use of any CDBG-NDR funds, if awarded. Sincerely, r{In L.Brothers for ec for Boseafen V.P. ol Larry Weber Daniel Reed Director,IIHR Vice President for Research and Economic Development A-22 Appendix D PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN Iowa Economic Development Authority (Applicant) AND University of Iowa(Partner) FOR Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience Competition (CDBG-NDR) THIS AGREEMENT, entered this 13th day of October,2015 by and between the Iowa Economic Development Authority(herein called the"Applicant")and the University of Iowa (herein called the"Partner'). WHEREAS,the Applicant has applied for funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013,Public Law 113-2,for the Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience(CDBG-NDR)competition;and WHEREAS,the Applicant wishes to engage the Partner to assist the Applicant in using such funds if awarded; NOW,THEREFORE,it is agreed between the parties hereto,contingent upon the award of CDBG-NDR funds to the Applicant,that; L SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT/DEVELOPER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT If the Applicant is awarded a CDBG-NDR grant from HOD,the Applicant/Grantee shall execute a written subrecipient agreement, developer agreement,contract,or other agreement,as applicable, with the Partner, for the use of the CDBG-NDR funds before disbursing any CDBG-NDR funds to the Pannier.The written agreement must conform with all CDBG-NDR requirements and shall require the Partner to comply with all applicable CDBG-NDR requirements, including those found in Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013 (Public Law 113-2),title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974(42 USC 5302 et seq.),the CDBG program regulations at 24 CFR part 570,the Notice of Funding Availability for HUD's National Community Development Block Grant Resilient Disaster Recovery Allocation and any subsequent published amendments (the CDBG-NDR NOFA), and the Applicant's CDBG-NDR NOFA application. IL SCOPE OF SERVICE A. Activities The Partner will be responsible for using CDBG-NDR funds to carry out activities in a manner satisfactory to the Applicant and consistent with any standards required as a condition of providing these funds. Such use will be in compliance with the CDBG-NDR NOFA,the Applicant/Grantee's application for CDBG-NDR assistance and the ApplicanUGramee's Grant Agreement for CDBG- NDR. Such use will include the following activities: I A-23 Program/Project Delivery Ili [Complete description of activity to be undertaken including what products or services are to be performed,geographic target area where the activity is to be provided,for whom tine activity is to be provided,how tine activity is to be provided] Activity#I CDBG Activity: Watershed Planning/Watershed Scale•Planning University of Iowa Flood Center(IFC) National Objective: NA Activity Description: Develop a watershed plan, which includes selecting and modeling a variety of scenarios to select the best project site and selection implementation scenarios for maximum benefits. Geographic Target: MID-URN areas of eight selected watersheds Activity#2 CDBG Activity: Watershed Planning/Hydrologic Assessment University of Iowa Flood Center National Objective: NA Activity Description:Develop a hydrologic model of the entire watershed to use for planning purposes. Model to include detailed topography,soil parameters, land-management practices, etc. Geographic Target:MID-URN areas of eight selected watersheds Activity#3 CDBG Activity: Watershed Planning-Capacity building for WMAs University of Iowa Flood Center National Objective:: NA Activity Description: Capacity building for WMAs including development of WMA advisory board,conference, field events and annual board meeting. Geographic Target Targeted watersheds, including Dubuque Activity#4 CDBG Activity: Watershed Planning—Hydrologic Monitoring Network University of Iowa Flood Center National Objective: NA Activity Description:Develop and operate a hydrologic monitoring network to assess watershed conditions. Network to include research-grade rain gauges,soil moisture sensors, shallow wells,etc. Geographic Target: Counties in the targeted watersheds Activity#5 CDBG Activity: Watershed Planning—Evaluation University of Iowa CEA National Objective: NA Activity Description: Evaluation and assessment of program model. Geographic Target: Targeted watersheds, including Dubuque Activity 06 CDBG Activity: Watershed Planning—Resilience Programming University of Iowa Flood Center/University of Iowa CEA/CAP Agencies National Objective:NA Activity Description: Identify resilience needs in target watersheds and Dubuque,develop resilience programs,and help communities develop resilience action plans. Geographic Target:Targeted watersheds, including Dubuque 2 A-24 i I Activity#7 CDBG Activity: Project Implementation: University of Iowa Flood Center National Objective: Urgent Need Activity Description: Monitoring of water quantity and quality pre- and post- construction, assessment of data and results,visualization of data on custom platform for public access,reporting and final implementation guide Geographic Target: Targeted watersheds Activity#8 CDBG Activity: Project Implementation: University of Iowa Flood Center National Objective:Projected LMA Activity Description: Monitoring of water quantity and quality pre-and post- construction, assessment of data and results,visualization of data on custom platform for public access,reporting and final implementation guide Geographic Target: Targeted watersheds Activity#9 CDBG Activity:Planning Pre-Agreement Expenses University of Iowa Flood Center National Objective:NA Activity Description: Pre-Agreement allowable costs related to application preparation. Geographic Target: NA B. Project Schedule CDBG-NDR funding is subject to strict statutory deadlines for expenditure. In accordance with section 904(c) of title IX of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013, a Grantee is required to expend all CDBG-NDR funds within two years of the date that HUD signs the grant agreement. Consistent with this duty, the Partner is required to complete all CDBG-NDR assisted activities identified in section II.A above within 24 months. The Partner agrees to implement the following contingent upon HUD approval of requested waiver to expend funds within 24 months: Project Timeline: Activities 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 i July 2016—March 2017: Meetings, forums, submission and acceptance of Chapter 28E Agreement documents for formation of new Watershed Management Authority; April 2017—September 2021: Social Resilience Programming (community engagement, networking, needs assessment); April 2017 December 2017: Collection of data (topography, soil conditions, etc.) and development of hydrologic assessment of the full HUC 8 watershed; January 2018—June 2018: Development of hydrologic plan for eligible areas, modeling of different project scenarios; July 2018—September 2018: WMA selects final sites and projects for implementation; October 2018—March 2019: Establish agreements with landowners, selection of contractors; April 2019—September 2020: Construction of projects; 3 A-25 1, October 2020-September 2021: Post-construction data collection and analysis, work with - WMA members to help define future steps, Activity 3 Ongoing throughout the program duration, including quarterly meetings and annual public event. Activity 5 Ongoing throughout the program duration, with emphasis in year one for benchmarking and year five for final evaluation. Activity 6 The program's staggered start engages three watersheds during each of the first three years of the five-year program, with the following timeline. Year 1: Contract with CAP, conducts initial qualitative and quantitative baseline data collection of local resilience issues to share with community. Year 2: [Repeat of Year 1 for three new WMAs] and Engagement program development and implementation, launch pilot of first version of visualization platform, watershed-wide community engagement events to discuss resilience, initial HSEMD and EMA disaster planning events, development of resilience assessment; annual resilience survey and reporting. Year 3: [Repeat of Year I for final three WMAs] and continued engagement program development and implementation,visualization platform enhancements in response to feedback, engagement events to discuss resilience, HSEMD and EMA disaster planning events, annual resilience survey and reporting, Year 4: Same as Year Three (no new WMAs added). Year 5: Maintain visualization platform, finalize area disaster preparedness plan and report, final resilience survey and reporting. C. Staff Partner will notify Applicant of any changes in the Key Personnel assigned or their general responsibilities underthis project. III. BUDGET [Note that the original proposed budget may be adjusted should HUD award less than the amount re nested in the a lication.j Nad CDBG Activity Mscrip6an A$$3'1.1348 Ob' N/A Watershed Planning-IFC—Watershed Plan in 8 watershcds(Activl #1) N/A Watershed Planning-IFC—Hdrol is Assessment of watersheds(Activity#2) N/A Watershed Planning-IFC—Capacity building for WMAs(Activity#3) N/A Watershed Planning-IFC—Devel Hydrologic and Nutrient MonitoringNetwork (Activity#4 N/A Watershed Planning-CEA—Evaluation (Activity#5) N/A Watershed Planning:Resilience Pm ammin in 8 tar watersheds and Dubuque(Activity6 UN Watershed Proiects..it.,in&/modeling/visualintion-IFC/CAP Agencies (Activity 47) $6,400,000 LMA Watershed Projects monitoring/madeling/visualization-IFC/CAP Agencies (Activity 48) $2,000,000 NA Planning—PreAgreement Application Expense IFC(Activity#9) $62,000 Total Award $17,308,211 4 A-26 The Applicant/Grantee may require a more detailed budget breakdown than the one contained herein, and the Partner shall provide such supplementary budget information in a timely fashion in the form and content prescribed by the Applicant/Grantee. Any amendments to the budget must be approved in writing by both the Applicant/Grantee and the Partner. IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS None. V. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby and all other parts of this Agreement shall nevertheless be in full force and effect. VI. SECTION HEADINGS AND SUBHEADINGS The section headings and subheadings contained in this Agreement are included for convenience only and shall not limit or otherwise affect the terms of this Agreement. VII. WAIVER The Applicant's failure to act with respect to a breach by the Partner does not waive its right to act with respect to subsequent or similar breaches. The failure of the Applicant to exercise or enforce any right or provision shall not constitute a waiver of such right or provision. VIII. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement between the Partner and the Applicant for the use of CDBG-NDR funds, supersedes all prior or contemporaneous communications and proposals, whether electronic, oral, or written between the Partner and the Applicant/Grantee with respect to this Agreement. By way of signing this agreement, the Partner is bound to perform the agreements within this agreement or any HUD approved amendment thereof. Any amendment to this agreement must receive prior approval by HUD. I 5 A-27 Date IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties have executed this contract as of the date first written above. Io Economic Development Authority University of Iowa By, - 6y Title Sr 1i5So( ',tteG�r S.mo f SPonsorF& P`O fit (n rri� 6 A-28 IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY Omicear SPaasored Proprains Adminis'Unlion OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 1138 Peams ,Ball Mees.lo,,a 50011-2207 Phone: 515 294-5225 Far 515294-8000 \N1'IV.OSI]a.la81a1CP(�n October 6, 2015 Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 East Grand Ave Des Moines,IA 50309 Re: Intent to Participate This letter is to confirm the mutual intent of both Iowa Economic Development Authority and Iowa State University to collaborate and enter into a subrecipient agreement, developer agreement, contract, or other agreement, as applicable, contingent upon the award of funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience (CDBG-NDR) competition, to carry out eligible activities as provided in the Iowa Economic Development Authority CDBG-NDR application. Iowa State University is an 1862 Land-Grant Institution, with enrollment of 36,001 students and employment of 6,000 faculty and staff. The state appropriations in 2014-15 were $272 million, and contract and grants in excess of$311 million, or almost 25% of total operating revenues. Iowa State University would be the subrecipient of funds for several units (Extension and Outreach, Iowa Learning Farm, the Iowa Water Center, and the Iowa Nutrient Research Center) to collect data on the various watersheds built practices and develop and deliver extensive programming to WMA stakeholders and producers. The Iowa Water Center will also use its Daily Erosion Project (DEP) along with targeted field measurements to monitor the success of the built projects to reduce erosion and water runoff and to develop and distribute informative materials on the use of practices to reduce soil loss in modern agricultural operations. A-29 It is understood that this is letter is only an expression of our intent and a binding partner agreement or other agreement detailing the terms and conditions of the proposed partnership must be executed before the use of any CDBG-NDR funds, if awarded. Sincerely, Uvt�� Nathan Kapke Pre-Award Administrator Office of Sponsored Programs Administration Iowa State University 1138 Pearson Hell—Ames,LA 50011-2207 P. 515-294.6806: F.515-294-8000 nkaokelniastnte edu—www.osoadastate.edu A-30 Appendix D PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN Iowa Economic Development Authority(Applicant) AND Iowa State University(Partner) FOR Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience Competition (CDBG-NDR) THIS AGREEMENT,entered this 8ih day of October,2015 by and between the Iowa Economic Development Authority(herein called the"Applicant's and Iowa State University (herein called the"Partner"). WHEREAS,the Applicant has applied for funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013,Public Law 113-2,for the Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience(CDBG-NDR)competition;and WHEREAS,the Applicant wishes to engage the Partner to assist the Applicant in using such funds if awarded; NOW,THEREFORE,it is agreed between the parties hereto,contingent upon the award of CDBG-NDR funds to the Applicant,that; I. SURRECIPIENT AGREEMENT/DEVELOPER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT If the Applicant is awarded a CDBG-NDR grant from HUD,the Applicant/Grantee shall execute a written subrecipient agreement,developer agreement,contract,or other agreement,as applicable, with the Partner,for the use of the CDBG-NDR funds before disbursing any CDBG-NDR funds to the Partner.The written agreement must conform with all CDBG-NDR requirements and shall require the Partner to comply with all applicable CDBG-NDR requirements,including those found in Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013 (Public Law 113-2),title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974(42 USC 5302 et seq.),the CDBG program regulations at 24 CFR part 570,the Notice of Funding Availability for HUD's National Community Development Black Grant Resilient Disaster Recovery Allocation and any subsequent published amendments (the CDBG-NDR NOFA),and the Applicant's CDBG-NDR NOFA application. H. SCOPE OF SERVICE A. Activities The Partner will be responsible for using CDBG-NDR funds to carry out activities in a manner satisfactory to the Applicant and consistent with any standards required as a condition of providing these funds. Such use will be in compliance with the CDBG-NDA NOFA, the Applicam/Grantee's application for CDBG-NDR assistance and the Applicant/Grantee's Grant Agreement for CDBG-NDR. Such use will include the following activities: 1 A-31 Program/Project Delivery [Camplete description of activity to be undertaken including wharproducts or services are to be performed, geographic target area where the activity Is to be provided,for whom the activity Is to be provided, hoop the activity is to be provided] Three units within Iowa State University(ISU)will develop and deliver extensive programming to Watershed Management Authority(WMA)stakeholders and producers in targeted watersheds through the work of its many internal and external partners. Activity#1 CDBGActivity: Planning—ISU Extension National Objective: NA Activity Description: Deliver research based information on the effectiveness of practices currently under study to fanners and other stakeholders in the target watersheds. Channels of communication will include fact sheets, broadcast interviews,videos and interactive webinars. Geographic Target: Target watersheds Activity#2 CDBGActivity: Planning—ISU Iowa Water Center National Objective: NA Activity Description: Develop data and information materials regarding the use of practices for reducing soil loss in modern agricultural operations. Perform detailed assessments of the selected HUC 12 before, during and after the completion of built projects. Geographic Target: Target watersheds Activity#3 CDBG Activity: Planning—ISU Iowa Nutrient Research Center National Objective: NA Activity Description: Faculty members will evaluate the effectiveness of stacking practices to reduce nutrient loss to surface water in the target HUC 12s across the Iowa landforms represented in this program improving the effectiveness and predictability of existing emerging practices. Geographic Target: Target watersheds B. Project Schedule CDBG-NDR funding is subject to strict statutory deadlines for expenditure. In accordance with section 904(c)of title IX of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013, a Grantee is required to expend all CDBG-NDR funds within two years of the date that HUD signs the grant agreement. Consistent with this duty, the Partner is required to complete all CDBG-NDR assisted activities identified in section ILA above within 24 months. The Partner agrees to implement the following contingent upon HUD approval of requested waiver to expend funds within 24 months: Activities will be completed over a 5 year period. 2 A-32 C. Staffine Partner will notify Applicant of any changes in the Key Personnel as or [heir general responsibilities under this project. M. BUDGET [Note that the original proposed budget may be adjusted should HUD award less than the amount requested in the application. Natl Obi CDBG Activity Description Budget NA Planning—ISU Extension(Activity#1) $750,000 NA Planning—ISU Iowa Water Center(Activity#2) $1,500,000 NA Planning—ISU Iowa Nutrient Research Center(Activity#3) $1,000,000 Total Award $3,2X,000 The Applicant/Grantee may require a more detailed budget breakdown than the one contained SO herein, and the Partner shall provide such supplementary budget information in a timely fashion in the form and content prescribed by the Applicant/Grantee. Any amendments to the budget must be approved in writing by both the Applicant/Grantee and the Partner. IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS None. V. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby and all other parts of this Agreement shall nevertheless be in full force and effect. VI. SECTION HEADINGS AND SUBHEADINGS The section headings and subheadings contained in this Agreement are included for convenience only and shall not limit or otherwise affect the terms of this Agreement. VH. WAIVER The Applicant's failure to act with respect to a breach by the Partner does not waive its right to act with respect to subsequent or similar breaches. The failure of the Applicant to exercise or enforce any right or provision shall not constitute a waiver of such right or provision. VIH. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement between the Partner and the Applicant for the use of CDBG-NDR funds, supersedes all prim or contemporaneous communications and proposals,whether electronic, oral, or written between the Partner and the Applicant/Grantee with respect to this Agreement.By way of signing this agreement, the Partner is bound to perform the agreements within this agreement or any HUD approved amendment thereof. Any amendment to this agreement must receive prior approval by HUD. 3 A-33 Date dc�b &' 1 ) 2a /� IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties have executed this contract as of the date first written above. wa Economic Development Authority Iowa State University` By Ey Mama K. Ruther Title ��- ^•F�"'a,rl FtCmind62tator Office G,Sponsored roamrao Adridnistntlon Iowa State university 4 A-34 University of Office of Research and Sponsored Programs Northernlowa October 6,2015 Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 East Grand Ave Des Moines,IA 50309 Re: Intent to Participate This letter is to confirm the mutual intent of both Iowa Economic Development Authority and the University of Northern Iowa (UNI) Tallgrass Prairie Center to collaborate and enter into a subrecipient agreement, developer agreement, contract, or other agreement, as applicable, contingent upon the award of funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience (CDBG-NDR) competition, to carry out eligible activities as provided in the Iowa Economic Development Authority CDBG-NDR application. The Tallgrass Prairie Center atthe University of Northern Iowa is a strong advocate for progressive, ecological approaches using native vegetation to provide economic,environmental and aesthetic benefits for the public good. The Center is in the vanguard of roadside vegetation management,native Source Identified seed development,and adaptation of prairie vegetation for soil and water conservation and biodiversity enhancement in agricultural settings.The Center primarily serves the Upper Midwest Tallgrass Prairie Region and is a model for similar efforts nationally and internationally. UNI will provide multiple layers of assistance to producers on the establishment and management of native vegetation across a range of agricultural practices. They will disseminate scientifically-based information through workshops, print and online technical guides and videos, an online seed mix calculator, consultation, and offer other technical assistance to producers and stakeholders as appropriate. It is understood that this is letter is only an expression of our intent and a binding partner agreement or other agreement detailing the terms and conditions of the proposed partnership must be executed before the use of any CDBG-NDR funds,if awarded. Partner:University of Northern Iowa Tolif unt,Interctor Offi of Research and Sponsored Programs 213 ihn M.01,11 NO •(:edur W ,Inas 50614-031P•Phm:31)2733217•I:n:919-273-'634 A-35 Appendix D PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN Iowa Economic Development Authority(Applicant) AND University of Northern Iowa(Partner) FOR Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience Competition (CDBG-NDR) THIS AGREEMENT,entered this 29th day of September,2015 by and between the Iowa Economic Development Authority(herein called the"Applicant")and University of Northern Iowa (herein called the`Partner"). WHEREAS,the Applicant has applied for funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013,Public Law 113-2,for the Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience(CDBG-NDR)competition; and WHEREAS,the Applicant wishes to engage the Partner to assist the Applicant in using such funds if awarded; NOW,THEREFORE,it is agreed between the parties hereto,contingent upon the award of CDBG-NDR funds to the Applicant,that; L SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT/DEVELOPER AGREEMENT/CON'T'RACT If the Applicant is awarded a CDBG-NDR grant from HUD,the Applicant/Grantee shall execute a written subrecipient agreement,developer agreement,contract,or other agreement,as applicable, with the Partner,for the use of the CDBG-NDR funds before disbursing any CDBG-NDR funds to the Partner The written agreement must conform with all CDBG-NDR requirements and shall require the Partner to comply with all applicable CDBG-NDR requirements,including those found in Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013(Public Law 113-2),title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974(42 USC 5302 et seq.),the CDBG program regulations at 24 CFR part 570,the Notice of Funding Availability for HUD's National Community Development Block Grant Resilient Disaster Recovery Allocation and any subsequent published amendments (the CDBG-NDR NOFA),and the Applicant's CDBG-NDRNOFA application, H. SCOPE OF SERVICE A. Activities The Partner will be responsible for using CDBG-NDR foods to carry out activities in a manner satisfactory to the Applicant and consistent with any standards required as a condition of providing these funds.Such use will be in compliance with the CDBG-NDR NOFA,the Applicant/Grantee's application for CDBG-NDR assistance and the Applicant/Grantee's Grant Agreement for CDBG- NDR. Such use will include the following activities: I A-36 Program/Project Delivery [Complete description of activity to be undertaken including what products or services are to be per]orrne4 geographic target area where the acdWty is to beprovided,for whom the activity is to be provided,how the activity is to be provided] The University of Northern Iowa's(UNI)Tallgrass Prairie Center will provide assistance to Watershed Management Authrities(WMAs), in selected watersheds,on the establishment and management of native vegetation across a range of agricultural practices. They will disseminate scientifically-based information through workshops,print and online technical guides and videos, an online seed mix calculator, and individual consultation. Demonstration sites designed for teaching and learning will serve as a cornerstone of this effort. UNI will expand their existing Prairie on the Farms working group within WMAs in selected watersheds to build a leadership network in prairie reconstruction techniques specifically in the context of agriculture. Activity#1 CDBG Activity: Planning—UNI Tall Grass Prairie Cantu National Objective: NA Activity Description: Provide assistance to WMAs in selected watersheds on the establishment and management of native vegetation across a range of agricultural practices. Geographic Target: Target watersheds B. Proiect Schedule CDBG-NDR funding is subject to strict statutory deadlines for expenditure. In accordance with section 904(c)of title IX of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013,a Grantee is required to expend all CDBG-NDR funds within two years of the date that HUD signs the grant agreement. Consistent with this duty, the Partner is required to complete all CDBG-NDR assisted activities identified in section ITA above within 24 months. The Partner agrees to implement the following contingent upon HUD approval of requested waiver to expend funds within 24 months: Activities will be completed over a 5 year period. C. Staffine Partner will notify Applicant of any changes in the Key Personnel assigned or their general responsibilities under this project. III. BUDGET [Note that the original proposed budget may be adjusted should HUD award less than the amount requested in the application. Natl Obj CDBG Activity Description Budget NA Planning—UNI Tall Grass Prairie Center(Activity#1) $675,000 Total Award $675,000 2 A-37 The Applicant/Grantee may require a more detailed budget breakdown than the one contained herein,and the Partner shall provide such supplementary budget information in a timely fashion in the form and content prescribed by the Applicant/Grantee. Any amendments to the budget must be approved in writing by both the Applicant/Grantee and the Partner. IV- SPECIAL CONDITIONS None. V. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby and all other parts of this Agreement shall nevertheless be in full force and effect. VI. SECTION HEADINGS AND SUBHEADINGS The section headings and subheadings contained in this Agreement are included for convenience only and shall not limit or otherwise affect the terms of this Agreement. VII. WAIVER The Applicant's failure to act with respect to a breach by the Partner does not waive its right to act with respect to subsequent or similar breaches. The failure of the Applicant to exercise or enforce any right or provision shall not constitute a waiver of such right or provision. VIII. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement between the Partner and the Applicant for the use of CDBG-NDR funds, supersedes all prior or contemporaneous communications and proposals,whether electronic, oral, or written between the Partner and the Applicant/Grantee with respect to this Agreement. By way of signing this agreement,the Partner is bound to perform the agreements within this agreement or any HUD approved amendment thereof. Any amendment to this agreement must receive prior approval by HUD. i 3 A-3 8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties have executed this contract as of the date first written above. Iowa Economic Development Authority University of Northern Iowa/UNI Tall Grass 1 I Prairie Center By � iy-� l By:Tolif Hunt Interim Director, Office of Research and Sponsored Programs 4/ Signature L' /6 Date Dat Date 4 A-39 Fields of Opportunities STATE OF IOWA TERRY E.BRANSTAD IOWA HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HIM REYNOLDS MARK].ECHOUTEN,HOWMAND MCUR17Y ADVISOR LT.GOVERNOR AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR March 19,2015 Debi Durham,Director Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 East Grand Avenue Des Moines,IA 50309 SUBJECT: Intent to Participate—CDBG-NDR Dear Director Durham: This letter is to confine the mutual intent of both Iowa Department of Economic Development Authority(IEDA)and Iowa Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (HSEMD)to collaborate and enter into a partner agreement,contingent upon the award of funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience(CDBG-NDR)competition,to catty out eligible activities as provided in the IEDA's CDBG-NDR application. HSEMD has been working to make Iowa more prepared for disasters since it began as the State Civil Defense Agency in 1965.We are committed to making our state more prepared for any emergency or disaster,Following the terrorist attacks of September 11,2001,HSEMD was directed by the Governor to coordinate Iowa's homeland security efforts. Our mission is to lead, coordinate,and support homeland security and emergency management functions in order to establish sustainable communities and ensure economic opportunities for Iowa and its citizens. HSEMD has been managing federal funds and performing project management and administrative oversight of FEMA projects since 1980.In 2008,HSEMD recovery financial staff was tasked by the Governor to assist with standing up Iowa's Rebuild Iowa Office that included establishing policies,procedures,internal controls,and other financial management standards for work activities at this office. In 2014,we began our participation in FEMA'S Program Administered by States Pilot program as a result of our qualified staff, grants management,and hazard mitigation practices and program implementation. 7900 HICKMAN ROAD,SUITE 500,WINDSOR HEIGHTS,IA 50374/51 5.7253231 nnp/lwvm'.homelaudSewTiiY.ic.00,i�o A-40 Debi Durham,Director of IEDA March 19, 2015 Page Two Based on our infinite experiences and proficiencies as noted above,HSEMD will partner with IEDA to provide coordination and implementation activities proposed in the CDBG-NDR application. We will serve as the lead for project management from the initial project consultation and implementation through closeout.We will oversee and enforce all applicable program and financial federal requirements,including the 2 CFR,24 CFR,and the 2014 National Disaster Resilience Competition. It is understood that this is letter is only an expression of our intent and a binding partner agreement detailing the terms and conditions of the proposed partnership must be executed before the use of any CDBG-NDR funds,if awarded. S nc Mark 7. Sc oaten Director of HSEMD A-41 Appendix D PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN Iowa Economic Development Authority(Applicant) ev Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Department(Partner) FOR Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience Competition (CDBG^-NDDR) TIES AGREEMENT,entered this day of �` Jnl .20 IJ by and between the Iowa Economic Development Authority(herein called the"Applicant")and Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Department(herein called the"Partner"). WHEREAS;the Applicant has applied for funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013,Public Law 113-2,for the Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience(CDBG-NDR)competition;and WAEREAS,the Applicant wishes to engage the Partner to assist the Applicant in using such funds if awarded; NOW,THEREFORE, it is agreed between the parties hereto,contingent upon the award of CDBG-NDR funds to the Applicant,that; L SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT/DEVELOPER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT If the Applicant is awarded a CDBG-NDR grant from HUD,the Applicant/Grautee shall execute a written subrecipient agreement,developer agreement,contract,or other agreement,as applicable, with the Partner,for the use of the CDBG-NDR funds before disbursing any CDBG-NDR.funds to the Partner.The written agreement must conform with all CDBG-NDR requirements and shall require the Partner to comply with all applicable CDBG-NDRrequirements,including those found in Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013(Public Law 113-2),fide I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974(42 USC 5302 or seq.),the CDBG program regulations at 24 CFR part 570,the Notice of Funding Availability for HUD's National Community Development Block Grant Resilient Disaster Recovery Allocation and any subsequent published amendments (the CDBG-NDRNOFA),and the Applicant's CDBG-NDR NOFA application. U. SCOPE OF SERVICE A. Activities The Partner will be responsible for using CDBG-NDR funds to tarty out activities in a manner satisfactory to the Applicant and consistent with any standards required as a condition of providing these funds. Such use will be in compliance with the CDBG-NDR NOFA, the ApplicanUGrautes's application for CDBG-NDR assistance and the Applicant/Grantee's Grant Agreement for CDBG-NDR. Such use will include the following activities: 1 A-42 Program/Project Delivery [Complete description of activity to be undertaken including what products or services(ire to be performed, geographic target area where the activity is to be provided, for whom the activity is to be provided,/tow the activity is to be provided] HSEMD will engage in planning activities that support the proposed watershed proj ects including: GIS Technical Support: Will provide geospatial support to the program by capturing locations of projects implemented and integrating this information into the State's hazard mitigation and disaster recovery planning documents.This information will.also be packaged for distribution to the communities for integration into their local planning documents.The position will also look for opportunities to support loss avoidance studies and developing communication tools for public information documents and events. Planning Support: Planners will work with the local emergency management commissions to integrate all projects implemented into their hazard mitigation and disaster recovery planning.The planners will also share information.with the DNR National Flood Insurance Program staff,and other disaster recovery stakeholders.The planners will participate in the coordination of public meetings for communities and for the project advisory board.They will work to capture all new modeling available for the State's Hazard Mitigation Plan for the development of climate adaptation strategies. Some contracting may be necessary to complete the modeling for the flood risk an-alysis portion of the planning efforts.Estimated dollar amount for these services is based on a per county quote received from a vendor in 2015. Hazard Mitigation Project Officers: Staff will monitor the activities in rural areas and provide information regarding previous Mitigation actions and previous damage locations. Staff will facilitate communication between IFC staff and local emergency management staff for the coordination of effort and the development of strategies for future flood events.Staff will also gather information on implemented projects for loss avoidance studies in the most impacted and distressed areas with unmet recovery needs. Infrastructure Officers: Staff will monitor the project implementation as it relates to the identified unmet need in the most impacted and distressed community.Track the progress of implementation against the resiliency need and risk reduction targets identified in the application. These projects are enhanced hazard initigation projects and will assist the State in communicating value to stakeholders and potentially building a model for strategic project implementation with multiple funding streams. Flood Mitigation Board Technical Assistance: Staff will monitor progress and look for opportunities to leverage state resources to build resiliency in the most impacted and distressed areas with unmet recovery needs. Staff will ensure all activities are implemented in a coordinated effort with the current Flood Mitigation Board Projects in the MID-URN areas. I 2 A-43 Watershed Technical Support: Staff will coordinate the Project AdvisoryBoard andwork with a diverse group of partners and stakeholders to build long-tern momentum for disaster resiliency in the service geography. Staff will also work with the Iowa Flood Center in building a model for Watershed Improvements that can be funded and implemented across other geographies in the State.These staffmembers will keep the mold-functional,multi-disciplined,team together during project implementation. HSEMD Public Information Officers: Staff will assist in the production and distribution of information regarding this program.Public Meetings,reports,studies,and plans will be made available for public comment. Staff will work to ensure all populations served as part of this program are given multiple opportunities to participate in the planning and implementation processes.This includes working with multiple partners with experience in reaching vulnerable populations. Activity#1 CDBGActivity: Planning—HSEMD National Objective: NA Activity Description: Hazard mitigation and disaster recovery planning for flood risk assessment and loss avoidance. Geographic Target: Target watersheds,most impacted and distressed areas with unmet recovery needs. B. Project Schedule CDBG-NDR funding is subject to strict statutory deadlines for expenditure. In accordance with s section 904(c)of title IX of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013, a Grantee is required to K expend all CDBG-NDR funds within two years of the date that HUD signs the grant agreement. Consistent with this duty, the Partner is required to complete all CDBG-NDR assisted activities identified in section R.A above within 24 months. The Parser agrees to implement the following contingent upon HUD approval of requested waiver to expend funds within 24 months: Activities will be completed over a 5 year period. G Staffm Partner will notify Applicant of any changes in the Key Personnel assigned or their general responsibilities under this project. %"$UDGET [Note that the original proposed budget may be adjusted should HUD award less than the amaunt requested in the application Elid € ,":gym rf , . �_ x= NA Planvin —HSEMD $ 1,974,279 TotalAward $ 1,974,279 3 A-44 i The Applicant/Grantee may require a more detailed budget breakdown than the one contained herein, and the Partner shall provide such supplementary budget information in a timely fashion in the form and content prescribed by the Applicant/Grantee. Any amendments to the budget must be approved in writing by both the Applicant/Grantee and the Partner. 1V. SPECIAL CONDMONS None. V. SEVERABILTTY If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby and all other parts of this Agreement shall nevertheless be in full force and in effect VI. SECTION HEADINGS AND SUBHEADINGS The section headings and subheadings contained in this Agreement are included for convenience only and shall not limit or otherwise affect the terms of this Agreement. VIL WAIVER The Applicants failure to act with respect to a breach by the Partner does not waive its right to act with respect to subsequent or similar breaches. The failure of the Applicant to exercise or enforce any right or provision shall not constitute a waiver of such right or provision. VIII. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement between the Partner and the Applicant for the use of CDBG-NDR funds, supersedes all prior or contemporaneous communications and proposals,whether electronic,oral, or written.between the Partner and the Applicant/Grantee with respect to this Agreement By way of signing this agreement, the Partner is bound to perform the agreements within this agreement or any HUD approved amendment thereof Any amendment to this agreement must receive prior approval by HUD. t i 4 i A-45 I Dare IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties have executed this contract as of the date first written above. Iowa Economic Development Authority Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management BY By k Schouten,Director 5 A-46 x�ta54fopPArtaes STATE OF IOWA TERRY E. BRH TAO, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES KIM REYNOLos. LT. GOVERNOR CHUCK GRP,DIRECTOR October 9, 2015 Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 East Grand Ave Des Moines, IA 50309 To whom it may concern: Re: Intent to Participate This letter is to confirm the mutual intent of both Iowa Economic Development Authority and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)to collaborate and enter into a sub-recipient agreement, developer agreement, contract, or other agreement, as applicable, contingent upon the award of funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience (CDBG-NDR) competition, to carry out eligible activities as provided in the Iowa Economic Development Authority CDBG-NDR application. The IDNR carries out state and federal laws that protect air, land and water through technical assistance, permitting and compliance programs. The DNR also encourages the enjoyment and stewardship of natural resources among Iowans through outreach and education. r For the Iowa Watersheds Approach,the IDNR will work with the Iowa Flood Center, the Center for Assessment and Evaluation, and local partners to provide training and resources to facilitate WMA formation and build local capacity for watershed planning and implementation. The IDNR will mentor new watersheds moving through the WMA formation process. Assistance in WMA formation will be geared toward leaching local staff how to identify resources and build partnerships. IDNR's will also offer technical assistance with a goal of building local capacity to efficiently target resources to high-priority locations in the watershed. This will include such activities as training and mentoring the WMA coordinators in the eight target watersheds. It is understood that this Is letter is only an expression of our intent and a binding partner agreement or other agreement detailing the terms and conditions of the proposed partnership must he executed before the use of any CDBG-NDR funds, if awarded. Sincerely, rr nn C� Chuck Gipp, Director Iowa Department of Natural Resources 502 EAST 9th STREET/DES MOINES, IOWA 50319-0034 PHONE 515-7258200 FAX515-725-0202 www.lowadnr.gov A-47 I Appendix PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN Iowa Economic Development Authority(Applicant) AND Iowa Department of Natural Resources(Partner) FOR Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience Competition (CDBG-NDR) THIS AGREEMENT,entered this ),S day of_IDO± 20 15 by and between the Iowa Economic Development Authority(herein called the"Applicant')and Iowa Department of Natural Resources(herein called the"Partner"). WHEREAS,the Applicant has applied for funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013,Public Law 113-2,for the Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience(CDBG-NDR)competition;and WHEREAS,the Applicant wishes to engage the Partner to assist the Applicant in using such funds if awarded; NOW,THEREFORE, it is agreed between the parties hereto,contingent upon the award of CDBG-NDR funds to the Applicant,that; I. SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT/DEVELOPER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT If the Applicant is awarded a CDBG-NDR grant from HUD,the Applicant/Grantee shall execute a written subrecipient agreement,developer agreement,contract,or other agreement,as applicable, with the Partner,for the use of the CDBG-NDR funds before disbursing any CDBG-NDR funds to the Partner.The written agreement must conform with all CDBG-NDR requirements and shag require the Partner to comply with all applicable CDBG-NDR requirements,including those found ' in Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013 (Public Law 113-2),title i ofthe Housing and Community Development Act of 1974(42 USC 5302 e[seq.),the CDBG program regulations at 24 CFR part 570,the Notice of Funding Availability for HUD's National Community Development Block Grant Resilient Disaster Recovery Allocation and my subsequent published amendments (the CDBG-NDR NOFA),and the Applicant's CDBG-NDR NOFA application. H. SCOPE OF SERVICE A. Activities The Partner will be responsible For using CDBG-NDR funds to carry out activities in a manner satisfactory to the Applicant and consistent with any standards required as a condition of providing these funds. Such use will be in compliance with the CDBG-NDR NOFA, the Applicant/Grantee's application for CDBG-NDR assistance and the Applicant/Grantee's Grant Agreement for CDBG-NDR. Such use will include the following activities: 1 A-48 B. Proi1ect Schedule CDBG-NDR funding is subject to strict statutory deadlines for expenditure. In accordance with section 904(c)of title IX of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013,a Grantee is required to expend all CDBG-NDR funds within two years of the date that HUD signs the grant agreement. S. Consistent with this duty,the Partner is required to complete all CDBG-NDR assisted activities identified in section MA above within 24 months. The Partner agrees to implement the following contingent upon HUD approval of requested waiver to expend funds within 24 months: Year one: Serve in an advisory capacity in helping new WMAs to form. Year two—five: Continue in role of capacity building and technical assistance i C. Staffin Partner will notify Applicant of any changes in the Key Personnel assigned or their general responsibilities wider this project. uBUDGET [Note that the original proposed budget may be adjusted should HUD award less than the amount requested in the application. NA Pinning—IDNR(Activity 41 $640,000 Total Award $640,000 The Applicant/Grantm may require a more detailed budget breakdown than the one contained herein, and the Partner shall provide such supplementary budget information in a timely fashion in the form and content prescribed by the Applicant/Gramee. Any amendments to the budget must be approved in writing by both the Applicant/Grantee and the Partner. IV. SPECIAL CONDMONS None. V. SEVERABHdTY If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby and all other parts of this Agreement shall nevertheless be in full force and effect. VI. SECTION HEADINGS AND SUBHEADINGS The section headings and subheadings contained in this Agreement are included for convenience only and shall not limit or otherwise affect the terms of this Agreement. 1 1 3 A-49 Date �y165/ �j IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties have executed this contract as of the date first written above. I Iowa Economic Development Authority Iowa Department of Natural Resources r By yl Byc -- p, Title —a-•-• +-� I r i i i 5 A-50 . A6RICUnLTURE .wouxomwumsmdV March 10,2015 Mark Schouten, Director Town Department of Homeland Security&Emergency Management 7900 Hickman Road,Suite 500 Windsor Heights,LA 50324 - Re: Intent to Participate Director Schouten, This letter is to confirm the mutual intent of Iowa Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management(Iowa HSEM),the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship(IDALS),and Iowa Department of Natural Resources(DNR)to collaborate and enter into a partner agreement(or other agreement), contingent upon the award of funds from the - United Stales Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience(CDBG-NDR)competition,to cavy out eligible activities as provided in the Iowa HSEM CDBG-NDR application. } Land stewardship is central to the work of IDALS. The Division of Soil Conservation provides farmers with financial and technical assistance to install practices that preserve our highly productive soil,prevent erosion and protect our critical waterways, The Department is focused on making sure fidure Iowans can experience the same high quality of life that past generations have enjoyed in our state. DNR manages fish and wildlife programs,ensures the health of Iowa's forests and prairies, and provides recreational opportunities in Iowa's state parks.Just as importantly,the DNR carries out state and federal laws that protect air,land and water through technical assistance,permitting and compliance programs.The DNR also encourages the enjoyment and stewardship of natural resources among Iowans through outreach and education. A-51 osnarnrxrar D aaRrcucrane IDALS and DNR have collaborated on watershed programs and projects fnr more than 20 years and we will provide leveraging of existing state watershed programs that address soil loss/health, water quality and quantity,and flooding,to the extent that funds obligated to those programs are not already committed as leverage to other federally-supported initiatives. These programs have funded projects in the planning and implementation phase that will be enhanced by collaborating with CDBG-NDR funding to reduce the environmental degradation of Iowa's soil and water. These activities will add to the disaster resiliency efforts in Iowa as well as addressing long-term recovery efforts from the disasters in 2011-2013. It is understood that this letter is only an expression of our intent and a binding partner agreement(or other agreement)detailing the terms and conditions of the proposed partnership must be executed before the use of any CDBG-NDR funds, if awarded. Sincerely, �4 CL�2 Bill Northey Chuck Gipp Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Director,Iowa DNR j A-52 Appendix D PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN Iowa Economic Development Authority(Applicant) AND Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship (Partner) FOR Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience Competition (CDBG-NDR) THIS AGREEMENT,entered this 15' day of 0(�ds u ,20_lL by and between the Iowa Economic Development Authority(herein called the"Applicant")and Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewm'dship(herein called the`Partner"), WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied for funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013, Public Law 113-2,for the Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience(CDBG-NDR)competition;and WHEREAS, the Applicant wishes to engage the Partner to assist the Applicant in using such funds if awarded; NOW,THEREFORE, it is agreed between the parties hereto,contingent upon the award of CDBG-NDR funds to the Applicant,that; 1. SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT/DEVELOPER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT If the Applicant is awarded a CDBG-NDR grant from HUD,the Applicant/Grantee shall execute a written subrecipient agreement, developer agreement, contract, or other agreement, as applicable, with the Partner,for the use of the CDBG-NDR funds before disbursing any CDBG-NDR funds to the Parmer.The written agreement must conform with all CDBG-NDR requirements and shall require the Partner to comply with all applicable CDBG-NDR requirements, including those found in Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013 (Public Law 113-2),title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974(42 USC 5302 at segJ,the CDBG program regulations at 24 GFR part 570,the Notice of Funding Availability for HUD's National Community Development Block Grant Resilient Disaster Recovery Allocation and any subsequent published amendments (the CDBG-NDRNOFA),and the Applicant's CDBG-NDR NOFA application. H. SCOPE OF SERVICE A. Activities The Partner will be responsible for using CDBG-NDR funds to curry out activities in a manner satisfactory to the Applicant and consistent with any standards required as a condition of providing these funds. Such use will be in compliance with the CDBG-NDR NOFA, the Applicant/Grantee's application for CDBG-NDR assistance and the Applicant/Grantee's Grant Agreement for CDBG-NDR. Such use will include the following activities: I A-53 Program/Project Delivery The Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship(IDALS),program coordinator,will provide overall coordination between the NDRC projects and all the IDALSNSDA/NRCS projects in the target watersheds to ensure programs provide complementary advances in watershed resiliency. Activity#1 CDBG Activity: Planning National Objective: NA Activity Description:Coordination of projects Geographic Tar get: Target watersheds B. Project Schedule CDBG-NDR funding is subject to strict statutory deadlines for expenditure. In accordance with section 904(c)of title DC of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013, a Grantee is required to expend all CDBGNDR funds within two years of the date that HUD signs the grant agreement. Consistent with this duty, the Partner is required to complete all CDBG-NDR assisted activities identified in section ILA above within 24 months. The Partner agrees to implement the following contingent upon HUD approval of requested waiver to expend funds within 24 months: Activities will be completed over a five year period. C. Staffine, Partner will notify Applicant of any changes in the Key Personnel assigned or their general responsibilities under this project. M. BUDGET [Note that the orignml proposed budget may be adjusted should HUD award less than the amount requested in the application. Nall Obj CDBG Activity Description Budget NA Planning—IDALS Activi #1 $250,000 Total Award $250,000 The Applicant/Gramee may require a more detailed budget breakdown than the one contained herein, and the Partner shall provide such supplementary budget information in a timely fashion in the form and content prescribed by the Applicant/Grantee. Any amendments to the budget must be approved in writing by both the ApplicantlGrarrme and the Partner. 2 A-54 TV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS None. V. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby and all other parts of this Agreement shall nevertheless be in full force and effect. VI. SECTION HEADINGS AND SUBHEADINGS The section headings and subheadings contained in this Agreement are included for convenience only and shall not limit or otherwise affect the terms of this Agreement. VII. WAIVER The Applicant's failure to act with respect to a breach by the Partner does not waive its right to act with respect to subsequent or similar breaches. The failure of the Applicant to exercise or enforce any right or provision shall not constitute a waiver of such right or provision. VIII. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement between the Partner and the Applicant for the use of CDBG-NDR funds, supersedes all prior or contemporaneous communications and proposals, whether electronic, oral, or written between the Partner and the Applicant/Grantee with respect to this Agreement. By way of signing this agreement, the Partner is bound to perform the agreements within this agreement or any HUD approved amendment thereof. Any amendment to this agreement must receive prior approval by HUD. 3 A-55 Date I DM S �a015 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties have executed this contract as of the date first written above. Iowa Economic Development Authority Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship By By 4 A-56 1 OUNTY SUPERVISORS OFFICE WINNESHIEK COUNTY 9 201 WEST JMAIN STREFT DECORAH,10\UA 52101 (563)332-2370 6 supervisors©co.winneshick.ia.us September 20, 2015 Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 East Grand Ave Des Moines,IA 50309 Re: Intent to Participate This letter is to confirm the mutual intent of both Iowa Economic Development Authority and Winneshick County to collaborate and enter into a subrecipient agreement, developer agreement, contract, or other agreement, as applicable, contingent upon the award of hinds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience (CDBG-NDR) competition, to carry out eligible activities as provided in the lova Economic Development Authority CDBG-NDR application, Winneshiek County is a registered and recognized county located in the State of Iowa.We are currently in the process of forming the Upper Iowa River Watershed Management Authority.Wimieshiek County is bonded and insured and has the fiscal and administrative capacity to carry out the activities related to the CDBG-NDR funding associated with the Upper Iowa River Watershed, Winneshick County manages a$24 million anmal budget and various grants and project Rurds that provide the background and experience needed for us to participate in the CDBG-NDR. Winneshick County would be the subrecipient of funds on behalf of the Upper Iowa River Watershed for execution of projects that include hiring a WMA Coordinator and subcontracting with appropriate qualified entities for development of a Watershed Plan,Project Designs, and Project Construction. Projects will be executed in both Winneshick and Allamakee Counties. Funding would also be included for project administration by a Council of Government or other qualifying entity as approved by IEDA. It is understood that this is letter is only an expression of our intent and a binding partner agreement or other agreement detailing the terms and conditions of the proposed partnership must be executed before the so kin CDBG NDR funds, if awarded. Winn sl 'etc Cour --lm ogsdon,Chant', -oard of Supervisors District I John Beard District 2 Floyd Ashbacher District 3 Dean Thompson District 4 John Logsdon District 5 Mark Kuhn A-57 Appendix D PARTNERHSIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN Iowa Econonrle Development Authority(Applicant) AND Winneshielr Co my(Partner) FOR Community Development Block Grant Natiount Disaster Resilience Competition (CDBG-NDR) THIS AGREEMENT,entered this,100 day of '%W 20J by and between the Iowa Economic Development Authority(herein called the"Applicant')and Wimneshiek County(Inerein called the "Partner"). WHEREAS,the Applicant has applied for funds front the United States Department of Housing and Urban ' Development under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013,Public Law 113.2,for the Community Development Block Gran(National Disaster Resilience(CDBG-NDR)competition;and WHEREAS,the Applicant wishes to engage the Panner to assist the Applicant in using such funds if awarded; NOW,THEREFORE,it is agreed between the parties hereto,contingent upon the award of CDBG-NDR finds to the Applicant,that; I. SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT/DEVELOPER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT If the Applicant is awarded a CDBG-NDR grant fiom HUD,the Applicant/Grantee shaft execute a written subrecipient agreement,developer agreement,contract,or other agreement,as applicable, with the Panner, for(he use of(he CDBG-NDR hods before disbursing any CDBG-NDR funds to the Partner.The wrilieu agreement must conform with all CDBG-NDR requirements and shall require the Partner to comply with all applicable CDBG-NDR requirements,including those found in Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013 (Public Law 113-2),title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974(42 USC 5302 e( seq),the CDBG program regulations at 24 CFR pan 570,the Notice of Funding Availability for HUD's National Connnunity Development Block Grant Resilient Disaster Recovery Allocation and any subsequent published amendments((he CDBG-NDR NOFA),and the Applicant's CDBG-NDR NOFA application. 11. SCOPE Or SERVICE A. Activi ies The Partner will be responsible for using CDBG-NDR funds to carry out activities in a mauler satisfactory to the Applicant and consistent with any standards required as a condition of providing these funds. Such use will be in compliance with the CDBG-NIDA NOFA, the Applicant/Grantee's application fmCDBG-NDR assistance and the ApplicaLt/Grautee's Grant Agreement for CDBG- NDR. Such use will include the following activities: 1 A-58 Progrmn/Project Delivery [Complete description of ac9pity to be undertaken hichulhrg what products or services are to be performed,geographic target area where the activity is to be provided,fa•whom the activityis to be provided,hap the activity is to be provided] Built project implementation in the Upper Iowa River Watershed will follow the general programmatic outline, which includes: Watershed Management Authority (WMA) Formation (Iowa DNR assistance): Stakeholder educational materials(with Iowa State University,University of Northern Iowa, and others); Field site data collection and analyses (town Flood Center); Hydrologic Assessment (Iowa Flood Center); Watershed Plan (subaward to agency or other qualifying entity); Selection of sub-watersheds and Project Design(WMA and subaward to agency or other qualifying entity);Construction(subaward to qualifying entities). The sub-watershed selection and site locations for project construction will be selected by Cecil WMA, to follow these criteria(or others as required by HUD): 1)maximize impact on MID-URN areas; 2) maxunize impact on LMI areas and other vulnerable populations (as appropriate); 3) identification of interested stakeholders/landowners willing to commit to 25% cost sharing and sign a long-term maintenance agreement for lire project; and 4) landowner commitment to other sustainable land use practices and BMP& to further minimize runoff and enhance infiltration. Specific projects may include some aux of. farm ponds, stonnwater detention basins, wetlands, terraces, sediment detention basins, floodplain restoration, channel bank stabilization, blot motors, saturated buffers, buffer strips, perennial crops, or other projects with a demonstrated capacity to decrease downstream flaw and/or improve water quality, Activity#t CDBG Activity:Watershed Project Design and Construction National Objective: Urgent Need Activity Description: The purpose of this activity is to design and fund constructed projects in the Upper Iowa River Watershed that have been selected in conjunction with the local Watershed Management Authority(WMA) and based on the watershed hydrologic assessment and recommendations of the University of Iowa's Flood Center(IFC). The IFC will also monitor and evaluate the impact of the hvstallud practices. Geographic Target: Selected HUC 12s(TBD by WMAa)in(he Upper lova River Watershed(Whineshiek and Allamakee Counties) Activity#2 CDBG Activity:Watershed Project construction/Project Coordinator I National Objective: Urgent Need 4 Activity Description: Coordinate efforts in the watershed including providing lecbuical assistant to WMAs,contractors and local landowner's to select project types,outreach and communication to area stakeholders and vulnerable populations. Geographic Target:Upper lown River Watershed HUC 8 Activity#3 CDBG Activity:Watershed Project Construction/IFC National Objective: Urgent Need Activity Description:Provide technical assistance to the watershed construction projects in the form of detailed project modeling,sensors,data collection slid evaluation of watershed improvements. Geographic Target:Upper Iowa River Watershed HUC 8 2 A-59 Activity#4 CDBGActivhy: Administration by Council of Government or other qualifying entity as approved by IEDA, National Objective:NA Activity Description: Administration Geographic Target:NA B Proiect Schedule CDBG-NDR finding is subject to strict statutory deadlines for expenditure. In accordance with section 904(c) of title IX of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013,a Grantee is required to expend all CDBG-NDR funds within two years of the dale that I-IUD signs the grant agreement. Consistent with this duty, the Partner is required to complete all CDBG-NDR assisted activities identified in section ILA above within,24 months. The Partner agrees to implement the following contingent upon HUD approval of requested waiver to expend funds within 24 months: Anticipated Project Timeline July 2016 — March 2017: Meetings, forums, submission slid acceptance of Chapter 28E Agreement documents for formation of new Watershed Management Authority April 2017 — December 2017: Collection of data (topography, soil conditions, etc.) and development of hydrologic assessment of the full HUC 8 watershed, January 2018 — June 2018: Development of hydrologic plan for eligible areas, modeling of different project scenarios. July 2018—September 2018: WMA selects final sites and projects for bnplementation. October 2018—March 2019: Establish agrectnents with landowners,selection of contractors. April 2019—September 2020: Design and Construction of projects. October 2020 — September 2021: Post construction data collection and analysis, IFC work with WMA members to help them define future steps. C. Slaffine Partner will notify, Applicant of any changes in the Key Personnel assigned or their general responsibilities under this project. M. BUDGET [Note that the original proposed budget stay be adjusted should HI/J)award less than the a9ould requested is the apli icalionl. Nall Obj CDBG ActvdypGS rrlphpni c,� ."' uE UN Watershed Construction Design and Construction Activit' #1 $6,990,000 UN Watershed Construction-project Coordinator Activit #2 $375,000 Watershed Construction-TA Modeling/Sensos/Data Collection& IN EvaWisualizatiom Activit #3 $1,200,000 e Administration by Council ofGovernment or other qualifying entity as approved by IEDA 2% Activit #4 $174,796 A Total Award $8,739,796 3 A-60 pplicant/Grantee may require a more detailed budget breakdown than the one contained herein, and the Partner shall provide such supplementary budget information in a timely fashion in the form and content prescribed by the Applicant/Grantee. Any amendments to the budget must be approved in writing by both the Applicant/Grantee and the Partner. IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS Nome, V. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby and all other parts of dais Agreement shall nevertheless bein full force and effect VI. SECTION HEADINGS AND SUBHEADINGS The section headings and subheadings contained in this Agreement are included for converuence only and shall not limit or otherwise affect the lentis of this Agreemeal. VI. WA R The Applicant's failure to act with respect to a breach by the Partner does not waive its right to act with respect to subsequent or similar breaches. The failure of the Applicant to exercise or enforce any right or provision shall not constitute a waiver of such right or provision, VIII. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement between the Partner and the Applicant for the use of CDBG-NDR funds, supersedes all prior or contemporaneous comanunicalions and proposals, whether electronic, oral, or written between the Partner and the Applicant/Grantee with respect to this Agreement. By way of signing this agreement,the Partner is bound to perform the agree eats within this agreement or any HUD approved amendment thereof. Any amendment to this agreement must receive prior approval by HUD. 4 A-61 Date ' IN WITNESS WHEREOF,bte Patties have executed This contract as of the date first written above. hAA y`[PMt.FPaq„p�]By t)-//-h- -�2: of Titleu{enann �(maw "ink' [CITY[COUNTY]CLERK Countersigned; By FINANCE OFFICER Title APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Fed.I.D.# a IS T[WY/COUNTY]ATTORNEY VEY OI-L-EGAb60UNSEL- I AFFIRMATIVE ACTION APPROVAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE SUPERVISOR 5 A-62 Howard County Board of Supervisors 137 North Elm Street Cresco, IA 52136 (563) 547-9204 Fax: (563) 547-9229 Website: www.co.howard.ia.us September 28,2015 Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 East Grand Ave Des Moines, IA 50309 Ret Intent to Participate This letter is to confirm the mutual intent of both Iowa Economic Development Authority and Howard County to collaborate and enter into a subrecipient agreement,developer agreement,contract,or other agreement,as applicable,contingent upon the award of funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Community Development Block Grant National Resilience (CDBG-NDR)competition,to carry out eligible activities as provided in the Iowa Economic Development Authority CDBG-NDR application. Howard County is a registered and recognized county located in the State of Iowa.We are also a member of the Upper Wapsipinicon River Watershed Management Authority. Howard County is banded and insured and has the fiscal and administrative capacity to carry out the activities related to the CDBG- NDR funding associated with the Upper Wapsipinicon River Watershed. Howard County manages a 16.8 million annual budget and various grants and project funds that provide the background and experience needed for us to participate in the CDBG-NDR. Howard County would be the subrecipient of funds on behalf of the Upper Wapsipinicon River Watershed for execution of projects that include hiring a WMA Coordinator and subcontracting with appropriate qualified entities for development of a Watershed Plan,Project Designs,and Project Construction. Projects will likely be executed in both Delaware and Buchanan Counties.Funding would also be included for project administration by a Council of Government orother qualifying entity as approved by IEDA. It Is understand that this letter is only an expression of our intent and a binding partner agreement or other agreement detailing the terms and conditions of the proposed partnership must be executed before the use of any CDBG-NDR funds,if awarded. Thank you. Z) 3 Don Burnikel,Chair,Howard County Board of Supervisors District 1 District 2 District 3 Mark Kubik Donald Buznikel Janet McGovern mkubika co.howard.ia.us dburnikel®co.howard.ia us imcgovcrn(@,co.how,ard,ia.us A-63 Appendix D PARTNERHSIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN Iowa Economic Development Authority(Applicant) AND Howard County(Partner) FOR Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience Competition (CDBG-NDR) it THIS AGREEMENT,entered this Qi day of Saol6ml,20 L5- by and between the Iowa Economic Development Authority(herein called the"Applicant")and Howard County(herein called the "Partner"). WHEREAS,the Applicant has applied for funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act 2013, Public Law 113-2, for the Community Development Black Grant National Disaster Resilience(CDBG-NDR)competition;and WHEREAS,the Applicant wishes to engage the Partner to assist the Applicant in using such funds if awarded; NOW,THEREFORE, it is agreed between the parties hereto,contingent upon the award of CDBG-NDR funds to the Applicant,that; L SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT/DEVELOPER AGREEMENTICONTRACT If the Applicant is awarded a CDBG-NDR grant from HUD,the ApplicanUGrantee shall execute a written subrecipient agreement,developer agreement,contract,or other agreement,as applicable, with the Partner,for the use of the CDBG-NDR funds before disbursing any CDBG-NDR funds to the Partner.The written agreement must conform with all CDBG-NDR requirements and shall require the Partner to comply with all applicable CDBG-NDR requirements,including those found in Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013(Public Law 113-2),title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974(42 USC 5302 et seq.),the CDBG program regulations at 24 CFR part 570,the Notice of Funding Availability for HUD's National Community Development Block Grant Resilient Disaster Recovery Allocation and any subsequent published amendments (the CDBG-NDR NOFA),and the Applicant's CDBG-NDR NOFA application. IL SCOPE OF SERVICE A. Activities The Partner will be responsible for using CDBG-NDR funds to carry out activities in a manner satisfactory to the Applicant and consistent with any standards requited as a condition of providing these funds. Such use will be in compliance with the CDBG-NDR NOFA, the Applicant/Grantee's application for CDBG-NDR assistance and the Applicant/Grantee's Grant Agreement for CDBG-NDR. Such use will include the following activities: 1 A-64 Program/Project Delivery [Complete description of activity to be undertaken including tphat products or services are to be performed, geographic target area where the activity is to be provided, for whom the activity is to be provided,how the activity is to be provided] Built project implementation in Upper Wapsipinicon River Watershed will follow the general programmatic outline, which includes: Watershed Management Authority (WMA) Formation (Done): Stakeholder educational materials (with Iowa State University, University of Northern Iowa, and others); Field site data collection and analyses (Iowa Flood Center); Hydrologic Assessment (Iowa Flood Center); Watershed Plan (subaward to agency or other qualifying entity); Selection of sub-watersheds and Project Design (WMA and subaward to agency or other qualifying entity);Construction(subaward to qualifying entities). The sub-watershed selection and site locations for project construction will be selected by each WMA,to follow these criteria(or others as required by HUD): 1)maximize impact on MID-URN areas; 2) maximize impact on LMI areas and other vulnerable populations (as appropriate); 3) identification of interested stakeholders/landowners willing to commit to 25% cost sharing and sign a long-term maintenance agreement for the project; and 4) landowner commitment to other sustainable land use practices and BMPs to further minimize runoff and enhance infiltration. Specific projects may include some mix of: farm ponds, stormwater detention basins, wetlands, terraces, sediment detention basins, floodplain restoration, bioreactors, saturated buffers, buffer strips, perennial crops, or other projects with a demonstrated capacity to decrease downstream flow and/or improve water quality. Activity#1 CDBG Activity: Watershed Project Design and Construction National Objective: Urgent Need Activity Description: The purpose of this activity is to fund constructed projects in the Upper Wapsipinicon River Watershed that have been selected in conjunction with the local Watershed Management Authority(WMA) and based on the watershed hydrologic assessment and recommendations of the University of Iowa's Flood Center (IFC). The IFC will also evaluate the impact of the installed practices. Geographic Target: Upper Wapsipinicon River Watershed, likely in Delaware and Buchanan Counties. Activity#2 CDBG Activity: Watershed Project Construction/Project Coordinator National Objective: Urgent Need Activity Description: Coordinate efforts in the watershed including providing technical assistant to WMAs,contractors and local landowners to select project types,outreach and communication to area stakeholders and vulnerable populations. Geographic Target: Upper Wapsipinicon River Watershed Activity#3 CDBG Activity:Watershed Project Construction/IFC National Objective: Urgent Need Activity Description: Provide technical assistance to the watershed construction projects in the form of detailed project modeling,sensors,data collection and evaluation of watershed improvements. 2 A-65 Geographic Target:Upper Wapsipinico t River Watershed Activity#4 CDBG Activity: Administration by Council of Government or other qualifying entity as approved by IEDA. National Objective:NA Activity Description: Administration Geographic Target:NA B. Pmieot Schedule CDBG-NDR funding is subject to strict statutory deadlines for expenditure. In accordance with section 904(c)of title IX of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013,a Grantee is required to expend all CDBG-NDR funds within two years of the date that HUD signs the grant agreement, Consistent with this duty, the Partner is required to complete all CDBG-NDR assisted activities identified in section H.A above within 24 months. The Partner agrees to implement the following contingent upon HUD approval of requested waiver to expend funds within 24 months: July 2016—March 2017:Collection of data(topography,soil conditions,mc.)and development of hydrologic assessment of the full HUC 8 watershed. April 2017—September 2017: Development of hydrologic plan,modeling of different project scenarios. October 2017—December 2017:WMA selects final sites and projects for implementation. January 2018-June 2018:Establish agreements with landowners,selection of contractors. July 2018-December 2019:Design and Construction of projects. January 2020:—December 2020:Post construction data collection and analysis,work with WMA members to help them define future steps. C. Staffine Partner will notify Applicant of any changes in the Key Personnel assigned or their general responsibilities under this project, Ill. BUDGET [Note that the original proposed budget may be adjusted should HUD award less than the amount requested in the application. Nett Obi _ _ - s_ CDBG Activity Desctip[son -,-t4 Budget UN Watershed Construction and Design(Activity#1) $4,660,000 UN Watershed Construction-Project Coordinator(Activity#2) $375000 Watershed Construction-TA Modeling/Sensors/Dam Collection& UN EvalNisualization(Activity#3) $800,000 Administration by Council of Government or other qualifying entity as approved by IEDA 2%) Activity 44 $119,082 Total Award $5,954,082 3 A-66 The Applicant/Grantee may require a more detailed budget breakdown than the one contained herein, and the Partner shall provide such supplementary budget information in a timely fashion in the form and content prescribed by the Applicant/Grantee. Any amendments to the budget must be approved in writing by both the Applicant/Grantee and the Partner. IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS None, V. SEVERAB=Y If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby and all other parts of this Agreement shall nevertheless be in full force and effect. VI. SECTION READINGS AND SUBHEADINGS The section headings and subheadings contained in this Agreement are included for convenience only and shall not limit or otherwise affect the terms of this Agreement. VII. WAIVER The Applicant's failure to act with respect to a breach by the Partner does not waive its right to act with respect to subsequent or similar breaches. The failure of the Applicant to exercise or enforce any right or provision shall not constitute a waiver of such right or provision. VDI. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement between the Partner and the Applicant for the use of CDBG-NDR funds, supersedes all prior or contemporaneous communications and proposals,whether electronic,oral, or written between the Partner and the Applicant/Grantee with respect to this Agreement. By way of signing this agreement, the Partner is bound to perform the agreements within this agreement or any HUD approved amendment thereof. Any amendment to this agreement must receive prim approval by HUD. 4 A-67 Data ,912RIWG � IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties have executed this contract as of the data first written above. 4bdu = nom t11r }pnlc B By �e�'— Title "a+� aunNLafZ Attest ASS, ANT[CITY/COUNTY]CLERK Countersigned By INANCEOF CER Title l C; ,Wkr. PfI A �-6 r— APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: 21 _ Fed.I.D.# 11a-&Dotiy(-)a AS@ffiW 1+T[ /COUNTY]ATTORNEY OR LEGAL COUNSEL AFFIRMATIVE ACTION APPROVAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE SUPERVISOR S A-68 JGoui�y BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Pat Harney, Chairperson Janelle Rettig Mike Carberry Rod Sullivan Terrence Neuzil September 24,2015 Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 East Grand Ave Des Moines, IA 50309 Re: Intent to Participate This letter is to confirm the mutual intent of both Iowa Economic Development Authority and Johnson County to collaborate and enter into a subrecipient agreement, developer agreement, contract, or other agreement, as applicable, contingent upon the award of funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience (CDBG-NDR) competition, to carry out eligible activities as provided In the Iowa Economic Development Authority CDBG-NDR application. Johnson County is one of the fastest growing counties in Iowa with 142,000 residents. Eleven municipalities are located in Johnson County. Our area was severely impacted by the floods of 2006 and has experienced three significant flood events since that time. The Johnson County Board of Supervisors Is very supportive of efforts to Improve water quality, manage slormwaler and address Flood mitigation. The County has a strong relationship with the Soil and Water Conservation District, Kate Giannint, our Soil and Water Conservation Specialist is the County's representative to the Clear Creek Watershed Management Coalition, and has experience with several grant funded and grass-root organized watershed projects. In addition, the Johnson County Conservation Board is very knowledgeable about watershed management and has implemented the Kent Park Watershed Management Plan. The Ken Park Watershed is in the Clear Creek Watershed. Johnson County would be the 51.0recipient of hinds on behalf of the Clear Creek Watershed for execution of projects that Include hiring a WMA Coordinator and subcontracting with appropriate qualified entitles for development of a Watershed Plan, Project Designs, and Project Construction. Projects will likely be executed in both Iowa and Johnson Counties. Funding would also be included for project administration by a Council of Government or other qualifying entity as approved by IEDA. It is understood that this is letter is only an expression of our Intent and a binding partner agreement or other agreement detailing the terms and conditions of the proposed partnership must be executed before the use of any CDBG-NDR funds, if awarded. Sincerely, Pat Harney,Chair Johnson County Board of Supervisors 913 SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET • IOWA CITY,IA 622901 319.356.6000 PHONE ♦ 319.356.6036 FAX www.JOHNSON-COUNTY.com ♦ johnsoncountyia.lgm2.com A-69 Appendix D PARTNERDSIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN Iowa Economic Development Authority(Applicant) AND Johnson Comity(Partner) FOR Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience Competition (CDBG-NDAR) THIS AGREEMENT,entered this OG l' � y J�day of 20 ) b and between the Imva Economic Development Authority(herein called the"Applicant')and Johnson County(herein called the "Partner"). WHEREAS,the Applicant has applied for funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013,Public Lav 113-2,for[lie Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience(CDBG-NDR)competition;and WHEREAS,the Applicant Wishes to engage the Partner to assist the Applicant in using such fiords if awarded; NOW,THEREFORE,it is agreed between the parties hereto,contingent upon the award of CDBG-NDR funds to the Applicant,that; I. SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT/DEVELOPER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT If the Applicant is awarded a CDBG-NDR grant from HUD,the Applicant/Grantee shall exeetne a written subrecipient agreement,developer agreement,contract,or other agreement,as applicable, with the Partner, for the use of the CDBG-NDR foods before disbursing any CDBG-NDR funds to the Partner.The written agreement must conform with all CDBG-NDRrequirenoenls and shall require the Partner to comply with all applicable CDBG-NDR requirements,including those found in Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013(Public Low 113-2),title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974(42 USC 5302 et seq.),the CDBG program regulations at 24 CPR part 570,the Notice of Funding Availability for HUD's National Community Development Block Grant Resilient Disaster Recovery Allocation alt([any subsequent published amendments (the CDBG-NDRNOFA),and the Applicant's CDBG-NDRNOFA application. II. SCOPE OF SERVICE I A. Activities The Partner will be responsible for using CDBG-NDR foods to carry out activities in a miner satisfactory to the Applicant and consistent with any standards required as a condition of providing these funds. Such use will be in compliance with the CDBG-NDR NOFA, the Applicant/Granlee's application for CDBG-NDR assistance and the Applica t/Cnuntee's (]real Agreement for CDBG-NDR. Such use will include the following activities: 1 A-70 i Program/Project Delivery [Complete(lese4plion of((clivio,to be un(lerlakell including nPhat pro(lncts or services are to be pelforme(l, geographic larget area where the activity is to be provi(led, for )vlronr the activity is to be provi(IM,ho►v the activily is to be provi(lell] Built project implementation in Clear Creek Watershed will follow the general programmatic outline, which includes: WMA/Coalition formation (Iowa DNR assistance); Stakeholder educational materials (with Iowa State University, University of Northern Iowa, and others); Field site data collection and analyses(Iowa Flood Center); Hydrologic Assessment(Iowa Flood Center); Watershed Plan (subaward to agency or other qualifying entity); Selection of sub- watersheds and Project Design (WMA and subaward to agency or other qualifying entity); Construction(subaward to a qualifying entities). The sub-watershed selection and site locations for project construction will be selected by each WMA/Coalition, to follow these criteria (or others as required by HUD): 1)maximize impact on MID-URN areas; 2) maximize impact ora LMI areas and other vulnerable populations (as appropriate); 3) identification of interested stakeholders/landowners willing to commit to 25% cost sharing and sign a long-term maintenance agreement for the project; and 4) landowner commitment to other sustainable land use practices and BMPs to further minimize runoff and enhance infiltration. Specific projects may include some mix of: farm ponds, stormwater detention basins, wetlands, terraces, sediment detention basins, floodplain restoration, bioreactors, saturated buffers, buffer strips,perennial crops,or other projects with a demonstrated capacity to decrease downstream flow and/or improve water quality. Activity#I CDBG Activity: Watershed Project Design and Construction National Objective: Projected to be LMA Activity Description: The purpose of this activity is to find constructed projects in tine Clear Creek Watershed that have been selected in conjunction with the local Watershed Management Authority/Coalition and based on the watershed hydrologic assessment and recommendations of the University of Iowa's Flood Center(IFC).The IFC will also evaluate the impact of the installed practices. Geographic Target: Clear Creek Watershed i, Activity#2 CDBG Activity: Watershed Project Construction/Project Coordinator National Objective: Projected to be LMA Activity Description: Coordinate efforts in the watershed including providing technical assistant to WMAs,contractors and local landowners to select project types, outreach and communication to area stakeholders and vulnerable populations. Geographic Target: Clear Creek Watershed j { I Activity#3 CDBG Activity: Watershed Project Construction/IFC National Objective: Projected to be LMA Activity Description:Provide technical assistance to the watershed construction project in the form of detailed project modeling,sensors,data collection and evaluation of watershed improvements. Geographic Target: Clear Creek Watershed I 2 I'll A-71 Activity#4 CDBG Activity: Administration by Council of Government or other qualifying entity as approved by IEDA. National Objective:NA Activity Description: Administration Geographic Target:NA B. Project Schedule CDBG-NDR funding is subject to strict statutory deadlines for expenditure. In accordance with section 904(c)of title IX of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013,a Grantee is required to expend all CDBG-NDR funds within two yews of the date that HUD signs the grant agreement. Consistent with this duty, the Partner is required to complete all CDBG-NDR assisted activities identified in section ILA above within 24 months. The Partner agrees to implement the following contingent upon HUD approval of requested waiver to expend funds within 24 months: Anticipated Project Timeline July 2016 — March 2017: Meetings, forums, submission and acceptance of Chapter 28E Agreement documents for formation of new Watershed Management Authority/Watershed Management Coalition April 2017 — December 2017: Collection of data (topography, soil conditions, etc.) and development of hydrologic assessment of the fill HUC 10 watershed. January 2018 — Sone 2018: Development of hydrologic plan for eligible areas, modeling of different project scenarios. Illy 2018—September 2018: WMA selects final sites and projects for implementation, October2018—March 2019: Establish agreements with landowners,selection of contractors. April 2019—September 2020:Design and Construction of projects. October 2020 —September 2021: Post conshvction data collection and annlysis, IFC work with WMA members to help them define future steps. C. StaftlnE Partner will notify Applicant of any changes in the Key Personnel assigned or their general responsibilities under this project. III. BUDGET [Nate !hal the origbral proposed bulge may be adjusted should HUD mranl less that the amount requested in the application]. Nall Obj CDBG Activity Description Budget LMA Watershed Desi n and Construclien(Activit #I $4,660,000 LMA Watershed Construction-Project Coordinator Activi #2 $375,000 Watershed Construction -TA Modeling/Sensors/Data Collection& LMA EvalNisualintion(Activity#3) $800,000 p Administration by Council of Government or other qualifying entity as approved by IEDA(2%) (Activit. #4) $119,082 1 Total Awatd $5,954,082 3 A-72 icant/Grantee may require a more detailed budget breakdown than the one contained herein, and the Partner shall provide such supplementary budget information in a timely fashion in the form and content prescribed by the Applicant/Grantee. Any amendments to the budget must be approved in writing by both the Applicant/Grantee and the Partner. IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS None. V. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby and all other parts of this Agreement shall nevertheless be in full force and effect. VI. SECTION HEADINGS AND SUBHEADINGS The section headings and subheadings contained in this Agreement are included for convenience only and shall not limit or otherwise affect the terms of this Agreement. VII. WAIVER The Applicant's failure to act with respect to a breach by the Partner does not waive its right to act with respect to subsequent or similar breaches. Time failure of the Applicant to exercise or enforce any right or provision shall not constitute a waiver of such right or provision. VIII. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement between the Partner and the Applicant for the use of CDBG-NDR funds, supersedes all prior or contemporaneous communications and proposals, whether electronic, oral, or written between the Partner and the Applicant/Grantce witlm respect to this Agreement. By way of signing this agreement, time Partner is bound to perform the agreements within this agreement or any HUD approved amendment thereof. Any amendment to this agreement must receive prior approval by HUD. 4 A-73 Date JD i1—m IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties have executed this contract as of the date fust written above. Iowa * OnoI c Development Authority Johnson County By /. By l _ Title Chairperson, Board ofupeNisors r Attest Travis Weipert,County Auditor Countersigned: By_Tom Kriz Finance O icer Title County Treasurer APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: 6004806 Andy Chnppell,Ass' I- /- Attorney AFFIRMATIVE ACTION APPROVAL ,'k PhAn ,.9,— Lora Slu'amelc,Human Resources Administrator 5 A-74 RMIN Countp Noarb of 6UPCO(org Xicfiard Crouch © limon Kohn ® Lonnie 914ayberry Mills County Courthouse •418 Sharp Street• Glenwood, IA 51534 Phone: (712) 527-4729• Fax: (712) 527-1579 •Website: www.millscoia.us September 22,2015 Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 East Grand Ave Des Moines, IA 50309 Re: Intent to Participate This letter is to confirm the mutual intent of both Iowa Economic Development Authority and Mills County to collaborate and enter into a subrecipient agreement, developer agreement, contract, or other agreement, as applicable, contingent upon the award of funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience (CDBG-NDR) competition, to carry out eligible activities as provided in the Iowa Economic Development Authority CDBG-NDR application. Mills County would be the subrecipient of funds on behalf of the West Nishnabotna River Watershed for execution of projects that include hiring a WMA Coordinator and subcontracting with appropriate qualified entities for development of a Watershed Plan, Project Designs, and Project Construction. Projects will likely be executed in Mills County. Funding would also be included for project administration by a Council of Goverrunent or other qualifying entity as approved by IEDA. It is understood that this is letter is only an expression of our intent and a binding partner agreement or other agreement detailing the terms and conditions of the proposed partnership must be executed before the use of any CDBG-NDR funds,if awarded. Mills County Board of Supervisors: Richard Crouch, Chairman A-75 Appendix D PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN Iowa Economic Development Authority(Applicant) AND Mills County(Partner) FOR Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience Competition (CDBG-NDR) THIS AGREEMENT,entered this J �j+day of& f,f) rYt 20 V5 by and between the Iowa Economic Development Authority(herein called the"Applicant")and Mills County(herein called the "Partner"). WHEREAS,the Applicant has applied for funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013,Public Law 113-2,for the Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience(CDBG-NDR) competition; and WHEREAS,the Applicant wishes to engage the Partner to assist the Applicant in using such funds if awarded; NOW,THEREFORE,it is agreed between the parties hereto,contingent upon the award of CDBG-NDR funds to the Applicant,that; I. SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT/DEVELOPER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT If the Applicant is awarded a CDBG-NDR grant from HUD,the Applicant/Grantee shall execute a written subrecipient agreement, developer agreement,contract,or other agreement, as applicable, with the Partner,for the use of the CDBG-NDR funds before disbursing any CDBG-NDR funds to the Partner.The written agreement must conform with al l CDBG-NDR requirements and shall require the Partner to comply with all applicable CDBG-NDR requirements, including those found in Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013 (Public Law 113-2),title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974(42 USC 5302 et seq,),the CDBG program regulations at 24 CFR paint 570,the Notice of Funding Availability for HUD's National Community Development Block Grant Resilient Disaster Recovery Allocation and any subsequent published amendments (the CDBG-NDR NOFA),and the Applicant's CDBG-NDR NOFA application. II. SCOPE OF SERVICE A. Activities The Partner will be responsible for using CDBG-NDR fiends to carry out activities in a manner satisfactory to the Applicant and consistent with any standards required as a condition of providing these funds. Such use will be in compliance with the CDBG-NDR NOFA, the Applicant/Grantec's application for CDBG-NDR assistance and the Applicant/Grantee's Grant Agreement for CDBG-NDR. Such use will include the following activities: 1 A-76 Program/Project Delivery [Complete description of activity to be undertaken including what products or services are to be performed, geographic target area where the activity is to be provided, for whom the activity is to be provided,how the activity is to be provided] Built project implementation in the West Nishnabotna River will follow the general programmatic outline, which includes: Watershed Management Authority (WMA) Formation (Iowa DNR assistance): Stakeholder educational materials (with Iowa State University, University of Northern Iowa, and others); Field site data collection and analyses (Iowa Flood Center); Hydrologic Assessment (Iowa Flood Center); Watershed Plan (subaward to agency or other qualifying entity); Selection of sub-watersheds and Project Design (WMA and subaward to agency or other qualifying entity); Construction(subaward to qualifying entities). The sub-watershed selection and site locations for project construction will be selected by each WMA,to follow these criteria(or others as required by HUD): 1)maximize impact on MID-URN areas; 2) maximize impact on LMI areas and other vulnerable populations (as appropriate); 3) identification of interested stakeholders/landowners willing to commit to 25% cost sharing and sign a long-term maintenance agreement for the project; and 4) landowner commitment to other sustainable land use practices and BMPs to further minimize runoff and enhance infiltration. Specific projects may include some mix of: farm ponds, stormwater detention basins, wetlands, terraces,sediment detention basins,floodplain restoration,channel bank stabilization,bioreactors, saturated buffers, buffer strips, perennial crops, or other projects with a demonstrated capacity to decrease downstream flow and/or improve water quality. Activity#I CDBG Activity: Watershed Project Design and Construction#1 National Objective: Urgent Need Activity Description: The purpose of this activity is to design and find constructed projects in the West Nishnabotna River Watershed that have been selected in conjunction with the local Watershed Management Authority(WMA) and based on the watershed hydrologic assessment and recommendations of the University of Iowa's Flood Center (IFC). The IFC will also evaluate the impact of the installed practices. Geographic Target: West Nishnabotna River Watershed, likely entirely in Mills Co. Activity#2 CDBG Activity: Watershed Project Construction/IFC#1 National Objective: Urgent Need Activity Description: Provide technical assistance to the watershed construction projects in the form of detailed project modeling,sensors,data collection and evaluation of watershed improvements. Geographic Target: West Nishnabotna River Watershed Activity#3 CDBG Activity: Watershed Project Design and Construction#2 National Objective: Projected LMA Activity Description: The purpose of this activity is to design and fiord constructed projects in the West Nishnabotna River Watershed that have been selected in conjunction with the local Watershed Management Authority(WMA) and based on the watershed hydrologic assessment and recommendations of the University of the IFC. The IFC will also evaluate the impact of the installed practices. 2 A-77 Geographic Target: West Nishnabotna River Watershed, Iikely entirely in Mills Co. Activity#4 CDBG Activity: Watershed Project Construction/IFC#2 National Objective: Projected LMA Activity Description: Provide technical assistance to the watershed construction project in the form of detailed project modeling,sensors, data collection and evaluation of watershed improvements. Geographic Target: West Nishnabotna River Watershed Activity#5 CDBG Activity: Watershed Project Construction/Project Coordinator National Objective: Urgent Need Activity Description: Coordinate efforts in the watershed including providing technical assistant to WMAs, contractors and local landowners to select project types,outreach and communication to area stakeholders and vulnerable populations. Geographic Target: West Nishnabotna River Watershed Activity#6 CDBG Activity: Administration by Council of Government or other qualifying entity as approved by IEDA. National Objective:NA Activity Description: Administration Geographic Target:NA B. Project Schedule CDBG-NDR funding is subject to strict statutory deadlines for expenditure. In accordance with section 904(c)of title IX of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013, a Grantee is required to expend all CDBG-NDR funds within two years of the date that HUD signs the grant agreement. Consistent with this duty, the Partner is required to complete all CDBG-NDR assisted activities identified in section ILA above within 24 months. The Partner agrees to implement the following contingent upon HUD approval of requested waiver to expend finds within 24 months: Anticipated Project Timeline July 2016 — March 2017: Meetings, forums, submission and acceptance of Chapter 29E Agreement documents for formation of new Watershed Management Authority. April 2017 — December 2017: Collection of data (topography, soil conditions, etc.) and development of hydrologic assessment of the full HUC 8 watershed. January 2018 — June 2018: Development of hydrologic plan for eligible areas, modeling of different project scenarios. July 2018—September 2018: WMA selects final sites and projects for implementation. October 2018—March 2019: Establish agreements with landowners,selection of contractors. April 2019—September 2020: Design and Construction of projects. October 2020 — September 2021: Post construction data collection and analysis, IFC work with WMA members to help them define fixture steps. 3 A-78 C. St_a Partner will notify Applicant of any changes in the Key Personnel assigned or their general responsibilities under this project. U: BUDGET [Note that the original proposed budget inay be adjusted should HUD cnvard less than the ainount requested in the application. Nall Obj GDBG Activity Description Budget UN Watershed Construction—Design and Construction(Activity#1) $4,660,000 Watershed Construction-TA Modeling/Sensors/Data Collection & UN Eva]/Visualization(Activity#2) $800,000 LMA Watershed Construction—Design and Construction (Activity#3) $2,330,000 Watershed Construction-TA ModeIing/Sensors/Data Collection & LMA Eval/Visualization (Activity#4) $400,000 UN Watershed Construction-Project Coordinator(Activity#5) $375,000 Administration by Council of Government or other qualifying entity as approved by IEDA(2%)(Activity#6) $174,796 Total Award $8,739,796 he Applicant/Grantee may require a more detailed budget breakdown than the one contained herein, and the Partner shall provide such supplementary budget information in a timely fashion in the form and content prescribed by the Applicant/Grantee. Any amendments to the budget must be approved in writing by both the Applicant/Grantee and the Partner, IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS None. V. SEVERABILTTY If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby and all other parts of this Agreement shall nevertheless be in full force and effect, VI. SECTION HEADINGS AND SUBHEADINGS The section headings and subheadings contained in this Agreement are included for convenience only and shall not limit or otherwise affect the terms of this Agreement. VIL WAIVER The Applicant's failure to act with respect to a breach by the Partner does not waive its right to act with respect to subsequent or similar breaches. The failure of the Applicant to exercise or enforce any right or provision shall not constitute a waiver of such right or provision. VIII. ENTIRE AGREEMENT 4 A-79 This Agreement between the Partner and the Applicant for the use of CDBG-NDR funds, supersedes all prior or contemporaneous communications and proposals, whether electronic, oral, or written between the Partner and the Applicant/Grantee with respect to this Agreement. By way of signing this agreement, the Partner is bound to perform the agreements within this agreement or any HUD approved amendment thereof. Any amendment to this agreement must receive prior approval by HUD, 5 A-80 Date �L'r J�D/e IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties have executed this contract as of the date first written above. Fa Economic DevelopmentAuthority [Partner]] Mills County l�'�1 Ey L— Ey\7nX.toe n, 1LtrU..l n]( (� Title l mcy ma b�- Attest ( �/Pr�I �>-o �t�t„ I�it((�CF/�V_/ ASSISTAIT[CITY/t UNpTY]��CLERK 7 Countersigned: ��/!�I VO1.ak'.uT7�J By FINANCE OFFICER Title I LS APPROVED AS TO FOR -AN LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: f Fed. I. D. # 42-6004708 C/ S TA COUNTY]ATTORNEY OR LEGAL COUNS L AFF RMATI C I PRO C M NCE SUPERVISOR 6 A-81 FREMONT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIDNEY, IOWA 9epmmbar30,WH Iowa Economic DwalapmmtAuWority moi Gmvd Ave Dw Dm Moioce,IA 50309 Rm lutmt b pmticipow 1 letter is to confirm rho m.Net lntetdnfb&th Iowa Economic Dwelop nmt Authority and Fmmovt County to coRab&mte and eoW into a submcipiwt ag onk dwelopm egmemen4 mnbeo4 orother Ag 00004 w applimble,covdogevt upon Wo award offloads Lam tLe United gdhre Depss m t of llouaivg sod Urban Development for the Gn mumty Development Block Gaaat National Diss Rosdisnoe(MBG-MR)competigaq w awry out uligibic activities as pmvidal in We Iowa Economic Dwalopmevl Aumoriry CDBG-NDR appiicodon- Fmmoat Comty is mmmlh&d to serving its madmu and busivessea r ough all available neem, including the Nadoond Duwter Rwilimee Competition(NDRC).Fremont Countywas de&lamdemejordisunrer aby Fmsidmlobema in 2011 due to the Missouri Rives Lndivg. Premavt Cmmryviews Roodmsilimcy esa by policy priority.ghal§amovt C000ly B.".f guPoMsurs views the MRC as a greot oWadlmity and is c&®ihad to plm for and impl&mml msiRmcy inidetivw into Ne N(ne. Frsmovt County would bo the nbraipiant of fonds on behalf of the Pert Nisbmboma River Wattrshed for maufiaa of pmjats that include hiring a WMA Coordinator and D.i,., ssal ojoot mpdete qualified mtiti Will developvmat ofeWstershe ..t C3 jot fto&o, and I also Cpvsuue0on. pmjmts will likely be mooted in Fremont Canty. Ending would also be indudod for pmjat edminishegov by a Concil of Govemmml&r ofhvqualifying entity u e,,ovppmved by DDA. B is ondnstuod that this is ktmr is only m expression of ons intent and a bivtlwg pmhars ageement or othn agrammr defacing the Immo and conditions of the proposed pertoarsbip must be executed before the vee ofany CDBGNDR funds,if awaAe Randdyyffl&, /c�k/�( n[iafguPwison A-82 Appendix D PARTNRRSFIIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN Iowa Economic Development Authority(Applicant) AND Fremont County(Partner) FOR Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience Competition (CDBG-NDR) THIS AGREEMENT,entered this 30th day of September 2015 by and between the lows Economic Development Authority(herein called the"Applicant")and Fremont County(herein called the"Partner"). WHEREAS,the Applicant has applied for fonds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013,Public Law 113-2,for the Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience(CDBG-NDR)competition;and WHEREAS,the Applicant wishes to engage the Partner to assist the Applicant in using such funds if awarded; NOW,THEREFORE,it is agreed between the parties hereto,contingent upon the award of CDBG NDR funds to the Applicant,that; L SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT/DEVELOPER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT If the Applicant is awarded a CDBG-NDR grant from HUD,the Applicant/Grantee shall execute a written subrecipfent agreement,developer agreement,contract,or other agreement,as applicable, with the Partner,for the use of the CDBG-NDR funds before disbursing any CDBG-NDR.fonds to the Partner.The written agreement must conform with all CDBG-NDR requirements and shall require the Partner to comply with all applicable CDBG-NDR requirements,including those found in Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013 (Public Law,113.2),title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974(42 USC 5302 et seq.),the CDBG program regulations at 24 CFR part 570,the Notice of Funding Availability for HUD's National Community Development Block Grant Resilient Disaster Recovery Allocation and any subsequent published amendments (the CDBG-NDR NOFA),and the Applicant's CDBG-NDR NOFA application. IL SCOPE OF SERVICE A. Activities The Partner will be responsible for using CDBG-NUR finds to carry cut activities in a manner satisfactory to the Applicant and consistent with any standards required as a condition of providing these funds.Such use will be in compliance with the CDBG-NDR NOFA,the Applicant/Gratnee's application for CDBG-NDR assistance and the Applicant/Grantee's Grant Agreement for CDBG- NDR. Such use will include the following activities: Program/Project Delivery I A-83 [Complete description of activity to be undertaken including what products or services are to be performed,geographic target area where the activity is to be provided,for whom the activity is to be provided,how the activity is to be provided] Built project implementation in the East Nishnabotna River will follow the general programmatic outline, which includes: Watershed Management Authority (WMA) Formation (Iowa DNR assistance):Stakeholder educational materials(with Iowa State University,University of Northern Iowa, and others); Field site data collection and analyses (Iowa Flood Center); Hydrologic Assessment(Iowa Flood Center);Watershed Plan(subaward to agency or other qualifying entity); Selection of sub-watersheds and Project Design(WMA and subaward to agency or other qualifying entity);Construction(subaward to qualifying entities). The sub-watershed selection and site locations for project construction wilt be selected by each WMA,to follow these criteria(or others as required by HUD): 1)maximize impact on MID-URN meas; 2) maximize impact on LMT areas and other vulnerable populations (as appropriate); 3) identification of interested stakeholdersAi ndowners willing to commit to 25%cost sharing and sign a long-term maintenance agreement for the project; and 4) landowner commitment to other sustainable land use practices and BMPs to further minimize runoff and enhance infiltration. Specific projects may include some mix of: farm ponds, stormwater detention basins, wetlands, terraces,sediment detention basins,flaodplain restoration,channel bank stabilization,bioreactors, saturated buffers,buffer strips,pmeamal crops,or other projects with a demonstrated capacity to decrease downstream flow and/or improve water quality. Activity#1 CDBG Activity: Watershed Project Design and Construction National Objective: Urgent Need Activity Description:The purpose of this activity is to design and fund constructed projects in the East Nishnaboma River Watershed that have been selected in conjunction with the local Watershed Management Authority(WMA)and based on the watershed hydrologic assessment and recommendations of the University oflowa's Flood Center OFC).The BFC will also evaluate the impacto£the installed practices. Geographic Target: East Nishnabotna River Watershed,likely entirely in Fremont Co. Activity Y2 CDBG Activity: Watershed Project Construction/Project Coordinator National Objective: Urgent Need Activity Description: Coordinate efforts in the watershedincludiagproviding technical assistant to WMAs,contractors and local landowners to select project types,outreach and communication to area stakeholders and vulnerable populations. Geographic Target:East Nishnaboma River Watershed Activity#3 CDBG Activity:WatershedProjwt Construction/IPC National Objective: Urgers Need Activity Description:Provide technical assistance to the watershed construction projects in the form of detailed project modeling,sensors,data collection and evaluation of watershed improvements. Geographic Target:East Nishnabotna River Watershed 2 A-84 Activity#4 CDBG Activity: Administration by Council of Government or other qualifying entity as approved by IEDA. National Objective:NA Activity Description: Administration Geographic Target:NA B. Project Schedule CDBG-NDR funding is subject to strict statutory deadlines for expenditure. In accordance with section 904(c)of title DI of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013,a Grantee is required to expend all CDBG-NDR fiords within two years of the date that HUD signs the grant agreement. Consistent with this duty,the Partner is required to complete all CDBG NDR assisted activities identified in section IIA above within 24 months. The Partner agrees to implement the following contingent upon HUD approval of requested waiver to expend funds within 24 months: Anticipated Protect Timeline July 2016—March 2017:Meetings,forums,submission and acceptance of Chapter28E Agreement documents for formation of new Watershed Management Authority April 2017 — December 2017: Collection of data (topography, soil conditions, etc.) and development of hydrologic assessment of the full HUC 8 watershed. January 2018—June 2018:Development of hydrologic plan for eligible areas,modeling of different project scenarios. July 2018—September 2018: WMA selects fatal sites and projects for implementation. October 2018—March 2019:Establish agreements with landowners,selection of contractors. April 2019—September 2020:Design and Construction of projects. October 2020 —September 2021: Post construction data collection and analysis, IPC work with WMA members to help them define future steps. C. Sicilia Partner will notify Applicant of my changes in the Key Personnel assigned or their general responsibilities under this project. M. BUDGET [Note that the original proposed budget may be adjusted should HUD award less than the amount requested in the application]. Adt[vlt)•Diis AP116h Butt et CTS UN Watershed Conatruction—Design and Construction(Activity#1 2,330,000 UN Watendted Construction-Project Coordinator(Activity#2 $375,000 Watershed Construction-TA Modeling/Seosors/Date.Collection& UN EvaWisualintion(Activity#3 $400,000 Admiuistmtion by Council of Government or other qualifying entity as approved bIEDA 2% (Activity#4 $63367 Total Award $3,168,367 3 A-85 The Applicant/Grantee may require a more detailed budget breakdown than the one contained herein,and the Partner shall provide such supplementary budget information in a timely fashion in the form and content prescribed by the Applicaut/Gmntee. Any amendments to the budget must be approved in writing by both the Applicant/Gramee and the Partner. IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS None. V. SEVERAIIWTV H any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby and all other parts of this Agreement shall nevertheless be in full force and effect. VI. SECTION HEADINGS AND SUBHEADINGS The section headings and subheadings contained m this Agreement are included for convenience only and shall not limit or otherwise affect the terms of this Agreement. VII. WAIVER The Applicant's failure to act with respect to a breach by the Partner does not waive its right to act with respect to subsequent or similar breaches. The failure of the Applicant to exercise or enforce any right or provision shall not constitute a waiver of such right or provision. VBI ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement between the Partner and the Applicant for the use of CDBG-NDR funds, supersedes all prior or contemporaneous communications and proposals,whether electronic,oral, or written between the Partner and the Applicant/Gramm with respect to this Agreement.By way of signing this agreement,the Partner is bound to perform the agreements within this agreement or any HUD approved amendment thereof. Any amendment to this agreement must receive prior approval by HUD. 4 A-86 Date °" 3eq —/;,— IN ` ;,'IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties have executed this contract as of the date first written above. Iowabn�mrc Development Authority Fremont ty By 1 ,� n " ` Chairman,Fremont CountyBoard of Supervisors Attest�-I ILI'�D„�"my,_LU�.Ic =F�ont EMBREE NOTARY PUBLIC NUMBER 786366SION EXPIRESry N,2018Countersigned: By Junty Treasurer APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Fed.L D.#A��IppO.S'�f0 C e J.Becker, remout County Attotn y //AFFFFII"jRMATIVE ACTION APPROVAL ION?CO TANCE SUPE 5 A-87 4 BENTON COUNTY aUi` �, BOARDOF SUPERVISORS —' LI T– 111 E.4"Street, R0,nox 549, Vinton,IA 52349 Telephone:319-472-4869 Donald H.Freae Terry L.Hertle 'Dodd A.Wiley September 25,2015 Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 East Grand Ave Des Moines, IA 50309 Re: Intent to Participate This letter is to confirm the mutual intent of both Iowa Economic Development Authority and Benton County to collaborate and enter into a subrecipient agreement, developer agreement, contract, or other agreement, as applicable, contingent upon the award of funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Community Development Block Chant National Disaster Resilience (CDBG-NDR) competition, to carry out eligible activities as provided in the Iowa Economic Development Authority CDBG- NDR application. Benton County is a local governmental entity in the State of Iowa. We have successfully administered many federally funded projects, including but not limited to FEMA disaster relief projects, highway planning and construction projects, as well as various CDBG projects. We are familiar with the requirements for federal grants and have the resources to administer the CDBG-NDR grant. Benton County would be the subrecipient of funds on behalf of the Middle Cedar River Watershed for execution of projects that include hiring a WMA Coordinator and subcontracting with appropriate qualified entities for development of a Watershed Plan, Project Designs, and Project Construction. Projects will likely be executed in both Benton and Tama Counties. Funding would also be included for project administration by a Council of Government or other qualifying entity as approved by IEDA. It is understood that this letter is only an expression of our intent and a binding partner agreement or other agreement detailing the terms and conditions of the proposed partnership must be executed before the use of any CDBG-NDR funds,if awarded. Sincerely, Donald H.Frese, Chairman Benton County Board of Supervisors A-88 Appendix D PARTNERHSIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN Iowa Economic Development Authority(Applicant) AND Benton County,Iowa(Partner) FOR Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience Competition (CDBG-NDR) THIS AGREEMENT,entered this_�DV day c f ' bE/ 2015 by and between the Iowa Economic Development Authority(herein called the"Applicant')and Benton County,Iowa(herein called the"Partner"), WHEREAS,the Applicant has applied for funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013,Public Law 113-2,for the Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience(CDBG-NDR)competition;and WHEREAS,the Applicant wishes to engage the Partner to assist the Applicant in using such funds if awarded; NOW,THEREFORE, it is agreed between the parties hereto,contingent upon the award of CDBG-NDR funds to the Applicant, that; L SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT/DEVELOPER AGREEMENTICONTRACT If the Applicant is awarded a CDBG-NDR grant from HUD,the Applicant/Grantee shall execute a written subrecipient agreement,developer ag cement,contract,or other agreement,as applicable, with the Partner, for the use of the CDBG-NDR funds before disbursing any CDBG-NDR funds to the Partner.The written agreement must conform with all CDBG-NDR requirements and shall require the Partner to comply with all applicable CDBG-NDR requirements, including those found in Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013 (Public Law 113-2),title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974(42 USC 5302 at seq.),the CDBG program regulations at 24 CFR part 570,the Notice of Funding Availability for HUD's National Community Development Block Grant Resilient Disaster Recovery Allocation and any subsequent published amendments (the CDBG-NDR NOFA),and the Applicant's CDBG-NDR NOFA application. H. SCOPE OF SERVICE A. Activities The Partner will be responsible for using CDBG-NDR funds to carry out activities in a manner satisfactory to the Applicant and consistent with any standards required as a condition of providing these funds, Stich use will be in compliance with the CDBG-NDR NOFA, the Applicant/Grantee's application for CDBG-NDR assistance and the Applicant/Grantee's Grant Agreement for CDBG-NDR. Such use will include the following activities; 1 A-89 Program/Project Delivery [Complete description of activity to he undertaken iaclading what products or services are to be Performed, geographic target area where the activity is to be provided,for whom the activity is to be provided, how the activity is to be provided] Built project implementation in the Middle Cedar River Watershed will follow the general programmatic outline, which includes: Watershed Management Authority (WMA) Formation (Iowa DNR assistance): Stakeholder educational materials (with Iowa State University, University of Northern Iowa, and others); Field site data collection and analyses (Iowa Flood Center); Hydrologic Assessment (Iowa Flood Center); Watershed Plan (subaward to agency or other qualifying entity); Selection of sub-watersheds and Project Design(WMA and subaward to agency or other qualifying entity); Construction(subaward to qualifying entities). The sub-watershed selection and site locations for project construction will be selected by each WMA,to follow these criteria(or others as required by HUD): 1)maximize impact on MID-URN areas; 2) maximize impact on LMI areas and other vulnerable populations (as appropriate); 3) identification of interested stakeholders/landowners willing to commit to 25% cost sharing and sign a long-term maintenance agreement for the project; and 4) landowner commitment to other sustainable land use practices and BMPs to further minimize runoff and enhance infiltration. Specific projects may include some mix of: farm ponds, stormwater detention basins, wetlands, terraces,sediment detention basins, floodplain restoration,channel bank stabilization,bioreactors, saturated buffers, buffer strips, perennial crops, or other projects with a demonstrated capacity to decrease downstream flow and/or improve water quality. Activity#I CDBG Activity: Watershed Project Design and Construction#1 National Objective: Urgent Need Activity Description: The purpose of this activity is to fund constructed projects in the Middle Cedar River Watershed that have been selected in conjunction with the local Watershed Management Authority(WMA) and based on the watershed hydrologic assessment and recommendations of the University of Iowa's Flood Center(IFC).The IFC will also evaluate the impact of the installed practices. Geographic Target: Middle Cedar River Watershed Activity#2 CDBG Activity:Watershed Project Construction/IFC#1 National Objective: Urgent Need Activity Description: Provide technical assistance to the watershed construction projects in the form of detailed project modeling,sensors,data collection and evaluation of watershed improvements. Geographic Target; Middle Cedar River Watershed Activity#3 CDBG Activity: Watershed Project Design and Construction#2 National Objective: Projected LMA Activity Description: The purpose of this activity is to fund constructed projects in the Middle Cedar River Watershed that have been selected in conjunction with the local Watershed Management Authority(WMA)and based on the watershed hydrologic assessment and recommendations of the University of Iowa's Flood Center(IFC).The IFC will also evaluate the impact of the installed practices. Geographic Target: Middle Cedar River Watershed Activity#4 CDBG Activity: Watershed Project Construction/WC#2 National Objective: Projected LMA 2 A-90 Activity Description:Provide technical assistance to the watershed construction projects in the form of detailed project modeling,sensors,data collection and evaluation of watershed improvements. Geographic Target: Middle Cedar River Watershed Activity#5 CDBG Activity: Watershed Project Construction/Project Coordinator National Objective: Urgent Need Activity Description: Coordinate efforts in the watershed including providing technical assistant to WMAs,contractors and local landowners to select project types,outreach and communication to area stakeholders and vulnerable populations. Geographic Target: Middle Cedar River Watershed Activity#6 CDBG Activity: Administration by Council of Government or other qualifying entity as approved by IEDA. National Objective:NA Activity Description: Administration Geographic Target:NA B. Project Schedule CDBG NDR funding is subject to strict statutory deadlines for expenditure. In accordance with section 904(c)of title IX of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013,a Grantee is required to expend all CDBG-NDA funds within two years of the date that HUD signs the grant agreement. Consistent with this duty, the Partner is required to complete all CDBG-NDR assisted activities identified in section ILA above within 24 months. The Partner agrees to implement the following contingent upon HUD approval of requested waiver to expend funds within 24 months: Anticipated Proiect Timeline July 2016 — March 2017: Meetings, forums, submission and acceptance of Chapter 28E Agreement documents for formation of new Watershed Management Authority April 2017 — December 2017: Collection of data (topography, soil conditions, etc.) and development of hydrologic assessment of the full HUC 8 watershed. January 2018 — June 2018: Development of hydrologic plan for eligible areas,. modeling of different project scenarios. July 2018—September 2018: WMA selects final sites and projects for implementation. October 2018—March 2019:Establish agreements with landowners,selection of contractors. April 2019—September 2020:Design and Construction of projects. October 2020—September 2021: Post construction data collection and analysis, IFC work with WMA members to help them define future steps. C. Staffine Partner will notify Applicant of any changes in the Rey Personnel assigned or their general responsibilities under this project. III. BUDGET 3 A-91 [Note that the din the itappllcatproposed budget nary be adjusted should HUD mvard less than the amowrl requested he ion.J Natt Obj CDBG gctivin UN Dascriptipn Watershed Desi a and Construction(Activi #1 Budget Watershed Construction-TA Modeling/S $3,615,000 UN EvalMsualization(Activi #2 ensors/Data Collection& LMA WatershedDesi a and Construction Activi #3 $1,200,000 Watershed LMA Construction-TA Modeling/Sensors/Data Collection& $9,160,000 Construction Activi #4 UN Watershed Cons[mction-Pro'ec-Coordinator 1,dictiv, #5 $1,200,000 Administration by Council OfCrovemment or otheruali $375,000 a roved b 1EDA 2% Activi #6) q fyhrg entity as Total Award $309,184 The Applicant/Grantee May $15,459,184 y require amore detailed budget breakdown than he one contained herein, and the Partner shall provide such supplementary budge[ information in a timely fashion in the form and content proscribed by the Applicant/Grantee. Any amendments to the budget must be approved in writing by both the Applicant/Grantee and the Partner. 1V. SPECIAL,_ Cpm ND-IONS None. V. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby and all other parts of this Agreement shall nevertheless be in full force and effect. VI. SECTION READINGS AND SUBREADINGS The section headings and subheadings contained in this Agreement are included for convenience only and shall not limit or otherwise affect the terms of this Agreement. VIL WAIVER The Applicant's failure to act with respect to a breach by the Partner does not waive its right to act with respect to subsequent or similar breaches, The failure of the Applicant to exercise or enforce any right or provision shall not constitute a waiver of such right or provision. VIII. ENTIRE A-N,NT This Agreement between the Partner and the Applicant for the use of CDBG-NDR funds, supersedes all prior or contemporaneous communications and proposals, whether electronic,oral, or written between the Partner and the Applicant/Grantee with respect to this Agreement. By wa aPProval by HUD, y of signing this agreement, the Pannier is bound to perform the agreements within this agreement or any HUD approved amendment thereof. Any amendment to this agreement must receive prior 4 A-92 Date September 29,2015 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties have executed this contract as of the date first written above. Iowa Kmiontic,Development Authority Benton County,Iowa By > rrx r_� Title Chaimran,Benton County Attest J kI Board of Supervisors non County Auditor Countersigued: Jill Marlow Benton County Auditor T� ton County Auditor APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY; Fed.I.D.k 42-6005304 en v*Attorney AFFIRMATIVE ACTION APPROVAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE SUPERVISOR 5 A-93 Date IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Patties have executed this contract as of the date first written above. Iowa Economic Development Authority Benton County,Iowa By By �� AJG{�"�-I DONALD H.UNTY CHAIRMAN Attest. � BENTON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS II3ENN`f)C V COUNTY A�UflPI O&� Countersigned: By BEIr ON COUNTY AUDITOR Title: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: ^� Fed.I.D.H 42-6005304 BENTON COUNTY ATTORNEY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION APPROVAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE SUPERVISOR 5 A-94 \ � I BEAUTIFUL VIEW September 29, 2015 Iowa Economic Development authority 200 East Grand Ave Des Maines, IA 50309 Re: Intent to Participate This letter is to confirm the mutual intent of both Iowa Economic Development Authority and Buena Vista County to collaborate and enter into a subrecipient agreement,developer agreement,contract,or other agreement,as applicable, contingent upon the award of funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Community Development Black Grant National Disaster Resilience(CDBG-NDR)competition,to carry out eligible activities as provided in the Iowa Economic Development Authority CDBG-NDR application. Buena Vista County is committed to serving its residents and businesses through all available means, including the National Disaster Resilience Competition(NDRC). Buena Vista County views flood resiliency as a top policy priority. The Buena Vista County Board of Supervisors views the NDRC as a great opportunity and is committed to plan for and implement resiliency initiatives into the future. Buena Vista County would be the subrecipient of funds on behalf of the North Raccoon River Watershed for execution of projects that include hiring a WMA Coordinator and subcontracting with appropriate qualified entities for development of a Watershed Plan,Project Designs,and Project Construction. Projects will likely be executed in both Buena Vista and Pocahontas Counties.Funding would also be included for project administration by a Council of Government or other qualifying entity as approved by IEDA. It is understood that this is letter is only an expression of our intent and a binding partner agreement or other agreement detailing the terms and conditions of the proposed partnership must be executed before the use of any CDBG-NCR funds,if awarded. Dale Arends,Chair, Board of Supervisors,Buena Vista County BUENA VISTA COUNTY SUPERVISORS Dale Amodio,Chairperson,Doo Altene,Via-Chair 'fore Hmeman,Pool Men, ,Rhonda Ringg..Inrg 215 Bost 5^Street • P.O.Box220 • Stmm Lake.N 50588 PH:712.749.2545• Fax:712.749.2703 www.bvcountyiowa.com A-95 Appendix D PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN Iowa Economic Development Authority (Applicant) AND Buena Vista County(Partner) FOR Community DevelopmentElock Grant National Disaster Resilience Competition (CDBG-NDR) THIS AGREEMENT,entered this a�av ofS.a.�b.:20 i5 by and between the Iowa Economic Development Authority(herein called the"Applicant")and Buena Vista County(herein called the"Partner"). WHEREAS,the Applicant has applied for funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013,Public Law 113-2,for the Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience(CDBG-NDR)competition;and WHEREAS,the Applicant wishes to engage the Partner to assist the Applicant in using such funds if awarded; NOW,THEREFORE,it is agreed between the parties hereto,contingent upon the award of CDBG-NDR funds to the Applicant,that, 1. SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT/DEVELOPER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT If the Applicant is awarded a CDBG-NDR grant from HUD,the Applicant/Grantw shall execute a written subrccipient agreement,developer agreement,contract,or other agreement,as applicable, with the Partner,for the use of the CDBG-NDR funds before disbursing any CDBG-NDR funds to the Partner.The written agreement most wnfarm with all CDBG-NDR requirements and shall require the Partner to comply with all applicable CDBG-NDR requirements,including those found in Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013(Public Law 113-2),title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974(42 USC 5302 et seq.),the CDBG program regulations at 24 CFR part 570,the Notice of Funding Availability for HUD's National Community Development Block Grant Resilient Disaster Recovery Allocation and any subsequent published amendments (the CDBG-MDR NOFA),and the Applicant's CDBG-NDR NOFA application. II. SCOPE OF SERVICE A. Activities The Partner will be responsible for using CDBG-NDR funds to carry out activities in a manner satisfactory to the Applicant and consistent with any standards required as a condition of providing these funds.Such use will be in compliance with the CDBGNDRNOFA,the Applicant/Grantee'a application for CDBG-NDR assistance and the Applicant/Grantee's Grant Agreement for CDBG- NDR. Such use will include the following activities: 1 A-96 Program/Praject Delivery (Complete description ofactivity to be undertaken including what products or services are to be performed,geographic larger area where the activity is to be provided,for whom the activity is to be provided,how the activity Is to be provided] Built project implementation in the North Raccoon River Watershed will follow, the general programmatic outline, which includes: Watershed Management Authority (WMA) Formation (Iowa DNR assistance): Stakeholder educational materials(with Iowa State University,University of Northern Iowa, and others); Field site data collection and analyses (Iowa Flood Canter); Hydrologic Assessment (Iowa Flood Center); Watershed Plan (subaward to agency or other qualifying entity);Selection of sub-watersheds and Project Design(WMA and subaward to agency or other qualifying entity);Construction(subaward to qualifying entities). The sub-watershed selection and site locations for project construction will be selected by each WMA,to follow these criteria(or others as required by HUD): 1)maximize impact on MID-URN areas; 2) maximize impact on LMI areas and other vulnerable populations (as appropriate); 3) identification of interested stakeholders/landowners willing to commit to 25%cost sharing and sign a long-term maintenance agreement for the project; and 4) landowner commitment to other sustainable land use practices and BMPs to further minimize runoff and enhance infiltration. Specific projects may include some mix of: farm ponds, store water detention basins, wetlands, terraces,sediment detention basins,floodplain restoration,channel bank stabilization,bioreactors, saturated buffers, buffer strips,perennial crops,or other projects with a demonstrated capacity to decrease downstream flow and/or Improve water quality. Activity#1 CDBG Activity: Watershed Project Design and Construction National Objective: UrgentNeed Activity Description:The purpose of this activity is to fund constructed projects in North Raccoon River Watershed that have been selected in conjunction with the local Watershed Management Authority (WMA) and based on the watershed hydrologic assessment and recommendations of the University of Iowa's Flood Center QFQ,The IFC will also evaluate the impact of the installed practices. Geographic Target: North Raccoon River Watershed, likely entirely in Buena Vista and Pocahontas Counties Activity#2 CDBG Activity: Watershed Project Construction/Project Coordinator National Objective: Urgent Need Activity Description; Coordinate efforts in the watershed including providing technical assistant to WMAs,contractors and local landowners to select project types,outreach and communication to area stakeholders and vulnerable populations. Geographic Target;North Raccoon River Watershed I4UC 8 Activity 43 CDBG Activity; Watershed Project Construction/117C National Objective: Urgent Need Activity Description:Provide technical assistance to the watershed construction projects in the to=of detailed project modeling,sensors,data collection and evaluation of watershed improvements. Geographic Target:North Raccoon River Watershed HUC 8 2 A-97 Activity#4 CDBG Activity: Administration by Council of Government or other qualifying entity as approved by IEDA, National Objective:NA Activity Description: Administration Geographic Target:NA B. Proiect Schedule CDBG-NDR funding is subject to strict statutory deadlines for expenditure. In accordance with section 904(c)of title IX of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013,a Grantee is required to expend all CDBG-NDR funds within two years of the date that HUD signs the grant agreement. Consistent with this duty, the Partner is required to complete all CDBG-NDR assisted activities identified in section ILA above within 24 months. The Partner agrees to implement the following contingent upon HUD approval ofrequested waiver to expend funds within 24 months: Anticipated Proiect Timeline July 2016—March 2017:Meetings,forums,submission and acceptance of Chapter 28E Agreement documents for formation of now Watershed Management Authority April 2017 — December 2017: Collection of data (topography, soil conditions, etc.) and development of hydrologic assessment of the full HUC 8 watershed. January 2018—June 2018:Development ofhydrologic plan for eligible areas,modeling ofdifferent project scenarios. July 2018—September 2018: WMA selects final sites and projects for implementation. October 2018—March 2019:Establish agreements with landowners,selection of contractors. April 2019—September 2020:Design and Construction of projects. October 2020—September 2021:Post construction data collection and analysis, IFC work with WMA members to help them define future steps, C. Staffing Partner will notify Applicant of any changes in the Key Personnel assigned or their general responsibilities under this project. III. BUDGET [Note that the original proposed budget maybe adjusted should HUD award less dhnn the amount requested in the application). Nad Obj CDBG Activity Description Budget ON Watershed Desi nand Construction(Activity#1) $4,660,000 UN Watershed Construction-Project Coordinator Activit #2 $375,000 Watershed Construction-TA Modeling/Sensors/Data Collection& UN EvahVisualization Activi #3 $800,000 Administration by Commil of Government or other qualifying entity as approved by IEDA 26A (Activity#4 $119,081 Total Award $5,954,081 3 A-98 The Applicant/Grantee may require a more detailed budget breakdown than the one contained herein, and the Partner shall provide such supplementary budget information in a timely fashion in the form and content prescribed by the Applicant/Grantee. Any amendments to the budget must be approved in writing by both the Applicant/Grantee and the Partner. IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS None. V. S +.V+.RABILITY If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby and all other parts of this Agreement shall nevertheless be in full force and effect. VI. SECTION HEADINGS AND SUBHEADINGS The section headings and subheadings contained in this Agreement are included for convenience only and shall not limit or otherwise affect the terms of this Agreement. VII. WAIVE The Applicant's failure to act with respect to a breach by the Partner does not waive its right to act with respect to subsequent or similar breaches. The failure of the Applicant to exercise or enforce any right or provision shall not constitute a waiver of such right or provision, VIII. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement between the Partner and the Applicant for the use of CDBG-NDR funds, supersedes all prior or contemporaneous communications and proposals, whether electronic, oral, or written between the Partner and the Applicant/Grantee with respect to this Agreement. By way of signing this agreement, the Partner is bound to perform the agreements within this agreement or any HUD approved amendment thereof.Any amendment to this agreement must receive prior approval by IX. HOLD HARMLESS PROVISION Applicant agrees to save,defend and hold Partner harmless from any suit related to the Partnership Agreement,or any loss, claim,or demand related thereto,including demands for payment for any reason by any subcontractor or other beneficiary of CDBG-NDR funds or proposed recipient of CDBG-NDR funds,and including demands for repayment by HUD,whether for allegedly misspent funds, undocumented expenditures, or for any other reason other than willful fraud or criminal behavior by Partner. A-99 Date September 29.2015 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties have executed this contract as of the date first written above. Iowa c //omit Development Authority BuegaViaeCounty %EaBY ✓�% )/ By Title Dale AtgIldl,Buena Vista Chahma Attest,' 22nJ /na'"stiJ LE ADSEN,DEPUTY AUDITOR Countersigned: Sue Lloyd By —S- GR SUE LLOYD,AUDITOR Title Buena Vista County Auditor i:2LYORNEY AL SUFFICIENCY: Fed.I.D.# 14a–t,00SaS�OR LEGAL COUNSEL AFF�5MATIYE ACTION APPROVAL DALE ARENDS,CHAIRMAN A-100 IOWA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 970 Court Ave MARENGOIA 52301 (319) 642-3041 I October 9, 2015 Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 East Grand Ave Des Moines,IA 50309 Re:Intent to Participate This letter is to confirm the mutual intent of both Iowa Economic Development Authority and Iowa County to collaborate and enter into a subrecipient agreement, developer agreement, contract, or other agreement, as applicable,contingent upon the award of funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience(CDBG-NDR)competition,to carry out eligible activities as provided in the Iowa Economic Development Authority CDBG-NDR application. Iowa County is a local governmental entity in the State of Iowa. We have successfully administered many federally funded projects, including but not limited to FEMA disaster relief projects, highway planning and construction projects, as well as various CDBG projects. We are familiar with the requirements for federal grants and have the resources to administer the CDBG-NDR grant. Iowa County would be the subrecipient of funds on behalf of the English River Watershed for execution of projects that include hiring a WMA Coordinator and subcontracting with appropriate qualified entities for development of a Watershed Plan,Project Designs, and Project Construction. Projects will likely be executed only in Iowa County. Funding would also be included for project administration by a Council of Goverment or other qualifying entity as approved by IEDA. It is understood that this is letter is only an expression of our intent and a binding partner agreement or other agreement detailing the terms and conditions of the proposed partnership must be executed before the use of any CDBG-NDR funds,if awarded. Sincerely, C Kevin Heitshusen,Vice-Chairman Iowa County Board of Supervisors A-101 Appendix D PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN Iowa Economic Development Authority(Applicant) AND Iowa County(Partner) FOR Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience Competition (CDBG-NDR) THIS AGREEMENT,entered this 91' day of October,2015 by and between the Iowa Economic Development Authority(herein called the"Applicant")and Iowa County(herein called the"Farmer"). WHEREAS,the Applicant has applied for funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013,Public Law 113-2,for the Community Development Black Grant National Disaster Resilience(CDBG-NDR)competition;and WHEREAS,the Applicant wishes to engage the Partner to assist the Applicant in using such funds if awarded; NOW,THEREFORE,it is agreed between the parties hereto,contingent upon the award of CDBG-NDR funds to the Applicant,that; I. SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT/DEVELOPER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT If the Applicant is awarded a CDBG-NDR grant from HUD,the Applicant/Grantee shall execute a written subrecipient agreement,developer agreement,contract,or other agreement,as applicable, with the Partner,for the use of the CDBG-NDR funds before disbursing any CDBG-NDR funds to the Partner.The written agreement must conform with all CDBG-NDR requirements and shall require the Partner to comply with all applicable CDBG-NDR requirements, Including those found in Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013(Public Law 113-2),title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974(42 USC 5302 et seq.),the CDBG program regulations at 24 CFR part 570,the Notice of Funding Availability for HUD's National Community Development Block Grant Resilient Disaster Recovery Allocation and any subsequent published amendments (the CDBG-NDR NOFA),and the Applicant's CDBG-NDR NOFA application, IL SCOPE OF SERVICE A. Ac 'vities The Partner will be responsible for using CDBG-NDR funds to carry out activities in a manner satisfactory to the Applicant and consistent with any standards required as a condition of providing these funds. Such use will be in compliance with the CDBG-NDR NOFA, the Applicant/Grantee's application for CDBG-NDR assistance and the Applicant/Grantee's Grant Agreement for CDBG-NDR. Such use will include the following activities: Program/Project Delivery 1 A-102 [Complete description of activity to be undertaken Including what products or services are to be performed, geographic target area where lire activity is to be provided,for whom lire activity is to be provided,!taw the activity is to be provided[ Built project implementation in the English River Watershed will follow the general programmatic outline, which includes: WMA Formation (Done): Stakeholder educational materials (with Iowa State University and others); Field site data collection and analyses (Iowa Flood Center); Hydrologic Assessment (Iowa Flood Center); Watershed Plan (subaward to agency or other qualifying entity); Selection of sub-watersheds and Project Design (WMA and subaward to agency or other qualifying entity);Construction(subaward to a qualifying entities). The sub-watershed selection and site locations for project construction will be selected by each WMA,to follow these criteria(or others as required by HUD): 1)maximize impact on MID-URN areas; 2) maximize impact on LMI areas and other vulnerable populations (as appropriate); 3) identification of interested stakeholders/landowners willing to commit to 25% cost sharing and sign a long-term maintenance agreement for the project; and 4) landowner commitment to other sustainable land use practices and BMPs to further minimize runoff and enhance infiltration. Specific projects may include some mix oF. farm ponds, stonnwaler detention basins, wetlands, terraces, sediment detention basins, Floodplain restoration, bioreacmrs, saturated buffers, buffer strips, perennial crops, or other projects with a demonstrated capacity to decrease downstream Bow and/or improve water quality. Activity#1 CDBG Activity: Watershed Project Design and Construction National Objective: Urgent Need Activity Description:The purpose of this activity is to fund constructed projects in the English River Watershed that have been selected in conjunction with the local Watershed Management Authority (WMA) and based on the watershed hydrologic assessment and recommendations of the University of Iowa's Flood Center(IFC).The IFC will also evaluate the impact of the installed practices. Geographic Target: English River Watershed Activity 112 CDBG Activity: Watershed Project Construction/Project Coordinator National Objective: Urgent Need Activity Description: Coordinate efforts in the watershed including providing technical assistant to WMAs,contractors and local landowners to select project types,outreach and communication to area stakeholders and vulnerable populations. Geographic Target: English River Watershed HUC 10 Activity 43 CDBG Activity:Watershed Project Construction/117C National Objective: Urgent Need Activity Description:Provide technical assistance to the watershed construction projects in the form of detailed project modeling,sensors,data collection and evaluation of watershed improvements. Geographic Target:English River Watershed Activity#4 CDBG Activity: Administration by Council of Government or other qualifying entity as approved by IEDA. National Objective:NA 2 A-103 Activity Description: Administration Geographic Target NA B. Project Schedule CDBG-NDR funding is subject to strict statutory deadlines for expenditure. In accordance with section 904(c)of title IX of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,2013,a Grantee is required to expend all CDBG-NDR funds within two years of the date that HUD signs the grant agreement. Consistent with this duty, the Partner is required to complete all CDBG-NDR assisted activities identified in section ILA above within 24 months. The Partner agrees to implement the following contingent upon HUD approval of requested waiver to expend funds within 24 months: Proposed Project Schedule July 2016—March 2017:Collection of data(topography,soil conditions,etc.)and development of hydrologic assessment of the full HUC 10 watershed. April 2017—September 2017: Development of hydrologic plan, modeling of different project scenarios. October 2017—December 2017: WMA selects final sites and projects for implementation. January 2018-June 2018: Establish agreements with landowners, selection of contractors. July 2018-December 2019: Design and Construction of projects. January 2020:—December 2020: Post construction data collection and analysis,work with WMA members to help them define future steps. C. Staffing Partner will notify Applicant of any changes in the Key Personnel assigned or their general responsibilities under this project. 1H. BUDGET [Note that the original proposed budget may be adjusted should HUD award less than the amount requested in the application. Nett Obi CDBGActivityDescription nBudgetUN Watershed Construetion—Desi and ConsWction Activi #I UN Watershed Construetion-Proect Coordinator(Activi #2 Watershed Construction-TA Modeling/Sensors/Data Collection& UN EvalAtisuali7ntion(Activi #3 Administration by Council of Government or other qualifying entity as a roved IEDA 2°/ Activi #4 Total Award The Applicant/Grantee may require a more detailed budget breakdown than the one contained herein, and the Partner shall provide such supplementary budget information in a timely fashion 3 A-104 in the form and content prescribed by the Applicant/Grantee. Any amendments to the budget must be approved in writing by both the ApplicanUGrantee and the Partner. IV. SPECLAL CONDITIONS None. V. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby and all other parts of this Agreement shall nevertheless be in full force and effect. VI. SECTION HEADINGS AND SUBHEADINGS The section headings and subheadings contained in this Agreement are included for convenience only and shall not limit or otherwise affect the terms of this Agreement. V11. WAIVER The Applicant's failure to act with respect to a breach by the Partner does not waive its right to act with respect to subsequent or similar breaches. The failure of the Applicant to exercise or enforce any right or provision shall not constitute a waiver of such right or provision. VIII. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement between the Partner and the Applicant for the use of CDBG-NDR funds, supersedes all prior or contemporaneous communications and proposals,whether electronic,oral, or written between the Partner and the Applicant/Grantee with respect to this Agreement. By way of signing this agreement, the Partner is bound to perform the agreements within this agreement or any HUD approved amendment thereof. Any amendment to this agreement must receive prior approval by HUD. 4 A-105 Data ()IfIJVr 13, a0 t 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Partes have executed this contract as of the date first written above. Iowa co omtc Development Authority Iowa Cp9my By—� �h By G card Chairman Title Attest :]Pty}. r� V 1�r'YVI ✓% LINTY AUDIFR Countersigned: Jessica Stahl mann COUNTY AUDITOR Title Iowa Coun uditor APPROVE S TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Fed. I.D.H rl - (aQ(1'193 ip ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNE LEGAL COUNSEL AFFI ATN CTION AP OVAL i er roirtnan A-106 Attachment G—Waiver Requests State of Iowa Iowa PhaseII Waivers.pdf I IOWA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY K )WAG 200 East Grand Avenue I Des Moines,lova 50309 USA I Phone: ,30 515.725010 iowaeconomicdevelopment.com economic development October 15, 2015 Jesse Handford Kome,Deputy Director Office of Block Grant Assistance Community and Planning Development U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Washington,DC 20410-7000 Dear Ms. Kome: The State of Iowa requests a waiver of the HUD requirement that 50% of the CDBG-NDR expenditures benefit low- and moderate-income persons. The Watershed Approach for Urban and Rural Resilience proposes watershed activities in rural watersheds where the service areas are LMA but not primarily residential. In Iowa, farms are a business as well as residences. Even though the watershed areas will serve small communities which are primarily residential,the majority of the area will be farms. We would propose a reduction in the 50%requirement to 40%. With the currently proposed NDRC activities, 41.56% of the expenditures will benefit Low-to moderate individuals in primarily residential communities of Storm Lake, Coralville and i Dubuque. We would advocate for this waiver because even though the farms are considered a business they are also residential. Which means our planned projects will in fact benefit low-to moderate income individuals in the service area at their place of residence. No areas in the project area are industrial. We appreciate your consideration of our request and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, I I Deborah V. Durham Director Governor Terry E. Branstad I Lt. Governor Kim Reynolds I Director Debi V, Durham, G-1 IOWA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY K )WA 200 East Grand Ayenue I Des Moines,Iowa 50309 USA Phone:515.725.3000 iowaeconomicclevelopment.com economic development August 19, 2015 Jesse Handford Kome, Deputy Director Office of Block Grant Assistance Community and Planning Development U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Washington, DC 20410-7000 Dear Ms. Kome: The State of Iowa requests a waiver to the National Disaster Resilience Competition requirement to expend funds in 24 months. Iowa formally requests an extension through September 30, 2021. Iowa proposes a program through which Iowans will work together to address factors within the upper reaches of a watershed that contribute to downstream flooding. This program is only possible through close collaboration of many organizations and a strong sense of community by Iowa's landowners, on whose properties many projects will be built. We have an experienced team, including engaged stakeholders at many levels. But we also know from experience that it takes time to build and cultivate successful teams. Iowa's program follows a logical progression beginning with stakeholders coming together in the formation of a Watershed Management Authority(WMA), and following with: development of a hydrologic assessment and watershed plans; stakeholder selection of projects and project locations; implementation of projects to reduce the magnitude of downstream flooding and lessen environmental degradation; and assessment of the success of these projects. Implementation of activities in the upper watersheds will complement other downstream community-based projects in Dubuque and other target communities. These activities will also be enhanced with programs targeting social resilience and a comprehensive program-wide evaluation by the University of Iowa's Center for Evaluation and Assessment. The request for an extension is based on Iowa's experience on a current project,the Iowa Watersheds Project(IWP), which was also funded by HUD and follows a similar progression of activities. The IWP started in July 2011 and is scheduled for completion in 2016. The timeline for this project included(note: some activities are overlapping in time): Formation of WMAs: 8 months Hydrologic Assessment: 12 months Hydrologic Plan: 6 months Contracting 6 months Construction of Projects: 18 months Assessment: 12 months Governor Terry E.Branstad I Lt.Governor Kim Reynolds I Director Debi` -9rham Below is the proposed timeline for the comparable elements of the State of Iowa's NDRC program, which will require the most time of Iowa's proposed activities to complete. There are three timelines* demonstrating three example programmatic paths for watersheds starting at different phases of development. Example Timeline 1: Watersheds starting with WMA Formation July 2016—March 2017: Meetings, forums, submission and acceptance of Chapter 28E Agreement documents for formation of new Watershed Management Authority April 2017—December 2017: Collection of data(topography, soil conditions, etc.) and development of hydrologic assessment of the full HUC 8 watershed. January 2018 —June 2018: Development of hydrologic plan for eligible areas,modeling of different project scenarios. July 2018 —September 2018: WMA selects final sites and projects for implementation. October 2018—March 2019: Establish agreements with landowners, selection of contractors. April 2019—September 2020: Construction of projects. October 2020—September 2021: Post construction data collection and analysis, work with WMA members to help them define future steps. Example Timeline 2: Watersheds Having a WMA, but no hydrologic assessment July 2016—March 2017: Collection of data(topography, soil conditions, etc.) and development of hydrologic assessment of the full HUC 8 watershed. April 2017— September 2017: Development of hydrologic plan for eligible areas, modeling of different project scenarios. October 2017—December 2017: WMA selects final sites and projects for implementation. January 2018-June 2018: Establish agreements with landowners, selection of contractors. July 2018-December 2019: Construction of projects. Analysis of potential infrastructure projects in MID-URN communities. January 2020:—December 2020: Post construction data collection and analysis,work with WMA members to help them define future steps. Example Timeline 3: Watersheds Having WMA,Hydrological Assessment, & Watershed Plan with Projects (Infrastructure,Housing,Economic Development)Identified July 2016—December 2016: Selection of Contractors &hiring and training of housing program delivery staff January 2017—December 2018: Construction of infrastructure projects. January 2017 - December 2017: 50 housing rehabilitation projects January 2018-December 2018: 150 housing rehabilitation projects January 2019-December 2019: 150 housing rehabilitation projects January 2019-June 2019: 50 housing rehabilitation projects January 2019—June 2019: Post construction data collection and analysis of infrastructure proj ects June 2019-August 2019: Post rehabilitation data collection and analysis of housing projects *These schedules include only the physical projects to reduce flood risk/damage and to improve water quality in the areas served. G-3 In Iowa, winters truncate the construction season so that it will take two full construction seasons to complete planned, large scale infrastructure projects. So even though under the third example outlined above there would be meaningful expenditures within the allowable two-year window, it is anticipated that the completion of a large infrastructure project will take longer and require a waiver to the National Disaster Resilience Competition requirement to expend funds in 24 months. Iowa's NDRC program will take the same time as the IWP to complete based on: 1)many of the proposed watersheds have either already formed a Watershed Management Authority(the first step in the process), or are well on the way to formation of a WMA; 2)the program team (including the applicant, close partners, and agency collaborators)has gained valuable experience, efficiencies, and collaborative synergies through the IWP process; and 3)the success of the IWP is becoming well-known across the state, which is generating enthusiasm and trust in the process. Finally, we expect to organize an advisory board for this program, which will include at least annual reviews of the overall programmatic progress and advise teams on any actions necessary to remain on schedule, including possible reallocation of funds. (This program is designed to be flexible enough for funding to be shifted between programmatic activities in each HUC 8 if one area falls significantly behind schedule.) We appreciate your consideration of our request and look forward to hearing from you. t Sin ly, Deborah V. Durham Director I G-4 Exhibit C Capacity State of Iowa Iowa PhaseII Capacity.pdf Capacity The Iowa Economic Development Authority is leading the State of Iowa's application to HUD's National Disaster Resilience Competition (NDRC), with three key management partners: Homeland Security and Emergency Management, the Iowa Flood Center, and the City of Dubuque. As demonstrated,these four partners have the experience and expertise to ensure the proposed Iowa Watersheds Approach is highly successful and serves as a model for the future. a. Past Experience and Capacity of Applicant Iowa Economic Development Authority (IEDA): IEDA has managed Iowa's Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)Program since the 1980s and has successfully administered nearly $1B in 2008 CDBG-DR funding, including the largest property buyout program in the history of the United States. Since 2011, IEDA has partnered with U. of Iowa's Iowa Flood Center and state, local, and regional partners jointly awarded $10.5M to plan, design, and implement Iowa's current CDBG-DR "Iowa Watersheds Project" (see example project below). Additional IEDA disaster recovery activities include traditional infrastructure projects, rehabilitation of nearly 600 housing units, and construction assistance for almost 5,000 new housing units in Iowa's 85 disaster-affected counties. IEDA has disaster policies and procedures in place that are annually monitored by HUD-DR for compliance with the following: overall grant/project management, procurement of contractors and professional services, contract management, duplication of benefits, quality assurance,financial management systems drawing DR funds from the federal system, reporting to the Disaster Recovery Grant Reporting(DRGR) system, project monitoring, and other federal requirements specific to administration of CDBG-DR grants. Iowa will use the existing DR administrative structure, which includes current disaster recovery staff experienced in project 17 management of traditional infrastructure, housing rehabilitation, and watershed projects to ensure this program's rapid launch and successful completion. The Iowa Flood Center (IFC) of IIHR Hydroscience & Engineering(IIHR),the Universitv of Iowa(UD: IIHR, of which the IFC is a subprogram, is a renowned hydraulics laboratory with 95 years of expertise in river hydraulics and hydrology. Its activities encompass all aspects of the hydrologic cycle from precipitation to surface and groundwater flow,to river processes, to water quantity and quality. IIHR manages about $20M/year in grant and contract funding. One of IIHR's hallmarks is its long history of local, national, and international partnerships. The IFC is highly qualified to lead the scientific and technical elements of this program's watershed projects. Following the historic floods of 2008,the State of Iowa laid the groundwork for long-term disaster recovery and resilience through establishment of the IFC. Since 2009, the IFC has developed an extensive network of stream-stage sensors and rain gauges, a radar network, and other remote-sensing instruments deployed across Iowa in support of flood-related monitoring and modeling. The IFC develops detailed interactive flood inundation maps for the state's most vulnerable river communities and is working with FEMA and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)to recreate and improve Iowa's regulatory floodplain maps. The IFC also developed the nation's most comprehensive user-friendly, publically-accessible flood- related online platform, the Iowa Flood Information System (IFIS). Users can monitor precipitation, river and stream levels, flood warnings, and many other real-time variables in the context of their watershed (see Phase II, Soundness of Approach). All IFC activities take into consideration the impact of changing precipitation and temperature patterns in Iowa(see Phase II, Need Factor). Example Project: The Iowa Watershed Project(2011-2016): Primary Partners: IFC and IEDA. IEDA incorporated a watershed resiliency program as part of its 2008 CDBG Disaster 18 Recovery grant. As identified in Iowa's 2008 Action Plan, the project had three components: watershed planning, watershed projects, and floodplain education. The core of the IEDA watershed resiliency program is the Iowa Watersheds Project(IWP), which forms the foundation and serves as the model for this proposal. The largest component of the IWP is planning and project implementation within watersheds. In 2010, Iowa lawmakers passed legislation authorizing the creation of Watershed Management Authorities (WMAs)to improve watershed planning and to develop a more coordinated approach for flood mitigation (See Phase 2, Soundness of Approach). The IDNR worked with a consortium of local governments to establish WMAs; IEDA required frequent progress reports and created criteria to evaluate the prospective WMAs. Formation of the WMAs was the first step of the IWP. The primary component involved working directly in the watersheds with each WMA. IEDA contracted with each WMA's lead county and provided guidance on federal procurement standards, environmental compliance, Davis-Bacon and related compliance issues,fiscal management, additional CDBG regulatory compliance, and audit responsibilities. IEDA helped each WMA's lead county hire a qualified CDBG administrator to assist with compliance. IEDA also contracted with IFC to provide technical guidance, including a detailed assessment of each watershed and assistance in selecting, siting, design, and construction of specific watershed improvements on privately owned property. IEDA worked with the lead counties to help landowners secure contracts for constructed projects. IEDA will play a similar role as defined in the management structure for this competition. For the IWP, IEDA developed the policy and procedures for the watershed program and handled contract management with counties, IDNR, and the IFC IEDA has staff who process draws for 19 recipients,track fiscal compliance, evaluate project outcomes, report these outcomes to HUD via DRGR, and monitor the projects for CDBG compliance. Under IEDA leadership, the IWP will be completed on time. Program successes to date include: all expected WMAs are formed; IFC engineers completed a hydrologic assessment for each partner watershed; researchers and stakeholders developed a plan for each watershed; projects were constructed in 2015; and monitoring instrumentation (stream-stage sensors, water- quality monitoring sensors) are in place and collecting data. The IWP is based on scientific evidence that Iowa is experiencing an increase in the frequency of high-volume precipitation events and floods (see Phase II, Need Factor). It is also based on past research experience, physically-based models, and demonstration sites that illustrate the efficacy of retaining water at multiple locations in the watershed to reduce the magnitude of downstream floods. This decreases the financial costs of flooding, reduces other flood-related risks to local community services and to individuals (water-borne disease, mental stress, injury, fatality), reduces soil erosion, and enhances environmental resilience to flooding. Professor and IIHR Director Larry Weber, co-founder of the IFC, conceived the IWP and manages its technical elements in collaboration with IEDA and many partners. IIHR engineers with expertise in watershed processes and watershed-scale modeling conducted the watershed assessments. Key collaborators in this program include local Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD), the IDNR, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), NGOs, local producers, and other local stakeholders. The partner watersheds were selected based on their applications to participate, in which they described their capacity to form a WMA and their commitment to sustainability and cooperation. Landowners and other stakeholders in each watershed made the final decisions regarding project placement and priorities. All projects are environmentally sound. Two criteria guided selection of the project sites: 1) locations with the 20 greatest potential to reduce downstream flooding as identified by the watershed assessment and watershed plan; and 2) landowner participation. Landowners contribute a 25% cost share for projects on their land and sign a long-term project maintenance agreement. All sites were reviewed for potential cultural resources prior to project implementation or construction as appropriate. The IWP is successful because of strong collaboration among a wide range of partners with project management skills, technical and scientific expertise, and broad experience. However, Iowa landowners and producers play a particularly important role in the IWP's success; they are eager to engage in projects that are environmentally sound and good for their land, and that improve the quality of life for Iowans. The City of Dubuque is experienced in data analysis to mitigate and prepare for natural disasters. The city works with a multi-disciplinary team of public, private, and nonprofit partners at the state and local levels to implement large-scale infrastructure projects, create a more resilient community, and execute a community-wide disaster response and recovery. The City of Dubuque has the necessary capacities in project and contract management, quality assurance, financial management and procurement, and internal control to quickly launch and implement major projects related to housing rehabilitation and infrastructure design and construction. The management structure defined below outlines how the Housing& Community Development(H&CD), Engineering, Sustainability & Resiliency, Neighborhood Development, Finance, Public Health, Planning Economic Development, Human Rights, Public Information, and Geographic Information Services (GIS) departments coordinate activities to ensure rapid program design and launch, continued quality control, and adequate checks and balances. The H&CD department oversees CDBG, inspection and licensing, lead hazard control, healthy homes production, homeowner programs, rental assistance (Section 8), shelter plus care, 21 urban revitalization, and crime-free multi-housing. H&CD staff administer programs with approximately $1.2M in federal CDBG funds each year for housing, economic development, neighborhood and public services, public facilities, and planning/administration. Engineering staff provide design, survey, and inspection services for construction projects, including bridge construction, stormwater management, and green alleys. GIS staff develop and manage the geographic information system and provide technical expertise, including the use of climate data to predict impact on infrastructure and neighborhoods. Working with NGOs, individuals, and neighborhood groups, the Human Rights Department implements programs to ensure equitable access to services and support civic engagement. The city is also involved in the Dubuque Co. Local Emergency Planning Committee and coordinates with regional entities to prepare for and respond to disasters. Example Project: Bee Branch Watershed Flood Mitigation Project(2001present) Primary Partner: Citv of Dubuque. Dubuque and its partners have demonstrated extensive technical capacity and community engagement and inclusiveness experience, as illustrated by the Bee Branch Watershed Flood Mitigation Project. Fifty percent of Dubuque residents live or work in the Bee Branch watershed, which encompasses historic neighborhoods and some of Dubuque's most affordable workforce housing. Buried as a storm sewer in the 1890s, Bee Branch Creek Watershed was very susceptible to flash floods. The Bee Branch Watershed Flood Mitigation Project is a multi-phased,fiscally-responsible, and environmentally-sound program to protect at-risk neighborhoods from the regional trend toward more frequent extreme precipitation events. After severe flooding in Dubuque in 1999, especially in the Bee Branch Watershed, the city and its partners developed a Drainage Basin Master Plan to identify future vulnerabilities based on these weather patterns. Improvements associated with the Bee Branch Project are consistent with the improvements outlined in the 22 Drainage Basin Master Plan, which was updated in 2013. Collaborations with local stakeholders led to a shift in Dubuque's traditional disaster recovery path from urban infrastructure-centered project development to a more holistic integrated watershed systems management approach. A 16-member community advisory committee collaborated with city staff and consultants to design the pathway of the now daylighted creek, which has been returned to its natural above-ground setting. Dubuque hired a Bee Branch Communications Specialist to share information with the affected neighborhoods in a variety of formats and to gather and respond to neighborhood feedback and concerns Dubuque has also successfully administered a HUD-funded Lead Hazard Control Program since 1997,targeted in this at-risk neighborhood. Through June 30, 2014, 413 properties were enrolled, 241 lead inspection/risk assessments conducted, and 185 properties completed and cleared. HUD has continuously rated Dubuque as high performing for meeting and/or exceeding all benchmarks and goals through the "green" designation assessed in all quarterly performance reports of both recent grant programs. When complete, the Bee Branch Project will leverage more than $200M from federal agencies, the state, grants, private funding, stormwater utility fees, and a new State Flood Mitigation Sales Tax Increment financing program to implement green infrastructure and prevent an estimated $582M in future damage to public and private property. Homeland Security and Emergency Management(HSEMD): HSEMD has managed Iowa's Disaster Programs since the 1960s and currently oversees the daily activities of 14 open presidential disaster responses across Iowa, which include projects totaling more than $213 in Stafford and Act National Flood Insurance Act funding. HSEMD has in place policies and procedures that are annually monitored by FEMA for compliance with overall grant/project management, procurement, contract management, duplication of benefits, quality assurance, 23 financial management systems, project monitoring, reporting, and all other federal requirements specific to administering grants. If awarded, HSEMD will use its existing administrative structure, which includes current disaster recovery staff experienced in the project management of traditional infrastructure, property acquisitions/relocations to ensure rapid program design, implementation, and completion. The organizational structure of the countywide emergency management commissions for response, recovery, and mitigation planning and implementation enhance HSEMD's capacity in Iowa. These commissions, made up of local leaders, provide input for the implementation of resilient recovery strategies and participate in educational and outreach opportunities for watershed-based hazard mitigation. Because disasters start locally, county emergency management coordinators and agencies play a vital role in preparation for, response to, and recovery from disasters both natural and manmade. Local emergency management agencies are the backbone of the state's emergency management system. They provide coordination of local resources and work in partnership with HSEMD to ensure emergency management teams are well-equipped,trained, and exercised. County boards of supervisors, city councils, and county sheriffs establish a commission to carry out the provisions of Iowa law (Iowa Code, Chapter 29C). Each local commission appoints an emergency management coordinator to fulfill the commission's duties. Two or more county commissions may form a multi-county emergency management agency. HSEMD's experience and close connection with local emergency management agencies make it particularly well-suited to help lead the proposed disaster planning and technical assistance activities and the public resilience programs (See Soundness of Approach, Program 2). Example Project: Citv of Des Moines and WRA Flood Protection Project(2015-2035): Primary Partner: HSEMD. This Iowa Flood Mitigation Program project aims to develop a flood 24 control plan to protect critical facilities and public and private property, as well as to preserve the health and safety of Des Moines residents. HSEMD was integral in the development of the proposal and (current) project implementation. Specific post-award activities by HSEMD include the solicitation, review, consolidation, validation, and submission of applicant's reports (financial, progress, and performance-oriented). HSEMD also: uses qualitative and quantitative metrics to determine how well the program is being implemented and whether it is achieving its described goals, objectives, activities, and services; and makes sure individual projects achieve overarching program goals. HSEMD will play a similar role in monitoring the technical and programmatic activities of the Iowa Watershed Approach (IWA). b. Management Structure and Lead Personnel Iowa Economic Development Authority: IEDA's Community Development Division operates under the leadership of Director Debi Durham, who reports directly to the Governor. If awarded an NDRC project, IEDA will be responsible for day-to-day CDBG administration, including writing policy and procedures, awarding funds, contracting, processing expenditure requests, monitoring, close-outs, and quarterly reporting in DRGR. The team will include: Tim Waddell, Community Development Division Administrator, responsible for policy development and adherence; Leslie Leager, Division Coordinator, responsible for CDBG policy and regulatory research, approval of Requests for Release of Funds (as the environmental specialist), and quality control/assurance oversight; Peggy Russell, Disaster Recovery Team Leader, responsible for tracking and evaluating program/projects/outcomes and coordinating HUD and Office of Inspector General monitoring visits and audits; Tim Metz, responsible for contract coordination and tracking allocations; Khristy Smith, responsible for DRGR data entry and action plans, QPR submittals, closing contracts, and tracking audits; Joe Bohlke, responsible for managing infrastructure projects and acting as the CDBG procurement specialist; Ann Schmid, 25 I C' )WA® Director rhto am de lonment Community Development Divi- General Administration Division sion Administrator Administrator Tim Waddell Terry Roberson Policy Development Accountant Division Coordinator Team Leader—Disaster Recovery I{atie Caggiano Leslie Leager Peggy Russell CDBG Environmental Specialist Tracking&Evaluation ofProgram/ Quality ControllAssuronce Projects/Outcomes Contract&Compli- Disaster Infiasnucture Proj Mgr ance Manager Joe Bohlke Tim Metz CDBG Procurement Specialist Contracting Monitoring Legend for partner org charts Closeout Coordinator ester Housing Project Manager Directly responsible for GR Smith DRAnn Schmid program implementation DRGR/Audils CDBG Housing&Relocation (current staff) Specialist Monitoring Directly responsible for CDBG Project Mgr Dan Narber program implementation CDBG Davis Bacon Specialist (new hire) Disaster Watershed Proj Mgr Jeff Supporting role Geerts Green Structures Coordinator Monitoring Reimbursement Coordinator Hay- ley Crozier DOB Coordinator,Process Disaster Draws responsible for managing housing projects and serving as the CDBG acquisition and relocation specialist; Dan Narber, the CDBG Davis-Bacon Specialist; Jeff Geerts, responsible for managing watershed projects and serving as green infrastructure specialist; Haley Crozier, responsible for processing expenditure requests and completing the duplications of benefits (DOB)for awarded projects; and Katie Caggiano, Accountant, responsible for fiscal and internal audits. 26 Iowa IIHR.-Hydrosdence&Engineering Flood Director L.Weber W�Center Iowa Flood Center Research Engineers/ Administration&Research Support Director W.Krajewski Scientists,Faculty Affiliates Dir.of Engineering Dir.ofDev.& Outreach Coordinator Environmental Hydraulics(13) Services Comm. B.Zimmerman Fluid Dynamics(16) T.Lyons C.Langel 25 Engineers Environmental Engineering(8) +9 staff +3 staff ......................................................................................... &Scientists Air&Water Resources(15) Dir.of Finances Dir.of Research Water Sustainability (8) &HR Computing T.Gaffey M.Wilson +3 staff +3 staff The Iowa Flood Center (IFC) of IIHR. Hydroscience & Engineering(IIHR),the University of Iowa: The IFC is managed under the auspices of IIHR. The Director of IIHR reports to the Dean of the College of Engineering, who reports to the UI Provost. The provost reports to the UI President, who reports to the Iowa Board of Regents. Dr. Larry Weber, UI Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, will lead all IFC activities. As Director of IIHR, Weber oversees and makes final decisions regarding IIHR's overall fiscal management, personnel, and vast facilities and equipment resources. He oversees management of the IFC and the Iowa Geological Survey, both organized under IIHR. In addition to 10 years of experience as IIHR Director, Weber has managed his own portfolio of sponsored projects totaling more than $50M over the past 20 years. He is the IFC's principle investigator for the Iowa Watersheds Project. Weber's extensive background in project management will be instrumental in making sure this project is successfully completed on time. Other key IFC personnel implementing this project will include: Drs. Antonio Arenas and Marcela Politano, Engineers, leading hydraulic analysis and modeling; Drs. Keith Schilling and Chris Jones, Geologists, leading nutrient monitoring and modeling; Dr. Ibrahim Demir, Engineer, leading informatics and online visualization; Mark Wilson, Principal Engineer, leading research computing for numerical modeling exercises; Teresa Gaffey, Director 27 of Finance and Human Resources, responsible for managing the programmatic budget; and Breanna Zimmerman, IFC Communications Coordinator, responsible for coordinating and communicating with WMAs. More than 10 additional BS- and MS-level engineers with expertise in river hydraulics, remote-sensing, numerical (computer)modeling, floodplain mapping, water quality, and informatics will help implement the program; many are certified floodplain managers. The City of Dubuque operates under the city manager form of government. Although multiple departments will be involved in program implementation,the primary departments responsible for project management will be Housing& Community Development(H&CD) and Engineering. When grant funds are issued, the city will hire several new staff members who will work under the direction of Housing Director Alvin Nash: a new Resiliency Supervisor, a Resiliency THE CITY OF DUB �.., City Manager Masterpiece on the Mississippi Mike Van Milligen 23 additional City Housing Director City Engineer Gus departments Alvin Nash Psihoyos nSustainablemmunity HousingTnspec- Resiliency Civil Engineer Il ator [ions,Lead& Supervisor (Storm,Sanitary) bach Healthy Homes (8 Deron Muehring staff) Resiliency Resiliency Engineering Bee Branch Coromunica- g g Community Devel- Assistant Inspectors(2) Technicians& tions Specialist tY Kristin Hill opment Specialist Inspectors(6) Erica Haugen Home Public Health Specialist (8 staff) Advocate Environmental Mary Rose Corrigan Engineer Rehabilitation Pro- Denise Thrig Community Engagement gram(4 staff) Coordinator Project Manager Nikola Pavelic Assisted Housing Administrative Steve Brown Program(8 staff) Staff(3) Circles Program Engineers,Inspec- (3 staff) tors,Technicians (17) Assistant, two Resiliency Inspectors, and a Home Advocate. Director Nash currently oversees 28 expansive inspection, rehabilitation, assisted housing, family self-sufficiency, urban revitalization, and financing programs, all of which were involved in Dubuque's recovery from previous floods. H&CD directors, inspectors, and support staff will work collaboratively with the new Resiliency Division. The Resiliency Supervisor will manage Dubuque's relationship with IEDA and act as Dubuque's program manager. The Assistant and Inspectors will coordinate to identify and inspect impacted homes, manage contractor implementation of work, and report on outcomes of the program. The Home Advocate will serve as liaison to the community and complete community education and outreach for resilient homes and neighborhoods. The H&CD Community Development Specialist and Rehabilitation Programs Inspector will support the new staff. The Engineering Department is staffed by more than 30 people, including seven licensed Professional Engineers. In Fiscal Year 2015, the department administered $53M in capital improvements for the planning, design, and construction of streets, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and other public improvements. The department has a long history of working with local, state, and federal agencies on permitting and funding. More recently,the department administered state and federal funding, including federal CDBG, Federal Highway Administration, EPA SRF, and TIGER programs. In addition to these departments, the following positions will be part of Dubuque's management structure: a Bee Branch Communications Specialist who will integrate the program's resiliency outreach into neighborhood-wide educational programs and engagement, including outreach to neighborhood associations, schools, and businesses; a Sustainable Community Coordinator who will lead Dubuque's climate adaptation and resiliency work, provide technical expertise, and integrate the program into the development of Dubuque's climate adaptation plan; a Community Engagement Coordinator who will assist in developing plans to engage residents in sustainable living education, targeting 29 vulnerable or traditionally unengaged populations, and developing partnerships with nonprofit and religious service providers; and a Public Health Specialist who will monitor the health outcomes in the impacted area, serve as liaison to the health care community, and provide health oversight and education. Homeland Security and Emergencv Management: HSEMD Director Mark Schouten reports 0MVLAND SF c�� Iowa Homeland Security Advisor o Mark Schouten,Director Recovery Division Administrator �R�NCY M`r's Pat Hall Public Assistance Hazard Mitigation Grants Manager Legislative Liaison Program Manager, Program Manager Infmstmcture Pro- Dennis Harper ject Officers(S) NDRC Technical Resource Manager Jessica Turba Planning(5) GIS(5) Hazard Mitigation Infmstmcture Flood Mifigation Watershed Public Project Officers(5) Project Officers Program Officers Technical Information (s) (z) snpport(I) officers(z) directly to the Governor. Schouten will lead the strategic decision-making process regarding the implementation of tasks assigned to HSEMD under the IWA, with support from the department's Legislative Liaison (John Benson), Disaster Recovery Administrator (Pat Hall), and supporting Bureau Chiefs for Recovery Operations (Aimee Bartlett), Hazard Mitigation(Dennis Harper), and Public Assistance (Katie Waters). The functional tasks associated with the IWA will be accomplished through the daily activities of Public Information Officers, Hazard Mitigation Project Officers, Infrastructure Project Officers, Geographic Information Technology Specialists, Watershed Analysts, and Hazard Mitigation and Disaster Recovery planners. HSEMD maintains these positions for Hazard Mitigation and Disaster Recovery work, and they will be available to 30 carry out resiliency program activities. The staff managing disaster recovery and hazard mitigation programs have decades of experience working with communities, developing projects, and monitoring project outcomes. Legend HUD —)► Funding I� Management Team Collaborative Entities CEA HSEMD IEDA UI IFC CAPs City of Dubuque Cities and Counties (on behalf of Watershed Management Authorities) U N I ISU Contractors TPc EXT IWC INRC Contractors DNR/IDALS/ Agencies Eng. Firms/ NGO/ Grant CAPs: Community Action Programs Technology Administrator Planning CEA: Center for Evaluation and Assessment Assistants Consultants EXT: ISU Extension and Outreach INRC: Iowa Nutrient Research Center IWC: Iowa Water Center TPC: UNI Tallgrass Prairie Center Program Management: The management organizational chart demonstrates the structure of the Iowa Watersheds Approach management team (in green) and the flow of funds (arrows). IEDA will lead and oversee all aspects of the IWA program, ensure its timely and successful completion, monitor CDBG compliance in all areas, and make all final financial decisions. The IFC and the City of Dubuque, based on their technical expertise and stakeholder connections, will lead technical and programmatic implementation. HSEMD will provide technical support in HUD 31 programmatic implementation and coordinate disaster preparedness and hazard mitigation activities. In the rural watersheds, the WMAs will make project selection and siting decisions, based on the required criteria (See Phase II, Soundness of Approach, Program 1), and make recommendations to IEDA for contract funding for project design and construction. A WMA Advisory Board will provide technical guidance and assistance to the WMAs and advise the program management team on challenges and strategies. Each WMA will procure a COG(Council of Government)or other qualified grant administrator to oversee local distribution of CDBG funds and ensure compliance with CDBG regulations. References IEDA Dubu ue Amanda Plunkett Shannon Steinhauer RN BSN 326 Briar ate Dr. 451 7th Street SW, Room 8236 Lebanon, OH 45036 Washington, DC 20410 513-255-4209 202-402-6885 Amanda.b.nlunkeL4L&:tnail.com Shannon.E.Steinbauer@hud.gov IEDA and IFC HSEMD Lora Friest Scott Sanders, City Manager 101 E. Greene St. 400 Robert D. Ray Dr. Postville, IA 52162 Des Moines, IA 50309 563-864-7112 515-283-4507 Lora.friestAnortheastiowarcd/org sesanders dm ov.or 32 Exhibit A Executive Summary State of Iowa Iowa PhaseII_Executive Summary.pdf Executive Summary: The Iowa Watershed Approach Driving across Iowa in high summer offers a lovely vista mile after mile of lush green rolling hills and flatlands, with tidy fields of corn and soybeans stretching toward the horizon. This beautiful landscape is home to some of the most fertile and productive land in the world, supporting an agriculture industry whose production levels are unmatched worldwide. But Iowa's modern agriculture landscape has altered the movement of water within the state's watersheds and reduced the land's natural resiliency, which impacts peak water flows, flooding, and water quality, especially during extreme weather events. Before the first plow turned over Iowa's grassland, the tall grass prairie, with its deep root systems, stabilized the thick black topsoil. These roots held water like a sponge, slowing runoff. Today, Iowa's hydrology has been altered. Where the land once had natural resilience to storm events, the soil now erodes more easily during heavy rainfall events. As a result of landscape changes, waterways move water more quickly, which heightens flooding risks. Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous),too, move through the waterways, especially during flood events, unintentionally affecting water quality and drinking water supplies, recreation, tourism, and biotic diversity. From 2011-2013, Iowa suffered eight Presidential Disaster Declarations, encompassing 73 counties and more than 70% of the state. In July 2011, more than 200 homes in Dubuque's Bee Branch neighborhood sustained severe flood damage. In 2013, hundreds of Storm Lake homes flooded. Dangerous untreated sewage backed up into homes and the nearby lake. In June 2013, two heavy rain events washed out roads across Benton County, reducing residents' access to emergency services and causing $5M in infrastructure damage;the same storm resulted in 2.5-5 tons of soil loss per acre in Tama County. Devastating as these events were, 2011-2013 do not represent Iowa's worst flood years. Long-term data show that heavy precipitation and flooding events are increasing in frequency 1 across the Midwest, and models predict this trend will continue in the future. Under these circumstances, a new paradigm for flood resilience is needed one that decreases flood risk, improves water quality, and increases resilience. The Iowa Watershed Approach (IWA) is, at its core, a watershed-scale program based on a holistic approach recognizing that: 1)heavy precipitation and flooding events are increasing in frequency; 2) upstream activities impact downstream communities; 3) upstream and downstream communities need to voluntarily work together; 4) when possible, flooding should be addressed at its source, using science-based, reasonable, cost-effective practices; 5) improving community resilience to floods requires risk mitigation and community-directed initiatives and planning; and 6)program strategies must also respect, protect, and sustain Iowa's valuable agricultural economy, which provides food, fuel, and fiber for the world and sustains family incomes for many Iowans. The State of Iowa proposes a program through which Iowans will work together to address factors that contribute to floods. This approach is consistent with other statewide programs in Iowa to reduce flooding and improve water quality, such as the Iowa Flood Mitigation Program and the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. We will improve quality of life and health through upstream watershed investments tied to community resilience programming activities. This will result in a state-of-the-art adaptive model to make Iowa's vulnerable populations more resilient to changing flood hazard conditions, today and for the next century. The IWA will accomplish six specific goals: 1) reduce flood risk; 2) improve water quality; 3) increase resilience; 4) engage stakeholders through collaboration and outreach/education; 5) improve quality of life and health, especially for vulnerable populations; and 6) develop a program that is scalable and replicable throughout the Midwest and the United States. Nine distinct watersheds representing different Iowa landforms will serve as project sites for the IWA. Each will form a Watershed Management Authority, develop a hydrologic assessment 2 and watershed plan, and implement projects in the upper watershed to reduce the magnitude of downstream flooding and to improve water quality during and after flood events. Landowners will pay 25% of the construction cost for projects on their land, further demonstrating their commitment to land stewardship, the environment, and their downstream neighbors. Dubuque is well into its own IWA initiative within the context of an urban watershed impacted by devastating floods (six flood-related Presidential Disaster Declarations from 1999- 2011). The city's Bee Branch Creek was enclosed as a storm sewer more than a century ago. The confined system was too small, moved water too quickly, and did not filter out nutrients or allow water to infiltrate the ground. Dubuque recently daylighted the creek, returning it to a more natural state. The city now proposes an infrastructure project and the Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency Program to repair flood damaged homes and make them more resilient to floods. The IWA will also help communities prepare for, respond to, recover from, and adapt to floods. This program will assess resilience in the targeted watersheds, engage communities in discussions about their unique resilience needs, and help communities formulate and begin to act on resilience action plans. Formative and summative assessments will guide programmatic improvements, as well as monitor and encourage participation by under-represented groups. The IWA represents a vision for Iowa's future a future that voluntarily engages stakeholders throughout the watershed to achieve common goals, while moving toward a more resilient state. It is a replicable model for other communities where the landscape has lost its natural resilience to floods. Although the IWA targets watersheds impacted by floods from 2011-2013, the impacts will ripple downstream from Iowa to the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico. This program is not only about Iowans helping Iowans, but also about demonstrating Iowans' commitment to agricultural stewardship, to the environment, to their neighbors, and to the future. 3 Exhibit F Leverage State of Iowa Iowa PhaseII_Leverage.pdf Leverage Iowa's application includes $42,114,051 in direct and $158,309,984 in supporting leverage. Watershed Direct Supporting Use Letter All Rural $15,876,250 Projects State of Iowa Bee Branch $800,000 H. Homes City of Dubuque Bee Branch $21,600,000 $37,719,000 Infrast. City of Dubuque/Iowa DNR Bee Branch $400,000 H. Homes City of Dubuque Bee Branch $100,000 H. Homes City of Dubuque Bee Branch $1,447,000 Infrast. Iowa DNR All Rural $1,0001000 Planning Iowa Flood Center/IIHR All Rural $3,620,000 Planning Iowa Natural Heritage Fndn All Rural $67,951 Planning Iowa Farm Bureau All Rural $112,500 Planning Iowa Corn Upper Iowa $51,595 Projects Ia Dept. of Ag and Land Stewardship U. Wa si $300,000 Infrast. Iowa DNR M. Cedar $586,859 Infrast. Iowa DNR M. Cedar $350,000 wetland Iowa DNR M. Cedar $62,955,894 Infrast. Cities of Cedar Rapids + Cedar Falls M. Cedar $2,020,938 Projects City of Cedar Rapids M. Cedar $286,235 Projects Iowa Soybean Association 113 M. Cedar $77,500 Projects Iowa Agricultural Water Alliance M. Cedar $526,755 Projects Ia Dept. of Ag and Land Stewardship Cedar $436,690 Projects Iowa Soybean Association M. Cedar $155,000 Projects Iowa Soybean Association M. Cedar $83,563 Projects The Nature Conservancy English $100,000 Infrast. Iowa DNR N. Raccoon $82,000 Infrast. Iowa DNR N. Raccoon $26,049,743 Infrast. City of Des Moines N. Raccoon $2,158,250 $883,060 Infrast. City of Storm Lake N. Raccoon $713,000 Outreach Iowa Soybean Association N. Raccoon $500,000 Projects Antares Group, Inc. N. Raccoon $34,500 Projects _Iowa Agricultural Water Alliance N. Raccoon $238,000 Projects Ia Dept. of Ag and Land Stewardship C. Creek $125,000 Park Iowa DNR C. Creek $611,600 $17,482,801 Infrast. Cities of Iowa Cit + Coralville E. Nish $71,078 Wetlands Iowa DNR W. Nish $46,430 Wetlands Iowa DNR W. Nish $109,966 Infrast. Iowa DNR Other $644,877 Projects Ia Dept. of Ag and Land Stewardship TOTAL $42,114,051 $158,309,984 114 Exhibit D Need/Extent of the Problem State of Iowa Iowa PhaseII Need-Extent.pdf Need/Extent of the Problem a. Unmet Recovery Needs and Target Geography Environmental MID-URN from 2011-2013 impact 24 of Iowa's 99 counties, reflecting Iowa's primary land use agriculture. The scattered distribution of environmental MID-URN areas is reflective of 2011-2013 storm patterns. Most of Iowa is vulnerable to, and has suffered from, significant soil loss and water-quality degradation from major(and even moderate)flood events in recent history. As noted in Phase I and Phase II Threshold and Phase I Need, much of Iowa's most impacted and distressed rural areas suffer from environmental damages caused by soil erosion and transport during floods. In 2013, storms in Tama County, for example, resulted in an estimated loss of 2.5-5.0 tons of soil per acre. This exceeds any conceivable sustainable annual soil loss and poses a threat to Iowa's economy and environment. This unmet recovery need distribution and extent as related to soil loss described in Phase I is unchanged, other than additional added areas (Phase II, Threshold). These areas continue to experience irreplaceable soil loss during high flow events. This also harms water quality in MID-URN areas and downstream. As also described in Phase I, much of Iowa's rural MID-URN areas also suffer environmental degradation from impaired water quality. This also remains unchanged, other than added areas (Phase II, Threshold); it poses a threat to the environment, city drinking water, recreation, and tourism. If unchecked, water quality will continue to degrade, especially during high flow events. The Iowa Watersheds Approach (IWA) area served is narrowed to nine watersheds, including one in Dubuque (Attachment E, Map 1 and Attachment F, Census Tract List). Rural watersheds and counties include: West Nishnabotna(Mills, Fremont): East Nishnabotna (Fremont): North Raccoon (Buena Vista, Pocahontas); Middle Cedar(Tama, Benton); Clear 33 Creek(Iowa, Johnson); English (Iowa); Upper Wapsipinicon (Buchanan, Delaware); and the Upper Iowa(Allamakee, Winneshiek). The IWA addresses needs by reducing future flood damage through implementation of projects to increase the land's flood resilience. IWA will significantly reduce water flow (decreasing soil loss and infrastructure damage) and water-quality degradation during high flow events. Leverage funds include 25% of construction costs (direct leverage)from all landowners and complementary projects (supporting leverage)to reduce flow, improve water quality, and protect resources. Community programming will focus on increasing local flood resilience. The IWA will impact environmental, economic, and resilience needs at many levels. Built projects will benefit the area(local benefit to MID-URIC through: the retention of soil and nutrients, which benefits the landowner economically (greater yields, reduced nutrient application costs); recreational benefits (e.g., cleaner water for swimming or fishing); and environmental benefits (e.g., habitat formation, reduced erosion). The hydrologic assessments and watershed plans will provide a vision for the larger (multi-county)watersheds. Projects will collectively benefit the region by: reducing peak streamflow, which lessens environmental damage (streambank erosion) and infrastructure damage; improving water quality (e.g., for drinking water, recreational use); improving quality of life; bolstering economies (tourism activities —fishing, swimming, boating); preserving Iowa's agricultural foundation; and retaining businesses that might otherwise be damaged by floodwaters. These benefits will propagate beyond Iowa, impacting major waterways south to the Gulf of Mexico and its hypoxia zone. The health of Iowa's agricultural resources impacts markets globally; Iowa ranks second nationally in the export of agricultural commodities, with about $11.313 in exports in 2012. Direct leverage from the Iowa Flood Center($1M) will support watershed data collection, monitoring, and modeling. Direct support from the Iowa Farm Bureau will support outreach 34 dissemination in the target watersheds. Many collaborators have offered supporting leverage representing complementary projects, outreach, and infrastructure (Phase II, Leverage). Infrastructure MID-URN from 2011-2013. The IWA includes projects to address significant unmet infrastructure needs in Dubuque, Coralville, and Storm Lake. The City of Dubuque experienced severe flooding in July 2011, causing substantial damage, especially in the historic Bee Branch Creek Watershed. The Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency Program (BBHHRP) addresses unmet recovery needs identified in Phase 1 (Attachment E, Map 2). Dubuque's 2014 windshield survey identified 23 units with damage from 2011. Few, if any, efforts have been made to make the homes more flood resilient. hi 2015, 24 inspections and interviews confirmed homes damaged by the 2011 flood. The BBHHRP is aligned with the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Project. Census tracts 1, 4, 5, 6, and 11.02 qualify as LMI (Attachment E, Map 2). The target area includes the area's most affordable housing. Direct leverage includes $800K for a Lead & Healthy Homes project. Supporting leverage ($500K) will fund micro-lending and first-time homeowners. Dubuque's unmet infrastructure needs include three storm water management projects to safely convey water. About 900 homes remain at risk for future flooding until these projects are complete. Dubuque will leverage $21.6M in direct funds for the three infrastructure projects and $39M in supporting leverage for other watershed improvements. A Storm Lake infrastructure project will help to address MID-URN in an LMI area flooded in 2011 and 2013. Flash flooding severely damaged its storm water system; water and sewage backed up into homes and were released into the environment, causing a health hazard and environmental degradation. Storm Lake commits $2,158,250 in direct leverage toward upgrading its storm sewer system. Upstream watershed projects in Outlet Creek will complement these activities and further reduce flooding in Storm Lake. 35 Coralville has also seen repeated flooding(including 2013) in the MID-URN area. Modifications to two storm water pump stations (the weak links in a new flood protection system) are the final step to protect more than 178 acres of businesses and multi-family residences in a vulnerable LMI area. Coralville commits $611,600 in direct leverage for project implementation. b. Resilience Needs Within Recovery Needs Based on soil loss estimates by an ISU agronomy professor(BCA narrative), the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship estimates it would cost more than $69.78M to repair environmental degradation related to soil loss caused by qualifying disasters in all the MID-URN areas in the target watersheds. IWA projects would have drastically reduced soil erosion and introduction of soil (and nutrients) into surface water. The MID-URN areas in the target rural watersheds comprise about 90 HUC 12 watersheds out of about 1,660 statewide. The IWA proposes activities in 40. Inclusion of the remaining 50 in the target MID-URN areas would require an additional $82.7M in design and construction costs (including cost sharing); about $2.413 would be needed to implement the IWA in the rest of Iowa. Except for the 2011 Missouri River flood, Iowa flood victims did not qualify for federal individual property damage assistance during this period. The Iowa Individual Assistance Grant Program, which allocates up to $5K to individuals making less than 200% of the federal poverty level, provided the following assistance in target county areas in 2013: Johnson, $31,500; Allamakee and Winneshiek, $164,000; Buchanan, $40,700; and Buena Vista(primarily Storm Lake), $222,700. Infrastructure damage in the target watersheds from the qualifying events included: $2.75M in the Upper Iowa; $4.95M in the Middle Cedar; and $5.6M in the North Raccoon. Several hundred homes in Storm Lake (unofficial sources indicate up to 1,500) and 200 homes in Bee 36 Branch Creek reported damage. All of these areas would have experienced reduced flooding and thus reduced infrastructure damage if the watersheds projects had been in place to retain water. Infrastructure damage in Buena Vista County could have been substantially avoided with the combination of watershed projects and improvements to Storm Lake's storm sewer system. Crop-loss data are readily available for two areas impacted by flooding in 2011. The Iowa Farm Bureau estimated $52.2M in crop loss in Fremont County(E. Nishnabotna) and $22.2M in Mills County(W. Nishnabotna). Vulnerable populations in Iowa, including minorities (8.5%), elderly(18.4%), disabled (11.4%), and those in poverty(12.4%), are often disproportionately affected by floods. Flood impacts on vulnerable populations may include loss of affordable housing, loss of work, strained food budgets, mental and physical health impacts, and transportation difficulties. Dubuque's Bee Branch flood-prone MID-URN area includes census tracts 1, 4, 5, 6, and 11.02, representing about 35% of Dubuque's population. About 60% of residents are renters. The city's main method of providing affordable housing for qualifying residents is the Housing Choice Voucher Program. Participants may use vouchers anywhere in Dubuque; however, usage is concentrated in the target area(Attachment E, Map 3). Dubuque has small but concentrated non-English speaking and minority populations. According to American Community Survey (ACS) estimates, 3% of Dubuque residents are non-English speaking. Of these, 27%reside in the flood-prone area. In 2015, Dubuque completed an Analysis of Impediments to fair housing. HUD considers a subarea of a micropolitan impacted if its proportion of residents of color (non- Hispanic White) exceeds 50%. No Dubuque block groups (BG) qualify. Another benchmark pertains to the percentage of residents in poverty. For micropolitan areas, this is either 40%, or a benchmark three times the average tract poverty level of the jurisdiction. HUD defines an area a Racial/Ethnic Concentrated Area of Poverty (R/E-CAP) if it exceeds benchmark values for race 37 and poverty. Using ACS five-year (2008-2012) estimates, the average BG poverty rate was 12.58%, yielding a benchmark poverty concentration ratio of 37.7. Again, no Dubuque BG qualifies as R/E-CAP; however the 40%racial benchmark is too high for an eastern-central plains micropolitan area. Using 20%, two BGs cross thresholds for poverty and racial concentration: Tract 5- BG 4 has an estimated R/E concentration of 36.4% and a below-poverty level percent of 51.4%. Track 1 BG 1 has corresponding values of 23.7 R/E and 43.7% (Attachment E, Map 4). This is where the most vulnerable populations live, and the areas most impacted by 2011 flooding. The Bee Branch flood mitigation project will protect nearly 1,400 flood-prone homes and businesses and prevent an estimated $582M in damage over its 100-year life. This does not include environmental, health, and other difficult-to-quantify benefits (see BCA Narrative). The ACS reports that the median household income in the North Raccoon River Watershed MID-URN area is $47,589, compared to $51,843 in Iowa(2009-2013). Storm Lake has a meat packing industry and higher minority(non-white) and Hispanic populations than the rest of Iowa. In the MID-URN area, 22.4% of residents identify as Hispanic (32% in Tracts 9604 and 9605) compared to 5.1% in Iowa, and 18.6%non-white compared to 8.5% statewide. Vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, were most impacted during DR-4126 as they struggled to find help removing damaged materials from their homes. The MID-URN areas of the Upper Iowa River Watershed have a median household income of$56,910. This includes L/M income areas of Allamakee County(Tract 9602), where 10.4% of the population is in poverty and the unemployment rate is higher than in neighboring areas. In 2013, homeowners faced water in their basements caused by flash flooding on saturated soils. According to community action agency partners, low income homeowners experienced a gap in resources. Many do not live in the floodplain and are not eligible for flood insurance. Like many 38 rural LMI areas in Iowa, Allamakee County is facing declining population and loss of or lack of employers. Households with mobility have relocated; those unable to relocate remain. The median annual household income in MID-URN areas of the Upper Wapsipinicon River Watershed in Buchanan and Delaware counties is $61,377. The median annual household income in MID-URN areas of the Middle Cedar River Watershed in Benton and Tama counties is $56,904. Tract 9604 in Benton County includes a higher population of disabled persons (18.4%)with the presence of a special needs facility. The median annual household income in MID-URN areas of the English River Watershed in Iowa County is $61,830. The MID-URN area served by the Clear Creek Watershed project in Johnson and Iowa counties has 55.3% UM income, but is not entirely residential. The Coralville infrastructure protects a qualifying LMI area(54.49%), with demographics as follows [average income/ minority(non-white) percentage]: Tract 2: $39,583 /24.2%; Tract 4: $40,381 /33.2%; Tract 5: $50,420/ 17.7%; Tract 23: $44,300/ 12.6%, as compared to $53,424/ 14.4% countywide. The median annual household income in MID-URN areas of the East Nishnabotna River Watershed in Fremont County is $55,476. The median annual household income in MID-URN areas of the West Nishnabotna River Watershed in Fremont and Mills counties is $54,250. The disabled population (17.3%) is larger than the state average (11.4%). One identified area served (Tract 401, BG 1) in Mills County includes 53.66% UM income. c. Appropriate Approaches Flooding is the most significant and costly hazard facing Iowa. From 1960-2009, flood events were responsible for more than $12B in losses. Disaster recovery efforts must include programs within and across watersheds to reduce flood impacts and support engagement activities to make communities more resilient. Four lines of evidence demonstrate the appropriateness of the Iowa Watershed Approach: 1) increasing trends in precipitation and 39 flooding; 2)the success of the current Iowa Watersheds Project and Bee Branch activities; 3) past evidence of success using upstream projects to decrease downstream flooding; and 4) community-led development of resilience strategies. Precipitation and flooding trends: The central United States is experiencing a marked increase in the frequency of heavy precipitation and flood events. University of Iowa(UI) researchers analyzed data from 774 USGS stream gauges and found an increasing trend in flood frequency during the past 50 years, especially through a wide geographic tract from N. Dakota and S. Dakota down through Iowa and Missouri and east to Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio (Mallakpour, I., and G. Villarim, "The changing nature of flooding across the central United States,"Nature Climate Change, 5, 250-254, 2015). This study also demonstrated a similar increase in the frequency of heavy rainfall days and in temperature data across the same region. Scientists at Iowa State University's (ISU) Climate Science Program, who have been examining precipitation and flooding trends across Iowa for decades, have reached similar conclusions. Research at UI, ISU, and other institutions is underway to develop and analyze new models incorporating recent trends into future scenarios. The models consistently demonstrate a continued upward trend in extreme precipitation and flood events in Iowa. This means that the probability of a 100-year flood occurring in Dubuque, for example, is now more than 1% each year. In the face of changing precipitation patterns and Iowa's fragile and heavily-managed landscape, reducing flood risk requires complementary approaches that improve infrastructure resilience and counteract the impacts of intensive land use and changing precipitation patterns. Current Iowa Watersheds Project and Bee Branch Activities: The proposed Iowa Watersheds Approach mirrors the Iowa Watersheds Project(IWP). The IWP is successful because it: engages a wide range of stakeholders; follows a logical progression; and results in a suite of projects 40 proven to reduce flow and improve water quality. The hydrologic models used to assess each watershed and develop watershed plans can be updated over time through adjustment of precipitation and flooding patterns as observed or expected. This may result in adjustments to selection, siting, and size of future watershed projects. Dubuque's approach also considers the entire watershed and the latest climate data. The city participated in Iowa's risk and vulnerability assessment to identify optimal programs and projects to improve disaster recovery and resilience in its distressed areas. These sources framed the development of the Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency Program and led the city to develop a watershed approach targeting infrastructure improvements and resiliency programs for at-risk residents. Evidence of past success: The IWA's success can be assessed by studying a more mature project the Soap Creek Watershed in Southeast Iowa. Stakeholders there have been working together since 1985 to reduce flood damage to farmland and roads. They developed a watershed plan and, over 30 years, built 132 water retention basins. IFC models show a 28%reduction in streamflow at the watershed outlet, with even greater localized reductions. IFC hydrologists estimate these structures also reduced downstream sediment and nutrient delivery by 20-25%. The Soap Creek WMA claims $892K/year reduction in agricultural flood damage and $155,800/year reduction in non-agricultural flood damage. Programming to Increase Resilience: Community resilience engagement activities will help communities prepare for, plan for, respond to, recover from, and adapt to floods. This program is appropriate because: 1) local stakeholders will determine and startto address their own unique resilience needs; 2) an evaluation component will continually evaluate needs and impacts to guide programming; 3) communities will have access to the latest scientific data; and 4) programs will engage many partners, including Watershed Management Authorities, Emergency Management Coordinators, Community Action Programs, and others. 41 Exhibit G Regional Coordination and Long-term Commitment State of Iowa Iowa PhaseII RegionalCoord-Commitment.pdf Regional Coordination and Long-term Commitment Iowa is on a path of discovery and forward-thinking research, programs, and actions related to flood research, mitigation, and resilience. The IWA will build on existing flood-related programs, helping to establish a new chapter in the way Iowa considers and prioritizes science- based strategies to address water-quantity and -quality issues. Lessons Learned (Subfactor: general): The Iowa Watersheds Approach (IWA). Lawmakers recently established the Iowa Flood Center (IFC) at the University of Iowa as the nation's first center devoted solely to flood-related research and education. The state funds the IFC at $1.5M/year. Early IFC successes include: more than doubling the number of stream-stage sensors in the state; developing an easy-to-use online visualization platform for monitoring precipitation and flooding in real time; updating floodplain maps for most of the state using high- resolution LiDAR data(complete in 2016); and developing flood inundation maps for many vulnerable river communities. IFC's success is due in large part to collaborations with the Iowa DNR, Iowa DOT, Iowa Economic Development Authority, U.S. Geological Survey, National Weather Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and many communities, counties, and NGOs. In 2010, using $8.8M from a HUD Disaster Recovery Enhancement Fund award, Iowa initiated the Iowa Watersheds Project(see Phase II, Capacity)under the IFC as a means of reducing flood risk, reducing soil erosion, and improving water quality. The IWA builds on the experiences and success of the Iowa Watersheds Project and will increase the number of participating watersheds from three to twelve. At the conclusion of this program, all participating watersheds will have a vision for prioritizing future projects. Raising Standards (Subfactor: resilience actions): Watershed Management Authorities (WMA): In 2010, Iowa passed legislation authorizing the creation of WMAs as a mechanism for cities, counties, Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs), and other stakeholders to 115 engage in cooperative watershed planning and management, especially as related to decreasing flooding and improving water quality. The IDNR helps WMAs through formation and with other assistance. Over the past three years, the IDNR has provided $500K in direct financial assistance to help WMAs develop comprehensive watershed management plans. IDNR staff members also help develop proposals, interpret data, give presentations, and offer GIS and mapping services. Raising Standards (Subfactor: resilience actions): The Iowa Flood Mitigation Board. The Iowa General Assembly created the Flood Mitigation Board, and Governor Branstad signed it into law in 2012. The board is charged with creating a Flood Mitigation Program for Iowa. This program allows certain governmental entities to submit flood mitigation projects to the board for review and possible funding. To date, Iowa has allocated$660M to the Iowa Flood Mitigation Board for flood mitigation activities across Iowa. Lessons Learned, Subfactor: General (Improving Knowledge Base). The IFC and Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)began updating 100- and 500-year floodplain boundaries throughout Iowa in 2010. In many counties,these data are being used to create new Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS)for use with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In areas where FEMA does not have capacity to review and adopt the data, the IDNR and other stakeholders are using floodplain boundaries for management and planning. The IFC and the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation have also used the statewide floodplain mapping data to develop a series of enhanced data products, including one-meter-resolution depth grids for the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, 100-, 200-, and 500-year floodplains and floodplain scour data. These data better demonstrate and communicate risk, helping communities and property owners make informed land-management and disaster response decisions. Raising Standards: All Iowa communities that participate in the NFIP observe the state standard of the 100-year water surface elevation plus one foot. Several communities in the target 116 watersheds have adopted higher requirements. In the Upper Wapsipinicon, Black Hawk County adopted an additional three foot freeboard requirement; the city of Independence also has a three foot freeboard requirement. In the Middle Cedar, Cedar Falls requires that all development must be above, or protected to, the 500-year flood. Palo and La Porte Cities have a two foot freeboard requirement. In Clear Creek, Coralville has a one foot above the 500-year flood elevation. Resilience Actions: Four of the target watersheds have new planning documents to better prepare for future flooding. The Middle Cedar, North Raccoon, and East and West Nishnabotna Watersheds all finished the drafts or final versions of their"Flood Risk Reports" in 2015. These reports provides non-regulatory information to help local or tribal officials, floodplain managers, planners, emergency managers, and others better understand their flood risk, take steps to mitigate risks, and communicate those risks. Resilience Actions: Iowa is one of only 12 states with a FEMA-approved Enhanced State Mitigation Plan, demonstrating that Iowa has developed a comprehensive state-wide mitigation program and is capable of managing increased funding to achieve mitigation goals (see Consistency with other Documents, Attachment D, Consultation Summary, D-122 to D-124). Resilience Actions Related to Financing and Economic Issues: Iowa Nutrient Research Center(INRC). Most areas in Iowa with environmental MID-URN from 2011-2013 experienced water-quality degradation. Iowa finalized its Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy in 2013. Iowa also passed new legislation that year forming a new Iowa Nutrient Research Center(INRC). The state funds the INRC at 1.3M/year to evaluate the performance of current and emerging nutrient management practices. In addition to applied research projects, INRC supports the operation of a real-time continuous water-quality monitoring network and online information system to distribute nutrient data to the general public, producers, and agencies. This network and information system ensures that programmatic funding invested in conservation practices in 117 Iowa will measurably benefit water-quality improvement. INRC research will inform IWA projects to maximize their benefits to water-quality issues, especially during storm events. Raising Standards (Subfactor: resilience actions): The Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. The Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy (INRS), developed in 2013 as a science-based approach to nutrient management, further demonstrates Iowa's commitment to the improvement of water quality, especially in response to the Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan's goal of 45%reduction in riverine N and P load. State- and federally-funded projects are underway in nine priority watersheds. In 2015,the state allocated $9.6M to the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship for its Water Quality Initiative (WQI). This program offers cost-sharing to farmers trying new water-quality practices, continues work in priority watersheds to achieve water- quality improvements, and expands urban conservation efforts. Resilience Actions Related to Plan Updates or Alignment(Federal Highwav Administration's Climate Change Vulnerabilitv Assessment Program). The Iowa DOT participates in the FHWA's pilot program to assess and evaluate the vulnerability of six highway/bridge locations in central Iowa using 19 global climate change models. Iowa State University (ISU) led the research in partnership with the IFC. The models were used to simulate peak discharges using a hydrologic model that creates future flowrates for consideration of design guidelines or methodologies. Researchers conducted a detailed hydraulic analysis for the replacement of I-35 South Skunk River bridges and associated roadway to improve the interstate's resiliency to overtopping. Bridge updates to be constructed in 2016 will feature a design that increases resiliency to increasing patterns of extreme weather events. Other states recently expressed interest in working with the IDOT, ISU, and IFC to apply this methodology. Resilience Actions: Iowa is a leader in the production of renewable energy both wind energy and biofuels and the state has a long history of supporting innovation in clean energy 118 through a suite of state policies. For example, tax credits are available for eligible facilities that produce and/or sell wind energy. Iowa ranks 3`d in the U.S. in wind production; over 28% of the energy produced in Iowa comes from wind turbines. Iowa is also the nation's leading biofuels producer. In 2013 Dubuque adopted its 50%by 2030 Community Climate Action Plan, a strategic plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 50%from 2003 levels by 2030. In August 2015,the City Council adopted the creation of a citizen Resiliency Commission to provide oversight and guidance regarding resiliency planning as a top priority. Dubuque will also develop and begin implementation of a climate adaptation strategy by 2018. Lessons Learned (Subfactor: general): Citv of Dubuque. Dubuque is committed to a more resilient future and is putting in place infrastructure, policies, and funding mechanisms to meet these goals. This combination of policy and investment, informed by the development of the city's Drainage Basin Master Plan, disaster experiences, and data from the IFC, form the basis of Dubuque's watershed approach to flood management. Dubuque received $98M from the Iowa Flood Mitigation Board. This is part of the $200M committed to the Bee Branch Creek flood mitigation project, which will protect nearly 1,400 homes and businesses. It will prevent an estimated $582M in damage over its 100-year design life. Dubuque adopted policies and created funding streams to ensure that the project continues to protect homes and businesses. For example, a storm water detention policy prevents developments from creating new flooding problems. Property owners pay fees based on their property's impervious ground coverage area; these fees finance storm water management investments. Property owners who implement storm water best management practices are eligible for credits and incentives. Dubuque is part of the Catfish Creek WMA. The board adopted its Watershed Management Plan in 2014, a 20+year commitment focused on flood control structures, managing habitat, preserving and creating wetlands within the floodplain, managing natural green infrastructure, 119 and encouraging best agriculture practices. With SIAM from the State Revolving Fund, the WMA will implement streambank and riparian restoration on the South Fork of Catfish Creek to reduce total suspended solids by 2,186 tons/year, total phosphorous by 1,858 lbs/year, and total nitrogen by 3,716 lbs/year. The CCWMA also created a cost-share program for property owners to develop practices that focus on water quality/flood reduction on their land. Watershed planning is part of the Dubuque County Regional Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2013 as a policy document. Additional support through countywide storm water ordinances, developed in partnership with the Dubuque S WCD, further their work. Raising Standards: Citv of Dubuque. Dubuque has implemented improved and consistent design standards and specifications for infrastructure, including storm drainage and sanitary sewer systems. The Statewide Urban Design and Specification Standards (SUDAS), as adopted in 2014, provide engineers, developers, and contractors with tools to increase sustainability and strengthen infrastructure. The standards are subject to annual review and amended to reflect increased understanding of storm events and best practices. Raising Standards: Citv of Dubuque. In 2014, The Community Foundation of Greater Dubuque (CFGD)joined The Funders' Network Philanthropic Preparedness, Resiliency, & Emergency Partnership (PPREP). The group's purpose is to build community foundation leadership and capacity to create more resilient communities. The CFGD already prepared five disaster preparedness workbooks for Dubuque County and four affiliate counties. CFGD staff attended multiple events and learned alongside peer organizations about disaster preparedness and response. As a result of this work, CFGD's understanding, skill, and capacity have helped to position them to assist local communities as they prepare for, respond to, and recover from potential natural disasters. 120 Exhibit E - Soundness of Approach State of Iowa Iowa PhaseII_SoundnessOfApproach.pdf Soundness of Approach a. Soundness of Approach Description As a hybrid proposal (with both programs and projects),this section is organized as follows: 1)two programmatic descriptions the activities in the upper watersheds and community resilience programming; 2)programmatic assessment approach; and 3)project descriptions. Program 1: The Iowa Watershed Approach The Iowa Watershed Approach (IWA) will improve environmental and societal resilience and reduce downstream risk from major storm events through environmentally- and scientifically-sound projects in the upper watershed to increase infiltration and retain water. By addressing water-quantity and -quality issues upstream through cost-effective best practices, the IWA will realize environmental, social, and economic benefits at the project sites and downstream, including flood risk reduction for downstream housing and infrastructure projects. The IWA requires strong community support and dedicated stakeholders and landowners, because 99% of Iowa's land is privately owned. This program will help Iowa move toward its statewide goal of 30%reduction in streamflow and 45% surface-water nutrient load reduction. Specific goals are listed with each project description. In five years, Iowa will have a well- refined, replicable program, and all participating watersheds will have a long-term vision. Communities, infrastructure, and housing will be less vulnerable and more resilient to future storm events. Collaborators/Feasibility: Iowa has a rich field of partners and collaborators across the state with expertise in agriculture, land management and best management practices, soil science, water quality, sustainability, education and engagement, river hydraulics, climatology, program/project design and evaluation, and assessment. In addition to the IWA management organizations, project implementation will include the following in most watersheds (see also 42 Phase I, Capacity): Iowa State University(Iowa Water Center, Extension and Outreach, and Iowa Nutrient Research Center) and University ofNorthern Iowa (Tallgrass Prairie Center)for technical support, collection and analyses of data, development and distribution of educational materials, and other support; Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) for technical support, capacity-building, and project design, outreach, and leadership on WMA formation; Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship (IDALS) and National Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) for technical support, capacity-building, project design, and outreach; County Soil and Water Conservation Districts for technical support and outreach; and The Nature Conservancy, Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, Iowa Soybean Association, Iowa Farm Bureau, Iowa Agricultural Water Alliance, local Resource Conservation &Development offices, Iowa Department of Transportation, Iowa Association of Counties, and Silver Jackets Flood Risk Management Team for technical support and guidance to the WMAs. The University of Iowa Center for Evaluation and Assessment(CEA) will conduct a comprehensive formative and summative evaluation of the IWA for program improvement and to document outcomes (see page 18). CEA provides third-party evaluation, assessment, and other services. Since 1992, CEA has successfully completed more than 150 evaluations for many clients and sponsors, including FIPSE, NSF, NIH, NIMH, the U.S. Department of Education, and others. Program 1 includes eight specific programmatic components: 1. Watershed Selection: Six HUC 8 and two HUC 10 watersheds will participate in the IWA based on: 1)the location and extent of their MID-URN and LMI areas; 2) stakeholder commitment/engagement(see Attachment D and project details); 3)representation of Iowa's landforms (Attachment E, Map 5); and 4) other factors, such as watersheds prioritized by the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. Individual project descriptions include additional details for each watershed. 43 2. Formation of a Watershed Management Authoritv (WMA): Two or more eligible political subdivisions within a watershed can form a WMA through a Chapter 28E Agreement. WMA activities include: assessment and reduction of flood risk; assessment and improvement of water quality; flood risk planning and activities; educational activities; and allocation of funds for water quality and flood mitigation. The IDNR will guide WMA formation in each watershed. The WMAs are the nucleus of the IWA. They comprise stakeholders from throughout the watershed, offering a range of perspectives and experience to achieve common goals. WMAs will be responsible for their site and project selections. A WMA coordinator will be hired for each watershed to manage activities, schedule events, facilitate communication, and assist with engagement, resilience, and assessment activities (see Program 2). One county will serve as the subrecipient from IEDA on behalf of each WMA. That county will use a qualified grant administrator to subaward funds and monitor programs. The CEA will document flood risk planning activities and monitor WMA activities. It will also collaborate with WMA coordinators to observe events and activities and collect survey data from stakeholders. 3. Producer Engagement, Outreach, and Planning: Producer engagement is incorporated program-wide. Activities related to engineered projects will include, for example, public engagement events, site tours/field days, and public presentations at municipal and county meetings. A statewide WMA Advisory Board will be formed with at least one advisor from each WMA and representative(s)from Dubuque Bee Branch Creek. Collaborators will represent a wide range of expertise. The board will: review progress; strategize common challenges; make implementation recommendations; discuss long-term solutions for statewide flood peak reduction and water-quality improvements; and share resilience programming strategies and successes. The board will initially meet quarterly. An annual public symposium will share information and build support. 44 Three Iowa State University(ISU)units and their partners will develop and deliver programming to WMA stakeholders and producers in the target watersheds. ISUExtension and Outreach will deliver research-based information on practice effectiveness in target areas. Communication efforts will include fact sheets, broadcast interviews, videos, and interactive webinars. Farmer champions will facilitate farmer-to-farmer learning. Content creators will also draw upon the latest information from ISU's Climate Science Program. At ISU's Iowa Learning Farm (a partnership among ISU, IDALS, IDNR, and USDA-NRCS), farmers, schoolchildren, and others will learn about issues in each watershed. ISU will also develop a Watershed Academy to build capacity among the WMA coordinators to improve the effectiveness and repeatability of successful practices. Iowa Nutrient Research Center (see Phase II, Long-term Commitment)faculty will evaluate the effectiveness of stacking practices to reduce nutrient loss to surface water in the watersheds. ISU Extension and Outreach will distribute educational materials on these practices to producers in the target watersheds. The University of Northern Iowa's (UNI) Tallgrass Prairie Center has more than 25 years of experience in the beneficial use of native perennial vegetation. UNI will provide multiple layers of assistance to producers on the establishment and management of native vegetation across a range of agricultural practices. They will share scientifically-based information through workshops, print and online technical guides and videos, an online seed mix calculator, and consultation. Demonstration sites for teaching and learning will be the cornerstone of the effort. Simple, small-scale experiments and side-by-side contrasting practices will communicate basic principles that can be readily applied in many contexts and locations. Statewide partners include the Iowa State STRIPS Project,the Association for Integrated Roadside Management, Iowa Native Plant Society, NRCS, INRC, and the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture. 45 The CEA will monitor a sample of events in each watershed, as well as collaborator interactions and multimedia delivery of research-based material to producers and stakeholders. 4. Watershed Monitoring: IFC researchers will deploy stream-stage sensors and water-quality sensors in each target watershed. The sensors transmit data to the IFC at set intervals (generally every 10-15 minutes), which are automatically posted to a publically-available online visualization platform (see Program 2). Sensors will collect data for the duration of the program and beyond. Researchers will deploy additional sensors following selection of HUC 12 project sites to monitor results from individual or stacked practices. A hydrologic network with rain gauges, soil moisture and temperature probes, and shallow wells will also be deployed. 5. Hvdrologic Assessment: A hydrologic assessment of each watershed is necessary to understand the hydrology, assess flood and water-quality risks, and evaluate scenarios to maximize results. The selected watersheds represent Iowa's varied topography, soils, and land use. The data- and simulation-driven assessments include a review of the water cycle across each watershed and require a large amount of data from collaborators. The IFC will develop HEC- HMS hydrologic models for each basin and run simulations for each watershed. The draft hydrologic assessment will be presented to stakeholders for final public input, and its online availability will be widely promoted. The IFC will retain the original data and models so each plan can be updated to reflect land use and precipitation changes, new floodplain maps, etc. 6. Watershed Plan: The watershed plan includes an analysis of hypothetical scenarios to reduce downstream flow and improve water quality. It will incorporate stakeholder input and serve as a guide for the selection of sub-watersheds (HUC 12s) and project sites. The number of projects needed to reach water-quantity and -quality goals for each HUC 8 or HUC 10 is beyond the scope of this proposal. Instead, each plan will be a vision for the future of that watershed. The WMAs will use the plans to develop priorities, to support future funding requests to other 46 sponsors, and to monitor progress.Data and models will be retained so the plan can be adjusted in the future to accommodate changes in key parameters, such as shifting precipitation patterns. 7. Selection of Construction Projects and Project Design: WMAs will select several HUC 12s in each project watershed for implementation of projects. The location, type, and number of projects in each watershed will be based on the hydrological assessment, watershed plan, stakeholder input, and maximization of peak flow reductions and water-quality improvements in the MID-URN areas. Each WMA will select the sub-watershed and site locations for project construction based on at least these very specific criteria: 1)to maximize impact on MID-URN areas; 2)to maximize impact on vulnerable populations; 3)to collaborate with stakeholders/landowners willing to commit to a 25% cost share and a long-term (20-year) maintenance agreement; and 4)to work with landowners committed to other sustainable land use practices and BMPs to further the project goals. A local agency, NGO, or engineering firm will complete project designs. Multiple entities in Iowa have experience designing watershed projects to accepted standards. Each WMA's lead county will hire a grant administrator (e.g., Council of Government)to oversee the distribution of CDBG funds for project design and construction. The administrator will ensure CDBG program compliance, including clearance on environmental, cultural, and Section 106 reviews; public involvement; Davis-Bacon labor standards compliance; and procurement of services, advertisement, and administration of public bid letting. The administrator will also ensure financial records are maintained and work closely with IEDA to meet all HUD regulations. When ground disturbance is expected,the administrator will be responsible for delineating the Area of Potential Effects and using sufficient methods to identify potential cultural resources, including archaeological sites. He or she will present findings to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)for review and comment. 47 CEA will monitor collaborations among stakeholders in selecting construction projects and will survey stakeholders/landowners on their commitment to sustainable land-use practices. 8. Construction: IEDA and IFC staff, local agencies, WMA coordinators, and grant administrators will work closely with stakeholders and producers in each watershed through the contractor selection and project construction phase. Many local contractors have experience implementing and constructing these practices. HUD funds will cover 75% of the project cost; landowners will contribute the remaining 25%. Based on IFC and partner experience, there will be no shortage of interested landowners. The practices available to the WMAs and producers (listed below) are not all equally suitable for all regions in Iowa, a hypothetical suite of projects is listed with each watershed project. A conservative lifespan of 20 years is assumed for each structure/project. Most of the noted benefits are based on data from the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy (WQ=water quality improvement; SF =streamflow reduction). Benefits may vary based on size and landform. • Wetland Construction slows down and filters precipitation runoff, allowing sediment and nutrients to settle out before reaching lakes, rivers, streams, and aquifers. This lowers downstream flood peaks, reduces erosion, and improves water quality. Wetlands may be restored through a variety of techniques (excavation, surface drain removal, low embankments, etc.)to restore the original hydrology. Wetland construction will be based on NRCS standards (MRCS Code 657). (WQ=52-70%; SF= 10-20%) • Farm Ponds effectively collect and hold surface flow, allow particles (soil)to settle, and remove nutrients. They are generally 0.25-20 acres and may be embankment ponds (a dammed stream) or excavation (digging out the pond or the surrounding area to form levees). Pond construction will be based on NRCS construction standards (MRCS Code 378). (Benefits are size-dependent: WQ=30-70%; SF = 10 30%) 48 • Storm Water Detention Basins capture and detain water during a precipitation event, lessening downstream flooding. They remain dry between flood events. A storm water detention basin's construction is based on expected 10- or 20-year precipitation events for the area (WQ=20%; SF =30%) • Terraces are earthen embankments or combination ridges and channels constructed across a hillslope to reduce erosion, trap soil, and retain runoff to enhance infiltration. The number of acres terraced will vary. Construction will be based on accepted NRCS construction standards (MRCS Code 600). (WQ=77%; SF = 5%) • Sediment Detention Basins capture and detain sediment-laden runoff long enough for the sediment to settle out. Building techniques and benefits are similar to ponds. Unlike ponds, they are dry between precipitation events. Basin construction will be based on NRCS construction standards (MRCS Code 350). (WQ=85%; SF= 5%) • Floodplain Restoration restores flood-prone land to its original function storing flood waters. Floodplain restoration restores, protects, maintains, and enhances the function of floodplains, while conserving natural values such as fish and wildlife habitat, water quality, flood water retention, and groundwater recharge. It typically involves removal of levees and ceasing agricultural practices in portions of the floodplain. (WQ= 85%; SF=20%) • Channel Bank Stabilization (Nishnabotna River System) involves reshaping the streambank up to 1,500 feet in length to a 2:1 slope and armoring the lower half of the banks with clean, rounded, well-graded riprap or other material. If the site has too much curve, bendway weirs help redirect the river current away from the banks. The upper half of the streambank is seeded to establish permanent vegetative cover. (WQ= 80%; SF = 5%) • Buffer Strips are small strips of land with permanent vegetation (trees, shrubs, or other plants)used as environmental barriers between crop fields and other land usage. Buffers 49 help reduce runoff, sediment delivery, and downstream flooding; improve wildlife habitat and water quality; and contribute to productivity. (WQ=91%; SF = 10%) • Saturated Buffers direct field tile drainage into a buffer as shallow groundwater flow. As the water flows through the buffer, denitrification and uptake by the perennial plants in the buffer remove nitrate, preventing it from entering surface waters. (WQ=50%; SF = 5%) • Perennial Cover decreases soil erosion, increases biological carbon sequestration, provides wildlife and pollinator habitat, and improves water quality. (WQ=75%; SF =40%) • Oxbow Restoration rebuilds disconnected oxbow ponds in the floodplain. Oxbows provide floodwater storage, nutrient processing, and shallow water habitat for wildlife. (WQ=56% (N) ; SF=N/A) • Bioreactors are carbon-containing structures that intercept subsurface drains (tiles) or groundwater and improve water quality by reducing the concentration of nitrate-nitrogen. Construction will be based on NRCS standards (MRCS Code 747). (WQ=43%; SF= 5%) • Prairie STRIPS are the strategic integration of small strips of prairie in crop fields in the form of in-field contour buffer strips and edge-of-field filter strips, which can yield disproportionate benefits for soil, water, and biodiversity. (WQ=66-90%; SF=37%) The CEA will monitor stakeholder involvement in project planning and execution. The CEA will also conduct surveys of downstream residents to assess their knowledge of and attitudes about improved quality of life, such as their perceptions of increased recreational opportunities and improvement of drinking water. Stakeholders will be asked to identify what has changed for them in a way that allows them to report information the team may or may not have anticipated. Programmatic Options: Water quantity and quality are inextricably linked; during most flood events in Iowa, the water contains elevated nutrient loads. Thus, floods pose both a physical and health hazard at a time when people and the environment are most vulnerable. The timing of this 50 program is critical, as Iowa is experiencing a trend toward increased heavy precipitation events (see Phase II, Need/ Extent). The flexibility of this approach will allow Iowa to build upon this program for cumulative impacts in the future as local needs and conditions change. Risks and Vulnerabilities: The IWA will help make Iowa's important agricultural economy more sustainable. Failure to implement the proposed (or similar)practices would likely result in continued degradation of the land and water, especially in the face of current climatological trends. This would likely result in loss of agricultural productivity, increased water treatment costs, and the loss of biodiversity, recreational opportunities, and tourism. Scalability and Replicability: This program is scalable and replicable, appropriate for implementation at a variety of scales represented by the broad range of watersheds and infrastructure projects. Data collected throughout the program will help quantify costs of implementing this program across the Midwest for different water-quality or -quantity impacts. To this end, the program will develop a comprehensive guide for other watersheds and communities striving to replicate the IWA. Goals and Metrics Timelines, and Local Consultation are specified in each project description. Programmatic and scientific evaluation is described on pages 58-60. Eligible Activitv—NDRC Watershed Projects: Watershed Projects meet the Eligible Activitv of Public Facilities and Improvements— 105(a)(2): For a century, Iowa law has recognized drainage systems as valued public facilities. Traditional flood protection/drainage infrastructure includes levees, floodwalls, and reservoirs. In rural areas, it also includes farm ponds, stream channelization tile drainage of farm fields, constructed earth terraces, debris basins, and conservation practices. Iowa proposed three pilot Iowa watershed construction projects to HUD in 2011. hi June 2011,the HUD-Disaster office in D.C. approved the watershed projects, which they determined met the Eligible Activity of Public Facilities and Improvements. NDRC 51 watershed construction projects will mirror the pilot projects. The public facilities will be constructed on private land, but will include a 20-year ownership easement to the county to maintain the structures. They meet the National Objective Urgent Need (UN). Program 2: Community Resilience Programming Community Resilience Programming is needed to increase community resilience to floods. The IWA proposes use of the Zurich Insurance Flood Resilience Program framework to implement the Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment(VCA)methodology to assess flood resilience in target watersheds. The International Federation of Red Cross (IFRC) and Red Crescent Societies have used the VCA methodology worldwide for more than a decade. It helps to: 1) assess risks and hazards facing communities and their capacity to manage them; 2) involve communities, local authorities, and development organizations in the assessment from the outset; 3) create action plans to prepare for and respond to identified risks; and 4) identify risk-reduction activities to prevent or lessen the effects of future hazards (www.ifrc.org/vca). The IWA will partner with communities in the MID-URN areas to increase resilience by facilitating activities that help communities prepare for, respond to, recover from, and adapt to floods. The National Academy of Science (NAS)publication "Disaster Resilience —A National Imperative" suggests an approach to: 1) develop and encourage processes for sharing information; 2)build public awareness and understanding of risk; 3) gather community input; and 4) develop tools to monitor progress toward resilience. Floods affect more people globally than the combined effects of earthquakes,tornados, droughts, and hurricanes. Further, a focus on pre-event risk reduction, rather than post-event relief, promotes greater resilience. The Zurich resilience framework measures community resilience as functions of robustness, redundancy, resourcefulness, and rapidity, as well as the community's social, human, financial, natural, and physical environments. The IWA will pair the Zurich framework with the CEA's focus on 52 watershed-specific needs assessments informing situated strategic planning as a comprehensive approach to needs and outcomes assessment, planning, and implementation. Program Partners and Feasibility: The WMA coordinators will be the critical communication hubs. The IWA will work with groups like the Iowa Community Action Association and several regional Community Action Programs (CAPS) to leverage existing capacity-building platforms and networks for flood resiliency programming. The CAPS represent"boots on the ground,"with established local relationships and trust. The CEA will guide the use of tools and assessment metrics to measure the effectiveness of program activities to improve resilience. The IFC, with expertise in data analysis and visualization, will provide watershed-monitoring tools to share and access information.Homeland Security and Emergency Management(HSEMD), in coordination with local emergency management agency (EMA) coordinators, will develop strategies and local flood preparedness. Resilience Assessments and Tools to Guide Programming and Monitor Progress: The IWA team will work with stakeholders in each target watershed using the VCA frameworks and assessments. Preliminary activities will focus on qualitative and quantitative indicators of community resilience. The investigation will include individual or group interviews and annual surveys of selected constituents in the most vulnerable areas. Baseline data will guide WMAs as they select initial programming and interventions in the target communities. Qualitative data will clarify how stakeholders and community collaborators identify and understand the breadth of resilience issues. This will guide assessment of outcomes/impacts of programming and interventions, recognizing that: 1)the process of defining resilience goals and assessment requires collaboration and cooperation to build trust and highlight existing needs and capacities; and 2)regular monitoring of resilience can guide planning and decision making, and help assess progress toward resilience goals. A staggered annual survey will gather information from each 53 watershed. The IWA team will refine the process annually to understand changes in community resilience and provide actionable information. Resilience Awareness, Communication, and Planning(Primary Audience: community citizens. Secondary Audience: local decision makers, agencies): The WMA coordinators and local collaborators (e.g. CAPs)will partner with local leaders and individuals to develop community-specific activities to engage residents, especially vulnerable populations, in discussions about flood resilience. Engagement formats will vary(presentations, workshops, site visits,focus groups)until each community determines the most effective methods. Residents will be notified through existing events/groups, postings at key locations, local television and newspaper coverage, direct mail, and even door-to-door campaigns. Rural areas with low population densities will be engaged at the community scale, but also at county fairs and other regional events. Incentives will be considered to encourage participation. Early engagement activities will focus on sharing experiences and perspectives, building participation and relationships, and discussing flood resilience. Discussion prompts might include: How did a specific flood or storm event impact individuals, and how did it vary among different people and neighborhoods? What were the greatest challenges during the event and during recovery? Who did people trust for information and help (and why)? Initial discussions will help frame subsequent activities in which participants use their experience and knowledge to plan for the future. Example program topics might include: How does an individual or community assess risk? How can individuals make their homes or businesses more flood resilient? What actions should the community, county, and watershed consider for improved resilience? The focus will ultimately shift to preparing for, planning for, responding to, recovering from, and adapting to floods. 54 Community programs will include opportunities for people who cannot attend to provide input(e.g., an online app and/or materials at a local library or civic center) and a means for recording and saving key programmatic outcomes. WMAs will have access to evaluation materials and event summaries, recordings, and other archived information, with highlights posted on the watershed website.As communities work through the process of resilience assessment and planning, the WMA will facilitate the creation of a flood resilience action plan for each target community. Platform for Sharing Data and Experience (Primary Audience: local decision makers, EMA. Secondary Audience: Citizens): The IWA will develop a platform to visualize hydrologic and water-quality data and to share watershed information. As previously described, sensors in each target watershed will monitor precipitation and water quantity and quality. The IWA will share data for each watershed via a convenient information system. The system will be based on the Iowa Flood Information System (IFIS), built on the familiar Google Maps platform, which allows users to access and visualize data, including flood stages and warnings. The system will provide invaluable up-to-date information to decision makers and EMAs during a flood. Demonstrations of the online platform at community programs will help stakeholders visualize and understand their home or business as a physical location within the watershed. It will incorporate an app for stakeholders to upload place-specific information. For example,the system might encourage users to respond to a topic of the week, current events, or other prompts to provide appropriate, actionable information. It is, in essence, a crowd-sourcing tool to collect water-related issues, photos, and stories that will be invaluable to the community and to IWA partners. It will be available at local libraries, community centers, and other public venues for users who do not have Internet access. Community input may help identify priorities to improve flood resilience. For example, EMAs might monitor this platform prior to and during an event 55 for information about particularly susceptible groups and areas. The online platform will be just one element of the expanded WMA websites to help connect people in the watershed. The IFC will implement the visualization platform, and the WMA coordinators will manage content. Capacitv Building through Planning and Technical Assistance. Comprehensive Emergency Management Planning ensures that emergency services, local authorities, and other organizations communicate effectively and coordinate their efforts toward hazard mitigation and disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. Section 29C of the Iowa Code provides the authority for Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management(HSEMD) and the county emergency management commissions to plan for emergencies. HSEMD and the Emergency Management Agency (EMA) coordinators will be key partners in resilience programming, especially as communities work toward local strategies and flood resilience action plans. Their participation in the resilience program will facilitate development of a"whole community" approach and culture to disaster resilience. This will allow the IWA to tailor its efforts to engage the community, neighborhood, or individual, creating a template for future events in Iowa. As the target communities consider their resilience needs,the EMA coordinators will provide guidance in identifying sound government policies and practices to further build disaster resilience. This may include: providing datasets for communities to analyze as part of their risk- assessment and -reduction activities; identifying critical asset inventories; building a flexible, scalable recovery structure for pre- and post-disaster decision making; and conducting loss avoidance studies for hazard mitigation, land-use, and comprehensive planning. Engagement activities and materials will be tailored to each community and its vulnerable population(s). Assessment of future risk cannot be based solely on records of past events. An accurate evaluation offuture risk must also take into account relevant new or changing conditions, and the availability of new and refined data and tools. The IWA's many resources will be invaluable 56 to HSEMD and EMA's efforts to update Iowa's Enhanced Mitigation Plan and the Iowa Disaster Recovery Plan. IWA collaborators will help identify unmet needs and build a statewide science- based flood risk assessment for implementing a resilience mitigation strategy. For example, HSEMD and EMA will work closely with ISU's Climate Science Program and the IFC to understand the latest science on precipitation and temperature trends across Iowa. The WMAs will provide valuable information on the local landscape and hydrology and how these change as new practices are implemented. The IFC's new floodplain maps for Iowa(see Phase II, Long- term Commitment)will be an important resource in refining risk. The accompanying new one- meter-resolution depth grids for the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, 100-, 200-, and 500-year floodplains will allow planners to consider flood extent and depth. The IFC's flood inundation maps provide planners with an exceptional level of detail for any potential flood stage. The CEA's community resilience tools and metrics will reveal unique vulnerabilities in each partner community, feeding directly into HSEMD and EMA's planning and technical assistance activities. State and Regional Impact: Although these key activities occur in the identified MID-URN areas, the programs provide a unique opportunity for the state to broaden its perspective to: 1) better understand communities' capacity to recover from potential future disasters; 2)refine strategies to identify the most critical disaster resilience challenges; 3) build and continue to refine this process for activities in other watersheds; and 4) develop future strategies to improve disaster resilience. Information from these activities will support development of a vision for the future, similar to the watershed hydrologic plans, as Iowa continues to seek ways to improve disaster resilience. Timeline: The staggered start engages three watersheds during each of the first three years of the five-year program, with the following timeline. Year 1: Contract with CAP, conduct initial qualitative and quantitative baseline data collection of local resilience issues. Year 2: [Repeat 57 Year 1 for three new WMAs] and engagement program development and implementation, launch pilot of visualization platform, watershed-wide community engagement events to discuss resilience, initial HSEMD and EMA disaster planning events, development of resilience assessment, and annual resilience survey and reporting. Year 3: [Repeat Year 1 for final three WMAs] and continued engagement program development and implementation, visualization platform enhancements in response to feedback, engagement events to discuss resilience, HSEMD and EMA disaster planning events, and annual resilience survey and reporting. Year 4: Same as Year Three (no new WMAs). Year 5: Maintain visualization platform, finalize disaster resilience action plans, and final resilience survey and reporting. Replicability: This program is scalable and replicable at a wide variety of scales (neighborhoods, small communities, or large cities). Specifically, the IWA is a replicable model to enhance the social, economic, hydrologic, and environmental resiliency of rural America and will influence future policies for rural and downstream development and urban-rural collaboration. The IWA will prepare a full program description and evaluation guide at the project conclusion. IWA staff will also share their experiences widely at public and agency events. IWA Program and Project Assessment and Evaluation Scientific Assessment: IFC staff will project post-construction results using a detailed, coupled surface water groundwater model, HydroGeoSphere. Collection and analysis of sensor data will continue for one or more years after construction to verify that water-quality and -quantity improvement goals are met, to validate the hydrologic models, and to improve model performance. Analysis of field data and use of hydrologic models will guide future projects in the watershed and inform planning and policy decisions in watersheds throughout the Midwest. 58 The Iowa Water Center (IWC) at ISU will use its Daily Erosion Project(DEP), along with field measurements, to monitor the success of built projects to reduce erosion and water runoff and to develop and distribute informative materials on practices to reduce soil loss in modern agricultural operations. DEP is an erosion model that generates daily estimates of soil erosion and water runoff at the HUC 12 watershed level using high-resolution National Weather Service NEXRAD radar data to estimate precipitation, and remotely-sensed soil and land management data to parameterize the model. The IWC will perform a detailed assessment of each selected HUC 12 before, during, and after the completion of built projects. Programmatic Assessment: The CEA will design and implement methodologies to describe and document the environmental, social, and economic benefits of the IWA as informed by preliminary needs assessments and ongoing interactions with local and program stakeholders. In conjunction with a stakeholder needs assessment, CEA will facilitate stakeholder development of an initial logic model for program activities. The collaborative needs assessment and preliminary logic models within each watershed will lay the groundwork for defining success by identifying the information needs or "evaluation questions" and will also facilitate future program replications in other watersheds. Evaluation processes based on community-defined indicators of success will inform program improvements. CEA staff will conduct interviews and focus groups with local stakeholders, surveying people directly involved in engagement programming, and observing a large sample of programs over the program's duration in Dubuque and rural watersheds. This qualitative and quantitative information, aligned with community-defined success indicators, will provide formative information for the purposes of project improvement and monitoring, as well as summative findings to inform scale-up and provide evidence of project value. CEA will provide rapid- response evaluation information to project staff, regular formal and informal reports to project 59 personnel and the WMA Advisory Board, and annual reports. Along with the annual reports, CEA will conduct a systematic internal formative quality control and assurance review to ensure the evaluation remains responsive to users and collaborators and adapts to the needs of the program and individual watersheds. CEA will also produce a final report for project sponsors and a replicable plan to evaluate similar future projects. b. Benefit Cost Analysis The total IWA benefit is $1,224,507,991 with a benefit-cost ratio of 7.07 (see Attachment F). c. Scaling/Scoping Full Request Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Dubuque Healthy Homes $11,091,767 $9,124,460 $8,427,665 $8,318,826 Dubuque Infrastructure $28,100,000 $28,100,000 $23,100,000 $11,500,000 Coralville Infrastructure $1,834,800 $1,834,800 $1,834,800 $1,834,800 Storm Lake Infrastructure $6,474,750 $6,474,750 $6,474,750 $6,474,750 Watershed Projects $50,055,000 $41,352,713 $31,459,292 $22,422,409 Data Collection/Modeling/etc. $8,400,000 $6,972,000 $5,303,179 $3,440,000 WMA Coordinators $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,250,000 $1,500,000 Planning + Admin $22,037,911 $20,484,957 $17,937,491 $13,066,199 TOTAL $130,994,228 $117,313,680 $96,787,177 $68,556,984 Overall BCA 7.07 6.41 5.36 5.12 The table above shows three additional scenarios. Planning projects would retain as much of the assessment, stakeholder education, and resiliency programming as possible. For the Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency Program, alternative one proposes to reduce the scope to 400 units in 60 36 months. Alternative two reduces the scope to 320 units in 30 months. Under alternative three, IWA proposes 375 units, but at 25%budget scale-back for each structure in 36 months. For Dubuque infrastructure, in alternative two,the Bee Branch 17th Street/West Locust Storm Sewer Improvements would be started by 2019, but only the first 3,100 feet of the 3,700-foot- long project could be completed. Under alternative three, construction of the Bee Branch 22nd Street/Kaufmann Avenue Storm Sewer Improvements would be limited to an initial proportionate section until additional funds are secured. The West Locust improvements would be delayed until the city is able to budget for the improvements. Reduced funding for the watershed projects reflects a reduction in the number of HUC 12s in the target watersheds. Priority would be given to retaining HUC 12s that serve vulnerable areas. Goals/metrics for the selected HUC 12s would not change. In alternative two,the WMA coordinator would be shared in the E. and W. Nishnabotna Rivers and between the English River and Clear Creek. In alternative three, each watershed would have a half-time coordinator. Scaling/Scoping alternatives two and three meet the 50% LMI requirement. d. Program Schedule Project descriptions include schedules. The IWA will be complete in Sept 2021 (see waiver). e. Budget Table See bottom of neat page for total budget request from CDBG. f Consistency and Other Planning Documents See Attachment D, Consultation Summary, pages D-122 to D-124; Attachment C, Certifications. Ten Iowa Watershed Approach Projects Background for Projects 1-2: City of Dubuque, Bee Branch Creek Dubuque is one of the oldest cities in the Midwest. With a population just under 60,000, Dubuque is set along the Mississippi River and serves as a commercial, industrial, educational, 61 and cultural hub for the Tri-States Area. Dubuque is known for its hilly terrain, unique architecture, and picturesque river setting. IWA activities in Dubuque will focus in the Bee Branch MID-URN area. The Bee Branch Creek Watershed is critical to the city; nearly 50% of Dubuque's residents live and work in the historic 6.5-square mile basin. The watershed is a highly developed urban area, with just 3% agricultural land and 23% open space. The Bee Branch watershed is relatively steep, with an average terrain slope of approximately 37%. The overall slope of the main channel in the upland areas is approximately 2%, while the slope of the main channel in the flat Couler Valley area to the outlet is approximately 0.5%. Elevations in the basin range from 594 feet NGVD at the Mississippi River to 962 feet NGVD in the upper reaches. The drainage system consists of both natural channel and closed conduit sections. Storm water runoff moves through the watershed Budget Table Activity Natl. CDBG City Producer/ Type Obj. Budget Direct Other Direct Dates Accomplish. Watershed Cons. UN $61,455,000 $15,876,250 07/16-09/21 25%flow Watershed Plan. N/A $15,635,491 $1,067,951 07/16-09/21 ? resilience Infrastructure LMA $36,409,550 $24,369,850 12/16-07/20 flood risk Housing Rehab LMH $8,871,667 $800,000 07/16-09/21 400 units Housing Rehab UN $2,220,100 07/16-09/21 100 Units Application NA $164,600 Admin. NA $6,237,820 Total $130,994,228 $25,169,850 $16,944,201 62 primarily via storm sewer systems. The lower reaches of the Bee Branch Creek were confined to a buried storm sewer from the turn of the 20th century until recently. Between 1999 and 2011, the Bee Branch received six Presidential Disaster Declarations for floods, with total damage of nearly $70M. The residents, homeowners, and business owners have suffered trauma, health impacts from occupying flood-damaged structures, depreciated home values, and loss of economic prosperity. (From 2004-09, commercial property values grew by 39% citywide, but fell 6% in flood-prone areas.) The series of flooding events, combined with aging housing, has contributed to lower housing and commercial property values. This has taken a toll on neighborhood residents, many of whom are unable to find quality, affordable housing outside this area. The neighborhood is primarily residential; about 60% of residents live in rental units. An estimated 1,300+ Dubuque homes and businesses in the watershed are prone to flooding, including 70 businesses that employ more than 1,400 people and have more than $500M in annual sales. The Bee Branch Watershed is entirely within city limits. Work in the Bee Branch Watershed during the past 14 years represents an urban strategy to watershed management that mirrors the comprehensive IWA. In 2001, the Drainage Basin Master Plan for the Bee Branch Creek was developed to "daylight'the creek to an expanded open channel waterway, creating a more natural and resilient environment. The goals were to reduce flooding, preserve historic and affordable housing, maintain affordability, preserve neighborhood and community resources, minimize health and safety risks, and create an environment promoting higher quality of life. During heavy rain, flood waters remain in the green space along the creek instead of flooding streets and homes. The project has progressed quickly. In 2003, the Carter Road Detention Basin was created, followed by another in 2009. A series of permeable alleys was installed throughout the flood-prone area of the Bee Branch; more are planned. 63 The Disaster(DR-4018): The Bee Branch Creek Watershed has experienced significant flooding, particularly in recent years. In July 2011, a storm event stalled over Northeast Iowa and dropped more than 14 inches of rain in less than 12 hours on parts of the city. The aftermath was devastating. The city's storm drains were unable to handle the water, and substantial flash flooding occurred,tearing up roads and bridges, flooding homes and businesses, and claiming two lives. The reports included 32 sewer back-ups, 259 requests for basement pumping, and 47 sanitary/storm sewer maintenance requests. The Bee Branch watershed was hit hardest. Project Description 41: Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency Program With Bee Branch Creek improvements in place to reduce and slow floodwaters and run-off, Dubuque is now able to turn its attention and resources to the nearly 1,300 homes and businesses that have suffered damage from numerous recent flooding events. Many homeowners have experienced flooding on such a regular basis that they have fallen behind on repairs, suffer from chronic mold and mildew problems, and live with the residual structural effects of flood waters that climbed to their basement ceilings. Little if any support exists for residents and small businesses struggling to recover from this devastation. The Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency Program (BBHHRP) is designed to support residential properties with flood damage from the 2011 storms in the low to moderate income areas of Dubuque that are strategically aligned with and extending to and from the Bee Branch Creek restoration project. National Objective, MID-URN, and Vulnerable Populations: The program will provide homeowner rehabilitation for 160 units under the Low Moderate Housing (LMH) CDBG National Objective, homeowner rehabilitation for 100 units under the Urgent Need National Objective, Residential Rehabilitation for 96 units under the Low Moderate Housing Objective, and rehabilitation for 144 small multi-family housing structures within the target areas of the BBHHRP [Eligible Activity: Housing Rehabilitation— 105(a)(4)]. Each home will be assessed 64 through a Healthy Home Resiliency Approach, which aims to reduce or avoid potential losses from hazards, ensure prompt and appropriate assistance to victims of disaster, and achieve rapid and effective recovery. The project will help government, businesses, nonprofits, and residents plan for and reduce the impact of disasters, react during and immediately after a disaster, and take steps to recover after a flood. The BBHHRP will use four basic strategies to increase resiliency in the homes and neighborhoods: 1) Preventive measures —minimizing the effects of disaster; 2) Preparedness — planning response during disaster; 3) Response—minimizing the hazards created by disaster; and 4) Recovery—returning the community to its pre-disaster state or better. Each housing unit will be inspected to identify the seven principles of a healthy home (dry, clean, pest-free, safe, contaminant-free, ventilated, and maintained), and resiliency work will be completed to address: foundation repairs, foundation raising or shifting to accommodate water levels, water and sewage services, furnace replacement, basement windows, mold and mildew remediation, lead remediation, water heater replacement, soil modification, lateral connection repairs, asbestos, sidewalk and curb cuts, sump pumps, and downspouts. A variety of community resources will improve housing, repair damages, and make homes more resilient to future flooding. The program will address individual homeowners' needs by increasing education, awareness, and resources needed to live in an urban watershed. Like the community resilience programs in the rural communities, CEA will work with the Bee Branch Healthy Homes Advocate to assess general resilience needs and challenges faced by residents and businesses in the Bee Branch Watershed. From this information,the Homes Advocate will work one-on-one with residents to complete a comprehensive assessment at the household level. The Homes Advocate will assist with education and referrals to increase understanding of what it means to live in a watershed, 65 and what resources and services are available to support development, employment, and neighborhood revitalization. Clear and compelling evidence shows that unsafe, unhealthy housing leads to wealth depletion, abandoned properties, housing instability, potential homelessness, and increased risk of housing-based illnesses. Evidence also shows that healthy and safe hosing in the most distressed and impacted communities improves health, social, and economic outcomes for families —ultimately creating safer neighborhoods. Dubuque will partner with the Community Foundation to inform, motivate, and educate residents, homeowners, and businesses on how to break the links among unhealthy housing, unhealthy families, and unhealthy neighborhoods. An informed and engaged community is a healthy community. Current and Future Risks: Work to date in the watershed has decreased the residents' flood risk. But failure to implement BBHHRP leaves people at continued exposure to risks associated with living or working in unsafe, unhealthy structures. Work in the structures will make them more resilient to future flood events; community resilience programming will help people be more prepared for and resilient to future floods. Vulnerable Populations: The target area contains some of Dubuque's oldest and most affordable housing. More than 66% of the households qualify as LML More than 21% of residents in the area received Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP or Food Stamps) in the past 12 months, and 28% of households contain one or more persons with a disability. Fifteen percent of the residents belong to racial or ethnic minority groups, which is more than double the representation of R/E minority groups for all of Dubuque County(7%). Metrics:Resiliency Value: At least one improvement in each home will increase the home's resilience to flooding(e.g., stronger foundation, relocation of furnace). Social Value: This neighborhood is inhabited by the most at-risk residents, who often cannot afford to miss work or 66 find new housing after flooding. Home improvements will result in increased opportunities for resilient, affordable housing for these populations and reduced mental stress associated with the life disruptions common during flood events. Economic Value: Improvements to housing structures will lead to measurable increases in property values. Environmental Value: Reduction of mold and mildew will lead to improved indoor air quality and reduced asthma rates among residents. The CEA will help to evaluate the activities and metrics. Replicable Model: Dubuque's approach to extreme flooding in the Bee Branch Watershed represents a forward-thinking, holistic, and replicable strategy that will result in reduced local flood risk, healthier and more resilience structures, and more resilient residents. Timeline: July August 2016: Hire and train/certification of inspection and support staff; August October 2016: Identify benchmarks, goals performance indicator; develop/refine policies and procedures; August 2016—December 2018: Outreach/recruitment/enrollment of 400 residential property owners, home inspections, individual property owners' contracts executed; October 2018—April 2021: BBHHRP units completed and cleared; September 2016April2021: Home advocacy interventions in enrolled BBHHRP units; April 2021—September 2021: Close out and completion of contracts, final completion clearance on any remaining units, evaluation; October 2017—September 2021: Home advocacy post-evaluation of BBHHRP interventions. Budget: The BBHHRP budget of about $11M represents: Rehabilitation of 160 single-unit resident properties at about$16K/structure (LMH Objective); rehabilitation of 100 single-unit resident(homeowner)properties at about $32K/structure (Urgent Need); rehabilitation of 96 single-unit resident properties at about $16K/structure (LMH Objective); and rehabilitation of 144 multi-unit/multi-family properties at about $16K/structure (LMH Objective). Delivery of the Healthy Homes programmatic core by the Home Advocate is included in project delivery costs. Benefit Cost Analvsis: 2.38. 67 Project Description 42: Bee Branch Watershed Infrastructure Improvements Imagine waiting out a tornado warning in the apparent safety of your basement. Suddenly, heavy rains produce flash flooding, and floodwaters start pouring in around you. Should you stay in a flooded basement or take your children upstairs? Unfortunately, Bee Branch Watershed residents have faced situations such as this repeatedly since 1999, most recently during the July 2011 rainstorm that prompted a Presidential Disaster Declaration. The National Climatic Data Center lists 65 flood events in Dubuque County from 1950- 2012. Prior to 1973, when construction of a 6.4-mile-long earthen levee and concrete floodwall system was completed along the Mississippi River,the flooding experienced by Dubuque residents was primarily related to the Mississippi River and usually forecast well in advance. Flash flooding, however, occurs with little or no warning. Disasters related to the Mississippi River are rare since 1973. However, intense rainstorms have caused six disasters in Dubuque since 1999. In addition to private infrastructure damage in 2011, the storm overwhelmed and damaged Dubuque's storm sewer system tasked with conveying the burgeoning creek through the city's at-risk neighborhoods. The damage extends from the Lower Bee Branch Creek just south of Garfield Avenue through the flood prone area, crossing under Garfield Avenue, Rhomberg Avenue, Lincoln Avenue, and E. 22nd Street, all the way to W. 32nd Street. The system includes significant contributing limbs,from west at E. 22nd Street and from the east at E. 24th Street. The damaged portion of the system,twin 10-foot wide by 12-foot high pipes, occurred where the storm sewer system outlets into the Lower Bee Branch Creek just south of Garfield Avenue, where the sewer crosses under an active Canadian Pacific railroad yard. The 20-foot end section of the storm sewer partially collapsed. Repaired to its pre-disaster condition, the system remains inadequate to handle even storms that are much smaller than the 2011 event. Based on an 68 engineering study by Strand Associates, more than 900 properties are likely to be flooded on average once every 10 years. The current capacity of the lower watershed's storm sewer system is limited to handling minor nuisance rains, such as the once-in-five-year events. Based on the 2011 Presidential Disaster Declaration and the five that preceded it, the system clearly does not provide adequate drainage. As a result, flooding has repeatedly damaged hundreds of properties. Strand Associates determined that improvements to the existing system could significantly reduce the flood-prone area to only a handful of properties, which would experience less severe damage. Using the same principles associated with the Iowa Watersheds Approach, a plan for the Bee Branch Watershed was developed as part of the Drainage Basin Master Plan. The watershed plan reflects a holistic and fiscally responsible approach to increasing the resiliency of the community, mitigating flooding and improving water quality, stimulating investments, and enhancing the quality of life in the flood-prone neighborhoods in the MID-URN area. The watershed plan includes two upstream detention basins, pervious pavement in alleys, and daylighting the buried Bee Branch Creek to allow storm water to move safely through the area. The system has two remaining shortcomings: 1) getting the floodwaters safely into the newly restored creek; and 2) getting the floodwaters from the upper reach of the Bee Branch Creek through an active, multi-track railroad yard to the lower reach of the Bee Branch Creek. Three Projects: The proposed mitigation strategy has three components. The most important Bee Branch infrastructure improvement is the Bee Branch Railroad Culvert Infrastructure Improvement Project, which will augment the storm sewer drainage system damaged in July 2011 that currently conveys storm water through the Canadian Pacific railroad yard at 506 Garfield Avenue. The improvement involves the installation of six 8-foot-diameter culverts using tunneling methods from the Lower Bee Branch Creek approximately 165 feet through Canadian 69 Pacific Railroad right-of-way to a proposed junction box. It also includes the construction of five 12-foot wide by 10-foot high box storm sewers from the proposed junction box 200 feet north toward Garfield Avenue and the Upper Bee Branch Creek. The second most important infrastructure improvement is the Bee Branch Kaufmann Avenue Storm Sewer Improvements Project. Based on Strand's hydraulic modeling of the existing system using XPS WMM, the storm sewer between Hempstead and Central Street has less than a 10-year storm capacity. It is clearly the "bottleneck" of the Kaufmann Avenue drainage system. The proposed new system will comprise a 10-foot by 6-foot reinforced concrete box culvert designed to handle the 25-year storm through the Kaufmann Avenue Project Corridor. The layout allows for all storm water to be conveyed through the storm sewer just west of Kane Street. During a 25-year event, some overland flow from the upstream portions of the watershed will drain along Kaufmann Avenue into the project corridor. Large high-capacity inlets (three were assumed for the construction cost) will be placed in the terrace along Kaufmann Avenue to capture this overland drainage. In addition, 80 standard single-grate inlets will be provided with the local storm sewer and connecting to the new box culvert. The project requires the reconstruction of the street and the relocation of existing underground utilities along the right-of- way. The third most important infrastructure improvement is the Bee Branch West Locust Storm Sewer Improvements Project. Based on the results of Strand's modeling, no portions of the existing West Locust Street storm sewer systems have the capacity for a 25-year event, which would require the replacement of the entire system with new piping. The proposed West Locust Street corridor storm sewer will be a 10-foot by 5-foot RCBC from 17th Street to approximately 280 feet west of Angella Street; 10-foot by 4-foot RCBC from 280 feet west of Angella Street to 400 feet west of Kirkwood Street; and 8-foot by 4-foot RCBC from 400 feet west of Kirkwood 70 Street to Rosedale Avenue. This layout allows for all storm water to be conveyed within the storm sewer just west of Rosedale Avenue. During a 25-year design storm, excess overland flow from upstream portions of the watershed will drain along Rosedale Avenue into the West Locust Street project corridor. Large high-capacity inlets will be placed in the terrace along West Locust Street near Rosedale Avenue to capture the overland drainage. In addition, 100 standard single grate inlets and 28 high-capacity inlets will be provided with the local storm sewer and connecting to the new storm sewer system. The project requires the reconstruction of the street and the relocation of existing underground utilities along the right-of-way. National Objective, MID-URN, and Vulnerable Populations: These infrastructure projects meet the National Objective of L/M Income Area Benefit(LMA). The projects help address unmet needs in an area that was subject to a Presidential Disaster Declaration in 2011. The target MID-URN area of Bee Branch Creek, which is also an LMI area, will have significantly reduced flood risk following completion of these projects. Consultation: In response to the repeated disasters, the City of Dubuque engaged engineering consultants, state and federal partners, citizen advisory committees, and the general public to help create, fund, and implement a watershed plan to address the flooding. The plan outlines multiple improvements throughout the Bee Branch Watershed that will benefit upstream and downstream properties. Dubuque hired a full-time communications specialist to develop and implement communication plans to inform and engage residents and stakeholders impacted by the various Bee Branch Watershed improvement projects. The plan identifies goals, messages, and objectives for communicating with the residents, schools, businesses, churches, daycares, and community centers most impacted by construction. The proposed improvements through Canadian Pacific property reflect input of Canadian Pacific engineers and staff. 71 Metrics:Resiliency Value: Infrastructure improvements will hold water onsite for slow release, as opposed to quickly flushing it downstream. This will lead to a measurable reduction in peak storm water flow. A reduction of expected property damages from future flash flooding events is also expected. Social Value: As a STAR certified community, Dubuque aims to ensure that at least 85% of residents live within a half-mile walk of a park or other green infrastructure. Completion of these infrastructure projects will help meet this goal. Economic Value: Measureable increases in property values are expected in the Bee Branch neighborhood to rates that are more in line with the rest of Dubuque. Environmental Value: Detention of water onsite will lead to a measurable improvement in water quality downstream as the water is captured and cleaned via permeable surfaces. Timeline: The City of Dubuque will manage the design and the hiring of a contractor to construct the improvements on the following schedule: Railroad Culvert Infrastructure Improvement Project: July 2016December2016: Establish agreements with landowners, selection of contractors; January 2017March2017: Contractor submittal review and construction preparatory work: April 2017—September 2018: Construction. Kaufmann Avenue Storm Sewer Improvements Project: July 2017—December 2017: Selection of contractor; April 2017—September 2017: Construction. West Locust Storm Sewer Improvements Project: July 2020—December 2020: Selection of contractor; April 2021—September 2021: Construction. Budget: The estimated construction cost of the Railroad Culvert Infrastructure Improvement Project is $17,900,000. The estimated construction cost of Bee Branch KaufmannAvwrue Storm Sewer Improvements Project is $11,500,000. The estimated construction cost of Bee Branch West Locust Storm Sewer Improvements Project is $7,600,000. Benefit Cost Analvsis: 2.10 72 Project Description 43: Upper Iowa River Watershed The 1,000-square-mile (640,900 acres)Upper Iowa River, a tributary of the Mississippi River, originates in Minnesota, but 78% of its watershed is in Northeast Iowa(Attachment E, Map 6). The Upper Iowa River Watershed (UIRW) is part of the Driftless Region of Iowa. Its karst topography features limestone bluffs that rise 250 to 450 feet above the valley floor, dozens of coldwater trout streams, nearly 3,000 sinkholes and waterfalls, and hundreds of springs. Cropland accounts for more than 40% of the watershed, which also includes grassland (35%) and hardwood forests (19%). The EPA and Iowa recognize the UIRW as aPriority Watershed. Iowa designates 244 miles of the Upper Iowa River as High-quality Resource Waters or High-quality Waters, and the Upper Iowa was among the initial rivers included in the National Wild and Scenic River System. The UIRW is a popular tourist destination. It has excellent walleye and bass fishing, but is best known for its 152 miles of coldwater trout streams, which lure anglers from around the world. A study conducted by Trout Unlimited found recreational angling in the Driftless Area generates more than SIB in annual economic benefit to local communities. The Upper Iowa is a popular water trail: National Geographic Adventure Magazine listed canoeing the Upper Iowa as one of the top 100 adventures in the United States. More than 150 protected species of animals and plants live in the watershed, which also harbors endangered ecosystems. Unfortunately, frequent flooding and severe erosion are causing serious damage to the streams and river. Additional Mitigating Information: NE Iowa Resource Conservation and Development, SWCDs in Iowa and Minnesota, state and federal agencies, NGOs, businesses, and landowners formed the UIRW Alliance in 1999 to improve water quality and watershed health. Since then, they have conducted one of the longest water monitoring projects in Iowa, documenting the water-quality benefits of their projects, which include reforestation and CRP plantings on highly 73 erodible slopes, animal feedlot renovation, stream bank stabilization, wetland restoration, and other practices. The group is now working toward a WMA to strengthen the partnership. Northeast Iowa RC&D published the "Upper Iowa River Watershed: Assessment and Management Strategies" in 2004 to document the watershed's condition and guide actions to improve water quality. Parts of the report are dated, but will provide foundational information for the IWA's new hydrologic assessment and watershed plan. The North Bear Creek(NBC)Project, a UIRW subwatershed, demonstrated reduction of storm water discharge by constructing 18 small retention structures in the upper reaches of the NBC watershed. Four structures use the road as a detention structure or dam, improving the width, visibility, and safety of the road while also protecting downstream creeks, the river, and infrastructure from flash floods, sedimentation, and nutrient loading. Partners are eager to carry out similar projects using roads in other strategic locations of the UIRW. The Disaster(DR-4135): Torrential rains on June 21, 2013,triggered flash flood warnings for more than half of Iowa's 99 counties. Another major storm followed on June 23. Flash flooding and rapid runoff damaged road networks, homes, and businesses; caused the evacuation of campgrounds; and damaged trout habitat. Storm damage severely impacted the tourism industry, which is the second largest area employer. The most impacted region includes Tracts 9601, 9602, 9603, and 9604 in Allamakee County, where infrastructure damage totaled $2,752,381 (Phase I, Exhibit B). Overland and creek flooding washed out more than 10 miles of roadway in the UIRW. Many rural roads remain closed today because of flood damage that occurred in 2013 and more recently. Repeated flooding has strained county budgets; county officials cannot keep up with the need to replace bridges and culverts. 74 Environmental degradation has also occurred in distressed regions of the watershed in Winneshiek and Allamakee counties. Nearly the entire UIRW suffers from environmental distress, with the presence of Category 4 or Category 5 Impaired Waters as defined by section 303 of the Clean Water Act. Nutrient and sediment loading of streams and rivers increased through disaster DR-4135, magnifying existing problems in the watershed and downstream. The impaired waters include the main stem of the river and multiple tributaries. Impairments include the presence of bacteria(e. coli), nitrates, and turbidity, all with detrimental effects for the river's ecosystem (particularly trout) and the region's tourism economy. In addition to environmental and infrastructure damages, this disaster directly impacted individuals throughout the watershed. DR-4135 did not trigger federal individual assistance programs, so Allamakee County organized an assistance program funded by donations to help low income populations recover. The program received applications from more than 40 homeowners and 10 businesses to replace water heaters, furnaces, carpet, drywall, and other materials in their residences or businesses. The county only had funds to fulfill 30% of requests. The Iowa Individual Assistance Grant Program also made 194 awards totaling $164K for personal property and home repair assistance in the area. The Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship (IDALS) estimated that it would cost $9,247,220 to repair the damage from environmental degradation. National Objective, MID-URN, and Vulnerable Populations: The project meets the National Objective of Urgent Need. The project will help address unmet needs in an area subject to a Presidential Disaster Declaration in 2013. As a result of DR-4135, the MID-URN area of the UIRW encompasses nearly the entire watershed in Winneshiek and Allamakee counties, as demonstrated in Phase I, Exhibit B. The entire HUC 8 is compromised by water-quality issues and is vulnerable to flash flooding and erosion. No selected service area qualifies as LMI, but 75 several census tracts in western Allamakee County include L/M income populations; at least two HUC 12s will be selected for projects with a direct benefit to these populations. Perennial Cover/Grass 28 Prairie STRIPS 5 The UIRW is no stranger Floodplain Restoration 10 Terrace 10 to flood events similar to DR- Small Farm Pond (0.25-2 acres) 10 Buffer Strips 10 4135. According to the NWS, f Medium Farm Pond (2-5 acres) 30 Bioreactor 5 all or parts othe UIRW have experienced flooding in each Large Farm Pond (5+ acres) 3 Small Wetland 10 of the past eight years. In Sediment Detention Basin 20 Large Wetland 4 2013 alone,the NWS issued Storm Water Detention Basin 10 Saturated Buffer 4 13 flash flood warnings for the watershed. Thus, while the proposed projects in Winneshiek and Allamakee counties will target the unmet needs from DR-4135, they will also help to address annual flooding and water- quality challenges in the watershed. The WMA will select up to six HUC 12 watersheds for project implementation. An example distribution of the types and numbers of likely projects appears above. The WMA will finalize selection and distribution of projects. Resilience programming will especially focus in the vulnerable tracts in western Allamakee County. Consultation: A public engagement event on August 20, 2015, in Winneshiek County drew representatives from Winneshiek and Allamakee County Boards of Supervisors, agencies and NGOs (MRCS, NE Iowa RC&D, SWCD offices, Farm Bureau, Seed Savers), and landowners/private citizens. The Fillmore County, Minn., SWCD District Administrator noted that this project complements watershed projects in the Minnesota reaches of the UIRW. Minnesota has partnered with Iowa in the UIRW for more than a decade. Landowners and others expressed their enthusiasm for more retention structures and for preservation of natural resources. Participants expressly stated that farmers should drive this program. 76 Metrics:Resiliency Value: Activities in the targeted watersheds will reduce flood flows by 25%, thereby reducing damage to repetitive loss sites of the past(agricultural lands, roads, infrastructure, homes) at the outlet of each HUC 12. Environmental Value: Project water-quality goals call for the reduction of nitrate loads by 30% and phosphorus loads by 20% at the outlet of each HUC 12. Social Value: This project will result in improved resilience to flooding, especially in the UM income area,through programs to promote awareness and develop a community-wide flood resilience action plan.Economic Revitalization: This project will have an (unquantifiable) benefit to the local economy through preservation of coldwater fishing streams. Researchers will evaluate these metrics by collecting hydrologic data with support from the CEA. Timeline: July 2016—March 2017: Meetings, forums, submission and acceptance of Chapter 28E Agreement documents for formation of new WMA; April 2017—September 2020: Social Resilience Programming core activities (community engagement, networking, needs assessment); April 2017—December 2017: Collection of data and development of hydrologic assessment of the full HUC 8 watershed; January 2018—June 2018: Development of hydrologic plan for eligible areas, modeling of different project scenarios; July 2018—September 2018: WMA selects final sites and projects for implementation; October 2018March2019: Establish agreements with landowners, select contractors; April 2019—September 2020: Design and construct projects; October 2020—September 2021: Post-construction data collection and analysis, work with WMA members to help them define future steps. Budget: The estimated costs associated with the construction and design in the UIRW totals $9,207,500 ($6,990,000 from HUD, $2,217,500 in landowner contribution). Other items include: $350,000 for hydrologic assessment and watershed plan; $375,000 for WMA coordinator; and $1,200,000 for data collection, modeling, and analysis. Benefit Cost Analysis: 7.34 77 Project Description 44: The Upper Wapsipinicon River Watershed Although the Upper Wapsipinicon River Watershed (UWRW) begins in Southeast Minnesota, most of this long narrow watershed is in the northeast corner of Iowa, encompassing 991,980 acres and portions of 11 Iowa counties (Attachment E, Map 7). The watershed lies in the Iowan Surface Region, characterized by broad, gently-rolling slopes and heavily wooded floodplains. This agricultural watershed, of which more than 85% is in row crops, pasture, or grass, is also heavily used for recreation, including fishing, canoeing, hunting, and wildlife watching. According to a survey by ISU's Center for Agriculture and Rural Development, visitors made approximately 226,801 trips to the Wapsipinicon River in 2009 and spent $6M on outdoor recreation activities. Additional mitigating information: The Wapsipinicon River is a State of Iowa Protected Water Area(PWA)known for its public greenbelt corridor, which includes floodplain forests and wetlands, steep bluffs, and wildlife habitat, all with associated water-quality benefits. The Iowa DNR found the Wapsipinicon River to have the longest continuous stretch of natural and scenic river corridor in the Iowan Surface Region. Voluntary public lands acquisition in response to flood damage, water-quality issues, and recreational interests over the last several years has enhanced the river's riparian ecosystem. In Buchanan County alone,the local County Conservation Board manages 10 areas adjoining the river, and the Iowa DNR manages five riverside areas. Sixteen of the 27 communities in the watershed are located on, or adjacent to, a stream or river, providing recreational and economic opportunities that are impacted by flooding. There are currently 159 miles of impaired waters in the UWRW, including 17 segments of impaired streams, most of which are on the Wapsipinicon River or Buffalo Creek(main tributary to the Wapsipinicon). In September 2014, 13 communities, eight counties, and nine Soil and Water Conservation Districts united to form the Upper Wapsipinicon River Watershed 78 Management Authority(WMA). Many of these partners report being motivated by the declining water quality and increased in-stream sedimentation in the Upper Wapsipinicon River and its tributaries. Because the watershed is long and narrow, most of the communities are on or close to river or stream corridors and are therefore concerned about the increased frequency and extent of flooding. At a recent WMA meeting,the Independence representative expressed frustration with the sedimentation in the river and the constant threat of flooding, potentially so destructive to downtown infrastructure. The Independence representative reminded the WMA partners that the city has already physically buried the main floor of their downtown businesses in an attempt to deal with flooding issues. One of the first actions of the UWR WMA was to plan, fund, and implement a comprehensive, watershed-wide, water-quality testing effort. The UWR WMA now monitors 20 sites. With assistance from Coe College and NE Iowa Resource Conservation and Development Inc., water-quality data are recorded and analyzed, and will soon be published on the Upperwapsi.com website. The WMA communities are also meeting as a committee of the larger group to share information, learn about what other communities are doing to deal with storm water runoff and water-quality issues, and to inform WMA planning. These efforts demonstrate a commitment to achieving, measuring, and sharing long-term success in the UWR WMA. The Disaster(RD-4135): Torrential rains that began on June 21, 2013, caused the National Weather Service (NWS)to issue flash flood warnings for more than half of Iowa's 99 counties. Parts of the northern end of the UWRW received up to six inches of rain overnight; by morning, residents of Independence, the largest community in the watershed, were sandbagging around businesses and homes. Iowa's wettest spring on record had left the region with already saturated soils; with the latest heavy rains,the NWS forecasted that the UWR in Independence would crest at record levels. Multiple businesses and residences were evacuated, and community members 79 spent the night filling sandbags and building sandbag levees. However,the flat topography and nature of flash floods created forecasting challenges with this event. The river eventually crested above flood stage, but not as high as forecasters had projected. IDALS estimated that it would cost $9,228,674 to repair the damage from environmental degradation; the Iowa Individual Assistance Grant Program made 50 awards totaling $40,700 for personal property and home repair assistance in the area. National Objective,MID-URN, and Vulnerable Populations: The project meets the National Objective of Urgent Need. The project will help address unmet needs in an area subject to a Presidential Disaster Declaration in 2013. The flood hit portions of lower Buchanan County, Tract 9506, in the UWRW the hardest; these areas qualified as impacted under criterion D of Appendix G—Environmental Degradation. In the community of Quasqueton, eight inches of rain fell in less than three hours. The designated sub-county area had excessive soil loss as a result of the heavy rains, resulting in increased sediment delivery to waterways in the immediate vicinity, as well as additional downstream effects. If another event occurs, the area can expect to see further loss of nutrients and soil, which will reduce farmland productivity, impact the local economy, and accelerate environmental degradation downstream. The sub-county area, Tract 9506 in Buchanan County, has prior documented environmental distress in the form of a Category 5 Impaired Waters. The presence of nutrients increased because of the heavy rainfall that occurred in Disaster DR-4135, magnifying existing problems in the watershed and downstream of this sub-county area. Buffalo Creek is impaired as the result of its declining freshwater mussel population. (Freshwater mussels are important filter feeders. Their decline in species diversity is likely from siltation, destabilization of stream substrate, stream flow instability, and high in-stream levels of nutrients.) 80 Perennial Cover/Grass 15 Prairie STRIPS 5 A sample distribution of the Oxbow Restoration 5 Terrace 9 types and numbers of projects for the Upper Wapsipinicon River is Floodplain Restoration 3 Buffer Strips 25 listed (left). The WMA will finalize Small Farm Pond (0.25-2 acres) 14 Bioreactor 5 the selection and distribution of Medium Farm Pond (2-5 acres) 25 Small Wetland 4 projects based on the selection Large Farm Pond (5+ acres) 2 Large Wetland 2 criteria. Projects in the UWRW will Sediment Detention Basin 20 Saturated Buffer 5 target practices that focus on runoff Storm Water Detention Basin 171reduction to lessen flooding and retain topsoil and sediment; these practices could include farm ponds and retention ponds, which capture and store water temporarily, allowing it to be released downstream more slowly. Resilience programming will include both Buchanan and Delaware counties, with the initial assessment helping to identify the most vulnerable areas for programmatic focus. This will likely include the communities of Quasqueton, Rowley, and/or Robinson. Consultation: During the community engagement meeting held on August 5, 2015, watershed residents demonstrated their support for the IWA. Discussion centered on ways to communicate information on current efforts, which focus on protecting the corridor and reducing flood risk. Residents emphasized the strong engagement the watershed receives from stakeholders and producers in the area Meeting attendees showed enthusiasm and dedication for implementing the project, as well as eagerness to provide assistance and resources. Metrics:Resiliency Value: This approach in the targeted watersheds will reduce flood flows by 25%, thereby reducing damage to repetitive loss sites of the past(agricultural lands, roads, infrastructure, homes) at the outlet of the selected HUC 12s. Environmental Value: Project water-quality goals include reduction of nitrate loads by 30% and phosphorus loads by 20% at 81 the outlet of the HUC 12s. Social Value: This project will result in improved resilience to flooding, especially in the MID-URN areas, through programs to promote awareness and a community-wide flood resilience action plan.Economic Revitalization: Expected economic revitalization includes increased use (and associated tourism income) of the river as a source of recreation (See BCA, unquantifiable benefits). Further, implemented projects will help to retain soil on the land, preserving Iowa's agricultural economy. Researchers will evaluate these metrics through the collection of scientific data, and through the activities of the CEA. Project Timeline: July 2016—March 2017: Collection of data(topography, soil conditions, etc.) and development of hydrologic assessment of the full HUC 8 watershed; April 2017— September 2017: Development of hydrologic plan for eligible areas, modeling of different project scenarios; July 2018—June 2021: Implementation of Resilience Programming in the project area(community engagement, networking, needs assessment); October 2017—December 2017: WMA selects final sites and projects for implementation; January 2018—June 2018: Establish agreements with landowners, selection of contractors; July 2018—June 2020: Construction of projects. July 2020: June 2021: Post-construction data collection and analysis; July 2021—September 2021: Final reports, work with WMA members to help define future steps and funding. Budget: The estimated costs associated with the construction and design in the UWRW totals $6,122,500 ($4,660,000 from HUD, $1,462,500 in landowner contribution). Other items include: $550,000 for hydrologic assessment and watershed plan; $375,000 for WMA coordinator; and $800,000 for data collection, modeling, and analysis. Benefit Cost Analvsis: 18.93 82 Project Description 45: Middle Cedar River Watershed The Middle Cedar River Watershed (MCRW) is a 1.5M-acre watershed that spans parts of 10 counties in Eastern Iowa(Attachment E, Map 8). It encompasses primarily the Iowan Surface landform, characterized by long, gently rolling hills and well-developed stream networks. The MCRW is part of the Cedar River Basin that stretches from Minnesota to Southeast Iowa, where it meets the Iowa River. The MCRW includes some of the richest farmland in the nation. Seventy-three percent of the land is dedicated to row crop agriculture and seed corn production. The MCRW also supports a substantial portion of Iowa's urban areas, including Cedar Rapids (the second largest city in Iowa), Waterloo, and Cedar Falls. The river runs through these metropolitan areas and provides a sense of place. Each community is exploring opportunities to invest in river enhancements and reduce environmental impacts, from policy changes that disallow development in the floodplain and integration of green infrastructure (Cedar Falls)to consideration of recreational amenities such as whitewater parks (Waterloo). The river is of particular interest to Cedar Rapids, which uses shallow groundwater under the influence of the river for its municipal water supply. Additional Mitigating Information: Interest in opportunities to mitigate flood risk and improve water quality runs high in the MCRW. The Cedar River Watershed Coalition formed in response to the 2008 flood and brought together concerned citizens, farmers, soil and water commissioners, and local governmental staff and elected officials. The County Conservation Boards organized another large-scale initiative to develop the Cedar River Watershed Education Program. The program produced television and radio PSAs to educate homeowners and farmers about ways to reduce runoff. The IWA will complement and enhance these programs. In 2013, the MCRW was identified as a priority watershed under the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. The statewide Water Quality Initiative (WQI) selected five HUC 12s in the 83 Middle Cedar for initial implementation of projects aimed at improving water quality. The City of Cedar Rapids led a 2015 effort to organize the Middle Cedar Partnership Project(MCPP)to directly support WQI watershed projects. The MCPP received $2M from USDA-NRCS through the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) and leveraged another $2.3M in partner contributions. The MCPP has drawn support from 16 partners, including state agencies, agribusinesses, nonprofits, local conservation districts, and universities. The WQI and MCPP projects in the Middle Cedar will complement IWA projects, further reducing downstream flooding and improving water quality. WQI and MCPP projects will benefit from the hydrologic assessment and watershed plan developed by the IWA. An effort is currently underway to form a WMA for the MCRW that would unite 47 cities, 10 counties, and 10 soil and water conservation districts. The group will pursue an aggressive timeline for WMA formation. Several counties and cities in the MCRW have indicated support, and those already active in other WMAs will provide leadership and assistance. Two Disasters (DR-4126. DR-4135): Portions of the MCRW were impacted by two severe weather events that resulted in Presidential Disaster Declarations in 2013. The most significant and damaging of these occurred in 2013, when severe storms produced more than 10 inches of rain in late May and early June. Locals feared river levels would reach those of the historic 2008 flood. Cities deployed HESCO barriers, and residents filled and placed sandbags to protect their homes and businesses. The Cedar River at Vinton crested at 18.5 feet, the fourth highest crest at this location, causing widespread damage throughout the community and rural areas. Three weeks later, severe storms hit the region again; the area experienced significant runoff from agricultural fields and urban infrastructure into already high streams and rivers. While river levels fell short of the 2008 flood, damages were significant. In Benton County alone, infrastructure damages totaled $4,955,844 (Phase I, Attachment B). Widespread overland 84 flooding washed out gravel roads throughout the county as well as several recreational areas, including many miles of a rails-to-trails park maintained by Benton County Conservation. In Vinton a deteriorating wood truss bridge was inundated for 72 hours, closing a main link between the community and rural residents. The lost bridge and multiple road washouts required significant detours and additional travel time for emergency responders,threatening the health and safety of rural residents. In adjacent Tama County, which was hit by the same events,the loss of valuable topsoil trumped infrastructure damage. Heavy rains on saturated soils resulted in significant runoff, leading to the loss of tons of topsoil and the leeching of nutrients into the drainage network across the entire watershed. In the MCRW within Tama County, soil losses from DR-4126 were estimated at 2.5-5.0 tons of soil per acre. IDALS estimated that it would cost $27,426,813 to repair the damage from environmental degradation. National Objective,MID-URN, and Vulnerable Populations: The project meets the National Objective of Urgent Need. It will help address unmet needs in an area subject to two Presidential Disaster Declarations in 2013. The MID-URN area of the MCRW, impacted by flooding, includes portions of Benton, Tama, and Buchanan counties, as demonstrated in Phase I and Phase II, Exhibit B. The population in Census Tracts 9602, 9603, and 9604 in the Hinkie, Mud, Opossum, and Wildcat Creek watersheds, within the MID-URN area in Benton County, represent an LMA area, but the area is not primarily residential; proposed projects in those four HUC 12s will have a direct benefit to this area. The project will reduce flood damages to infrastructure, agricultural lands, and urban areas of Vinton and improve water quality for local residents. Local homes will benefit from flood risk reduction. 85 Local transportation infrastructure will incur less damage (in the four identified HUC 12s, flooding washed out gravel roads, making them impassable at more than 25 locations and causing dangerous loss of public and emergency access). The WMA will select Perennial Cover/Grass 60 Oxbow Restoration 4 six additional HUC 12s in Floodplain Restoration 5 Terrace 10 Benton and Tama counties Small Farm Pond (0.25—2 acres) 20 Buffer Strips 30 for a total of 10 HUC 12 Medium Farm Pond (2-5 acres) 50 Bioreactor 5 watersheds. An example Large Farm Pond (5+ acres) 20 Small Wetland 10 distribution of the type and Sediment Detention Basin 20 Large Wetland 20 number of projects likely to be implemented in the Storm Water Detention Basin 20 Saturated Buffer 7 MCRW is listed above. The WMA will finalize the project sites and types based on the selection criteria. The cumulative impact of MCRW activities will also include improved municipal water for Cedar Rapids. Resilience programming will include Tama, Benton, and Buchanan counties, with the initial assessment helping to identify the most vulnerable areas for programmatic focus. This will likely include the communities of Vinton and Tracr. Metrics:Resiliency Value: This approach in the targeted watersheds will reduce flood flows by 25%, thereby reducing damage to repetitive loss sites of the past(agricultural lands, roads, infrastructure, homes), at the outlet of each HUC 12. Environmental Value: Water-quality goals call for the reduction of nitrate loads by 30% and phosphorus loads by 20% at the outlet of each HUC 12. Social Value: This project will result in improved resilience to flooding, especially in the Vinton L/M income area, through programs to promote awareness and a community-wide flood resilience action plan.Economic Revitalization: IWA projects will help reduce future soil 86 loss and erosion, helping to preserve agricultural productivity. Metrics will be evaluated by the collection of scientific data, and activities of the Center for Evaluation and Assessment. Local input: IFC staff participated in a Benton County Board of Supervisors meeting on Sept. 1, 2015, and a Black Hawk County Conservation Board meeting on August 26, 2015. Both groups expressed enthusiasm for the program; they particularly appreciated the fact that participation is voluntary and that they could hire a WMA Coordinator. Participants suggested that these efforts might include levees and voluntary land acquisition as possibilities. (Levees are currently not part of this program, but land acquisition may be considered.) Project Timeline: July 2016—March 2017: Meetings, forums, and the submission and acceptance of Chapter 28E Agreement documents for formation of new Watershed Management Authority; July 2016—June 2019: Social Resilience Programming core activities (community engagement, networking, needs assessment); April 2017—December 2017: Collection of data (topography, soil conditions, etc.) and development of hydrologic assessment of the full HUC 8 watershed; January 2018—June 2018: Development of hydrologic plan for eligible areas, modeling of different project scenarios; July 2018—September 2018: WMA selects final sites and projects for implementation; October 2018—March 2019: Establish agreements with landowners, selection of contractors; April 2019—September 2020: Construction of projects; October 2020— September 2021: Post-construction data collection and analysis, work with WMA members to help them define future steps. Budget: Estimated costs associated with the construction and design totals $16,800,000 ($12,775,000 from HUD; $4,025,000 in landowner contributions). Other items include: $550,000 for hydrologic assessment and watershed plan; $375,000 for WMA coordinator; and $2,000,000 for data collection, modeling, and analysis. Benefit Cost Analvsis: 12.79. 87 Project Description 46: Clear Creek Watershed with Coralville Infrastructure The Clear Creek Project includes projects in the upper watershed (Attachment E, Map 9)to reduce flooding and improve water quality, and infrastructure projects in Coralville to protect commercial and residential property from flooding. The impact of these two activities will be cumulative in Coralville, which will have flood protection by infrastructure to the 500-year flood, and upstream measures that will reduce flood flow and provide additional protection. The Clear Creek Watershed (CCW) covers 66,132 acres (104 square miles), spanning parts of Iowa and Johnson counties in Southeast Iowa Clear Creek empties into the Iowa River at Coralville. The watershed lies entirely within the Southern Iowa Drift Plain, comprised of glacial deposits broken up by many small creeks that have molded the landscape into rolling hills and valleys. Abundant rainfall and fertile soils allowed the conversion of the natural prairie and forested landscape to large-scale intensive agriculture, consisting mainly of a corn-soybean rotation. Eighty-four percent of cropland in the upper portions of the watershed is classified as highly erodible. Intensive agriculture on these soils in a moist climate, coupled with stream channelization in the headwaters and increasing urbanization in the lower portions of the watershed, contribute to flash flooding and water-quality degradation after intense spring storms. Additional Mitigating Information: A WMA is in the final stages of formation in the CCW, led by the cities of Coralville, Iowa City, North Liberty, Tiffin, and Oxford; Johnson County; and the Soil & Water Conservation Districts (S WCD) in both Johnson and Iowa counties. These groups agreed to work together to improve and protect the CCW. The Clear Creek Watershed Enhancement Board (CCWEB)has also been active since 1998. Two Disasters (DR-4119. DR-4126): Torrential rains on April 17, 2013, resulted in the declaration of DR-4119. Coralville reported six inches of rain in 24 hours. Following Iowa's wettest spring on record, these storms created significant runoff. A USGS gauge near Coralville 88 reported a crest of nearly 7,000 cfs (normally 100 cfs). Flooding caused severe washouts and loss of roadway materials on 60 road sections in Johnson County at a cost of$114K. More severe weather hit the area in late May and early June 2013. Impacts from the second disaster focused more on flooding of the Iowa River. Coralville and Iowa City, at Clear Creek's outlet to the Iowa River, braced for potentially historic flooding. Volunteers filled sandbags to protect public facilities and private homes, and the University of Iowa deployed seven miles of HESCO barriers along its riverfront campus. Meanwhile, Clear Creek in Coralville experienced backwater effects as the Iowa River reached its fourth highest crest in history. Damage to Coralville recreational trails totaled $374K. Numerous homes took on water, including many that had never before flooded. Federal assistance was not available for individual assistance for property damage. The Iowa Individual Assistance Grant Program made 47 modest awards totaling $31.5K for personal property and home repair assistance in Johnson County after these floods. IDALS estimated it would cost $4,676,492 to repair damage from soil loss. Coralville Infrastructure: The City of Coralville is set along Clear Creek where it joins the Iowa River a position that leaves it particularly vulnerable to flooding. Flooding originates from either(or both) Clear Creek and backwater from the Iowa River. Recent floods (from 1993 to 2013)have had a devastating impact on the local economy, causing many businesses to relocate. Unprotected storm sewer discharge points along the creeks and river leave systems vulnerable to backwater. The city determined that it was imperative to construct flood mitigation projects, especially for the existing storm sewer system, to protect businesses and residents from future floods. Today Coralville is finished or nearly finished implementing most of these flood protection improvements, but two major projects remain incomplete: a flood wall on the south side of Clear Creek and the reconstruction of Stormwater Pump Stations (PS) 7 and 8. These pump stations are now the "weak links" in Coralville's Flood Protection System. Failure to 89 update these pump stations may allow flood water to bypass the other flood protection improvements and cause catastrophic flooding. The proposed infrastructure project in Coralville is to modify PS 7 and 8 to the same design level as all other Coralville flood mitigation projects. This is the most cost-effective solution to provide consistent flood protection throughout Coralville (the city regulates to the 500-year flood plus one foot freeboard)to minimize property risks. Without these improvements, flood risk in these regions remains unchanged from 2013. The flood-vulnerable area includes 178 acres of developed land with 116 properties, including commercial buildings and multi-family residences, critical infrastructure, U.S. Highway 6 (a major transportation corridor), an AT&T Point of Presence building(covering communications for all of Southeast Iowa), and a Mediacom Internet switch gear. PS 7 protects about 42.8 acres of developed property and PS 8 protects about 135.9 acres. This project will benefit every property owner and tenant within these regions (Attachment E, Maps 10-11, Diagrams 1-2). National Objective, MID-URN, and Vulnerable Populations: Infrastructure: The project will help address unmet needs in an area subject to Presidential Disaster Declarations in 2013. The project meets the National Objective of L/M income, Area Benefit(LMA). This area qualifies as most impacted and distressed due to continued flood damage, including two 2013 floods (DR- 4119, DR-4126). It qualifies as an unmet recovery need; the pumps remain unmodified and unable to protect previously impacted areas from future flooding. Watershed Projects: Portions of Johnson County, Tract 103.01, and Iowa County, Tract 9601, were hardest hit in the CCW, suffering environmental degradation from DR-4119. The project meets the National Objective of Urgent Need (UN). The service area represents an LMA area, but the area is not primarily residential. The sub-county area had excessive soil loss as a result of the heavy rains. An estimated 0.16-0.30 tons of soil were lost per acre, resulting in increased sediment delivery to waterways. Excessive topsoil loss degraded the productive 90 Perennial Cover/Grass 10 Prairie STRIPS 5 capability of the land, endangering the local Oxbow Restoration 2 Terrace 5 agricultural economy. The Floodplain Restoration 3 Buffer Strips 7 event also introduced Small Farm Pond (0.25-2 acres) 10 Bioreactor 5 nutrients into the streams, Medium Farm Pond (2-5 acres) 24 Small Wetland 5 including nitrates and Large Farm Pond (5+ acres) 5 Large Wetland 3 phosphorus. Sediment Detention Basin 15 Saturated Buffer 5 IWA projects will be Storm Water Detention Basin 10 realized in Upper and Middle Clear Creek based on the distribution of MID-URN. Examples of the types and numbers of projects are listed in the above table. The WMA will finalize project selection and distribution based on criteria(see Soundness of Approach, Program 1). The IWA will provide resources to existing partners and stakeholder groups and build on current collaborations. Community resilience programming (see Soundness of Approach, Program 2) in the CCW will help improve local flood resilience. Metrics:Resiliency Value: The watershed projects will reduce flood flows at the outlet of Middle Clear Creek by 25%,thereby reducing damage to repetitive loss sites (agricultural lands, roads, infrastructure, homes). The Coralville infrastructure project will protect at least 116 properties. Environmental Value: Project water-quality goals call for reduction of nitrate loads by 30% and phosphorus loads by 20% at the outlet of Middle Clear Creek. Social Value: This project will result in improved resilience to flooding, especially in the Coralville LMA, through programs to promote awareness and a community flood resiliency action plan. Economic Revitalization: IWA projects will reduce future soil loss and erosion, preserving agricultural productivity. Infrastructure mitigation will also create an estimated 16 jobs in Coralville in year 91 one (see BCA). These metrics will be evaluated by the collection of hydrologic data, and through the activities of the CEA. Local Input: An August 2015 event at the Johnson County Administration Building featured community discussion of the IWA and inclusion of the CCW in the proposal. The Johnson County Board of Supervisors supports IWA for the resources it will provide to CCW residents and the connections it will build among urban and rural communities. Participants noted the need for funding to apply practices to retain soil health, improve water quality, and reduce flooding. Timeline: Watershed Projects: July 2016—March 2017: Meetings with partners, construction of shovel-ready practices; April 2017—December 2017: Collection of data(topography, soil conditions, etc.) and development of hydrologic assessment of the full HUC 8 watershed; January 2018—June 2018: Development of hydrologic plan for eligible areas, modeling of different project scenarios; July 2018—September 2018: WMA selects final sites and projects for implementation; July 2018-June 2021: Social Resilience Programming core activities; October 2018March2019: Establish agreements with landowners, selection of contractors; April 2019— September 2020: Construction of projects; October 2020—September 2021: Post-construction data collection and analysis, work with WMA members to define future steps. Infrastructure: July October 30, 2016: Engineering design plans and specifications; November 2016—December 2016: Permitting; January February 2017: Construction and Letting; March 2017—October 2018: Construction; NovemberDecember2018: Acceptance and Closeout. Budget: Watershed Projects: Estimated costs associated with construction and design total $6,148,750 ($4,660,000 from HUD; $1,488,750 from landowner contributions). Other items: $375K for hydrologic assessment and watershed plan; $375K for WMA coordinator; and $800K for data collection, modeling, and analysis. Infrastructure: $2,446,400 (HUD + direct leverage). BCA: 6.81 (4.77 for Watershed Projects and 12.89 for Infrastructure). 92 Project Description 47: English River Watershed The English River Watershed is a 639-square mile watershed that encompasses parts of six counties in Southeast Iowa(Attachment E, Map 9). The English River Watershed (ERW) is part of the Lower Iowa River and is characteristic of an agricultural watershed within the Southern Iowa Drift Plain. This landform is typified by an undulating landscape with tabular uplands and a complex dendritic network of incised river and stream valleys. The ERW is an agricultural watershed that is home to about 21,700 people, the majority of whom live in several small communities. Most of the farmland has been modified with tile drainage and two-thirds of the landscape is row crop. A quarter of the area is grassland or pasture, and approximately 6% is timber. Additional Mitigating Information and Unique Partners: The English River Watershed Management Authority(ERWMA) was formed in 2013 to address flooding and water-quality issues. The IDNR awarded the ERWMA a grant through the Section 319 program to develop a comprehensive watershed management plan to develop a roadmap for future mitigation efforts. The watershed plan is out for public comment and will be finalized in late 2015. The watershed plan identifies two key natural resource concerns: water quality and flooding. As with most Iowa watersheds, nutrient loss is problematic in the ERW. As part of the comprehensive watershed plan development process, the Iowa Soybean Association performed water-quality testing three times in 2014 at 20 sites in the watershed. Results indicated seven of subwatersheds in the English River Valley had elevated nitrate levels (greater than 10 ppm). Significant spikes were observed in April and July, which may correlate to heavy rain events. The highest nitrate levels were found in the Upper North English, Camp, and Deer Creek subwatersheds across multiple seasons. Phosphorus is also of concern in the ERW, causing nuisance algal blooms in Lake Iowa in the ERW. 93 The IFC conducted a hydrologic analysis of the ERW as part of the watershed plan development. According to the analysis, flood events have occurred in one-third of the last 75 years; 13 of those floods occurred between May and July. The hydrologic analysis also provided information on areas of the watershed most vulnerable to high runoff or high flood potential, and identified areas where increased filtration, through practices like ponds, could provide the most potential flood relief. Areas with high average runoff were generally located in the upper and middle portion of the watershed. The comprehensive watershed plan also includes a survey of ERW residents, both urban and rural. Of the 688 randomly sampled watershed landowners, nearly 25 percent participated in the survey, providing their unique perspectives as farmers, urban homeowners, business owners, and taxpayers. Nearly 42% of responders had watershed properties that were impacted by flooding in the last 10 years, but only 33% indicated that they were concerned about future flooding. In addition, 42% of respondents indicated that they were unsure whether enough was being done to address flooding in Iowa, and 27%felt that not enough was being done. In general, respondents agreed (either"strongly" or "somewhat") with the following statements: 1) We need to improve water quality(85%); 2) We need to improve soil health (84%); 3) We need to provide more education for landowners on water-quality issues (76%); and 4) We need to increase incentives for farmers to protect soil and water (71%). The Disaster(DR-4119): Heavy rains in April 2013 resulted in the English River at Kalona cresting at 22.47 feet, the second highest crest for the river at that location. In Iowa County, the MID-URN area of this watershed, nearly 38 miles of roads in the ERW were washed out. The heaviest rains from this storm moved through the southern half of Iowa County in the ERW, where some areas experienced up to eight inches of rain during the event(Phase I, Attachment B-17). These rains in April came on the heels of Iowa's wettest spring on record and 94 resulted in significant runoff and loss of valuable topsoil on agricultural fields. An estimated 0.5 tons of soil for every acre of farmland was lost during this disaster. Valuable carbon and nitrogen that crops rely on for production washed away with soil. These soils help make Iowa(and the Midwest)the agricultural breadbasket of the country; soil loss threatens the economic vitality of this watershed. As a result of the overland flooding and the loss of topsoil, ditches filled to capacity because of the significant amount of soil moving with the runoff. Locations throughout the county required assistance and unanticipated costs to remove the topsoil from the ditches so waters could properly drain. Additional societal costs included sedimentation of downstream water bodies and heightened turbidity, which interrupted the natural cycles of aquatic life and reduced the aesthetic value for recreation in the watershed. IDALS estimated that it would cost $3,211,683 to repair the damage from environmental degradation. National Objective, MID-URN, and Vulnerable Populations: The project meets the National Objective of Urgent Need. The project helps address unmet needs in an area subject to a Presidential Disaster Declaration in 2013. The MID-URN area of the ERW is in the upper reaches of the watershed, with unmet needs located in southern Iowa County because of the localized heavy rain and significant topsoil loss from DR-4119. Projects will be implemented in this area because of the damages sustained during DR-4119 and the long history of flooding challenges in this watershed. An example distribution of the types and numbers of likely projects for the ERW is listed below. Projects and practices in the ERW will target practices, such as retention ponds, that focus on runoff reduction to decrease flooding and retain topsoil and sediment; these can be used to capture and store water temporarily, allowing it to be released more slowly downstream. The 95 WMA will finalize the exact selection and distribution of projects based on the selection criteria These practices will have long-term flood reduction and water-quality benefits for landowners, Perennial Cover/Grass 20 Prairie STRIPS 6 nearby residents, and Oxbow Restoration 3 Terrace 10 downstream residents. The target area served does not Floodplain Restoration 5 Buffer Strips 10 qualify as LMI, but Iowa Small Farm Pond (0.25-2 acres) 10 Bioreactor 5 County Tract 3705 Block Medium Farm Pond (2-5 acres) 30 Small Wetland 10 Group 1 in North English Large Farm Pond (5+ acres) 10 Large Wetland 5 represents an LJM income Sediment Detention Basin 20 Saturated Buffer 5 area that will directly benefit Storm Water Detention Basin 10 from this project. The initial assessment will be used to help identify the most vulnerable areas for the resilience programming focus. This will likely include the communities of North English and Millersburg. Consultation: Information on the IWA was presented at a public Iowa County Board of Supervisors meeting on August 28, 2015. After describing the program, participants reiterated that they are interested in project implementation funding(not just planning and monitoring). Iowa County participants were also concerned about the role of a"Watershed Management Authority,"how their community would benefit from projects, and whether other groups, such as NRCS and USACE, were involved. Questions were answered to their satisfaction. Metrics:Resiliency Value: This approach in the targeted watersheds will reduce flood flows by 25%, thereby reducing damage to repetitive loss sites of the past(agricultural lands, roads, infrastructure, homes) at the outlet of each HUC 12. Environmental Value: Project water-quality goals call for the reduction of nitrate loads by 30% and phosphorus loads by 20% at the outlet of 96 each HUC 12. Social Value: This project will result in improved resilience to flooding, including the English River LMI area, through programs to promote awareness and a community-wide flood resilience action plan. These metrics will be evaluated by the collection of scientific data (water quality and quantity), and activities of the CEA. Project Timeline: July 2016—March 2017: Collection of data(topography, soil conditions, etc.) and development of a(refined)hydrologic assessment of the full HUC 8 watershed; April 2017—September 2017: Development of hydrologic plan for eligible areas, modeling of different project scenarios; July 2018—June 2021: Implementation of Resilience Programming (community engagement, networking, needs assessment) in the project area, October 2017— December 2017: WMA selects final sites and projects for implementation; January 2018—June 2018: Establish agreements with landowners, selection of contractors; July 2018—June 2020: Construction of projects. July 2020—June 2021: Post-construction data collection and analysis; July 2021—September 2021: Final reports, work with WMA members to help define future steps and funding. Budget: The estimated costs associated with the construction and design in the ERW totals $9,208,750 ($6,990,000 from HUD; $2,218,750 in landowner contributions). Other items include: $250,000 for hydrologic assessment and watershed plan; $375,000 for WMA coordinator; and $1,200,000 for data collection, modeling, and analysis. Benefit Cost Analvsis: 5.17 97 Project Description 48: North Raccoon River and Storm Lake Infrastructure The North Raccoon River in Central Iowa is a tributary of the Des Moines River, flowing mainly through the Des Moines Lobe landform, which retains imprints of glacial occupation, such as abundant moraines and shallow wetland basins (potholes) (Attachment E, Map 12). This "prairie pothole" landscape is dominated by flat land and poor surface drainage. The North Raccoon River Watershed (NRRW) is heavily tiled. Row crop production (corn and soybeans) accounts for 85% of its land area. The North Raccoon is used for swimming, canoeing, and fishing. The NRRW landscape is considered the most important and threatened waterfowl habitat in North America, supporting more than 300 migratory bird species. Additional Mitigating Information: The 2011 Raccoon River Watershed Water Quality Master Plan informs and guides efforts to improve environmental conditions and maintain the vigor of local agricultural production. The plan will provide foundational information for the hydrologic assessment and watershed plan. In 2013, the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy named the NRRW a priority watershed. Many organizations are currently active in the Water Quality Initiative (WQI) project in the NRRW watershed. This project and others, such as a recent Department of Energy award to Antares Group Inc., will complement IWA projects, resulting in significant data sharing among groups. Two Disasters (DR-1977, DR-4126): In May 2013, Buena Vista County experienced high winds,tornadoes, and heavy rainfall countywide, with an average of seven inches of rain. Some areas received 8-10 inches in 48 hours. Spring 2013 was the wettest on record statewide, and soils were already saturated. The storms resulted in runoff from agricultural fields and urban infrastructure into streams and rivers already flowing high. In Buena Vista County alone, these storms resulted in $5,635,426 in infrastructure damages (see Phase I, Threshold). More than 30 secondary roads were washed out, and nearly five miles of roads had to be replaced at a cost of 98 $.SM. Many properties in the City of Storm Lake were impacted. The Iowa Individual Assistance Grant Program made 242 awards (less than $5K each)totaling $222,700 for personal property and home repair assistance in Buena Vista County after the 2013 flood. April 2011 storms caused major topsoil loss in Pocahontas County (see Phase II, Threshold) and increased sediment delivery to waterways, introducing nutrients into the stream system that would otherwise have been available for crops. IDALS estimated that it would cost $8,123,344 to repair the damage from environmental degradation. Watershed Projects: Outlet Creek, which includes Alta and Storm Lake, will be selected as a target HUC 12 to minimize the impact of heavy rains on these communities, to mitigate damage to secondary road networks and agricultural land, and to improve water quality. This will Perennial Cover/Grass 28 Buffer Strips 10 complement proposed infra- structure work in Storm Oxbow Restoration 10 Bioreactor 4 Lake. Headwaters Cedar Small Farm Pond (0.25-2 acres) 8 Small Wetland 15 Creek in Pocahontas will be Medium Farm Pond (2-5 acres) 4 Large Wetland 7 selected as one HUC 12 to Sediment Detention Basin 5 Saturated Buffer 4 support and complement the Storm Water Detention Basin 5 WQI in that watershed. The WMA will select two more HUC 12s in Buena Vista and Pocahontas counties. A sample distribution of the type and number of likely projects in the NRRW is listed above. The WMA will finalize selection and distribution of projects based on selection criteria Infrastructure: Storm Lake is prone to flooding, resulting in frequent damage to public and private property(Attachment E, Maps 13-24). The city is undertaking a multifaceted approach to make the community more flood resilient. This includes a sanitary sewer flood mitigation upgrade to the wastewater treatment plant and conveyance system to reduce sewer backups 99 into homes and avoid release of untreated wastewater into the environment. These projects are necessary before subsequent work can move forward. The effort comprises eight phases. Activity 1: Spooner and Seneca Street storm sewers are inadequate to convey atypical two-inch rainfall event. Heavy rains in 2011 and 2013 caused system deterioration and damage to private residences. The city will reconstruct the roadways with pervious (or permeable) pavement and a storm water quality system, which stores and conveys storm water to the former railroad line controlled by the city. The system will include a treatment train with bio- swales and other features to improve water quality. Activity 2: 4th Street and Oates Street experienced severe flooding contaminated with high concentrations of e. coli. Storm water improvements to the area will include installation of pervious pavers along with bio-retention cells and rain gardens to reduce flooding and nutrient load entering the lake. Activity 3: The trunk sanitary sewer on 7th and Geneseo will be replaced. The current 10" sanitary sewer line is undersized, causing severe surcharging during two-year rain events. This causes significant backups and flooding in the neighborhood. It also requires localized bypass pumping. The project would replace the undersized system with a 15" sewer line from the intersection of 7th and Ontario to the trunk sewer by Highway 7. Activity 4: Storm water improvements in the Memorial Park area directly above the lake inlet will reduce flooding on Highway 7. Flooding has damaged retail establishments to the detriment of Storm Lake's economy. Improvements include a treatment train of bio-swales in conjunction with pervious pavement at the ballfield parking lot to collect, treat, and convey the storm water to the lake. Activity 5: The area near Mae and 1st Street east to the Memorial Street Lift Station is very susceptible to surcharging and bypass events, as well as frequent, significant backups and floods. A cured-in-place pipe (CIDP), a lining of the 24" and 18" sanitary trunk sewers, will be put in place from Mae and 1st Street east to the Memorial Street Lift Station to help to prevent release 100 of raw sewage directly into the lake and avoid sewer backups into homes. Activity 6: Flooding of the 10th and Ontario storm water system impacts numerous LMI property owners. The addition of storm water capacity on city-owned property across from the Field of Dreams (FOD) sports complex will reduce flooding. Bio-swales and retention basins along the FOD parking area and a storm water basin north of the field will protect the area from a 100-year storm. Activity 7: 4th Street from Western to Barton Streets experiences flash flooding that inundates homes during nearly all rain events. Reconstruction of the streets with pervious pavement and replacement of the existing storm sewer will reduce flooding and significantly improve the quality of the storm water runoff to the lake. Activity 8: Construction of wetland ponds will complement projects partially funded by the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and help settle out nutrients before the water is released to the Raccoon River. National Objective, MID-URN, and Vulnerable Populations: The project meets the National Objective of Urgent Need and will address unmet needs in areas subject to 2011 and 2013 Presidential Disaster Declarations. The target MID-URN area of the NRRW is in Buena Vista and Pocahontas counties. Buena Vista County qualifies under significant remaining infrastructure damage, especially in Storm Lake. The infrastructure projects meet the National Objective of LMA. Pocahontas County qualifies under environmental damage. Local Input: A community meeting in Storm Lake on Sept. 22, 2015, brought together representatives from NRRW city and county entities. Participants expressed concerns about water-quality degradation and recognized the IWA's potential. This project will help stakeholders protect and enhance their natural resources. Metrics:Resiliency Value: The IWA in the targeted watersheds will reduce flood flows by 25%, thereby reducing damage to repetitive loss sites of the past(agricultural lands, roads, infrastructure, homes) at the outlet of each HUC 12. Infrastructure updates in Storm Lake will 101 increase local property values. Environmental Value: Water-quality goals call for the reduction of nitrate loads by 30% and phosphorus loads by 20% at the outlet of each HUC 12. Social Value: This project will result in improved flood resilience, especially in Storm Lake, by promoting awareness and a community-wide flood resilience action plan. Economic Revitalization: IWA projects will reduce future soil loss and erosion, preserving agricultural productivity. hi Storm Lake, this project will help prevent flooding of homes and businesses. Project Timeline: Watershed Projects: July 2016—March 2017: Meetings, forums, submission and acceptance of Chapter 28E Agreement documents for formation of new WMA; April 2017— September 2020: Social Resilience Programming; June 2018—June 2021: Collection of data and development of hydrologic assessment of the full HUC 8 watershed; January 2018June2018: Development of hydrologic plan for eligible areas, modeling of scenarios; July 2018—September 2018: WMA selects final sites and projects for implementation; October 2018—March 2019: Establish agreements with landowners, selection of contractors; April 2019—September 2020: Projects construction; October 2020—September 2021: Post-construction data collection and analysis, work with WMA members to help them define future steps. Infrastructure: July 2016— December 2017: Phases 2-7 (simultaneous); July 2017December2018: Phases 1 and 8. Budget: Watershed Projects: Estimated construction/design costs total $6,146,250 ($4,660,000 from HUD; $1,486,250 in landowner contributions). Other items include: $350,000 for hydrologic assessment and watershed plan; $375,000 for WMA coordinator; and $800,000 for data collection, modeling, and analysis. Infrastructure: Phase 1: $1,787,000; Phase 2: $895,000; Phase 3: $295,000; Phase 4: $430,000; Phase 5: $1,228,000; Phase 6: $1,943,000; Phase 7: $780,000; Phase 8: 1,275,000. BCA: 14.71 (30.68 for Watershed Projects and 1.17 for Infrastructure) 102 Project Description 49: East Nishnabotna River Watershed The East Nishnabotna Watershed (ENW) encompasses 696,400 acres and touches 10 counties in Southwest Iowa(Attachment E, Map 25). The ENW is part of the Nishnabotna Basin that drains to the Missouri River, a crucial water body that provides feeding, breeding, and resting areas for hundreds of species of birds and fish. Located in the Southern Iowa Drift Plain Region with broad rolling uplands and deep valleys, the ENW's adjoining woodland areas provide abundant habitat for wildlife and are frequently used for recreation. Abundant archaeological sites and artifacts from the area provide insight into pre-historic life in the region. In the early 1900s, farmers began to transform the landscape from prairie to farmland. Channel straightening during this time altered the naturally meandering streams. About 75% of the lower 100 miles of the East Nishnabotna River were straightened. The fertile loess soils are intensively farmed and susceptible to erosion and streambank degradation. The predominant land use is for row crops; about 76% of the watershed is in corn and soybeans. Additional Mitigating Information and Unique Partners: In 2011, a comprehensive plan was developed for seven counties in the Loess Hills region in Western Iowa, including Fremont County in the East Nishnabotna. The plan looked at changes in the area during the last 20 years and set goals for the future. It found that from 1992-2006, cropland in the Loess Hills region increased by more than 50,000 acres, and impervious surfaces increased by 30,000 acres. The Loess Hills Alliance is one local group working to restore woodland and prairie areas. The IWA will build upon the 2011 comprehensive plan and complement work of the Loess Hills Alliance. The ENW was selected by the Iowa Water Resources Coordinating Council as a high priority area for implementing conservation practices outlined in Iowa's Nutrient Reduction Strategy. The Bluegrass and Crabapple Project in the ENW received $1.2M in project funds to 103 demonstrate practices to improve water quality, network with landowners, and provide education and outreach opportunities. The IWA will also build upon existing assessment and modeling work completed by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE). The USACE will share site information for practices that are "shovel ready"to help mitigate flooding and improve water quality. The IFC and the USACE will partner to ensure consistent hydrologic assessment and modeling in the ENW. East Nishnabotna IWA projects will also build upon the current work of the Golden Hills Resource Conservation and Development(RC&D). The RC&D's Hungry Canyon Alliance (HCA) is dedicated to working with landowners to implement streambank stabilization structures. The HCA estimates that for every $1 invested in streambed stabilization structures, about 0.98 tons of soil are protected from erosion. The IWA will provide additional resources to help implement streambank stabilization structures that will serve the dual purpose of benefiting soil health and improving water quality by decreasing sediment transportation. The Disaster: In 2011, the Missouri River experienced record-setting floods, affecting six Southwest Iowa counties, including the East Nishnabotna in Fremont County. Above average rain in the fall of 2010, followed by record-setting winter snowfall and spring rain, caused the flooding. Super-saturated soils were unable to absorb the immense amount of precipitation. Intense flooding covered roads and bridges with debris, undermined roads and culverts, and damaged bridges. In a report released by the Iowa DOT, estimated costs to repair flood damage to transportation infrastructure on primary and secondary roads in the affected counties in Southwest Iowa totaled $63.5M. The Iowa Farm Bureau calculated damage to fields and lost crop income at $52.2M in Fremont County alone. Moving flood waters carry with them hazardous chemicals and diseases, and currents also carry materials that can cause personal injuries. Standing, stagnant water following a flood event 104 also poses a threat to public health and wildlife. The degradation of water quality in Fremont County in the ENW following the 2011 Missouri River floods led to its Presidential Disaster Declaration in June 2011. IDALS estimated that it would cost $1,932,648 to repair the damage from environmental degradation. Proposed Project in the East Nishnabotna: Based on the distribution of environmental MID- URN, the project will target two HUC 12s (Mill and Ledgewood creeks) in Fremont County to implement built projects. Practices will be aimed at protecting the soil and increasing its water holding capacity, channel bank stabilization, reducing runoff and downstream flooding, and improving water quality. The presence of impaired waters in Fremont County threatens recreation, tourism, and wildlife, and thus could have an economic impact on the watershed. This project will work to make the distressed area more resilient to future flood events that can compromise water quality and impact public health during floods. An example of the suite Channel Bank Stabilization 15 Prairie STRIPS 5 of practices to be Perennial Cover/Grass 8 Terrace 5 installed in the Oxbow Restoration 5 Buffer Strips 4 watershed is listed left). Floodplain Restoration 2 Bioreactor 1 Implemented practices Small Farm Pond(0.25-2 acres) 2 Small Wetland 1 substantially lessen Medium Farm Pond(2-5 acres) 2 Large Wetland 1 flood impacts on the watershed, which will Sediment Detention Basin 2 Saturated Buffer 1 directly reduce the Storm Water Detention Basin 2 amount of runoff leading to water-quality impairments. Residents downstream of installed practices will benefit from reduced peak flows during flood events, safer drinking water for communities dependent on 105 shallow groundwater, and recreation opportunities. Conservation practices will provide habitat for many unique species of plants and animals residing in the diverse ecology found only in this part of Iowa. National Objective, MID-URN, and Vulnerable Populations: The project meets the National Objective of Urgent Need. The project will help address unmet needs in an area subject to a Presidential Disaster Declaration in 2011. The presence of water-quality 303d impairments resulted in the MID-URN classification for Tract 9701 in Fremont County. Several segments of the East Nishnabotna are listed on Iowa's 303d impaired waters list per the Clean Water Act including the entire 28-mile stretch of the river that runs east to west and spans the full width of Tract 9710. This stretch of the East Nishnabotna is impaired due to heightened levels of e. coli and does not support recreational uses. The MID-URN areas of the watershed are located in Fremont County, where four HUC 12s will be identified to implement practices designed to reduce flood risk, improve water quality, and improve resiliency to future disaster events. The IWA will address the needs of the East Nishnabotna Watershed in response to the 2011 Missouri River floods. The project will create a replicable model that the East Nishnabotna Watershed can rely on to secure additional funding and resources to carry out project implementation for years to come. The initial assessment will be used to help identify the most vulnerable areas for the resilience programming focus. This will likely include Farragut. Consultation: A Phase II community engagement meeting was held on Sept. 14, 2015. Participants recognized an immediate correlation between the current needs of the watershed and the work proposed by the IWA. Residents of the county embraced the project description for the multiple benefits it will provide to their livelihood and for protection of the natural resources they enjoy and rely upon. 106 Metrics:Resiliency Value: This approach in the targeted watersheds will reduce flood flows by 25%, thereby reducing damage to repetitive loss sites of the past at the outlet of each HUC 12. Environmental Value: Project water-quality goals are reduction of nitrate loads by 30% and phosphorus loads by 20% at the outlet of each HUC 12. Social Value: This project will result in improved resilience to flooding, especially in the MID-URN areas,through programs to promote awareness and develop a community-wide flood resilience action plan. Economic Revitalization: IWA projects will help reduce future soil loss and erosion, helping to preserve agricultural productivity. These metrics will be evaluated through the collection of scientific data and the activities of the Center for Evaluation and Assessment. Project Timeline: July 2016—March 2017: Meetings, forums, submission and acceptance of Chapter 28E Agreement documents for formation of new Watershed Management Authority; April 2017June2020: Social Resilience Programming (community engagement, networking, needs assessment); April 2017December2017: Collection of data(topography, soil conditions, etc.) and development of hydrologic assessment of the full HUC 8 watershed; January 2018— June 2018: Development of hydrologic plan for eligible areas, modeling of different project scenarios; July 2018—September 2018: WMA selects final sites and projects for implementation; October 2018—March 2019: Establish agreements with landowners, selection of contractors; April 2019—September 2020: Construction of projects; October 2020—September 2021: Post- construction data collection and analysis, work with WMA to define future steps. Budget: The estimated costs associated with the construction and design in the ENW totals $3,076,250 ($2,330,000 from HUD, $746,250 in landowner contributions). Other items include: $350,000 for hydrologic assessment and watershed plan; $375,000 for WMA coordinator; and $400,000 for data collection, modeling, and analysis. Benefit Cost Analvsis: 25.51 107 Project Description 410: West Nishnabotna River Watershed The West Nishnabotna River in Southwest Iowa is atributary of the Missouri River (Attachment E, Map 25). The watershed includes 489,500 acres within the Southern Iowa Drift Plain Region, with its steeply rolling uplands and wide valleys. This area consists of thick loess deposits with underlying glacial till and is highly erodible and susceptible to severe stream degradation. The river is used heavily for recreation, tourism, provides many historic and cultural resources, and includes the only state-designated water trail in Southwest Iowa. Currently, 80% of the watershed is cropland. Prior to the 1900s, the West Nishnabotna River meandered naturally, with gently sloping stream banks and wet prairies. Channel straightening in the early 1900s affected about 90 percent of the lower 100 miles of the river. An estimated $1.1B in damage has since accrued from damaged bridges, utility lines, culverts, farmland, and sediment deposition from post- channelization streambank erosion. Today, the West Nishnabotna River Water Trail is one of the most physically altered state water trails in Iowa, with 15-foot high banks and no riparian zone. Additional Mitigating Information: The West Nishnabotna River provides numerous recreational opportunities paddling, canoeing, camping, fishing, hunting, and wildlife watching. Besides the Missouri River, the West Nishnabotna is the most heavily used recreational river in the area A report by ISU's Center for Agricultural and Rural Development ("Iowa Rivers & River Corridors Recreation Survey") showed 134,755 trips reported and total spending of$3,654,920 in 2010. In May 2014,the West Nishnabotna River Trail Plan was created, examining existing conditions of the water trail and providing recommendations for improvements. This plan will provide information for the IWA hydrologic assessment. In 2013, the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy identified the West Nishnabotna River Watershed (WNRW) as a high priority area for implementing best management practices 108 (BMPs)for reducing nitrogen and phosphorous loads. The Walnut Creek Watershed Project encompasses three HUC 12s in the watershed that receive Water Quality Initiative funding. The project includes $1M to be used for building partner relationships and demonstrating BMPs. These projects will complement the IWA by increasing awareness of watershed management, building upon existing producer relationships, and continuing momentum for implementing environmentally-sound land management practices. There are several strong partners in the WNRW, including the Golden Hills Resource Conservation and Development(RC&D). The RC&D's Hungry Canyons Alliance Project provides state and federal money to 23 counties in Western Iowa, including those within the WNRW. Since 1992, the program has provided $20.5M for technical assistance for grade control structures and streambed stabilization practices. Local stakeholder groups, including Mills and Fremont County Conservation Boards, Boards of Supervisors, and local NRCS Service Centers will be essential resources for project development. The IWA hydrologic assessment and watershed plan will build upon existing hydrologic modeling and inundation mapping projects recently completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Disaster(DR-1998): From late May through August 2011, the Missouri River Basin experienced widespread record flooding that severely impacted six counties in Western Iowa. As the Missouri River swelled, a levee near Hamburg, Iowa, broke, sending an immense amount of raging water toward the small town and to the north, displacing about 300 residents from their homes and businesses. The extreme flood caused five fatalities and major damage to communities, livelihoods, infrastructure, transportation, agriculture, and public health. Flooding closed more than 100 miles of secondary roads in Iowa, as well as several interchanges along Interstate 29 (I-29). Bridges, roads, and culverts were washed out or left covered with a thick layer of mud and debris. The estimated cost of the damages was more than $213. The Iowa DOT 109 estimated that repairs to flood damaged transportation infrastructure on primary and secondary roads in the affected Iowa counties would cost$63.5M. The Iowa Farm Bureau calculated damage to fields and lost crop income at $22.2M in Mills County alone. The MID-URN classification for Tract 401 in Mills County is based on water-quality impairments. Several segments and tributaries of the West Nishnabotna are listed on Iowa's 303d impaired waters list including a 15.5-mile stretch of the West Nishnabotna and the 5.5-mile long Mud Creek, both in Mills County. This stretch of the West Nishnabotna is impaired due to high levels of e. coli and thus cannot currently support recreational uses. Mud Creek is impaired due to the lack of biological diversity. DR-1998 exacerbated both of these impairments, making the already dangerous floodwaters an even greater risk to health and the environment. IDALS estimated that it would cost $5,939,324 to repair the damage from environmental degradation. Two HUC 12s in Mills County, including a portion of Mud Creek and Willow Slough-West Nishnabotna River, have been selected as project watersheds because the service area(Census Tract 401, Block Group 1) is also an LMA area,though it is not residential. This area has many remaining challenges since the 2011 flood, including both a displacement of families after the flood, not all of whom have returned, and a shortage of affordable housing. National Objective, MID-URN, and Vulnerable Populations: The project meets the National Objective of Urgent Need. The project will help address unmet needs in an area receiving a Presidential Disaster Declaration in 2011. It will address environmental MID-URN. The two selected HUC 12s in Mills County will directly benefit vulnerable populations through decreased flow and improved water quality, and may also improve local shallow wells. Channel bank stabilization, oxbow reconnection, and floodplain restoration will help slow erosion. The WMA will select four additional HUC 12s based on the required criteria. An example of the type and number of practices to be implemented in the WNRW is listed below. The project will set a 110 precedent for future work in the watershed to help communities become more resilient to disasters, connecting the watershed, reducing flood risk, and improving water quality and environmental resilience. Resilience programming will include both Fremont and Mills counties, with the initial assessment helping to identify the most vulnerable areas for programmatic focus. One focus area will include the Mud Creek HUC 12 in north Mills County. Channel Bank Stabilization 52 Prairie STRIPS 10 Consultation: A Perennial Cover/Grass 20 Terrace 10 community engagement event was held on Sept. 14, 2015. Oxbow Restoration 5 Buffer Strips 10 Participants recognized an Floodplain Restoration 9 Bioreactor 3 immediate correlation Small Farm Pond (0.25-2 acres) 5 Small Wetland 3 between the current needs of Medium Farm Pond (2-5 acres) 5 Large Wetland 1 the watershed and the work Sediment Detention Basin 5 Saturated Buffer 2 proposed by the IWA. Storm Water Detention Basin 10 Residents embraced the project description for the multiple benefits it will provide to their livelihood and to protect the natural resources upon which they rely. Metrics:Resiliency Value: This approach in the targeted watersheds will reduce flood flows by 25%, thereby reducing damage to repetitive loss sites of the past(agricultural lands, roads, infrastructure, homes) at the outlet of each HUC 12. Environmental Value: Project water-quality goals call for the reduction of nitrate loads by 30% and phosphorus loads by 20% at the outlet of each HUC 12. Social Value: This project will result in improved resilience to flooding, especially in the LMI area, through programs to promote awareness and a community-wide flood resilience action plan (See Soundness of Approach, Program 2). Economic Revitalization: Soil erosion is a 111 significant problem in the WNRW and a threat to agricultural productivity. IWA projects will help reduce soil loss and erosion, maintaining Iowa's important agricultural economy. We will evaluate these metrics by the collection of hydrologic data(water quality and quantity), and with assistance from the Center for Evaluation and Assessment. Project Timeline: July 2016—March 2017: Meetings, forums, submission and acceptance of Chapter 28E Agreement documents for formation of new Watershed Management Authority; April 2017—September 2020: Social Resilience Programming core activities (community engagement, networking, needs assessment); April 2017December2017: Collection of data(topography, soil conditions, etc.) and development of hydrologic assessment of the full HUC 8 watershed; January 2018June2018: Development of hydrologic plan for eligible areas, modeling of different project scenarios; July 2018—September 2018: WMA selects final sites and projects for implementation; October 2018—March 2019: Establish agreements with landowners, selection of contractors; April 2019—September 2020: Construction of projects; October 2020—September 2021: Post- construction data collection and analysis, work with WMA members to help define future steps. Budget: The estimated costs associated with the construction and design in the ENW totals $9,221,250 ($6,990,000 from HUD; $2,231,250 in landowner contributions). Other items include: $350,000 for hydrologic assessment and watershed plan; $375,000 for WMA coordinator; and $1,200,000 for data collection, modeling, and analysis. Benefit Cost Analvsis: 16.11 112 Exhibit B Threshold Requirement State of Iowa Iowa_PhaseII_Threshold.pdf Threshold The State of Iowa submits this update to MID-URN Threshold for its Phase 2 application. This is Iowa's only application to this program. The Phase 1 MID-URN threshold submission for infrastructure and environmental unmet recovery needs are still current. The Iowa Watershed Approach will include Eligible Activities to address our unmet recovery needs including: Housing Rehabilitation 105(a) (4) [see Project#1: Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency Program, with activities to make homes more resilient to flooding]; Public Facilities and Improvements 105(a)(2) [see Projects #2-10: Watershed Projects and Infrastructure Projects, with activities to improve natural and community resilience to flooding]; and Planning and Capacity Building 105 (a)(12) [see Program 2, Community Resilience Programming, as incorporated into Projects #1-10, with public engagement programs designed to improve local community resilience to flooding]. These Eligible Activities are also scoped to accomplish the National Objectives of L/M Income Housing(LMH), L/M Income, Area Benefit(LMA) and Urgent Need (UN). These Eligible Activities and National Objectives are described fully in relation to the program service areas in the Soundness of Approach. The first 6 sub-county areas are additions to the MID-URN Threshold area from Phase 1. After many stakeholder engagement meetings, additional impacts and unmet recovery needs are documented. The methodology to determine most impacted and distressed sub-county areas by environmental degradation is supported by experts from the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the USDA and the Department of Agronomy at Iowa State University. See Phase 1 Iowa Environmental Degradation Determination Methodology. These eligible areas within our identified target watersheds are now included in the Phase 2 Iowa Watershed Approach. 4 Watersheds Projects The target area identified as most impacted and distressed is Fremont County, Census Tract 9701 Block Groups 1 and 2 as a result of DR-1998 that occurred in 2011. This sub-county area qualifies as impacted under Environmental Degradation. The designated sub-county area had excessive soil loss as a result of the impacts of disaster DR-1998. This soil loss resulted in increased sediment delivery to waterways in the immediate vicinity, and further downstream effects. This in turn introduced nutrients into the stream system, including nitrates and phosphorus, which would otherwise be available as nutrients required to maintain crop productivity. This adds to the Gulf of Mexico hypoxia problem, a national environmental concern. The excessive loss of topsoil during the disaster event period degraded the productive capability of the land, resulting in permanently lower crop yield potential, even with the addition of even more nutrients and other costly inputs, which places economic revitalization at risk. The reduced productive capability as a result of the loss of topsoil reduces system resilience and means that further inputs (fertilizer) will need to be introduced to help offset a portion of the degradation impacts on lost soil productivity, introducing additional economic burdens on producers in the area, and perpetuating the environmental degradation of this area and interrelated areas downstream. If another comparable event occurs, the area can expect to see accelerated loss of soil productivity, and loss of nutrients which accelerates the environmental degradation downstream. See DR-1998 Most Impacted data for maps and supporting analysis documentation This sub-county area is an area that has prior documented environmental distress with the presence of a Category 4 or Category 5 Impaired Waters (as defined by section 303 of the Clean Water Act) stream segment within the East Nishnabotna River - Fourmile Creek, Fisher Creek, Ledgewood Creek and Mill Creek; West Nishnabotna Spring Valley Creek, Deer Creek, Honey Creek, Lower Walnut Creek, Hunter Branch, Outlet Walnut Creek, Camp Creek, 5 and Spring Branch-West Nishnabotna River watershed. The impairment was increased through the events that occurred in disaster DR-1998, magnifying existing problems in the watershed, and downstream of this sub-county area. This watershed contains part of the sub-county area, which indicates that it is negatively affected by and also negatively affects the sub-county area. The target area identified as most impacted and distressed is Iowa County, Census Tract 9601 - Block Groups 1, and 3; as a result of DR-4119 that occurred in 2013. This sub-county area qualifies as impacted under Environmental Degradation. The designated sub-county area had excessive soil loss as a result of the impacts of disaster DR-4119. This soil loss resulted in increased sediment delivery to waterways in the immediate vicinity, and further downstream effects. This in turn introduced nutrients into the stream system, including nitrates and phosphorus, which would otherwise be available as nutrients required to maintain crop productivity. This adds to the Gulf of Mexico hypoxia problem, a national environmental concern. The excessive loss of topsoil during the disaster event period degraded the productive capability of the land, resulting in permanently lower crop yield potential, even with the addition of even more nutrients and other costly inputs, which places economic revitalization at risk. The reduced productive capability as a result of the loss of topsoil reduces system resilience and means that further inputs (fertilizer) will need to be introduced to help offset a portion of the degradation impacts on lost soil productivity, introducing additional economic burdens on producers in the area, and perpetuating the environmental degradation of this area and interrelated areas downstream. If another comparable event occurs,the area can expect to see accelerated loss of soil productivity, and loss of nutrients which accelerates the environmental degradation downstream. See DR-4119 Most Impacted data for maps and supporting analysis documentation. This sub-county area is an area that has prior documented environmental distress with the presence of a Category 4 or Category 5 Impaired Waters (as defined by section 303 of 6 the Clean Water Act) stream segment within the Clear Creek- Upper Clear Creek and Middle Clear Creek; English River- Jordan Creek, Deep River, Middle English River, Middle South English River, Gritter Creek, Devils Run, Middle North English River, Lower North English River, Lower South English River, Outlet North English River, Deer Creek and Birch Creek watershed. The impairment was increased through the events that occurred in disaster DR-4119, magnifying existing problems in the watershed, and downstream of this sub county area. This watershed contains part of the sub-county area, which indicates that it is negatively affected by and also negatively affects the sub-county area. The target area identified as most impacted and distressed is Johnson County, Census Tract 103.01 - Block Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4; Census Tract 2 Block Groups 1-3;Census Tract 4 Block Groups 1-3 and Census Tract 23 Block Groups 1-2, and Census Tract 5 Block Groups 1-4 as a result of DR-4119 that occurred in 2013. This sub-county area qualifies as impacted under Environmental Degradation. The designated sub-county area had excessive soil loss as a result of the impacts of disaster DR-4119. This soil loss resulted in increased sediment delivery to waterways in the immediate vicinity, and further downstream effects. This in turn introduced nutrients into the stream system, including nitrates and phosphorus, which would otherwise be available as nutrients required to maintain crop productivity. This adds to the Gulf of Mexico hypoxia problem, a national environmental concern. The excessive loss of topsoil during the disaster event period degraded the productive capability of the land, resulting in permanently lower crop yield potential, even with the addition of even more nutrients and other costly inputs, which places economic revitalization at risk. The reduced productive capability as a result of the loss of topsoil reduces system resilience and means that further inputs (fertilizer) will need to be introduced to help offset a portion of the degradation impacts on lost soil productivity, introducing additional economic burdens on producers in the area, and perpetuating the 7 environmental degradation of this area and interrelated areas downstream. If another comparable event occurs,the area can expect to see accelerated loss of soil productivity, and loss of nutrients which accelerates the environmental degradation downstream. See DR-4119 Most Impacted data for maps and supporting analysis documentation. This sub-county area is an area that has prior documented environmental distress with the presence of a Category 4 or Category 5 Impaired Waters (as defined by section 303 of the Clean Water Act) stream segment within the Clear Creek- Middle Clear Creek and Lower Clear Creek watershed. The impairment was increased through the events that occurred in disaster DR-4119, magnifying existing problems in the watershed, and downstream of this sub county area. This watershed contains part of the sub- county area, which indicates that it is negatively affected by and also negatively affects the sub- county area. The target area identified as most impacted and distressed is Mills County, Census Tract 401 - Block Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 as a result of DR-1998 that occurred in 2011. This sub-county area qualifies as impacted under Environmental Degradation. The designated sub-county area had excessive soil loss as a result of the impacts of disaster DR-1998. This soil loss resulted in increased sediment delivery to waterways in the immediate vicinity, and further downstream effects. This in turn introduced nutrients into the stream system, including nitrates and phosphorus, which would otherwise be available as nutrients required to maintain crop productivity. This adds to the Gulf of Mexico hypoxia problem, a national environmental concern. The excessive loss of topsoil during the disaster event period degraded the productive capability of the land, resulting in permanently lower crop yield potential, even with the addition of even more nutrients and other costly inputs, which places economic revitalization at risk. The reduced productive capability as a result of the loss of topsoil reduces system resilience and means that further inputs (fertilizer) will need to be introduced to help offset a portion of the 8 degradation impacts on lost soil productivity, introducing additional economic burdens on producers in the area, and perpetuating the environmental degradation of this area and interrelated areas downstream. If another comparable event occurs, the area can expect to see accelerated loss of soil productivity, and loss of nutrients which accelerates the environmental degradation downstream. See DR-1998 Most Impacted data for maps and supporting analysis documentation. This sub-county area is an area that has prior documented environmental distress with the presence of a Category 4 or Category 5 Impaired Waters (as defined by section 303 of the Clean Water Act) stream segment within the West Nishnabotna River - City of Carson, Mud Creek, Middle Silver Creek, Lower Silver Creek, Willow Slough, Farm Creek, Lower Indian Creek, Outlet Silver Creek, White Cloud, Deer Creek, Spring Valley Creek, Hunter Branch and Honey Creek watershed. The impairment was increased through the events that occurred in disaster DR-1998, magnifying existing problems in the watershed, and downstream of this sub- county area. This watershed contains part of the sub-county area, which indicates that it is negatively affected by and also negatively affects the sub-county area. The target area identified as most impacted and distressed is Pocahontas County, Census Tract 7801 - Block Groups 1, 2, 3; Census Tract 7802 - Block Group 1; Census Tract 7803 - Block Groups 1 and 3 as a result of DR-1977 that occurred in 2011. This sub-county area qualifies as impacted under Environmental Degradation. The designated sub-county area had excessive soil loss as a result of the impacts of disaster DR-1977. This soil loss resulted in increased sediment delivery to waterways in the immediate vicinity, and further downstream effects. This in turn introduced nutrients into the stream system, including nitrates and phosphorus, which would otherwise be available as nutrients required to maintain crop productivity. This adds to the Gulf of Mexico hypoxia problem, a national environmental concern. The excessive loss of topsoil during the disaster event period degraded the productive 9 capability of the land, resulting in permanently lower crop yield potential, even with the addition of even more nutrients and other costly inputs, which places economic revitalization at risk. The reduced productive capability as a result of the loss of topsoil reduces system resilience and means that further inputs (fertilizer) will need to be introduced to help offset a portion of the degradation impacts on lost soil productivity, introducing additional economic burdens on producers in the area, and perpetuating the environmental degradation of this area and interrelated areas downstream. If another comparable event occurs,the area can expect to see accelerated loss of soil productivity, and loss of nutrients which accelerates the environmental degradation downstream. See DR-1977 Most Impacted data for maps and supporting analysis documentation. This sub-county area is an area that has prior documented environmental distress with the presence of a Category 4 or Category 5 Impaired Waters (as defined by section 303 of the Clean Water Act) stream segment within the North Raccoon River- Headwaters Cedar Creek, Headwaters Little Cedar Creek, Drainage Ditch 21-Cedar Creek, Little Cedar Creek, Drainage Ditch 74-Cedar Creek, Prairie Creek, Drainage Ditch 29, Drainage Ditch 1, Upper Drainage Ditch No 9, and Drainage Ditch 37-Cedar Creek watershed. The impairment was increased through the events that occurred in disaster DR-1977, magnifying existing problems in the watershed, and downstream of this sub county area. This watershed contains part of the sub- county area, which indicates that it is negatively affected by and also negatively affects the sub- county area. The target area identified as most impacted and distressed is Winneshiek County, Census Tract 9501 - Block Groups 1, 2, 3, 4; as a result of DR-4135 that occurred in 2013. This sub- county area qualifies as impacted under Environmental Degradation. The designated sub-county area had excessive soil loss as a result of the impacts of disaster DR-4135. This soil loss resulted in increased sediment delivery to waterways in the immediate vicinity, and further downstream 10 effects. This in turn introduced nutrients into the stream system, including nitrates and phosphorus, which would otherwise be available as nutrients required to maintain crop productivity. This adds to the Gulf of Mexico hypoxia problem, a national environmental concern. The excessive loss of topsoil during the disaster event period degraded the productive capability of the land, resulting in permanently lower crop yield potential, even with the addition of even more nutrients and other costly inputs, which places economic revitalization at risk. The reduced productive capability as a result of the loss of topsoil reduces system resilience and means that further inputs (fertilizer) will need to be introduced to help offset a portion of the degradation impacts on lost soil productivity, introducing additional economic burdens on producers in the area, and perpetuating the environmental degradation of this area and interrelated areas downstream. If another comparable event occurs, the area can expect to see accelerated loss of soil productivity, and loss of nutrients which accelerates the environmental degradation downstream. See DR-4135 Most Impacted data for maps and supporting analysis documentation. This sub-county area is an area that has prior documented environmental distress with the presence of a Category 4 or Category 5 Impaired Waters (as defined by section 303 of the Clean Water Act) stream segment within the Upper Iowa River - Bear Creek, North Bear Creek, North Canoe Creek, Canoe Creek, Freeport, Trout River, Trout Creek, Pine Creek, Cold Water Creek, Daisy Valley, Silver Creek, Martha Creek, Ten Mile Creek, Dry Run Creek and Nordness watershed. The impairment was increased through the events that occurred in disaster DR-4135, magnifying existing problems in the watershed, and downstream of this sub-county area. This watershed contains part of the sub-county area, which indicates that it is negatively affected by and also negatively affects the sub-county area As part of the Threshold Update, the following sub-counties additionally qualify under the disaster impact criteria: Environmental Degradation. They had excessive soil loss as a result of 11 the impacts of their disaster. Their soil loss resulted in increased sediment delivery to waterways in their immediate vicinity, and further downstream effects. This in turn, introduced nutrients into the stream system, including nitrates and phosphorus (see counties above). They all have prior documented environmental distress with the presence of Category 4 or Category 5 Impaired Waters (see also prior counties). Allamakee County: Census Tract 9602 - Block Group 1, Block Group 2 and Block Group 3 as a result of DR-4135 that occurred in 2013. See DR-4135 Most Impacted data for maps and supporting analysis documentation. This sub-county area is an area that has prior documented environmental distress with the presence of a Category 4 or Category 5 Impaired Waters (as defined by section 303 of the Clean Water Act) stream segment within the Upper Iowa River(Clear Creek, Waterloo Creek, Bear Creek, Paint Creek, Coon Creek, Patterson Creek, Silver Creek and French Creek watershed). Buchanan County: Census Tract 9506 - Block Group 1, Block Group 2, Block Group 3 and Block Group 4 as a result of DR-4135 that occurred in 2013. See DR-4135 Most Impacted data for maps and supporting analysis documentation. This sub-county area is an area that has prior documented environmental distress with the presence of a Category 4 or Category 5 Impaired Waters (as defined by section 303 of the Clean Water Act) stream segment within in Middle Cedar River stream segments - Spring Creek, Lime Creek, Bear Creek, and McFarlane State Park; Upper Wapsipinicon River - Malone Creek, Smith Creek, Pine Creek, Winthrop-Buffalo Creek, Silver Creek-Buffalo Creek, Dry Creek, Walton Creek, Sand Creek, and Nugents Creek-Buffalo Creek. Delaware County, Census Tract 9504 - Block Group 3 and Block Group 4 as a result of DR-4135 that occurred in 2013. See DR-4135 Most Impacted data for maps and supporting analysis documentation. This sub-county area is an area that has prior documented environmental distress with the presence of a Category 4 or Category 5 Impaired Waters (as defined by section 303 of the Clean Water Act) stream segment within in stream segment within the Upper Wapsipinicon River- Silver Creek- 12 Buffalo Creek, Nugents Creek-Buffalo Creek watershed. Tama County, Census Tract 2901 - Block Group 1, Block Group 2; Census Tract 2902 - Block Group 1, Block Group 2, Block Group 3; Census Tract 2903 - Block Group 1 and Block Group 2 as a result of DR-4126 that occurred in 2013. See DR-4126 Most Impacted data for maps and supporting analysis documentation. This sub-county area is an area that has prior documented environmental distress with the presence of a Category 4 or Category 5 Impaired Waters (as defined by section 303 of the Clean Water Act) stream segment within in stream segment within the Middle Cedar River- Mosquito Creek, Little Wolf Creek, Devils Run-Wolf Creek, Fourmile Creek, Twelvemile Creek, Rock Creek, Village of Reinbeck-Black Hawk Creek, Rock Creek, Deadwaters Miller Creek, Wolf Creek, Coon Creek and Rock Creek watershed. All sub-county areas identified in this narrative above have an aggregate Unmet Recovery Need in the form of Environmental Degradation, and are the result of losses of topsoil as a direct result of eligible disaster events. Because topsoil takes generations to regenerate,the loss of this resource can be considered permanent as the needs of continued production outstrip nature's ability to replenish the soil. Utilizing a benchmark value for one potentially beneficial conservation practice program implemented to a limited degree within the state by the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, it has been estimated that it would cost $69,786,201.15 to repair the damage from environmental degradation in all of these areas. For further details on the determination of this estimate, see Environmental Distress Data. City of Dubuque/ Bee Branch Most Impacted and Distressed Threshold: The target area identified as most impacted and distressed is the City of Dubuque as a result of Severe Storms and Flooding(DR-4018)that occurred in 2011. The area is a sub-county area within Dubuque County, which was declared Major Disaster Area under the Stafford Act. 13 Name of Area: Citv of Dubuque: Dubuque exhibits Most Impacted Characteristics and Most Distressed Characteristics, which affect the ability of the area to recover from severe storms and flooding(DR-4018)that occurred in 2011, as demonstrated below: Most Impacted Characteristics: Housing: Following the July 2011 storms, the City of Dubuque received reports of damage to 200+homes concentrated in the Bee Branch Creek target area. Impacts included flooded basements, collapsed foundations, destroyed furnaces and water heaters, and other structural damages. Substantiating data includes city records of calls to pump flooded homes, as well as records of calls for volunteer assistance. See httys:Hdrive.google.com/open?id=OB4GkEW8yVGbtWXISRIF5TF24U2c for Dubuque records supporting the Most Impacted Characteristics criteria. Most Distressed Characteristics: Housing: Census tracts 1, 4, 5, 6, and 11.02 are in the flood- prone area. Approximately 69% of the people in the flood-prone area are at less than 80% median income. Substantiating data includes percentage of low and moderate income information for Census tracts 1, 4, 5, 6, 11.02. For maps showing the most impacted area, see Phase I Attachment E, B-10 CDBG Target Areas 2014—with Bee Branch. Dubuque routinely spends a significant portion of its CDBG resources in the area identified for disaster assistance. See https://diive.aooale.com/open?id=OB4GkEWgyyGbtampYV2alNmZxdOk for Census Bureau data supporting the Most Distressed Characteristics criteria. Unmet Recovery Needs Threshold: While Dubuque did receive earmarked CDBG Disaster Recovery funds to address the July 2011 storms,the City has Unmet Recovery Needs that have not been addressed by federal, state, or other sources, in the area(s) identified in this letter as "most impacted and distressed." Housing: A windshield survey of the impacted Bee Branch Creek area was conducted in October and November of 2014. The windshield survey visually assessed exterior damage to 14 housing units within the Bee Branch Watershed. The units that were inspected were identified using requests for assistance made to the City of Dubuque immediately following the 2011 floods. The preliminary windshield survey identified 22 households with remaining damage in the Bee Branch Watershed, as demonstrated in the Phase 1 application. For the Phase 2 application, additional housing inspections were conducted August and September 2015. The goal of these inspections was to focus on the needs of those most impacted by the 2011 storms and to reach as many homeowners in the heavily affected areas as possible. To reach these homeowners, the City completed a direct-mailing effort to over 200 households that requested assistance after being inundated with water during the 2011 storms. The additional outreach resulted in a combined total of 40 identified households that remain damaged as a result of the 2011 storms. The Housing and Community Development Department's housing inspectors conducted at minimum an exterior inspection of the property, and in most cases an in- depth inspection to document damages and identify ways the properties could be made resilient to future flooding events. A list of units inspected with remaining damage can be viewed here: https:Hdrive.google.com/file/d/OB4GkEW 8yVGbtemJ4bTU4OFJVb2s/view?pli=1 The results of the windshield survey and resiliency inspections may be viewed here: https:Hdrive.google.com/file/d/OB4GkEW8yVGbtQOJlcmRMbmjueGc/view?pli=1 The City of Dubuque's Housing Rehabilitation Inspector interviewed the owners of the surveyed properties to verify the damages were caused by the 2011 storms. Two homeowners did not own the residence at the time of the flood, the remaining owners verified the damage was related to the 2011 storms and they have been unable to make all necessary repairs due to insufficient resources from insurance. The Iowa Economic Development Authority completed a duplicate of benefits check on 13 of the households to verify insurance and SBA assistance. These property owners confirmed 15 damage was due to the disaster and insurance/FEMA/SBA benefits were not sufficient to complete repairs. Of the 13 households where insurance claims were verified, five received compensation for hail damage, one for personal items, and six received no compensation from insurance. No homeowners received SBA assistance and there was no FEMA individual assistance available for residents of Dubuque. The Iowa Economic Development Authority provided a letter confirming the verifications that can be viewed here: httys:Hdrive.google.com/file/d/OB4GkEW8vVGbtaS 1 KMG1FdWZiUTO/view?nli=1 While many property owners made some repairs to their homes, nearly all are still at risk for infiltration during heavy rains. When repairs were made,few, if any, measures were implemented to make the homes more resilient. An integrated approach combining green infrastructure and improvements to increase health and safety of the structures is needed. The resiliency needs are identified in the housing inspections, and include: addition of sump pumps with battery back-up; installation of back-flow preventers to eliminate the risk of sewage backup; foundation repairs and water-proofing applications for basements; elevated furnaces and water heaters; and replacement of deteriorated windows/repair of window wells. The most effective efforts to increase resiliency will be achieved when improvements are made to neighboring or adjoining properties. This "neighborhood" approach to overall health, safety, and resiliency of homes will benefit residents in multiple ways. The proposed Health Homes Bee Branch Resiliency Project will increase education and outreach raising awareness of what it means to live in a watershed. The combined rehabilitation, education, and infrastructure improvements will contribute to Dubuque's goal of preserving and rehabilitating quality, affordable housing inhabited by many of Dubuque's low and moderate-income residents. Access to all linked data: httns://drive.google.com Username: ResilientIowaAgmail.com Password: HudlIowa 16