Subapplication - NOI - Downtown Flood Mitigation - Submitted 4.29.26.pdf
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
96262 characters
1 Subapplication - NOI Start a subapplication Organization you are applying for City of Buckeye Organization you are applying to Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs - FEMA Subapplication title City of Buckeye BRIC 24/25 Historic Downtown Stormwater Flood Mitigation Project Subapplication type Project Document control number (optional) Subapplicant information Subapplicant information Name of federal agency FEMA Type of submission Pre-application Application Changed/Corrected application Type of Subapplicant State Government Local Government Indian Tribal Government Special Governmental District Private Non-Profit Other Is Subapplication subject to review by Executive Order 12372 Process? Yes No, program is not covered by E.O. 12372 No, program has not been selected by state for review If Yes, this preapplication/application was made available to the Executive Order 12372 Process for review on: (MM-DD-YYYY) 04/29/2026 Is the Subapplicant delinquent on any Federal debt? Yes No If yes, please provide an explanation: Project Subapplication 2 Contact information Add a Subrecipient Authorized Representative (SAR) Title Grant Program Manager Prefix (optional) Mr. Ms. Mrs. Dr. First Name Rob Middle Initial Last Name Roach Agency/Organization City of Buckeye Primary phone 623-349-6165 Extension (optional) Type Home Work Mobile Secondary phone 480-200-5150 Extension Type Home Work Mobile Optional phone Fax number Email rroach@buckeyeaz.gov Address line 1 530 E. Monroe Ave. Address line 2 City Buckeye State/territory AZ ZIP code 85326 ZIP extension Project Subapplication 3 Add a Subrecipient Authorized Representative (SAR) Phone 623-349-6165 Fax Add a Point(s) of Contact Title Grant Program Administrator Prefix (optional) Mr. Ms. Mrs. Dr. Hon. Exe. First Name Courtney Middle Initial (optional) Last Name Gomez Primary phone 623-349-6159 Extension (optional) Type Home Work Mobile Secondary phone 951-837-7215 Extension (optional) Type Home Work Mobile Optional phone Fax number (optional) Email cgomez@buckeyeaz.gov Address line 1 530 E. Monroe Ave. Address line 2 (optional) City Buckeye Project Subapplication 4 Add a Point(s) of Contact State/territory AZ ZIP code 85326 ZIP extension (optional) Community Please find the community(ies) that will benefit from this mitigation activity by clicking on the Find Communities button. If needed, modify the Congressional District number for each community by entering the updated number under the U.S. Congressional District column for that community. NOTE: You should also notify your State NFIP coordinator so that the updated U.S. Congressional District number can be updated in the Community Information System (CIS) database. Add Communities (complete this table for each benefitting community) State Arizona Community name (optional) City of Buckeye County name (optional) Maricopa County code 040037 CID number Unknown CRS community Yes No CRS rating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 U.S. Congressional District 9 Please provide any additional comments (optional) Attachments Project Subapplication 5 Mitigation Plan Please provide your plan information. Mitigation plan information Is the entity that will benefit from the proposed activity covered by a current FEMA approved multi-hazard mitigation plan in compliance with 44 CFR Part 201? Yes No If Yes, please provide plan information: Plan name Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Plan type State Multi-hazard Mitigation Plan Tribal Multi-hazard Mitigation Plan Local Multi-hazard Mitigation Plan Tribal (Local) Multi-hazard Mitigation Plan Local Multijurisdictional Multi-hazard Mitigation Plan Tribal (Local) Multijurisdictional Multi-hazard Mitigation Plan Is this plan standard or enhanced? (for Applicants only) Standard Enhanced Plan approval date (MM-DD-YYYY) 05-11-2022 Project Subapplication 6 Mitigation plan information Proposed activity description (optional) The Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan includes a study of each specific jurisdiction, including Buckeye, in Maricopa County, and all potential hazards. The infrastructure that is the subject of this proposed activity is also a result of a flooding study conducted by the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) and is located in or adjacent to the federally designated flood zone, with a chance of annual flooding. The activity will place a storm drainpipe and catch basins in Monroe Avenue from Miller Road to 9th Street. The system will relieve the issue of flooding for the 10-year, 2-hour storm for Downtown Buckeye. The stormwater will be conveyed in a storm drainpipe system under Sixth Street to South Street. At South Street, the pipe system will travel east to Seventh Street and outfall into a retention basin. From there, the stormwater will be channeled through a nature-based irrigation canal system leading to the Gila River. The Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan refers to stormwater flood mitigation on pages 297, 302-304, 422- 425, and specifically to Buckeye on page 431, Table 6-8-2, ID No. 5. Please provide any additional comments (optional). Attachments Maricopa County MJMHMP 2021_MJPT Exhibit A - Downtown Storm Dra Nature-based canal to Gila River Map.pdf Scope of Work The project Scope of Work (SOW) identifies the eligible activity, describes what will be accomplished and explains how the mitigation activity will be implemented. The mitigation activity must be described in sufficient detail to verify the cost estimate. All activities for which funding is requested must be identified in the SOW prior to the close of the application period. FEMA has different requirements for project, planning and management cost SOWs. Project Subapplication 7 Scope of work Subapplication title (include type of activity and location) City of Buckeye BRIC 24/25 Historic Downtown Stormwater Flood Mitigation Project Activities Primary activity type Acquisition Elevation Relocation Mitigation reconstruction Retrofit Floodproofing Saferoom/shelter Stabilization and restoration Utility and infrastructure protection Flood control Codes and standards Warning systems Wildfire management Education and awareness Feasibility, engineering and design studies Management costs Generator Planning related activities Partnerships Other If Other, please specify Secondary activity type (optional) (see Primary activity type list above) If Other, please specify Tertiary activity type (optional) (see Primary activity type list above) If Other, please specify Geographic areas description This proposal will benefit the residents and businesses in the Downtown area of the City of Buckeye and reduce the occurrence of flooding. The Federal Administration priorities being addressed by this project include, but are not limited to, rebuilding critical infrastructure to compensate for decades of public Project Subapplication 8 Scope of work disinvestment; environmental stewardship; and building community resilience and safety. This area was initially developed during a time when open irrigation ditches and farm fields protected against excess stormwater runoff. With many of those fields gone and some irrigation ditches covered, annually recurring flooding has become a problem in the historic Buckeye downtown area. Stormwater in this area generally flows south to southeast towards the Gila River. Many of the homes in the area are at a level below the street crown and experience flooding in their homes on a regular basis. In 2014, downtown Buckeye experienced a 100-year storm and flooding. And the most recent such event occurred on October 16, 2022. The area to benefit from stormwater-flood mitigation has a population of 7,402, 68% of whom are minorities (Arizona Demographics, Maricopa Association of Governments). Also, approximately 25% of the people have income below the poverty level, 39% with income below 150% of the poverty level, and almost 48% with income below 200% of the poverty level (Arizona Demographics, Maricopa Association of Governments). In June 2004, Project Engineering Consultants, Ltd. (PEC), in coordination with the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC), met with Buckeye City staff, made several site visits, and reviewed the provided utility documentation during the course of the study. PEC Engineers also met with the management of the Buckeye Irrigation District and the Arlington Canal Company to determine the feasibility of using their facilities as a discharge location. PEC also attended a public meeting held in the Buckeye Community Center with the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC). PEC surveyed a portion of the area to obtain additional data. PEC concluded that it is reasonable to construct a basin to contain the 100-year stormwater runoff with a 10-year collection system. PEC recommended the development of a major storm drain system along Monroe Avenue, a multi-use detention basin, and an outfall corridor to discharge the storm water into existing irrigation district facilities leading to the Gila River. As the City continues to grow and develop, this proposed drainage system in the downtown area will become increasingly important in minimizing the impact of future storm events in the City of Buckeye. The most recent major flooding event occurred on 10-16-22. In November 2004, the FCDMC released the results of an Area Drainage Master Study (ADMS) to identify known and potential flooding and erosion hazards in the Buckeye area. The study researched all known flooding hazards in the project area through verbal and written contact with various municipal, county, and state agencies, as well as citizens in the area for any information or photos relevant to known flooding issues. After analyzing the data, it was determined that the majority of existing flooding problems were located within historic downtown Buckeye. The downtown Buckeye area currently experiences drainage deficiencies during relatively small storm events. Many downtown streets have no curb and gutter or drainage facilities. Historically, development occurred in the downtown area without current provisions. For on-site stormwater retention facilities, most developed parcels in the downtown area do not have sufficient area to retrofit Project Subapplication 9 Scope of work retention basins. Several locations experience ponded water and poor drainage after storm events. Many buildings in the downtown area have low finish floor elevations—some with less than 6 inches of elevation difference from the nearest roadway elevation. According to the Transportation Disadvantaged Census Tracts, the area of the Buckeye Downtown Storm Water Flood Mitigation Project has six disadvantaged indicators. These indicators are the historically disadvantaged community indicator, transportation disadvantaged indicator, health disadvantaged indicator, economy disadvantaged indicator, equity disadvantaged indicator, and environmental disadvantaged indicator. According to the EPA EJScreen for environmental justice rating, this area ranks in the 90th to 100th percentile for RMP facility proximity, wastewater discharge, flood risk, less than a high school education, low income, socioeconomics indicator, and unemployment rate. The area also ranks in the 80th to 90th percentile for people of color and low life expectancy. Proximity to RMP facilities is calculated at the census tract level using a spatial enumeration methodology developed by the EPA. Numerous studies have found socially disadvantaged groups, such as minorities and low-income individuals, who reside near facilities where accidental releases of extremely hazardous substances are likely to occur, to be disproportionately distributed with respect to various health hazards and pollution sources. The subject community has a CDC SVI score of 0.7645, which indicates a high level of vulnerability to negative effects caused by external stresses on human health, such as natural or human-caused disasters or disease outbreaks. By installing a storm water mitigation drainage system and diverting storm water away from humans and property, and into nature-based waterways such as open canals and rivers, Buckeye will avert recurring property damage and enhance public safety in the future, and relieve the related external stresses on human health. Nature-based solutions (NbS) are actions that protect, sustainably manage, or restore natural ecosystems, that address societal challenges such as climate change, human health, food and water security, and disaster risk reduction effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits. Below, please find the aerial map of the proposed project area. Project Subapplication 10 Scope of work Community lifelines Primary community lifeline Safety and security Food, water, shelter Health and medical Energy Communications Transportation Hazardous material If Safety and security is selected as a primary community lifeline, these additional primary sub- community lifeline options are available. Law enforcement/security Fire service Search and rescue Government service Community safety Project Subapplication 11 Scope of work If Food, water, shelter is selected as a primary community lifeline, these additional primary sub- community lifeline options are available. Food Water Shelter Agriculture If Health and medical is selected as a primary community lifeline, these additional primary sub- community lifeline options are available. Medical care Public health Patient movement Medical supply chain Fatality management If Energy is selected as a primary community lifeline, these additional primary sub- community lifeline options are available. Power grid Fuel If Communication s is selected as a primary community lifeline, these additional primary sub- community lifeline options are available. Infrastructure Responder communications Alerts, warnings, and messages Finance 911 and dispatch Project Subapplication 12 Scope of work If Transportation is selected as a primary community lifeline, these additional primary sub- community lifeline options are available. Highway/roadway/motor vehicle Mass transit Railway Aviation Maritime If Hazardous material is selected as a primary community lifeline, these additional primary sub- community lifeline options are available. Facilities HAZMAT, pollutants, contaminants Secondary community lifeline (optional) (see Primary community lifeline list above) Secondary sub- community lifeline (see Primary sub-community lifeline lists above) Tertiary community lifeline (optional) (see Primary community lifeline list above) Tertiary sub- community lifeline (see Primary sub-community lifeline lists above) Project Subapplication 13 Scope of work Hazard sources Primary hazard source Biological incident Chemical incident Civil disturbance Cyber incident Dam/Levee break Disease Drought Earthquake Explosion Extreme temperature Fire Flooding Hostile action Infrastructure failure Landslide/Debris flow Nuclear explosion Radiological incident Severe Storm Solar event Space object Tornado Tropical cyclone (Hurricane/Typhoon) Tsunami Uncategorized Volcano Winter storm Secondary hazard source (optional) (see Primary hazard source list above) Severe Storm Tertiary hazard source (optional) (see Primary hazard source list above) If Uncategorized, please specify: Project Subapplication 14 Scope of work Is this a phased project? If you select 'Yes' to phased project question. You must select Phase 1 or Phase 2 on Budget lines. Yes No Are you doing construction in this project? Yes No Population affected 27% Detail/descripti on of stated percentage The project is located in the City of Buckeye, located in Maricopa County, Arizona. Buckeye is a rural area with population clusters spread over 640 sq. miles, covered by greater than 90% agricultural/open space, 2% industrial/commercial use, and 4% residential. Buckeye is located 40 miles west of Phoenix and consists of 640 square miles. Buckeye is home to approximately 114,000 people. 100% of the downtown population of about 31,000 resides in the proposed project’s benefiting area. Median household income is estimated at $57,000. There are about 30 businesses in the impacted/benefitted area. Buckeye’s 2024 main ethnic breakdown is 35% Latino, 48% White, 8% Black and 9% other. The World Population Review estimates the median household income for 2024 is $94,188, the median age is 35 years, and 8% of households are below the poverty level. Portions of Buckeye, including the benefitted area, have been federally identified as historically disadvantaged as to transportation, health, equity, environmental indicators, Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility proximity, wastewater discharge, flood risk, education, income, socioeconomic indicators, unemployment, and high level of vulnerability to negative effects caused by external stresses on human health. This includes the affected area of this project. The total population affected is 27% (31,000 / 114,000 = 0.2719 (27.19%)). Project Subapplication 15 Provide a clear and detailed description of your proposed activity In November 2004, the FCDMC released the results of an Area Drainage Master Study (ADMS) to identify known and potential flooding and erosion hazards in the Buckeye area. The study researched all known flooding hazards in the project area through verbal and written contact with various municipal, county, and state agencies, as well as citizens in the area for any information or photos relevant to known flooding issues. After analyzing the data, it was determined that the majority of existing flooding problems were located within historic downtown Buckeye. The downtown Buckeye area currently experiences drainage deficiencies during relatively small storm events. Many downtown streets have no curb and gutter or drainage facilities. Historically, development occurred in the downtown area without current provisions. For on-site stormwater retention facilities, most developed parcels in the downtown area do not have sufficient area to retrofit retention basins. Several locations experience ponded water and poor drainage after storm events. Many buildings in the downtown area have low finish floor elevations—some with less than 6 inches of elevation difference from the nearest roadway elevation. In 2010, Dibble Engineering (DE) was engaged to develop a stormwater flood mitigation plan for the Buckeye downtown area. As a result, DE prepared a detailed stormwater mitigation plan. Subsequently, a portion of this plan was constructed. The remainder of the plan needs to be completed to mitigate recurring stormwater flooding within the downtown area of Buckeye. Contained within this grant request, During the creation of a county-wide hazard mitigation plan in 2021-2022 (Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan), the following was determined. The occurrence of a 10-year flood in downtown Buckeye would create an estimated damage replacement value of non-residential property of $24,838,000, and an estimated residential damage replacement value of $97,749,000. The proposed design concept report for the Buckeye downtown flood mitigation was designed to mitigate a 10-year flood. This area is also designated as a 100-year FEMA floodway. Within this area, there are single-family residential, multi-family residential, commercial, a public elementary school, several daycare facilities, a fire station, and some healthcare facilities. The City of Buckeye Stormwater Flooding Mitigation Improvement Project is a project that will benefit the residents and businesses of the City of Buckeye and will reduce the occurrence of flooding problems. The Federal Administration priorities being addressed by this project include, but are not limited to, rebuilding critical infrastructure to compensate for decades of public disinvestment, environmental stewardship, and building community resilience and safety. Buckeye and FCDMC have recently renewed conversations and entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to address this needed flood mitigation project. In September 2025, Buckeye retained the services of Marc Taylor Inc to Project Subapplication 16 provide a 100% construction document cost estimate for the Buckeye Downtown Stormwater Flood Mitigation Project. The activity will place a storm drainpipe and catch basins in Monroe Avenue from Miller Road to 9th Street, and the system will relieve the issue of flooding for the 10-year, 2-hour storm for Downtown Buckeye. The stormwater will be conveyed in a storm drainpipe system under Sixth Street to South Street. At South Street, the drainpipe system will travel east to Seventh Street and outfall into a retention basin. From there, the stormwater will be channeled through a nature-based irrigation canal system leading to the Gila River. Once completed, the stormwater drainage system will direct the floodwater into the drainage system, and the nature-based irrigation canals will direct the water to the Gila River and away from any structures, property, and streets. Stormwater flood mitigation would have a definite benefit to health and safety (preventing flooding of structures, mold, and dangerous flash flooding of streets & alleys). The goal of this mitigation project is to prevent loss of property and loss of life, while enhancing the quality of life within this historically disadvantaged community. It will also improve road safety along the impacted primary transportation corridors. Additional benefits of this project are related to environmental stewardship. The flood drainage system and the managed retention basin will reduce the quantity and velocity of the water discharge. This will reduce erosion and create improvements to the desert habitat by maintaining, enhancing, creating, and protecting the habitat from flood events. Other benefits will be enhancements and improvements to the groundwater and restoration of riparian areas through the management of the retention basin. During the dry seasons, the retention basin will have multi-uses such as a sports field, cultural activities, and conservation education. Community lifelines will be enhanced as well, due to this project. Flooded roadways tend to inhibit ground surface activities and roadway pathways. Emergency services response times and delivery, such as medical, police, and fire, are slowed down or blocked during and after storms due to flooding. Additional community lifelines that are affected during flooding events include food, water, shelter, power grids, and communications grids. This proposed project will mitigate the negative impacts of flooding on these critical lifelines. Also, during flooding events, hazardous materials can be disrupted and carried throughout the community by floodwaters, potentially exposing humans and creating negative health impacts. Resilience is the capacity of individuals, communities, businesses, institutions, and governments to adapt to changing conditions and to prepare for, withstand, and rapidly recover from disruptions to everyday life, such as natural hazard events and safety. The proposed Buckeye Downtown Stormwater Flood Mitigation project is in response to that call for a more resilient community. Once completed, the flood mitigation will divert flooding away from at-risk areas and towards access to natural waterways. This will reduce the risk of loss of life and property. It will enhance the physical, behavioral, social, and environmental health and well-being of an historically disadvantaged community and provide the greatest support to those with the greatest need. This project will enhance Project Subapplication 17 Scope of work community resilience and provide greater ability to access emergency, medical, and social services before, during, and after natural hazardous events. The project supports the missions of the City of Buckeye, the United States Department of Homeland Security, the Flood Control District of Maricopa County, and various community-based non-profit groups. It also leverages collaborative efforts by the aforementioned groups and creates a force multiplier. Project Subapplication 18 How will the mitigation activity be implemented? The City of Buckeye Historic Downtown Stormwater Flood Mitigation Project will complete improvements along Monroe Avenue to install the required stormwater collection drain system and tie into the infrastructure that was installed in 2011 along Monroe Avenue and 6th Street. The 2011 constructed portion of the storm drain from approximately Monroe Ave./6th Street to Clanton Ave./6th Street completed construction in 2011. This was done because the school expansion/plaza project that was under construction at that time had that area opened up, and Buckeye wanted to avoid any disturbance to the new plaza and school campus in the future after it was completed. As can be viewed in the below aerial, the 2011 construction is in the middle of the school property, underground. At the time of design of that project, 6th Street continued south from Monroe Ave with no discontinuous portions. The storm drainpipe was put in the ground and plugged at both the upstream and the downstream ends so that it is currently non-functional as a storm water collection/conveyance system. Additionally, at that time in 2011, Buckeye only had enough funding to complete that portion. Please see the below attached map for further details. The 2011 project did not independently solve a problem. It was completed at that time as a matter of available funding and to prevent any future demolition of existing infrastructure at the adjacent school project that was under construction in 2011. The proposed project which is the subject of this grant application requires tying into the existing infrastructure to solve the drainage issue. The new infrastructure improvement activity will place a storm drainpipe and catch basins in Monroe Avenue from Miller Road to 9th Street, and the system will relieve the issue of flooding for the 10-year, 2-hour storm for Downtown Buckeye. The stormwater will be conveyed in a storm drainpipe system under Sixth Street from Monroe Avenue to South Street. At South Street, the drainpipe system will travel east to Seventh Street and outfall into a retention basin. From there, the stormwater will be channeled through a nature-based irrigation canal system leading to the Gila River. Project Subapplication 19 Scope of work Project Subapplication 20 Describe how the project is technically feasible and will be effective in reducing the risk by reducing or eliminating damage to property and/or loss of life in the project area. Please include engineering design parameters and references to the following: preliminary schematic or engineering drawings/desig n; applicable building codes; engineering practices and/or best practices; level of protection (e.g., life safety, 100-yr flood protection with freeboard, 100- yr wind design, etc.): The technical feasibility is based upon the following studies, design, and improvements analyses. Upon completion as planned, the project will have employed state-of-the-art tools, platforms, and systems to support the project. To support the financial requirements, Buckeye intends to partner with the federal government by way of this grant request, as well as a commitment from FCDMC through a signed IGA. The involved parties possess decades of skill, knowledge, and experience in successfully completing projects of this magnitude. The infrastructure and system as modified by this proposal will successfully divert stormwater flooding away from property and people, and towards the Gila River by way of nature-based canal systems. DESIGN CRITERIA Design criteria for this project is based on (1) standards developed as part of the City of Buckeye Downtown Drainage Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report, (2) the City of Buckeye Stormwater Drainage System Design Manual (DM500), and (3) the FCDMC Drainage Standards and Policies Manual (this manual makes reference to the Drainage Design Manual for Maricopa County Volume I (Hydrology Manual) and Volume II (Hydraulics Manual). Specific design criteria for various elements are provided in the following sections. A. Rainfall Site‐specific rainfall data has been developed for use in the drainage design for the contributing watershed areas. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 2 values are used for this project. Atlas 2 is selected to remain consistent with the previous hydrology for the area as part of the Buckeye ADMP. Rainfall precipitation values (in inches) are provided in Table 1. Table 1 – Rainfall Data Duration Return Period 2 year 5 year 10 year 25 year 50 year 100 year 5 min 0.330 0.430 0.500 0.600 0.670 0.750 10 min 0.490 0.650 0.760 0.910 1.030 1.150 15 min 0.590 0.810 0.960 1.160 1.320 1.470 30 min 0.790 1.090 1.290 1.570 1.780 2.000 1 hour 0.960 1.340 1.600 1.950 2.230 2.500 2 hour 1.040 1.470 1.760 2.160 2.470 2.770 Project Subapplication 21 3 hour 1.100 1.560 1.870 2.300 2.630 2.950 6 hour 1.200 1.730 2.080 2.560 2.930 3.300 12 hour 1.300 1.910 2.310 2.860 3.280 3.700 24 hour 1.400 2.090 2.540 3.150 3.630 4.100 Source: NOAA Atlas 2 B. Roadway Inundation • Allowable spread on Monroe Avenue is approximately 20 feet per half street during a 10‐ year, 6‐hour storm event. This provides for a single 12’ dry lane in each direction. This criterion will not apply to connecting side streets. • Roadway flow on Monroe Avenue is not to exceed the top of the curb or 6” above the gutter flow line for the 10‐year storm event. • A Manning's "n" value of 0.016 will be used for street flow on paved streets unless special conditions exist. C. Catch Basins • City of Buckeye Standard Detail B‐510A (curb opening catch basin) will be used for sump and on‐grade conditions within the roadway. Regardless of the calculated peak flow rate, no curb inlet type catch basin will be smaller than an M‐1, L=3’ basin constructed in accordance with the City of Buckeye Detail B‐510A. • MAG Standard Detail 535 will be used for any areas outside of the roadway where stormwater flows are anticipated. • The curb opening for catch basins is not greater than five inches in height. • Catch basins on continuous grade are not required to intercept 100% of the 10‐year flow. D. Storm Drains • In cases where the peak flows from a 10‐year 6‐hour design storm exceed the roadway inundation requirements, underground pipes of sufficient size to carry the excess will be designed and installed. • A minimum pipe size of 18 inches will be used for lateral catch basin connector pipes. • A minimum pipe size of 24 inches will be used for main line pipes. • Storm drains with flow velocities less than 3 fps for 0.5xQ Design or in excess of 15 fps for Q Design will require approval. • Clearance with water and sewer facilities requires a minimum of 4 feet horizontally and 1 foot vertically unless otherwise approved by the City of Buckeye. Clearance with other utilities to be a minimum of 1 foot both horizontally and vertically. Project Subapplication 22 • HGL will be greater than or equal to 1 foot below the grate/inlet elevation of all catch basins. • EGL will be below the adjacent gutter flow line elevation. E. Retention Basins • Maximum water depth of the basin is 7.0 feet. • Approximately 5‐foot clearance will be provided between the expected groundwater elevations and the basin bottom. • Total volume required is the 10‐year, 6‐hour design storm runoff volume. • A 1‐foot minimum freeboard is required. • A 16’ wide access ramp will be provided for maintenance. • Maximum side slope is 4 horizontal to 1 vertical. • Retention facilities must be disposed of or evacuated within 36 hours. • Trash racks are required on outlet pipes greater than 24” in diameter. • First flush volume will be retained within the basin. METHODOLOGY & APPROACH F. Survey & Mapping Dibble Engineering provided a topographic survey for the project limits. The initial survey was conducted in August of 2009. An additional collection was performed in March of 2010. The survey was conducted under the direction of Randy Bilyeu, R.L.S. The data for survey and mapping is NAD83 and NAVD 1988. Mapping was prepared for the FCDMC by Kenney Aerial Mapping, Inc, under a separate contract, in preparation for the Buckeye ADMS. This 2‐foot contour data was used for the Buckeye ADMP. More recent aerial photography was flown in December 2008. The 2‐foot mapping, along with new aerial photography prepared by the FCDMC, is used for this project. G. Hydrology The existing hydrology HEC‐1 proposed condition model of the area was developed as part of the Downtown Storm Drain Alternatives Analysis Report. This model is used to size the storm drain system. Watershed boundaries, Subbasin limits, and flow paths are determined by field reconnaissance, 2-foot contour mapping, existing drainage reports, project survey, and aerial photography. During the initial design during the Alternatives Analysis Report, it was determined that the north‐south corridor for the storm drain system needs to be shifted from 7th Street to 6th Street, to avoid several critical utilities occupying the 7th Street corridor. The proposed condition HEC‐ 1 model has Project Subapplication 23 been updated to reflect this change. The Existing Condition HEC‐1 Schematic is provided as Figure 3 in the attached Appendix C. The Proposed Condition HEC‐1 Schematic is provided as Figure 4, attached. 1. Parameter Estimation The following HEC‐1 modeling parameters and options are selected for this project: a. Unit Hydrographs S‐Graph method is used for this project. Sub‐basin area, flow path, flow length to sub‐basin centroid, upstream ground elevation, downstream ground elevation, and time‐area relation are provided to DDMSW for each sub‐basin. b. Aerial Reduction Factors – Per Table 2.2 of the FCDMC Hydrology Manual. c. Rainfall Losses Green & Ampt method has been selected for this project. The rainfall loss parameters are developed using guidance provided in the Hydrology Manual. The Green & Ampt infiltration equation parameters are based on logarithmic area‐averaging of the map unit hydraulic conductivities (XKSAT) for mapped soils in each basin, and the selection of capillary suction (PSIF) and soil moisture deficit (DTHETA) are based on the calculated sub‐basin value of XKSAT. The bare ground XKSAT values for each Sub‐basin are then adjusted for vegetation cover. The calculation of these parameters is accomplished within DDMSW. d. Flow Routing – Normal depth routing is used in this model. e. Computation Interval – 2 minutes. f. Land Use Figure 5 ‐ Existing Land Use is provided in the attached Appendix C. Beginning with the MAG 2005 land use, the existing conditions land use has been updated based on 2008 aerial photography provided by FCDMC. The land use was modified again after receiving instructions from the City to update the land use according to the 2008 zoning. For example, while some areas are currently residential, if they are zoned as commercial, the land use is modified to reflect commercial use. Land use defaults are provided by the FCDMC. g. Soils Soils information for the Green & Ampt method is obtained from a soil survey performed by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Figure 6 ‐ Soils are provided Project Subapplication 24 in Appendix C, attached. H. Storm Drain Design Pavement and inlet hydraulic calculations are based on procedures contained in the Federal Highway Administration Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 12 Drainage of Highway Pavements, 1996, and are performed within Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2009, version 6.066 (Hydraflow) design software. 1. Pipe Sizing The storm drain pipe system is sized for a 10‐year storm with 100% inlet interception in Hydraflow computer software. Within Hydraflow, catch basin flow rates are automatically summed where connector pipes meet the mainline pipe. These summed values are manually “corrected” at the mainline to match HEC‐1 concentration point values. Storm drain hydraulic grade line calculations are performed by Hydraflow, and are made using an iterative procedure that applies Bernoulli’s energy equation between downstream and upstream ends of each line in the system. Manning’s equation is used to determine head losses due to pipe friction. Hydraflow estimates junction and manhole losses by multiplying a loss coefficient K times the velocity head. The values of K are input manually into Hydraflow and are based on criteria adapted from FHWA Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 22 Urban Drainage Design Manual 2001 and the FCDMC Hydraulics Manual. Hydraflow is a 1‐dimensional flow model. 2. Inlet Sizing Inlets are sized within the Hydraflow computer software to meet spread requirements on Monroe Avenue. Generally, 80% interception efficiency is pursued for maximum cost-to-benefit ratio. However, for this project, where the existing pavement has very little longitudinal slope and is prone to shallow ponding, a higher percentage of interception is desired. Where possible, 100% interception is the design goal. Inlet lengths in Hydraflow have been adjusted to account for an 80% clogging factor for curb opening inlets and 50% clogging factor for grates outside of roadways. 3. Design Parameters The following parameter values are selected for this project: • Manning’s n Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) 0.013 Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert (RCBC) 0.012 Gutter Flow 0.016 • Storm Drain Junction Loss Coefficients, k Junction loss coefficients represent the value that, when multiplied by the velocity head of the flow in a pipe system, computes the head‐loss across the junction. At Inlet (Connector Pipe) 1.00 Project Subapplication 25 At Manhole (Inline) 0.05 Mainline 45 Degree Bend 0.40 Mainline 90 Degree Bend 1.00 Mainline 90 Degree Bend – Special Design 0.50 Onsite Flow Lateral Junction (90 Degree) 0.05 Offsite Flow Lateral Junction 0.65 • Clogging factors: Curb Opening On‐Grade & Sump 0.80 Grated Inlet On‐Grade & Sump 0.50 I. Retention Basin Design Total contributing watershed volume is calculated within HEC‐1. Civil 3d computer aided design (CAD) surface modeling software is used to design the retention basin to meet this volume requirement. II. RESULTS & RECOMMENDATIONS A. Hydrology Hydrology results for the proposed storm drain system are provided in the following tables. DDMSW/HEC‐1 output can be found in Appendix D, attached. Table 2 below displays flow rates for relevant HEC‐1 subbasins and the primary subdivisions as shown on Figure 7 in Appendix E, attached. Table 3 below displays flow rates used for mainline pipe design. Calculations for intermediate flow rates for mainline sizing and offsite inlet flow rates are provided as Table 4 and Table 5 respectively in Appendix E, attached. Onsite runoff results (Rational Method) are provided within Hydraflow results in Appendix E. Table 2 –Subbasin Flow Summary Sub‐Basin Area 10‐Year 6‐Hour ID Flow Rate (sq mi) (cfs) 4thA 0.025 41 4thB 0.021 34 4thC 0.034 54 4th 0.080 129 6thA 0.011 19 6thB 0.041 72 6th 0.051 90 8thA 0.032 56 Project Subapplication 26 8thB 0.022 39 8th 0.054 95 9thE 0.072 110 9thW 0.031 57 9th 0.103 162 Table 3 –Mainline Flow Summary HEC‐1 Location 10‐Year 6‐Hour ID Flow Rate (cfs) * 2nd Street 41 * 3rd Street 75 4th 4th Street 129 * 5th Street 148 6th 6th Street 470 * 7th Street 257 8thA 8th Street 201 9th 9th Street 162 * South Avenue 470 A6RET Outfall 470 *Values are calculated by area-based percentage of HEC‐1 flow at the subbasin concentration point B. 10‐Year Storm Drain The proposed 10‐year storm drain system can be seen in Figure 9. Detailed Hydraflow software reports can be found in the attached Appendix E. Catch basin numbers on Figure 9, and the construction plans correspond to the onsite area numbers shown on Figure 8 in Appendix E. The computed 10‐Year HGL exceeds an elevation of 1 foot below the proposed adjacent grate/inlet elevation at two locations: catch basins #3 and #4. This occurs at lateral pipes where off-site flow is collected and input into an existing system. The existing system does not have the capacity to convey the anticipated flows. Downstream catch basins #1 and #5 have been upsized with 10-foot and 17-foot wings to account for flow‐by from 2nd street. Input flows at catch basins #3 and #4 have been reduced to their pipe capacities; the remainder of the flow is input at the next downstream catch basins. There are several off-site inlet locations, north of Monroe Avenue, where curb flow depth exceeds 6 inches, and inlets do not achieve 100% interception. Flows not captured in the offsite inlets upstream of Monroe Avenue are captured in inlets on Monroe Avenue for the design storm. All inlets on Monroe Avenue meet the design criteria established for the design Project Subapplication 27 storm. C. 10‐Year Retention Basin The 10‐year, 6‐hour watershed runoff volume generated is 24 acre‐ft. The provided volume is 29 acre‐ft with an additional 1’ of freeboard. The basin is currently designed to drain in 33.6 hours using a 24‐inch outfall pipe with a 15‐ inch perforated pipe with rock barriers; this calculation assumes ½ the tested soil infiltration rate. This pipe empties to an existing irrigation ditch on 7th Street (aka Norton Street). Basin drain time calculations are provided in the attached Appendix G. The City of Buckeye drainage design guidelines call for all storm water within a given development to retain a minimum of the 100‐year, 2‐hour retention volume; however, since the project location is in close proximity to the Gila River, the proposed retention basin will retain the 10‐year, 6‐hour flows and provide for the first flush volume to be retained within the basin site. The first flush volume, i.e., the first 0.5‐inch of runoff volume, from the upstream watershed is 9 acre‐ft. This volume equates to approximately 2.75 ft of standing water in the basin. Dibble has obtained the geotechnical infiltration rates for the basin site that were used to determine if the basin can be drained from the site within 36‐hours. A geotechnical report prepared by Speedie and Associates on June 30, 2010, indicates that a percolation rate of 0.18 ft3/hour/ft2 was obtained in the vicinity of the basin. A minimum clearance of approximately 5 feet is provided between the basin bottom elevation and the estimated groundwater depth: 13.1 feet (refer to Boring Log B‐2 in Appendix G). Side slopes are 4:1 with a 16’ maintenance access road. Once completed, the stormwater drainage system will direct the floodwater into the drainage system and away from any structures, property, and streets. Stormwater flood mitigation would have a definite benefit to health and safety (preventing flooding of structures, mold, and dangerous flash flooding of streets & alleys). The goal of this mitigation project is to prevent loss of property and loss of life, while enhancing the quality of life within this historically disadvantaged community. It will also improve road safety along the impacted primary transportation corridors. Project Subapplication 28 Scope of work Who will manage and complete the mitigation activity? The City of Buckeye project management staff will coordinate with the Flood Control District of Maricopa County, as well as the contractors who will be performing construction activities. Will the project address the hazards identified and what risks will remain from all hazards after project implementation (residual risk)? Based upon the professionally prepared designs and studies, the project will address the issue of flooding for the 10-year, 2-hour storm for Downtown Buckeye. Additionally, the project will construct a basin to contain the 100-year stormwater runoff with a 10-year collection system. It is not expected that the risk of flooding in this area will further exist. When will the mitigation activity take place? Upon award and final execution of a grant agreement, the City of Buckeye will commence the procurement process to engage contractors for construction activities. Once the contractors have been procured, the construction activities will commence. The overall period of performance, including procurement and construction, will occur over a 36-month period. Project Subapplication 29 Explain why this project is the best alternative. What alternatives were considered to address the risk and why was the proposed activity considered the best alternative? Discussions were conducted in regular meetings with the FCDMC, the City of Buckeye, and Dibble Engineering to identify potential flood control alternatives to supplement or replace the concepts developed in the Final Pre-Design Assessment Report by PEC. Through this process, several alternatives were identified, including a “do-nothing” alternative. Alternative 1- capture the 10-year storm event generated north of Monroe Avenue through a storm drain system in Monroe Avenue between 4th Street and 9th Street, basin outfall, and irrigation canal delivery to the Gila River. Advantages • Basin site contributes to a higher density of open space • Peak flows to the BWCDD are reduced from existing conditions • No need for new infrastructure for downstream conveyance • The majority of DDS flows are retained for the 10-year storm event • Significant cost reduction solution • Basin A6-BSN is located within an undeveloped parcel • Addressed localized issues with potential build-out improvements in the future • Travel distance for east-west trunk lines • Lowest relative cost Disadvantages. • Roadway south of Monroe Avenue, excluding 7th St, do not pick up runoff Alternative 2- multiple detention basins approach and the use of the BWCDD canal facilities as metered outfalls to the Arlington Canal. Advantages • Two Basin sites contribute to a higher density of open space • Peak flows to the BWCDD are reduced from existing conditions • No need for new infrastructure for downstream conveyance • The majority of DDS flows are retained • Channel improvements needed • Basin 5A-1 is located adjacent to the existing recreation open space • Smaller required pipe diameters • Travel distance for east-west trunk lines Disadvantages • Pipe length required • Basin at Beloat/4th Street is constrained by groundwater depth. • The Southeast section of DDS is not retained Project Subapplication 30 Scope of work • Some pipes are bucking grade • Highest relative cost Alternative 3- Do nothing This does not fix the problem. Buckeye would continue to have annually recurring flooding and damage. Please identify the entity that will perform any long-term maintenance and provide a maintenance schedule and cost information. The subapplicant or owner of the area to be mitigated is responsible for maintenance (including costs of long-term care) after the project is completed? The City of Buckeye, Public Works Department (BPW), will provide annual routine maintenance and long-term care for the proposed project after its completion. Annual cost is estimated to be between $10,000 and $15,000. This cost generally includes personnel, labor, equipment, recordkeeping, reporting, training, and contracted services. BPW currently maintains an experienced staff to handle these routine functions, providing similar maintenance to all of Buckeye’s 640 square miles of city infrastructure. The new stormwater infrastructure will be folded into the citywide regular maintenance schedule. Additional comments (optional) Attachments Buckeye DTSD 100% Drainage Report.pdf Schedule Specify the work schedule for the mitigation activities. Add tasks to the schedule. Please include all tasks necessary to implement this mitigation activity; include descriptions and estimated time frames. Project Subapplication 31 Task name Pre-construction design, surveying, and preparation Task description Project design, surveying, general contractor selection, site demolition and earthwork Start month (number) 1 Task duration (in months) 9 Task name Construction Task description Site concrete, site utilities, storm drainage installation, and final earthwork. Start month (number) 10 Task duration (in months) 24 Task name Project Closeout Task description Project closeout final cost, reports, and reimbursement request. Start month (number) 34 Task duration (in months) 3 Schedule Estimate the total duration of your proposed activities (in months). 36 Proposed start date (MM/DD/YYYY) 07/01/2026 Proposed end date (MM/DD/YYYY) 06/30/2026 Project Subapplication 32 Budget Budget cost estimate should directly link to your scope of work and work schedule. You must add at least one item greater than $0 for your cost estimate. Once you have added item(s) for your cost estimate, you may then add the item(s) for management cost (optional). FEMA will provide 100 percent federal funding for subrecipient management costs for BRIC program activities. As necessary, please adjust your federal/non-federal cost share, and add the non-federal funding source(s) you are planning to use for this project. Add Cost estimate budget item(s) Cost type: Cost estimate Add an item (complete table for each cost item) Name of cost item Pre-construction design, surveying, and preparation Quantity 1 Unit of measure Acre Cubic foot Cubic yard Day Each Foot Hour Inch Linear foot Mile Million board feet Square foot Square yard Square foot per inch Ton Unit price $2,917,379 Unit total 1 Project Subapplication 33 Add Cost estimate budget item(s) Budget class Administrative and legal expenses Architectural and engineering fees Construction Contingencies Demolition and removal Equipment rental Equipment purchase Land, structures, rights-of-way, appraisals, etc. Miscellaneous Other architectural and engineering fees Project inspection fees Relocation expenses and payments Site work Pre-award Yes No Project phase Phase 1 Phase 2 Not applicable Total budget cost $2,917,379 Add Cost estimate budget item(s) Cost type: Cost estimate Add an item (complete table for each cost item) Name of cost item Sitework Quantity 1 Unit of measure Acre Cubic foot Cubic yard Day Each Foot Hour Inch Linear foot Mile Million board feet Square foot Square yard Square foot per inch Ton Project Subapplication 34 Add Cost estimate budget item(s) Unit price $5,611,774 Unit total 1 Budget class Administrative and legal expenses Architectural and engineering fees Construction Contingencies Demolition and removal Equipment rental Equipment purchase Land, structures, rights-of-way, appraisals, etc. Miscellaneous Other architectural and engineering fees Project inspection fees Relocation expenses and payments Site work Pre-award Yes No Project phase Phase 1 Phase 2 Not applicable Total budget cost $5,611,774 Add Cost estimate budget item(s) Cost type: Cost estimate Add an item (complete table for each cost item) Name of cost item Construction Quantity 1 Unit of measure Acre Cubic foot Cubic yard Day Each Foot Hour Inch Linear foot Mile Million board feet Square foot Square yard Project Subapplication 35 Add Cost estimate budget item(s) Square foot per inch Ton Unit price $12,854,742 Unit total 1 Budget class Administrative and legal expenses Architectural and engineering fees Construction Contingencies Demolition and removal Equipment rental Equipment purchase Land, structures, rights-of-way, appraisals, etc. Miscellaneous Other architectural and engineering fees Project inspection fees Relocation expenses and payments Site work Pre-award Yes No Project phase Phase 1 Phase 2 Not applicable Total budget cost $12,854,742 Add Cost estimate budget item(s) Cost type: Cost estimate Add an item (complete table for each cost item) Name of cost item Contractor Costs Quantity 1 Unit of measure Acre Cubic foot Cubic yard Day Each Foot Hour Inch Linear foot Mile Million board feet Project Subapplication 36 Add Cost estimate budget item(s) Square foot Square yard Square foot per inch Ton Unit price $5,181,570 Unit total 1 Budget class Administrative and legal expenses Architectural and engineering fees Construction Contingencies Demolition and removal Equipment rental Equipment purchase Land, structures, rights-of-way, appraisals, etc. Miscellaneous Other architectural and engineering fees Project inspection fees Relocation expenses and payments Site work Pre-award Yes No Project phase Phase 1 Phase 2 Not applicable Total budget cost $5,181,570 Add an item (complete table for each cost item) Name of cost item Contingency Quantity 1 Unit of measure Acre Cubic foot Cubic yard Day Each Foot Hour Inch Linear foot Mile Million board feet Square foot Project Subapplication 37 Add Cost estimate budget item(s) Square yard Square foot per inch Ton Unit price $641,517 Unit total 1 Budget class Administrative and legal expenses Architectural and engineering fees Construction Contingencies Demolition and removal Equipment rental Equipment purchase Land, structures, rights-of-way, appraisals, etc. Miscellaneous Other architectural and engineering fees Project inspection fees Relocation expenses and payments Site work Pre-award Yes No Project phase Phase 1 Phase 2 Not applicable Total budget cost $641,517 Management cost (optional) is the line item(s) to support the scope of work for the execution and completion of the project. Be sure to include the cost associated with managing the project/initiative/activity. The total amount of management costs cannot exceed 5% of the total Cost estimate amount. Add Management cost budget item(s) Cost type: Management cost - NA Item Equipment Office Space Rental Other Salaries Supplies Travel Quantity NA Project Subapplication 38 Add Management cost budget item(s) Unit of measure Acre Cubic foot Cubic yard Day Each Foot Hour Inch Linear foot Mile Million board feet Square foot Square yard Square foot per inch Ton Unit price $0 Unit total NA Budget class Construction Contractual Equipment Fringe benefits Indirect charges Other Personnel Supplies Travel Pre-award Yes No Project phase Phase 1 Phase 2 Not applicable Management cost total $0 Grand total (Cost estimate total + Management cost total) $27,206,982 Program income (optional) $ Project Subapplication 39 Cost share Cost share or matching means the portion of project costs not paid by federal funds. Hazard mitigation assistance (HMA) funds may be used to pay up to 75% federal share of the eligible activity costs. Small impoverished communities may be eligible for up to 90% federal share for Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) funding. Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) and severe repetitive loss (SRL) properties may be eligible for up to 100% federal share. Repetitive loss (RL) properties may be eligible for up to 90% federal share. Proposed federal vs. non-federal funding shares Is this a small impoverished community? (See Appendix for definition) This determines your federal/non-federal share ratio. Yes No If Yes Federal Share Percentage 90% Non-Federal Share Percentage 10% Based on total budget cost Proposed federal share Proposed non-federal share If No Federal Share Percentage 75% Non-Federal Share Percentage 25% Based on total budget cost $20,405,236 Proposed federal share $6,801,746 Non-federal funding share is that portion of the total costs of the program provided by the non- federal entity in the form of in-kind donations or cash match received from third parties or contributed by the agency. In-kind contributions must be provided and cash expended during the project period along with federal funds to satisfy the matching requirements. Add funding source (complete this table for each funding source) Funding source Non-Federal Share Name of source agency City of Buckeye Funding amount $6,801,746 Percent non-federal share by source 25% Project Subapplication 40 Add funding source (complete this table for each funding source) Funding type Administration Cash Consulting fees Engineering fees Equipment operation/rental Labor Other Program income Supplies Date of availability (MM/DD/YYYY) 07/01/2026 Fund commitment letter date (MM/DD/YYYY) 04/21/2026 Total percent non-federal share 25% Please provide any addition comments (optional) Attachments Fund Commitment Letter Signed.pdf Cost-Effectiveness Cost-Effectiveness How was cost-effectiveness determined for this project? BCA completed in FEMA’s BCA toolkit (Must attach the export file, zip file, pdf file, and other supporting documentation) Pre-calculated benefits Substantial Damage in Special Flood Hazard Area Other BCA methodology approved by FEMA in writing Not applicable If Not applicable, explain why this project is not applicable Pre-calculated benefits selections Acquisitions in the special flood hazard area Elevations in the special flood hazard area Mitigation reconstruction in the special flood hazard area Individual tornado safe rooms Residential hurricane wind retrofits Project Subapplication 41 Cost-Effectiveness Non-residential hurricane wind retrofits Post-wildfire mitigation What are the total project benefits? $32,481,289.66 What is the total project cost? $27,306,982.00 What is the benefit cost ratio (BCR) for the entire project? 1.2 Was sea level rise incorporated into the flood elevations in the BCA? Yes No Were environmental benefits added to the project benefits? Yes No Were social benefits added to the project benefits? Yes No Does the mitigation measure incorporate nature-based solutions? Yes No Please provide any additional comments. Attachments BCA Buckeye Stormwater Flood Mit Environmental/Historic Preservation (EHP) Review Information An environmental/historic preservation review is required for all activities for which FEMA funds are being requested. FEMA will complete this review with the assistance of both the state or tribal government and the local applicant. It is important that you provide accurate information. If you are having problems completing this section, please contact your application point of contact. A. National Historic Preservation Act - Historic Buildings and Structures 1. Does your project affect or is it in close proximity to any buildings or structures 50 years or more in age? Yes No Not known Project Subapplication 42 A. National Historic Preservation Act - Historic Buildings and Structures If Yes, you must confirm that you have provided the following: The property address and original date of construction for each property affected (unless this information is already noted in the Properties section) A minimum of two color photographs showing at least three sides of each structure (Please label the photos accordingly) A diagram or USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map displaying the relationship of the property(s) to the project area If Yes, to help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project, please indicate any other information you are providing. Information gathered about potential historic properties in the project area, including any evidence indicating the age of the building or structure and presence of buildings or structures that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places or within or near a National Register listed or eligible historic district. Sources for this information may include the State Historic Preservation Officer, and/or the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO/THPO), your local planning office, historic preservation organization, or historical society. Consideration of how the project design will minimize adverse effects on known or potential historic buildings or structures, and any alternatives considered or implemented to avoid or minimize effects on historic buildings or structures. Please address and note associated costs in your project budget. For acquisition/demolition projects affecting historic buildings or structures, any data regarding the consideration and feasibility of elevation, relocation, or flood proofing as alternatives to demolition. Attached materials or additional comments. Project Subapplication 43 A. National Historic Preservation Act - Historic Buildings and Structures If Yes or Not Known, please provide an explanation and any information about this project that could assist FEMA in its review. (optional) Attachments B. National Historic Preservation Act - Archeological Resources 1. Does your project involve disturbance of ground? Yes No Not known If Yes, please confirm that you have provided the information below by selecting each checkbox. (If you have not provided these documents in any other section of the application, please attach the required documents below.) A description of the ground disturbance by giving the dimensions (area, volume, depth, etc.) and location. The past use of the area to be disturbed, noting the extent of previously disturbed ground. A USGS 1:24,000 scale or other site map showing the location and extent of ground disturbance. If Yes, to help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project, please indicate below any other information you are providing. (optional) Any information about potential historic properties, including archeological sites, in the project area. Sources of this information may include SHPO/THPO, and/or the Tribe's cultural resources contact if no THPO is designated. Include, if possible, a map showing the relation of any identified historic properties to the project area. Attached materials or additional comments. If Yes or Not Known, please provide an explanation and any information about this project that could assist FEMA in its review. (optional) Attachments Project Subapplication 44 C. Endangered Species Act and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 1. Are Federally listed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat present in the area affected by the project? Yes No Not known If Yes, please confirm that you have provided the information below by selecting each checkbox. (If you have not provided these documents in any other section of the application, please attach the required documents below.) Information you obtained to identify species in or near the project area. Provide the source and date of the information cited. If Yes, to help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project, please indicate below any other information you are providing. (optional) Any request for information and associated response from the USFWS, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (for affected ocean-going fish), or your State Wildlife Agency, regarding potential listed species present and potential of the project to impact those species. Attached materials or additional comments. If Yes or Not Known, please provide an explanation and any information about this project that could assist FEMA in its review. (optional) 2. Does your project remove or affect vegetation? Yes No Not known If Yes, please confirm that you have provided the information below by selecting each checkbox. (If you have not provided these documents in any other section of the application, please attach the required documents below.) Description of the amount (area) and type of vegetation to be removed or affected. A site map showing the project area and the extent of vegetation affected. Photographs or digital images that show both the vegetation affected and the vegetation in context of its surroundings. If Yes, to help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project, please indicate below any other information you are providing. (optional) Attached materials or additional comments. If Yes or Not Known, please provide an explanation and any information about this project that could assist FEMA in its review. (optional) Project Subapplication 45 C. Endangered Species Act and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 3. Is your project in, near (within 200 feet), or likely to affect any type of waterway or body of water? Yes No Not known If Yes, and project is not within an existing building, you must confirm that you have provided the following: (If you have not provided these documents in any other section of the application, please attach the required documents below.) A USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map showing the project activities in relation to all nearby water bodies (within 200 feet). Any information about the type of water body nearby including: its dimensions, the proximity of the project activity to the water body, and the expected and possible changes to the water body, if any. Identify all water bodies regardless whether you think there may be an effect A photograph or digital image of the site showing both the body of water and the project area. If Yes, to help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project, please indicate below any other information you are providing. (optional) Evidence of any discussions with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and/or your State Wildlife Agency concerning any potential impacts if there is the potential for the project to affect any water body. Attached materials or additional comments. If Yes or Not Known, please provide an explanation and any information about this project that could assist FEMA in its review. (optional) Attachments D. Clean Water Act, Rivers and Harbors Act, and Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) 1. Will the project involve dredging or disposal of dredged material, excavation, adding fill material or result in any modification to water bodies or wetlands designated as "waters of the U.S" as identified by the US Army Corps of Engineers or on the National Wetland Inventory? Yes No Not known Project Subapplication 46 D. Clean Water Act, Rivers and Harbors Act, and Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) If Yes, please confirm that you have provided the information below by selecting each checkbox. (If you have not provided these documents in any other section of the application, please attach the required documents below.) Documentation of the project location on a USGS 1:24,000 scale topographic map or image and a copy of a National Wetlands Inventory map or other available wetlands mapping information. A copy of a National Wetlands Inventory map or other available wetlands mapping information. If Yes, to help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project, please indicate below any other information you are providing. (optional) Request for information and response letter from the US Army Corps of Engineers and/or State resource agencies regarding the potential for wetlands, and applicability of permitting requirements. Evidence of alternatives considered to eliminate or minimize impacts to wetlands. Attached materials or additional comments. If Yes or Not Known, please provide an explanation and any information about this project that could assist FEMA in its review. (optional) Attachments E. Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) 1. Does a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM), hydrologic study, or some other source indicate that the project is located in or will affect a 100 year floodplain, a 500 year floodplain if a critical facility, an identified regulatory floodway, or an area prone to flooding? Yes No Not known If Yes, please indicate and/or provide any documentation to identify the means or the alternatives considered to eliminate or minimize impacts to floodplains (See the 8 step process found in 44 CFR Part 9.6.) to help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project. Project Subapplication 47 E. Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) If Yes or Not Known, please provide an explanation and any information about this project that could assist FEMA in its review. (optional) 2. Does the project alter a watercourse, water flow patterns, or a drainage way, regardless of its floodplain designation? Yes No Not known If Yes, please indicate any other information you are providing to help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project. Hydrologic/hydraulic information from a qualified engineer to demonstrate how drainage and flood flow patterns will be changed and to identify down and upstream effects. Request for information and response letter from the State water resource agency, if applicable, with jurisdiction over modification of waterways. Attached materials or additional comments. If Yes or Not Known, please provide an explanation and any information about this project that could assist FEMA in its review. (optional) Attachments F. Coastal Zone Management Act 1. Is the project located in the State's designated coastal zone? Yes No Not known If Yes, please indicate any other information you are providing to help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project. Information resulting from contact with the appropriate State agency that implements the coastal zone management program regarding the likelihood of the project’s consistency with the State’s coastal zone plan and any potential requirements affecting the cost or design of the proposed activity. Attached materials or additional comments. Project Subapplication 48 F. Coastal Zone Management Act If Yes or Not Known, please provide an explanation and any information about this project that could assist FEMA in its review. (optional) Attachments G. Farmland Protection Policy Act 1. Will the project convert more than 5 acres of “prime or unique” farmland outside city limits to a non-agricultural use? Yes No Not known If Yes or Not Known, please provide an explanation and any information about this project that could assist FEMA in its review. (optional) Attachments H. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) (Hazardous and Toxic Materials) 1. Is there a reason to suspect there are contaminants from a current or past use on the property associated with the proposed project? Yes No Not known If Yes, please indicate any other information you are providing to help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project. Comments and any relevant documentation. Results of any consultations with State or local agency to obtain permit with requirements for handling, disposing of or addressing the effects of hazardous or toxic materials related to project implementation. Attached materials or additional comments. If Yes or Not Known, please provide an explanation and any information about this project that could assist FEMA in its review. (optional) Project Subapplication 49 H. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) (Hazardous and Toxic Materials) 2. Are there any studies, investigations, or enforcement actions related to the property associated with the proposed project? Yes No Not known If Yes, please indicate any other information you are providing to help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project. Comments and any relevant documentation. Results of any consultations with State or local agency to obtain permit with requirements for handling, disposing of or addressing the effects of hazardous or toxic materials related to project implementation. Attached materials or additional comments. If Yes or Not Known, please provide an explanation and any information about this project that could assist FEMA in its review. (optional) 3. Does any project construction or operation activities involve the use of hazardous or toxic materials? Yes No Not known If Yes, please indicate any other information you are providing to help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project. Comments and any relevant documentation. Results of any consultations with State or local agency to obtain permit with requirements for handling, disposing of, or addressing the effects of hazardous or toxic materials related to project implementation. Attached materials or additional comments. If Yes or Not Known, please provide an explanation and any information about this project that could assist FEMA in its review. (optional) 4. Do you know if any of the current or past land-uses of the property affected by the proposed project or of the adjacent properties are associated with hazardous or toxic materials? Yes No Not known Project Subapplication 50 H. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) (Hazardous and Toxic Materials) If Yes, please indicate below any other information you are providing to help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project. Comments and any relevant documentation. Results of any consultations with State or local agency to obtain permit with requirements for handling, disposing of or addressing the effects of hazardous or toxic materials related to project implementation. Attached materials or additional comments. If Yes or Not Known, please provide an explanation and any information about this project that could assist FEMA in its review. Attachments I. Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice for Low Income and Minority Populations 1. Are there low income or minority populations in the project’s area of effect or adjacent to the project area? Yes No Not known If Yes, you must confirm that you have provided the following: Description of any disproportionate and adverse effects to these populations. To help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project, please indicate below any other information you are providing: Description of the population affected and the portion of the population that would be disproportionately and adversely affected. Please include specific efforts to address the adverse impacts in your proposal narrative and budget. Attached materials or additional comments. If Yes or Not Known, please provide an explanation and any information about this project that could assist FEMA in its review. Attachments Social Vulnerability.pdf Low Income.pdf Project Subapplication 51 J. Other Environmental/Historic Preservation Laws or Issues 1. Are there other environmental/historic preservation requirements associated with this project that you are aware of? Yes No If Yes, please indicate a description of the requirements, issues, or public involvement effort. 2. Are there controversial issues associated with this project? Yes No Not known If Yes, please indicate a description of the requirements, issues, or public involvement effort. If Yes or Not Known, please indicate why in the text box below and any information about this project that could assist FEMA in its review. 3. Have you conducted any public meeting or solicited public input or comments on your specific proposed mitigation project? Yes No Project Subapplication 52 J. Other Environmental/Historic Preservation Laws or Issues If Yes, please indicate a description of the requirements, issues, or public involvement effort. In June 2004, Project Engineering Consultants, Ltd. (PEC) met with Buckeye City staff, made several site visits, and reviewed the provided utility documentation during the course of the study. PEC Engineers also met with the management of the Buckeye Irrigation District and the Arlington Canal Company to determine the feasibility of using their facilities as a discharge location. Buckeye staff and PEC also attended a public meeting held in the Buckeye Community Center with the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC). PEC surveyed a portion of the area to obtain additional data. PEC concluded that it is reasonable to construct a basin to contain the 100-year stormwater runoff with a 10-year collection system. PEC recommended the development of a major storm drain system along Monroe Avenue, a multi-use detention basin, and an outfall corridor to discharge the storm water into existing irrigation district facilities leading to the Gila River. As the City continues to grow and develop, this proposed drainage system in the downtown area will become increasingly important in minimizing the impact of future storm events in the City of Buckeye. The most recent major flooding event occurred on 10-16-22. Attachments K. Summary and Cost of Potential Impacts 1. Having answered the questions in parts A. through J., have you identified any aspects of your proposed project that have the potential to impact environmental resources or historic properties? Yes No Project Subapplication 53 K. Summary and Cost of Potential Impacts If Yes, you must confirm that you have provided the following: (If you have not provided these documents in any other section of the application, please attach the required documents below.) Evaluated these potential effects and provided the materials required in Parts A through J that identify the nature and extent of potential impacts to environmental resources and/or historic properties. Consulted with appropriate parties to identify any measures needed to avoid or minimize these impacts. Considered alternatives that could minimize both the impacts and the cost of the project. Made certain that the costs of any measures to treat adverse effects are realistically reflected in the project budget estimate. If Yes, please enter your comments. (optional) (Please indicate why and any information about this project that could assist FEMA in its review.) Attachments Evaluation Evaluation Is the applicant participating in the Community Rating System (CRS)? https://www.fema.gov/national-flood- insurance-program-community-rating-system Yes No If Yes, what is their CRS rating? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Is the applicant a Cooperating Technical Partner (CTP)? https://www.fema.gov/cooperating- technical-partners-program Yes No Was this created from a previous FEMA HMA Advance assistance/Project scoping award? Yes No If yes, please provide the project identifier. Has the recipient adopted building codes consistent with the International Codes? https://www.iccsafe.org/advocacy Yes No If Yes, enter year of building code. 2018 Project Subapplication 54 Evaluation If Yes, please provide the building code. Ordinance No. 23-19 Have the applicant's building codes been assessed on the Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS))? http://www.isomitigation.com/bcegs Yes No If Yes, what is their BCEGS rating? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Describe involvement of partners to enhance the mitigation activity outcome. The elected and appointed officials of Maricopa County and the 27 other participating jurisdictions demonstrated their commitment to hazard mitigation in 2014-2015 by preparing the second update of the Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (2015 Plan). The City of Buckeye has an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Flood Control District of Maricopa County, wherein Buckeye hopes that the Flood Control District will contribute to the project cost. This partnership ensures the project meets community needs, ensuring the project meets overburdened and underserved population needs, making a financial contribution, providing educational resources, and coordinating multi-jurisdictional projects to include this proposal. Discuss how anticipated future conditions are addressed by this project. The completion of the Downtown Buckeye Flood Mitigation project will prevent flood damage to residential and commercial properties and any subsequent related negative impacts on the population in the affected area. Additional comments (optional) Attachments Project Subapplication 55 Location Project Location Provide a detailed description of the proposed project's location. The Downtown Buckeye Flood Mitigation project includes the installation of a storm drainpipe and catch basins along E. Monroe Ave. from Miller Rd. to 9th St. This system will relieve the issue of flooding for the 10-year, 2-hour storm for Downtown Buckeye. The waters would be conveyed in a storm drainpipe system under S. 6th St. to South St. At South St., the pipe system would travel east to 7th St. and outfall into a retention basin constructed by this project. Latitude (e.g. -80.430101, should be between - 90 to +90, but not 0) 33.370858 and 33.362978 Longitude (e.g. 100.430101, should be between -180 to +180, but not 0) -112.591973 and -112.577360 Attachments Project Subapplication 56 Project Benefiting Area Provide a detailed description of the proposed project's benefiting area The project is located in the City of Buckeye, located in Maricopa County, Arizona. Buckeye is a rural area with population clusters spread over 640 sq. miles, covered by greater than 90% agricultural/open space, 2% industrial/commercial use, and 4% residential. Buckeye is located 40 miles west of Phoenix and consists of 640 square miles. Buckeye is home to approximately 114,000 people. 100% of the downtown population of about 31,000 resides in the proposed project’s benefiting area. Median household income is estimated at $57,000. There are about 30 businesses in the impacted/benefitted area. Buckeye’s 2024 main ethnic breakdown is 35% Latino, 48% White, 8% Black, and 9% other. The World Population Review estimates the median household income for 2024 is $94,188, the median age is 35 years, and 8% of households are below the poverty level. Portions of Buckeye, including the benefitted area, have been federally identified as historically disadvantaged as to transportation, health, equity, environmental indicators, Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility proximity, wastewater discharge, flood risk, education, income, socioeconomic indicators, unemployment, and a high level of vulnerability to negative effects caused by external stresses on human health. This includes the affected area of this project. The total population affected is 27% (31,000 / 114,000 = 0.2719 (27.19%)). Attachments Project Subapplication 57 Project Impact Area Provide a detailed description of the proposed project's impact area The project is located in the City of Buckeye, located in Maricopa County, Arizona. Buckeye is a rural area with population clusters spread over 640 sq. miles, covered by greater than 90% agricultural/open space, 2% industrial/commercial use, and 4% residential. Buckeye is located 40 miles west of Phoenix and consists of 640 square miles. Buckeye is home to approximately 114,000 people. 100% of the downtown population of about 31,000 resides in the proposed project’s benefiting area. Median household income is estimated at $57,000. There are about 30 businesses in the impacted/benefitted area. Buckeye’s 2024 main ethnic breakdown is 35% Latino, 48% White, 8% Black and 9% other. The World Population Review estimates the median household income for 2024 is $94,188, the median age is 35 years, and 8% of households are below the poverty level. Portions of Buckeye, including the benefitted area, have been federally identified as historically disadvantaged as to transportation, health, equity, environmental indicators, Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility proximity, wastewater discharge, flood risk, education, income, socioeconomic indicators, unemployment, and high level of vulnerability to negative effects caused by external stresses on human health. This includes the affected area of this project. The total population affected is 27% (31,000 / 114,000 = 0.2719 (27.19%)). Attachments Project Site Inventory Does this project subapplication propose to mitigate a property/structure(s)? (Examples: residential home, commercial building, bridge, fire station, levee, pumping station, wastewater treatment plant, telephone pole, electric line, etc.) Yes No Project Subapplication 58 Project Site Inventory If Yes, do you know the location of the structure? Yes No If Yes, enter the details of the property into the HMA Location Template spreadsheet, located at https://www.fema.gov/media-library- data/1591110757471-ecd329024 debffd2dd5e2367938e90b2 /FEMAHMALocationTemplate.xlsx Assurances and Certifications Applicants should refer to the regulations cited below to determine the certification to which they are required to attest. Applicants should also review the instructions for certification included in the regulations before completing this form. Project Subapplication 59 Lobbying As required by section 1352, Title 31 of the U.S. Code, and implemented at 44 CFR Part 18, for persons entering into a grant or cooperating agreement over $ 100,000, as defined at 44 CFR Part 18, the applicant certifies that: (a) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the making of any Federal grant, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal grant or cooperative agreement. (b) If any other funds than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any other person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of Congress, an officer or an employee of Congress, or employee of a member of Congress in connection with this Federal Grant or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Stand Form-LLL, "Disclosure of Lobbying Activities," in accordance with its instructions. (c) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subgrants, contracts under grants and cooperative agreements, and subcontracts) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. Applicant will NOT use federal appropriated funds for lobbying purposes. Applicant will use non- appropriated funds for lobbying purposes. If so, complete Standard Form LLL “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities” below. Standard Form-LLL “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities” This form must be attached to certification if non-appropriated funds are to be used to influence activities. 1. Type of federal action: Contract Cooperative agreement Grant Loan Loan guarantee Loan insurance Project Subapplication 60 Standard Form-LLL “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities” 2. Status of federal action: Bid/offer/application Initial award Post award 3. Report Type: Initial filing Material change 4. Name and address of reporting entity: Prime SubAwardee If SubAwardee, enter tier, if known: (optional) Name City of Buckeye Street 1 530 E. Monroe Ave. Street 2 (optional) City Buckeye State (optional) AZ Zip (optional) 85326 Zip extension (optional) Congressional district, if known: (optional) 9 5. If SubAwardee, enter name and address of prime below. Name State of Arizona – Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs (AZ DEMA) Street 1 5636 E. McDowell Rd. Street 2 (optional) City Phoenix State (optional) AZ Project Subapplication 61 Standard Form-LLL “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities” Zip (optional) 85008 Zip extension (optional) Congressional district, if know: (optional) 6. Federal department/agency: FEMA 7. Federal program name/description: Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) CFDA number, if applicable: (optional) 97.047 8. Federal action number, if known: (optional) 9. Award amount, if known: (optional) $ 10. Name and address of lobbying registrant: Prefix (optional) Dr. Miss Mr. Mrs. Ms. Rev. First name Bob Middle name (optional) Last name Holmes Suffix (optional) Jr. MD PHD Sr. Street 1 4848 E. Cactus Rd. Street 2 (optional) Suite 505-519 Project Subapplication 62 Standard Form-LLL “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities” City Scottsdale State (optional) AZ Zip (optional) 85254 Zip extension (optional) 10b. Individual performing services: (including address if different from No. 10a) Prefix (optional) Dr. Miss Mr. Mrs. Ms. Rev. First name Middle name (optional) Last name Suffix (optional) Jr. MD PHD Sr. Street 1 Street 2 (optional) City State (optional) Zip (optional) Zip extension (optional) Project Subapplication 63 Standard Form-LLL “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities” 11. Information requested through this form is authorized by title 31 U.S.C. section 1352. This disclosure of lobbying activities is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed by the tier above when the transaction was made or entered into. This disclosure is required pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1352. This information will be reported to the Congress semi-annually and will be available for public inspection. Any person who fails to file the required disclosure shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. 3. Drug-Free Workplace (Grantee other than individuals) As required by the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, and implemented at 44 CFR Part 17, Subpart F, for grantees, as defined at 44 CFR Part 17.615 and 17.620. A. The applicant certifies that it will continue to provide a drug-free workplace by; Yes (a) Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition; Yes Project Subapplication 64 3. Drug-Free Workplace (Grantee other than individuals) (b) Establishing an on-going drug free awareness program to inform employees about (1) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; (2) The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace; (3) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and (4) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace. Yes (c) Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the grant to be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph (a); Yes (d) Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (a) that, as a condition of employment under the grant, the employee will- (1) Abide by the term of the statement; and (2) Notify the employee in writing of his or her conviction for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring ion the workplace no later than five calendar days after such convictions. Yes (e) Notifying the agency, in writing, within 10 calendar days after receiving notice under subparagraph (d)(2) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction. Employers of convicted employees must provide notice, including position, title, to the applicable FEMA awarding office, i.e., regional office or FEMA office. Yes Project Subapplication 65 3. Drug-Free Workplace (Grantee other than individuals) (f) Taking one of the following actions, within 30 calendar days of receiving notice under subparagraph (d)(2), with respect to any employee who is convicted- (1) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination, consistent with the requirements of the Rehabilitation act of 1973, as amended; or (2) Requiring such an employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency;(g) Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug free workplace through implementation of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f). Yes B. The grantee may insert in the space provided below the site(s) for the performance of work done in connection with the specific grant: Yes Place of performance (street address, city, county, state, ZIP code) (optional) 530 E. Monroe Ave., Buckeye, AZ, 85326 There are workplaces on file that are not identified. Yes