SiteVisitNotes_110424.pdf

BCLH Phase 1 Stewardship IRSC

Site Visit Notes Prepared by Karen Ruklic, Brett Blundon and Heidi Andersen

Site Visit was held on 11/4/2024 at 9:00 a.m.

Attendance List:

Name Company Email Address Phone Karen Ruklic USFS – Stewardship Contracting

Officer karen.ruklic@usda.gov 208-702-3519

Heidi Andersen USFS – Disaster Recovery Program Manager

James Rudisill USFS – Forest Silviculturist Michelle King USFS – Detroit District Ranger David Bishop USFS - Timber

Danny Matthews USFS - Engineer Michael Howard USFS - SRZ Engineer Sydney Randall USFS - Disaster Recovery

Archeologist

Brett Blundon USFS - Disaster Recovery Program Manager

Brett.blundon@usda.gov 541-225-6333

Wilbur Atkins Mr. Tree 514-3995 Max Metcalf Mr. Tree mr.rock0569@gmail.com 971-713-0569 Dan Johnston Emery and Sons bids@emeryandsons.com 503-588-7576 Mike Wright Goodfellow Bros. Inc. mikewr@goodfellowbros.com 971-330-9641

Chad Engle Engle Contracting cm.engle@yahoo.com 541-480-1457 Casey Dark Emery and Sons bids@emeryandsons.com 503-588-7576 Bruce Rider Tioga Logging bruce@tiogalogging.com 541-357-1312 Thomas McGuire Billeter todd@billetermarine.com 541-269-8600 Reid Highberger North Santiam Paving quotes@nspor.com 503-769-3436 Bodie Dowding Pacific Fibre bdowding@pacfibre.com 503-910-6630 Jay Crowl Summitt Forest summittforests@gmail.com 541-941-4074 Gibson Kuenzi Siegmund Excavation gibson@siegmundcompanies.com 503-339-4690

Notes:

The meeting started in a conference room at the Detroit Ranger Station.

Karen Ruklic, Contracting Officer for Phases 1-3 gave an overview of the BCLH project that included the following information.

Goal of the fall presolicitation postings for Phases 1-3 on sam.gov and today’s meeting is to provide contractors with meaningful information to assess the project prior to site access being cut off due to snow. The plan is to issue the solicitations between January and May of 2025. The goal of the BCLH Phase 1 Stewardship IRSC is to remove hazard trees along roads to reopen the roads for public use following the Beachie Creek and Lionshead fires of 2020. The project removes product to reduce hazardous fuel loading and reconstructs roads. Road maintenance is required to ensure damage to the road system does not mailto:karen.ruklic@usda.gov mailto:Brett.blundon@usda.gov mailto:mr.rock0569@gmail.com mailto:bids@emeryandsons.com mailto:mikewr@goodfellowbros.com mailto:cm.engle@yahoo.com mailto:bids@emeryandsons.com mailto:bruce@tiogalogging.com mailto:todd@billetermarine.com mailto:quotes@nspor.com mailto:bdowding@pacfibre.com mailto:summittforests@gmail.com mailto:gibson@siegmundcompanies.com occur during removal.

The contract is an Integrated Resource Service Contract that will trade the value of the product for service work performed. We recognize that the trees have stood for 4 years following the fire and have deteriorated. However, the product removal still must be accounted for and will be removed via a scaled timber sale.

The project was originally planned for a single, large solicitation. After hearing from industry that the Cedar Stewardship IRSC on the Middle Fork RD (awarded in the summer of 2024) was too big, the District stepped back and broke the project down into 3 phases based on geographic location. Acquisition management has learned that bonding the significant construction requirements has made it hard for contractors to submit offers. Not only is bonding amount a concern but also the length of time the bond must be in place. Therefore, we have tried hard to structure the three phases to keep the performance periods and total construction values more reasonable to increase competition. The government also had to balance this reality with its ability to administer the work. Awarding more than 3 contracts would exceed the government’s ability to administer the work with its limited workforce. In addition, the funds for this work must be obligated through awarded contracts by the end of FY 25 (September 30, 2025).

Awarding more than three contracts would be difficult for Acquisition Management to accomplish.

Contractor question: Is the total value of the contract subject to 100% payment and performance bonds?

CO Answer: No, the service work (which includes the hazard tree felling, product removal, and road maintenance) is not subject to bonding, only the value of the road reconstruction work awarded is subject to the bonding requirements.

We also learned through previous acquisitions that contractors like to have the ability to work year-round.

During the wet season, October 16 - May 14, contractors are prohibited from operating heavy equipment from the road prism and/or hauling logs over Forest roads. To be granted conditional use to perform this work during the wet weather season, specified road construction and wet-weather rock installation would need to have been done during the dry season. To try and accommodate this contractor need, the government has included installation of wet weather operational rock as a paid reconstruction item on a subset of the roads. Where this rock would be placed on a given road is at the Contracting Officer’s discretion. We did not allow for paid placement of operational rock on all the roads due to cost. Instead, we chose road sections where the fire burned most intensely and at elevations that would not also require lots of snow-plowing. The road sections chosen are itemized by number in the wet weather rock mandatory and optional pay items. The roads chosen for this treatment and the amount of rock estimated is subject to change. Contractor input regarding what road sections would be best for wet weather work would be appreciated.

Contractor input: A contractor noted that focusing wet weather work at the lowest elevations might be best. The government stated that made sense and would consider the input when finalizing the roads planned for treatment with wet weather rock.

CO, Karen Ruklic, stated that the plan was to crush government rock under a separate stand-alone service contract to reduce the cost of the BCLH contracts. The plan is to have rock crushed and stockpiled for BCLH contractor use by August 15, 2025.

Contractor question: Do you anticipate that one contractor will be awarded all three phases of the BCLH project that are being solicited separately?

CO Answer: No, the government anticipates that different contractors would be awarded each phase primarily because the performance deadlines are identical with Phase 1, 2, and 3 Mandatory work to be completed by 10/31/2027 and Phase 1, 2, and 3 Optional work to be completed by 10/31/2028. It is hard to contemplate one contractor having the capacity to treat all that ground within the same performance period. However, who gets award of each phase will be dependent on price and other technical factors and there is no restriction against awarding one contractor more than one phase. Based on recent contract awards, contractors seem to move through the hazard tree felling work quickly. Contractors also tend to team up with the prime contractor awarding subcontracts. It may be that the prime specializes in the road work and subcontracts for the tree felling. Or subcontractors are brought in for the specialized road reconstruction work such as paving or culvert installation or small fuels treatment.

The final thing learned from contractors during solicitation of Cedar IRSC was the valid concern regarding the safety of hand falling trees within stands of burned timber. To address this concern, the Forest is currently working to allow for mechanized harvest equipment use within the stands during the dry season on slopes less than 30%. This would get employees inside a protected cab for at least a share of the work.

This change requires NEPA clearance. The schedule for soliciting each Phase may get pushed back if this NEPA does not progress smoothly.

Contractor question: I noted that Phase 2 solicitation is planned for issuance prior to the award of Phase 1.

It would really help contractors to have the decision on Phase 1 made before commencing with Phase 2 solicitation.

From Phase 1-3 pre-solicitations:

Phase 1 RFP issuance anticipated 1/15/25 with award planned for approximately 3/21/25.

Phase 2 RFP issuance anticipated 2/21/25 with award planned for approximately 4/4/25.

Phase 3 RFP issuance anticipated 3/31/25 with award planned for approximately 5/15/25.

CO Answer: This schedule was set to make progress and have all three phases awarded in time for a full season of work in 2025. The plan was to give 45 days for each solicitation advertisement. The requirements within each phase are very similar. It may be possible to reduce the advertisement periods for Phases 2 and 3 slightly to stick to the schedule while delaying Phase 2 solicitation until after Phase 1 award. The government will take this under advisement. The tentative schedule was estimated and is subject to change, especially if the NEPA clearance for use of mechanized harvest equipment on slopes less than 30% is delayed.

CO, Karen Ruklic, then asked everyone in the meeting to introduce themselves.

Michelle King, Detroit District Ranger, introduced herself and thanked everyone for coming to the meeting and being a part of helping the District recover from the devastating fire season of 2020. She reminded attendees that 40% of the District burned in 24 hours, many homes were destroyed and 5 people lost their lives. It was a very traumatic event for everyone and she appreciated all efforts to work together and advance the District’s recovery efforts. She also reminded contractors that local deputies patrol the project areas closed to the public. Following the process in place to be granted a Road Use Permit (including the Risk Assessment completion) has been found to work well to ensure access is done safely.

Karen Ruklic, CO, circled back to reiterate that the contracts for BCLH Phases 1-3 are stewardship contracts to accomplish land restoration while promoting rural economies. Awards are made based on best value.

By statute, these contracts are solicited full and open so that non-traditional entities can submit offers along with timber mills. While most of these contracts are awarded to small businesses, large businesses may submit offers. However, if a large business submits an offer, they must also submit a draft small business subcontracting plan as part of its technical proposal. Within the final solicitation, USDA goals for small business awards shall be included in the solicitation for reference.

Before leaving for the field, Karen Ruklic, CO, stressed that documents posted to the web for Phases 1-3 are all DRAFTS and that contractors should not base pricing or begin preparing offers based on these documents. The pay item quantities and precise specification details are very subject to change though the basic treatments planned are solid. Phases 2 and 3 will be subject to more change based on what is learned during solicitation and award of Phases 1 and 2.

Meeting attendee, Bodie Dowding with Pacific Fibre expressed interest in buying wood product generated from the BCLH contract work. His contact information is: bdowding@pacfibre.com, 503-910-6630.

The group headed to the field.

First stop was at the bottom of Road 2233000 in Unit LH-15. LH-15 is included in Phase 2 but was an example of the work required within Phase 1, Item 8 – Remove Hazardous Fuels (>16” DBH) from 0-100 feet from Road (Unit LH-62). One key difference, LH-62 is on steeper ground. Within Units LH-15, LH-62, LH-63, LH-64 and LH-64B, fire-killed timber was fallen and left in the Fall 2024 under the PRI IRSC contract to open a popular snowmobile route for use during the winter of 2025. Within the BCLH Phase 1 contract, the trees greater than 16-inch DBH shall be removed from LH-62, and small fuels shall be treated. Within the BCLH Phase 2, the trees greater than 16-inch DBH shall be removed from LH-15, LH-63, LH-64 and LH- 64B. The government understands that the material will not be easy to yard given how it was left on the landscape. It is for this reason, that we wanted to look at the Unit. It is also why its treatment is being priced in a separate pay item. The government employees noted that the large trees fallen in LH-15 looked solid and had yet to check. There may be some value as sawtimber if removed promptly under the Phase 2 contract.

The group continued up the road to the McCoy Pit. This is where the government currently plans to crush the rock to be provided as government-furnished property via the BCLH Phases 1-3 for wet weather operational rock.

The group assessed the size of the pit and the existing stockpiles. A share of this material is to be used for the Short Timber Sale with more to be crushed this winter for the sale. It was recognized having room in the pit for crushing operations and rock storage will be an issue. The amount of rock crushing needed is significant. The government plans to have rock crushed for BCLH via a service contract. This separate contract would also include hauling and stockpiling rock to other locations closer to the various phases of BCLH. A contractor stated that having all the rock crushing be a part of Phase 1 would be an efficient way to complete the crushing. CO, Karen Ruklic, stated that in this case, the crushing and installation of the wet-weather operational rock under Phase 1 would be subject to Davis-Bacon wages. This would drive up the prices of Phase 1 to a large degree thus making it very hard for a contractor to bond and the government to fund. CO, Karen Ruklic, stated that if the crushing contract was not on a solid path for award when Phase 1 is solicited, a price for commercially sourced wet weather operational rock would be added as an optional item.

The group continued up the road to the McCoy Snow Shelter. At this point, the group was stopped due to 6-10 inches of fresh, wet snow.

Brett Blundon reviewed the service work: Item 1 (optional Item 9) - Cut and Remove Fire Killed Timber within 100 ft of the road prism, Item 2 (optional Item 10) - Non-Commercial Hazard Tree Felling within 100 feet From Road Edge (ground located within Special Measure Areas), Item 3 (optional Item 11): Fall and Leave Hazard Trees >100 feet From Road Edge and Item 4 (optional Item 12): Small fuels treatment <16” DBH 0-30 Feet From Road Edge. The trees to be cut are Designated by Prescription. The prescription calls for cutting trees that will hit the road if they fall. Here is the prescription as currently written in Appendix A.

Indicators of Hazardous Fuel Trees and removal standards

1. Trees with greater than 25% lean away from the road shall NOT be cut.

2. Trees with no green needles shall be cut.

mailto:bdowding@pacfibre.com

3. Live trees with greater than 50% of the bole cross-sectional area burned and consumed or at least one quadrant of burned and consumed structural roots shall be cut.

4. Trees with greater than 50% of the structural roots undermined or severed on a road cut bank shall be cut.

5. Trees with insect boring dust present on greater than or equal to 50% of the bole circumference shall be cut.

Prescription Criteria:

1. Trees with greater than 25% lean away from the road shall not to be cut and removed. If felled for operator safety these trees shall remain on site.

2. Where slopes are less than 40%, Hazardous Fuel trees on the uphill and downhill side of the will be felled if they are within one tree height distance of the road edge.

3. Where slopes are greater than 40%, Hazardous Fuel Trees on the uphill side of the road will be felled if they are within one and a half tree height distance of the road edge and Hazardous Fuel Trees on the downhill side of the road will be felled if they are within one tree height distance of the road edge.

4. All ground-based equipment will stay on existing road prisms (bottom of ditch to base of outside fill slope) unless the existing slope is less than 30% during the normal operating season (May 15th to October 15th). All mechanized trails will be pre-located, pre-approved and prepared (i.e. slash mat) to minimize compaction and disturbance.

Under Item 1, trees will be removed that meet the Appendix B utilization standards. Traditional yarding of material is allowed. The plan is to allow for a maximum of 3 passes of mechanical equipment on slopes less than 30%. Removal of trees under Item 2 is prohibited from SMAs 2 and 3 (Riparian Reserves and Wildlife Habitat Protection Areas). If full suspension can be achieved, removal per Appendix B utilization standards may be allowed from SMA 1, Cultural Areas, if approved by a Forest Service Archaeologist. Item 3 includes small polygons outside the 100-foot fuels removal area within which LiDAR surveys indicated the presence of trees that could hit the road. Trees fallen within these units must be left on site to comply with the Endangered Species Act. These trees can be fallen into the Item 1 Units and count towards the 7- 10 tree per acre downed wood requirement thus allowing more Item 1 trees to be removed. A contractor noted that the Item 3 trees may be some of the most valuable trees due to size. The government reiterated that removal of this trees is prohibited by NEPA and ESA.

Karen Ruklic, CO, told contractors not to be confused by the fact that Item 1, 2 and 3 included Units are identified by the same Unit numbers. This is because the Units align with burned areas along specific road sections. Within the final solicitation, maps shall be provided that show Item 1 areas as distinctly different from Items 2 and 3. This ground does not overlap. However, Item 4 – Small Fuels Treatment will overlap with the Items 1 (optional Item 9), Item 2 (optional Item 10) and Item 8. This work treats downed or cut trees less than 16-inch DBH that do not meet fuel loading standards within 30-feet of the road. A variety of methods can be used to remove the small fuels. Piling of fuels for burning is not allowed.

James Rudisill referred contractors to the photos in Appendix B that are provided as examples of final acceptable fuel loads. He stressed working with the project inspector during performance of the first units to come to an agreement on expectations and thus avoid costly rework.

Karen Ruklic, CO, also noted that the solicitation shall include burn severity information and slope information to account for Units within which fewer hazard trees are located and slopes that can be more quickly treated with mechanized equipment. The government is providing this information to try and bring per acre prices down so that more optional acres can be treated. The goal is to reopen as many roads as possible for safe public access.

Contractor Question: Would a mechanical tail hold be allowed?

Answer: On slopes less than 30%, utilizing a mechanical tail hold would be allowed outside of the restricted zones (i.e. stream protection buffers and certain SMAs). On slopes greater than 30%, the government had not considered this need but will take it under advisement during finalization of NEPA and contract specifications.

Contractor Question: Would the government allow some reconstruction work to be performed after the hazard tree removal is done to get a better final road product?

Answer: Engineering stated that the intent is for non-critical road reconstruction work to be performed post-hazard tree felling. In this case, critical reconstruction items (such as failed culverts) would be completed before road-based mechanical felling operations to ensure that road damage and soil erosion didn’t occur during timber felling, and the less critical reconstruction items could be completed after the hazard tree felling was done.

Prior to haul, the pre-haul maintenance and critical pre-haul road reconstruction items need to be completed. Hazard tree felling and yarding need to be done in such a fashion that the specified maintenance and reconstruction items can be completed post felling/yarding. Proper road drainage and road maintenance is critical to minimizing road derived sediment from entering into the stream network and meeting the government’s requirements under the Endangered Species Act. No road reconstruction or road maintenance can occur during the wet season.

Government Feedback: Road reconstruction work and pre-haul maintenance that is required to be performed prior to haul will be listed in C5.12# of the contract. It is important to note that timber hauling has different reconstruction requirements than does the hazard tree felling. While hazard tree felling will be allowed in most cases prior to road reconstruction, the road reconstruction and pre-haul maintenance will need to be completed prior to hauling out those hazard trees. This should be considered when planning hazard tree mitigation operations so that road work can be completed prior to hauling.

The government stated that if contractors carpooled, another lower elevation site could be visited. A meeting location was designated but none of the contractors stopped at the rendezvous location. This indicated to the government that visiting the last site as a group was not necessary.

All contractors agreed prior to departing the McCoy Snow Shelter location that given the weather conditions and the similarity between the requirements of the 3 phases, they did not need to attend Phase 2 and 3 meetings scheduled for Tuesday, November 5th.