C05 12FPC326B0016 QA.pdf

Kalispel Tribe Dike Repair 9/10/2026 @ 10am PDT

Contractor Pre-bid Site Visit Pend Oreille County, WA

Participants Organization Email Address

Isaiah Krutak NRCS Isaiah.krutak@usda.gov Brandt Becnel NRCS brandt.becnel@usda.gov R. Cory Greer NRCS Ronald.greer@usda.gov Andy Johnsen Kalispel Tribe ajohnsen@kalispeltribe.com

Merle Kalstrom Versatile Industries mak@viidirt.com Brad Miller BL Miller Construction blmillerconstruction@aol.com Kris Widman Halme Construction bids@halmeconstruction.com Mat Haneke W.M. Winkler Co. mhaneke@wmwinkler.com Kody Steinhart Alan Lee office@alanleecda.com Sam Bice DynaCon USA samb@dynaconusa.com Not present, but Sam put down this email: adrien@dynaconusa.com

Background given

Site is tribally owned land, but has a NRCS conservation easement. The dike was originally installed 35-40 years ago, but the culvert eventually rusted out, so it was repaired in 2020.

During the repair the site wasn’t properly dewatered and adverse weather conditions further complicated compaction efforts. Since then, the dike has experienced piping and bank failure, which led to this contract requirement that specifies proper dewatering and robust compaction testing.

Questions & Answers

Q1: Does the site and on-site borrow material need cultural resource clearance or tribal archaeological oversight?

A1: Cultural resource clearance has already been completed and granted for this project.

The site has been heavily disturbed, so tribal archaeological oversight is not a requirement.

Q2: Are the tribe and/or NRCS going to handle tribe permits?

A2: There isn’t a specific tribal permit, and permits are the responsibility of the contractor.

We anticipate that an Army Corps permit will be needed, and if the tribe is contacted for comment they are prepared for a quick response as this has been an ongoing project.

Q3: Is the borrow material for this project the same as the material in the previous repair project?

A3: Correct, the plan is to reuse the dike material and the on-site borrow material, which was borrow material from the previous project. NRCS previously tested the materials and they meet specification. The main issue we are rectifying from the previous repair project is proper dewatering and compaction.

Q4: Does the stripped grass need to be hauled off site?

A4: No, the material can be left on-site in the designated area.

Q5: Is turbidity testing in the creek a requirement?

A5: Turbidity testing is not a requirement of this project. Just downstream of this project the creek is dammed before it enters the Pend Oreille River.

Q6: Does dam safety come into play for this project?

A6: The dike isn’t classified or registered as a dam in the state of Washington, it is considered a water control structure, therefore dam safety isn’t a requirement.

Q7: Do you have any water depth information on Callispell Creek or subsurface information for the sheet piling depth?

A7: The plans show where the standard water level is, but the NRCS engineer’s estimated sheet piling length is 30 feet.

Q8: Are engineering plans required for the sheet piling?

A8: Engineering plans for the sheet piling is not a requirement of this project.

Q9: When is a good time to start the project?

A9: The exact in-stream work window will be dictated by the relevant permit(s), but the likely construction window will be August through mid-October.

Q10: Is there road access on both sides of the dike?

A10: Yes, the US conservation easement legal access goes through a farm and comes in from the west side of the dike (plans specify approval from the NRCS Engineer before granting this access route), but the main access comes from the east through the tribally owned land. Of note, if excessive rutting or erosion occurs during construction, then the plans specify seeding and mulching those areas.

Q11: Is sheet piling the only option for dewatering on the Callispell Creek side?

A11: It’s specified that way in the plans, as it was assumed sheet piling is the only way to suitably dewater the site. However, if a contractor thinks they can do it successfully a different way, then we encourage them to present their plan with the bid.

Q12: Has the pipe settled? Were the parts new in 2020? Is the assumption to reuse the pipe and pipe collars and should the bid assume reuse?

A12: Current surveys show the pipe inlet and outlet haven’t really moved. When installed in 2019, all pipe sections and pipe collars were completely new. Assume a complete replacement in your pricing, and if not needed, then we will de-obligate them from the contract. Currently, a beaver dam is blocking the pipe inlet and the outlet indicates the pipe is full of sediment and debris. NRCS anticipates the collars will be reusable, but some of the pipe may not be reusable. However, a final determination will be made when the pipe and pipe collars are exposed and inspected.

Q13: Does excavation have to keep to the 2:1 minimum slope specified in the plans, or can excavation be narrow enough to safely get down to the pipe?

A13: The previous repair project excavated the site at a 2:1 minimum slope, and the intent is to remove all the previous fill and recompact properly. Therefore, yes, excavation must be executed as specified in the plans.

Q14: Can pre-project photos of the site be shared?

A14: Yes, pictures will be provided.

Q15: What is the question and answer deadline for this solicitation?

A15: Typically, we like to have all Q&A’s submitted one week before bids are due, but in this case the last day for questions will be 9/16/2026.