Questions_and_Answers-updated_Mapping_12_6_2024_0001.pdf

140F1B25Q0001_Big Stone Archaeological Survey 12/6/2024 0001- update with ques ons and answers.

1. Has any prior archaeological survey work ever been done in the past at this location?

If so, can the Government release the associated reports/results?

Outside of the literature review recently completed by Wapsi Valley, we do not have any records of survey work being completed.

2. Can the Government post a copy of the full report entitled "Desktop Archaeological Assessment for the Proposed Highway 75 East Pool Project, Lac qui Parle and Big Stone Counties, Minnesota," and not only the extract included in the Scope of Work?

Yes, if they give us a way to do it electronically. Not currently available.

3. Please confirm that although an extended POP of 11/2025-11/2027 is being allowed for the possibility of adverse weather conditions, the desired target is completion of survey and final deliverables by 11/15/2025.

Yes, that is the desired timeframe. A deep snowpack and/or wet spring, will make it difficult to draw the reservoir down. In this situation it would not be possible to survey the “new” shoreline. The “islands” or areas of spoil placement will be dry enough as they rarely go under.

4. Can the Government provide a copy of, or a link to, the current version of the "Manual for Archaeological Project in Minnesota," as there was a 2005 document published by MnSHPO but then a later document with the same name but different content published by the Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist in 2011?

Yes, if they give us a way to do it electronically. Not currently available

5. Are there specific definitions or parameters for “intensive survey” mentioned for the Minnesota River bank-line and shoreline areas affected by drawdown activities? How will this intensity be assessed in compliance with the guidelines?

The only guidelines are that they must meet Minnesota SHPO Standards for the work.

6. Will the Government provide or facilitate access to sub-meter GPS data or is the contractor required to supply all GPS equipment for field surveys?

Contractor is required to supply the GPS equipment.

7. Are all artifacts found during shovel testing required to be curated with the Minnesota Historical Society, or does the Government intend for some materials to be held locally or on-site?

No. All artifacts must be curated with the Minnesota Historical Society.

8. What process or criteria should be used to classify sites as requiring further assessment versus being non-eligible for the National Register of Historic Places?

Based upon Minnesota SHPO standards, the contractor should use their professional judgment on which found sites are: (1) clearly not eligible or (2) potentially eligible (with further Phase II work recommended).

9. Can the Government confirm if geomorphological assessments need to be completed before the archaeological surveys, or can these be conducted concurrently?

Concurrently. Provided the results inform the archaeological survey techniques.

10. Can the Government confirm that there are no private lands included in the Area of Potential Effect (APE) which the contractor will have responsibility for obtaining access permission to.

No private lands are within the APE.

11. Are there known restrictions or areas where surveys or testing are not allowed, such as environmentally sensitive zones or areas under easement?

No restrictions.

12. Should the contractor anticipate providing community outreach or liaising with Tribal entities directly, or will the Government handle all consultation?

The government will handle the tribal consultation.

13. Can the Government confirm the standards for reporting deliverables, especially regarding coverage maps and laboratory analysis records, as specified in the solicitation?

The standards are the Minnesota SHPO Standards. Also, the Minnesota State Archaeologist’s Office has standards are acceptable to the Service.

14. Will MnSHPO or USFWS personnel be required to perform on-site oversight or review of contractor's personnel during the survey, and should any overhead associated with any such supervision be therefore included in the proposed cost?

No, MnSHPO and USFWS personnel are not required to perform on-site oversight.

15. Can the Government provide specifics on any anticipated security or logistical restrictions, such as access times or prohibited equipment in the refuge area?

As long as it is during daylight hours, it is open. No security issues. A small Jon boat will be useful for getting to the islands. USFWS personnel can transport you to the islands if necessary.

16. Will progress payments be authorized for this contract? If so, please explain.

No this will be a firm fixed priced contract.

17. On Attachment 1: Reservoir/East Pool Map, there the legend states that a bold red line is the proposed dredge area. However, no red lines appear anywhere on the map itself. Please provide the version of the map with the proposed dredge area.

Red line is the proposed dredge area. Ignore the black outline area.

Red line is the proposed dredge area. Ignore the black outline area.

18. Besides the standard deliverables for a Phase 1 survey, will the Government expect regular weekly or monthly status reports on the work? If so, can the Government add this to the Scope of Work?

No formal reports will be expected. Just a formal final report.

19. The SOW says: "Phase I intensive survey of the Minnesota River bank-line and exposed lake/stream channel margins is recommended..." Can this bank-line and exposed lake/stream channel margins all be marked on the map so offerors can estimate the amount of work for the intensive survey of bank-line and channel margins?

20. The SOW mentions "...primitive roads/open areas...". For offeror planning purposes, can such known areas be also marked on the map?

21. Will the FWS be handling interactions with the Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, Minnesota, for curating collected artifacts, or will the contractor be directly collaborating with the MHS concerning artifact curation?

The Service has an agreement with the Minnesota Historical Society (MnHS) to curate any artifacts found on Service lands in Minnesota. However, The contractor needs to have a separate agreement with them before the ARPA Permit can be issued. Also, the contractor works directly with MnHS on any curation payments and delivery of artifacts to them. But, the contractor must keep the Regional Archaeologist informed of this activity so Service accession numbers can be assigned.

22. If ceramic artifacts are found during the Phase 1 survey, will ceramics testing only be part of a possible Phase 2, or will contractor also be responsible for ceramics testing?

No destructive ceramic testing should be proposed without a substantial reason and approval from the Service ahead of time. Generally, only morphological analyses should be done.

23. How much coordination will the contractor need to have with the FWS on starting the field work? For example, can contractor begin when conditions are appropriate or will the FWS require that it approve the contractors field work plan and proposed dates, before any work may begin? If the latter, please clarify.

From the Refuge Managers perspec ve, you can start whenever the condi ons allow. We would like a one weeks advance no ce so we can be in the area should you need assistance or have ques ons.

1. Checking the available information in the OSA portal and recent aerial images, it appears possible that the desktop Phase IA completed for this project and the Scope of Work may not match the real world conditions of this project, which would lead to additional complications. For offerors' bids, may we assume that the desktop Phase IA and Scope of Work are both completely correct, and if later it turns out they do not fully reflect the real world conditions, then further scope changes can be reviewed by the Government at that point? That is we would like to bid based on assuming the desktop Phase IA and Scope are fully correct. Please confirm that this would be acceptable.

The bid should assume the desktop Phase IA work is correct. However, after selection, the fieldwork should be done as it is on the ground (“real world”). If that deviates from the desktop Phase IA work the contractor should indicate how and where it deviates and how that might change the price. The Service would have to agree with the analysis and the proposed price revision.

2. The Scope of Work states, "...we recommend geomorphological assessment and reconnaissance survey of the riverbank and island shorelines affected by the lowered water levels of the drawdown. These areas appear to lie near the 950-foot contour line." (pp. 1-2) Could the Government clarify whether a specific section of the riverbank has been identified for the reconnaissance portion of the survey? This does not appear to have been marked in the Attachment 1: Reservoir/East Pool Map.

There is a more specific area of the riverbank that can be identified, probably within a couple hundred yards of where they believe the old steamer came to rest.

3. Additionally, how far inland from the riverbank should the reconnaissance extend, particularly in relation to the 950-foot contour line?

See attached map

4. Given the discussion of the 950-foot contour line in the Scope of Work, can the Government provide to offerors a relevant section of a topographical map, such as US Geological Survey which the Government has the rights to so that offerors may clearly see the relevant contour lines with respect to the APE.

5. The Scope of Work states, "Special attention should also be given to the area of the shipwrecked Freighter to identify the location and status of the site, if possible." Could the Government where the shipwrecked freighter is located? This does not appear to have been marked in the Attachment 1: Reservoir/East Pool Map.

We can give a general location. I don’t think the exact location has been mapped, just a general idea of where it is thought to be.

6. Because there appear to be discrepancies in the information in the OSA portal and aerial photos, can the Government provide any recent aerial photos of the APE and immediate surrounding area, for offeror planning and estimation purposes?

No, not currently available.

Aerial photo from within the past 3 years.

HIGH POTENTIAL AREA AND NEWLY EXPOSED SHORELINE

Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS

Highway 75 Reservoir/East Pool Proposed Improvements

T121N R45W Sect 33, 34 T120N R45W Sect 4, 5,9

¯0.6

Miles

- Area of High Potential for Buried Site Preservation