Amendment_2_Q_A__08-02-2024_0002.pdf

D/B Upper Dam – Amendment 2 – Q&A Document

1. Can you further describe the work an cipated, loca ons, methodologies, and/or provide addi onal background on the rehabilita on and restora on of grassland habitat, riparian habitat, and invasive species management components of the scope of work?

Response. Invasive species management will be ensuring that equipment is not moving invasive plant materials to a new work area on or off the refuge. That will include equipment inspection and washing if needed to remove invasive plant materials. Minimize disturbance to the immediate work area to minimize disturbed area for future infestation/invasion. The USFWS will be conducting the overall restoration. The contractor will be responsible for removing debris piles, fixing ruts, rills from water, and slopes after machinery has completed the assigned work task. The contractor’s responsibility will be to have the work site ready for restoration after work has completed.

2. Task 5.A. Task A. Environmental Permitting Assistance, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

Review, and NEPA Documentation.

a. Task 5.A describes develop, prepare, and submit NEPA documentation. There is a publicly available December 2023 Draft Environmental Assessment Proposed Upper Lake Dam Modernization and Water Management Improvements Pahranagat National Wildlife Refuge (Draft EA). Is additional NEPA documentation needed or are we updating the existing Draft EA?

Response. If the USFWS decides to Exercise (i.e. Award) Task A (Option Task) during the Contract’s Period of Performance, the awarded Option Task would be used to assist the USFWS with any remaining NEPA documentation and/or follow-up add-on NEPA documentation that would be required for the project / contract.

In addition, the Design/Build Contractor and their Permitting Consultant would provide revisions to the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) if and when required.

Follow-up Revised Response. The USFWS has completed all NEPA documentation through the EA Process. After further review, it was determined there is no Design/Build Prime Contractor requirement for NEPA documentation and NEPA review.

However, the Option for a Detailed Project Description is included under the existing Task A (Option Task).

b. A Task 5.A bullet item includes a Section 7 / biological opinion and biological assessment. Has the biological assessment been started or has any USFWS species consultation been initiated? Are any field species or habitat assessments required?

Response. No, a Section 7 biological assessment was not previously started. Refer to the published Draft EA for Pahranagat - Upper Lake Dam for a list of threatened and endangered species. Note, an Official Species List was previously prepared and should be considered preliminary until finalized. Further, there are Birds, a Reptile, Fishes, Insects, Migratory Birds, and a Critical Habitat Area noted in the Draft EA (Electronic Page 85).

The Official Species List was previously provided by Southern Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office. Lastly, there will be field species identification and habitat assessments required to be performed by the Design/Build Contractor and their Permitting Consultant.

Follow-up Revised Response. After further review, the Section 7 requirement will be completed by the USFWS. The Design/Build Prime Contractor should de-scope the Section 7 requirement from their scope of services. The Task A (Option Task) has received a strikethrough in the statement of work.

3. Task 5.C. Task C. Cultural Resource Clearance and Section 106 Compliance. In the Draft EA, the

SHPO letter states that they concur with FWS’s findings of No Adverse Effect. Does the September 18, 2023 SHPO concurrence cover this statement of work?

Response. I believe the September 18, 2023 SHPO concurrence provides partial coverage for this statement of work since the Project Locations / Project Areas have not received full definition. Note, the Task C (Option Task) was included in the statement of work in the event the USFWS Refuge and USFWS Cultural Resources Team would not be able to perform this work activity in-house. It should be further noted, the USFWS expects a follow-up concurrence from USFWS Cultural Resources and SHPO is to be required and once the Project receives full definition (i.e. refinement of the project scope). This is why this Option Task remains in the statement of work and is part of the Design/Build Contractor’s scope of services.

Follow-up Response. The Section 106 compliance must be completed for this project.

The decision for USFWS to either perform the Section 106 requirement in-house or under the Design/Build Contract once awarded to be determined on or after contract award and depending on whether or not the Task C (Option Task) is exercised and awarded.

4. Statement of Work, Task B (OPTIONAL TASK), page 13 & 14 of 65, states the following:

Organize the identified Permits in the 100% Permit Registry (TASK 6). Develop and prepare the Permit Applications and Permit Support Documents for All Federal, State, County, and Local Permits. Submit the Finalized Permit Applications and Permit Support Documents (to include the Detailed Project Description and/or portions of the Detailed Project Description) to the USFWS for Refuge Manager Signature. Obtain the USFWS Signature Copies of the Applications and submit the executed signature copies of the Permit Applications and Permit Support Documents to each Federal, State, County, and Local Regulatory Agency for Review and Approval / Conditional Approval and Pay All Permit Fees, Processing Fees, and Plan / Specification Review Fees. Participate on Section 7 Consultation Meetings as required during the Regulatory Agency Review Period.

a. Please clarify if the selected Design-Build team is responsible for Applying, Paying & Securing all required permits under Task 4 (BASE TASK) or the selected Design-Build team is ONLY responsible for Applying, Paying & Securing all required permits if USFWS decides to award Task B (OPTIONAL TASK)

Response. The Task 4 (Base Task) is revised. The Design/Build Team will only be responsible for Applying for, Paying, and Securing all required permits if the USFWS decides to award Task B (Option Task).

b. Based on the language included in Task B (OPTIONAL TASK), is it USFWS intent to restrict the Design-Build team from beginning the process of Applying, Paying & Securing all required permits until the design has progressed to the 100% stage (TASK 6)?

Response. No, it is not the intent of USFWS to restrict the Design/Build Team from beginning the process of Applying for, Paying, and Securing all required permits until the Final Design is submitted.

The probability that USFWS would exercise Task B (Option Task) is high because it is expected the USFWS Refuge and Refuge Manager will require assistance from the Design/Build Contractor and their Permitting Consultant(s) in the Application for, Payment, and Securing of all required permits.

Follow-up Response. It should be noted, a majority of the permitting process has been completed, i.e NEPA. Due to the project being located in a basin, it was determined there is no requirement for 404 / 401 permits although the Design/Build Prime Contractor should verify and validate this initial assessment.

Further, it will be Design/Build Prime Contractor’s requirement to ensure any county and/or state permits for completing the project are obtained.

5. As this project will utilize the Design-Build Delivery method, please clarify the need to submit an

Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost and a Contractor’s Opinion of Probable Construction Schedule at the 65% (Task 5) and 100% (Task 6) design stages.

Response. The USFWS has revised the statement of work (SOW). The requirement for an Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (OPCC) has received a strikethrough in the SOW as this is a future Design/Build Contract. However, the USFWS does continue to require an Opinion of Probable Construction Schedule (OPCS). However, the OPCS is expected to take the form of a Formalized Design/Build Prime Contractor’s Schedule once on-site work start and finish dates for work activities are firmed-up and could be accurately estimated.

6. The Dam Inspection Report references a H&H model that was established to determine the auxiliary spillway was undersized. Can this model be provided in Phase 2 of the solicitation?

Response. I am checking with the USFWS National Dam Safety Program to confirm if this H&H Model could be developed, prepared, and submitted and what native file extension is available for this item.

7. Statement of Work, Task 2, page 8 of 65, this project will require both Land (Topographic)

Survey and Geotechnical analysis of the project site

a. Will USFWS provide previously completed surveys and geotechnical reports completed for the project site as part of Phase 2?

b. Are there any restrictions that would restrict access or ground disturbance related to these activities?

c. What certifications/approvals are required for the use of drones (UAS) for survey activities?

d. Will USFWS provide survey control (horizontal and vertical datum) for the project?

Response.

a. The previous surveys available would be from existing past projects.

Refer to Attachments 2 – 9 of the Solicitation Package for initial survey information.

The selected Awardee D/B Contractor will receive the AutoCAD Files for recent drawings after contract award.

I am not aware of any past geotechnical reports performed for the project area.

Follow-up Notes. The USFWS does have LIDAR Shapefile data that can be shared with the Design/Build Prime Contractor. The LIDAR data should be independently verified and validated by the Design/Build Prime Contractor for accuracy and before use.

b. I am not aware of any restrictions to access or ground disturbance. The USFWS Cultural Resources Team (CRT) could confirm on this. If there are any archeological artifacts un-covered during ground disturbance activities, this could result in a temporary stop work order to evaluate the findings and protect the cultural resources.

c. There is a permit application, which could be submitted for UAS, but the Refuge Manager and Refuge would have to approve this permit application.

Follow-up Notes. There are restrictions for drone use, such as timing and altitude of the proposed flights, the make and model of the drone being used. The USFWS would have to understand what “survey” work is being completed, aerial photos, LIDAR mapping, etc.

d. The USFWS will confirm if there is any survey control coordinates available from the USFWS Realty Office.

8. A review of the Dra EA for this project obtained from the Pahranagat NWR website indicates that there has been some level of effort to comply with NEPA and SHPO requirements already. It also indicates that there may have been some consulta on with both USACE as well as EPA regarding necessary permit coverages the successful D-B contractor will be required to obtain as part of this project. Has this Dra EA advanced beyond Dra stage yet and is updated informa on available to be er determine the level of effort yet to be expected?

Response. From what I understand the Draft EA has not advanced beyond Draft stage at this point. I am not aware of any updated information available.

Follow-up Revised Response. The USFWS is moving forward to Finalize the EA. The Draft EA has completed the 30-day comment period. The USFWS will continue to finalize and complete the NEPA requirements for the project.

9. If USF&W consulta on with USACE regarding this project has NOT occurred yet regarding sec on

401 and 404 permits, and it appears that a USACE Na onwide Permit will not be applicable to this project (as is alluded to in the Dra EA), has the typical meline for USACE sec on 401 and 404 submissions, review, public comment and follow up (typically 1 year or more) on an individual permit basis been factored into the s pulated comple on date of February 1, 2027 that is in the current solicita on?

Response. From my understanding, the U.S.FWS has not ini ated any type of consulta on with U.S.ACE regarding sec on 401 and 404 permit applica ons and permits. However, the Refuge and Refuge Manager could confirm if there was any informal or formal consulta on and engagement with U.S.ACE. Although, the Dra EA alludes to a U.S.ACE Na onwide Permit as not applicable to this project, if the permit scope is awarded to the Design/Build Prime Contractor, this in-applicability of the Na onwide Permit should be verified and validated.

The original Project Timeline factored in approximately 11-months for work activities related to NEPA and permitting. It is realized, a conservative estimate for the section 401 and 404 permits, if required, would be 12- to 18-months. The Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA) Project Completion Date is noted as March 14, 2027.

10. Are the exhibits in the Dra EA (or any more subsequent non-dra version) regarding the species of concern or the SHPO concurrence or the Tribal requirements for the project current and correct?

Response. I am not aware of any recent subsequent non-dra version of the Dra EA including exhibits. However, I would want to further confirm with the Refuge Manager and Refuge.

For the species of concern, this list should be current as presented in the Dra EA. However, this should be verified and validated by the Design/Build Contractor’s Team.

The SHPO concurrence should be current, but should be re-visited and re-confirmed once a design alterna ve or design alterna ves (has)/have been selected and advanced star ng with the ini al concept through preliminary and final design documents.

The Tribal requirements will require further defini on and it is expected the en re project team will have to engage with the local area Tribes (specifically, the Nuwuvi) to ensure their requirements are met and to ensure the Nuwuvi are ac vely engaged in the project and the project’s outcomes.

Follow-up Response. The current Draft EA is in the Finalization Stages. The species of concern list is current as presented in the Draft EA. The SHPO concurrence is current, along with the Tribal requirements. The USFWS works closely with the Tribes, Nuwuvi (Southern Paiute), the USFWS will have tribal monitors on-site when construction activities begin.

11. Will the Dra EA (or any more subsequent non-dra version) be made part of the solicita on documents as an Amendment?

Response. The Draft EA will be included as part of this Amendment to Solicitation and as a separate attachment. I am not aware of any subsequent non-draft version, but this will be verified.

Follow-up Response. The USFWS is currently Finalizing the Draft EA and will have a FONSI completed in the coming weeks. There are no non-draft versions.

12. Has or will an EIS been or be done or required as part of this project and if. If one has been done is it available? If one is yet required who is responsible for performing it, USF&W or the D-B Contractor?

Response. It is my understanding, there is no Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that has previously been developed, prepared, and submi ed. The USFWS is asking for the Design/Build Contractor and their Permi ng Consultants to re-review all NEPA documents and Dra EA documents developed, prepared, and submi ed and determine if an EIS would be required for this project’s Proposed Ac on. If an EIS is required, the Design/Build Contractor and their Permi ng Consultant would be required to perform this necessary work item. However, currently, the USFWS is thinking an EA could be sufficient for this project and Proposed Ac on.

However, whether an EIS is or is not required will ul mately be determined by the selected alterna ve(s) for this project.

Follow Revised Response. There is no Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that has previously been developed, prepared, and submitted. The USFWS will be completing all NEPA requirements for the project. The USFWS is asking for the Design/Build Contractor and their Permitting Consultants to re-review all NEPA documents to become aware of the sensitive habitats and species, along with measures to mitigate human disturbance.

13. Will Pre-Clearance or biological monitoring for species of concern be required on this project and if so who is responsible to provide it under this contract, USF&W or the D-B Contractor?

Response. The USFWS will perform the necessary pre-clearance or biological monitoring for species of concern.

14. Will Archeological monitoring be required for ground disturbing ac vi es on this project and if so who is responsible to provide it under this contract, USF&W or the D-B Contractor?

Response. The requirement for Archeological Monitoring will be determined by the USFWS Cultural Resource Team (CRT) Office and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).

The Design/Build Contractor and their Archeological Consultant will be required to perform the Archeological Monitoring Services during the course of this contract if monitoring requirements are identified by the USFWS CRT and SHPO as part of their Conditional Approvals, Terms, and Conditions. The requirement for monitoring could be identified by USFWS CRT and SHPO during the Cultural Resource Compliance and Section 106 Compliance Process.

Follow-up Revised Response. The requirement for Archeological Monitoring will be determined by the USFWS Refuge Manager. The USFWS will use Tribal Monitors to assist with ground disturbance activities.

The Design/Build Contractor will be required to be observant and perform archeological monitoring during this contract while conducting soil disturbance. The requirement for monitoring could be identified by USFWS CRT and SHPO during the Cultural Resource Compliance and Section 106 Compliance Process.

15. Sec on H.6 references the need for all contractor personnel requiring physical access to non-public areas or for logical access to Level 3 or Level 4 Federally controlled informa on systems to undergo very specific security level screening, including criminal backgound checks and fingerprin ng for access to the facility and for the contractor to bear all costs for this requirement for the issuance of access cards or temporary badges for access to the facility and/or systems. Are these requirements applicable to this specific project on this Pahranagat NWR facility?

Response. I believe this is a contract requirement for all Construc on Contracts.

However, there is no applicable Card Key Access System to the Refuge.

For any areas closed off to public access, the Refuge will provide entry and escort of Contractor employees if and when required.

16. Are there any limita ons or permits required for the use of UAV’s (drones) on this Pahranagat NWR facility and if so what are those limita ons and permit processes?

Response. There is a permi ng procedure and permit applica on for use of UAV’s (i.e. drones) on USFWS Property. The Design/Build Prime Contractor should verify and validate the applicable permi ng requirements (e.g. procedures and applica ons) with the Refuge Manager.

It should be noted, in the past, there was a moratorium for use of drones on USFWS Property.

I am not sure if this moratorium was previously li ed or what the status is of this moratorium at this point in me.

The simple answer to this ques on, is, no, the USFWS does not allow drones on USFWS Property.

However, a more nuanced answer would be, it depends.

Follow-up Response. The contractor will have to submit a Special Use Permit Application for use of drones. Drones are prohibited on all National Wildlife Refuges.

The contractor would need to specify the make and model of the drone, what it is needed for, and stay under defined altitude maximums before drone use could be approved.

All data collected from the drone would be the property of the USFWS and all copies would have to be surrender to the USFWS after the project design was completed.