140L5725Q0003_-_Attachment_009_-_Zeedyke_Evaluation_Criteria.pdf

Source Selection Evaluation Criteria Best Value Trade-Off

The Upper Bear River Beaver Wet and Mesic Meadow Zeedyke Structure Project should be evaluated on a “trade-off” basis.

1. Key Personnel The contractor must provide the name(s) of any individual(s) proposed to be responsible for planning, supervising, and overseeing the project. For each such individual, information must be included with the bid to demonstrate that the individual has achieved all the following:

a. Formal education that gives the individual competency to carry out the scope of work. This may be obtained in either of the following ways:

i. Formal education resulting in a graduate degree in natural resources, hydrology or similar discipline (e.g., geomorphology, ecology, environmental management), or

ii. Formal education resulting in a bachelor's degree in natural resources, hydrology or similar discipline (e.g., ecology, geomorphology, environmental management) plus at least 24 months of professional experience including similar duties as proposed in this contract.

b. Competency in the theory and methods of low-tech, process-based restoration design and construction using rock erosion control structures. This includes ability to read the landscape (landform, morphology, soils and vegetation) to recognize resource problems and restoration opportunities.

c. Experience applying these principles to the design and implementation of projects that have achieved objectives at the structure, complex, and project scales.

d. Ability to plan, equip, organize, and supervise activity of the type and scope proposed.

2. Technical Approach The contractor’s technical approach to implementing low-tech restoration must follow the standards of practice described in Technical Note No. 40 (see References) when making decisions on the number, type, size, location, and spatial arrangement of structures that best evokes the biophysical responses needed to achieve structure, complex, and project scale objectives.

This includes adhering to the following guidelines and restoration principals.

a) Restoration Guidelines - Inform planning and design through an understanding of what constitutes healthy, functioning wet and mesic meadows and therefore what are appropriate targets and structures to aim for. They include:

i. Structure forces complexity and builds resilience. Structural elements force changes in flow patterns that produce physically diverse habitats. Physically diverse habitats are more resilient to disturbances than simplified, homogeneous habitats.

ii. The importance of structure varies. The relative importance and abundance of structural elements varies based on reach type, valley setting, flow regime and watershed context. Develop realistic expectations about what a wet and mesic meadow should or could look (form) and behave (process) like.

iii. Inefficient conveyance of water is often healthy. Hydrologic inefficiency is the hallmark of a healthy system. More diverse residence times for water can attenuate potentially damaging floods, fill up valley bottom sponges, and slowly release that water later elevating baseflow and producing critical ecosystem services.

b) Restoration Principles – Restoration Principles relate to our specific restoration actions and give us clues as to how to develop designs to promote processes that lead to recovery and resilience. These principles are rooted in the notion that we are not designing and building the solution, but rather we are simply initiating and promoting natural processes with structural additions as efficiently as possible to maximize the miles of riverscape we can improve. The low-tech Restoration Principles and Techniques below help place our restoration actions in the right context to maximize our effectiveness in promoting wet and mesic meadow health.

Principles for Treating Headcuts Principles for Treating Gullies

Lower the height of the falls in order to reduce the force of falling water.

Disperse surface flow, prevent concentration, increase infiltration and percolation.

Widen the lip of the falls to disperse concentrated flow. Reduce channel slope to reduce runoff velocities to reduce available energy.

Harden the base of the falls to protect substrates from erosion. Widen channel bottom to lessen erosion force.

Conserve soil moisture to enhance plant growth and root densities Increase channel roughness.

Retain soil moisture to improve environment for colonization and growth of plants.

Headcut Control Techniques Headcut Type Potential Structures

Low energy headcuts (<1.5 ft. tall) in small catchments and off-channel return sites

Rock Rundown, Rock Mulch

Long, low headcuts (<1.5 ft. tall) in areas with primarily shallow, well dispersed, slow moving sheet flow

Rock Layback

In-channel headcuts (1.5 to 4 ft tall) Zuni Bowl, Log and Fabric In-channel headcuts (>4 ft. tall) Machine-built Zuni Bowl with additional engineering design

3. Schedule Depending on the year, the time frame between the flow in the creek being low enough to work in the channel to freeze up can be a short timeframe. The contractor should demonstrate in their schedule that they have the capability (number of people on the crew and time available) to complete the project by Oct 31, 2025.

In addition to the mandatory requirements of Past Performance and Price, the non-price evaluation factors listed above (1-3) when combined are significantly more important than the price. The evaluation criteria are listed in order of importance and should be weighted accordingly. For example, criteria number 1 is the most important and should be weighted the highest.

Reference https://lowtechpbr.restoration.usu.edu/resources/recipes/Rock/erosionControl.html

Kraebel, C.J. and Pillsbury, A.F., 1934. Handbook of Erosion Control in Mountain Meadows, U.S. Forest Service, California Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA.

Maestas, J.D., Conner, S., Zeedyk, B., Neely, B., Rondeau, R., N. Seward, Chapman, T., With, L. and Murph., R., 2018. Hand-built structures for restoring degraded meadows in sagebrush rangelands:

Examples and lessons learned from the Upper Gunnison River Basin, Colorado, USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Range Technical Note No. 40. Denver, CO.

Zeedyk, B. and Clothier, V., 2009. Let the Water Do the Work: Induced Meandering, an Evolving Method for Restoring Incised Channels. Island Press, Washington D.C., 256 pp https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/etalweb.joewheaton.org/Workshops/CheapCheerful/2018/NRCS/Resources/Handbook+of+erosion+control+in+mountain+meadows.pdf http://www.sagegrouseinitiative.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/CO-NRCS_Range_Technical_Note_40_Gunnison_Zeedyk-Structures_5-18.pdf http://www.sagegrouseinitiative.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/CO-NRCS_Range_Technical_Note_40_Gunnison_Zeedyk-Structures_5-18.pdf https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/let-the-water-do-the-work/ https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/let-the-water-do-the-work/