Request For Information Responses_0002.docx

Request For Information Responses (RFI) A0002

1) At the pre-bid we discussed applications targeted on noxious weeds and the desire to keep other vegetation. The performance and work statement talks about pre-emergent herbicide application and targeting annual grasses, item 3.7.1,2,3. Pre-emergent applications to control or eliminate grasses will not protect the desired vegetation. Also item

3.19 states one of the goals is wildland fire threat. What is the goal of the operation. Is your pre-emergent application intended to only treat for noxious weeds?

The goal of the operation is under 1.1 and at the beginning of the document - The goal is to have a weed free area for the Folsom Dam and its facilities. Any mention of a goal listed thereafter is secondary to this primary goal.

2) During the visit we discussed treatment areas focused on areas that had been disturbed. Item 3.6 lists treatment areas that do not seem to be consistent with what we saw. Are the roads to be treated only within the previously worked areas? Are there lots, fences, storage areas?

There were some lots that were within the areas we looked at, are these the only ones?

What treatment areas in 3.6 are not consistent with the site visit? Yes, there are lots, fences, and storage areas, and the roads to be treated are the roads that were disturbed per the Safety of Dams program.

As with #3, I will see if I can obtain the shapefiles that will delineate the areas that were disturbed per the Safety of Dams program.

3) Item 3.20 has total acreage of 507 acres. Trying to measure areas we visited I do not get to that total. I realize that the acreage will vary year to year but is the 507 a number I can use a treatment area to determine costs or is there a more accurate number?

I obtained the 507 acre figure from our Tessel GIS web service by combining the acreage of the areas in the contract. The issue is that within those 507 acres, there are areas that do not have any invasive species, thus the actual acreage of invasives is likely to be less. I decided to err on the side of caution and provide a higher acreage figure to account for year to year variability.

I will see if I can obtain an acreage estimate that is based upon the 2019 invasive report survey results/GIS shapefiles and polygons.

4) In the tour Dikes 2 and 3 were to be treated and not 4 and 5. Is this correct it is inconsistent with work statement?

During the tour we stated that dikes 2 and 3 were not to be treated. As per the contract, the dikes and dams to be treated are the earthen wing dams and dikes 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.