2012_08_06_Q_and_A.pdf

AG-0116-S-12-0088

Starrigavan Valley Deferred Maintenance & Watershed Rehabilitation

Questions and Answers August 6, 2012

Q. Fish windows and stream crossings for this year?

A. The timing window for in-stream work is June 1 – July 15.

Q. When can the Stringer Bridge at 47.30 be pulled and the 96” culvert installed?

A. The LOG CULVERT at 47+30 can be pulled within the fish timing window referenced above.

Q. Whatis the load raring of the existing stringer bridge at 47.30?

A. Sheet number 3 of the drawings outlines the following in regard to the two log stringer bridges: “EXISTING NATIVE LOG BRIDGES DISPLAY SIGNS OF

DETERIORATION IN SOME OF THE MAJOR LOAD CARRYING ELEMENTS. SOME

UNUSUALLY HEAVY LOAD/EQUIPMENT COMBINATIONS COULD POTENTIALLY

RESULT IN BRIDGE FAILURE. CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT A WRITTEN CROSSING

PLAN TO THE CO FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INITIATING CONSTRUCTION

ACTIVITIES.” The two log bridges have been inspected and are capable of handling all normal construction loads. The load rating of the bridge however is dependent on a large number of variables including wheel line spacing, axle spacing, number of axels, weight of vehicle, weight distribution within the vehicle, weight of vehicle load etc. It is impossible to know the exact equipment that will be used during construction. As stated, any normal construction equipment should be within the operating limits of the bridges but we would like to be able to confirm that prior to any crossings. That was the specific intent of the requested equipment crossing plan.

Q. If there is excess rock and gravel from the ponds, does it go to the waste area also?

A. Excess gravel and rock from the ponds could indeed be placed in the designated disposal areas.

Q. We’re unsure what the Government is providing with regards to the clause at H.8., Construction Stakes, Lines, and Grades.

A. There is no contractor slope staking expected in the rehabilitation or reconstruction of the trail. The contractor is expected to use the current trail centerline as control for both the reconditioning and topping. No additional sidecuts are expected. There are no changes to the trail alignment planned in the contract.

There are no current control points or RP’s set in the field. No slope staking has been done because contract work is simply reconditioning of an existing trail. Sheet 6 of the contract drawings was an erroneous entry into the package and does not apply to the expected scope of work. The Method III they refer to is a reference within the erroneous Sheet 6 and should therefore be disregarded. The clearing and excavation limits of the proposed ponds will be flagged and marked by the government.