SiteTourNotes.docx

Collette Mine (Project B)Stream Rehabilitation

RFP AG-02RC-S-17-0062

Site Tour Notes 5/4/2017 Prepared by Karen Ruklic

Government Representatives:

Karen Ruklic, Contracting Officer Anne Connor, Watershed Restoration Program Manager Justin Peterson, Nez Perce Tribe Watershed Division

Industry Attendees:

Dave and Trevor Stark Oxbow Earthworks, Inc.

Headquarters: Blackfoot, Idaho

Bill Whealy and Rick Berrett Aqua Terra Restoration Headquarters: Driggs, Idaho

Chris Hartman and Hand Ivey Knife River Headquarters: McCall, ID; Rathdrum, ID

Don Loper and Bob Dumont Red Road Inc.

Headquarters: Post Falls, Idaho

Tom Bumstead River Masters Engineering Headquarters: Pullman, Idaho

Attendees met at the project on 5/4/17 at approximately 1:00 PM. Contracting Officer started the meeting by reviewing the following solicitation background information, requirements, clauses and provisions:

· FAR 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee Original bid bonds are required.

· B-5 Additional Wage Classification Required. No excavator operator rate is included in the wage decision applicable to this project. A rate shall be conformed after award. Most recently conformed rate was $28.60/hour with $11.85 fringe (received DOL approval most recently on 11/8/2016). Base your offer on this rate.

· B-6 Idaho Use Tax Potential for assessment of ID Use Tax was discussed. The Gov’t furnished property upon which use tax could be assessed is as follows: large woody debris, small-medium trees and brush, vegetative cuttings and rooted stock (Section C-2). Based on past information received from the State of Idaho, the USFS does not have reason to believe that the State of Idaho will assess use tax on the large woody debris, small-medium trees and brush and vegetative cuttings or rooted plants being furnished under this contract.

· H-6 Environmental Protection Discussed the requirement for Fish-Friendly hydraulic fluids in equipment working in stream. Noted that this requirement has become somewhat standard and was not a problem for the contractor awarded Phase I to accommodate.

· M-1 EVALUATION CRITERIA Government stressed the requirement for submittal of complete technical proposals that supply all the information requested in this provision; don’t reiterate the specifications. Technical factors are weighted more important than price in the award decision given the fact that channel is being built and extreme care must be taken to limit turbidity and ensure that the habitat constructed in of high quality. Make sure the client contact information required for reference checks is current and that the key employees are identified for the past work performed. The government is also interested in having detailed information regarding the techical approach for how/when all the significant work items (see Schedule of Items) will be performed. Also, be sure to respond with the information requested by the bullets. The government is also very interested in knowing who will be on site and who will be operating the equipment; we have seen the difference that a high quality operator can make to the final product. Make sure to identify all the key personnel and lead operators/employees to be on site and provide good descriptions of the individuals’ experience and qualification performing stream restoration projects. The government also stressed the importance of surveying and staking. See Amendment 1 that specifically requests technical documentation regarding proposed surveying/staking.

Presentation was then turned over to project COR, Anne Connor, for a discussion of the key technical elements of the project. The group started the conversation at the road pullout and then moved down onto the berm adjacent to Lolo Creek. First items of discussion was a series of contractor questions received prior to the site visit.

1. Question: Will the contractor be allowed to develop an access and material staging plan that improves the efficiency of project completion that differs from the designer’s plans and drawings?

Answer: Yes - It would just need to be submitted for approval under the “access and staging plan”. See submittal #4.

1. Question: Will construction access be allowed along the top of bank outside the width of the proposed structures? The drawings show the preservation zone right up to the edge of the new structure. Most of these structures are built from the top of bank beyond the excavation limit for the structure requiring an additional 15 to 20 feet for equipment access.

Answer: Equipment access will be necessary to construct these. We would just request that disturbance be minimized in preservation areas (i.e. don’t use the bank as a road).

1. Question: What will be the finished dimensions of the excess material pile to be stockpiled at the Section 6 pit? Where should the material be placed?

Answer: The engineers have several locations that will be staked before haul. Piles will be sloped to drain, uncertain of dimensions.

1. Question: The constructed riffle between stations 34+50 to 35+50 is located in an active stream channel in the existing channel alignment and new channel alignment. Do we need to dewater and defish this section of the creek to get this structure installed?

Answer: The riffle at 34+50 to 35+10 is existing and will not need to be constructed if it is maintained through the construction. If it does need to be rebuilt, work areas will need to be isolated, de-fished, and turbidity controlled in accordance with Section 02140, Water Management. 156 CY of the total design quantity of 1800 CY of riverbed substrate under Item 11, Riffle Construction is planned for this riffle.

Contract quantities will not change if the contractor maintains the existing riffle (decrease in amount of construction performed would not exceed 15%).

1. Question: Is there and overall site grading plan for the project site? The reason for this question is that the proposed staging area is scheduled for topsoil salvage and then backfill with general fill but there is no grading plan for the final elevation and grading of the site.

Answer: The final grading elevations are in the files that will be provided to the contractor. An Auto Cad Civil 3D surface will be provided from the project designer to facilitate project staking.

1. Question: When hauling the excess material to the Section 6 Pit, do the dump trucks need to meet legal load requirements?

Answer: Yes - Haul route is entirely on FS road. Dump Trucks must meet legal load requirements on FS 100. To our knowledge, no commercial use permit is required from the State of Idaho.

1. Question: Is there a Plant Watering Requirement for the transplanted materials and salvaged shrubs and sod prior to transplanting?

Answer: The contractor must submit a plant care plan. We will be looking for plant watering of any plants stockpiled on site. Wherever possible the contractor will move the transplant directly to its final location. Depending on weather and location, watering of transplants may be needed.

1. Question: At the downstream end of the project site, the historic channel bend is protected by two very large rocks and the apparent toe of a historic landslide. The plans call for fascines and large wood structures along this bank. Should the bank treatment on the plans be installed or should the historic bank be preserved?

Answer: I do believe that we want the fascines and wood structures at the locations shown in the plans. However, we would consider your concerns in the field. We anticipate minor changes in the lengths and locations of fascines and they are “actual quantity items”.

1. Question: On Drawings 8.1, 8.2 & 8.4, there is a specification for the gradation of the stream bank fill and constructed riffle fill. Will the contractor need to do sample screening to meet this criteria, will the COR do sample screening or will the COR provide visual confirmation that the material meets the specs?

Answer: Visual confirmation will be fine. We anticipate that the stream material found on site will meet this gradation. If this is not the case, it will be treated as a differing site condition. See Note on Sheet 8.4. Several aggregate pits are located in the general vicinity with material thought to be suitable. As a last resort, the government would seek a price quote from the contractor to haul material in from a commercial source.

1. Question: At the downstream end of the project site, the historic channel is open to the existing Lolo Creek channel. Downstream of this existing outlet channel, a small mound of material is scheduled to be removed from the floodplain. To provide equipment access to this small mound of material and for equipment access to the bank structures identified in Question 8, the contractor would have to fill the existing outlet channel with general fill from the existing berm to build this access road and then remove it when the channel is watered. Is this the scenario that the designer had envisioned when preparing the designs?

Answer: There is to be a plug in place at the downstream end of the channel to be constructed (during the construction) to minimize turbidity. The plug can provide equipment access to this area.

After these questions were answered, the following topics were discussed.

· Wood for project will be hauled by the contractor from the Section 6 pit. It was stockpiled there by size category as called for in the contract via a Stewardship Timber Sale. Large logs have root wads intact. Contractor will not have to fall or process the large woody debris, just haul and place in accordance with the specifications. Care shall be taken by the contractor to maintain rootwads and branches as applicable.

· Excess material will be wasted at the Section 6 pit as well. Sites for waste material stockpiles will be staked by government. Should be plenty of room.

· If the work performed just upstream in 2015 is any indication, the material onsite is mining overburden (consisting largely of vegetative fill/topsoil), vs. cobble. We found lots of organic material in 2015.

· Anne pointed out the berm that runs parallel to Lolo Creek which restricts the river from accessing the floodplain at high flows. This will be remedied under this phase. Stream sinuosity through the newly created floodplain will also be created.

· Fish salvage is required. Contractor will help manage the water level with pumps but otherwise, this work will be done by USFS and Nez Perce Tribe personnel. Crews will be on-site prior to fish salvage to salvage mussels while also gathering study information. USFS will coordinate and ensure that contract operations are not adversely affected. Lamprey may also be found as was the case in 2015. Again, USFS and Nez Perce Tribe will manage salvage efforts as necessary.

· Live Water Crossings by excavator shall be minimized. 10 individual stream crossings with excavator over live water (5 round trips) were approved after consultation with the regulatory agencies. No crossings for other equipment are approved. There is no special requirement for a temporary bridge for this phase. This language will be removed from the Mobilization Specification. See Amendment 1.

· COR is concerned about the strength/impenetrability of the diversion structure as currently designed. Government may modify the contract to require increase in the compaction requirements or add ballast to increase the strength.

· Project area is on a cattle allotment, ¾ is fenced.

· It will be the contractor’s responsibility to stake elevations off the established control points. Control points disturbed during construction shall be reestablished upon work completion. An Auto Cad Civil 3D surface will be provided to the contractor from the project designer to facilitate project staking. Government is adamant that the contractor shall exercise proper quality control to ensure proper elevations are achieved and feature limits are properly staked and constructed in accordance with the construction plans.

· No seeding or planting work is required, aside from installing rooted stock and vegetative cuttings in the wood and brush fascine. A Plant Care Plan is required to maximize survivability of these plants. Rooted stock will be stored in a tree cooler at Pierce, ID and delivered to site by government as scheduled by contractor. In addition, the USFS, with the assistance from the Nez Perce Tribe and local youth crews, will be preparing and delivering the prepared willow cuttings. Cuttings must be soaked for 7-10 days prior to delivery. Schedule accuracy is important for these reasons. Sheet 6.0 entitled Revegetation Plan has been provided for information only.

· Turbidity will be monitored by the USFS 600 feet downstream from the work locations. Stormwater Pollution and Prevention Plan is required; EPA review required – see specifications for review timeframe. If turbidity spikes above the designated threshold, mitigation measures will be taken by the contractor and work may have to be temporarily suspended until the turbidity decreases.

· Group walked down the berm and indicated location of diversion structure and the approximate elevation of the newly constructed floodplain. Utah Creek was pointed out. The creek drains into the floodplain through a culvert under FS Road 100. No side channel is required to connect this creek to Lolo Creek. It merely feeds the floodplain. Sedge plantings may be concentrated here.

· Contractors should note the specifications for sandbag material. We require a fine material that matches a spawning gravel mix. An alternate mix in the specs matches what is used for the aggregate in concrete and should be readily available. Don’t depend on finding suitable on-site material; commercial source will probably be required.

· Reviewed, in general, the location of new channel meanders.

· Government noted that when building log jams adjacent to active channel, complete dewatering will likely not be possible but isolation and pumping of sediment laden water out of the active channel is expected.

· Group drove to section 6 pit to view stockpiled logs and brush. The exact amounts required by the contract are stacked and sorted here. Small logs will need to be broken into two pieces to meet contract specs.

· Contractor should anticipate presence of a time-lapse camera on-site during the performance period. This camera is utilized by the Nez Perce Tribe to document project activities and is used to sell the project merits to various stakeholders. Such video is also great the use for presentations to groups interested in the advances being made in stream restoration practices. The government depends on funding from the Nez Perce Tribe who in turn gets funding from the Bonneville Power Administration. Without these funds, the USFS would struggle to get projects of this type completed.