Site_Visit_Minutes.pdf

Pre-bid Meeting Minutes 08/23/2016

Pre Bid minutes – WRP – Hyde County, NC – Aug 24, 2016 – 9:00 am – NRCS SO Raleigh, NC

Solicitation - AG-2B46-S-16-0011 Outfall Farms

Steven Lord, note keeper from 08/24/16 9:00 am. – 11:00 am.

Chris Bellamy, note keeper from 08/24/16 9:00 am. – 11:00 am.

Shelton Baker, note keeper from 08/24/16 9:00 am. – 11:00 am.

VTC with Scott Crist Project CO, commenced 9:04 am.

4 Contractors in room, all completed sign-in sheet.

• Solicitation is located on FedBizOps.

• Will issue an amendment that contains today’s minutes.

• Potential bidder’s attendance at today’s meeting is not required.

COR: NRCS personnel in room and introduced:

• Jonathan Hinkle, Project Engineer, COR, Goldsboro, NC.

• Bill Edwards, Biologist, WRP, Goldsboro, NC.

• Steven Lord, CET, Primary Inspector, Goldsboro, NC.

• Chris Bellamy, Alternate Project Engineer, Alternate COR, Greenville, NC.

• Shelton Baker, ATAC NRCS, Alternative Inspector, Goldsboro, NC.

Pre-Construction Summary as follows:

• CO: Minutes will be issued as an amendment.

• CO: Asked that all questions be submitted within 2 days and because of Issues about questions being asked outside the presence of all contractors, he requires that all questions be submitted to CO in writing to email address provided in the solicitation.

Part 1 – Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices

• COR covered 52.211-18 o COR: discusses bid tab and asterisk covering variation estimations quantity clause.

Section E – Inspection and Acceptance

• COR reviewed Inspection of Construction sections b, c, d, f and g.

• Bill of Lading.

• Inspection.

Section F –Deliveries or Performance

• CO reviewed 52.211-10 Commencement, Prosecution and Completion of Work.

• COR reviewed 52.236-15 Schedules for Construction Contracts (Apr 1984) a and b.

• COR reviewed 52.249-70 Time Extensions for Unusually Severe Weather o COR commented that days anticipated to have adverse weather (if you have a 10 hrs. day and you can work 6 hrs. not adverse weather, but if only 4 hrs. could be worked, it is adverse weather day. Discussed weather days based on schedule. If you move crews and equipment to another area and are able to work more than 50% not an adverse weather day.

o COR Reviewed Monthly Adverse Weather Delay Table.

• COR reviewed Maximum Workweek – Construction Schedule.

• COR reviewed The Landowners Request for shorter days during duck season, and that the 2017-

2018 Season is expected to be as the same as 2016, the CO will send out a letter informing the contractor of the updated duck and bear season when the information is available.

• COR reviewed Mandatory Shut – Down Days.

• CO reviewed Liquidated Damages.

• CO Advised contractors that the Inspector reserves the right to stop work for the endangerment of life.

Section G –Contractor Administration Data

• CO reviewed Obligation of NRCS Officials to Contractor.

• CO reviewed Contracting Officer’s Representative.

• COR reviewed Contractor’s Project Manager.

• CO reviewed Designated Payment Officer Contact Point.

o CO reviewed IPP.

o Its ability to auto-fill the forms.

o Discussed drawdown funds.

o Required documentations for submittals.

o Advised the contractors to review the payment terms.

• CO advised that the contractor was to adhere to Davis Bacon Act.

• COR reviewed Meetings Section.

Section H – Special Contract Requirements

• CO reviewed 52.222-6 Construction wage rate requirements IAW the Davis Bacon Act.

• CO reviewed Construction wage rate requirements.

o CO summarized section H and the Davis Bacon Act upon award, the bidder must be required to list the wage rates on the board. You will also have to list other languages if needed, 37.7 % minority.

o CO reviewed the need for bi-lingual signage and informed the contractors that the link was provided.

• CO Reviewed 52.236-4 Physical Data. (Apr 1984).

• COR reviewed 52.236-13 Accident Prevention a, 1, 2, 3, b, 1, 2.

NRCS Supplement to OSHA Part 1910 and 1926 –

• COR reviewed Natural Resources Conversation Service Supplement to OSHA part 1910 and 1926.

o COR Read aloud the contractor shall comply statement as follows.

The contractor shall comply with OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health

Administration) Part 1910 and 1926, Construction Industry Standards and Interpretations, and with this supplement.

General Contractor Requirements.

o 1.1 Safety Program.

o 1.3 Joint Safety Policy Committee.

Will be addressed at the Safety Meetings.

o 1.4 Safety Personnel.

o 1.5 Safety Meetings.

o 1.7 First Aid Training.

The requirement to have one trained person per crew.

o Advised the contractors to pay particular attention to

OSHA Sub-Part 1910-266, 1926.602, 1926.150 1926 Sub P o 2.1 First Aid Kits.

o 2.2 Emergency First Aid.

o 2.3 Communication and Transportation.

o 2.4 First Aid and Medical Reports.

o 2.6 Emergency Listing.

Personal Protective Equipment.

o 4.1 Hardhat Area.

o 4.2 Signage to read “Construction Area – Hardhats Required Beyond This Point”.

o 4.4 Safety Vests.

Type II.

o Bill Edwards Suggested that the COR cover lat/lon safety plan requirements

It was advised that the contractor post the latitude and longitude of site, for the use by personnel due to the remoteness of the site and the potential need by emergency personnel to find it and or Helicopter extraction.

Bill Edwards Advised the contractors that the nearest hospital was over 2 hours away.

o 5.3.1 Road Maintenance.

o 5.3.6 Riding on Equipment.

o 5.5.2 Equipment Requiring ROPS.

• Utility Location.

• Cultural Resources.

• CO Suggested: At this time do we want to go over onsite mitigation of porta-potties:

o COR Yes, This site has a lot of black bears, that like plastic. Show’s example of containerized toilet. Advises that if a bear tears up a toilet, it becomes a hazardous waste spill, COR advises that this is only a suggestion.

• COR reviews AGAR 52.236-73 Archeological or Historical Sites (Feb 1988).

• COR reviews AGAR 452.236-74 Control of Erosion, Sediment and Pollution. (Nov 1996).

o COR Pay close attention to parts b and c.

Part II – Section I –Contract Clauses

• COR asked contractors to pay attention to 52.223-6 – Drug Free Workplace.

• CO asked contractors to pay attention to 52.228-15 Performance and Payment Bond-Construction.

o CO expanded on this section, informing contractors that the Treasury Department web site provided additional resources for bonding and that additional information would be provided to the winning contractor.

• CO asked contractors to pay attention to 52.232-5 Payment under Fixed – Price Construction Contracts.

• CO asked contractors to pay attention to 52.232-27 Prompt Payment for Construction Contracts.

o CO expanded on this section, advising the contractors to pay close attention to this section and mentioned that currently payments have approximately a 15 day turn around, if all documentation is provided.

• CO asked contractors to pay attention to 52.236-2 Differing Site Conditions (Apr 1984).

o CO comment to pay close attention to Differing Site Conditions.

• COR asked contractors to pay attention to 52.236-3 Site Investigation and Conditions Affecting the work.

• COR asked contractors to pay attention to 52.236-5 Material and Workmanship.

• COR asked contractors to pay attention to 52.236-6 Superintendence by the Contractor.

• COR asked contractors to pay attention to 52.236-7 Permits and Responsibilities.

• COR asked contractors to pay attention to 52.236-9 Protection of existing vegetation, structures, equipment, utilities and improvements.

• COR asked contractors to pay attention to 52.236-12 Cleaning Up.

• COR asked contractors to pay attention to 52.236-21 Specifications and Drawings for

Construction.

• COR asked contractors to pay attention to 52.249-10 Default (Fixed – Price Construction).

• CO asked contractors to pay attention to 52.225-9 Buy American – Construction Materials (May

2014).

o CO advised that by not complying with this section could cost the contractor both time delays and money.

• CO asked contractors to pay attention to 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee a, b, c, d, e.

o CO comment 20% not to exceed 3 million.

o CO if this is not correct or submitted, bid will be rejected.

o CO advised that the Treasury Dept. web site has resources to find bonding.

o CO summarized this section and advised that it be included with bid.

• CO asked contractors to pay attention to 52.236-26 Preconstruction Conference TBD, CO to advices.

• CO asked contractors to pay attention to AGAR 452.232-70 Reimbursement for Bond Premiums – Fixed Price Construction.

o Bond reimbursement for premiums taken out of mob de-mob.

Part III – Section J – List of Attachments – No Comments

Section K – Reps and Certs – Must be provided with Bid as required in Section M - No Comments

Section L – instructions, Conditions, and Notice to Bidders

• CO Mentioned 52.204-7 System for Award Management and advised contractors of the following.

o CO stated that SAMS is the old ORCA and that a contractor must be Active in SAMS or they will not get payed.

• CO covered 52.216-1 Type of Contract.

o This is a firm fixed price contract.

o CO covered 52.222-23 Notice of Requirement for Affirmative Action to Ensure Equal

Employment Opportunity for Construction.

o If contractor works outside the area, must apply within covered area.

o CO reviewed the Goals for Minority Participation.

• CO covered 52.225-10 Notice of Buy American Requirement – Construction Materials.

o Contractor advised that Not Buying American could cause a delay and additional charges.

o Inspectors to insure.

o If contractor works outside the area, must apply within covered area.

• CO covered 52.236-27 Site Visit (Construction).

o All questions to be submitted in writing to CO.

o A 3 day period for questions will be given.

o Phase II of the site visit no CO will be present.

o Minutes will be posted.

o Sign in sheet will be posted.

o Bid conference to be determined.

• CO covered Bid Submission Instructions. Overview, 1 – 7.

o CO Advised contractors to review FEDBIZOPS for additional information and details.

o COR education requirements will not need to be met for this or the Bull Hill project.

o CO advised that amendment #1 to follow and will include; meeting minutes, sign in sheet, questions and answers.

o Will need to complete bid schedule section B.

o Insure all documentation is signed.

o Insure that section K representations and certifications is completed.

Review of Construction Contract ended at 9:55 a.m. EST

Construction Specifications:

COR, Jonathan Hinkle covered this portions of the following sections within the construction specifications. (All questions must be submitted in writing to the CO.).

CS 2 – Clearing and Grubbing

• 1. Scope.

• 2. Protection of Existing Vegetation.

• 5. Disposal.

• 7.A.3.

o Pay attention to tables 1.

• 7.A.7, 8

CS 3 – Structural Removal - BI#11

• 1. Scope.

• 7. A.3, 4.

CS 5 – Pollution Control

• 3. Other.

• 4. Chemical Pollution.

• 5. Air Pollution.

o All public access or haul roads.

• 6. Maintenance, removal, and restoration.

• 8.A.4, 5.

CS 6 – Seeding – BI# 12, 13

• 2. Materials.

• 4. Seedbed preparation and treatment.

• 5. Seeding, sprigging, fertilizing mulching, and stabilizing.

• 6. Measurement and payment.

• 7.

• 7.A.1, 2, 3, 4, & 5.

o COR asked contractors to pay attention to pay attention to Table #1.

o COR asked contractors to pay attention to the fact that when nurse crop is mixed with permanent seeding it is considered permanent, not temp seeding and NRCS does not receive a bill for Temp and Perm seeding, but 1 bill for permanent. COR explained that if you only apply 40 lbs. per acre of wheat / Brown top Millet at 60 lbs. Per acre. once with the seeding then NRCS does not get billed for both.

• 7.B.1 – 7, Table #3, 10, 12.

o Pay attention to table #3.

CS 7 – Construction Surveys – BI#2

• 2. Equipment and material.

• 3. Quality of work.

• 4. Primary control.

o Will discuss further in the drawing review section.

• 7. Records.

• 9.A.1 –8 & 10.

o COR Points out that the number 8 should be “O” in 9.A.7 a – n.

o COR noted again about the importance of the Construction Schedule for prorated payments.

CS 8 – Mobilization and Demobilization – BI#1

• 2. Equipment and Material.

• 4.A.2 a, b.

• 4.A.3 a, c, d, e, f, h, i.

o COR asked contractors to pay particular attention to specification 8. section 4.A.3.d and went on to emphasize that there may be visitors on the site and informed the contractors that all construction areas and or excavated areas will require barricades and safety fencing especially during shut down season.

CS 10 – Water for Construction

• 2. Facilities and Equipment.

• 3. Dust abatement and haul road maintenance.

• 4. Earthfill, drainfill, and rockfill.

• 8.A.2.

CS 11 – Removal of Water

• 8.A.2-3.

CS 21 – Excavation

• 10.

• 10.A.1 - 4

• 10.C.1, 5

CS 23 – Earthfill

• 4. Placement.

• 5. Control of moisture.

• 8. Testing.

• 10.

• 10.A.2 – 4.

o COR Explained in detail 10.A.4 requirements in detail for testing and understanding strata.

• 10.B.1, 3.

CS 44 – Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe – BI#9

• 2. Material

• 9.A.1, 2a

• 9.B.2.

o COR Advised contractors to review tide gate material.

CS 61 – Rock Riprap

• 2. Material.

• 8.A.2 – 3.

• 8.B. 2 – 3.

CS 95 – Geotextile

• 7.A.3

CS 401 – Precast Concrete Structures –BI#8

• 2. Materials.

o COR asked contractors to pay attention to section ii. Testing cylinders.

o COR asked contractors to pay attention to section i, dimensions and section m, foundation.

• 4. Plan Requirements COR asked contractors to pay attention to section a – d.

o COR asked contractors to pay attention to the shop drawings submittal.

• 5.A.1, 4 – 6.

The COR stated that the remaining specifications were material specifications and would not be reviewed, The COR did advise the contractors to pay close attention to them.

Review of Construction Specifications ended at 10:41 a.m. EST

Construction Drawings

COR, Jonathan Hinkle covered this portions of the review the construction drawings.

COR displayed the site location on google earth and explained the best way to get to the site. Access off NC Hwy 264 from Outfall Canal Rd. Street sign reads New Holland Community sign at the intersection.

COR pointed out the easement boundary, off easement property and the canal drainage.

Sheet – 2 COR asked contractors to pay attention to the general notes.

o Note #1. Control points.

o Note #2. COR advised the contractors that this survey was conducted by NRCS, and advised them to verify field conditions and report any discrepancies to the project engineer immediately.

o Note #3 Tolerances, COR advised the contractors that water control structures will be held to a +-

0.05 foot tolerance and all other construction installed to a +- 0.1 foot tolerance.

o COR asked contractors to pay attention to the Recommended Construction Sequence and advised the contractor notify NRCS of any deviation.

Sheet – 3: COR reviewed the overall site, COR advised the contractors that Control Point #1 had been destroyed and that additional points had been added to the site but remained to be verified. An addendum would be issued once points were verified. COR continued to say that if the points were not verified by the time of construction that NRCS would work with the contractor to establish control.

Sheet – 4 COR Advised the contractors that sheet 4 had been absent from the original set of drawings on FEDBIZOPS but was now available in the addendum. COR went on to explain that water flowing out of the site (De-Watering Plan) may require permitting from outside agencies, NRCS would assist the contractor in acquiring the permits but submitting the original paperwork would be the responsibility of the contractor.

Sheet – 5 COR Sheet 5 depicts structures C & D and was the same as sheet 4.

Sheet – 6 COR Sheet 6 depicts structure E. COR noted that the permitting requirement note was not on this sheet because this was an internal canal, however the COR stated that the contractor was still responsible for verifying that no permit would be needed.

Sheet – 7 COR asked contractors to pay attention to the 3” Capping Note in the profile view.

Advising that the additional 0.25 foot of capping required on the pathway was in addition, and above the design grade.

Sheet – 8 – 13 COR same pathway type as sheet 7.

Sheet – 14 COR asked contractors to pay attention to the details.

o Typical Section of Water Control Structure.

o Grouting requirements, being both front and back of structure at the pipe gasket.

o Duel Cut Away o Re-Bar required, advised that the space between structures needs to be 2X the adjoining wall length and backfilled with concrete.

Sheet – 15 COR asked contractors to pay attention to the details o Tide Gate Detail auto close detail.

o Slope Protection.

o Headwalls and Endwalls tied together with cable.

o Structural engineer to design headwalls and endwalls, preferred method shown.

o Borrow area section, maximum depth once backfilled 4 foot deep.

o Spoil area maximum height 5 foot.

o Locking Eye Detail, Note both sides of guide channel on water control structure.

COR said that was all he had.

CO

o Bids due Sept. 2nd no later than 2:00pm EDT.

o Will begin performance within 10 days and complete within 396 days of receiving.

o If you have questions, submit them to the CO in writing via email.

o Please utilize Phase II of the Site Visit for your convenience.

o Have a good afternoon.

QUESTION: Is it 2 Days from the site visit?

ANSWER: CO Yes 2 days from Friday.

COR finished going through the drawings at 11:00 a.m. EST. Meeting adjourned it was advised that the next Pre – Bid would begin at 12:30 pm.

Jonathan Hinkle COR ran the CO’s portion of the on-site – Phase II part of the Site Visit. Notes provided below.

Site Visit – WRP – Outfall Farm Project site Hyde County, NC – Aug. 26, 2016 – 9:00 am

4 contractors arrived at site, all completed sign-in sheet.

NRCS personnel on site:

• Jonathan Hinkle, Project Engineer, COR, Goldsboro, NC

• Bill Edwards, Biologist, WRP, Goldsboro, NC

• Steven Lord, CET, Primary Inspector, Goldsboro, NC

Site Visit Summary as follows:

9:00 am: All contractors arrived at the project site for inspection. The construction documents were laid out on the truck tailgate along with the sign in sheet for the contractor’s inspection and sign in.

9:03 am: COR advised the contractors that no questions would be answered at this time and that all questions would need to be submitted to the CO in writing.

9:10 am: COR asked for a consensus of the contractors as to whether they wanted to explore the site on their own or be guided by the COR. COR reiterated that this site was private property and that the contractors would not have access after the showing was over. After a short time all of the contractors agreed that a guided tour would better serve them.

9:15 am: COR reiterated that no questions would be answered at this time and that all questions would need to be submitted to the CO in writing.

9:15 am: COR Pointed out key elements on the overall sheet to include; WCS locations, proposed borrow and existing control points. COR continued and recapped additional items mentioned at the pre-construction meeting to include that an addendum for the additional point’s data, once they have been verified. COR mentioned the need to display the area coordinates due to the remote location and the potential need to use med flight. COR discussed the need for containerized porta potty due to the bear issues on site. One of the contractors present mentioned that he was in possession of 3 of the mentioned units. COR advised the contractors that it wasn’t required but if a standard porta john was used and destroyed by a bear, it would become a hazardous waste issue and would need to be mitigated.

COR asked contractors to pay attention to 52.249-70 Time Extensions for Unusually Severe Weather o COR commented that days anticipated to have adverse weather (if you have a 10 hrs. day and you can work 6 hrs. not adverse weather, but if only 4 hrs. could be worked, it is adverse weather day. Discussed weather days based on schedule. If you move crews and equipment to another area and are able to work more than 50% not an adverse weather day.

Bill Edwards Mentioned that the land was not under pump drain.

COR Clarified and cautioned the contractors to the detail on Sheet 14. That only structures over 5 foot wide would need the center support.

COR reiterated that no questions would be answered at this time and that all questions would need to be submitted to the CO in writing.

9:30 am: COR Began Site Tour

COR informed the contractors that the order of the site visit would be WCS B, WCS A, WCS E, Borrow Area and then WCS’s D & C.

9:37 am: COR Identified the Proposed WCS B Location.

COR showed the contractors an example of the newly installed control points o COR explained that the points were only preliminary and not final.

Bill Edwards Explained that flooding was a normal occurrence on this site and to look at aerial photography to get an understanding of how wet the property can be.

9:43 am: COR Identified the Proposed WCS A Location.

COR Noted that the existing building and tank are to be removed by the landowner prior to construction.

Upon arrival to WCS it was noticed that a new pump and electric control had been installed in this location. The COR then referenced Sheet 24 of the Construction Contract and read aloud in its entirety “It shall be the responsibility off the contractor” (Utility Clause). COR went on to advise the contractors that it would be their responsibility to protect the existing utilities.

10:07 am: COR Identified the Proposed WCS E Location and is adjacent to the Borrow Area.

Bill Edwards identified the borrow area and pointed to the intersection at the clearing.

COR identified the soils types using USDA Web Soil Survey as:

o Scuppernong 0 – 28” Organic 28” – 45” Silt Loam 45” – 48” Gray Sand 48” – 72” Drk. Green / Gray Sand

Information provided later for clarification:

https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/S/SCUPPERNONG.html

Oap--0 to 5 inches; black (5YR 2/1) broken face and rubbed muck; less than 1 percent unrubbed and rubbed fiber;

moderate fine and medium granular structure; very friable; common fine and large roots and fragments of wood;

strongly acid; abrupt smooth boundary.

Oa1--5 to 9 inches; dark reddish brown (5YR 2/2) broken face and rubbed muck; less than 1 percent unrubbed and rubbed fiber; massive, parting to weak fine angular blocky structure; friable; slightly sticky and paste-like; common fine medium and large roots and fragments of wood; few fine pieces of charcoal; extremely acid; clear smooth boundary.

Oa2--9 to 20 inches; dark reddish brown (5YR 3/2) broken face and rubbed muck; about 5 percent unrubbed fiber, less than 1 percent rubbed; massive; friable, slightly sticky and paste-like; common medium and large roots and fragments of wood; few medium pieces of charcoal; extremely acid; gradual wavy boundary.

Oa3--20 to 28 inches; dark reddish brown (5YR 3/3) broken face and rubbed muck; about 15 percent unrubbed fiber, 2 percent rubbed; massive; friable, slightly sticky and paste-like; common medium and large roots and fragments of wood; few medium pieces of charcoal; extremely acid; clear wavy boundary. (Combined thickness of the Oa horizons ranges from 16 to 51 inches.)

Cg1--28 to 45 inches; dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1) mucky silt loam; massive; slightly sticky; common fine streaks and pockets of light gray (10YR 7/1) very fine sand and silt; extremely acid; clear smooth boundary. (12 to 28 inches thick)

Cg2--45 to 48 inches; light gray (10YR 7/1) sand; single grain; loose; few medium flakes of mica; extremely acid;

gradual wavy boundary. (2 to 8 inches thick)

Cg3--48 to 72 inches; dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1) sand; single grain; loose; few medium flakes of mica; extremely acid]

COR Clarified the reasoning for some of the pipes being skewed, the design was such that it keeps the pipe out of the old trench and puts the pipe perpendicular to Outfall Canal.

COR WCS D next then WCS C

10:23 am: COR Identified the Proposed WCS D Location.

COR again reiterated that the existing building and tank are to be removed by the landowner prior to Notice To Proceed.

COR reiterated what was mentioned in the pre-bid meeting that temporary de-watering containment device per precast fabrication engineer or permitting agency is required and that the impact to waters of the U.S., based on fill may require permitting from outside agencies, NRCS would assist the contractor in acquiring the permits however it is the contractor’s responsibility to acquire permits.

COR continued to say that clean water discharge was the goal and that there were a number of ways to achieve this, it was the contractor’s responsibility to submit their plan to NRCS as part of their de-watering containment device and insure the appropriate practices were in place and permits were acquired. NRCS will assist as it could.

COR Identified the Proposed WCS C Location.

No comments

COR Identified the Proposed Borrow Area Corner Location.

COR identifies the current location on Sheet 3 and pulls up soil types on Web Soil Survey:

o Gulrock 0 – 13” Organic 13” – 18” Loam Fin. Sand 18” – 33” Loam Fin. Sand 33” – 50” Loam Fin. Sand 50” – 60” Loam Fin. Sand 60” – 70” Loam Very Fin. Sand

Information later provided:

https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/G/GULLROCK.html

Oap--0 to 6 inches; black (10YR 2/1) broken face and rubbed, muck; about 15 percent fiber, less than 5 percent rubbed; weak medium granular structure; very friable; nonfluid; common very fine and fine roots; very strongly acid; abrupt smooth boundary.

Oa--6 to 13 inches; dark reddish brown (5YR 3/2) broken face and rubbed, muck; about 10 percent fiber, less than 2 percent rubbed; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; friable, with some peds being firm; nonfluid; few very fine and fine roots; few very fine quartz sand grains; few medium fragments of charcoal; the upper part of the horizon is a 2 inch thick layer of strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) wood ash; extremely acid; clear wavy boundary.

(Combined thickness of the O horizon is 8 to 16 inches.)

A--13 to 18 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/4) loamy very fine sand; weak medium subangular blocky structure;

friable; few fine roots; common fine and very fine tubular pores; common medium faint dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) and common medium distinct very dark brown (7.5YR 2/2) irregularly shaped masses of iron accumulation with clear boundaries in matrix; few fine opaque minerals; very strongly acid; clear wavy boundary.

AC--18 to 33 inches; brown (10YR 4/3) loamy very fine sand; massive; friable; few fine roots; few fine tubular pores;

common medium faint yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) irregularly shaped masses of iron accumulation with clear boundaries in matrix; few fine flakes of mica; very strongly acid; clear wavy boundary. (Combined thickness of the A horizon is 0 to 24 inches.)

Cg1--33 to 50 inches; dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) loamy very fine sand; massive; very friable; few fine partially decomposed roots; few fine tubular pores; common medium distinct dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) irregularly shaped masses of iron accumulation with clear boundaries in matrix; few fine flakes of mica; strongly acid; clear wavy boundary.

Cg2--50 to 64 inches; grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) loamy very fine sand; massive; very friable; few fine distinct dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) irregularly shaped masses of iron accumulation with clear boundaries in matrix; few fine flakes of mica; few fine opaque minerals; very strongly acid; abrupt wavy boundary.

Ab--64 to 70 inches; dark brown (10YR 3/3) loamy very fine sand; massive; very friable; few fine flakes of mica; few fine opaque minerals; very strongly acid.]

COR reiterated that no questions would be answered at this time and that all questions would need to be submitted the CO in writing.

Site Visit Closed at 10:57 am.