CA_HBP_TRI_CR104(1)_RFQ.pdf

Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, CO 80228

April 14, 2016

CA HBP TRI CR104(1) ET AL, Trinity County HBP Bridges Design-Build Request for Qualifications

Solicitation Number DTFH68-16-R-00005

The Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in partnership with Trinity County, California, is conducting a "two phased" Design-Build (D-B) selection process for the Trinity County HBP Bridges project in Trinity County, California. Under this Notice, CFLHD is soliciting D-B firms/teams (Offeror) to participate in Phase-One – Request for Qualifications (RFQ) – of the selection process. This is NOT a Request for Proposal. A solicitation package is not available.

A non-mandatory site visit will be held during Phase-One to allow Offerors to view all accessible bridge sites. Based on current snow pack, only the Mumbo Creek Bridge is inaccessible, however conditions may change. Interested parties will meet at the Little Creek Bridge at 8 A.M. on April 20, 2016. Each Offeror will provide their own transportation to review the bridge sites, which is anticipated to take nearly 10 hours to complete, and include nearly 230 miles of driving in potentially inclement weather. Four-wheel drive capable vehicles required. Due to limited space at the project sites, each Offeror team should consolidate into one vehicle. Questions will be addressed at each of the bridge sites and a summary of those questions, the agenda, and any other information from the site-visit will be posted to www.fbo.gov shortly following the site visit.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction.

SUBMIT ONE (1) PAPER ORIGINAL, FIVE (5) PAPER COPIES, AND ONE PDF COPY STORED ON A USB STORAGE DEVICE OF YOUR RESPONSE BY 2:00 PM Local Time, May 16, 2016 at the address below.

ATTN: Jeremiah Rogers (Solicitation Number: DTFH68-16-R-00005)

MAILROOM—DO NOT OPEN

Central Federal Lands Highway Division

Submit questions to CFLContracts@dot.gov. Do not submit questions to Trinity County. The only authorized responses will come from the CFLHD Acquisitions Office.

Attachments:

1-Project Description 5-Submittals (RFQ and RFP) 2-Procurement Process Overview 6-Schematic Maps 3-Phase-One (RFQ) Evaluation Criteria 4-Phase-Two (RFP) Evaluation Criteria

7-Scoping Information Report 8-Draft RFP

ATTACHMENT 1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

General. The project consists of replacing five existing bridges in northeastern Trinity County. The existing structures are single span, with lengths ranging from approximately 37 feet to 60 feet and widths ranging from approximately 13 feet to 17 feet. Records indicate that the structures were originally built between 1955 and 1979. Replacement structures are to be designed in accordance with current CFLHD Bridge drafting and plan standards and Caltrans seismic and structural design criteria. Minor approach work is anticipated to improve bridge and roadway alignments.

Specific bridge locations are:

5C-048, Coffee Creek Bridge, on Coffee Creek Road, County Route 104 41d07’06”N 122d53’40”W

5C-061, Mumbo Creek Bridge, on Ramshorn Road, County Route 133 41d08’16”N 122d34’11”W

5C-157, N. Fork of the E. Fork of Hayfork Creek Bridge (Many Forks Bridge), on East Fork Hayfork Road, County Route 343 40d30’35”N 122d59’58”W

5C-187, Little Creek Bridge, on Jordan Road, County Route 332 40d37’33”N 122d57’38”W

5C-196, Adams Creek Bridge, on Coffee Creek Road, County Route 104 41d07’19”N 122d55’25”W

The work is located in environmentally sensitive areas and will require context sensitive designs and construction approaches. The environmental clearance document is complete and is included as an attachment.

The primary objective of the proposed contract is to remove and replace the existing bridges with new bridges that meet current standards. Four of the five proposed structures will be constructed as new one-lane bridges. The fifth structure, Little Creek Bridge on Jordan Road, will be constructed as a two-lane bridge. All structures will be required to span the ordinary high water mark.

No geotechnical investigation or testing has been completed.

All required Right-of-Way and Temporary Construction Easement acquisitions are the responsibility of the Offeror. The existing property ownership is shown in the site schematic plans included in Attachment 6.

The design, construction, and Right-of-Way/access costs for the Project is estimated to be between $4,000,000 and $6,000,000.

Design-Build Scope of Work (SOW). The SOW for this Project includes Design and Construction, Project Management, Right-of-Way Acquisition, and Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC), including Materials Sampling and Testing, and includes, but is not limited to, the following:

Design Work

Supplemental design surveys: Initial site surveys are provided as shown in Attachment 6 Documents. All other surveys are the responsibility of the Proposer.

Hydrologic and Hydraulic design: Proposer is responsible for determining all hydrology and hydraulics to meet design criteria per CFLHD design standards.

Geotechnical design: Proposer is responsible for all site testing and analysis to design the bridge foundations, scour, earthwork and erosion mitigation efforts.

Pavement design (Little Creek Bridge only): Proposer is responsible for full section requirements to meet both CFLHD and Caltrans approach requirements.

Public and private utility relocations.

Roadway approach design: Proposer is responsible for determining alignment, limits of work and ROW/Easements to design approaches to the bridges per CFLHD design criteria.

Structure design; determine the appropriate type, size, location and design of each structure in accordance with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (7th Ed), as amended by Caltrans current Seismic Design Criteria and California amendments to AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2012 ed.), and CFLHD Bridge Drafting and plan Standards.

Safety design: Incorporate safety devices and hardware that are consistent with Trinity County construction and maintenance protocols.

Provide Soil erosion, sediment control, and dust control design

Prepare Temporary Traffic Management and Control Plan. Provide Temporary traffic management and control including public safety.

Provide Design QA/QC, with full checked copies of all designs and plans packages including the drainage report, geotechnical report, and bridge type/size/selection reports submitted to CFLHD prior to construction.

Provide Right-of-Way acquisition services on behalf of Trinity County, including preparation of legal descriptions and acquisition plans (stamped by a CA licensed land surveyor), assessments, and acquisitions of both permanent Right-of-Way and all temporary construction easements. The acquisition of real property rights (temporary and permanent) must follow the requirements of the Uniform Act and Title 23. CFLHD and Trinity County will have oversight and approval authority throughout the appraisal and acquisition process.

Determine the need for Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certifications and Section 404 Permits; if permits and/or certifications are required, provide draft and final permit packages to CFLHD for review prior to submittal to jurisdictional agencies.

Determine the need for wetlands, waters of the U.S., and/or riparian habitat mitigation.

Provide conceptual mitigation strategies to CFLHD for review prior to submittal to jurisdictional agencies. If required, coordinate mitigation ratios with jurisdictional agencies and identify appropriate mitigation on behalf of CFLHD following CFLHD approval.

Provide a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in compliance with the requirements of the California Construction General Permit (CGP) Order No. 2009-0009- DWQ as amended 07/17/2012.

Obtain an Encroachment Permit for work within Caltrans Right-of-Way (anticipated to be needed at Jordan Road only).

Construction Work:

Installation of sediment, erosion and control measures

Demolition and removal of the existing structures

Construction of structures and roadway approaches

Watering for dust control

Implementation of permit requirements

Implementation of Temporary Traffic Control measures and devices

Installation of Permanent Traffic Control measures and devices

Construction QA/QC, including Materials Sampling and Testing

ATTACHMENT 2

PROCUREMENT PROCESS OVERVIEW

CFLHD is using a two-step procurement process to select a qualified D-B firm/team to deliver the Project. The issuance of this RFQ is part of the first step to solicit information from interested Offerors in the form of an SOQ.

CFLHD anticipates the following procurement milestone dates. This schedule is subject to revision by addenda to this RFQ, to information in the final RFP, and by addenda to the RFP.

Action Dates* Phase-One: Request for Qualifications Site Visit (optional) April 20, 2016 Deadline for submitting RFQ questions May 4, 2016 Deadline for CFLHD response to questions May 11, 2016 SOQs due May 16, 2016 Short-listed Offerors notified June 2016 Phase-Two: Request for Proposals Dates* RFP issued (to short-listed Offerors only) June 2016* Alternative Technical Concepts (ATCs) Due July 2016* Notification of acceptance/rejection of ATCs July 2016* Proposals Due Early August 2016* Source Selection Complete August 2016* Notice of Award issued Late August 2016* Notice to Proceed issued August/September 2016*

*Dates are subject to change

Phase 1 – Request for Qualifications

CFLHD is issuing this RFQ for interested and qualified D-B firms/teams to submit a SOQ.

The Evaluation Board will review and evaluate the SOQs submitted by all responsive Offerors, based on how well each meets the evaluation criteria.

A “shortlist” of no more than three of the most highly qualified Offerors will be selected and invited to participate in Phase 2 – Request for Proposals. Once the shortlist has been established, Offerors not shortlisted will be notified in a timely manner and offered the opportunity for a debriefing.

It is not the intent of CFLHD to receive specific design or engineering recommendations regarding the Project as part of the Phase 1 process. Offerors should limit their SOQ and questions to the information required by this notice, and other information that may be relevant to the qualifications and experience of the Offeror. No reimbursement will be made for any of the Offerors’ costs associated with the preparation of the SOQ.

Phase 2 – Request for Proposals

The short-listed D-B firms/teams will be sent an RFP, which will outline the remainder of the selection process requirements. The RFP will contain the requirements necessary for the short-listed D-B firms/teams to submit both a Technical Proposal and a Price Proposal.

To promote innovation by the Offerors and to maintain flexibility of design and construction, CFLHD will allow submission of Alternate Technical Concepts (ATCs) in Phase 2.

After receipt of the Phase 2 Technical Proposal and Price Proposal, an Evaluation Board will conduct a "best value" analysis. Attachment 5 contains the criteria to be used in the Phase 2 evaluation process. The Evaluation Board will submit their recommendation to the Source Selection Authority. Award of one firm fixed price contract is anticipated.

Each Offeror that submits a technically acceptable, but unsuccessful, Proposal will be entitled to receive payment for work products submitted with its Proposal. A proposal is deemed technically acceptable if it complies with all RFP requirements and contains no deficiencies as defined by FAR 15.001. The amount of the stipend payment will be $50,000.

ATTACHMENT 3

PHASE-ONE (RFQ) EVALUATION CRITERIA

Phase 1 – Evaluation Criteria. Offerors’ Statements of Qualifications will be evaluated using the following criteria, listed in descending order of importance:

Criteria 1: Understanding of the Design-Build Process and Technical Approach.

The Evaluation Board will review and evaluate each Offeror’s understanding of tasks involved in a D-B project and the Offeror’s approach to managing, designing, and constructing the Project.

Submit a general description of the tasks involved to deliver the project using a D-B process and the approach the Offeror will take for design and construction administration. Specifically, address the following:

Discuss key tasks that will make this a successful project and how your team is qualified to achieve them.

Discuss how the Offeror intends to maximize the benefits of the D-B process.

Describe the approach to design, construction, environmental coordination, right-of-way, utilities, mitigation, and permitting. Describe how your team will ensure environmental commitments are honored, right-of-way is successfully secured, utilities are protected or relocated, and all permits are secured. The approach should take into consideration the timing needed to obtain necessary right-of-way and permits.

Describe the responsibilities of each team member, and the levels of coordination and communication. Specifically, address the following:

Discuss the involvement of the design members of the Offeror's team during construction including how design and construction members will interface during the full duration of the project.

Describe how the team will coordinate with CFLHD throughout the D-B process.

Discuss how review comments will be incorporated and submittals will be addressed during construction.

Describe your Project Management Plan to manage design and construction activities, costs, and schedule.

Criteria 2: Team Organization and Past Performance.

The Evaluation Board will review and evaluate information about the Offeror’s past performance in the design and construction of roadway and bridge projects based on the Project Team’s Organizational Structure, and on Design and Construction Performance for projects similar in size and scope.

Project Team’s Organizational Structure

Submit the proposed D-B team’s organizational structure. Provide an organizational chart of each member of the Offeror’s team. Identify the lead organization and the primary members of the team. Identify their roles in the Project and their percentage of work hours committed to the Project. Identify how each partner and subcontractor interacts and fits into the overall D-B team makeup and their experience working together on past projects (traditional Design-Bid-Build and/or D-B). Submit documentation that shows the direct experience of the Offeror, joint venture partners, and/or firms/teams related by an ownership agreement. Also include experience of key subcontractors that the Offeror intends to utilize in the execution of this Project. The successful Offeror’s organizational structure will be incorporated into the awarded contract.

Joint Relationship Past Performance

Provide information on at least one (1), but no more than five (5), civil construction projects in the past seven (7) years where the lead construction firm and the lead design firm have successfully worked together on the same project. Although previous D-B experience is preferred, it is not mandatory. Teams are encouraged to submit evidence of past D-B-B projects on which the designer and builder have jointly participated in any responsible role. Preference is given to Offerors that demonstrate a successful and well-established work relationship. Provide project summary information and justification for each project regarding the following:

At award and at completion cost(s); justifications for changes.

At award and at contract completion date(s); justification for changes.

o Recovery strategies utilized to stay on schedule, avoid cost increases to owner, and maintain quality requirements.

Design Past Performance

Provide information on at least three (3), but no more than five (5), successful bridge projects in the past seven (7) years. Preference is given to projects in Northern California. Although previous D-B experience is preferred, it is not mandatory. If any D-B project is provided as a reference that was not performed together by the lead design firm and lead construction firm on this Project, then identify the firms involved, respectively. Provide project summary information and justification for each project regarding the following:

At award and at completion design cost(s); justifications for changes.

At award and at contract completion date(s); justification for design changes.

Construction Past Performance

Provide information on at least three (3), but no more than five (5), successful bridge projects in the past seven (7) years. Preference is given to projects in Northern California. Although previous D-B experience is preferred, it is not mandatory. If any D-B project is provided as a reference that was not performed together by the lead design firm and lead construction firm on this Project, then identify the firms involved, respectively. Provide project summary information and justification for each project regarding the following:

At award and at completion cost(s); justifications for changes.

At award and at contract completion date(s); justification for changes.

Criteria 3: Technical Qualifications.

The Evaluation Board will review and evaluate the Offerors’ individual personnel qualifications and experience, including technical and geographical similarities between the referenced experience/qualifications and the work described in this solicitation. Experience by the design and construction partners performing similar work in Northern California is desired.

Submit documentation for each key individual indicating their specialized experience within the past five (5) years and their qualifications for projects with technically the same or similar roadway, geotechnical, hydraulic, structural, erosion control, permitting, project management, traffic control, construction, and QA/QC work as required by the Project.

In addition to the specific information requested in this section, include a resume for each Key Personnel in an appendix to the SOQ. All key personnel shall be available throughout the duration of the contract. If one individual will be fulfilling multiple roles during the Project, list how that individual meets the experience and expertise separately for EACH position.

Project Management Key Personnel

Design-Build Project Manager – The Offeror’s overall manager and principal point of contact for activities throughout the entire design-build process.

Project QA/QC Manager – The Offeror’s single point of responsibility for managing quality through design and construction, and who is responsible for all quality assurance and quality control procedures and decisions. The Project QA/QC Manager may also function as the Design QA/QC Manager and/or Construction QA/QC Manager, as qualified.

Design & Construction Key Personnel

Designer of Record – The Offeror’ single point of responsibility for all design procedures and decisions. This individual shall be a registered, licensed Professional Engineer in the State of California. The Designer of Record may also function as the Structural Engineer and/or the Project/Construction Engineer, as qualified.

Structural Engineer – The Offeror’s engineer who is in charge of all structural aspects of the Project. This individual shall be a registered, licensed Professional Engineer in the State of California. The Structural Engineer may also function as the Project/Construction Engineer, as qualified.

Geotechnical Engineer – The Offeror’s engineer who is in charge of all geotechnical aspects of the Project. This individual shall be a registered, licensed Professional Engineer in the State of California.

Hydraulic Engineer – The Offeror’s engineer who is in charge of all hydraulic aspects of the Project. This individual shall be a registered, licensed Professional Engineer in the State of California.

Design QA/QC Manager – The QA/QC representative responsible for implementing the Design QA/QC program referenced in Criteria 4.

Construction Superintendent – The Offeror’s on-site authorized representative in charge of the construction work.

Project/Construction Engineer – The Offeror’s individual responsible for engineering decisions, judgment and construction work on the Project. This individual shall be a registered, licensed Professional Engineer in the State of California.

Construction QA/QC Manager – The QA/QC representative responsible for implementing the Construction QA/QC program referenced in Criteria 4.

ROW Acquisition Agent– The representative responsible for identifying, appraising, and acquiring all needed permanent Rights-of-Way and temporary construction easements for the Project.

Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) and Practitioner (QSP) – A certified individual by the State of California to develop the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, to conduct Rain Even Action Plans, and to review on-site inspections. The QSD and QSP can be separate individuals.

Offeror’s obligation to keep Key Personnel intact: In connection with the services covered by this procurement process, Key Personnel will be limited to the individuals and firms that are specifically identified in the Offeror’s SOQ. The successful Offeror’s Key Personnel will be incorporated into the awarded contract. The selected D-B firm/team shall obtain the Contracting Officer’s written consent before making any substitution of the Key Personnel.

Criteria 4: Quality Management Outline.

The Evaluation Board will review and evaluate each Offeror’s approach to quality control to assess the soundness and reasonableness of the Offeror's planned QA/QC for quality of design, materials, and construction products.

Submit an outline of the system to be used to manage the design and construction schedule, and the management system to control the quality of materials and constructed products. Describe how the quality management system(s) will interact between the design and construction functions and how it will be updated and monitored. Also describe how the system will address non-compliance issues of design and construction and how the system will facilitate strategic interaction with CFLHD.

Submit evidence of construction work within the last five (5) years, indicating that quality work was completed on schedule and within budget.

ATTACHMENT 4

PHASE-TWO (RFP) EVALUATION CRITERIA

See Section II of attached DRAFT RFP

ATTACHMENT 5

SUBMITTALS

Phase-One Submittals: Statement of Qualifications

Offerors shall use the Standard Form (SF) 330, Part I, U.S. Government Architect-Engineer Qualifications, as the basis for their SOQ. It is not necessary to complete Part II of the SF 330. SF 330’s are available on the U.S. General Services Administration website at:

http://www.gsa.gov/forms/. Although the SF 330 is formatted for Architect-Engineer and Related Services, the construction elements of the Offeror’s SOQ may also be included on the SF 330. The SOQ shall be bound and tabbed with the major headings. Each SOQ shall include a table indicating page numbers where Phase 1 evaluation criteria 1-4 can be found. Design and Construction projects used for evaluation criteria 3 and 4 should be included in Section F of the SF 330. Section H of the SF 330 should be used to address any evaluation criteria not addressed elsewhere.

Each Offeror shall provide ONE (1) PAPER ORIGINAL, FIVE (5) PAPER COPIES, AND ONE PDF COPY STORED ON A USB STORAGE DEVICE of the completed SOQ. The SOQ shall contain a cover letter and no more than twenty (20) pages typed, one side only, on 8.5" x 11" paper. Pages must be numbered consecutively. Pages beyond the 20 page limit will not be considered by the panel during the scoring process. The cover letter and resumes of Key Personnel (Section E of the SF 330) will not be included in the page count and therefore should not be numbered.

Please do not submit any letters of reference, pre-printed brochures or other marketing materials. If dividers or photos are used and contain project-specific information they will be counted as pages.

All SOQs shall be written using Times New Roman font with a size no smaller than 11-point (text, figures and tables). The SOQ shall address each of the evaluation criteria in the same order as listed in Attachment 3.

Submit the original and copies of the SOQ on or before that date/time indicated on page 1 of this RFQ, to the following address (fax and email submissions of SOQs will not be accepted):

ATTN: Jeremiah Rogers (Solicitation Number: DTFH68-16-R-00005)

MAILROOM—DO NOT OPEN

Central Federal Lands Highway Division

Questions concerning this Request for Qualifications shall be submitted via e-mail to CFLContracts@dot.gov. Do not submit questions to Trinity County. The only authorized responses will come from the CFLHD Acquisitions Office.

Only e-mail inquiries will be considered. No hard copy or oral inquiries will be considered.

Phase 1 Submittals, Bonding Capacity

Submit a bonding agent letter verifying the Offeror’s ability to obtain bonding of up to $6 million for a single contract. The bonding agent letter will not count towards the page limit and should be included as an appendix.

ATTACHMENT 6

SCHEMATIC PLANS

ATTACHMENT 7

SCOPING REPORT

Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division

SCOPING INFORMATION REPORT

Trinity County/Caltrans

Trinity County

California

CA HBP TRI CR104(1) ET AL

Trinity County HBP Bridges

DISCLAIMER:

THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED DURING THE PROJECT SCOPING PHASE AND

IS PROVIDED FOR PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION. THE OPINIONS

HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED TO INFLUENCE OFFERORS’ STATEMENTS OF

QUALIFICATION OR PROPOSALS.

STATEMENTS HEREIN MAY OR MAY NOT BE ACCURATE. THE PROJECT’S

RFP TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THIS DOCUMENT.

Prepared By:

Jacobs Engineering Inc.

A/E Consulting Engineering Services

Trinity County Bridges (5) Design Scoping Report

Page 2 of 66 CA HBP TRI CR104(1) ET AL_Scoping_Report

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. PROJECT SUMMARY

Description Comment

General project description and nature of work

Located in the lower reaches of the Klamath Mountains in California, midway between Redding in Shasta County and the Northern Redwood Coast, Trinity County has entered into an agreement with the Federal Highway Administration, Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) to scope five County‐ owned bridges. These bridges have been identified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, and have been approved by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Highway Administration, California Division Office for replacement under the FHWA Highway Bridge Program. These bridges are:

5C‐048, Coffee Creek Bridge, on Coffee Creek Road, County Route 104

5C‐061, Mumbo Creek Bridge, on Ramshorn Road, County Route 133

5C‐157, N. Fork E. Fork Hayfork Creek (Hayfork Creek) Bridge, on East Fork Hayfork Road, County Route 343

5C‐187, Little Creek Bridge, on Jordan Road, County Route 332

5C‐196, Adams Creek Bridge, on Coffee Creek Road, County Route 104

The existing structures are single span, with lengths ranging from approximately 37 feet to 60 feet and widths ranging from approximately 13 feet to 17 feet. Records indicate that these structures were built from 1955 to 1979. The proposed replacement bridges would be designed in accordance with current seismic and structural design standards for the State of California. Minor approach work is anticipated with the potential for improvements to enhance curvature and sight distance lines.

Page 3 of 66 CA HBP TRI CR104(1) ET AL_Scoping_Report

Major issues and concerns The focus of this project is to replace five existing bridges with new structures that meet current design standards. While the existing bridges are constructed similarly on old railroad flatbed cars, they are located throughout the northern half of Trinity County, with nearly 100‐miles of separation on very rugged, mountainous roads.

All of the bridges are crossing over washes/creeks with abutments that are very susceptible to scour, as most of the armoring (generally staked/bolted logs) that was initially installed has been washed downstream.

All of the bridges are currently one‐lane structures. The proposed improvements include four one‐lane replacements and one two‐lane structure at Jordan Road. Repetition in structure design, to the extent practical, would increase the value of an alternative delivery method.

Page 4 of 66 CA HBP TRI CR104(1) ET AL_Scoping_Report

B. ROUTE IDENTIFICATION & EXISTING CONDITIONS

a. Bridge 1: 5C‐048; Bridge on Coffee Creek Road over Coffee Creek

Description Response Comment

Road Name and Route ID Number:

5C‐048, Coffee Creek, Coffee Creek Road

GPS Coordinates (Bridge) 41^07’06.32”N 122^53’39.92”W

Bridge Project

Length (of improvements) Bridge plus both approaches (approximately 700‐ft)

Functional Classification Rural Local Road Per County. Caltrans designation on Field Review Form is Minor Rural Arterial. ADT < 400

Posted Speed Defacto

California Basic Speed Law. A “posted” speed of 45 mph is identified in the Bridge Inspection Reports. However, regulatory signs were not observed during the Scoping Site Visit. It is believed that the “posted” speed reported in the Bridge Inspection Report was based on functional classification (Minor Rural Arterial) only.

Terrain Mountainous

Existing Number of Lanes (each direction)

2 lanes Two‐Lane Roadway with Single Lane Bridge

Existing Travel Way Width Roadway Width = 20’ Gravel Road, Bridge Width = 17.1’

Existing Shoulder Width Not Applicable Gravel Road

Existing Shoulder Type Not Applicable Gravel Road

Existing Bench Width 30’

Clear Zone/Roadside Hazards

Bridge Rail Mountainous gravel road, existing Clear Zone approximately 5 feet.

Major Intersection Roads None

Current ADT <400 See Section III‐C Traffic for elaboration. 2010‐2014 Counts: 50

Seasonal ADT <400 Road not winter maintained due to snow.

% Buses 0 Estimated during Scoping Trip

% Trucks 0 Estimated during Scoping Trip

Page 5 of 66 CA HBP TRI CR104(1) ET AL_Scoping_Report

b. Bridge 2: 5C‐061; Bridge on Ramshorn Road over Mumbo Creek

Number:

5C‐061, Mumbo Creek, Ramshorn Road

GPS Coordinates (Bridge) 41^08’15.84”N 122^34’10.99”W

Bridge Project

Length (of improvements) Bridge plus both approaches (approximately 700‐ft)

Functional Classification Rural Minor Arterial Caltrans designation on Field Review Form. ADT < 400

Posted Speed Defacto

California Basic Speed Law. A “posted” speed of 20 mph is identified in the Bridge Inspection Reports. However, regulatory signs were not observed during the Scoping Site Visit. It is believed that the “posted” speed reported in the Bridge Inspection Report is in error and was based on functional classification (Minor Rural Arterial) only.

Terrain Mountainous

Existing Number of Lanes (each direction)

1 lane One‐Lane Roadway with Single Lane Bridge

Existing Travel Way Width Roadway Width = 12’ Gravel Road, Bridge Width = 14.9’

Existing Shoulder Width Not Applicable Gravel Road

Existing Shoulder Type Not Applicable Gravel Road

Existing Bench Width 20’

Clear Zone/Roadside Hazards

Bridge Rail Mountainous gravel road, existing Clear Zone approximately 5 feet. Road composition itself is very rocky and boney. Very difficult or impossible to grade now with all the big rocks.

Major Intersection Roads 3‐Leg intersection just east of bridge approach

Road unnamed

Current ADT <400 See Section III‐C Traffic for elaboration. 2010 Counts: 15

Seasonal ADT <400 Road not winter maintained due to snow.

% Buses 0 Estimated during Scoping Trip

Page 6 of 66 CA HBP TRI CR104(1) ET AL_Scoping_Report

c. Bridge 3: 5C‐157; Bridge on East Fork Hayfork Road over N. Fork E. Fork Hayfork Creek

Number:

5C‐157, North Fork East Fork Hayfork Creek, East Fork Hayfork Road

GPS Coordinates (Bridge) 40^30’35.35”N 122^59’57.84”W

Bridge Project

Length (of improvements) Bridge plus both approaches (approximately 700‐ft)

Functional Classification Rural Minor Collector Designation per County. Caltrans designation on Field Review Form is Rural Minor Arterial. ADT < 400

Posted Speed Defacto

California Basic Speed Law. A “posted” speed of 25 mph is identified in the Bridge Inspection Reports. However, regulatory signs were not observed during the Scoping Site Visit. It is believed that the “posted” speed reported in the Bridge Inspection Report was based on functional classification (Rural Minor Collector) only.

Terrain Mountainous

Existing Number of Lanes (each direction)

2 lanes Two‐Lane Roadway with Single Lane Bridge

Existing Travel Way Width Roadway Width = 20’ Gravel Road, Bridge Width = 16.0’

Existing Shoulder Width Not Applicable Gravel Road

Existing Shoulder Type Not Applicable Gravel Road

Existing Bench Width 30’

Clear Zone/Roadside Hazards

Bridge Rail Mountainous gravel road, existing Clear Zone approximately 5 feet.

Major Intersection Roads Fork in the road, 400’ west of bridge approach

Minor fork road unnamed… leads to many lands deep into the forest.

Current ADT <400 See Section III‐C Traffic for elaboration. 2002 Counts: 12 ADT

Seasonal ADT <400 Open all year

Page 7 of 66 CA HBP TRI CR104(1) ET AL_Scoping_Report

d. Bridge 4: 5C‐187; Bridge on Jordan Road over Little Creek

Number:

5C‐187, Little Creek, Jordan Road

GPS Coordinates (Bridge) 40^37’32.75”N 122^57’38.37”W

Bridge Project

Length (of improvements) Bridge plus both approaches (approximately 700‐ft)

Functional Classification Rural Local Road Caltrans designation on Field Review Form. ADT < 400

Posted Speed Defacto California Basic Speed Law. There are no Caltrans documents on this bridge.

Terrain Mountainous

Existing Number of Lanes (each direction)

2 lanes Two‐Lane Roadway with Single Lane Bridge

Existing Travel Way Width Roadway Width = 18’ Paved Unstriped Road, Bridge Width = 9.0’

Existing Shoulder Width Not Applicable Unstriped Road

Existing Shoulder Type Unpaved

Existing Bench Width 28’

Clear Zone/Roadside Hazards

Bridge Rail Mountainous gravel road, existing Clear Zone approximately 5 feet.

Major Intersection Roads Intersection with CA 3, 210’ south of bridge approach

CA 3 is paved with 12’ travel lanes and 1’ paved shoulders

Current ADT <400 See Section III‐C Traffic for elaboration. 2014 Counts: 49‐60

Seasonal ADT <400 Open all year.

Page 8 of 66 CA HBP TRI CR104(1) ET AL_Scoping_Report

e. Bridge 5: 5C‐196; Bridge on Coffee Creek Road over Adams Creek

Number:

5C‐196, Adams Creek, Coffee Creek Road

GPS Coordinates (Bridge) 41^07’19.02”N 122^55’25.54”W

Bridge Project

Length (of improvements) Bridge plus both approaches (approximately 700‐ft)

Functional Classification Rural Local Road Caltrans designation on Field Review Form. ADT < 400

Posted Speed Defacto

California Basic Speed Law, A “posted” speed of 45 mph is identified in the Bridge Inspection Reports. However, regulatory signs were not observed during the Scoping Site Visit. It is believed that the “posted” speed reported in the Bridge Inspection Report was in error and was based on functional classification (Rural Local Road) only.

Terrain Mountainous

Existing Number of Lanes (each direction)

2 lanes Two‐Lane Roadway with Single Lane Bridge

Existing Travel Way Width Roadway Width = 15’ Gravel Road, Bridge Width = 15.4’

Existing Shoulder Width Not Applicable Gravel Road

Existing Shoulder Type Not Applicable Gravel Road

Existing Bench Width 25’

Clear Zone/Roadside Hazards

Bridge Rail Mountainous gravel road, existing Clear Zone approximately 5 feet.

Major Intersection Roads None

Current ADT <400 See Section III‐C Traffic for elaboration. 2002 Counts: 15

Seasonal ADT <400 Roadway is not winter maintained due to snow.

Page 9 of 66 CA HBP TRI CR104(1) ET AL_Scoping_Report

II. PROJECT SUMMARY, SCHEDULE, FUNDING, & CONTACTS

A. SUMMARY & SCHEDULE

Description Response Description Response

Type Bridge Partner Agency Trinity County/Caltrans

Program Fiscal Year 2016 Maintaining Agency Trinity County

PS&E Delivery Year 2016 FLMA Unit Name N/A

State CA County Trinity

B. FUNDING

Main Funding Source Other (See Comment) Highway Bridge Program

Program Amount REDACTED REDACTED

C. PRINCIPAL CONTACTS

REDACTED

Page 10 of 66 CA HBP TRI CR104(1) ET AL_Scoping_Report

III. AVAILABLE DATA, CRASH DATA, & WORK LIMITATIONS

A. AS‐BUILTS AND REPORTS

Data Description

As‐Builts As‐Constructed Plans are not available

Other (Explain) Scour Plan of Action Reports were provided for three (Coffee Creek, Adams Creek, and Many Forks Creek) of the five structures.

No POAs were prepared for Jordan or Mumbo structures.

Bridge Inspection Report Bridge Inspection Reports and HBP Applications have been obtained and reviewed

B. CRASH HISTORY

Data Response Comment

Crash History Requested?

Yes Requested during the meeting.

Crash History Obtained and Analyzed?

No None Available. It was suggested by the County that the CHP website be checked for the SWTRS data, as they have the information that has been reported.

Anecdotal Crash History?

Yes Physical evidence not apparent for any structure.

The County reported that over the last 10 years, no accidents have been reported at or near the bridges. No accidents reported on Ramshorn, Jordan or East Fork Roads.

Coffee Creek had two accidents on the road, but they were located at Posted Mile (PM) 10.0 and one at PM 0.9. These were not near the bridges.

There was no recollection from the County of any particular issue or known safety issues at the bridge sites. These roads are generally closed during the winter months and have low ADT when they are open during the summers.

Will alternate routes (detours/diversions) be provided for during construction?

Yes/No REDACTED. SEE RFP.

Traffic restrictions during construction?

Yes/No REDACTED. SEE RFP.

C. WORK LIMITATIONS

Season and/or Time Restrictions Additional Traffic Information:

Yes Coffee Creek Road (2‐Bridges):

1998 count at bridge east of subject bridges: 68 ADT 2010 Caltrans Count at Bridge 5C‐048: 39 ADT 2004 Caltrans Count at Bridge 5C‐196: 15 ADT

Page 11 of 66 CA HBP TRI CR104(1) ET AL_Scoping_Report

May 2014 County DOT Count at PM 5.5: 32 weekdays; 54 weekends

Characteristics: Road not winter maintained typically, but not closed.

Unpaved at bridge sites. Heavy snow in winter. Some snowmobile and ATV use. Primarily recreational use in summer and fall. Two resorts operate in summer. Several USFS campgrounds and backpacking trails.

Some cars, mostly pickup trucks. Some horse trailers. Occasional timber trucks and USFS firefighting rigs (counts highly variable).

Ramshorn Road:

1998 count at bridge west of subject bridge: 13 ADT 2010 Caltrans Count at Bridge 5C‐061: 15 ADT

Characteristics: Not winter maintained. Heavy snow. Very rough, unpaved. Not much recreational use. Some Forest Service vehicles in summer. May be some heavy equipment associated with cleanup of abandoned mercury mine, but this major activity is complete and is probably just monitoring now. Can be accessed from I‐5 on east end, but very rough with small radius curves either way. Some, but very little, through traffic from I‐5 to SR 3 in summer. Possible ATV use.

Many Forks:

1998 count at bridge: 10 ADT 2002 Caltrans Count at Bridge 5C‐157: 12 ADT

Characteristics: Open year round. Unpaved. Dead‐end road serves a few residences (only one beyond the bridge) and timber lands (private and Forest Service). May carry heavy equipment for farming/ranching and occasional logging traffic. Probably residential ATV use.

There is a bike race the second Saturday in June, on adjacent Wildwood Road, but not on East Fork Road.

Jordan Road:

1998 count at bridge: 61 ADT 2002 Caltrans Count at Bridge 5C‐187: 60 ADT May 2014 County DOT Count at SR 3 49 ADT

Characteristics: Open year round. Paved. Dead‐end road serves a few residences and small farms/ranches. May carry occasional heavy equipment for farming/ranching. Mostly residential passenger vehicles. Possible route to the school bus stop. The school bus does not go up Jordan Road. It just stops at the intersection with SR 3.

Possible pedestrian use associated with residences, but no pedestrian facilities or bike lanes on road.

Due to the close proximity of CA Route 3, an encroachment permit from Caltrans will likely be required as work (even if only traffic control) within the State ROW will be necessary.

Page 12 of 66 CA HBP TRI CR104(1) ET AL_Scoping_Report

All: All roads must be able to support fire suppression equipment;

Cal‐Fire and/or USFS. No mail routes on any of these roads.

SEE RFP FOR DESIGN VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS.

Designated Staging Area(s)? No All of the sites were very small and confined. County did not have any staging areas identified adjacent to the bridge sites, and no major pullouts or open areas were observed.

CONTRACTOR TO LOCATE AND SECURE STAGING AREA. SEE RFP.

Designated Material Source? No All materials are readily available from commercial suppliers, although the haul distance and time is long.

There may be some possible disposal sites near some of the bridge sites for excess aggregates/native materials, perhaps near coffee creek so the asbestos doesn’t have to be hauled off so far.

CONTRACTOR TO LOCATE AND SECURE MATERIAL SOURCES AND

DISPOSAL SITES. SEE RFP.

Hauling or Load Restrictions Yes SEE DISCUSSION UNDER STRUCTURES SECTION. ALSO, AT THE TIME OF

THE RFQ/RFP ISSUANCE, SEVERAL PLANNED AND EMERGENCY

CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN THE REGION ARE UNDERWAY THAT

LIKELY WILL AFFECT EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL ACCESS.

Potential Water Sources? Yes/No CONTRACTOR TO LOCATE AND SECURE CONSTRUCTION WATER

SOURCE. SEE RFP.

Page 13 of 66 CA HBP TRI CR104(1) ET AL_Scoping_Report

IV. FUNCTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

A. HIGHWAY DESIGN & SAFETY

Design and Safety Standards are redacted. See RFP for requirements.

B. SURVEY

Existing survey, mapping, and/or control?

No None of these facilities have existing survey, nor existing control for the roadways. Site control will need to be established during design, which will include the need for property surveys and ties to boundaries on Jordan Road, Hayfork Creek, and Coffee Creek projects.

SOME SURVEY WORK WAS COMPLETED AFTER SCOPING. SEE THE RFP

APPENDIX FOR MAPPING COMPLETED. ADDITIONAL SURVEYING AND

MAPPING MAY BE REQUIRED.

Special features requiring survey

Yes/No SOME SURVEY WORK WAS COMPLETED AFTER SCOPING. SEE THE RFP

APPENDIX FOR MAPPING COMPLETED. ADDITIONAL SURVEYING AND

MAPPING MAY BE REQUIRED.

Page 14 of 66 CA HBP TRI CR104(1) ET AL_Scoping_Report

Seasonal restrictions? Yes All project locations above the 3,000 ft mark are more likely subject to winter snow, although all bridge locations get snow.

5C‐048, Coffee Creek, Coffee Creek Road ‐ Elevation 4,384 ft

5C‐061, Mumbo Creek, Ramshorn Road ‐ Elevation 3,721 ft

5C‐157, Hayfork Creek, East Fork Hayfork Road ‐ Elevation 3,138 ft

5C‐187, Little Creek, Jordan Road ‐ Elevation 1,747 ft. This location is tricky because it’s down in a vertical SAG curve that is shaded (potentially iced) and still occasionally gets snow.

5C‐196, Adams Creek, Coffee Creek Road ‐ Elevation 4,614 ft

Describe terrain (slopes, vegetation, etc…)

Mountainous terrain with sparse to dense vegetation, typical of northern CA forest lands.

Is field survey required? Yes Bridge replacement survey

Recommended survey SOME SURVEY WORK WAS COMPLETED AFTER SCOPING. SEE THE RFP

APPENDIX FOR MAPPING COMPLETED. ADDITIONAL SURVEYING AND

MAPPING MAY BE REQUIRED.

Potential Major Impacts to Cost or Schedule

No These are standard bridge sites.

Suggest going during low flow seasons to allow ability to cross section stream for hydraulic needs (end of summer).

Page 15 of 66 CA HBP TRI CR104(1) ET AL_Scoping_Report

C. ENVIRONMENT

SUMMARY

Type of NEPA document anticipated CE CFLHD will be the lead agency. This determination was made by

CFLHD.

For the balance of the environmental elements, see the Categorical Exclusion prepared for the project.

CEQA required (CA Projects)? Yes Trinity County will be responsible for the CEQA document(s).

They will use survey data and reports from the NEPA process to complete an IS/ND or IS/MND.

NPS ‐ Environmental Screening Form (ESF) required?

No

Potential use of programmatic agreements?

No

Public involvement required? Yes Trinity County will be responsible for Notice of Intent (NOI) and a public hearing to meet CEQA requirements. It is assumed one NOI and public hearing would be held for all five projects.

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE WAS COMPLETED AFTER SCOPING. SEE THE RFP APPENDIX.

D. PERMITS

Section 404 / 401 Permit

Discharge of dredge or fill into a water of the U.S.

Yes It is assumed that all bridge projects would involve fill within jurisdictional perennial streams to facilitate bridge replacement and/or detours. However, it appears feasible to site construction outside of the ordinary high water mark to avoid work within the streams.

Discharge of fill into a perennial river/stream, intermittent stream, or ephemeral drainage?

Yes See above.

Discharge of fill into a pond or lake? No

Discharge of fill into a special aquatic site including:?

Unknown A wetland delineation needs to be performed.

Water diversion needed? No It is assumed that work would be conducted during the low‐ flow or dry season to avoid water diversions.

Channelization, channel realignment, or channel armoring required?

No

Qualify for a Nationwide Permit

(NWP)?

Unknown It is anticipated that the projects would qualify for a NWP (e.g., NWP 3, NWP 14, or NWP 23); however, the full extent of potential WOUS and impacts is not yet known.

Page 16 of 66 CA HBP TRI CR104(1) ET AL_Scoping_Report

Comply with NWP general conditions?

Unknown It is anticipated that the projects would comply with the applicable NWP general conditions. However, further evaluation of potential effects to threatened and endangered species is required.

Comply with NWP regional conditions?

Yes The projects are expected to comply with the San Francisco District general Regional conditions and those regional conditions specific to the applicable NWP.

Cause the loss of less than 1/2 acre of non‐tidal waters of the U.S. or 1/3 acre of tidal waters of the U.S.?

Unknown Impacts are currently unknown, but it is assumed that each project would permanently impact less than 0.1 acres of non‐ tidal WOUS.

Does the project require compensatory mitigation?

Unknown

Would the project cause the loss of less than 1/10 acre of wetlands?

Unknown The extent of wetlands onsite and the potential impacts is currently unknown. However, it is assumed that if wetlands are identified onsite, impacts would be less than 0.1 acre.

Does the project require a LOP or IP for authorization?

Unknown Based on the scope of the projects (i.e., small bridge replacements with minimal approach work), it is unlikely that they would rise to the level of an LOP or IP.

Any Corps‐approved mitigation bank or in‐lieu fee programs that service the project area?

No Trinity County environmental staff stated that no mitigation bank or in‐lieu fee programs are available. If mitigation is required, it should be performed onsite.

NPDES Permit

Amount of acreage disturbed? > 1 ac & < 5 ac

It is assumed that all bridges, with the exception of the Coffee Creek Road 5C‐048 and Coffee Creek Road 5C‐196 projects, would disturb at least one acre.

Subject to any state, county or local sediment/erosion management plan

(MS4)?

No

Page 17 of 66 CA HBP TRI CR104(1) ET AL_Scoping_Report

Subject to a state or basin sediment/erosion management plan?

Yes The projects are located within the boundaries of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, which has a Water Quality Control Plan (2011) for the region. The project areas are identified in the plan as follows:

Jordan Road: Douglas City Hydrologic Subarea (106.31)

East Fork Hayfork Road: Hay Fork Valley Hydrologic Subarea (106.25)

Coffee Creek Road 5C‐048, Coffee Creek Road 5C‐196, and Ramshorn Road: Upper Trinity River Hydrologic Area (106.40)

While the Coffee Creek Road and Ramshorn Road projects are located within the Upper Trinity River Hydrologic Area, none of the creeks are individually identified as having existing or beneficial uses within the hydrologic area. The entire hydrologic subareas for Jordan Road and East Fork Hayfork Road projects have identified existing and potential beneficial uses.

Cooperator willing to assume responsibility for the NPDES Permit upon completion of construction?

Yes Trinity County will assume responsibility for the NPDES permit.

NOTE: This would involve stormwater monitoring for Trinity County through at least one season, or until revegetation has developed. In addition, many permit requirements today include 3 years of vegetation maintenance and another two years of monitoring (total 5 years). In the opinion of the County’s NEPA Planner, this would be worth it, to get these bridges replaced, but Trinity County should be aware of these requirements.

Post‐construction BMP requirements? Yes No MS4 is applicable to the bridge sites, which makes each site subject to post‐construction BMPs.

Other Permits / Authorizations

FLMA special use permit Unknown If the Coffee Creek Road projects extend beyond the existing Forest Service easement and require modification of the existing easement, a Special Use Permit may be required.

However, at this time, it appears unlikely that the two projects would require a special use permit.

Staging area permit? Unknown

Disposal/waste area permit ? No If disposal/waste is produced, it is anticipated to be disposed of at commercial sites.

There is a USFS waste area at the north end of Trinity Lake that could be used for Ramshorn or Coffee Creek bridges, if needed.

This would require a special use permit.

Material source permit? No Materials would be obtained from commercial sources.

Page 18 of 66 CA HBP TRI CR104(1) ET AL_Scoping_Report

Asphalt or concrete batch plant permit?

Unknown A permit could be obtained from Trinity County for a temporary concrete batch plant on site. This might be a consideration for the very remote sites on Ramshorn and Coffee Creek Rds. If located on USFS, a Special Use Permit would be required instead (may be more difficult).

When discussed with the Public Works staff, it was suggested the small quantities would be better trucked in.

Utility line or buried pipe permit? No The adjacent residence at Jordan Road has a water tank/pump on the south side of the Bridge. We expect to find a line running under the county road back to the house.

There are no other known buried utility…