Response to Questions received on NOFO Questions_20200112.docx

Response to Questions NOFO F20AS00028 -- North Fork Battle Creek Barrier Modifications and Fish Passage Improvement Project A. Questions from Cal Trout (question to Mike Harris 12/20/2019)

1. Can you tell us where we should include all of our mitigation and monitoring budget in the 424 cost classification? Site work? Also curious if mobilization goes under "relocation expenses" or in "construction"?

Assuming you are referring to SF 424 C, Budget for Construction, I would include Mitigation in the site work classification, monitoring in the miscellaneous, and mobilization in the construction category. Most applicants will provide this budget summary as required through the Financial Assistance process, but provide a more detailed budget estimate with the supplemental information that they provide with the application package. I would recommend that if you have concerns about lumping items into these categories that you provide a more detailed budget with your package.

B. Questions from Cal Trout (Received through voicemail 12/11/2019, not answered until 1/9/2020)

1. Regarding the SF424 family of documents: Do we need to fill out the 424; 424A; 424C and 424D? If so, where do we include indirect costs on the 424C?

You need to provide an SF 424, which is the general application. You also need to provide a budget form, either 424 B or 424 C, in this case since it is a construction project it would be a 424 C. Form SF 424 D needs to be included on construction projects, so yes this needs to be included as well. As for where you put the indirect costs, that is for you to decide where you lump it, whether it is included in your various line items or you include it as Miscellaneous. As I mentioned to Drew earlier, most applicants will provide a more detailed budget in their supplemental information.

2. Can you fill us in on the source of funding for this opportunity – specifically we’d like to understand the related bid and procurement requirements?

As I mentioned during the field visit, the funding for this project is coming from CDFW through Prop 50 funds and the CVPIA Anadromous Fish Restoration Project. I believe Asil asked some specific questions about the bid requirements and we are working on getting those responses together.

C. Questions from EA Engineering (Per email 1/3/2020)

1. Sheet C-19: Note 4 - Depth and location of bedrock uncertain. If bedrock is not suitable grade, replace with type A or B structures as directed by fish passage engineer. How should this be priced?

Price as per the work indicated on the plans (bedrock removal only). If during the course of bedrock removal that it is determined a type A or B structure is necessary, the recipient will submit a modification request for approval that will include the pricing for the additional work at that time.

2. Sheet C-17: There are assumptions made to reach an estimated quantity (tons) of boulders to remove in the quantity table. Should the total quantity indicated (1,630 tons) be used in estimating this work item?

Yes. If the quantity exceeds the total then the recipient will submit a modification request with pricing for the additional work at that time.

3. During the site visit, it was stated that use of a helicopter was prohibited. It was also stated that the Environmental Assessment should be referenced as the most up to date document on environmental conditions and what is likely to be allowed/disallowed. As such, please provide clarification of helicopter usage as page 12, 18, and 28 of the EA indicates that helicopter use is allowable.

It was stated that the use of a helicopter as the primary equipment was prohibited, but we had to go back to check that the use of a helicopter for the delivery of supplies and assisting with set-up of a yarder set-up. That is why we mentioned that the Environmental Assessment should be referenced for what could be allowed. As you saw, the use of helicopter is allowed, but on a limited basis and it was not analyzed as the primary equipment for completion of the project.

4. Based on the fact that Syblon Reid supported development of the Basis of Design, should they be disqualified as part of a grant request team?

The Financial Assistance program does not follow the same requirements as Contracting. The Financial Assistance program allows the Service the opportunity to assess all eligible applicants. SR Diversified, LLC. participated in the design contract by providing a constructability analysis and developing a cost estimate. Syblon Reid is a separate company that operates under a different business license. We have made the Cost Estimate generated by SR Diversified, LCC available in our supplemental information. The Constructability Analysis was used to generate the Basis of Design Memo, which all-potential applicants have access to in the supplemental documents.

5. Based on the site visit discussions, notes on the plan set, and current lack of final regulatory stipulations – the design developed to date is generally “conceptual” in nature. As such, the onsite fish passage engineer will essentially be re-designing the project as more information is obtained regarding existing conditions from within the stream channel. Since Michael Love and Associates (MLA) is the engineer of record (EOR), and has unique site knowledge that can’t be replicated entirely by another potential grantee, can USFWS/CDFW retain the services of MLA to provide the EOR services on behalf of the government? In doing so, USFWS/CDFW would benefit by MLA acting in a third party role providing the following services:

· Answer Requests for Information (RFIs) from the grantee during redesign and construction ,

· Review and approve/disapprove submittals prepared by the grantee’s contracted Fish Passage Engineer,

· Work with the grantee’s contracted Fish Passage Engineer to maximize the effectiveness of the constructed passage consistent with the original design intent,

· Provide third party support to process payment requests, and

· Retain engineer or record duties throughout the project (this is similar to USFWS performing EOR duties on the Dry Creek/Beale Air Force Base Fish Passage Project currently being executed by the USFWS-Lodi office) Similar to the previous answer, the Financial Assistance program allows the Service to receive and review the applications of all eligible applicants. This would include Michael Love & Associates.

While the plans are considered “conceptual” in nature they are developed enough to accurately define the initial work given some uncertainty associated with subsurface conditions. It is important to determine if the construction work substantially conforms to the plans and specs as it progresses. Substantial conformance is mostly determined by the Fish Passage Engineer with progress surveys to document any significant deviations. The plans and specs have certain allowable tolerances for the construction work. If a deviation is considered significant, the best way to handle design modifications is by the recipient submitting a modifications request with the proposed design change and change in costs. The USFWS and its project team would then review and likely accept it if the request is determined necessary and reasonable.

D. Questions from CalTrout Per email (1/3/2020)

1. Since this project will have a Federal contract will Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements apply?FWS does not incorporate Davis-Bacon or related labor standard provisions in FWS financial assistance awards unless required by Federal program legislation. This is not required under the CVPIA program.

2.

3. Since this project involves Prop 68 funds will state prevailing wage requirements apply?

This project does not involve Prop 68 funds, but does involve state funds through Prop 50. And state prevailing wage requirements apply.

4. Does the Prop 68 money require Labor Compliance to verify prevailing wage? Is direct reporting of certified payroll to DIR allowable or is a third party labor compliance officer required?

A CDFW Admin. Officer is looking into this question about direct reporting. Unfortunately, they have been unable to get all the information together and we will have to provide a response later. Any requirements will be include with the Notice of Award provided to the recipient.

5. It was stated at the bid walk that USFWS would conduct fish relocation efforts, can you confirm that this is the case?

Yes, this portion of the project will be completed by USFWS. In addition Resource Protection Measures FISH-4 states that any electrofishing needs to be conducted by USFWS biologist.

“FISH-4: Prior to construction, exclusionary fish netting or other CDFW approved exclusionary structure and / or other mechanism(s) shall be installed upstream and / or downstream of the construction area as determined by CDFW. USFWS, in coordination and consultation with NMFS and CDFW, will ensure that qualified fish biologists are onsite to implement fish rescue operations through the use of herding, seining and / or electrofishing, etc., if necessary. Best professional determination will be used to decide which method(s) of rescue and location of exclusionary structure and / or other mechanism(s) is most appropriate. Biologists will first try to haze and herd fish out of the fish exclusion area. If fish biologists determine that the use of electrofishing is necessary for the efficient and successful removal of fish, USFWS biologists with electrofishing certification will strictly follow the NMFS electrofishing guidelines (National Marine Fisheries Service 2000). The fish rescue team will be comprised of fishery biologists with professional experience using seines and electrofishing equipment.”

6. Will USFWS also be installing the fish exclusion weirs?

If fish exclusion weirs are necessary during the channel dewatering, then USFWS and CDFW will work in coordination with the recipient to install fish exclusion weirs. Other work like screening during de-watering would be completed by the recipient.

7. Will USFWS be conducting the pond turtle surveys/relocation activities?

USFWS responsibility is to lead fish salvage efforts, which would not include pond turtle surveys or relocation activities. This will be the responsibility of the recipient or their sub-recipient.

8. Will the contractor or the gov’t be expected to provide archaeological services for unanticipated cultural resources discoveries?

The recipient or their sub-recipient will be responsible for these services.

9. Is the contractor expected to file the Notice of Intent and pay the associated fees for the General Construction Storm Water Permit?

Yes, this will be the responsibility of the recipient.

10. Will change orders to the contract be allowable? If so, what is the process for change orders, should they be necessary?

Yes, but in the Financial Assistance arena any changes to the Scope of Work or Budget would be called modifications. It would be the responsibility of the recipient to contact the Project Manager and provide a detailed summary and cost estimate of these change for approval. Once approved, a grant modification will be completed to update the Scope of Work or Budget.

11. Who will be the construction inspectors on behalf of the USFWS?

Unlike contracting, Grant Agreements do not use inspectors or CORs. We expect the recipient to perform inspections and provide reports and information to USFWS. This will then be shared with CDFW, and potentially NMFS, engineering staff for review.

12. If an additional subcontractor is needed to complete the construction, after the project has been awarded, what are the steps to get the subcontractor approved by USFWS?

Both the USFWS and CDFW will have to approve the addition of any new sub-recipients that are needed. The recipient will submit the reasoning and the qualifications for the intended sub-recipient to USFWS. Both USFWS and CDFW will review the qualification and will provide acceptance/denial to the recipient.

13. It is stated in the NOFO that the project will begin spring 2020. Does USFWS expect the vegetation removal operations to begin in late 2020/early 2021 and channel construction in 2021 or does USFWS expect the contractor to conduct vegetation removal during the bird nesting period in spring 2020 (with required surveys) and the channel construction in fall 2020?

Ideally, the USFWS would expect the recipient to conduct vegetation removal during the bird nesting person in spring 2020 (with required surveys) and instream work to be completed in the summer and fall 2020. It is recognized that there may be a need to push back instream work to 2021 due to delays in establishing the agreement or based on environmental conditions. If that does happen, vegetation clearing would occur in late 2020/early 2021.

14. Do all subconsultants need to be registered with Sam.gov?

Only the prime recipient needs to be registered with SAM.gov.

15. Do all subconsultants need to get a DUNs number?

Sub-recipients are only required to have a DUNs number. However, this requirement may be exempted or waived, depending on the entity type or specific circumstances. For example, private individuals are exempted from both registering in SAM and having a DUNS.

16. Within NOFO Project Narrative request, what type of information are you looking under Item “12. DETAILS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ON THE PROJECT LOCATION”?

It is expected that the applicant would show that they have an understanding of project site and document any issues that may arise during construction. This would include potential project constraints, such as constructability with high flows or site access during storms.

17. Does the USFWS expect all excess rock to be removed from the site?

It should be anticipated that all excess rock will be removed from the site, but it can be determined during construction if some rock could be left onsite based on any potential benefits identified by the landowner.

18. From the NOFO- “The funding will be awarded via a single Service Grant and the recipient of the award will be responsible for developing sub-agreements with additional sub-recipients if needed. Lastly, the selected recipient will be required to obtain bonding insurance”. Can a sub-recipient full fill the bonding requirement for only the construction portion of the work? Will there be a bid bond required or only a performance bond?

It is anticipated that the recipient or a sub-recipient will obtain a performance bond, also known as a contract or construction bond.

19. Are there any additional insurance requirements? Either required by USFWS or landowner under the landowner agreement?

The USFWS is currently working on establishing the landowner access agreements, so as of now there are no additional insurance requirements. However, modifications can be discussed if the landowners request additional requirements.

20. Are there any other special terms associated with landowner access agreements?

See previous question.

21. What are grant deliverables and measures of success or warranty requirements?

There is no warranty requirements. The grant deliverables would include: Vegetation Removal Plan, Revegetation Plan, Pre-Project and Project monitoring reports, submission of the stormwater permit, and documentation showing the as-built designs (drawings and report).

22. What project monitoring (beside mitigation monitoring) will be required of recipient?

Besides mitigation monitoring the recipient will be responsible for: submittal of progress as-built surveys to verify substantial conformance with plans and specs, final as-built survey submittal, as-built hydraulic analysis, pre-construction/construction/post-construction biological monitoring associated with the NMFS Restoration Programmatic BO, and any additional monitoring associated with permits (401 permit monitoring)

23. Since there are fish passage barriers downstream of the Phase 1 site, can we anticipate the instream work period can be extended past September 30th?

Per Resource Protect Measure FISH-2, the instream work window can be extended to October if all conditions are met.

“FISH-2: Construction outside of the stream channel could start as early as July 1, based upon permits receipt, permit conditions, and / or consultation terms and conditions. For fisheries protection, instream work will occur between July 1 and September 30. Instream work could start sooner if CDFW, in coordination with NMFS determines that adult spring-run Chinook salmon are no longer present based on environmental conditions, proper installation of an exclusionary weir and real-time passage data. Instream work could be extended to October 14, if environmental conditions, which will preclude juvenile steelhead and spring-run Chinook salmon emigration or adult steelhead / fall-run Chinook salmon immigration, are expected to persist. Instream work outside of the July 1 to September 30 work window must be approved by CDFW and NMFS on a case-by-case basis with details on how take will be avoided and / or minimized. For work within the channel and banks, fish rescue efforts (herding fish, netting / seining, electrofishing, etc.) will be required prior to the onset of any dewatering of the area. Dewatering will be coordinated with CDFW to ensure that adequate staff are available, and onsite during dewatering efforts.”

24. Will USFWS be submitting the Sacramento Office Programmatic monitoring form directly? Will they write and submit all other post project permit reports?

The USFWS will submit any require monitoring forms to the appropriate offices. The development of these reports will be conducted in collaboration between the USFWS and the recipient pending the focus of the report. The USFWS is responsible to conduct the fish salvage efforts, but the remaining items need to be monitored and documented by the recipient.

25. If a SWPPP has been prepared, can a copy be provided for bidding purposes?

Yes a preliminary SWPPP has been prepared as part of the environmental compliance and permitting process for the project. This SWPPP has not been finalized or approved and is provided for informational purposes. The selected recipient shall be responsible for the acquisition and implementation of SWPPP for the project.

26. Our provisional NICRA proposal has been held up for review for over 6 months by our cognizant agency, we are currently negotiating it and hope to have it resolved in time for this submission. In the event that negotiations are delayed further should we apply the proposed rate with follow up paperwork confirming/adjusting - or the de minimus rate?

You can include your NICRA rate in your proposed budget, but if awarded this agreement, the rate cannot be charged until the NICRA proposal is approved.

E. Questions from the Site Visit (12/9/2019)

1. What is the status of permitting?

The USFWS currently has an agreement for Tehama Environmental Solutions, INC. to complete the required federal, state, and local permits and environmental documents. The Service anticipates that the Finding of No Significant Impact will be signed in early 2020. Almost all required applications have been submitted and we are awaiting responses from several agencies.

2. What is the Bureau of Reclamation and PG&E involvement in the project?

The USBR and PG&E are not directly involved in the project, but coordination and information about this project is shared through the numerous Battle Creek Technical Teams.

3. What do we need to know about the Lower Barrier Site?

As stated in the Notice of Funding Opportunity, the project is broken into two phases, Phase 1 0- Upper Barrier Site, and Phase 2 – Lower Barrier Site. Phase 1 is the current Funding Opportunity and these proposals should not include any work associated Phase 2.

4. Where does it state this in the NOFO?

Please refer to page 2 of the announcement.

“Implementation at each location (Upper and Lower Barrier Sites) is contingent on acquiring landowner approval. This will be an incremental agreement, with Phase 1 addressing the Upper Barrier Site and Phase 2 addressing the Lower Barrier Site. Currently we are only seeking to complete the Phase 1 portion of the project.”

5. Could we get a better understanding about the project cost?

The project is broken into two phases with a funding limit of $9 million, it is anticipate that Phase 1 would not exceed $5 million but there is a limit of $ 6.5 million.

6. What is the status of the landowner access agreements?

The USFWS is currently working on the landowner access agreements.

7. What are the funding sources for this project?

There are two sources, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Anadromous Fish Restoration Program and California Prop 50 funds.

8. What about the revegetation plan?

It would be the recipient or sub-recipients responsibility to develop the revegetation plan and to implement the plan.

9. Are there permits for blasting?

No blasting is allowed.

10. Any other stuff in the specs but not allowed? Helicopter allowed?

Refer to the Environmental Assessment this provides the most up-to-date actions that were approved by the Technical Advisory Team and the actions that were analyzed. Helicopters cannot be used as primary equipment. Laurie was going to follow-up about the use of helicopters in assisting with site preparation or other actions. Please see question C.3.

11. Will CESA analysis be completed for the 1653?

Yes.

12. Where is the limit of anadromy?

Eagle Canyon Diversion Dam is the limit of anadromy, however the lower barrier site is 0.2 miles downstream from that location and there have been no fish documented above that barrier.

13. Can you extend the proposal deadline given that USFWS and CDFW contacts will be out of the office and that the deadline is close to the holidays?

The deadline will be extended to January 13, 2020 (As of 1/19/20, the deadline was extended to January 22, 2020 due to the amount of time required to provide responses to questions).

14. Can an additional site visit be scheduled to allow perspective applicants to get instream to assess the project site?

There are safety concerns with leading a large group to the actual barrier. Doug Killam, along with an USFWS employee, agreed to an additional site visit. It was requested that all participants RSVP, have experience wading in streams and bring appropriate gear for wading instream. The site visit was announced and completed on December 16, 2019.

15. How much revegetation will be required in the creek?

The recipient, through the completion of the required Revegetation Plan, should determine this. General guidance was provided in the Resource Protection Measures, see VEGETATION-2 and VEGETATION-3.

“VEGETATION-2: A revegetation plan will be prepared to replace impacted vegetation by a measure of quantity and quality equal to, or exceeding impacts of the project using appropriate native plant species.

VEGETATION-3:Disturbing streamside woody vegetation that is present within the project area associated with Battle Creek and Digger Creek shall be avoided to the extent possible. For streamside woody vegetation that cannot be avoided, appropriate avoidance and minimization measures will need to be developed during the environmental permit processes with CDFW, NMFS and other regulatory agencies. All disturbed streamside woody vegetation shall be revegetated following the completion of construction activities.”

16. What clearing can occur on the North Side of the creek?

The landowner would prefer that vegetation is only removed when needed. The amount of clearing is going to be dependent on the method that is chosen (i.e. yarder or crane). Per the Resource Protection Measures, the vegetation clearing would follow VEGETATION-1 and VEGETATION-4.

“VEGETATION-1: Disturbance to existing vegetation will be avoided or minimized to the extent possible. Prior to the onset of construction, a vegetation removal plan will be submitted to the USFWS for review and approval.

VEGETATION-4: Impacts to trees will be avoided to the extent possible. Native trees greater than 16-inch diameter at breast height (dbh) with defects (snags, cavities, leaning toward stream channel, nests, late seral characteristics) and native tress greater than 36-inch dbh will be retained, to the extent possible. Impacts to trees that cannot be avoided will be minimized by limbing rather than cutting vegetation to the ground in order to promote growth.”