2011 On-Call Kickoff Meeting North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program February 9, 2011
Welcome
Michael Ellison Deputy Director
On-call Consulting
Ed Hajnos EEP Capital Projects Coordinator
On-call Consulting Contracts • The EEP procedure in selecting firms for a two year open-ended agreement • The authorization is described under rule 01 NCAC 30D .0302 (g)
• Consulting Firm Cap $700,000 • Individual Contract Cap $350,000 • Individual Project Cap $1,500,000
On-call Consulting Contracts Period
Firms
Total Authorization
Total Contracted
Total Contracts
2011
January 2011January 2013
12
$8,400,000
$0
0
2009
January 2009January 2011
18
$12,600,000
$6,500,000
53
2006
December 2006December 2008
31
$21,700,000
$7,750,000
54
2005
August 2005August 2007
21
$14,700,000
$8,000,000
55
2004
April 2004April 2006
22
$15,400,000
$11,500,000
79
2002
April 2002April 2004
15
$10,500,000
$8,000,000
47
Totals
$41,750,000
288
DBB Site Construction Fiscal Year
Projects Bid
Contracted amount
June 2010 present
11
$2,000,000
July 2009 – June 2010
24
$6,000,000
July 2007 – June 2008
12
$4,250,000
July 2006 – June 2007
19
$7,000,000
July 2005 – June 2006
12
$6,000,000
Totals
91
$29,750,000
On-call Consulting Contracts Any services performed without an executed contract or contract amendment are at the risk of the firm This is true for New Contracts, Contract amendments and Time extensions The consulting team should know: Scope of Work, Contract language, Project Budget, Deliverable Requirements, Deliverable Schedule This information is included in the contract prior to signature by the consulting firm
On-call Consulting Contracts Scope
Narrative describing the steps involved in project development. Be specific with excluded services. Do not include assumptions.
Deliverables
List of deliverables and number to be provided (draft, final, electronic). The Deliverable Schedule is based upon weeks from contract execution.
Fee
Total fee must be in a whole dollar amount. Must display subtotal for each task. Must include direct expenses for each subtask.
Contracting Process 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Consulting Contracts POC Authorization On-call Assignment Scoping Meeting Negotiation Request for Exception Contract Request Contract Execution Start Project
Construction Contracts 1. POC Authorization 2. Advertisement 3. Pre-bid Meeting 4. Bid Opening 5. Request for Exception 6. Recommendation to Award 7. SCO Award Approval 8. Contract Execution 9. Pre-construction Meeting 10. Notice to Proceed
Changes for the 2011 Authorization • • • • •
Post-construction monitoring services will no longer be performed on design contracts Designer services will conclude with the Record Drawing and Final Report In most cases Designer will be contracted to provide Postconstruction Monitoring services Monitoring services will be scoped between receipt of LQ permit and Construction Bid phase Monitoring services contracts can include Baseline, MY1-MY5, and Closeout reports
EEP Federal Mitigation Rule Requirements
Marc Recktenwald WPPI Director 919-715-1024
The Substantial Changes • Watershed Planning based projects required instead of just emphasized • IRT design and credit approval of all projects prior to construction • Release schedule for all projects instituted after June 30, 2011 • Documents, procedures and guidelines updated based on new rule • Working on DWQ/EEP Instrument
Amount of Work to Date • Twenty-eight plans completed and six in progress • All but two RBRPs updates completed • 560 EEP projects instituted • 279 DBB project – 221 in the ground • 147 FD projects – majority in the ground
Links Annual Report http://www.nceep.net/news/annualreport/2010/Annu al2009-2010Final.pdf
Watershed Planning http://www.nceep.net/pages/lwplanning.htm
Instrument http://www.nceep.net/pages/In_Lieu_Fee_Instrumen t_2010.html
Questions?
Take a Break
Mitigation Plan
Lin Xu Environmental Engineer Design and Construction Unit
Changes from the Last On-call • EEP Project Implementation Manual • New EEP Mitigation Plan Template per the New Federal Rule ¾ New Format ¾ Watershed Planning / Site Selection ¾ Mitigation Credit Determination • FEMA Compliance
EEP Project Implementation Manual • Mitigation template • Updates coming soon • Guidance Topics for Development of EEP Mitigation Plan http://www.nceep.net/aboutee p/Mitigation_Plan_Guidance_T opics_Version_1.0_10-12010.pdf
New EEP Mitigation Plan Template • Developed with USCOE • Formatted Similar to EEP Bid Document Template http://www.nceep.net/aboutee p/NCEEP%20Mitigation%20Pla n%20Template_version%202. 0_1%20Oct%202010.pdf
New EEP Mitigation Plan Template • Link Project Goals and Objectives to Watershed Planning
New EEP Mitigation Plan Template • Credit Determination • Appendix B – Baseline Data • Appendix C – Design Data and Analysis • Appendix D – Plan Sheets
FEMA compliance
FEMA compliance • Documentation of ESA Coordination with USFWS • Fee simple Projects ¾ Permit from DOA (SCO)
• Conservation easement projects ¾ Permit from NC Division of Emergency Management via local FPAs ¾ Permit from Mecklenburg County
Contact Lin Xu 715-7571 lin.xu@ncdenr.gov
Elements of the EEP Baseline Monitoring Report and the Transition from Construction to Monitoring
Greg Melia EEP Stream Monitoring Specialist
Some Terminology & Distinctions • As-Built Survey - Refers to the survey conducted by the contractor’s PLS to document the As-built condition. The primary deliverable is the As-built drawing. • Record Drawing Refers to the document (drawing) sealed by the designer that includes the design and As-built survey with annotation of deviations (red line markups). This document accompanies the SCO final report (financial and quantity data) and is required for acceptance of site construction. • Monitoring Baseline - Refers to the geomorphologically relevant survey of the channel sample collected by the monitoring firm that will serve as the stability baseline for monitoring.
As-Built - Elements Existing Alignment Design Alignment
LOD TOPO
CAD X Sections Long Profile
As-built Alignment – with Red Line Deviations
As-built Record Drawing
+ SCO Final Report
SCO Package
Functions of the Baseline Report • Documents morphological and vegetative compliance with design. • Describes potential implications of any deviations – e.g. sediment transport reanalysis • Finalizes Asset Categorization and Tallies Goals and Objectives Success Criteria Monitoring Plan • Establishes Monitoring Baseline
Monitoring Baseline Elements Monitoring Baseline Report Asset Map & Table Background & Attribute Tables Long Profile Perm Mon X Sections
Baseline Vegetation Data Record Drawing + Monit. Features
Baseline Photos Success Criteria
Monitoring Plan Monitoring Plan View
Baseline Morphology Table
A Word About Digital Drawings • For any drawing, but the record drawing in particular: Be aware of digital drawing formatting requirements beginning on page 13 of the EEP Project Implementation Manual http://www.nceep.net/business/NCEEP_Project_Impl ementation_Manual_April%202009.pdf
A Word About Digital Drawings •
Includes specifications for:
9 GIS compatibility and geospatial referencing 9 File naming conventions 9 Features for layer distinctions 9 Feature shape types 9 Feature coding
More Words About Digital Drawings • Compliant Drawings Support……
9 Asset verification maps e.g. Buffer Asset calcs. e.g. Buffer width assessments 9 Monitoring 9 Easement integrity verifications 9 Boundary marking 9 Stewardship needs
More Words About Digital Drawings • Also‌.. EEP now has a geodatabase, which was recently distributed to our monitoring firms that includes the shapes from many of our easements. They were built directly from the recorded metes and bounds. We (EEP and Designer) need to be certain that the shape in the Plan Views are spatially correct in position, size, shape, and orientation.
Transition from Construction to Monitoring • Traditional As-Built Baseline
Monitoring Features & Baseline
Final SCO Mitigation Report Plan
Designer Monitoring Firm Monitoring Year – 1 Years Monitoring 2-5
Transition from Construction to Monitoring • Current As-Built Baseline
Monitoring Features & Baseline
Final SCO Mitigation Report Plan
Designer Monitoring Firm Year – 1 Monitoring
Monitoring Years 2-5
Transition from Construction to Monitoring some key coordination points • Challenges to Date - EEP starting the coordination early enough. - Variations and ambiguities in designer and contractor scopes in terms of figuring out what the monitoring firm will be provided with and therefore what they have to scope
Transition from Construction to Monitoring some key coordination points - Given these past challenges, EEP
wishes to make as clean of a break as possible in that the monitoring firm will be wholly responsible for the baseline.
-
The monitoring firm will need to get some information from the designer (e.g. – the state and location of any useful benchmarks) and the e-drawings and other e-support materials.
Transition from Construction to Monitoring some key coordination points • Managing the Relationship - We don’t expect or want to have EEP staff micromanage all interactions between the 2 firms. Handshake and go! But….. • DATA RULE: No data or deliverable passes between consultants without it either already being in EEP’s possession or being distributed to us at the same time.
Transition from Construction to Monitoring some key coordination points • Monitoring Contracting Needs – Upon issuance of Land Quality Permit, EEP will engage a monitoring firm for scoping. • EEP monitoring should be in receipt of the following and will forward digital copies to monitoring firm: - The restoration plan and its support elements - Easement - Categorical Exclusion
Transition from Construction to Monitoring some key coordination points • At “SCO authorization to bid” 9 Construction documents (e-drawings and Project manual) will be submitted to EEP and forwarded to the monitoring consultant by EEP. 9 This will also trigger coordination between the EEP PM and Mon Specialist to initiate the “handshake” between the design firm and the monitoring firm.
Transition from Construction to Monitoring some key coordination points • Scheduling Second element of coordination will be to get the monitoring firm clear and “in the loop” on the scheduling for attendance of the Pre-con meeting. • Priorities and Needs – Mon firm’s needs at that meeting will obviously be subordinate to main business, but at the end of that meeting after they walk the site, they may need to have some questions addressed concerning boundaries and benchmarks.
Transition from Construction to Monitoring IMPORTANT SLIDE • Key Items in Design Scoping to Facilitate Monitoring
- Compliance with Digital Drawings Requirements.
-
The location and status of survey benchmarks.
-
Required digital formats of other design support materials
Contact Greg Melia 715-1659 gregory.melia@ncdenr.gov
Annual Monitoring Zack Mondry 715-6933 zackary.mondry@ncdenr.gov
Annual Monitoring-Outline
• 2011 Monitoring – – – –
Vegetation & Stream Visual Assessment Tables Current Condition Maps Summary Status Table Field Training Day
– – –
USACE Guidelines Revision Stream Geomorphic Database Version 1.4 Monitoring Template
• 2012 Monitoring
2011 Monitoring-Vegetation Visual Assessment
• From Template Version 1.3 • First used in 2010 • Corresponding GIS file with closed polygons
2011 Monitoring-Vegetation Plot Data/Reporting • Need to verify that tables/narrative state success for specific resource types • Stream/Wetland criteria: MY5 260 native woody (trees, shrubs) stems/acre (total stems) • Buffer Restoration criteria: MY5 320 planted native hardwood (exclude shrubs?) stems/acre
2011 Monitoring-Vegetation Plot Data/Reporting
• Format Table 7 and 9 (Template Version 1.3) specifically for stream, wetland, buffer resource types.
2011 Monitoring-Stream Visual Assessment
• From Template Version 1.3 • Corresponding GIS file with lines, points
2011 Monitoring-Current Condition Maps
• Use same terminology as in tables; • Bare, low density, invasives, encroachment • Bar formation, degradation, scoured, undercut, mass wasting, piping
2011 Monitoring-Summary Status Table Vegetation Data
CVS Veg Plot Protocol?
Number of Plots
Number of Plots >320 Total Stems/Acre
Y/N
#
#
Number of plots >260 Total Stems/Acre
#
% of plots making 320 stems
% of plots making 260 stems
Current Total Mean Density
Current Planted Mean Density
#
#
Hydrologic Data
Number of Wetland Gauges
Number of Gauges Meeting Criteria
#
#
% of gauges meeting success criteria
Geomorphic Data--Visual Assessment Visual Survey Reach Vane Footage Structures Bed Bank From Top Of Visual % Visual % Visual % Table 8 Stable Stable Stable
Feet
From E.2
From F
Formula, From G.4
Are Failed Gauges Clustered?
Number of Repeat Gauge Failures
Data Gaps Due To Gauge Malfunction Reported?
Monitoring Year Rainfall Deficits Reported?
Y/N
#
Y/N
Y/N
Other Asset Impacts
Beaver Reported?
Encroachment Reported?
Boundary Demarcation (bollards, fencing) or Repair Need Reported?
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Boundary Signage Needed?
Y/N/U
2011 Monitoring-Field Training Day Looking at Last Week of March
• What is a “problem area”? • Stream Visual Assessment – Banks, Structures, Bed
• Vegetation Visual Assessment – Bare, Low Density, Invasives
2012 Monitoring-USACE Guidelines Revision • Stream-still use XS, LP, Ptx surveys, but tailored to site characteristics • Some site types/years only use visual assessment and photo monitoring? • > 5 year monitoring period, but maybe alternate-year surveys, consideration of channel-forming flow events? • Vegetation-fixed plots and use of transect method? • Planted/Total stems, Woody/Hardwood
2012 Monitoring-Geomorphic Database
• EEP starting to develop a database for geomorphic, hydrologic, and project tracking data. • Looking at web-entry format similar to the CVS database.
2012 Monitoring-New EEP Documents • New documentation will be needed to meet anticipated changes: – USACE Stream Guidelines Revision – Use of EEP Summary Status Table – Stream Geomorphic Database
Thank You! Questions?
Your EEP Contact for Hydro Gauges is Heather Smith!
Carolina Vegetative Survey (CVS) Protocol
Mac Haupt Monitoring Supervisor
Outline • • • • •
Why CVS ? Reducing Vegetation Problems at Closeout CVS Level Selection CVS-EEP Process Flow Charts CVS Resources
Why CVS? • Based on 6000 + reference plots • Consistent method • Data is usable in a database – Analysis- within project – Analysis- among population of projects
• Restoration target community trends over long term (greater than 5 years) • And many other reasons…
• Data summarized with click of a button • Multiple configuration options available – Reports based on a single year or multiple years – Reports based on a single project or multiple projects
• EEP contractors can use plot & NVC data to establish site-specific restoration targets. • Cheaper and better than the traditional approach • Growers can better predict material needs. • EEP can better evaluate plans and anticipate significantly higher success.
http://www.nceep.net/business/monitoring/veg/Vegetation_Related_Resources.htm
Reducing Vegetation Problems at Close-out • Improving Vegetation Success
– training EEP staff and contractors • • • •
exotic invasive species project evaluation species identification planting plan development
• Improving Planting Plans
– training and resources intended to • • • •
increase project manager capability produce better planting plans facilitate buffer maintenance and repair contracts increase contractor/designer accountability
CVS Level Selection • Level 1 – Planted stems only-Year 1 • Level 2 – Planted stems and volunteers- Year 2+ • Level 3- leaf cover for most common species (currently we have only one project (marsh) using this level) • Level 4 – we do not use for typical mitigation monitoring (same as #3 but cover for all species) • Level 5 - we do not use for typical mitigation monitoring (same as #4 but spatial structure as well)
CVS-EEP Process Flow Charts • Describe data management process for both baseline and subsequent years’ data • Everyone scoping, collecting and delivering CVS-EEP monitoring data should be familiar with and follow the flow charts.
Prototype tool predicts target vegetation type based on site data. Planting lists could be automatically generated from community data.
Mitigation Project Closeout
Mac Haupt Monitoring Supervisor
Closeouts • Previously created separate report • Now….Incorporate in the project’s last monitoring report • Will modify scoping table to include additional components when needed
Closeouts • Primary Data components needed: – Asset table – Asset Map – Current Plan view showing veg plots, gauges, cross sections (already in report) – Summary Veg Table (already in report) – Summary Hydro Table (wetland-ground water gauges) – Project summary of goals and objectives including the watershed plan context -How did the project perform? Trends?
Role for EEP Monitoring Firms •
Project Closeout - Aspects of the Process & Format. -Detailed Asset Breakdown:
Table 1. Project Restoration Components and Mitigation Assets Stream
Asset Data Drainage/Hydrology Component
Restoration Component
Jumping Run Upper (Above Henry Road) Segment 1 Jumping Run Lower Segment 1 (Down to confluence) (Below Payne Store Road) Segment 2 (Confl to Pres segm) Segment 3 (Preserv - one side) Tributary Segment 1 (Upper ) Segment 2 (Lower 90 feet)
Asset Map # Approach Level 1 P1/P2 R 2 P2 R 3 P2 EI 4 5 Fence/Plan EII 6 P2 EI
Ratio Ratio Multip Feet SMU Acres 0.75 1.33 4377 5821 1.00 1.00 800 800 1.50 0.67 380 253 0.00 1450 0 2.00 0.50 1350 675 1.50 0.67 90 60 -
WMU -
2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
1.180 0.030 0.260 0.300 0.935 0.002 0.020 0.014 0.280
Wetland Jumping Run Upper (Above Henry Road) Wetland 1 Wetland 2 Wetland 3 Wetland 4 Wetland 5 Tributary Wetland 6 Wetland 7 Wetland 8 Jumping Run Lower (Below Payne Rd)) Wetland 9
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
-
E R R R E P P P P
0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
-
-
2.360 0.030 0.260 0.300 1.870 0.010 0.100 0.070 1.400
Role for EEP Monitoring Firms •
Project Closeout - Aspects of the Process & Format. -Coupled with linked detailed asset map including buffer polygons
Role for EEP Monitoring Firms - Representative photos of the change that the site underwent As-built (2000)
Monitoring Year 5 (2005)
Photo point #3, view upstream at pool X-section.
Photo point #40, view downstream near Henry Road.
Role for EEP Monitoring Firms • Project Closeout – Project Summary Aspects Examples: - Re-establishing bankfull, recalculation of CA’s and trending them etc. -
Was there a stable pattern of variation over the 5 years?
- Watershed plan context? - Were certain key variables maintained within intended bounds? BHR % Bank instability etc. Bedform diversity Gauge performance percentages
Role for EEP Monitoring Firms • Project Closeout – Project Summary Aspects - Asset Verification (Examples). 9 One final verification that treatments applied to restoration components (assets) meet regulatory definitions. 9 Verification that the regulatory buffer limits are being met for each restoration component. 9 Isolation of under performing components.
Role for EEP Monitoring Firms • Project Closeout – Project Summary Aspects - Asset Mining (Examples). 9 Some assets may have been overlooked such as: Surplus Buffer Components that classify as preservation opportunities Wetland features or their extent
9 Determination of whether component attributes might justify ratio adjustments : BMPs Headwater drainage capture Stressor removal
Begin with the End in Mind • Close-out! • Close-out! • Close-out!
Questions?
Mac Haupt 919 715-1070 mac.haupt@ncdenr.gov
Take a Break
Construction Documents Ed Hajnos Capital Projects Coordinator
Construction Documents What constitutes a Construction Document submittal? ¾ Initial Submittal for EEP Review must be PE-sealed ¾ Plan Sheets ¾ Project Manual ¾ Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost
¾ Revised Submittal for Permitting and Bid Authorization must be PE-sealed ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾
Plan Sheets CADD/Microstation files Project Manual Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost
Construction Documents Plan Sheets
Title Page Legends and Symbols General Notes and Construction Sequence Cross-sections Detail Pages Structure Data Grading Plans – Plan and Profile on the SAME PLAN SHEET Site Stabilization Plan – Limits of Disturbance, Access, Erosion & Sedimentation Control Measures, Seeding, Mulching, etc. 9 Planting Plan – Planting Zones, Species, and Type(s) 9 Boundary Marking Plan – Type and Location 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Construction Documents Project Manual Section
Source
Notes
Cover
EEP
Fill in the Blank
Notice to Bidders
SCO
Fill in the Blank
Table of Contents
EEP
As is
Instructions to Bidders
SCO
Fill in the Blank
General Conditions
SCO
As is
Supplementary Instructions to Bidders
EEP
As is
Supplementary General Conditions
EEP
Fill in the Blank
MBE Recruitment Guidelines
SCO
As is
Technical Specifications
Designer/EEP
Custom to the project
Schedule of Units
Designer
Custom to the project
Contract Forms
SCO
As is
Appendices
Designer/EEP
Permits, Historical Rainfall data, etc
Supplementary General Conditions Article 1
Definitions
As is
Article 2
Intent and Execution of Documents
Fill in the blank
Article 10
Permits, Inspections, Fees, Regulations
As is
Article 11
Protection of Work, Property, and the Public
As is
Article 12
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973
As is
Article 14
Construction Supervision
As is
Article 16
Subcontracts and Subcontractors
As is
Article 18
Designer’s Status
As is
Article 23
Time of Completion, Delays, Extension of Time
Fill in the blank
Article 24
Partial Utilization Beneficial Occupancy
As is
Article 25
Final Inspection and Acceptance
As is
Article 31
Request for Payment
As is
Article 34
Minimum Insurance Requirements
As is
Article 40
Utilities, Structures, Signs
As is
Article 41
Cleaning Up
As is
Construction Documents Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost ¾ Must be PE-sealed ¾ Must have credibility ¾ Must be within construction budget ¾ Must use Schedule of Units in Project Manual ¾ Estimate accuracy will be judged by comparing the estimate against the bid results
Construction Documents • Links for more info ¾ EEP designer information: http://www.nceep.net/pages/designer_info.htm
¾ State Construction Office: http://www.nc-sco.com
¾ NC Land Quality section http://www.dlr.enr.state.nc.us/pages/sedimentation_new.h tml
Questions?
Ed Hajnos 919 715-1953 edward.hajnos@ncdenr.gov
Construction Management and Administration
Jeff Schaffer Eastern Operations Supervisor
Involved Parties • EEP • State Construction Office • Contractor • Designer/Consultant
Designer/Consultant • Description of Status & Responsibilities ¾ 01 NCAC 30A .403 (SCO Contract Law) ¾ Contract ¾ Construction Contract General Conditions (Form OC-15) ¾ SCO Manual ¾ Definitions Section of EEP Project Implementation Manual
Designer/Consultant • Designer is the EEP’s agent • Designer shall provide: ¾ General administration of construction performance ¾ Inspections to ensure compliance ¾ Direction to contractor
• Designer has authority to: ¾ Stop work ¾ Order work removed ¾ Order corrections of work
Designer’s Responsibilities •
Plans & specifications
•
Project schedule
•
Claims avoidance
•
Monthly/weekly construction progress meetings
•
Inspections
•
Pay requests
•
Changes in work ¾ Field orders ¾ Change orders
•
Project Close-Out
REMEMBER • You represent EEP. • You are EEP’s eyes and ears at the site. • Your design, ensure that’s what is built. • Address problems early to reduce them. • Specific recommendations • Communication is key to success!
Questions?
Refer to: Project Implementation Manual www.nceep.net
Construction Practices and Permit Compliance
Wyatt Brown, LSS, CPESC 919-716-1616
Maintain Permit Compliance • • • • • •
401 404 Erosion & Sedimentation NPDES Trout Waiver CAMA
Sediment & Erosion Control 1) Self Inspection Form _ – – – – –
Financial Responsibility Party or agent After every stage of construction Notations on field copy (red line) In addition to NPDES Must be doing now Land Quality Website
2) Trout streams-- 5 ac. Pump around
Problems I’ve Seen • 1) Proofreading Mitigation Plan • 2) Up to date Notice to Bidders other SCO forms • 3) SCO Monitor not in loop • 4) Pre-Bids for old sites • 5) Matting weight • 6) Project Constraints
For The Future • 1) Invite Land Quality to Pre-Con • 2) New turbidity rules – – – –
August 14 days for ground cover Skimmer basins (no stone filters) Turbidity rules > 20 acres
• 3) 5 cfs base flow/pump around – Diversion – Project Constraints
For Future Continued • 4) Bonding of sites • 5) Reclamation
Questions?
Wyatt Brown 919 715-1616 wyatt.brown@ncdenr.gov
Upcoming Trainings March 30th
FHWA Categorical Exclusion
April 7th
FHWA Categorical Exclusion
Spring 2011
Claims Avoidance Workshop
Spring 2011
CVS Protocols
Summer 2011
CVS Pulse
Fall 2011
Construction Administration
Date TBD
Construction Practices for Stream Restoration
Closing Remarks
Jeff Jurek Project Control and Research Director