2011_oncall_kickoff_meeting_presentation
Post on 22-Mar-2016
212 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
2011 On-Call Kickoff Meeting
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
February 9, 2011
Welcome
Michael EllisonDeputy Director
On-call Consulting
Ed HajnosEEP 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
$8,400,000
$12,600,000
$21,700,000
$14,700,000
$15,400,000
2002 April 2002-April 2004
15 $10,500,000 $8,000,000 47
Totals $41,750,000 288
$0
$6,500,000
$7,750,000
$8,000,000
$11,500,000
2011 January 2011-January 2013
12 0
2009 January 2009-January 2011
18
31
21
22
53
2006 December 2006-December 2008
54
2005 August 2005-August 2007
55
2004 April 2004-April 2006
79
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
ScopeNarrative describing the steps involved in project development. Be specific with excluded services. Do not include assumptions.
DeliverablesList of deliverables and number to be provided (draft, final, electronic). The Deliverable Schedule is based upon weeks from contract execution.
FeeTotal fee must be in a whole dollar amount. Must display subtotal for each task. Must include direct expenses for each subtask.
Contracting Process
Consulting Contracts1. POC Authorization2. On-call Assignment3. Scoping Meeting4. Negotiation5. Request for Exception6. Contract Request7. Contract Execution8. Start Project
Construction Contracts1. POC Authorization2. Advertisement3. Pre-bid Meeting4. Bid Opening5. Request for Exception6. Recommendation to Award7. SCO Award Approval8. Contract Execution9. Pre-construction Meeting10. 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 Post-construction 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 RecktenwaldWPPI Director919-715-1024
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 Reporthttp://www.nceep.net/news/annualreport/2010/Annual2009-2010Final.pdf
Watershed Planninghttp://www.nceep.net/pages/lwplanning.htm
Instrumenthttp://www.nceep.net/pages/In_Lieu_Fee_Instrument_2010.html
Questions?
Take a Break
Mitigation Plan
Lin XuEnvironmental EngineerDesign and Construction Unit
Changes from the Last On-call
• EEP Project Implementation Manual• New EEP Mitigation Plan Template per the New
Federal RuleNew FormatWatershed Planning / Site SelectionMitigation 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/abouteep/Mitigation_Plan_Guidance_Topics_Version_1.0_10-1-2010.pdf
New EEP Mitigation Plan Template
• Developed with USCOE• Formatted Similar to EEP
Bid Document Template
http://www.nceep.net/abouteep/NCEEP%20Mitigation%20Plan%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 ProjectsPermit from DOA (SCO)
• Conservation easement projects
Permit from NC Division of Emergency Management via local FPAsPermit from Mecklenburg County
Contact
Lin Xu715-7571
lin.xu@ncdenr.gov
Elements of the EEP Baseline Monitoring Report
and the Transition from Construction
to Monitoring
Greg MeliaEEP 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.
Long Profile
CAD X SectionsLODTOPODesign Alignment
Existing Alignment
As-built Alignment – with Red Line Deviations
SCO Package
As-built Record Drawing
SCO Final Report
+
As-Built - Elements
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 TalliesGoals and ObjectivesSuccess CriteriaMonitoring Plan
• Establishes Monitoring Baseline
Monitoring Baseline Elements
Monitoring Baseline Report
Baseline Photos
Long Profile
Perm Mon X SectionsBaseline
Morphology Table
Asset Map & Table
Monitoring Plan View
Background & Attribute Tables
Monitoring Plan
Baseline Vegetation Data
Success Criteria
Record Drawing
+Monit.
Features
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_Implementation_Manual_April%202009.pdf
A Word About Digital Drawings
• Includes specifications for:
GIS compatibility and geospatial referencing
File naming conventions
Features for layer distinctions
Feature shape types
Feature coding
More Words About Digital Drawings
• Compliant Drawings Support……
Asset verification mapse.g. Buffer Asset calcs.e.g. Buffer width assessments
Monitoring
Easement integrity verifications
Boundary marking
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
Monitoring Features &
Baseline
As-Built Baseline
Mitigation Plan
Final SCOReport
Year – 1 Monitoring
MonitoringYears2-5
Designer
MonitoringFirm
• Current
Year – 1 Monitoring
MonitoringYears2-5
Designer
MonitoringFirm
As-Built Baseline
Monitoring Features &
Baseline
Mitigation Plan
Final SCOReport
Transition from Construction to Monitoring
Transition from Construction to Monitoringsome 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 Monitoringsome 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-supportmaterials.
Transition from Construction to Monitoringsome key coordination points
• Managing the Relationship - We don’texpect or want to have EEP staff micro-manage 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 Monitoringsome 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 Monitoringsome key coordination points
• At “SCO authorization to bid”
Construction documents (e-drawings and Project manual) will be submitted to EEP and forwarded to the monitoring consultant by EEP.
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 Monitoringsome 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
• 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
IMPORTANT SLIDE
Annual Monitoring-Outline• 2011 Monitoring
– Vegetation & Stream Visual Assessment Tables
– Current Condition Maps– Summary Status Table– Field Training Day
• 2012 Monitoring– USACE Guidelines Revision– Stream Geomorphic Database– Version 1.4 Monitoring Template
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
• Use same terminology as in tables;• Bare, low density, invasives,
encroachment• Bar formation, degradation,
scoured, undercut, mass wasting, piping
2011 Monitoring-Current Condition Maps
2011 Monitoring-Summary Status TableVegetation Data
CVS Veg Plot Protocol? Number of Plots
Number of Plots >320
Total Stems/Acre
Number of plots >260
Total Stems/Acre
% of plots making 320
stems
% of plots making 260
stemsCurrent Total Mean Density
Current Planted Mean
Density
Y/N # # # # #
Hydrologic Data
Number of Wetland Gauges
Number of Gauges Meeting Criteria
% of gauges meeting success criteria
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
Geomorphic Data--Visual AssessmentVisual Survey Reach
Footage From Top Of
Table 8
Bed Visual % Stable
Bank Visual % Stable
Vane Structures
Visual % Stable
Feet From E.2 From FFormula, From G.4
Other Asset Impacts
Beaver Reported?
Encroachment Reported?
Boundary Demarcation
(bollards, fencing) or
Repair Need Reported?
Boundary Signage Needed?
Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N/U
2011 Monitoring-Field Training DayLooking 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 HauptMonitoring 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 Problemsat 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 HauptMonitoring 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 AssetsStream
Drainage/Hydrology Component Restoration Component Asset RatioMap # Approach Level Ratio Multip Feet SMU Acres WMU
Jumping Run Upper (Above Henry Road) Segment 1 1 P1/P2 R 0.75 1.33 4377 5821 - -Jumping Run Lower Segment 1 (Down to confluence) 2 P2 R 1.00 1.00 800 800 - -(Below Payne Store Road) Segment 2 (Confl to Pres segm) 3 P2 EI 1.50 0.67 380 253 - -
Segment 3 (Preserv - one side) 4 - - - 0.00 1450 0 - -Tributary Segment 1 (Upper ) 5 Fence/Plan EII 2.00 0.50 1350 675 - -
Segment 2 (Lower 90 feet) 6 P2 EI 1.50 0.67 90 60 - -Wetland
Jumping Run Upper (Above Henry Road) Wetland 1 7 - E 2.00 0.50 - - 2.360 1.180Wetland 2 8 - R 1.00 1.00 - - 0.030 0.030Wetland 3 9 - R 1.00 1.00 - - 0.260 0.260Wetland 4 10 - R 1.00 1.00 - - 0.300 0.300Wetland 5 11 - E 2.00 0.50 - - 1.870 0.935
Tributary Wetland 6 12 - P 5.00 0.20 - - 0.010 0.002Wetland 7 13 - P 5.00 0.20 - - 0.100 0.020Wetland 8 14 - P 5.00 0.20 - - 0.070 0.014
Jumping Run Lower (Below Payne Rd)) Wetland 9 15 - P 5.00 0.20 - - 1.400 0.280
Asset Data
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
Photo point #3, view upstream at pool X-section.
As-built (2000) Monitoring Year 5 (2005)
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 diversityGauge performance percentages
Role for EEP Monitoring Firms• Project Closeout – Project Summary Aspects
- Asset Verification (Examples).
One final verification that treatments applied to restoration components (assets) meet regulatory definitions.
Verification that the regulatory buffer limits are being met for each restoration component.
Isolation of under performing components.
Role for EEP Monitoring Firms
• Project Closeout – Project Summary Aspects
- Asset Mining (Examples).
Some assets may have been overlooked such as:Surplus BufferComponents that classify as preservation
opportunitiesWetland features or their extent
Determination of whether component attributes might justify ratio adjustments :
BMPsHeadwater drainage captureStressor removal
Begin with the End in Mind
• Close-out!• Close-out!• Close-out!
Questions?
Mac Haupt919 715-1070
mac.haupt@ncdenr.gov
Take a Break
Construction Documents
Ed HajnosCapital Projects Coordinator
Construction Documents
What constitutes a Construction Document submittal?
Initial Submittal for EEP Review must be PE-sealedPlan SheetsProject Manual Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost
Revised Submittal for Permitting and Bid Authorization must be PE-sealed
Plan Sheets CADD/Microstation filesProject ManualEngineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost
Construction Documents
Plan SheetsTitle PageLegends and SymbolsGeneral Notes and Construction SequenceCross-sectionsDetail PagesStructure DataGrading Plans – Plan and Profile on the SAME PLAN SHEETSite Stabilization Plan – Limits of Disturbance, Access, Erosion & Sedimentation Control Measures, Seeding, Mulching, etc.Planting Plan – Planting Zones, Species, and Type(s)Boundary Marking Plan – Type and Location
Construction Documents
Project ManualSection 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
Must be PE-sealedMust have credibility Must be within construction budgetMust use Schedule of Units in Project ManualEstimate accuracy will be judged by comparing the estimate against the bid results
Construction Documents
• Links for more infoEEP designer information:
http://www.nceep.net/pages/designer_info.htm
State Construction Office:http://www.nc-sco.com
NC Land Quality sectionhttp://www.dlr.enr.state.nc.us/pages/sedimentation_new.h
tml
Questions?
Ed Hajnos919 715-1953
edward.hajnos@ncdenr.gov
Construction Management and Administration
Jeff SchafferEastern Operations Supervisor
Involved Parties
• EEP
• State Construction Office
• Contractor
• Designer/Consultant
Designer/Consultant
• Description of Status & Responsibilities 01 NCAC 30A .403 (SCO Contract Law)
Contract
Construction Contract General Conditions (Form OC-15)
SCO Manual
Definitions Section of EEP Project Implementation Manual
Designer/Consultant
• Designer is the EEP’s agent
• Designer shall provide:General administration of construction performanceInspections to ensure complianceDirection to contractor
• Designer has authority to:Stop workOrder work removedOrder corrections of work
Designer’s Responsibilities• Plans & specifications
• Project schedule
• Claims avoidance
• Monthly/weekly construction progress meetings
• Inspections
• Pay requests
• Changes in work Field ordersChange 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 andPermit Compliance
Wyatt Brown, LSS, CPESC919-716-1616
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 Brown919 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 JurekProject Control and Research Director
top related