PTEIR RFP Phase-I Questions from Potential Bidders
October 16, 2017
- Please elaborate on what you view as Commercial vs Non-commercial fuel reduction and forest restoration projects; and how these practices may differ in terms of treatment unit size, parcel aggregation (town lots), commercial product sale/give-away. (i.e. does giving away the firewood or mulch constituent a commercial action?)
Answer: Commercial purposes are defined as:
(a) the cutting or removal of trees that are processed into logs, lumber, or other wood products (e.g., firewood or mulch) and offered for sale, barter, exchange, or trade (giving away forest products is not commercial purposes under this definition), or (b) the cutting or removal of trees or other forest products during the conversion of timberlands to land uses other than the growing of timber (see PRC § 4527).
It is anticipated that operations under the PTEIR will involve fuel reduction activities either incidental to a commercial project or as a stand-alone activity. These may include mastication, chipping, pile and burning, broadcast burning, pre-commercial thinning, or other activities designed to reduce the vertical and horizontal continuity of vegetative fuels. Non-commercial fuel reduction projects are more likely to involve manual treatments and treat smaller acreage than those undertaken for commercial purposes, which would involve mechanical treatments and generally more acres. Either treatment may be performed on a “town lot” (urban Intermix parcels) based on an evaluation of the forest conditions on the lot and surrounding parcels relative to the desired post-project forest conditions. The definition of “commercial purposes” is not limited by the size of the area being treated, the parcel zoning, or the existing use of the parcel.
- Do you anticipate the recommendations for EIR analysis will include all the harvest activities for Categories 1-6 of the Timber Waiver (Board Order No. R6T-2014-0030)? Meaning, will Lahontan’s “201x Timber waiver” be based solely on the resource impact evaluations developed for the PTEIR?
Answer: An expected outcome from Phase-I is a recommendation for the most efficient permitting strategy. Tasks and Deliverables item #3, Analysis Strategy Development, includes the work required to identify an optimal analysis approach for Phase-II. Activities conducted under the PTEIR will require permitting through the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. Whether Lahontan’s Timber Waiver can be met through programmatic analysis in the PTEIR or will require subsequent PTHP level analysis will be determined in the Phase-I analysis.
- Forward looking period of analysis: CEQA documents require the consideration of likely foreseeable future actions with regards to cumulative impacts etc. What is the foreseeable planning period for the PTEIR to be developed in Phase-I? (i.e. 3-yr, 5-yr, 20-yr outlook). Response may impact how we would approach the data evaluation in Phase-I.
Answer: Relevant to Tasks and Deliverables Item #2(a), current and planned projects in the vicinity of the project area is limited to those that have already begun and Reasonably Foreseeable Probable Future Projects as defined in the Forest Practice Rules (14 CCR § 895.1).
The period of analysis for projects implemented through the PTEIR is an expected recommendation from Tasks and Deliverables Item #3. Existing guidance documentation such as the Lake Tahoe Basin Community Wildfire Protection Plan and Lake Tahoe Basin Multi-jurisdictional Fuel Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Strategy are existing guidance documents that provide general outlook of future forest management projects.
- Do you foresee that a Programmatic Agreement (PA) with SHPO will be part of the Cultural Resource plan for the PTEIR, as a means of reducing CAL FIRE Cultural Resource staff labor?
Answer: An expected outcome from Phase-I is a recommendation for the most efficient permitting strategy. Tasks and Deliverables item #3, Analysis Strategy Development, includes the work required to identify an optimal analysis approach for Phase-II. Activities conducted under the PTEIR will require scoping and surveying for archaeologic resources. How to most efficiently accomplish this will be determined in the Phase-I analysis.
A discussion of this topic can be found in the document Guidance in the Preparation and Review of Program Timberland Environmental Impact Reports (PTEIRs; see pgs. 9-13) included in this RFP or on the Board of Forestry’s website: http://www.bof.fire.ca.gov/board_business/board_memorandums_and_guidance_documents/board_memorandums_and_guidance_documents/final_pteir_guidance_updated_072914_by_tb.pdf.
- Will the existing fire fuel management datasets/GIS’s such as the CWPP North Tahoe Fuels Treatment Maps/Urban-Interface Maps be used? What other veg-fuel dataset do you foresee including in the Phase-I effort?
Answer: Sufficient data should be provided to support any recommendations presented as a result of the Phase-I analysis. The data provided should be sufficient to support the most efficient and optimal analysis approach for Phase-II. Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team members will be available for consultation on currently available datasets
- Are there any categories of land you would exclude from the project due to other issues of governance, for example: ESA Section 107 designated habitat, WOUS, Existing Section 106 registered sites or buffers?
Answer: An expected outcome from Phase-I is a recommendation for the most efficient permitting strategy. Tasks and Deliverables item #3, Analysis Strategy Development, includes the work required to identify an optimal analysis approach for Phase-II. The analysis should consider activities conducted under the PTEIR and the most efficient or optimal approach for determining potential impacts associated with activities adjacent to or on various categories of land that could be impacted by the projects.
- What vegetation management treatments in SEZ’s might be evaluated?
Answer: An expected outcome from Phase-I is a recommendation for the most efficient permitting strategy. Tasks and Deliverables item #3, Analysis Strategy Development, includes the work required to identify an optimal analysis approach for Phase-II. Activities conducted under the PTEIR could require permitting through various federal, state and local agencies. The analysis should consider constraints and benefits for a variety of treatments to determine the optimal suite of treatments that will achieve the goals of the project under the identified constraints.
- Do you have an anticipated duration of the Phase-I effort?
Answer: The anticipated duration for Phase-I efforts is to not exceed more than 6 months from the inception date.
- What is the anticipated budget for Phase-I or budget range?
Answer: The anticipated budget for Phase-I is not to exceed 10% of the maximum overall budget for Phase-I and Phase-II. The overall contracted budget for Phase-I and Phase-II is $1,000,000.
- What are the treatment options you desire to include for analysis in the PTEIR?
Answer: The list of treatment methodologies have not been determined and would be developed in consultation with LVFPD, CAL FIRE, other partners, and the consultant. As the project evolves, new options may emerge. Ideally, the PTEIR will provide flexibility in using an array of treatment options to implement a project.
- Based on experience with previous planning efforts, where do you envision the majority of the consultant’s time would be focused during the project?
Answer: An expected outcome from Phase-I is a recommendation for the most efficient permitting strategy. Refer to Guidance in the Preparation and Review of Program Timberland Environmental Impact Reports, which states “A PTEIR that addresses potential resource impacts specifically and in detail is likely to result in most subsequent Program Timber Harvesting Plans (PTHPs) being found in scope. However, where the analysis is general, or deferred to a later time, the potential for PTHPs to be found to be out of scope increases. It will be up to the PTEIR preparer to strike a balance between programmatic review and project level review that meets their objectives.” Evaluating the sources of information that are already available in the Lake Tahoe Basin and recommendations for analysis of resources will allow project level efficiency to be maximized, and would take into account elements that cannot be analyzed at the programmatic scale.
- Is it acceptable to use Registered Professional Foresters to survey for cultural resources?
Answer: CAL FIRE archeological staff signs off on cultural resource record reviews and proposed mitigations. Certified Archeological Surveyors may be utilized pursuant to 14 CCR § 929 where applicable to conduct cultural resource surveys associated with timber harvesting.
- Is Phase-I of the project anticipated to include all project steps prior to scoping?
Answer: An expected outcome from Phase-I is a recommendation for the most efficient permitting strategy. The results from Phase-I are anticipated to be used as decision support and guidance for Phase-II (the development of the PTEIR and related components). The consultant will not produce the RFP for Phase-II.
- Can cost proposals be kept confidential?
Answer: Information pertaining to bidder or potential bidder sub-contractor staff salaries, wages, benefits, and other sensitive financial data which the bidder does not wish to be disclosed to other than District personnel involved in the evaluation of contract administration will be kept confidential, if identified as follows:
Pages should be included in a separate, sealed envelope within the main proposal package and marked in boldface in the center of the envelope as “Confidential”.
Each page shall be identified in boldface at the top and bottom as “Confidential”.
Finally, any section of the proposal which is to remain confidential should, in addition, be so marked in boldface on the title page of that section.
- Are there projects that are anticipated for immediate implementation, and would therefore require additional upfront analysis?
Answer: The current expectation is that all future projects will be treated programmatically under the PTEIR. Any additional analysis for site-specific activities under a PTHP will be deferred until the preparation of that PTHP.
- Are specific geographic information system software packages required to be used by the consultant?
Answer: An expected outcome from Phase-I is a recommendation for the most efficient permitting strategy. There is no expectation of specific software packages or vendors to utilize during the project. In general, however, resulting data should be provided in formats that can be utilized in ESRI software and general office software.
