HomeMy WebLinkAbout168-06 RESOLUTIONRESOLUTION NO. 168-06
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH C. GREEN
SCAPING, LP IN THE AMOUNT OF $145,200.00 FOR WETLANDS
CONSTRUCTION, BURNING AND PLANTING; AND APPROVING
A PROJECT CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,500.00.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS•
Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby
approves a Contract with C. Green Scaping, LP in the amount of $145,200.00 for
Wetlands construction, burning and planting. A copy of the Contract, marked Exhibit
"A," is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2. That the Ci y Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves a
project contingency in he amount of $14,500.00.
PASSED and APPROVED this 17th day of October, 2006.
APPROVED:
By:
DAN COODY, Mayor
ATTEST:
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
.........
`�R. /TRL........
_ac
•
•• ; ^mss
•
E • FAYETTEVILLE: a
N Sp; Jam,`
,wuu....
DOCUMENT 00500 — AGREEMENT
BETWEEN OWNER AND CONTRACTOR
Project Name: Wastewater System Improvement Project (WSIP)
Contract Name: Phase I — Wetland Mitigation Site Seedbed Preparation and Seeding
Contract No.: WP -2b
Bid No.: 06-50
Project No.: 021:13-0314
Date: August 3, 2006
tin
THIS AGREEMENT is dated as of the 1-1 day of Ockbet in the year 20 Oby
and between the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (hereinafter called Owner)
and C. Green Scaping, L.P. of North Richland Hills, Texas
called Contractor).
ARTICLE 1 - WORK
(hereinafter
1.01 Contractor shall complete all Work as specified or indicated in the Contract
Documents. The Work under this Contract is generally described as follows:
•
Project Name: Wastewater System Improvement Project (WSIP)
Contract Name: Phase I - Wetland Mitigation Site Seedbed Preparation and Seeding.
1.02 The Project for which the Work under the Contract Documents may be the whole or
only a par: is generally described as follows:
The Contract provides for the implementation of WETLAND COMPENSATORY
MITIGAT ION requirements of the individual Section 404 Permit File No. 14207,
issued by :he U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas.
The Contractor shall be responsible for implementing all applicable requirements of
the Sectio 1404 Permit associated with the construction activities that the successful
Bidder wi .1 be contracted to perform. The wetland berms and water control structures
are currently being constructed under a separate contract.
Contract ttsks shall include seedbed preparation and seeding at an approximately
31 -acre sie owned by the City of Fayetteville. More specifically, this project
includes a controlled bum of the site and seeding approximately 16.5 acres of upland
prairie habitat and 14.5 acres of wetland prairie habitat.
00500-Agreement.doc 00500 — 1
DOCUMENT 0050( — AGREEMENT (continued)
ARTICLE 2 - ENGINEER
2.01 The Project has been designed by McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc., who is
hereinafter called Engineer. The Engineer assumes all duties and responsibilities,
and has the rights and authority assigned to Engineer in the Contract Documents in
connection with completion of the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents.
2.02 All work avid materials shall be subject to direction and approval by the Wetland
Scientist. For this work, the City of Fayetteville has contracted a Wetland Scientist to
augment ft e staff of the Engineer and to evaluate the controlled burning, and seeding
operations including the evaluation and acceptance of the material and work
performed by Contractor. This individual shall serve as the City of Fayetteville's
project representative as it relates to this specification. This individual shall have the
authority c f the Engineer in performing wetland science -related services. The work
of the Wetland Scientist is subject to approval by the Engineer and the City of
Fayetteville. The Wetland Scientist is identified as Environmental Consulting
Operation:, Inc.
ARTICLE 3 - CONTRACT TIME
3.01 TIME OF THE ESSENCE:
A. All time limits for milestones, if any, Substantial Completion, and
completion and readiness for final payment as stated in the Contract
Documents are of the essence of the Contract.
3.02 DATES F DR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION AND FINAL PAYMENT:
A. The Work will be Substantially Completed within One Hundred Fifty (150)
calendar days after the date when the Contract Times commence to run as
provided in the GENERAL CONDITIONS, and completed and ready for
final payment in accordance with the GENERAL CONDITIONS within One
Handred Eighty (180) calendar days after the date when the Contract Times
commence to run.
00500-Agreement.doc 00500 — 2
DOCUMENT 00500— AGREEMENT (continued)
3.03 LIQUIDA FED DAMAGES:
A. Omer and Contractor recognize that time is of the essence of this
Agreement and that Owner will suffer financial loss if the Work is not
completed within the time specified above, plus any extensions thereof
allowed in accordance with the GENERAL CONDITIONS. The parties also
recognize the delays, expense, and difficulties involved in proving the actual
las suffered by Owner if the Work is not Substantially Completed on time.
A<:cordingly, instead of requiring any such proof, Owner and Contractor
agree that as liquidated damages for delay (but not as a penalty) Contractor
shill pay Owner Two Hundred Fifty ($250.00) for each calendar day that
expires after the time specified above in Paragraph 3.02 for Substantial
Completion until the Work is Substantially Complete.
ARTICLE 4 - CONTRACT PRICE
4.01 Owner sh. 11 pay Contractor for completion of the Work in accordance with the
Contract Documents an amount in current funds equal to the sum of the amounts
determined pursuant to paragraphs below:
A. LUMP SUM CONTRACT PRICE: For all Work (other than Unit Price
Work) a Lump Sum of:
One Hundred Forty -Five Thousand
-Iwo Hundred and no/100 Dollars ($
ARTICLE 5 - PAYMENT PROCEDURES
5.01 SUBMIT'AL AND PROCESSING OF PAYMENTS:
145,200.00 )
A. C )retractor shall submit Applications for Payment in accordance with the
GENERAL CONDITIONS. Applications for Payment will be processed by
Owner and Engineer as provided in the GENERAL CONDITIONS.
00500-Agreement.doc 00500 — 3
DOCUMENT 00500 — AGREEMENT (continued)
5.02 PROGRESS PAYMENTS, RETAINAGE:
Owner shall make progress payments on account of the Contract Price on the
ba is of Contractor's Applications for Payment as recommended by Engineer,
within approximately 30 days of receipt of the Application for Payment,
during construction All such payments will be measured by the schedule of
values established in the GENERAL CONDITIONS or, in the event there is
no schedule of values, as provided in the General Requirements.
1. Prior to Substantial Completion, progress payments will be made in
an amount equal to the percentage indicated below, but, in each case,
less the aggregate of payments previously made and less such
amounts as Engineer shall determine, or Owner may withhold, in
accordance with the GENERAL CONDITIONS.
a. 90% of Work Completed (with the balance being retainage). If
Work has been 50% completed as determined by Engineer and
Wetland Scientist, and if the character and progress of the Work
have been satisfactory to Owner and Engineer, Owner on
recommendation of Engineer, may determine that as long as the
character and progress of the Work subsequently remain
satisfactory to them, there will be no additional retainage on
account of Work subsequently completed, in which case the
remaining progress payments prior to Substantial Completion
will be an amount equal to 100% of the Work Completed less the
aggregate of payments previously made; and
b. 100% of Equipment and Materials not incorporated in the Work
but delivered, suitably stored, and accompanied by
documentation satisfactory to Owner as provided in the
GENERAL CONDITIONS.
2. Upon Substantial Completion, Owner shall pay an amount sufficient
to increase total payments to Contractor to 95% of the Contract Price
00500-Agreement.doc 00500 — 4
DOCUMENT 00500— AGREEMENT (continued)
(surface, subsurface, and Underground Facilities) at or contiguous to the Site
or otherwise which may affect cost, progress, performance, and furnishing of
the Work or which relate to any aspect of the means, methods, techniques,
sequences, and procedures of construction to be employed by Contractor and
sa .'ety precautions and programs incident thereto.
F. Contractor does not consider that any additional examinations,
investigations, explorations, tests, studies, or data are necessary for the
performing and furnishing of the Work at the Contract Price, within the
Contract Times, and in accordance with the other terms and conditions of the
Contract Documents.
G. Contractor is aware of the general nature of work to be performed by Owner
ar, d others at and contiguous to the Site that relates to the Work as indicated
in the Contract Documents.
Contractor has given Engineer written notice of all conflicts, errors,
arThiguities, or discrepancies that Contractor has discovered in the Contract
D )cuments and the written resolution thereof by Engineer is acceptable to
Contractor.
I. Tte Contract Documents are generally sufficient to indicate and convey
understanding of all terms and conditions for performance and furnishing of
the Work.
ARTICLE 7 - CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
7.01 CONTENTS:
A. The Contract Documents which comprise the entire Agreement between
Cwner and Contractor concerning the Work consist of the following and may
ally be amended, modified, or supplemented as provided in the GENERAL
CONDITIONS:
1 This Agreement.
00500-Agreement.doc 00500 — 6
DOCUMENT 00500— AGREEMENT (continued)
2. Exhibits to this Agreement (enumerated as follows):
a. Contractor's Bid.
b. Documentation submitted by Contractor prior to Notice of
Award.
3. Performance, Payment, and other Bonds.
4. General Conditions.
5. Supplementary Conditions.
6. Labor -Related Regulations.
7. Specifications consisting of divisions and sections as listed in table
of contents of Project Manual.
8. Drawings consisting of a cover sheet and sheets as listed in the table
of contents thereof, with each sheet bearing the following general
title:
Phase I — Wetland Mitigation Site Seedbed Preparation and Seeding
9. Addenda numbers 1 to 3 , inclusive.
10. The following which may be delivered or issued after the Effective
Date of the Agreement and are not attached hereto: All Written
Amendments and other documents amending, modifying, or
supplementing the Contract Documents pursuant to the GENERAL
CONDITIONS and Notice to Proceed.
ARTICLE 8 - MISCELLANEOUS
8.01 TERMS:
A. T yrrns used in this Agreement which are defined in the GENERAL
CONDITIONS shall have the meanings stated in the GENERAL
CONDITIONS.
00500-Agreement.doc 00500 — 7
DOCUMENT 0050(1— AGREEMENT (continued)
8.02 ASSIGNN ENT OF CONTRACT:
A. No assignment by a party hereto of any rights under or interests in the
Cc ntract Documents will be binding on another party hereto without the
written consent of the party sought to be bound; and specifically but without
limitation, moneys that may become due and moneys that are due may not be
assigned without such consent (except to the extent that the effect of this
restriction may be limited by Law), and unless specifically stated to the
contrary in any written consent to an assignment, no assignment will release
or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under the Contract
Documents.
8.03 SUCCESS ORS AND ASSIGNS:
A. Owner and Contractor each binds himself, his partners, successors, assigns,
and legal representatives to the other party hereto, its partners, successors,
assigns, and legal representatives in respect to all covenants, agreements, and
ot•ligations contained in the Contract Documents.
8.04 SEVERAI3ILITY:
Aiy provision or part of the Contract Documents held to be void or
unenforceable under any Law or Regulation shall be deemed stricken, and all
remaining provisions shall continue to be valid and binding upon Owner and
Contractor, who agree that the Contract Documents shall be reformed to
replace such stricken provision or part thereof with a valid and enforceable
provision that comes as close as possible to expressing the intention of the
stricken provision.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner and Contractor have signed this Agreement in quadruplicate.
One counterpart each las been delivered to Owner, Contractor, and Engineer.
00500-Agreement.doc 00500 — 8
DOCUMENT 00500 — AGREEMENT (continued)�
This Agreement will be effective on CALU L 17 , 20 which is the
Effective Date of the Agreement.
CONTRACTOR C. 3REEN SCAPING, L.P. OWNER CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
By:
Title:/f. v7
(SEAL)
•
Attest SO 61 rulllnmn�
Address for giving not. ces
8917 Cardinal Lana
North Richland Hills, Texas 76180
License No.
Agent for Service of process
�vRYf) b� t�ikE�.F
(If Contractor is a corporation,
attach evidence of authority to
sign.)
END OF DOCUMENT 00500
00500-Agreement.doc
By:
Title: Mayor
Attest
Address for giving notices
113 W. Mountain Street
(SEAL)
,gpunrrrrh
�.`51KITR4.11/
AC*.&.c1" 04.°10, . •,p
F
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
(If Owner is a public body, attach
evidence of authority to
sign and resolution or other documents
authorizing execution of Agreement)
Approved As to Form.
By:
Attorney For: 6 t'AVA-fa v ILL
:FAYETTEVILLE:
•
00500 — 9
David Jurgens
Submitted By
City of Fayetteville
Staff Review Form
City Council Agenda Items
or
Contracts
17 -Oct -06
City Council Meeting Date
Water/Wastewater
Division
Action Required:
top 7/66
/68
e. 6ra.s-I
inS/ Lfl
Water/Wastewater
Department
Approval of a contract with C. Green Scaping, in the amount of $145,200.00, for Wetlands construction, burning, and
planting, Subproject WP -2b, and approve a 10% contingency of $14,500.00.
$159,700.00
Cost of this request
4480-9480-5315.00
Account Number
02133.0314
Project Number
Budgeted Item
XXX
117,265,766.00
Category/Project Budget
107,809,685.83
Funds Used to Date
9,456,080.17
Remaining Balance
Budget Adjustment Attached
Z
Wastewater System Imp Project
Program Category / Project Name
Water and Wastewater
Program / Project Category Name
t
Water/Sewer
Fund Name
Previous Ordinance or Resolution #
Dae Original Contract Date:
Original Contract Number:
City Attorney
Finance and Internal Service Director
Date
ate
Received in Mayor's Office
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
To: Fayetteville City Council
Thru: Mayor Dan Coody
Fayetteville Sewer Committee
From: David Jurgens, Water and Wastewater Director
Date: 28 September 2006
City Council Meeting of October 17, 2006
Subject: Approval of a contract with C. Green Scaping, in the amount of $145,200.00, for Wetlands
construction, burning, and planting, Subproject WP -2b, and a 10% contingency of $14,500.00
RECOMMENDATION
City Administration recommends approval of a contract with C. Green Scaping, in the amount of
$145,200.00, for wetlands construction, burning, and planting, subproject WP -2b, and a 10% contingency
of $14,500.00.
BACKGROUND
The City received one bids for this project, as follows:
C. Green Scaring $ 145,200.00 (low bid)
Engineer's Es' imate $ 155,000.00
The Contract provides for implementation of wetland compensatory mitigation requirements of the City's
Corps of Engineers section 404 Permit 14207. Contract tasks include seedbed preparation, including spot -
application of herbicide, a cor trolled bum of the site, seeding approximately 16.5 acres of upland prairie
habitat and 14.5 acres of wetland prairie habitat. The berms and water control structures are currently
being constructed under the West Side WWTP contract by Brasfield & Gorrie.
This is the next phase of the Wetlands Mitigation concept of operations, which has been broken into three
phases: Phase 0- herbicide spray application; Phase I- burning, and planting grasses and forbs; and Phase
II- soil testing and planting Ines and shrubs. Details on the Wetlands site development are in the attached
Wetlands Mitigation Project Concept of Operations information paper.
DISCUSSION
The bid has been reviewed by two Engineering firms working on the joint design, McGoodwin, Williams,
and Yates, Inc., and Environmental Consulting Operations, Inc. Both recommend the contract be awarded
in the attached letters of recommendation. Although only one bid was received, the Engineers and Staff,
based on thorough reference checks, feel it is a good bid from a reputable contractor and that the contract
should be awarded. The cost s lower than the Engineer's estimate. Delaying this award would delay the
wetlands construction, as much of this work has to be executed in the upcoming fall season.
BUDGET IMPACT
Funds are available in the Wa ;tewater System Improvement Project budget.
Attachments: Bid tab
ECO Letter of Recommendation
McGoodwin, 'Williams and Yates Letter of Recommendation
Contract
Wetlands Mitigation Project Concept of Operations information paper
Purchase Order
WP -2b Wei lands Phase 1 CCMemo 0006
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH C. GREEN
SCAPING, LP IN THE AMOUNT OF $145,200.00 FOR WETLANDS
CONSTRUCTION, BURNING AND PLANTING; AND APPROVING
A PROJECT CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,500.00.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS*
Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby
approves a Contract with C. Green Scaping, LP in the amount of $145,200.00 for
Wetlands construction, burning and planting. A copy of the Contract, marked Exhibit
"A," is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas a
Project Contingency in the amount of $14,500.00.
PASSED and APPROVED this 17th day of October, -;:006.
APPRO
OODY, Mayor
ity Clerk
ENvmoNmaNTnr.
�CONSULTING
iA OPERATIONS
ECO, INC.
"Integrating ECOnomy and ECOIogy"
"Since 1990"
1313 Highway 229-5A
Benton, Arkansas 72015
Phone (501) 315-9009
FAX (501) 315-9035
e-mail: eco@aristotle.net
September 28, 2006
David Jurgen, P.E.
Water and Wastewater Director
City of Fayetteville
113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Re: Recommendation of Award for WSIP Contract WP -2b — Phase I Wetland
Mitigation Site Seedbed Preparation and Seeding
Dear David;
Only one bid was received during the September 21, 2006 Bid Opening for the
project referenced above. The single bidder was C Green Scaping, L.P. for the
amount of $145,200.00. Our opinion of probable cost for this phase of Contract
WP -2b was $155,000.00.
I have made contact with Curtis Green, Vice President of Green Scaping;
conducted preliminary research regarding their qualifications; contacted their
references; and reviewed the Bidder's Qualification Statement. Green Scaping,
based in North Richland Hills, Texas, was established in 1984 and originally
specialized in maintenance, irrigation and landscaping. In 1992, the company
expanded their services to add large erosion control projects, mine reclamation,
drainage control, landfills, and wetland mitigation projects They currently
maintain a minimum of 22 employees and own in excess of $1.5 million of erosion
control and construction equipment. For the City of Fayetteville WSIP Wetland
Mitigation, Green Scaping has notified us that Cody Johnson, Project Manager;
and Marty Bauer, Project Superintendent, would be their onsite representatives for
the City's project.
Green Scaping's capabilities include hydro -sprigging, hydro -seeding, hydro -
mulching, sprigging, straw and hay mulching, broadcast and drill seeding, pipe
irrigation, tree planting, biotechnical embankments, truck watenng, and
establishment of native trees, grasses, and forbs. Green Scaping also has recent
project experience relevant to Contract WP -2b establishment of wetland prairie
vegetation and wetland compensatory mitigation under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act.
I contacted the references that Green Scaping provided on their bid submittal, and
received the following comments.
Charles Leung: Terracon, Dallas, Texas, 214-630-1010
"Green Scaping worked with us as a subcontractor of Rodman Excavation on the
restoration of a 130 -acre illegal landfill remediation site for the City of Dallas,
Texas. The project involved restoration of native plants and Green Scaping
conducting wetland prairie plant seeding on 100 acres, and planted 2,000 trees
and 600,000 aquatic plants. I consider them to be a good group to work with, and
my experience with them was very positive. Cody and Marty are very responsible
individuals. A new Audubon Learning Center will be constructed on the site in
the near future"
Curtis Davee: Rodman Excavations, Fort Worth, Texas. 972-335-4510
"Cody and Marty are really good at what they do. I have worked with them on
two projects. One was a 190 -acre wetland site where they did all the seeding and
planting. We now have a good stand of vegetation, and the client is happy. They
also worked with us on a 130 -acre landfill restoration project. I found Cody and
Marty to be very responsible. They could easily do the 30 -acre wetland site that
you are working on in Arkansas."
Don Harris: Colin County, Texas Mitigation Proiect, 214-205-7322
"Green Scaping worked with us on the construction of a 480 -acre youth camp.
We had no trouble with them at all. They do a good job and are good to work
with. They had the equipment and personnel to get the job done. On the project,
they provided native plant seeding and planted trees. They even planted aquatic
plants in the ponds that we built. They have a good reputation in this part of
Texas."
Tim Noack: Middle Texas Municipal Water District, 214-631-6100.
Our project involved transplanting 200,000 aquatic plant plugs from a wetland
plant nursery to another 200 -acre site, and was under a very tight time schedule.
Green Scaping bit off a little more than they could chew on this project, and had
problems staying on schedule and maintaining an adequate work force. 1 will give
them credit, however, that they had a challenging wetland project to deal with
when planting the aquatic plants at water depths ranging from two inches to three
feet deep, in addition to managing water levels under extreme circumstances. I
have nothing but good things to say about Marty, Green Scaping's Project
Manager. He has a very positive attitude, and is very responsive to project needs.
There were a couple of times our project would have gone south, were it not for
Marty making things happen."
Because I have no prior project experience with Green Scaping, I am unable to
absolutely confirm Green Scapmg's competency for the City's project However,
from the background review I have conducted, it is apparent that they have the
necessary experience, work force, and equipment to successfully complete the
WP -2b — Phase I Project. Consequently, ECO, Inc. hereby recommends that the
contract be awarded to C. Green Scaping, L.P. in the bid amount of $145,200.00.
Do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
�rz
Bruce Shackleford, M.S., REM, REPA
President
t....e
�Olassing
,. ECO, INC.
•l.t.a.n s WO..ar ..d iCOloge
(11)
Mc600dwin Williams fr Yates
Engineering Co fidence
Mr. David Jurgens, P. E
Water and Wastewater Director
City of Fayetteville
113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
_ACECJ
.\Vrtiu,r.d
Eed Anon/
September 27,"2006
Re: Recommendation of Award
Phase I — Wetland Mitigation Site Seedbed Preparation and Seeding
Fayetteville Wastewater System Improvement Project
Fayetteville Project No. 02133-0413
Contract No. WP -2b
MWY Project No. Fy-316WLR
Dear Mr. Jurgens:
As you are aware, bids were received September 21, 2006, for the above referenced
project. The only bid received was submitted by C. Green Scaping, L. P. of North
Richland Hills, Texas, in the amount of $145,200.00.
A copy of the certified bid tabulation is included for your reference, along with a copy of
the list of persons attending the bid opening. Our construction cost estimate on this
project prior to receipt of bids was $155,000.
We have reviewed the Bidder's Qualification Statement submitted by C. Green Scaping,
L. P., and based upon the information provided, believe them to be qualified for this
project. C. Green Scaping has been the wetland mitigation construction business for six
years under its present name, and for a total of 23 years under this and other names.
Although, they list in their statement they have never provided a control burn service on
any project in the past 23 years, they cite recently -completed projects: 1) a $5 million
landfill restoration project completed in 2005 for the city of Dallas, TX that included
100+ acres of seeding; 2) a $250,000 Collin County, TX mitigation project consisting of
aquatic planting, mitigation trees and prairie grasses, and 3) a $680,000 wetland
nursery project south of Dallas, TX being constructed to "buff" or clean effluent water
from the Tnnity River.
A copy of their Bidder's Qualification Statement is enclosed. Mr. Bruce Shackleford of
Environmental Consulting Operations, Inc. has made his own independent evaluation,
and a copy of his letter of recommendation is attached
While we have no way of independently verifying the present financial condition of C. Green
Scaping, L. P., the contract documents require the furnishing of 100 percent performance
and payment bonds prior to authorization of the notice to proceed of construction.
0R 72707 A 479-443-3404 0 419-443-4340•004.11005A.COri
Mr. David Jurgen, P. E.
September 27, 2006
Page 2
Therefore, we recommend that the City Council award this contract to C. Green
Scaping, L. P. in the amount bid of $145,200.00. We trust the Council will concur in this
recommendation.
The contract documents require substantial completion of the project within 150 days
and full completion and ready for final payment within 180 calendar days from the date
of the issuance of the notice to proceed.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please let us know.
Cordially yours,
JCU:sc
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Bruce Shackleford, President, ECO, Inc.
Mr. M. Lane Crider, P. E., MWY
James C. Ulmer, P E
Chief Operating Officer
Information Paper- Wetlands Mitigation Project Concept of Operations
City of Fayetteville Wastewater System Improvement Project
The City of Fayetteville's Compensatory Wetland Mitigation is a multi -disciplined
endeavor, requiring the expertise of both engineers and wetland scientists.
McGoodwin, Williams and Yates and ECO, Inc. have worked together as the
design team to develop design criteria for the mitigation site. The Contract WP -2b
Wetland Mitigation Site Preparation Specifications were near completion in June
of 2006, with plans of being ready to go to bid by mid-August of 2006. The
Contract WP -2b seedbed preparation and planting/seeding could not be initiated
until completion of the earthen berms, and heavy equipment was no longer on the
site to disturb planted areas. The necessary work to be in compliance with the
City's Section 404 permit was initially to be awarded as a single Contract WP -2b.
In summary, the WP -2b project tasks were to be, as follows:
• Berm construction (spring/summer 2006)
• Mowing (summer 2006)
• Herbicide application (late summer/early fall 2006)
• Prescribed burn (fall/winter 2006)
• Shallow surface cultivation and dragging (fall/winter 2006-2007)
• Spot herbicide application (winter/spring 2007)
• Soil testing/application of soil amendments (spring 2007)
• Herbicide application (spring 2007)
• Cultivation (spring 2007)
• Spring seeding of grasses and forbs; and tree planting (spring 2007)
Ultimately, under 404 permit requirements, the City must commence with
mitigation concurrent with permanent impacts to wetlands caused by wastewater
system construction, but has five years in which to successfully complete the
mitigation.
Before commencement of berm construction by Brasfield and Gorrie, Northwest
Arkansas was in a major drought. In fact, the time period from September 2005
through March 2006 was the driest 6 -month period of record for Washington
County, and the drought continued through July 2006. Cattle grazing and cutting
hay, a practice that has been done for years on the mitigation site, added further
stresses on the plant community during this critical dry period. Even any non-
scientist would have described the vegetation on the site during this period, as
`brown and "burned to a crisp". Prior to the drought, cattle grazing, cutting hay,
and site drainage ditches created conditions whereby the plant community was not
Section 02921 — Wetland Mitigation Site Seedbed Preparation And Planting 02921-1
very diverse. Several previous assessments of plant community composition
conducted by ECO, Inc., indicated that there were only about 50-55 plant species
present where the planned wetland was to be built, over half of which were
invasive non-native species. In summary, the consultant's observations led to the
scientific conclusion, "We have more undesirable than desirable plant species".
The degraded condition of the wet prairie site was a top consideration in the
development of the specifications for Contract WP -2b. A rather large list of
"candidate" plant species was developed, from which the successful bidder could
choose to plant or seed. This was done to allow some level of flexibility, since
some seeds of native plant species are not readily available Such extensive
seeding would be necessary in order to restore the degraded site, and create a
diverse wetland plant community. In general, the mitigation strategy at the time
was to basically start from scratch by boom application of herbicides to nd the site
of undesirable species, followed by prescribed burning, then seeding of desirable
species.
Then significant changes were made to prevailing environmental conditions at the
site that made a huge difference, accompanied by very positive and unanticipated
changes in the plant community. Cattle were removed from the site in May 2006,
Brasfield and Gorrie completed the structural construction portion of the berms in
July 2006, and the site received almost ten inches of rain during the month of
August 2006.
On August 1, 2006, ECO, Inc. visited the site and conducted an additional plant
community assessment. The final revised plant species list was completed on
August 7, 2006. After removal of cattle grazing pressure, and changes to the
hydrology via berm construction, Mother Nature moved at an amazingly fast pace
to restore the degraded site. Plant species, never observed by ECO, Inc. during
previous work, rapidly appeared and were no longer suppressed. The prior list of
50 to 55 species now stood at 166 species, only 38 (23%) of which were non-
native! On the down side, high densities of non -desirable Bermuda, lespedeza,
goat weed, and Johnson grass began thriving on the earthen berm soils that were
borrowed from off site.
As these new developments surfaced in early August, McGoodwin, Williams and
Yates and ECO, Inc. stayed on schedule to complete the WP -2b Bid Documents.
However it soon became evident that a change of strategy was in order, as the
scientific conclusion changed to, "We have more desirable than undesirable plant
species". A new strategy was developed for the work to be done in a less intrusive
2