Answers to questions_0003.pdf

Is offeror responsible for conducting any biological or cultural studies beyond a wetland delineation and functional assessment, even if required for a permit? No. The FWS has biological and cultural data to address Sec 7 and Sec 106.

Is any of the proposed wetland restoration project considered compensatory mitigation? No Please confirm that that the proposed wetland restoration project has met NEPA compliance requirements. Yes It will.

It appears that the proposed wetland restoration project meets the requirements for Nationwide Permit 27. Obtaining an Individual Permit requires substantially more information and time than a Nationwide Permit. Should the offeror assume that the wetland restoration project does not require an Individual Permit from US Army Corps of Engineers? We would hope that at NP 27 would be utilized, but until we meet with ACOE we can't assume it will. It is reasonable to think NP 27 is perfect for this work.

We answered the questions below, regarding the RFQ- 140F0920Q0020.

1. What specifically do you want included in our proposal package?

o proposal needs to address items in section III. SCOPE OF SERVICE

REQUIREMENTS

o Highlighting potential permits needed, and issues that the USFWS needs to consider in relation to permit consideration and trust resources or activities that could complicate the permitting. This includes time of year restrictions.

2. Is the contractor to obtain local permits and erosion control plan approvals if it is determined they are needed?

o Yes. They will submit them on the USFWS's behalf.

3. Do the maps that will be provided include detailed design plans that can be used to determine potential wetland impacts after the wetland delineation has been completed?

o More detailed conceptual and 33% designs will be available Late

Summer/Fall 2020.

4. Will CNWR cover all permit fees?

o No. The contractor will cover all associated permit fees.

Additional information associated with the attached maps:

• SOW Pond- We anticipate delineating a 50 ft buffer on the tidal side of the marsh (including 100 ft of the existing channel). This would provide room to grade into the impoundment and limit disturbance while reducing impact of sediment. On impoundment side- we anticipate impacting 1.5 acres through filling (within ~260' of the existing berm) of the open water areas to restore tidal marsh vegetation. We would then have a reduced impact of 2.5 acres in the center of the basin, where we would do small scale channel creation to aid in propagating the tide through the lower third of the basin. Impacted areas would be replanted with appropriate vegetation.

• Lighthouse Meadow- Very similar to SOW pond but much smaller foot print. 0.60 acres would be directly filled/regraded on inside of impoundment. This extends 85 feet from berm. 0.30 acres could have small hand dug channels created to aid in propagating tide through lower 1/2 to 1/3 of basin. This project is attempting minimize invasive species spread by allowing saltwater to infiltrate the basin reducing Phragmites, thereby preparing the site to become high marsh in the future. We would use hay bails and waddles to create series of weirs in channel and along marsh. No impacts on existing tidal salt marsh expected.

• Assateague Channel- Encompasses a 22 acre wetland restoration/creation. We anticipate using ACOE sand (trucked in for CDF's on the mainland) to create/restore tidal marsh. We would use hay bails as containment during construction (to limit activity, reduce sediment re-mobilization into channel, and protect castles. The castles would become the toe of the marsh (helps to stabilize the newly created marsh. The area would be planted with plugs to speed up recolonization.The new marsh would be contoured into the existing marsh to the SW and NE of area, and along road a small berm would be constructed (covering the hardened shoreline). Contractor would also need to see what permits would be needed for hauling sand. This could be responsibility of trucking company if contracted out.