QUESTIONS_AND_ANSWERS_0004_0004.docx

Questions and Answers

SOL 140L2221Q0010 0004

Rio Grande del Norte National Monument Management Plan

What is the status of the AMS, will the contractor prepare the AMS if there is not an AMS?

The BLM does not plan to prepare an AMS for this planning effort.

Will the BLM require assistance with the RFD scenario?

The BLM does not anticipate evaluating a RFD scenario as part of a National Monument management plan.

What materials or data have been recently developed by agencies that the BLM will expect to be used to inform the EIS?

· Big game species collaring, survey and monitoring data (NMDGF, BLM, Kent State Univ)

· Pinyon Jay study

· AIM data (BLM)

· Aquatic AIM data (BLM)

· LandCART (NASA, UCLA, USGS, and BLM)

· Tree ring/fire history for the cones, USGS

· Sagebrush fire history/density change in the monument, USGS

· Sagebrush Science Framework, collaboration between many agencies

· New ecological site descriptions for the monument, ARS, NRCS, BLM

· New soils mapping of the monument, NRCS, BLM

· Romme et. al studies on PJ forests

· Land resiliency tool, The Nature Conservancy

· INHABIT modeling tool for invasive species habitat potential, USGS

· Rare plant monitoring and presence/absence data, BLM

· Weeds monitoring and presence/absence data, BLM

· Fire regimes of the conterminous United States, USFS

· Land Treatment Exploration Tool (tells wildfire probability, seed zones, etc.), USGS

· Monarch phenology literature review, BLM TFO

· Monument resiliency and resistance report/literature review, BLM TFO

· Raptor, Southwestern willow flycatcher, meadow mouse, breeding bird, prairie dog, mountain plover and burrowing owl data

· Updated Special Status Species data

· Other Can project examples be used from subcontractors?

Yes, if relevant.

Will a court reporter be required for scoping or public comment meetings?

No.

Does the BLM anticipate any field assessment requirements to define cultural or biological resources? Or will our analyses to determine baseline conditions by this designation be limited to any previous data and/or our own desktop analysis?

Field work is not anticipated.

Will any specialty modelling or inventories be required to inform the EIS (e.g. air quality modeling/inventory, photochemical grid modeling, hydrologic modelling)?

None.

For costing purposes, can the BLM anticipate the number of comments that will be received during scoping and the draft public comment processes?

<500 unique comment submissions.

Are there page limitations to either of the proposal volumes?

No.

Can the proposal contain pages that are larger than 8.5x11?

Yes.

For costing purposes, how many total meetings should be assumed under Task 1?

Weekly or bi-monthly for duration of contract.

For costing purposes, how many mailed copies of the dear interested public letters should we assume for Tasks 3 and 4?

For costing purposes, how many meetings should we assume for each sub task under Task 5?

<10

How many certified letters will be mailed are expected to be mailed under Task 5a?

<120

For costing purposes, how many records should we assume for the administrative record Task 7? Not known—no assumptions can be made.

Under Task 7, the SOW says the contractor shall support processing the record for lawsuits and FOIA requests. For costing purposes, could you provide an assumption for the number of times the contracting team would support such efforts? None.

Will the project kickoff meeting be virtual or in person?

Virtual is anticipated.

Are there any travel costs for the contractor to assume?

Likely minimal travel can be assumed. In-person public meetings and internal scoping and alternative development may require travel depending on where the contractor is based.

Do we include the costs for the in-person venues for the scoping and DEIS comment period meetings?

Yes.

The RFQ identifies the period of performance through to 9/26/2025 but the SOW Section VIII. identifies the period of performance through to 3/15/2024. The SOW identifies the correct period of performance.

Is there a rough estimate for the number of existing documents to be included in the AR?

<1000

Under any anticipated alternative for management of the national monument, does BLM expect:

· new construction, i.e., development of new visitator facilities or recreational facilities? Changes to visitor fees? Nothing specific since this is a planning-level analysis.

· roads to be closed, or changes to non-permitted and permitted uses of motorized and mechanized vehicles? Will consider planning-level decisions regarding travel management.

· changes to livestock grazing, terms and conditions of grazing leases and permits, number of acres grazed, or current livestock grazing management within monument boundary (AUMs)? No substantial changes anticipated.

· changes to current mining practices or changes to casual collecting of common invertebrates and plant paleontological resources? No mining or mineral development allowed in Monument.

· changes to areas designations; i.e. wilderness areas (do they allow timber production?), open or closed to public areas for recreation and/or hunting? Yes. Will be considered.

· other foreseeable changes that will need socio-economic analysis? Determine potential impacts to nonmarket values of local quality of life, etc., will acquisition of this impact be expected during the scoping meeting/socioeconomic workshop or will the contractor be expected to conduct an independent survey of the affected population or measure using other similar studies, etc.? Not anticipated.