B09_-_RFI_Log_0002.docx

16 KB Posted

Attached to
DINO: AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES RAPID RESPONSE PLAN
Solicitation number
140P1425Q0060
Issued by

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI ·

This document is a Request for Information (RFI) log for the Dinosaur National Monument (DINO) Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Rapid Response Plan, solicitation number 140P1425Q0060. The RFI contains seven key questions and responses from the National Park Service regarding the development of an aquatic invasive species (AIS) management plan, with a focus on quagga and zebra mussels. Current aquatic nuisance species of concern include New Zealand mudsnails and northern crayfish, though the primary focus is on quagga and zebra mussels.

The RFI reveals that while there are no specific requirements for stakeholder engagement or site visits, the National Park Service values in-person interactions and recommends including some face-to-face events. The project involves consideration of 36 affiliated tribes and potential downstream impacts, particularly for Ute Indian Tribal lands along the Green River. The contractor is expected to develop a flexible, dynamic response plan that can adapt to potential budgetary constraints and future funding uncertainties. The project will require a comprehensive approach to AIS management within the Upper Colorado River watershed, with an emphasis on creating a framework for rapid response to aquatic invasive species.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
Sol_140P1425Q0060_Amd_0002.pdf PDF
Sol_140P1425Q0060_Amd_0001.pdf PDF
Sol_140P1425Q0060.pdf PDF
B03_-_WD_2015-5439_-_23DEC24.pdf PDF
B08_-_Attachment_1_-_SOW_-_ANS_Response.docx DOCX document
B03_-_WD_2015-5497_-_20MAY25.pdf PDF

On GovTribe

Work with this file

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

140P1425Q0060 DINO: ANS Rapid Response Amendment 02 – RFI Log

Question
NPS Answer
1
Would DINO be opposed to a dynamic, real-time model?
I am not opposed to exploring a dynamic, real-time model in addition to a written plan.
2
Are there budgetary constraints so we can try to build a solution that's not complete under- or over-kill for what you're looking for?
Unknown budgets in future years, esp. these days! So, I can't say with certainty if there will be funding in the future available to maintain programs/modules.
3
In addition to zebra mussels and quagga, what other aquatic nuisance species are currently of concern near Dinosaur National Monument? And, is it more important to have a widely adaptable framework for rapid response (which will ultimately be more vague)? Or create detailed responses for potential species i.e., quagga mussels, crayfish, plankton, plants, etc.
AIS present in DINO (that we know of right now): New Zealand mudsnail and northern crayfish, neither of which have a coordinated response. The primary species of concern for a rapid response plan are QZM. Any generalized information on rapid response measures for non QZM AIS is welcome, however.
4
Are there tribal jurisdictional considerations, and is there relevant information available about them, for the successful implementation of a rapid response and/ or management plan?
There are no tribal lands within the monument boundary. However, we do have 36 affiliated tribes that claim Dinosaur NM as an ancestral home. Additionally, there are Ute Indian Tribal lands along the Green River miles downstream of Dinosaur NM that could be impacted by AIS. They should be considered a potential stakeholder.
5
Stakeholder Engagement: To what extent is the selected contractor expected to conduct stakeholder engagement and meetings in person versus remotely?
There are no specific expectations stated around how stakeholder engagement meetings happen. However, including some in-person events are typically more productive and is expected to be well-received by potential stakeholders given Dinosaur's position in the Upper Colorado River watershed.
6
Travel and Site Visits: Are there specific logistical expectations around travel and visitation to Dinosaur National Monument as part of project development (e.g., required site assessments, on-site workshops)?
No, however including some in-person events are typically more productive and is expected to be well-received by potential stakeholders given Dinosaur's position in the Upper Colorado River watershed.
7
Meetings with NPS and Stakeholders: Is there an expected number and/or format of meetings (e.g., virtual briefings, in-person workshops, periodic updates) either with stakeholders or NPS personnel?
No specific number of each is stated. However, including some in-person events are typically more productive and is expected to be well-received by potential stakeholders given Dinosaur's position in the Upper Colorado River watershed.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .