Questions.doc

Question #1:

W912HN-09-T-0096 Environmental Assessment for a proposed shoreline stabilization project at JH Kerr Reservoir in Boydton, VA. I have a request for information and one question regarding the project. (1) Will you please provide coordinates of each of the sites listed in the solicitation? I wish to conduct a preliminary map/aerial photo assessment to gauge the geographic scope of the project and the range of site types. (2) Does the Corps have one or more shoreline stabilization methods, in addition to No-Action, that will be included in the assessment of alternatives?

Answer #1:

1) A copy of a survey report is attached which provides the geographic coordinates for all shoreline stabilization areas addressed by the SOW. It just became available to me this week.

2) At a minimum, the EA shall consider the No Action Alternative in addition to the proposed action. The proposed actions will be provided by Wilmington District. These alternatives have been developed based on experiences in the J.H. Kerr area. Because of the fluctuating lake levels, stone rip-rap or articulated revetment measures are most effective in meeting the purpose and need of shoreline stabilization and protection of property and features from shoreline erosion. It is not the intent of the Scope of Work to have the contractor design shoreline stabilization measures. However, if a proposed measure is not appropriate for some area due to unacceptable impacts, or if the impacts can be mitigated by a design adjustment, it is expected that such information be brought to the attention of the Wilmington District and the contract Technical POC during the environmental assessment process.

A discussion (text) of alternatives that were considered by the Wilmington District during previous studies or design efforts and dismissed will be provided to the contractor for appropriate inclusion in the EA. Further environmental analysis of these dismissed alternatives will not be required.

Question #2:

Concerning the alternatives analysis portion of the EA document, does the USACOE have build alternatives established for the shoreline stabilization or will the selected consultant need to develop and evaluate various build alternatives proposing different shoreline stabilization methods (i.e., rip-rap, bio-logs, etc.).

Answer #2

At a minimum, the EA shall consider the No Action Alternative in addition to the proposed action. The proposed actions will be provided by Wilmington District. These alternatives have been developed based on experiences in the J.H. Kerr area. Because of the fluctuating lake levels, stone rip-rap or articulated revetment measures are most effective in meeting the purpose and need of shoreline stabilization and protection of property and features from shoreline erosion. It is not the intent of the Scope of Work to have the contractor design shoreline stabilization measures. However, if a proposed measure is not appropriate for some area due to unacceptable impacts, or if the impacts can be mitigated by a design adjustment, it is expected that such information be brought to the attention of the Wilmington District and the contract Technical POC during the environmental assessment process.

A discussion (text) of alternatives that were considered by the Wilmington District during previous studies or design efforts and dismissed will be provided to the contractor for appropriate inclusion in the EA. Further environmental analysis of these dismissed alternatives will not be required.

Question #3

With respect to W912HN-09-T-0096 will any field cultural and biological surveys be required?

Answer #3

The Scope of Work States:

C. Resource Surveys and Impact Analysis. The Contractor shall conduct visits to the project areas with a multidisciplinary team, to become knowledgeable about the project, and to obtain existing information, conduct interviews, and analyze impacts. Field surveys will be limited to gathering existing data required to complete analyses of project impacts as required by the applicable federal regulations pertinent to this Scope of Work. Contractor will identify any data deficiencies that could require further field studies. If any specific field surveys other than what has been identified within this section are required and agreed to by CESAW, a modification to the contract will be made and an equitable adjustment in the contract price will be negotiated. The field investigations may include, but not be limited to, the surrounding environment, soil, topography, hydrology, visual/aesthetics, land use, flood hazard, existing facilities and utilities, hazardous/toxic wastes, water quality, and the social and economic environment at the project sites. The field investigations/studies shall fully explore the proposed alternatives to determine potential environmental impacts.

The Contractor shall document the impacts of the project alternatives on the affected environment and identify any associated mitigation measures in the environmental consequences section of the EA.

Field visits of all project sites by a multidisciplinary team are expected. Determining impacts remotely is not encouraged. Gathering existing information through data reviews etc. is required. Extensive cultural resource surveys are not intended as a part of this scope of work. Similarly, a field biologist overview and existing data review of biological resources of the project areas is expected in order to perform an impact assessment.