Addendum_1.docx

Request for Proposals (RFP) Addendum #1 SWIFT Event #: 2000016562 Agency: Department of Natural Resources Addendum Number: 1 Date of Addendum: January 28, 2025 Title: Marsh and Lake Sampling for Native Plant Communities Revision Event Due Date: February 5, 2025

VENDORS: PROPOSAL DUE DATE HAS CHANGED.

SCOPE OF ADDENDUM

Sharing vendor questions and State’s answers.

Vendors’ questions to the RFP and the State’s answers are as follows:

1. Can you provide information on the allocated budget or the funding range available for this initiative? Understanding the financial parameters will greatly assist us in preparing a proposal that aligns with your expectations and project goals.

Answer: Estimated at $55,000.00

2. Can you provide a Google Earth file or an ArcGIS shapefile of the Target Wetland Basins prior to the closing of the RFP?

Answer: A zipped folder containing the shape files “MRLK Locations NPC Rev” has been added to the Event documents. You should be able to add that to your ArcGIS project. An excel file is also available upon request if needed that contains the UTM coordinates for the Target Basins.

3. The RFP states that up to three relevés may be completed per target area. Is target area synonymous with the 32 Target Wetland Basins for a maximum of 96 relevés? Or could there be up to 3 relevés per NPC at each target area?

4. The RFP states the contractor will delineate a minimum of one and maximum of three examples of each of the wetland NPCs and collect vegetation plot data (typically via relevés) to document those occurrences. Does the DNR have a sense of how many NPCs might require the minimum of three relevés and how many might require up to three relevés?

5. On page 8 of the RFP, it states the contractor is not expected to map the entirety of NPCs surrounding the wetland or lake, but rather target examples of MR and LK NPCs which may require up to three relevés per target area. Therefore will there only be one focal NPC at each target location? If more than one, does the DNR have a sense of how many focal NPCs at each target location? (For example from the 18 target locations that the DNR has data.) Any type of estimation or maximum parameters would be helpful, since the number of NPCs, and the number of relevés, will determine how much time is required at each target location. If these estimates are unavailable, based on previous experience, is there an estimate of the number of hours or days required to complete sampling of one target location?

6. The RFP indicates a minimum of one and a maximum of three examples of each of the wetland NPCs should be documented with plot data. Does this refer to NPC systems, classes, or types?

Answer: A target area is the lake basin (total of 32 basins). The focus of the project is to document examples of MR and LK Native Plant Community Classes (NPCs) at each target lake basin. While ideally there would be an opportunity to capture more than one NPC at a target basin there may not be examples of both present. For example, in a case where there is only one example of an NPC (e.g. MRn83) with no variation – it would only take one relevé to capture the community representation per target basin. Another example would be for a target basin to have a variable expression of MRn83 such that you needed 2 separate relevés to fully characterize it and there was also a LK NPC (one substrate & uniform topography – e.g. LKi32) at the same basin that only needed 1 relevé, then you would have a total of 3 releves at that target basin. It is more likely that the number of relevés needed per target wetland basin will range from 1-3 relevés, however this will vary as each basin is unique.

The determination of which NPCs are present at the target basin is work to be done by the contractor as part of the screening and field planning described in the RFP under Activity 1. Delineation of target locations. In this activity, the contractor is asked to conduct desktop screening work as part of field planning. It is expected that the use of the various GIS layers mentioned in the RFP will aid in the process of determining how many of the Native Plant Community Classes (NPCs) exist at a target lake basin and guide subsequent delineation of these NPC locations. This desktop mapping exercise will result in the creation of mapped polygons for each target wetland basin (only mapping areas to capture NPCs of focus). Each target basin will be unique, and as such it will be up to the contractor to review the size and variability of the polygons created as part of the screening process to determine the likely location and the number of relevé plots that should be placed to characterize the NPCs.

Estimation of the time needed in the field to locate the boundaries of the NPCs as mapped during the screening process and determine proper placement of relevé plots will be based on the contractor’s own field experience and knowledge of the MR and LK Native Plant Community Classes.

7. The RFP states that the contractor should be prepared to conduct a ground survey of the target locations multiple times (as needed) to capture the composition of these communities given the potential cyclic drawdown of water levels. Please confirm that the focus is on capturing plant communities and composition based on water levels and not necessarily based on attempting to capture the phenology of rare species that may have even more specific requirements.

Answer: The ground survey and placement of relevé plots should focus on community level attributes (species presence and abiotic features) of the Native Plant Class (NPC). The vegetation data may incidentally capture rare species occurrences, but timing of sampling should not be based on the rare species phenology alone.

8. Does the DNR have a specific written protocol for transects used to delineate NPCs?

Answer: There is no requirement to follow a written protocol for transects other than what is stated in the MBS relevé handbook (see Section 2.Releve Plot location). Reference to transects in the RFP are regarding field work to refine NPCs boundaries that were mapped in the planning activity and ensuring proper placement of relevés. Any notes or GPS waypoints associated with transects are considered supporting documentation and a deliverable.

9. Do the LK NPC revisions intend to collect data below the current definition of the “lower zone”? This is, are data intended to be collected in the littoral zone deeper than the area “exposed during periods of low water” (e.g. LKi32)?

Answer: Data is to be collected using the defined zones for the LK NPCs. This means that no data needs to be collected in the littoral zone deeper than the area exposed during low water.

10. Is the contractor expected to collect additional physical/chemical data relevant to aquatic communities in addition to standard parameters collected as part of the relevé form?

Answer: No.

Rev. 07.01.2024