Pre-proposal abstract_080112.pdf

Pre-Proposal Meeting Abstract August 1, 2012 AG-0116-S-12-0122 Alder Neck teleconference 907-586-9398 AG-0116-S-12-0124 Kuiu Noname Page 1 of 5 Pre-proposal Agenda:

The purpose of the meeting is to improve the understanding of Government requirements and industry capabilities.

An amendment has been issued which discloses the funding amount for each of these contracts. The funding amount for each of these contracts is $100,000.

FS personnel in attendance:

Catherine Powell, CO will lead the pre-proposal meeting.

Patti Krosse and/or Karen Dillman will field technical questions after the following questions and answers are read. See below.

Carol Seitz-Warmuth (COR)

Questions submitted:

1. Are there existing vegetation, geology and soils maps available that can be used to better refine the potential survey areas? See website at University of AK, as described in solicitation.

2. The RFP indicates that surveys will include both general and focused surveys by using the intuitive meander approach. Given that the project area encompasses over 120,000 acres and includes three priority levels, and the period of performance includes only a single growing season is there any additional information available in terms of the level of coverage desired for the surveys? For example is the objective to provide 100% coverage of focused surveys for the high priority areas with say 50% focuses and 50% general surveys in the moderate priority areas and only general surveys in the low priority areas? The level and type of survey you provide is up to the contractor and should be described in the bid package. This is linked to the recent amendment issued stating a funding constraint of $100,000.

3. Figure 1 indicates the location of existing roads and it appears that there are some extensive areas, particularly in the northeastern part of the project where there are no roads. Are these areas only accessible by foot from existing road or from boat along the coastline? All areas on the Tongass may be accessible on foot or boat access from any shoreline. Those types of logistics need to be assessed and described by the contractor.

4. It is a bit unclear whether the focused surveys will include surveys only for sensitive plants or if the surveys will be floristic in nature (all plant species observed identified and recorded for the survey area).

Will focused surveys include only sensitive plants, sensitive plants and characteristic vegetation or a complete floristic inventory? The surveys are rare plant surveys (sensitive and other rare flora).

AG-0116-S-12-0124 Kuiu Noname Page 2 of 5 General habitat characteristics will be described on survey and element occurrence forms.

5. The RFP does not specifically mention noxious or invasive weed surveys, but it could be adventitious to include identification and mapping of weeds as part of the surveys. Should weed surveys be considered when developing the survey strategies and methods? NO. If weeds are identified within the survey areas, they will be documented along with the other species. A species checklist will be filled out for each survey.

6. Section C.6 (Government furnished property) states that aerial photos may be provided digitally or as hard copies upon request and availability. Can you specify what conventional hard copy aerial photo prints are available for each project area (area of coverage, year, color or b/w) and what digital photo files are available for each project area (area of coverage, year, pixel resolution). – No, I cannot provide this information at this time. Aerial photos are available generally at 1:1585- scale.

7. The RFQ for both the Alder/Neck and Kuiu Island projects use the terms “resource report”, “botanical report”, and “project summary report” throughout the statement of work description. Can you clarify whether these are all referring to the same single report describing the rare plant survey methods and results, or whether additional botanical reports are expected for each project area? Yes. Sorry for the confusion.

8. Section 4.1.1 of the Survey Protocol describes how the Target Species list is developed from the three items listed. Item #3 (other species of conservation interest to the Forest Service) is an undefined number of species. The prefield planning requires conducting research about the geographic range, phenology, habitat characteristics, identification factors, etc. of each species before site selection occurs in order to ensure that appropriate habitats are selected for survey. Can you provide an estimate of how many of these species of interest might be included on the Target Species list for each project area (e.g., 10, 30, 60, or 100 species). This information would be used to develop an appropriate budget for the pre-field review task. Anticipate 60-90 species on the target list.

9. Section 4.2.5 of the Survey Protocol describes the geographic data requirements for the field survey, and Section 4.3 describes the documentation of the geographic data. Continuous waypoint logging is required using a minimum rate of one point per minute. Our experience shows that throughout the day, as satellites are rotating overhead, GPS signals will be lost, and then regained. This will result in broken waypoint tracks that may have small or large missing segments depending on how long the signal was lost. Waypoint tracks would also be broken when an EO is documented, resulting in multiple track files for a single survey day. Can you clarify what you are expecting to receive regarding the survey routes when GPS reception is lost? There is nothing in the protocols that requires continuous waypoint logging.

10. In previous RFQ’s for botanical surveys of similar scope the Forest Service provided a maximum funding level that was available for the contract. Can you provide either a target number of sites to be surveyed for each project area, or a target funding level, to allow the contractors to provide a proposal

AG-0116-S-12-0124 Kuiu Noname Page 3 of 5 that addresses the Forest Service’s intended scope of the project? See recent amendment. Funding amount is $100,000 for each contract.

11. What total dollar amount does the USFS have available to spend on this project? $100,000

12. Is there a certain percentage or acreage of the survey area that USFS expects the contractor to cover? No. The award will be based on the number of surveys the vendor is proposing to complete within the project area.

13. What level of effort is expected for high versus moderate versus low priority survey areas? That will be for the vendor to describe. Obviously, the high priority areas are the most important, followed by moderate and low.

14. In planning for site access and logistics, it would be helpful to have the managed stand data for lands surrounding the study areas. Will the USFS be able to provide this information to us during the bidding period? The University of Alaska website, provided in the solicitation, has all the GIS layers for the Tongass N.F. that the vendor should need to assess logistics.

15. May CEU credits and post-educational courses, such as Alaska specific willow ID, sedge ID, and bryophyte ID courses count towards the required overall or taxonomy credit hours? If yes, how much do we credit them? Plant ID courses may be granted credit in lieu of academic credits. 1 credit per 40 hour taxonomy training will be granted. Bryophyte ID courses will not count for credit since bryophytes will not be involved in these surveys.

16. The number of botanists with west coast/AK experience needed to complete surveys for both these areas during a single field season is likely higher than any consulting firm typically employs at one time. So long as the contractor can provide credentials of key staff at this time, and develops a plan for the USFS to review qualifications for all short term summer hires by March of 2013, will that be adequate to bid? Yes. As long as the vendor understands that qualification standards for all botanists will apply and the USFS will request resumes for all personnel prior to awarding the contacts as well as if any changes in personnel occur after contract award.

17. While wetland delineation work is not always conducted in conjunction with vegetation surveys, our firm uses an integrated approach to incorporate wetland determination work, vegetation mapping, invasive surveys and species of concern (rare and sensitive) species surveys. As such our delineators work extensively in uplands as well as wetlands, and are responsible for completing vegetation plots and surveys that capture all species, include those at trace levels. We have a documented history of finding populations of sensitive species during these extensive Alaska remote based field programs. May we count at least a portion of this field time towards the field survey requirements? No.

18. Will the contractor be required to send staff to any USFS safety programs or require with any particular safety programs before working on the Tongass? If so, please specify these requirements and provide anticipated dates when these programs will be offered to the contractors’ staff. No.

AG-0116-S-12-0124 Kuiu Noname Page 4 of 5

19. Realizing that the complete survey of even just all of the high priority acres in both areas would be very expensive, does the USFS have a budget cap set for this work that contractors should develop their scopes within? $100,000

20. Can the Forest Service provide a more detailed breakdown of the vegetation types by survey priority? For example "x" acres of old growth reserves, "y" acres of estuarine areas, etc.? The best we can offer is to use CoverType (GIS layer) as a means of identifying vegetation types on the TNF. Compare these cover types to the sensitive plant matrix (Appendix C) as a means to identify a diversity of habitats and associated sensitive (rare) flora. Evaluate these vegetation types relative to high, medium and low priority areas and develop a plan for surveying which includes all these parameters.

21. Will the Forest Service be able to permit/authorize summer spike camps to support this work prior to the 2013 field season? Are there any existing approved camp locations that have supported timber inventory work, etc.? Yes, we can authorize summer spike camps if needed. The only USFS field camp is in Rowan Bay, Kuiu Island. An abandoned field camp exists on Prince of Wales Island at El Capitan Passage. Google may provide information on B&Bs, lodges or other facilities for each project area.

22. Are any of the areas off limits to helicopters or float plane access due to land use restrictions? If so, please provide a current map and/or periods of restriction data periods anticipated for 2013. All Wilderness areas are off limits for helicopter usage. The GIS layer LUDs may be used to identify wilderness areas within the project areas. No other restrictions are known.

23. Are any logging camps operating on Kuiu through the 2013 field season? If so, can you provide the operators contact information? Rowan Bay field camp. Contact the Petersburg Ranger District at 907- 772-5996.

24. What condition are the roads shown on the map? Are they currently all open for all vehicle use, 4WD only, ATV only, unknown? All roads on the maps (Figures 1 for each project area) are open roads for vehicle usage.

25. Where are the permitted barges landing locations on Kuiu for offloading vehicles to use in surveys? Do you maintain a list of licensed operators for these facilities? Will need to research this question.

26. Can you provide a list of licensed hunting and fishing guide/tour operators working out of Petersburg and Kake? Will need to research this question.

27. Assuming the surveys include searches for cryptogams, is there a preferred ratio of search effort for vascular plants, lichens, and bryophytes? Lichen and bryophyte searches can require coverage of habitats less likely to harbor rare vascular plants, so searching for cryptogams can detract from vascular plant searches. The only lichen that will be included in the target species list for rare plant surveys for both project areas is Lobaria amplissima. Other cryptogams will not be required for survey or documentation.

AG-0116-S-12-0124 Kuiu Noname Page 5 of 5

28. Are surface geology maps available for the study area, ideally those showing occurrences of calciferous rocks? What is the dominant rock type in the study area? There is a geology GIS layer available for the Tongass N.F. located on the UAS website. Specific carbonates and karst areas are also available upon request. However, the survey areas for both projects (Alder-Neck and Kuiu Is.)

focus primarily on non-carbonate lithology. The focus of the surveys will be within the Till Lowland ecological subsection, meaning the area is generally moderately steep with glacial till as the surficial deposits. Previous rare plant surveys have already taken place in the Alder-Neck Lake areas within carbonates and would not be a priority for this solicitation.

29. My home herbarium is UBC, and I try to keep my entire collection there when possible. Is there a requirement to deposit specimens to an Alaskan herbarium? If so, I'd be happy to comply, but for taxonomically critical or otherwise interesting species, I'd hope to be able to collect duplicates for UBC.

Is that ok? A special use permit would need to be obtained for collecting any non-rare flora on the Tongass N.F. for scientific reasons (for example as herbarium specimens). Additional collection of any rare flora would be at the discretion of the USFS and would depend on the species in question and the size of the population. Collections for the benefit of the contractor would be negotiated after contract award, at the request of the vendor.

Additional Comments:

Any and all inquiries need to go through the contracting office at this time. Please submit any questions about these solicitations in writing to Catherine Powell either via fax (907)228-6254 or via email crpowell@fs.fed.us. Include your contact information and use the solicitation number as the subject line.

mailto:crpowell@fs.fed.us