Atttachment 1 HAF Lek Forms_SOW.docx

STATEMENT OF WORK

Completion of Habitat Assessment Framework (HAF) S-2 Lek Suitability Forms for Greater Sage-Grouse and Gunnison Sage-Grouse (listed species) for Colorado Authors: Chris Domschke and Leah Waldner

INTRODUCTION

The Habitat Assessment Framework (HAF) is a multiscale assessment tool used by the BLM to determine habitat suitability at a site-scale and inform management decisions at a broad-scale for Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) and Gunnison Sage-Grouse (GUSG). An important component of the site-scale HAF is completion of lek suitability ratings using the S-2 form. Suitability ratings will need to be described for each lek regardless of status (occupied, unoccupied, or historic). Site suitability for leks is primarily dependent on availability of sagebrush cover and proximity of tall structures or other detrimental land uses. The HAF S-2 form is completed under the direction of the HAF manual and coordination with the BLM Colorado State Office.

The selected contractor will be a qualified biologist or spatial ecologist and supply all the necessary personnel, facilities, computer, software, and support to complete the S-2 lek forms and final database for the HAF. The contractor should be familiar with both GRSG and GUSG and their habitat requirements and threats. The contractor shall have knowledge and access to GIS mapping software able to process .shp formats, aerial imagery, and be able to read and create documents in .pdf and .xlsx formats.

The selected contractor must be able to obtain GRSG and GUSG lek location data from Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). The contractor will be responsible for analyzing, and assessing lek suitability, as per the S-2 HAF Lek Form, for every GRSG and GUSG lek location provided by CPW. In order to protect private data, no tasks can be accomplished onsite at BLM offices, or using BLM equipment.

PROJECT LOCATION

The HAF site-scale assessment will cover the entire range of GRSG and GUSG within Colorado for all lands. This data set includes assessment of roughly 870 lek locations for GRSG and GUSG combined across all landownerships in western Colorado. This task would be completed as a computer exercise and does not require site visits or field assessments.

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

Proposals should be itemized and include subtotals for each of the following tasks:

1. The contractor will schedule and coordinate a meeting including both the BLM Colorado State Office and CPW no later than 30 days after the contract is awarded. The contractor will be responsible for gathering all information and data necessary to complete the S-2 lek forms. This will include coordination with CPW and the BLM.

2. The contractor will submit 10 completed S-2 forms, 5 on public land and 5 on private land, to the BLM no later than 60 days after the contract is awarded. The BLM will provide feedback and further edits, if necessary, to the lek assessment within 14 days of receipt of the completed forms. The contractor must have concurrence with the BLM and CPW, through this review process, before additional lek forms and assessments can be completed.

3. The contractor will submit the final forms and associated database, as discussed under the criteria section below, to the BLM no later than 9 months after the contract is awarded. The BLM will provide feedback and further edits if necessary. Upon final approval of the deliverables, the BLM will issue payment.

4. The contractor will document all methods, data used, and outline the analysis process for the completion of both the S-2 forms and final associated database. The contractor will submit the final data and methods summary to BLM with the final forms and associated database.

DATA REQUIREMENTS

The BLM requests that the following data sources be used for assessment of lek suitability indicators as presented in the HAF. For definitions of the following indicators and the unmodified S-2 lek assessment form, reference pages 76-77 of the HAF manual.

1) Using the following guidelines and direction from the HAF manual, propose and coordinate with BLM on an approved and consistent methodology for addressing the analysis concepts and documenting rationale for lek suitability ratings. This can be done through a virtual meeting, in person meeting, or documented review.

a. Header Information:

i. Date – Date of form completion

ii. Management Zone – CPW GRSG Management Zone

iii. State – CO

iv. Evaluators – Name of individual or business completing the rating

v. Population – CPW name for GRSG or GUSG population

vi. Fine-Scale Name – Fine-scale name from spatial data provided by BLM CO

vii. Land Cover Type – Plant association or alliance from the National Vegetation Classification System

viii. Lek ID# - Attributed LekID from CPW lek data

ix. Ecological Site – the Ecological Site from Web Soil Survey, where available.

x. Lek Status – CPW lek status

xi. UTM – Only report UTM for leks on Public Lands – Additional limitations could be required by CPW for GUSG. (BLM CO will provide current Surface Management Agency data).

b. Availability of Sagebrush Cover – Use of 2019 NAIP imagery (https://image-services-gtacblm.fs.usda.gov/arcgis/services/NAIP2019byState/CO_NAIP2019/ImageServer/NAIP2019byState/CO_NAIP2019) and the NLCD 2016 Sagebrush Shrubland Fractional Component (https://www.mrlc.gov/data?f%5B0%5D=category%3Ashrubland) to rate suitability of this indicator.

c. Proximity of Detrimental Land Uses – Use NLCD 2016 Urban Imperviousness data, 2019 NAIP imagery, NLCD 2016 for agricultural landcover, COGCC data for oil and gas locations. (https://cogcc.state.co.us/data2.html#/downloads).

d. Proximity of Trees or Other Tall Structures – Use FAA Vertical Obstructions (https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=81e3d25560814520a4da0efa188075c8), NAIP 2019, and Sage-grouse Initiative tree cover data (https://storage.googleapis.com/sgi-data/conifer/state/colorado.zip) in combination with NAIP 2019.

e. Anthropogenic Noise Description – Use best available information for informing the rationale from the previous datasets with a particular focus on road traffic level and nearby industrial practices.

DELIVERABLES

1) Lek suitability packet should be in PDF format with one file per lek.

a. Lek Rating Packet

i. Completed fillable PDF S-2 forms (using the BLM CO provided templates) for all GRSG and GUSG lek locations (one S-2 form per lek location).

ii. For leks on public lands

1. An appropriately scaled map displaying a 3 km buffer with NAIP imagery, and tall structure locations.

2. An appropriately scaled map displaying a 100 m buffer with, at a minimum, NAIP imagery.

iii. For leks on private land

1. Specific guidance for these lek locations will be coordinated with CPW and BLM to provide similar data as requested above for public land leks.

2. The intention is to attach maps as for public land leks, pending CPW approval.

2) A summary table, in excel format, including at a minimum: the number of leks in each combination of lek suitability and status, e.g. Historic-Suitable, Occupied-Marginal.

3) A single results table, in excel format, including the following for every GRSG and GUSG lek location:

a. All S-2 form header information

b. Suitability ratings for each indicator

c. Overall suitability rating

4) A protocol summary which documents all methods, data used, and outlines the analysis process for the completion of both the S-2 forms and final associated database. The protocol used for completing the S-2 forms should match HAF guidance, however rationale and data inputs may vary.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Evaluation will be based on Best Value with Trade-Offs focusing on the following factors:

Technical- Please include the following:

· Description of your technical approach to the project

· Past experience

· Timeline for completing the project

· Address Performance Requirements Section from the SOW

· Resumes for key personnel that would be working on this project

· Project manager and technical experience that indicate successful completion of similar data analysis consultation projects.

Past Performance-

· References: Include three organizations or agencies that the vendor has worked for; and points of contact (name and telephone). Organizations/agencies may be called to clarify past performance (rate the contractor using statistical measure of between one and ten; the number ten being the highest score).

· The government may, at its discretion, base past performance on past knowledge and previous experience with the contractor, supply or service being provided, customer survey or other reasonable basis.

Price-

· Complete pricing based on the Performance Requirements section of the SOW

Award will be based on best value to the government. The best value to the government may or may not be the lowest priced offer.

MEETINGS

The BLM project contacts and the COR will schedule a pre-work meeting that will be held virtually to discuss the expectations of the projects, HAF assessment, and basic deliverables.

CONTRACTING OFFICERS REPRESENTATIVES