MODIFICATION
B -- Estimating Wildlife Response to the Conservation Reserve Program
- Notice Date
- 10/20/2004
- Notice Type
- Modification
- NAICS
- 541620
— Environmental Consulting Services
- Contracting Office
- Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Acquisition Management Branch, Special Projects Section, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0567, Washington, DC, 20250-0567
- ZIP Code
- 20250-0567
- Solicitation Number
- FSA-R-28-04DC
- Response Due
- 11/2/2004
- Archive Date
- 11/17/2004
- Point of Contact
- Alonzo Jacobs, Contract Specialist, Phone 202-720-7335, Fax 202-690-0689, - Alonzo Jacobs, Contract Specialist, Phone 202-720-7335, Fax 202-690-0689,
- E-Mail Address
-
alonzo.jacobs@usda.gov, alonzo.jacobs@usda.gov
- Small Business Set-Aside
- Partial Small Business
- Description
- Questions and answers are as follows: Question 1: In addition to knowing the locations of CRP lands, will it be possible to request the CRP practice employed on each CRP parcel as well as the nature of the lands around the parcels? For example, if we were to propose that a buffer of a certain distance be created around each Breeding Bird Survey route, could FSA provide an analysis of the number of acres of each CRP practice and the date of enrollment for each parcel that fell within that buffer area? Also, does FSA have additional data on the crop types planted on an annual basis around each CRP parcel? Currently NASS has a Cropland Data Layer, but that is only available for a relatively few states in the Midwest and southcentral U.S. The USGS has the National Land Cover Database, but it still relies upon 1992 data for many regions and will not have updated the entire U.S. to 2001 data until 2006 or 7. Does FSA have any supplemental land cover, crop cover data to supplement these two resources? Does FSA have the resources to provide such an analysis during the timeframe of this proposed project? Response 1: The CRP practice will be available in an overlay with each breeding bird survey point. This overlay will be fully accurate for whole field practices, and somewhat less accurate for partial field practices such as buffers. Partial field practices will be identified by the field in which they are established but where in that field they fall. It is Important to Note: that the digitized information for the FSA common land unit (CLU) data is still being developed and will not be available for all sites. Progress can be viewed at http://fsagis.usda.gov/clutracking/. The information regarding the adjacent crop over time is not going to be readily available because the CLU digitized information is for 2004 and previous year data will not be loaded in time for the wildlife analysis. Question 2: Regarding this RFP, are we talking about proposals entertained in the $10K or $500K range? Response 2: All proposals will be considered during the evaluation process. The Government estimate is not releasable. Question 3: We have the expertise to collect and model the existing (and newly acquired) spatial data, but do not believe these data will be meaningful without ground truthing to validate the models relative to bobwhite (and other grassland bird) responses. We would be interested in developing a Habitat Suitability Index for CRP contracts for bobwhites in the Rolling Plains region of Texas. We'd investigate such parameters as type of vegetation (native or exotic grass), amount of shrub cover that has subsequently invaded the CRP contract, and juxtaposition of the CRP contract in the overall landscape (i.e., is it adjacent to other suitable quail habitat [brushy rangeland]. If you don't have some ground truthing to validate your models, what have you gained by this exercise? Response 3: The issue you raise is valid. If one is seeking a model for a specific parcel then the vegetation on that land is vital. However, if the succession that takes place on CRP lands in a region for a given practice follows a generally consistent pattern, then the validation would not be necessary to make an appraisal of the effect of the CRP on population numbers over time. While, fully validated information on vegetative cover would be preferable because it would provide information on invasive species, and other effects, the fact is that such information is beyond the budget available. For a first cut FSA needs a general model for regional population effects. This is why the RFP specifies the analysis of existing data and specifies the regions to be examined. A model of quail populations for 15 counties is of interest, but would not meet the minimum specifications. Question 4: I understand that FSA will have completed digitizing the CRP Lands for the central part of the country (excluding Texas) in time for use in this project. I was curious whether plans exist to digitize the locations of CRP lands for the rest of the country in the future? If so, what is the planned schedule for that effort? Response 4: The answer is that FSA is digitizing the entire country as rapidly as possible. The progress is shown on http://fsagis.usda.gov/clutracking/ The digitized information will not be available to the contractors in raw form due to farmer privacy rights and FSA concerns for protecting these rights. That said FSA has arranged for digitized farm data to be merged with out dataset in a manner that protects landowner privacy but allows statistical examination of the data. Question 5: Our group of biologists has extensive experience in surveying for a variety of species in many types of habits. We also have developed models for estimating population size in a variety of species and habitats. Although we have not worked specifically with the species outlined in the RFP, we have the skill set needed to evaluate the population and habitat data sources that are available for this project. My question is: will you be giving higher scores to those with specific experience with these species, or will proposals with the appropriate experience in evaluating survey methods, data sets, and modeling populations get equal or greater scores? Obviously, it would be ideal to have both... Response 5: All other things being equal someone with demonstrated experience with a particular species would be viewed as being more capable than someone that does not have that experience. However, there are a number of mitigating factors. For example, having a demonstrated experience making statistically valid population estimates would be preferable to non-quantitative experience; for two individuals with similar publication records, but one individual being a graduate student and the other being a full professor would lead to the professor being selected. Question 6: Is it possible for USDA to disburse payments to multiple partners rather than just the agency the program manager represents? Response 6: No, payments can only be made to the contract holder as identified on the award documents. Award of a contract can only be made to a single entity. The entity to receive award must be registered in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) system (see http://www.ccr.gov). This does not preclude the award of multiple contracts under this solicitation.
- Place of Performance
- Address: Various.
- Record
- SN00696581-W 20041022/041020211639 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |