SOLICITATION NOTICE
B -- U.S. Fish and Wildlife has a requirement for a Statistician
- Notice Date
- 8/25/2008
- Notice Type
- Presolicitation
- Contracting Office
- Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, CGS-WO, Division of Contracting and General Services U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service911 NE 11th Avenue Portland OR 97232
- ZIP Code
- 97232
- Solicitation Number
- 101818M994
- Response Due
- 9/9/2008
- Archive Date
- 8/25/2009
- Point of Contact
- Lorrie Gleghorn Contracting Officer 5032312392 Lorrie_Gleghorn@fws.gov;<br />
- Small Business Set-Aside
- Total Small Business
- Description
- 3. SCOPE: A.Better document data collection methods at the Orchard Training Area To date, methodologies on data collection methods for the OTA as summarized in Weaver (2006) has come in the form of emails and at meetings (methods summarized in USFWS 2006 and Foss 2006). Product: Documentation of these methods should be detailed in a single comprehensive review. For example, information should be included on the number of surveyors, level of sampling effort, what days, effort comparisons between sampling years, etc. B.Statistically analyze data The IDARNG data has not been statistically analyzed. The wide fluctuations in Lepidium papilliferum numbers tend to be correlated with precipitation, therefore this statistical analysis should consider precipitation effects on abundance as described in other studies (Meyer et al. 2005, p. 15; Palazzo et al. 2005, p. 9; Menke and Kaye 2006a, p. 8; 2006b, pp. 10, 11). Products: The statistical methods employed should be described, and highlight any difficulties encountered. Statistical programming languages and outputs will need to be described and included as part of the final report. In addition, OTA survey data from 2006, 2007, and 2008 will need to be obtained from the Idaho Army National Guard. C.Compare methods from the "rough census" to other survey efforts at the Orchard Training Area The collection methods utilized in the "rough census" needs to be compared with other survey efforts at the Orchard Training Area. For example, in 2005 URS Corporation documented significantly more occupied slickspots that had not been marked during "rough census efforts" and many more individuals than had been counted in similar areas during the same year. Reports that should be reviewed include URS Corporation 2005a; 2005b; and TRS 2006 (see below). Products: - A map comparing survey areas should be developed that includes a comparative summary of the various methodologies. - An assessment of the comparative reliability of the various methods for determining population trend. D.Better illustrate habitat quality at the Orchard Training Area Based on Element Occurrence (EO) rankings, Lepidium papilliferum habitat at the Orchard Training Area represents the highest quality habitat for the species on the Snake River Plain (Colket et al. 2006). EO ranks need to be summarized Rangewide and, if possible, quantified to compare habitat quality to the Orchard Training Area. Products: The distribution of L. papilliferum at the OTA needs to be overlaid with habitat quality. For example, areas with L. papilliferum, that have burned, or that are dominated by cheatgrass should be delineated and overlaid on a map. The OTA may have a map already depicting this. E.Compare OTA data with HIP monitoring Based on graphical representations, declines in numbers of Lepidium papilliferum individuals at the OTA, not consistent with precipitation, occurred starting in 1996. The only data set available to assess the status of L. papilliferum range wide is the Habitat Integrity Index (HII) 1998-2002 (Mancuso and Moseley 1998, Mancuso et al. 1998; Mancuso 2000; 2001; 2002), followed by Habitat Integrity and Population (HIP) 2004-2008 (Colket 2005; 2006; Idaho Conservation Data Center 2007a; 2007b; 2008) monitoring. And, this data set was initiated subsequent to the L. papilliferum declines at the OTA. Products: - A comparison of the OTA special use plots and rough census areas to the HII/HIP Rangewide monitoring is needed. This comparison should include: 1) the HII/HIP data includes several transects at the OTA and the analysis needs to address how representative the HII/HIP data set from the OTA is in relation to range wide data, 2) a comparison of habitat quality across the range of the species (Colket et al. 2006) is needed that addresses OTA special use plots/rough census in comparison to HII/HIP, and 3) an analysis that attempts to correlate habitat quality with monitoring efforts, comparing the OTA to range wide data. - If possible, complete an assessment of the relative reliability of the two datasets for determining population trend. How many years of HIP data would be needed to reliably estimate the range wide population trend? What are the assumptions, and possible limitations, in extrapolating OTA data to range wide population trend?
- Web Link
-
FedBizOpps Complete View
(https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=dcaa3027f4f0144a3bbb5f9182c71d61&tab=core&_cview=1)
- Record
- SN01650042-W 20080827/080825221709-acb2ab4f13b6a530bf45584a7750168a (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |