RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
STATE OF OREGON
COVER PAGE Department of Administrative Services, Procurement Services On Behalf of
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Effectiveness Monitoring Request for Proposal (RFP)
DAS PS-2415-15 Date of Issue: XXXXXXX Closing Date: XXXXXXX Single Point of Contact (SPC): Address: City, State, Zip Phone (voice) E-mail:
Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Jennifer Jolley
1225 Ferry St Ne Salem, OR 97301 503-373-0388
[email protected]
Page 1 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION .................................................................................................. 34 1.1 1.2 1.3
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 34 SCHEDULE ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 34 SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT (SPC)................................................................................................................................................. 34
SECTION 2: AUTHORITY, OVERVIEW, AND SCOPE ....................................................................... 34 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4
AUTHORITY AND METHOD ................................................................................................................................................................. 34 DEFINITION OF TERMS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 45 OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 45 SCOPE OF WORK ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 67
SECTION 3: PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION 1011 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................................................................................ 1011 MINIMUM SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................................................. 1112 PROCUREMENT PROCESS ............................................................................................................................................................... 1112 PROPOSAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 1415 EVALUATION PROCESS .................................................................................................................................................................... 1516 NEXT STEP DETERMINATION ...................................................................................................................................................... 1718 COST EVALUATION ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1718 PREFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 1718 POINT AND SCORE CALCULATIONSRANKING OF PROPOSERS ...................................................................... 1819
SECTION 4: AWARD AND NEGOTIATION ....................................................................................................................................................... 18 19 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4
AWARD NOTIFICATION PROCESS ............................................................................................................................................ 1819 INTENT TO AWARD PROTEST ...................................................................................................................................................... 1819 APPARENT SUCCESSFUL PROPOSER SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS ......................................................... 1920 CONTRACT/PRICE AGREEMENT NEGOTIATION .......................................................................................................... 2021
SECTION 5: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ...................................................................................................................................................... 20 21 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6
OMWESB PARTICIPATION .............................................................................................................................................................. 2021 GOVERNING LAWS AND REGULATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 2122 OWNERSHIP/PERMISSION TO USE MATERIALS ........................................................................................................... 2122 CANCELLATION OF RFP; REJECTION OF PROPOSALS; NO DAMAGES. ..................................................... 2122 COST OF SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL ...................................................................................................................................... 2122 RECYCLABLE PRODUCTS ............................................................................................................................................................... 2122
SECTION 6: LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 21 22 ATTACHMENT A SAMPLE CONTRACT/PRICE AGREEMENT ................................................................................................. 2122 ATTACHMENT B AFFIDAVIT OF TRADE SECRET .......................................................................................................................... 2122 ATTACHMENT C PROPOSER CERTIFICATION SHEET ................................................................................................................ 2122 ATTACHMENT D PROPOSER INFORMATION SHEET ................................................................................................................... 2223 ATTACHMENT E TAX AFFIDAVIT .............................................................................................................................................................. 2223 ATTACHMENT F REFERENCE CHECK FORM .................................................................................................................................... 2223 ATTACHMENT G COST PROPOSAL FORM ............................................................................................................................................ 2223 ATTACHMENT H OMWESB OUTREACH PLAN.................................................................................................................................. 2223
Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 2 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 3 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 INTRODUCTION The State of Oregon, acting by and through Department of Administrative Services, Procurement Services (DAS PS) on behalf of, Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (“Agency”), is issuing this Request for Proposals to invite qualified contractors or consultants to submit proposals for its Oregon Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) Effectiveness Project. Agency anticipates the award of one or more contracts from this RFP. The initial term of the Contract(s) are anticipated to be no longer than 2 years with the option to renew up to a maximum of 6 years. 1.2 SCHEDULE The table below represents a tentative schedule of events. All times are listed in Pacific Time. All dates listed are subject to change. Event
Date
Time
RFP Issued
June 2, 2015
4:30 PM
Questions / Requests for Clarification Due
June 9, 2015
4:00 PM
Answers to Questions / Requests for Clarification Issued (approx.)
June 15, 2015
4:00 PM
RFP Protest Period Ends
June 16, 2015
4:00 PM
Closing (Proposals Due)
July 6, 2015
2:00 PM
Opening of Proposals
July 6, 2015
3:00 PM
Issuance of Notice of Intent to Award (approx.)
August 10-14, 2015
Award Protest Period Ends
7 days after Notice of Intent to Award
Please note that DAS PS’ operating hours are: Monday through Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM except for state holidays and State approved closures, including those for inclement weather and any mandatory furlough days 1.3 SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT (SPC) The SPC for this RFP is identified on the Cover Page, along with the SPC’s contact information. Proposer shall direct all communications related to any provision of the RFP, whether about the technical requirements of the RFP, contractual requirements, the RFP process, or any other provision only to the SPC.
SECTION 2: AUTHORITY, OVERVIEW, AND SCOPE 2.1 AUTHORITY AND METHOD DAS PS is issuing this RFP pursuant to its authority under OAR 125-246-0170(2).
Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 4 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
DAS PS is using the Competitive Sealed Proposals method, pursuant to ORS 279B.060 and OAR 125-247-0260. DAS PS may use a combination of the methods for Competitive Sealed Proposals, including optional procedures: a) Competitive Range; b) Discussions and Revised Proposals; c) Revised Rounds of Negotiations; d) Negotiations; e) Best and Final Offers; and f) Multistep Sealed Proposals. 2.2 DEFINITION OF TERMS For the purposes of this RFP, capitalized words will refer to the following definitions. 2.2.1 General Definitions Capitalized terms not specifically defined in this document are defined in OAR 125-246-0110. 2.3 OVERVIEW 2.3.1 Agency Overview and Background The Agency is a state agency that provides grants to help Oregonians take care of local streams, rivers, wetlands and natural areas. Community members and landowners use scientific criteria to decide jointly what needs to be done to conserve and improve rivers and natural habitat in the places where they live. Agency grants are funded from the Oregon Lottery, federal dollars, and salmon license plate revenue. The agency is led by a 17 member citizen board drawn from the public at large, tribes, and federal and state natural resource agency boards and commissions. 2.3.2 Project Overview and Background The Oregon CREP is a cooperative venture between the State of Oregon and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA) with support from local soil and water conservation districts http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/pages/CREP.aspx. The purpose of the program is to restore, maintain, and enhance streamside areas along agricultural lands to benefit fish, wildlife, and water quality. Landowners enrolled in CREP receive annual rental, incentive, and cost share payments to install conservation measures such as planting trees and shrubs, installing fencing, livestock watering facilities, and other approved conservation measures. Oregon’s program is unique in the nation in having a cumulative impact incentive payment where landowners who enroll more than one-half of a five mile stream segment receive greater compensation. Similarly, landowners who lease water for instream purposes on acreage enrolled in CREP are paid higher rental rates. The CREP partnership is an important investment for OWEB because of the significant match leveraged by the state’s investment and the long-term commitment to restoring riparian buffers in agricultural lands. The Oregon CREP has currently enrolled landowners in approximately 1,600 contracts bringing the cumulative total area of land conserved in this program to approximately 41,000 acres. Given the significance, in terms of both past investment in CREP and the ongoing efforts to enroll additional landowners in CREP, it is critical to evaluate success. Knowing what and where improvements have been made to riparian areas and fish and wildlife habitat is critical to understanding the outcome of CREP contracts across Oregon in support of the
Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 5 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. In addition, the evaluation of these contracts will provide guidance for the development and implementation of future CREP contracts. 2.3.3 Purpose A healthy riparian area provides many ecological benefits (Gregory et al., 1991), including maintaining cooler stream temperatures, reducing sediment erosion, intercepting pollution from runoff, stabilizing stream flows, and providing fish and wildlife habitat. Healthy streamside vegetation also provides forage, and nesting opportunities for birds and mammals, large woody debris for upland and aquatic species, and maintains the ecological connections between aquatic and upland ecosystems. Over time, many streams and associated riparian areas have been degraded and have lost their ability to provide important functions and services needed to maintain a healthy watershed. Riparian restoration and conservation has been identified as an important activity for governmental agencies and local groups implementing watershed restoration actions. Riparian restoration is an important component of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds because of the benefits of streamside vegetation to water quality and salmon and steelhead habitat. Oregon’s Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for temperature include streamside vegetation targets. Oregon’s Agricultural Water Quality Management Plans include goals to restore streamside vegetation along agricultural lands, and accompanying regulations require agricultural producers to allow streamside vegetation to establish and grow. Agency funds have supported numerous riparian restoration projects on public and private lands in Oregon to achieve the state’s natural resource goals. Riparian restoration projects may include shrub and tree planting, livestock exclusion fencing of the riparian area, invasive plant species removal in the riparian area or some combination of the above. The main goals for riparian restoration are to improve large wood recruitment, increase stream bank stabilization, and increase stream shading. Riparian restoration ranks as the second highest investment for Agency. According to the Oregon Watershed Restoration Inventory (OWRI) over $30,000,000 million dollars has been invested since 1997 on approximately 5,000 stream miles. In 1998, a Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) Agreement (Agreement) between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Commodity Credit Corporation and the State of Oregon signaled the beginning of CREP in Oregon. The goals of CREP are to establish a properly functioning riparian area by paying eligible landowners an annual rental rate for the removal of acreage from agricultural use for the purposes of establishing a healthy and ecologically functioning riparian area. Since 1998, the state of Oregon has contributed more than $19,000,000 dollars and enrolled over 42,000 acres under this program. These investments have leveraged a huge amount of federal investment in streamside improvements in Oregon. The total investment in improving riparian areas under state and federal resources is approximately $75,000,000 dollars. As part of the Agreement, the State of Oregon committed to contribute to no less than 20% of the overall program costs, and to be responsible for all monitoring costs. The Farm Service Agency (FSA) and the State of Oregon both committed to administrative responsibilities, including managing cost-share contracts and cost-share payments. The Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) and OWEB provide program implementation and coordination services. State funding is provided to support and fund technical assistance positions at Soil and Water Conservation District (SCWD) offices around the state. The Oregon Departments of Forestry and Water Resources also contribute staff time and expertise to the program. In the original Agreement, FSA committed to cover all of the annual rental payment costs. The anticipated Contract resulting from this opportunity will successfully implement the Tier 2 HIGH INTENSITY ASSESSMENT (Tier 2) as detailed in the attached Draft CREP Evaluation Study Design
Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 6 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
(Study Design) in Exhibit AA. It is anticipated that Agency and a multi-agency representative advisory group (CREP Advisory Group) will work with the contractor(s) to implement the Tier 2 of the Study Design. 2.4 SCOPE OF WORK Task 1. Contractor shall, in cooperation with Agency and CREP Advisory Group, develop a sampling methodology that ensures a representative sample of CREP contracts. This methodology shall include both spatial and temporal stratification of CREP contracts implemented since 1999. The exact number of sample sites will be partially informed by the total number and distribution of CREP contracts which will be provided after the contract is awarded. The contractor(s) will work with Agency and the CREP Advisory Group to do the following: Develop a framework to select a statistically significant subsample of the different contracts (by region, conservation practice, and/or age of contract) Develop a framework to select suitable control sites that are located in comparable geographies with similar land uses Identify which contracts and control sites, including alternate sites, to sample in 2015 and 2016 Identify the specific information to compile from the individual contract files to inform the interpretation of field data measuring the riparian buffer condition Deliverable 1.1: Contractor shall provide a Technical Report outlining the details described above. Deliverable Schedule: Due four weeks after contract is signed. Task 2. Contractor shall finalize a sampling protocol that is consistent with Tier 2 of the Study Design. The Study Design contains field metrics and protocols to implement this study. Primary measurements to quantify include but are not limited to the following: • Stream canopy cover • Riparian vegetation structure • Percent woody cover • Bank stability • Fence status and presence of livestock in buffer • Invasive plant species cover In addition, the contractor(s) shall work collaboratively with Agency and the CREP Advisory Group to address technical issues previously identified while developing the Study Design. The sampling protocol must include the following: Appropriate vegetation assessment measures to assess different conservation practices Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 7 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
Criteria to evaluate the success of CREP contracts Sampling datasheets to record field data Description of statistical analyses to compare the control sites to the CREP contracts
This task may include adding metrics that are important to evaluating CREP contracts. Agency is open to the use of other metrics or protocols to meet the objectives in Tier 2 of the Study Design. Contractor shall provide documentation or explanation as to why the additional metric or protocols will meet the objectives in the Tier 2 of the Study Design. Deliverable 2.1 Contractor shall submit a document that describes in detail the field methods to collect the primary measurements listed above and any additional metrics. This document must also describe the statistical analyses to compare the control sites to the CREP contracts. Deliverable Schedule Document is due 6 weeks after contract is signed. Task 3. Database Development The contractor(s) shall develop a database in communication with Agency before sampling begins. The contractor(s) shall assemble the field and CREP contract file data into a suitable database. Spatial and tabular data must describe the monitoring project locations, indicators and a visual representation of important key variables. Deliverable 3.1 Contractor shall create a spatial and tabular database that must include, but is not limited to: • Latitude/Longitude • Conservation Practice • Canopy cover results • Bank stability results • Fence status results • Riparian structure results • Invasive species results Planting density Species of plants Buffer width and length Site preparation details Maintenance practices Mid‐management practices Deliverable Schedule: Provide database structure 2 weeks prior to field sampling begins. Task 4: Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 8 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
Contractor shall complete Phase I field and contract file data collection on subsample of existing CREP contracts and field test sampling protocol. The field data collection efforts performed by the contractor(s) will occur in a staggered fashion in 2015 and be completed in the summer and fall of 2016. The initial data collection effort will begin in 2015 to field test the sampling protocol before completing the statewide assessment in 2016. The contractor(s) shall evaluate a subsample of existing CREP contracts and control sites following the sampling protocol that will be developed in Task 2 of this RFP. The contractor(s) shall field test the protocol on a smaller subset of sites in at least two different regions of the State and make any corrective changes that are identified in 2015. Contractor will be responsible for securing access to the site in communication with Agency and the local agency staff (FSA, NRCS, SWCD, WC, etc) that are responsible for CREP contract compliance. The contractor(s) shall also work with the local agency staff to compile information from the contract files to assist with data interpretation. Information must be obtained from the responsible agency (FSA, NRCS, SWCD, WC, etc) that describes the details of the riparian planting and exclusion fencing contracts to aid in the field assessment and data analysis process. Examples of the information to be compiled that is located in the CREP contract files must include but are not limited to the following: • Buffer width and length • Conservation practice implemented • Planting/seeding density • Number and types of maintenance treatments • Fence length Contractor(s) shall consult with Agency and the CREP Advisory Group to discuss preliminary findings from the 2015 data collection effort prior to developing any recommendations that may result from the interpretation of findings. Deliverable 4.1 Contractor shall submit a draft Technical Report no longer than 10 double sided pages. The report must contain the following: Determine the suitability of the sampling protocol to efficiently collect the primary measurements Assess the representativeness of the sampling stratification to select CREP contracts and suitable control sites Assess the process to collect data from the contract files Recommendations of any protocol revisions for continuation of Tier 2 in 2016. Deliverable 4.2 Contractor shall submit a final technical report no longer than 10 double sided pages. The report must include all the elements of the draft report as well as the following: Revised Sampling Protocol, if needed. Deliverable Schedule Draft Technical Report shall be provided by November 15, 2015. Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 9 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
Final Technical Report shall be provided no later than December 31, 2015. Task 5: Contractor shall conduct Phase 2 field and contract file data collection to complete assessment of CREP contracts and perform statistical analysis of data. Contractor(s) shall complete the collection of field and contract file data for the remaining control sites and CREP contracts to complete this evaluation following the revised protocol, if applicable. The contractor(s) will also perform the necessary statistical analyses of all data collected in in Phase 1 and 2. Task 6: Contractor shall create and submit a Final Report. The final report shall follow a standard format (i.e. executive summary, introduction, site selection, methods, results, discussion, conclusions and recommendations) to report on the findings of this study. In addition, the contractor(s) shall work with Agency and the CREP Advisory Group to develop recommendations. Deliverable 6.1: Contractor shall submit a draft Final Report that must include but is not limited to the following: A brief summary of all the deliverables described in the tasks described above. Must also include Contractor’s interpretation of findings. A through explanation of the statistical analyses and results that compare the CREP contracts to the control sites A determination of what combination of treatments that contributed to the most successful projects (i.e. met restoration objectives) Lessons learned Make recommendations based on the findings as to the success and failure of the CREP contracts and what, if any, improvements could be made on the development and implementation of future CREP contracts. Deliverable 6.2: Contractor shall submit a Final Report that includes all the elements of the draft final report and any changes or recommendations provided by Agency and CREP Advisory group. Deliverable Schedule: Draft final report due on or before November 15, 2016
Final report due on or before December 31, 2016
Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 10 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
SECTION 3: PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION 3.1 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS To be considered for evaluation, Proposal must demonstrate how Proposer meets all requirements of this section: 3.1.1 Minimum Proposer Requirements Experience: • Strong science background including biology, ecology, range science, or other appropriate natural resource degree and experience as determined by Agency • Project lead will possess more than 5 years experience collecting riparian vegetation and geomorphology data in the field • Proven history in completing work that is accepted as technically sound by multiple interest groups • Proven history in developing research design and planning research projects that engage several interested parties • 5 or more years of experience in analyzing natural resources data and compiling this information into a succinct report. 3.1.1.1 Demonstrate or possess the following: o At least 3 verifiable job or project references o Have a Key person with 5 or more years of extensive experience collecting riparian vegetation and geomorphology data in the field o Include a resume of the Key Person and personnel assigned to work on the project. 3.1.2 Minimum Key Person Requirements Proposer must employ or contract key person(s) that meet all of the requirements in this section. Proposer may submit 1 or more key person(s) so long as all requirements are met. 3.1.2.1 Experience and Knowledge This 5 years’ experience within the last 7 years must include the following: o Strong science background including biology, ecology, range science, or other appropriate natural resource degree and experience as determined by the Agency o Collecting riparian vegetation and geomorphology data in the field o Proven history in completing work that is accepted as technically sound by multiple interest groups o Proven history in developing research design and planning research projects that engage several interested parties o 5 or more years of experience in analyzing natural resources data and compiling this information into a succinct report.
Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 11 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
3.2 MINIMUM SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS 3.2.1 Proposal Format and Quantity Proposal should follow the format and reference the sections listed in the Proposal Content Requirements section. Responses to each section and subsection should be labeled to indicate the item being addressed. Proposal must describe in detail how requirements of this RFP will be met and may provide additional related information. Cost information must be submitted with the proposal. Proposer shall submit its Proposal using only white 8 ½” x 11” Recycled Paper, without extensive art work, unusual printing, or other materials not essential to the utility and clarity of the Proposal. Proposer shall submit an original, bearing the Proposer’s authorized representative’s Signature. In addition, if Proposer believes any of its Proposal is exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law (ORS 192.410 through 192.505), Proposer shall complete and submit the Affidavit of Trade Secret (Attachment B) and a fully redacted version of its Proposal, clearly identified as the redacted version. Proposer shall submit its Proposal in a sealed package addressed to the SPC with the Proposer’s name and the RFP number clearly visible on the outside of the package. Proposals must be clearly labeled and submitted in a sealed envelope, package, or box bearing the following information: Name of Proposer – Top Left of the Envelope RFP Number 691-1XXXX-15 RFP Name: Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring Name of Single Point of Contact Proposer is solely responsible for ensuring that its Proposal is received by DAS PS in accordance with the RFP requirements, before Closing, as identified in the Schedule of Events, and at the location identified on the Cover Page of this RFP. DAS PS is not responsible for any delays in mail or by common carriers or by transmission errors or delays or mistaken delivery. Proposals that are late, and that are submitted by facsimile (fax), Email or other electronic means will be rejected. 3.2.2 Proposal Page Limit This Proposal has no page limit 3.2.3 Authorized Representative A representative authorized to bind the Proposer shall sign the Proposal. Failure of the authorized representative to sign the Proposal may subject the Proposal to rejection by DAS PS. 3.3 PROCUREMENT PROCESS 3.3.1 Public Notice The RFP, including all Addenda and attachments, is published in the Oregon Procurement Information Network (ORPIN) at http://www.orpin.oregon.gov. RFP documents will not be mailed to prospective Proposers.
Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 12 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
DAS PS shall advertise all Addenda on ORPIN. Prospective Proposer is solely responsible for checking ORPIN to determine whether or not any Addenda have been issued. Addenda are incorporated into the RFP by this reference. 3.3.2 Questions / Requests for Clarification All inquiries, whether relating to the RFP process, administration, deadline or method of award, or to the intent or technical aspects of the RFP must:
Be delivered to the SPC via email, or hard copy Reference the RFP number Identify Proposer’s name and contact information Be sent by an authorized representative Refer to the specific area of the RFP being questioned (i.e. page, section and paragraph number); and Be received by the due date and time for Questions/Requests for Clarification identified in the Schedule
3.3.3 Pre-Proposal Conference There is no pre-proposal conference schedule for this RFP 3.3.4 Solicitation Protests 3.3.4.1 Protests to RFP Prospective Proposer may submit a written protest of anything contained in this RFP, including but not limited to, the RFP process, Specifications, Scope of Work, and the proposed Contract. This is prospective Proposer’s only opportunity to protest the provisions of the RFP, except for protests of Addenda or the terms and conditions of the proposed Contract, as provided below. 3.3.4.2 Protests to Addenda Prospective Proposer may submit a written protest of anything contained in the respective Addendum. Protests to Addenda, if issued, must be submitted by the date/time specified in the respective Addendum, or they will not be considered. Protests of matters not added or modified by the respective Addendum will not be considered. 3.3.4.3 Protests must: o o o o o
Be delivered to the SPC via email, facsimile, hard copy Reference the RFP number Identify prospective Proposer’s name and contact information Be sent by an authorized representative State the reason for the protest, including: o the grounds that demonstrate how the Procurement Process is contrary to law, Unnecessarily Restrictive, legally flawed, or improperly specifies a brand name; and
Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 13 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
o evidence or documentation that supports the grounds on which the protest is based o State the proposed changes to the RFP provisions or other relief sought o Protests to the RFP must be received by the due date and time identified in the Schedule o Protests to Addenda must be received by the due date identified in the respective Addendum 3.3.4.4 Protest Response DAS PS will respond timely to all protests submitted by the due date and time listed in the Schedule. Protests that are not received timely or do not include the required information may not be considered. 3.3.5 Proposal Submission Options Proposer is solely responsible for ensuring its Proposal is received by the SPC in accordance with the RFP requirements before Closing. DAS PS is not responsible for any delays in mail or by common carriers or by transmission errors or delays or mistaken delivery. Proposal submitted by any means not authorized will be rejected. 3.3.5.1 Submission through ORPIN Submission through ORPIN is not allowed for this RFP. 3.3.5.2 Submission through Mail or Parcel Carrier Proposal may be submitted through the mail or via parcel carrier, and must be clearly labeled and submitted in a sealed envelope, package or box. The outside of the sealed submission must clearly identify the Proposer’s name and the RFP number. It must be sent to the attention of the SPC at the address listed on the Cover Page. 3.3.5.3 Submission in Person Proposal may be hand delivered, and must be clearly labeled and submitted in a sealed envelope, package or box. Proposal will be accepted, prior to Closing, during DAS PS’ normal Monday –Friday business hours of 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Pacific Time, except during State of Oregon holidays and other times when Agency is closed. The outside of the sealed submission must clearly identify the Proposer’s name and the RFP number. It must be delivered to the attention of the SPC at the address listed on the Cover Page. 3.3.6 Proposal Modification or Withdrawal Any Proposer who wishes to make modifications to a Proposal already received by DAS PS shall submit its modification in one of the manners listed in the Proposal Submission Options section and must denote the specific change(s) to the Proposal submission. If a Proposer wishes to withdraw a submitted Proposal, it shall do so prior to Closing. The Proposer shall submit a Written notice Signed by an authorized representative of its intent to withdraw its Proposal in accordance with OAR 125-247-0440. The notice must include the RFP number and be submitted to the SPC.
Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 14 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
3.3.7 Proposal Due Proposal and all required submittal items must be received by the SPC on or before Closing. Proposal received after the Closing will not be accepted. All Proposal modifications or withdrawals must be completed prior to Closing. Proposals received after Closing are considered LATE and will NOT be accepted for evaluation. Late Proposals will be returned to the respective Proposer or destroyed. 3.3.8 Proposal Rejection DAS PS may reject a Proposal for any of the following reasons:
Proposer fails to substantially comply with all prescribed RFP procedures and requirements, including but not limited to the requirement that Proposer’s authorized representative sign the Proposal in ink. Proposer fails to meet the responsibility requirements of ORS 279B.110. Proposer makes any contact regarding this RFP with State representatives such as State employees or officials other than the SPC or those the SPC authorizes, or inappropriate contact with the SPC. Proposer attempts to inappropriately influence a member of the Evaluation Committee. Proposal is conditioned on DAS PS’ acceptance of any other terms and conditions or rights to negotiate any alternative terms and conditions that are not reasonably related to those expressly authorized for negotiation in the RFP or Addenda.
3.3.9 Opening of Proposal There will be no public Opening of Proposals. Proposals received will not be available for inspection until after the evaluation process has been completed and the Notice of Intent to Award is issued pursuant to OAR 125-247-0630. However, DAS PS will record and make available the identity of all Proposers after Opening. 3.4
PROPOSAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS Proposal must address each of the items listed in this section and all other requirements set forth in this RFP. Proposer shall describe the Services to be performed or both. A Proposal that merely offers to provide the goods or services as stated in this RFP will be considered non-Responsive to this RFP and will not be considered further.
3.4.1 Proposal Certification Sheet The Proposer shall complete and submit the Proposal Certification Sheet (Attachment C) signed by a duly authorized representative empowered to legally bind the Proposer to the Proposal. 3.4.2 Proposer Information Sheet The Proposer shall complete and submit the Proposer Information Sheet (Attachment D). 3.4.3 Tax Affidavit The Proposer shall complete and submit the Tax Affidavit (Attachment E).
Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 15 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
Failure to demonstrate compliance with Oregon Tax Laws may result in a finding of nonresponsibility. 3.4.4 Key Persons and their Resumes Specify key persons to be assigned to this Project, and include a current resume (not to exceed 2 pages each) for each individual that demonstrates qualifications and experience for the Work described. 3.4.5 References Provide at least 3 references (Attachment F) from current or former client firms or government agencies for similar projects performed for any clients within the last 7 years. References must verify the quality of previous, related Work. 3.4.6 Project Implementation Plan Briefly describe how Proposer would carry out the major activities of this project in context with the Scope of Work. Provide a comprehensive management plan that the Proposer intends to follow. Illustrate how the plan will serve to coordinate and accomplish the Work. 3.4.7 Cost Proposal Each Proposal must include a detailed Cost Proposal (Attachment G) stating the all-inclusive cost for each deliverable, and the total cost for the entire project. 3.4.8 Public Record/Confidential or Proprietary Information All Proposals are public record and are subject to public inspection after Agency issues the Notice of the Intent to Award. If a Proposer believes that any portion of its Proposal contains any information that is a trade secret under ORS Chapter 192.501(2) or otherwise is exempt from disclosure under the Oregon Public Records Law (ORS 192.410 through 192.505), Proposer shall complete and submit the Affidavit of Trade Secret (Attachment B) and a fully redacted version of its Proposal. Proposer is cautioned that cost information generally is not considered a trade secret under Oregon Public Records Law (ORS 192.410 through 192.505) and identifying the Proposal, in whole, as exempt from disclosure is not acceptable. Agency advises each Proposer to consult with its own legal counsel regarding disclosure issues. If Proposer fails to identify the portions of the Proposal that Proposer claims are exempt from disclosure, Proposer has waived any future claim of non-disclosure of that information. 3.5 EVALUATION PROCESS 3.5.1 Responsiveness and Responsibility Determination Proposals received prior to Closing will be reviewed for Responsiveness to all RFP requirements including compliance with Minimum Requirements section and Proposal Content Requirements section. If the Proposal is unclear, the SPC may request clarification from Proposer. However, clarifications may not be used to rehabilitate a non-Responsive Proposal. If the SPC finds the Proposal non-Responsive, the Proposal may be rejected, however, Agency may waive mistakes in accordance with OAR 125-247-0470. Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 16 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
In accordance with OAR 137-047-0261(6)(a)(A), Agency may establish a Competitive Range of all Proposers who have made a good faith effort in submitting a Proposal in response to this RFP for the purpose of correcting deficiencies in Proposals for determining responsiveness. At any time prior to award, Agency may reject a Proposer found to be not Responsible. 3.5.2
Evaluation Criteria Proposals meeting the requirements outlined in the Proposal Content Requirements section will be evaluated by an Evaluation Committee. Evaluators will assign a total score of 0 to 100 points for all evaluation criteria listed below in this section. SPC may request further clarification to assist the Evaluation Committee in gaining additional understanding of Proposals. A response to a clarification request must be to clarify or explain portions of the already submitted Proposal and may not contain new information not included in the original Proposal.
3.5.2.1 Technical Proposal
70 Points
Key Persons: Proposers shall submit the following information: contact name, work phone number and email address of all Key People that will be assigned to the project. Proposals must address the following:
Does Proposer’s proposed team closely and clearly match or exceed the qualifications stated in Section 3.1 above? Does Proposal describe the extent of the principal executive management’s involvement? Did Proposer provide resumes for key person(s) and other staff, including any sub‐contractors who may work on the project and their responsibilities? Resumes must be limited to two (2) pages. How well does the Proposal demonstrate Proposer’s ability to work collaboratively with Agency and numerous stakeholders? How well does the Proposal demonstrate Proposer’s ability to develop and adhere to strict QA/QC standards? How well does Proposer’s Proposal demonstrate their ability to identify and apply best available science in conducting technical work? How well does the Proposal demonstrate the experience of the Proposer in coordinating multiple staff/contractors to complete projects successfully? Does the Proposal list other prior and ongoing projects?
Does Proposal demonstrate Proposer’s ability to successfully complete all tasks and deliverables in Section 2.4? Does Proposal include the proposed work plan for delivery of major task milestones? Howe well does the proposed work plan describe the delivery of major task deliverables and indicate the management approach to be utilized when addressing key issues of the project?
Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 17 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
3.5.2.2 Management Proposal
20 Points
Does Proposer’s Proposal describe how well the company can accommodate the level of work assigned under this contract, including any limitations? Does Proposer’s Proposal provide current or projected assignments of key members, and whether these assignments may conflict with the key members’ ability to complete this project? Does the Proposer’s Proposal describe their internal procedures and/or policies related to work quality and cost control? Does the Proposer’s Proposal include their management and organizational structure? Does the Proposer’s Proposal list and describe other ongoing projects?
3.5.2.3 Cost proposal
10 Points
Contractor shall submit a separate Cost Proposal Attachment G. Cost will be scored by DAS PS based on the formula in Section 3.7. 3.6
NEXT STEP DETERMINATION DAS PS may determine Apparent Successful Proposer at the conclusion of Round 1 evaluation, or DAS PS may conduct additional rounds of competition if in the best interest of the State. Additional rounds of competition may consist of, but will not be limited to:
Establishing a Competitive Range Presentations/Demonstrations/Additional Submittal Items Interviews Best and Final Offers
3.7 COST EVALUATION The SPC will conduct the cost evaluation. The SPC will award a cost score to each Cost Proposal based upon the percentage of the proposed cost as compared to the lowest Proposer’s cost using the following formula: lowest cost of all Proposers cost being scored
X
cost points possible
=
cost score
3.8 PREFERENCES 3.8.1 Oregon Supplies and Services Agency prefers Oregon goods and services, and for evaluation purposes, per ORS 279A.128, Agency shall subtract 10 points from the total score of an out of state Proposer. 3.8.2 Reciprocal Preference For evaluation purposes per OAR 125-246-0310, DAS PS shall add a percent increase to each out-of-state Proposer's Proposal price that is equal to the percent preference, if any, Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 18 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
given to a Resident Offeror of the Proposer's state. 3.8.3 Recycled Materials In comparing Goods from two or more Proposers, if at least one Proposer offers Goods manufactured with Recycled Materials, and at least 1 Proposer does not, Agency will select the Proposer offering Goods manufactured from Recycled Materials if each of the conditions specified in ORS 279A.125 (2) exists following any adjustments made to the price of the Goods according to any applicable reciprocal preference. 3.8.4 Tiebreakers Oregon Supplies: If Agency receives Proposals identical in price, fitness, availability and quality and chooses to award a Contract, Agency shall award the Contract in accordance with the procedures outlined in OAR 125-246-0300. 3.9 POINT AND SCORE CALCULATIONSRANKING OF PROPOSERS Evaluation Committee will rank all Proposers and Proposals based on the total scores from the evaluation. After each applicable preference has been applied, Evaluation Committee will determine rank order for each respective Proposal and Proposer, with the highest score receiving the highest rank, and successive rank order determined by the next highest score.
SECTION 4: AWARD AND NEGOTIATION 4.1 AWARD NOTIFICATION PROCESS 4.1.1 Award Consideration Agency, if it awards a Contract, shall award a Contract to the highest ranking Responsible Proposer(s) based upon the scoring methodology and process described in Section 3. Agency may award less than the full Scope defined in this RFP. 4.1.2 Intent to Award Notice Agency will notify all Proposers in Writing that Agency intends to award a Contract to the selected Proposer(s) subject to successful negotiation of any negotiable provisions. 4.2 INTENT TO AWARD PROTEST 4.2.1 Protest Submission An Affected Offeror shall have 7 calendar days from the date of the intent to award notice to file a written protest. A Proposer is an Affected Offeror only if the Proposer would be eligible for Contract award in the event the protest was successful and is protesting for one or more of the following reasons as specified in ORS 279B.410:
All higher ranked Proposals are non-Responsive. Agency has failed to conduct an evaluation of Proposals in accordance with the criteria or process described in the RFP.
Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 19 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
Agency abused its discretion in rejecting the protestor’s Proposal as non-Responsive Agency’s evaluation of Proposals or determination of award otherwise violates ORS Chapter 279B or ORS Chapter 279A.
If Agency receives only one Proposal, Agency may dispense with the intent to award protest period and proceed with Contract/Price Agreement Negotiations and award. 4.2.1.1 Protests must: o o o o o o
Be delivered to the SPC via email, facsimile or hard copy Reference the RFP number Identify prospective Proposer’s name and contact information Be signed by an authorized representative Specify the grounds for the protest Be received within 7 calendar days of the intent to award notice
4.2.2 Response to Protest Agency will address all timely submitted protests within a reasonable time and will issue a written decision to the respective Proposer. Protests that do not include the required information may not be considered by Agency. 4.3 APPARENT SUCCESSFUL PROPOSER SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS 4.3.1 Insurance Prior to execution of the Contract, the apparent successful Proposer shall secure and demonstrate to Agency proof of insurance coverage meeting the requirements identified in the RFP or as otherwise negotiated. Failure to demonstrate coverage may result in Agency terminating Negotiations and commencing Negotiations with the next highest ranking Proposer. Proposer is encouraged to consult its insurance agent about the insurance requirements contained in Insurance Requirements (Exhibit C of Attachment A) prior to Proposal submission. 4.3.2 Taxpayer Identification Number The apparent successful Proposer shall provide its Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) and backup withholding status on a completed W-9 form if either of the following applies:
When requested by Agency (normally in an intent to award notice), or When the backup withholding status or any other information of Proposer has changed since the last submitted W-9 form, if any.
Agency will not make any payment until Agency has a properly completed W-9. 4.3.3 Business Registry If selected for award, Proposer shall be duly authorized by the State of Oregon to transact business in the State of Oregon before executing the Contract. The selected Proposer shall submit a current Oregon Secretary of State business registry number, or an explanation if not applicable.
Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 20 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
All Corporations and other business entities (domestic and foreign) must have a Registered Agent in Oregon. See requirements and exceptions regarding Registered Agents. For more information, see Oregon Business Guide, How to Start a Business in Oregon and Laws and Rules. The titles in this subsection are available at the following Internet site: http://www.filinginoregon.com/index.htm. 4.4 CONTRACT/PRICE AGREEMENT NEGOTIATION 4.4.1 Negotiation By submitting a Proposal, Proposer agrees to comply with the requirements of the RFP, including the terms and conditions of the Sample Contract/Price Agreement (Attachment A), with the exception of those terms reserved for negotiation. Proposer shall review the attached Sample Contract/Price Agreement and note exceptions. Unless Proposer notes exceptions in its Proposal, the State intends to enter into a Contract/Price Agreement with the successful Proposer substantially in the form set forth in Sample Contract/Price Agreement (Attachment A). It may be possible to negotiate some provisions of the final Contract/Price Agreement; however, many provisions cannot be changed. Proposer is cautioned that the State of Oregon believes modifications to the standard provisions constitute increased risk and increased cost to the State. Therefore, Agency will consider the Scope of requested exceptions in the evaluation of Proposals. Any Proposal that is conditioned upon Agency’s acceptance of any other terms and conditions may be rejected. Any subsequent negotiated changes are subject to prior approval of the Oregon Department of Justice. All items, except those listed below, may be negotiated between Agency and the apparent successful Proposer in compliance with Oregon State laws:
Choice of law Choice of venue Constitutional requirements
In the event that the parties have not reached mutually agreeable terms within 14 calendar days, Agency may terminate Negotiations and commence Negotiations with the next highest ranking Proposer. 4.4.2 Contractor Selection Methodology At its discretion, Agency may award multiple Contracts for this project, Agency shall use the criteria stated above in Section 3 to determine and select Proposers with whom to negotiate and award multiple contracts.
SECTION 5: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 5.1 OMWESB PARTICIPATION Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) Chapter 200, and as a matter of commitment, Agency encourages the participation of minority, women, and emerging small business enterprises in all contracting opportunities. Agency also encourages joint ventures or subcontracting with minority, women, and emerging small business enterprises. For more information please visit http://www.oregon.gov/gov/MWESB/Pages/index.aspx
Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 21 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
If the Contract/Price Agreement results in subcontracting opportunities, the successful Proposer may be required to submit a completed OMWESB Outreach Plan (Attachment H) prior to execution. 5.2 GOVERNING LAWS AND REGULATIONS This RFP is governed by the laws of the State of Oregon. Venue for any administrative or judicial action relating to this RFP, evaluation and award is the Circuit Court of Marion County for the State of Oregon; provided, however, if a proceeding must be brought in a federal forum, then it must be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. 5.3 OWNERSHIP/PERMISSION TO USE MATERIALS All Proposals submitted in response to this RFP become the Property of Agency. By submitting an Proposal in response to this RFP, Proposer grants the State a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free license for the rights to copy, distribute, display, prepare derivative works of and transmit the Proposal solely for the purpose of evaluating the Proposal, negotiating an Agreement, if awarded to Proposer, or as otherwise needed to administer the RFP process, and to fulfill obligations under Oregon Public Records Law (ORS 192.410 through 192.505). Proposals, including supporting materials, will not be returned to Proposer unless the Proposal is submitted late. 5.4 CANCELLATION OF RFP; REJECTION OF PROPOSALS; NO DAMAGES. Pursuant to ORS 279B.100, Agency may reject any or all Proposals in-whole or in-part, or may cancel this RFP at any time when the rejection or cancellation is in the best interest of the State or Agency, as determined by Agency. Neither the State nor Agency is liable to any Proposer for any loss or expense caused by or resulting from the delay, suspension, or cancellation of the RFP, award, or rejection of any Proposal. 5.5 COST OF SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL Proposer shall pay all the costs in submitting its Proposal, including, but not limited to, the costs to prepare and submit the Proposal, costs of samples and other supporting materials, costs to participate in demonstrations, or costs associated with protests. 5.6 RECYCLABLE PRODUCTS Proposer shall use recyclable products to the maximum extent economically feasible in the performance of the Services or Work set forth in this document and the subsequent Contract/Price Agreement. (ORS 279B.025)
SECTION 6: LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A SAMPLE CONTRACT/PRICE AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT B
AFFIDAVIT OF TRADE SECRET
ATTACHMENT C
PROPOSER CERTIFICATION SHEET
Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 22 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
ATTACHMENT D PROPOSER INFORMATION SHEET ATTACHMENT E
TAX AFFIDAVIT
ATTACHMENT F
REFERENCE CHECK FORM
ATTACHMENT G COST PROPOSAL FORM ATTACHMENT H OMWESB OUTREACH PLAN
Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 23 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
Exhibit AA
Evaluation of the Oregon Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program DRAFT Study Design
Ken Fetcho Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Monitoring and Reporting Division APRIL 2015
Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 24 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
Contents Introduction 2526 Summary of Previous Riparian Monitoring .............................................................................................................................2627
Goals
2829
Study Design 2829 Tier 1 Assessment 2829 Tier 2 Assessment 2930
Low Intensity Methods ....................................................................................................................... 3031 Low Intensity Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 3132 High Intensity Methods ...................................................................................................................... 3233 High Intensity Data Analysis ............................................................................................................. 3334 Tier 3 Assessment 3536
Timeline
3637
References
37388
Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 25 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
Introduction A healthy riparian area provides many ecological benefits (Gregory et al., 1991), including maintaining cooler stream temperatures, reducing sediment erosion, intercepting pollution from runoff, stabilizing stream flows, and providing fish and wildlife habitat. Healthy streamside vegetation also provides forage, and nesting opportunities for birds and mammals, large woody debris for upland and aquatic species, and maintains the ecological connections between aquatic and upland ecosystems. Over time, many streams and associated riparian areas have been degraded and have lost their ability to provide important functions and services needed to maintain a healthy watershed. Riparian restoration and conservation has been identified as an important activity for governmental agencies and local groups implementing watershed restoration actions. Riparian restoration is an important component of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds because of the benefits of streamside vegetation to water quality and salmon and steelhead habitat. Oregon’s Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for temperature include streamside vegetation targets. Oregon’s Agricultural Water Quality Management Plans include goals to restore streamside vegetation along agricultural lands, and accompanying regulations require agricultural producers to allow streamside vegetation to establish and grow. Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) funds have supported numerous riparian restoration projects on public and private lands in Oregon to achieve the state’s natural resource goals. Riparian restoration projects may include shrub and tree planting, livestock exclusion fencing of the riparian area, invasive plant species removal in the riparian area or some combination of the above. The main goals for riparian restoration are to improve large wood recruitment, increase streambank stabilization, and increase stream shading. Riparian restoration ranks as the second highest investment for OWEBfor OWEB. According to the Oregon Watershed Restoration Inventory (OWRI) over $30,000,000 million dollars has been invested since 1997 on approximately 5,000 stream miles. In 1998, a Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) Agreement (Agreement) between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Commodity Credit Corporation and the State of Oregon signaled the beginning of CREP in Oregon. The goals of CREP are to establish a properly functioning riparian area by paying eligible landowners an annual rental rate for the removal of acreage from agricultural use for the purposes of establishing a healthy and ecologically functioning riparian area. Since 1998, the state of Oregon has contributed more than $19,000,000 dollars and enrolled over 42,000 acres under this program. These investments have leveraged a huge amount of federal investment in streamside improvements in Oregon. The total investment in improving riparian areas under state and federal resources is approximately $75,000,000 dollars. As part of the Agreement, the State of Oregon committed to contribute to no less than 20% of the overall program costs, and to be responsible for all monitoring costs. The Farm Service Agency (FSA) and the State of Oregon both committed to administrative responsibilities, including managing cost-share contracts and cost-share payments. The Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) and OWEB provide program implementation and coordination services. State funding is provided to support and fund technical assistance positions at Soil and Water Conservation District (SCWD) offices around the state. The Oregon Departments of Forestry and Water Resources also contribute staff time and expertise to the program. In the original Agreement, FSA committed to cover all of the annual rental payment costs. The Agreement was amended in 2000 to add restrictions on maximum average buffer and filter strips widths and to enroll lands adjacent to streams that support additional listed fish species other than salmon. Another amendment to the Agreement was signed in 2004 to expand the eligibility of acreage that can be enrolled into CREP and incorporate Clean Water Services of the County of Washington, in the State of Oregon, to provide additional payments to landowners and cover administrative costs for parties interested in enrolling in the Tualatin Watershed Option. This program in the Tualatin Watershed is commonly referred to as enhanced CREP or ECREP. Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 26 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
This amendment also revised the language to clarify that the CREP will address the following objectives: 1. Restore 100 percent of the area enrolled for the riparian forest buffer practice to a properly functioning condition in terms of distribution and growth of woody plant species, filtration of nutrients and sediment from agricultural runoff, shade, and stabilization of stream banks under normal non-flood conditions as provided for by FSA Handbook and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG). 2. Provide a way for farmers and ranchers to voluntarily meet the water quality requirements established under federal law and under Oregon’s agricultural water quality laws. 3. Subject to other limitations, attain enrollments up to the following annual enrollment targets, including those within the existing Oregon CREP enrollment, for the following geographic regions within Oregon during the duration of this agreement: Coastal Basins: 1,250 acres of riparian forest buffer. 1,000 acres of restored wetlands. 2,250 total acres (180 total stream miles) of riparian forest, wetland and wildlife buffers. Columbia Basin: 8,000 acres of riparian forest buffer and filter strips. 1,000 acres of restored wetlands. 9,000 total acres (700 stream miles) of riparian forest, wetland and wildlife buffers Interior Drainages: 3,500 acres of riparian forest buffer and filter strips. 1,000 acres of restored wetlands. 4,500 total acres (375 stream miles) of riparian forest, wetland and wildlife buffers 4. Conduct effectiveness monitoring of CREP contractprojects in each of the three regions by: Developing a study plan by December 30, 2004, Identifying study watersheds and implementing field studies by December 30, 2005, and Providing data and monitoring results by December 30, 2006 and 2007. 5. Implement these Additional Provisions Specific to the Tualatin Watershed Option: A. The Tualatin Watershed Option is sponsored by Clean Water Services (CWS) B. The additional benefits and assistance available through the Tualatin Watershed Option will be the responsibility of CWS. Finally, in 2007 an addendum to the Agreement was agreed upon to state that the Agreement shall not terminate automatically on December 31, 2007 as was referenced in the original Agreement and new enrollments were allowed to occur, subject to the availability of funds so long as there is statutory authority for such enrollments.
Summary of Previous Riparian Monitoring In 2002, OWEB sponsored a statewide survey of riparian and stream enhancement projects implemented from 1987 to 2001 (Anderson and Graziano, 2002). Projects included in the evaluation were funded either through the Governors Watershed Enhancement Board (GWEB) a predecessor to OWEB, or through CREP beginning in 1999. Goals of the monitoring project were to evaluate how Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 27 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
riparian restoration projects have fared over time, what were leading causes of failure, and what factors could be attributed to project success. Results from the 2002 study suggest an increase in site preparation activities, post-planting maintenance, and tree protection may help achieve increased tree survival rates. Conclusions of the authors suggest that CREP riparian restoration projects had higher rates of success than OWEB grant projects due to requirements for plant maintenance contained in CREP contracts. The authors also suggest that a lack of consistent information and detailed planting plans was a major hindrance in identifying the number of trees planted, species planted, planting method, etc. that may have enabled additional analyses on riparian project success. Because of this work, several programmatic changes were made to state natural resource agencies involved with CREP, including increased training and refinements to the quality of planting plans. In 2009, OWEB completed an assessment of CREP projects in Wasco County (Bartuszevige et al., 2009). The objectives of this evaluation were to determine the effect, if any, of selected buffers of various lengths to determine their effectiveness compared to unbuffered reaches. The project also focused on stream macroinvertebrates and presence of invasive plants as indicators of riparian restoration project success. Twelve riparian areas were selected, nine of which received CREP projects and three sites which were untreated. Results at that time, suggest that there was no difference between restored sites compared to non-restored sites for plant species richness, plant community composition, and nutrient levels. There was no evidence to suggest that longer stream buffers were more effective than shorter stream buffers. However, analysis revealed a difference in macroinvertebrate community composition suggesting that CREP sites experienced improved water quality conditions compared to unbuffered sites. The restored CREP sites were relatively young (all less than 5 years since establishment) and were only studied for one summer. In 2010, OWEB commissioned a contractor to complete an evaluation of riparian restoration projects implemented between 1995 and 1998 in the South Coast and Grande Ronde watersheds funded by GWEB (Demeter Design, 2010). These were the first watershed councils in Oregon and represent “pilot” watershed council areas. Questions from this monitoring project were: 1) Do the projects still exist on the landscape? 2) Are projects meeting original objectives? 3) What is the current riparian vegetation condition? Only 77 (16%) sites from a sample population of 485 could be located and accessed. The sites that were included in the study did not perform substantially better in terms of canopy density and invasive species composition compared to non-restored sites located on a nearby stream reach. Restoration project sites also exhibited planted vegetation composition that was inconsistent with natural vegetation composition at reference sites, which could result in lower success rates and species diversity at the treated sites. In addition, the authors noted that physical damage (mowing, grazing, etc.) and invasive species encroachment were main causes of project failure. Results from previous monitoring of riparian areas have demonstrated poor success rates thus far. There is evidence to suggest that some riparian restoration projects have not yielded the suite of intended benefits as designed, including increased stream shade, sustained increase of native plant composition, and decreased bank erosion. This could either be the result of poor site conditions, poor planting schemes or implementation, lack of maintenance, or a combination of these or other factors. In addition, the monitoring projects listed above were completed on some projects that were relatively young and additional time may be necessary to gather information on long-term project outcomes. Given the significance, in terms of both past investment in CREP and the ongoing efforts to enroll additional landowners in CREP, it is critical to ensure project success. In addition, knowing what and where improvements have been made to riparian areas and fish and wildlife habitat is critical to understanding the outcome of CREP projects across Oregon in support of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. The evaluation of these projects could provide guidance for the development and implementation of future CREP projects.
Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 28 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
OWEB and the Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) are currently working cooperatively to monitor livestock exclusion projects in both states as part of a "project-scale" effectiveness monitoring program for watershed and salmon habitat restoration projects. Livestock exclusion has been identified as an important action for restoring fragile riparian areas. Livestock exclusion includes building and maintaining fences along riparian areas. Project data and results are shared between the states. This coordinated approach represents a successful effort to collect comparable and compatible data across jurisdictional boundaries. When data from Oregon and Washington are combined the latest preliminary results indicate that after 5 years 64% of monitored project sites were effective in keeping livestock from riparian areas and a statistically significant reduction in actively eroding banks. In addition, a slight average increase in canopy density following project implementation was apparent when comparing average pre-project and post-project conditions (Tetra Tech 2012). These results are promising and begin to shape the understanding of the importance of livestock exclusion as a restoration action that improves stream quality.
Goals The goals of this study plan are to: 1) Report on the status and condition of previously implemented CREP projects. 2) Establish a long-term monitoring program to evaluate the effectiveness of CREP projects implemented across Oregon to meet the objectives agreed upon in the 2004 CREP Agreement Amendment.
Study Design Due to the large time span of previous project implementation and new projects being enrolled into CREP every year, a three tiered project design is planned to meet the goals and objectives for this study. OWEB is planning to convene a CREP Advisory Group as it further refines and implements this study design. Several staff from federal, state and local agencies administers CREP in Oregon and their roles vary widely across Oregon. The Advisory Group will be comprised of staff from various agencies that administer different aspects of the CREP Program. These staff are commonly referred to as “CREP partners” in this document. OWEB would like to solicit technical input from the Advisory Group on topics such as appropriate vegetation assessment approaches for conservation practices, criteria to evaluate success of CREP projectcontracts and the selection and use of control sites. The participation of the Advisory Group can assist in interpretation of the findings and development of any recommendations that may result from this monitoring effort.
Tier 1 Assessment Tier 1 of this study design will consist of office work to provide background information on the existing CREP contractprojects across the State of Oregon. Data collected by the CREP districts will be compiled to summarize the status of existing CREP projeccontracts. Localized staff that work with landowners in the CREP Program are typically organized at the county level although some locations have staff that is responsible for more than one county. This document refers to these distinct CREP geographic administrative units as “CREP Districts”. Each “district” spans a distinct geographical area and is administered by a mixture of agencies that implement CREP locally with support from the State FSA office personnel. The intent of Tier 1 is to determine how projectcontracts are distributed across the State, which Conservation Practices (CPs) are being enrolled and the current condition utilizing existing information. This information will help establish the sampling universe for more detailed information to be collected in Tiers 2 and 3. Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 29 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
OWEB will work with CREP partners to identify and compile existing information so it can be summarized at the district, ecoregion, geographic region and at the state level. The specific information reported will be determined by communicating with a variety of CREP partners across the state of Oregon to understand what data is readily available. The following metrics will be investigated:
•
Total number of CREP contracts enrolled Number of CREP contracts enrolled by year • Total acres enrolled in each Conservation Practice by year • # of contracts reenrolled after contract expiration • # of contracts disenrolled % of contracts inspected Amount of water leased for instream flow benefits by year Miles of stream planted • Miles of fencing installed # of acres, stream miles and landowners enrolled in the cumulative impact incentive bonus option • # of watering facilities, pipelines and livestock crossings installed • # of plantings • Buffer plant composition type i.e, grasses, forbes, shrubs, conifer or deciduous trees • Common species planted for each plant composition type • Plant density • Survival and growth rates • Buffer widths i.e, average and/or range • % of CREP contractprojects that performed site preparation methods • Maintenance requirement details, spraying • Invasive plant information, related to site preparation and maintenance • % of projects that performed supplemental plantings Inventory of existing monitoring sites located in the vicinity of CREP contractprojects In addition to the information compiled above, a map of all CREP contractprojects will be developed in coordination with CREP Partners at the state and district level to establish the sampling universe in order to select sites in Tier 2. These CREP contractproject sites may also be mapped with local, state, federal and tribal long term monitoring sites. This information could be used to determine where opportunities exist to measure relationships with CREP buffers and trends in water quality, quantity and fish abundance in the future. A final report will be written to summarize the information provided by the CREP districts. This report will include the following information:
Summarized CREP data and discussion of these results Lessons learned and recommendations, highlight any common themes or trends among the information • Discussion of next steps to proceed with Tier 2 Assessment
Tier 2 Assessment Tier 2 will consist of a more detailed assessment of existing CREP projectcontracts that involves collecting field data. As part of this process landowners will be contacted to gain permission to access their land. The Tier 2 Assessment description is composed of two different levels of field data Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 30 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
collection. The first description lays out a low intensity assessment of existing projectcontracts. The second description prescribes a higher intensity to collect more detailed field data to assess the development of riparian vegetation and the condition of streambanks and compare those sites to suitable control sites. The intensity of field data collected in Tier 2 is dependent upon the outcome of the Tier 1 assessment. The availability of sufficient information to evaluate existing CREP projectcontracts will determine how much information is collected in Tier 2. A lower intensity of data will be collected if there is sufficient existing information to evaluate the status and conditions of existing projectcontracts. If there is not enough existing information to evaluate the projectcontracts then a higher intensity assessment will be performed. LOW INTENSITY ASSESSMENT The low intensity assessment will collect a limited amount of field data to evaluate the current vegetation and fencing conditions of existing CREP projectcontracts.
2.
Objectives 1. Determine the extent of livestock use in CREP buffers. Determine the percent woody cover or the potential vegetation indicator of buffer success for the specific Conservation Practice implemented. Site Selection Sites that will be selected for sampling will be informed by findings of the Tier 1 assessment. Sites will be selected to stratify a range of ages of projectcontracts from 0-5, 6-10 and 10-15 years. The specific number of sites will be based on selecting a representative sample pool to characterize the age, the potential vegetation type and geographic distribution of existing CREP projectcontracts. Computerized mapping will be used to assign random locations within strata to evaluate the objectives listed above. ProjectContracts that have endured major natural disturbances (fire, major flooding, etc.) in the immediate vicinity will be reviewed and may possibly be excluded from the study. Methods Information should be obtained from the responsible agency (FSA, NRCS, SWCD, WC) that describes the details of the CREP projectcontract to aid in the field assessment and data analysis process. In particular, the buffer width, the CP implemented, the number of plants installed or seed applied per acre, per year and the number and types of maintenance treatments will be recorded for each CREP contract that is sampled. Field methods are largely adapted from two existing protocols that OWEB has utilized in past effectiveness monitoring projects. These two protocols are titled “Protocol for Monitoring Effectiveness of Riparian Planting Projects, MC-3, Crawford 2011” and “Protocol for Monitoring Effectiveness of Riparian Livestock Exclusion Projects, MC-4, Crawford 2011”. Both of these protocols are available for download at: http://www.rco.wa.gov/doc_pages/other_pubs.shtml#effectiveness Reach Establishment
Establishing a stream reach will follow the procedures described in the Protocol for Monitoring Effectiveness of Riparian Planting Projects, MC-3, Crawford 2011, which was adapted from EMAP protocols (Peck et al. 2003) and Mebane et al. 2003. These methods are described in detail in the Method for Laying out Control and Impact Stream Reaches for Wadeable Streams on pages 15-17. Livestock Exclusion
The presence or absence of livestock inside the exclusion can be used as a measure of the effectiveness of the fencing design in excluding livestock from the riparian area. Livestock exclusion Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 31 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
fencing can also be evaluated by counting the number of holes in the fencing (Crawford, 2011). The procedures detailed in the Method for Detecting Presence/Absence of Livestock as described in the Protocol for Monitoring Effectiveness of Riparian Livestock Exclusion Projects, MC-4, Crawford 2011, shall be followed to evaluate objective #1. Riparian Vegetation
Naturally recruited woody individuals are often difficult to differentiate from planted individuals in riparian buffers that are older than 5 years of age. Including naturally recruited individuals is a more relevant measure of success as these individuals add to the functions provided by the original plantings. Therefore, post-project sampling will consist of estimating percent cover of planted trees and shrubs and natural recruitment of woody riparian species. If additional plantings occur after the beginning of the project, these should be noted and included in the analysis (Crawford, 2011). The procedures detailed in the Method for Quantifying Riparian Plantings, specifically steps 1, 2 and 5 as described in the Protocol for Monitoring Effectiveness of Riparian Planting Projects, MC-3, Crawford 2011, shall be followed to evaluate objective 2. Different sampling methods will be used to measure the potential vegetation indicator for the specific CP implemented that does not require planting trees or shrubs. These methods will be developed in consultation with the multi-agency Advisory Group and contractor. Data Analysis Data should be collected to the extent possible with hand held data recorders and a database will be designed to store data and perform a basic summary analysis of completed project data to identify any data irregularities and calculate summary statistics. The summary of statistics to be completed is listed for objectives number 2 and 4 in the Summary Statistics section below.
HIGH INTENSITY ASSESSMENT The more detailed assessment of the existing CREP projectcontracts will be assessed utilizing an Extensive Post-Treatment (EPT) Study Design. The extensive post-treatment study is the one endorsed by Hall et al. (1978) as being most useful in providing information about watershed practices on streams, and is also a commonly used design in water quality monitoring (MacDonald et al. 1991). Short-term monitoring (on the order of one or two seasons) will be conducted in both control and treated sites and differences in response variables will be attributed to treatment effect. Control sites are locations that are actively managed in a manner consistent with the use before the treatment site was enrolled in CREP. This post-treatment study will evaluate the effectiveness of CPs on bank stability, canopy cover, vegetation structure and invasive plant presence. The effectiveness of livestock exclusion fencing will also be evaluated where fencing has been installed.
1. 2.
3. 4.
Objectives Compare the overall riparian vegetation cover layers and canopy cover density within the projectcontract area to a control area that has not been treated. Compare the percent woody cover or the potential vegetation indicator for the specific Conservation Practice implemented within the projectcontract area to a control area that has not been treated. Compare the overall proportion of stream bank actively eroding within the projectcontract area to a control area that has not been treated. Determine the extent of livestock use in CREP buffers.
Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 32 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
5.
Compare the percent cover of invasive plant species, including noxious species within the projectcontract area to a control area that has not been treated. Site Selection Sites that will be selected for sampling will be informed by findings of the Tier 1 assessment. Sites will be selected to stratify a range of ages of projectcontracts. The specific number of sites will be based on selecting a representative sample pool to characterize the age, the potential vegetation type and geographic distribution of existing CREP projectcontracts. Computerized mapping will be used to assign random locations within strata to evaluate the objectives listed above. ProjectContracts that have endured major natural disturbances (fire, major flooding, etc.) in the immediate vicinity will be reviewed and may possibly be excluded from the study. A control reach of equal size and habitat type, located upstream of the projectcontract site, should be selected and designed in the same manner as the impact reach. Ideally, the property would have a riparian area that would remain in an unmanaged condition. A nearby location could alternatively be used if a control area on the applicant’s property is not available. Methods Information should be obtained from the responsible agency (FSA, NRCS, SWCD, WC) that describes the details of the riparian planting and exclusion fencing projectcontract to aid in the field assessment and data analysis process. In particular, the buffer width, the CP implemented, the number of plants installed or seed applied per acre, per year and the number and types of maintenance treatments will be recorded for each CREP contract that is sampled. Field methods are largely adapted from two existing protocols that OWEB has utilized in past effectiveness monitoring projects. These two protocols are titled “Protocol for Monitoring Effectiveness of Riparian Planting Projects, MC-3, Crawford 2011” and “Protocol for Monitoring Effectiveness of Riparian Livestock Exclusion Projects, MC-4, Crawford 2011”. Both of these protocols are available for download at: http://www.rco.wa.gov/doc_pages/other_pubs.shtml#effectiveness Reach Establishment
Establishing a control and impact stream reach will follow the procedures described in the Protocol for Monitoring Effectiveness of Riparian Planting Projects, MC-3, Crawford 2011, which was adapted from EMAP protocols (Peck et al. 2003) and Mebane et al. 2003. These methods are described in detail in the Method for Laying out Control and Impact Stream Reaches for Wadeable Streams on pages 15-17. Riparian Vegetation
CREP projectcontracts that have implemented Forest Riparian Buffer CPs will measure canopy cover, percent woody cover, riparian vegetation and structure following procedures described in the Protocol for Monitoring Effectiveness of Riparian Planting Projects, MC-3, Crawford 2011, to evaluate objectives 1 and 2. These methods are described in detail in the Method for Characterizing Riparian Vegetation Structure on pages 18-22. Measuring percent woody cover will occur in treated reaches only and will follow procedures detailed in the Method for Quantifying Riparian Plantings, specifically steps 1, 2 and 5 on pages 11 and 12. In addition to the methods described above, the percent cover of invasive plant species will be estimated for the understory (0.5 to 5m high) and ground cover (0 to 0.5m high) vegetation layers in each transect to evaluate objective 5. Noxious species significant to the State of Oregon presence will also be summarized per species. Different sampling methods may be used to measure the potential vegetation indicator for the specific CP implemented that does not require planting trees or shrubs. These methods will be developed in consultation with the multi-agency Advisory Group and contractor. Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 33 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring Streambank
Measuring the percentage of actively eroding streambanks will follow procedures described in the Protocol for Monitoring Effectiveness of Riparian Planting Projects, MC-3, Crawford 2011, which was adapted from Moore et al. 1998 to evaluate objective 3. These methods are described in detail in the Method for Measuring Actively Eroding Streambanks on page 27. Livestock Exclusion
Measuring the overall use by livestock in the riparian area will follow procedures described in the Protocol for Monitoring Effectiveness of Riparian Livestock Exclusion Projects, MC-4, Crawford 2011, to evaluate objective 4. These methods are described in detail in the Method for Detecting Presence/Absence of Livestock. Photo Points
Photo point monitoring can be a useful and inexpensive tool for qualitatively documenting conditions of the CREP buffer. Well-documented photo points can also be used to support conclusions reached through other, more rigorous monitoring techniques. Photo points should be established to document current conditions and to be utilized if further monitoring occurs. Photo points will be established following procedures described in OWEB Guide to Photo Point Monitoring, Shaff et al 2007. Data Analysis Data should be collected to the extent possible with hand held data recorders and a database will be designed to store data and perform a basic summary analysis of completed projectcontract data to identify any data irregularities and calculate summary statistics. Summary Statistics
1.
Compare the overall riparian vegetation cover layers and canopy cover density within the project area to a control area that has not been treated. Overall vegetation cover layers will be calculated by determining the proportion of the reach containing all 3 layers of riparian vegetation: canopy cover, understory and ground cover. Each of the three layers of riparian vegetation is defined by two constituent layers, and we count a layer as containing riparian vegetation if either of its two constituents is present. The constituents for canopy cover are small trees and big trees. Understory layer is divided into woody understory and nonwoody understory, and ground cover is divided into woody ground cover and non-woody ground cover. At each transect a value is recorded for all six constituents at each bank. For instance a value is recorded for big trees on the left bank and big trees on the right bank at each transect. The values are integers from 0 to 4, representing percentage ranges. A 0 means no presence whatsoever, 1 means less than 10 percent, 2 means 10-40 percent, 3 is 40-75 percent, and 4 is greater than 75 percent. The calculation is the percentage of the 22 possible locations in the reach that have each of the three layers of riparian vegetation present. The right and left banks are treated separately to come up with the 22 possible locations (the right and left banks for each of the 11 transects). Since presence of a layer is shown if either of its constituents are present, the calculation is started by looking at the canopy cover, and if the value for big trees OR the value for small trees is 1 or greater, then count that location to have canopy cover present. In a similar way we judge understory and ground cover and if the location has all 3 layers present we contribute that location to the percentage of the full 22 locations in the reach (Crawford, 2011). In some locations only one side of the stream will have a buffer enrolled in CREP. In these instances calculations will only include 11 possible locations to generate the summary calculations. These sites will be denoted in the report and summarized appropriately. The appropriate statistical tests to be performed will be determined as the data is
Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 34 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
analyzed. Statistically significant differences between the project area and control in overall riparian vegetation cover layers will be attributed to treatment effect. The CREP Advisory Group will assist in generating the success criteria to evaluate this metric. Canopy cover density within the project area will be calculated by summarizing the canopy cover measurements taken at the center and banks of the stream. These measurements will be summed for all 11 Transects and converted to a percentage. The reading is a value between 0 and 17, with 0 indicating no canopy density whatsoever and 17 reading 100 percent canopy density. The results are then averaged to produce a mean % canopy density at mid-stream. Canopy cover measurements taken at the banks of the stream have a separate metric calculated and are summed for all 11 Transects and are also converted to a percentage. The final variable takes the measurements read from each transect, both left and right, and calculates the mean to produce a mean % canopy density at the stream bank (Crawford, 2011). The appropriate statistical tests to be performed will be determined as the data is analyzed. Statistically significant differences between the project area and control in mean % canopy density at mid-stream and at the stream bank will be attributed to treatment effect. The CREP Advisory Group will assist in generating the success criteria to evaluate this metric. 2.
Compare the percent woody cover or the potential vegetation indicator for the specific Conservation Practice implemented within the project area to a control area that has not been treated. Percent cover of woody vegetation within the riparian planting area is the average aerial percent cover of woody species in the riparian planting area. This statistic is calculated by estimating aerial cover of woody species present in ten 201 ft² circular riparian planting plots. The variable percent woody cover is the mean of the estimates from the 10 plots (Crawford, 2011). The CREP Advisory Group will assist in generating the success criteria to evaluate this metric.
3.
Compare the overall proportion of stream bank actively eroding within the project area to a control area that has not been treated. Bank erosion is a measure of the proportion of the reach containing actively eroding stream banks. This is calculated by taking at each transect an estimation in percent (0-100) along the left and right banks. The variable bank erosion is the mean of all the measurements, right and left banks combined. The appropriate statistical tests to be performed will be determined as the data is analyzed. Statistically significant differences between the project area and control with actively eroding banks will be attributed to treatment effect. The CREP Advisory Group will assist in generating the success criteria to evaluate this metric.
4.
Determine the extent of livestock use in CREP buffers. The presence or absence of livestock inside the exclusion can be used as a measure of the effectiveness of the fencing design in excluding livestock from the riparian area. The number of CREP projectcontracts with no livestock presence and/or with minimal impacts to the riparian will be used to evaluate this objective. The CREP Advisory Group will assist in generating the success criteria to evaluate this metric.
5.
Compare the percent cover of invasive plant species, including noxious species within the project area to a control area that has not been treated.
Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 35 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
Invasive plant species within the project area is the proportion of riparian zone with invasive plant species present in the ground cover and understory. This statistic is calculated separately for the ground cover and understory layer by taking the frequency of invasive plant species that are recorded in each transect. The right and left banks are treated separately to come up with the 22 possible locations (the right and left banks for each of the 11 transects.) The calculation is the percentage of the 22 possible locations in the reach that have the invasive plant species present. Further statistics can be developed to determine the percent ground cover and understory occupied by invasive plants. This statistic is calculated separately for the ground cover and understory layer. Percent cover of invasive plant species is calculated by determining the percent cover of invasives for the left and right bank of each transect and calculating the mean in percentage of the 22 possible locations in the reach. The appropriate statistical tests to be performed will be determined as the data is analyzed. Statistically significant differences between the project area and control with a proportion of riparian zone with invasive plant species present will be attributed to treatment effect. In addition, statistically significant differences between the project area and control percent ground cover and understory percent cover of invasive plant species present will be attributed to treatment effect. Relationships between planting success and presence of invasive species will be explored and summarized. The presence of noxious weeds will also be summarized for the project area and control area. Additional observations of adjacent lands to the buffer area will be included to provide context in evaluating the presence of invasive plants in the riparian buffer areas. Observations of off-site mature invasive plant species or propagules within 1,000 feet of the riparian buffer site boundary will be recorded to place the buffer’s condition in context of the surrounding landscape. Reporting Deliverables for this assessment will include the data stored in database format and a final report to be presented to OWEB in writing by the monitoring entity after the sampling season. The following information will be included: Description of sites and statewide map showing distribution of sites selected Summarized CREP data and discussion of these results • Discussion of projects and which decision criteria was met for effectiveness Lessons learned and recommendations, highlight any common themes or trends among the projectcontract areas and CPs Discussion of completeness of data, potential sources of bias Results will be reported to OWEB Board Members during a regular meeting and shared with the CREP districts. The final report will be shared with the public by posted it on OWEB’s Monitoring and Reporting website. These findings may result in recommendations to CREP partners to incorporate findings from this evaluation.
Tier 3 Assessment A select number of projectcontracts that will be enrolled in CREP will be assessed following a Before and After Control Impact (BACI) experimental design to test for changes associated with livestock exclusions and riparian planting projectcontracts. A BACI design samples the control and impact simultaneously at both locations at designated times before and after the impact has occurred. For this type of restoration, riparian plantings and livestock exclusion would be the impact, that is, Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 36 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
the location impacted by the restoration action, and a location upstream of the riparian plantings would represent the control (Crawford, 2011). OWEB invested in a Coordinated Monitoring Program for Livestock Exclusions in partnership with the Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board in 2006. Subsequently, Tetra Tech received a contract to collect, manage and analyze the data. Under both monitoring programs, the intent of the monitoring efforts was to test whether habitat targeted for restoration had been improved or preserved. This partnership leverages the investment of both states to increase the sample size for monitoring, while at the same time reducing costs for each agency (Tetra Tech, 2012). This coordinated monitoring program used field sampling indicators and techniques that were adapted from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) (Peck et al. 2003). Specific protocols were developed to detect changes in habitat expected to result from projectcontract implementation. Each project was monitored before and after implementation and is scheduled to be monitored on a rotating schedule in Years 1, 3, 5, and 10. As of 2012, Year 5 data have been collected for 11 of the Livestock Exclusion Projects in the program. Annual Summary Progress Reports have been completed for Years 0, 1, 3 and 5 detailing the findings of this study. In addition, Tetra Tech has developed specific protocols to detect changes in habitat expected to result from riparian planting project implementation. This BACI study will follow the specific protocols developed by Bruce Crawford and recently revised by Tetra Tech in 2011 to monitor the effectiveness of riparian planting and livestock exclusion projects enrolled in the Oregon CREP. These protocols are titled Protocol for Monitoring Effectiveness of Riparian Planting Projects, MC-3 and Protocol for Monitoring Effectiveness of Riparian Livestock Exclusion Projects, MC-4. OWEB will work closely with the local CREP district personnel to identify properties that have been approved for CREP funding and conduct pre-implementation surveys in the treatment and suitable control areas to establish current conditions to track spatial and temporal changes. A total of 15 treatment sites will be selected for this BACI study. Stratification of sampling sites and specific CPs to monitor will be informed by findings of Tier 1 and 2 Assessments. Ideally, the property would have a riparian area that would remain in an unmanaged condition in order to establish a control area to compare changes over a 10 year period. A nearby location could alternatively be used if a control area on the applicant’s property is not available.
Timeline
Tier 1 March 2015: Contact FSA and NRCS for CREP data compilation April/May 2015: compile data and draft summary report May 2015: Initiate identification of CREP sites May/June 2015: Map potential sampling sites for Tier 2 assessment June/July 2015: Finalize Tier 1 Summary Report
Tier 2 May 2015: Issue RFP June 2015: Issue contract
Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 37 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
June/July 2015: Meet with Advisory Group to discuss remaining technical issues, finalize sampling methodology and protocol. Identify potential sampling and control sites for first and second phases July - September 2015: First Phase data collection on specific focus area(s) November 2015: Draft Technical Report summarizing preliminary findings and discuss any data collection revisions for continuation of Tier 2 in Summer 2016 December 2015: Final Technical Report summarizing preliminary findings and discuss any data collection revisions recommendations for continuation of monitoring in Summer 2016. Finalize changes to sampling protocol. May – September 2016: Second Phase to complete data collection efforts to assess existing CREP contracts November 15, 2016: Submit Draft Final Report summarizing all information from 2015 and 2016 data collection efforts, interpretation of findings and recommendations for CREP program. December 31, 2016: Submit Final Report summarizing all information from 2015 and 2016 data collection efforts, interpretation of findings and recommendations for CREP program. Tier 3 TBD
References Anderson, M., Graziano, G., 2002.Statewide survey of Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board riparian and stream enhancement projects. Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. August, Bartuszevige, A.M., Diebel, K.,. Kennedy. P.L., 2009. An ecological assessment of Oregon’s CREP cumulative impact incentive program. Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center. Crawford, B.A., 2011. Protocol for Monitoring Effectiveness of Riparian Planting Projects MC-3. Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board. Crawford, B.A., 2011. Protocol for Monitoring Effectiveness of Riparian Livestock Exclusion Projects, MC-4. Washington Salmon Recovery Board. Demeter Design., 2010. Riparian restoration effectiveness monitoring. Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. Gregory, S.V., Swanson, F.J., McKee, W.A., Cummins, K.W., 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. Bioscience 41, 540-551. Hall, J.D., M.L. Murphy, and R.S. Aho., 1978. An improved design for assessing impacts of watershed practices on small streams. International Vereinigung fur Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie 20: 1359-1365. Kauffman, P.R., P. Levine, E.G. Robinson, C. Seeliger, and D.V. Peck., 1999. Quantifying physical habitat in wadeable streams. EPA/620/R-99/003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. MacDonald, L.H., A.W. Smart, and R.C. Wissmar., 1991. Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. USEPA Report EPA 910/9-91-001. USEPA, Region 10, Seattle, WA. Peck, D.V., J.M. Lazorchak, and D.J. Klemm (editors)., Unpublished draft 2003. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program -Surface Waters: Western Pilot Study Field Operations Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 38 of 38
RFP DAS PS‐2415‐15 – Oregon CREP Effectiveness Monitoring
Manual for Wadeable Streams. EPA/XXX/X-XX/XXXX. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C Shaff, Courtney., et al., 2007. OWEB Guide to Photo Point Monitoring. Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, Salem, OR. Tetra Tech., 2012. OWEB-SRFB Coordinated Monitoring Program for Livestock Exclusion Projects, 2012 Annual Progress Report.
Version 1.0 ‐ November 19, 2014
Page 39 of 39
