Announcement for Proposals (AFPs)

Revised June 10, 1998

A. Program Description

The Joint Fire Science Program (the Program) is a consortium of federal wildland management agencies interested in addressing the problems of accumulating wildland fuels (combustible material, generally living and dead plant materials) on lands administered by the USDA Forest Service and four bureaus in the Department of the Interior (Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land management, National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). The U.S. Geological Survey is also a cooperator. For the purposes of this Request for Proposals, "wildlands" are considered to be forests and rangelands.

Wildland fuels have been accumulating during at least the past half century due to wildland fire management policies, forest management and other wildland management practices, and other factors. The additional fuels contribute to intense fire behavior and increase the resistance of fires to control. Consequently, property and natural resources have been destroyed, costs of fire management have escalated, fire dependent ecosystems have deteriorated, and the risks to human life are high.

The Congress, agency administrators, Program cooperators, and others have recognized that the accumulation of wildland fuels must be reduced in order to reduce the human threat from fire and maintain natural resource values. Congress directed the Department of the Interior and the USDA Forest Service to develop a Joint Fire Science Plan to provide science-based support to land management agencies as they address this need. The Program was developed based on the Joint Fire Science Plan to help ensure that cooperating Federal land management agencies expedite scientifically sound, efficient, systematic, and effective solutions and monitoring programs that cross agency jurisdictions and fuel types.

The Joint Fire Science Plan addresses four issues critical to the success of the fuels management and fire use programs. These issues are:

1. The need to develop and implement consistent interagency fuels mapping and inventories with common classifications and resolution within ecosystems.

2. The need to evaluate and compare fuels treatment practices and techniques, including prescribed fire, thinning and other mechanical methods, increased utilization of biomass, and no treatment.

3. The need to develop treatment schedules, determine the frequency of subsequent treatments, and coordinate treatment schedules among agencies.

4. The need to establish compatible interagency processes and procedures for monitoring, evaluating, and reporting fuels treatments.

For further background on the goals of the Program, prospective bidders and other interested parties are encouraged to review the Joint Fire Science Plan which is available via the Internet at: JFSP Home

The Program sponsored a stakeholder meeting in February, 1998 with representatives from the six cooperating agencies, five additional Federal agencies, the Western Governor's Association, and the National Association of State Foresters. This group developed about 20 recommendations for initial actions by the Program. In general, the recommendations focused on determining the current status of wildland fuels and fuels management programs before conducting additional projects. The Joint Fire Science Program Governing Board has authorized the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) to begin addressing the recommendations. This initial RFP contains 11 separate tasks that address some of the recommendations.

Proposals are solicited on each of the 11 tasks. The urgency to initiate this program requires that proposals must include a Federal cooperator and must be submitted by a Federal agency. The Governing Board is exploring options for broadening the solicitation of future proposals to allow direct submissions by non-federal entities.

The Program recognizes the need of participating organizations to recover reasonable overhead costs. Indirect costs up to 15 percent may be included in proposals without detailed justifications, however, any overhead costs exceeding 15 percent must be justified. Similarly, indirect costs in excess of 10 percent on pass-through arrangements from federal units to cooperating units must be justified. Program management reserves the right to negotiate budget amounts and deliverables (including indirect costs over 15 percent) with proposing organizations.

Proposals for tasks 1- 9 are to be prepared and submitted in accordance with the attached guidelines. Tasks 10 and 11 are considered exploratory and conceptual approaches to conducting these tasks are sought. Therefore, proposals for tasks 10 and 11 should follow the attached guidelines for "pre-proposals." Also, tasks 8 and 9 are strongly related and potential proposers are encouraged to submit proposals that would link these tasks. The modeling capability sought in task 9 is viewed as providing a key tool by which to conduct the analyses sought in task 8.

The following will be considered in evaluating proposals to the Joint Fire Science Program:

1. How well does the proposal address specific issue(s) identified in the RFP?

2. Does the proposal follow the requested format and include all the requested information?

3. Will the proposed work provide information or products that are useful across agency jurisdictions, fuel types, and regions?

4. Does the proposal provide for adequate transfer of information or products, consider general availability and usefulness of proposed technology, and, as appropriate, provide for a feedback mechanism to the study team for product testing and improvement?

5. Does the proposal provide for adequate collaboration among agencies, between fire and land management personnel and researchers or other collaborators, and between disciplines to ensure broad integration of existing knowledge and approaches as well as applicability of results and recommendations?

6. Are study design and statistical analysis(es) appropriate and adequate to meet stated objectives?

7. What are the qualifications of the team to do the proposed work? Are adequate institutional resources and support available?

8. Are proposed timeframes and budget reasonable and adequately justified, including budgets for proposed sub-agreements?

9. If formal cooperative arrangements are proposed (e.g., with universities or other non-federal organizations), is there evidence that these will be feasible and agreeable to the cooperators?

Proposals are requested by the close of business on July 7, 1998. Proposals received after this date will not be considered at this time. Questions should be directed, and proposals forwarded to:

Dr. Bob Clark
Interim Program Manager
Joint Fire Science Program
National Interagency Fire Center
3833 S. Development Ave.
Boise ID 83705
(208) 387-5349

Electronic submissions are acceptable provided they are followed by a hard copy of the title/signature page with original signature(s). The signature page must be received by July 7, 1998. Please e-mail electronic proposals, in Wordperfect 6.1, 6.0, or 5.1, to b1clark@nifc.blm.gov. Please note that the address contains a "one" rather than an "el."

B. Areas of Interest for Proposals

Task 1: inventory and assess information currently available for fuels inventory and mapping, including existing methodologies.

Currently, different agencies and different offices of the same agency may use a variety of methods to inventory and map fuels. The resulting inventories and maps often vary in levels of precision and accuracy, and in the types and amounts of data collected. This results in an inability for agencies, individually or collectively, to accurately ascertain the magnitude and extent of fuel accumulation and the structural distribution of fuels and to deal effectively with fuels problems.

The Program invites proposals to inventory and assess available information on fuels inventory and mapping. The assessment should include a discussion of the "comparability" of existing information (e.g., published and unpublished data bases) and methods (e.g., Planar intersect method). The assessment should also include recommendations of existing or new, alone or in combination, methods to ensure enough similarity among methods so that data are additive for the purpose of local, regional, and national inventories and other data needs. The assessment needs to recognize that rapid and inexpensive methods may be required for individual projects at the local level.

Task 2: inventory of on-going fuels inventory and mapping projects, including research projects and other, internal data gathering projects and systems.

The Program has held preliminary discussions with a number of agencies and organizations regarding wildland fuels inventory and mapping projects and has reason to believe that a large number of such projects are in progress. These may include remotely sensed and ground based projects and may be conducted by federal, state, or local governments, universities, experiment stations, and other sources. The Program also believes that it would be prudent to obtain an inventory of these projects prior to establishing a course of action for additional science projects.

Therefore, the Program invites proposals to inventory the current or recently completed fuels inventory and mapping projects. The proposals should address research projects and other data gathering projects being conducted by various levels of the USDA Forest Service and four DOI bureaus including the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Proposals should also address other federal land management agencies such as the Department of Defense and National Resources Conservation Service, state and local agencies, and private companies.

Task 3: assess remote sensing needs and capabilities.

Federal wildland management agencies have a need for remotely sensed wildland fuels data, but the need for different attributes, scales, and levels of accuracy vary among local, regional, and national offices. The Program would like to help agencies fill that need but is reluctant to proceed without a firm understanding of the need or of the current and potential capabilities of agencies and current and planned remote sensing systems to meet those needs. Therefore, the Program invites proposals to inventory current wildland fuels remote sensing needs of land management agencies; to determine existing capability of agencies to produce or obtain sufficient remotely sensed data to fill the need; and to assess the capability of remotely sensed data to fill these needs and the information and technique development that would be required for better application of remote sensing to monitoring and evaluation of wildland fuels.

Task 4: assess values at risk in the United States from wildland fire.

"Values at risk" are natural resources, improvements, or other values that may be jeopardized if a wildland fire occurs. Real or perceived values differ widely among agencies, their customers, and geographic areas of the country. For example, concerns over impacts of prescribed fire on air quality may vary from region to region. Values at risk may include biological, environmental, social, and economic values.

Land managers need to consider all values at risk when they develop plans and conduct operational activities that may affect one or more such values. To help field managers assess values at risk and evaluate alternative fuel treatments, the Program is requesting proposals to assess and analyze values at risk in the United States from wildland fire, and recommendations on how to address differences in land use planning and operational activities.

Task 5: synthesize available information on historic fire regimes, how fire regimes have changed since European settlement, how changes affect ecosystem function and fire behavior, and identify knowledge gaps.

The cooperating federal land management agencies are implementing the Federal Wildland Fire Policy (http://www.fs.fed.us/land/wdfire.htm) that was accepted by the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior in December, 1995. This includes an increase in the treatment of wildland fuels by a variety of methods, including prescribed fire and the management of wildland fire. Information on historic fire regimes and their interaction with ecosystem processes helps managers to better understand the impacts of recent fire and fuel management practices and to better predict the effects of alternate fire and fuel management plans. While understanding the past does not necessarily tell us what to do in the present, lack of this type of information in some ecosystems makes it more difficult for managers to predict how their practices may affect fire hazard, fuel accumulation, and other processes.

The Joint Fire Science Program is requesting proposals to synthesize, in one document, existing information on historic fire regimes of the major ecosystems of the United States, discuss how wildland fuels have changed over time, how the changes impact proper ecosystem function and fire behavior, and identify knowledge gaps.

Task 6: synthesize available information on the current wildland fuels situation and the response of different ecosystems to various fuel treatments.

Wildland fuels (combustible materials, generally living and dead vegetation) have been accumulating at rates greater than would have occurred if fires had been allowed to burn throughout this century. The problem is especially acute in short fire return interval ecosystems where fire, historically common, has been effectively excluded for several decades. The impacts of this accumulation are often unknown. Also, actions (prescribed fire, mechanical removal, etc.) have been taken from time to time to reduce the unnatural fuels accumulations in some areas. The ecological impacts of these actions are also frequently unknown.

The Program is requesting proposals to synthesize available information on the current wildland fuels situation and the ecological and physical responses of different ecosystems to various fuel treatments.

Task 7: design a standard protocol that can be used across regions, agencies, and fuel types to evaluate fuels treatments.

A variety of treatments are used to reduce wildland fuel loadings, including but not limited to, burning, harvesting, crushing, rolling, grazing, or site conversion. Evaluations of these treatments are typically designed and performed locally, often to different standards with different approaches. This process precludes a regional or national assessment of responses to fuel treatments, within or among agencies.

In order to develop a statistically valid and uniform approach to contrasting and comparing effects of treatments on different sites and in different vegetation types, the Program requests proposals to design a standard protocol (or set of protocols) that can be used across regions and fuel types to evaluate alternative fuel management treatments. The protocol should be designed to provide essential information on effects of treatments on ecosystem processes and environmental quality (e.g., air, water, soils), as well as providing a linkage to evaluating social and economic impacts of treatments. While it is intended that studies established under such protocols will provide more detailed information than would be obtained through monitoring programs, the protocol should be designed to provide data that can be linked to evaluating impacts of fuel treatments on a landscape level through broad-scale monitoring.

Task 8: develop a "tradeoff analysis" method for managers to compare and contrast the effects, with a focus on emissions production, of prescribed fire vs. wildlfire.

The literature on wildland fire suggests that fires may have been more widespread and common prior to the advent of fire suppression. The literature, agency records, and anecdotal evidence also suggest that wildland fuels have been accumulating since the advent of fire suppression, with negative impacts on plant diversity and site productivity. The accumulation of fuels has also contributed to unprecedented fire behavior, loss of property, and reduced functionality of ecosystems. Of urgent importance is the potential increase in smoke emissions from wildfires and concurrent degradation of air quality.

Federal land managers are interested in using prescribed fire as one method to reduce fuel loadings, and need to determine how the use of prescribed fires, which typically burn under controlled environmental conditions and therefore produce different emission patterns than wildfires, may affect emission patterns and air quality impacts over time.

To help managers compare and contrast emissions, air quality impacts, and smoke transport patterns from wildland fires and prescribed fires, the Program is seeking proposals to develop and demonstrate a field oriented process or model to compare and contrast emissions from wildfires with those of prescribed fires. It would be helpful if the process or model could provide insight into other environmental impacts as well.

Task 9: modeling smoke from wildland fires

Wildland fires produce smoke, which is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency and state air quality agencies through ambient air quality standards for particulate matter (and other pollutants) and regulations to protect visibility. In particular, land management agencies use prescribed fire and manage wildland fires to reduce fuel loadings, and the smoke must be managed to minimize human impacts. Air quality modeling is used by the agencies to avoid violating National Ambient Air Quality Standards and rules pertaining to visibility and regional haze. However, the capabilities of current models to predict emissions and transport of smoke from fires are inadequate in coverage and are incomplete in scope.

Emission model systems must predict both the total mass of air pollutant emissions and peak rate (i.e., source strength), and duration is required in order to plan and screen potential air quality impacts, evaluate emission reduction options, drive plume dispersion models, manage emissions and source strength in real time, and to apportion monitored air quality impacts. Current technology is exemplified by the Emissions Production Model (EPM) which underperforms when used in fuelbeds that include long-smoldering fuels, fires that produce non-buoyant plumes, and very complex ignition patterns. A second example is the Simple Approach to Smoke Estimation Model (SASEM) which appears to be ineffective in 3-dimensional terrain.

Proposals are invited to:

Replace or improve the capability of current models to predict source strength, heat release rates, and plume buoyancy from all wildland fire environments and all fuel types for which fuel inventory and fuel consumption algorithms become available. Improve the performance of models for long-duration and non-buoyant plumes, and provide a user interface that is user friendly for local use and is nationally consistent.

Deliver in the first year:

Design and code an improved version or replacement for the EPM model that satisfies the criteria stated above, including a suitable user interface.
Compile and incorporate default fuel loadings, fuel characteristics, and estimated fuel consumption rates as they become available from other funded projects.

Deliver in the second and third year:

Test run the improved model for all fuel types and/or fuel characteristics included in the USDI/USDA "photo series" and other selected fuel types, and catalog model results for an assessment of reasonability.
Complete a national beta test of an improved or replacement emission reduction model.
Add additional default values and consumption algorithms in annual model upgrades.

Task 10: develop one or more methods or approaches to integrate wildland fuels management into landscape level processes.

The Federal Wildland Fire Policy (available at http://www.fs.fed.us/land/wdfire.htm) requires that, "Fire, as a critical natural process, will be integrated into land and resource management plans and activities on a landscape scale, across agency boundaries, and will be based upon best available science." Wildland fuels are an inherent part of the wildland fire process, but managers lack information and methods for incorporating fuels management into planning activities and actions at the landscape scale.

There are a number of efforts that have been made at local and geographic area levels to develop a more landscape-oriented approach to planning. Most of these have considered in some way the role of fire as a landscape process, and some may have developed mechanisms for integrating fire and fuels management into these planning processes. One of the goals of the Joint Fire Science Program is to develop informed and consistent approaches to meet this land use planning goal. As part of this process, existing approaches need to be evaluated and compared, and new ones may need to be developed. To assist managers, the Program is seeking proposals to develop, evaluate, or contrast methods or approaches to integrating wildland fuels management into landscape-level planning processes.

Task 11: develop methods and/or processes to evaluate social understanding and acceptance of different fuel treatments.

The cooperating federal wildland management agencies have embarked on an ambitious effort to reduce wildland fuel loadings, especially in threatened areas and fuel types. It is the strong desire of the agencies to address social impacts, concerns, and priorities. As the needs in this area are less fully developed and understood than in other areas of the Joint Fire Science Program, we are seeking pre-proposals that contain analysis of potential approaches and recommendations on how best to proceed in tackling this very important and difficult part of the fuels management problem. These pre-proposals will provide a basis for future solicitation of full proposals in this area.

C. Format for Full Proposals

Checklist for Proposal Submissions

Does the proposal:

* include an introduction or background section that includes the specific hypothesis to be tested and indicates how the proposed work is relevant to the RFP?

* include a list of cooperators and their proposed contribution, including the original signature of the principal investigator and an authorized signature from a cooperating federal unit?

* include a review and synthesis of related past and current literature and work?

* include a description of the specific location of the proposed work?

* include a description of the materials and methods of the proposed work including experimental design and statistical analysis(es)?

* include a detailed annual and total budget?

* include a description and cost of "equipment" which needs to be purchased to support the work?

* include a list of "deliverables" with proposed dates of delivery?

* include a "technology transfer" mechanism?

Overview of the Full Proposal Format

The full proposal should specify rationale, objectives, methodologies, and deliverables in sufficient detail to allow an informed peer to assess the proposal's scientific validity in addressing the objectives stated in the Request for Proposals (RFP). The proposal also provides a record of management responsibility and accountability for various aspects of the project. The proposal should also identify criteria by which success of the project can be determined. Generally, the proposal should be limited to 10-12 pages.

Title Page

Title of proposed project; relevance to one or more of the Principal Purposes in the Joint Fire Science Plan and the Request for Proposals; estimated starting date, schedule of major activities, and duration of the study; total funding support requested (including surcharges, indirect costs, and fringe benefits); principal investigator(s) name and organizational or institutional affiliation; and signature of individual(s) proposing the work. An authorized signature from a primary or cooperating federal unit (laboratory, regional office, etc.) must be included. E-mail or facsimile proposals are acceptable provided that the e-mail or facsimile transmission is followed by a hard copy of the title page with original signature(s).

Introduction

An introductory section should include:

1) Project Justification. A summary of the issue(s), why the project needs to be done (relevance to Request for Proposals), and benefits derived.

2) Project Objectives. A statement of the project objective(s) must be clearly stated and measurable. This should include a brief statement of the hypothesis to be tested (if applicable), what information or project will be provided at the end of the project, and how the information or product can be used to solve the problem stated in the Request for Proposals.

3) Background. This section includes a concise review and synthesis of existing knowledge and previous research or other pertinent background information in the project task area.

The introductory section is intended to provide peer reviewers and the Governing Board with evidence that the proposed work compliments previous and on-going work and that the work is applicable to the Request for Proposals and Joint Fire Science Program. Although the literature may be extensive, the synthesis should generally include reference to no more than about 15-20 of the most important and/or most relevant sources.

Materials and Methods

This section should describe procedures proposed for conducting the project in sufficient detail that a knowledgeable reviewer could understand the process and that a peer could replicate the project. A brief description of the experimental design and proposed statistical analysis(es) (if applicable) should be included.

Location of the Proposed Work

Work location should be specified in sufficient detail to allow peer reviewers and the Governing Board to suggest alternatives or amendments that would enhance utility of the information or products. For example, the Board or agency administrators may be able to help the proposer locate and use sites with a broader array of fuel types or with an array of aspects, or to facilitate access to existing data bases and records.

Budget

The annual budget should be provided in sufficient detail to identify indirect costs and related surcharges and to separate labor costs from operational costs. Separate line items for "capitalized" equipment should be included. Outyear projections should be included for multi-year proposals.

Deliverables

Provide specific details on the information or product(s) that would be provided by the proposed project, and realistic time tables for delivery dates. It is expected that all final products will include an electronic version suitable for distribution, posting, etc.

Technology Transfer

It is imperative that information or products reach field managers in a useful form. Therefore, each proposal should include a description of how the "technology" would be transferred to the field.

D. Format for Pre-Proposals

BACKGROUND - The Governing Board of the Joint Fire Science Program anticipates that several Requests for Proposals will be issued on topics addressed in the Joint Fire Science Plan. To optimize workloads of proposal writers, peer-reviewers, Contracting Officers, and the Board, pre-proposals, not to exceed four pages, are requested for those projects that are initially exploratory in nature. Upon completion of the peer review and evaluation processes, formal proposals may be requested.

Page 1 (Title Page): Title of proposed project; relevance to one or more of the Principal Purposes in the Joint Fire Science Plan; estimated starting date, schedule of major activities, and duration of the study; total funding support requested (including surcharges, indirect costs, and fringe benefits); principal investigator(s) name and organizational or institutional affiliation; signature of individual(s) proposing the work. An authorized signature from a primary or cooperating federal unit (laboratory, regional office, etc.) must be included. E-mail or facsimile pre-proposals are acceptable provided that the e-mail or facsimile transmission is followed by a hard copy of the title page with original signature(s).

Pages 2 - 4: Please include concise paragraphs that address the following particulars:

JUSTIFICATION: A summary of the issue(s), why the project needs to be done (relevance to the Request For Proposals), and benefits derived.

OBJECTIVES: A statement of the project objective(s) must be clearly stated and measurable. This should include a brief statement of the hypothesis to be tested (if applicable), what information or product will be provided at the end of the project, and how the information or product can be used to solve the problem stated in the Request For Proposals.

BACKGROUND: A summary literature review of existing knowledge and previous research or other appropriate findings.

PROCEDURE: A description of the methodology proposed, as well as location of the proposed work.

DELIVERABLES: A description of the information or product(s) upon completion of the project, including transfer of the information or product(s) to field users. An electronic version of the final product(s) is expected for all work funded by this Program.