Location: The Nature Conservancy
Application Deadline: October 15, 2026
Description:
TNC’s Western Dry Forests program is seeking a contractor to complete a literature review of the most applicable and relevant papers available to determine the effect(s) of leaving biomass piles in forests on wildfire severity and risk. All proposals are due to Whitney Calvert (whitney.calvert@tnc.org) by 9:00 pm Pacific Time on October 15, 2026.
About TNC
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a District of Columbia, USA, non-profit corporation with its principal place of business in Arlington, Virginia, USA. TNC has offices across the U.S. and in over 79 countries around the world. Since 1951, The Nature Conservancy has been working with communities, businesses, and people to protect more than 119 million acres of land and 5,000 miles of rivers worldwide. We also operate more than 100 marine conservation projects globally. Our mission is to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends. Visit www.nature.org for more details on what the Conservancy does and where we work.
TNC-Western Dry Forests program spans 11 western states and nearly 150 million acres of dry forests. The program is leading and convening efforts to restore dry forest resiliency and reduce wildfire severity throughout the West. Learn more at www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/wherewe-work/united-states/western-dry-forest-and-fire.
Project Background, Objectives, Scope, and Timeline of Deliverables
Project Background: Link between excess biomass and fire resilience
Many dry and mixed conifer western forests in the US contain surplus woody biomass that has resulted from decades of wildfire suppression and declining rates of harvest and management. Much of this excess biomass exists as small-diameter trees and fine woody material which have historically had little-to-no market value compared to traditional forest products that enjoy existing markets, like timber and pulp.
In service to ecological forest restoration goals, excess, unmarketable biomass is usually disposed of through prescribed burning (particularly piling burning, but also broadcast burning), mastication (chipping and then spreading the biomass across the forest floor at a specified depth), and/or full removal from the forest for offsite utilization. Removal of biomass is generally very expensive and has depended on public and/or institutional funding, which ultimately limits scalability. However, if successfully removed and utilized, excess biomass has the potential to enable more ecological forest management, providing positive impacts for communities, protecting against negative climate impacts, and more.
In the US forestry community it is broadly assumed that the less hazardous fuels that remain in the forest, the lower the wildfire risk, but we haven’t seen this connection made explicitly in the literature for piled and unburned hazardous fuels. Before TNC moves forward with our work in support of biomass removal and utilization, we are seeking to understand if the current science can answer whether the existence of unburn piles contributes to greater risk of uncharacteristic wildfire. To do this, we are enlisting a contractor to conduct a literature review that sheds light on this and other considerations discussed below.
Project Objectives: Evaluating potential impact of removal
There is scientific evidence that suggests leaving some slash and dead or dying trees in a forest after performing management activities is productive for soil health, biodiversity, and wildlife habitat (White, 2010). However, leaving too much behind can pose challenges. For one, excessive buildup of waste material prevents sunlight from reaching the forest floor, thereby inhibiting forest regeneration. Secondly, excessive buildup exacerbates hazardous fuel loading in forests, which allows wildfires to burn bigger and longer.
To avoid these undesirable forest conditions, the waste produced by management activities may be piled and burned (Bont & R.L., 2018). Pile burning releases carbon and smoke containing various criteria air pollutants (Jang, Page-Dumroese, & Han, 2017) and can heat soils to temperatures that adversely affect biota (Farnsworth, Summerfelt, Neary, & Smith, 2003). Despite these negative impacts, pile burning remains common practice as one of the most costeffective methods to dispose of this woody biomass (Mott, Hofstetter, & Antoninka, 2021). However, across the West, hundreds of thousands of piles likely remain unburned due to burning constraints dependent on weather and other environmental conditions, as well as workforce limitations. In fact, there are so many unburned piles in or immediately adjacent to forests today that burning them all over a 10-year time horizon, for instance, seems extremely unlikely if not impossible.
TNC-Western Dry Forests can envision circumstances where there is a use for forest biomass that would otherwise be piled and burned or left in the forest to deleterious effect. But before we can test our theories about the effects of removal for utilization, we need to understand what effect(s) biomass piles that go unburned for years, or even decades, have on wildfire severity and risk. If there are no negative forest health or wildfire severity impacts of leaving unburned piles in the forest, piling and not burning would be a cheaper alternative to full removal without losing the fire risk/severity reduction benefits associated with appropriate forest management and ecological restoration.
Secondarily, we also seek to understand whether the disposal of biomass through burning or mastication is preferable to full removal of biomass based on what we know about the three alternatives’ benefits to forest health and fire resilience in forests facing increased wildfire risk in the western US.
Research Questions
1. PRIMARY: Based on the current literature, how does aggregating excess biomass into burn piles in the forest that are subsequently left unburned affect wildfire risk and severity compared to the complete removal and/or disposal of those piles? Consideration: what are the pile densities and tree densities (aka fuel arrangements) that the literature assumes or examines? Are there differences in efficacy of pile removal/disposal on fire severity/risk when these densities are shifted? What are the thresholds for those densities to see adequate efficacy?
2. SECONDARY: What does the current literature say about the criteria used to decide how slash/excess biomass is managed during a hazardous fuels reduction project (i.e., mastication, pile/burn, removal)? In what proportion, and how do they differ in the resulting severity of wildfire afterwards given different fuel arrangements? How are other risks associated with each of the three alternatives – for instance, smoke impacts on communities from prescribed burning – accounted for in the literature’s evaluation of and/or comparison among the alternatives?
Scope
The scope of the project area for this literature review should be confined to: 1. Eleven (11) western states (WA, OR, CA, ID, MT, NV, UT, CO, AZ, NM, CO), 2. Western dry forest types (specifically, dry and mixed conifer forests), and 3. Federal lands (that is, land managed in trust by the USDA Forest Service, DOI Bureau of Land Management, DOI Fish and Wildlife, etc.).
Definitions for key terms should be established at the outset of the project in coordination with TNC for “biomass,” “wildfire risk,” “wildfire severity,” “ecological forest management,” and “uncharacteristic wildfire.”
Timeline of Deliverables
We are seeking proposals that include the following deliverables by the proposed timeframe:
September 30: Release of RFP
October 15: Deadline for proposal submissions
October 19: Proposal selected and contractor notified
By October 23: Contract signed
Start of work and initial planning meeting the week of October 19th
Contractor presents initial findings/rough draft literature review with list of references to TNC the week of November 9th
December 4: Final literature review submitted to TNC
Final literature review should include:
Summary, synthesis, discussion, and interpretation of the most applicable/relevant literature. Please also include copies of all literature cited.
Answers to the primary research question and consideration, at a minimum, and discussion, at a minimum of the secondary research question(s).
Qualifications, Eligibility, Submissions, and Selection
Qualifications
Alignment with the purpose and values of TNC-WDF.
Demonstrated understanding and expertise in conducting literature reviews and utilizing federal land management agency datasets.
Evidence of having conducted similar conservation-related work, particularly with respect to western dry forests.
Demonstrated ability to identify and analyze information from a myriad of sources.
Effective interpersonal and communication skills.
Ability to work within strict timelines.
Consistent collaborators preferred: the same person or small team committed to the duration of the project is critical.
Eligibility
Individuals, teams of individuals, organizations, or businesses are eligible to submit proposals. If the Contractor does not pass internal Independent Contractor screening to comply with local laws, we may ask that the Contractor contract through our temp agency as an individual in order for work to proceed.
The successful Contractor will be required to submit the following documentation:
Conflict Inquiry Form
Certificate of Insurance
IRS W9 form and (optional) ACH Enrollment Form
(If an independent contractor) TNC’s Independent Contractor Questionnaire
Submissions
Proposals should be sent to Whitney Calvert via email (whitney.calvert@tnc.org) by 9:00pm Pacific Time on October 15, 2026 and include:
A description of the approach you would take to conduct this project, including how you will 1) identify relevant resources and papers, 2) define key terms, and 3) organize your review. Maximum of 2 pages suggested.
A description of you and/or your team and your match against desired qualifications, especially related to the subject matter expertise. Maximum of 1 page suggested.
A proposed budget and timeline. The budget shall contain all costs associated with this assignment, including taxes, and reimbursable costs, if applicable. TNC requests (1) firm fixed pricing for the proposal and (2) an indication of whether the contractor will answer both research questions (primary and secondary) or only the primary question. If a particular entity is chosen as an award winner and any additional costs are presented at the time of agreement negotiations or implementation, TNC has the right to reject that entity as the contract winner.
Optional, but appreciated: a writing sample on a similar subject matter or style of deliverable OR examples of prior similar work.
Two to three references including contact name, relationship to your work, email, and phone.
Signed conflict of interest disclosure, certificate of insurance, and completed independent contractor form (if applicable).
If you have any questions regarding this RFP, please contact Whitney Calvert via email (whitney.calvert@tnc.org). Answers may be summarized by TNC and shared by e-mail with all potential consultants. Consultant understands and agrees that it has a duty to inquire about and clarify any RFP questions that the potential consultant does not fully understand or believes may be interpreted in more than one way. TNC, however, is not required to answer all questions that are not pertinent to the RFP or are considered to be TNC's proprietary information.
It is the policy of TNC to avoid situations which (1) place it in a position where its judgment may be biased; (2) create an appearance of conflict of interest with respect to rendering an impartial, fair, technically sound, and objective decision prior to selection; or (3) give an unfair competitive advantage to competing Consultants.
More information, including information about the selection process, can be found in the PDF linked in the “Learn More” button.
