Grant Opportunities

Link to RFP (this document downloads) 

General Information

Submission Deadline. Monday, March 23, 2026 (11:59 pm Pacific Time)

Anticipated Funding. $80,000 (maximum)

Purpose. The Institute for Natural Resources (INR), acting on behalf of the Independent Research and Science Team (IRST) for the Oregon Department of Forestry’s Adaptive Management Program, seeks a contractor to undertake a rapid systematic literature review of the evidence and knowledge gaps related to the impact of forest harvesting on hillslope processes and on salmonids and stream-associated amphibians and their habitats in eastern Oregon. A “rapid systematic literature review” is a form of knowledge synthesis that accelerates the traditional systematic literature review process by streamlining or omitting specific, time-intensive methods while maintaining rigorous, transparent, and systematic procedures to identify, select, and critically appraise research. 

Duration of Project. 7 months

Schedule of Proposal Submission and Review.

• Request for proposal (RFP) announced – Monday, February 23, 2026, 10:00AM
• Written questions submission deadline – Monday, March 2, 2026
• Responses to questions posted on website – Friday, March 6, 2026
• Full proposals due – Monday, March 23, 2026 (before 11:59 pm Pacific Time)
• Review period – Approximately March 30 – April 21, 2026
• Tentative notice of funding decisions – Approximately late-April
• Award agreement set-up period – TBD
• Awarded project begins – Approximately early-June

NOTE: Questions regarding the application process, funding policy, or research scope should be submitted by email to [email protected] by Monday, March 2, 2026, 12:00 pm Pacific Time. The email subject line should be “QUESTIONS: Forest Harvesting-Mass Wasting RFP”.

Responses to the questions will be placed on this by Friday, March 6, 2026. 

RFP Questions & Answers 

1. During the project, will the PI have online access to OSU's library resources? Yes.
2. Are state agencies allowed to apply for this grant opportunity? Yes.
3. What is the difference between a "Rapid Systematic Review" and a full systematic review in this context? A rapid systematic literature review is a form of knowledge synthesis that accelerates the traditional systematic literature review process by streamlining or omitting specific, time-intensive methods while maintaining rigorous, transparent, and systematic procedures to identify, select, and critically appraise research.  In this context, the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) guidelines will be followed but the work will take place within a 7-month timeline.
4. Are road-related landslides included in the research scope? No. Road impacts on shallow rapid slides were explicitly excluded from the primary and secondary focus questions. The review focuses on upslope initiated shallow rapid slides and how forest harvesting (rather than road construction/maintenance) impacts these processes.
5. What are the required technical deliverables for the search process? The contractor must provide: 
   • A written review protocol including search strategy and eligibility criteria. 
   • A PRISMA study flow diagram and data extraction tables. 
   • A bibliographic database containing, at a minimum: title, authors/institutions, date, Uniform Resource Locator (URL) or Digital Object Identifier (DOI), and summary description of the study.
6. How is the "Secondary Focus" of the review defined? Beyond shallow rapid slides, the contractor must evaluate if other hillslope mass wasting processes affecting the habitats of salmonids and stream-associated amphibians are changed by forest harvesting. This is intended to be a more limited focus than the primary research question.
7. Will I be required to compile empirical datasets? Relevant, publicly accessible datasets (e.g., DOGAMI landslides database) should also be included in the review by recording metadata in the literature database and including a discussion section about potential utility in the report
8. How much interaction is expected with the Independent Research and Science Team (IRST)? Significant collaboration is required. This includes:
   • A kickoff meeting,
   • Regular (monthly or as needed) interactions with the IRST liaison.
   • A final after-action review meeting.
   • The contractor will also work directly with the IRST to develop the review protocol and search strategy.
9. Who are the primary audiences for the final technical report? The report will be used to inform the Adaptive Management Program Committee (AMPC), the Oregon Board of Forestry, and various state and federal agencies (ODF, ODFW, NMFS, USFWS) to evaluate regulation, policy, and technical guidance.
10. Are there specific formatting requirements for the proposal narrative? Yes. The narrative is limited to 10 pages (excluding references and supplemental info), must be in 12-point font (Aptos, Calibri, Times New Roman, or Arial), and should be written to facilitate blinded review to maintain anonymity.
11. What is the maximum funding available and what are the indirect cost limits? The total anticipated funding is up to $80,000.
12. What are the indirect cost limits?
    • For OSU PIs, the negotiated indirect cost rate is 26%, which is applied to all direct costs.
    • For Non-OSU PIs, use the indirect cost rate set by your institution/organization.