Accelerating the Incorporation of Climate Change Knowledge into Adaptation Planning for National Park Service Assets in the Great Lakes Region | Apply Online

FAQs: NPS Cooperative Agreement Notice (Single-Source) - Climate Adaptation Planning for Great Lakes Parks

1) Is this an open grant competition that organizations can apply to?

No. The notice states it is not an open call for proposals. It is a public notice that the National Park Service (NPS) intends to make a single-source cooperative agreement award for a specific project.

2) Who is the intended recipient of this cooperative agreement?

The intended single-source recipient is the University of Michigan.

3) What is the project title?

"Accelerating the Incorporation of Climate Change Knowledge into Adaptation Planning for National Park Service Assets in the Great Lakes Region."

4) What agency is issuing the notice and planning to make the award?

The National Park Service (NPS).

5) What type of funding instrument is being used?

A cooperative agreement, with substantial involvement expected from NPS in the work.

6) What is the statutory/authority basis cited for making this cooperative agreement?

The notice cites NPS cooperative agreement authority under 16 USC 1(g).

7) What program and CFDA number are associated with the funding?

The notice references the Natural Resource Stewardship program and CFDA 15.944.

8) How much federal funding is anticipated?

Approximately $150,000 in total federal funding is anticipated.

9) Is there a required cost share or match?

No. The notice indicates there is no required cost share.

10) Is this a new award or a continuation?

The notice describes it as a new award.

11) What is the anticipated project period end date?

Performance is expected to run through June 30, 2019.

12) What problem is the project trying to solve?

The project is intended to close a persistent gap between climate science and day-to-day management decisions in national parks, particularly in the Great Lakes region where local climate behavior is strongly influenced by the lakes.

13) Why is Great Lakes climate information harder to use for park management than standard climate outputs?

The notice explains that operationally important conditions (such as lake level changes and ice cover) depend on interacting variables like temperature, precipitation, cloudiness, winds, streamflow, and lake circulation. Standard climate model outputs often do not capture this local complexity well enough to be directly useful for local decisions.

14) What does the project mean by making climate knowledge "locally relevant" and "decision-specific"?

Based on the notice, the work focuses on translating and organizing climate information so it fits the specific decision needs and planning processes used by park managers, rather than providing generalized climate summaries that require extensive repackaging for each new planning effort.

15) What is the main deliverable described in the notice?

A major deliverable is a more formal, structured "interface" between NPS participatory scenario planning and the GLISA online problem-solving environment (GLISAclimate.org), including reusable templates, workflows, and curated resources.

16) What is GLISAclimate.org in the context of this project?

The notice describes GLISAclimate.org as a structured problem-solving system (not just a website) that can store resources, annotations, expert-defined tags, and an organizing vocabulary for climate knowledge by application.

17) What is "participatory scenario planning" as referenced here?

The notice describes participatory scenario planning as an NPS long-range planning method used since 2007 to address uncertainty by developing multiple plausible future scenarios and testing how management choices might perform across those scenarios.

18) What challenge in scenario planning is this project trying to reduce?

Each scenario planning effort typically requires substantial time to gather, interpret, and repackage climate science into a workshop-ready format that non-specialists can use. This project aims to reduce that repeated effort by building reusable templates and curated climate resources within GLISAclimate.org.

19) Which parks are specifically mentioned as the starting points for this work?

Isle Royale National Park (ISRO) and Apostle Islands National Lakeshore (APIS).

20) How does prior work at Isle Royale connect to this new effort?

The project builds on a January 2013 scenario planning workshop at Isle Royale conducted with University of Michigan and GLISA partners. Lessons, data resources, and processes from that work are intended to be reused and extended to Apostle Islands.

21) Why is Apostle Islands National Lakeshore (APIS) a focus site?

The notice states APIS faces similar Lake Superior-driven climate vulnerabilities as Isle Royale, making it a logical place to extend and test the approach while tailoring inputs to APIS-specific management priorities.

22) Will the management focus at APIS be the same as at Isle Royale?

Not necessarily. The notice notes that Isle Royale scenario work centered on decisions related to shifting vegetation patterns and impacts to large mammals, while APIS applications will be selected based on APIS-identified decision needs.

23) What does the notice say about scaling beyond these two parks?

The notice anticipates that the approach can later be expanded to other parks and partners across the Upper Great Lakes as the tools mature.

24) What role do structured models, templates, and tagging play in the project?

They are part of a standardized way to package and retrieve climate knowledge for decision-making. The notice emphasizes curated resources, annotations, expert tagging, and a shared vocabulary to make information easier to find and reuse in planning contexts.

25) How does this effort relate to the National Climate Predictions and Projections (NCPP) Platform?

The notice states the approach aligns with NCPP Platform priorities and can leverage broader work on standardizing how climate knowledge is packaged for decisions.

26) Is there a workshop component, or is this only online tool development?

There is a workshop component. The cooperative agreement includes implementation and testing through a climate change scenario planning workshop using APIS as the case study.

27) What are the respective roles of NPS and the University of Michigan during the APIS workshop?

The notice states NPS will help organize, host, and facilitate the workshop, while the University of Michigan team will provide the climate knowledge synthesis, structured tools, and templates.

28) Will there be a written report produced from the workshop?

Yes. The notice states the partners will produce a report summarizing the scenarios developed, the methods used, participant evaluations, and an assessment of whether the new interface improved the scenario planning process.

29) How will the project evaluate whether the tools and interface are actually useful?

Evaluation includes quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitatively, GLISAclimate.org can track user interactions (such as time spent, content accessed, and usage patterns). Qualitatively, semi-structured interviews with NPS staff are planned to understand decision contexts, perceptions of the information, and experiences with virtual resources and remote collaboration.

30) What kinds of Great Lakes climate topics are explicitly mentioned as priorities for assessment?

The notice specifically mentions lake levels and ice cover, and notes that these outcomes depend on multiple interacting climate and hydrologic variables.

31) What outcomes does the notice list as anticipated results?

The notice lists outcomes including: a sustained assessment of weather and climate change knowledge tailored for Lake Superior; a documented portfolio of climate-sensitive management priorities for ISRO and APIS; templates and online tools to help park managers apply climate knowledge to real decisions; and strategies to overcome barriers to sustaining and maintaining online decision-support tools.

32) What responsibilities are assigned to the University of Michigan team?

The University of Michigan team is tasked with managing the scientific assessment work (including collecting primary references on lake levels and ice cover, synthesizing science for decisions, and identifying research gaps) and building the management interface tools and recommendations.

33) What responsibilities are assigned to NPS?

NPS, through its Climate Change Response Program (CCRP) and park staff coordination, is responsible for keeping the work tied to high-priority park decisions, reviewing products, and leading key aspects of workshop planning and facilitation.

34) Why is NPS making this award without full and open competition?

The notice cites a single-source justification category of "Unique Qualifications," stating that the University of Michigan team is uniquely positioned due to technical expertise, experience with Great Lakes climate adaptation problem-solving, proximity to the region, prior involvement with NPS scenario planning, and stewardship of the GLISAclimate.org database.

35) What features of GLISAclimate.org are described as distinctive and relevant to the single-source justification?

The notice highlights curated resources from prior structured exercises, annotations, expert tagging, and an organizing taxonomy that supports building a streamlined pipeline from climate science to NPS planning.

36) What is the broader intent of the project beyond the immediate APIS workshop?

The notice describes an intent to institutionalize a faster, more transparent, and repeatable way to bring climate projections and Great Lakes-specific complexity into practical adaptation planning for NPS assets, starting with Isle Royale and Apostle Islands and extending outward as tools mature.