Opportunity Information: Apply for J9921101008
Apply for J9921101008
- The National Park Service in the environment sector is offering a public funding opportunity titled "Climate Change Scenario Planning for Alaska Region National Park Service Units" and is now available to receive applicants.
- Interested and eligible applicants and submit their applications by referencing the CFDA number(s): 00.000 Not Elsewhere Classified.
- This funding opportunity was created on Aug 9, 2010 and posted on Aug 9, 2010.
- Applicants must submit their applications by Aug 16, 2010. (Agency may still review applications by suitable applicants for the remaining/unused allocated funding in 2026.)
- The funding agency has allocated a total of $335,000.00 to eligible and selected applicants.
- Each selected applicant is eligible to receive up to $335,000.00 in funding.
- The number of recipients for this funding is limited to 1 candidate(s).
- Eligible applicants include: Others (see text field entitled Additional Information on Eligibility for clarification).
- This is a CESU agreement. University of Alaska Fairbanks is the selected cooperator. This agreement is not competed.
[Watch] Creating a grant proposal using the step-by-step wizard inside the applicant portal:
Opportunity Summary:
This notice is a public announcement that the National Park Service (NPS) intended to make a cooperative agreement award for a project called "Climate Change Scenario Planning for Alaska Region National Park Service Units" under Funding Opportunity Number J9921101008. It was not a call for proposals and was not open for competitive applications. Instead, it served as formal notification that NPS planned to fund specific work through an existing Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (CESU) arrangement, with the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) selected as the cooperator. The named principal investigator was Nancy Fresco, and the anticipated total federal funding was about $335,000 with no cost share requirement. The project was framed as a new CESU award with an anticipated agreement length of five years and a performance window running roughly from August 9, 2010 through September 30, 2014.
The purpose of the project was to develop climate change scenarios for Alaska national parks, organized by Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) networks or similar ecoregional groupings, so that park managers could make better-informed decisions about how climate change may affect natural resources, cultural resources, and subsistence resources, along with visitor use and facility development and maintenance. The project is described as a flagship effort for the NPS Alaska Region and one of the first major scenario planning initiatives funded through the newly established NPS Climate Change Response Program (CCRP), which at the time was expected to grow substantially over several fiscal years. The Alaska Region indicated it had received $200,000 in FY2010 and $100,000 in each of FY2011 and FY2012 to support this effort, with some of the funding reserved for NPS expenses (such as travel, licensing fees, and interpretive products) and the remainder passed to the CESU partner to complete the technical and facilitation work.
A central element of the announcement is the single-source justification for awarding the agreement to UAF, specifically the UAF Scenario Network for Alaska and Arctic Planning (UAF SNAP). NPS argued that only one responsible source could meet the agency need within the timeframe, pointing to UAF SNAPs unique qualifications and the urgency created by the late timing of the federal funding award and the need to obligate funds before the end of the fiscal year. NPS emphasized that UAF SNAP had already completed climate model runs under multiple greenhouse gas emissions pathways for several future time periods for each Alaska NPS unit, producing park-specific map products showing projected changes in temperature, precipitation, and evapotranspiration. The justification also highlighted UAF SNAPs access to high-end climate modeling expertise and the UAF Geophysical Institutes Global Change Research Center, as well as its practical experience translating projections into information that resource managers can use.
The work scope described for UAF SNAP included participating in an NPS climate change scenario planning training session in Anchorage in August 2010, providing climate information and projections via webinars leading up to that training, and producing a work plan by the end of FY2010. That work plan was intended to guide a series of internet seminars and four in-person workshops over the next two years, culminating in scenario products and written proceedings covering all NPS parks in Alaska, grouped by I&M networks. The announcement also notes that UAF SNAP brought specialized modeling and GIS capacity that NPS considered unmatched in Alaska for these purposes, including vegetation and wildfire modeling to help identify areas that may become more prone to future fire. Beyond NPS-specific benefits, the project was framed as a way to support broader climate readiness by engaging park-adjacent communities, stakeholders, partner agencies, and state and local governments in scenario planning discussions.
NPS documented that it considered alternative options but found them less suitable. A private contractor option (citing a firm like GBN as an example) was described as far more expensive than the available budget and oriented more toward corporate scenario planning than land management. Other academic partners outside Alaska were also considered, but NPS concluded their Alaska-specific climate modeling and resource management expertise was limited compared to UAF. NPS also stated that it planned to publish and widely share workshop results and products, with the idea that making outputs public could reduce barriers for broader participation and capacity-building in future Alaska climate work. At the same time, NPS left the door open for different entities to be better fits for later phases of work, such as adaptation planning, even if UAF SNAP was the best near-term choice for scenario development.
Administratively, the announcement identifies the award instrument as a cooperative agreement under CESU authorities, citing statutory authority under 16 U.S.C. 1a-2(j) for NPS cooperative agreements with educational institutions, and ANILCA (16 U.S.C. 5933) for establishing cooperative study units to conduct multidisciplinary research and develop integrated information products relevant to the National Park System and its broader region. The opportunity listing also shows an estimated award ceiling of $335,000 and an award floor of $220,000, with an expected single award. The NPS point of contact listed for the notice was Erica Cordeiro (EricaCordeiro@nps.gov), with a phone contact provided for assistance accessing the announcement.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is Funding Opportunity Number J9921101008?
J9921101008 is the identifier for a National Park Service (NPS) public notice stating NPS intended to make a cooperative agreement award for a project titled "Climate Change Scenario Planning for Alaska Region National Park Service Units."
Was this a competitive funding opportunity open to applications?
No. The notice was not a call for proposals and was not open for competitive applications. It served as a formal notification that NPS planned to fund specific work through an existing Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (CESU) arrangement.
Who was selected to receive the cooperative agreement?
The University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) was selected as the cooperator under the CESU arrangement.
Which UAF group was highlighted as the key partner for this work?
The notice specifically emphasized the UAF Scenario Network for Alaska and Arctic Planning (UAF SNAP) as the uniquely qualified source for the work.
Who was the named principal investigator (PI)?
The named principal investigator was Nancy Fresco.
What was the anticipated amount of federal funding?
The anticipated total federal funding was about $335,000.
Was there a cost share or matching requirement?
No. The notice stated there was no cost share requirement.
What were the estimated award ceiling and floor listed in the announcement?
The opportunity listing showed an estimated award ceiling of $335,000 and an award floor of $220,000.
How many awards were expected?
The listing indicated an expected single award.
How long was the agreement expected to last?
The project was described as a new CESU award with an anticipated agreement length of five years.
What was the approximate performance window for the project?
The performance window was described as running roughly from August 9, 2010 through September 30, 2014.
What was the main purpose of the project?
The purpose was to develop climate change scenarios for Alaska national parks, organized by Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) networks or similar ecoregional groupings, to help park managers make better-informed decisions about potential climate impacts.
What types of park concerns were the scenarios intended to inform?
The scenarios were intended to inform decisions related to natural resources, cultural resources, and subsistence resources, as well as visitor use and facility development and maintenance.
How was this project positioned within NPS climate work?
The notice framed it as a flagship effort for the NPS Alaska Region and one of the first major scenario planning initiatives funded through the newly established NPS Climate Change Response Program (CCRP).
How did NPS describe expected CCRP funding growth?
The notice stated that, at the time, the CCRP was expected to grow substantially over several fiscal years.
What fiscal-year funding amounts were mentioned for supporting this effort?
NPS indicated it had received $200,000 in FY2010 and $100,000 in each of FY2011 and FY2012 to support the effort.
Did NPS plan to reserve some funding for its own expenses?
Yes. The notice stated some funds would be reserved for NPS expenses such as travel, licensing fees, and interpretive products, with the remainder passed to the CESU partner to complete technical and facilitation work.
Why did NPS use a single-source justification for UAF?
NPS stated that only one responsible source could meet the agency need within the timeframe, citing UAF SNAP's unique qualifications and the urgency caused by late timing of the federal funding award and the need to obligate funds before the end of the fiscal year.
What prior technical work by UAF SNAP was cited as a reason for selection?
NPS noted that UAF SNAP had already completed climate model runs under multiple greenhouse gas emissions pathways for several future time periods for each Alaska NPS unit, producing park-specific map products showing projected changes in temperature, precipitation, and evapotranspiration.
What additional capabilities did NPS attribute to UAF SNAP?
The notice pointed to UAF SNAP's access to high-end climate modeling expertise and the UAF Geophysical Institute's Global Change Research Center, along with experience translating projections into information usable by resource managers.
What early project activities were described for August 2010?
The scope included participating in an NPS climate change scenario planning training session in Anchorage in August 2010 and providing climate information and projections via webinars leading up to that training.
Was a work plan required, and when?
Yes. The notice stated UAF SNAP would produce a work plan by the end of FY2010.
What did the work plan aim to guide?
It was intended to guide a series of internet seminars and four in-person workshops over the next two years.
What were the expected deliverables from the seminars and workshops?
The notice described culminating scenario products and written proceedings covering all NPS parks in Alaska, grouped by I&M networks.
Did the project include GIS or other specialized technical components?
Yes. The notice stated UAF SNAP brought specialized modeling and GIS capacity, including vegetation and wildfire modeling to help identify areas that may become more prone to future fire.
Was the work intended to involve stakeholders outside NPS?
Yes. The project was framed as supporting broader climate readiness by engaging park-adjacent communities, stakeholders, partner agencies, and state and local governments in scenario planning discussions.
Did NPS consider alternatives to UAF SNAP?
Yes. NPS documented that it considered other options but found them less suitable for the stated needs and timeframe.
Why was a private contractor described as less suitable?
The notice described a private contractor option (using a firm like GBN as an example) as far more expensive than the available budget and more oriented toward corporate scenario planning than land management.
Why did NPS view academic partners outside Alaska as less suitable?
NPS concluded that academic partners outside Alaska had limited Alaska-specific climate modeling and resource management expertise compared to UAF.
Were the workshop results and products expected to be public?
Yes. NPS stated it planned to publish and widely share workshop results and products, with the goal of reducing barriers for broader participation and capacity-building in future Alaska climate work.
Did the notice suggest other organizations could be involved in later phases?
Yes. While stating UAF SNAP was the best near-term choice for scenario development, NPS left open the possibility that different entities could be better fits for later phases such as adaptation planning.
What type of award instrument was planned?
The notice identified the instrument as a cooperative agreement under CESU authorities.
What statutory authorities were cited for using a cooperative agreement and CESU framework?
The notice cited 16 U.S.C. 1a-2(j) as authority for NPS cooperative agreements with educational institutions, and ANILCA (16 U.S.C. 5933) regarding cooperative study units to conduct multidisciplinary research and develop integrated information products relevant to the National Park System and the broader region.
Who was the NPS point of contact listed in the notice?
The notice listed Erica Cordeiro as the NPS point of contact.
What contact information was provided for the NPS point of contact?
The notice provided the email address EricaCordeiro@nps.gov and indicated a phone contact was provided for assistance accessing the announcement.
Browse more opportunities from the same agency: National Park Service
Browse more opportunities from the same category: Environment
Next opportunity: Farm Bill Assistance in San Joaquin County, CA
Previous opportunity: Data Analysis, Report Writing and Status and Trends of Alaska NPS
USGrants.org Applicant Portal:
Are you interested in learning about about how to apply for this government funding opportunity? You can create a free applicant account and receive instant access to our applicant portal that many business owners like you have benefited from.
Apply for J9921101008
[Watch] how do funding administrators access proposals?
Applicants also applied for:
Applicants who have applied for this opportunity (J9921101008) also looked into and applied for these:
| Funding Opportunity |
|---|
| Volume Change of Glaciers in Alaskas National Parks Apply for J9840100196 Funding Number: J9840100196 Agency: National Park Service Category: Environment Funding Amount: $221,107 |
| Whats Climate Change to You Apply for H9911110013 Funding Number: H9911110013 Agency: National Park Service Category: Environment Funding Amount: $135,000 |
| Notice of Intent to Award to Peregrine Fund Apply for FWS PF11 Funding Number: FWS PF11 Agency: Fish and Wildlife Service Category: Environment Funding Amount: $260,700 |
| Ocean Acidification at Glacier Bay National Park Preserve Apply for P11AT90326 Funding Number: P11AT90326 Agency: National Park Service Category: Environment Funding Amount: $350,000 |
| California Condor Program Apply for F16AS00022 Funding Number: F16AS00022 Agency: DOI-FWS Category: Environment Funding Amount: $60,000 |
| FY 2016 Request for Proposals from Indian Tribes and Intertribal Consortia for Nonpoint Source Management Grants Under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 319 Apply for EPA OW OWOW 16 01 Funding Number: EPA OW OWOW 16 01 Agency: EPA Category: Environment Funding Amount: $100,000 |
| FY16 Guidelines for Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund Grants Apply for EPA OSWER OBLR 15 05 Funding Number: EPA OSWER OBLR 15 05 Agency: EPA Category: Environment Funding Amount: $1,000,000 |
| CTLWSP Recovery At D Street Nesting Site Apply for F16AS00031 Funding Number: F16AS00031 Agency: DOI-FWS Category: Environment Funding Amount: $100,187 |
| Chesapeake Bay Program Office Fiscal Year 2015 Request for Proposals for Chesapeake Bay Program Committees Support Apply for EPA R3 CBP 15 07 Funding Number: EPA R3 CBP 15 07 Agency: EPA Category: Environment Funding Amount: $5,520,000 |
| TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO BROWNFIELDS COMMUNITIES Apply for EPA OSWER OBLR 16 02 Funding Number: EPA OSWER OBLR 16 02 Agency: EPA Category: Environment Funding Amount: $1,000,000 |
| Desert Tortoise Monitoring Apply for F16AS00033 Funding Number: F16AS00033 Agency: DOI-FWS Category: Environment Funding Amount: $16,700 |
| Treatment of Acid Mine Drainage in the Leading Creek Watershed to Improve Water Quality Apply for F16AS00049 Funding Number: F16AS00049 Agency: DOI-FWS Category: Environment Funding Amount: $46,563 |
| CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTION - TRIBAL LIAISON Apply for BIA CLIMATE 16 0001 Funding Number: BIA CLIMATE 16 0001 Agency: DOI-BIA Category: Environment Funding Amount: Case Dependent |
| Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance Apply for F16AS00034 Funding Number: F16AS00034 Agency: DOI-FWS Category: Environment Funding Amount: $100,000 |
| FY 2015 Support for Water Quality Framework Training Workshop, Nonpoint Source Agriculture Training and Technical Assistance, and Hypoxia and Agricultural Nutrient Outreach and Technical Assistance Request for Proposals Apply for EPA OW OWOW 15 04 Funding Number: EPA OW OWOW 15 04 Agency: EPA Category: Environment Funding Amount: $600,000 |
| Southeast New England Program for Coastal Watershed Restoration Apply for EPA R1 SNEP 2016 Funding Number: EPA R1 SNEP 2016 Agency: EPA Category: Environment Funding Amount: $1,000,000 |
| Puget Sound Action Agenda – Tribal Implementation Lead Apply for EPA R10 PS 2015 002 Funding Number: EPA R10 PS 2015 002 Agency: EPA Category: Environment Funding Amount: $25,000,000 |
| Chesapeake Bay Program Office Fiscal Year 2016 Request for Proposals for Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Aerial Survey Apply for EPA R3 CBP 16 01 Funding Number: EPA R3 CBP 16 01 Agency: EPA Category: Environment Funding Amount: $2,400,000 |
| FY 2016 Support of the Five Star Restoration Training Grant Apply for EPA OW OWOW 15 03 Funding Number: EPA OW OWOW 15 03 Agency: EPA Category: Environment Funding Amount: $1,100,000 |
| FY 2015 Environmental Studies Program AK CMI Apply for M16AS00001 Funding Number: M16AS00001 Agency: DOI-MMS Category: Environment Funding Amount: $400,000 |
Grant application guides and resources
It is always free to apply for government grants. However the process may be very complex depending on the funding opportunity you are applying for. Let us help you!
Apply for Grants
Premium leads for funding administrators, grant writers, and loan issuers
Thousands of people visit our website for their funding needs every day. When a user creates a grant proposal and files for submission, we pass the information on to funding administrators, grant writers, and government loan issuers.
If you manage government grant programs, provide grant writing services, or issue personal or government loans, we can help you reach your audience.
Subscribe to Leads
Request more information:
Would you like to learn more about this funding opportunity, similar opportunities to "J9921101008", eligibility, application service, and/or application tips? Submit an inquiry below:
Don't forget to subscribe to our grant alerts mailing list to receive weekly alerts on new and updated grant funding opportunities like this one in your email.