Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit, Great Rivers CESU | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1) What is the title of this USGS funding opportunity?

The funding opportunity is titled "Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit, Great Rivers CESU."

2) What is the Funding Opportunity Number?

The Funding Opportunity Number is G14AS00110.

3) What kind of award was supported under this opportunity?

This opportunity supported a single cooperative agreement award.

4) How many awards were anticipated?

One award was anticipated.

5) What was the estimated total funding amount?

The estimated total funding amount was $65,625.

6) Was cost sharing or matching required?

No. The opportunity did not require cost sharing or matching.

7) What was the core purpose of the project?

The core purpose was to expand national-scale biodiversity decision support tools by having an eligible Great Rivers CESU partner build and deliver an operational capability (via the FGDC GeoCloud Platform) that generates biodiversity checklists for any user-defined geospatial polygon across the United States, including US possessions and territories.

8) What geographic areas were included in the tool's coverage?

The tool was intended to support polygons covering anywhere in the United States, including US possessions and territories.

9) How would users define the area of interest for checklist generation?

Users were expected to be able to submit or draw any geospatial polygon representing their area of interest.

10) What types of biodiversity checklists were required?

Two types of checklists were required: (1) a documented occurrence-based checklist (what has been observed and recorded) and (2) a model-derived checklist (what would be expected to be present based on environmental conditions, even if not yet documented in the primary national occurrence system).

11) What does the documented occurrence-based checklist represent?

The documented checklist represents taxa that are already documented in BISON within the user-defined query polygon, based on occurrence records (observed and recorded presence).

12) What does the model-derived checklist represent?

The model-derived checklist represents taxa that are not currently documented in BISON within the selected polygon, but that could plausibly persist there if present, based on modeled habitat suitability and environmental constraints.

13) What is BISON and how was it used in this project?

BISON (Biodiversity Information Serving Our Nation) is the USGS biodiversity occurrence clearinghouse hosted at bison.usgs.ornl.gov. The project emphasized linkage to BISON by leveraging BISON-documented taxa for the occurrence-based checklist and using BISON-based (or equivalent) occurrence data to support modeling for the model-derived checklist.

14) Why was the project designed to separate recorded taxa from environmentally plausible taxa?

The separation was intended to help users distinguish between what has already been recorded and what is plausible given environmental conditions, supporting gap analysis, survey planning, conservation prioritization, and broader biodiversity assessments.

15) What platform was the deliverable expected to be delivered through?

The operational capability was expected to be delivered via the FGDC GeoCloud Platform.

16) What modeling platform was required for the approach?

The modeling approach was to be implemented using the OpenModeller platform.

17) Were there any requirements for consistency with existing biodiversity modeling efforts?

Yes. OpenModeller was to be configured consistently with the then-current Lifemapper implementations and related Lifemapper projects at the University of Kansas.

18) What data sources were required for modeling occurrence inputs?

The occurrence data used for modeling had to come from, or be equivalent to, the current BISON dataset.

19) Did the opportunity require climate-aware outputs?

Yes. The opportunity explicitly required climate-aware outputs.

20) What climate options were the system expected to provide?

The system was expected to provide options that allow users to retrieve potential taxa under present-day climate conditions as well as under future predicted climate scenarios associated with global climate change.

21) What does the climate scenario requirement imply about the tool?

It implies the deliverable was intended to go beyond a static checklist generator and support comparisons of expected taxa under current versus future climate projections.

22) What kinds of planning and assessment use cases were highlighted?

The opportunity described support for gap analysis, survey planning, conservation prioritization, and broader biodiversity assessments.

23) What CFDA program was this opportunity associated with?

This discretionary funding opportunity was under CFDA 15.808 (USGS Research and Data Collection).

24) How was the opportunity categorized?

It was categorized within Science and Technology and other Research and Development.

25) Who was eligible to apply?

Eligibility was limited to organizations that were already participating partners in the Great Rivers Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (CESU) Program.

26) Why was eligibility limited to Great Rivers CESU partners?

The limitation reflected the CESU framework as the mechanism for collaborative research, technical assistance, and education between federal agencies and partner institutions.

27) When was the announcement posted and created?

The announcement was posted and created on June 26, 2014.

28) What were the original and final closing dates?

The original closing date was July 8, 2014, and the final closing date was also July 8, 2014.

29) When was the opportunity archived?

The opportunity was archived on September 26, 2014.

30) Where were additional details referenced?

The listing referenced Grants.gov for additional details.

31) Who was the point of contact for access issues and questions?

The point of contact was Faith Graves (USGS).

32) What contact information was provided for the point of contact?

Faith Graves could be reached at 703-648-7356 or by email at fgraves@usgs.gov.

33) What is the intended relationship between the occurrence checklist and the model-derived checklist?

The documented occurrence checklist was intended to report taxa already recorded in BISON for the selected polygon, while the model-derived checklist was intended to identify taxa not documented in BISON within that polygon but considered plausible there based on modeling.

34) What did the opportunity say about the "primary national occurrence system"?

It described BISON as the national occurrence clearinghouse that the tool should leverage, and it framed the model-derived output as identifying taxa that may not yet be documented in that primary system for the selected area.