Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Joint Venture Habitat Restoration and Protection | Apply Online

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) Joint Venture Habitat Restoration and Protection (FY 2012) - FAQs

1) What is this funding opportunity?

This was a Fiscal Year 2012 competitive grant program under the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). It was implemented through FWS programs tied to Joint Ventures (Division of Migratory Birds) and the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration (WSFR) program, with the goal of funding on-the-ground habitat restoration, enhancement, and protection in the Great Lakes ecosystem.

2) What was the main purpose of the program?

The program aimed to direct GLRI funds to tangible habitat projects that address major environmental problems in the Great Lakes ecosystem, with an emphasis on conserving native fish and wildlife populations, especially migratory birds. Projects were expected to align with bird and habitat priorities identified in relevant Joint Venture plans and other conservation planning documents.

3) How much funding was available, and what were the allowable request amounts?

Total FY 2012 funding was expected to be up to $1,000,000. Individual grant requests were allowed from $25,000 to $290,000.

4) When were awards expected to be announced?

Awards were anticipated to be announced in February 2012.

5) How quickly did projects need to start and finish?

Projects were expected to be ready to move quickly and were targeted for completion within one year of the award date. The program favored proposals that could start promptly and deliver measurable habitat outcomes within a short implementation window.

6) Can grant funds reimburse work that has already started or finished?

No. A key restriction was that grant funds could only support work that begins after the grant agreement is fully signed. Work already completed or underway was not reimbursable under this opportunity.

7) Who was eligible to apply?

Eligible applicants included state fish and wildlife agencies and other non-federal conservation agencies or organizations, provided they could meet the non-federal match requirement.

8) What match was required, and how much?

Applicants were required to provide at least a 25% non-federal match relative to the federal share requested. Proposals that exceeded the minimum match were viewed more favorably in competitive review.

9) What types of match were allowed?

Match could be provided as cash, in-kind goods and services, or land value. Match had to be permanent, non-reimbursable, dedicated to the project, and supported by signed commitment letters from authorized representatives of match providers.

10) What documentation was required for match commitments?

Match contributions needed signed commitment letters from authorized representatives of the match providers. The match also needed to be reflected in the application budget and related application forms as required.

11) Are there special rules if land value is used as match?

Yes. If land value was used as match, it needed a current appraisal that was less than one year old.

12) Where did projects need to be located to qualify?

Projects had to be located within the U.S. watershed of the Great Lakes as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and within Great Lakes-bordering states: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

13) What types of projects were supported?

The program supported habitat conservation through acquisition (including fee title purchases, permanent conservation easements, and donations of real property interests) and through habitat restoration and enhancement activities.

14) Can grant funds be used for restoration or enhancement work on federal lands?

No. An explicit condition was that grants could not be awarded to outside entities to conduct restoration or enhancement work on federal lands.

15) What happens if real property is acquired with grant funds or contributed as match?

Where real property interests were acquired with grant funds or contributed as match, a federal interest would attach to that property interest. In addition, the title needed to be held by the grantee or an approved subgrantee.

16) What plans and priorities were proposals expected to align with?

Projects were designed to align with established bird and habitat priorities identified in Joint Venture plans, including the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Implementation Plan and the Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain (Bird Conservation Region 13) plan, as well as other relevant bird conservation plans and State Wildlife Action Plans.

17) How were proposals evaluated and selected?

Proposals were ranked competitively. The highest priority went to projects that benefitted priority bird species, habitats, and geographies identified in applicable Joint Venture plans. Reviewers also evaluated readiness to start (supporting completion within one year), long-term durability of habitat benefits, and partnerships. Stronger match, catalytic value, and fit within connected landscapes of conservation were additional factors.

18) Were partnerships required or preferred?

Partnerships were preferred. The program showed preference for projects involving two or more partners, including state partners.

19) Do projects need to be in a Great Lakes Area of Concern (AOC) to be eligible?

No. The program emphasized targeting funds to improve habitat and wildlife populations within watersheds of Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs) wherever possible, but being in an AOC was not an absolute eligibility requirement.

20) Were phosphorus reduction outcomes required?

No. Proposals that could demonstrate a reduction in excessive phosphorus inputs to a watershed were encouraged to highlight those outcomes, but phosphorus reduction was not required for eligibility.

21) What was the application deadline?

The firm deadline was Friday, January 13, 2012 at 4:00 p.m. Submissions to regional offices were due by 4:00 p.m. local time, and submissions through Grants.gov were due by 4:00 p.m. Eastern time.

22) How could applications be submitted?

Applications could be submitted through Grants.gov or sent directly to the appropriate FWS Regional WSFR office by email or mail, following the RFP submission instructions for each method.

23) What were the formatting rules for email submissions?

Email submissions needed to be combined into a single PDF.

24) What were the requirements for mailed submissions?

Mailed submissions needed to include a PDF copy on CD.

25) What were the required components of an application package?

Required components included: applicant contact information; a detailed scope of work describing need, approach, and benefits; a project timeline; a budget table showing partners and match contributions with cost details; a project map (and an aerial photo if available, with Google Earth acceptable); and a completed SF-424 (Application for Federal Assistance).

26) Was contacting a Joint Venture coordinator recommended before applying?

Yes. Applicants were strongly encouraged to consult with the relevant Joint Venture coordinator before submitting to confirm alignment with the right plans and to ensure the proposal included the level of detail reviewers would expect.

27) Which FWS regions handled support and submissions for different states?

The RFP directed most Great Lakes states (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin) to FWS Region 3 (Fort Snelling, Minnesota). New York and Pennsylvania were directed to FWS Region 5 (Hadley, Massachusetts).

28) What email addresses were provided for regional submissions?

For Region 3 submissions, the RFP listed r3fedaid@fws.gov. For Region 5 submissions, the RFP listed FW5FAReports@fws.gov.

29) What compliance obligations applied to selected projects?

Selected projects had to work with WSFR to finalize the grant agreement and complete compliance obligations under federal environmental and cultural resource laws and executive orders, including NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, floodplain and wetlands executive orders (11988 and 11990), the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act.

30) Were there additional requirements for real property acquisition?

Yes. Real property acquisition required USPAP-compliant appraisals and appraisal reviews, as noted in the RFP.

31) What reporting was required at the end of the project?

After completion, grantees were expected to provide a detailed final project report to the WSFR grant specialist.

32) What responsibility did recipients have regarding the committed match?

Recipients were responsible for ensuring the full non-federal match amount committed on the SF-424 was actually delivered.

33) What cost and administrative rules applied to these grants?

The RFP stated that projects must follow applicable federal cost principles and administrative requirements, including 2 CFR cost principles and other assistance and relocation/real property acquisition rules.

34) What if an applicant was unfamiliar with federal grant requirements?

The RFP advised applicants unfamiliar with the applicable requirements to consult WSFR grant staff before applying.