Recovery Act Utah Statewide Watershed Restoration Project | Apply Online

Recovery Act Utah Statewide Watershed Restoration Project - FAQs

What is the "Recovery Act Utah Statewide Watershed Restoration Project"?

It was a U.S. Department of the Interior funding opportunity, offered under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act framework, focused on supporting watershed restoration work across Utah through partnerships and coordinated, landscape-scale actions.

Who administered this funding opportunity?

The opportunity was a U.S. Department of the Interior funding opportunity, with the announcement and access handled through Grants.gov. The contact listed for questions was with the BLM email domain (mgochis@blm.gov).

What was the main purpose of the program?

The core goal was to create a cost-effective, locally driven watershed restoration approach that could be implemented through partnerships among state agencies, federal agencies, and non-governmental organizations, with work occurring across broad landscapes rather than at a single site.

Why did the opportunity emphasize broad landscapes instead of one project site?

The program reflected the idea that watershed health depends on coordinated actions at a large scale, so it emphasized watershed restoration work spread across broad landscapes in Utah.

What were the main objectives of the program?

The objectives centered on sustaining and improving watershed conditions in ways that are measurable and durable over time. The stated priorities included maximizing biological diversity into the future, maintaining and improving water quality and water quantity, and protecting the land base that supports these systems.

What types of ecological outcomes were prioritized?

The opportunity prioritized outcomes related to watershed conditions and long-term durability, including biological diversity, water quality, water quantity, and protection of the land base supporting watershed systems.

What vegetation outcomes did the opportunity focus on?

The program stressed maintaining or improving vegetative cover, plant vigor, and desirable plant composition as key vegetation outcomes tied to watershed performance.

How were vegetation goals connected to watershed benefits?

The vegetation goals were tied directly to practical watershed benefits, including soil stability and the ability of watersheds to continue meeting both consumptive and non-consumptive demands.

What does the opportunity mean by "consumptive demands"?

Consumptive demands were described as uses such as agricultural, municipal, and industrial water uses.

What does the opportunity mean by "non-consumptive demands"?

Non-consumptive demands were described as values such as recreation, wildlife habitat, ecosystem function, and other values that do not require withdrawing water.

What kind of award instrument was used (grant vs. cooperative agreement)?

This opportunity was offered as a discretionary cooperative agreement, meaning the federal agency expected to remain substantially involved during project implementation rather than issuing a hands-off grant.

What does "discretionary cooperative agreement" imply for project implementation?

It indicates the agency anticipated substantial involvement during implementation, as opposed to a more hands-off approach typical of some grants.

How much funding was available under this opportunity?

The estimated total funding available was $2,000,000.

What was the maximum possible award amount?

The award ceiling was $2,000,000.

What was the minimum possible award amount?

The award floor was listed as $0, indicating flexibility in award size (subject to the full announcement terms).

How many awards were anticipated?

The listing anticipated one award.

Could a single award cover the full funding amount?

Yes. With an award ceiling of $2,000,000 and one anticipated award, the listing suggests that up to a single award could cover the full amount available.

Was cost sharing or matching required?

Yes. A cost sharing or matching requirement applied, meaning recipients would need to contribute non-federal funds or in-kind support consistent with the specific terms in the full announcement.

Who was eligible to apply?

Eligibility was listed as unrestricted, open to any type of entity, subject to any clarifications that may have been included in the full text of the notice.

What kinds of partners did the opportunity encourage?

The program emphasized partnerships among state agencies, federal agencies, and non-governmental organizations as part of a locally driven approach.

What CFDA program was this opportunity associated with?

The funding was associated with CFDA 15.231, titled "Fish, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Resource Management."

How does CFDA 15.231 relate to this watershed project?

The CFDA alignment reflects the opportunity's emphasis on habitat, vegetation, and watershed function, including goals related to biological diversity and plant composition.

When was the opportunity posted and when did it close?

The opportunity was posted on December 1, 2009. The original closing date was December 15, 2009, and it was later extended to December 18, 2009.

What does the archive date mean, and is this opportunity still active?

The archive date was January 15, 2010, which indicates the opportunity is no longer active.

Where was the official announcement referenced?

The primary reference point for the announcement was Grants.gov.

Who was the listed contact for questions or access issues?

The listed contact was Maria A. Gochis, and the email provided was mgochis@blm.gov.

Was the opportunity focused on a single watershed or multiple areas?

It emphasized work across broad landscapes statewide in Utah, rather than concentrating on a single site.

What overarching approach did the program promote?

It promoted a cost-effective, locally driven restoration approach implemented through partnerships, with measurable and durable improvements to watershed condition.