FY2012 Northeastern Area State & Private Forestry Competitive Allocation RFP

1. FY2012 Northeastern Area State & Private Forestry Competitive Allocation RFP Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

2. Why a Competitive RFP? • Meets legal requirement in 2008 Farm Bill • Flexibility for State Foresters and partners to pursue outcomes related to State Forest Action Plans • Transparent, efficient, credible, and collaborative process • Supports well-informed allocation decisions

3. What is Different for 2012? • A combined RFP, not a single RFP • Combines 3 funding sources: Redesign, Forest Fire Hazard Mitigation, & Forest Health Management and Treatments • Each source has its own review criteria and ranking panel • Proposals submitted under ONLY one RFP category

4. What is the Same for 2012? • A process to ALLOCATE Federal dollars-- NOT a competitive grants program • NA works with State Foresters throughout the decision process • Meets priority needs as judged by an interagency review team • Identifies worthy, unmet project needs beyond available dollars

5. Funding Authorities • Funding authorities this year: • Fire • Forest Health • Forest Stewardship • Urban & Community Forestry Does not include or affect core S&PF program funding

6. RFP Combines the FollowingPreviously Separate RFPs: • National S&PF Competitive Resource Allocation (“Redesign” grants) • Forest Fire Hazard mitigation • NA Forest Health Management and Treatments

7. Excluded from this RFP • Gypsy moth suppression, eradication & Slow the Spread • Oak wilt control, Early Detection/Rapid Response, Evaluation Monitoring, FS Pesticide Impact Assessment Program, and Special Technology Development Projects • Forest Health methods • Purchase of fire department equipment, including fire weather stations

8. Excluded from this RFP • Purchase & installation of dry fire hydrants • Small business start-up funds • Research and development • Capital improvements (i.e. facilities) • Fire preparedness & suppression capacity building • The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Wood Education Resource Center, and Forest Legacy grants

9. Funding Parameters • State can submit unlimited number of proposals • Considers & funds projects of various sizes • Proposals can be submitted under only one RFP category

10. Funding Parameters • Redesign grants: minimum Federal funding request per project is $25,000 • Forest fire hazard mitigation or forest health management and treatment proposals: no minimum project proposal amount . • Maximum amount of Federal funds to any one State is 15% of total funds in the category.

11. Who Can Submit Proposals? • State Foresters eligible to submit or authorize proposals (pass-through to partners) • State Agriculture agencies or others with State Forest Health Program duties submit proposals through the State Forester or directly with a letter of concurrence from the State Forester • All others must submit proposals through the State Forester

12. Other Submission Considerations • State Foresters encouraged to submit proposals from cooperators; State Forester decides whether to forward proposals • Cooperators must submit proposals through the State Forester for where the work is to occur • Proposals due December 15

13. Eligibility • Multistate proposals: • Encouraged where appropriate • No preferential consideration • Need concurrence by all relevant State Foresters • Projects on non-Federal lands • Project length: up to 3 years

14. Third-Party Pass-Through • Clearly identify pass-through funds to third-party recipients; include organization name, contact info & funding amount • Third-party pass-through funds will count towards the State’s total allocation.

15. Proposal Requirements To be ranked, applications must meet all of these requirements: • Link to the State Forest Resource Action Plan, national, and regional priorities • 50/50 matching funds (see Web site) Questions about eligible match: Zaneta Hammond zhammond@fs.fed.us, 610-557-4015 or Lori Gordon 610-557-4106 lgordon@fs.fed.us • Appropriate & authorized use of Federal funds

16. Category I: Redesign RFP • Applicants can “mix” or integrate State and Private Forestry programs, authorities and funds for priority outcomes. • Projects can blend Urban and community forestry; Forest Stewardship, forest health management on cooperative lands; forest health management, National Fire Plan; State Fire Assistance and State Fire Assistance, National Fire Plan.

17. Criteria for Redesign Proposal Selection • Priority issue or threat (25 points) • Measurable results and significant outcomes (35 points) • Collaboration (20 points) • Leverage (20 points)

18. Category 2: Forest Fire Mitigation Projects that: • Reduce hazardous fuels, • Increase awareness of wildfire prevention and mitigation • Reduce risk and mitigate hazards in communities and on private lands

19. Criteria for Forest Fire Hazard Mitigation • Forest fire hazard mitigation (25 points) • Relate accomplishments to State Forest Resources Action Plan; identify client benefit (25 points) • Partnerships & collaboration (20 points) • Innovative approach (20 points) • Capacity for replication (10 points)

20. Category 3: Forest Health Management and Treatments Projects promote sustainable forest management : • Prevent, suppress or eradicate damaging agents • Restore forests after damaging events • Enhance survey and technical assistance not supported by core funds, • Enhance public engagement in forest health management

21. Category 3: Forest Health Management and Treatments Projects relate to these or other forest health issues: * • Asian longhorned beetle • Emerald ash borer • Hemlock woolly adelgid • Thousand cankers disease • Invasive plants * Multiple-pest concerns or integrated proposals should be submitted to Category 1: Redesign RFP

22. Criteria for Forest Health Management and Treatment • Address a major issue or concern (20 points) • Measurable Results/Outcomes (40 points) • Collaboration and Partnerships (15 points) • Technical soundness (30 points)

23. Forest Health Treatment Proposals • Proposals that include treatment require form 3400-2 • Support by biological evaluation, any required environmental analyses; work, safety & security plans • Document according to appropriate laws • Document landowner or jurisdiction consent to participate • Funds cannot be used to cut dead trees or trees with commercial value.

24. Support for Proposal Development • NA Field Representatives and Field Office staff: • New England & New York – Terry Miller, 603-868-7694 • Mid-Atlantic – Bob Lueckel, 304-285-1540 • Midwest – Barb Tormoehlen, 651-649-5276 • Cooperative Fire staff assistance in Newtown Square coordinated through Field Representatives Consult with NA and Field Office staff: it yields better proposals & enhances collaboration during the project

25. NA’s Guidance to Staff • Distribute the RFP broadly to established and new partners. • Engage early in the process. • Provide technical support to help state staff write highly competitive proposals.

26. Additional resources can be found on the NA RFP Web site: http://www.na.fs.fed.us/rfp

27. Project Submission • Fill out the application form • 5-page maximum length (excluding budget tables, project timeline & letters) • Submit in PDF format to na-rfp@fs.fed.us • For help with proposals, contact Terry James: trjames@fs.fed.us 610-557-4107

28. Collaborative Project Selection Steps • Preliminary review: completeness & eligibility • Evaluation & ranking by interagency review team of State and Federal members- including some State Dept. of Agric. Reps for category 3 (forest health). • Ranked list of proposals submitted to the NAASF Exec. Committee & NA Director by March 1 • NA Director will work with NAASF Exec. Committee to approve projects

29. Beyond Project Selection • Funds provided via a grant agreement; standard reporting requirements • Successful applicants must track and report accomplishments and successes • Projects ranked but not funded will be considered if additional funds become available • The list of ranked projects helps NA and NAASF make the case for unmet needs

30. Feedback • Ongoing feedback is critical to success • Provide comments & suggestions through your Field Representative or directly to Jim Barresi or Ian MacFarlane

31. Process Evaluation • Recommendations for process changes made to the NAASF Exec. Committee and NA Director by May 1, 2012 • NAASF and NA Director will evaluate the RFP process and make appropriate changes for future years

32. Questions?