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
Why a Competitive RFP?
There are several reasons for a competitive allocation of funds:
One critical reason is to support the direction that is described in the 2008 Farm Bill: the State Foresters were required to develop a State Forest Resource Assessment and Strategy
The FY2012 NA S&PF Competitive Allocation RFP provides the State Foresters and their partners significant flexibility to seek additional financial assistance to implement the State Forest Resource Strategies.
This RFP provides a transparent, efficient, credible, and collaborative process and eliminates the multitude of previous RFPs administered by NA.
It also allows NA to make well-informed decisions about allocations for integrated solutions based on the States’ needs.

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
We Heard You!
This is:
A combined RFP, different than the FY2011 single RFP .
This RFP combines 3 different funding opportunities – Redesign, forest fire hazard mitigation, and Forest Health Management and Treatments.
Each funding category has its own review criteria and ranking panel. Proposals can be submitted under one AND 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
A process to decide how to best ALLOCATE Federal dollars (this is NOT a competitive grants program). The FY2011 NA S&PF Competitive Allocation RFP provides the State Foresters an opportunity to seek additional financial assistance to implement their State Forest Resource Strategies. Funding will be allocated to those projects that best meet the priorities expressed in the State Forest Resource Strategies.
An opportunity for NA to collaboratively work with all of you throughout the decision process
A process driven by priority needs.
A way to identify merit-worthy, unmet project needs (beyond the dollars available)

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
Funding Authorities
The Northeastern Area will use net available (non-core) dollars to fund successful proposals. This includes Fire, (to include Sate Fire Assistance and State Fire Assistance National Fire Plan), Forest Health (to include special projects,* NA Forest Health Protection Treatments on Cooperative Lands, Stewardship, and Urban and Community Forestry funds.
In FY2011, the NA S&PF Competitive Allocation RFP will not be used to allocate :
Forest Legacy, Forest Health Protection Treatments on Federal Lands, and the Wood Education and Resource Center (WERC) funds.
Available funding does not include, nor does it affect, core program funding for the S&PF Programs. Core funds will be allocated using existing formulas.
*Proposals that were not funded under the WO FH Special Projects RFP can be submitted to this RFP if they fit the criteria.
*Note: Some authorities are further subdivided and limited. Be sure to investigate these restrictions fully.

6. RFP Combines the Following Previously Separate RFPs:
National S&PF Competitive Resource Allocation (“Redesign” grants)
Forest Fire Hazard mitigation
NA Forest Health Management and Treatments
This RFP combines these previously separate RFP processes:
National State and Private Forestry (S&PF) Competitive Resource Allocation (“Redesign Grants”),
Forest Fire Hazard Mitigation, and the
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
Excluded from this RFP:
Gypsy moth suppression, eradication and slow the spread will be determined by cooperative surveys or other efforts in cooperation with the Slow the Spread foundation.
National and cross-regional initiatives such as oak wilt control, Early Detection Rapid Response, Evaluation Monitoring, Forest Service Pesticide Impact Assessment Program and Special Technology Development Projects will be run through a separate national process.
Forest Health methods (applied technology development) will be solicited separately.
You can not apply for funds to purchase 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
You can not apply for funds from this RFP for:
the purchase and installation of dry fire hydrants
small business start up funding
research and development projects,
Capital improvements
Fire preparedness and suppression capacity building.

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
Funding Parameters
There is no limit on the number of proposals any one State can submit.
The intent is to consider and fund both large and small projects.
Proposals can only be submitted to one AND 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.
Minimum and Maximum Funding Limits:
The minimum amount of funding requested in the Redesign category is $25,000.
There is no minimum funding amount for forest fire hazard mitigation or forest health management and treatment proposals.
The maximum amount of Federal funding that will be awarded to any one state is 15% of the total available funding in the category.
The 15% dollar value will not be known ahead of time.

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
Who Can Submit Proposals?
In FY2012, State Foresters are eligible to submit or authorize proposals (pass-through direct to partners) for consideration under this competition.
State Agriculture agencies or other organizations with State Forest Health program responsibilities can submit proposals through the State Forester or they can submit them 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
Other Submission Considerations:
NA encourages State Foresters to submit proposals they receive from other cooperators. However, State Foresters have the discretion to not forward proposals.
Cooperators should submit proposals through the State Forester for where the work is to occur.

13. Eligibility Multistate proposals: Projects on non-Federal lands
Encouraged where appropriate
No preferential consideration
Need concurrence by all relevant State Foresters
Projects on non-Federal lands
Project length: up to 3 years
Additional Information
Where appropriate, States are encouraged to develop multistate projects in collaboration with other State Forestry agencies and partners.
However, multistate proposals will receive no preferential consideration in the process as they are rated and ranked.
Applicants pursuing a multistate proposal need concurrence of all relevant State Foresters.
The proposal should clearly identify the amount of funding requested for each state, and
Be linked to each individual State Strategy.
Please let the appropriate NA Field Rep(s) know if you would like their help to facilitate discussions or facilitate the necessary concurrence by all states for a multi-state proposal.
Note for Reference: this was discussed at the July NAASF meeting and in the “Statewide Forest Assessments and Strategies: Next Steps” briefing paper approved by NAASF: “As requested by States, NA Field Offices will facilitate efforts to implement State-identified multi-state priorities in order to focus some work for FY2011 and beyond. NA will also coordinate across NA Field Office areas and, as requested, with States outside of NA and with Canadian Provinces.”

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.
If you intend to pass through funds to a partner or cooperator:
The proposal should clearly state the organization, contact information and funding amount for the pass-through funds.
Third party pass-through funds will count towards a 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 or Lori Gordon
Appropriate & authorized use of Federal funds
Proposal Requirements
FY2012 NA S&PF Competitive Allocation RFP applications will proceed for ranking only if they meet all the required elements below:
Link to the Statewide Forest Resource Strategy, and national and regional priorities.
Project goals must address and be clearly linked to resource objectives and/or priorities in the State Forest Strategy by referencing the State Strategy page, section, or strategy number(s).
Project goals must be clearly linked to one or more of the 3 National S&PF Priorities.
Project goals should also be linked to other national or regional priorities, as relevant, such as the U.S. Forest Service Strategic Plan (2000), National Roadmap for Responding to Climate Change, NA Strategic Plan Update for , NAASF Strategic Plan, Landscape Scale Conservation in the Northeast and Midwest (12/16/09).
These documents are available for reference on the NA RFP website.
Relevance is more important then the number of citations to these “other” documents.
B. A 50/50 match is required. Comprehensive information about allowable match requirements has been posted to the RFP website and Zaneta Hammond is also available to answer questions, her contact information is listed on the slide.
C. Appropriate and authorized use of Federal funds. It is recommended that applicants review “The Principal Laws Relating to USDA Forest Service State and Private Forestry Programs,” particularly the sections related to the funding sources for this RFP.

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.
Category 1: Redesign RFP
This category allows applicants to ‘mix’ or integrate S&PF programs, authorities and funding to achieve priority outcomes.
Successful projects can contain elements of U&CF, FH Management on cooperative lands. FH Management as per the National Fire Plan, State Fire Assistance and/or State Fire Assistance as per the 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)
Criteria for Proposal Evaluation
1. Significant Issue or Concern (25 points): Demonstrates a focus on a significant issue or concern in the jurisdiction to be addressed.
Proposal is clearly linked to State, regional, and/or national objectives and priorities.
Proposal should move the applicant to a desired future condition as articulated in the State Strategy.
2. Measureable Results and Significant Outcomes (35 points): Goals and achievements of the project effect positive changes. The proposal:
Has a clear statement of purpose
Influences or results in positive change on the ground and/or in the policies that guide conserving and managing trees and forests
Produces results/outcomes at a scale and cost appropriate to the statement of purpose
Maximizes return on investment and leverages resources
Produces residual positive benefits of the project (capacity, skills, knowledge, infrastructure, or approach is replicable)
3. Capacity to Succeed (20 points): Exhibits a capacity to succeed in the time frame proposed.
Reasonable balance between administration and technical assistance
Uses effective approaches to sustainable forest resource conservation, protection, and/or enhancement
4. Technical Soundness (20 points): Demonstrates a technically sound approach to addressing resource issues.
Technical methods and tools are appropriate for achieving expected outcomes
Qualifications of the organization and staff involved
By signing the applications, the State Foresters are certifying that all proposals they submit are technically sound. State Foresters committed to this during the NAASF Caucus meeting in Sept. During proposal development, partners can use all resources available to them, including NA staff for feedback on technical soundness of proposals.

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
Category 2: Forest Fire Mitigation
This category allocates funds for projects that:
Reduce hazardous fuels, such as prescribed burns, vegetation management, small diameter utilization, etc.
Increases awareness and education about wildfire prevention and mitigation such as community wildfire protection plans, Firewise and defensible space programming, information products on hazardous fuels treatments, etc.
Reduces risk and mitigates hazards for homeowners and their communities, for example fuel reduction projects, community fire protection plans, community coordination of slash disposal, multi-jurisdictional hazard reduction projects, community projects that focus on reducing the risk of ignition or loss.

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)
Criteria for Forest Fire Hazard Mitigation
Address forest fire hazard mitigation (25 points) – How do hazardous fuels treatments advance the priorities in the State Forest Action Plan and how are they tied to Community Wildfire Protection plans?
Relate accomplishments to the State Forest Action Plan (25 points) --How does the number of high-risk communities assisted relate to the State Forest Action Plan goals? How do other accomplishments tie to priority issues and actions listed in the State Forest Action Plan?
Partnerships and collaboration (20 points) – How are partners contributing to a successful project outcome?
Expected outcomes or products demonstrate an innovative approach (20 points) -- Describe how the project is innovative or what makes it unique.
Capacity for replication (10 points) – Can other communities follow a similar approach?

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
Category 3: Forest Health Management and Treatments
This category focuses on promoting sustainable forest management by maintaining the health and vitality of forest ecosystems at risk from damaging agents.
Eligible activities include:
Prevention, suppression and/or eradication of invasive and native damaging agents,
Restoration of forests following damaging agents,
Enhanced survey and technical assistance for problems not supported by Forest Health Protection core funds,
Activities to 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
Projects related to the following forest health issues are solicited through this category:
Asian longhorned beetle
Emerald ash borer
Hemlock woolly adelgid
Thousand cankers disease
Invasive plants
Other pests, issues and concerns related to forest health such as urban forest health monitoring, nursery pests, diebacks and declines, and new/emerging pests and other concerns should be submitted under Category 1: Redesign RFP. Multiple pest concerns or otherwise integrated proposals should be submitted through the 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)
Criteria for Forest Health Management and Treatment Proposals
Address a significant issue or concern (20 points) – clearly linked to State, regional or national priorities.
Measureable results Expected outcomes (40 points)– Produces results and outcomes at a scale and cost appropriate to the benefits, maximizes investment.
Collaboration and Partnerships (15 points)-- demonstrates leadership in cross-boundary cooperation, demonstrates collaborative and integrated delivery between partners
Technical soundness (30 points) – Reflects current thinking and knowledge, demonstrates awareness of and integration with other related work, staff have appropriate qualifications.

23. Forest Health Treatment Proposals
Proposals that include treatment require form
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.
Forest Health Treatment Proposals Only:
Require an additional form to be filled out: (on the website)
Show strong potential for meeting project objectives and must be supported by a biological evaluation that substantiates the need for the project and the strategies proposed.
Be environmentally acceptable and appropriately documented in accordance with appropriate laws.
In order to be eligible, the entity having ownership or jurisdiction over the affected land must:
Consent, cooperate and participate in the project,
Contribute directly to the work to be done,
Have the legal authority to carry out the project
Treatment projects require the documentation described in the RFP
Forest health funds may not be used to cut dead trees or to cut trees that have commercial value.
Cooperators shall maintain appropriate records for each treatment, including the location of the areas treated.

24. Support for Proposal Development
NA Field Representatives and Field Office staff:
New England & New York – Terry Miller,
Mid-Atlantic – Bob Lueckel,
Midwest – Barb Tormoehlen,
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
Support for Proposal Development
As you develop proposals, we encourage you to to consult with NA Field Representatives, Field Office staff, and
Cooperative Fire Staff in Newtown Square.
Past experience has shown that this consultation results in higher quality proposals and more collaboration between similar efforts. In addition, the Northeastern Area will host meetings to explain the RFP process and provide technical assistance related to proposal development.

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.
NA’s Guidance to Our Staff
Distribute the RFP broadly to established and potential partners.
Engage early in the process. Expect NA staff to contact you and your staff.
This is an opportunity for NA staff to provide meaningful technical assistance to help you construct the best possible proposals. The focus of NA staff assistance should be on the guidance in the RFP and the criteria to be used in project ratings.

26. Additional resources can be found on the
NA RFP Web site:
Additional resources can be found on the NA Web site:
RFP announcement and application form
Resources for Proposal Development
Communications Toolbox: FAQs, Flowchart
Contact Information
Proposal Submission Info

27. Project Submission Fill out the application form
5-page maximum length (excluding budget tables, project timeline & letters)
Submit in PDF format to
For help with proposals, contact Terry James:
Project Submission
Applicants will submit proposals in PDF format to the RFP inbox by close of business on February 1, 2011.
Required information for the proposal should not exceed five pages, excluding budget tables, concurrence letter, and additional information such as maps.
Terry James will provide support for proposal submission issues.
State Foresters may require proposals to be submitted earlier for review before the Federal submission deadline. Check with your state on these deadline dates.
See the call letter for additional information about submission requirements.

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
Collaborative Project Selection
Refer to Flow Chart
A preliminary review of the proposals will be conducted to identify incomplete applications and assign potential funding eligibility based on the project’s scope of work.
Applications submitted will be reviewed, evaluated, and prioritized by an interagency review team with a one-to-one ratio of Federal to State representatives. The number of team members will be determined based on workload.
The recommended list of proposals will be submitted to the NAASF Executive Committee and NA Director by March 1, 2011 for approval.
The NA Executive Team with support from grants staff will identify the appropriate mix of program funds and compile the FY2011 grant list with funding sources.

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
Beyond Project Selection
Successful applicants will need to track and report accomplishments and successes related to the selected proposals
Projects ranked but not funded will receive further consideration by the NAASF Executive Committee and the NA Director should additional funds become available.
The list of ranked projects also helps NA and NAASF make the case for unmet needs: supported by data and specific proposals

30. Feedback Ongoing feedback is critical to success
Provide comments & suggestions through your Field Representative or directly to Jim Barresi or Ian MacFarlane
Feedback
We will be learning and making improvements in the process as we go.
Ongoing feedback, from you, your staff and your partners, is critical to the success of this RFP
Provide comments and 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
Process Evaluation
This is not in cement. This is a learning process.
NAASF and NA Leadership will continue to work together towards achieving the best possible outcomes for competitive processes such as this opportunity.
Three central components of the competitive process are reassessment, monitoring, and flexibility.
Recommendations for changes to the process will be made to the NAASF Executive Committee and the NA Director by May 1, 2011.
The NAASF Exec. Committee and NA will closely evaluate the effectiveness of the single RFP competitive process and institute changes as necessary in FY2012 and beyond.

32. Questions?