NASORLO Members Provide Input on National Competitive Grants Program.
Attached to this Post is the latest information I have received related to the request from NPS and Interior to review the national competitive grants criteria.. Posted for your information and review. Check back, as others come in, I will post them..
Georgia’s concerns.
First impression. UPARR program but with the states doing the leg work that used to be
completed by NPS regional staff. With the limited information given, there is a sense that
the states are not the administrators of the program but the applicants.
There needs to be more information given to the states in
order for us to be able to create state specific applications, and field
questions from potential applicants.
Because this would be a national competition, the time
frame would be dictated by the Washington Office. The concern is with the ability to administer
two separate programs (so as to not confuse the locals).with limited state staff.
Also, how would states cover administrative costs?
Texas Response: Proposed AGO Competitive Grant Program – Issues and Questions – Comments from Tim Hogsett and Staff.
Joel, we have reviewed the proposed broad criteria open
for discussion for a possible competitive LWCF Stateside grant program. While
we are in general opposed to the adoption of a competitive program with the
decisions for funding being based on centralized criteria, we have summarized
our comments and questions on the attached document. We will be happy to answer
any questions you may have, and desire to be represented if a committee is formed
to further develop these criteria.
· Define “Urban”
· Rural counties and small communities are possibly left out if primary emphasis is on urban projects.
· Urban counties and cities may lack the ability to meet large sums as match.
· How many projects could be submitted by each state?
· How many “top candidates” would be selected?
· Will the peer reviewers include state representation?
· What kinds of suggested changes could the panel make – scope? How would that affect the original project score?
Evaluation Factors
A. Project Relevance
Economic revitalization – what does this mean?
B. Technical Merit
Define “readiness”
How does this mesh with the panel proposing “changes to the project”?
C. Qualifications of Candidates
Based on what criteria?
D. Outreach and Education Programming
How do we follow-up and ensure this happens?
E. Project Costs and Leveraging
How do the locals do this if there isn’t a ceiling on the amount of match requested, these partnerships might be needed to make the match?
AGO Priority Descriptions
1. Urban Parks and Community Green Spaces
Difficulty in acquiring significant acres may be limited by availability and ability to meet the land costs
2. Recreational Blueways and Water Access
3. Large, Rural Landscape-Scale Conservation
In Texas, wildlife management areas are not generally open for recreational use
Alabama -Rob Grant Response
While I have been involved with LWCF Stateside for only a
little over three years now, I have been able to determine, by reviewing almost
50 years of project records and personally inspecting literally hundreds of
LWCF parks throughout Alabama, that some truly magnificent projects have been
completed in our state, all of which continue to this day provide Alabama’s
citizens and guests with opportunities for outdoor recreation and conservation.
Many of these projects appears to have been completed in the “fatter”
years of LWCF funding, primarily in the late 1960’s through the early 1980’s.
I can’t help but imagine what it might be like again, if
comparable levels of stateside LWCF funding existed- or dare we hope- that LWCF
is fully-funded and stateside receives a dedicated equitable share. I submit
that we would see the same success that has already been demonstrated- a
successful federal-state-local partnership for the development of outdoor
recreation opportunities, projects which are almost always more sustainable
because they are chosen by the units of local government receiving assistance.
It is for these reasons that while I appreciate the
invaluable information gathered by the AGO process, I believe that before a
national competitive grant process is initiated, we should allow the existing
LWCF partnership (federal-state-local) to continue to function with increased
stateside funding. By using the AGO data and SCORPs as a guide and increased
dialogue between the state liaison officers and NPS staff, we certainly should
be able to achieve the same results without creating more work for state and
federal staffs that are already suffering from budget cuts and shortages.
In regards to the proposed competitive state grant
program specifically, I wish to raise a concern regarding the last bulleted
point on page one (priority for metropolitan areas and areas with significant
population densities). Certainly the DOI has considered how this priority would
affect states with a majority of rural cities and towns and smaller population
densities; I would like to receive more information about how this priority
would be equitably balanced.
SC Competitive Grant comments to NPS
Florida’s comments:
The proposal to have 40% of the appropriated LWCF stateside funds distributed directly to
the states and the remaining 60% being used to support a nationally competitive
grant component within the LWCF Stateside Grants Program raises some
concerns. As noted in recent correspondence with the National Association
of State Outdoor Recreation Officers (NASORLO), not every state would be
assured of receiving funding from the 60% portion of the proposed competitive
grant program. In lean funding years the 40% share of the stateside LWCF
program could also be less of a state distribution than what is currently being
distributed to states. Because of this, we currently oppose the proposal
as it is now written. This supports the position of NASORLO, the National
Recreation and Park Association (NRPA), and the National Association of State
Parks Directors (NASPD) concerning the current proposal also.
Hopefully, the LWCF program funding proposal can be amended to provide additional funding
to all states in a fair and equitable manner.
