[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 176 (Monday, September 13, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55541-55552]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22645]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 100820388-0388-01]
RIN 0648-ZC20
NOAA Regional Ocean Partnership Funding Program--FY2011 Funding
Competition
AGENCY: National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The purpose of this document is to advise eligible state,
local, territory and tribal governments, regional ocean partnerships,
institutions of higher learning, and non-profit and for-profit
organizations (requirements described in full announcement) that NOAA
is soliciting proposals for competitive funding for Regional Ocean
Partnerships that include or emphasize regional Coastal and Marine
Spatial Planning (CMSP) efforts. This competition is focused on
advancing effective coastal and ocean management through regional ocean
governance and the goals for national ocean policy set out in the July
2010 Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force,
which includes a national CMSP Framework. The Regional Ocean
Partnership Funding Program (ROPFP) will support two categories of
activities:
(1) Implementation of activities that contribute to achieving the
priorities identified by Regional Ocean Partnerships (ROPs) while also
advancing CMSP as envisioned in the national CMSP Framework; and
(2) ROP Development and Governance Support for administration and
operations of existing ROPs, and for start-up costs of those regions
beginning ROPs.
Eligible entities must submit to NOAA full proposals on or before
December 10, 2010, in order to participate in this Fiscal Year (FY)
2011 funding opportunity. Total anticipated funding is approximately
$20,000,000 and is subject to the availability of FY 2011
appropriations. Additional funds of approximately $10,000,000 from NOAA
or other Federal agencies may be used for FY 2011 or multi-year awards
from this competition. The start date on proposals should be the first
day of July, August or September, but no later than October 1, of 2011.
Statutory authority for this program is provided under Coastal Zone
Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1456c (Technical Assistance).
DATES: Full proposals must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. ET,
December 10, 2010. For proposals submitted through Grants.gov, a date
and time receipt indication by Grants.gov will be the basis of
determining timeliness. Hard copy applications will be date and time-
stamped when they are received. Full proposals received after the
submission deadline will not be reviewed or considered. Anticipated
Announcement of Award: June 1, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Full proposal application packages, including any letters of
support, should be submitted through the apply function on Grants.gov.
If an applicant does not have Internet access, one set of originals
(signed) and two copies of the proposals and related forms should be
mailed to the attention of James Lewis Free, NOAA Coastal Services
Center, 2234 South Hobson Avenue, Charleston, South Carolina 29405-
2413. No e-mail or fax copies will be accepted.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For administrative questions, contact
James Lewis Free, NOAA CSC; 2234 South Hobson Avenue, Room B-119;
Charleston, South Carolina 29405-2413, phone 843-740-1185, fax 843-740-
1224, e-mail [email protected]. For technical questions regarding
this announcement, contact Rebecca Smyth, phone 510-251-8324, e-mail
[email protected]. To obtain a copy of the Final Recommendations
of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, please refer to http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/OPTF_FinalRecs.pdf.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Announcement of Funding Opportunity also
available at http://www.csc.noaa.gov/funding/.
Federal Agency Name(s): Coastal Services Center, National Ocean
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Department of Commerce.
Funding Opportunity Title: NOAA Regional Ocean Partnership Funding
Program--FY 2011 Funding Competition.
Announcement Type: Initial Announcement.
Funding Opportunity Number: NOAA-NOS-CSC-2011-2002718.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 11.473, Coastal
Services Center.
Full Text of Announcement
I. Funding Opportunity Description
A. Program Objectives
This Regional Ocean Partnership Funding Program (ROPFP) is focused
on
[[Page 55542]]
advancing effective coastal and ocean management through regional ocean
governance, including the goals for national ocean policy and coastal
and marine spatial planning set out in the July 2010 Final
Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/OPTF_FinalRecs.pdf. In the
justification for a national CMSP Framework, the Ocean Policy Task
Force (OPTF) underscores the need for planning and governance with the
following assessment:
The Nation's interests in the ocean, our coasts, and the Great
Lakes support a growing number of significant and often competing
uses and activities, including commercial, recreational, cultural,
energy, scientific, conservation, and homeland and national security
activities. Combined, these activities profoundly influence and
benefit coastal, regional, and national economies and cultures.
However, human uses of our ocean, coasts, and the Great Lakes are
expanding at a rate that challenges our ability to plan and manage
them under the current sector-by-sector approach. While many
existing permitting processes include aspects of cross-sectoral
planning (through, for example, the process governed by the National
Environmental Policy Act), most focus solely on a limited range of
management tools and outcomes (e.g., oil and gas leases, fishery
management plans, and marine protected areas). Missing from this
picture is a more integrated, comprehensive, ecosystem-based,
flexible, and proactive approach to planning and managing these uses
and activities. This new approach would be national in scope to
address national interests, but also scalable and specific to
regional and local needs. Without such an improved approach, we risk
an increase in user conflicts, continued planning and regulatory
inefficiencies with their associated costs and delays, and the
potential loss of critical economic, ecosystem, social, and cultural
services for present and future generations.
The OPTF, the Pew Oceans Commission, the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy and the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative have all called for
stronger regional ocean governance mechanisms to improve our
understanding of ocean and coastal ecosystems, and to address
fragmented planning and management of societal uses of coastal and
ocean lands and waters. The value in this approach is reflected in the
rapid engagement by most coastal states in new Regional Ocean
Partnerships (ROP). These partnerships have been established to
facilitate the effective management of ocean and coastal resources
across jurisdictional boundaries by improving communications, aligning
priorities, and enhancing resource-sharing between local, State, tribal
and Federal agencies.
Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP) is an important planning
tool for regional ocean governance. CMSP is a comprehensive, adaptive,
integrated, ecosystem-based, and transparent spatial planning process,
based on sound science, for analyzing current and anticipated uses of
ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes areas. Intended to look across multiple
sectors and jurisdictions in an objective and collaborative regional
fashion, CMSP identifies areas most suitable for various types or
classes of activities in order to reduce conflicts among uses, reduce
environmental impacts, facilitate compatible uses, and preserve
critical ecosystem services to meet societal objectives, including
economic, environmental and security considerations. In practical
terms, CMSP provides a public policy process for society to better
determine how the ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes are sustainably used
and protected for future generations. As noted in the OPTF's Final
Recommendations, potential opportunities and incentives for regions
undertaking CMSP include:
(1) Encouraging and informing the Federal government to better
manage resources or address processes that transcend jurisdictional
boundaries;
(2) Defining local and regional objectives and developing and
implementing CMSP in a way that is meaningful to regionally specific
concerns;
(3) Leveraging, strengthening, and magnifying local planning
objectives through integration with regional and national planning
efforts;
(4) Proactively addressing concerns over proposed activities
impacting State and tribal interests and minimizing use conflicts
before they escalate;
(5) Leveraging support from the Federal government to build CMSP
capacity, access CMSP data; and acquire scientific, technical, and
financial assistance;
(6) Accessing data through CMSP Portal(s) and utilizing science
tools developed, established, and maintained for CMSP efforts;
(7) Benefiting from sustained Federal participation on the regional
planning bodies that consist of representatives empowered to make
decisions and commitments on behalf of their respective agencies, in
turn helping to integrate and improve decision-making;
(8) Providing a clearer and easier point of access for all Federal
agencies with regard to ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes issues; and
(9) Achieving regulatory efficiencies, reduction in administrative
delays, and cost savings.
The OPTF's CMSP Framework generally identifies large marine
ecosystems (LME) as the basis for defining CMSP regions. LMEs are
defined on the basis of consistent ecological conditions and other
factors. For CMSP purposes, the United States is subdivided into nine
regional planning areas based on LMEs with modifications as necessary
to ensure inclusion of the entire U.S. EEZ and Continental Shelf, and
to allow for incorporation of existing state or regional ocean
governance bodies. For the most part, the boundaries of regional
governance structures for the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic,
Gulf Coast, West Coast, and Great Lakes lie within LME boundaries. The
OPTF also designates Alaska, Hawaii and the U.S. Pacific Islands, and
the U.S. Caribbean as regions, resulting in a total of nine regions.
For purposes of this funding opportunity, NOAA will generally use the
OPTF-defined regions for consideration in ROPFP funding proposals.
Where possible, NOAA has identified an existing lead ROP or planning
body for each region (see Section III.C.). Regional Ocean Partnerships
are defined as below:
Regional Ocean Partnerships are voluntary, usually multi-state,
Governor-established forums that develop shared priorities and take
critical action on a broad diversity of ocean, coastal and Great Lakes
needs, as relevant to their region. They have different structures and
employ varied methods and approaches to enhance the ecological and
economic health of the region. Their efforts involve non-governmental
stakeholders and all of the multiple state and Federal agencies
involved in coastal and ocean management.
For the purposes of this announcement, all applicants must
coordinate their proposals for a region with the identified lead ROP or
planning body of that region. The goal of this coordination is to
ensure awareness, enhance collaboration, and contribute to achieving
the best outcomes for regional ocean governance and healthy, resilient
and sustainable oceans, coasts and Great Lakes resources.
The ROPFP is intended to support development or implementation of
regional ocean governance priorities that also advance the objectives
detailed in the OPTF's national CMSP Framework. Regional priorities may
be identified in existing ROP plans (e.g., Gulf of Mexico Alliance,
Northeast Regional Ocean Council, Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the
Ocean, the South Atlantic Alliance, the Great Lakes
[[Page 55543]]
Council of Governors and the West Coast Governors' Agreement on Ocean
Health), or emerge through developing ROP efforts. The ROPFP is also
intended to support regional ocean governance efforts with funds for
administration and operations of existing ROPs, and for development
costs of those regions beginning ROPs (including Alaska, Hawaii and the
U.S. Pacific Islands, and the U.S. Caribbean).
The ROPFP program will support two categories of activities:
(1) Focus Area 1--Implementation of activities that meet both
regional ocean governance priorities identified by ROPs in action plans
and other public documents and the purposes and priorities of the
national CMSP Framework; and
(2) Focus Area 2 (up to approximately $3M)--Development and
governance support for administration and operations of existing and
new ROPs, including development of plans and management of ROP
activities.
This funding opportunity supports the Department of Commerce's
objectives to ``Support coastal communities that are environmentally
and economically sustainable,'' and ``Support climate adaptation and
mitigation.'' It also directly contributes to the NOAA strategic goal
for Resilient Coasts and Economies, and the objectives therein,
including ``Comprehensive Ocean and Coastal Planning and Management''
and ``Resilient Coastal Communities That Can Adapt to Impacts of
Hazards and Climate Change.''
B. Program Priorities
Focus Area 1
Focus Area 1 funds are intended to support a spectrum of regional
ocean governance priorities including those that address national goals
for CMSP. CMSP is an important planning tool for supporting a number of
regional ocean governance efforts; therefore Focus Area 1 proposals
that also advance comprehensive CMSP, either through regional planning
processes or through building capacity by addressing relevant CMSP
principles will be given highest priority in the final evaluation. The
OPTF's CMSP Framework identifies twelve Guiding Principles:
(1) CMSP would use an ecosystem-based management approach that
addresses cumulative effects to ensure the protection, integrity,
maintenance, resilience, and restoration of ocean, coastal, and Great
Lakes ecosystems, while promoting multiple sustainable uses.
(2) Multiple existing uses (e.g., commercial fishing, recreational
fishing and boating, marine transportation, sand and gravel mining, and
oil and gas operations) and emerging uses (e.g., off-shore renewable
energy and aquaculture) would be managed in a manner that reduces
conflict, enhances compatibility among uses and with sustained
ecosystem functions and services, provides for public access, and
increases certainty and predictability for economic investments.
(3) CMSP development and implementation would ensure frequent and
transparent broad-based, inclusive engagement of partners, the public,
and stakeholders, including with those most impacted (or potentially
impacted) by the planning process and with underserved communities.
(4) CMSP would take into account and build upon the existing marine
spatial planning efforts at the regional, State, tribal, and local
level.
(5) CMS Plans and the standards and methods used to evaluate
alternatives, tradeoffs, cumulative effects, and sustainable uses in
the planning process would be based on clearly stated objectives.
(6) Development, implementation, and evaluation of CMS Plans would
be informed by sound science and the best available information,
including the natural and social sciences, and relevant local and
traditional knowledge.
(7) CMSP would be guided by the precautionary approach as defined
in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration, which states that, ``Where
there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full
scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-
effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.''
(8) CMSP would be adaptive and flexible to accommodate changing
environmental conditions and impacts, including those associated with
global climate change, sea-level rise, and ocean acidification; and new
and emerging uses, advances in science and technology, and policy
changes.
(9) CMSP objectives and progress toward those objectives would be
evaluated in a regular and systematic manner, with public input, and
adapted to ensure that the desired environmental, economic, and
societal outcomes are achieved.
(10) The development of CMS Plans would be coordinated and
compatible with homeland and national security interests, energy needs,
foreign policy interests, emergency response and preparedness plans and
frameworks, and other national strategies, including the flexibility to
meet current and future needs.
(11) CMS Plans would be implemented in accordance with customary
international law, including as reflected in the 1982 Law of the Sea
Convention, and with treaties and other international agreements to
which the United States is a party.
(12) CMS Plans would be implemented in accordance with applicable
Federal and State laws, regulations, and Executive Orders.
In addition, proposals that also address the national Areas of
Special Emphasis as identified in the OPTF July 2010 final report will
receive some priority in the evaluation. The Areas of Special Emphasis
are:
(1) Resiliency and Adaptation to Climate Change and Ocean
Acidification: Strengthen resiliency of coastal communities and marine
and Great Lakes environments and their abilities to adapt to climate
change impacts and ocean acidification.
(2) Regional Ecosystem Protection and Restoration: Establish and
implement an integrated ecosystem protection and restoration strategy
that is science-based and aligns conservation and restoration goals at
the Federal, State, tribal, local, and regional levels.
(3) Water Quality and Sustainable Practices on Land: Enhance water
quality in the ocean, along our coasts, and in the Great Lakes by
promoting and implementing sustainable practices on land.
And where applicable:
(4) Changing Conditions in the Arctic: Address environmental
stewardship needs in the Arctic Ocean and adjacent coastal areas in the
face of climate-induced and other environmental changes, and
(5) Ocean, Coastal, and Great Lakes Observations, Mapping and
Infrastructure: Strengthen and integrate Federal and non-Federal ocean
observing systems, sensors, data collection platforms, data management,
and mapping capabilities into a national system and integrate that
system into international observation efforts.
Therefore, proposals for ROPFP funds might articulate (but are not
limited to) how a region would move forward on planning consistent with
the OPTF's CMSP Framework; or implement key priority actions of the
existing ROPs that would apply CMSP Guiding Principles to an Area of
Special Emphasis; or provide tools and information identified as an ROP
priority that are also critical for regional CMSP. Some examples of how
an applicant might propose to advance an ROP's capacity to conduct
comprehensive regional CMSP across
[[Page 55544]]
multiple sectors and jurisdictions include:
(1) The synthesis of relevant spatial data on ecosystem structure,
function, services and human uses on a regional scale;
(2) The development or application of decision-support tools to
help planners and stakeholders assess the implications of alternative
ocean use scenarios throughout the region; or
(3) The identification of regional goals and objectives for
appropriate uses of ocean and coastal areas.
In addition, the creation of new and innovative partnerships and
broader stakeholder engagement beyond the existing governmental
relationships of the ROPs will be needed for successful planning and
implementation of CMSP. This element needs to be included in projects
that will be considered for CMSP efforts.
The CMSP process consists of a series of steps that would
eventually lead to the development of a comprehensive, multi-sectoral,
and multi-objective CMS Plan. Although the CMSP process envisions
optimum flexibility among and within regions, the following essential
elements--and how the partners plan to accomplish them--would need to
occur in all regions in order to ensure a level of national
consistency. The process would be adaptive and refined as regions gain
experience with CMSP. In determining whether ROP proposals are using a
CMSP approach, applicants should indicate how they are addressing the
CMSP Guiding Principles as well as how the proposed approach aligns
with the Essential Elements of the CMSP process (also noted in the
OPTF's CMSP Framework):
(1) Identify Regional Objectives.
(2) Identify Existing Efforts that Should Help Shape the Plan
Throughout the Process.
(3) Engage Stakeholders and the Public at Key Points throughout
Process.
(4) Consult Scientists and Technical and Other Experts.
(5) Analyze Data, Uses, Services, and Impacts.
(6) Develop and Evaluate Alternative Future Spatial Management
Scenarios and Tradeoffs.
(7) Prepare and Release for Public Comment a Draft CMS Plan With
Supporting Environmental Impact Analysis Documentation.
(8) Create a Final CMS Plan and Submit for National Ocean Council
(NOC) Review.
(9) Implement, Monitor, Evaluate, and Modify (as needed) the NOC-
Certified CMS Plan.
Development and implementation of CMS Plans would be an iterative
process leading to a comprehensive, multi-objective, multi-sectoral
plan within the first five years. Since each region may have different
drivers and capabilities for CMSP, regions may choose to prioritize
initial development and implementation steps. While CMSP should help
resolve many use conflicts, it is not realistic to expect that all such
conflicts would be resolved. Further, partners might agree not to
resolve certain issues in a CMS Plan at a particular time, but rather
to acknowledge these issues and indicate how the parties would continue
to work on them as part of the iterative CMSP process. Such issues may
be resolved as data gaps are filled, new information is developed, or
as State or Federal legal authorities are enacted, changed, or updated.
For example, offshore energy is an ROP priority that could also
address CMSP Guiding Principles. ROPs will need to develop a solid
spatial framework and socioeconomic measures to understand the trade-
offs and make sound decisions on siting offshore energy facilities--the
planning approach, decision support tools and information used in
planning for offshore energy siting are also needed for developing an
effective regional CMSP. Data collection and data synthesis can also
illustrate the intersection between CMSP and many ROP priorities. For
example, the collection of seafloor mapping data and relevant products
from that data could support siting decisions about waterborne
commerce, recreational use of the area, or protection of key resources.
These data, fundamental to our understanding of our ocean resources and
where activities can occur, are also fundamental to comprehensive CMSP
tools.
Focus Area 1 proposals that effectively articulate the connection
between the proposed project, CMSP Guiding Principles and Essential
Elements and the Areas of Special Emphasis, and the priorities publicly
identified by the relevant ROP will receive the highest rankings based
upon NOAA's criteria (see Section V.A.).
Focus Area 2
The intent of Focus Area 2, ROP Development and Governance Support,
is to help support administration and operations for existing ROPs, and
support development for regions that are initiating ROP activities.
Proposals might seek funding for any aspects of these elements in
support of ROP development and impact. Some examples include: Funding
for ROP staff support to coordinate and facilitate stakeholder
engagement; holding stakeholder engagement meetings; identifying,
developing and/or managing implementation of priority activities in the
region; establishing a non-profit organization under 26 U.S.C.
501(c)(3) or other fiduciary entity to represent the ROP or entering
into a partnership with an existing non-profit organization established
under section 501(c)(3) to act as fiduciary; developing annual reports
and other outreach materials to demonstrate the importance of broad
support for regional ocean governance. ROP participation should be
voluntary, emphasize collaborative management, and involve all states
in the region.
C. Program Authority
Statutory authority for this program is provided under Coastal Zone
Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1456c (Technical Assistance).
II. Award Information
A. Funding Availability
Total anticipated funding for all ROPFP awards is approximately
$20,000,000 and is subject to the availability of FY 2011
appropriations. Additional funds of approximately $10,000,000 from NOAA
or other Federal agencies may be used for FY 2011 or multi-year awards
from this competition. Multiple awards are anticipated from this
announcement. The anticipated Federal funding per Focus Area 1 award
(min-max) is approximately $1,000,000 to $3,500,000. The anticipated
Federal funding per Focus Area 2 award (min-max) is approximately
$100,000 to $500,000.
The anticipated number of awards ranges from twelve (12) to thirty
(30), and will be adjusted based on available funding. Applicants must
be aware that funds have not yet been appropriated for this program. If
additional funding is made available in FY 2011 through Congress for
ROPFP, NOAA may select additional FY 2011 proposals for funding rather
than open a new competition, or augment FY 2011 awards that were only
partially funded.
There is no limit on the number of proposals from each region.
Applicants may bundle multiple projects into one proposal, or may
submit single projects; however, NOAA will evaluate all projects for
readiness and feasibility for completion within the required 2 year
time frame. Applicants must note the requirement detailed in Section
III.C. for demonstration of coordination with the relevant ROP on
projects.
[[Page 55545]]
There is no guarantee that funds will be available to make awards
for this Federal funding opportunity or that any proposal will be
selected for funding. If an applicant incurs any costs prior to
receiving an award agreement signed by an authorized NOAA official,
they do so at their own risk of these costs not being included in a
subsequent award. In no event will NOAA or the Department of Commerce
be responsible for any proposal preparation costs. In addition, NOAA
and DOC will not be responsible for proposal or project costs if this
program fails to receive funding. Recipients and sub-recipients are
subject to all Federal laws and agency policies, regulations, and
procedures applicable to Federal financial assistance awards.
Applicants must be in good standing with all existing NOAA grants and/
or cooperative funding agreements in order to receive funds.
B. Project/Award Period
Focus Area 1 is for multiple year awards with project periods up to
24 months. Multiple year awards receive all funding in the first year,
but the performance period can be two years. Competitive announcements
for this purpose may be published in future years, and if so,
applicants may resubmit proposals or submit new proposals for funding
in future years.
Focus Area 2 is for multi-year awards. Multi-year awards are
partially funded when the awards are approved, but may receive
subsequent increments of funding. Proposed projects may request funding
for one to three years and once awarded, those awards will not compete
for funding in subsequent years.
Proposals in Focus Area 1 or 2 not funded in the current fiscal
period may be considered for funding in another fiscal period without
NOAA repeating the competitive process outlined in this announcement.
C. Type of Funding Instrument
Applications should be written as cooperative agreements and the
proposal should clearly identify this funding instrument in the
proposal abstract and cover sheet. Applicants should clearly articulate
the Federal roles and responsibilities in implementing the proposal.
Examples of Federal involvement include Federal co-leadership of the
ROPs, Federal leadership on priority task teams, and staff support to
working groups and leadership teams.
III. Eligibility Information
A. Eligible Applicants
All state, local, territory and tribal governments, institutions of
higher learning, non-profit and for-profit organizations that may
receive and expend Federal funds as legal entities are eligible to
apply. As defined at 15 CFR 24.3, local government means a county,
municipality, city, town, township, local public authority (including
any public and Indian housing agency under the United States Housing
Act of 1937), school district, special district, intrastate district,
council of governments (whether or not incorporated as a non-profit
corporation under State law), any other regional or interstate
government entity, or any agency or instrumentality of a local
government.
Please note the requirement detailed in Section III.C. for
demonstration of coordination with the relevant ROP on projects and
funding amounts proposed.
Federal agencies and employees are not allowed to receive funds
under this announcement but may serve as collaborative project
partners. If Federal agencies are collaborators, applicants should
provide detail on the level of Federal engagement in the application.
Examples might include, but are not limited to, providing additional
funding, in-kind services, or serving in a review capacity.
The lead applicant on any proposal will be responsible for ensuring
that allocated funds are used for the purposes of, and in a manner
consistent with, this program, including any funds awarded to an
eligible sub-awardee.
B. Cost Sharing or Matching Requirement
There is no requirement for cost sharing.
C. Other Criteria That Affect Eligibility
In order to be eligible to compete, a project or applicant must
meet one or more of the
following criteria, as applicable to the proposed project and Focus
Area:
(1) Represent or directly partner with a member of an existing
regional ocean governance partnership;
(2) Possess the authority, proven capacity, and regional
relationships to effectively coordinate the development of a regional
ocean governance priorities that engages affected coastal states and
territories and their management agencies, including the approved
coastal zone management program;
(3) Demonstrate formal commitments with existing regional ocean
governance partnerships and coastal states or territories (including
the approved coastal zone management program) to adopt the plan(s),
product(s) or outcome(s) of a proposed project into regional or state
ocean management planning processes or coastal and ocean resource
management policies.
Where applicable, each proposal must directly involve or include a
letter of support or endorsement from the lead ROP for each region
(identified below) for the purposes of this funding opportunity. The
letter should confirm that the proposed project has been evaluated for
its contributions to regional ROG priorities, and specifically indicate
concurrence with recommended approach and proposal funding amounts.
The existing lead ROPs identified for each region for the purposes
of the ROPFP are:
(1) Northeast Regional Ocean Council.
(2) Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean.
(3) South Atlantic Governors' Alliance.
(4) Gulf of Mexico Alliance.
(5) West Coast Governors' Agreement on Ocean Health.
(6) Council of Great Lakes Governors.
During FY 2011, applicants for Alaska, Hawaii, Pacific Island
Commonwealths and Territories, and the Caribbean will be allowed to
compete for Focus Area 1 funds by demonstrating that they are working
towards a regional ocean partnership in their respective regional
planning areas as identified above. This can be accomplished by
providing letters of support for each proposal from their respective
Office of the Governor and lead State and Federal agencies as well as
tribes involved in coastal and ocean management. Part of this
application must outline steps towards creating a ROP. Applicants from
these regions where no ROP currently exists are strongly encouraged to
also submit proposals for Focus Area 2 funds in order to develop ROP
capacity for regional ocean governance and CMSP objectives. These
regions will be eligible for Focus Area 1 funding in FY 2012 and beyond
once they establish the partnerships needed for comprehensive ocean
governance.
Allowable uses for funds:
Direct and indirect costs for administering the ROPFP award are
allowable and must be incurred within the award period. Note that
administrative costs may be included, but the total amount allocated
for costs of this nature should be minimized to the greatest extent
possible. Direct and indirect costs may include time spent by staff for
project planning,
[[Page 55546]]
implementation, and review. If an application includes indirect costs,
the amount must be based on the indirect cost rate negotiated and
approved by the applicant's cognizant Federal agency. The total amount
allocated for indirect costs may not exceed the value of 20 percent of
the Federal share, e.g., a proposal requesting $250,000 in Federal
funds may include a maximum of $50,000 for indirect costs in the
budget. Applicants requesting indirect costs will be required to submit
a copy of their indirect cost rate agreement.
IV. Application and Submission Information
A. Address To Request Application Package
Application packages for full proposals are available through the
apply function on Grants.gov. If an applicant does not have Internet
access, application packages can be requested from James Lewis Free at
2234 South Hobson Avenue, Charleston, South Carolina 29405-2413; 843-
740-1185; or [email protected].
B. Content and Form of Application Submission
(1) Focus Area 1 Proposals:
Full proposal applications must be 15 pages or less (single-spaced,
11 or 12-point font and exclusive of appendices). The 15-page limit
does not include the proposal title page, a table of contents (if
included), the project summary (referenced below), and any appendices.
Appendices should be limited to materials that directly support the
main body of the proposal (e.g., detailed budget information, support
letters, resumes, references, lists of data sources, maps, and/or
required Federal forms as noted above in Section IV.B.1). Applicants
should number the pages in the proposal and any appendices. Appendices
may be paginated as stand-alone documents (individually) or as part of
the larger document. Proposals failing to comply with the format
prescribed in this section will be deemed incomplete and will not be
considered for further review.
Required Elements
All funding application packages must contain the following
components:
(1) Title Page (Proposal Cover Sheet). Include proposal title,
complete contact information for the Principal Investigator and
Financial Representative, duration of proposed project, funding type
(cooperative agreement), and amount of funding request.
(2) Project Summary. Provide a one to two-page summary of the
proposed project. The summary should be written for easy understanding
by a broad audience and contain the following sections:
i. Project Name/Title.
ii. Primary Contact (name, address, phone, fax, e-mail).
iii. Recipient Organization or Institution (If the project is
intended to be administered under an existing NOAA Cooperative
Institute, please state which Institute will administer the award).
iv. Other Investigators (name, affiliated organization,
institution or agency).
v. Brief Project Summary (whether for Focus Area 1 or Focus Area
2, or both) including objectives, ties to ROP priorities and
applicable CMSP approaches, and intended benefits.
vi. Partners.
vii. Proposed funding for each year of the project. If the
proposal includes funding to NOAA to provide technical assistance on
the project, make sure to note the amounts by year and line office
that is the intended recipient of the funds.
(3) Project Description. All project descriptions (proposals) must
include the following sections:
i. Goal and Objective(s). Describe in the narrative the specific
project goals and objectives to be achieved. In particular, note the
connection to regional ocean governance, including ROP priorities and,
where applicable, how CMSP can be applied to address those priorities,
and expected outcomes. Recipients will be required to submit semi-
annual reports describing progress toward these goals and objectives.
Provide a description of measures of success that will be used to
evaluate progress and success in achieving the goals and objectives of
the project.
ii. Background. Provide sufficient background information for NOAA
and non-NOAA reviewers to independently assess the significance of the
proposed project for advancing regional coastal and ocean planning and
management priorities. Summarize the problem to be addressed,
identified needs and the status of ongoing efforts to address them.
Summarize the relationship of the proposed work to other ongoing or
planned regional ocean governance efforts.
iii. Partnerships: Provide information on the range of partners,
including local, State, tribal, and Federal government as well as non-
governmental organizations, academia, and industry. Include the roles
and support each key partner is providing and how the ROP will include
and grow partnerships as appropriate to achieve the goals of both the
ROP and as appropriate, CMSP.
iv. Audience. Identify specific users of the results of the
project, describe how they will use the results, and identify any
training that will be needed for users to make full use of the results.
v. Approach. Provide a work plan that: identifies specific tasks to
be accomplished; explains the technical approach (including quality
assurance) needed to accomplish the tasks; identifies the roles of
partners and cooperators; and identifies potential obstacles to
successful completion of the goals and objectives. Describe how users
are involved in the planning and design process. The work plan must
clearly address data management requirements, and the steps to be taken
to achieve efficient and effective data access and archiving that is
compliant with Federal regulations. Identify methods that will be used
to ensure that the project will be coordinated to achieve active and
meaningful participation by all partners and appropriate stakeholders
in the region. Clearly identify the roles and responsibilities of the
Federal partners.
vi. Benefits. Identify, with a high degree of specificity, the uses
of the information derived from the work, and the benefits that will be
achieved from those uses, or by particular users of the information, as
well as society as a whole. Document how valid user requirements are
guiding the proposed work. Describe how the information from the
project will be delivered to those users, and any special
considerations or requirements for ensuring or improving the delivery
of information.
vii. Milestone Schedule. Display time lines for major tasks, target
milestones for important intermediate and final products, and key
project outcomes.
viii. Project Budget. Provide a budget description that follows the
categories and formats in the NOAA grants package (Standard Form 424-A)
and a brief narrative justification of the budget. Detailed budget
information, such as a repeat of the information in Form SF-424A along
with more details should be included in an appendix. In this appendix,
the budget narrative also shall clearly identify the cost of separable
elements of the proposed work and shall identify the elements of the
project that the cooperator would recommend for revision or elimination
if sufficient funding is not available for all proposed activities.
Applicants must itemize and describe the intended use of equipment
costing $5,000 or greater that will be purchased under the award.
Applicants must complete a lease versus purchase analysis for any
equipment $5,000 or greater. For proposals to carry out basic or
applied scientific research, non-profit institutions of higher
education or non-profit organizations
[[Page 55547]]
whose primary purpose is conducting scientific research should
identify, if possible, who will be requested to retain ownership of any
equipment purchased through grant funds after the project ends. The
budget narrative must also provide, to the extent possible, detailed
information on travel, including costs, a description of anticipated
travel, destinations, the number of travelers, and a justification of
how the requested travel is directly relevant to the successful
completion of the project. If actual trip details are unknown,
applicants must state the basis for the proposed travel charges.
Applicants should allocate travel funds for any coordination meetings
at regional or national levels. Foreign travel must receive prior
approval, and therefore, should be included in the proposal to avoid
having to request prior approval after the project starts. Applicants
may factor in travel costs for participation in a NOAA Grants
Management Division workshop for recipients, as well as for meeting
with NOAA staff and/or key project personnel.
(4) Appendices
i. Mandatory Detailed Budget Information, including budgets of
subawards and contracts. Information should include the name of the
entity receiving funds, the location of the entity receiving the funds
(for example, city, state, and Congressional district), and the
location of the primary place of performance under the contract/
subaward.
ii. Resumes. Provide resumes of the Principal Investigator for the
project and other key personnel critical to the success of the project.
Ensure that resumes address qualifications relevant to conducting the
proposed work. Please limit resumes to a maximum of two pages for each
key investigator.
iii. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)--Under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), NOAA must analyze the potential
environmental impacts of projects or proposals seeking funding from
NOAA. Detailed information on NOAA compliance with NEPA can be found at
the following NOAA NEPA Web site: http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/including
our NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 for NEPA, http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/NAO216_6_TOC.pdf and the Council on Environmental Quality
implementation regulations, http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/toc_ceq.htm.
Consequently, as part of an applicant's package, and under their
description of their program activities, applicants are required to
provide detailed information on the activities to be conducted,
locations, sites, species and habitat to be affected, possible
construction activities, and any environmental concerns that may exist
(for example, the use and disposal of hazardous or toxic chemicals,
introduction of non-indigenous species, impacts to endangered and
threatened species, aquaculture projects, and impacts to coral reef
systems).
After the application is submitted, NOAA may require additional
information to fulfill NEPA requirements. If NOAA determines that an
environmental assessment is required, applicants may also be requested
to assist in drafting the assessment. Applicants may also be required
to cooperate with NOAA in identifying and implementing feasible
measures to reduce or avoid any identified adverse environmental
impacts of their proposal. The failure to do so shall be grounds for
the denial of an application. In some cases if additional information
is required after an application is selected, funds can be withheld by
the Grants Officer under a special award condition requiring the
recipient to submit additional environmental compliance information
sufficient to enable NOAA to make an assessment on any impacts that a
project may have on the environment.
Applicants are required to answer the questions indicated in this
Announcement of Federal Funding Opportunity. Applicants should answer
the NEPA questions to the best of their ability with as much detail as
possible. If the applicant does not answer all the questions indicated
in the Announcement of Federal Funding Opportunity the application may
be considered incomplete.
Some of the questions may overlap with material provided in other
parts of the application. This overlap occurs because the answers to
the questionnaire are provided to NOAA staff members who do not review
the other parts of the application. If appropriate, the applicant may
copy the information from other parts of the application and paste it
into the answers to the questionnaire. Many questions have a ``yes'' or
``no'' response. If the response is ``no'' the applicant does not need
to elaborate on their answer. If the response is ``yes'' the question
will have a second part asking the applicant to provide more
information.
Applicant NEPA questions are as follows:
Question C1. Is the proposed activity going to be conducted in
partnership with NOAA or would the proposed activity require NOAA's
direct involvement, activity, or oversight? If yes, describe NOAA's
involvement, activity, or oversight, including the name of the
office or program that is involved.
Question C2. Would the proposed activity involve any other
Federal agency(ies) partnership, direct involvement, activity, or
oversight? If yes, provide the name(s) of the agency(ies) and
describe its involvement, activity, or oversight.
Question D1. Provide a brief description of the location of the
proposed activity.
Question E1. List any Federal, State, or local permits,
authorizations, or waivers that would be required to complete the
proposed activity. Provide the date the permit, authorization, or
waiver was obtained or will be obtained. Provide copies of the
permit, authorization, or waiver as appropriate. Was a NEPA analysis
prepared for the permit, authorization, or waiver? If yes, state the
title of the NEPA analysis and provide copies of the NEPA analysis.
Question F1. Is there the potential for the proposed activity to
cause changes that would be different from normal ambient conditions
(for example, temperature, light, turbidity, noise, other human
activity levels, etc.)? If yes, describe the changes and the
circumstances that would cause these changes.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This documents contains collection-of-information requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Standard Forms
424, 424A, 424B, and SF-LLL have been approved by OMB under the
respective control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, and 0348-
0046. The application requirements specific to the NOAA Regional Ocean
Partnership Funding Program have been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget under Control Number 0648-0538. Public reporting
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3
hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other suggestions
for reducing this burden to Ms. Cristi Reid, NOAA Office of Program
Planning and Integration, SSMC 3, Room 15700, 1315 East West Highway,
Silver Spring, MD 20910. The information collection does not request
any proprietary or confidential information. No confidentiality is
provided.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subjected to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
(2) Focus Area 2 Proposals
[[Page 55548]]
Full proposal applications must be 5 pages or less (single-spaced,
11 or 12-point font and exclusive of appendices). The 5-page limit does
not include the proposal title page, a table of contents (if one is
included), the project summary referenced below and any appendices.
Appendices should be limited to budget, resumes and support letters.
Applicants should number the pages of the proposal and any appendices.
Appendices may be paginated as stand-alone documents (individually) or
as part of the larger document. Proposals failing to comply with the
format prescribed in this section will be deemed incomplete and will
not be considered for further review.
Required Elements
All funding application packages must contain the following
components:
(a) Title Page (Proposal Cover Sheet). Include proposal title,
complete contact information for the Principal Investigator and
Financial Representative, duration of proposed project, funding type
(cooperative agreement), and amount of funding request.
(b) Project Summary. Provide a one-page summary of the proposed
project.
The summary should be prepared to be readable to a broad audience
and
contain the following sections:
i. Project Name/Title.
ii. Primary Contact (name, address, phone, fax, e-mail).
iii. Recipient Organization or Institution.
iv. Other Investigators (name, affiliated organization,
institution or agency).
v. Brief Project Summary including objectives, ties to ROP
Development and Governance, and intended benefits.
vi. Partners.
vii. Proposed funding for each year of the project. If the
proposal includes funding to NOAA to provide technical assistance on
the project, make sure to note the amounts by year and line office
that is the intended recipient of the funds.
viii. If the project is intended to be administered under an
existing NOAA Cooperative Institute, state which Institute will
administer the award.
(a) Project Description. All project descriptions (proposals)
must include the following sections:
i. Goal and Objective(s). Describe in the narrative the specific
project goals and objectives to be achieved. In particular note the
connection to ROP Development and Governance. Objectives should be
specific for each year of the work plan presented. Recipients will be
required to submit semi-annual progress reports in which progress
against these goals and objectives will be reported.
ii. Background. Provide sufficient background information for NOAA
and non-NOAA reviewers to independently assess the significance of the
proposed project. Summarize the problem to be addressed and the status
of ongoing efforts to address the identified needs. Summarize the
relationship of the proposed work to other ongoing or planned regional
ocean governance efforts.
iii. Partnerships: Provide information on how the project will
build the partnerships, especially cross governmental on all state,
tribal and Federal agencies with interest in coastal and ocean
management as well as partnership building with industry,
nongovernmental organizations, and academia.
iv. Audience. Identify specific users of the results of the
project, describe how they will use the results, and identify any
training that will be needed for users to make full use of the results.
v. Approach. Provide a work plan that: identifies specific tasks to
be accomplished; explains the technical approach (including quality
assurance) needed to accomplish the tasks; identifies the roles of
partners and cooperators; and identifies potential obstacles to
successful completion of the goals and objectives. Describe how users
are involved in the planning and design process. The work plan must
clearly address data management requirements, and the steps to be taken
to achieve efficient and effective data access and archiving that is
compliant with Federal regulations. Clearly identify the roles and
responsibilities of the Federal.
vi. Benefits. Identify, with a high degree of specificity, the uses
of the information derived from the work, and the benefits that will be
achieved from those uses, or by particular users of the information, as
well as society as a whole. Document how valid user requirements are
guiding the proposed work. Describe how the information from the
project will be delivered to those users, and any special
considerations or requirements for ensuring or improving the delivery
of information.
vii. Milestone Schedule. Display time lines for major tasks, target
milestones for important intermediate and final products, and key
project outcomes.
viii. Project Budget. Provide a budget description that follows the
categories and formats in the NOAA grants package (Standard Form 424-A)
and a brief narrative justification of the budget.
ix. Detailed budget information, such as a repeat of the
information in Form SF-424A along with more details should be included
in an appendix. In this appendix, the budget narrative also shall
clearly identify the cost of separable elements of the proposed work
and shall identify the elements of the project that the cooperator
would recommend for revision or elimination if sufficient funding is
not available for all proposed activities.
x. Applicants must itemize and describe the intended use of
equipment costing $5,000 or greater that will be purchased under the
award. Applicants must complete a lease versus purchase analysis for
any equipment $5,000 or greater. For proposals to carry out basic or
applied scientific research, non-profit institutions of higher
education or non-profit organizations whose primary purpose is
conducting scientific research should identify, if possible, who will
be requested to retain ownership of any equipment purchased through
grant funds after the project ends. The decision on grant ownership
requests will be made by the Grants Officer before or during the grant
close out process.
xi. The budget narrative must also provide, to the extent possible,
detailed information on travel, including costs, a description of
anticipated travel, destinations, the number of travelers, and a
justification of how the requested travel is directly relevant to the
successful completion of the project. If actual trip details are
unknown, applicants must state the basis for the proposed travel
charges. Applicants should allocate travel funds for any coordination
meetings at regional or national levels. Foreign travel must receive
prior approval, and therefore, should be included in the proposal to
avoid having to request prior approval after the project starts.
Applicants may factor in travel costs for participation in annual NOAA
Grants Management Division workshops for recipients, as well as for
meeting with NOAA staff and/or key project personnel.
(3) Appendices
(a) Mandatory Detailed Budget Information, including budgets of
subawards and contracts. Information should include the name of the
entity receiving funds, the location of the entity receiving the funds
(for example, city, State, and Congressional district), the location of
the entity receiving funds (city, State, and Congressional district),
and the location of the primary place of performance under the
contract/subaward.
(b) Resumes. Provide resumes of the Principal Investigator for the
project and other key personnel critical to the success of the project.
Ensure that
[[Page 55549]]
resumes address qualifications relevant to conducting the proposed
work. Please limit resumes to a maximum of two pages for each key
investigator.
(c) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)--Under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), NOAA must analyze the potential
environmental impacts of projects or proposals seeking funding from
NOAA. Detailed information on NOAA compliance with NEPA can be found at
the following NOAA NEPA Web site: http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/including
our NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 for NEPA, http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/
NAO216__6__TOC.pdf and the Council on Environmental Quality
implementation regulations, http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/toc_ceq.htm.
Consequently, as part of an applicant's package, and under their
description of their program activities, applicants are required to
provide detailed information on the activities to be conducted,
locations, sites, species and habitat to be affected, possible
construction activities, and any environmental concerns that may exist
(for example, the use and disposal of hazardous or toxic chemicals,
introduction of non-indigenous species, impacts to endangered and
threatened species, aquaculture projects, and impacts to coral reef
systems).
After the application is submitted, NOAA may require additional
information to fulfill NEPA requirements. If NOAA determines that an
environmental assessment is required, applicants may also be requested
to assist in drafting the assessment. Applicants may also be required
to cooperate with NOAA in identifying and implementing feasible
measures to reduce or avoid any identified adverse environmental
impacts of their proposal. The failure to do so shall be grounds for
the denial of an application. In some cases if additional information
is required after an application is selected, funds can be withheld by
the Grants Officer under a special award condition requiring the
recipient to submit additional environmental compliance information
sufficient to enable NOAA to make an assessment on any impacts that a
project may have on the environment.
Applicants are required to answer the questions indicated in this
Announcement of Federal Funding Opportunity. Applicants should answer
the NEPA questions to the best of their ability with as much detail as
possible. If the applicant does not answer all the questions indicated
in the Announcement of Federal Funding Opportunity the application may
be considered incomplete.
Some of the questions may overlap with material provided in other
parts of the application. This overlap occurs because the answers to
the questionnaire are provided to NOAA staff members who do not review
the other parts of the application. If appropriate, the applicant may
copy the information from other parts of the application and paste it
into the answers to the questionnaire. Many questions have a ``yes'' or
``no'' response. If the response is ``no'' the applicant does not need
to elaborate on their answer. If the response is ``yes'' the question
will have a second part asking the applicant to provide more
information.
Applicant NEPA questions are as follows:
Question C1. Is the proposed activity going to be conducted in
partnership with NOAA or would the proposed activity require NOAA's
direct involvement, activity, or oversight? If yes, describe NOAA's
involvement, activity, or oversight, including the name of the
office or program that is involved.
Question C2. Would the proposed activity involve any other
Federal agency(ies) partnership, direct involvement, activity, or
oversight? If yes, provide the name(s) of the agency(ies) and
describe its involvement, activity, or oversight.
Question D1. Provide a brief description of the location of the
proposed activity.
Question E1. List any Federal, state, or local permits,
authorizations, or waivers that would be required to complete the
proposed activity. Provide the date the permit, authorization, or
waiver was obtained or will be obtained. Provide copies of the
permit, authorization, or waiver as appropriate. Was a NEPA analysis
prepared for the permit, authorization, or waiver? If yes, state the
title of the NEPA analysis and provide copies of the NEPA analysis.
Question F1. Is there the potential for the proposed activity to
cause changes that would be different from normal ambient conditions
(for example, temperature, light, turbidity, noise, other human
activity levels, etc.)? If yes, describe the changes and the
circumstances that would cause these changes.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This documents contains collection-of-information requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Standard Forms
424, 424A, 424B, and SF-LLL have been approved by OMB under the
respective control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, and 0348-
0046. The application requirements specific to the NOAA Regional Ocean
Partnership Funding Program have been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget under Control Number 0648-0538. Public reporting
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3
hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other suggestions
for reducing this burden to Ms. Cristi Reid, NOAA Office of Program
Planning and Integration, SSMC 3, Room 15700, 1315 East West Highway,
Silver Spring, MD 20910. The information collection does not request
any proprietary or confidential information. No confidentiality is
provided.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subjected to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
C. Intergovernmental Review
Applications under this program are subject to Executive Order
12372, ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs'' for states that
participate in this process. It is the state agency's responsibility to
contact their state's Single Point of Contact (SPOC) to find out about
and comply with the state's process under EO 12372. A list of the
participating states and the clearinghouse points of contact can be
found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants_spoc.
D. Funding Restrictions
None.
E. Other Submission Requirements
(1) Letter of Endorsement--As detailed in Section III.C., where
applicable, each proposal must include a letter of support or
endorsement from the lead ROP identified for each region for the
purposes of this funding opportunity.
(2) Full proposal application packages, including any letters of
support, should be submitted through the apply function on Grants.gov.
The standard NOAA funding application package is available at
www.grants.gov. Please be advised that potential funding applicants
must register with Grants.gov before any application materials can be
submitted. An organization's one time registration process may take up
to three weeks to complete so please allow sufficient time to ensure
applications are submitted before the closing date. The Grants.gov site
contains directions for submitting an application, the
[[Page 55550]]
application package (forms), and is also where the completed
application is submitted.
(3) If an applicant does not have Internet access, one set of
originals (signed) and two copies of the proposals and related forms
should be mailed to the attention of James Lewis Free, NOAA Coastal
Services Center, 2234 South Hobson Avenue, Charleston, South Carolina
29405-2413. No e-mail or fax copies will be accepted. Full proposal
application packages, including any letters of support, should be
submitted together in one package.
V. Application Review Information
A. Evaluation Criteria
(1) Importance and/or relevance and applicability of proposed
project to the program goals (50 percent): This ascertains whether
there is intrinsic value in the proposed work and/or relevance to NOAA,
Federal, regional, State, or local activities.
For Focus Area 1, questions related to this criterion include:
(a) Does the proposal identify clear goals and objectives that are
consistent with ROP priorities and, as appropriate, the CMSP Framework
(available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/OPTF_FinalRecs.pdf)? For applicants from regions without an established ROP
(e.g., Alaska and Hawaii), does the proposal demonstrate that they are
working towards a regional ocean partnership?
(b) To what extent does the proposal address CMSP Guiding
Principles?
(c) Does the proposal address an Area of Special Emphasis?
(d) Does the proposal identify outcomes that are focused and
realistic given the time frame and scope of the project?
(e) Will the proposal advance ROP priorities and regional CMSP
efforts? For applicants from regions without an established ROP, does
the proposal advance regional CMSP efforts as well as show how the
region will work towards establishing a ROP?
(f) If applicable, does the proposal clearly identify ROP goals for
CMSP development? Are they achievable?
(g) Does the proposal identify primary partners, expand existing
partnerships, and key stakeholders and describe how they will
participate in project activities, including CMSP activities where
applicable?
(h) Does the proposal reflect strong support from project partners?
(i) Does the proposal demonstrate either direct involvement or a
letter of support from the lead ROP in the region? For applicants from
regions without an established ROP, is the proposal supported by the
relevant governors and lead State and Federal agencies and tribes
involved in coastal and ocean management?
(j) Will the proposal result in benefits that are region-wide or
transferable to other ROP and CMSP priorities and regions?
For Focus Area 2, questions include:
(a) Does the proposal contribute to the establishment or
implementation of a long term regional ocean partnership?
(b) Does the proposal identify an effective development process
that will result in a consensus for regional priorities, specific
action steps to address those priorities, and tangible outcomes that
will be accomplished?
(c) Establishing a regional ocean partnership may come with
challenges/barriers (i.e., entities in a region may be accustomed to
traditions of competing for economic development, research funding, and
other financial or social benefits). To what extent does the proposal
identify such challenges/barriers and explain how such barriers will be
overcome?
(d) Does the proposal adequately identify methods in which
development activities will be coordinated to achieve active and
meaningful participation by all partners, including various levels of
governments, and appropriate stakeholders in the region?
(e) Does the proposal include methods to achieve lasting
coordination for regional ocean governance and for the implementation
of a regional ocean partnership?
(f) Does the partnership include participation by a large cross
section of state, Federal and tribal governments and participation by
other relevant interest groups?
(2) Technical and scientific merit (25 percent): This assesses
whether the approach is technically sound and/or innovative, if the
methods are appropriate, and whether there are clear project goals and
objectives.
Questions relevant to this criterion include:
(a) Is the approach appropriate for the stated goals and
objectives?
(b) Are the project goals and objectives achievable within the
proposed time-frame?
(c) Does the proposed approach incorporate current guidance,
scientific, and/or technical advancements in the design and
implementation of the proposed work?
(d) If geospatial data are to be acquired, does the proposal
promote interoperability with other components of regional and national
geospatial systems? Has a thorough search been conducted to ensure that
data do not already exist that can meet the intended purpose of the
proposed acquisition? Will the data be collected to national and/or
international standards and specifications that promote multi-purpose
uses in the future per Federal Geospatial Data Committee standards and
the Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act of 2009? Does the
proposal comply with Executive Order 12906, Coordinating Geographic
Data Acquisition and Access: The National Spatial Data Infrastructure?
(3) Overall qualifications of the funding applicants (15 percent):
This criterion ascertains whether the funding applicant and identified
collaborators possess the necessary education, experience, training,
facilities, and administrative resources to accomplish the project.
Questions relevant to this criterion include:
(a) Are the investigators qualified and is the organizational
framework appropriate to conduct a project of the nature and scope
proposed?
(b) Are investigators from other agencies and institutions within
the region included as key personnel on the project to capitalize on
available expertise and promote a regional approach?
(c) Does the proposal adequately address the capacity of the
applicant and partners to implement proposed work?
(d) Does the proposal adequately define how participation and
accountability among principle investigators and partners will be
sustained to the continued progress and success?
(4) Project costs and metrics (10 percent). This criterion
evaluates the budget to determine if it is realistic and commensurate
with the project needs and time-frame. Questions relevant to this
criterion include:
(a) Does the proposal demonstrate that the budget is commensurate
with project needs?
(b) Is the cost effectiveness of the proposal optimized through
strategic partnerships with collaborating institutions, agencies, or
private sector partners?
(c) Are the budget and budget justification adequately detailed to
determine how requested funds will be used (i.e. salary, equipment,
supplies, travel, etc.)?
(5) Outreach and education (0 percent). NOAA assesses whether this
project provides a focused and effective education and outreach
strategy regarding NOAA's mission to protect the Nation's natural
resources. This
[[Page 55551]]
competition does not include this criterion.
B. Review and Selection Process
An initial administrative screening is conducted to determine
compliance with requirements/completeness. All proposals will be
evaluated and individually ranked in accordance with the assigned
weights of the above evaluation criteria by at least three independent
peer reviewers through a full merit review process (i.e., a mail and
panel review process). A mix of Federal and non-Federal reviewers will
be used. No consensus advice will be given by the independent peer
reviewers through mail reviews or on the review panels. The merit
reviewer's ratings are used to produce a rank order of the proposals.
The Selecting Official shall award according to rank order unless there
is a specific justification for selecting out of rank order based upon
factors listed in Section V.C. The Selecting Official or designee may
also negotiate the funding level of the proposals to be recommended for
funding. The Selecting Official will make the final recommendation for
award to the Grants Officer, who is authorized to obligate the funds
and execute the award. Proposals that are not funded in the current
fiscal period may be considered for funding in another fiscal period
without having to repeat the competitive review process.
C. Selection Factors
The merit review ratings shall provide a rank order to the
Selecting Official for final funding recommendations. A program officer
may first make recommendations to the Selecting Official applying the
selection factors below. The Selecting Official shall award in the rank
order unless the proposal is justified to be selected out of rank order
based upon one or more of the following factors:
1. Availability of funding.
2. Balance/distribution of funds:
a. Geographically.
b. By type of institutions.
c. By type of partners.
d. By research areas.
e. By project types.
3. Whether this project duplicates other projects funded or
considered for funding by NOAA or other Federal agencies.
4. Program priorities and policy factors.
5. Applicant's prior award performance.
6. Partnerships and/or Participation of targeted groups.
7. Adequacy of information necessary for NOAA staff to make a NEPA
determination and draft necessary documentation before recommendations
for funding are made to the Grants Officer.
The Selecting Official or designee may negotiate the funding level
of the proposal.
D. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates
The start date on proposals should be the first day of July, August
or September, but no later than October 1, of 2011.
VI. Award Administration Information
A. Award Notices
Applications recommended for funding by the selecting official will
be forwarded to the NOAA Grants Management Division by the Program
Office. The applicant will be notified by the program office by e-mail
that their application was recommended for funding. The applicant must
be aware that the notification by the program office is NOT the
official award notice. Official notification happens only when the
applicant receives an award notice from the Grants Officer either by
postal mail or electronically.
Unsuccessful applications for all Coastal Services Center programs
will be destroyed after any FY 2012 funding actions are considered.
Unsuccessful applicants will be notified by e-mail that their
application was not recommended for funding no later than the proposed
state date of the proposal.
B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants
and Cooperative Agreements
Administrative and national policy requirements for all Department
of Commerce awards are contained in the Department of Commerce Pre-
Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements
contained in the Federal Register notice of February 11, 2008 (73 FR
7696). This notice may be obtained under http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/a080211c.html.
Limitation of Liability
In no event will NOAA or the Department of Commerce be responsible
for any proposal preparation costs. In addition, NOAA and DOC will not
be responsible for project costs if this program fails to receive
funding. Publication of this announcement does not oblige NOAA to award
any specific project or to obligate any available funds.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Requirements
See the NEPA information in Section IV., B., of this announcement.
C. Reporting
Grant recipients will be required to submit financial and
performance (technical) progress reports electronically through the
NOAA Grants On-Line System. Instructions for submitting financial and
progress reports will be provided by the NOAA Grants Management
Division.
VII. Other Information
After electronic submission of the application through Grants.gov,
the person submitting the application will receive within the next 24
to 48 hours two e-mail messages from Grants.gov updating them on the
progress of their application. The first e-mail will confirm receipt of
the application by the Grants.gov system, and the second will indicate
that the application has either been successfully validated by the
system before transmission to the grantor agency or has been rejected
because of errors. After the application has been validated, this same
person will receive another e-mail when the application has been
downloaded by the Federal agency.
Official notification of an award notice is provided by the Grants
Management Division, not the program office. If one incurs any costs
before receiving an award agreement from an authorized NOAA grant
official, one would do so solely at one's own risk of these costs not
being included under the award.
The Coastal Services Center will not release the names of
applicants submitting proposals unless ordered by a court or requested
to do so by an appropriate NOAA official and administrative protocol.
Applicants can use a NOAA public search feature to find out information
about NOAA awards https://grantsonline.rdc.noaa.gov/flows/publicSearch/begin.do or go through the Freedom of Information Act process to
request more information about grant competitions. More information
about the NOAA FOI process is online at http://www.rdc.noaa.gov/foia/.
Successful applicants will be requested to ensure that all interim
progress reports indicate whether financial reports have been submitted
to NOAA's Grants Management Division and are up-to-date. Applicants in
their final progress report will be asked to (a) Clearly state the
resulting impact of their project and products in the coastal
[[Page 55552]]
management community; and (b) certify that ``Final financial reports
have been submitted to NOAA's Grants Management Division and a final
funding draw-down has been made through the Automated Standard
Application for Payments (ASAP).''
If equipment is purchased with grant funds, applicants may be asked
to submit an equipment inventory in accordance with 15 CFR 14.34(f)(3),
15 CFR 24.32(b) or 15 CFR 24.32(d)(2) as an appendix to progress
reports. Further, the program office recommends that recipients request
disposition instructions for equipment approximately 150 days before
the project period ends to allow sufficient time to have equipment
disposition requests addressed before a project period ends. Equipment
disposition instructions typically require that recipients complete an
``other'' award action request in Grants Online. NOAA will provide
instructions for disposition in accordance with 15 CFR 14.34(g)-(h) and
15 CFR 24.32(g)(2).
Please be advised that potential funding applicants must register
with Grants.gov before any application materials can be submitted. An
organization's one time registration process may take up to three weeks
to complete so please allow sufficient time to ensure applications are
submitted before the closing date. To use Grants.gov, applicants must
have a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number
and be registered in the Central Contractor Registry (CCR). Allow a
minimum of five days to complete the CCR registration. (Note: Your
organization's Employer Identification Number (EIN) will be needed on
the application form.)
The Grants.gov site contains directions for submitting an
application, the application package (forms), and is also where the
completed application is submitted. Applicants using Grants.gov must
locate the downloadable application package for this solicitation by
the Funding Opportunity Number or the CFDA number (11.473). Applicants
will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it
off line, and then upload and submit the application via the Grants.gov
site.
After electronic submission of the application, the person
submitting the application will receive within the next 24 to 48 hours
two e-mail messages from Grants.gov updating them on the progress of
their application. The first e-mail will confirm receipt of the
application by the Grants.gov system, and the second will indicate that
the application has either been successfully validated by the system
before transmission to the grantor agency or has been rejected because
of errors. After the application has been validated, this same person
will receive another e-mail when the application has been downloaded by
the Federal agency.
Christopher C. Cartwright,
Associate Assistant Administrator for Management and CFO/CAO, Ocean
Services and Coastal Zone Management.
[FR Doc. 2010-22645 Filed 9-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-JE-P