USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office
FY2006-2007 Funding Guidance

Frequently Asked Questions

Q.1. Can I submit a proposal using the proposal software from last year?

A.1. No.  A different format is required this year. However, if you submitted a proposal to GLNPO in a previous year, would like to start with that proposal for this year’s application package, and cannot locate the proposal in your own files, please contact Lawrence Brail (brail.Lawrence@epa.gov / (312) 886-7474).  He may be able to locate an Adobe Acrobat copy of your previous submission.

Q.2. Am I required to submit the proposal using grants.gov?

A.2. No. You may instead submit your proposal by e-mail to < glnpo.funding@epa.gov >.  You may not use both methods.   

Q.3. Does GLNPO require project submissions to be approved by an authorized official from the Applicant? 

A.3. GLNPO does not require prior approval by an authorized official for applicants submitting directly to < glnpo.funding@epa.gov >.  However, submission by an authorized official is a requirement of making submissions through < grants.gov >. 

Q.4. Are local governments and organizations eligible under the Funding Guidance? 

A.4. Yes. Section III of the Funding Guidance says that "State pollution control agencies, interstate agencies, and other public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, and organizations are eligible; "for-profit" organizations are not."  Since local governments and organizations would be "other public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, and organizations," they are eligible to compete. 

Q.5. After a more careful review of the solicitation eligibility, we noticed that "for-profit" companies like ours are ineligible...Is this true? 

A.5. Per Section III of the Funding Guidance, State pollution control agencies, interstate agencies, other public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, and organizations are eligible; "for-profit" organizations are not. 

Funding may be used to acquire services or fund partnerships, provided the recipient follows procurement and subaward or subgrant procedures contained in 40 CFR  Parts 30 or 31, as applicable.  For profit organizations are not eligible for subawards or subgrants under this announcement but may enter into procurement contracts with recipients.   

Successful applicants must compete contracts for services and products and conduct cost and price analyses to the extent required by these regulations.  The regulations also contain limitations on consultant compensation.  Applicants are not required to identify contractors or consultants in their proposal.  Moreover, the fact that a successful applicant has named a specific contractor or consultant in the proposal EPA approves does not relieve it of its obligations to comply with competitive procurement requirements.   

Q.6. We would like to collaborate with another organization.  Can we apply as co-applicants?

A.6. EPA awards funds to one eligible applicant as the “recipient” even if other eligible applicants are named as “partners” or “co-applicants” or members of a “coalition” or “consortium”.  The recipient is accountable to EPA for the proper expenditure of funds. 

Subgrants or subawards may be used to fund partnerships with non profit organizations and governmental entities.  Successful applicants cannot use subgrants or subawards to avoid requirements in EPA grant regulations for competitive procurement by using these instruments to acquire commercial services or products to carry out its cooperative agreement.  The nature of the transaction between the recipient and the subgrantee must be consistent with the standards for distinguishing between vendor transactions and subrecipient assistance under Subpart B Section .210 of OMB Circular A-133 , and the definitions of “subaward” at 40 CFR 30.2(ff) or “subgrant” at 40 CFR 31.3, as applicable.  EPA will not be a party to these transactions. 

Q.7. Can matching funds be in the form of overhead? (i.e., office space, lights, heat, computer access, etc.) If so, what criteria should be used to determine the amount of the match? 

A.7. Yes. Applicants should use applicable cost provisions of OMB circulars (such as (A-21, A-87, or A-122) and EPA grant regulations (40CFR Part 30 or 31) in valuing their match. Per Section III of the Funding Guidance, matching funds (in cash or in-kind) are encouraged and the match percentage will be considered by reviewers during evaluations. 

Q.8. I want to budget $5,000 to go to another federal agency to create island maps and images for our publications and planning. How do I handle that re indirect costs? Can I contract directly because these are products and not personnel? 

A.8. Use of USEPA money to pay the indirect costs of sister Federal agencies is discouraged. The other Federal agency may also not have the authority to take USEPA money through a grant, whether for personnel or for a contract. It may be that two separate agreements (a grant to you and an Interagency Agreement between USEPA and the other Federal Agency) would be necessary. Describe your plans and, if your project is selected, these are matters that could be worked through later.  

Q.9. I am teaching at the time the phone conference on funding guidance is held but wonder if I can get transcripts or a short list of comments afterwards. 

A.9. We will record the conference call and make it available from our website. 

Q.10. If a proposal does not get approval then do we have second chance to resubmit it?

A.10. You may re-submit next year. 

Q.11. How long does it take to approve proposals? 

A.11. See Section V of the Funding Guidance. Proposals are due October 23. Applicants will be notified around November 28 and full application packages can be submitted immediately thereafter. Processing of the complete application package is expected to take up to 60 days. 

Q.12. Our project will be related to watersheds outside of North America. We want to collaborate with foreign scientists in this area, and find financial funding. I hope you might help us. 

A.12. Section III of the Funding Guidance states that “Assistance is available pursuant to Clean Water Act §104(b) for activities impacting the Great Lakes Basin and in support of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement". Proposals for other activities will be rejected. 

Q.13. As a NOAA employee, am I eligible to receive EPA-GLNPO funding?  

A.13. Section III of the Funding Guidance states that “State pollution control agencies, interstate agencies, other public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, and organizations are eligible; "for-profit" organizations are not.” Consequently, you as an individual are not eligible, but NOAA is eligible as a public agency. Note, however, the Funding Guidance General criteria in Section V addresses funding for the mission of other agencies.” 

Q.14. Would binational projects be considered?  

A.14. Yes. 

Q.15. Will you fund Lake Champlain projects? 

A.15. Only if the project can be construed as supporting implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, such as a demonstration applicable to Great Lakes issues. Lake Champlain is not part of the Great Lakes basin under Clean Water Act Section 118. 

Q.16. We got a notice from you about the Conference Call. Should one of us participate or listen in? 

A.16. It's optional on your part. You could, of course, join us for the start and see if it is worth your time to stay for the duration, or whether you might want to call back in for a specific session. 

Q.17. For current grantees applying for a second year of funds to enter a second phase of work, are there any additional things we should keep in mind? 

A.17. The same general and specific criteria apply to existing projects as to new projects. Note that pursuant to Section V - General Criteria, past performance is a consideration. 

Q.18. Can I get the details on this program? 

A.18. You may want to visit our home page ( http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/ ) for information about the office, or our Funding page ( http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/fund/glf.html ) for information about previous funding opportunities. Application information is in the Funding Guidance at http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/fund/2006guid/index.html.  

Q.19. If I wanted to simultaneously apply for an EPA STAR grant and a GLNPO grant to fund related work, could I do that? 2. Would I briefly summarize what the other grant would do, and then focus on the work to be funded by, and done under, this grant? 

A.19. Yes. That would be a good approach. Either proposal should be able to stand alone, though, as selection under either process is not assured. 

Q.20. What are the rules or guidelines for equipment purchases? Specifically, we have a proposal that has high start-up costs for equipment, and am looking to several funding sources to share/partner in these costs (including our own agency). Is this situation something EPA has funded in the past, or would consider in this round of RFPs? 

A.20. Equipment purchases supporting eligible projects under the Funding Guidance would be eligible and would be considered. 

Q.21. You don't want names of personnel who will be working on a project or their equals? I've looked at example projects, and indeed they don't give names of personnel other than the contact person.  

A.21. Names of personnel and qualifications were not previously required. However, it may now be included as part of programmatic capability. 

Q.22. Can applicants from other countries apply for the funds?

A.22. Applicants from other countries are eligible pursuant to Section III which specifies that "State pollution control agencies, interstate agencies, and other public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, and organizations are eligible; "for-profit" organizations are not.

Note that Section III also provides that this "Assistance is available pursuant to Clean Water Act §104(b) for activities impacting the Great Lakes Basin and in support of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Proposals for other activities will be rejected."

Q.23. Does the Funding Guidance request proposals or preproposals?  The former requires additional approvals from our organization.

A.23. Each submitter can make that determination based upon the rules and procedures of its own institution.  Ever since the issuance of GLNPO's first Funding Guidance in 1992, GLNPO has considered the Funding Guidance  to be a request for pre-proposals.  After projects are selected, GLNPO Project Officers often work with applicants to develop more detailed workplans, and applicants submit those workplans with Federal application materials.  Final decisions by EPA are based upon the final application package.  However, for the purpose of USEPA's January 2005 Policy for Competition of Assistance Agreements, submissions are treated as proposals.  When considering what approvals your institution requires, please note that (i) submissions to glnpo.funding@epa.gov do NOT require designation of an authorized official and (ii) submissions through grants.gov DO require three levels of authorization for an electronic signature and this can take a week or more.

Q.24. May we include letters of support in our application for GLNPO grant funds this year?

A.24. There is no prohibition on including letters of support in your application.  However, please note this provision in Section IV.A. of the Funding Guidance: "Materials or attachments other than the single file containing your Proposal (and SF 424 if using grants.gov) will not be reviewed or considered."

Q.25. My proposed project will address issues relevant to the Great Lakes; however, the field work will be done outside of the Great Lakes basin.  Will this project be favorably considered under the Funding Guidance?

A.25.  Page 21 of the Funding Guidance specifies that "Assistance is available pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 104 (b)  for activities impacting the Great Lakes Basin and in support of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement" and that "... submissions must address one of the topic areas in Section 1 [of the Funding Guidance]".  If this applies to your project, it will be eligible under the Funding Guidance.  Since your field work will be done outside of the Great Lakes basin, do ensure that your proposal demonstrates the project's relevance to the Great Lakes.  EPA's evaluation of your project will be based on the criteria specified in Section V of the Funding Guidance.

Q.26. I'm not affected by the state of emergency.  Should I send my proposal in by the original due date?

A.26. Please do send your proposal in by the original due date if you can.  If most applicants submit their proposals by the original due date, we will be better able to keep the proposal review process on schedule.  However, since the due date for all proposals is extended to noon, Chicago time, on Thursday, October 26, you can take that additional time.

Q.27. How can I hear a recording of the Public Conference Call?

A.27. A recording of the call is available from: http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/fund/2006guid/conf.html

Q.28. I'd like to submit a proposal, but don't have time to get it approved through all levels of my organization by the due date. What should I do?

A.28. You can submit the proposal now while you continue to seek approvals. If your organization does not approve the proposal, you can withdraw it. Should that happen, please do us and other applicants the courtesy of withdrawing the proposal as soon as possible.

Q.29. I'd like to submit a proposal, but don't have time to get it approved through all levels of my organization by the due date.  What should I do?

A.29. You can submit the proposal now while you continue to seek approvals. If your organization does not approve the proposal, you can withdraw it. Should that happen, please do us and other applicants the courtesy of withdrawing the proposal as soon as possible.

Biology Monitoring Program

BMQ.1. Is the Great Lakes Biological Monitoring program "fixed".  That is, will it continue as it has since the 1980s (only offshore stations), or is there any opportunity to add to it?

BMQ.1. The program is largely restricted to the relatively homogeneous offshore waters of each lake for chlorophyll a,  phytoplankton and zooplankton sampling. Proposals must demonstrate how the applicant will retain comparability and continuity with the historic Great Lakes biological monitoring data and continue development of that body of knowledge. Opportunity to add to the program is possible to track changes impacting the lower food web. However, comparability and continuity with the historic Great lakes biological monitoring data will require sampling in the relatively homogeneous offshore waters of each lake.
 
BMQ.2.  If the program is "fixed" and will only include previously-existing components, is there a way that we can be involved?  

BMQ.2. The entity that submits a proposal can form partnerships to address the biology program requirements.  GLNPO encourages partnerships that result in efficiencies and economies of scale to address the Zooplankton/Benthos proposal and Phytoplankton proposal. (See http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/fund/2006guid/index.html  for complete text.)

BMQ.3.  Is the Great Lakes Biological Monitoring to be one contract for about $3,000,000, or several contracts totaling that amount?

BMA.3. There are two separate proposals requested for the Great Lakes Biological Monitoring program.  A cooperative grant agreement mechanism may be made for each.  GLNPO reserves the right to combine these grant agreements.  Kindly review the funding guidance for the Great Lakes Biological Monitoring under C. (i) and (ii).  See web site
http://epa.gov/glnpo/fund/2006guid/index.html  for complete text of FY 2006-2007 funding guidance.

BMQ.4.  Will there be additional time on station to do more than what is called for in the RFP?

BMA.4.  Additional time for sampling during the spring and summer surveys is available within the constraints of the normal timing of the spring and summer surveys to make biological data comparable to previous work and can be requested via use of the survey plan.

BMQ.5.  Will there be opportunities to visit additional stations than those identified in your plan?

BMA.5.  Additional stations can be incorporated into the plan. Additional biological monitoring time can be available since the assistance agreement between USEPA and the successful responder is a cooperative grant agreement, but responder needs to provide technical approach, including design, objectives, and scientific viability of additional work in monitoring the lower food web.

BMQ.6.  How do these cruises related to the intensive efforts done in individual lakes (e.g., Huron in '07)?

BMA.6.  The two surveys ( GLNPO spring and summer) are part of the Lake Huron intensive surveys. Additional surveys (Fall) or monthly efforts are planned but other ship assets may be employed.  The Lake Huron schedule (as well as other Binational efforts) is not fixed. Intensive sampling at a small number of sites every other week to track the biological succession during the survey season is planned.

BMQ.7.  What does EPA provide in addition to the Guardian? Ponars? Nets? Bottles? etc.?

BMA.7.  EPA provides zooplankton nets, ponars, and bottles for phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthos, and 16 x 100 mm disposable glass screw-cap culture tubes for chlorophyll a samples.

BMQ.8.  The RFP calls for two separate proposals but there may be economies of scale if it is written as one.  Is that allowed?

BMA.8.  Provide two separate proposals. However, in the event that significant economies of scale may be obtained if your organization is selected for both, provide a third proposal for a combined response to both the phytoplankton and the zooplankton/benthos RFPs.

BMQ.9.  What is the nature of the research called for?  The RFP seems to indicate paying attention to emerging changes, but is more anticipated?

BMA.9.  The objective of the new work needs to include the perspective of maintaining the comparability and continuity with the historic Great Lakes biological monitoring data  (See Section V. Application Review Criteria Part B.) while developing new approaches. The nature of the research anticipated in this RFP is to track changes in the lower food web (e.g. Mysis) and to accurately describe the food resources available in the food chain.

BMQ.10. Number of personnel to conduct the biological sampling support for the surveys.

BMA.10. Sampling is conducted on a twenty-four hour a day schedule. Two shifts working for  twelve hours is the normal schedule. During survey operations in Lake Erie, work is usually completed in an hour between stations while on the other Lakes time between stations is typically around three hours. Staffing has generally been 4 persons, including the biology grant's supervisory Scientist.

BMQ.11.  Is there a general idea about the cost of the consumable supplies that were typically needed for a typical year?

BMA.11. General costs of consumable supplies for GLNPO were under $1000 per year when the biology program was under contract in 2000.

BMQ.12.  How much flexibility (days or distance) that might be available within  the overall cruise plan to conduct some additional sampling as part of  any research component that we might want to tie into the project. Could one do a day or two worth of continuous underway surveys (like the IFYLE approach).  

BMA.12.  Additional time for sampling during the spring and summer surveys is available and can be requested via use of the survey plan. Additional biological monitoring time can be available since the assistance agreement between USEPA and the successful responder is a cooperative grant agreement.

BMQ.13. Can chlorophyll analysis be run directly onboard by immediately processing and extracting the samples?  Is this standard operating procedure or is there a reason why it is not standard?

BMA.13. The biology program seeks reporting on annual basis. Specification of plans for timely generation of information is encouraged. Both approaches to obtaining Chlorophyll a have been done i.e. Chlorophyll a analysis have been done on board and samples have been shipped to a land based laboratory for latter analysis.

BMQ.14. Would EPA be willing to reassess the use of formalin as a preservative for any of the samples?

BMA.14.  GLNPO is interested in reduction of exposure to hazardous materials. Any switch in methods will required a methods comparison BEFOREHAND and show that continuity of results can be obtained.  

Formalin is used in field preservation for zooplankton and benthos, and is used in the laboratory for phytoplankton taxonomy. GLNPO found the effect of changing the preservative on phytoplankton taxonomic continuity to be significant. Our methods comparisons in 1998 with formalin and other preservatives resulted in the finding that Formalin is much better at retaining important diagnostic characteristics, especially with the small flagellates.

Formalin is added in the ship's biology laboratory hood to minimize exposure during field operations.  During routine checks for exceedances of health standards,  field dosimeters have not recorded exceedances for formalin.
 

BSQ.8. Is the money ($500,000) being split among all of the Great Lakes states that submit proposals?

BSA.8. There is an intent to have geographical distribution for the pilots among the 8 Great Lakes states and the Province of Ontario. The selected recipients would be chosen based on the selection criteria and the information provided for a complete project. There is no specific dollar amount set aside for an individual state, however, our intention is to award 16 grants reaching all 8 states and the Province of Ontario, depending on the quality and quantity of proposals received . The figure cited in the Funding Guidance (pilots at approximately 16 beaches, with funding of up to approximately $31,000 per beach) is only an estimate.

BSQ.9. What is necessary to provide a description of beach / water dynamics so that there is an understanding of water flow? Should we focus on the the beach morpho- and hydrodynamics or focus on the coastal water flow characteristics between the distant source and the beach?

BSA.9. When conducting a beach sanitary survey, a beach manager will need to assess the scale, scope and types of information needed to incorporate all pertinent data to accurately describe the beach / water dynamics for a beach and determine the contribution of a pollution source. Beach morphodynamics, hydrodynamics, and coastal flow are all related to beach water quality and provide critical data in identifying and modeling the impact of a bacterial pollution source on a beach.

BSQ.10. Are beach managers expected to test for E. coli AND enterococci?

BSA.10. Yes, for a beach manager to be consistent with CWA 406(b) and the nine performance criteria published in the National Beach Guidance and Performance Criteria for Grants EPA-823-B-02-004, beach managers should be testing beach water quality using one or both of the two EPA approved bacterial indicators for measuring recreation water quality. These indicators are E.coli and enterococcus. As required under the BEACH Act, EPA promulgated criteria for bacteria for coastal recreation waters under 40 CFR Part 131 Water Quality Standards for Coastal and Great Lakes Recreation Waters in a Final Rule published in the Federal Register November 16, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 220, 67218-67243).

Please refer to the Federal Guidance under Applicant Eligibility and Question 2.

BSQ.11. Does the Workplan document need to be submitted in addition to the Proposal?

BSA.11. The guidance (IV.B.2 Proposal) lays out the recommended proposal length and a description of headings for the proposal (see items a thru l). Included in the proposal is a request to describe the proposed work that will be done.

BSQ.12. Would the City of Superior be eligible to apply for a beach sanitary survey grant?

BSA.12. A local government entity can apply for the Beach Sanitary Survey grants provided the applicant demonstrates a delegation of authority from the state to the local entity to implement the beach program. As explained in the Funding Guidance under Applicant Eligibility, local beach managers will have to demonstrate how they have developed and implemented a beach monitoring and notification program that is consistent with the CWA 406(b) and the nine performance criteria published in the National Beach Guidance and Performance Criteria for Grants EPA-823-B-02-004.  Also, see answer to Question 2.

BSQ.13. Can Sanitary Beach Pilot funding be used for DNA (or similar methods) in source tracking?

BSA.13. Yes. Methods that identify sources of contamination resulting in beach closures or notifications are encouraged.  As stated in the funding guidance:

• A complete project should include all of the following elements:
• Full completion of a beach sanitary survey, following pilot protocol.
• Comprehensive site assessment using GPS and GIS.
• Pollutant identification and tracking
• Data collection, storage, and reporting.

BSQ.14. Is it possible to include some comparisons between individual samples, resulting
geometric means, and results from composite samples?

BSA.14. Yes. Methods that can potentially reduce sampling costs for the beach program and be demonstrated to be effective are encouraged.  Implementation of a holistic watershed approach to beach management, supporting a more efficiently directed beach program is a medium term outcome desired.

BSQ.15. Can sediment samples be included in the grant proposal?

BSA.15. Yes. Sediment samples may be included in the grant proposal if there is cause to believe that the sediments serve as a contamination source.  See fourth item of the Medium term project outcomes.

• Increased awareness and identification of bacterial pollution sources impacting all Great Lakes beaches.

BSQ.16. Each year our jurisdiction receives BEACH ACT grant dollars to monitor high priority beaches.  Can we use these dollars to fulfill requirements for E. coli monitoring within the Beach Sanitary Survey grant?

BSA.16. Yes.
 

Return to Great Lakes Funding

EPA Home | Privacy and Security Notice | Contact Us