FY24 Marine Debris Interception Technologies Funding Opportunity Applicant Webinar

[SLIDE 1] Welcome everyone to the NOAA Marine Debris Program FY24 Marine Debris Interception Technologies Under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Grant Applicant Webinar. My name is Sarah Lowe and I am a grants management specialist with the NOAA Marine Debris Program and the competition manager for this competition. I’m joined today by my NOAA Marine Debris Program’s Grant team colleagues Amanda Dwyer, Tom Barry, & Gina Digiantonio.  

[SLIDE 2] For today’s presentation, we will be providing an overview of the competition priorities, application content, information on how the applications will be evaluated, tips and submission instructions, available resources for preparing your application, the anticipated timeline for this competition. This is a pre‐recorded version of this webinar presentation, and you will be able to find a document of the questions asked and responses provided during the live webinar on our website. 

[SLIDE 3] Through this webinar today, we are hoping to communicate our expectations for proposal submission, timelines, process, and answer questions. 

[SLIDE 4] For this competition, up to $4M will be available to award to meritorious interception technology projects. Individual projects should request at least $100,000, but no more than $1M. We expect typical awards to range from $250,000 to $750,000 dollars. 

[SLIDE 5] As stated in the Notice Of Funding Opportunity there is no non‐federal matching requirement for this competition, but it is strongly encouraged. Cost sharing, leveraged funds, and/or in‐kind support will make projects more competitive and is an element in the evaluation criteria. Cost‐sharing and match contributions are an important aspect of our grant programs, and are helpful in leveraging federal dollars for our program to continue providing future grant opportunities. This is why it is important that every effort should be taken to obtain match funds. The goal is to encourage the involvement of different groups in meaningful ways, and there are a variety of ways to do this including but not limited to: 

- Public or private partnerships   

- Volunteer time ‐ this can be calculated by finding your state’s average volunteer rate, documenting the source of this value in your application, and providing an estimate of the number of volunteers and the hours they will spend on proposed project activities. We suggest finding the volunteer rate for your state on independentsector.org 

- Another option is personnel time or benefits. If individuals do not need federal funding for salaries or benefits for their time planning or conducting proposed project activities during the award period, this can be valued as in‐kind match 

- A final example is existing equipment such as private boat use or other equipment provided by project partners at no cost. 

[SLIDE 6] The evaluation criteria for cost‐share/match will consider if the proposal incorporates formal and or informal match. Formal cost‐share or match is considered to be any non‐federal cost‐sharing, match, or in‐kind contributions. More information on these policies can be found in the Notice of Funding Opportunity. These formal contributions must be clearly described in both the official budget narrative and the budget tables. Please note that funded applications will be legally bound to provide the full amount of non‐federal match funds proposed in the budget. Informal contributions would be leveraged funds that don’t qualify as non‐federal cost‐sharing or match but demonstrate meaningful contributions to the award. These should be clearly described at the end of the budget narrative, but should not be included in official budget tables. This would include any federal contributions or if the project is part of a larger‐related effort. No preference for formal or informal contributions will be given for meeting this evaluation criteria. 

[SLIDE 7] Next, we are going to highlight the competition priorities. The highest priority for this funding opportunity is to support the installation, monitoring, and maintenance of proven marine debris interception technologies. Projects must clearly demonstrate the beneficial impacts that the project will have on marine and coastal NOAA trust resources, coastal communities, and/or local economies, and technologies should be deployed in riverine, shoreline, estuarine, and urban environments where trash, plastics, and other persistent, reaccumulating macro debris can be captured and removed. 

[SLIDE 8] For the purpose of this funding opportunity, marine debris interception technologies are defined as devices that capture trash, plastics, and other macro‐debris. These can be technologies such as litter traps, shoreline removal technologies, booms, skimmers, conveyors with receptacles, floating collection devices, and others. This competition is looking to fund proven interception technologies, which are those that are not prototype devices and do not require additional research and development prior to deployment. They must also have been used successfully in the environment type in which they are being proposed. So for example, a device that has been proven successful in low‐energy environment (such as an inland lake, canal, nearshore sheltered environment, etc.), should not be proposed for a high‐energy river environment without demonstrated success. It is incumbent upon the applicant to demonstrate that the technology is a proven technology. Each of these interception technologies may be utilized alone or together as part of a wider strategy. Given this information, those projects that have already selected the technology and installation location will be more competitive. 

[SLIDE 9] Marine debris interception technologies require long‐term maintenance. As such, project proposals must provide a monitoring and maintenance plan which describes how the chosen technology or technologies will be monitored and maintained both throughout the award (if made), but also in the long‐term with the absence of federal funding following any award. To that end, applicants should note that the long‐term monitoring and maintenance plan is an element considered in the evaluation criteria. As part of this monitoring and maintenance plan, NOAA encourages projects to collect data on the types of debris captured and to characterize the waste collected. Priority will be given to those applications that have a long‐term monitoring and maintenance plan in place which does not require additional future federal funding. 

[SLIDE 10] The third identified priority for this competition is that NOAA will prioritize applications that demonstrate clear removal and disposal outcomes. Applicants should identify clear target removal metrics, such as pounds removed, and removals should also be conducted with a focus on alternative disposal methods, when possible, which means applicants should use disposal methods that are the most environmentally friendly given the location, availability, and resources of the specific removal effort. 

[SLIDE 11] The intent of this funding is to not only remove debris, but to reduce the reaccumulation of debris in the future. By incorporating prevention activities along with removal, the likelihood of reaccumulation of debris will decrease. To this end, successful interception technology proposals for this funding opportunity should also be paired with a prevention strategy or plan, such as behavior change and/or awareness efforts through an education and outreach plan or other source reduction efforts. These strategies should incorporate efforts to raise awareness of the issue of marine debris and involve local stakeholders with the goals of preventing everyday problems, as well as to ensure the long‐term maintenance of any deployed equipment that is procured with federal funding. The strategies proposed should reflect the debris types that are being collected by the interception technology, as well as the appropriate audience to prevent future accumulation of that debris. Prevention activities should also prioritize collaboration with diverse entities and groups. 

[SLIDE 12] NOAA is committed to advancing equity and support for underserved communities. We strongly encourage applicants to incorporate diversity, equity, inclusion, justice, and accessibility into their projects through proactive, meaningful, and equitable community engagement at various stages of the proposed projects. This work can be demonstrated in a variety of ways, which include, but are not limited to working in or with underserved communities, working with stakeholders for whom there is currently limited direct engagement on marine debris issues, encouraging diverse perspectives from project leaders and partners (including, but not limited to, sectors, age, career stage, gender, ethnicity, disability, geography), incorporating different learning or engagement approaches into the project, or translation of resources/signage into other languages. Applicants should describe any project activities that will take place within, have a portion of the benefits flow to, and/or meaningfully engage Tribal or underserved communities. Meaningful engagement refers to an intentional exchange between the applicant and the underserved community where both have multiple opportunities to ensure the other is correctly understanding each other’s perspectives and ideas. Applicants should note that greater consideration will be given to projects that propose to work in areas with underserved communities that have been historically marginalized and overburdened by pollution. Please see the notice of funding opportunity for additional details and tools to aid you in this priority.   

[SLIDE 13] Now we will move onto the description of the application itself, starting with the required federal forms that you can find on grants.gov.   

The SF424 is the official application document where you will fill out information about your organization and key project details. 

The SF424A is where you will provide your budget information for both federal and non‐federal match funds for your proposed project. Each page asks for a summary of the budget information broken out in different details (overall totals, broken down by budget categories, broken down by years/quarters). We understand the form can be a bit confusing, so we have prepared an updated SF424A how‐to document on our applicant resources page, addressing common areas of confusion for past applicants. 

The SF424B and CD511 are forms that require your signature. 

Since lobbying activities are not allowed under MDP competitions for federally funded activities, the SF‐ LLL should not be needed in your application.

[SLIDE 14] Moving onto the proposal itself, here is an outline of the proposal components. We will walk through the main sections now, and you can also find this list on page 15 of the NOFO. 

[SLIDE 15] The full proposal summary is 3 pages or less and is designed to provide reviewers and the selection committee with a snapshot of the project. You will notice there will be the same information requested in the summary and the narrative. Please use the narrative to provide specific details for these components, and the summary to provide a high‐level overview of these components. The summary should include the applicant organization, the proposal title, the applicant point of contact and contact information, the location of the proposed project, the funding request and match, a brief project description, and a summary of the outcomes and metrics. 

[SLIDE 16] The project narrative will be where you include the details for your proposed project activities in 15 pages or less. Applicants should not assume NOAA or any reviewer has any prior knowledge relative to the merits of the project described in the proposal or the applicant. Leave nothing for reviewers to assume. We will briefly walk through each of these sections in the narrative. 

[SLIDE 17] The introduction should be a summary stating the problem the proposed interception project is addressing and how it meets the competition priorities and other key details listed here and in the NOFO. This section should be used to describe the appropriateness of the chosen technology and to demonstrate the past proven success of the chosen technology in removing marine debris from the environment in which it is being proposed. Again, this is a key requirement of the application ‐  demonstrating that this is a proven technology. Also, please be as specific as possible with the proposed project outcomes including at a minimum: an estimate of how many pounds of debris will be removed from the marine/coastal environment, the debris type collected, and appropriate prevention metrics. Please review the NOFO carefully for more project‐specific metrics to include. 

[SLIDE 18] Please also be as specific as possible with the project location. If possible, please include maps, and exact coordinates of specific sites, as well as describe the type of environment that you will be working in, and how you selected your sites. If exact locations are unknown at the time of application, describe in as much detail as possible and when/how specific locations will be determined. Please note that all effort should be made to identify sites in advance. 

[SLIDE 19] The detailed description section of your Narrative should include the project implementation plan, the procurement and deployment methods, the monitoring and maintenance plan, and your prevention plan. We won’t walk through each of these points individually, but please be sure to refer to all the components to ensure you are providing all the details needed for reviewers to fully evaluate your award.   

[SLIDE 20] As mentioned when highlighting the priorities of the competition, marine debris interception technologies require long‐term maintenance. As such, project proposals must provide a monitoring and maintenance plan which describes how the chosen technology or technologies will be monitored and maintained both throughout the award (if made), but also in the long‐term with the absence of federal funding following any award. This section should describe who is responsible for monitoring, the frequency of monitoring and debris collection, the type of debris expected, how the debris will be disposed of, and how operations will be sustained over time, including how the device will be monitored and maintained following the conclusion of any federal award. The detailed description should also include the proposed prevention plan, including the debris type of focus and the target audience, with the aim to prevent the debris being collected by the device. 

[SLIDE 21] NOAA MDP will need to complete environmental compliance for field activities so please provide specific information on site locations, species/habitat to be impacted, and when during the year these on‐the‐ground activities will take place. Please also be sure to reference/include any existing permits that would be relevant to the proposed work in the permitting and compliance section of the narrative.    

[SLIDE 22] The narrative should incorporate how diversity, equity, inclusion, justice, and accessibility initiatives have been built into your proposal as well as a description of any past experience in promoting these efforts or activities. We also ask that you specifically use the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (or CEJST) to identify if any known project locations take place in disadvantaged communities. We recognize that CEJST may lack information about specific communities, especially those in U.S. territories. We are using this tool because it was developed by the White House for federal agencies to use, however if you have localized tools or systems, you are welcome to reference those in addition to CEJST’s output, especially to provide explanations for why a community may be underserved/disadvantaged that isn’t indicated as one in CEJST. Please also be very clear about whether or not the work is occurring in a disadvantaged/underserved community and/or if the benefits from the project will be flowing to those communities, and if so, how those benefits will be made and measured. Additionally, the strongest proposals will incorporate meaningful engagement with these communities. Meaningful engagement can occur in the identification, design, and/or implementation of proposed projects and is defined in this competition as an intentional exchange between the applicant and the underserved community where both have multiple opportunities to ensure the other is correctly understanding each other’s perspectives and ideas. This will ensure the Tribal and/or underserved community is an integral part of the visioning, decision‐making, and/or leadership for project activities that may affect their environment and/or health and wellbeing. Outreach or communications directed to a Tribal or underserved community without any description for how feedback and ideas from the community receiving the messaging will be incorporated into the project will not be considered meaningful engagement, but are still relevant project activities.   

Some examples of ways to demonstrate meaningful engagement with a Tribal or underserved community include, but are not limited to: 

‐ Describing how Tribal or underserved communities were/will be engaged in the technology selection, deployment, and monitoring to ensure the removals in their community will be seen as a benefit and there aren’t unintentional consequences by targeting efforts located in an underserved community without the input of that community 

‐ Describing specific project roles that will be conducted by Tribal or underserved community members located in the project area and/or impacted by the targeted debris 

presence/proposed project activities. This description should include how those roles were/will be selected. Ideally, these roles would be included in both the design and execution of the project activities. 

‐ Describing engagement with the underserved community to learn about the specific challenges they are facing and how the proposed project activities can be conducted to help mitigate those challenges (i.e., the installation of interception devices and removal of marine

debris will make a local waterfront safer/more accessible, enhance local fisheries and improve food security, or are expected to restore tourism revenue to improve the local economy, etc.) 

We do recognize this type of work can be challenging to incorporate into these projects, and encourage applicants to think about relevant partners they could work with to build these types of components into their proposal to directly and meaningfully engage underserved or disadvantaged communities. 

[SLIDE 23] Next, please provide a detailed project timeline along with the expected milestones throughout your award. There is no required format for this information, but just make sure it is clear what months of the year specific activities will be occurring. 

[SLIDE 24] Finally, we request a description of the applicant organization structure and project staff and a list of references for your proposal. Specifically, you should describe your understanding of the marine debris issue and capacity to procure and deploy selected interception technologies, navigate regulatory requirements, secure any necessary permits, maintain equipment in the long‐term, lead effective prevention strategies, and partner with municipalities and/or public or private partners. 

[SLIDE 25] After the narrative, another element in the application is the Data Management Plan. The data management plan should be two pages or less and provide a general description of how the data collected or created under the award will be made accessible to the general public. There is specific guidance in the NOFO as well as an example on our funding resources page.   

[SLIDE 26] Next, we will discuss the budget narrative. This is a very important component of the application and I also suggest you review the guidance on our applicant resources webpage for how to appropriately organize this information by the budget categories in the SF‐424A, to aid reviewers in evaluating your proposal. Please note this section includes both written justification and explanation of project costs, as well as an accompanying summary table. A high level of detail is also expected for the budget narrative, and each line item should be explained. Please note a detailed explanation is expected for both the federal and match funds.   

For equipment or single technology pieces costing $5,000 or more, you will need to provide a justification for why renting the equipment is not possible and/or the cost of renting the equipment. Selected projects will be evaluated by NOAA to determine if they are subject to the guidance in the Build America, Buy America Act or if they qualify for any of the Department of Commerce’s Approved Waivers. Please provide sufficient information on the manufacturer location of the chosen device(s) and cost estimates in your budget narrative to aid in this determination.   

Again, please make sure when you submit, that the numbers in the budget narrative match the SF‐424 and SF‐424A, as well as any funding information included in the summary or narrative. The page limit applies to the written justification, and not the summary tables.   

The budget narrative is also where you should indicate if the proposal has been submitted for funding consideration elsewhere, including the amount requested and/or secured from other sources and if those sources are federal or non‐federal. Additionally, if this project is part of a larger project, the overall budget for the entire project should be described for clarity.  

[SLIDE 27] Other information that you should include are CVs or resumes for the project team, detailed maps of project locations/activities, relevant photographs, project designs (if relevant), and letters of support from project partners or other supporters of the project such as local, state, or national elected officials, or community members that would benefit from the proposed project. Letters of support should be provided from any other organizations involved to document their commitment to the proposal’s goals and objectives, and to show support for long‐term goals extending beyond the project’s period of performance as part of the overall application package. Letters of support do not count toward the page limit for the Narrative. We do have some detailed guidance on support letters (including who they should be addressed to), on our applicant resources website. 

[SLIDE 28] As we’ve referenced throughout the presentation today, we encourage you to check out our website for additional guidance and resources for your applications, as well as fully reviewing the notice of funding opportunity.  We provide a narrative template, guidance for understanding the NOFO content and structure, a table of the evaluation criteria, guidance for meaningful engagement, cost‐sharing, letters of support, and the data management plan and budget guidance documents for both the SF424A and the Budget Narrative.   

[SLIDE 29] It is strongly encouraged to carefully review the evaluation criteria listed in the NOFO before, during and after working on your proposal materials to help guide the development of your proposal. This evaluation criteria are what proposal reviewers will use to evaluate and score your proposal. Proposals that incorporate the detailed evaluation criteria included in each of the categories will be most competitive. There are five evaluation criteria: Importance/Relevance and Applicability, Technical Merit, Overall Qualification of Applicant, Project Costs, and Community Support. 

[SLIDE 30] The Importance and Applicability of Proposal to Program Priorities will focus on the description of the project outcomes including the impactful benefits to NOAA Trust Resources and surrounding communities, prevention strategies, as well as the DEIJA components. 

[SLIDE 31] The technical merit evaluation criterion will focus on if the proposal is technically sound with clear goals and objectives and how they will be executed, measured, and achieved. It evaluates the description of the proven technology, disposal methods, environmental impacts, and the monitoring and maintenance plan. 

[SLIDE 32] The overall qualifications of the applicant evaluation criterion looks at the ability and capacity of the applicant to successfully manage and execute the proposed project. 

[SLIDE 33] The project costs evaluation criterion evaluates the federal and non‐federal budget components of the material as well as the overall cost‐effectiveness of the proposed project. 

[SLIDE 34] The final evaluation criterion is community support focused on engagement from relevant stakeholders. This section is relevant to all community engagement, even if the communities are not underserved or disadvantaged, although those communities will be prioritized. This evaluation focuses on the importance of the work to the local area and if there are references to localized plans addressing the proposed issue and letters of support/commitment from the relevant stakeholders, and how they would benefit from and/or be engaged with the proposed project activities.  

[SLIDE 35] Next, we have some general application tips. Please note adobe PDF is the preferred format for application attachments.  It is completely acceptable to make budget tables in a spreadsheet platform, but we suggest saving and submitting them as a PDF to ensure there are no file formatting concerns through the submission process. Additionally, you can combine files using Adobe, which is helpful to ensure you do not forget any attachments, and we do encourage you to minimize the number of files uploaded by combining relevant files when possible. As mentioned earlier, please carefully review the NOFO for certain details about proposal requirements we were not able to cover today. Again, we highly encourage you to view the guidance on our Proposal Submission Guidance for Applicants webpage. 

[SLIDE 36] Once you are ready to submit your full application, the first step you will need to do is make sure that you are actively registered with grants.gov, eRA Commons (NOAA’s new grants management system) & SAM.gov.  You will not be able to submit your proposal in grants.gov without active registration, so even if your organization is already registered with SAM.gov, please make sure that it is an active registration. eRA Commons is NOAA’s new grants management system and this registration is a new requirement for all applicant organizations, so if you are a returning applicant, please be sure your organization completes this additional registration process. We will not accept any late submissions, so please submit early to ensure your application enters the system prior to the 11:59pm deadline.   

[SLIDE 37] For your planning purposes, here is the anticipated timeline for award review and notifications. Again, full proposals are due to grants.gov by 11:59pm ET March 15th, 2024. The full proposal review will occur from March through April 2024. We are hoping to recommend projects for funding to our NOAA Grants Management Division and notify those successful and unsuccessful full proposal applicants in May 2024. And finally, awards will receive an official offer and project planning activities can be expected to begin in late summer/early fall of 2024. However, the environmental compliance process can take several months, so it is possible actual field/removal work may not begin immediately at the start of the award.   

[SLIDE 38] So, we hope that we have provided helpful information today. Again, there will be a document on our website with the question and answers that were provided during the live webinar. And if you have any questions specific to your project that come up after listening to this recording, please reach out to the NOAA MDP grants team via email at grants.marinedebris@noaa.gov. 

[SLIDE 39] We thank you for your time listening to this webinar and hope you have a great rest of your day.