Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

CAFA Logo

FAQs and Reminders

  • Please contrast Type A and Type B projects in simple terms.
    • Type A projects are calling for research to advance multidisciplinary modeling systems that help inform and evaluate best fisheries management strategies for future oceans on various timeframes.
    • Type B projects are calling for research that focuses on the human dimensions of climate change and that advance the understanding of frontline fishing community adaptation and resilience in response to climate stressors in order to inform adaptation strategies.
  • For Type A proposals, could you please say a couple more words on how you see/understand multidisciplinary
    • Multidisciplinary means going across the spectrum from climate and ocean projections through the biological components even into human dimensions. Ultimately we want these systems to be able to provide advice on fisheries management and fishing community adaptation
  • Could organismal level measures that informed modeling efforts fit into the concept of multidisciplinary here?
    • In general the focus of this call is not on organismal level research but it could be considered if key to broader efforts to advance the ability to evaluate the performance of fisheries related management strategies
  • For Type A proposals, are projects working with existing data at a disadvantage relative to projects collecting new data?
    • No disadvantage. We are very much looking to build on existing efforts. We are looking to build a system that can project future conditions and then evaluate best strategies in those conditions. It depends a lot on building and pulling from existing data. So, no disadvantage using existing data or collecting new data
  • For Type A proposals, should goals be more general or better make a focus adaptation on a particular species?
    • The goal of type A projects is to advance integrated systems that can evaluate the performance of fishery management strategies under expected future climate/ocean conditions. Specific focus areas or species are encouraged as part of the process.
  • Since Type A has been identified as modeling focused, can specific genetic or experimental research be included?
    • In general the focus of this call is not on genetic or experimental research but it could be considered if key to broader efforts to advance the ability to evaluate the performance of fisheries related management strategies
    • Do Type A proposals that are modeling-related have an advantage over Type B proposals?
      • No, we view Type A & Type B proposals as complementary to one another. There is no advantage
    • Should a Type A proposal include all of the elements from climate and physics to ecology and fishery management?or is it acceptable to just focus on part of the spectrum (e.g., physical processes and prediction)?
      • The goal of type A projects is to advance integrated systems that can evaluate the performance of fishery management strategies under expected future climate/ocean conditions. While integration across disciplines is encouraged, it is acceptable to focus on parts of the spectrum.
  • Do estuaries bounded by barrier island systems qualify for the Type A grant in the Southeast region?
    • Yes, estuaries would qualify, as they are impacted by marine influences and support marine fish species.
  • Does the socioeconomic component need to be integrated in each phase of the project for type A proposal?
    • No, the socioeconomic component does not need to be part of each phase of the project. The goal of the Type A call for proposals is to develop and test modeling systems that combine physical, biological and socioeconomic components to provide advice on fisheries management and fishing community adaptation.
  • For type A proposals, how strict is the definition for “modeling”? Does it require known ecosystem/fisheries models or would simpler statistical models count?
    • Under the CAFA Program there is no strict definition for what is considered ‘modeling’, but the goal is to improve on existing capabilities and advance the information in that region.
  • For Type A proposal, is one of the expected deliverables a “tool” to develop adaptation strategies, or “inform” adaptation strategies? In other words, would it be OK for a team to focus on the processes that inform socio-ecological adaptations, but not produce a tool to develop adaptation strategies?
    • The key focus for Type A proposals is assessing and informing adaptation and management strategies; a tool is an example of how to do so. The development of adaptation strategies is not required. Providing information that improves the development of adaptation pathways is welcomed.
  • Could type A proposals fund fieldwork?
    • Yes. The NOFO is encouraging building integrated systems to evaluate management strategies and advance adaptation and resilience of fishing communities. If fieldwork helps to address this, then it can be included.
  • For Type A proposals, is engagement with industry (fishing) required or encouraged?
    • Engagement with the fishing industry is not required but encouraged if appropriate.
  • Do Type B proposals have to include indigenous communities (or solely include indigenous communities)?
    • Type B proposals are not required to include Indigenous communities but where relevant and/or applicable, we are encouraging inclusion of/and engagement with relevant sectors of the community that may include local, indigenous and/or tribal communities
  • For Type B proposals, is it allowable to budget for an honorarium/stipend or other compensation for people who participate in surveys and focus groups?
    • Yes, Participant support costs are defined as direct costs for items such as stipends or subsistence allowances, travel allowances and registration fees paid to or on behalf of participants or trainees (but not employees) in connection with conferences, or training projects
  • We should focus on federally managed fisheries and on one or more regions, but for Type B proposals research should “enhance the effectiveness of locally-determined adaptation planning in frontline fishing communities.” Can the research and applications focus on adaptation through state-level climate policies and programs (rather than federal)?
    • The primary focus/interest in this call for proposals is on federally managed (or co-managed) fisheries or fishing communities that interact with federally managed (or co-managed) fisheries. In communities that focus on state and federal fisheries, proposals may focus on a variety of mechanisms (including State level) as appropriate to address adaptation of fishing communities.
  • Can the same entity submit a Type A proposal and a Type B proposal?
    • Yes, an applicant can submit both a Type A & Type B proposal
  • Is there any interest in tandem proposals i.e., proposals for Type A and Type B in the same region?
    • It is certainly possible to have a Type A & B proposal in the same region but not a requirement.
  • Does CAFA funding apply to storm drain utility projects?
    • The focus of the CAFA FY23 call is to fund research on strategies and tools to advance resilience and adaptation of marine fisheries and fishing communities. Storm drain utility projects are outside the focus of this call
  • Is there funding from the Inflation Reduction Act that will go towards this funding opportunity?
    • At this time, we do not know if the CAFA program will receive any Inflation Reduction Act Funds.
  • Is non-federal match required?
    • Matching funds and cost-sharing are not required. However, leveraging and in kind sharing of resources should be reported within the proposal.
  • Are there any caps on indirect cost rates?
    • There are no caps on indirect cost rates as long as they are justified.
  • Are there limits on acceptable overhead rates allowed for “for-profit” proposers?
    • No, as long as it is a justifiable dollar amount
  • Are there any cost-sharing requirements?
    • Matching funds and cost-sharing are not required. However, leveraging and in kind sharing of resources should be reported within the proposal.
  • How many projects will be funded?
    • The number of projects will be based on submissions and available funding. We have not received funding for FY23 yet, so we cannot answer that question at this time.
  • Should the approximate project cost included in the LOI include a detailed breakdown, or just a total cost?
    • For the LOI, an approximate total project cost is sufficient. For the full proposal, all relevant budget breakdowns and documents (please see the NOFO for full details)
  • Are course buyout allowed as a cost item?
    • No, they are not
  • Are for profit organizations able to apply?
    • While for-profit organizations can apply, the Department of Commerce Grants Manual states that commercial organizations are not permitted to make a profit on awards unless there is a specific statute that allows it.
    • If the program manager believes there is a statute that allows for profit-making in this specific case, they should consult FALD (legal) to consult.
  • Can summer salary for academic faculty be included in the budget?
    • The NOFO allows for any reasonable and appropriate expenditures that could benefit the project to be included in the budget justification and budget table. Please keep in mind that your proposal will be reviewed based on several evaluation criteria including (but not limited to) in Stage I: overall qualification of applicants (page 18 of the NOFO) and project costs. See page 14 of the NOFO for additional information on what to include in the budget narrative and table.
  • Can funding (stipend?) for students involved in the project be a part of the budget? My students are undergraduate juniors and seniors with a few graduate students working on their MS or MA degree (our institution does not award PhD degrees). Most of the students are from the underserved communities and they need to work at least part time.
    • The NOFO allows for any reasonable and appropriate expenditures that could benefit the project to be included in the budget justification and budget table. Please keep in mind that your proposal will be reviewed based on several evaluation criteria including (but not limited to) in Stage I: overall qualification of applicants (page 18 of the NOFO) and project costs
  • Should academic institutions submit through NOAA Cooperative Institutes or through regular academic departments i.e. is this required for Type A CAFA proposals. There is a big difference in overheads between NOAA CI (26%) and the usual overhead rate of academic units (~50%). I am not sure whether our College has restrictions on this, but if going through a CI is a requirement from CAFA, then this may take priority over other regulations or recommendations that we have in ourCollege.
    • Please see page 5 of the CAFA NOFO which states “In addition, interactions, partnerships, or collaborations with NOAA laboratories and Cooperative Institutes are encouraged” but not required. We encourage you to check with your institution’s granting team/office to determine if there are restrictions on the mechanism you are able to utilize through your institution
  • Can we include a course buyout in the budget if our teaching load is high (9-12 credit hours)? Is it an allowable expense?
    • No, course buyouts are not allowable expenses.
  • Should NOAA PIs include both internal NOAA and external funding in their Current and Pending?
    • The current and pending support section is limited to federal support. The purpose of this section is to assess what projects could be leveraged, whether investigators are overcommitted, and whether federal projects are being duplicated.
  • Would proposals/projects have access to fishery data?
    • Yes, there is a variety of fisheries related data that is publicly accessible for proposals/projects
  • DEIA principles can you please clarify?
    • Please see page 6 of the CAFA program information sheet which includes detailed definitions on DEIA and more information on what that entails.
  • Can you provide any more detail about the focus on federally-managed (or co-managed) fisheries, or communities that interact with federally managed fisheries. In communities that rely on state and federal fisheries, is it appropriate to focus on adaptation strategies that span both?
    • The primary focus/interest in this call for proposals is on federally managed (or co-managed) fisheries or fishing communities that interact with federally managed (or co-managed) fisheries. In communities that focus on state and federal fisheries, proposals may focus on adaptation strategies that span both.
  • Could you expand on the idea that the proposals should focus on federally managed fisheries, but applicants are encouraged to develop collaborations with state researchers/managers?
    • The primary focus/interest in this call for proposals is on federally managed (or co-managed) fisheries or fishing communities that interact with federally managed (or co-managed) fisheries. Applicants are encouraged to engage with and develop collaborations with partners and experts that are relevant to their proposals. The list of potential collaborators is not meant to limit nor dictate particular collaborations or partnerships.
  • Do the proposals need to be US related or could it fund research related to climate resilience in fisheries abroad?
    • The focus of the CAFA FY23 call is to increase understanding of climate change impacts and management strategies to promote resilience and adaptation of U.S. marine fisheries and fishing communities. Please see the program information sheet for more information.
  • During the recent CAFA funding webinar the question was asked whether or not species of fish that are managed internationally (was worded as internationally managed fisheries) (e.g. swordfish, managed though the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT)) are qualified for consideration. Note that the US is an important member of ICCAT and is obligated to adhere to the management put forth by it. The answer was not clear during the seminar. Could you please provide a bit more guidance on this question as it will help dictate our direction?
  • One thing that came up today is the requirement, or focus, of the program is to look at only federally-managed fisheries– this was surprising to us since we did not see that requirement in the information sheet, nor in the NOFO, and in the last webinar a question was asked about this (at around 27:48 in the recording) and the answer given was that the competition was not exclusive to federal fisheries (or jointly managed fisheries, or communities impacted by federal fisheries). We would appreciate it if you confirmed that the competition is open to looking at communities who are substantially engaged in non-federal fisheries in the regions of interest.
    • Type B proposals should focus on fishing communities that interact with federally managed (or co-managed) fisheries. Proposals that focus on fishing communities that are also engaged in non-federal fisheries are also acceptable.
  • Would anadromous fish species that depend on both ocean and freshwater systems, such as salmon, be applicable to this competition?
    • Yes, projects focused on salmon would be applicable
  • Will the total revenue of the targeted fishery species be a criteria during the proposal review (e.g., higher revenue species have an advantage?)
    • No, the total revenue of the targeted fishery species will not be a criteria during proposal review.
  • Are shellfish fisheries included in this call, or is it referring to finfish only?
    • Yes, shellfish are included as “fish” and “fisheries” in the call.
  • Does this program support inland freshwater fish communities?
    • No. The focus of the CAFA Program is on marine fish and fisheries, but could include anadromous species such as salmon.
  • Does the term “fishing communities” refer to both commercial and recreational fishing communities? Does it also include subsistence fisheries?
    • Yes, it includes all of these. A fishing community is defined as “a community which is substantially dependent on or substantially engaged in the harvest or processing of fishery resources to meet social and economic needs, and includes fishing vessel owners, operators, and crew and United States fish processors that are based in such community,” pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
  • Does the term “fishing community” include those Alaska Native communities that harvest marine mammals under NOAA co-management agreements?
    • While the term “fishing community” does include Alaska Native communities, harvesting of marine mammals is under a different set of statutes that is beyond the scope of what this call was intended to address.
  • If a fishing community is engaged in only non-federally managed fisheries, would it still be acceptable as a focus for a proposal?
    • Proposals should focus on federally managed (or co-managed) fisheries or fishing communities that interact with federally managed (or co-managed) fisheries.
  • To what extent will geographic criteria be used to select successful proposals? For example, if there are four proposals submitted that focus on Alaska, will only one or two be funded, despite all being considered appropriate for funding?
    • We don’t know what kind of proposals we will receive and what kind of recommendations we will receive from the panel. We may receive proposals in multiple regions or we may receive proposals in a few. It will depend on the panel recommendations. The NOFO explains selection factors (including geography) in greater detail.
  • What is the definition of the insular Pacific-Hawaii region for this competition?
    • The CAFA program is utilizing LME regions for this call for proposals.
    • The ‘Insular Pacific-Hawaiian LME’ includes the main Hawaiian Islands extending out to the far NW islands (Kure Atoll and Midway Atoll), so this would not include Palau, FS Micronesia, Marshall Islands
  • Would multi-region Type A projects be expected to have plans for engaging with all included NOAA regions?
    • Yes multi-region Type A proposals should include a stakeholder/community engagement plan for all regions that will be engaged in the project
  • Is a proposal focusing on the Great Lakes appropriate?
    • The Great Lakes are outside the scope of this call

Do we need to have an existing Indirect Cost Rate Agreement to apply for funding?

  • Please see pg 24 of NOFO for more information on Indirect Cost Rate Agreements.

Can we submit letters of support? If so, are they included in the page limits?

  • Letters of support or commitment from partners are encouraged, though not required, to accompany the proposals. Please see pages 11 and 15 of the NOFO for more information about what is included in the page limits and letters of support.
  • Is information from recreational fishing groups considered traditional ecological knowledge?
    • Within this CAFA call for proposals, Indigenous Tribal Ecological Knowledge (ITEK) is a body of observations, oral and written knowledge, practices and beliefs that promotes environmental sustainability and stewardship of natural resources and is applied across biological, physical, cultural and spiritual systems. Local knowledge is observations, information and knowledge specific to a particular place based on interactions with/by individuals that utilize that resource/place but those interactions lack the culture and/or spiritual application. Information from recreational fishing groups could be defined as “local” knowledge.
  • Please clarify what is meant by the statement that the proposals should “Develop and incorporate protocols and processes to include cultural data/resources and local, indigenous traditional ecological knowledge (ITEK) and other non-western scientific knowledge to enhance western science data”. Does this mean that proposals must develop new methods to collect ITEK, or is it sufficient to leverage established practices and protocols in the course of the research?
    • We encourage the inclusion of existing or new protocols and processes to include cultural data/resources and local, indigenous traditional ecological knowledge (ITEK) and other non-western scientific knowledge to enhance western science data where possible and applicable. Proposals may leverage established practices and protocols in the course of the research vs. needing to develop new methods to collect ITEK. Please see pages 5, 6, & 7 of the CAFA Program Information Sheet for additional details.
  • Can funding for Traditional Knowledge holders be supported? ** provide a stipend to participate in the project (as collaborator) or just sharing knowledge?
    • The NOFO allows for any reasonable and appropriate expenditures that could benefit the project to be included in the budget justification and budget table. Please keep in mind that your proposal will be reviewed based on several evaluation criteria including (but not limited to) in Stage I: overall qualification of applicants (page 18 of the NOFO) and project costs
  • Can you please provide more information on if/how proposals should use MOM6 products and how to access that information?
    • Projects do not need to use predictions/projections from MOM6 and we expect the continued use of other products until the MOM6 products are available, tested etc.
    • The statement in the Information sheet was intended to allow projects to consider MOM6 products if they become available before or during the project term, but we completely appreciate that that may be difficult to plan for and may be premature for these proposals.
    • For more information on the availability of MOM6 products please contact charles.stock@noaa.gov.
  • The MOM6 model projections are not yet fully available. Should proposals assume that MOM6 output will be available for the region of interest?
    • We hope by the end of this year or into next year the next generation of MOM 6 will be available for testing and use. We suggest writing the proposals based on what you think will be available.
  • The Program Information Sheet seems to imply that projects must use predictions/projections from MOM6 (rather than projections developed using e.g. ROMS or another ocean modeling system) Is that the case? The full NOFO doesn’t’ mention it
    • projects do not need to use predictions/projections from MOM6 and we expect the continued use of other products until the MOM6 products are available, tested etc.
    • The statement in the Information sheet was intended to allow projects to consider MOM6 products if they become available before or during the project term, but we completely appreciate that that may be difficult to plan for and may be premature for these proposals.
  • Can an eligible project be in concert with projects being undertaken by international or RFMO science providers? If so, can the funds partially support staff/contractors within that non-US entity?
    • Yes, an eligible project can be in concert with projects being undertaken by international or RFMO science providers and partially support staff/contractors within that non-US entity
  • Can establishing collaborations with local NOAA offices be a part of a Type A project?
    • We encourage collaboration with local NOAA offices where applicable. We also encourage collaboration with local, tribal, regional, academic partners where applicable.
  • What are the ideal outcomes or products? Are scientific articles enough or is there a more applied product output expected?
    • Scientific articles are one of the desired outcomes but we are also looking for research proposals that have a strong nexus with application. Outcomes and applications in the realm of users or affected communities of practice from those projects would also be welcome
  • Is there any emphasis on funding undergraduate and/or graduate research as part of proposed projects?
    • The CAFA program has a long history of supporting the next generation of scientists. We encourage the engagement of undergraduate and graduate students and postdocs as part of the broader project. When addressing team composition, applicants should consider team contributions to a diverse, next-generation workforce through training, mentorship, education, and by engaging with students and early career professionals.
  • Can principal investigators be added onto the full proposal after the LOI is submitted?
    • Yes. The LOI is meant to give the CAFA program managers a sense of your project, how it relates to the call for proposal and the scope of your work. We understand that LOIs might not include all PI’s (as teams are still being assembled etc.) however all PIs that will be participating in the project should be included in the full proposal
  • Is there a limit on the number of proposals an individual can submit and serve on as a co-investigator or co-principal investigator?
    • PI’s cannot commit more than 50% of their time on any one proposal
  • Can a person be included in more than one proposal? If so, what roles can they take: Pi/Co-O on both? PI & collaborator?
    • There are no limits on the number of proposals an individual can submit and serve on as a PI/co-PI. PIs cannot commit more than 50% of their time on any one proposal and we encourage PIs to maintain a healthy work/life balance
  • Regarding the page limit and number of PI’s, how do you define a PI vs other proposal participants? Is it one PI per institution? Are the CV’s, Current & Pending Funding and Budget counted in the page limit?
    • There is not a limit to the number of PIs per institution; however a PI cannot commit more than 50% of their time to one proposal/project. The Primary (or Principal) Investigator has the primary responsibilities for the preparation and execution of the proposal and the grant. They are responsible for the management of the grant including both the execution of the work, and ensuring that administrative tasks and grant management are in order. The Co-PI has similar responsibilities as the primary investigator, and should support the PI (who is ultimately responsible) in management of the grant. Senior personnel, collaborators, contributors, etc. contribute some aspect of the overall project, but are not responsible for the management of the project. Items that are included in the page limit can be found on the bottom of page 11 in the NOFO.
  • Can contractors for federal agencies apply?
    • Grants can fund contractors. Contractors should apply through grants.gov
  • Would projects be penalized for not including students?
    • The CAFA program has a long history of supporting the next generation of scientists. We encourage the engagement of undergraduates, graduates and post docs as part of the broader project. When addressing team composition, applicants should consider team contributions to a diverse, next-generation workforce through training, mentorship, education, and by engaging with students and early career professionals.
  • If the lead PI is a Federal employee but there are a number of fishing organizations and other non-federal entities on the proposal, who needs to submit through grants.gov? If the Federal employee is submitting the application directly to Jennifer, do they need to include the unique entity identifier for all the organizations in the proposal? (referring to language in NOFO: “3) Unique entity identifier and system for award management (SAM) – Each applicant is required to: i) be registered in SAM before submitting its application, ii) provide a valid unique entity identifier in its application”)
    • Please see the top of page 16 in the NOFO for information on unique identifiers. Each applicant (unless the applicant is an individual or Federal awarding agency that is excepted from those requirements under 2 CFR 25.110(b) or (c), or has an exception approved by the Federal awarding agency under 2 CFR 25.110(d)) is required to: (i) Be registered in SAM before submitting its application; (ii) Provide a valid unique entity identifier (UEI) in its application; and (iii) Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency

Can Federal Employees apply?

  • Federal Employees can apply, however, they should prepare their proposal according to the NOFO guidelines and submit the proposal directly to the Competition Program Manager (Jennifer Dopkowski) via email (jennifer.dopkowski@noaa.gov) by the deadline. Federal co-investigators must submit a proposal identical to the proposal lead’s but with personalized budget information. However, please note that we cannot support federal employee salaries.
  • Make sure you are registered and your accounts are up-to-date in advance of the submission deadline – Grants.gov, System for Award Management, etc

  • Are letters of intent (LOIs) required? How should they be submitted?
    • Letters of intent are encouraged but not required. LOIs should be submitted via email directly to Jennifer Dopkowski, the Competition Program Manager (jennifer.dopkowski@noaa.gov) by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 1, 2022.
  • How are full proposals submitted?
    • Full proposals must be submitted via grants.gov or received by mail by the due date (November 21, 2022 5:00 pm Eastern Time). Please see CPO FAQ’s for the mailing address.
  • Proposals should convey what difference your work makes. It should not be for the sake of knowledge alone – but to change our approach, understanding, and application.
  • Be clear about which Type of Proposal (A or B) you are submitting.
  • Proposals should include a statement on how DEIA principles will be incorporated into the project
  • Proposals should develop and incorporate protocols and processes to include cultural data/resources and local, indigenous traditional ecological knowledge (ITEK) and other non-western scientific knowledge where appropriate.
    • For more information, see the Program Information Sheet → Additional Information → Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility section
  • Investigator teams: multidisciplinary & diverse teams are encouraged (e.g., tribal or indigenous groups, stakeholders, early career professionals, etc.)
    • Include a clear explanation of the roles of the investigators and how the team will interact and integrate the multiple components
  • Partnerships between state, tribal, local governments, private sector, NGOs, other federal agencies, non-government agencies, Sea Grant, NMFS offices are encouraged
    • For more information, see the Program Information Sheet → Additional Information → Leveraging and Partnerships section
  • Upon award of funding, project teams will be expected to:
    1. Undertake an ongoing dialogue with the NOAA Climate Program Office, NMFS Office of Science and Technology, and relevant NOAA partners.
    2. Submit annual and final reports and respond to periodic data and information requests, including updates on relevant DEIA activities.
    3. Principal Investigators (PIs) will participate in a PI Community of Practice for the duration of their projects — share methods, results, lessons learned, summary of findings at end of project, etc.
Scroll to Top