Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit, Californian CESU | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What is the funding opportunity number for this grant?

The funding opportunity number is G14AS00011.

Which federal agency offered this opportunity?

This opportunity was offered by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), specifically through the USGS Western Ecological Research Center (WERC).

Through what program was this funding call released?

The funding call was released through the Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (CESU) Program, specifically the Californian CESU.

What is the project title?

The project title listed in the announcement was "Napa Sonoma Marshes Ponds 6 8 Construction Monitoring."

What type of award was anticipated?

The notice described the award as a cooperative agreement. This indicates the work was intended to be carried out in close collaboration with USGS staff rather than as a fully independent, contractor-style project.

How is a cooperative agreement different from an independent project in this context?

Based on the description in the posting, the cooperative agreement structure meant the funded partner would be expected to coordinate with USGS scientists, align with USGS sampling designs and data needs, and deliver monitoring results that could be used directly within a broader USGS-led restoration and monitoring effort.

What broader USGS effort was this project designed to support?

The announcement indicated the project was designed to align closely with, and support, the ongoing Salt Pond project at WERC.

What was the practical focus of the work?

The opportunity focused on environmental monitoring associated with marsh pond construction activities in the Napa-Sonoma area, with the expectation that the funded partner would help generate data and analysis that fit into a broader USGS-led restoration and monitoring effort.

What scientific components were included in this particular funding notice?

Although the overall USGS effort was described as having multiple interrelated study components, this particular funding notice highlighted three components: fish, chronic toxicity, and acute toxicity.

What does the fish component generally imply for the work?

The fish component typically implies field sampling or monitoring to assess items such as fish presence, abundance, health, movement, or habitat use in and around the ponds and marshes.

What does chronic toxicity mean in the context of the announcement?

Chronic toxicity generally refers to longer-duration exposure testing or assessment methods that look for sublethal effects over time, such as impacts on growth, reproduction, or development of test organisms.

What does acute toxicity mean in the context of the announcement?

Acute toxicity points to shorter-term toxicity testing intended to detect more immediate harmful effects, often mortality or rapid impairment over a defined exposure period.

What overall monitoring intent do these components suggest?

Taken together, the fish and toxicity components suggest a monitoring program intended to evaluate ecological conditions and potential biological effects associated with construction and/or resulting habitat changes, including biological community responses (fish) and potential water or sediment quality concerns (toxicity testing).

What was the funding category listed for this opportunity?

The opportunity was categorized under "Science and Technology and other Research and Development."

Was this a discretionary funding opportunity?

Yes. The posting described it as a discretionary funding opportunity.

How many awards were expected?

The announcement indicated an expected single award.

What was the estimated total funding amount?

The estimated total funding amount listed was $96,219.

Did the opportunity require cost sharing or matching funds?

No. The posting stated there was no cost sharing or matching requirement.

What were the award ceiling and award floor?

The notice listed an award ceiling of $0 and an award floor of $0. The description noted this can be a common artifact in some federal postings and does not necessarily mean no funding was available; the estimated total funding figure was the practical indicator of intended award size.

Who was eligible to apply?

Eligibility was restricted to partners in the Californian CESU network, meaning the eligible applicant pool was essentially limited to participating member universities and other qualifying partners as defined by the CESU agreement.

Was the opportunity open to the general public or all organizations?

No. The posting indicated the competition was not open broadly; it was intended to be executed within the established CESU collaboration framework and limited to Californian CESU partners.

When was the opportunity posted?

The opportunity was posted on November 25, 2013.

What was the original closing date?

The original closing date was December 6, 2013.

Was the closing date extended?

Yes. The closing date was extended to December 18, 2013.

Is this opportunity still active?

No. The archive date was February 25, 2014, indicating the opportunity is no longer active.

What CFDA number was associated with this opportunity?

The CFDA number listed was 15.808, described as US Geological Survey Research and Data Collection.

Where were applicants directed to find the full announcement?

The public listing pointed applicants to Grants.gov for the full announcement.

Who was the USGS contact listed for this opportunity?

The posting provided a USGS contact: Faith Graves.

What contact details were provided for assistance?

The listing included the following contact information: Faith Graves, 703-648-7356, fgraves@usgs.gov.

What was the intended relationship between the funded partner and USGS staff?

The description emphasized close collaboration with USGS staff, with ongoing coordination with USGS scientists and alignment with USGS sampling designs and data needs, consistent with a cooperative agreement structure.

What kind of deliverables were implied by the announcement?

While specific deliverables were not enumerated in the summary provided, the opportunity explicitly anticipated generating monitoring data and analysis (including fish monitoring and chronic/acute toxicity testing results) that would integrate into a broader USGS-led restoration and monitoring effort and support USGS restoration science and management decision support.