NCCOS Funding Opportunities

NCCOS supports the Competitive Research Program (CRP) and the RESTORE Science Program that provide the critical information and predictive capabilities required to manage the nation’s coastal resources in an ecosystem context. NCCOS addresses these issues via a stressor-based or regional ecosystem approach. These issues typically require multi-disciplinary research teams and a significant long-term commitment of resources because of their complexity and the effort required to reach a new level of understanding sufficient to support NOS priorities and drive future coastal management decisions.

Applications for funding are submitted through FFO notices posted on the website. Notices of specific Announcements of Opportunity posted here on the NCCOS Funding Opportunities page are provided as a courtesy to our research community and in no way replace the official information provided through
















NOAA accepts grant application packages electronically through the website. You should use to find, apply for, and track grants.

The information package provided on this website is taken from the current standard NOAA Grants & Cooperative Agreement Application Package released by the NOAA Grants Management Division and also available on the website.

If you have not already registered with, you will need to do so. You only need to register once.

The application package has information regarding standard conditions for grants, including the prohibition of lobbying. It is unlawful to use Federal financial assistance awards to:

  • influence legislation pending before Congress;
  • negotiate, award or administer a pending award;
  • facilitate direct contact with legislators or indirect contact with legislators through grassroots lobbying.

If you have any questions, please contact:

Ms. Laurie Golden 
NCCOS Grants Coordinator 
(301)713-3338, x151


Mrs. Jennifer Hinden 
Alternate POC


Sample Application

This section describes the general process for submission. Specifics on eligibility, definitions, and more detailed instructions are below as well as within each Federal Funding Opportunity (FFO) notice.

It is strongly suggested that applications be submitted through the website.

A sample application is available for general guidance purposes only. Applicants must comply with the complete instructions included within each individual FFO notice.

Administrative and Merit Review Overview

Once a full application has been received by NOAA, an initial administrative review is conducted to determine compliance with requirements and completeness of the application. All proposals will be evaluated and scored individually in accordance with the assigned weights of the above evaluation criteria by independent peer mail review and/or by independent peer panel review. Both Federal and non-Federal experts may be used in this process.

Merit reviews of proposals are used as a means to obtain the best available science and information to support NOAA mandates. NCCOS adheres to the guidelines for the merit review process (i.e., the peer review process) as established by the Department of Commerce (DOC) Grants and Cooperative Agreements Manual.

Applicant Eligibility

For most competitions eligible applicants are institutions of higher education, other non-profits, state, local, Indian Tribal Governments, commercial organizations, US Territories and Federal agencies that possess the statutory authority to accept funding for this type of research. The individual FFOs contain the applicant eligibility for that specific competition. DOC/NOAA supports cultural and gender diversity and encourages women and minority individuals and groups to submit applications to the NCCOS programs. In addition, DOC/NOAA is strongly committed to broadening the participation of historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic serving institutions, tribal colleges and universities, and institutions that work in underserved areas. We encourage proposals involving any of the above institutions.

  • NCCOS will not normally fund any Federal Full Time (FTE) salaries, but will fund travel, equipment, supplies, and contractual personnel costs associated with the proposed work. If an applicant thinks that they are eligible for an exception, they should provide the Program Manager with appropriate documentation and obtain approval prior to submitting a letter of intent.
  • Researchers must be employees of an eligible entity listed above, and proposals must be submitted through that entity. Non-Federal researchers should comply with their institutional requirements for proposal submission.
  • Non-NOAA Federal applicants will be required to submit certifications or documentation showing that they have specific legal authority to accept funds for this type of research.
  • Foreign researchers may apply as subawards through an eligible US entity.
  • Non-Federal researchers affiliated with NOAA-University Cooperative/Joint Institutes should comply with joint institutional requirements; they will be funded through grants either to their institutions or to joint institutes.

Related OMB Circulars and DOC Codifications

Suggested circulars of interest are listed below:

  • 2 CFR 220: Cost Principles for Educational Institutions
  • 2 CFR 215: Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations
  • 2 CFR 230: Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations

Budget Requirements & Instructions

Application Forms

Recipients of DOC grant or cooperative agreements are responsible for adhering to the standard and special terms and conditions of their award, appropriate OMB circulars and government public policy requirements. The information below provides the current guidance.

Programmatic Special Award Conditions

Reporting Requirements

Annual and Final Progress Reports are due according to the schedule found on the Reporting Requirements page. The last interim progress report for the final 90 days of the project should be submitted as part of the comprehensive Final Progress Report. Reports must follow NCCOSprescribed formats as announced in the Federal Register Notice. NCCOS reporting requirements (approved by OMB under Approval #0648-0384, expiration date of 7/31/2016) take precedence over any NOAA Standard Terms and Conditions issued by the Grants Management Division.

Data Accessibility

  1. Data Sharing: Environmental data collected or created under this Grant, Cooperative Agreement, or Contract must be made publicly visible and accessible in a timely manner, free of charge or at minimal cost that is no more than the cost of distribution to the user, except where limited by law, regulation, policy, or national security requirements. Data are to be made available in a form that would permit further analysis or reuse: data must be encoded in a machine-readable format, preferably using existing open format standards; data must be sufficiently documented, preferably using open metadata standards, to enable users to independently read and understand the data. The location (internet address) of the data should be included in the final report. Pursuant to NOAA Information Quality Guidelines, data should undergo quality control (QC) and a description of the QC process and results should be referenced in the metadata.
  2. Timeliness: Data accessibility must occur no later than publication of a peer-reviewed article based on the data, or two years after the data are collected and verified, or two years after the original end date of the grant (not including any extensions or follow-on funding), whichever is soonest, unless a delay has been authorized by the NOAA funding program.
  3. Disclaimer: Data produced under this award and made available to the public must be accompanied by the following statement: "These data and related items of information have not been formally disseminated by NOAA, and do not represent any agency determination, view, or policy."
  4. Failure to Share Data: Failing or delaying to make environmental data accessible in accordance with the submitted Data Management Plan, unless authorized by the NOAA Program, may lead to enforcement actions, and will be considered by NOAA when making future award decisions. Funding recipients are responsible for ensuring these conditions are also met by sub-recipients and subcontractors.
  5. Funding acknowledgement: Federal funding sources shall be identified in all scholarly publications. An Acknowledgements section shall be included in the body of the publication stating the relevant Grant Programs and Award Numbers. In addition, funding sources shall be reported during the publication submission process using the FundRef mechanism ( if supported by the Publisher.
  6. Manuscript submission: The final pre-publication manuscripts of scholarly publications produced with NOAA funding shall be submitted to the NOAA Institutional Repository at after acceptance, and no later than upon publication, of the paper by a journal. NOAA will produce a publicly-visible catalog entry directing users to the published version of the article. After an embargo period of one year after publication, NOAA shall make the manuscript itself publicly visible, free of charge, while continuing to direct users to the published version of record.
  7. Data Citation: Publications based on data, and new products derived from source data, must cite the data used according to the conventions of the Publisher, using unambiguous labels such as Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs). All data and derived products that are used to support the conclusions of a peer-reviewed publication must be made available in a form that permits verification and reproducibility of the results.

Funding Acknowledgement

Publications based upon results of research supported directly or indirectly by this award should include the following acknowledgment: "This paper is a result of research funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science under award (Grant Number) to (Institution)." The U.S. Government is authorized to produce and distribute reprints for governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation.

Complying with the Paperwork Reduction Act

The public reporting burden for the annual and final progress reports is estimated at 7.5 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspects of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Laurie Golden. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

OMB Circulars

Suggested circulars of interest

Reporting Requirements

Outputs and Outcomes

NOAA Data Policy

No-Cost Extensions

In order to protect the integrity of the merit review process, NCCOS developed an internal password protected website for merit reviewers. It allows each reviewer to read assigned proposals and associated documents in a secure environment. Completed reviews can be uploaded on the same website.

Mail reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the subjects addressed by particular proposals. Each mail reviewer sees only certain individual proposals within his or her area of expertise, and scores them individually on a scale of one to five as follows:

  1. Excellent (5)
  2. Very Good (4)
  3. Good (3)
  4. Fair (2)
  5. Poor (1)

The peer-review panel is comprised of 3 or more individuals, with each individual having expertise in a separate area, so that the panel, as a whole, covers a range of scientific expertise. The panel will have access to all mail reviews of proposals, and will use the mail reviews in discussion and evaluation of the entire slate of proposals.

All proposals will be evaluated and scored individually. The panel shall rate the proposals using the evaluation criteria and scores provided above and used by the mail reviewers. The individual panelist scores shall be averaged for each application and presented to the Program Manager. No consensus advice will be given by the independent peer mail review or the review panel.