The National Environmental Contaminants Program (NFNECP) grew out of the efforts of First Nations communities in the Great Lakes to understand the effects Great Lakes contaminants were having on the Great Lakes First Nations. EAGLE was a community-based cooperative venture between Assembly of First Nations and Health Canada. It represented a different way of doing health and environmental studies. Using “western sciences” and First Nations knowledge, EAGLE attempted to study the effects of these contaminants on the First Nations communities. In the broadest terms it is research that stands on the three legs of partnership: mutual respect, equity and empowerment.

The NFNECP will endeavor to reproduce these types of studies at the national and regional levels.

The Regional Component of the NFNECP is seeking innovative ways of researching environmental and health impacts of contaminants on the First Nations communities within Ontario. The projects are to be community-based and depend upon genuine partnership with government departments, both federal and provincial and with academic institutions.

The NFNECP will share the knowledge of the First Nations communities with its partners in true friendship while protecting sensitive information of the community. The Program will use plain language to describe its work, so that everyone will be able to understand our work.

The NFNECP will honor the First Nations Elders. The Elders will be respectfully asked for their assistance in all aspects of the Program. The knowledge that the Elders possess will enhance the work of the Program and therefore will be greatly appreciated and respected. The Elders will be accommodated in all activities of the Program.

The NFNECP will seek other partners that have skills, information and financial resources needed to assist the First Nations communities and the Program carry out our tasks. This will be done within the concepts of respect, equity and empowerment the three Great Words of Peace.

The NFNECP will work with the Health Canada Regional Offices to enhance the potential of the regional work. Both National and First Nations partners will work within a spirit of true partnership.

The NFNECP will manage the program using the jurisdictions of the First Nations communities.

B. Program Overview

The Regional First Nations Environmental Contaminants Program is a sub-component of the National Environmental Contaminants Program whose main objective is:

to conduct research on environmental contaminants with a focus on exposure, assessment, and diagnostics/risk management (of particular interest is the analysis of risk to social and cultural health from the introduction of contaminant(s) within First Nations’ territories).

The Program is administered by Health Canada’s Thunder Bay District Zone, and coordinated by a Regional Steering Committee of the Chiefs of Ontario.

This is a Notice for a Call for Proposals from Ontario First Nation Communities and/or their Tribal Organizations and Councils for the submission of applications for research projects for the fiscal year 2001/02. This Notice contains all the information necessary to prepare a proposal.

The report from the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) emphasizes that the quality of the environment plays a large role in the health and well-being of Aboriginal peoples. The issues surrounding environmental contaminants and the relation to human health are diverse and difficult to list in their entirety. Primarily, the Program will provide financial support for projects which design frameworks, conduct community-based research, and/or conduct laboratory analyses pertaining to the assessment of exposure pathways and socio-cultural health impacts from environmental contaminants.

Section II: Guidelines & Deadlines

C. Letter of Intent

• Should be no longer than one page
• Due no later than Friday, April 13th, 2001
• Describe the project & explain how it will benefit your community
• Include amount of funding requested and major expenditure items (see list below)
  Send letters/applications to:

Mr. Paul Strohack
Regional Manager, Environmental Health
First Nations & Inuit Health Branch
Ontario Region
Health Canada
150 Main St. West, Room 500
Hamilton, ON
L8P 1H8 Tel: (905) 570-7931
Fax: (905) 572-2047

D. Funding Limits Per Proposal
The annual allocation for Ontario is $260,000. There are 134 First Nations communities in Ontario and a multitude of environmental contaminant issues. As such, proposals in excess of $25,000 for any one community Project would likely not be approved, as there is a preference to fund as many projects as possible from a wide spectrum of issues on a:

• geographic basis (north – south);
• contaminant basis (POPs – metals, radioactive elements);
• medium basis (water, air, soil, human tissue, fish and game); and
• cohort basis (children, women of child bearing age, elders).

However, this upper limit of $25,000 and annual focus on specific issues could change as regional environmental priorities emerge. Further considerations to increase this upper limit would be given for multi-community initiatives.

E. Deadlines

• April 13th, 2001: Letter of Intent due
• May 11, 2001: Proposal and Application due
• May 18th, 2001: Award decision made

F. Environmental Contaminants vs. Bacteriological Pathology

The primary focus of this Program is environmental contaminant studies pertaining to:

1. persistent organic pollutants (POPs) which include chlorine-based chemicals and pesticides such as PCBs, DDT, dioxin, furans, toxaphene, etc.
2. Toxic heavy metals and compounds such as mercury, cadmium, lead, and arsenic, etc., and
3. Radioactive elements.

This Program would not normally provide funding for studies pertaining to bacteriological (fecal, coliform) and fungal (mold) contamination studies. However, special consideration would be given for urgent and unusual issues, eg. West Nile virus.

G. Topics
The following is a preliminary list of topics and areas that could be investigated under the FNECP:

• assessing contaminant levels through human tissue sampling;
• exposure pathways to contaminants;
• monitoring fish, wild game and berries/plants contaminant levels;
• the development of community/ environmental health and socio-cultural indicators;
• assessing the extent of various environmental health problems (e.g. mould) among First Nation communities and potential risk to health from exposure to such problems;
• assessing health effects or impacts of exposure to environmental contaminants, which could include:
• neuro-psychological assessments;
• health surveys;
• eating patterns surveys;
• nutritional assessments;
• epidemiological studies;
• assessing socio-cultural and economic effects/ impacts of environmental contaminants in First Nations communities;
• development of fish and wild game consumption guidelines; and/ or
• development of risk management strategies related to environmental contaminants.

H. Allowable Expenses

• Academic scientist consulting costs
• Elder honoraria
• Scientific advisory committee expenses
• Necessary travel
• Related printing costs
• Research fees: library and database
• Laboratory analyses
• Project coordination/ support
• Administration (max. 10%)

I. Expenditures Not Covered

• Equipment
• Overhead
• Indirect costs
• Salaries for permanent staff

K. Multiple or Repeat Proposals
An organization may submit more than one proposal if the proposals are for different projects. Normally, no organization will be approved for more than one project during the same fiscal year. Applicants who were approved for funding in the past may submit a new proposal to expand a previously funded project or to fund an entirely different one. Each new proposal will be evaluated based upon the specific criteria set forth in this Notice and in relation to other proposals received in this fiscal year. Due to limited resources, the Program can not generally sustain projects beyond the initial proposal period. However, multi-year projects may (in special circumstances) be considered but only on a year- to-year basis. If you have received funding from this program in the past, it is essential that you explain how your current program is “new”.

Work Plan, Budget & Appendices (100 points)

A work plan describes your proposed project and your budget. Appendices establish your timeline, your qualifications and your partnerships with other organizations, where applicable. Include all 5 sections below:

(1) Project Summary: Provide the following overview of your entire project in this format and on one page only:

1. Organization: Describe: (1) your organization, and (2) list your key partners, if applicable.
2. Summary Statement: Provide an overview of your project that explains the concepts and your goals and objectives. This should be a very basic explanation in layman’s term to provide the reviewers with an understanding and expected outcome of your project.
3. Environmental Priority: Identify which priority in Section III you will address, such as exposure. Proposals may address several environmental priorities, but avoid losing specific focus. Evaluation panels often select projects with a clearly defined purpose, rather than projects that attempt to address a multiple of priorities at the expense of a quality outcome.
4. Research Method: Explain how you will plan and implement your study, e.g. administration of health survey questionnaire.
5. Study Participants: Describe the target cohorts of your study and/or the biological specimens to be sampled, where appropriate.
6. Costs: List the activities for which the funding will be spent.

The Project Summary will be scored on how well you provide an overview of your entire project using the format and topics above. Maximum Score is 10 points.

(2) Project Description: Describe precisely what your project will achieve – why, how, what, when, with what, and who will benefit. Explain each aspect of your proposal in enough detail to answer the reviewer’s questions. This section is intended to provide you with the flexibility to be creative and does not require any specific format for describing your project. However, you should address the following to ensure that the reviewers can fully comprehend and score your project. Address each criterion in any sequence that best demonstrates the strengths of your project. This subsection will be a scored on how well you design and describe your project and how effectively your project meets the following criteria:

1. Why: Explain the purpose of your project and how it will address an environmental priority listed in Section III, such as exposure assessment; and address an environmental contaminant issue. Explain the importance to your community. Specify if the project has the potential for wide application, and/or can serve as model for use in other communities with a similar issue.
2. Who: Explain who will conduct the project; identify research partners
3. What: Identify the target population, and/or species, as applicable.
4. How: Explain your strategy, objectives, activities, sampling and reporting methods, and outcomes to establish for reviewers that you have realistic goals and objectives and will use effective methods to achieve them. Clarify how you will complete all basic steps from beginning to end.
5. With What: Describe any research paradigms, sampling methods, laboratory analyses, and/or any other research tools that will be employed.

Description – Maximum Score: 50 points (10 for each (a) to (e))

(3) Project Management: Explain how you will ensure that you are meeting the goals and objectives of your project, and that the budget clarifies how the funds will be used for specific items or activities. Management plans may be quantitative and/or qualitative and may include, for example, evaluation tools, observation, and outside consultation. The project management will be scored on how well your plan will: (a) measure the project’s effectiveness; and (b) apply evaluation data gathered during your project to strengthen it.

Management – Maximum Score: 10 points (5 points for each (a) and (b))

(4) Budget and Timeframe: Clarify how the funds will be used for specific items or activities. The budget for each project must not exceed one year.

This sub-section will be scored on how well the budget information clearly and accurately shows how funds will be used; whether the funding request is reasonable given the activities proposed; and whether the funding provides a good return for the community.

Budget: Maximum Score: 5 points

(5) Appendices:

(a) Timeline – Include a timeline to link your activities to a clear project schedule and indicate at what point over the months of your budget period each action, event, development, etc. occurs.

(b) Key Personnel – Attach a resume for the key personnel conducting the project (maximum of three resumes)

(c) Letters of Commitment/BCR – If the applicant organization has research partners, include a one-page letter of commitment from partners explaining their role in the proposed project. Please include a copy of Band Council Resolution(s) authorizing the community project.

This subsection will be scored based upon: (1) whether the timeline clarifies the work plan and allows reviewers to determine that project is well thought out and feasible as planned; (2) whether the key personnel are qualified to implement the proposed project; and (3) whether letters of commitment are included (if partners are used) and the extent to which a firm commitment is made.

Appendices – Maximum Score: 15 points (5 point each (a) to (c)).

(6) Bonus Points: Reviewers have the flexibility to provide up to 10 bonus points for exceptional projects based on the following criteria (a) a maximum of 5 points for: addressing an environmental contaminant priority or issue well, strong partnerships, creative use of resources, innovation, or other strengths noted by the reviewers. (b) a maximum of 5 bonus points for a well explained and easily read proposal. Factors for points could include: clear, concise, well organized, no unnecessary jargon, or other strengths noted by the reviewers who evaluate and compare the proposals.

Bonus Point – Maximum Score: 10 Points (5 points each for (a) and (b)).

M. Page Limits
The Work Plan should not exceed 5 pages. One page refers to one side of a single spaced typed letter sized page (8.5 x 11”); with font size 11 or 12. This page limit applies to Parts 1, 2, and 3 of the Work Plan (i.e. the Summary, Project Description, & Project Evaluation).

Parts 4 and 5 (i.e. Budget and Appendices) are not included in these page limits.

N. Submission Requirements and Copies
Submit a covering letter signed by a person authorized to receive fund, along with one copy of the proposal. Proposals must be reproducible; they should not be bound. They should be stapled or clipped once in the upper left hand corner, on white paper, and with the pages numbered.

(1) Project Summary: 10 Points
(2) Project Description: 50 Points
(3) Project Evaluation: 10 Points
(4) Budget: 5 Points
(5) Appendices: 15 Points
(6) Bonus Points: 10 Points (only for outstanding proposals)
TOTAL: 100 Points

P. Final Selection
After individual projects are evaluated scored by the ORSC, as described in Section IV, the ORSC will select a diverse range of finalists from the highest-ranking proposals. In making the final selection, the ORSC will take into account the following:

1. effectiveness of collaboration activities and partnerships, as needed to successfully develop or implement the project;
   environmental importance of the project;
2. cost effectiveness of the proposal;
3. geographic equity between northern and southern communities

Q. Notification of Applicants
The Ontario Regional Environmental Health Manager will contact the finalists no later than May 15th, 2001. Shortly thereafter, two official copies of the Project’s Contribution Agreement will be prepared by Health Canada and forwarded to the appropriate First Nation signing authority. Please keep one for your records and return the other signed copy to the Office of the OREHM.

R. Responsible Officials
Recipient First Nations and/or their associated organizations are responsible for the successful completion of the project. Interim/final financial and activity reporting requirements will be stipulated in the Contribution Agreement.

1. St Clair River Water Quality Study: Walpole Island First Nation

Study Objective: To investigate the potential impacts of a St. Clair River discharge on the Walpole Is. Water Treatment Plant

2. Environmental Contaminants Research Project: Mississauga First Nation

Study Objective: To coordinate a study to assess and monitor the exposure and ecological and human health impacts or uranium contamination in the Mississauga First Nation.

3. Mercury in the ManOMin Watershed: Rainy River First Nations

Study Objective: To initiate the planning phase of the ManOMin Watershed Study to assess and monitor exposure and ecological impacts of mercury contamination.

1. Proposal Screening Phase

 2. Proposal Evaluation Phase (Scoring of Work Plan)