Grantee Research Project Results

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Center for Environmental Research
Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Program

Uncertainty Analyses of Models in Integrated Environmental Assessments

CLOSED: FOR REFERENCES PURPOSES ONLY

Recipients List

This is the initial announcement of this funding opportunity.

Funding Opportunity Number: EPA-G2007-STAR-B1

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 66.509

Solicitation Opening Date: September 14, 2006
Solicitation Closing Date: December 13, 2006 4:00 pm Eastern Time

Eligibility Contact: Tom Barnwell (barnwell.thomas@epa.gov); phone: 202-343-9862
Electronic Submissions: Bronda Harrison (harrison.bronda@epa.gov); phone: 202-343-9777
Technical Contact: Pasky Pascual (pascual.pasky@epa.gov); phone: 202-343-9710

Table of Contents:
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
	Synopsis of Program
	Award Information
	Eligibility Information
	Application Materials
	Agency Contacts
I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION
	A. Introduction
	B. Background
	C. Authority and Regulations
	D. Specific Areas of Interest/Expected Outputs and Outcomes
	E. References
	F. Special Requirements
II. AWARD INFORMATION
III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION
	A. Eligible Applicants
	B. Cost Sharing
	C. Other
IV. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION
	A. Internet Address to Request Application Package
	B. Content and Form of Application Submission
	C. Submission Dates and Times
	D. Funding Restrictions
	E. Submission Instructions and Other Submission Requirements
V. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION
	A. Peer Review
	B. Programmatic Review
	C. Funding Decisions
VI. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION
	A. Award Notices
	B. Disputes
	C. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
VII. AGENCY CONTACTS

Access Standard STAR Forms and Instructions
Research awarded under previous solicitations

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

Synopsis of Program
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as part of its Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program, is seeking applications proposing interdisciplinary research in the formal treatment of uncertainty when models are used to conduct integrated environmental assessments. Integrated assessments use findings, data, and methods across different disciplines to generate information about a particular issue. For example, to assess the impact of mercury on public health and the environment, EPA integrated results from air dispersion models, exposure models, health effects models, and economic models (EPA 2005). To facilitate integrated assessments, models are used either (1) as a single, overarching model that integrates all pertinent information; or, as in EPA’s impact assessment for mercury, (2) as a suite of multiple models, with each model focusing on a specific aspect of the integrated assessment. In either case, NCER is interested in research that explores two types of uncertainties: (1) uncertainties within the models themselves, i.e. within their underlying data and hypotheses; and (2) uncertainties that arise during decision-making, as stakeholders discuss the weight of scientific evidence embodied within these models.

Award Information:
Anticipated Type of Award: Grant or Cooperative Agreement
Estimated Number of Awards: Approximately 3 awards
Anticipated Funding Amount: Approximately $1 million total for all awards
Potential Funding per Grant: Up to a total of $350,000, including direct and indirect costs, with a maximum duration of 2 years.
Cost-sharing is not required. Proposals with budgets exceeding the total award limits will not be considered.

Eligibility Information:
Public nonprofit institutions/organizations (includes public institutions of higher education and hospitals) and private nonprofit institutions/organizations (includes private institutions of higher education and hospitals) located in the U.S., state and local governments, Federally Recognized Indian Tribal Governments, and U.S. territories or possessions are eligible to apply. See full announcement for more details.

Application Materials:
You may submit either a paper application or an electronic application (but not both) for this announcement. The necessary forms for submitting a STAR application will be found on the National Center for Environmental Research (NCER) web site, https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/funding-opportunities-how-apply-and-required-forms. To apply electronically, you must use the application package available at Grants.gov (see “Submission Instructions for Electronic Applications” in Section IV). If your organization is not currently registered with Grants.gov, you need to allow approximately one week to complete the registration process to apply electronically. This registration, and electronic submission of your application, must be performed by an authorized representative of your organization.

Agency Contacts:
Eligibility Contact: Tom Barnwell (barnwell.thomas@epa.gov); phone: 202-343-9862
Electronic Submissions: Bronda Harrison (harrison.bronda@epa.gov); phone: 202-343-9777
Technical Contact: Pasky Pascual (pascual.pasky@epa.gov); phone: 202-343-9710

I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

A. Introduction
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Research (NCER), announces this call for interdisciplinary research in the formal treatment of uncertainty when models are used to conduct integrated environmental assessments. Integrated assessments use findings, data, and methods across different disciplines to generate information about a particular issue. For example, to assess the impact of mercury on public health and the environment, EPA integrated results from air dispersion models, exposure models, health effects models, and economic models (EPA 2005). To facilitate integrated assessments, models are used either (1) as a single, overarching model that integrates all pertinent information; or, as in EPA’s impact assessment for mercury, (2) as a suite of multiple models, with each model focusing on a specific aspect of the integrated assessment. In either case, NCER is interested in research that explores two types of uncertainties: (1) uncertainties within the models themselves, i.e. within their underlying data and hypotheses; and (2) uncertainties that arise during decision-making, as stakeholders discuss the weight of scientific evidence embodied within these models.

The Clean Air Act calls for research to improve modeling of air pollution, including information on uncertainty and on air pollution’s impacts on deposition, surface water quality, and forest conditions. The statute also calls for research on air pollution’s impact on terrestrial and aquatic systems. Moreover, the Clean Water Act calls for research to improve the understanding of the ecological characteristics necessary to maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of freshwater aquatic systems. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act likewise calls for research into integrated approaches to pest management. Finally, the Solid Waste Disposal Act calls for research into any adverse health and welfare effects of the release into the environment of material present in solid waste. Consistent with these statutory requirements, NCER intends to stimulate research that improves the ability of environmental modelers to integrate information on pollution’s impact on the environment across multiple media, thereby enhancing society’s understanding of the environment as an integrated whole.

B. Background
Some of the most challenging issues facing society today are those typified by complex systems in which the relationships among known and unknown variables are poorly understood. Correspondingly, society is faced with the need to make major decisions in the face of uncertainty and complexity. Parson (1995) suggested that models serve as an effective means to link the results of scientific research to policy change, particularly in the area of integrated assessments. Driven by the need to inform decisions, an assessment presents knowledge derived from research to decision-makers who need to evaluate an issue and consider possible actions; it is integrated when it coherently assembles information from a broad set of domains. The sine qua non of integrated assessments is to therefore provide a systematic way to integrate knowledge across multiple disciplines and methodologies. While researchers working within their individual fields can derive much value from the joint knowledge that emerges from the intersections between domains, it is also within these intersections that much friction can occur.

As Cash et al. (2003, citing Star and Griesemer 1989) note, interdisciplinary work can be mediated by using “boundary objects,” conceptual items that “sit between two different social worlds, such as science and nonscience, and (that) can be used by individuals within each for specific purposes without losing their own identity.” By imposing a degree of formalization and systematic thinking, models can serve as boundary objects that mediate communication across boundaries. By serving as the focal point over which disparate perspectives can argue and agree, models serve as “boundary objects that farmers and economists, state and local officials, emergency managers and climate modelers, economists and chemists, and fishers and marine biologists” can use to work collaboratively and to hopefully achieve common understanding. For example, in 1996, a team of reseachers assembled a single model, the so-called “Tracking and Analysis Framework (TAF) Model,” to evaluate the effectiveness of the nation’s acid-rain program (Bloyd et al 1996). The researchers modeled emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides; effects of these pollutants on visibility, on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and on human health; and the benefits and costs of reducing these oxides. As another example, EPA used a suite of multiple models to assess the impact of proposed mercury regulations (EPA 2005). Using a combination of air dispersion, exposure, health effect, and economic models, EPA evaluated the benefits associated with reducing mercury emissions. EPA then used the information from this integrated assessment to help inform its decision regarding alternative policies (see Figure 1 below). While models facilitate integrated assessments by organizing available information, their most significant contribution, argued Parson, is the structuring of uncertainty: “how well quantities and relationships are known, and how strongly valued consequences depend on them.”

Figure 1. Example of integrated assessment using models. Schematic of EPA’s assessment of the impact of proposed mercury regulation. Each node represents a model or set of models used in the assessment. This call for research focuses on two aspects of uncertainty: (1) uncertainty within and across models; and (2) uncertainty in how models are used to help make decisions.

Uncertainty, in the context of quantitative analysis, refers to the degree to which one is unsure about analytical results. Krupnick et al (2006) usefully reviewed the vast literature on uncertainty and the variously proffered typologies of uncertainty. At a fundamental level, most typologies distinguish between aleatory and epistemic uncertainties. The distinction recognizes that while the latter—stemming from a lack of knowledge—may be reduced through additional research, the former—pertaining to ineluctable randomness within a system—cannot. While the demarcation between categories and sub-categories of uncertainty may be fuzzy, it is nevertheless useful to consider them because they suggest how uncertainty may be understood, treated, and explained. Within the context of integrated assessments, uncertainty may be typified as follows: stochasticity, parameter uncertainty, structural uncertainty, and transboundary uncertainty.

Stochasticity refers to the inherent variability of an empirical quantity (i.e. something that is measurable in principle) across a population (of people or objects), space, or time. Parameter uncertainty likewise refers to empirical quantities, but it arises from measurement error and data gaps; it is a subset of aleatory uncertainty in that it is theoretically reducible through additional investigation (Krupnick et al 2006).

The structural uncertainty of a model pertains to the epistemic issues stemming from the inability to approximate systems because analysts don’t fully understand the causal relationships and the behaviors that underlie them. Smith (2003) highlights the ubiquity of this uncertainty—“not only is the best model we have imperfect, but there is no member of the known model class which is perfect. This is a much deeper flaw than having incorrect parameter values; in this case there are no ‘Correct’ parameter values to be had.” The critical point is that any single model is a non-unique solution to the equations that govern environmental systems, with each model manifesting its own peculiar sensitivities to perturbations in initial and boundary conditions.

Krupnick et al discuss two categories of uncertainties: decision uncertainty—referring to ambiguities associated with quantifying or comparing social objectives—and linguistic uncertainty—pertaining to the vagueness and imprecision of communicating information. By combining these two concepts into a single term, transboundary uncertainty, this call for research signals its focus on how models can serve as boundary objects in integrated assessments—facilitating collaboration not just among researchers from multiple domains, but also between researchers and decision-makers and other stakeholders.

The specific Strategic Goal, Objective and Sub-objective from EPA’s Strategic Plan that relate to this solicitation are:

Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems, Objective 4.5: Enhance Science and Research, Sub-objective 4.5.2: Conduct Relevant Research

The EPA’s Strategic Plan can be found at https://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2003sp.pdf (PDF, 239pp., 4.75MB).

C. Authority and Regulations
The authority for this RFA and resulting awards is contained in the Safe Drinking Water Act, Section 1442, 42 U.S.C. 300j-1; the Clean Water Act, Section 104, 33 U.S.C; the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Section 20, 7 U.S.C. 136r; and Solid Waste Disposal Act, Section 8001, 42 U.S.C. 6981.

D. Specific Research Areas of Interest/Expected Outputs and Outcomes
Note to applicant: The term “output” means an environmental activity or effort, and associated work products, related to a specific environmental goal(s), (e.g., testing a new methodology), that will be produced or developed over a period of time under the agreement. The term “outcome” means the result, effect, or consequence that will occur from the above activity(ies) that is related to an environmental, behavioral, or health-related objective.

The research issue in which NCER is primarily interested is: “How can scientific research—through models used for integrated assessments—be linked to decisions that stakeholders view as legitimate and credible, in particular because they understand uncertainties associated with the models and their use?” In posing this question, NCER emphasizes the following four points: (1) We are primarily interested in policy applications or case studies that illustrate conceptual and practicable issues; (2) We highly encourage interdisciplinary research, in which researchers come from more than one discipline and use the methods and approaches from more than one discipline (e.g. statistics, ecology, economics, toxicology, law); (3) We are interested in uncertainties within individual models and across multiple models, as well as uncertainties associated with the institutional and social context in which models are used to help formulate decisions; and (4) While this main issue may be parsed into the following sub-issues, we are primarily interested in the interactions among them:

1. How can one analyze the impacts of uncertainties—both aleatory and epistemic—on the results generated by models used—individually or within an ensemble—to conduct integrated environmental assessments?

   For example, how can one analyze stochasticity and parametric uncertainty across several models that are linked together to conduct an integrated assessment? How can one evaluate structural uncertainty when one is faced with a number of competing models? How can one evaluate structural uncertainty in a model that hypothesizes a set of causal relationships?

2. How can analysts engage policy makers and other stakeholders in better understanding integrated assessments through the use of environmental models?

   How can analysts more effectively communicate the information gleaned from these models and uncertainty analyses to policy-makers and other stakeholders who need this information to make decisions? How can one balance the complexity and completeness of this information (or the lack of information) against the need for transparency and stakeholder accessibility?

3. What approaches help analysts, policy-makers, and other stakeholders reach consensus-based environmental decisions because they have a shared understanding of the models, model results, and uncertainty analyses used for integrated environmental assessments?

   How can consensus be encouraged in a decision-making context where stakeholders are consulted, but these consultations are marked by asymmetries in information and technical capabilities? Is there interplay among the scientific uncertainties within models, stakeholder preferences, and regulatory decisions? Are there approaches that evaluate the robustness of stakeholder preferences in the face of model uncertainties; i.e. if an integrated environmental assessment generates a ranking of management options according to relative risks, how stable will these rankings be as one modifies assumptions within the various models that make up the assessment? How do/should models and uncertainty analyses contribute to an understanding that the weight of scientific evidence supports a particular environmental decision or failure to make a decision?

As mentioned earlier (see section A. Introduction), the Clean Air; Clean Water; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide; and Solid Waste Disposal Acts all call for research to enhance society’s understanding of the environment as an integrated whole and to improve society’s ability to undertake an integrated approach to environmental issues. Towards these ends, models are often used to perform integrated environmental assessments. However, to make these models more accessible and usable for managers who must make environmental decisions, society must better understand how to formally treat the uncertainties inherent in these models. This call is intended to stimulate research into how society can make better environmental decisions in the context of model uncertainties.

The outputs of the proposed projects are reports, presentations, and peer-reviewed journal publications. The expected outcome of this research is improved information and understanding regarding the ways uncertainties in the use of integrated assessment models may be formally treated in order to lead to better environmental decisions.

E. References

1. Bloyd, Cary., et al. Tracking and Analysis Framework (TAF) Model Documentation and User's Guide, 1996. Argonne National Laboratory, (December), ANL/DIS/TM-36.


2. Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., Guston, D. H., Ja¨ger, J. & Mitchell, R. B. (2003) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 100, 8086–8091.


3. Krupnick et al., Not a Sure Thing: Making Regulatory Choices Under Uncertainty, Resources For the Future, Washington, DC, 2006, accessed at: http://www.rff.org/rff/News/Features/Not-a-Sure-Thing.cfm


4. Parson, E., 1995: "Integrated assessment and environmental policy making", Energy Policy, 23/4-5, pp. 463-475.


5. Smith, Leonard A. “Predictability past predictability present.” Paper presented at 2002 ECMWF seminar on predictability, Reading, UK, 2003, accessed at: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/cats/papersPDFs/56_PredictPastPredictPresent_2002.pdf (PDF, 24pp., 405KB)


6. Star, S. L. and J. R. Griesemer (1989) “Institutional Ecology, 'Translations,' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907 - 1939.” Social Studies of Science, 19: 387-420.


7. US EPA (2005) Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Final Clean Air Mercury Rule, EPA-452/R-05-003.

F. Special Requirements
Agency policy prevents EPA technical staff and managers from providing individual applicants information that may create an unfair competitive advantage. Consequently, EPA employees will not review, comment, advise, provide technical assistance to applicants preparing applications in response to EPA RFAs, endorse an application or discuss in any manner how the Agency will apply the published evaluation criteria for this competition.

Groups of two or more eligible applicants may choose to form a consortium and submit a single application for this assistance agreement. The application must identify which organization will be the recipient of the assistance agreement and which organizations(s) will be subawardees of the recipient.

The application must include a plan (see “Data Plan” in section IV.B.5.c.) to make available to the public all data generated from observations, analyses, or model development (primary data) and any secondary (or existing) data used under an agreement awarded from this RFA. The data must be available in a format and with documentation such that they may be used by others in the scientific community.

These awards may involve the collection of “Geospatial Information,” which includes information that identifies the geographic location and characteristics of natural or constructed features or boundaries on the Earth or applications, tools, and hardware associated with the generation, maintenance, or distribution of such information. This information may be derived from, among other things, Geographic Positioning System (GPS), remote sensing, mapping, charting, and surveying technologies, or statistical data.

II. AWARD INFORMATION

It is anticipated that a total of approximately $1 million will be awarded under this announcement, depending on the availability of funds and quality of applications received. The EPA anticipates funding approximately 3 grants under this RFA. Requests for amounts in excess of a total of $350,000, including direct and indirect costs, will not be considered. The total project period for an application submitted in response to this RFA may not exceed 2years. The EPA reserves the right to reject all applications and make no awards, or make fewer awards than anticipated, under this RFA. The EPA reserves the right, consistent with agency policy and without further competition, to make additional awards under this RFA if additional funding becomes available. Any additional selections for awards will be made no later than 4 months after the original selection decisions.

EPA may fund both grants and cooperative agreements under this announcement.

Under a grant, EPA scientists and engineers are not permitted to be substantially involved in the execution of the research. However, EPA encourages interaction between its own laboratory scientists and grant Principal Investigators after the award of an EPA grant for the sole purpose of exchanging information in research areas of common interest that may add value to their respective research activities. This interaction must be incidental to achieving the goals of the research under a grant. Interaction that is “incidental” does not involve resource commitments.

Where appropriate, based on consideration of the nature of the proposed project relative to the EPA’s intramural research program and available resources, the EPA will fund cooperative agreements under this announcement. When addressing a research question/problem of common interest, collaborations between scientists and the institution’s principal investigators are permitted under a cooperative agreement. These collaborations may include data and information exchange, providing technical input to experimental design and theoretical development, coordinating extramural research with in-house activities, the refinement of valuation endpoints, and joint authorship of journal articles on these activities. Proposals should not identify EPA cooperators or interactions; specific interactions between EPA’s investigators and those of the prospective recipient for cooperative agreements will be negotiated at the time of award.

III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

A. Eligible Applicants
Public nonprofit institutions/organizations (includes public institutions of higher education and hospitals) and private nonprofit institutions/organizations (includes private institutions of higher education and hospitals) located in the U.S., state and local governments, Federally Recognized Indian Tribal Governments, and U.S. territories or possessions are eligible to apply. Profit-making firms are not eligible to receive assistance agreements from the EPA under this program.

Eligible nonprofit organizations include any organizations that meet the definition of nonprofit in OMB Circular A-122. However, nonprofit organizations described in Section 501(c) (4) of the Internal Revenue Code that lobby are not eligible to apply.

National laboratories funded by Federal Agencies (Federally-Funded Research and Development Centers, “FFRDCs”) may not apply. FFRDC employees may cooperate or collaborate with eligible applicants within the limits imposed by applicable legislation and regulations. They may participate in planning, conducting, and analyzing the research directed by the applicant, but may not direct projects on behalf of the applicant organization. The institution, organization, or governance receiving the award may provide funds through its assistance agreement from the EPA to an FFRDC for research personnel, supplies, equipment, and other expenses directly related to the research. However, salaries for permanent FFRDC employees may not be provided through this mechanism.

Federal Agencies may not apply. Federal employees are not eligible to serve in a principal leadership role on an assistance agreement, and may not receive salaries or augment their Agency’s appropriations in other ways through awards made under this program.

The applicant institution may enter into an agreement with a Federal Agency to purchase or utilize unique supplies or services unavailable in the private sector. Examples are purchase of satellite data, census data tapes, chemical reference standards, analyses, or use of instrumentation or other facilities not available elsewhere. A written justification for federal involvement must be included in the application. In addition, an appropriate form of assurance that documents the commitment, such as a letter of intent from the Federal Agency involved, should be included.

Potential applicants who are uncertain of their eligibility should contact Tom Barnwell (barnwell.thomas@epa.gov) in NCER, phone (202) 343-9862.

B. Cost-Sharing
Institutional cost-sharing is not required.

C. Other
Applications must substantially comply with the application submission instructions and requirements set forth in Section IV of this announcement or they will be rejected. In addition, where a page limitation is expressed in Section IV with respect to parts of the application, pages in excess of the page limit will not be reviewed. Applications must be received by the EPA, or Grants.gov, on or before the solicitation closing date and time in Section IV of this announcement or they will be returned to the sender without further consideration. Also, applications exceeding the funding limits or project period term described herein will be returned without review. Further, applications that fail to demonstrate a public purpose of support or stimulation (e.g., by proposing research which primarily benefits a Federal program or provides a service for a Federal agency) will not be funded.

In addition, to be eligible for funding consideration, a project’s focus must consist of activities within the statutory terms of EPA’s financial assistance authorities; specifically, the statute(s) listed in I.C. above. Generally, a project must address the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of air pollution, water pollution, solid/hazardous waste pollution; toxic substances control; or pesticide control. These activities should relate to the gathering or transferring of information or advancing the state of knowledge. Proposals should emphasize this “learning” concept, as opposed to “fixing” an environmental problem via a well-established method. Proposals relating to other topics which are sometimes included within the term “environment” such as recreation, conservation, restoration, protection of wildlife habitats, etc., must describe the relationship of these topics to the statutorily required purpose of pollution prevention and/or control.

Applications deemed ineligible for funding consideration will be notified within fifteen calendar days of the ineligibility determination.

IV. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

You may submit either a paper application or an electronic application (but not both) for this announcement. Instructions for both types of submission follow. If not otherwise marked, instructions apply to both types of submissions.

A. Internet Address to Request Application Package
For paper applications, forms and instructions can be found on the NCER web site: https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/funding-opportunities-how-apply-and-required-forms.

For electronic applications, use the application package available at Grants.gov (see “Submission Instructions for Electronic Applications”).

For both paper and electronic applications, an email will be sent by NCER to the Principal Investigator and the Administrative Contact (see below) to acknowledge receipt of the application and transmit other important information. The email will be sent from receipt.application@epa.gov; emails to this address will not be accepted. If you do not receive an email acknowledgment within 30 days of the submission closing date, immediately inform the Eligibility Contact shown in this solicitation. Failure to do so may result in your application not being reviewed. See “Submission Instructions for Electronic Applications” for additional information regarding acknowledgment of receipt of electronically submitted applications. Please note: Due to often-lengthy delays in delivery, it is especially important that you monitor NCER’s confirmation of receipt of your application when using regular mail.

B. Content and Form of Application Submission
The application is made by submitting the materials described below. It is essential that the application contain all information requested and be submitted in the formats described.

1. Standard Form 424

   The applicant must complete Standard Form 424. This form will be the first page(s) of the application. Instructions for completion of the SF424 are included with the form. (However, note that EPA requires that the entire requested dollar amount appear on the 424, not simply the proposed first year expenses.) The form must contain the original (or electronic) signature of an authorized representative of the applying institution.

   Applicants are required to provide a “Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System” (DUNS) number when applying for federal grants or cooperative agreements. Organizations may receive a DUNS number by calling 1-866-705-5711 or by visiting the web site at http://www.dnb.com.

   Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” applies to most EPA programs and assistance agreements, unless the program or assistance agreement supports tribal, training/fellowships (other than Wastewater and Small Water Systems Operator training programs), and research and development (with some exceptions). The SF424 refers to this Executive Order requirement. National research programs are generally exempt from review unless the proposals (a) require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or (b) do not require an EIS but will be newly initiated at a particular site and require unusual measures to limit the possibility of adverse exposure or hazard to the general public, or (c) have a unique geographic focus and are directly relevant to the governmental responsibilities of a State or local government within that geographic area. To determine whether their state participates in this process, and how to comply, applicants should consult http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html.

2. Key Contacts

   The applicant must complete the “Key Contacts” form as the second page of the application; a Key Contacts continuation page is also available at https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/funding-opportunities-how-apply-and-required-forms. The Key Contacts form should also be completed for major sub-agreements (i.e., primary co-investigators). Please make certain that all contact information is accurate.

3. Table of Contents

   Provide a list of the major subdivisions of the application indicating the page number on which each section begins. (Not required for electronic submissions.)

4. Abstract (1 page)

   The abstract is a very important document in the review process. Therefore, it is critical that the abstract accurately describes the research being proposed and conveys all the essential elements of the research. Also, the abstracts of applications that receive funding will be posted on the NCER web site.

   The abstract should include the information described below (a-h). Examples of abstracts for current grants may be found on the NCER web site.

   1. RFA Title, and Funding Opportunity Number for this proposal.
   2. Project Title: Use the exact title of your project as it appears in the application. The title must be brief yet represent the major thrust of the project. Because the title will be used by those not familiar with the project, strike a balance between highly technical words and phrases and more commonly understood terminology. Do not use general phrases such as “research on.”
   3. Investigators: List the Principal Investigator, then the names and affiliations of each co-investigator who will significantly contribute to the project. Provide a web site URL or an email contact address for additional information.
   4. Institution: In the same order as the list of investigators, list the name, city and state of each participating university or other applicant institution. The institution applying for assistance must be clearly identified.
   5. Project Period and Location: Show the proposed project beginning and ending dates, and the geographical location(s) the work will be conducted.
   6. Project Cost: Show the total dollars requested from the EPA (include direct and indirect costs for all years).
   7. Project Summary: Provide three subsections addressing: (1) the objectives of the study (including any hypotheses that will be tested), (2) the experimental approach to be used (a description of the project proposed), and (3) the expected results of the project and how it addresses the research needs identified in the solicitation, including the estimated improvement in risk assessment or risk management that will result from successful completion of the proposed work.
   8. Supplemental Keywords: Without duplicating terms already used in the text of the abstract, list keywords to assist database searchers in finding your research. A list of suggested keywords may be found at: https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/funding-opportunities-how-apply-and-required-forms.


5. Research Plan, Quality Assurance Statement and References
   1. Research Plan (15 pages)

      Applications should focus on a limited number of research objectives that adequately and clearly demonstrate that they meet the RFA requirements. Explicitly state the main hypotheses that you will investigate, the data you will create or use, the analytical tools you will use to investigate these hypotheses or analyze these data, and the results you expect to achieve. Research methods must be clearly stated so that reviewers can evaluate the appropriateness of your approach and the tools you intend to use. A statement such as: “we will evaluate the data using the usual statistical methods” is not specific enough for peer reviewers.

      This description must not exceed fifteen (15) consecutively numbered (bottom center), 8.5x11-inch pages of single-spaced, standard 12-point type with 1-inch margins. While these guidelines establish the minimum type size requirements, applicants are advised that readability is of paramount importance and should take precedence in selection of an appropriate font for use in the proposal.

      The description must provide the following information:

      1. Objectives: List the objectives of the proposed research and the hypotheses being tested during the project, and briefly state why the intended research is important and how it fulfills the requirements of the solicitation. Describe the policy, planning and/or decision-making that the research is intended to inform. This section should also include any background or introductory information that would help explain the objectives of the study. If this application is to expand upon research supported by an existing or former assistance agreement awarded under the STAR program, indicate the number of the agreement and provide a brief report of progress and results achieved under it (one to two pages recommended).
      2. Approach/Activities: Outline the research design, methods, and techniques that you intend to use in meeting the objectives stated above (five to ten pages recommended).
      3. Expected Results, Benefits, Outputs, and Outcomes: Describe the results you expect to achieve during the project (outputs) and the potential benefits of the results (outcomes). This section should also discuss how the research results will lead to solutions to environmental problems and improve the public’s ability to protect the environment and human health. A clear, concise description will help NCER and peer reviewers understand the merits of the research (one to two pages recommended).
      4. General Project Information: Discuss other information relevant to the potential success of the project. This should include facilities, personnel expertise/experience, project schedules, proposed management, interactions with other institutions, etc. Applications for multi-investigator projects must identify project management and the functions of each investigator in each team and describe plans to communicate and share data (one to two pages recommended).
      5. Appendices may be included but must remain within the 15-page limit.
   
   
   2. Quality Assurance Statement (1 to 3 pages in addition to the 15-page research plan)

      For projects involving environmental data collection or processing, conducting surveys, modeling, method development, or the development of environmental technology (whether hardware-based or via new techniques), provide a Quality Assurance Statement (QAS) regarding the plans for processes that will be used to ensure that the products of the research satisfy the intended project objectives. Follow the guidelines provided below to ensure that the QAS describes a system that complies with ANSI/ASQC E4, Specifications and Guidelines for Quality Systems for Environmental Data Collection and Environmental Technology Programs. Do not exceed three consecutively numbered, 8.5x11-inch pages of single-spaced, standard 12-point type with 1-inch margins.

      Address each section below by including the required information, referencing the specific location of the information in the Research Plan, or explaining why the section does not apply to the proposed research.

      1. Identify the individual who will be responsible for the quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) aspects of the research along with a brief description of this person’s functions, experience, and authority within the research organization. Describe the organization’s general approach for conducting quality research. (QA is a system of management activities to ensure that a process or item is of the type and quality needed for the project. QC is a system of activities that measures the attributes and performance of a process or item against the standards defined in the project documentation to verify that they meet those stated requirements.)
      2. Discuss project objectives, including quality objectives, any hypotheses to be tested, and the quantitative and/or qualitative procedures that will be used to evaluate the success of the project. Include any plans for peer or other reviews of the study design or analytical methods.
      3. Address each of the following project elements as applicable:
         1. Collection of new/primary data:

            (Note: In this case the word “sample” is intended to mean any finite part of a statistical population whose properties are studied to gain information about the whole. If certain attributes listed below do not apply to the type of samples to be used in your research, simply explain why those attributes are not applicable.)

            1. Discuss the plan for sample collection and analysis. As applicable, include sample type(s), frequency, locations, sample sizes, sampling procedures, and the criteria for determining acceptable data quality (e.g., precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, comparability, or data quality objectives).
            2. Describe the procedures for the handling and custody of samples including sample collection, identification, preservation, transportation, and storage, and how the accuracy of test measurements will be verified.
            3. Describe or reference each analytical method to be used, any QA or QC checks or procedures with the associated acceptance criteria, and any procedures that will be used in the calibration and performance evaluation of the analytical instrumentation.
            4. Discuss the procedures for overall data reduction, analysis, and reporting. Include a description of all statistical methods to make inferences and conclusions, acceptable error rates and/or power, and any statistical software to be used.
         2. Use of existing/secondary data (i.e., data previously collected for other purposes or from other sources):
            1. Describe or reference each analytical method to be used, any QA or QC checks or procedures with the associated acceptance criteria, and any procedures that will be used in the calibration and performance evaluation of the analytical instrumentation.
            2. Discuss the procedures for overall data reduction, analysis, and reporting. Include a description of all statistical methods to make inferences and conclusions, acceptable error rates and/or power, and any statistical software to be used.
         3. Method development:

            (Note: The data collected for use in method development or evaluation should be described in the QAS as per the guidance in section 3A and/or 3B above.)

            Describe the scope and application of the method, any tests (and measurements) to be conducted to support the method development, the type of instrumentation that will be used and any required instrument conditions (e.g., calibration frequency), planned QC checks and associated criteria (e.g., spikes, replicates, blanks), and tests to verify the method’s performance.

         4. Development or refinement of models:

            (Note: The data collected for use in the development or refinement of models should be described in the QAS as per the guidance in section 3A and/or 3B above.)

            1. Discuss the scope and purpose of the model, key assumptions to be made during development/refinement, requirements for code development, and how the model will be documented.
            2. Discuss verification techniques to ensure the source code implements the model correctly.
            3. Discuss validation techniques to determine that the model (assumptions and algorithms) captures the essential phenomena with adequate fidelity.
            4. Discuss plans for long-term maintenance of the model and associated data.
         5. Development or operation of environmental technology:

            (Note: The data collected for use in the development or evaluation of the technology should be described in the QAS as per the guidance in section 3A and/or 3B above.)

            1. Describe the overall purpose and anticipated impact of the technology.
            2. Describe the technical and quality specifications of each technology component or process that is to be designed, fabricated, constructed, and/or operated.
            3. Discuss the procedure to be used for documenting and controlling design changes.
            4. Discuss the procedure to be used for documenting the acceptability of processes and components, and discuss how the technology will be benchmarked and its effectiveness determined.
            5. Discuss the documentation requirements for operating instructions/guides for maintenance and use of the system(s) and/or process(s).
         6. Conducting surveys:

            (Note: The data to be collected in the survey and any supporting data should be described in the QAS as per the guidance in section 3A and/or 3B above.)

            Discuss the justification for the size of the proposed sample for both the overall project and all subsamples for specific treatments or tests. Identify and explain the rational for the proposed statistical techniques (e.g., evaluation of statistical power).

      4. Discuss data management activities (e.g., record-keeping procedures, data-handling procedures, and the approach used for data storage and retrieval on electronic media). Include any required computer hardware and software and address any specific performance requirements for the hardware/software configuration used.

      Page allowances for the following section(s) are in addition to those allowed for the Research Plan and Quality Assurance Statement.

   3. Data Plan (2 pages in addition to the 15-page research plan)

      The application must include a plan to make all data resulting from an agreement under this RFA available in a format and with documentation/metadata such that they may be used by others in the scientific community. This includes both primary and secondary or existing data, i.e., from observations, analyses, or model development collected or used under the agreement. Applicants who plan to develop or enhance databases containing proprietary or restricted information must provide, within the two pages, a strategy to make the data widely available, while protecting privacy or property rights.

   4. References: References cited are in addition to the 15-page Research Plan limit.


6. Budget and Budget Justification
   1. Budget

      Prepare a budget table using the guidance and form found at https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/funding-opportunities-how-apply-and-required-forms, and select “All required forms.” If a subaward, such as a subagreement with an educational institution, is greater than $25,000 and is included in the application, provide a separate budget and budget justification for the subaward. Include the total amount for the subaward under “Other” in the master budget. Any project containing subawards or subcontracts that constitute more than 40% of the total direct cost of the application will be subject to special review. Additional justification for use of these must be provided, discussing the need for the subaward/subcontract to accomplish the objectives of the research project.

      Please note that institutional cost-sharing is not required. However, if cost-sharing is proposed, a brief statement concerning cost-sharing should be added to the budget justification, and estimated dollar amounts must be included in the appropriate categories in the budget table.

   2. Budget Justification (2 pages in addition to the Section 5 page limitations, not including additions under Nos. 6 and 7 below to support contracts and subawards)

      Describe the basis for calculating the personnel, fringe benefits, travel, equipment, supplies, contractual support, and other costs identified in the itemized budget. The budget justification should not exceed two consecutively numbered (bottom center), 8.5x11-inch pages of single-spaced, standard 12-point type with 1-inch margins.

      Budget information should be supported at the level of detail described below:

      1. Personnel: List all staff positions by title. Give annual salary, percentage of time assigned to the project, and total cost for the budget period.
      2. Fringe Benefits: Identify the percentage used and the basis for its computation.
      3. Travel: Specify the estimated number of trips, locations, and other costs for each type of travel. Explain the need for any travel, paying particular attention to travel outside the United States. Include travel funds for annual STAR program progress reviews (estimate for two days in Washington, D.C.) and a final workshop to report on results.
      4. Equipment: Identify all tangible, non-expendable personal property to be purchased that has an estimated cost of $5,000 or more per unit and a useful life of more than one year. (Personal property items with a unit cost of less than $5,000 are considered supplies.)
      5. Supplies: “Supplies” means tangible property other than “equipment.” Identify categories of supplies to be procured (e.g., laboratory supplies or office supplies). Specifically identify computers to be purchased or upgraded.
      6. Contractual: Identify each proposed contract for services/analyses or consultants and specify its purpose and estimated cost. Contracts greater than $25,000 must have a separate itemized budget and budget justification, not to exceed one additional page each, included as part of the application.
      7. Other: List each item in sufficient detail for the EPA to determine the reasonableness of its cost relative to the research to be undertaken. Note that subawards, such as those with other universities for members of the research team, are included in this category. Subawards greater than $25,000 must have a separate itemized budget and budget justification, not to exceed one additional page each, included as part of the application.
      8. Indirect Costs: If indirect costs are included in the budget, indicate the approved rate and base with an explanation of how the indirect costs were calculated.
7. Resumes

   Provide resumes for each investigator and important co-worker. The resume for each individual must not exceed two consecutively numbered (bottom center), 8.5x11-inch pages of single-spaced, standard 12-point type with 1-inch margins.

8. Current and Pending Support

   Complete a current and pending support form (provided at https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/funding-opportunities-how-apply-and-required-forms) for each investigator and important co-worker. Include all supported research.

9. Guidelines, Limitations, and Additional Requirements
   1. Letters of Intent/Letters of Support

      Letters of intent to provide resources for the proposed research or to document intended interactions are limited to one brief paragraph committing the availability of a resource (e.g., use of a person's time or equipment) or intended interaction (e.g., sharing of data, as-needed consultation) that is described in the Research Plan. Letters of intent are to be included as an addition to the budget justification documents.

      All letters that do not commit a resource vital to success of the proposal are considered letters of support. Letters of support, and letters of intent that exceed one brief paragraph, are considered part of the Research Plan and are included in the 15-page Research Plan limit.

      Note: Letters of intent or support must be part of the application; letters submitted separately will not be accepted.

   2. Funding Opportunity Number(s) (FON)

      At various places in the application, applicants are asked to identify the FON.

      The Funding Opportunity Number for this RFA is:

      Uncertainty Analyses of Models in Integrated Environmental Assessments, EPA-G2007-STAR-B1

   3. Confidentiality

      By submitting an application in response to this solicitation, the applicant grants the EPA permission to make limited disclosures of the application to technical reviewers both within and outside the Agency for the express purpose of assisting the Agency with evaluating the application. Information from a pending or unsuccessful application will be kept confidential to the fullest extent allowed under law; information from a successful application may be publicly disclosed to the extent permitted by law.

      In accordance with 40 CFR 2.203, applicants may claim all or a portion of the application as confidential business information (for example, hypotheses or methodologies contained in the research narrative that the applicant wishes to protect from possible public disclosure). EPA will evaluate confidentiality claims in accordance with 40 CFR Part 2. Applicants must clearly mark applications or portions of applications they claim as confidential. If no claim of confidentiality is made, the EPA is not required to make an inquiry to the applicant as otherwise required by 40 CFR 2.204(c) (2) prior to disclosure.

C. Submission Dates and Times
For paper copy submissions, the original and two (2) copies of the complete application (3 in all, see E. below) must be received by NCER no later than 4:00 pm Eastern Time on the solicitation closing date.  Electronic applications must be transferred to Grants.gov no later than 4:00 pm Eastern Time on the solicitation closing date.  Applications received after the closing date and time will be returned to the sender without further consideration.

It should be noted that this schedule may be changed without prior notification because of factors not anticipated at the time of announcement.  In the case of a change in the application closing date, a new date will be posted on the NCER web site (https://www.epa.gov/ncer/) and a modification posted on www.grants.gov.

Solicitation Closing Date: December 13, 2006 4:00 pm Eastern Time for paper applications, 4:00 pm Eastern Time for electronic submissions

D. Funding Restrictions
The funding mechanism for all awards issued under STAR solicitations will consist of assistance agreements from the EPA. All award decisions are subject to the availability of funds. In accordance with the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act, 31 U.S.C. 6301 et seq., the primary purpose of an assistance agreement is to accomplish a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by federal statute, rather than acquisition for the direct benefit or use of the Agency. In issuing a grant, the EPA anticipates that there will be no substantial EPA involvement in the design, implementation, or conduct of the research. However, the EPA will monitor research progress through annual reports provided by grantees and other contacts, including site visits, with the Principal Investigator.

If you wish to submit applications for more than one STAR funding opportunity you must ensure that the research proposed in each application is significantly different from any other that has been submitted to the EPA or from any other financial assistance you are currently receiving from the EPA or other federal government agency.

Collaborative applications involving more than one institution must be submitted as a single administrative package from one of the institutions involved.

Any contracts for services or products funded with EPA financial assistance must be awarded under the competitive procurement procedures of 40 CFR Part 30 and/or Part 31. Moreover, naming a specific contractor in the application does not relieve the applicant of its obligations to comply with competitive procurement requirements. Also, the regulations contain limitations on consultant compensation.

Each proposed project must be able to be completed within the project period and with the initial award of funds. Applicants should request the entire amount of money needed to complete the project. Reci