Grantee Research Project Results
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Center for Environmental Research
Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Program
CLOSED - FOR REFERENCES PURPOSES ONLY
Forecasting Ecosystem Services from Wetland Condition Analyses
This is the initial announcement of this funding opportunity.
Funding Opportunity Number: EPA-G2008-STAR-L1
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 66.509
Solicitation Opening Date: August 1, 2008
Solicitation Closing Date: November 3, 2008, 4:00 pm Eastern Time
Eligibility Contact: William Stelz (stelz.william@epa.gov); phone: 202-343-9802
Electronic Submissions: Thomas O'Farrell (O'Farrell.Thomas@epa.gov); phone: 202-343-9639
Technical Contact: Anne Sergeant (sergeant.anne@epa.gov); phone: 202-343-9661
Access Standard STAR Forms
Research awarded under previous solicitations
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as part of its Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program, is seeking applications to develop relationships between wetland ecological condition indicators and ecosystem services delivery. There is a great need to extract maximum value from current efforts to conduct wetland condition surveys and to consider the full range of benefits derived from ecosystem services. (Services provided by ecosystems to humans include provisioning [e.g., providing water food, fuel, fiber]; support [soil fertility, nutrient cycling, pollination]; regulation [climate moderation, flood control]; cultural [economic, spiritual, and recreational benefits]; and preservation [biodiversity, renewable resources].) Methods to demonstrate how data on wetland condition can be used to quantify the services provided by wetlands are vital if state and tribal wetland managers are to ensure continued benefit from those services.
Award Information:
Anticipated Type of Award: Grant or cooperative agreement
Estimated Number of Awards: Approximately two awards
Anticipated Funding Amount: Approximately $950,000 total for all awards
Potential Funding per Award: Up to a total of $475,000 including direct and indirect costs, with a maximum duration of 3 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: William Stelz (stelz.william@epa.gov); phone: 202-343-9802
Electronic Submissions: Thomas O'Farrell (O'Farrell.Thomas@epa.gov); phone: 202-343-9639
Technical Contact: Anne Sergeant (sergeant.anne@epa.gov); phone: 202-343-9661
I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION
A. Introduction
This solicitation seeks applications for research that will develop and refine creative approaches for demonstrating whether and how the growing body of data and information on wetland condition can be related to the provisioning of wetland ecosystem services. Research under this proposal should utilize appropriate, existing data for which information on data quality is available (i.e., use data sources like EMAP, federal agencies, state and local governments, NGOs). Research should focus on, but need not be limited to, (1) the use of condition indicators and related data to quantify wetland ecosystem services delivery, and (2) the application and development of innovative statistical and geographic analyses and interpretation for use with the types of data that are generated by wetland condition surveys. These approaches to analysis and interpretation should, at minimum, (1) account for the provisioning of ecosystem services at multiple spatial scales (e.g., watershed, state, ecoregion, nation), (2) quantify the relative importance of stressors (e.g., agriculture, hydrologic alteration, development, climate change) impacting wetland ecosystem services, and (3) be amenable to informing a specific type or program of environmental decision-making.
B. Background
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment produced a compelling synthesis of the global value of wetland ecosystem services and their relationships to human well-being (MEA, 2005). Wetlands deliver a wide range of ecosystem services (e.g., fish and fiber production, water supply support, water purification, climate regulation, flood regulation, coastal protection, recreational opportunities, and tourism) that contribute to human well-being. Although the most recent National Wetlands Inventory Status and Trends report (Dahl, 2005) described a net gain in total wetland acreage between 1998 and 2004, significant losses still occurred in specific wetland types (e.g., 61% of freshwater wetland losses were due to urban and rural development). Costanza et al. (1997) estimated the average global value of wetland ecosystem services in US 1994 dollars to be almost $15K ha-1 yr-1—higher than any other ecosystem except marine coastal systems. This strongly suggests that future environmental decision-making processes weigh the value of ecosystem services as an important contribution to human well-being. As human population continues to increase, especially in coastal environments, wetlands worldwide are projected to suffer continued loss and degradation, thus reducing the capacity of wetlands to provide valued ecosystem services that contribute to human well-being. These effects are further intensified when scenarios for impacts associated with climate change are taken into consideration. Thus, the concurrent demand for ecosystem services will only increase.
Wetlands are valued because many of their ecological functions have proven useful to humans. Mitsch and Gosselink (1993) state that “The reasons that wetlands are often legally protected have to do with their value to society, not with the abstruse ecological processes that occur in wetlands … Perceived values arise out of the functional ecological processes … but are also determined by human perceptions, the location of a particular wetland, the human population pressures on it, and the extent of the resource.” This is reflected in the fact that wetlands were identified as a priority for protection, restoration, and improvement by the President on Earth Day 2004 (CEQ 2006). This new national initiative went beyond the “no net loss” policy with a goal to restore or create, protect, and improve at least 3 million acres of wetlands by 2009 (CEQ 2006). EPA recognizes the array of benefits provided by wetlands to the economic, ecological, and cultural heritage of all Americans, as well as the need to support State and Tribal efforts to maintain water quality and protect wetlands. Therefore, EPA is implementing a research effort to (1) document the range and quantity of ecosystem services provided by wetlands and (2) determine how the relative abundance of functional types of wetlands, their distribution and position in the landscape, and their ecological condition alters the provisioning of services.
In the next decade, States and Tribes will need to develop major policy decisions to address trade-offs among current and future uses of wetland resources. Particularly important trade-offs involve those between:
- coastal land use and human safety during floods or storm surges;
- agricultural production and safe water supplies;
- land use and biologically diverse terrestrial ecosystems;
- water use and biologically diverse and productive aquatic ecosystems;
- current water use for irrigation and future agricultural production (MEA, 2005)
Such decisions must also consider the full range of benefits and values to human well-being provided by different wetland ecosystem services. Carpenter et al. (2006) identified many uncertainties and research needs evoked by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. These include characterizing ecosystem services, linking ecosystem condition and function to services and human well-being, predicting the effects of changes in ecosystem services on human well-being, and improving the identification, quantification, and communication of uncertainty of data related to ecosystem services.
Ecological monitoring, modeling, and mapping have been mainstays of ecological science, both within the Agency and for the discipline as a whole. In addition, Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires the States and Tribes to report biennially on the quality of our Nation’s water resources. This report, known as the National Water Quality Inventory, provides an assessment of condition and an analysis of the relative magnitude of impact that can be attributed to different stressors and their sources. The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) supports and enhances this reporting by developing tools for detecting both spatial and temporal trends. The program emphasizes the development and testing of indicators of ecological condition and of new monitoring designs for major classes of natural resources, including wetlands, for use by States and Tribes. The research has been conducted through series of studies in the form of assessments of ecological condition.
The requirement that all waters of the U.S. be assessed has been historically ignored for wetlands, even though they are included in the definition of “waters of the U.S.” However, prospects for comprehensive monitoring of wetlands are high as evidenced by plans for a national assessment of wetland condition in 2011 (Scozzafava et al. 2007). Technically, the development of wetland monitoring and assessment has made significant progress over the last five years. For instance, Wardrop et al. (2007) credit the development of (1) hydrogeomorphic classification and assessment (Brinson 1993), (2) biological assessment methods (e.g., Karr and Chu 1999, Lopez and Fennessy 2002), (3) the definition of reference condition (Brinson and Rheinhardt 1996, Rheinhardt et al. 1997, 1999); and (4) design protocols for obtaining a representative sample of aquatic resources (e.g., Larsen et al. 1994, Stevens and Olsen 1999, 2000). Recent publications demonstrate the capacity for conducting surveys of wetlands condition at the watershed scale (see, for instance, Kentula (2007) and materials available on the EPA Biological Assessment of Wetlands Workgroup web page at https://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/bawwg).
The challenge moving forward is to provide the technical support needed by States and Tribes to determine how to employ the growing experience in conducting surveys of wetland condition to the emerging need to include the value of ecosystem services in the process of environmental decision-making. This challenge also includes quantifying observed wetland condition data and linking them to ecosystems and their contribution to human well-being. State or Tribal water resource managers might consider, for instance:
- the pollution-prevention or mitigation services (e.g., chemical pollutant removal, sediment removal) provided by wetland ecosystems vs. the cost of providing them through built infrastructure;
- the amount of fish or fiber produced per unit area in areas well-protected by wetlands vs. that of poorly protected or unprotected areas (i.e., document wetlands’ pollution prevention benefits);
- the linear extent of coastline protected from storm surge by coastal vegetation (erosion control);
- the economic value of recreational opportunities provided by a specific area (wetland provision or protection of fishable/swimmable water);
- or construction costs avoided by the presence of wetlands that slow and absorb floodwaters (flow mitigation or flood control).
The specific Strategic Goal and Objective from the EPA’s Strategic Plan that relate to this solicitation are: Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems, Objective 4.4: Enhance Science and Research.
The EPA’s Strategic Plan can be found at https://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2006/entire_report.pdf (PDF) (184 pp, 11.56 MB)
C. Authority and Regulations
The authority for this RFA and resulting awards is contained in the Clean Water Act, Section 104, 33 U.S.C.
Applicable regulations include: 40 CFR Part 30 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations), 40 CFR Part 31 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments) and 40 CFR Part 40 (Research and Demonstration Grants). Applicable OMB Circulars include: OMB Circular A-21 (Cost Principles for Educational Institutions) relocated to 2 CFR Part 220, OMB Circular A-87 (Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments) relocated to 2 CFR Part 225, OMB Circular A-102 (Grants and Cooperative Agreements With State and Local Governments), OMB Circular A-110 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Other Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Non-Profit Organizations) relocated to 2 CFR Part 215, and OMB Circular A-122, (Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations) relocated to 2 CFR Part 230.
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.
This RFA solicits applications that must address one or more of the following key questions:
- How can wetland ecological condition indicators and related data be used to quantify wetland ecosystem services delivery?
- What approaches to statistical and geographic analysis and interpretation can be used with the types of data generated by surveys of wetland condition to account for ecosystem services provision in a geographic area (e.g., watershed, state, region, nation)?
- What approaches to statistical and geographic analysis and interpretation can be used to quantify the relative importance of stressors (e.g., agriculture, hydrologic alteration, development, climate change) impacting wetlands and the services they provide?
Several outputs will be developed from the research supported from this solicitation. Expected outputs include reports, presentations, and peer-reviewed journal articles that develop useful and practicable indicators for assessing wetland ecosystem services delivery and that present creative and innovative applications of statistical and geographic analysis and interpretation to provide new information on wetland ecosystem services wetland condition surveys. The outputs will inform and advance important outcomes including improved state and tribal wetland management and decision-making capacity, especially in terms of documenting and providing ecosystem services. They will also help state and tribal wetland managers evaluate the effectiveness of wetland restoration and mitigation strategies.
E. References
Brinson, M. M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Technical Report WRP-DE-4, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Brinson, M. M., and R. Reinhardt. 1996. The role of reference wetlands in functional assessment and mitigation. Ecological Applications 6:69-76.
Carpenter, S. R., R. DeFries, T. Dietz, H. A. Mooney, S. Polasky, W. V. Reid, and R. J. Scholes. 2006. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Research Needs. Science 314:257-258.
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2006. Conserving America’s Wetlands 2006:Two Years of Progress Implementing the President’s Goal.
Costanza, R., R. D’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R. V. O’Neill, J. Paruelo, R. G. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253-260.
Dahl, T. E. 2005. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1998 to 2004. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.:116.
Karr, J. R., and E. W. Chu. 1999. Restoring Life in Running Waters: Better Biological Monitoring. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Kentula, M.E. 2007. Monitoring Wetlands at the Watershed Scale. Wetlands 27:411-560
Larsen, D. P., K. W. Thornton, N. S. Urquhart, and S. G. Paulsen. 1994. The role of sample surveys for monitoring the condition of the Nation's lakes. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 32:101-134.
Lopez, R. D., and M. S. Fennessy. 2002. Testing the floristic quality assessment index as an indicator of wetland condition. Ecological Applications 12:487-497.
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2000. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Wetlands and Water Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.:68.
Mitsch, W. J., and J. G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. 2nd edition. John Wiley, New York, NY.
Rheinhardt, R. D., M. M. Brinson, and P. M. Farley. 1997. Applying wetland reference data to functional assessment, mitigation, and restoration. Wetlands 17:195-215.
Scozzafava, M. E., T. E. Dahl, C. Faulkner, and M. Price. 2007. Assessing status, trends, and condition of wetlands in the United States. National Wetlands Newsletter 29:24-28. See also https://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/survey/
Stevens, D. L., Jr., and A. R. Olsen. 1999. Spatially restricted surveys over time for aquatic resources. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics 4:415-428.
Stevens, D. L., Jr., and A. R. Olsen. 2000. Spatially restricted random sampling designs for design-based and model-based estimation. Pages 609-616 in Accuracy 2000: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Spatial Accuracy Assessment in Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences. Delft University Press, The Netherlands.
Wardrop, D. H., M. E. Kentula, D. L. Stevens, Jr., S. F. Jensen, and R. P. Brooks. 2007. Assessment of wetland condition: an example from the Upper Juniata Watershed in Pennsylvania, USA. Wetlands 27:416-430.
F. Special Requirements
Agency policy prevents EPA technical staff and managers from providing individual applicants with information that may create an unfair competitive advantage. Consequently, EPA employees will not review, comment, advise, and/or provide technical assistance to applicants preparing applications in response to EPA RFAs, nor will they endorse an application or discuss in any manner how the Agency will apply the published evaluation criteria for this competition.
Multiple Investigator applications may be submitted as: (1) a single Lead Principal Investigator (PI) application with Co-PI(s) or (2) a Multiple PI application (with a single Contact PI). If you choose to submit a Multiple PI application, you must follow the specific instructions provided in Sections IV. and V. of this RFA. For further information, please see the EPA Implementation Plan for Policy on Multiple Principal Investigators (http://rbm.nih.gov/toolkit.htm).
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, a Geographic Positioning System (GPS), remote sensing, mapping, charting, and surveying technologies, or statistical data.
It is anticipated that a total of approximately $950,000 will be awarded under this announcement, depending on the availability of funds and quality of applications received. The EPA anticipates funding approximately two awards under this RFA. Requests for amounts in excess of a total of $475,000, including direct and indirect costs, will not be considered. The total project period requested in an application submitted for this RFA may not exceed three years. 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 to make additional awards under this announcement, consistent with Agency policy, if additional funding becomes available after the original selections are made. Any additional selections for awards will be made no later than four months after the original selection decisions.
EPA may award 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 may award 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 may 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.
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, located at 2 CFR Part 230. 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 William Stelz (stelz.william@epa.gov) in NCER, phone (202) 343-9802.
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.
This RFA solicits applications that must address one or more of the following key questions:
- How can wetland ecological condition indicators and related data be used to quantify wetland ecosystem services delivery?
- What approaches to statistical and geographic analysis and interpretation can be used with the types of data generated by surveys of wetland condition to account for ecosystem services provision in a geographic area (e.g., watershed, state, region, nation)?
- What approaches to statistical and geographic analysis and interpretation can be used to quantify the relative importance of stressors (e.g., agriculture, hydrologic alteration, development, climate change) impacting wetlands and the services they provide?
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 depending on which statute(s) is listed in I.C. above. 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 in Section E. 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” in Section E). Note: With the exception of the budget form and the current and pending support form (available at https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/funding-opportunities-how-apply-and-required-forms), all necessary forms are included in the electronic application package.
For both paper and electronic applications, an email will be sent by NCER to the Lead/Contact PI 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. Applications must contain all information requested and be submitted in the formats described.
- 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,” does not apply to the Office of Research and Development's research and training programs unless EPA has determined that the activities that will be carried out under the applicants' proposal (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.
If EPA determines that Executive Order 12372 applies to an applicant's proposal, the applicant must follow the procedures in 40 CFR Part 29. The applicant must notify their state's single point of contact (SPOC). To determine whether their state participates in this process, and how to comply, applicants should consult http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html. If an applicant is in a State that does not have a SPOC, or the State has not selected research and development grants for intergovernmental review, the applicant must notify directly affected State, area wide, regional and local entities of its proposal.
EPA will notify the successful applicant(s) if Executive Order 12372 applies to its proposal prior to award.
- Key Contacts
The applicant must complete the “Key Contacts” form as the second page of the application. An “Additional Key Contacts” form 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 investigators). Please make certain that all contact information is accurate.For Multiple PI applications: The Additional Key Contacts form must be completed (see Section I.F. for further information). Note: The Contact PI must be affiliated with the institution submitting the application. EPA will direct all communications related to scientific, technical, and budgetary aspects of the project to the Contact PI; however, any information regarding an application will be shared with any PI upon request. The Contact PI is to be listed on the Key Contact Form as the Project Manager/Principal Investigator (the term Project Manager is used on the Grants.gov form, the term Principal Investigator is used on the form located on NCER’s web site). For additional PIs, complete the Major Co-Investigator fields and identify PI status next to the name (e.g., “Name: John Smith, Principal Investigator”).
- Table of Contents
Provide a list of the major subdivisions of the application indicating the page number on which each section begins. - 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.
- Funding Opportunity Title and Number for this proposal.
- 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.”
- Investigators: For applications with multiple investigators, state whether this is a single Lead PI (with co-PIs) or Multiple PI application (see Section I.F.). For Lead PI applications, list the Lead PI, then the name(s) of each co-PI who will significantly contribute to the project. For Multiple PI applications, list the Contact PI, then the name(s) of each additional PI. Provide a web site URL or an email contact address for additional information.
- 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.
- Project Period and Location: Show the proposed project beginning and ending dates and the geographical location(s) where the work will be conducted.
- Project Cost: Show the total dollars requested from the EPA (include direct and indirect costs for all years).
- 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 proposed project), 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.
- 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.
- Research Plan, Quality Assurance Statement, Data Plan and References
- 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:
- 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. 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.
- Approach/Activities: Outline the research design, methods, and techniques that you intend to use in meeting the objectives stated above.
- 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.
- 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.
- Appendices may be included but must remain within the 15-page limit.
- Quality Assurance Statement (3 pages)
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.NOTE: If selected for award, applicants will be expected to provide additional quality assurance documentation.
Address each applicable 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. (Not all will apply.)
- 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.)
- 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.
- Address each of the following project elements as applicable:
- 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.)- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Use of existing/secondary data (i.e., data previously collected for other purposes or from other sources):
- Identify the types of secondary data needed to satisfy the project objectives. Specify requirements relating to the type of data, the age of data, geographical representation, temporal representation, and technological representation, as applicable.
- Specify the source(s) of the secondary data and discuss the rationale for selection.
- Establish a plan to identify the sources of the secondary data in all deliverables/products.
- Specify quality requirements and discuss the appropriateness for their intended use. Accuracy, precision, representativeness, completeness, and comparability need to be addressed, if applicable.
- Describe the procedures for determining the quality of the secondary data.
- Describe the plan for data management/integrity.
- 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.
- 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.)- 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.
- Discuss verification techniques to ensure the source code implements the model correctly.
- Discuss validation techniques to determine that the model (assumptions and algorithms) captures the essential phenomena with adequate fidelity.
- Discuss plans for long-term maintenance of the model and associated data.
- 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.)- Describe the overall purpose and anticipated impact of the technology.
- Describe the technical and quality specifications of each technology component or process that is to be designed, fabricated, constructed, and/or operated.
- Discuss the procedure to be used for documenting and controlling design changes.
- 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.
- Discuss the documentation requirements for operating instructions/guides for maintenance and use of the system(s) and/or process(s).
- 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).
- Collection of new/primary data:
- 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.
- Data Plan (2 pages)
Provide 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. - References: References cited are in addition to other page limits (e.g. research plan, quality assurance statement, data plan)
- Research Plan (15 pages)
- Budget and Budget Justification
- 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.” Note: For electronic submissions, the budget table should be attached to the Project Narrative Attachment Form electronic file [see Section E.2.c.(4)]. If a subaward, such as a subagreement with an educational institution 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.
Please note that when formulating budgets for proposals/applications, applicants must not include management fees or similar charges in excess of the direct costs and indirect costs at the rate approved by the applicants cognizant audit agency, or at the rate provided for by the terms of the agreement negotiated with EPA. The term "management fees or similar charges" refers to expenses added to the direct costs in order to accumulate and reserve funds for ongoing business expenses, unforeseen liabilities, or for other similar costs that are not allowable under EPA assistance agreements. Management fees or similar charges may not be used to improve or expand the project funded under this agreement, except to the extent authorized as a direct cost of carrying out the scope of work.
- Budget Justification [2 pages in addition to the Section IV.B.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:
- Personnel: List all staff positions by title. Give annual salary, percentage of time assigned to the project, and total cost for the budget period.
- Fringe Benefits: Identify the percentage used and the basis for its computation.
- 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.
- 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.)
- 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.
- Contractual: Identify each proposed contract for services/analyses or consultants and specify its purpose and estimated cost. Contracts must have a separate itemized budget and budget justification, not to exceed one additional page each, included as part of the application.
- 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 must have a separate itemized budget and budget justification, not to exceed one additional page each, included as part of the application.
- 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.
- Budget
- 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. - 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 current and pending research regardless of source. - Guidelines, Limitations, and Additional Requirements
- 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 the success of the proposal are considered letters of support. Letters of support, and letters of intent that exceed one brief paragraph (excluding letterhead and salutations), 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. Any transactions between the successful applicant and parties providing letters of support or intent financed with EPA grant funds are subject to the funding restrictions described in Section IV. D.
- 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:Forecasting Ecosystem Services from Wetland Condition Analyses, EPA-G2008-STAR-L1
- 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
- Letters of Intent/Letters of Support
The perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.