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
Water Quality Benefits
This is the initial announcement of this funding opportunity.
Funding Opportunity Number:
Water Quality Benefits - EPA-G2015-STAR-A1
Early Career Awards: Water Quality Benefits - EPA-G2015-STAR-A2
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 66.509
Solicitation Opening Date: October 22, 2014
Solicitation Closing Date: January 14, 2015, 11:59:59 pm Eastern Time
Technical Contact: Angela Page (page.angelad@epa.gov); phone: 703-347-8046
Eligibility Contact: Ron Josephson (josephson.ron@epa.gov); phone: 703-308-0442
Electronic Submissions: Debra M. Jones (jones.debram@epa.gov); phone: 703-347-8081
Access Standard STAR Forms (Forms and Standard Instructions Download Page)
View research awarded under previous solicitations (Funding Opportunities: Archive Page)
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 research to advance knowledge of how changes in water quality, including incremental or step improvements, can be valued at appropriate spatial scales using advanced non-use valuation methods for the Nation’s inland fresh water small streams, lakes and rivers, estuaries, coastal waters, and the Great Lakes. For purposes of this Request for Applications (RFA), small streams are defined as streams that are perennial and wadeable.
This solicitation provides the opportunity for the submission of applications for projects that may involve human subjects research. Human subjects research supported by the EPA is governed by EPA Regulation 40 CFR Part 26 (Protection of Human Subjects). This includes the Common Rule at subpart A and prohibitions and additional protections for pregnant women and fetuses, nursing women, and children at subparts B, C, and D. Research meeting the regulatory definition of intentional exposure research found in subpart B is prohibited by that subpart in pregnant women, nursing women, and children. Research meeting the regulatory definition of observational research found in subparts C and D is subject to the additional protections found in those subparts for pregnant women and fetuses (subpart C) and children (subpart D). All applications must include a Human Subjects Research Statement (HSRS, as described in Section IV.B.5.c of this solicitation), and if the project involves human subjects research, it will be subject to an additional level of review prior to funding decisions being made as described in Sections V.C and V.D of this solicitation. Additional information can be found in Section I.A of the full announcement.
Guidance and training for investigators conducting EPA-funded research involving human subjects may be obtained here:
Making Funding Awards and Other Agreements that Support Human Subjects Research (HSR)
Human Subjects Research at the Environmental Protection Agency: Ethical Standards and Regulatory Requirements
In addition to regular awards, this solicitation includes the opportunity for early career awards. The purpose of the early career award is to fund research projects smaller in scope and budget by early career PIs. Please see Section III of this Request for Applications (RFA) for details on the early career eligibility criteria.
Award Information:
Anticipated Type of Award: Grant or Cooperative Agreement
Estimated Number of Awards: Approximately four regular awards and two early career awards
Anticipated Funding Amount: Approximately $4 million total for all awards
Potential Funding per Award: Up to a total of $800,000 for regular awards and up to a total of $400,000 for early career awards, including direct and indirect costs, with a maximum duration of three 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.
Special eligibility criteria apply to the early career award portion of this RFA. See full announcement for more details.
Application Materials:
To apply under this solicitation, use the application package available at Grants.gov (for further submission information see Section IV.E. “Submission Instructions and other Submission Requirements”). The necessary forms for submitting a STAR application will be found on the National Center for Environmental Research (NCER) web site, Forms and Standard Instructions Download Page. If your organization is not currently registered with Grants.gov, you need to allow approximately one month to complete the registration process. Please note that the registration process also requires that your organization have a DUNS number and a current registration with the System for Award Management (SAM) and the process of obtaining both could take a month or more. Applicants must ensure that all registration requirements are met in order to apply for this opportunity through grants.gov and should ensure that all such requirements have been met well in advance of the submission deadline. This registration, and electronic submission of your application, must be performed by an authorized representative of your organization.
If you do not have the technical capability to utilize the Grants.gov application submission process for this solicitation, send a webmail message at least 15 calendar days before the submission deadline to assure timely receipt of alternate submission instructions. In your message provide the funding opportunity number and title of the program, specify that you are requesting alternate submission instructions, and provide a telephone number, fax number, and an email address, if available. Alternate instructions will be emailed whenever possible. Any applications submitted through alternate submission methods must comply with all the provisions of this Request for Applications (RFA), including Section IV, and be received by the solicitation closing date identified above.
Agency Contacts:
Technical Contact: Angela Page (page.angelad@epa.gov); phone: 703-347-8046
Eligibility Contact: Ron Josephson (josephson.ron@epa.gov); phone: 703-308-0442
Electronic Submissions: Debra M. Jones (jones.debram@epa.gov); phone: 703-347-8081
I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION
A. Introduction
Benefit-Cost Analysis is a widely employed approach for evaluating the economic consequences of environmental decisions. For environmental quality improvements, particularly those involving air pollution controls, major investments have been made in data collection and modeling methods. As a result, public and private stakeholders have well-developed tools available to inform their understanding of air pollution policies. America’s water resources are also at risk of degradation from chemical and microbial pollutants and changing climatic conditions; however, the ability to estimate the benefits of water quality improvements has lagged behind analogous work for air quality. The U.S. GAO (2014) recently noted the challenges associated with valuing water quality. In addition, how differences in spatial scales impact water quality benefits is not well understood. It is recognized that actions that improve water quality in headwater streams, for example, can affect the quality of downstream waters, thereby supplying benefits far from the site of action. The U.S. EPA is interested in supporting research to improve non-use valuation methods that will enable public and private stakeholders to better evaluate water quality for the Nation’s inland fresh water small streams, lakes and rivers, estuaries, coastal waters, and the Great Lakes. For purposes of this RFA, small streams are defined as streams that are perennial and wadeable.
This solicitation provides the opportunity for the submission of applications for projects that may involve human subjects research. Human subjects research supported by the EPA is governed by EPA Regulation 40 CFR Part 26 (Protection of Human Subjects). This includes the Common Rule at subpart A and prohibitions and additional protections for pregnant women and fetuses, nursing women, and children at subparts B, C, and D. Research meeting the regulatory definition of intentional exposure research found in subpart B is prohibited by that subpart in pregnant women, nursing women, and children. Research meeting the regulatory definition of observational research found in subparts C and D is subject to the additional protections found in those subparts for pregnant women and fetuses (subpart C) and children (subpart D). All applications must include a Human Subjects Research Statement (HSRS, as described in Section IV.B.5.c of this solicitation), and if the project involves human subjects research, it will be subject to an additional level of review prior to funding decisions being made as described in Sections V.C and V.D of this solicitation.
Please note that surveys, interviews, and focus groups with individuals may constitute human subjects research.
The additional level of review is conducted by the EPA Human Subjects Research Review Official (HSRRO). In making a determination about conditional and later final approval, the HSRRO will apply both EPA Regulation 40 CFR 26 and EPA Policy Order 1000.17 Change A1, where human exposure research is interpreted as any intervention that manipulates subjects’ environment (i.e., modifies subjects’ exposure).
For more specific information including guidance and training, see:
Making Funding Awards and Other Agreements that Support Human Subjects Research (HSR)
Human Subjects Research at the Environmental Protection Agency: Ethical Standards and Regulatory Requirements
In addition to regular awards, this solicitation includes the opportunity for early career awards. The purpose of the early career award is to fund research projects smaller in scope and budget by early career PIs. Please see Section III of this RFA for details on the early career eligibility criteria.
B. Background
Concerns over the state of water quality in the 1960s and 1970s spurred environmental action nationally and served as major motivating factors for the environmental laws and regulations that were passed in the 1970s. The 1969 fire on the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio, the result of accumulated oil, waste, sewage and debris, caught national attention and brought about pollution control measures such as the Clean Water Act. In the same year, Lake Erie was described as “dead” due to its polluted state, low oxygen level and high algae content. In response, the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) televised the documentary “Who Killed Lake Erie?". While combustibles, pathogens, visible refuse, and dangerous chemicals were addressed in early water regulations, concerns have shifted to chemical and microbial pollutants and seasonal climatic events that threaten the use of water bodies, and ultimately how they are valued directly and indirectly. Today, the concern is not whether a water body is “dead” or “alive”, but on developing accurate measurements of the costs and benefits of water quality changes and improvements.
This RFA seeks to advance knowledge of how changes in water quality, including incremental or step improvements, can be valued at appropriate spatial scales using advanced non-use valuation methods for the water bodies identified. The inclusion of non-use values in benefit-cost analysis is a subject of scrutiny (see Carson 2012; Kling et al. 2012, Hausman, 2012, and Haab et al. 2013 for a review) within the environmental and economic communities. If non-use values are an important component of benefits, they should be measured accurately so that benefit-cost analysis helps improve decision making. Tests evaluating the accuracy of methods used to estimate non-use values are therefore encouraged. Other key methodological issues that could be addressed include the effect of alternative baseline trends or time horizons and how attributes are considered in the context of ecological production functions, e.g., as endpoints or inputs (Boyd and Krupnick, 2013).
Tools for estimating the benefits of water quality improvement have changed over the past forty years; however, estimating the benefits of water quality improvement has lagged behind analogous work for other media. While over time there has been a shift away from specific case studies to a water-quality, modeling-based approach to benefit estimation (see Griffiths et al. 2012, for an overview of the history of surface water quality regulation), there is more work to be done on both water quality modeling and economic valuation. The majority of valuation studies have been conducted by estimating use values for freshwater lakes and rivers. Research on non-use valuation that assesses the human demand for water quality is limited (see Table 1 of Johnston et al., 2003). In addition, because small streams feed into larger streams, rivers and estuaries, research into the valuation of water quality changes to the small streams and resultant impacts on these other water bodies is needed.
Interdisciplinary collaboration among researchers is important to understanding and valuing changes in water quality (and ecological goods and services in general), e.g., U.S. EPA 2005, 2009; Van Houtven 2014. Multi-disciplinary collaboration on key research questions is important to ensure that water quality (or ecosystem) model outputs are linked to human beneficiaries and their needs and desires. Though such collaboration can be time-consuming and costly, EPA also recognizes that these collaborations can have lasting benefits beyond any specific project and is therefore seeking to support such collaborations. To promote research that will inform and expand understanding of the benefits of water quality improvement, valuation methods should be feasible using existing data sources or applicants can integrate their economic research with development of necessary modeling and data.
One limitation of previous water quality benefit estimates is that they have included a narrow range of water benefits and values. This is problematic for states and local governments because excluding benefits leads to potential underestimation of total benefits. Many non-consumptive uses of freshwater are affected by the consequences of water pollution, such as endangerment of marine life, alteration of ecosystems, and degradation of scenic and cultural amenities. More specifically, a large number of studies have used a “water quality ladder” or similar approach that values achievement of discrete steps such as attainment of water quality goals (e.g., Carson and Mitchell 1993, Viscusi et al 2008, or Van Houtven et al. 2007 for a review). However, others have valued incremental changes on continuous scales not tied to specific steps (e.g., Herriges et al. 2010; Van Houtven et al. 2014). Identifying when (or under what conditions) the public values water quality by either approach would be valuable. Given that the step function approach is based on water quality criteria, there has been little assessment of the correspondence between science-based criteria and valuation (i.e. human demand). For example, criteria may be narrative or numeric; and numeric criteria may be derived from lethality studies or population modeling (see U.S. EPA 2003 for examples). As a result, studies that expand the range of non-use water benefits and values are needed. Examination of public preferences toward and understanding of criteria derived from these methods would be useful.
There is also only limited guidance about the optimal choice of water quality metric, index, or indicator; and many studies are limited by the available indicators (Michael et al., 2000). Determining which indicators are most useful for benefit-cost analyses and that provide a linkage between water quality science and economic valuation would be useful. One concern in this regard involves identifying variables that not only provide the best fit in statistical analyses of the relationship between water quality and values, but which may also be readily available for transferring benefit estimates from one context to another.
Valuation of ecosystem services associated with water quality can potentially be improved by linking specific ecosystem service endpoints and models to values. The ecosystem services framework (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007; Boyd and Krupnick 2013) recognizes that multiple ecosystem service benefits may result from a change in a specific water quality indicator and attempts to enumerate and value the complete set of changes in final goods and services used by human populations. These goods and services can be traditional (e.g., fish consumption) or they can include more difficult to quantify impacts on non-use categories (e.g., valuation of water as habitat for endangered species). To provide useful information to decision makers and other stakeholders, research on the value of ecosystem services should address the valuation of changes for water quality improvements.
The specific Strategic Goal and Objective from the EPA’s Strategic Plan that relate to this solicitation are:
Goal 2: Protecting America's Waters, Objective 2.2: Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems
More information can be found in EPA’s FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan
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. 1254.
For research with an international aspect, the above statutes are supplemented, as appropriate, by the National Environmental Policy Act, Section 102(2)(F).
Note that a project’s focus is to consist of activities within the statutory terms of EPA’s financial assistance authorities; specifically, the statute(s) listed 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 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.
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, 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, effort, and/or associated work products related to an environmental goal or objective, that will be produced or provided over a period of time or by a specified date. The term “outcome” means the result, effect or consequence that will occur from carrying out an environmental program or activity that is related to an environmental or programmatic goal or objective.
The Agency is interested in supporting research that evaluates how measurable attributes of water quality improvements can be translated into human benefits and values, either directly or through indicators. Though estimates of water quality benefit were previously conducted, there is less work on the economic benefits arising from water quality improvements for the inland fresh water small streams, lakes and rivers, estuaries, coastal waters, and the Great Lakes. Of the studies conducted, values were typically estimated for a narrow range of water benefits and values. More research is needed to understand the impact that differences in spatial scales can have on water quality benefits. The overarching goal of this RFA is to advance knowledge of how changes in water quality can be valued at appropriate spatial scales using advanced valuation methods. The research should help public decision makers at the state and local levels, as well as private decision makers and stakeholders by quantifying the behavioral and socioeconomic consequences of water quality regulations and related policy options across a full range of ecological and economic endpoints.
Applications should propose research to estimate non-use values for water quality improvements in one or more of these types of water bodies: inland fresh water small streams, lakes and rivers, estuaries, coastal waters, or the Great Lakes. This RFA encourages interdisciplinary collaborations between environmental economists and other scientists. For example, by explicitly linking water quality model outputs (or similar predictions) to valuation endpoints (potentially through an ecosystem services framework).
In addition to estimating non-use values for the water bodies listed, applicants should address one or more of the topic areas below. Applicants do not need to address all areas of interest. Doing so does not necessarily make a proposal more competitive.
- How does the public understand and value the attainment of water quality criteria? How does the choice of water quality metric or indicator impact value estimates? Can valuation approaches that use incremental versus step functions for water quality be reconciled?
- How can spatial scope and scale issues be best incorporated into water resource valuation, especially in an ecosystem services framework? What are scientifically defensible linkages between predicted changes in water quality, predicted changes in ecosystem functions, and predicted changes in final ecosystem goods and services (or other concepts of valuation endpoints)? How do upstream and downstream benefits relate (e.g., with respect to small streams)?
- What methods or techniques (existing or new) can be demonstrated to improve the estimation of non-use values? What methods or techniques can be demonstrated to distinguish “non-use” values from “use” values? How do non-use values of users differ from those of non-users?
The expected outputs under the awards anticipated from this announcement include guidance documents, decision support tools, models, demonstration and case studies, reports, presentations, and peer-reviewed journal publications on the economic valuation of non-use indices at the appropriate scale for the water bodies identified. Additional outputs include summation of non-use benefits from a defined area of improvement in water quality, estimates for non-use benefits for ecosystem goods and services, and improved tests of the accuracy of methods to measure non-use values. The desired outcomes of this effort could include an understanding of how the extent of the market varies by waterbody type and size; a better understanding of how individuals value water quality, in terms of step versus incremental functions; and an enhanced understanding of numerical quantification of water quality metrics, indices, or indicators.
To the extent practicable, research proposals must embody innovation. Innovation for the purposes of this RFA is defined as the process of making changes; a new method, custom or device. Innovative research can take the form of wholly new applications or applications that build on existing knowledge and approaches for new uses. Research proposals must include a discussion on how the proposed research is innovative (see Section IV.B.5.a). ORD will draw from the above-mentioned innovation definition in the review/evaluation process of recommending research proposals (see Section V.A).
E. References
Boyd, J., and S. Banzhaf. 2007. “What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units.” Ecological Economics 63 (2-3): 616-626
Boyd, J. and A. Krupnick. 2013. “Using Ecological Production Theory to Define and Select Environmental Commodities for Nonmarket Valuation.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 42(1): 1-32
Carson, R.T. 2012. “Contingent Valuation: A Practical Alternative when Prices Aren’t Available.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 26 (4): 27– 42.
Carson, RT and Mitchell, RC. 1993. “The value of clean water: the public's willingness to pay for boatable, fishable, and swimmable quality water.” Water Resour Res 29(7): 2445-2454.
Griffiths, C., H. Klemick, M. Massey, C. Moore, S. Newbold, D. Simpson, P. Walsh and W. Wheeler. 2012. "U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Valuation of Surface Water Quality Improvements." Review of Environmental Economics and Policy. 6(1):130-146
Haab, Timothy C., Matthew G. Interis, Daniel R. Petrolia, and John C. Whitehead. 2013. “From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman's “Dubious to Hopeless” Critique of Contingent Valuation.” Appl. Econ. Perspect. Pol.35 (4): 593-612. doi:10.1093/aepp/ppt029
Hausman, J.A. 2012. Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless. Journal of Economic Perspectives 26 (4): 43 –56.
Herriges, Joseph, Catherine Kling, Chih-Chen Liu, Justin Tobias. 2010. “What are the consequences of consequentiality?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 59, 1: 67-81, ISSN 0095-0696.
Johnston R.J., E.Y. Besedin, and R. F. Wardwell. 2003. “Modeling Relationships between Use and Nonuse Values for Surface Water Quality: a Meta-analysis.” Water Resources Research 39(12).
Kling, C.L., D.J. Phaneuf, and J. Zhao. 2012. From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better than No Number? Journal of Economic Perspectives 26 (4): 3– 26.
Michael, H. J., K. J. Boyle and R. Bouchard. 2000. "Does the Measurement of Environmental Quality Affect Implicit Prices Estimated from Hedonic Models?" Land Economics 76(2): 283-298.
NBC Educational Enterprises. 1969. "Who Killed Lake Erie." NBC. Television.
U.S. EPA. 2005. Environmental Economics Research Strategy. EPA/600/R-04/195.
U.S. EPA, SAB. 2009. Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services: A Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board. EPA-SAB-09-12.
U.S. GAO. 2014. EPA Should Improve Adherence to Guidance for Selected Elements of Regulatory Impact Analyses. GAO-14-519.
Van Houtven, G., Powers, J., & Pattanayak, S. K. (2007). Valuing water quality improvements in the United States using meta-analysis: Is the glass half-full or half-empty for national policy analysis?. Resource and Energy Economics, 29(3), 206-228.
Van Houtven, G., Carol Mansfield, Daniel J. Phaneuf, Roger von Haefen, Bryan Milstead, Melissa A. Kenney, Kenneth H. Reckhow. 2014. “Combining expert elicitation and stated preference methods to value ecosystem services from improved lake water quality, Ecological Economics,” Volume 99, March 2014, Pages 40-52, ISSN 0921-8009.
Viscusi, W. Kip, Joel Huber, and Jason Bell. 2008. “The Economic Value of Water Quality.” Environmental and Resource Economics 41:169–187.
F. Special Requirements
Agency policy and ethical considerations prevent EPA technical staff and managers from providing 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. EPA employees cannot endorse any particular application.
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.
Please note: Early career awards will not accommodate a Multiple PI application. Early career awards shall be submitted as a single Lead PI application. Special eligibility criteria apply to the early career portion of this RFA. Please see Section III of this RFA for details on the early career eligibility criteria. The application must include an early career verification (see “Early Career Verification” in Section IV.B.5.e).
This solicitation provides the opportunity for the submission of applications for projects that may involve human subjects research. There are many scientific and ethical considerations that must be addressed in such studies by the study sponsor and research team, including, but not limited to, those related to recruitment, retention, participant compensation, third-party issues, researcher-participant interactions, researcher-community interactions, communications, interventions, and education. All such research must comply with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 26, and any human observational exposure studies must also adhere to the principles set forth in the Scientific and Ethical Approaches for Observational Exposure Studies (SEAOES) (EPA/600/R-08/062) (PDF) (133 pp, 1.21 MB) document. SEAOES, which was published by researchers in EPA and which discusses the principles for the ethical conduct of human research studies, serves as a resource for applicants interested in applying under this solicitation. References to “SEAOES Principles” in this solicitation refers, in general, to the issues of interest in conducting human subjects research studies that maintain the highest scientific and ethical standards and safety during the conduct of these studies. All applications must include a Human Subjects Research Statement (HSRS; described in Section IV.B.5.c of this solicitation) and if the project involves human subjects research, it will be subject to an additional level of review prior to funding decisions being made as described in Sections V.C and V.D of this solicitation.
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 should include a plan (see “Data Plan” in section IV.B.5.d) to make available to the NCER project officer all data generated (first produced under the award) from observations, analyses, or model development 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 $4 million will be awarded under this announcement, depending on the availability of funds, quality of applications received, and other applicable considerations. The EPA anticipates funding approximately six awards (4 regular, 2 early career) under this RFA. Requests for amounts in excess of a total of $800,000 for regular awards and $400,000 for early career awards, 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 six months after the original selection decisions.
In appropriate circumstances, EPA reserves the right to partially fund proposals/applications by funding discrete portions or phases of proposed projects. If EPA decides to partially fund a proposal/application, it will do so in a manner that does not prejudice any applicants or affect the basis upon which the proposal/application, or portion thereof, was evaluated and selected for award, and therefore maintains the integrity of the competition and selection process.
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 EPA 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 nonprofit institutions of higher education and hospitals) and private nonprofit institutions/organizations (includes private nonprofit 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:
Are operated primarily for scientific, educational, service, charitable, or similar purposes in the public interest; 2) Are not organized primarily for profit; and 3) Use its net proceeds to maintain, improve, and/or expand its operations. However, nonprofit organizations described in Section 501(c) (4) of the Internal Revenue Code that lobby are not eligible to apply.
Foreign governments, international organizations, and non-governmental international organizations/institutions 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 to the extent authorized by law. Examples are purchase of satellite data, 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.
The early career awards will support research performed by PIs with outstanding promise at the Assistant Professor or equivalent level. Principal investigators from applicant institutions applying for the early career portion of the RFA must meet the following additional eligibility requirements:
- Hold a doctoral degree in a field related to the research being solicited by the closing date of the RFA;
- Be untenured at the closing date of the RFA;
- By the award date, be employed in a tenure-track position (or tenure-track-equivalent position) as an assistant professor (or equivalent title) at an institution in the U.S., its territories, or possessions. Note: For a position to be considered a tenure-track-equivalent position, it must meet all of the following requirements: (1) the employing department or organization does not offer tenure; (2) the appointment is a continuing appointment; (3) the appointment has substantial educational responsibilities; and (4) the proposed project relates to the employee's career goals and job responsibilities as well as to the goals of the department/organization.
Senior researchers may collaborate in a supporting role for early career awards. Early career applications should not propose significant resources for senior researchers and may not list senior researchers as co-PIs. The application must include an early career verification (see “Early Career Verification” in Section IV.B.5.e).
Potential applicants who are uncertain of their eligibility should contact Ron Josephson (josephson.ron@epa.gov) in NCER, phone: 703-308-0442.
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 submitted through grants.gov or by other authorized alternate means (see Section IV.E. “Submission Instructions and Other Submission Requirements” for further information) 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.
Applications deemed ineligible for funding consideration will be notified within fifteen calendar days of the ineligibility determination.
IV. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION
Additional provisions that apply to this solicitation and/or awards made under this solicitation, including but not limited to those related to confidential business information, contracts and subawards under grants, and proposal assistance and communications, can be found at Contracts and Subawards. These, and the other provisions that can be found at the website link, are important, and applicants must review them when preparing applications for this solicitation. If you are unable to access these provisions electronically at the website above, please communicate with the EPA contact listed in this solicitation to obtain the provisions.
Formal instructions for submission through Grants.gov follow in Section E.
A. Internet Address to Request Application Package
Use the application package available at Grants.gov (see Section E. “Submission Instructions and Other Submission Requirements”). Note: With the exception of the current and pending support form (available at Forms and Standard Instructions Download Page), all necessary forms are included in the electronic application package.
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 Section E. “Submission Instructions and Other Submission Requirements” for additional information regarding the application receipt acknowledgment.
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. 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 SF424, not simply the proposed first year expenses.) The form must contain the signature of an authorized representative of the applying organization.
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 Dun and Bradstreet.
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 Intergovernmental Review (SPOC List). 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 found in the Grants.gov application package. An “Additional Key Contacts” form is also available at Forms and Standard Instructions Download Page. The Key Contacts form should also be completed for major sub-agreements (i.e., primary investigators). Do not include information for consultants or other contractors. 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, use 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(s): 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 performance site(s)/geographical location(s) where the work will be conducted.
- Project Cost: Show the total funding 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 (outputs/outcomes) 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: Forms and Standard Instructions Download Page.
-
Research Plan, Quality Assurance Statement, Human Subjects Research Statement, Data Plan, Early Career Verification 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, including to address climate change adaptation considerations, as appropriate, described in Section I to ensure that the project achieves its expected outcomes even as climate changes.
- Innovation: Describe how your project shifts current research or engineering paradigms by using innovative theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation or interventions applicable to one or more fields of research.
- Expected Results, Benefits, Outputs, and Outcomes: Describe the expected outputs and outcomes resulting from the project. 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.
- Project Management: Discuss other information relevant to the potential success of the project. This should include facilities, personnel expertise/experience, project schedules with associated milestones and target dates, proposed management, interactions with other institutions, etc. Describe the approach, procedures, and controls for ensuring that awarded grant funds will be expended in a timely and efficient manner and detail how project objectives will be successfully achieved within the grant period. Describe how progress toward achieving the expected results (outputs and outcomes) of the research will be tracked and measured. 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.)
-
-
-
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.