Mitigating Shoreline Erosion along Sheltered Coasts

1) About this Funding Opportunity
2) Project Goals
3) Project Team
4) Collaborative Process
5) Eligibility
6) NERRS Connection
7) Intellectual Property
8) Proposal Preparation
9) Proposal Submission
10) Proposal Evaluation
11) Resources for the Shoreline RFP

1) About this Funding Opportunity
CICEET invites proposals to its FY 2008 Mitigating Shoreline Erosion along Sheltered Coasts Funding opportunity. This Request For Proposals (RFP) seeks to support research and outreach that will provide a better understanding of how to use different erosion prevention measures to protect sheltered coastlines from the impacts of rising sea levels and waves (from extreme weather and/or boat wakes), as well as to protect, preserve, and restore ecosystem function.

With this RFP, CICEET seeks to fund projects with as broad a geographic representation as possible. Thus, we strongly encourage potential applicants to explore regional partnerships before submitting proposals. For the purpose of this RFP, “sheltered shorelines” refers to areas with low to medium wave energy due to limited fetch, such as estuaries, bays, lagoons, mud flats, and deltaic coasts.

This is a phased funding opportunity, with the potential to award up to six years of funding. This RFP calls for proposals for Phase 1 (up to two years) projects. CICEET estimates that up to $2 million will be available to fund Phase 1 of two to four proposals. CICEET does not put upper or lower limits on requests. Availability of all funding is contingent on continued federal support for CICEET.

Toward the end of Phase I, funded projects will be assessed for project performance to determine whether they merit funding for Phase 2. CICEET anticipates that approximately $2 million will be available to fund Phase 2 of meritorious projects. Toward the end of Phase 2, funded projects will be assessed for project performance to determine whether they merit funding for Phase 3. CICEET anticipates that approximately $2 million will be available to fund Phase 3 of meritorious projects. It is CICEET’s intention that funding for all three phases will be without gaps, however, this depends on the outcomes of performance assessments.

This RFP targets a priority coastal management need, as identified by the National Research Council (NRC) study: “Mitigating Shoreline Erosion along Sheltered Coasts.” (CICEET was a co-sponsor of this study.) CICEET conducted a pre-RFP analysis of how new and existing knowledge could be used to effectively address the study’s recommendations, and that analysis informed the development of this funding opportunity. Learn more about CICEET’s pre-RFP process, and browse resources related to shoreline stabilization projects.

2) Project Goals
All proposals must address all of the following questions:

1. What are the tradeoffs in ecosystem services that arise from the application of different erosion prevention measures?

   Please note: In keeping with the NRC study, CICEET defines “tradeoffs” as those changes in ecosystem dynamics that result from the introduction of an erosion prevention measure to an area where no measures exist, or those changes that arise when one type of measure is exchanged for another. For example, the introduction of bulkheads often results in the loss of shallow water or intertidal ecosystems and the creation of new deeper water ecosystems.

   “Ecosystem services” refers to those goods (e.g., fish, fibers, seaweeds, sand, etc.) and processes (e.g., wave attenuation, contaminant sequestration, etc.) that are beneficial to human society. For more information, please see Chapter 4 of the NRC study.

2. What are the short- and long-term costs of different erosion prevention measures? Research should involve long-term (50- to 100-year) forecasts of erosion control performance in the context of sea level rise. Based on the NRC study (see “Cost Considerations” in Chapter 5), cost assessments should include as many of the following components as possible:
   • capital costs
   • operating costs, including monitoring and maintenance
   • probability that the actions will reduce/eliminate erosion for x years
   • impacts (positive and negative) on adjacent upland properties
   • impacts (positive and negative) on public uses
   • impact on environmental functions and thus on ecosystem services
   • aesthetics

   Please note: Based on the NRC document, CICEET divides erosion prevention measures into four categories: land use management; shoreline hardening approaches, such as bulkheads or revetments; vegetating approaches, such as marsh creation or seagrass restoration; and those approaches that add or trap sand, such as beach nourishment, groins, or breakwaters. Research need not compare erosion prevention measures from each category, only those measures that are relevant to the site where the project will take place.

3. What is the most effective way to transfer new knowledge/tools (related to questions A and B above) to relevant stakeholders? Proposals should demonstrate plans for outreach and education of relevant stakeholders. These may include property owners/managers, marine contractors/engineers, and regulators from various levels of government who permit and enforce erosion control measures. Additional stakeholders could be added depending on the watershed in question. Knowledge transfer may include plans to better understand the risk and uncertainty associated with different erosion prevention measures.

For further clarification of any of the technical terms related to shoreline stabilization in this RFP, please refer to the NRC study: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309103460

3) Project Team
CICEET’s pre-RFP analysis clearly indicated that the perspectives and expertise of a core group of individuals are essential to the successful transfer of knowledge/tools related to erosion prevention measures to intended users. Thus, each project team should include personnel who can fulfill the roles described below. Exclusion of any of these functionaries must be justified in the proposal. These personnel can be included as investigators or as members of an advisory board, however, their inclusion must be explicitly planned for.

A. Facilitator who can moderate meetings, attain consensus, and make sure project remains focused on CICEET goals
B. Shoreline scientist and/or engineer
C. Extension/outreach specialist who is familiar with the “human dimensions” of natural resource planning. For more information: http://www.hd.gov/
D. Property owner/manager or—preferably—a representative of a group of owners/managers of properties that are adjacent, or in close proximity
E. Marine contractor/engineer
F. State permitter
G. State planner
H. State environmental protection representative
I. State Fish & Wildlife representative
J. County-level government representative
K. City-level government representative

Please note: CICEET is exploring partnerships with other agencies to leverage the impact of this RFP and the projects that it funds. If you plan to work with any of the following agencies, please contact CICEET first: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NOAA Restoration Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the NOAA Coastal Services Center.

4) Collaborative Process
The active engagement of intended users throughout the project is critical to the successful transfer of knowledge/tools related to erosion prevention measures. Therefore, proposals must establish a formal structure for collaboration among project team members in which the perspectives of intended users carry equal weight. Proposals must also clarify the role of an advisory board, if one will be established. While developing your plan for formal collaboration, consider how the project team and advisory board will work together to define and accomplish milestones such as the following:

A. Establish and agree to ground rules for collaboration and consensus building.
B. Agree to problems to be addressed.
C. Refine research questions and educational goals.
D. Develop and set a timeline for benchmarks (major accomplishments) that will be used to assess project performance toward the end of Phase 1
of the project.
E. Agree on target audiences for tools/knowledge developed through the project.
F. Agree on specific deliverables, such as features of technical and educational products and proposed mechanisms of delivery. (CICEET recommends the use of focus groups and/or other social science tools aimed at understanding how particular audiences best receive and use scientific information.)
G. Conduct research and outreach activities.
H. Evaluate findings in the context of previous research, and assess implications for current and future policy decisions.
I. Communicate findings to site-specific stakeholders, as well as those in adjacent or distant communities with similar challenges.
J. Agree on next steps.

Please note: CICEET understands that some of these milestones would be more appropriate for future phases of the project.

Applicants may find it useful to review a formal structure for collaboration, such as the Joint Fact Finding approach: http://web.mit.edu/dusp/epp/music/wwd/JointFactFinding.html

5) Eligibility
This RFP is open to investigators from United States academic institutions, state and local government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the private sector. Researchers from institutions outside the United States may be included as additional investigators, but cannot be the principal investigator.

Federal agency personnel are eligible if they can document statutory authority to supplement their appropriations with funds from other federal programs and entities. (NOAA personnel may not be required to provide this documentation. Please contact CICEET for clarification.) In some cases, obtaining this documentation can take time, so CICEET encourages such applicants to plan ahead. Federal applicants may not request salary compensation. Private-sector applicants may not include fee or profit in their budget requests.

Please note: CICEET will not accept proposals from CICEET investigators who have failed to meet deadlines for submission of final reports for completed projects, or progress reports for ongoing work.

6) NERRS Connection
Through its funding opportunities, CICEET seeks to leverage the capabilities of its NOAA partner, the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS). Most reserves have considerable expertise in coastal and estuarine research and outreach. We strongly encourage you to find out if your planned activities are of interest to a nearby reserve. The NERRS national web site provides general information on each reserve, as well as links to individual reserve web sites: http://nerrs.noaa.gov/.

In addition to the reserves, research, outreach, and education support can be found through the following organizations:

• Sea Grant Extension: Check with the Sea Grant program in the state in which you plan to conduct your project. Extension specialists are dedicated to providing science-based information to coastal decision makers and may know outreach specialists who would be ideal for your project.

• National Estuaries Program (NEP): Check with the NEP program in the state in which you plan to conduct your project. Many NEPs have active public outreach and education programs, and may be able to advise you on the outreach aspect of your project.

• Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service: Check with the USDA Extension program in the state in which you plan to conduct your project, if it is related to agriculture. Extension specialists may be able to contribute to your project.

• National NEMO Network: Check with your local NEMO chapter. NEMO programs specialize in the transfer of innovation and information so that it can benefit land use decision makers.

• Water Outreach Education—Facilitating Access to Resources and Best Education Practices Project: This collaborative effort of the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) and other partners to identify and promote Best Education Practices (BEPs) for water-management education.

• Local non-profits: These can be wellsprings of information in planning outreach activities.

CICEET can help connect researchers with outreach professionals. If you’d like some advice, please contact us:

Kalle Matso
Program Manager
T: 603.862.3508
E: kalle.matso@unh.edu

Justine Stadler
Project Manager
T: 603.862.2817
E: justine.stadler@unh.edu

7) Intellectual Property
In some instances, commercialization is the most efficient means of disseminating knowledge or technology. In others cases, a non-commercial approach may be more appropriate.

Since the dissemination pathway is often not clear at the outset of a project, CICEET strongly suggests that you take the following steps to protect your technology’s intellectual property at the proposal stage. By doing this, you will be able to talk freely about your invention and avoid the inadvertent loss of intellectual property rights.

Step 1: Take steps to protect your intellectual property as soon as possible so that you can discuss your research with colleagues in a manner that does not restrict your ability to choose the most appropriate dissemination path. If you receive funding, CICEET will ask you to discuss your research at a meeting with colleagues, coastal managers, and industry representatives.

Step 2: Do not make assumptions about the commercialization value of your work. In our experience, researchers often make assumptions about the intellectual property process that are inaccurate.

Step 3: Talk to your institution’s Office of Technology Transfer, or its Office of Intellectual Property. Determine the proper approach to intellectual property protection for your technology. This could include any of the following: prior-art research and determination of patentability; pursuit of “confidential and proprietary information”; pursuit of copyright; or no intellectual property protection steps whatsoever. (Please note: The title page you will submit with your proposal comes with a confidentiality statement. Please review it and contact us with any questions.)

Step 4: Until talking with one of the specialists recommended in Step 3, do not disclose your idea in a public setting. “Disclosure” entails giving enough information—verbally or in written/graphic form—for a person “skilled in the art” to reproduce your invention.

8) Proposal Preparation
CICEET has prepared the following guide to submitting proposals for this funding opportunity. You must follow the instructions below to the letter! Proposals that do not address every narrative requirement in the proper order will be deemed non-compliant and will not be reviewed for funding. Read more on proposal compliance and evaluation >

Each proposal must include the following elements:

A) Title page
B) Abstract
C) Narrative
D) Appendix of literature cited
E) Qualifications
F) Phase 1 Budget Forms

A) Title Page
CICEET requires all title pages to be in a standard format. Download the title page template >

B) Abstract
On a separate page, provide a one- to two-paragraph abstract summarizing the salient points of your proposal, including objectives, methods, and expected outcomes.

C) Narrative
Narratives are not to exceed 18 single-spaced pages with one-inch margins. They must be formatted in “Times” 12-point font and use CICEET’s headings and subheadings. Narratives must include the following seven elements:

1. Introduction
   This section must contain the following elements, organized using the subheadings below:

   Project Goals
   Briefly describe your long-term plan to address the three goals of this RFP as defined here.

   Technical Challenges
   For the geographic area in which the activities will take place, briefly describe the major technical challenges to meeting the goals set for this funding opportunity. Please justify your definition of the targeted site(s) as sheltered shoreline, as opposed to open coast.

   Non-technical Challenges
   For the geographic area in which the activities will take place, please briefly describe the major non-technical challenges—such as organizational, regulatory, social, and political—to planning and implementing measures that both prevent erosion and promote ecosystem function along sheltered shorelines.

2. Objectives
   Describe your project’s short- and long-term objectives, using the subheadings below:

   Phase 1 Objectives
   Describe the objectives, and tasks to meet those objectives, for Phase 1 (up to two years) of your project. Please provide a timeline to estimate the date of completion of these tasks as well as specific project deliverables where appropriate. Please download the timeline form and copy and paste the table into your narrative.

   Long-term Objectives
   Briefly outline long-term objectives that you plan to accomplish during Phases 2 and 3 of the project. Since these longer-term objectives will depend largely on the outcome of Phase 1, your description need not be as detailed as the one required for Phase 1 Objectives. Focus on those broad objectives that you believe necessary to address CICEET’s goals for this RFP. A two-paragraph description—no more than half a page—would be sufficient.

3. Roles & Responsibilities
   Each project should include personnel who can fulfill the roles A through K described below. Exclusion of any of these functionaries must be justified in this section. These personnel can be included as members of the project team or an advisory board, however, their inclusion must be explicitly planned for. Please list each team member, as well as his or her role and responsibilities. If you plan to have a project advisory board, please include a list of board members and describe the role of each board member in relation to your project.

   A. Facilitator who can moderate meetings, attain consensus, and make sure project remains focused on CICEET goals
   B. Shoreline scientist and/or engineer
   C. Extension/outreach specialist who is familiar with the “human dimensions” of natural resource planning. For more information: www.hd.gov
   D. Property owner/manager or—preferably—a representative of a group of owners/managers of properties that are adjacent or in close proximity.
   E. Marine contractor/engineer
   F. State permitting agency
   G. State planner
   H. State environmental protection representative
   I. State Fish & Wildlife representative
   J. County-level government representative
   K. City-level government representative

   Please note: CICEET is exploring partnerships with other agencies to leverage the impact of this RFP and the projects that it funds. If you plan to contact any of the following agencies, please contact CICEET first: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NOAA Restoration Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the NOAA Coastal Services Center.

4. Methods
   This section must contain the following elements, organized using the subheadings below:

   Phase 1 Technical Challenges
   Describe how you plan to address the technical and scientific gaps outlined in the “Technical Challenges” section of your narrative’s introduction. Include a detailed description of methods (including hypotheses and experimental design) that will be used to bridge these gaps and help you meet your project’s objectives. Please include a description of methods for data management (QA/QC) and data analysis (e.g., statistical methods). Use citations where possible.

   Phase 1 Collaborative Process
   Describe your plan to establish a formal structure for collaboration in which the perspectives of all project team members carry equal weight. Consider how the project team and advisory board will work together to define and accomplish specific milestones such as those suggested here.

   Knowledge/tool Dissemination
   Describe the plan to transfer new knowledge/tools to intended users and relevant stakeholders, i.e., those individuals who are likely to impact—or be impacted by—the implementation of such technologies. This plan should clearly identify both stakeholders and intended users, and reflect an understanding of how these audiences best receive and use scientific information.

5. Knowledge/tool Transferability
   Describe the extent to which project outcomes (such as knowledge or tools) could be used in other regions around the country.

6. Institutional Support/Capabilities
   Provide a description of the facilities and equipment available for project activities.

7. Budget Justification
   Please provide a detailed budget justification that explains the individual items in the budget form. The principal investigator’s institution will be responsible for administering the grant should the proposal be funded. Project team members from other institutions must be listed as subcontractors on the budget form.

Please note: the following sections—D, E, & F are not part of the 18-page narrative!

D) Appendix of literature cited

E) Qualifications
Please include a description of relevant qualifications for each member of the project team and the advisory board, using a format appropriate to their expertise, e.g., curriculum vitae for project scientists, résumés for contractors, or short biographical sketches for property owners. Please limit each description to no more than 2 pages.

F) Phase 1 Budget Forms
You must submit one budget form for each year of Phase 1 of your project, as well as a cumulative form for both years. Please use the forms provided by CICEET >

9) Proposal Submission
The deadline for receipt of your proposal by CICEET is 1 p.m. (1300 hours), EST, on September 25, 2007. Your initial submission MUST be an electronic PDF file, not a hard copy. After the deadline, applicants will be prevented from submitting proposals and will receive an automated reply that CICEET is no longer accepting submissions.

Please send your proposal as a single PDF attachment in an e-mail to submissions@ciceet.unh.edu

Proposals sent in any other file format will NOT be accepted.

You must also send one signed hard copy of your proposal—postmarked no later than October 4, 2007—that includes documentation of your institution’s federally negotiated indirect cost rate and contact information for the sponsored research office at your institution. Please mail this to CICEET’s Program Coordinator:

Cindy Tufts
UNH/NOAA CICEET
University of New Hampshire
Gregg Hall, Room 130
35 Colovos Road
Durham, NH 03824

10) Proposal Evaluation
CICEET will conduct an initial compliance review of all proposals. Proposals deemed “non-compliant” will be eliminated from the competition, and CICEET will notify the applicants as quickly as possible. Proposals will be deemed “non-compliant” for failure to do one or more of the following:

• Follow the narrative structure outlined above;
• Address the questions posed within each narrative component;
• Address the Project Goals, Collaborative Process, and Project Team requirements;
• Follow directions with regard to proposal format and submission.

Compliant proposals will be reviewed by an expert panel of physical, life, and social scientists; program managers; and coastal resource managers. A favorable evaluation will advance proposals to the next stage of assessment. Applicants whose proposals advance to this stage may be asked to modify their proposals in response to panel feedback. Applicants will have approximately one month to modify their proposals before the expert panel’s second review takes place and recommendations for funding are made. See the FY 2008 RFP calendar for dates related to these evaluation activities.

Proposals will be evaluated according to the following criteria:

1. Appropriateness: To what degree are the objectives, methods, and overall approach of the proposal consistent with the goals of this RFP? Have the applicants offered sufficient evidence that the site selected for project activities qualifies as sheltered shoreline, as opposed to open coast?

2. Team: Does the proposal account for the inclusion—or adequately justify the exclusion—of all of the roles identified in the Project Team section of this RFP? Are the project team and advisory board members well qualified to accomplish their tasks? Are the roles and responsibilities assigned to project team and advisory board members appropriate to advancing project objectives?

3. Technical Approach: To what extent does the proposal demonstrate appropriate technical capability and familiarity with the scientific subject matter? Do the related methods allow the applicants to achieve the stated objectives?

4. Collaborative Process: What is the probability that the proposal’s plan for collaboration will result in a successful collaborative process? Will it allow the project team and advisory board (if created) to work together to achieve the stated objectives?

5. Knowledge/tools Transfer: To what extent does the proposal demonstrate an effective plan to transfer new knowledge/tools to intended users and relevant stakeholders? Does the plan clearly identify both stakeholders and intended users, and reflect an understanding of how these audiences best receive and use scientific information?

6. Transferability: Do the proposed activities have relevance to other regions beyond the specific target of the proposed activities?

7. Institutional Support/Capabilities: Are the facilities, equipment, and other resources of the project team adequate for the proposed activities?

8. Budget: Is the budget appropriate for the activities proposed?