Environmental Technology Development & Demonstration

1) About this Funding Opportunity
2) Research Priorities
3) Eligibility
4) NERRS Connection
5) Outreach
6) Intellectual Property
7) Proposal Preparation
8) Building on Previous CICEET Projects
9) Proposal Submission
10) Proposal Evaluation

1) About this Funding Opportunity
The Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology (CICEET) invites proposals to its Environmental Technology Development and Demonstration (ETDD) Program for funding in FY 2008. This Request for Proposals (RFP) has two broad goals, which support the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s five-year strategic plan for research.

• Develop and/or demonstrate technology to detect and quantify the impacts of human activity on coastal water quality, species, and habitats.
  
  
• Develop and/or demonstrate technology to protect coastal water quality and/or restore coastal habitats.

CICEET defines “technology” broadly to encompass engineering designs, best management practices, instrumentation, protocols, decision support systems, models, and other information-based tools.

Up to $2 million will be made available for this opportunity and CICEET expects to fund between five and 10 proposals. Proposals may request up to two years of funding. Annual budgets for this program average approximately $115K and have ranged from $15K to $220K. CICEET does not put upper or lower limits on funding requests.

2) Research Priorities
All proposals must address one or more of the research priorities listed below. Please feel free to contact CICEET to confirm and/or discuss whether your activities address one or more of these priorities, and at least one of the broader goals of this RFP.

1. Develop or demonstrate approaches to overcome the technical and/or non-technical barriers to the widespread implementation of Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater treatment systems, especially in areas where LIDs are perceived to be ineffective due to water table levels, soil infiltration capacity, and/or concerns over groundwater contamination. Proposals should focus on LID systems that address coastal pollution, runoff volume reduction, and groundwater recharge or protection.*
   
   
2. Develop or demonstrate new technologies to detect and quantify the impact(s) of stormwater nonpoint source pollution (NPS) on coastal environments.*
   
   
3. Develop or demonstrate new technologies to assess the effectiveness of implemented management strategies to mitigate stormwater nonpoint source pollution in coastal environments.*
   
   
4. Develop or demonstrate technologies to assess the impacts of emerging contaminants on coastal environments. Examples of emerging contaminants include perfluorinated compounds, pharmaceuticals and personal care products, and unregulated pesticides. Applicants must identify which target contaminants within the broad group of emerging contaminants are being addressed.
   
   
5. In the context of setting sediment quality standards/criteria, develop or demonstrate technologies to assess the bioavailable fraction of contaminants as a means to measure potential toxicity of sediments and their potential to lead to bioaccumulation. Proposals must account for multiple modes of exposure, including direct exposure via interstitial porewater as well as through ingestion of sediment-bound contaminants. Preference will be given to proposals with both field and toxicity components, i.e., not solely based on models of trophic transfer.
   
   
6. Develop or demonstrate new technologies to identify sources of microbial contamination—such as pathogenic viruses and bacteria, as well as fecal indicators—at recreational swimming beaches and/or shellfish growing areas. While CICEET will accept proposals that seek to distinguish human from animal sources, or to differentiate among animal sources, we are also interested in research that pinpoints specific sources of human contamination, e.g., wastewater treatment plants, on-site septic systems, and stormwater drains.

   Please note: CICEET is not accepting proposals related to Harmful Algal Bloom organisms for this RFP. Next year's research priorities are likely to change considerably. Please check back with us in in the Spring of 2008 for news on upcoming funding opportunities.

* The CICEET-sponsored University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center may be an appropriate collaborator for stormwater research related to infrastructure and/or monitoring issues. Please see http://www.unh.edu/erg/cstev for more information.

3) 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 principal investigators.

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 reporting deadlines for final reports for completed projects, or progress reports for ongoing work.

4) NERRS Connection
Through its funding opportunities, CICEET seeks to leverage the capabilities of its NOAA partner, the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS). We strongly encourage you to incorporate a connection to the NERRS as part of your proposal. Proposed activities may include, but are not limited to, the testing of technology or methods at a reserve, using a reserve as a control site, or training and/or dissemination of project results.

Contact NERRS sites to discuss your research plans and to determine which activities would have the most value to that particular site. The NERRS national web site provides general information on each reserve, as well as links to individual reserve web sites: http://nerrs.noaa.gov/.

CICEET can help connect researchers with the a NERRS site. 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

5) Outreach
For many projects, outreach will be an integral part of the development and application process. In such cases, the proposal must include an outreach professional or a social scientist as a project investigator, and represent outreach activities in the project budget. To identify outreach professionals in your area, consider the following resources:

• NERRS: Most reserves have staff members who interface with local and regional outreach experts. Coastal Training Program coordina-tors are especially suited to connecting researchers with relevant end users, educators, and regulators.
• 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 is a 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 and 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

6) 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.

7) 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) Budget Forms
G) Timeline Form

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 nine elements:

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

   Research Priority Addressed
   Identify which research priority the proposal targets, and how this research will address it. Your proposal may target more than one priority.

   Specific Coastal Management Problem
   Describe the specific coastal management problem your project seeks to address. In your description, include the location and relevant management agencies, and highlight the major technical and non-technical barriers to successfully applying new technology.

   Proposed Solution
   Describe existing solutions to the specified coastal management problem, and explain why improvements are needed (use citations when possible). Briefly describe your solution and how it might overcome technical and non-technical barriers not addressed by existing approaches.

   Technology Stage Identification
   Please categorize your project as proof-of-concept, technology development, or technology demonstration. Proposals that are proof-of-concept in nature should strive to be low-cost and short-duration (e.g., one year).

2. Project Team
   At a minimum, project teams must include an intended user, application specialist, and researcher. In this section, identify the members of your project team and explain their roles and responsibilities using the subheadings below. All project team members must be included as additional investigators, with their time accounted for. Any of the team members may serve as the Principal Investigator (PI).

   Mandatory Project Team Members

   Intended User
   Identify the intended user. He or she should represent either the agency that is most likely to use the technology in the field, or that has the decision making power to implement the technology. Please justify why this person is the most appropriate choice in terms of increasing the likelihood of moving the technology from research to application.

   Application Specialist
   Identify the application specialist and justify your choice. He or she will be responsible for connecting researchers and intended users to make sure both perspectives are represented in the collaborative process. (See methods). Essential skill sets for this role will include group facilitation and consensus building. Other important skills may include outreach and education.

   Researcher
   Identify the researcher and justify your choice. He or she will help plan and implement the gathering of new information, develop or test new technologies, or provide scientific expertise related to technology application.

   Optional Project Team Members

   Commercial Partner
   Identify potential commercial partners, if appropriate. For example, if successful, will the technology depend on the private sector for manufacture or distribution? If so, identify a commercial partner and justify your choice.

   Outreach/Training
   Outreach experts are likely to be more appropriate during the latter stages of technology development or during demonstration. In such cases, you may want to include social scientists on the project team to better understand intended audiences, as well as to help in the evaluation of project results.

   Other
   Please identify other team members appropriate to complete the objectives of your project. Please justify your choices.

3. Objectives
   Please state your project’s objectives and how they relate to the targeted Research Priority.

4. Methods
   Provide a detailed description of methods you plan to use to achieve the stated objectives, as well as how you will evaluate the success of these activities. Please use the subheadings below.

   Technical
   Provide a detailed description of technical methods—including hypotheses and experimental design—that will achieve the stated objectives. Please include a description of methods for data management (QA/QC) and data analysis (e.g., statistical methods).

   Collaborative
   Describe your plan—including frequency and structure of meetings—for collaboration and communication between team members and how you will address the following three goals for collaboration:

   • Before research begins, confirm basic assumptions about how the potential technology will be used;
   • Build trust so that—if the technology is successful—it has a higher likelihood of being used;
   • Allow for adaptive management changes to research activities if the research produces unexpected results.

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

   Knowledge Dissemination
   Please describe your plan to transfer new knowledge to intended users. This plan should clearly identify intended users within and beyond the project team, and reflect an understanding of how this audience best receives and uses scientific information.

5. Timeline
   Please provide a timeline for reaching project objectives. Please download the timeline form and copy and paste the table into your narrative.

6. Impact
   Provide evidence—such as report citations and communications from coastal resource managers—that supports your proposal’s claims with regard to the potential impact of this technology on coastal natural resources and related management agencies.

   The perspective of the “intended user” project team member is critical in this section; it will impress upon the technical review panel how the proposed research might be applied, and what its impact may be in a specific management context. Letters of support from potential end users outside of the project team can be used to support the case made by the proposal, but are not required.

   Please note: Proposals failing to cite evidence of the commitment of the management agency that they intend to support will be deemed non-compliant.

7. Transferability
   Describe the extent to which project outcomes (such as knowledge or tools) would be relevant to other regions beyond that which is addressed specifically in this proposal. What adjustments would have to be made to use the technology in other regions? Please provide evidence of applicability to other regions, if appropriate.

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

9. Budget Justification: Please provide a detailed budget justification that explains the separate 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. Download the budget forms >

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, using a curriculum vitae or résumé. Please limit each description to no more than 2 pages.

F) Budget Forms
You must submit one budget form for each year of your project, as well as a cumulative 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. Download the budget forms >

8) Building on Previous CICEET Projects
In addition to the standard narrative required for all proposals, CICEET requires that proposals building on projects previously funded by CICEET also include the following information. You may use an additional two pages to convey this information.

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.

1. Provide the previous CICEET project title and name(s) of the principal investigator(s).
2. List the start and end dates of the previous project.
3. Briefly describe the previous project’s objectives, related accomplishments, and deliverables, including efforts to transfer technology and disseminate information such as web sites, CD ROMS, stakeholder meetings, training programs, technology tools, and products.
4. Describe any problems you encountered in the previous project, and how they were addressed. Were there any changes to the original objectives or methods during the execution of the project?
5. Describe how useful the end products of the project were to coastal management. Identify the end users/adopters and producers of the technology if appropriate.
6. Provide justification for continued work on the topic. How will the utility of the previous project be improved by the proposed new activities? Does the endpoint of the proposed work represent an incremental step or a final product?
7. List any presentations, manuscripts, theses, and dissertations resulting from the previous project.

9) Proposal Submission
The deadline for receipt of your proposal by CICEET is 1 p.m. (1300 hours), EST, on September 18, 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 that includes documentation of your institution’s federally negotiated indirect cost rate and contact information for the sponsored research office at your institution. The postmark must not be later than September 26, 2007. 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 Research Priorities for this RFP;
• Follow directions with regard to formatting and submission procedures.

Compliant proposals will be peer-reviewed by experts in the field of the proposal. Please note that CICEET includes a rebuttal process to allow applicants to respond to issues raised by peer reviewers. Applicants are typically given five working days for the rebuttal process. At present, the rebuttals are scheduled to occur between January 7 and 18, 2008. Should this schedule change, all applicants will be notified.

Following the peer review stage, an initial technical panel comprised of scientific experts and coastal managers will review proposals, peer reviews and rebuttals. Based on the review materials, the panel will determine which proposals will continue to the second stage. Applicant teams that make it to the second stage may be asked to modify their proposals in response to the panel’s feedback. Applicants will have approximately one month to make the modifications before the final technical panel takes place, and recommendations for funding are made. See RFP calendar for dates related to these evaluation activities.

Please note that projects recommended for funding are subject to a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed research. Funding is contingent upon compliance with NEPA guidelines. You can learn more about NEPA at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Proposals will be evaluated according to the following criteria:

1. Program Fit: Do the problem and solution proposed correspond to CICEET’s goals for this RFP? Does the proposal make an explicit and valid connection to the stated research priorities? How well does the proposal address each subheading in the “Introduction” section of the narrative?

2. Project Team Composition: How well thought out is the team composition? How well did the applicants address the requirements of the “Project Team” section?

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

4. Collaborative Approach: To what extent does the proposal include an appropriate plan for collaboration and communication between team members? How does the plan match up to the three goals noted in the Collaboration section?

5. Knowledge Dissemination: To what extent does the proposal include an appropriate plan for knowledge dissemination to intended users and relevant stakeholders?

6. Impact: How well does the proposal make a case for the potential impact of this technology on coastal natural resources and related management agencies? Does it adequately incorporate the perspective of the “intended user” project team member, and sufficiently describe the specific management context to which the work will be applied?

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

8. Institutional Support/Capabilities: Are the facilities, equipment, and other resources of the host institution adequate for the proposed activities?

9. Qualifications: Are the identified personnel qualified for the proposed work? Is the team sufficient for the work described, or are there critical skill sets not represented in the project team?

10. Budget: Is the budget appropriate?