Funding Opportunity: Technologies to Assess Human Health Risks at Swimming Beaches

Description
Funding Priorities
Research Priorities
What to Expect from SCCWRP
Eligibility
Intellectual Property
Proposal Preparation
Submission
Evaluation

Description
CICEET invites proposals for one-year technology demonstration projects to participate in the Doheny Beach Epidemiology study planned by the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP).

The goal of this effort is to improve our ability to protect public health at swimming beaches. To this end, the study will evaluate the effectiveness of fecal indicator-based methods that monitor beach water quality, and technologies that identify the sources of contamination. At the same time, it will examine how well results generated by these methods correlate with public health effects in swimmers.

This endeavor has significant management implications for closing and reopening of beaches, as well as the creation and revision of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) standards. Further, it is an opportunity for researchers in the public sector, academia, or industry to better understand how well their technologies/methods correlate with observed health effects in swimmers. Learn more about why CICEET is partnering with SCCWRP on this study >

Up to $750,000 will be available for CICEET’s funding opportunity related to this study. The number of projects funded will depend on available resources and the relative merit of proposals, as determined by a technical panel. Pending research project results, there may be “Phase 2” funding for selected projects to participate in SCCWRP’s 2008 epidemiology activities.

Funding Priorities
CICEET’s mission is to develop and apply effective, accessible technology that coastal resource managers nationwide can use to address their highest priority environmental challenges. Consequently, we will give preference to proposals that demonstrate the following:

• Focus on mature methods and technologies with documented performance characteristics;
• Demonstrate a reasonable expectation of linking results to health risk;
• Potential to address common logistical and budgetary constraints faced by managers around the country in the context of routine beach monitoring.

Research Priorities
CICEET will accept proposals that address one or more of the following three research priorities:

A. Demonstration of technologies or methods using “alternative” indicators of fecal pollution to predict health risks at swimming beaches. “Alternative indicators” are defined as those other than the U.S. EPA-recommended Enterococcus spp. for marine waters, and Escherichia coli for freshwater. Examples of alternative indicators, include but are not limited, to Bacteroides, various species within Enterococcus spp, and viruses or other direct measures of pathogens.

Determining which viral pathogens are responsible for negative health effects in swimmers is beyond the scope of the SCCWRP study and this RFP. Rather, the goal is to consider viruses or other alternative measures as indicators of fecal pollution and health risk. Proposals addressing viruses should also include objectives related to improving the recovery of sufficient numbers of viruses (e.g., pre-concentration of samples), a historically challenging aspect of using viruses as indicator organisms.

B. Demonstrate technologies or methods, including those that are in situ or field-based, to quantify fecal indicators in a more timely manner than traditional methods. Projects should seek to enable, at a minimum, same-day management decisions.

C. Demonstrate practical, cost-effective microbial source identification tools that complement and add insight to the planned epidemiology study, CICEET research priorities A and B, as well as the SCCWRP activities outlined in the following section. These methods/technologies should have the potential for national application.

Fecal indicators can come from many different sources, and health risks associated with an indicator differ depending on the source. In this study, microbial source identification tools will be used to modify indicator measurements to further clarify the relationship between current indicator-based approaches, new indicator methods, and swimming-associated health effects. Applicants addressing this research priority must justify their approach given this overarching context.

What to Expect from SCCWRP
The epidemiology study will be conducted by SCCWRP in partnership with the University of California at Berkeley. The study will be a prospective cohort design in which approximately 35,000 swimmers will be monitored for water exposure while at the beach, and surveyed for 14 health symptoms over the following two weeks. The first year of the study will be conducted at Doheny Beach, located at the mouth of the San Juan Creek watershed in Dana Point, California. The primary contamination source at this site is nonpoint source runoff from the creek. Some portion of the beach failed state water quality standards 358 days in 2003.

Get more details on the SCCWRP study now >

While writing proposals for the CICEET RFP, applicants should keep in mind that SCCWRP will perform the following activities related to their projects:

• SCCWRP will begin sample collection in late May 2007. They will collect, filter, and send all water samples to CICEET investigators. Each investigator is expected to receive approximately 324 samples. Please do not include costs of collection, filtration, and shipping of samples in your proposed budget.
• SCCWRP will conduct traditional, U.S. EPA-recommended assays as a comparison with the alternative approaches being demonstrated. Do not include these activities in your proposals.
• At the study’s completion, SCCWRP will produce a publishable epidemiological analysis. Any peer-reviewed articles that result from the analysis will include participating researchers as authors. The publication of articles outside the immediate scope of the epidemiological analysis will be at the discretion of the collaborating researchers.
• SCCWRP and CICEET will disseminate information regarding the study’s results. While CICEET strongly encourages all of its project investigators to conduct outreach related to project activities, we ask that you do not include dissemination or outreach as a funded activity in your proposal.

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—including those from NOAA—are eligible if they can document statutory authority to supplement their appropriations with funds from other federal programs and entities. 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 submit final reports for completed projects, or progress reports for ongoing work.

Intellectual Property
In some instances, commercialization is the most efficient means of disseminating knowledge or technology. In others case, however, 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. (Note: The title page you download from this site 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.

Proposal Preparation
CICEET has prepared the following guide to submitting proposals for this funding opportunity. Please review the “What to expect from SCCWRP” section of this RFP before you prepare this application. Each proposal must include the following:

Title page
Abstract
Narrative
Investigator curriculum vitae, no more than two pages
Appendix of literature cited
Budget forms

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

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

Narrative
Narratives are not to exceed 15 single-spaced pages with one-inch margins. They must be formatted in “Times” 12-point font. Narratives must include the following elements:

1) Introduction: Clearly identify which Research Priorities (A through C) in this funding opportunity you plan to address with your project. Explain how your project addresses CICEET’s “Funding Priorities” for this RFP. Briefly discuss how the methods you propose compare with other approaches to beach water quality monitoring.

2) Objectives: Outline your project’s objectives and how they relate to one or more of the research priorities (A through C).

3) Methods: Describe the methods you will use to meet project objectives. You may use this section to expand on how the methods in this proposal compare with traditional and other alternative methods. You should include the following:

• Performance characteristics such as accuracy, precision, and specificity;
• Detailed information on sample analysis, including steps for quality assurance/control;
• Timeline for executing project;
• Demonstration of familiarity with the SCCWRP study and its location, Doheny Beach, CA;
• Identification of any cost-sharing activities, i.e., those related to the project, but not included in the CICEET budget request.

5) Roles and Responsibilities: Describe the roles and responsibilities of the project participants.

6) Budget Justification: Please provide a detailed budget justification that explains the separate items in the budget file. Please note that funding for this RFP is limited. Therefore, methods that are less proven will need to demonstrate increased levels of cost-sharing.

7) Survey Question: CICEET would like to make its extramural research funding competition as user friendly as possible. Your answer will not impact the assessment of your proposal and will help us improve our RFP for future applicants.

On a scale of 1 to 5 (5 being the most favorable score), please rate this RFP document in terms of the following question: Did you have sufficient information and support to prepare your proposal?

Additional comments/suggestions are very welcome!

Appendix of literature cited

Investigator curriculum vitae
Please limit to two pages

Budget form
Download a copy of the budget form now >

Submission
The deadline for receipt of your proposal by CICEET is 1 p.m. (1300 hours), EST, on December 12, 2006. Your initial submission MUST be in electronic form, 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

If you have questions about converting documents from common formats to PDF, please contact CICEET. Note that 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 Tuesday, December 19, 2006. Please mail this to CICEET’s Program Coordinator:

Cindy Tufts
Gregg Hall, Room 130
35 Colovos Road
Durham, NH 03824-3534

You will receive notification of CICEET’s proposal evaluations and decisions by early February 2007. Please note that the panel may elect to recommend that a proposal be awarded funds contingent on clarification or changes to the proposal. Due to the immovable deadline represented by the initiation of the epidemiology study, CICEET will require a very quick turnaround on these responses to the panel’s questions. Please be prepared for this contingency during the first week of February.

If you have questions regarding the format and guidelines for proposal preparation, please contact CICEET.

Evaluation
CICEET will conduct an initial compliance review of all proposals. Any deemed “non-compliant” will be eliminated from the competition, and CICEET will notify the applicants. Non-compliant proposals are so deemed for failure to do one or more of the following:

• Follow the narrative structure as noted above;
• Adequately address the questions posed within each narrative component;
• Adequately address the Research Priorities noted above;
• Follow directions with regard to formatting and submission procedures.

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) Appropriateness: To what degree do the objectives, methods, and overall approach of the proposal support the goals of CICEET as stated in this RFP? Did the proposal clearly delineate which of the three research priorities (A through C) is being addressed? How well did the proposal address the following questions?

• Is there a reasonable expectation that the proposed measurement will improve our ability to predict water-quality related health risk for swimmers?
• Are the proposed methods to measure the indicator mature? Have they been demonstrated to be repeatable and sensitive? CICEET seeks methods ready for inclusion in an epidemiology studies in 2007, not those that require development.
• Should the indicator be demonstrated to have a relationship to health risk, are the cost and logistics associated with the measurement such that they would likely be adopted by local beach monitoring programs?

3) Management Impact: To what extent has the applicant demonstrated an understanding of the factors that ultimately impact beach water quality managers and made a case for the utility of the technology or methods presented in the proposal? Is it transferable to other geographic areas? What are the costs and skill levels required to implement this technology should it be used on an ongoing basis?

4) Personnel: 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?

5) Budget: Is the budget appropriate?