Contents
Introduction
General
Advisory Board
Competitive Research
Opening NSC to Broader Research Community
End Users
Level of Funding for Projects
Review Process for Proposals and Funded Projects
Science Transfer
Collaboration
Capacity Building Grants
Integrated Assessments
Climate Change Focus
Data Management
Introduction
This document is a compilation of questions about the new NERRS Science Collaborative program we received during and after the October 28, 29, and 30 overview webinars. We received considerable feedback and many asked the same or similar questions. For brevity’s sake, we’ve combined those questions for this document. Please consider this a draft document; it’s what we believe we heard and our initial responses. We’re looking forward to further discussions at the Annual Meeting.
Slides and an audio recording of the presentation can be found here.
General
Q. Where can we get copies of the webinar recordings and slide presentation?
A. The webinars and recordings, slides and this FAQ are posted at
Q. In addition to climate change, what are the priority areas of focus from the Science Collaborative?
A. Current Reserve research and monitoring priorities,as outlined in the NOAA RFP to which we responded,will be the foundation for the Program’s initial requests for proposals. We expect to iterate on this with the NERRS over time:
- Furthering our understanding of biophysical and human impacts of climate change on estuarine systems, including, but not limited to, sea level rise, marsh sustainability, and estimating community risk to climate change.
- Understanding how to utilize ecosystem valuation to characterize the benefits and tradeoffs to preserving estuarine ecosystems.
- Understanding the impacts and tradeoffs of shoreline stabilization, and which factors communities need to consider when adopting such measures.
- Understanding how to mitigate the impacts of land use change and estuarine eutrophication and contamination in estuarine ecosystems.
- Understanding how to restore estuarine habitat once it has been degraded or lost.
- Supporting the active engagement of intended users in the development of System-wide Monitoring Program (SWMP) and Sentinel Site data and information products, particularly the development of regional and national data syntheses that address coastal management needs in the NERRS and NOAA.
- Encouraging the utilization of SWMP or Sentinel Site data as appropriate in activities that support the research priorities listed above.
Advisory Board
Q. What are the goals of the Advisory Board, and what criteria, including experience/disciplines, were used to select members and what is their role?
A.The Advisory Board will provide advice on overall program direction, refinement of priorities, ensuring Science Collaborative processes and programs produce high-quality, end user-focused outputs and outcomes. Our goal was to assemble a group of individuals representing both estuarine science and Reserve sectors, balanced with respect to science, management, and geography. This includes representation across each of the five NERRS regions and a representative from NOAA, in addition to the NERRS Science Collaborative NOAA Program Officer. Other experts were selected based on their scientific credentials, their involvement in other large network efforts (e.g., Long Term Ecological Research (LTER), NEP), experience in working with resource managers at many scales, and their willingness to serve on the Board.
Board members will help inform the broad focus for collaborative research and science transfer RFPs, be represented on proposal review panels as appropriate, contribute to the annual review of multi-year projects, participate in the annual NERRS meeting, and provide input on ongoing program evaluation and improvement efforts. Board members will also aid in national dissemination and transfer of key knowledge, processes, and lessons learned.
Competitive Research
Opening NSC to Broader Research Community
Q. How will NSC ensure that projects meet Reserve priorities and are well-connected to Reserves throughout the process? What will be the role of Reserve personnel in NSC projects and how will they be compensated?
A. Our intent was to expand the potential science partners for the Reserves. While our approach will alert the broader community to the opportunity of bringing their expertise to partner with the Reserves, Reserve engagement and support is still a requirement. That is, we will require each team to consult with and receive a support letter from the Manager(s) in the Reserves where they plan to work. We anticipate including guidance language in the RFP such as:
Early in the development of their proposal, teams are required to consult with Reserve Manager(s) and/or other designated staff in the Reserve(s) in which they propose to work. In addition to integrating specific Reserve goals and needs into their proposals (see Section XX), teams will also be required to include sufficient resources to ensure full participation of Reserve personnel in their projects as well as a clear description of the role Reserve staff will play in the projects. The review panel will take into account the content of the Manager’s letter in determining the completeness of the consultation process.
We will make it clear that the purpose of the Manager letter is to determine how closely the proposing team worked with the Reserve in identifying priorities, and developing the proposal, work plan, and proposed outputs. Recognizing that the Science Collaborative is intended as a long-term investment by NOAA for the benefit of the System, it is in everyone’s best interest for Managers to not support projects that minimally meet Reserve needs and avoid diverting staff and resources to lower priorities. For this to work in the interest of the overall System, Managers will have to be willing to decline to support proposals that do not directly align with their Reserve’s needs and priorities. If useful, the Manager’s letter could be submitted under separate cover allowing the Manager to anonymously offer feedback on the proposal, proposal development process, or the team. Details would not be shared with teams that are not selected for support.
Reserve personnel could be end-users of NSC project results, e.g., Managers or Stewardship Coordinators, or they could lead (PI) or be incorporated, and appropriately budgeted, into project teams, such as the role that RCs, CTPs and other sectors have played to date. Other Reserve assets that the project team wishes to access should also be incorporated into budgets. The level of engagement will be at the discretion of the Reserve and satisfaction with that engagement at the project level should be incorporated into the Manager letter.
Q. How will you ensure that smaller research institutions are on an equal footing with the larger ones and prevent NSC from becoming just another good source of research dollars for the high-powered and well-funded academic institutions?
A. Technical competence is a necessary element of all potential projects; however technical expertise alone will not be sufficient for selecting projects for funding. We intend the proposal guidance and the proposal review process to place emphasis on a team’s ability to develop a fully collaborative process that clearly engages end-users from problem definition through development of outputs. This is a research process that will favor teams and institutions that understand the value of collaborative research processes and are able to deliver on them.
Q. What does the envisioned match-making process – people, resources and reserve ideas – look like?
A. We are still developing the details for this effort and welcome ideas on how it might work best. We want to help make meaningful connections, but don’t want to “give away” anything that teams do not wish to disclose. So, this may be as simple as a team leader (Reserve personnel or academic researcher) indicating the general topic they want to work on to see if there is interest in this topic from other geographies.
Q. What deliverables will be required in the RFP for the Collaborative Research grant?
A. Proposing teams will be required to identify the deliverables that best meet the needs of the end-users.
End Users
Q. Please define “end-user”?
A. End-user means anyone in position to implement a management, policy or regulatory action as a result of the outputs/outcomes of a NSC project. We envision the Reserves themselves being primary end-users, but not necessarily the only ones. For example, there may be land use or other management decisions on properties adjacent to a Reserve or in communities with which the Reserve works that will materially affect the Reserve or its management. In such an instance, the decision maker on the adjacent property/community would be considered an end-user. We distinguish between end-users and the broader group of stakeholders who would also be engaged in a project but who are not necessarily in position to apply results to a decision.
Q. Please provide more detail on how end-users will be engaged as project advocates since there are typically a large group of end-users, and this seems like a burden that few will be able to undertake.
A. We differentiate between end-users, as defined above, and those stakeholders whose involvement is critical to project success but who will not be in position to apply project outputs to their own work. We anticipate that only those teams who are really meeting end-user needs will be able to engage someone enough to convince them to take on the advocate role. We will provide resources to allow end-users to participate in the project review process.
Level of Funding for Projects
Q. Why the $250K/year ceiling on projects? Would it be possible to use $250K/year as a project budget guideline, not a hard ceiling?
A. Our goal is to maximize the number of projects we fund with the available resources, yet provide sufficient funds for meaningful outputs. That being said, the $250K/year budget could potentially be adjusted somewhat if justified, e.g., $300-350K to kick-off a project with a commensurately reduced budget the following year.
Review Process for Proposals and Funded Projects
Q. What is the review process for Science Collaborative proposals?
A. We will follow a transparent, NOAA-approved review process under NOAA’s oversight. This will include: convening a review panel to help select pre-proposals to invite to full proposal; soliciting 3-4 written technical reviews (equal numbers by collaboration experts and relevant technical experts) for all full proposals; selecting a sub-set that we anticipate funding; and re-convening the pre-proposal review panel and bringing the sub-set of teams, led by end-user advocate, before the panel.
Q. Who should I contact if I'm interested in serving as a proposal reviewer?
A. Please contact Jen Read, , 734.763.2642.
Q. What happens if there is a negative annual review of a Collaborative Science grant?
A. We envision the annual review process as a way to ensure that teams make appropriate progress during the project year. We will invite a panel of collaboration and estuarine expertsto review progress and their assessment, in consultation with the NSC team and NOAA, will result in one of the following scenarios: 1) the project team is making appropriate progress and will be approved for the next year of funding; 2) the project team will need to incorporate changes and demonstrate they’ve been incorporated before they will be approved for the next year of funding; or 3) the project team will not be approved for the next year of funding. This is also an opportunity to identifyany additional collaboration support the team might need which could range from opportunities offered by the Office of Coastal Management to one-on-one training/support provided by the NSC team.
Science Transfer
Q. Please clarify how NSC project will be prioritized when incorporated into Science Transfer projects, will they be given preference? Can you provide examples of Science Transfer projects?
A. We envision the Science Transfer projects as leveraging appropriate research output from both the Science Collaborative program and other Reserve-based programs. The evaluation will be based primarily on the needs being met, regardless of the original source of information.
We anticipate supporting transfer projects that help build a stronger national network through increasing opportunities for cross-Reserve collaboration and information sharing, as well as ones within a single Reserve transfer science to better support local decisions or education programs at that site. Projects are encouraged to incorporate SWMP data where feasible.
Q. What is the review process for Science Transfer proposals?
For the competitive, science transfer projects we will follow a transparent, NOAA-approved review process under NOAA’s oversight but without a pre-proposal phase. Proposals will receive written reviews and discussion by a multidisciplinary panel composed of collaboration and communications experts and relevant technical experts experienced at science transfer, such as non-conflicted NERRS personnel, Sea Grant specialists, and Extension Leaders. These panelists will help assess how well the proposed project increases opportunities for collaboration and information sharing. Panelists will rank projects as input to the Program decision.
Q. Does "increased SWMP data usage" include all SWMP data even if they are only partially supported by CDMO (LULC, long-term veg transects, SETs, etc.) or strictly water quality and weather data?
A. Yes, all available SWMP data will be encourage to be used.
Collaboration
Q. How will NSC ensure that projects are truly collaborative, how will weaknesses be addressed, and who will lead the collaboration at the project level?
A. We will clearly explain collaboration expectations in the RFP, which will also identify access to additional collaboration support. We are designing the project selection process to ensure that the best projects, meeting Reserve needs, with the most solid collaboration processes are selected for funding.
The NERRS network has been on the forefront of collaborative science and thus, some project teams won’t need explicit collaboration experts on the team. Others may choose to use other guidance and support, such as that offered by the NSC. However, project teams are still welcome to continue to include Reserve personnel, such as CTPCs, ECs or RCs on project teams to lead, facilitate, and/or enhance collaboration. However we will not require a collaboration expert be part of a team.
Once projects are selected, a project manager from the NSC team will be assigned to each and will work closely with the project team throughout the grant period. The project manager is tasked with getting to know the project and team members, tracking progress, assisting the team in working through challenges, helping to connect the project across the NERRS Network and beyond, and identifying potential challenges and opportunities. The project manager will be in a position to help to identify whether a team needs additional collaboration support and, if necessary, connect the team to the support they need.
The Science Collaborative projects will also undergo annual reviews during which a panel comprised of collaboration and estuarine experts will help identify any collaboration support needs and offer recommendations for improvement. (See Review Process for Proposals and Funded Projects above.)
Q. How will the University of Michigan team provide collaboration support to the NSC?
A. The Science Collaborative will not be providing day-to-day support for collaboration; this is something that must be built into the work plan, team and budget of Science Collaborative proposals and for which teams must appropriately allocate resources. This may require a collaboration expert or this role may be filled, for example, by a team member who is not a collaboration expert per se but has the relevant experience, skillset, and relationships to coordinate the project and ensure strong communication among team members and with end users.
We will work with individual project teams to be responsive to project-specific needs and identify ways in which we can offer further support. We anticipate this will be a mix of in-person and virtual support based on the needs of project teams. Over time we expect to offer a suite of opportunities and tools (e.g. workshops and presentations at the annual meeting, webinars, online resources) to further sharpen collaboration skills and facilitate learning across projects. For example, we have resources to bring team members to the NERRS annual meeting where we could offer collaboration/co-production workshops in which the larger Reserve Community would also be welcome to participate. These workshops will provide opportunities for Science Collaborative teams to learn from each other, share their success and best-practices and collaboratively consider alternate approaches to common and unique challenges.
Q. Please provide examples of online collaborative tools and other services. Will there be requirements to integrate them?