SSWR Water Quality Benefits RFA NOV FINAL.pdf

COVID-19 Update: EPA is providing flexibilities to applicants experiencing challenges related to COVID-19. Please see the Flexibilities Available to Organizations Impacted by COVID-19 clause in Section IV of EPA’s Solicitation Clauses.

OVERVIEW INFORMATION

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science Advisor, Policy and Engagement Office of Research and Development Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Program

WATER QUALITY BENEFITS

This is the initial announcement of this funding opportunity.

Funding Opportunity Number: EPA-G2022-STAR-D1

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 66.509

Solicitation Opening Date: November 24, 2021 Solicitation Closing Date: January 26, 2022: 11:59:59 pm Eastern Time

Table of Contents

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

Synopsis of Program Award Information Eligibility Information Application Materials Agency Contacts

I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

A. Introduction

B. Background C. Authority and Regulations D. Specific Areas of Interest/Expected Outputs and Outcomes E. References F. Special Requirements

II. AWARD INFORMATION

III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

A. Eligible Applicants B. Cost Sharing C. Other

IV. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

A. Grants.gov Submittal Requirements and Limited Exception Procedures https://www.epa.gov/grants/epa-solicitation-clauses

B. Application Package Information C. Content and Form of Application Submission D. Submission Dates and Times E. Funding Restrictions F. Submission Instructions and Other Submission Requirements

V. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION

A. Peer Review B. Relevancy Review C. Past Performance History Review D. Human Subjects Research Statement (HSRS) Review E. Evaluation of the Scientific Data Management Plan F. Funding Decisions G. Additional Provisions for Applicants Incorporated into the Solicitation

VI. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

A. Award Notices B. Disputes C. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

VII. AGENCY CONTACTS

For Updates and Additional Information (https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/research-funding-opportunities) Access Standard STAR Forms (https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/research-funding-opportunities-how-apply-and-required-forms) View research awarded under previous solicitations (https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/research-grant-areas)

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 that will address how measurable attributes of water quality improvements can be valued, either directly or through indicators.

Research under this Request for Applications (RFA) is intended to focus on national level studies and/or valuation for underrepresented water body types and regions, improvements to water quality indices, and environmental justice valuation.

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 https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/research-funding-opportunities https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/research-funding-opportunities https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/research-funding-opportunities-how-apply-and-required-forms https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/research-funding-opportunities-how-apply-and-required-forms https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/research-grant-areas https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/research-grant-areas applications must include a Human Subjects Research Statement (HSRS, as described in Section IV.C.6.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.D and V.F of this solicitation.

Guidance and training for investigators conducting EPA-funded research involving human subjects may be obtained here:

https://www.epa.gov/osa/basic-information-about-human-subjects-research-0 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40cfr26_main_02.tpl

Award Information:

Anticipated Type of Award: Grant Estimated Number of Awards: Approximately 7 awards. EPA intends to make at least one award under each research area described in Section I.D below. This is an estimate and is subject to change based on funding levels, the quality of applications received, and other applicable considerations. See Section V.F. Funding Decisions for additional information.

Anticipated Funding Amount: Approximately $5.194 million total for all awards Potential Funding per Award: Up to a total of $742,000 per award, including direct and indirect costs, with a maximum duration of 3 years. Cost-sharing is not required. Applications with budgets exceeding the total award limits will not be considered.

Eligibility Information:

Public and private nonprofit institutions/organizations, public and private institutions of higher education, and hospitals located in the U.S. and its territories or possessions; state and local governments; Federally Recognized Indian Tribal Governments; and U.S. territories or possessions are eligible to apply. 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.F. “Submission Instructions and other Submission Requirements”). Note: With the exception of the current and pending support form (available at https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/research-funding-opportunities-how-apply-and-required-forms), all necessary forms are included in the electronic application package. Make sure to include the current and pending support form in your Grants.gov submission.

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.

https://www.epa.gov/osa/basic-information-about-human-subjects-research-0 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40cfr26_main_02.tpl https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/research-funding-opportunities-how-apply-and-required-forms

If you do not have the appropriate internet access to utilize the Grants.gov application submission process for this solicitation, see Section IV.A below for additional guidance and instructions.

Agency Contacts:

Technical Contact: Ben Packard; phone: 202-564-7673; email: packard.benjamin@epa.gov Eligibility Contact: Ron Josephson; phone: 202-564-7823; email: josephson.ron@epa.gov Electronic Submissions Contact: Debra M. Jones; phone: 202-564-7839; email:

jones.debram@epa.gov

I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

A. Introduction

The Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Program’s goal is to stimulate and support scientific and engineering research that advances EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment.

It is a competitive, peer-reviewed, extramural research program that provides access to the nation’s best scientists and engineers in academic and other nonprofit research institutions.

STAR funds research on the environmental and public health effects of air quality, environmental changes, water quality and quantity, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and pesticides.

EPA and other agencies have a long history of sponsoring research that develops or advances methods to evaluate the benefits of environmental improvements. This includes the economic values (both use and non-use value) associated with water quality and aquatic resources (e.g., 2015 STAR Water Quality Benefits grants, 2004 Valuation for Environmental Policy grants, and the Environmental Economics Research Strategy; USEPA, 2005). Quantifying water quality benefits supports national, state, tribal, and local water quality decision-making. However, recent research suggests existing analyses omit categories of water quality benefits and certain types of aquatic resources. For example, Keiser et al. (2019) notes that several analyses exclude benefits to coastal areas but that these benefits may be important since nearly 40% of the U.S. population lives in coastal counties.

This lack of information on a broad range of benefits for different communities or population groups makes water quality benefits estimation difficult (Keeler et al. 2012) and highlights the need for research on the distributional impacts of water quality benefits including how water quality changes impact underserved communities which are described below. Another complication, and open research question, is identifying the spatial distribution of those who benefit from water quality improvements as measured by the extent of the market. Researchers have found that a variety of factors, like waterbody type or potential substitute sites, can affect how distance from the waterbody impacts how residents in an area value water quality benefits (i.e., distance decay, Hanley et al., 2003; Johnston et al., 2019).

Further, estimating water quality benefits requires predicting the effect of policies or actions on water quality improvements and linking those improvements to benefits. One approach used by mailto:packard.benjamin@epa.gov mailto:josephson.ron@epa.gov mailto:jones.debram@epa.gov https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.rfatext/rfa_id/583 https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.rfatext/rfa_id/372 https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/environmental-economics-research-strategy-2005

EPA, state, and local agencies, is to summarize the results of water quality modeling using a single value representing the quality of a waterbody, called the Water Quality Index (WQI). Not only does a WQI allow for valuing changes in multiple stressors affected by an action, it can also support the transfer of benefits to new policies or actions. Despite its widespread use, including in integrated assessment models, limitations have been identified with current indices such as how changes in water quality parameters and attributes appropriately reflect how people value different uses. Furthermore, research to improve WQIs is important because it facilitates cross-disciplinary research between scientists and economists, allowing both to describe their research in a much broader context relevant to policy. Researchers from fields engaged in measuring water quality improvements will have a better path to expressing the monetary benefits or value of the impact of their results, making them more relevant to policy makers at all levels.

Researchers from fields engaged in valuation will have a better path to connecting their results to a wider range of water quality models, also making them more relevant to policy makers at all levels. To address these research needs, EPA is interested in the following water quality benefits research areas: 1) National Level Studies and/or Valuation for Underrepresented Water Body Types and Regions; 2) Improving Water Quality Indices (WQIs); and 3) Environmental Justice Valuation.

EPA recognizes that it is important to engage all available minds to address the environmental challenges the Nation faces. At the same time, EPA seeks to expand the environmental conversation by including members of communities which may have not previously participated in such dialogues to participate in EPA programs. For this reason, EPA strongly encourages all eligible applicants identified in Section III, including minority serving institutions (MSIs), to apply under this opportunity.

For purposes of this solicitation, the following are considered MSIs:

1. Historically Black Colleges and Universities, as defined by the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1061(2)). A list of these schools can be found at Historically Black Colleges and Universities;

2. Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), as defined by the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1059c(b)(3) and (d)(1)). A list of these schools can be found at American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities;

3. Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), as defined by the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1101a(a)(5)). A list of these schools can be found at Hispanic-Serving Institutions;

4. Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions; (AANAPISIs), as defined by the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1059g(b)(2)). A list of these schools can be found at Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions; and

5. Predominately Black Institutions (PBIs), as defined by the Higher Education Act of 2008, 20 U.S.C. 1059e(b)(6). A list of these schools can be found at Predominately Black Institutions.

https://sites.ed.gov/whhbcu/one-hundred-and-five-historically-black-colleges-and-universities/ https://sites.ed.gov/whhbcu/one-hundred-and-five-historically-black-colleges-and-universities/ https://sites.ed.gov/whiaiane/tribes-tcus/tribal-colleges-and-universities/ https://sites.ed.gov/whiaiane/tribes-tcus/tribal-colleges-and-universities/ https://sites.ed.gov/hispanic-initiative/hispanic-serving-institutions-hsis/ https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1XVkOWKMDORm53pvU0L8EPsrJC94&msa=0&ie=UTF8&t=m&z=3&source=embed&ll=40.58644586187277%2C-148.28228249999984 https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1wlIi3j7gtlNq_w-0NKAb2bF2VmY&ie=UTF&msa=0&ll=37.35160769312532%2C-96.17229800000001&z=4

B. Background

National Level Studies and Valuation for Underrepresented Water Body Types and Regions

There are multiple studies focusing on the nonmarket value of water quality in the academic literature. These studies have allowed researchers to conduct national water quality meta-analyses (Johnston et al., 2003, 2017; Newbold et al., 2018b; Van Houtven et al., 2007);

however, the underlying studies on which they are built are not equally distributed across the country. Many large areas of the country have no original studies valuing them, which forces researchers to value these areas by transferring benefits from studies conducted in other locations.

There are two existing nationwide stated preference studies of water quality improvements. The first study surveyed respondents to value nationwide improvements in water quality using a stated preference survey (Carson and Mitchell, 1993). Water quality was expressed using the “water quality ladder”, which communicates water quality in terms of whether the water is considered suitable for boating, fishing, and swimming. Willingness to pay (WTP) was elicited for three different changes, leading to all lakes and rivers in the U.S. reaching a national minimum water quality rating of boatable, fishable, or swimmable. Viscusi et al. (2008) conducted a national stated preference study of U.S. lakes and rivers. Respondents were asked a series of iterative choice questions using a measure of the percent of U.S. rivers and lakes that are rated “Good” (as opposed to “Not Good”).

Although two nationwide stated preference studies have been conducted, and both were novel at the time, the field of nonmarket valuation has evolved significantly since they were conducted.

Updated national water quality nonmarket valuation studies would provide the national coverage that is currently lacking in the academic literature. These national studies would also provide important checks on, and validation of, the current methods in use.

Additionally, there is a need for research that focuses on under-studied regions, waterbody types, and recreational uses (e.g., beach going, swimming, boating, and wildlife viewing). These categories may reveal a wide range of benefits from water quality improvements. Figure 1 and Table 1 summarize spatial and typology characteristics of the study databases that EPA currently uses for water quality and wetlands benefit meta-analyses. These databases consist of around 70 research papers that meet EPA’s methodological and data criteria for meta-analysis.

Figure 1:

Map of state-level study counts using EPA water quality metadata

Figure 1 visualizes the stark spatial gaps in the current water quality valuation literature.

Research coverage is thin in the Plains, Mountain West, and Pacific regions. Moreover, greater than half of the existing research is over 20 years old and relies on older methodologies and best practices (Figure 1). Research that uses updated methods to address these regional gaps would be of high value.

Table 1 Number of studies by age of research and EPA region. (Note: some studies span multiple regions.)

Furthermore, several waterbody types are generally underrepresented in the recent academic literature. Table 2 provides a summary count of EPA’s benefits metadata by waterbody type and region studied. Freshwater studies are especially lacking in the south central and western regions, and wetlands benefit valuation is sparse across the country. Studies that add to the literature in these areas are of interest.

Table 2 Number of studies for different waterbody types by EPA region. (Note: some studies span multiple regions and study multiple water types.)

EPA is also interested in supporting studies that measure benefits of iconic water bodies. Focus group research by EPA and previous valuation studies (e.g., stated preference valuation of Chesapeake Bay water quality described in Moore et al., 2017) shows that WTP and the extent of market can be greater for widely recognized and highly regarded waterbodies. Focus group research showed that the primary indicators for such “iconic” waterbodies are size, cultural and historical significance, and contribution to (recreational) economic activity. EPA is interested in supporting research on the differential in WTP for water quality improvements between iconic waterbodies and more typical ones, whether that differential can be reliably estimated based on waterbody characteristics, and how the extent of market differs.

Water Quality Indices

Water Quality Indices (WQIs), which have seen widespread use over the last four decades, aggregate sub-index scores for common measurable water quality parameters into a single numerical score that describes the overall quality of a waterbody. One of the more commonly used WQIs, is a modified version of the nine-parameter WQI developed by McClelland (1974) which used the Delphi method to elicit judgements from a panel of experts on the parameters most relevant to water quality. That version includes six water quality parameter sub-indices:

dissolved oxygen (DO), fecal coliform, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), and total suspended solids (TSS). The relationships between the measurable water quality parameters and water quality modeled by the sub-index curves are derived from the sub-index formula developed for the Oregon Water Quality Index (OWQI) (Cude, 2001). In an extension of the McClelland (1974) WQI, Vaughan (1986) connected sub-indices for water quality parameters through the application of the water quality ladder (WQL), which pegs uses, such as swimming, boating, fishing and drinking water, to acceptable levels of each water quality parameter.

In general, WQIs have been developed to convey information about the quality of an aquatic environment through a single numeric indicator that can easily be interpreted by the public and policy makers. For example, the Washington Department of Ecology’s Freshwater Monitoring Unit developed an eight-parameter WQI based on their local water quality standards to set priorities for addressing water quality issues based on changes in the WQI score over time (Hallock, 1990). Other states have also developed their own WQIs that serve the same purpose of classifying water quality across waterbodies and identifying priority waterbodies, but that differ in parameters used, subindex curve structure, and aggregation methods (Cude, 2001; Iowa DNR, 2006; Vermont DEC, 2019) Additionally, WQIs are in wide use internationally (Uddin et al., 2021). For example, in Canada, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) has developed a WQI that assigns scores to waterbodies from parameter values based on three criteria: scope (number of variables exceeding threshold values/criteria), frequency (number of exceedances in the dataset), and amplitude (magnitude of the exceedances). This classifies the water quality of a waterbody relative to its designated use and the threshold/criteria used to establish exceedances of water quality standards (CCME, 2001). The development of physico-chemical WQIs at the state, federal, and international levels has been informed by past and present work to develop and improve alternative indices. Therefore, improvements to WQIs will be of benefit to researchers by facilitating more cross-disciplinary research in which scientists can describe their results in an economic context and economists can describe their research in scientifically-based water quality methods.

Research on WQIs will also facilitate research on water quality benefits via integrated assessment models (IAMs), which have an extensive history (Keiser and Muller 2017; Keiser et

al. 2019). Government agencies have provided the data, models, and motivation for large scale analysis using IAMs, to consider the consequences of a variety of water quality, conservation, and land-use programs or policies. Agencies have also supported extensive research and innovative approaches to building IAMs (see Corona et al. and others in the Land Economics 2020 special issue). For example, EPA has developed and continues to improve a national-level coupled watershed/water quality model (HAWQS) and water quality valuation model (BenSPLASH) that allows analysts to value the change in water quality benefits resulting from policy decisions throughout the conterminous United States (Corona et al. 2020). Development of IAMs continue to benefit from original valuation studies. Research as requested in EPA’s 2015 Water Quality Benefits STAR grant solicitation or as identified in this current solicitation can provide insight into approaches and assumptions on functional form, extent of market, valuation for different waterbodies or endpoints, and other methodological issues.

Environmental Justice Valuation https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/hawqs-hydrologic-and-water-quality-system https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.rfatext/rfa_id/583

Efforts to better incorporate environmental justice (EJ) into policymaking are an ongoing agency-wide priority (Maguire and Sheriff, 2011; EPA, 2014, EPA, 2021). Environmental economists have made substantial research contributions in the area of EJ, but this work has largely focused on air- and land-based pollution (see Banzhaf et al., 2019 for recent overview).

Given the prevalence of water pollution in both rural and urban communities, EPA seeks to advance knowledge on the interplay of EJ, water pollution, and source water protection, with emphasis on better understanding how these interactions affect measurements of economic benefits from water quality improvements. Water quality can disproportionately affect the distribution of health, environmental, and economic benefits and costs to groups with different racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic characteristics. Examples include indigenous people relying on subsistence diets (Noble, 2016), and low-income and minority communities facing disproportionately high pollutant exposures to drinking water contaminants (Balazs et al. 2011;

Schaider, et al. 2019). Residents in low-income areas may not have the option to choose between recreational water sources with different water quality attributes. Thus, translating water quality impacts to specific population groups of concern is an important aspect to valuing water quality.

EJ analysis, however, has historically addressed “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” amongst population groups of concern, while side-stepping discussions of monetary benefits and costs (E.O. 12898; Shadbegian and Wolverton, 2015).

Recent directives have also noted “the unbearable human costs of systemic racism” and instructed agencies to “create opportunities for the improvement of communities that have been historically underserved” (E.O. 13985), and designated that specific percentages of total quantifiable benefits flow to underserved communities (E.O. 14008). With this background in mind, EPA is interested in studies that quantify a broadened set of use- and non-use benefits pertinent to population groups of concern.

C. Authority and Regulations

The authorities for this RFA and resulting awards are contained in the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300j-1, Section 1442, and the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1254, Section 104(b)(3).

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. Further note applications dealing with any aspect of or related to hydraulic fracking will not be funded by EPA through this program.

Additional applicable regulations include: 2 CFR Part 200, 2 CFR Part 1500, and 40 CFR Part 40 (Research and Demonstration Grants).

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 activities to be funded under this solicitation support EPA’s Draft FY 2022-2026 Strategic Plan (https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/strategicplan). Awards made under this solicitation will support: Goal 5: Ensure Clean and Safe Water for All Communities, Objective 5.2: Protect and Restore Waterbodies and Watersheds, of the Draft Plan. All applications must be for projects that support the goal(s) and objective(s) identified above. The proposed research awards support the STAR Program’s goal of stimulating and supporting scientific and engineering research that advances EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment in the area of safe and sustainable water resources. The research awards will provide new information on the economic values associated with water quality and aquatic resources with a specific focus on national level studies and/or valuation for underrepresented water body types and regions, improvements to water quality indices, and environmental justice valuation.

EPA also requires that grant applicants adequately describe environmental outputs and outcomes to be achieved under assistance agreements (see EPA Order 5700.7A1, Environmental Results under Assistance Agreements, https://www.epa.gov/grants/epa-order-57007a1-epas-policy-environmental-results-under-epa-assistance-agreements). Applicants must include specific statements describing the environmental results of the proposed project in terms of well-defined outputs and, to the maximum extent practicable, well-defined outcomes that will demonstrate how the project will contribute to the goal(s) and objective(s) described above.

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. The Agency is also interested in funding research that expands water quality valuation to cover gaps in terms of geographic coverage, waterbody types and distributional effects. In addition, EPA encourages research on how best to value tradeoffs between improving water quality significantly in a few waters versus improving water quality modestly in many waters. 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 and private decision makers and stakeholders at the state and local levels, 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 how changes in water quality can be valued at appropriate spatial scales. Special focus should be given to national level studies and/or valuation for underrepresented water body types and regions, studies that update WQIs, and environmental justice valuation. This RFA encourages interdisciplinary collaborations between environmental economists and other scientists, for example, by explicitly linking water quality model outputs https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/strategicplan https://www.epa.gov/grants/epa-order-57007a1-epas-policy-environmental-results-under-epa-assistance-agreements https://www.epa.gov/grants/epa-order-57007a1-epas-policy-environmental-results-under-epa-assistance-agreements

(or similar predictions) to valuation endpoints (potentially through an ecosystem services framework).

There are three distinct areas of research covered by this solicitation. EPA encourages applicants to focus on only one research area so that applications have the detail necessary to fully address one research area. However, applications that address more than one research area will not be deemed ineligible but will not necessarily be rated more highly than those that address just one.

Applications should indicate which research area(s) is being addressed. Applicants are not required to address all the questions listed under each research area or limit their research scope to these questions. Please note that ONLY research proposed under research area 3, Environmental Justice Valuation: Physical Characteristics and Geography, is required to describe how the proposed research addresses factors described in the “Environmental Justice” section below.

Research Areas

Research Area 1 - National Level Studies and/or Valuation for Underrepresented Water Body Types and Regions. Note, research in this area should focus on how the extent of the market varies nationally and/or for underrepresented water body types and iconic water bodies.

Applications may address the following questions:

• How can national-level studies advance knowledge of the effect that differences in spatial scales have on water quality benefits? What water quality measures/metrics/indices work best to value changes at a national scale?

• What underrepresented regions and water body types require further study? Examples include wetlands, coastal waters, and intermittent and ephemeral streams.

• Does WTP differ between iconic and non-iconic water bodies? Does extent of market differ for iconic water bodies?

• What is the estimation of the extent of market/WTP distance decay? How does extent of market differ for underrepresented water body types?

• How does WTP differ between the local and regional scale?

• How can other valuation methods and studies be cross-validated to provide more accurate estimates?

• What are the effects of small policy changes, baseline conditions, and functional forms on

WTP? Do baseline conditions effect WTP?

Research Area 2 - Improving Water Quality Indices (WQIs). Adjustments to current WQIs are needed to better facilitate cross-disciplinary research on water quality improvements and valuation. Applications may address the following questions:

• What new sub-indices can be constructed or updated to directly link water quality parameters to measurable water quality attributes that people value?

• What connections between sub-indices and designated uses can be developed such as primary contact, recreation/swimming, fishing, and boating?

• Can sets of water quality parameters be included in a WQI to reflect parameters currently used to measure ambient water quality?

• How can water quality problems such as harmful algal blooms be better incorporated into a

WQI?

Research Area 3 - Environmental Justice Valuation: Physical Characteristics and Geography. For the purposes of this RFA, “benefits” are broadly defined. Note that applicants proposing research under this research area also need to demonstrate how their project will address factors described in the “Environmental Justice” section below. Note that environmental justice will also be evaluated by external peer reviewers as described in Section V.A. Applications may address the following questions:

• How are benefits to subsistence fishing such as catch-rate and fishery health affected by improvements in water quality?

• What are the non-use benefits associated with being a good steward of water quality for all members of society? Studies could be modeled after the Cropper et al. (2016) paper on paternalistic altruism.

• In a welfare economics framework (incorporating factors such as budget constraints, preferences, and available substitutes), what are the benefits from water quality improvements to population groups of concern that reduce disproportionate exposure impacts (e.g., health)?

o In addition to direct benefits of water quality improvements, what indirect effects (e.g., gentrification) can be measured and monetized?

o What are the advantages and disadvantages of distribution-sensitive total benefit aggregation approaches (Adler, 2016; Banzhaf, 2009) and can new methodologies be developed?

• How can reduced cumulative health risks related to improved water quality be incorporated into water-based benefits analysis?

Expected Outputs and Outcomes

Expected Outputs: Some examples of desirable outputs anticipated under the awards from this solicitation include:

• Reports and peer reviewed publications pertaining to the research areas listed above

• Workshops and webinars to disseminate information

• Guidance documents

• Decision support tools and/or models

• Demonstrations and case studies

• Detailed study documentation to support benefit transfer

• New approaches, methods, and results improving understanding of environmental justice and how to tie it to the measurement of water quality benefits

• Suggestions of water quality parameters to include in WQIs and information on impacts on water quality

• New methods for developing subindices that:

o Directly relate water quality parameters and measurable attributes of water quality o people value o complete sub-index curves

• New approaches to better integrate designated uses into a WQI structure

These outputs should follow best practices for study reporting to ensure the results support benefit transfers or meta-analyses and decision making (e.g., Loomis and Rosenberger 2006;

Johnston et al. 2017; Newbold et al. 2018a).

Expected Outcomes: The desired outcomes of this effort would include an improved understanding of how the extent of the market varies nationally and by waterbody type and size;

a better understanding of how individuals value water quality, in terms of step versus incremental functions; improved facilitation of cross-disciplinary research focusing on the value of water quality improvements; a better understanding of the distribution of benefits and costs;

and an increase in the pool of suitable study cases that support benefit transfers or meta-analyses.

Innovation To the maximum extent practicable, research applications 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 applications must include a discussion on how the proposed research is innovative (see Section IV.C.6.a). Reviewers will draw from the above-mentioned innovation definition in the review/evaluation process of research applications (see Section V.A).

Environmental Justice To the maximum extent practicable, applicants proposing research under research area #3:

Environmental Justice Valuation: Physical Characteristics and Geography should demonstrate in their application how they will advance environmental justice for underserved communities, as defined below. Environmental justice (EJ) is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Fair treatment means no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or policies.

Meaningful involvement means people have an opportunity to participate in decisions about activities that may affect their environment and/or health; the public's contribution can influence the regulatory agency's decision; community concerns will be considered in the decision-making process; and decision makers will seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected. For purposes of this competition and the evaluation of applications under research area #3, “underserved communities” refers to populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as geographic communities, that have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life, including people/communities of color, low income, tribal and indigenous populations, and other vulnerable populations such as the elderly, children, and those who have pre-existing medical conditions.

Underserved communities are often affected by disproportionate impacts. Disproportionate and adverse environmental, human health, climate-related and other cumulative impacts, as well the accompanying economic challenges of such impacts, may result when greater pollution burdens and/or consequences, and the impact of them, are more likely to affect or have affected the underserved communities described in this solicitation. The impacts may result from various factors including but not limited to being a function of historical trends and policy decisions.

Factors that may indicate disproportionate and adverse impacts as referenced above include:

differential proximity and exposure to adverse environmental hazards; greater susceptibility to adverse effects from environmental hazards (due to causes such as age, chronic medical conditions, lack of health care access, or limited access to quality nutrition); unique environmental exposures because of practices linked to cultural background or socioeconomic status (for example, subsistence fishing or farming); cumulative effects from multiple stressors;

reduced ability to effectively participate in decision-making processes (due to causes such as lack of or ineffective language access programs, lack of programs to make processes accessible to persons with disabilities, inability to access traditional communication channels, or limited capacity to access technical and legal resources); and degraded physical infrastructure, such as poor housing, poorly maintained public buildings (e.g., schools), or lack of access to transportation.

In addressing research area #3: Environmental Justice Valuation: Physical Characteristics and Geography described above in applications, applicants should demonstrate how their project will address the disproportionate and adverse human health, environmental, climate-related and other cumulative impacts, as well as the accompanying economic challenges of such impacts, resulting from industrial, governmental, commercial and/or other actions that have affected and/or currently affect the underserved communities. Applicants should also demonstrate how the project benefits the underserved communities including those that have experienced a lack of resources or other impediments to addressing the impacts identified above that affect their community and how the project addresses engagement with these communities, especially local residents in these communities who will be affected by the project, to ensure their meaningful participation with respect to the design, project planning, and performance of the project.

E. References

Adler, M. D. (2016). Benefit–cost analysis and distributional weights: an overview. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 10(2), 264-285.

Balazs, C., Morello-Frosch, R., Hubbard, A., & Ray, I. (2011). Social disparities in nitrate-contaminated drinking water in California’s San Joaquin Valley. Environmental health perspectives, 119(9), 1272-1278.

Banzhaf, H. S. (2009). Objective or multi-objective? Two historically competing visions for benefit-cost analysis. Land Economics, 85(1), 3-23.

Banzhaf, S., Ma, L., & Timmins, C. (2019). Environmental justice: The economics of race, place, and pollution. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(1), 185-208.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). (2001). CCME Water Quality Index

1.0 Technical Report. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life.

Carson, R. T., & Mitchell, R. C. (1993). The value of clean water: the public's willingness to pay for boatable, fishable, and swimmable quality water. Water Resources Research, 29(7), 2445- 2454.

Corona, J., Doley, T., Griffiths, C., Massey, M., Moore, C., Muela, S., ... & Hewitt, J. (2020). An integrated assessment model for valuing water quality changes in the United States. Land Economics, 96(4), 478-492.

Cropper, M., Krupnick, A., & Raich, W. (2016). Preferences for equality in environmental outcomes (No. w22644). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Cude, C. G. (2001). Oregon water quality index a tool for evaluating water quality management effectiveness 1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 37(1), 125-137.

Hallock, D. (1990). Results of the 1990 Water Quality Index Analysis. State of Washington, Department of Ecology, Memorandum to Dick Cunningham, Hallock, D. (2002). A Water Quality Index for Ecology’s Stream Monitoring Program, Washington State Department of Ecology.

Hanley, N., Bell, D., & Alvarez-Farizo, B. (2003). Valuing the benefits of coastal water quality improvements using contingent and real behaviour. Environmental and Resource Economics, 24(3), 273-285.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey (Iowa DNR). (2006). Iowa’s Water Ambient Monitoring Program: Why a Water Quality Index? Water Fact Sheet 2006-8. February.

109 Townbridge Hall, Iowa City, IA.

Johnston, R. J., Besedin, E. Y., & Wardwell, R. F. (2003). Modeling relationships between use and nonuse values for surface water quality: A meta‐analysis. Water Resources Research, 39(12).

Johnston, R. J., Besedin, E. Y., & Holland, B. M. (2019). Modeling distance decay within valuation meta-analysis. Environmental and Resource Economics, 72(3), 657-690.

Johnston, R. J., Boyle, K. J., Adamowicz, W., Bennett, J., Brouwer, R., Cameron, T. A., ... & Vossler, C. A. (2017). Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 4(2), 319-405.

Johnston, R. J., Besedin, E. Y., & Stapler, R. (2017). Enhanced geospatial validity for meta-analysis and environmental benefit transfer: an application to water quality improvements. Environmental and Resource Economics, 68(2), 343-375.

Keeler, B. L., Polasky, S., Brauman, K. A., Johnson, K. A., Finlay, J. C., O’Neill, A., ... & Dalzell, B. (2012). Linking water quality and well-being for improved assessment and valuation of ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(45), 18619-18624.

Keiser, D. A., Kling, C. L., & Shapiro, J. S. (2019). The low but uncertain measured benefits of US water quality policy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(12), 5262-5269.

Keiser, D. A., & Muller, N. Z. (2017). Air and water: Integrated assessment models for multiple media. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 9, 165-184.

Loomis, J. B., & Rosenberger, R. S. (2006). Reducing barriers in future benefit transfers: Needed improvements in primary study design and reporting. Ecological Economics, 60(2), 343-350.

Noble, M., Duncan, P., Perry, D., Prosper, K., Rose, D., Schnierer, S., ... & Pittock, J. (2016).

Culturally significant fisheries: keystones for management of freshwater social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 21(2).

Maguire, K., & Sheriff, G. (2011). Comparing distributions of environmental outcomes for regulatory environmental justice analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8(5), 1707-1726.

McClelland, N. I. (1974). Water quality index application in the Kansas River Basin (Vol. 74, No. 1). US Environmental Protection Agency-Region VII.

Moore, C., Guignet, D., Dockins, C., Maguire, K. B., & Simon, N. B. (2018). Valuing ecological improvements in the Chesapeake Bay and the importance of ancillary benefits. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 9(1), 1-26.

Newbold, S., Simpson, R. D., Massey, D. M., Heberling, M. T., Wheeler, W., Corona, J., & Hewitt, J. (2018a). Benefit transfer challenges: perspectives from US practitioners. Environmental and Resource Economics, 69(3), 467-481.

Newbold, S. C., Walsh, P. J., Massey, D. M., & Hewitt, J. (2018b). Using structural restrictions to achieve theoretical consistency in benefit transfers. Environmental and Resource Economics, 69(3), 529-553.

Phaneuf, D.J. (Ed.). Land Economics. (2020). Special Issue on Integrated Assessment Models and the Social Cost of Water Pollution Workshop [Special issue] Land Economics, 96(4).

Schaider, L. A., Swetschinski, L., Campbell, C., & Rudel, R. A. (2019). Environmental justice and drinking water quality: are there socioeconomic disparities in nitrate levels in US drinking water?. Environmental Health, 18(1), 1-15.

Shadbegian, R. J., & Wolverton, A. (2015). Evaluating environmental justice: Analytic lessons from the academic literature and in practice. Failed Promises: Evaluating the Federal Government's Response to Environmental Justice, 117-142.

Uddin, G.M., Nash, S., & Olbert, A.I.. (2021). A Review of Water Quality Index Models and Their Use for Assessing Surface Water Quality. Ecological Indicators, 122, 1-21.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). Environmental Economics Research Strategy.

(Report No. EPA/600/R-04/195). Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/environmental-economics-research-strategy-2005

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses:

Environmental Justice, Children, and Other Distributional Considerations. (Report No. EPA 240-R-10-001). Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017- 09/documents/ee-0568-10.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2021, April 7). EPA Administrator Announces Agency Actions to Advance Environmental Justice [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-administrator-announces-agency-actions-advance-environmental-justice

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.

Vaughan, William J. (1986). The Water Quality Ladder. Included as Appendix B in Mitchell, R.C. and R.T. Carson. 1986. The Use of Contingent Valuation Data for Benefit/Cost Analysis in Water Pollution Control. (Report No. CR-810224-02). Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. Washington, D.C..

Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). (2019). Lake Score Card.

Retrieved from: https://dec.vermont.gov/watershed/lakes-ponds/data-maps/scorecard.

Viscusi, W. K., Huber, J., & Bell, J. (2008). The economic value of water quality. Environmental and Resource Economics, 41(2), 169-187.

F. Special Requirements

It is EPA Policy to ensure that the results of EPA-funded extramural scientific research are accessible to the public to the greatest extent feasible consistent with applicable law; policies and Orders; the Agency’s mission; resource constraints; and U.S.