Applied Field Research on Ecological Functions at Living Shoreline Installations | W81EWF 25 SOI 0002

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the "Applied Field Research on Ecological Functions at Living Shoreline Installations" opportunity?

This opportunity is a discretionary, science and technology research cooperative agreement sponsored by the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC). It funds applied, field-based research that evaluates how living shoreline projects perform ecologically compared with natural shoreline reference sites, with the goal of improving shoreline stabilization decisions and practices.

Who is the sponsoring agency?

The sponsor is the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC).

What type of funding mechanism is being offered?

The funding instrument is a cooperative agreement. This generally indicates substantial federal involvement during the project, which matches the program's expectation that awardees will collaborate with ERDC researchers (especially on developing and applying ecological function metrics).

What is the opportunity number and CFDA number?

The opportunity number is W81EWF 25 SOI 0002, and the CFDA number is 12.630.

How many awards does ERDC expect to make?

ERDC expects to make one award.

What is the maximum funding amount (award ceiling)?

The award ceiling is $300,000.

What is the application deadline?

The original closing date listed for the opportunity is February 6, 2025.

What is the overall purpose of the research funded by this program?

The program is intended to produce practical, defensible ways to evaluate ecological function at living shoreline installations and to translate those findings into usable guidance for landowners and natural resource managers. The emphasis is applied and decision-support oriented, not purely academic.

What kinds of projects are a fit for this opportunity?

Projects should be applied, field-based research efforts that measure and compare ecological function at living shoreline installations and natural shoreline reference sites, and that connect those ecological outcomes to physical conditions and design specifications to support improved shoreline stabilization guidance.

What is meant by "living shoreline" in the context of this opportunity?

The notice frames living shorelines as shoreline stabilization projects whose ecological functions can be assessed and compared against natural shoreline conditions. The research focus is on real-world ecological performance at installation sites and nearby areas, relative to natural reference sites.

What are the primary objectives of the program?

There are two main objectives. First, work directly with ERDC researchers to create and implement a suite of qualitative and quantitative metrics for ecological function at living shoreline sites and comparable natural shoreline reference sites. Second, use the resulting data to evaluate how physical parameters and design specifications relate to ecological outcomes, and synthesize results to inform a living shoreline guidance document.

What does Objective 1 (metric development and implementation) require?

Objective 1 focuses on collaborating with ERDC researchers to develop and apply a consistent set of ecological function metrics. These metrics are expected to be collected at living shoreline sites (and nearby areas) and at natural shoreline reference sites for comparison. Deliverables include documenting the metrics and reporting annual results, potentially through yearly reports and/or peer-reviewed products (journal articles or technical reports).

What kinds of ecological function metrics does the notice mention?

The notice explicitly points to examples such as biomass productivity, sediment accumulation, and habitat provisioning. It also indicates the intent is broader than these examples, aiming for a metric suite that can consistently characterize ecosystem processes and habitat value under real-world conditions.

Are both qualitative and quantitative metrics expected?

Yes. The notice specifically calls for a set of qualitative and quantitative metrics to capture ecological function at living shoreline and natural shoreline reference sites.

What does Objective 2 (comparative evaluation and synthesis) require?

Objective 2 moves from metric development into analysis and synthesis. Applicants are expected to analyze relationships among physical parameters and site conditions (for example, exposure, geomorphology, or hydrodynamic setting), living shoreline design/installation specifications, and measured ecological functions. The goal is to identify which combinations of design and setting are associated with stronger ecological performance and to feed those findings into living shoreline guidance for practitioners.

How will the results be used?

The results are intended to support the development of a living shoreline guidance document. The program is designed to translate research findings into decision-support guidance that practitioners can use to weigh shoreline stabilization strategies more effectively.

Is collaboration with ERDC required?

Yes. The first objective explicitly states that awardees are expected to work directly with ERDC researchers to create and implement the ecological function metrics, which aligns with the cooperative agreement structure that typically involves substantial sponsor involvement.

Who is eligible to apply?

Eligibility is limited to non-federal partners of the Chesapeake Watershed Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit (CESU).

Can federal entities apply?

No. The notice limits eligibility to non-federal partners of the Chesapeake Watershed CESU.

Can organizations that are not part of the Chesapeake Watershed CESU apply?

No. Based on the notice, only non-federal partners of the Chesapeake Watershed CESU are eligible.

Are religious organizations eligible to compete?

Yes. The notice clarifies that religious organizations may compete on equal footing with secular organizations for federal financial assistance, consistent with Executive Order 13798.

What is "current and pending support," and why is it important for this opportunity?

The notice emphasizes scrutiny of disclosures of current and pending support as a key compliance item. It states that disclosures made in the application can render an applicant ineligible, and that ERDC may request updates before award and throughout the period of performance. Those updates will be reviewed and could lead to discontinuation of funding, which makes ongoing accuracy and transparency an explicit award condition.

Can support disclosures affect eligibility?

Yes. The notice states that disclosures made in the application can render an applicant ineligible, so applicants should treat current and pending support disclosures as a high-stakes compliance requirement.

Will ERDC request updated disclosures after submission?

Yes. The notice states ERDC may request updates before award and throughout the period of performance, and those updates will be reviewed.

What happens if support disclosures change or are not kept accurate during the project?

The notice indicates that updated disclosures may be required and reviewed during the period of performance and that issues identified through this process could lead to discontinuation of funding. This implies that maintaining accurate, current disclosures is an ongoing requirement.

Is this opportunity focused on academic publication, or practical guidance?

It is explicitly translational and decision-support oriented. While publication pathways include yearly reports and/or peer-reviewed outputs like journal articles or technical reports, the program emphasizes building defensible evaluation methods and translating findings into guidance that can be used by landowners and natural resource managers.

What deliverables are expected?

The notice identifies deliverables tied to both objectives, including (1) documentation of the developed ecological function metrics, (2) annual reporting of results, and (3) outputs that may include yearly reports and/or peer-reviewed products such as journal articles or technical reports. The second objective also points toward synthesis intended to feed a living shoreline guidance document.

What comparisons are central to the study design described in the notice?

The notice centers on comparing ecological function measurements at living shoreline sites and nearby areas with comparable measurements at natural shoreline reference sites, and then analyzing how physical conditions and design specifications relate to ecological outcomes across those site types.

What kinds of site and design factors are expected to be analyzed under Objective 2?

The notice gives examples of site conditions and physical parameters such as exposure, geomorphology, and hydrodynamic setting, and it also expects analysis of engineering or installation design features. The intent is to relate these factors to measured ecological functions.

Is the research expected to be field-based?

Yes. The opportunity is described as applied, field-based research focused on real-world ecological performance at living shoreline installations and natural shoreline reference sites.

What does "discretionary" mean in the context of this notice?

The notice describes the program as a discretionary cooperative agreement opportunity, meaning it is a competitive federal assistance award where funding decisions are made at the agency's discretion based on the opportunity's criteria and priorities.