The non-native oyster research component of the Chesapeake Bay Integrated Science Program is a competitive research program designed to generate scientific information for a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the proposed introduction of a non-native oyster species, Crassostrea ariakensis, to the Chesapeake Bay and other tidal waters of Maryland and Virginia.

The program is aimed at research priorities recently identified by the National Research (NRC) and the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) of the Chesapeake Bay Program, as well as guidance from the International Code of Practice on the Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms (ICES Code of Practice). As a cooperating agency on the EIS, NOAA initiated this research program to ensure adequate scientific information is available to complete a full and thorough EIS.

• The Request for Proposal period for this program closed on March 15, 2006. More information can be found in the Federal Register Notice.
• The full Federal Funding Opportunity Announcement is also available for more details.

Anticipated Timeline:  Availability of funding for this program is included in the December NOAA Omnibus notice published in the Federal Register. Pre-proposals are typically due in January or February. In most cases, NOAA will not contact applicants following LOI submissions. All interested applicants must submit a full proposal by the published deadline. Full proposals and a complete application package are typically due in March.

Eligibility:  Eligible applicants are institutions of higher education, other nonprofits, commercial organizations, foreign governments, organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments, international organizations, and state, local, and Indian tribal governments. Federal agencies or institutions are not eligible to receive federal assistance under this funding program...

Drivers:  The EIS is being prepared by federal and state agencies in response to a proposal by the states of Maryland and Virginia to introduce Crassostrea ariakensis. In 2003 the U.S. Congress instructed the Army Corps of Engineers to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to examine both the risks and benefits of introducing this species to the Chesapeake Bay. The EIS is being conducted by the Corps as the lead federal agency, with the states of Maryland and Virginia serving as lead state agencies. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) are cooperating agencies on the EIS.

Current Priorities:  Current funding priorities include continuing multi-year projects that are already underway and initiating new projects that can be completed in a short time period. Proposals generally fit into one of the following areas of investigation

• Address one or more of the research priorities identified in the Report from the December 2003 STAC Workshop: Identifying and Prioritizing Research Required to Evaluate Ecological Risks and Benefits of Introducing Diploid Crassostrea ariakensis to Restore Oysters in Chesapeake Bay
• Producing economic analyses for the EIS on topics such as product quality and marketability, production or implementation costs, economic feasibility, economic effects
• Developing improved methods for the analysis of EIS alternatives

• Notice and Announcement:  A public notice of this funding program is included in the NOAA omnibus notice published in the Federal Register. More detailed information about the program can be found in the announcement of federal funding opportunity (FFO), which is posted on the NCBO web site and on www.grants.gov.
• Submitting Applications:  Application packages must be submitted electronically through www.grants.gov. Although previously optional, electronic submission is now mandatory.
• Initial Screening:  The Federal Program Officer responsible for this program conducts an initial screening to determine compliance with all application requirements.
• Evaluating Proposals: Proposals are evaluated based on importance and relevance and applicability of the proposed project to: 1) program goals; 2) technical/scientific merit; 3) overall qualifications of applicants; 4) project costs, and 5) outreach and education components. All proposals are evaluated and scored individually in accordance with the assigned weights of the above evaluation criteria and any additional criteria published in the FFO by an independent technical mail review. The technical mail reviewers are individuals with expertise in the subjects addressed by particular proposals, but who do not have a conflict of interests with the applicant. Each mail reviewer sees only certain individual proposals within their area of expertise. In addition to their review narrative, reviewers are required to comment on each of the five review criteria (listed above), to obtain an overall score for the proposal.

  Upon completion of the mail review, the evaluation process moves to the review panel. The review panel is an ad hoc assembly of independent reviewers with a range expertise appropriate to the proposals to be considered. A panel is comprised of four to eight individuals, with individuals having expertise in either the scientific, management, or implementation aspects of the program. Both nonfederal and federal scientists, managers and environmental education experts may be used as panel members. Like mail reviewers, panelists are asked to evaluate proposals individually, but they are asked to look at each proposal in comparison with similar proposals, and with all submitted proposals. The panel has access to all mail reviews of proposals, and uses the mail reviews in discussion and evaluation of?the entire slate of proposals. All proposals are considered, and each individual panel member numerically ranks the proposals (1 through n). The individual panelist rankings are averaged for each application and this average ranking is the primary factor in final selection. No consensus advice is given by the independent technical mail review or the review panel.

• Selection:  The NCBO program officers neither vote nor score proposals as part of the peer review panel. The program officer (a) selects the proposals to be recommended for funding based upon the averaged panel rankings, and/or any specific objectives published in the FFO; and (b) determines the amount of funds available for each proposal subject to the availability of fiscal year funds. Most proposals are funded in order of descending mean score, except in a few cases where proposals are funded out of rank order because they meet program priorities more closely than proposals that had higher mean scores. Recommendations for funding are then forwarded to the selecting official, the Director of NCBO, for the final funding decision. The Director makes final funding decisions based upon the program officials recommendations, project funding priorities, and availability of funds.