Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit, Colorado Plateau CESU | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is this funding opportunity?

This opportunity was a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) discretionary funding announcement under the Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (CESU), Colorado Plateau CESU. It is identified as Funding Opportunity Number 10HQPA0016.

What was the main purpose of the award?

The purpose was to fund research that improves how carbon sequestration outcomes are evaluated, especially when outcomes depend on policy choices. The focus was on developing rigorous, statistics-driven methods so decision-makers can better understand whether a policy is likely to increase sequestration, undermine it, or shift risk in less obvious ways.

What problem was the announcement trying to address?

The announcement highlighted that local and regional laws intended to reduce atmospheric carbon can sometimes create unintended side effects. In some cases, a policy could inadvertently increase carbon emissions or reduce the long-term permanence of stored carbon. The funded research was intended to make those kinds of outcomes easier to quantify and evaluate.

What types of research outputs were expected?

The work was framed around risk and probability analysis for carbon sequestration methodologies. Expected outputs emphasized analytical methods that quantify uncertainty and variability in sequestration estimates, rather than presenting sequestration gains as a single fixed value.

What does it mean to use a probability-based approach for sequestration estimates?

Instead of producing one number for expected sequestration, the project emphasis was on estimating a frequency distribution or probability density function for potential increases in carbon sequestration capacity within a specific ecosystem under a defined scenario. This approach describes a range of plausible outcomes and how likely each outcome is.

Why focus on probability distributions instead of a single estimate?

The opportunity stressed that ecosystems can respond differently under varying conditions (such as climate patterns, land management actions, disturbance regimes, or policy-driven land-use changes). Probability-based methods make it clearer how outcomes can vary and how much uncertainty exists in projected sequestration.

What is meant by "risk" in this opportunity?

Risk referred to the likelihood that stored carbon remains stored over time (often described as the permanence of sequestered carbon) and how that permanence could be affected under a given policy scenario.

What threats to carbon permanence were called out?

The announcement noted both natural and human-caused (anthropogenic) threats that can reverse sequestration gains. Examples included wildfire, drought, pest outbreaks, erosion, land conversion, timber harvest, energy development, and other management or development activities.

How were policy scenarios intended to be treated in the research?

The research was intended to evaluate sequestration outcomes under defined policy scenarios and explicitly account for uncertainty, variability, and threats to permanence. The idea was to clarify how policies might alter the risk profile of carbon storage, not just the amount stored.

Did the opportunity require identifying uncertainty in methods?

Yes. A stated aim was to identify and expose the main sources of uncertainty within carbon sequestration assessment methodologies so that assumptions, data limitations, model choices, and scenario definitions are clearer and can be improved in future analyses.

Was the work intended to support decision-making?

Yes. The opportunity positioned the research as an ecoregional decision-support effort, with tools or methods expected to help regions evaluate how policies could play out locally while still being relevant to broader climate and land management decisions.

Why was the ecoregional focus important?

The announcement emphasized that sequestration performance is context dependent. The same policy can produce different outcomes in different landscapes, and probabilistic methods can help make those differences more transparent to planners and stakeholders.

What kind of award instrument was used?

The award mechanism was a cooperative agreement.

What does a cooperative agreement imply for agency involvement?

It indicates the government expected substantial involvement during the project, rather than providing funding with minimal agency participation (as is more typical of some standard grant arrangements).

What was the funding activity category?

The funding activity category was Science and Technology and other Research and Development.

What CFDA program was associated with this opportunity?

The opportunity was listed under CFDA 15.808, U.S. Geological Survey Research and Data Collection.

How much funding was anticipated?

The opportunity anticipated a single award with an estimated total funding amount of $40,000.

How many awards were expected?

The announcement anticipated a single award.

Was cost sharing or a match required?

No. The opportunity did not require cost sharing or matching funds.

What were the award ceiling and floor?

The award ceiling and floor were listed as $0. This typically indicates that formal bounds were not set in those fields, even though an estimated total funding amount was provided.

Who was eligible to apply?

Eligibility was limited to partners participating in the Colorado Plateau Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (CESU) Program. Applicants needed to be within that established CESU partnership network rather than applying as general, open applicants.

What is a CESU in the context of this opportunity?

CESUs are structured partnerships that connect federal agencies with universities and other organizations to provide research, technical assistance, and education. This opportunity was limited to the Colorado Plateau CESU partner network.

When was the opportunity posted and when did it close?

The opportunity was posted on October 27, 2009. It ultimately closed on December 7, 2009.

What were the created and archive dates?

The opportunity record was created on December 2, 2009, and the archive date was January 6, 2010.

Who was the point of contact listed for access issues?

The listed point of contact for access issues was Faith Graves, Contract Specialist, at 703-648-7356.

Does the information provided specify application submission steps or required forms?

No. Based on the information provided, specific submission instructions, required forms, and detailed application components were not included.

Does the information provided specify evaluation criteria or a review process?

No. The provided description focuses on goals, scope, and administrative basics, but does not include review criteria or a detailed selection process.

Does the information provided define specific ecosystems or geographic areas for the research?

It frames the effort as ecoregional and ecosystem-specific, but it does not name specific ecosystems or locations beyond being associated with the Colorado Plateau CESU partnership structure.