Performance and Effectiveness of Green Infrastructure Stormwater Management Approaches in the Urban Context A Philadelphia Case Study | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1) What is this EPA funding opportunity about?

This opportunity, offered through EPAs Science to Achieve Results (STAR) research program, supported applied research and on-the-ground demonstration projects focused on green infrastructure (GI) stormwater practices at the urban watershed scale. The main goal was to produce practical, measurable evidence of GI performance and effectiveness when deployed across a real city environment, rather than only studying isolated sites.

2) What problem was the program trying to address?

The program aimed to strengthen the evidence base for using green infrastructure to manage stormwater and inform stormwater and combined sewer overflow (CSO) management decisions. It emphasized understanding GI within the broader urban water cycle and accounting for real-world complexities like built infrastructure, land use, and interacting hydrologic processes.

3) What types of projects were intended to be funded?

The solicitation supported (1) applied research and (2) on-the-ground demonstration projects. Projects were expected to go beyond measuring a single installation and instead evaluate how GI performs at a larger, city-relevant scale with outcomes that can translate into guidance for practitioners.

4) What is meant by "urban watershed scale" in this opportunity?

Urban watershed scale means evaluating green infrastructure in a way that reflects conditions across a substantial portion of a city, not just a single parcel or pilot site. The intent was to capture variability and interactions that occur in an operational city setting (for example, differences in rainfall, soils, impervious cover, maintenance realities, and neighborhood-scale conditions).

5) Where was the geographic focus of this Request for Applications (RFA)?

The RFA was specifically focused on Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, using the citys Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) service area as the study setting.

6) What was the size of the targeted study area?

The targeted area was approximately 40,500 acres within Philadelphias CSO service area.

7) Why was Philadelphia and the CSO service area chosen as the study setting?

Based on the announcement summary, the CSO service area provided a large, dense, and operationally relevant urban watershed context where green infrastructure is often promoted as a strategy to reduce stormwater volumes entering combined sewer systems. This setting was meant to support real-world evaluation at scale.

8) What was the core intent behind focusing on city-scale GI instead of isolated site studies?

The core intent was to move beyond controlled or isolated site research and generate practical, measurable evidence about how GI performs when deployed across a real city environment, accounting for the complexity of urban infrastructure, land use, community conditions, and hydrologic interactions.

9) What kinds of green infrastructure practices were expected to be studied?

The summary does not list specific GI practices. However, the scope implies common stormwater GI measures, including infiltration- and retention-based systems that manage runoff closer to where it falls.

10) What performance factors or real-world conditions were projects expected to account for?

Projects were expected to reflect real-world conditions in a major city, including variability in rainfall, soil conditions, impervious cover, maintenance realities, and neighborhood-scale differences that can influence outcomes.

11) How were results expected to be used?

Results were intended to inform stormwater and CSO management decisions by providing defensible, watershed-relevant evidence on what green infrastructure can realistically achieve in an urban setting.

12) Did EPA encourage collaboration or partnerships?

Yes. The RFA emphasized leveraging resources and building strategic partnerships. Competitive proposals were expected to involve collaborations such as universities, local government (including city agencies responsible for water and stormwater), community stakeholders, and other organizations that could support access to sites, data, monitoring, and implementation.

13) Why were partnerships emphasized?

The intent behind the partnership emphasis was to help ensure research designs are feasible in an active city environment and that findings translate into useful guidance for practitioners.

14) What funding mechanism was used (grant vs. cooperative agreement)?

The opportunity was discretionary and provided funding through grants and cooperative agreements.

15) How many awards did EPA expect to make?

EPA anticipated making about three awards.

16) What was the estimated total funding available under the program?

The estimated total program funding was $3,000,000.

17) What was the maximum (ceiling) amount per award?

The ceiling for an individual award was $1,000,000.

18) Was there a minimum award amount?

No minimum award amount was stated in the summary.

19) Was cost sharing or matching required?

No cost sharing or matching requirement was listed in the summary.

20) When was the opportunity posted?

The opportunity was posted on September 21, 2012.

21) What was the application deadline?

The application closing date was January 8, 2013.

22) When was the opportunity archived?

The archive date was February 7, 2013.

23) What is the CFDA number associated with this opportunity?

The associated CFDA number was 66.509 (STAR Research Program).

24) Who was eligible to apply?

Eligibility was described broadly as "Others." Applicants were directed to the full announcement, particularly Section III, for the exact eligibility rules, indicating that multiple organization types may have been allowed depending on EPAs conditions for STAR solicitations.

25) Where could applicants find the exact eligibility rules?

The summary indicates applicants should refer to the full announcement, specifically Section III, for the detailed eligibility requirements.

26) Who should be contacted for eligibility questions?

Eligibility questions were directed to Bronda Harrison at harrison.bronda@epa.gov or 703-347-8080.

27) Who should be contacted for electronic submission issues?

Electronic submission issues were directed to Todd Peterson at peterson.todd@epa.gov or 703-308-7224.

28) Who should be contacted for technical questions about the opportunity?

Technical questions were directed to Angela Page at page.angelad@epa.gov or 703-347-8046.

29) What made this solicitation different from a typical green infrastructure study?

Based on the summary, the distinguishing feature was the emphasis on watershed-relevant evidence in a real city context. The program sought to understand GI performance at scale in Philadelphias CSO service area while accounting for the complexity of urban systems and operational realities.

30) What was the overarching goal of the funded work?

The overarching goal was to fund rigorous, partner-driven studies in Philadelphia that would produce defensible evidence on how green infrastructure performs and how effective it is as a stormwater and CSO management approach in an urban setting.