The objective of this Statement of Need (SON) is to advance understanding of how recent, ongoing, or potential ecosystem transformations may impact Department of Defense (DoD) mission fulfillment and operations, directly and indirectly, and how management actions might offset such impacts. Direct impacts include impacts of ecosystem transformation on the training and testing environment; indirect impacts include effects of the transformation on ecosystem services and other DoD-related benefits such as safety, health, and quality of life.
Successful proposals should address the following specific objectives:
- Document the pre-transformation ecosystem state, its key properties relevant to DoD mission and operations, and identify the primary driver(s) of transformation.
- Determine the observed or expected post-transformation ecosystem state(s), together with observed, ongoing, or expected changes in ecosystem properties (composition, structure, function) following transformation.
- Assess the consequences of these changes for installation operations, natural infrastructure, ecosystem services, hazard/risk environment, habitat for species of concern, and other mission-relevant concerns.
- Determine which, if any, of these consequences might be offset or mitigated by management interventions in the emerging ecosystem, or by shifting mission attainment to other locations or installations.
Proposals should focus on ecosystem transformations that have occurred, are occurring, or are likely to occur on DoD installations, and can draw on observations, modeling, and experimentation. Proposals should include identification of sources and levels of uncertainty. Proposals should not focus on pathways or mechanisms of transformation except insofar as they might affect DoD missions. Assessment of mitigation measures should focus solely on actions that can be taken in the new ecosystem that emerges in the transformation, and not on measures to resist or redirect the transformation. Preference will be given to projects that focus on key DoD geographies, such as the Pacific Islands, Alaska, arid Southwest, Great Basin, Southeast Coastal Plain, and other areas of high concentrations of DoD installations and ranges. Although projects can include off-installation studies, proposers are expected to work closely with DoD installation managers in project design and execution, particularly to understand the DoD-relevant consequences of transformation. Successful projects will draw from multiple disciplines (e.g., environmental, physical, and social sciences; engineering; public health).
Ecosystem transformations have occurred, are underway, or are threatened on many DoD lands and waters, both inland and coastal. Such transformations can disrupt or degrade DoD mission capabilities and operations in multiple ways. Understanding the DoD-relevant consequences of ecosystem transformations will enable more effective planning and management decisions on DoD installations, particularly regarding whether to respond to change via resistance, acceptance, or directed change.
Ecosystem transformations, in which a historical ecosystem is replaced by another with contrasting properties (composition, structure, function), are driven by invasive species, altered fire regimes, severe weather, and other disturbances. Some representative examples include conversion of sagebrush steppe to annual grassland, forest to woodland or scrub, tundra to forest, and salt marsh to open water. These changes can have important consequences for installation operations, installation resilience, and mission activities. Changes in ecosystem structure, for example, can render installation lands and waters unsuitable for intended training or testing activities. They can also degrade or eliminate natural infrastructure (e.g., storm or flood buffers), change the hazard environment (e.g., wildfire intensity, increased vectors for human pathogens and parasites), and affect water supply and quantity. Ecosystem transformation also changes the habitats for species of concern, which may render historical management practices obsolete.
Ecosystem transformations can occur gradually or rapidly, and in some cases have caught resource managers by surprise. Examples of the latter include proliferation of bark-beetle outbreaks in Alaska and the western U.S., wildfires of unusual severity and extent in the western U.S., and expansion of invasive species. Anticipating these events and their ecosystem consequences, particularly their consequences for DoD missions, is increasingly important.
Options for management interventions can be characterized under the RAD (Resist-Accept-Direct) framework. The Resist and Direct options involve direct interventions to, respectively, maintain the ecosystem in its historical state or to direct transformation trajectories towards a more desirable future state. The Accept option is to simply let the transformation take place and accept the consequences. Determining which option to pursue requires a baseline assessment of the consequences of following the Accept option, which can then be compared with the costs and potential consequences of the Resist and Direct options.
Resource managers will in many cases follow the Accept option. Some transformations may render the Resist or Direct options prohibitively expensive or even impossible. In some cases, managers may decide that it is the most suitable option under the circumstances. In addition to identifying the consequences of an ecosystem transformation, managers need to know what management actions (e.g., change in fire management, treatment of invasive species, regenerative or adaptive grazing, managed relocation of threatened or endangered species populations) might offset those impacts to minimize losses to or disruptions of DoD mission activities.
The cost and time to meet the requirements of this SON are at the discretion of the proposer. Proposers submitting a Standard or Limited Scope Proposal must provide the rationale for the proposed scale. The two options are as follows:
Standard Proposals: These proposals describe a complete research effort. The proposer should incorporate the appropriate time, schedule, and cost requirements to accomplish the scope of work proposed. SERDP projects normally run from two to five years in length and vary considerably in cost consistent with the scope of the effort. It is expected that most proposals will fall into this category.
Limited Scope Proposals: Proposers with innovative approaches to the SON that entail high technical risk or have minimal supporting data may submit a Limited Scope Proposal for funding up to $350,000 and approximately one year in duration. Such proposals may be eligible for follow-on funding if they result in a successful initial project. The objective of these proposals should be to acquire the data necessary to demonstrate proof-of-concept or reduction of risk that will lead to development of a future Standard Proposal. Proposers should submit Limited Scope Proposals in accordance with the SERDP Core Solicitation instructions and deadlines.
Mr. Kevin Hiers
Program Manager for Resource Conservation
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP)
