This document has been archived and replaced by NSF 15-596
http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf15596.
TITLE: Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) Renewal (nsf13588)
DATE: 8/12/2013
Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER)
Renewal
[1]Program Solicitation
NSF 13-588
NSF Logo
National Science Foundation
Directorate for Biological Sciences
Division of Environmental Biology
Directorate for Geosciences
Division of Polar Programs
Division of Ocean Sciences
Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
March 14, 2014
IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND REVISION NOTES
A revised version of the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures
Guide (PAPPG), [2]NSF 13-1, was issued on October 4, 2012 and is
effective for proposals submitted, or due, on or after January 14,
2013. Please be advised that the guidelines contained in [3]NSF 13-1
apply to proposals submitted in response to this funding opportunity.
Please be aware that significant changes have been made to the PAPPG
to implement revised merit review criteria based on the National
Science Board (NSB) report, [4]National Science Foundation's Merit
Review Criteria: Review and Revisions. While the two merit review
criteria remain unchanged (Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts),
guidance has been provided to clarify and improve the function of the
criteria. Changes will affect the project summary and project
description sections of proposals. Annual and final reports also will
be affected.
A by-chapter summary of this and other significant changes is provided
at the beginning of both the [5]Grant Proposal Guide and the [6]Award
& Administration Guide.
Please note that this program solicitation may contain supplemental
proposal preparation guidance and/or guidance that deviates from the
guidelines established in the [7]Grant Proposal Guide.
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
General Information
Program Title:
Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER)
Synopsis of Program:
NSF currently supports 25 LTER sites, and the solicitation is open
to renewal proposals only.
To address ecological questions that cannot be resolved with
short-term observations or experiments, NSF established the Long
Term Ecological Research Program (LTER) in 1980. Three components
differentiate LTER research from projects supported by other NSF
programs: 1) the research is located at specific sites chosen to
represent major ecosystem types or natural biomes; 2) it emphasizes
the study of ecological phenomena over long periods of time based
on data collected in five core areas; and 3) projects include
integrative, cross-site, network-wide research. Ongoing research at
LTER sites must test important, current ecological theories and
significantly advance understanding of the long-term dynamics of
populations, communities and ecosystems. It often integrates
multiple disciplines and, through cross-site interactions, examines
patterns or processes over broad spatial scales. Recognizing that
the value of long-term data extends beyond use at any individual
site, NSF requires that data collected by all LTER sites be made
broadly accessible.
Cognizant Program Officer(s):
Please note that the following information is current at the time of
publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of
contact.
* Saran Twombly, Division of Environmental Biology, telephone: (703)
292-8133, email: [8]stwombly@nsf.gov
* David L. Garrison, Division of Ocean Sciences, telephone: (703)
292-7588, email: [9]dgarriso@nsf.gov
* Lisa M. Clough, Division of Polar Programs, telephone: (703)
292-4746, email: [10]lclough@nsf.gov
Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):
* 47.050 --- Geosciences
* 47.074 --- Biological Sciences
Award Information
Anticipated Type of Award: Continuing Grant
Estimated Number of Awards: 7
In FY 2014 seven sites are scheduled for renewal.
Anticipated Funding Amount: $8,200,000
Projects currently funded at $980,000 per year may, with convincing
justification, increase their annual request by up to 15%, to an
annual request not to exceed $1,127,000.
Projects currently funded at $1,280,000 per year may not request an
increased annual budget for this renewal.
All awards will be pending availability of funds.
Eligibility Information
Organization Limit:
Proposals may only be submitted by the following:
* The LTER program is currently accepting only renewal proposals.
Only organizations with active LTER awards are eligible to apply.
Collaborative proposals must be submitted using the "single
proposal" method as described in Chapter II, Section D.4.a. of the
GPG. Separately submitted collaborative proposals will be returned
without review.
PI Limit:
The LTER program is currently accepting only renewal proposals.
Only organizations and PIs with active LTER awards are eligible to
apply.
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:
None Specified
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI:
None Specified
Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
A. Proposal Preparation Instructions
* Letters of Intent: Not Applicable
* Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not Applicable
* Full Proposals:
+ Full Proposals submitted via FastLane: NSF Proposal and Award
Policies and Procedures Guide, Part I: Grant Proposal Guide
(GPG) Guidelines apply. The complete text of the GPG is
available electronically on the NSF website at:
[11]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg.
+ Full Proposals submitted via Grants.gov: NSF Grants.gov
Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission
of NSF Applications via Grants.gov Guidelines apply (Note:
The NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the
Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at:
[12]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gran
tsgovguide)
B. Budgetary Information
* Cost Sharing Requirements: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost
sharing is prohibited.
* Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations: Not Applicable
* Other Budgetary Limitations: Other budgetary limitations apply.
Please see the full text of this solicitation for further
information.
C. Due Dates
* Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
March 14, 2014
Proposal Review Information Criteria
Merit Review Criteria: National Science Board approved criteria.
Additional merit review considerations apply. Please see the full text
of this solicitation for further information.
Award Administration Information
Award Conditions: Standard NSF award conditions apply.
Reporting Requirements: Standard NSF reporting requirements apply.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
[13]Summary of Program Requirements
I. [14]Introduction
II. [15]Program Description
III. [16]Award Information
IV. [17]Eligibility Information
V. [18]Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
A. [19]Proposal Preparation Instructions
B. [20]Budgetary Information
C. [21]Due Dates
D. [22]FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements
VI. [23]NSF Proposal Processing and Review Procedures
A. [24]Merit Review Principles and Criteria
B. [25]Review and Selection Process
VII. [26]Award Administration Information
A. [27]Notification of the Award
B. [28]Award Conditions
C. [29]Reporting Requirements
VIII. [30]Agency Contacts
IX. [31]Other Information
I. INTRODUCTION
All ecological communities and ecosystems face long-term change.
Identifying the nature of these changes and the mechanisms or
processes driving them requires the collection, analysis, and
interpretation of data over long periods of time. To address questions
that cannot be resolved with short-term observations or experiments,
NSF established the Long Term Ecological Research Program (LTER).
Three components characterize LTER research: 1) it is located at
specific sites chosen to represent major ecosystem types or natural
biomes, 2) it emphasizes the study of phenomena over long periods of
time based on data collected in five core areas, and 3) projects often
include integrative, cross-site research. Ongoing research at LTER
sites must test important, current ecological theories and
significantly advance understanding of the long-term dynamics of
populations, communities and ecosystems.
Over thirty years of LTER research have produced unique and valuable
knowledge about ecological change in response to natural and human
influences. LTER research has advanced the field of ecology and helped
to provide the empirical data needed to forecast change. It has also
advanced understanding of continental-scale processes, through
cross-site analyses of ecological change. At some sites, social
scientists have been engaged to examine questions of socio-ecological
connections among organisms, biological processes, and the abiotic
environment.
As the LTER Program enters its fourth decade, it faces new demands for
long-term research. Long-term data are necessary to advance our
understanding of complex biological systems, important ecological
processes that are context-dependent and non-linear, ecological and
evolutionary processes that interact continually through feedbacks,
and the effects of ongoing climate change that are currently unknown.
These are a few of the frontiers particularly appropriate to the LTER
program.
II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Successful renewal proposals must test major ecological theories or
concepts. Proposed research should be organized around a suite of
integrated questions that arise from the analysis of long-term data.
It should have the goals of achieving a mechanistic understanding of
biological responses to past and present environmental change at
multiple scales and of using this understanding to predict ecological,
evolutionary, and - if appropriate - social responses to future
environmental change. Renewal projects must clearly define questions
that demand study on decadal time scales.
Core data collection at LTER sites will continue to center on the five
areas of 1) primary production, 2) population dynamics and trophic
structure, 3) organic matter accumulation, 4) inorganic inputs and
movements of nutrients through the ecosystem, and 5) patterns and
frequency of disturbances. Analyses of these data provide the
foundation for testing major theories, for challenging existing
paradigms in ecology, and for developing new paradigms.
In renewal proposals, LTER investigators are encouraged to broaden the
spatial scales of their long-term analyses through comparative
research with other LTER or non-LTER projects. These broader scale
activities should extend the conceptual framework proposed for
innovative site-based research. They also should contribute to a
broader understanding of the mechanisms underlying ecological
responses to climate change, nutrient loading, loss of biodiversity,
or changes in trophic structure, for example. The research must
thoroughly justify the need for long-term support to understand
ecological systems and processes.
The scientific goals of the proposed research will be evaluated based
on the following principles:
1. focus on important and general ecological questions that a) derive
from key theories, b) are motivated by the analysis of long-term
data, and c) require additional, long-term data collection to be
answered
2. encouragement of or demand for new conceptual frameworks or theory
that will significantly advance understanding of site-specific
dynamics and relate site-specific results to other ecosystems at
different spatial scales
3. refinement of models to incorporate sources of uncertainty and
model-data assimilation
4. collaborations with other LTER or non-LTER researchers to
understand ecosystem dynamics across broad spatial and temporal
scales
Please read carefully the program-specific review criteria described
below.
Renewal proposals also must articulate milestones and deliverables for
data management that, at the very least, include timelines for data
release, publication of discovery-level metadata, and online access
for all core data through the LTER Network Information System.
NSF recognizes that human decisions, behavior, and actions may
contribute to LTER research. LTER renewal projects may elect to
include social science research if it helps to advance or to
understand key, conceptually motivated ecological questions.
III. AWARD INFORMATION
At the end of each 6 year award, active LTER sites in good standing
are eligible for renewal. Projects currently funded at $980,000 per
year may, with convincing justification, increase their annual request
by up to 15% but not to exceed $1,127,000 per year. Projects currently
funded at $1,280,000 per year may not request increased budgets for
this renewal.
IV. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION
Organization Limit:
Proposals may only be submitted by the following:
* The LTER program is currently accepting only renewal proposals.
Only organizations with active LTER awards are eligible to apply.
Collaborative proposals must be submitted using the "single
proposal" method as described in Chapter II, Section D.4.a. of the
GPG. Separately submitted collaborative proposals will be returned
without review.
PI Limit:
The LTER program is currently accepting only renewal proposals.
Only organizations and PIs with active LTER awards are eligible to
apply.
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:
None Specified
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI:
None Specified
V. PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS
A. Proposal Preparation Instructions
Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to submit
proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Grants.gov or
via the NSF FastLane system.
* Full proposals submitted via FastLane: Proposals submitted in
response to this program solicitation should be prepared and
submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in
the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG). The complete text of the GPG
is available electronically on the NSF website at:
[32]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg.
Paper copies of the GPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications
Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from
[33]nsfpubs@nsf.gov. Proposers are reminded to identify this
program solicitation number in the program solicitation block on
the NSF Cover Sheet For Proposal to the National Science
Foundation. Compliance with this requirement is critical to
determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines. Failure
to submit this information may delay processing.
* Full proposals submitted via Grants.gov: Proposals submitted in
response to this program solicitation via Grants.gov should be
prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants.gov
Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of
NSF Applications via Grants.gov. The complete text of the NSF
Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov
website and on the NSF website at:
([34]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgo
vguide). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application
Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.gov site, then
click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package
and Application Instructions link and enter the funding
opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the
NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of
the Grants.gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF
Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail
from [35]nsfpubs@nsf.gov.
The following instructions supplement the GPG and NSF Grants.gov
Application Guide guidelines:
Proposal Format
The page limits contained in this solicitation take precedence over
those given in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG). Each project must
be managed by a single organization with other organizations involved
via sub-awards. Proposals will be subjected to initial screening for
the requirements in the GPG and this solicitation. Those that do not
meet specific requirements will be returned without review.
Proposals must include the following key components:
* An integrated, six-year research plan that addresses a set of
focused questions. Questions should arise from analyses of
long-term data and advance understanding of key ecological
concepts. Justification must be provided for at least 6 more years
of data collection to answer these questions. Proposed cross-site
or non-LTER collaborative research must fit within this cohesive
research plan.
* Information Management and Technology, including milestones and
deliverable products from data management that result in
availability of all data via the LTER Network Information System.
* Project Management, including personnel, fiscal, administrative,
institutional, and logistical issues. Involvement of new or
early-career researchers in project activities is encouraged.
* Outreach and Education including training of students, K-12
Schoolyard activities, application of results to management or
policy decisions, outreach to the public, and others as relevant.
Each of these components will be evaluated for quality, productivity,
and impact.
Cover Sheet: The title must start with the acronym, "LTER:" followed
by the substantive title.
Project Description: a maximum of 25 pages of text, with an additional
7 pages allowed for figures. No substitution of text for figures, or
figures for text, will be accepted. Please include the following
sections:
Results from Prior Support: Describe results of prior LTER support,
including the 10 most significant publications resulting from the last
6 years of funding. Include broader impacts and results of
supplemental support in these results. To provide a context for the
current renewal, it may be useful to summarize, in one or two
sentences, the major foci of previous LTER proposals.
Proposed Research: Essential to this section is a clear articulation
of the conceptual framework and individual questions that constitute
an integrated research plan. New research questions should arise from
analyses of long-term data. Authors should describe in appropriate
detail the experiments and observations that will be carried out, and
explain how they fit into the proposed conceptual framework. Methods
and data analyses must be described in enough detail that reviewers
can critically evaluate the quality of these efforts. Likewise,
proposed models or model development must be presented in sufficient
detail to allow evaluation, including the model structure and how the
models account for different sources of uncertainty. New activities
should be conceptually integrated with ongoing, longer-term studies.
They may require increased budgets; new activities and budget
increases must be thoroughly justified. Cross-site or other
collaborative efforts must fit intellectually within the overarching
research plan, and authors should describe how these will advance
understanding of site-specific dynamics or relate site-specific
results to communities or ecosystems at different spatial scales. This
section of the proposal should conclude with a synthesis that ties
together the proposed research activities and shows how they will
significantly advance understanding of ecological dynamics at
different spatial and temporal scales.
Methodological detail is important for new activities. Less detail is
needed for ongoing projects, particularly when methods have been
published in peer-reviewed journals. Reference to established methods
through links to websites is no longer allowed.
Related Research Projects: Many LTER projects leverage NSF and other
funds to obtain additional research support. Some of these complement
the long-term research supported through the LTER program, but are not
essential to it. Please use this section to report other research
efforts that are essential to address the questions posed in this
renewal, and describe how they contribute to answering these
questions.
Education and Outreach Activities: New educational activities planned
through ongoing Schoolyard LTER programs should be presented, along
with plans for public outreach, media interactions, and applications
of your research to policy and management. If well justified, support
will be provided for 2 REU students. Plans for their involvement in
research and for their mentoring must be included. Funds requested for
REU activities must be requested as Participant Support and described
separately in the budget justification, as explained in more detail
below.
References Cited: pages as required, following GPG format
Budget and Budget Justification: Annual budgets vary across LTER
projects. With convincing justification, projects that currently
receive $980,000 per year may request up to a 15% increase not to
exceed $1,127,000 per year. Projects currently funded at $1,280,000
per year may not request an increase in annual budgets. Please contact
the Program Director managing your current award for clarification or
with questions about your budget.
All awards are subject to the availability of funds. Thorough
justification of items requested in the budget is required. Explain
why you need the funds requested to carry out specific aspects of the
proposed research. Justification for general purpose equipment such as
boats and other field vehicles must describe its primary or exclusive
use for the proposed research.
Describe other sources of funding, how LTER funds are leveraged at
your site, and what other in-kind services are provided, and by whom.
The description should be included in the Facilities, Equipment and
Other Resources section of the proposal, should be narrative in nature
and should not include any quantifiable financial information. For
further information please see the [36]Grant Proposal Guide (GPG),
Chapter II.C.2i
Funds for REU supplements must appear as Participant Support Costs.
They should be justified and accompanied by a table that includes
requests for stipends, travel, supplies, and other expenses.
Budgets should include all costs charged to the project for necessary
platforms and facilities supporting the research except for those
facilities separately supported by NSF (e.g., UNOLS research vessels,
research aircraft, or field equipment). For research involving UNOLS
vessels, a UNOLS ship request should be appended to proposals as a
Supplementary Document. Likewise, research involving polar regions
should follow established guidelines for requesting logistical assets,
as discussed in the relevant proposal solicitations (for Antarctic
Sciences, see [37]NSF 13-527; for Arctic Sciences, see [38]NSF
10-597). Principal Investigators are responsible for filing the
appropriate requests for major research platforms, if applicable; a
copy of the request must be attached as a Supplementary Document.
Biographical Sketches: Provide a one-page biographical sketch for each
PI and senior scientist listed in the proposal. List up to ten
publications or products per investigator on each Bio Sketch but do
not list conflicts of interest and collaborators on the Bio Sketch.
Conflicts are to be listed separately as indicated below within
Supplementary Documents.
Current and Pending Support: as specified in the GPG. This proposal is
considered a pending support activity.
Supplementary Documents must include the following (order is not
important):
1. A table that lists all data sets from the site that have been
deposited into the LTER Network Information System.
2. An alphabetical, combined Conflict of Interest document. This
should be presented as an alphabetized table identifying conflicts
of interest for the PI, all co-PIs, and all Senior Personnel. The
table should be organized, by columns, as: A. Last and first name
of the individual in conflict, B. institutional affiliation of the
conflict, C. type of conflict, and D. name of the PI, co-PI, or
Senior Personnel holding the conflict. Conflicts to be identified
are (1) Ph.D. advisors or advisees, (2) collaborators or
co-authors within the past 48 months, (3) postdoctoral researchers
and Masters students within the past 48 months, (4) any other
individuals with whom, or institutions with which, the research
personnel (PIs, co-PIs, other named personnel) have financial or
other professional ties, including advisory committees (specify
type), and (5) friends, family members, or other individuals from
whom an objective evaluation would be unlikely. Do not list
conflicts separately on each biographical sketch.
3. Data Management Plan (maximum of 5 pages): Core data sets
generated at a site must be available electronically and
accompanied by metadata that meet LTER standards for the Network
Information System. This section must provide a description of the
data and information management system and metadata standards to
be used at the site. It is expected that data derived from LTER
funding will be made freely and publicly available as soon as
possible, and not to exceed 2 years after collection, via the
Network Information System. This section should include milestones
and deliverable products from data management. NSF places high
priority on the availability of site-based data to a broad
research community. This section should include descriptions of
how data management will be implemented in the design of research
projects; how the data manager will be involved in designing
research projects; and the mechanisms employed to ensure that
researchers contribute their data to the LTER databases. Proposers
should describe the resources dedicated to harvesting,
documenting, archiving, managing, and making data accessible; and
should detail any anticipated major changes and why these are
necessary.
4. Project Management Plan (maximum of 3 pages): Describe how the
proposed research, which could involve a number of individuals and
diverse projects, will be managed. This must include a cohesive
management plan that is adequate for a project of the size and
complexity proposed. The plan should describe how funding and
research decisions will be made and implemented, and efforts to
integrate non-LTER scientists into research activities. Describe
efforts to increase diversity among site participants. The Project
Management Plan also must address continuity of leadership,
succession planning, and the recruitment of new scientists to the
project. Explain any major changes anticipated or proposed.
5. Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan (maximum 1 page): A single
postdoctoral mentoring plan must be included if salaries are
listed for post-doctoral researchers on the appropriate line in
the budgets requested.
6. Ship time - Proposals may require the scheduling of ship time.
These proposals must include a completed NSF-UNOLS Request Form
(NSF Form 831). The UNOLS form may be obtained from the NSF
Division of Ocean Sciences Ship Operations Program by calling
(703) 292-8581, or directly from the UNOLS World Wide Web site at
[39]http://www.unols.org/.
7. Logistical Support for Antarctic and Arctic LTER sites: Three
current LTER sites rely on research support and logistics provided
through the Division of Polar Programs. The Arctic Research
Support and Logistics (RSL) Program supports the field component
of research projects, usually through third party contractors.
Third party logistics providers include CH2MHILL Polar Services,
which manages support at many Arctic sites and includes a
subcontract to Umiaq-UIC (Ukpeagvik I�upiat Corporation), which
supports work on Alaska's North Slope; and the Toolik Field
Station, which is operated by the Institute of Arctic Biology at
the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The Antarctic Infrastructure
and Logistics Section provides logistical support for US Antarctic
Program (USAP) research projects in Antarctica via support
contractors or agreements with Department of Defense
organizations. The scope of polar fieldwork at both poles must be
outlined in the proposal so NSF and logistics providers can
evaluate the feasibility of requested support and institute
appropriate planning.
B. Budgetary Information
Cost Sharing: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is
prohibited
Other Budgetary Limitations:
Federal agency scientists and scientists based in other countries may
participate contingent on funding from other federal agency or foreign
agency partners, but not via NSF funding.
Up to $24,000 for LTER Schoolyard activities and $16,000 for REU
expenses may be requested if well justified.
C. Due Dates
* Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
March 14, 2014
D. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements
* For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane:
Detailed technical instructions regarding the technical aspects of
preparation and submission via FastLane are available at:
[40]https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm. For FastLane user
support, call the FastLane Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail
[41]fastlane@nsf.gov. The FastLane Help Desk answers general
technical questions related to the use of the FastLane system.
Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be
referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section
VIII of this funding opportunity.
Submission of Electronically Signed Cover Sheets. The Authorized
Organizational Representative (AOR) must electronically sign the
proposal Cover Sheet to submit the required proposal
certifications (see Chapter II, Section C of the Grant Proposal
Guide for a listing of the certifications). The AOR must provide
the required electronic certifications within five working days
following the electronic submission of the proposal. Further
instructions regarding this process are available on the FastLane
Website at: [42]https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/fastlane.jsp.
* For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:
Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must
register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the
applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on
the Grants.gov website. Comprehensive information about using
Grants.gov is available on the Grants.gov Applicant Resources
webpage: [43]http://www07.grants.gov/applicants/app_help_reso.jsp.
In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide provides
additional technical guidance regarding preparation of proposals
via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user support, contact the
Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email:
[44]support@grants.gov. The Grants.gov Contact Center answers
general technical questions related to the use of Grants.gov.
Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be
referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section
VIII of this solicitation.
Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed,
the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the
application to Grants.gov and verify the desired funding
opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. The
AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants.gov. The
completed application will be transferred to the NSF FastLane
system for further processing.
VI. NSF PROPOSAL PROCESSING AND REVIEW PROCEDURES
Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program
for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review.
All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or
educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to
ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists,
or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the
proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged
with oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest
names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review
the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal.
These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection
process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names,
however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no
conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers
may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action
on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for
awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award
process (and associated timeline) is included in the GPG as
[45]Exhibit III-1.
A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process
is available on the NSF website at:
[46]http://nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/.
Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential
to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in [47]Empowering
the Nation Through Discovery and Innovation: NSF Strategic Plan for
Fiscal Years (FY) 2011-2016. These strategies are integrated in the
program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review
is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through
the integration of research and education and broadening participation
in NSF programs, projects, and activities.
One of the core strategies in support of NSF's mission is to foster
integration of research and education through the programs, projects
and activities it supports at academic and research institutions.
These institutions provide abundant opportunities where individuals
may concurrently assume responsibilities as researchers, educators,
and students, and where all can engage in joint efforts that infuse
education with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through
the variety of learning perspectives.
Another core strategy in support of NSF's mission is broadening
opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and
geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines,
which is essential to the health and vitality of science and
engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems
it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and
supports.
A. Merit Review Principles and Criteria
The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and
diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables
breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and
engineering research and education. To identify which projects to
support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates
consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and
its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission
"to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health,
prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other
purposes." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive,
transparent merit review process for the selection of projects.
1. Merit Review Principles
These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and
organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by
reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program
staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for
funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary
federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in
basic research and education, the following three principles apply:
* All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the
potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of
knowledge.
* NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to
achieving societal goals. These "Broader Impacts" may be
accomplished through the research itself, through activities that
are directly related to specific research projects, or through
activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the
project. The project activities may be based on previously
established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in
either case must be well justified.
* Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should
be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely
correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the
resources provided to implement projects. If the size of the
activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is
not likely to be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of
these activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated,
level than the individual project.
With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader
Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated
level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the
activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects
should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the
activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document
the outputs of those activities.
These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit
review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the
criteria can better understand their intent.
2. Merit Review Criteria
All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National
Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances,
however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight
the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.
The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to
be given full consideration during the review and decision-making
processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is
sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria.
([48]GPG Chapter II.C.2.d.i. contains additional information for use
by proposers in development of the Project Description section of the
proposal.) Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria,
including [49]GPG Chapter II.C.2.d.i., prior to the review of a
proposal.
When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider
what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan
to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could
accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the
technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may
make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to
evaluate all proposals against two criteria:
* Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses
the potential to advance knowledge; and
* Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the
potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of
specific, desired societal outcomes.
The following elements should be considered in the review for both
criteria:
1. What is the potential for the proposed activity to
a. Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or
across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
b. Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader
Impacts)?
2. To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore
creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
3. Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities
well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale?
Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
4. How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to
conduct the proposed activities?
5. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the
home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the
proposed activities?
Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself,
through the activities that are directly related to specific research
projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are
complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of
scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of
societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not
limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities,
and underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator
development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and
public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of
individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive
STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and
others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness
of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and
education.
Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the
Data Management Plan and the Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan,
as appropriate.
Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria
The following additional merit review criteria will be used to
evaluate the scientific goals of the proposed research. To what extent
does the research:
* propose a cohesive research plan that focuses on major ecological
questions.
* rely on analyses of existing long-term data to generate new
research questions.
* require additional, long-term (6 years or more) data to answer the
questions posed.
* advance understanding of key concepts, questions, or theories in
ecology.
* encourage new conceptual frameworks and develop new models that
incorporate sources of uncertainty and allow for model-data
assimilation.
* expand the research at a particular site by including other LTER
or non-LTER collaborators and by attracting other researchers,
approaches, and questions.
Proposals involving fieldwork in the polar regions will also be
evaluated for operational feasibility, which includes resource
availability, environmental protection and waste management
provisions, safety and health measures, and safeguards of radioactive
materials.
B. Review and Selection Process
Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be
reviewed by Panel Review.
Reviewers will be asked to formulate a recommendation to either
support or decline each proposal. The Program Officer assigned to
manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and
will formulate a recommendation.
After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration
of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the
cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or
recommended for award. NSF is striving to be able to tell applicants
whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding
within six months. The time interval begins on the deadline or target
date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the
Division Director accepts the Program Officer's recommendation.
A summary rating and accompanying narrative will be completed and
submitted by each reviewer. In all cases, reviews are treated as
confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the
names of the reviewers, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project
Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will
receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.
In all cases, after programmatic approval has been obtained, the
proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of
Grants and Agreements for review of business, financial, and policy
implications and the processing and issuance of a grant or other
agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements
Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF
or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of
NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a
NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that
makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or
cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer
does so at their own risk.
VII. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION
A. Notification of the Award
Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by a
Grants Officer in the Division of Grants and Agreements. Organizations
whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible
by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim
copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be
provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section
VI.B. for additional information on the review process.)
B. Award Conditions
An NSF award consists of: (1) the award letter, which includes any
special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments
thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of
expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates
any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3)
the proposal referenced in the award letter; (4) the applicable award
conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1); * or Research
Terms and Conditions * and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance
that may be incorporated by reference in the award letter. Cooperative
agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative
Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC)
and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are
electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and
transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.
*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at
[50]http://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF.
Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse,
telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from [51]nsfpubs@nsf.gov.
More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other
important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained
in the NSF Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available
electronically on the NSF Website at
[52]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.
C. Reporting Requirements
For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing
grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project
report to the cognizant Program Officer at least 90 days prior to the
end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require
submission of more frequent project reports). Within 90 days following
expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final
project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public.
Failure to provide the required annual or final project reports, or
the project outcomes report, will delay NSF review and processing of
any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for all
identified PIs and co-PIs on a given award. PIs should examine the
formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of
required data.
PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system,
available through Research.gov, for preparation and submission of
annual and final project reports. Such reports provide information on
accomplishments, project participants (individual and organizational),
publications, and other specific products and impacts of the project.
Submission of the report via Research.gov constitutes certification by
the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The
project outcomes report also must be prepared and submitted using
Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared
specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the
project. This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it
is submitted by the PI.
More comprehensive information on NSF Reporting Requirements and other
important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained
in the NSF Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available
electronically on the NSF Website at
[53]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.
VIII. AGENCY CONTACTS
Please note that the program contact information is current at the
time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points
of contact.
General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:
* Saran Twombly, Division of Environmental Biology, telephone: (703)
292-8133, email: [54]stwombly@nsf.gov
* David L. Garrison, Division of Ocean Sciences, telephone: (703)
292-7588, email: [55]dgarriso@nsf.gov
* Lisa M. Clough, Division of Polar Programs, telephone: (703)
292-4746, email: [56]lclough@nsf.gov
For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:
* FastLane Help Desk, telephone: 1-800-673-6188; e-mail:
[57]fastlane@nsf.gov.
For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:
* Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational
Representatives (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from
Grants.gov within 48 hours of submission of application, please
contact via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail:
[58]support@grants.gov.
IX. OTHER INFORMATION
The NSF website provides the most comprehensive source of information
on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and
funding opportunities. Use of this website by potential proposers is
strongly encouraged. In addition, "My NSF" is an information-delivery
system designed to keep potential proposers and other interested
parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications,
important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and
upcoming NSF [59]Grants Conferences. Subscribers are informed through
e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued
that match their identified interests. "My NSF" also is available on
NSF's website at [60]http://www.nsf.gov/mynsf/.
Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for
Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities
may be accessed via this new mechanism. Further information on
Grants.gov may be obtained at [61]http://www.grants.gov.
ABOUT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency
created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42
USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the
progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity,
and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of
science and engineering."
NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and
engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to
more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems,
businesses, informal science organizations and other research
organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about
one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic
research.
NSF receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research,
education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are
funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand
applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency
operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research
Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Arctic and
Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative
research between universities and industry, US participation in
international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational
activities at every academic level.
Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities
provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons
with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See Grant
Proposal Guide Chapter II, Section D.2 for instructions regarding
preparation of these types of proposals.
The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf
(TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that
enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the
Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD
may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800)
877-8339.
The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at
(703) 292-5111.
The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific
progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and
cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences,
mathematics, and engineering.
To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download
copies of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit
the NSF Website at [87]http://www.nsf.gov
* Location: 4201 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, VA 22230
* For General Information
(NSF Information Center): (703) 292-5111
* TDD (for the hearing-impaired): (703) 292-5090
* To Order Publications or Forms:
Send an e-mail to: [88]nsfpubs@nsf.gov
or telephone: (703) 292-7827
* To Locate NSF Employees: (703) 292-5111
PRIVACY ACT AND PUBLIC BURDEN STATEMENTS
The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is
solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act
of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in
connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project
reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and
reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information
requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants
as part of the proposal review process; to proposer
institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal
review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to
government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and
educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government
agencies or other entities needing information regarding applicants or
nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to
coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court,
or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the
government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may
be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates
to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See Systems
of Records, [64]NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and
Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004), and
[65]NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69
Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004). Submission of the information
is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information,
however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control
number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for
this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per
response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments
regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection
of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:
Suzanne H. Plimpton
Reports Clearance Officer
Office of the General Counsel
National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA 22230
[66]Policies and Important Links
| [67]Privacy | [68]FOIA | [69]Help | [70]Contact NSF | [71]Contact Web
Master | [72]SiteMap
National Science Foundation
The National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington,
Virginia 22230, USA
Tel: (703) 292-5111, FIRS: (800) 877-8339 | TDD: (800) 281-8749
Last Updated:
11/07/06
[73]Text Only
[x.gif]
References
1. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13588/nsf13588.htm#toc
2. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf13001
3. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf13001
4. http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2011/meritreviewcriteria.pdf
5. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_sigchanges.jsp
6. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/aag_sigchanges.jsp
7. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_index.jsp
8. mailto:stwombly@nsf.gov
9. mailto:dgarriso@nsf.gov
10. mailto:lclough@nsf.gov
11. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg
12. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide
13. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13588/nsf13588.htm#summary
14. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13588/nsf13588.htm#pgm_intr_txt
15. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13588/nsf13588.htm#pgm_desc_txt
16. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13588/nsf13588.htm#awd_info
17. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13588/nsf13588.htm#elig
18. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13588/nsf13588.htm#prep
19. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13588/nsf13588.htm#prep
20. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13588/nsf13588.htm#budg_cst_shr_txt
21. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13588/nsf13588.htm#dates
22. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13588/nsf13588.htm#fastlane
23. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13588/nsf13588.htm#review
24. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13588/nsf13588.htm#reviewcrit
25. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13588/nsf13588.htm#reviewprot
26. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13588/nsf13588.htm#awardadmin
27. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13588/nsf13588.htm#awardnotify
28. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13588/nsf13588.htm#grantcond
29. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13588/nsf13588.htm#reportreq
30. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13588/nsf13588.htm#cont
31. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13588/nsf13588.htm#othpgm
32. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg
33. mailto:nsfpubs@nsf.gov
34. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide
35. mailto:nsfpubs@nsf.gov
36. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=papp
37. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf13527
38. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf10597
39. http://www.unols.org/
40. https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm
41. mailto:fastlane@nsf.gov
42. https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/fastlane.jsp
43. http://www07.grants.gov/applicants/app_help_reso.jsp
44. mailto:support@grants.gov
45. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_3ex1.pdf
46. http://nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/
47. http://www.nsf.gov/news/strategicplan/nsfstrategicplan_2011_2016.pdf
48. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_2.jsp#IIC2di
49. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_2.jsp#IIC2di
50. http://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF
51. mailto:nsfpubs@nsf.gov
52. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag
53. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag
54. mailto:stwombly@nsf.gov
55. mailto:dgarriso@nsf.gov
56. mailto:lclough@nsf.gov
57. mailto:fastlane@nsf.gov
58. mailto:support@grants.gov
59. http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/outreach.jsp
60. http://www.nsf.gov/mynsf/
61. http://www.grants.gov/
62. http://www.nsf.gov/
63. mailto:nsfpubs@nsf.gov
64. http://www.nsf.gov/policies/SOR_PA_NSF-50_Principal_Investigator_
Proposal_File.pdf
65. http://www.nsf.gov/policies/SOR_PA_NSF-51_Reviewer_Proposal_File.pdf
66. http://www.nsf.gov/policies
67. http://www.nsf.gov/policies/privacy.jsp
68. http://www.nsf.gov/policies/foia.jsp
69. http://www.nsf.gov/help/
70. http://www.nsf.gov/help/contact.jsp
71. mailto:webmaster@nsf.gov
72. http://www.nsf.gov/help/sitemap.jsp
73. http://transcoder.usablenet.com/tt/referrer