**2005 COMMITTEE OF VISITORS (COV)**

**for**

**EARTH SCIENCE RESEARCH PROGRAMS**

GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY (GE) AND HYDROLOGIC SCIENCES (HS) PROGRAMS

**Annual Update 2007**

**Paul Filmer**

**Acting Section Head**

**Surface Earth Processes Section**

**Division of Earth Sciences**

**National Science Foundation**

# COV RECOMMENDATONS AND ACTIONS BY EAR

1.  High proposal loads make it difficult for Program Officers to
    complete their work: staffing should be augmented (A.1.7).

> The 2006 Annual Update noted the hiring of two additional staff for
> the GE programs. We hired and extended an additional SGP "expert"
> during 2007, and we remain hopeful that this will help to ease the
> unusually high workload in the GG and SGP programs.
>
> We have extended one staff IPA in GG, and we have initiated the
> process for replacing two expiring IPAs in HS and GLD. We selected and
> hired a new Science Assistant for the Section during 2007.

2\. The meaning of the Broader Impacts criterion is not clear: Program
officers should help the reviewers, panelists, and proposal writers
reach consensus on the meaning of the Broader Impacts criterion (e.g.
A.1.3).

> We continue to address the meaning of Broader Impacts at every
> opportunity; in talks, discussions with panels, NSF Regional Grants
> Conferences, site visits and one-on-one conversations with PI's. (No
> change from 2006)

3.  Few faculty from under-represented groups and minority-serving
    institutions receive funding from GE and HS:  Program Officers
    should seek out new ideas and/or strategies to accomplish more
    participation of faculty and students from under-represented groups
    and minority-serving institutions and PO's should work to increase
    awards to faculty at minority serving institutions (A.4.9; A.4.12).

> We continue to try to increase participation of under-represented
> minorities. We ask appropriate minority scientists to sit on panels
> and COV's and encourage them to provide us with guidance on how best
> to increase minority participation.
>
> Our discussion with two Tribal Colleges initiated in 2006 has not
> resulted in any proposals to EAR, but an idea from one of the colleges
> was referred to EHR. The GEO Directorate as a whole is seeking
> increased exposure in fora such as the SACNAS (Society for Advancement
> of Chicanos and Native Americans in Science) annual conferences.

4\. Two of the funded large initiatives in GE/HS were not reviewed using
a substantive review process that included careful mail review *and*
panel review: such initiatives should be reviewed in a defensible and
consistent fashion using best practices either by the EAR
Instrumentation and Facilities panel itself or by using the best
practices of that program; wherever possible, funding for large
initiatives should not erode core budget funding significantly but
should be enabled partially or completely by discretionary funds (A.1.8;
A.3.4; A.5.4).

> This item was responded to in the 2006 Annual Update, describing the
> changes in the appropriate programs and announcements.

5\. Large sums of money, such as the several million dollars of funding
awarded in the area of Geoinformatics, should not be awarded without a
publicized solicitation: such activity, along with the lack of panel
review, could yield the appearance of impropriety. A significant lack of
communication apparently existed during 2002-2004 and may still exist to
date among the GE/HS Program Officers, Section Head, and Division
Director. Communication must be fostered so that Program Officers
understand funding priorities and allocations, so that all communities
have equal knowledge of and access to funding opportunities, and so that
administrators understand needs for both emerging and traditional areas
of science and education (A.5.3).

We continue to discuss issues related to funding in monthly EAR staff
meetings so that all Program Directors are aware of changes and
opportunities. We use multiple resources to advertise opportunities
including the NSF web site, consortia web sites, Dear Colleague letters
and oral communications at meetings, workshops and formal presentations
such as NSF Regional Grants Conferences.

6\. The COV faced significant hurdles in gathering information about
program actions with respect to the larger initiatives: both electronic
and printed spreadsheets of *all* actions per program over the timeframe
of interest should be provided so that the COV can be confident that all
program activities are transparent and so that all program activities
are included in statistical calculations of diversity (A.4.12; C.2;
C.4).

We have modified our COV planning so as to provide COV's with all
appropriate information. We note the next two COVs run in EAR (DEP and
IF) did not have the problems encountered by this COV and the chairs of
the committees praised EAR for preparing them so thoroughly.

7\. EAR should work with the GE/HS communities to articulate a clear
vision for both growing and traditional areas and funding levels should
be matched to this vision: for example, funding for high-growth areas
should not disappear when a program disappears but should be put back
into core programs when the core programs have changed to include the
new areas (A.5.3; A.5.4).

> We engage the GE and HS communities, as we do with all research
> disciplines, through workshops, town hall meetings, and individual
> interactions and make every effort to send clear messages about areas,
> both traditional and emergent, that we believe represent productive
> research topics. We received twenty-three proposals in response to the
> solicitation for Critical Zone Observatories, of which three were
> recommended for funding. In FY 2007, all the programs in the SEP
> Section received substantive budget increases ranging from 7% to 29%.
> The EHR Program was not targeted for a budget increase because it is
> in transition under new leadership.
>
> We appreciate the concerns the COV raised about funds directed towards
> Foundation-wide special initiatives. These initiatives in new emergent
> science areas are cross-directorate and EAR does not control those
> budgets. For the specific example mentioned by the COV, funds
> originally directed towards the Biocomplexity in the Environment
> initiative now support "Emergent Topics in Biogeochemistry," a
> co-funding opportunity announced through a 'Dear Colleague' letter. At
> the conclusion of these efforts, funds often become available to EAR.
> It is our intent to reinvest them into the most appropriate core
> programs or divisional activities.

8\. HS and GE are both consistently receiving very highly rated
proposals that are not getting funded: new money should be found to
increase the core funding of these programs so that low success rates do
not seriously impede the excellent science within GE/HS (A.4.1).

> In FY 2007, all the programs in the SEP Section received substantive
> budget increases ranging from 7% to 29%. The EHR Program was not
> targeted for a budget increase because it is in transition under new
> leadership. We are hopeful that future budget allocations to NSF from
> Congress allow us to continue to increase the budgets to the programs
> in question.