National Science Foundation Requesting NSF Lower Atmospheric Observing Facilities How does it work?...
-
Upload
elmer-hall -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of National Science Foundation Requesting NSF Lower Atmospheric Observing Facilities How does it work?...
Nat
ion
al S
cien
ce F
ou
nd
atio
n
Requesting NSF Lower Atmospheric Observing Facilities
How does it work?
Steve Nelson (NSF/ATM)
Brigitte Baeuerle (EOL)
NSF Observing Facilities Users’ Workshop15 June 2009
Nat
ion
al S
cien
ce F
ou
nd
atio
n
PRESENTATION OBJECTIVES
• To describe current request process for Lower Atmospheric Observing Facilities;
• To clarify roles and responsibilities of NSF Program Officers, Facility Managers (FMs), Observing Facilities Assessment Panel (OFAP) and Principal Investigators (PIs)
Nat
ion
al S
cien
ce F
ou
nd
atio
n
What is the NSF Deployment Pool (DP)?
Reserved “pot” of money (approx. 4 Million/year) exclusively dedicated to support field campaigns that use LAOF;
What it covers:• Costs associated with deployment of LAOF
> Shipping> Fuel> Communications> Per diem, housing, travel ….
What it doesn’t cover:• Salaries (except temp hires and overtime)• PI support or expenses• Instrument maintenance• Purchase of new instrumentation• Expenses related to project-specific operational and data
management support
Nat
ion
al S
cien
ce F
ou
nd
atio
nFACILITIES COVERED BY DP
AIRCRAFT> NSF/NCAR C-130> NSF/NCAR G-V> UWY King Air> NRL P-3 with NCAR ELDORA
RADARS > NCAR ELDORA> University of Wyoming Cloud Radar (KA, C-130) > CSU/CHILL Radar> NCAR SPOL Radar> CSWR Doppler on Wheels (DOW)
SURFACE AND SOUNDING SYSTEMS> NCAR Integrated Sounding Systems (ISS/MISS) & Multiple Antenna
Profiler (MAPR)> NCAR Integrated Surface Flux Facility (ISFF)> GPS Advanced Upper Air Sounding Systems (GAUS, MGAUS)> GPS Dropsonde (AVAPS) System
Not currently covered:> Driftsonde> Wyoming Cloud Lidar
Nat
ion
al S
cien
ce F
ou
nd
atio
nObserving Facilities Assessment Panel
(OFAP)
• Facility Manager-run Assessment Panel
• 18 scientists/recognized experts in fields of observational meteorology
• Appointment based on recommendation by NSF POs, FM, current OFAP members, interest
• Meets twice per year (Spring, Fall)
• 5 year term (approx. 6 mtgs)
• Provides technical assessment of facility requirements to FM, PIs and NSF POs;
• Provides input concerning experiment design and facility usage incl. resources allocations (flight hours, expendables etc)
Nat
ion
al S
cien
ce F
ou
nd
atio
nREQUEST PROCESS
Procedures are different for “large” and “small” programs.> “Large” Programs
Field Costs >$1,000K (multiple facilities), and/or Unusually Complex Programs,
and/or Programs with Int’l Partners
> “Small” Programs – all the rest
NSF, in consultation with PIs and FMs, will determine category, cost estimators also available from EOL website
Nat
ion
al S
cien
ce F
ou
nd
atio
n
SMALL PROGRAMS – PROCESS
• Contact/Inform NSF Program Manager
• Provide Letter of Intent to EOL & NSF> Name, Location, Dates, Facilities, Science> Inclusion in long term planning schedule
• Contact/Interact w. FMs / Facility Staff reg. requirements & plans
• Prepare/Submit Facility Request to FMs;
• Prepare/Submit OFAP science overview ppt to FMs;
• Prepare/Submit NSF Proposal to NSF; science portion to EOL/Univ;
• For NCAR-led campaigns, prepare/submit Proposal to EOL Director for mail scientific review
Nat
ion
al S
cien
ce F
ou
nd
atio
n
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 Submit Facility Requestx Submit NSF Proposal
OFAP
x NSF Final Action
1 Submit Facility Request15 Submit NSF Proposal
OFAP
x NSF Final Action
FY 0
Implementation (8 m)
Implementation (8 m) Campaign Period
Campaign Period
FY-1FY-2
SMALL PROGRAMS -- Timeline
Requests possible bi-annually (1 Jul/1 Dec)15-21 months ahead of campaign8 months for implementation
Nat
ion
al S
cien
ce F
ou
nd
atio
nLarge Field Programs
(>$1M or Complex)
• Two antecedent documents required: Scientific Program Overview (SPO) and Experimental Design Overview (EDO)
> Required before submission of science proposals
> Required before submission of facility requests
• SDO and EDO are formal documents and final decisions for science proposal submission(s) will be made based on their reviews
Nat
ion
al S
cien
ce F
ou
nd
atio
n
SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM OVERVIEW
• Overall justification of the scientific program
• Section D, Project Description> Scientific Rationale - Holistic
> Brief description of experimental design;
> Relationship to prior similar efforts;
> List of all facilities and PIs (irrespective of source of support);
• Formal submission of the SPO to NSF via Fastlane; NSF will distribute SPO or equivalent document to relevant FMs and OFAP
Nat
ion
al S
cien
ce F
ou
nd
atio
n
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN OVERVIEW• Overall concept of the experimental design, resource
needs and management.
• Holistic
• Structure
> Executive Summary> Scientific Rationale/Objectives> Experimental Design> Project Mgt (before and during field campaign)> Data Mgt> List of Facilities and PIs
• EDO submitted to NSF (Huning and NSF Program Officer); copy to relevant FM and to OFAP
Nat
ion
al S
cien
ce F
ou
nd
atio
n
LARGE PROGRAMS – PROCESS• Contact/Inform NSF Program Manager (summer/fall FY-3)
• Provide Letter of Intent to EOL & NSF> Name, Location, Dates, Facilities, Science> Inclusion in long term planning schedule
• Preliminary Meeting with FM(s) and facility staff
• Obtain preliminary cost estimates from FM for inclusion in SPO
• Prepare/Submit SPO to NSF
• Prepare/Submit EDO to NSF and EOL
• Prepare/Submit science overview presentation to EOL
• Prepare/Submit Facility Request to FM
• Prepare/Submit NSF Proposal to NSF; science portion to EOL/Univ.
• Prepare updated .ppt overview to EOL
Nat
ion
al S
cien
ce F
ou
nd
atio
nLARGE PROGRAMS -- Timeline
Only one review cycle per fiscal year.
Scientific Review of SPO (completed by May FY-2) as well as individual science proposals (completed by Jan FY-1)
FY-2 SPO/EDO and Facility Request submission dates under discussion
8 to 19 months for implementation
7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
x Initial contact between PIs, NSF POs and FMs1 Deadline to request preliminary cost estimates from FM
15 Submit EDO15 Submit SPO
OFAP EDO Review
x NSF decision to encourage or discourage program1 Submit Facility Request (if encouraged)
x Submit individual NSF ProposalsOFAP Facility Request Review
x NSF Final Action on Scientific ProposalsCampaign Period
FY-2 FY 0
Implementation (8 m)
FY-3 FY-1
Nat
ion
al S
cien
ce F
ou
nd
atio
n
• FM Responsibilities:> Preparation of feasibilities and cost estimates
for facility requests and/or preparation of project assessments for EDOs;
> Preparation of Project Feasibility Presentations for OFAP Meeting
Note: Documents shared with NSF and PIs ahead of OFAP
• NSF Responsibilities:> Conduct of scientific review of all NSF
submitted proposals (SPOs as well as individual proposals);
The black hole – what happens in between the time a request is submitted and the
OFAP Meeting?
Nat
ion
al S
cien
ce F
ou
nd
atio
n
• EOL Responsibilities:> Where NCAR scientists have lead proposal,
EOL Director will oversee scientific review process and coordinate with appropriate NCAR Lab Director, NSF program office and Facility Managers
> Preparation of “Global Feasibility” (possible project combinations based on direct facility conflicts, resource limitations etc., shared with NSF)
> Planning/Conduct of all aspects of OFAP Meeting including sending out review material to OFAP
Nat
ion
al S
cien
ce F
ou
nd
atio
n
What happens at the OFAP Meeting?
• Each OFAP member is asked for review preferences and conflicts of interest before mtg;
• Each OFAP member is assigned up to 4 OFAP requests in their area of expertise before OFAP meeting, one of those as lead reviewer;
• Each project is introduced – w/o bias - by lead reviewer using scientific overview presentation provided by requesting PI, to entire OFAP, followed by feasibility analysis presentation by facility staff;
• Assigned review team presents their evaluation, followed by discussion involving all OFAP attendees (i.e., NSF, Facility staff, OFAP)
• Review team summarizes findings in writing and provides to FM
THE OFAP DOES NOT DECIDE WHETHER A PROJECT WILL BE FUNDED OR NOT
Nat
ion
al S
cien
ce F
ou
nd
atio
n
• Summary shared with NSF and PIs
• PIs are welcome to respond to NSF PO
• NSF Program Officer makes final decision based on scientific review of all NSF submitted proposals, feasibility analyses, OFAP recommendation and advice as well as budgetary and scheduling constraints.
• NSF PO informs PIs about decision
• EOL provides Allocation Letter
What happens after the OFAP Meeting?
Nat
ion
al S
cien
ce F
ou
nd
atio
n
Educational Requests
• Portion of DP reserved for use by educators
• Deployment for short period of time at university (can’t conflict with approved projects)
• No specific deadlines; short lead times (30-45 days) or long lead time (4-6 months) ahead of planned activity
• Not to exceed 15K
• Contact approp. FM for schedule, feasibility, cost
• Informal review/approval by FM and NSF
• PI to provide feedback after the end of the project
• Implement additional outreach activity
Nat
ion
al S
cien
ce F
ou
nd
atio
n
Special Funds Requests
• FPS and CDS require special funds for> Operations Center Support (Ops Director, AC
coordinator, SA support) above and beyond facility support
> Logistics/shipping in support of PI equipment
> Special data displays and applications
> Comprehensive data management activities (data archive, composites, qc-ed, special products)
> Scope negotiated between PI, NSF and EOL
Nat
ion
al S
cien
ce F
ou
nd
atio
nOther
• Out of cycle requests> Not covered by DP but NSF PO Program Funds> Challenging: schedule constraints, little adaptability
• Cost Recovery> On a non-interference basis with NSF programs> Scientific review conducted by requesting agency> “Appropriate Use of the Facility”
• Multi-year Programs> Approval for several years possible> Mid-project review suggested> Will require cost adjustments