NSF 21-544: Long Term Research in Environmental Biology (LTREB)

Program Solicitation NSF 21-544

U.S. National Science Foundation Directorate for Biological Sciences

Full Proposal Deadline(s):

     Proposals Accepted Anytime

Important Information and Revision Notes

REVISION NOTES

Additional details of the core data and data management and sharing plan requirements are described.

Any proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be submitted in accordance with the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG).

Summary of Program Requirements

General Information

Program Title:

Long Term Research in Environmental Biology (LTREB)

Synopsis of Program:

The Long Term Research in Environmental Biology (LTREB) Program supports the generation of extended time series of data to address important questions in evolutionary biology, ecology, and ecosystem science. Research areas include, but are not limited to, the effects of natural selection or other evolutionary processes on populations, communities, or ecosystems; the effects of inter-specific interactions that vary over time and space; population or community dynamics for organisms that have extended life spans and long turnover times; feedbacks between ecological and evolutionary processes; pools of materials such as nutrients in soils that turn over at intermediate to longer time scales; and external forcing functions such as climatic cycles that operate over long return intervals.

All proposals submitted through the LTREB solicitation are processed by 1 of the 3 clusters in the Division of Environmental Biology: Ecosystem Science, Population and Community Ecology, and Evolutionary Processes. Proposals must address topics supported by these clusters. Researchers who are uncertain about the suitability of their project for the LTREB Program are encouraged to contact the cognizant Program Officer.

Ecological research on marine populations, communities and ecosystems is not supported by LTREB and should be directed to the Biological Oceanography Program: (https://www.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/biooce-biological-oceanography). However, research that examines the evolutionary dynamics of marine populations or communities will be accepted. Investigators who are uncertain about the suitability of their research for LTREB are strongly encouraged to contact the managing Program Officers listed in this solicitation.

Examples of current LTREB awards can be viewed at https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/ by including 'LTREB' in a title search.

The Program intends to support decadal projects. Funding for an initial, 5-year period requires submission of a proposal that includes a 15-page project description containing two essential components: a decadal research plan and a description of core data. Proposals for the second five years of support (renewal proposals) are limited to a ten-page project description.

Continuation of an LTREB project beyond an initial ten-year award will require submission of a new proposal that presents a new decadal research plan.

Specific review criteria for LTREB proposals and renewals are explained within this solicitation. Prospective proposers are advised to read this solicitation carefully.

NSF Priorities

NSF welcomes submissions from all researchers, particularly those earlier in their careers and those working in research areas aligned with agency and administration priorities. NSF also expects the highest standards of scientific rigor, integrity, and adherence to tenets of Gold Standard Science in proposals, as appropriate for the field of science and research modality.

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.

• Betsy von Holle, email: bio-ls@nsf.gov
• Robyn Smyth, email: bio-ls@nsf.gov

Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):

• 47.074 - Biological Sciences

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant

Estimated Number of Awards: 10

per year (Inclusive of New and Renewal awards)

Anticipated Funding Amount: $6,000,000

per year, pending availability of funds

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

• Letters of Intent: Not required

• Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not required

• Full Proposals:

  • For proposals submitted via Research.gov, PAPPG guidelines apply.
  • For proposals submitted via Grants.gov, NSF Grants.gov Application Guide guidelines apply.

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):

       Proposals Accepted Anytime

Proposal Review Information Criteria

Merit Review Criteria:

National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review criteria 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.

I. Introduction

Many important questions in ecology, ecosystem science, and evolutionary biology require data collected for ten or more years to be answered. Research areas include, but are not limited to, the effects of natural selection or other evolutionary processes on populations; the effects of inter-specific interactions that vary over time and space; population and community dynamics for organisms that have extended life spans and long turnover times; feedbacks between ecological and evolutionary processes; pools of materials such as nutrients in soils that turn over at intermediate to longer time scales; and external forcing functions such as climatic factors that operate over long time periods. Investigators often are constrained in addressing questions in these areas by the relatively short support periods associated with typical research awards. In recognition of this problem, the Division of Environmental Biology (DEB) established the Long Term Research in Environmental Biology (LTREB) program. LTREB awards are designed to provide the funding to maintain an ongoing, long-term research project for a period of a decade or perhaps longer.

The usefulness of long-term data sets extends beyond typical scientific publications. Therefore, a means of sharing data with other investigators in order to stimulate data reuse, synthesis, and the generation of novel ideas is an important requirement of all proposals. Results should be of interest to and available to the general public. To take advantage of the data collected by these long-term projects, LTREB investigators are required to implement mechanisms of data sharing in the broadest manner possible.

II. Program Description

The Long Term Research in Environmental Biology Program intends to support decadal projects. Funding for an initial, 5-year period requires submission of a proposal following the guidelines described in Section V and the additional review criteria in Section VI, below.

Proposals must address timely and important concepts in environmental biology. The research must demonstrate an ability to advance general understanding in evolutionary biology, ecology, or ecosystem science. Clearly defined hypotheses must guide the research. These hypotheses must be motivated by at least six years of recently-collected data on the study system and must be grounded in appropriate concepts or theory.

All proposals submitted through the LTREB solicitation are processed by 1 of the 3 clusters in the Division of Environmental Biology: Ecosystem Science, Population and Community Ecology, and Evolutionary Processes. Proposals must address topics supported by these clusters. Researchers who are uncertain about the suitability of their project for the LTREB Program are encouraged to contact the cognizant Program Officer.

Ecological research on marine populations, communities and ecosystems is not supported by LTREB and should be directed to the Biological Oceanography Program: (https://www.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/biooce-biological-oceanography). However, research that examines the evolutionary dynamics of marine populations or communities will be accepted. Investigators who are uncertain about the suitability of their research for LTREB are strongly encouraged to contact the managing Program Officers listed in this solicitation.

Essential components of an LTREB proposal must include:

Decadal Research Plan: Proposals must pose questions that require long-term data collection of variables directly relevant to the proposed hypotheses. Investigators must present a research plan that spans ten years. This plan should clearly articulate important questions that cannot be addressed with data that have already been collected but could be answered if ten additional years of data were collected. It is not a research timeline or management plan. It is a concise justification for ten additional years of support in order to advance understanding of key concepts, questions, or theories in environmental biology. The decadal plan is a critical component of an initial 5-year proposal, and questions or hypotheses outlined in this framework must guide any subsequent renewal.

Core Data: LTREB proposals require preliminary data on a particular phenomenon or process for at least 6 years up to the present (within 1-2 years of the present) and for long enough to generate a contemporary time series that contains at least 6 consecutive data points for each response variable and sampling site included in the proposal. The data must be collected by the research team. Consecutive measures must be collected on a regular frequency (e.g. on a yearly basis, collected once every two years or collected once every five years) appropriate to the phenomenon or process being studied. These data constitute Core Data on which the proposed project is based. Analysis of these data should generate new questions on the same phenomena or processes; these questions provide the basis for LTREB support. Gaps or breaks in data collection compromise analyses of time series data. Time series that include significant or repeated gaps in data collection do not meet LTREB criteria. Proposals that do not meet these requirements will be returned without review.

New research activities such as the addition of new sites or the initiation of a new manipulation can be proposed with the following conditions: these activities cannot compromise continued collection of the core data that form the basis for the research and must clearly improve the ability to answer questions that arise from analyses of the Core Data. An example is the initiation of a new, short-term experiment to reveal mechanisms responsible for observed, longer-term trends.

Questions concerning the appropriateness of an existing data set as the basis for an LTREB proposal or of new research activities should be discussed with the cognizant NSF Program Officer prior to proposal development. The LTREB Program does not provide support solely for monitoring, for the analysis of long-term historical data, or for the continuation of an ongoing study that is not question- or hypothesis-driven.

LTREB Renewals

To implement the decadal time frame for LTREB projects, and following an initial 5-year LTREB award, renewal proposals for a second, 5-year period will be accepted. The additional criteria for a renewal proposal, described in Section V, must be included in the project description. Instructions for writing a renewal proposal are provided in Section V, below. Renewal proposals will be evaluated using review criteria described in Section VI of this solicitation. Renewal proposals should be submitted early in the fifth year of the existing award.

Special Categories

Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI): LTREB RUI proposals should comply with the instructions in the LTREB solicitation, include the required RUI documentation and be submitted to the current RUI solicitation. If the proposal is collaborative involving multiple institutions, only the undergraduate institution(s) should submit to the RUI solicitation. Other institutions should submit to this LTREB solicitation. Additional information on the scope of RUI projects and the additional, specific content and format requirements of those proposals can be found at https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5518. Please note: Proposals from RUI-eligible institutions are not required to submit through the RUI solicitation.

Review Process

LTREB proposals will receive ad hoc review and/or panel review at the discretion of the program as described in Section VI of this Solicitation.

III. Award Information

LTREB awards are not to exceed $600,000 (direct and indirect costs) over a 5-year (60 month) effort. The number of awards made through the LTREB program is subject to the availability of funds.

IV. Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

Who May Serve as PI:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals Per PI or Co-PI:

All LTREB proposals are reviewed by one or more of the appropriate, participating core programs in the Division of Environmental Biology. Therefore, the DEB Core Track solicitation PI/Co-PI limit includes proposals to the LTREB solicitation.

In a given fiscal year (October 1-September 30), an individual may be listed as a PI or Co-PI on no more than one proposal submitted to the DEB Core Track, including a new LTREB proposal submitted through this solicitation. Proposals in excess of the limit for any person will be returned without review in the reverse order received. There is no limit on the number of proposals on which an investigator may be listed as Lead of a Subaward or as Other Senior Personnel.

LTREB renewal proposals for the second five years of funding do not count toward this limit. If an individual is eligible to submit an LTREB renewal proposal, that individual may participate in up to one additional proposal submitted to the Division in the same year.

Additional Eligibility Info:

Note that institution types, other than those listed in the "Who May Submit Proposals" section, are allowed to receive subawards through an eligible institution, but there are limitations on what can be supported by those subawards. The PI should discuss with a program officer any plans to incorporate a subaward to an institution not eligible to submit directly to this solicitation.

V. Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

The following exceptions and additions to the NSF PAPPG apply to preliminary proposals submitted to this solicitation:

Submission of a Preliminary Proposal is required to be eligible for invitation to submit a Full Proposal. Preliminary proposals that are not compliant with NSF guidelines (described both in the PAPPG and in this solicitation) will be returned without review. It is the submitting organization's responsibility to ensure that the proposal is compliant with all applicable guidelines.

For collaborative proposals, a single preliminary proposal should be submitted by ONLY the lead institution. This single preliminary proposal must include documentation from all collaborative partners (e.g., all project personnel should be indicated on the list of personnel in the project description and provide required documents). See instructions for each preliminary proposal section below.

Preliminary proposals must contain the items listed below and adhere to the specified page limitations. No additional information may be provided as an appendix or by links to Web pages. Figures and tables must be included within the specified page limit. All elements of the proposal, including legends and tables, must meet the formatting requirements for font size, characters per inch, margins, etc., as specified in the PAPPG.

Results from prior support and responses to prior reviewer comments are neither required in, nor excluded from, preliminary proposals. It is up to the individual submitters to determine if either represents an efficient use of the limited Project Description space in support of their request.

Preliminary proposals should contain an overview of the proposed research with sufficient detail to allow assessment of the major ideas and approaches to be used. Preliminary proposals must include the following components:

Cover Sheet: Select the LTREB program solicitation from the pull-down list, and check the box indicated for a preliminary proposal. Entries on the Cover Sheet are limited to the Principal Investigator and a maximum of four co-Principal Investigators. Beginning Investigators (individuals who have not been a Principal Investigator or a co-Principal Investigator on a Federally-funded award with the exception of doctoral dissertation, postdoctoral fellowship or research planning grants) must check the box for "Beginning Investigator" on the proposal Cover Sheet. Leave blank the fields for Requested Amount, Requested Duration, and Starting Date for the project. Additional FastLane instructions can be found below in section V.D.

Project Title: The project title must begin with 'LTREB Preliminary Proposal:', followed by the substantive title.

Project Summary (1 page): Provide an overview of the proposed research, addressing separately the intellectual merit and broader impacts. The summary should be written in the third person, informative to those working in the same or related field(s), and understandable to a scientifically or technically literate reader. Preliminary proposals that do not contain the Project Summary, including an overview and separate statements on intellectual merit and broader impacts will not be accepted by FastLane or will be returned without review. Note: Project Summaries entered in the FastLane form are displayed with standardized formatting and subject to a 1-page length limit.

Project Description: Maximum 5 pages total, containing the following two sections:

I. Personnel (This section is limited to one page. Any remaining space should be left blank).

Provide a list of project personnel that includes any individual for whom a biographical sketch is included in the preliminary proposal. Indicate the institutional affiliation for each individual, and provide a minimal description of that person's role(s) in the project. The description of role(s) may not exceed two lines per person and cannot include external links. You should not list students, or technicians. Divide the list into two sections:

The first section of the list should be labeled "Key personnel" and must contain all PIs, co-PIs, and PIs of intended subawards for what is envisioned to be the full proposal, including those from all parts of a collaborative proposal. This constitutes the list of key personnel subject to the submission cap of no more than two preliminary proposals.

The second section of the list should be labeled "All other personnel" and must contain any other personnel whose biosketches are included in the preliminary proposal (i.e., other senior personnel or postdoctoral scholars). This section of the list should not include any individual who will be listed on the cover page of the full proposal submission or cover pages of any associated non-lead collaborative full proposal submissions (i.e., no PIs or co-PIs should be listed). This section should also not include any individual who will be receiving a subaward through the planned budget of the full proposal (i.e., PI on a subaward). The individuals listed on the personnel page should match the list of personnel submitted by email using the debpersonnellist.xlsx template (see below). If there is any discrepancy between the listing of personnel on the submitted template and the proposal personnel page, the template listing will be considered definitive for purposes of enforcing the individual cap on preliminary proposal submissions, and for the allowed role of individuals on the full proposal submission. If researchers are at different institutions, consider carefully the planned collaborative mechanism – collaborative proposal, subaward, or consultant services – as that will affect the described role – PI or Co-PI, PI of a subaward, or other senior personnel, respectively. A change in role from the preliminary proposal to the full proposal requires prior PO approval and will be allowed only in rare circumstances. Please note that the only mechanisms by which to fund someone in a full proposal who was listed on a preliminary proposal as other senior personnel are through the senior personnel salary & wages (Budget Line A) or consultant services (Budget Line G3) of a budget where a different individual is listed as PI. Any other mechanism would be an unapproved change to their role on the full proposal and cause the full proposal to be returned without review. Please keep in mind that preliminary proposals in excess of the submission cap for any person will be returned without review in the reverse order received. It is the responsibility of the submitters to confirm that the entire team is within the eligibility guidelines. Changes to the team post-submission to meet the eligibility limits will not be allowed.

II. Project (This section is limited to four pages and must address separately both the intellectual merit and broader impacts. We suggest the use of the sub-sections listed below, organized as appropriate. For the purposes of DEB programs, sub-sections 1 through 3 are equivalent to an explicit "intellectual merit" header

1. Conceptual Framework
2. Decadal Research Plan and rationale for 10 years of data collection
3. Proposed Research, including questions or hypotheses and the research approach
4. Broader Impacts

References Cited are limited to 3 pages; see the PAPPG for format.

As a Supplementary Document no longer than 1 page, include a description of the long-term (6 or more years) core data that provide the basis for the proposed research. As described above, the proposer must have studied a particular process or phenomenon for at least six years up to the present and for long enough to generate a contemporary time series that includes at least six data points. These data should be presented as a table that includes, for each measured variable and each sampling location, the time period over which data were collected. The table should only include those sites or variables for which 6 consecutive measurements or data points, without gaps in sampling, are available. Enough detail should be provided to allow reviewers to understand how these data provide the basis for the proposed research. For example, if the proposed research is to compare traits across four species, the table should indicate data available for each trait for each of the four species and the time frame over which these data have been collected. If the research questions address the role of fire on a biological process, the PI must demonstrate at least 6 years of data on fire at all proposed study sites. Preliminary proposals that do not include a core data table as a supplementary document, or that do not meet these core data requirements, will be returned without review.

Although data management is an important aspect of LTREB proposals, a Data Management Plan is not required for preliminary proposals.

Biographical Sketches (2-page limit per individual) should be included for each person listed on the Personnel page. Each biographical sketch must be uploaded separately. Biographical sketches should follow the standard format described in the PAPPG. Note: Do not bundle Biographical Sketches for multiple individuals into a single file. Use the "Add/Delete Non-Co-PI Senior Personnel" button on the FastLane proposal preparation screen to enable submission of separate files for individuals not listed on the cover page.

No budget or budget justification should be submitted. Please leave blank the Requested Amount box on the FastLane Cover Sheet.

Collaborators & Other Affiliations Information. The following information regarding collaborators and other affiliations must be provided for each individual who has a biographical sketch in this preliminary proposal. This information is to be uploaded under Single Copy Documents. If you have correctly added biographical sketches for all persons, there should be a separate space within Single Copy Documents to upload each individual's file. For each person include, as described in the GPG, (1) Collaborators and Co-Editors, (2) Graduate Advisors and Postdoctoral Sponsors, and (3) Thesis Advisor and Postgraduate-Scholar Sponsor. In addition, this document should list other potential conflicts including (4) spouse or other relative, and (5) any other individuals with whom or institutions with which the senior personnel (PI, co-PIs, and any named personnel) have financial ties, including advisory committees, boards of directors, or prospective employers (specify type). Note: Collaborations involving junior authorship on a multi-authored paper (>5 authors) may be limited to the senior author. Note: This document may be organized in text or table form. This information is used in the selection of reviewers to help identify potential conflicts or bias.

Personnel List Spreadsheet. The template found at https://www.nsf.gov/bio/deb/debpersonnellist.xlsx contains a single tab. Please read the instructions carefully and follow guidance. In particular, if researchers are at different institutions, consider carefully the collaborative mechanism that will be used in the full proposal: collaborative proposal, subaward, or consultant contract when assigning a role of PI or Co-PI, PI of a subaward, or other senior personnel, respectively. Using the template, compile an Excel Workbook that provides information for all persons listed on the Personnel page of the project description. The completed file must include the FastLane proposal ID (Not the Temporary ID #) assigned after submission of your proposal. The completed file should be submitted by email to debtemplate@nsf.gov within one business day of proposal submission.

Proposers must include the above documents, prepared in accordance with standard NSF formatting guidelines).

Proposers must complete the Proposal Classification form. This form is required for all submissions to the BIO Directorate; FastLane will not allow processing of your proposal without it.

No other supplementary documents or appendices are permitted for preliminary proposals.

Items that should NOT be included in a preliminary proposal:

Budget, Budget Justification, Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources, Current and Pending Support, Letters of Collaboration, Data Management Plan, Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan, RUI Impact Statement, Certification of RUI Eligibility, or any additional Supplementary Documents.

Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Research.gov or Grants.gov.

You must prepare your proposal according to Chapter II.D.2 of the PAPPG, unless this solicitation specifies different instructions. Always use the version of the PAPPG in effect on your proposal's due date.

• For proposals submitted via Research.gov, PAPPG guidelines apply.
• For proposals submitted via Grants.gov, NSF Grants.gov Application Guide guidelines apply.

In determining which method to utilize in the electronic preparation and submission of the proposal, please note the following:

Collaborative Proposals. All collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple organizations must be submitted via Research.gov. PAPPG Chapter II.E.3 provides additional information on collaborative proposals.

Cover Sheet: Select the program solicitation number from the pull-down list. The DEB Programs will automatically appear. Select the lead DEB Program. Entries on the Cover Sheet are limited to the Principal Investigator and a maximum of four co-Principal Investigators. Beginning Investigators (individuals who have not been a Principal Investigator [PI] or co-Principal Investigator [Co-PI] on a Federally-funded award with the exception of doctoral dissertation, postdoctoral fellowship or research planning grants) listed as Lead PI must check the box for "Beginning Investigator" on the proposal Cover Sheet.

Title of Proposed Project: The project title must begin with 'LTREB:', followed by the substantive title. If submitted as an RUI proposal, through the RUI solicitation, the title must begin with 'LTREB: RUI:'.

Project Summary: The one-page Project Summary should include the three sections required by the PAPPG (II.C.2.b): Overview, Intellectual Merit, and Broader Impacts. The summary should be informative to those working in the same or related field(s) and understandable to a scientifically or technically literate reader.

Project Description: The Project Description must include a labeled section required by the PAPPG (II.C.2.d): Broader Impacts. The Project Description is limited to 15 pages. It should also include a section titled Results from Prior NSF Support and must follow the format described in the PAPPG (II.C.2.d.iii) for this section. Specifically, results from prior NSF support must be reported in the Project Description for each PI or Co-PI identified on the proposal who has received any NSF funding with an end date in the past five years, regardless of whether the support was directly related to this proposal. Funding includes not just salary support, but any funding awarded by NSF. In addition, details of how data from previously funded projects, including prior LTREB projects, were made publicly accessible must be included in the Results from Prior NSF Support section, including the relevant Digital Object Identifiers (doi), Digital Package Identifier, a URL (web address) link to the data, or a detailed description of how to access these data within a public database. This information is required to be provided for all publications listed as products of prior NSF support.

LTREB proposals must include the following two components in the Project Description:

• Decadal Research Plan: The Project Description must include a specific section, entitled 'Decadal Research Plan', that identifies questions or hypotheses that require an additional ten years of investigation to be answered. These questions or hypotheses should form the crux of the proposal. Investigators must demonstrate that the questions posed cannot be answered with data already on hand, or with data collected from typical three-to-five-year awards made by core programs. Clear justification must be provided for needing an additional ten years of data to answer these questions. The decadal research plan should provide the overarching motivation for the initial 5-year investigation as well as for a 5-year renewal.
• Core Data: Central to all successful LTREB projects is a set of core data that are already being collected continually in the laboratory or at an existing field site or sites. The data must be collected by the research team. As described above, the proposal should describe the study of a particular process or phenomenon for at least 6 years, up to the present (within 1 – 2 years), and for long enough to generate a time series that includes at least 6 annual (or longer, regular frequency) data points. Analysis of these data should serve as the basis for new questions that motivate the current proposal, and these questions should focus on the same phenomena or processes that constitute the core data. Proposals should clearly state the data that have been collected, the sites at which they have been collected, the years the data were collected, the frequency of collection, if the data will continue to be collected, and how these data generate the new questions posed. These data can be documented in a table or as a narrative description. They must be presented as part of the Project Description.

Budget: LTREB budgets should be prepared following PAPPG guidance, with two exceptions: i) total costs (direct plus indirect) cannot exceed $600,000 for a 5-year duration; ii) senior personnel may request up to one month of salary per year, if they do not exceed a request for more than two months of salary support per year across all NSF awards. These requests must be justified carefully, and proposers are encouraged to contact the cognizant Program Officer prior to proposal development. Because data management is a key aspect of these research projects, the proposed budget can include the establishment or periodic upgrading of information technology to provide for data sharing with other researchers and the public. Under unusual circumstances, the purchase of major equipment (over $5,000) will be entertained if these expenses are well justified. Support from the LTREB Program does not preclude support from other NSF programs.

If the proposal includes plans for REU activities, then funds to support REU students should be included in the budget. If the intent is to engage students as technicians, then an REU is not the appropriate support mechanism; instead, salary support should be entered on the Undergraduate Students line of the proposal budget. All REU person related costs, including stipends and/or travel should be placed in Participant Support Costs on the budget. Materials and supplies costs should be included under section G1 of the budget. A detailed breakdown of the budget must be included in the budget justification. Budgets for REUs are generally $6,000-8,000 per student. Funds requested for REU educational supplements can be in addition to the $600,000 funding limit for LTREB projects. A limited number of post-award supplements may be available if REU activities were unforeseen at the time of submission. Eligibility for post-award educational supplements for REU, RET, RAHSS, and ROA projects is described on the DEB supplement request website: https://www.nsf.gov/bio/deb/suppopp.jsp.

Biographical Sketches and Current and Pending Support: Biographical sketches and Current and Pending Support Statements should be submitted for all senior personnel in the full proposal. Biographical sketches should follow the format described in the PAPPG. All senior personnel biographical sketches should be placed in that section of the proposal. Biographical sketches for post-doctoral fellows can optionally be included, but if included, must be added as Non PI/Co-PI Senior Personnel. No biographical sketches should be included in supplementary documents. Biographical sketches should not be included for anyone providing a "Letter of Collaboration". Use the "Manage Personnel and Subaward Organizations " button on the Research.gov Senior Personnel Documents screen or on the main Proposal screen, to add individuals not listed on the Cover Sheet.

Supplementary Documents: The following documents are uploaded as Supplementary Documents:

• Data Management and Sharing Plan. The PAPPG (II.C.2.j) requires the inclusion of a Data Management and Sharing Plan with all full proposal submissions. The Data Management and Sharing Plan can be no longer than two pages and must be inclusive of the entire project. The Directorate for Biological Sciences provides additional context and guidance to PIs on the preparation of Data Management and Sharing Plans here: http://www.nsf.gov/bio/biodmp.jsp. All projects must ensure that data and biological materials are collected, archived, digitized, and made available using methods that allow current and future investigators to access data and material. Funded projects must broadly disseminate all project data collected from the award within a named time period after the end of the award, using widely accepted electronic data standards. Investigators are strongly encouraged to make use of appropriate community infrastructure for data management.
• Mentoring Plan (if applicable). This one-page document should describe the mentoring of all postdoctoral researchers or graduate students on the projects, including those at collaborating institutions.
• Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) (if applicable). The descriptions of proposed REU activities should be included in the Supplementary Documents. For REUs, follow the guidelines for "REU supplement requests as part of a proposal" in the REU solicitation. REU projects must involve students in meaningful ways in ongoing research programs or in research projects specifically designed for the REU student. The description of these activities is limited to 3 pages. If multiple institutions on a collaborative proposal are requesting funds for REU students, all REU activities should be included in one 3-page supplementary document.
• Letters of Collaboration. Supplementary Documents may include letters of collaboration from individuals or organizations that are integral to the proposed project but are neither senior personnel nor supported by subawards. This may include subsidiary involvement in some aspect of the project, cooperation on outreach efforts, or documentation of permission to access materials or data. Letters of collaboration must focus solely on affirming that the individual or organization is willing to collaborate on the project as specified in the Project Description or Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources section of the proposal. No additional description of research activities or endorsements of the potential value or significance of the project may be included. Each letter of collaboration must be signed by the designated collaborator. Requests to collaborators for letters of collaboration should be made by the PI well in advance of the planned proposal submission date because they must be included at the time of the proposal submission. The recommended template for letters of collaboration is provided below:

  To: NSF _____ (Program Title) _____ Program

  From: _____________________________________

  (Printed name of the individual collaborator or name of the organization and name and position of the official submitting this memo)

  By signing below (or substitute: transmitting electronically), I acknowledge that I am listed as a collaborator (or substitute: contributor) on this proposal, entitled "_____(proposal title)_____," with _____(PI name)______ as the Principal Investigator. I agree to _____(description up to 140 characters)_____, as described in the Project Description or Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources section of the proposal.

  Signed: _______________________

  Organization: _________________

  Date: _________________________

Single Copy Documents:

• Collaborators & Other Affiliations (COA) Information. As detailed in the PAPPG (II.C.1.e), information regarding collaborators and other affiliations must be provided for each individual who has a biographical sketch in this proposal. If you have correctly added senior personnel, there should be a separate space within Senior Personnel Documents to upload each individual's COA file. The COA information must be provided through use of the COA template.
• Suggested Reviewers. PIs are encouraged to provide a list of suggested reviewers, including the individuals' names, institutions, and areas of expertise, email addresses, and URLs if available. Please ensure no one on this list has a conflict with the proposal.

PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS FOR LTREB RENEWAL PROPOSALS

To implement the decadal time frame intended for LTREB projects, and following an initial 5-year LTREB award, renewal proposals for a second, 5-year period will be accepted. Renewal proposals should be submitted in the fifth year of the initial award. The project description of a renewal proposal is limited to ten pages; all other sections described above for a proposal must be included. Renewal proposals will be evaluated using the standard NSF Merit Review Criteria and four additional criteria described in Section VI below.

Titles for renewal proposals must begin with "LTREB Renewal:" followed by the substantive title.

Project descriptions should provide a brief description of the study system, core data, and decadal research plan such that a reviewer can appreciate the basis for the original award. The renewal proposal project description should also include information on the following topics:

1. Progress made toward the decadal research plan outlined in the initial proposal, including a description of Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact accomplishments from the most recent five years of funding. In this section, please include the award number for the previous award.
2. A description of planned research activities to complete this decadal plan.
3. Evidence that previously-collected data from the initial 5-year LTREB award are available to the broader research community. Acceptable evidence of data accessibility include a URL (web address) link to the data, or a detailed description of how to access these data within a public database.
4. A description of how results at the end of the ten years of funding will be integrated to resolve the original questions posed.

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing:

Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

Other Budgetary Limitations:

Proposals will be limited to a total of $600,000 over five years.

C. Research.gov/Grants.gov Requirements

You can submit proposals in response to this solicitation through Research.gov or Grants.gov, unless otherwise noted.

Information on how to prepare and submit proposals is available on the Submitting Your Proposal page on NSF.gov.

VI. NSF Proposal Processing and Review Procedures

Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgment 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 PAPPG Exhibit III-1.

A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/funding/overview.

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. (PAPPG Chapter II.D.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 PAPPG Chapter II.D.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
   1. Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
   2. 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: 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 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 and Sharing Plan and the Mentoring Plan, as appropriate.

B. Review and Selection Process

Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review.

After a proposal passes an initial compliance check, it will be reviewed by an NSF Program Officer. In most cases, two or more experts will also review it (either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists or both).

Visit the Overview of the NSF Proposal and Award Process page for more information on the proposal review and selection process.

In alignment with Executive Order 14332 (Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking), all else being equal after merit review, NSF may give preference to institutions with lower indirect cost rates.

VII. Award Administration Information

A. Notification of the Award

Notification of an award is made to the submitting organization by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer.

B. Award Conditions

Information on NSF award conditions can be found on the Award Terms and Conditions page on NSF.gov and Chapter VII of the PAPPG.

Administrative and National Policy Requirements:

Information on administrative and national policy requirements can be found on the National Policy Requirements for Recipients of NSF Awards page on NSF.gov.

Consistent with the requirements specified in 2 CFR § 200.332, recipients of NSF awards must adhere to the requirements for pass-through entities in establishing and managing subawards issued ensuring alignment with Administration and NSF policies and priorities.

In alignment with Executive Order 14332 (Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking), proposers should be aware that NSF awards offered under this funding opportunity may include termination for convenience provisions.

C. Reporting Requirements

Unless your award notice says otherwise, NSF requires the principal investigator of every grant to submit annual project reports and a project outcomes report for the general public. For complete reporting requirements, see Chapter VII of the PAPPG.

VIII. Agency Contacts

For questions related to the use of NSF systems contact:

• Research.gov: NSF IT Service Desk at rgov@nsf.gov or 1-800-381-1532. The Service Desk is open from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday (except for federal holidays).

For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:

• Grants.gov: The Grants.gov Contact Center at support@grants.gov or 1-800-518-4726. (Contact if the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from Grants.gov within 48 hours of submitting an application.)

IX. Other Information

For information on NSF directorates, programs and funding opportunities, go to NSF.gov.

About the National Science Foundation

The U.S. National Science Foundation is an independent federal agency created by the "National Science Foundation Act of 1950." More information about NSF can be found on NSF.gov.

Location:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

General information:
(703) 292-5111

Tyy/tdd (for the Hearing Impaired):

• Domestic callers: Dial 711 to connect to NSF.
• International callers: Dial 1-800-548-2546 or 1-605-224-1837 preceded by your country code to reach a U.S. relay service provider and ask to be connected to NSF.

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. More information can be found on the Privacy Act and Public Burden Statements page on NSF.gov.