Washington, DC

U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Classification Appeal Decision
Under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code

---

Damon B. Ford
Acting Classification Appeals and FLSA Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance

06/09/2020

---

Date

As provided in section 511.612 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this decision constitutes a certificate that is mandatory and binding on all administrative, certifying, payroll, disbursing, and accounting officials of the Government.  The agency is responsible for reviewing its classification decisions for identical, similar, or related positions to ensure consistency with this decision.  There is no right of further appeal.  This decision is subject to discretionary review only under conditions and time limits specified in the Introduction to the Position Classification Standards (Introduction), appendix 4, section G (address provided in appendix 4, section H).

As indicated in this decision, our findings show the appellant’s official position description (PD) does not meet the standard of adequacy described in section III.E. of the Introduction.  Since PDs must meet the standard of adequacy, the agency must revise the PD to reflect our findings.  The servicing human resources office must submit a compliance report containing the revised PD and corrected Standard Form 50 showing the personnel action taken.  The report must be submitted within 30 days from the effective date of the personnel action to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Agency Compliance and Evaluation (ACE), Washington, DC, office.

Introduction

The appellant’s position is currently classified as Research Hydrologist, GS-1315-14.  However, the appellant believes his duties and responsibilities warrant an upgrade to the GS-15 level.  The position is located in the Maine Office, New England Water Science Center (NEWSC), Northeast Region, Office of Regional Director, Office of the Director, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Department of the Interior, in Augusta, Maine.  We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).

General issues

The appellant and his representative make various statements about the classification review process conducted by the appellant’s agency.  In adjudicating this appeal, our responsibility is to make our own independent decision on the proper classification of his position.  By law, we must make that decision solely by comparing his current duties and responsibilities to OPM position classification standards (PCS) and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112).  Therefore, we have considered the appellant’s and his representative’s statements only insofar as they are relevant to making that comparison.  Because our decision sets aside all previous agency decisions, the classification practices used by the appellant’s agency in classifying his position are not germane to the classification appeal process. 

The appellant states his USGS research work, which spans approximately 25 years, should be used as support for the requested upgrade.  However, classification appeals must address currently assigned duties and responsibilities rather than career achievements (5 U.S.C. 5112).  In addition, only duties which are currently assigned, observable, identified with the position’s purpose and organization, and expected to continue or recur on a regular basis over a period of time, such as one year, can be considered when determining the grade of a position (the Classifier’s Handbook (Handbook)).  The Handbook also states the period of time considered [as current work] should cover the full cycle of duties performed, which may vary from a few months for very simple clerical work to a more lengthy period for work that involves long-term cases or projects.

Position information

The supervisor certified to the accuracy of the appellant’s official PD (number R5278), to which he was assigned September 2, 2018.  However, the appellant certified to the accuracy of his previously assigned PD (number H4592).  Upon review they essentially read the same.  Our review disclosed inaccuracies in the appellant’s PD.  We find the Factor 2 write up overstates the level of his technical supervision as being consultative in nature.  The appellant works within the technical framework established for each research project and his work products go through an established review process.  We also find the Factor 3 write up overstates that guidelines are almost nonexistent in pertinent literature.  Guidelines used by the appellant in his research consist of existing literature in the field of carbon transport that is of limited usefulness due to its limited applicability.  Therefore, the appellant’s official PD of record does not meet the standard of adequacy addressed on pages 11-12 of the Introduction, and the agency must revise the PD to reflect our findings.

As a Research Hydrologist, the appellant is responsible for performing a variety of research projects within the USGS NEWSC in the Maine office, addressing carbon transport issues.  The appellant’s work products are comprised of USGS reports, reports for other Government agencies, and scholarly documents.

The appellant spends most of his time performing long-term research (approximately 3 to 5 years) for USGS and other agencies through research grants concerning carbon cycling; climate change in terms of the systematic changes in aspects of the climate (e.g., temperature, precipitation, and humidity) being forced by external factors such as increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; and watershed biogeochemistry.  The appellant works as a member of multi-disciplinary teams and is sometimes the lead researcher for the projects.  He collaborates with other research scientists.  He uses a variety of research tools, techniques and processes (e.g., water-quality modeling, climate simulations, quantitative and qualitative analysis) to gather and analyze research-related data and information along with the other research scientists and they share the findings and conclusions with various Federal, State, local, and professional organizations.  The appellant is sometimes the lead author of scholarly documents which are published in a variety of periodic publications, such as “Environmental Pollution”, and “Journal of Geophysical Research:  Biogeosciences”.  He also is sometimes the lead author of USGS reports in publication series such as the scientific investigations series.  The appellant serves as a mentor to a graduate student from the University of Massachusetts Boston.  Depending on a research project’s approved work plan, yearly project-related reports may be developed.  He also provides consultations for individuals and groups both internal and external to the NEWSC.

A portion of the appellant’s time is spent in the field gathering survey data funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).  The data is then used by FEMA personnel to create documents including flood risk maps and models.  The appellant took over as the lead researcher for a project partially funded by the National Park Service (NPS) concerning the removal of a dike and restoration of the Herring River estuary.  According to his second-level supervisor, this study meets the NEWSC’s definition of applied science hydrology work, which the NEWSC defines as assisting their cooperative partners with solving water resource problems.  Thus, it does not qualify as research hydrology work.

The appellant took over as the lead researcher at the end of a project funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to better understand the fate of nitrogen in groundwater below the Sea Shores Peninsula.  This project is in two parts.  One part concerns releasing the data.  The appellant prepared the water quality data that was collected for publishing and was the lead author of the USGS interpretive series report.  The other part concerns the data gathering.  Because he had limited involvement in the study, we will not include either part of it in our grade evaluation below.

The appellant serves as the lead researcher for the research hydrology project that will assess the physiochemical and biological conditions associated with harmful algal blooms, which began in 2019, and as yet has no published results.  Therefore, we will not include it in our grade evaluation below.

In reaching our classification decision, we have carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellant, his representative, and his agency including his official PD which, although not completely accurate, we have incorporated by reference into this decision.  We also received emailed responses to questions from one of the appellant’s former supervisors occupying a different position at the NEWSC.  In addition, to help decide the appeal we conducted separate telephone interviews with the appellant and his second-level supervisor.  We did not interview the appellant’s immediate supervisor because he has occupied his position less than one year, i.e., since March 2019, and would not have knowledge of the appellant’s role in the projects included in the look back period.

Series, title, and standard determination

As previously stated, a portion of the appellant’s time is spent gathering survey data and performing applied science hydrology work.  This work is neither grade nor series controlling, does not exceed 25 percent of the appellant’s time, and is lower graded work.  Therefore, this work will not be evaluated any further in this decision.

Because the work of the position requires professional education and training in the study of water in the hydrologic cycle, the agency classified the appellant’s position to the Hydrology Series, GS-1315.  However, it also determined the primary purpose of the position to be the performance of scientific research designed to better understand the transport of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) to estuaries, rivers, and larger bodies of water.  Therefore, the agency evaluated the appellant’s work by application of the Research Grade Evaluation Guide (RGEG) and titled the position Research Hydrologist.  After a careful review of all available information, we concur with the title and series assigned to the appellant’s position and application of the grading criteria in the RGEG to evaluate the work of the position.

Grade determination

The RGEG is used across series lines to determine the grade levels of research positions.  Part II of the RGEG is used to evaluate positions at GS-11 through GS-15 that are engaged in basic or applied research in the sciences when the functions involve the personal performance as the highest level function and for a substantial portion of the time, of professionally responsible research.  Part II includes four factors (i.e., Research Assignment; Supervisory Controls; Guidelines and Originality; and Contributions, Impact, and Stature) that are considered and rated separately, with the total points converted to a grade level by use of the grade conversion table provided in the RGEG.  Each factor has five levels, A through E, with increasing point values, respectively.  The RGEG provides specific criteria only for factor levels A, C, and E.  There are also two intermediate factor levels not defined in the RGEG, i.e., Levels B and D.  These intermediate levels are assigned when work falls between two defined levels.  For example, level D may be assigned when work falls between levels C and E. 

The appellant disagrees with his agency’s assignment of Level D for Factors 1, 3, and 4.  We reviewed the agency’s determination for Factor 2 for which the appellant does not disagree.  However, we do not concur with his agency’s assignment of Level E for Factor 2.  Therefore, our analysis covers the four factors.

In order to assist with our determination, the appellant submitted a comprehensive list of his professional contributions, accomplishments, and products (e.g., research activities, scholarly publications, speaking engagements, invitations to review scientific journal articles, and a student he has mentored) covering approximately the last 30 years of his hydrology research career.  However, although the RGEG allows limited consideration of the appellant’s professional stature, research contributions, and the overall impact of his research, OPM must first consider the latest full cycle of work when determining the grade of a position.  Therefore, we must first determine the period of time which constitutes “current” work for the appellant before comparing his work to the RGEG.

Both the agency and the appellant have stated his research-related work is subject to a comprehensive cyclical evaluation process conducted by the agency’s Research Grade Evaluation (RGE) panel process every 4 years.  During an RGE review, the agency credits the appellant for all his work during the previous 4 years and provides him with an opportunity for promotion.  Therefore, OPM has determined that the conclusion of each RGE review period constitutes a full cycle of work performed by the appellant.  Documents and information provided by the appellant, his representative, and his agency, indicate the appellant’s work underwent an RGE review in Fall 2017.  Consequently, the next cyclical RGE review of the appellant’s work is scheduled for Fall 2021.  Therefore, the latest full cycle of work performed by the appellant is the period of time covered by the Fall 2017 RGE review, i.e., Fall 2013 through Fall 2017.  However, when evaluating the appellant’s current work, we must also include all research-related intellectual and physical accomplishments produced by him subsequent to the Fall 2017 RGE review.  Therefore, we have identified the appellant’s “current” work as covering the period from September 2013 to the present.

However, portions of the RGEG, specifically Factor 4, gives limited weight to contributions, impact, and stature of an employee’s work over the course of their career, while placing primary emphasis on their current work.  Therefore, our review places greater emphasis on the appellant’s current work (i.e., performed by the appellant from September 2013 to the present) than work performed over the course of the appellant’s career.  The appellant provided the following 4 research contributions, which outline the purpose and results of the appellant’s current, research projects.

Contribution 1 involves investigating historic hydrologic variability to help provide a better understanding of how climate change is affecting carbon cycling and is merged with two ongoing NASA funded studies of carbon export to the Gulf of Maine.  This includes analyzing seasonal concentration-discharge relations, climate variability, types of wetlands, forest composition and other landscape variables.  The appellant is the lead researcher and is responsible for developing the hypothesis for the project and designing the research direction, goals, and parameters.  This project is broken down into tasks and the appellant works with collaborators on performing the research and analyzing all data and findings.  This research project has resulted in 10 scholarly documents and a chapter in the book titled Encyclopedia of Natural Resources.  In one of the scholarly documents, the appellant participated in developing a model for quantifying the intensity of the water cycle, i.e., the continuous process by which water is circulated throughout the earth and the atmosphere through evaporation, condensation, precipitation, and the transpiration of plants and animals.  The results show that between 1945 and 2014, different regions of the continental U.S. have experienced either decreases or increases in hydrologic intensity, which was defined as precipitation plus evapotranspiration, i.e., the process by which water is transferred from the land to the atmosphere by evaporation from the soil and other surfaces and by transpiration from plants.  In another scholarly document, the appellant participated in providing a comprehensive mixture of the changes in phenology, i.e., cyclical and seasonal plant and animal life cycle events, in the Gulf of Maine ecosystem.  The 10 scholarly documents from this research received 67 citations (2014 to 2019).  This research project has resulted in15 invitations (2013 to 2016) for the appellant to present at professional conferences and meetings.

Contribution 2 involves investigating adding buffered zero-valent iron and granular activated carbon to soil to inhibit the methylation of mercury at Acadia National Park (ANP) in Maine.  The methyl form of mercury is toxic and mercury has been linked to immune suppression, endocrine disruption, physical malformation, and mortality in organisms.  This project looks at a potential form of remediation that could be used by park resource managers to reduce the rate of methyl mercury at ANP.  The appellant and another USGS employee serve as the lead researchers and are responsible for developing the hypothesis for the project and designing the research direction, goals, and parameters.  They participate in performing the research and analyzing all data and findings along with the project’s co-investigators.  This research project has resulted in a USGS series report for which the appellant was the lead author and a scholarly document.  The results in the report and the scholarly document provide evidence that adding buffered zero-valent iron and granular activated carbon to soil could be effective in inhibiting the methylation of mercury in lakes and wetlands, thereby reducing methyl mercury in the animals and plant life at ANP.  The scholarly document from this research received 10 citations (2016 to 2019).  This research project has resulted in 4 invitations (2014) for the appellant to present at professional conferences and symposiums.

Contribution 3 involves investigating the importance of ocean tidal currents versus fresh water (riverine and groundwater) sources of nitrogen and phosphorus to reduce the formation of annually recurring algal blooms in ANP’s Bass Harbor Marsh estuary.  This project looks to provide park resource managers with information to develop strategies to minimize the effects of eutrophication, i.e., the process by which a body of water becomes enriched in dissolved nutrients (such as phosphates) that stimulate the growth of aquatic plant life usually resulting in the depletion of dissolved oxygen, in the estuary by testing seven hypotheses.  The appellant is the lead researcher and is responsible for developing the hypothesis for the project and designing the research direction, goals, and parameters.  The appellant participates in performing the research and analyzing all data and findings along with the project’s other principle investigators and collaborators.  This research project has resulted in two USGS series reports showing that the ocean’s tidal currents in the Bass Harbor Marsh estuary could be an important source of the nutrients that are believed to propel the production of algal blooms in this and potentially other similar estuaries.  This research project has resulted in 1 invitation (2014) for the appellant to present at a professional symposium.

Contribution 4 involves investigating the trends and patterns in land-to-sea carbon transport from two large contiguous watersheds in the northeast U.S. which drain into the Gulf of Maine and the Gulf of the St. Lawrence River, respectively.  This project quantifies and explains the trends and patterns in the export of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) to the near-coastal ocean.  It includes developing time series (i.e., data points taken at successive equally spaced points in time) in the terrestrial (i.e., vegetative, river, and marine fields) for use in estimating the quantity and quality of carbon pools, which are reservoirs of carbon that have the capacity to both take in and release carbon.  The time series are looking at such issues as ocean color change and light transmission relating to phytoplankton productivity, ocean acidification, and carbon sequestration, which is the process involved in carbon capture and the long-term storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide or other forms of carbon to mitigate or defer global warming.  The appellant is a co-investigator and participates in performing the research and analyzing all data and findings along with the project’s lead researcher, other co-investigators, collaborators, and a consultant.  This research project has resulted in a scholarly document and a symposium article.  The results in the scholarly document establish a link between DOC from the land to the sea and shows increases in the export of DOC is associated with increasing river runoff.  The results also show a yellowing of surface water which could be at least partially responsible for observed decreases in phytoplankton productivity by decreasing the transparency of the ocean’s surface so less light is available for photosynthesis.  The results in the symposium article demonstrates that wetlands are frequently misidentified using standard remote algorithms to classify land cover.  A form of synthetic-aperture radar, i.e., a form of radar that is used to create two-dimensional images or three-dimensional reconstructions of objects such as landscapes, allowed the researchers to identify wetlands hidden beneath the forest canopy that would otherwise be misclassified as forests.  The scholarly document from this research received 16 citations (2016 to 2019) and the symposium article received 5 citations (2014 to 2019).  This research project has resulted in 9 invitations (2014 to 2016) for the appellant to present at professional conferences and meetings.

Factor 1, Research Assignment

This factor deals with the nature, scope, and characteristics of the researcher’s current assignment.

Level C is characterized by assignments whose scope is broad, complex, and require a series of comprehensive and conceptually related phases and studies.  Level C problems are difficult to define; require sophisticated research techniques; and result in contributions that answer important questions in the field; account for previously unexplained phenomena; open significant new avenues for further study; confirm or modify a scientific theory or methodology; lead to important changes in existing products, methods, techniques, processes, or practices; or are definitive of a specific topic area.  At this level, the researcher typically works as a project member or as a primary investigator.

Level E is characterized by assignments whose scope and complexity are at least at a level requiring subdivision into separate phases, some of which are considerably broad and complex.  Problems associated with Level E assignments are exceptionally difficult and unyielding to investigation; require unconventional or novel approaches or complex research techniques.  Results may include a major advance or opening of the way for extensive related development; progress in areas of exceptional interest to the scientific and professional community; important changes in theories, methods, and techniques; opening significant new avenues for further study; or contributions answering important questions in the field.  The researcher typically works as a primary investigator but may also be a project member.

The appellant’s current research assignments fully meet Level C.  Like this level, the appellant utilizes a variety of complex, but different approaches, methods, and techniques in order to better understand the transport of DOC to estuaries, rivers, and larger bodies of water.  For example, one scholarly document for contribution 1 used a model for quantifying the intensity of the water cycle developed by the appellant and others.  The research showed that between 1945 and 2014, different regions of the continental U.S. have experienced changes in hydrologic intensity.  In the northeast, hydrologic intensity has increased mainly due to increased precipitation.  In the southeast, hydrologic intensity decreased due to decreasing precipitation and increasing evapotranspiration.  In the west and southeast where hydrologic intensity decreased, study results showed decreases in runoff and soil moisture storage and if this continues it could lead to the regions becoming increasingly arid or dry.  In another scholarly document for contribution 1, the written records for 13 major rivers from the 1930 to 2013 time period, were studied and showed annual increases in DOC export.  Projections for DOC export using climate model simulations during the 21^st century varied depending on the climate model and greenhouse gas emission scenario.  The most consistent result showed an increase in DOC in winter and a projected decrease in summer.

Comparable to Level C, the results of research projects the appellant participated in provided answers to important questions in the field of hydrology.  For example, two USGS series reports for contribution 3 (“The relative importance of oceanic nutrient inputs for Bass Harbor Marsh Estuary at Acadia National Park, Maine” and “Nutrient budgets, marsh inundation under sea-level rise scenarios, and sediment chronologies for the Bass Harbor Marsh estuary at Acadia National Park”) show that the ocean’s tidal currents in the Bass Harbor Marsh estuary could be an important source of nutrients that are believed to propel the production of algal blooms in this and potentially other similar estuaries.  A scholarly document for contribution 4 (“Toward a quantitative and empirical dissolved organic carbon budget for the Gulf of Maine, a semi-enclosed shelf sea”) showed evidence that recent climate changes are resulting in increased DOC export.  The results showed an upward shift in river runoff, ocean acidic levels, and ocean surface warming.  There was also a decrease in phytoplankton productivity.  The results of these research projects opened new avenues for further scientific study within the field; and may lead to important changes to methods and techniques to better understand the transport of DOC and the impact on climate change.

Level C is also met in that the appellant was the primary investigator and/or solely responsible for determining the research topic, direction, methods, and techniques used.  However, he was the primary investigator for only two research projects from the look back period.  The appellant served as a co-primary investigator for one of the other research projects and served as a member of a multi-disciplinary research team for the remaining research project.  The appellant and his co-investigators analyzed project-related data and developed reports and scholarly publications based on the research results.

Some of the appellant’s research assignments approach, but do not fully meet Level E.  For example, the project work plan (i.e., research proposal) for contribution 1 involves separate phases addressing the essential questions identified in national and international climate change and land use change assessments regarding hydrologic responses to climate change and associated changes in carbon cycling.  This research is merged with two ongoing NASA funded studies of carbon export to the Gulf of Maine.  However, the separate phases associated with the appellant’s work are not typically a manifestation of the level of difficulty of the research, but rather a natural pause between the research being funded by NASA and USGS Global Change Research and Development Program.

In addition, a scholarly document for contribution 1 (“Grand Challenges in Understanding the Interplay of Climate and Land Changes”) identified research priority areas to improve our understanding of the interplay between land-cover and land-use change and climate.  The researchers are challenging the research community to investigate these areas over the upcoming decade.  In another scholarly document for contribution 1 (“Evidence for conservative transport of dissolved organic carbon in river systems in the Gulf of Maine watershed”), the research showed DOC is retained in Maine’s major rivers.  However, the prevailing belief in hydrology research is that most DOC is lost to the atmosphere.  This may be a recent result but it shows an advancement that may significantly contribute to progress in an area of great interest to the scientific and professional community in the field of hydrology in the future.

However, aspects of the appellants assignments do not fully meet Level E.  The appellant’s assignments cannot be characterized as unyielding to scientific investigation but the results of his research projects have helped confirm and modify scientific theory.  There is also no evidence the appellant’s current research has resulted in important theoretical changes.

Therefore, since Level C is exceeded and Level E is approached but not fully met, the intermediate Level D is credited with 8 points assigned.

Factor 2, Supervisory Controls

This factor deals with the researcher’s current level of independent performance and the technical and administrative guidance and control the supervisor exercises over research work.

At Level C, the supervisor may either assign a broad problem area to the researcher or allow the researcher to work with substantial freedom within an area of primary interest. The researcher has substantial freedom to identify, define, and select specific projects, and to determine the most promising research strategies and problem approaches.  The supervisor approves plans calling for considerable investments of time or resources; makes final decisions concerning the direction of work and changes in or discontinuance of projects involving substantial research investments; relies on the researcher's professional judgment to such an extent that the researcher’s recommendations are ordinarily followed; and reviews final work and reports, principally to evaluate overall results, recommendations, and conclusions.  The researcher is responsible, with little technical direction, for formulating hypotheses; developing and carrying out the research plan; determining equipment and other resource needs; keeping the supervisor informed of general plans and progress; addressing novel and difficult problems requiring modification of standard methods; analyzing and interpreting results; and preparing comprehensive reports of findings.

At Level E, the supervisor provides broad administrative supervision, which is generally limited to approving staffing, funds, and facilities, and to providing broad guidance on agency policies and mandates.  Technical supervision is consultative in nature.  Management accepts the researcher’s findings as technically authoritative, as a basis for decisions, and as acceptable for review by the scientific community.  The researcher, working within the framework of management objectives and priorities, is responsible for formulating research plans and hypotheses; carrying out the project plan; interpreting findings and assessing their organizational and professional applicability; and locating and exploring the most promising areas of research in relation to agency program needs and the state of the science or discipline.

The level of supervision received by the appellant fully meets Level C.  Like this level, the appellant works with substantial freedom within the study of water in the hydrologic cycle.  The supervisor approves requests from the appellant for considerable additional investments of time and resources.  Similar to this level, within the broad objectives of USGS’s mission, the appellant develops or contributes to the work plans, i.e., research grant proposals.  They include information such as the research hypothesis, a description of how the research will be carried out, and identification of needed equipment and other resources.  The grant proposals go through an internal agency review process before submission to the funding source, e.g., NPS and EPA, for approval.  The appellant formulates hypotheses, carries out the research plan, and analyzes and interprets the results of his scientific research and studies, and prepares comprehensive reports of findings.  He keeps his supervisor informed of the progress made on projects.  The appellant’s work products go through established review processes to evaluate the overall results, recommendations, and conclusions. 

Level E is not met.  Unlike this level, the appellant’s work is not performed under broad administrative supervision and his work products go through established review processes as described under Level C.  Unlike Level E, his research grant proposals must be approved by the funding source each year of the project.  The appellant lacks the latitude to select an overall area of research based on his perception of the agency’s program needs.  Like Level C, he can only select areas of research which fall within the parameters of the particular agency program to which he is assigned.  The appellant’s authority and expertise in the field of hydrology has not compelled his agency to respond administratively to the results of his research.  The results of the appellant’s research projects has not compelled the agency to allocate significant additional resources to his work; redirect broader agency efforts to support or complement his research; or appoint him to lead important agency committees and/or serve as a spokesperson on behalf of the agency. 

The position meets Level C and 6 points are assigned.

Factor 3, Guidelines and Originality

This factor deals with the use of guidelines and originality in performing the work.  It deals with the creative thinking, analysis, synthesis, evaluation, judgment, resourcefulness, and insight characterizing the work currently performed.

At Level C, literature, precedents, and guidelines in the field are of limited usefulness due to limited applicability or largely absent because of the novel nature of the research work involved.  Originality is demonstrated by defining elusive or highly complex problems; developing productive hypotheses for testing; developing new approaches, methods, and techniques; interpreting and relating significant results to other research findings; developing and applying new techniques and original methods to solve problems; isolating and defining critical problem features; and adapting, extending and developing theory, principles, and techniques into original or innovative combinations or configurations.

At Level E, guidelines are almost non-existent in pertinent literature.  Originality and creativity are demonstrated by discovering complex theory or methodology; contributing significantly to the development of new theory or methodology to supplant or add new dimensions to a previous framework; and solving problems and delivering results which markedly influence the scientific field or society.

The level of guidelines and originality used by the appellant fully meets Level C.  Like this level, the appellant stated the guidelines he uses consist of existing literature in the field of study but are of limited usefulness.  He stated he examines how other researchers study DOC export and modifies the methods for use in the research projects to which he is a part.  Like Level C, the appellant defines highly complex problems regarding climate change.  For example, a scholarly document for contribution 1 (“Northern forest winters have lost cold, snowy conditions that are important for ecosystems and human communities”) explained the effect carbon has on climate change.  The research showed temperatures do not increase at a high rate over time when the majority of carbon is found in the soil.  However, temperatures do increase at a higher rate over time when the majority of carbon is found in bodies of water.  Like this level, the appellant has interpreted and related significant results to other research findings regarding how climate change influences hydrologic conditions and carbon cycling.  In a scholarly document for contribution 4 (“Toward a quantitative and empirical dissolved organic carbon budget for the Gulf of Maine, a semi-enclosed shelf sea”), the results showed DOC export was consistent with trends showing a yellowing of surface water which could be at least partially responsible for observed decreases in phytoplankton productivity by decreasing the transparency of the ocean’s surface so less light is available for photosynthesis.

Some aspects of the appellant’s scientific guidelines and originality approach, but do not fully meet Level E.  In relation to the originality criteria of Level E, the appellant does not fully meet any of the three factors.  However, in a scholarly document for contribution 1 (“A new indicator framework for quantifying changes in intensity of the water cycle”), the appellant participated in developing a model that can assist current and future researchers with estimating changes in the strength of the water cycle.  In another scholarly document for contribution 1 (“Evidence for conservative transport of dissolved organic carbon in river systems in the Gulf of Maine watershed”), the research showed DOC is retained in Maine’s major rivers.  However, the prevailing belief in hydrology research is that most DOC is lost to the atmosphere.  These recent results show advancements that may significantly contribute to the development of new theory modeling or methodology which supersedes or adds new dimension to the previous framework in the future.

However, aspects of the appellant’s research assignments do not meet Level E.  Unlike this level, the appellant’s guidelines consist of existing literature.  The appellant also has not demonstrated the discovery of complex theory or methodology.  Although he has not demonstrated solving problems and delivering results which markedly influence the scientific field or society, the results of his research are best characterized as contributory to a larger existing body of knowledge associated with the study of water in the hydrologic cycle.

Since Level C is exceeded and Level E is approached but not fully met, the intermediate Level D is credited with 8 points assigned.

Factor 4, Contributions, Impact, and Stature

This factor focuses on the researcher’s total contributions, impact, and stature as they bear on the current research assignment.  It is not restricted to present and immediate past accomplishments and achievements.  However, recency of accomplishment is important, and recent research or similar activity is essential to receiving full credit.

At Level C, the researcher demonstrates competence and productivity by conducting rigorous research of marked originality, soundness, and value.  Work is expected to result in, or has resulted in primary authorship of publications of considerable interest and value to the field; conceiving and formulating research ideas supporting or leading to productive studies by others; products that are significant in solving important scientific problems; selection to serve on important committees and review panels of technical groups and professional organizations; recognition by the scientific community as a significant contributor to the field of study; acknowledgement of impact by end users as evidenced by favorable reviews or citation in the work of others; invitations to make presentations to professional societies and others outside the organization on technical matters and management practices in the area of specialization; and consultation by users and other researchers who are respected in their fields of study.

At Level E, the researcher makes outstanding and significant contributions by conducting research in either a broad field or a narrow but very specialized field; the researcher’s accomplishments are of such importance and magnitude that they move science forward; and research is of such impact that other researchers must take note of it to keep abreast of developments in the field.

Work at this level may include primary authorship of a number of important papers including seminal or synthesis publications, some of which have had a major impact on advancing the field or are accepted as authoritative in the field; contributions to inventions, designs, techniques, models, or theories are regarded as major advances and open the way for further developments or solving problems of great importance to the professional community, the organization, or the public; being sought as a consultant by colleagues who are themselves recognized experts in the field; recognition by the scientific community as a technical authority in the field; requests from highly-respected colleagues to collaborate with the researcher; attracting new researchers to the field; invitations to address or to assume a leadership role in national professional organizations and associated committees; and selection to lead research to solve large and complex problems.

In addition, researchers at this level typically perform a variety of advisory activities based on their scientific reputation and standing, such as contributing significantly to professional symposia defining the state of the discipline and new or emerging areas in the field; contributing to strategic research planning and program development; participating in major technology or information transfer activities of great importance to the scientific field, the agency, or the public; or participating in applying the research to important management and policy decisions.

The appellant’s scientific research contributions, impact, and stature fully meets Level C.  Comparable to Level C, the appellant has participated in conducting rigorous research in the transport of DOC to estuaries, rivers, and larger bodies of water; climate change; and watershed biogeochemistry.  During the look back period, three of the publications for which the appellant is credited with primary authorship are USGS series reports and one is a book chapter.  Unfortunately, their citations in other publications are not tracked.  One of the publications is a scholarly document for this year and it may show a level of interest to the field of hydrology in the future.  Two other publications appear to have a moderate level of interest to the field of hydrology thus far.  Comparable to this level, in contribution 2, the appellant contributed to a USGS series report and a scholarly document providing evidence that adding buffered zero-valent iron and granular activated carbon to soil could be effective in inhibiting the methylation of mercury in lakes and wetlands, thereby reducing methyl mercury in the animals and plant life at ANP.  The remediation results may be considered by other researchers to solve important scientific problems in circumstances similar to those found at ANP. 

Like Level C, the appellant serves as a member of the Science Advisory Team for Planning at ANP.  His work on this team includes participating in developing ANP’s ecosystem conservation plan.  Comparable to this level, the appellant was asked to contribute a chapter to an open access book based on his DOC research.  He was also invited to be a guest editor for a 12-article special issue on ‘Water Cycle under Global Climate Change’ for an open access journal.  The appellant defines the scope of the topic and recruits experts from the field to contribute articles.  Similar to this level, the appellant has received consultation requests.  They include a request to consult with respected researchers at Michigan State University’s Department of Geography concerning how climate change and hydrologic changes could influence their research on such topics as climatology and land cover change.  Over the years, he has been invited to collaborate with fellow NEWSC researchers.  The appellant is also periodically invited to collaborate with a researcher at Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences as an adjunct principal investigator, which continues to this day, and with fellow NEWSC researchers.    

Some aspects of the appellant’s scientific research contributions, impact, and stature approach, but do not fully meet Level E.  For example, the appellant has contributed to the development of a model for measuring water cycle intensity but the scholarly document (“A new indicator framework for quantifying changes in intensity of the water cycle”) was published last year.  In another example, the appellant contributed to a scholarly document (“Evidence for conservative transport of dissolved organic carbon in river systems in the Gulf of Maine watershed”) in which the research showed DOC is retained in Maine’s major rivers but the prevailing belief is that DOC is lost to the atmosphere, which was published this year.  In both examples, these documents produced results future researchers can use to advance carbon transport issues in the field of hydrology.

However, aspects of the appellant’s research assignments do not fully meet Level E.  During the look back period, the appellant is credited with primary authorship of eight publications, which is less frequent than what is expected at this level.  Furthermore, the appellant has received invitations to speak and participate in colloquiums resulting from his research involving water cycle and climate change, respectively at Plymouth State University and Michigan State University.  He spoke to graduate students in related scientific fields who were already interested in hydrology research.  Therefore, the appellant’s work cannot be construed as having attracted new researchers to the field of hydrology.  Unlike this level, the appellant’s professional accomplishments and stature are not used as a means to define the state of hydrology or other emerging fields of science.  The appellant participates in adapting and refining the data and findings to accomplish the goals of the research grant and the mission research goals of the NEWSC.  In addition, the appellant’s agency does not rely on his professional accomplishments and stature to develop agency policy or to develop and direct agency programs.  The appellant performs hydrology research within the parameters of the approved research grant and existing agency policy.

Since Level C is exceeded and Level E is approached but not fully met, the intermediate Level D is credited with 16 points assigned.

Summary

Factor	Level	Points
1.  Research Assignment	D	8
2.  Supervisory Controls	C	6
3.  Guidelines and Originality	D	8
4.  Contributions, Impact, and Stature	D	16
Total Points		38

The total points fall within the GS-14 range of 36 to 44 on the grade conversion table provided in the RGEG.

Decision

The appellant’s position is properly classified as Research Hydrologist, GS-1315-14.

Back to Top