Office of Polar Programs

National Science Foundation

Arlington, Virginia

November 15-16, 2004

Minutes

OPP Office Advisory Committee (OAC)

**[OAC Members Present:]{.underline}**

**Joshua Schimel,** Chair, Ecology-Biology, University of California,
Santa Barbara, CA

**Sridhar Anandakrishnan,** Past Chair, Geophysics and Physical
Glaciology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL

**Brian Bershad,** Computer Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle,
WA

**Julie Brigham-Grette,** Geosciences, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, MA

## Beverly Hartland, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL

## James Hollibaugh, Marine Biology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA

## Deanna Paniataaq-Kingston, Anthropology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR

**Thomas McGovern,** Archaeology, Hunter College of City of New York,
New York, NY

**Marilyn Raphael,** Geography, University of California, Los Angeles,
CA

**Peter Schlosser,** Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia
University, Palisades, NY

**Paul Shepson,** Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN

## James Swift, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California---San Diego,

## La Jolla, CA

**[OAC Members Absent:]{.underline}**

## Martin Jeffries, Glaciology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK

**Paul Mayewski,** Glaciology, Climate Change, Glaciochemistry,
University of Maine,

Orono, ME

## John Ruhl, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH

**[OPP Senior Staff Present:]{.underline}**

**Karl Erb**, Director, Office of Polar Programs

**Scott Borg**, Head, Antarctic Sciences Section

**Erick Chiang**, Head, Polar Research Support Section

**Altie Metcalf,** Budget and Planning Officer

## Thomas Pyle, Head, Arctic Sciences Section

The fall meeting of the Office of Polar Programs Advisory Committee
(OAC) was held at the National Science Foundation (NSF) in Arlington,
Virginia, on November 15 and 16, 2004.

#### Monday, November 15, 2004

## Welcome and Introductions

Dr. Joshua Schimel called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. The minutes
from the May 10-11, 2004, meeting were approved. Committee members and
the Office of Polar Programs' (OPP) senior staff introduced themselves.
Dr. Schimel noted that there were three main topics to be covered during
this meeting: the Committee of Visitors' (COV) report, International
Polar Year (IPY), and icebreaker issues. He also pointed out that this
meeting agenda was intended to provide short presentations followed --by
--discussion.

## Office of Polar Program Director's Report

Dr. Karl Erb welcomed the committee and discussed recent OPP staff
changes**.** Dr. Kathleen Flint, American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS) Fellow, and Johanna Ojeda, a student at
Marymount University have joined the staff. Dr. Robert Wharton, OPP's
Executive Officer, and Ms. Lenese Stephens, former student have left
OPP. Dr. Wharton has moved on to Idaho State University, and Ms.
Stephens has graduated from college after being with OPP for four years.

Dr. Erb also announced the creation of a fourth section in OPP that will
have responsibility for environmental, health and safety issues
associated with OPP-sponsored activity in polar regions. The Head of the
Section will be recruited at the Senior Executive Service level, will
report to the OPP Director, and may be a physician. Dr. Polly Penhale
has accepted appointment as OPP Environmental Officer and will join the
new Section. A recruitment will begin shortly for the position of
Antarctic Biology and Medicine Program Officer.

Dr. Erb briefed the committee on the status of the NSF budget and noted
that the Administration's guidance to NSF associated with the FY-05
request was to plan for essentially flat or declining budgets for the
next five years.

Dr. Erb then outlined the agenda and noted that two important issues on
which OPP sought the Committee's advice are how to plan for
International Polar Year and how to meet the need for icebreaker
assistance in Antarctica in future years. He also described the
important role played by the Committees of Visitors (COVs) that are
convened to review each NSF programs every three years. The COVs are
subcommittees of the Office Advisory Committee. Dr. Diana Wall chaired
the COV review of PRSS Section activity for the period 2000-2003 and
Dr's. Anandakrishnan and Hollibaugh served as the Advisory Committee's
members on the COV. Dr. Erb commended the COV for its thorough work and
noted that the Committee's discussion of the report and the interim
response from PRSS would be valuable input to OPP's future planning.

IPY: International and National Planning Activity Since the Spring OAC
Meeting (Dr. Robin Bell)

Dr. Robin Bell, Vice Chair of the International Council for Science
(ICSU), International Polar Year Committee, updated the committee on the
status of IPY planning activities at the international level, mentioning
presentations and discussions at SCAR and COMNAP and the Agency workshop
at the Academy in July. The expectation is that ICSU Executive Committee
will approve the ICSU IPY science plan in December. "Expressions of
Intent" are due to the IPY Joint Committee on January 14, 2005; these
will be reviewed by the joint committee in late February or March. The
IPY International Secretariat is to be housed within the British
Antarctic Society, with a second office in Geneva, Switzerland, to serve
WMO interests. An international search is now underway to recruit the
Executive Secretary of the ICSU Secretariat.

Dr. Erb added that Arden Bement, Director of NSF, had hosted a meeting
of agency representatives at NSF during the summer and that Senator
McCain had sponsored a Senate resolution in support of IPY. Critical
questions needing discussion and resolution are how to engage the
science community, how to ensure that various studies are integrated,
and how can NSF and the U.S. best assert leadership? There is unlikely
to be extra money to support IPY activity in the U. S.

The committee briefly discussed potential deadlines for proposal
submission, as well as proposal processing and it was noted that ICSU
would serve as a coordinating body rather than as a grant approval
entity. Other topics raised and discussed further in later sessions
included ideas and plans from other countries; building new
infrastructures as part of IPY; joining projects led by other countries
when U.S. scientists have strong interests in doing so, data
accessibility and management; and how to filter and integrate large and
small initiatives.

NSF staff emphasized that proposals to NSF must be judged in terms of
the standard NSF merit review criteria (intellectual merit and broader
impacts) but that for IPY these will be supplemented by criteria derived
from the ICSU and NAS/NRC IPY guidelines. It was also noted that timing
is critical due to logistics planning and that feedback to ICSU was very
important.

The committee decided to draft a letter to ICSU and PRB commenting on
IPY planning and many of the issues raised in the discussion. The
committee also pointed out that a "plain text" information document for
scientists should be drafted so all in the community understand IPY
activities.

## Emerging Arctic International Polar Year Flagship Activity

Dr. Tom Pyle presented information on Study of Environmental Arctic
Change (SEARCH) as a possible flagship IPY activity, and suggested that
SEARCH could provide a starting point for science projects connected to
the International Polar Year. He also noted activities currently in the
planning stages that would be consistent with SEARCH: International
Study of Arctic Change (ISAC) and the Indigenous Knowledge Observing
Network (IKON). Dr. Pyle mentioned three issues associated with IPY
planning: Should IPY have a special announcement or be rolled into the
regular program announcement; should Observations play a large role in
IPY plans, and should the annual deadline date for Arctic proposals be
moved to a better date? The committee discussed the sensitivity involved
in sharing indigenous knowledge as it is incorporated with modern
science and new technology; the difficulty of integrating scientific and
engineering efforts to develop instruments and networks needed for
Arctic science; and the need to find a balance between deploying
instruments and involving everyone from varying perspectives who should
be involved.

Dr. Joan Roskoski, Executive Officer, Directorate for Biological
Sciences, noted that there would be a workshop in Seattle bringing
together National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) scientists with
engineers from several different backgrounds to brainstorm on the
development of sensor networks. The committee suggested that Arctic
indigenous people be invited.

## Emerging Antarctic International Polar Year Flagship Activity

Dr. Scott Borg discussed West Antarctic IceSheet Stability as a possible
Antarctic flagship activity. Dr. Erb mentioned that ice sheet dynamics
will be studied cooperatively with NASA and will also likely address the
Greenland ice sheet. The work would include a West Antarctica Ice Core
project. New and related studies could also be undertaken in East
Antarctica. The committee discussed other options for IPY including
exploration of subglacial lakes, but it was generally agreed that
preparations for entering the lakes without contaminating them could
probably not be completed by 2007-2008.

####### Discussion with the Director

Dr. Arden Bement, Director of the National Science Foundation, joined
the meeting and discussed NSF's constrained budget outlook for FY05 and
the timing for FY06 budget preparations. Dr. Bement mentioned that
priorities for NSF in FY05 and FY06 are broadening participation;
maintaining funding rates; providing support for tools/infrastructure,
including autonomous undersea vehicles, and sensor/sensor arrays; and
focusing on organizational excellence and the technical tools NSF needs
to build on productivity.

The committee noted two concerns for OPP and NSF: the icebreaker issue
and International Polar Year activities. Dr. Bement pointed out that NSF
with the Academy are joining to provide leadership for IPY, that IPY is
not just a 2-year exercise -- leaving a lasting legacy in the form of
tools and discoveries will be important.

On the icebreaker issue Dr. Bement commented that it is important to
have options for more fuel storage capacity, as well as alternate ways
to deliver fuel and cargo. He also noted that this issue is getting
attention at high levels within OSTP, the White House, and OMB. He said
he would appreciate the committee's recommendations on this issue.

The committee and Dr. Bement discussed changing science priorities and
how funding allocation decisions are made as well as the future of
strategic initiatives at NSF and the fact that they eventually become
part of NSF's core funding.

Dr. Schimel thanked Dr. Bement for meeting with the Advisory Committee.

### Working Lunch with a Discussion on IPY Proposal Solicitations

There was a working lunch discussion on developing an NSF IPY proposal
solicitation led by. Dr. Marie Bundy, Dr. Dennis Conlon, and Mr. Brian
Stone. The committee discussed whether there should be pre-proposals, a
separate solicitation for education and outreach (rather than expecting
proposers to include E&O in proposals), the importance of several focus
areas, how many solicitations should be released, and the timing of
soliciting for flagship activities. An IPY solicitation for several
projects that will require considerable advance planning to arrange
logistics and infrastructure will be issued by OPP in late summer, 2005.
One part of this discussed by staff and the Committee would address a
circum-Arctic observation network under SEARCH and its international
counterpart, ISAC. Another would address the West Antarctic Ice Sheet
Stability and Dynamics question and would include a new ice core project
to obtain paloeclimate data with high temporal resolution. The Committee
reacted favourably to these suggestions.

Proposals for IPY activity will also be considered under the regular OPP
Arctic and Antarctic Program solicitations. A major concern, however, is
how to focus the solicitations so that success rates remain reasonable.
Some parts of NSF have seen success rates fall below 6%, a level that
clearly fails to justify the effort proposers devoted to preparing the
proposals

## Emerging IPY "Thrust"

######## Polar Biology: Life in the Cold and Dark

Drs. Joann Roskoski, Marie Bundy and Neil Swanberg discussed a third
major potential IPY area of interest related to biological sciences:
Life in the Cold and Dark. This activity is important because it is the
where the knowledge gap is the greatest in the climate change picture,
understanding life at extremes helps understand limits, it is bi-polar,
and there is public interest. Additionally, the community is ready for
an activity in this area. This area could include genomic response,
physiological adaptation, species diversity, and ecosystem dynamics. The
Committee reacted favourably to this plan. Further Committee comments on
IPY planning are included in the attached summary letter from Committee
Chair Schimel.

Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA)

Dr. Robert Corell, Chairman, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, and
Senior Fellow, American Meteorological Society discussed the *Arctic
Climate Impact Assessment* report with the committee. The summary
document is available and the full ACIA report will be available to the
public shortly. It was noted that many ACIA authors also participated in
the SEARCH planning effort and that it was necessary to ensure the
highest priority research topics are being addressed. Dr. Corell noted
the need for research to follow up on the important observations made in
the report and the Committee discussed this question in some detail,
concluding that SEARCH together with its international counterpart,
ISAC, would best fill that need. The Committee recommended that the
SEARCH science team continue its dialog with the ACIA lead authors to
insure that this would be effective.

####### Options for Future Re-supply of McMurdo and South Pole Station

Dr. Erb began the discussion by noting that this problem and potential
solutions have both short- and long-term aspects. The fundamental
problem is that the two polar class icebreakers in the Coast Guard fleet
are nearing the end of their design lifetimes and have been inadequately
maintained. Their reliability is suspect and in fact only one will be in
service and able to assist breaking the channel to McMurdo Station this
coming season. Success with only one icebreaker in play could be
problematic. OPP is currently researching whether vessels are available
for charter that would be capable of assisting. There are numerous
long-term options that would render resupply independent of these
ships\-- perhaps5-7 years from now \-- including airlift of fuel or
cargo; increasing fuel storage capacity in McMurdo to cover multiple
years; moving cargo to McMurdo from the ice edge through a variety of
methods; and even contracting for a build-to-lease icebreaker or
icebreaking resupply vessel.

The committee wondered if other options might be considered, such as
moving McMurdo Station. Dr. Erb noted OPP was only beginning to identify
and grapple with the various options, and that moving McMurdo was not
off the table.

####### Committee of Visitors Report and Response

Dr. James Hollibaugh, who served as the Committee's liaison to the
Committee of Visitors along with Dr. Anandakrishnan briefed the
Committee on the COVs report on the Polar Research Support Section
(PRSS). A particular focus of the COV was how PRSS could better support
science.

The COV recognized the good work done by PRSS, but made a number of
recommendations concerning planning for the needs of future research
projects. There is a perceived disconnect between science and logistics
-- perhaps reflecting a need to get more certainty into estimates for
support of new projects. There was also a concern that new scientific
opportunities might be over-constrained by traditional logistics
arrangements and patterns. The committee and OPP staff discussed whether
a Grand Challenges Workshop (Recommendation 1) could help alleviate this
situation or whether the input already derived from workshop reports was
adequate and the solutions instead involved increased interaction
between PRSS and the Antarctic Sciences section. The issue is really how
to better meet the challenges posed by the science community.

The committee discussed Recommendation 2.1 ("Separate items in the PRSS
budget that directly support science versus those that do not. The ratio
between these parts of the budget should be documented and justified.").
This approach could be useful for outyear planning, and the first step
is to identify what and how much is required for keeping the stations
running (base operations and maintenance) in order to support science.
The committee noted that it could be difficult differentiating between
O&M and science support since the stations exist in large part to
support science. One concept would be to identify what can be
reallocated each year without crippling the current and planned
infrastructure and operational modes.

The committee discussed Recommendation 2.3, "Make multi-year plans for
IT acquisition and upgrades, and plan investment accordingly rather than
pursuing an incremental 'patch and upgrade' approach." There was general
agreement that PRSS should develop an IT plan covering the next 4-5
years, but the committee questioned whether this was possible given how
fast technology changes. It would be important to find the right level
of detail to specify in developing a conceptual plan.

The committee concluded the COV discussion by thanking the Committee of
Visitors for its report, diligence, and hard work. The OAC approved the
COV report and invited additional future discussion on the report.

The meeting adjourned for the day at 5:30 p.m.

*Tuesday, November 16, 2004*

The meeting reconvened at 8:30 a.m.

##### **IPY Logistics**

Mr. Brian Stone discussed IPY logistics and described three types of
resources: "a la carte" which requires short lead time, such as
helicopters and twin otters; long lead time requirements such as a new
helicopter, drill system, new major field camp; and constrained
resources, such as LC-130 flight time. There was a discussion on the
impact of the International Polar Year activities on logistics and
whether pre-positioning logistics was an option. Will the IPY
solicitation provide time for allocation (or reallocation) of major
resources? Dr. Erb made the point that much as in the science programs,
some future capacity should be reserved for new projects. NSF's science
grants programs avoided committing over 2/3 of their future funding as a
matter of policy. However, OPP did commit logistics assets to specific
regions -- in the Arctic and in Antarctica -- for which proposers could
compete through the normal peer review proves. Members of the committee
noted that the OAC should take a position now on the U.S. IPY flagship
program that can have a logistics commitment and that they should be
SEARCH and WAIS. These are already on the table, ready to go, and there
is likely not enough time now to design a major new program with major
logistics requirements. Dr. Erb noted that by the next OAC meeting in
April-May 2005, the committee will be able to see the submissions to
ICSU, but it is important for NSF to signal now the direction it is
headed to give the U. S. community and scientists in other countries
time to get involved in the NSF proposed activities.

The idea of establishing a subcommittee to review and report to the
Advisory Committee when it convenes this spring was discussed.

####### Outreach and Education

##### Ms. Renee Crain, Dr. Anna Kerttula, Mr. Guy Guthridge and Mr. Peter West provided a review of the status of the polar postdoctoral fellowship program and recent panel, and a conversation on the key outreach/education goals for the International Polar Year. 

There were 20 applicants to the postdoctoral fellowship program with
science disciplines well represented and a good gender mix. However,
only one applicant self-identified as Hispanic, and there was agreement
that OPP needs to do a better job of attracting under-represented
applicants. There will be 5 and possibly 6 awards. This is a 27% success
rate for the program.

Suggestions were made by the Advisory Committee on how to expand the
base of applicants including ideas such as advertising at minority
conventions, sending out tailored notices to the Arctic community, and
for members of the Committee to inform people within their sphere of
influence. Options for applicants to travel and minority travel grants
were talked about.

The conversation moved forward to consider the background information,
ideas and recommendations for the outreach and education goals for IPY.
The discussions covered media technology, collaborations, the database
of teachers sent to the Poles, gathering the education and outreach
perspective of the British Antarctic Survey as the headquarters for IPY
and an organization known for its public outreach. Grassroots efforts
with schools, adding polar science to the National Standard tests and
entering into a contract with outreach professionals were also
discussed. Dr. Erb noted the efforts of the NSF Office of Legislative
and Public Affairs to develop a start of the art web site to assist in
outreach

Polar Ocean Research Platforms and the NAS/NRC Study of the U.S. Coast
Guard Role

Chris Elfring gave a presentation on an upcoming study by the Polar
Research Board to assess the U.S. Coast Guard polar icebreaker roles and
future needs. There will be two phases of the report with the Phase I
Interim Report, expected September 30, 2005, focusing on demand
analysis, missions and stakeholder needs, and time-dependent issues. The
Phase II Final Report will be completed by June 2006. PRB is trying
design the study to meet two different needs -- analyzing the Coast
Guard roles and analyzing the future science needs for the icebreakers.
The committee agreed that they should provide advice on the needs of the
science community by letter to OPP, who could pass the information on to
the PRB.

### Proposal Success Rates

Ms. Altie Metcalf gave a report on the data of Office of Polar Program's
proposal success rates.

OPP's percentage of 40% is significantly higher than NSF's overall
success rate of 24% for FY 2004. The committee discussed with OPP staff
the complexities of analyzing proposal success rates and their use as a
management tool.

**USAP Advisory User Groups**

Brian Stone gave an overview of the USAP Advisory User Groups. These are
unpaid advisory committees that provide advice to OPP's current
contractor, Raytheon and include a user group for each Antarctic station
and one for the vessels. The committee discussed whether there were
systemic issues that would be dealt with better than station by station,
and how to improve interaction both among the user groups and between
the user groups and the science community. South Pole and McMurdo user
groups already have some ad hoc (and open) meetings on station to
address the latter issue. Other issues discussed were whether the user
groups should have a strategic vs. a tactical focus and whether there
was merit in having the user group chairs meet and work together. The
committee asked whether representatives of the user groups could be
invited to an OAC meeting, and were informed that this was indeed
possible. The Committee also requested that the most recent user group
reports be provided in the OAC briefing books. This should include
Arctic reports of this nature as well, such as reports from the Toolik
users' group. The committee also asked whether OPP could synthesize the
reports for the OAC. Issues OPP should consider are standardizing the
user group charters and considering whether having static chairs and
members provide the best advice.

**Other Business**

Dr. Erb noted that the OPP response would be prepared b. before the next
meeting. It was reiterated that the Committee of Visitors (COV)
recommendations and responses from the Office of Polar Programs should
be revisited during the Spring 2005 meeting. It was suggested that panel
members from the COV could be invited to the meeting if needed. The
committee also noted it would be good to revisit the recommendations and
responses in several years, before the next COV.

## Dr. Erb extended an official farewell and expression of gratitude to the following OAC members who are rotating off the committee at the end of 2004:

> Dr. Julie Brigham-Grette
>
> Dr. Peter Schlosser
>
> Dr. Sridhar Anandakrishnan
>
> Dr. Paul Mayewski
>
> Dr. Martin Jeffries

Members were then encouraged to send in calendar availability
information to Ms. Altie Metcalf in order to establish the dates for the
spring meeting. A suggestion was made to confirm the dates of the Arctic
Science (Summit) Week. Those dates are March 31 through April 4.

Dr. Erb thanked Dr. Schimel for conducting a very productive meeting.

**Adjourn**

The meeting was officially adjourned at 3:00 p.m.