####  Advisory Committee on Environmental Research and Education (AC-ERE) 

**October 16-17, 2002**

**National Science Foundation**

**Arlington, VA**

**MEETING SUMMARY**

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

**Dr. Stephanie Pfirman**, **Chair,** Barnard College, New York, NY

**Dr. James Allen**, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Rochester,
Rochester, NY

**Dr. James P. Collins,** Dept. of Biology, Arizona State University,
Tempe, AZ

**Dr. Jean J. Futrell**, Environmental Molecular Sciences Lab, Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA

**Dr. Thomas E. Graedel**, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies,
Yale University, New Haven, CT

**Dr. Elizabeth Kelly,** Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM

**Dr.** **Rosalyn McKeown**, Center for Geography and Environmental
Education, Knoxville, TN

**Dr. Mary Jane Perry**, School of Marine Science, University of Maine,
Walpole, ME

**Dr. David Skole**, Center for Global Change and Earth Observations,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI

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

**Dr. Joan Brennecke,** Department of Chemical Engineering, University
of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN

**Dr. James J. Kay**, Environment and Resources Studies, University of
Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

**Mr. Charles E. Leonard,** Solucient, LLC, New York, NY

**Dr. Richard G. Luthy,** Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Stanford University, Stanford, CA

**Dr. James Peterson**, Science Museum of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN

**Dr. John Priscu**, Dept. of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences,
Montana State University, Bozeman, MT

**Dr. Eloy Rodriguez**, Biotechnology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY

**Dr. Diana H. Wall**, Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado
State University, Fort Collins, CO

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

**Dr. Margaret Leinen**, Assistant Director for Geosciences and NSF ERE
Coordinator

**Dr. Marge Cavanaugh,** Chair, Working Group for Environmental Research
and Education (WG-ERE)

**Dr. Fred Meyerson**, AAAS/NSF Science & Technology Policy Fellow

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

# 

# The sixth meeting of the Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education (AC-ERE) was held October 16-17, 2002, at the National Science Foundation in Arlington, Virginia.

# Wednesday, October 16, 2002

## Welcome, Introductions, and Meeting Goals

Dr. Stephanie Pfirman, Chair, AC-ERE, called the meeting to order at
8:35 a.m. The new committee members were introduced and introductions
were made. AAAS Fellows, Fred Meyerson and Chantale Damas, were
introduced.

## !0-Year Agenda for Environmental Research and Education (ERE)

### [Report on Developments Since the Last AC-ERE Meeting]{.underline}

Dr. Pfirman provided an update on progress since the April 2002 meeting.
A revised draft of the 10-Year Agenda for Environmental Research and
Education that incorporated comments from the April meeting was prepared
by the end of April and reviewed by the entire AC-ERE. In May, Dr.
Pfirman briefed the National Science Board. Public comments were
received from the web posting from June 10 - August 10, 2002. Members of
the AC-ERE reviewed all comments received (about 230 pages). They looked
for trends and criteria. Many of the comments were positive. The ERE
working group and an AC-ERE subgroup, having fine-tuned and strengthened
the document and added draft sidebars, sent a new draft to the whole
ACERE prior to this meeting. Dr. Pfirman thanked NSF staff for their
help in sorting through the comments and reworking the drafts. The next
steps are to focus on implementation and distribution of the plan.

The AC-ERE commented on the draft and provided minor suggestions to
further refine the document. The sidebars were too prominent in the
document, and it was suggested that the main text be increased in font
size and the sidebars cut down. The AC-ERE divided up the document.
Subgroups were tasked with reviewing a group of sidebars, making
suggestions on the best ones to keep, and ones to re-cast with clear
compelling titles.

The AC-ERE also talked about adding an executive summary to the document
(instead of or in addition to the Foreword). It was suggested that the
foreword might be broken into two parts: a prolog that noted
contributors and a foreword that provided a framework for the document.

### [Report on Response of NSF and Other Agencies]{.underline}

Dr. Leinen discussed the response of NSF and other agencies to the
10-year Agenda for ERE. Since the April meeting, Dr. Leinen has met with
counterparts in other agencies and discussed the outline/rationale for
the document with EPA, NOAA, DOD, NASA, USGS, DOE, NIEHS, ONR, and
others. In all, Dr. Leinen met with the Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP) and approximately 15 "counterparts" at other agencies that
have budgetary control over environmental research. The response from
other agencies has been uniformly very positive, and they are glad to
see interdisciplinary research and interagency partnerships in a
long-term strategy.

Dr. Leinen also met with staff from the House Science Committee and
received positive feedback on NSF's role in facilitating
interdisciplinary research on the basis of science, not based on
influencing regulation. The document was presented as a vision document,
not as a budgetary document. Also, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) positively received the draft 10-year Agenda for ERE, with
discussion focused on building capacity.

The groups that Dr. Leinen met were notified when the full draft was
available and how feedback could be provided. Extensive efforts to
discuss this with other agencies are continuing.

## Environmental Research and Education Development and Update on NSF Activities

Dr. Leinen provided an update on NSF Activities.

### [Environmental Portfolio and NSF Budget]{.underline}

The FY2003 budget request for the environmental portfolio is for \$929M
with \$850M for the core disciplines and \$79M for Biocomplexity in the
Environment (BE). This budget captures very little of EHR funding
related to education in the environmental arena. This is an increase
from \$823M in FY2002. The environmental budget is increasing at a
faster rate than the NSF budget as a whole.

Dr. Leinen reviewed the differences in the Senate markup compared to the
House markup of the NSF budget, which had a 1% difference in the overall
increase for NSF (11.8% and 12.8% respectively). Other differences
included the level of funding for EarthScope and the overall funding for
the BIO and EHR directorates. Neither markup had proposed funding for
NEON in FY2003. Though the President's budget had proposed transferring
several programs to NSF (the National SeaGrant College Program,
Environmental Education and Hydrology of Toxic Substances), these
transfers were not supported in the markups.

The US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) had \$188M proposed for
FY2003. This included a new Climate Change Research Initiative for \$15M
(\$40M across all government agencies), with a focus on research that
would help decision makers. There is also an emerging environmental
education activity. NSF may possibly start a pilot program in this area
with a modest amount of money (\$3-4M) in FY2003.

There is still a great deal of discussion within both sides of the House
and Senate and OMB about doubling the NSF budget. The Hill is
aggressively talking about it. OMB has been more reticent in talking
about specific numbers. It is unclear what will happen in the next few
years. The FY2003 budget is expected to be approved in November. Until
then, NSF is operating under a continuing resolution which often
prohibits starting anything new until the budget is approved.

Dr. Leinen stated that last year Congress asked NSF to prioritize Major
Research and Equipment (MRE) requests. MRE projects already started had
highest priority. Second priority was given to projects that had
previously been included in the Administration budget, and, third, were
new starts. This year, Congress requested a rank order. Congress
provided NSF with the funds to award a grant to the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) to study how NSF prioritizes MRE items. Dr. Leinen
briefly discussed the current process within NSF for identifying MRE
activities and the challenges in prioritizing MRE items -- NSF wants
flexibility to adjust, shift and change priorities and new discoveries
unfold. The NAS report (due in 9-12 months) should have good suggestions
on how to deal with this.

### [Biocomplexity in the Environment (BE) Competition]{.underline}

The Biocomplexity in the Environment (BE) competition was completed in
October with 47 awards totaling \$37.9M. Areas for awards were:

-   Dynamics of Coupled Natural and Human Systems (\$7.5M)

-   Coupled Biogeochemical Cycles (\$16.6M)

-   Genome-Enabled Environmental Science and Engineering (\$7.2M)

-   Instrumentation Development for Environmental Activities (\$5.4M)

-   Materials Use: Science, Engineering and Society (\$1.2M)

### [Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Report for FY2002]{.underline} {#government-performance-and-results-act-gpra-report-for-fy2002 .unnumbered}

Dr. Leinen provided a brief overview of the GPRA and how NSF is to
report on its performance. In the past, advisory committees (ACs) and
COVs were responsible for assessing performance. This year, inspired in
part by a change in report timing, NSF formed a new advisory committee
(GPRA Performance Assessment AC) that has responsibility for overall
review. Information will be consolidated at the NSF-level. ACs will
resume their "original" role to review programs every three years, and
the COV reports generated will aid this new advisory group in assessing
NSF's performance. The AC-ERE is responsible for reviewing the COV for
the BE program. The GPRA AC is made up of representatives from other
advisory committees. Dr. Kelly is the AC-ERE representative. The GPRA AC
is defining the process and reviewing a large portfolio of work prepared
by program managers. A draft report has been produced.

### [Interagency Activities]{.underline} {#interagency-activities .unnumbered}

There is an informal Interagency Forum on Environmental Research made up
of people from agencies that have budgetary control in environmental
research. This group was formed around the same time as ERE and has
spent the first year learning what other agencies were doing. This
summer, the group held a workshop on Multiple Stressors. Tom Barnwell,
US EPA, summarized the workshop activities. The agencies found a lot of
common ground. EPA is interested in how national parks, state parks, and
DOD facilities are all connected and creating research corridors. The
group agreed to continue to inventory facilities. Some agencies have
extensive land holdings. The multiple agencies have talked about funding
a scientific workshop on multiple stressors but plans are on hold until
the FY2003 budget is determined.

The AC-ERE encouraged Dr. Leinen to continue meeting with this group.

### [International Collaboration]{.underline} {#international-collaboration .unnumbered}

The Climate Change Research Initiative was implemented. The European
Commission (EC) is working with NSF as they struggle with issues of
intellectual property. They are writing the first coordinated
solicitation in the area of ocean/ecosystem research concentrating on
the interaction between climate, ecosystem, and fish populations in the
North Atlantic. NSF has also been working with the UK on a coordinated
activity for climate variability and change. This will be a major
project co-funded by the UK and US. Other areas that have been
identified for a concerted effort as part of the EC are studies of
harmful algal blooms, carbon cycle, water cycle, earth science, and
natural hazards (floods, droughts, etc.).

Dr. Leinen noted that there has not been much progress in co-funding
opportunities with Japan, but they will continue to work on this and may
invite the Japanese to attend the spring AC-ERE meeting**.**

Dr. Leinen added that discussions for international collaboration are
often focused on teams and large collaboration of investigators. NSF is
recognizing this issue in its program development and encouraging team
work and collaboration. Yet, at the same time, in academia, there is a
strongly long-held view that the single/lead author publication is
essential to advance in an academic career. AC-ERE members noted that
this also happens in government agencies that do research. NSF is
hearing from the research community that universities are grappling with
the current reward system that gives more weight to single-investigator
research. Dr. Collins noted that they are hoping to have a workshop on
April 18, 2003**,** to bring together leading university administrators
to talk about this. The IGERT Program requires students that participate
to have an integrated research experience.

### [New Program in Decision Making in Uncertainty]{.underline} {#new-program-in-decision-making-in-uncertainty .unnumbered}

Deborah Frisch, SBE, provided a brief overview of the new NSF program in
Decision Making in Uncertainty (DMUU), one of three themes in the 2003
Human and Social Dynamics (HSD) priority area. The program has proposed
funding of \$5M for FY2003 with an additional \$4M for Enhancing Human
Performance and \$1M for Empirical Implications of Theoretical Models

The goals of the DMUU Program are to improve decision making under
uncertainty and to facilitate interaction among researchers and decision
makers, thereby enhancing fundamental research and increasing the speed
with which new findings are adopted by decision makers. NSF anticipates
supporting 3-5 centers that will conduct fundamental, interdisciplinary,
and integrative research on decision making associated with climate
change. They will also fund development awards (i.e., planning grants,
workshops, and supplements). It is anticipated the DMUU program will be
funded at a rate of \$5M a year for 5 years. The DMUU announcement is
anticipated in February or March 2003.

Several AC-ERE members commented on how this type of program could be
applied to areas other than climate change.

## Panel: Environmental Cyberinfrastructure {#panel-environmental-cyberinfrastructure .unnumbered}

Dr. James Allen chaired a panel discussion on environmental
cyberinfrastructure. Environmental research activities pose
cyberinfrastructure needs, with geospacial data and tools needed for
activities such as data layering and digitizing. NSF formed a "Blue
Ribbon" Panel to assess the cyberinfrastructure requirements in terms of
what will be required by the entire research community. It is clear that
cyberinfrastructure is critical to environmental research and education.
The panel was formed to provide information to the AC-ERE members about
activities going on in this area.

The panelists were:

-   Peter Freeman, Assistant Director, Computer Information Sciences and
    Engineering (CISE) Directorate, NSF

-   Dan Atkins, University of Michigan, "Blue Ribbon" Panel Chair

-   Mark Abbott, Oregon State University

-   Mark Schildhauer, University of California-Santa Barbara, National
    Center for Ecological Analysis and

    Synthesis

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Lee Allison, University of Kansas

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Tim Killeen, National Center for Atmospheric Research

### [Peter Freeman, AD-CISE, NSF]{.underline} {#peter-freeman-ad-cise-nsf .unnumbered}

Dr. Freeman provided the objectives and perspective for NSF's
cyberinfrastructure activities. He reminded the AC-ERE of the NSF
strategic focus on People, Ideas and Tools. The Tools are essential for
the people and ideas. NSF infrastructure milestones were reviewed from
early support of campus computing in the 1960s to the transition to the
Internet in 1989 to teragrid construction in 2001. NSF has been building
this platform for many years and over time there have been programmatic
shifts from isolated efforts to Supercomputer Centers Program to
Networking Programs to PACI Partnerships to high-end
cyberinfrastructure. Tools are needed to support all areas of science
and engineering infrastructure and education, not just high-end users.

There have been several converging trends: 1) The power and capacity of
the underlying technology is increasing very rapidly. 2) The
transformative power of computational resources for S&E research is
becoming known.

3\) There is recognition of the importance of computation, both to S&E
and to the Nation for economic transformation, critical infrastructure,
homeland security, and high-end cyberinfrastructure.

Cyberinfrastructure (CI) Objective: to provide an integrated, high-end
system of computing, data facilities, connectivity, software, services
and sensors that enables *all* scientists and engineers to work on
advanced research problems and education activities that would not
otherwise be capable. Elements included are: bandwidth, libraries,
cycles, instruments, services, and software. All are supported by
networking. Cyberinfrastructure efforts will build on previous efforts
and provide significant integration with disciplinary efforts.

### [Dan Atkins, University of Michigan]{.underline} {#dan-atkins-university-of-michigan .unnumbered}

Dan Atkins is chair of the "Blue Ribbon" Panel on Cyberinfrastructure
which convened in May 2001. The panel produced a draft report and the
final report is expected in November 2002. Dr. Atkins provided
"Perspectives on Cyberinfrastructure**.**" The term infrastructure is
used to refer to roads, bridges, rail lines, and similar public works
that are required for an industrial economy to function.
Cyberinfrastructure refers to the tools and technologies that are
required for an information economy to function. He described
cyberinfrastructure as the middle "layer" that included hardware,
software, personnel, services and institutions. The top layer is
applications in S&E research and education and the bottom layer is
base-technology such as computation, storage and communication.

The notion of information/communication technology is old. NSF has been
investing in enabling activities for a long time. Many of these
initiatives will play into the cyberinfrastructure initiative (i.e.
Digital Libraries, Scientific Data Collection/Curation, PACIs to name a
few). International aspects include the European Union's similar
investments in deploying high-end infrastructure. We are starting to
reap the benefits of converging streams of activity such as grid,
collaboratories, and e-science. In the future, there will be increasing
function and capability as well as ubiquity and an invasion of this
capability into all areas of science.

Dr. Atkins reviewed the components of CI-enabled science and engineering
in the context of a broad, systemic, strategic conceptualization.

Global activity would be connected to:

-   Instruments for observation and characterization;

-   Facilities for activation, manipulation and construction;

-   High-performance computing for modeling, simulation, data
    processing/mining;

-   Knowledge management institutions for collection building and
    distribution of data, information, literature, digital objectives;
    and

-   Individual and group applications.

    Cyberinfrastructure needs a highly coordinated, persistent, major
    investment in research and development, operational service, domain
    science communities, and education. CI is a shared opportunity and
    responsibility for all NSF communities. It is multi-agency. Industry
    is important and it should also involve international partners. NSF
    has a unique responsibility to provide leadership for the Nation in
    an initiative to revolutionize science and engineering research
    capitalizing on cyberinfrastructure opportunities.

    Dr. Atkins summarized that the demand is here and growing, and there
    could be costs for not acting now. There are many prior investments
    that are key resources to build upon. What is needed?

-   Need sanction now, leadership and empowerment through significant
    new funding and effective coordination

-   Need very broad participation by many communities with complementary
    needs and expertise

-   Need appropriate leadership and management structure

-   Need incremental funding of \$1B/year (on a continuing basis)

### [Mark Abbott, Oregon State University]{.underline} {#mark-abbott-oregon-state-university .unnumbered}

Dr. Mark Abbott, Oregon State University, presented "From Environmental
Information to Environmental Services: Moving from the Data Center to
the Living Room**."**

Some of the issues include:

-   Environmental change on global scales over long**-**time periods

-   Rapid and unexpected changes characteristic of nonlinear systems

-   Processes**,** not just physical climate or biogeochemistry**,** but
    areas such as economics and politics

    In addition, there are policy and commercial pressures that affect
    planning and response. There are more operational and commercial
    uses of Earth science knowledge for real-time response to disaster
    and long**-**term planning and projections. There are global scale
    treaties and there are increased concerns for environmental
    security.

    We have learned that climate research requires:

-   A global view

-   Broad variety of data sources

-   Many types of researchers

-   Shift from centralized approach to broadly distributed approach

-   Less emphasis on serving other scientists

-   More emphasis on real-time delivery.

Dr. Abbott shared examples of research using various technologies.
Technology is moving toward commodity pricing (affordable, disposable
hardware and complex but affordable software) with an emphasis on mass
markets (not the needs of the science community). Pervasive devises such
as embedded network-enabled systems and distributed software objects
(i.e. applets) are commonplace. The impact of these changes is that
supercomputer computing is becoming a smaller niche and costs for R&D
are increasing. Data centers are providing distributed access to data
any time, any place and for any device. Hidden impacts include a lack of
information models to move from observations to numerical models to
visualization. Software development will need to change from written
code and purchased applications and "glued" together legacy code to
standard frameworks that can be rented/leased with value added services
to this framework. There are new players in the marketplace (i.e. Sony,
Casio) with a focus on digital consumer products, not PCs that are
cheap, web-connected, and easy to use. An enormous amount of R&D has
been put into these products. Where will traditional computer companies
(i.e. HP, SUN, IBM) fit in? There will be cheaper platforms and sensors
with software-based observing components in smaller packages. This type
of development will result in more rapid development and resources will
be more dispersed. The cost for people will increase as value and
services are added.

Dr. Abbott summarized that as the computing/observing infrastructure
moves towards commodity marketing, the gap between the modern
infrastructure and university research needs to be bridged. Skills are
needed that are not being taught in universities as people are going
right into the field and not into education.

### [Mark Schildhauer, University of CA-Santa Barbara, NCEAS]{.underline}

Dr. Mark Schildhauer, Director of Computing, University of
California-Santa Barbara, National Center for Ecological Analysis and
Synthesis (NCEAS), gave a presentation on "Cyberinfrastructure:
Challenges and Rewards for the Environmental Sciences**."** He shared
ways that technology assists the scientific process: data acquisition,
data storage and archiving, discovery and access to data and
information, and analysis and modeling. There are technology challenges
in each of these areas:

1.  Data Acquisition

-   Problem: Much ecological data is "hand-collected" which is labor
    intensive, subjective, transcribed

-   Sensors, automated devices, PDAs can assist in collecting greater
    quantities of higher-quality data

2.  Data Storage and Archiving

-   Problem/current state: Inadequate, difficult to use, no long-term
    stability

-   Standardization in measurement

-   Automated ingestion of data collected in the field onto the
    network/grid

-   Facilitate Data Preservation and Re-use

3.  Discovery and Access to Data and Information

-   Problem: Highly distributed, heterogeneous formats and services,
    lacking in documentation/metadata

-   Interchange standards (formal metadata content specifications and
    domain ontologies) and advanced tools to publish and query systems
    based on these

4.  Analysis and Modeling

-   Problem: Research vision limited by desktop capabilities:
    size/complexity, software availability (only running limited models
    due to time it takes/desktop limitations)

-   Aggregated and GRID services can provide access to greater, more
    versatile computational resources

    The research benefits of enhanced technology include the ability to
    apply a greater generality of results and an enhanced pace of
    scientific discovery with access to greater volumes and types of
    data, rapid communication and more efficient collaboration and
    computational power on individual use machines. There is a greater
    potential for synthetic, integrative and cross-disciplinary insights
    with effective data exchange due to standards.

    Cultural challenges include: data collection and analytical practice
    is highly idiosyncratic; individual labs tend to use software based
    on habit and affordability, rather than on power, flexibility and
    robustness; spreadsheets with "live" edits, leaving no audit trail
    are prevalent; and formal technical training is rarely provided, it
    is acquired incidentally while doing research.

    Educational solutions to meet these challenges include: a recognized
    need for formal training in informatics, IT services and scientific
    computing; development of IT curriculum tailored more closely to
    domain issues; a recognized need to train quantitatively and
    technologically adept domain practitioners; and technology adoption
    within a community.

    Dr. Schildhauer shared the mission of NCEAS. The Knowledge Network
    for Biocomplexity is a primary project. The three achievements they
    hope to accomplish are 1) ecological metadata language (EML). This
    is the additional information needed about a data set to better
    understand its contents/structure in a scientific perspective (not
    just IT perspective). 2) Creating Metacat -- a metadata cataloging
    system that stores HTML documents. 3) Distribute application called
    Morpho which enables a scientist to create EML metadata and publish
    it to Metacat.

### [Lee Allison, University of Kansas]{.underline} {#lee-allison-university-of-kansas .unnumbered}

Dr. Allison, University of Kansas, presented "Geoinformatics: The
application of computer technologies and methodologies to scientific
results with spatial-temporal coordinates**."** He provided a
perspective from the geosciences discipline and described the attributes
and organization of a geoinformatics system the University of Kansas is
developing in-house. The system involves:

-   Distribution -- Archiving Hierarchy

-   Clearinghouses and central repositories -- permanent

-   Portals and nodes -- long-term

-   Websites -- variable

-   Peer-to-peer -- ephemeral

    Dr. Allison also shared what the Kansas Geological Survey is doing
    in Geoinformatics. They have several digital online databases to
    include the Digital Petroleum Atlas, Hugoton Field Study, and
    Biogeoinformatics of Hexacoralia. These databases are dynamic with
    online workspace, software and tutorials. They also support a
    statewide GIS clearinghouse center. Dr. Allison shared specific
    examples of projects in each of these areas.

    Geoinformatics attributes that make the system work:

-   Most of the technology exists

-   Challenges are cultural and organizational

-   Ongoing effort to populate databases and make them available

-   Go-anywhere access to high-performance computing and large databases

-   Rather than establishing rigid standards, need innovative
    techniques/flexibility

-   Providing what the majority can easily find, access, understand and
    use effectively

-   An array of distribution options

-   Balance between bottom-up innovation and top-down implementation.

    The systems are organized through "nodes" with a central global hub.
    This provides the ability to work on a specific area of expertise
    while coordinating data with other areas through the central hub.
    Proprietary data needs to be marked so that researchers can still
    use the system to collaborate with others online.

### [Tim Killeen, NCAR]{.underline} {#tim-killeen-ncar .unnumbered}

Dr. Tom Killeen, Director, National Center for Atmospheric Research
(NCAR), shared some of the issues and challenges NCAR faces, such as,
data systems, supercomputing infrastructure, collaboration tools and
networks and common modeling frames. The challenges they are facing is
immense. Information used for weather observation has grown
tremendously. With new NASA satellites, we will examine practically
every aspect of the earth system from space in this decade -- what will
we do with all this data? It is anticipated that NCAR's capacity will
grow to 10 million files per month.

Dr. Killeen provided examples of the computing needs for the Climate
System Modeling database (CCSM2) with a projected need of 5-25 Teraflops
sustained capability, which doesn't exist yet. The computing challenge
is being met in a diverse way. A graphic of different processor chips
illustrated quite different architectures in CPU and Cache. Grid
frameworks should be included in the design and common modeling systems
developed such as those proposed in the Earth Science Modeling and Data
Assimilation project which is for climate, weather, oceanographic and
data simulation models.

Some common needs and key research policies that need to be addressed
include:

-   Interoperability/frameworks

-   Middleware/agents

-   Design for education

-   Build communities

-   Grid and other standards

-   Ontologies

-   Security systems

-   Supercomputing

-   Data use/public and private sectors

-   Fund persisting infrastructure, not just prototypes

-   Democratization

-   Standards

-   Legacy datasets

    Dr. Killeen said he felt the market is too small right now for
    industry to take on development of this. There are also pieces that
    require integration.

## Discussion: Environmental Cyberinfrastructure -- Implications for Planning and Implementation {#discussion-environmental-cyberinfrastructure-implications-for-planning-and-implementation .unnumbered}

Dr. Allen led the discussion with the questions: Where do we go from
here? How do we proceed and progress in a way that supports
environmental research and education? What particular issues should be
the focus in the next few years?

Dr. Leinen said a workshop will be hosted in late October/early November
in Boulder, Colorado on Environmental Cyberinfrastructure that will
bring together scientists from a number of different disciplines. The
group plans to lay out challenges and issues and then detail approaches
to come up with a "design" phased approach.

The discussion is summarized below:

-   Cyberinfrastructure bridges computer science technologies with
    domain applications**,** but it is unclear how production and
    ongoing support will be carried out if successful. This is not
    traditionally an area that NSF funds. Dr. Atkins responded that if
    NSF is to be successful in providing leadership in
    cyberinfrastructure, it has to take on some new and additional
    roles. It is hoped that if NSF does this, it will provide incentive
    for co-investment for sustainable data.

-   There is a need to coordinate and provide direction.

-   Rapid development is a propelling argument for why the investment is
    needed now, or the result may be many systems that can't talk to
    each other.

-   Dr. Atkins noted that AC-ERE members can help by getting behind the
    concept of cyberinfrastructure, which can be used by many
    disciplines, and to support the activities that NSF needs to be
    doing in the extension of these leading edge activities. It is also
    important to stress that this should be a major new investment, not
    taken from other programs.

-   The cyberinfrastructure area emphasizes cooperation on various
    scales. Questions were raised on how to foster this in new students
    and how to train people for this "new" world. Several people
    endorsed the notion that cross-training was needed with standardized
    curriculum where possible.

-   Cyberinfrastructure can allow all levels of participation (graduate
    students to senior scientists) to include interaction and
    collaboration with international experts. It will change the way we
    think about collaboration and distance learning.

-   It is important to give credibility and recognition to people that
    support infrastructure, as an important area of study and innovation
    and also as funded positions in proposals. In many cases, the
    technical support level for the individual scientist has dropped.
    Technology has moved ahead and the scientist has not kept up.
    Agencies need to be willing to support hiring programmers and
    computer support personnel.

-   It was stressed that cyberinfrastructure must go beyond computer
    science into other areas to be successful.

-   Environmental research and education can contribute to the
    cyberinfrastructure priority area as it has a tradition of working
    in consortium arrangements.

-   The "human" aspect of cyberinfrastructure is important. Interfaces
    are critical. The backend application could be great, but it if
    can't be delivered to the desktop, then it is not effective. Dr.
    Atkins clarified that social scientists are strongly included in the
    draft report to keep the human perspective in the design.

-   There is a perception that there is a large amount of duplication
    and inefficiency in the cyberinfrastructure area. A mechanism is
    needed to integrate activities and develop models. Some feel that if
    activities cannot be coordinated, there won't be enough money.

Dr. Atkins encouraged the AC-ERE members to get conversations going at
their universities in support of cyberinfrastructure**.** Dr. Pfirman
thanked the panelists for sharing their insights.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

# Thursday, October 17, 2002

Dr. Pfirman reconvened the meeting at 9:00 a.m.

## Implementation of the AC-ERE Agenda

Dr. Skole chaired the discussion on implementation of the AC-ERE Agenda.
Some public comments on the draft document were related to
implementation. A summary of these was distributed.

Dr. Leinen talked about the importance of laying the foundation for
receiving the publication. NSF (and others) needs to share and convey
the AC-ERE's enthusiasm with those working in areas addressed in the
document. Community input is needed to turn this guidance into advice
for NSF on programs that can be implemented. NSF will also get advice
from workshops and other activities.

Dr. Leinen gave a summary of the ERE Working Group's framework for
establishing budgetary priorities:

[Stage I Enabling (2003)]{.underline}

-   Educate external community about Agenda

-   Educate internal community about Agenda

-   Identify current and proposed programs related to emphasis areas in
    the Agenda

-   Develop specific plans for FY05 Budget Request

    [Stage I Enabling Areas (2004-2005)]{.underline}

-   Synthesis

-   Environmental Cyberinfrastructure

-   Education and workforce

    [Stage II Ready Areas (2006-2008)]{.underline}

-   Initiate follow-on to BE Priority Area

-   Initiate other "ready" programs or mechanisms (using community
    advice)

-   Plan for Stage III programs that are incubating

-   Evaluate ongoing programs, as appropriate

    [Stage III Ready Areas (2009-12)]{.underline}

-   Initiate additional programs that have become "ready" during Stage
    II

-   Sunset programs from Stage I, as appropriate

-   Develop ERE Agenda for 2013-2022.

Dr. Skole commented that he felt the "vision" phase for the ERE agenda
was complete and the next step would be to develop an explicit strategy
to move the vision forward. He suggested the AC-ERE work to develop a
consensus plan over the next couple of meetings that provides NSF with
expected outcomes, but not dictate how NSF should accomplish this; that
is best left to NSF.

Dr. Skole identified four areas for the ACERE to work on:

1)  Roll-out of the document, which includes publicity beyond publishing
    and mailing

2)  Ongoing activities of outreach and engagement for planning and
    promoting the implementation of the Agenda to Capitol Hill, decision
    makers, the private sector and the research community

3)  Identifying what programs exists and what new initiatives are needed

4)  To the extent possible, identify program outcomes.

Dr. Skole shared examples of engagement:

-   Go to some of key personnel in professional societies (AGU, AAG,
    etc.) and see if they would be interested in an inter-society round
    table that would discuss the interdisciplinarity of these issues.

-   Set up an environment economic round table within the private sector
    (environmental CEOs).

-   Draft articles from AC-ERE members on key issues/emerging issues in
    interdisciplinary research.

-   Plan workshops to define ideas/readiness and build community support
    and engagement.

-   Identify some end-to-end prototyping activities
    (cyberinfrastructure).

    The AC-ERE felt synthesis was an important area to define early in
    the 10-year research agenda**,** but they felt that education and
    the workforce and cyberinfrastructure were more ready for
    implementation.

    Dr. Cavanaugh said, as a first step, the ERE working group would
    discuss with program officers over the next 4-6 months the programs
    and projects that fall under the items in the ERE Agenda in an
    effort to determine the status of these programs. Synthesis was felt
    to be essential to the Agenda and exploratory activities were needed
    early on to find out what might be effective in encouraging it. For
    example, the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis
    might be a model for other centers**.** She suggested that they talk
    about synthesis at the next AC-ERE meeting.

    Other issues and comments included:

-   Finding research questions that include the social science community

-   NSF was encouraged to help ensure that the ERE Agenda not be
    implemented with funding going only to large groups and low success
    rates. There needs to be adequate success rates, consistent funding,
    and opportunities for small Principal Investigators and teams as
    well as Centers and networks. There needs to be a fair review in the
    evaluation process for interdisciplinary projects. There should be
    long-term funding for appropriate projects. Staffing within NSF
    should be adequate to manage programs.

-   The AC-ERE discussed workshops as a way to identify areas in the
    community that are within the boundaries of the ERE Agenda and ready
    for implementation.

-   Diversity of the environmental workforce is one driver in the
    education and workforce area.

-   Synthesis is entrenched in everything. Pulling it out as an area of
    emphasis may be difficult. It needs to be part of
    cyberinfrastructure and in education and workforce issues, too.

    Dr. Leinen noted that the environmental community is a very diverse
    group**,** and there will be differing viewpoints on what should
    come first. Dr. Graedel suggested the communities first on the list
    to engage in dialog were: environmental sciences, social science,
    engineering and technology, education and decision makers. Relating
    the program requires a slightly different approach with each group.
    The National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences is having
    a workshop on sustainability that may overlap with the
    implementation of this program. The workshop is designed for members
    of the science community, policy community in Washington**,** and
    NGOs. A suggestion was made to use visiting scholars to help in
    assessing the status of existing programs within NSF.

    Dr. Skole expanded on engaging the private sector. NSF lends
    credibility and could contact some key companies directly in forming
    an on-going round table to discuss emerging environmental research
    needs.

## Small Group Tasks {#small-group-tasks .unnumbered}

The AC-ERE formed two groups to review the side bars in the draft
document and to discuss implementation of the ERE Agenda. They
reconvened to share their comments.

### [Review of Sidebars/Comments]{.underline} {#review-of-sidebarscomments .unnumbered}

AC-ERE members reached consensus on which side bars to keep, which to
reduce, and so on. The group generated a list of all sidebars with
comments/suggestions. The group preferred the revised sample layout,
provided it had a larger text font. It was suggested that if editing was
done, it should only clarify text, not change the intent. The
Experimentation and Modeling section should be renamed as Experiments,
Models and their Interactions. The paragraph on interactions should
discuss integration of experiments and modeling.

The AC-ERE was asked to provide any further comments to Dr. Cavanaugh.

***Approval of the 10-Year Agenda***

Dr. Pfirman moved that the 10-Year Agenda for ERE be approved as a
formal report of the AC-ERE with the understanding that there will be
modifications on the sidebars and the foreword. The motion was passed.

### ***Discussion of an Implementation Plan*** {#discussion-of-an-implementation-plan .unnumbered}

The AC-ERE discussed the implementation plan and what they needed to
accomplish between now and the next meeting. Immediate activities
include a press conference in January with members of the committee
invited and members of other agencies. AC-ERE members should indicate
availability to attend this press conference.

To communicate the 10-year Agenda and engage others, professional
societies should be engaged. This can be done through contact by
individual AC-ERE members through a letter and briefings with the
Executive Director, President and board members of these societies. A
standard briefing packet should be put together. Interested AC-ERE
members were encouraged to develop draft thought papers as well.

It was suggested that a panel on environmental economics be held at the
next AC-ERE meeting and that talking points/bullets for the rationale be
put together. The action items for NSF and the AC-ERE members were
reviewed:

[NSF]{.underline}

-   Cover letter

-   Distribution of report and press conference

-   Press packet

-   Newsletter piece

-   Briefing packet for societies (include PowerPoint presentation)

-   Suggest meeting themes for panels or activities at national
    meetings; a PowerPoint presentation to use as a common introduction
    at any of those panels.

-   Address lists of professional societies

-   Upcoming meeting dates (calendar of dates of upcoming professional
    society meeting dates)

    [AC-ERE]{.underline}

-   Dr. Skole will write up an implementation discussion and
    near**-**term strategy

-   Other AC-ERE members are to identify their professional society

-   Identify key papers/topics that can be written by members

    []{.mark}

    The NSF/ERE web site could assist with engagement piece by posting
    activities of the committee and the progress of engagement tasks.

## Land Use Change at Scales that Matter {#land-use-change-at-scales-that-matter .unnumbered}

Dr. Skole provided a lunch presentation on "Land Use Change at Scales
that Matter: The Forecast Michigan Project**."** The project addresses
several issues related to global change in Michigan and raises major
questions related to land**-**use and landscape changes and climate
change. Quality of life issues are affected as the landscape changes to
increase congestion, reduce open space, etc. Land use research involves
convergence of multiple stressors, how they interact, and how to model
changes. Physical-human dimensions are important. Forecasting trends and
comparing policy alternatives makes everyone a planner.

Dr. Skole shared a case study of the "growth triangle" of four counties
in the southwest portion of Michigan with three sizeable cities
(Muskegon, Grand Rapids and Holland). Congestion problems have arisen
due to increased growth. The communities form a triangle around key
agriculture areas. There is a need to find alternative transportation
corridors and minimize loss of farmland and adverse economic impacts. A
team was formed to study this issue and it included geologists,
transportation experts and economists.

Suburbs are growing faster than the central cities. Several graphs were
shown illustrating the growth/decrease in population in suburbs/cities
both nationally and in Michigan. Loss of open space and rural areas is
an increasing problem. As farms are abandoned, trees are filling in:
blocks of forests are increasing, but parcel sizes are becoming smaller.
Another problem is the higher emissions from increased vehicle use which
can have regional influences on weather and health. Higher paying jobs
tend to draw people to the suburbs, translating to critical issues
related to poverty in the cities.

Dr. Skole shared examples of analytical tools the project team is using
to help predict the impact of these changes. One tool used is Integrated
Spatial-Econometric Modeling. The model theory and underpinnings were
shown. The end result was they were able to project the impact on
population and land use based on transportation options. They concluded
that growth in the last 13 years sets the trend for the next 20 years,
and growth will continue regardless of which alternative is chosen --
even with the "No Action" alternative. This is a regional phenomenon.
Township planners have difficulty with changes that are multi-township
and on regional scales. These tools are needed to help them in their
assessment and planning.

## ERE Issues for Discussion with the Deputy Director {#ere-issues-for-discussion-with-the-deputy-director .unnumbered}

The AC-ERE identified discussion points for Dr. Bordogna:

-   Budget issues: doubling of NSF, NSB's recommendation of tripling for
    ERE

-   Progress on increasing grant size and duration

-   How do initiatives affect staff and managing the core?

-   With the various budget proposals, what is the planning for
    increasing staff and alleviating workloads?

-   Has "No Child Left Behind" changed NSF's approach to funding
    education or the balance of K-12 programs?

-   How might the ERE Agenda be implemented?

-   Can NSF play a role in building bridges with underdeveloped
    populations? What's happening after WSSD (World Seminar on
    Sustainable Development)? What is the role for research as a
    development tool?

## Next Meeting Plans and Wrap-Up {#next-meeting-plans-and-wrap-up .unnumbered}

The AC-ERE wants to encourage increased participation at meetings by the
members. They encouraged NSF to explore ways to increase diversity of
the membership. It may also help to strengthen representation on the
AC-ERE from social science and cyberinfrastructure areas. AC-ERE members
were asked to provide names of people to serve on this committee to Dr.
Cavanaugh.

The schedule for the 10-Year Agenda was reviewed:

-   November 10^th^ -- a revised draft would be distributed that would
    include a new title for document, reworked sidebars, reworked
    foreword and an Executive Summary.

-   November 17^th^ -- comments from ACERE to be provided back to NSF.

-   January 2003 -- publication and press release

-   February -- December 2003 -- Ongoing Engagement to include:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   AC-ERE members write articles for science newsletters and journals

-   AC-ERE volunteers engage certain professional societies on their own

-   NSF will distribute a calendar of professional society meeting dates
    to members and then Dr. Skole will ask for volunteers to contact
    these groups.

    Dr. Pfirman will draft a letter to Dr. Colwell and bring issues
    discussed at the meeting to her attention.

    The AC-ERE was asked to think about other publications that might
    stem from the 10-year Agenda, such as follow-on updates, for
    discussion at the next meeting.

## Meeting with NSF Deputy Director {#meeting-with-nsf-deputy-director .unnumbered}

The NSF Deputy Director, Dr. Joseph Bordogna, commended the AC-ERE on
the development of the 10-year Agenda document. He feels it is one of
the more important documents for NSF. The rate of change is higher for
the environmental budget than it is for NSF as a whole. The document
will help NSF develop its budget requests.

The budget situation is simultaneously robust and precarious. There is
support for NSF and talk about "doubling" the NSF budget in Congress. In
the last three years, Dr. Colwell and Dr. Bordogna have been making the
case that the budget should be enough to carry out the statutes as
required by Congress**,** and they have been working to document what
would be needed to fund all the excellent proposals and risky research
at the frontier of science and to increase grant size and duration.
\$11.8B was the initial estimate to do this. NSF conducted a survey to
gather more refined data, and is now ready to present this. It is
estimated \$15-18B will be needed. Even in uncertainty, it is hoped that
NSF will fair well.

The AC-ERE discussion with Dr. Bordogna is summarized below:

-   The positive language in the Senate and House is due to the strong
    actions of NSF's upper management. Dr. Bordogna and Dr. Colwell were
    thanked for their effort. Dr. Bordogna was asked if he thought the
    environmental budget would triple if the NSF budget continues
    towards doubling. He responded that the environment is a high
    priority and embedded in many areas with compelling issues that
    require a response. He feels the environmental budget will continue
    to increase faster than other areas.

-   Dr. Bordogna noted that NSF would like to see the average grant size
    and duration increase to \$250-\$350K per year and 5 years in
    duration. They would also like to see stipends increased to \$35K
    per year. In the NSF survey for grant size and duration, they found
    that professors who are funded look at NSF awards to support their
    infrastructure -- they build their core investigative lines with NSF
    funding. This is a compelling reason to increase the investment
    there. He also noted that other areas that need to change are the
    length of time it takes to get a doctorate and the time spent in
    postdoctoral positions.

-   In order to remain at the frontier of research, all the
    excellent/very good proposals need to be funded. Currently there are
    many excellent/very good proposal that cannot be funded because
    there isn't enough in the budget.

-   Dr. Bordogna was asked how Foundation-wide initiatives and
    cross-directorate programs impact staff workloads. He noted that NSF
    has requested an additional 50 FTEs in the FY2003 budget. They
    anticipate that another 100 positions are still needed. In addition
    to just workload, there are other issues that are a challenge such
    as decision making that is across boundaries. Full-time staff are
    needed to deal with cross-boundary issues. NSF is also establishing
    the "NSF Academy" which will focus on career development within NSF
    for staff.

-   NSF established the Math & Science Partnership out of the "No Child
    Left Behind Program" in partnership with the Department of
    Education. The senior management at NSF is involved in issues of
    improving diversity and finding ways to ensure there is a strong
    pool of researchers. VISA and security issues also come into play.

-   Dr. Bordogna was asked how environmental cyberinfrastructure could
    help implement the recommendations of the "Blue Ribbon" Panel report
    on Cyberinfrastructure. He was also asked what the relationship
    between public and private roles in cyberinfrastructure development
    are. Dr. Bordogna responded that NSF is in touch with the private
    sector (i.e. terascale computing and the Internet). The Blue Ribbon
    Panel Report was prepared to provide a context of what might be
    coming in terms of cyberinfrastructure in all areas. The
    environmental issues will be a great contribution, but issues should
    not be framed as competition among disciplines.

    ***Member Service***

    Dr. Leinen and Dr. Bordogna thanked Dr. Pfirman for chairing the
    AC-ERE for the past two years and presented her with a memento of
    her service. Dr. Pfirman noted she was pleased with the AC-ERE's
    accomplishments and the support they have received from NSF staff.
    Dr. Bordogna thanked her for taking on leadership responsibilities.

    As an outgoing AC member, Dr. Perry was also presented with a
    certificate of appreciation for the roles she played as a
    representative from the Advisory Committee for Geosciences.

    Dr. Leinen announced that the new AC-ERE chair will be David Skole.
    With no further items, the meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m.

    **AC-ERE Meeting October 17-18, 2002**

    **ACTION ITEMS**

-   Synthesis as an agenda item at the next AC-ERE meeting.

-   Send reminder email about dates for next meetings.

    **Rollout activities for 10-Year Agenda**

    [NSF Actions:]{.underline}

-   Cover letter

-   Distribution and press conference

-   Press packet

-   Newsletter piece

-   Briefing packet for societies (include PowerPoint presentation)

-   A PowerPoint presentation to use as a common introduction at
    synposia at national meetings.

-   Address Lists of professional societies

-   Upcoming meeting dates (calendar of dates of upcoming professional
    society meeting dates)

    [AC-ERE Actions:]{.underline}

-   Dr. Skole will write up implementation discussion and near**-**term
    strategy

-   Other AC-ERE members are to identify the professional society they
    wish to meet with

-   Identify key papers/topics that can be written by members