D R A F T

**Advisory Committee for Geosciences Directorate (AC/GEO)**

**October 27-29, 2004**

**National Science Foundation**

**Arlington, Virginia**

**MEETING SUMMARY**

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

**Dr. Robert Detrick, Chair**, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Woods
Hole, MA

**Dr. Susan Brantley**, Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, PA

**Dr. William Brune**, Department of Meteorology, Penn State University,
University Park, PA

**Dr. Francisco Chavez**, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, Moss
Landing, CA

**Dr. Estelle Condon**, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA

**Dr. Dennis Hartmann**, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University
of Washington, Seattle, WA

**Dr. Thomas Jordan**, Department of Earth Sciences, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

**Dr. Walter Lynn**, Lynn Incorporated, Houston, TX

**Mr. Samuel Myers**, HHH Institute of Public Affairs, University of
Minnesota (CEOSE liaison)

**Dr. Larry Mayer,** Center for Coastal & Ocean Mapping, University of
New Hampshire, Durham, NH

**Dr. Sharon Mosher**, Department of Geological Science, University of
Texas at Austin, Austin, TX

**Dr. Cheryl Peach,** University of CA-SD Scripps Institute, San Diego,
CA

**Dr. Paola Rizzoli**, Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary
Sciences, MIT, Cambridge, MA

**Dr. Mary Silver**, Ocean Sciences Department, University of
California, Santa Cruz, CA

**Dr. Karen Von Damm**, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH

**Dr. John Wilson**, Department of Earth & Environmental Science, New
Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology, Socorro, NM

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

**Dr. Susan Kidwell**, Department of Geophysical Sciences, University of
Chicago, Chicago, IL

**Dr. Judith Lean**, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC

**Dr. Robert Harriss**, National Center for Atmospheric Research,
Boulder, CO

**Dr. Roger Smith,** Department of Space Physics, Geophysics Institute,
University of Alaska, Fairbanks AK

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

**Dr. Margaret Leinen**, Assistant Director, Directorate for Geosciences

**Dr. Margaret Cavanaugh**, Deputy Director, Directorate for Geosciences

**Dr. Richard Behnke**, Section Head, Upper Atmosphere Research, ATM

**Dr. Jacqueline Huntoon**, Program Director for Diversity and
Education, GEO

**Dr. Clifford Jacobs**, Section Head, UCAR and Lower Atmospheric
Facilities, ATM

**Dr. Bruce Malfait**, Section Head, Marine Geosciences, OCE

**Dr. Jarvis Moyers**, Director, Division of Atmospheric Sciences

**Ms. Vanessa Richards,** Director, Operations and Analysis, GEO

**Mr. William Smith**, Staff Associate for Budget

**Dr. Thomas W. Spence**, Senior Associate for Science Programs and
Coordination (Executive Secretary)

**Ms. Pam Stevens**, Section Head, Lower Atmospheric Research Section,
ATM

**Dr. James Whitcomb**, Section Head, Special Projects, EAR

**Mr. Herman Zimmerman**, Director, Division of Earth Sciences

The Advisory Committee for the Geosciences Directorate (AC/GEO) held
their fall meeting October 27-29, 2004 at the National Science
Foundation in Arlington, Virginia.

***Wednesday, October 27, 2004***

# Plenary Session 1

## Welcome and Status of Actions from Spring 2004 AC/GEO Meeting

Dr. Robert Detrick, Chair, called the full plenary session to order at
2:05 p.m. Introductions were made. Dr. William Brune was welcomed as a
new AC/GEO member. Dr. Detrick reviewed the agenda. The April 28-30,
2004 AC/GEO meeting minutes were approved. Dr. Detrick reviewed the
action items from the previous meeting and provided an update as to
status.

## Report on the Directorate for Geosciences

Dr. Margaret Leinen, Assistant Director, GEO, provided an update on
activities within the directorate. Dr. Arden Bement has been nominated
to be the NSF's 12^th^ Director. The response has been positive on both
sides of Congress.

[Budget]{.underline}: The FY2005 budget has not been appropriated yet
and NSF is operating under a continuing resolution. Dr. Leinen noted the
differences between the Senate and House markups compared to the
President's proposed budget. It is possible that NSF might be under a
continuing resolution for the entire year. Under a CR, they cannot have
new program starts.

[GEO Personnel and Organization]{.underline}: Dr. Leinen reviewed new
staff in GEO and in each of the GEO divisions. In GEO, Dr. Margaret
Cavanaugh has been appointed as the new Deputy Assistant Director. Ms.
Jenelle Hopkins is an Einstein Fellow in the Education and Diversity
Program. The position of OCE Division Director may be filled by January
or February 2005. The new program organization for the ATM Lower
Atmospheric Research section was displayed. It was realigned to make the
submission of proposals clearer where program areas tended to overlap.
Changes were also made in the program organization in the EAR division.

[GEO2000 Implementation]{.underline}: At the last few AC/GEO meetings,
the program officers shared planning documents they have been developing
as a follow-on activity to the GEO2000 document that was produced
several years ago. Since the last AC/GEO meeting, GEO has held two "town
meetings" led by program officers to discuss their planning document
with GEO management. There was also a management response to the
planning documents.

[Highlights from Divisions]{.underline}: Dr. Leinen highlighted some of
the activities in each of the GEO divisions.

In Atmospheric Sciences, the HIAPER aircraft was completed on time and
on-budget and is being rolled out in December 2004 with a new hanger to
house it at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The
Advanced Modular Incoherent Scatter Radar (AMISR) project for upper
atmospheric research is also underway. Pictures of the panels under
construction were shown. She also showed a picture of the scanning
Raman-shifted Eye-safe Aerosol Lidar (REAL) as first deployed on the
roof of the Pentagon in May 2004.

In Ocean Sciences, the academic fleet renewal has been a major issue.
Recently they acquired the "Western Legend", a vessel with 3-D seismic
capability to replace the *R/V Ewing.* It is planned to rename the
vessel the *R/V* *Marcus Langseth*. The first phase funding was provided
for a new deeper-diving human occupied submersible. The proof of concept
is part of this first phase. It will have to be capable of being
deployed from the existing *R/V Atlantis*. A time line was displayed
showing the planned replacement of vessels in the NSF fleet.

In Earth Sciences, she reported on activities related to
Cyberinfrastructure and to developing systems that will meet the needs
of the community as a whole for many kinds of diverse datasets. Examples
include: CHRONOS, Earth Time, Deep Time Geo Systems, EarthChem, and
SESAR (Solid Earth Sample Registry). These projects will provide new
data search and data integration capabilities.

Other science highlights include:

-   Use of Computed Tomography for x-ray non-destructive imaging of the
    exteriors and interiors of geological samples.

-   Diamond single crystals can now be grown by microwave plasma
    chemical vapor deposition.

-   South Pole Remote Earth Science and Seismological Observatory
    (SPRESSO) provides very quiet conditions to look at seismology.

Other news:

-   A new NSF website will be rolled out in November 2004 with enhanced
    capabilities for the scientific community and the public.

-   The 2004 Presidential Early Career Awards for Scientists and
    Engineers (PECASE) winner was Dr. Arjun J. Heimsath from Dartmouth
    College, a GEO-funded CAREER grant on Quantifying Erosional
    Processes on Upland Landscapes.

*Discussion*:

-   Dr. Detrick asked if the FY2004 budget included new FTEs and any new
    hires in GEO. Dr. Leinen said 4 people were hired in GEO which was
    more than other directorates. If increased funding for salaries and
    expenses is approved for FY2005, GEO hopes to make a case for
    additional new positions.

-   NSF has been working with the National Science Board (NSB) to draft
    a combined response to Congress concerning the Brinkman report as
    discussed at the last AC/GEO meeting.

-   The budget presentation showed the different funding levels proposed
    by the House and Senate for the FY2005 budget Major Research
    Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) line item. Dr. Leinen
    was asked if there was an effort to build in operation and
    maintenance costs into the MREFC costs. In the past, NSF
    Directorates were required to fund up to 10% of the MREFC costs to
    cover Operations and Maintenance (O&M) once the facilities were
    completed. She said that the Inspector General ruled it was
    inappropriate to spend Research and Related Activities (R&RA) funds
    for equipment and development. Unfortunately, this will produce a
    situation where a 10% of the budget will not be "reserved" for
    EarthScope and HIAPER. She suggested the AC/GEO raise this question
    with Dr. Bordogna, the NSF Deputy Director.

-   If NSF was still on the "doubling" budget track, there would have
    been a 15% increase per year (an additional \$500M). FY2001 and
    FY2002 had increases close to this, but the FY2004 budget did not.
    This demonstrates how quickly Congress's position changed. In
    FY2003, Congress asked the NSB for priorities on how NSF would spend
    a doubled or tripled budget with NSF testimony given in early 2004.
    At the testimony, the FY2004 budget deficit was even greater and
    Congress did not have the same outlook.

## Discussion of NSF/GEO Issues

The AC/GEO discussed issues they wished to discuss with Dr. Bordogna.

-   Is the MREFC process flawed? How can O&M costs best be included in
    estimates?

-   In the exploration industry (i.e. mining, oil, and gas), 90% of
    students are non-US citizens. With increasing difficulty in getting
    visas, fewer students are coming to the US. Technology positions in
    the US will be impacted in the future as students may study
    elsewhere. It was noted that the visa issue also impacts the ability
    to host international conferences in the US and recruit students
    interested in advanced degrees. What action, if any, should the NSF
    (or some other body) take to stress the importance of this to
    Congress?

-   There is a viewpoint that other federal agencies have reduced
    individual grants and are focusing resources inward resulting in
    fewer opportunities for individual investigators. How can a balance
    be achieved, not only within NSF, but with other agencies as well?

-   Some of the great growth in NSF was a result of developments in the
    "Priority Areas". What will be the new vision of priority
    areas/individual grants in times of flat budgets?

-   What is NSF's view in operating with a flat budget? Is there
    something that GEO should anticipate now? Dr. Leinen noted that
    AC/GEO should realize that if the GEO budget is flat and there are
    commitments to large infrastructure with O&M costs, the funds would
    have to come at the expense of research.

-   Is high-risk research seriously being explored? It is gratifying
    that the NSB/NSF is starting to look at this, but again, in a flat
    budget, things are limited.

-   What will be funded in place of Information Technology Research
    (ITR)? Dr. Leinen noted that GEO would likely use their ITR funds
    for projects similar to those considered under ITR. The Computer and
    Information Science and Engineering Directorate (CISE), which had
    about 65% of the total ITR funding, will likely redirect it to other
    topics, for example, cyber security. Continuing to foster
    relationships between computer scientists and domain scientists is a
    very active area of discussion within NSF. There is a new CISE
    division of Shared Cyberinfrastructure with \$110M which provides
    funds for three of the Partnerships for Advanced Computational
    Infrastructure (PACI) centers, and for middleware and shared
    distributed systems. These facilities are for all of science.

-   The AC/GEO discussed the balance issue between promoting new
    advanced IT capabilities vs. exploiting existing capabilities within
    a particular domain.

-   The visa issue is a problematic issue to provide a larger workforce
    in science and mathematics. The US depends to a large degree on
    graduate students from other countries. What progress has been made
    to make sure that we are protecting that national commodity of
    high-level students in science and particularly in geosciences that
    represent the future?

-   Does NSF have a view on new policies on open access that require
    federally funded project to have data as well as results published
    within six months? Dr. Leinen noted that NSF is currently not
    planning to comment on this issue and has no desire to change its
    relevant current policy. The topic has produced different
    perspectives between NIH (and health data) and NSF. It is not clear
    Congress understood the impacts of intellectual property and
    international access.

-   In the past, NSF and other agencies would put out collaborative
    calls for proposals. Is there anything in the vision of NSF for
    doing this (i.e. with NASA, NOAA, and ONR)? Dr. Leinen said as a
    result of budget constraints, there have been changes but it varies
    by agency. NSF is very active in interagency conversations and the
    Office of Science Technology Policy (OSTP) continues to create
    opportunities for conversation and collaboration.

Dr. Detrick assigned topics and questions to various AC/GEO members to
raise with Dr. Bordogna.

## Visit with the NSF Deputy Director

Dr. Detrick welcomed Dr. Joseph Bordogna, Deputy Director, NSF, to the
AC/GEO meeting. Dr. Bordogna reminded the AC/GEO that NSF has a
strategic plan they are following. The NSB document, "Fulfilling the
Promise", was developed in response to the Bill that was passed to
double the NSF budget. Section 22 directed the NSB to advise NSF how to
spend the additional funds (from \$5.5B to \$11B). The approach taken in
response was to identify how much money would be needed to do the things
Congress asks NSF to do. NSF looked at several topics including 1) the
costs for funding all the excellent proposals, 2) the cost for stipends
to attract more US students and 3) the costs to increase size and
duration of grants. The exercise indicated that NSF would need \$18B to
\$19B in funding. NSF also conducted a survey among Principal
Investigators. The survey received a 90% response rate. In it, the
respondents noted that they used NSF funding to essentially build their
research infrastructure which demonstrating the critical importance of
NSF funding in the research enterprise.

Dr. Bordogna shared a few slides to summarize the current science
situation. He discussed deficit reduction, administration priorities,
homeland security/terrorism issues, growing opportunities for the
Science and Engineering (S&E) communities to address additional needs,
the growing sophistication of research tools as enablers, the
competitive state of global economies, and workforce competitiveness.

He noted that NSF will address the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
/ OSTP FY2006 Research and Development (R&D) Guidance in their proposed
budget. Topics include:

-   Homeland security R&D

-   Networking and Information technology R&D

-   National nanotechnology initiative

-   Priorities of the Physical Sciences

-   Biology of Complex Systems

-   Climate, Water and Hydrogen R&D

The "Fulfilling the Promise" (NSF 03-151) publication submitted in
response to doubling the NSF budget notes goals of NSF are to:

-   Improve the productivity of researchers and expand operations for
    students

-   Open new frontiers in research and education

-   Build a diverse, competitive, globally engaged S&E workforce

-   Increase number and diversity of institutions of higher education
    that participate in NSF-funded activities

-   Provide researchers and educators with access to the most advanced
    tools, facilities, and CI

-   Maintain NSF's excellence in management

The NSF Budget Planning Focus for the next several years is on:

-   Broadening participation in the S&E workforce

-   Strengthening core disciplinary research and increasing the funding
    rate for research grants (need to keep in mind "contemporary" core
    -- disciplines today are not same as they were 15 years ago)

-   Providing broadly accessible cyberinfrastructure and world-class
    facilities to enhance research performance

-   Sustaining organizational excellence in NSF management practices

Dr. Bordogna shared data on NSF Recent Trends for FY2000 to FY2004.
Changes show:

-   The NSF budget has increased 43% from \$3.9B - \$5.6B.

-   Admin & Management Overhead has increased 52% (but still small % of
    NSF budget) from \$189M to \$287M.

-   The number of employees increased 6% from 1,197 to 1,274.

-   The number of competitive proposals increased 49% from 29,508 to
    43,851.

-   The number of competitive awards increased 5% from 9,850 to 10,380.

-   The funding rate decreased 29% from 33% to 24%.

-   The average annual research grant size increased 32% from \$105,800
    to \$139,637.

-   The average annual research grant duration increased 4% from 2.8
    years to 2.9 years.

*Discussion*:

-   One of the NSF priorities is investment in infrastructure. GEO has
    several major items in the MREFC budget. Within this flat budget
    environment, what will NSF do to balance operating these facilities
    and the core research budget? Dr. Bordogna said GEO does not have
    any new projects coming online over the next few years. The current
    projects will not be fully deployed and in need of O&M funding right
    away. With careful management and adding no new projects in the near
    term, he expects GEO can manage MREFC costs with restricted budgets.

-   How will NSF support development of advanced IT and
    Cyberinfrastructure with the current budget situation? Dr. Bordogna
    said several challenges exist but stated that CI will happen, no
    matter what. It is difficult to know what NSF is spending on the
    topic since there are different definitions of what is included. The
    Atkins report said a \$1B investment would be needed. Discussions
    have tried to identify what the shared and domain parts of CI are
    and the role that NSF should play. Should they take the lead in CI
    for the nation? Ideas were welcomed from the AC/GEO on how to manage
    this issue.

-   The AC/GEO expressed concern for the potential decoupling of IT from
    domain science. With the ITR Priority Area ending, is there
    sufficient motivation for directorates to continue collaboration
    with the disciplines?

-   Regarding "open access", NSF does not have a policy and hopes they
    will not be required to establish one. NSF is carefully watching
    what is happening with NIH. Dr. Leinen added that within NSF they
    can discuss this, but groups like the NSB and NAS can look at this
    strategically and how this would change science and how to marshal
    arguments. It is a community question that needs wider discussion
    before NSF can address it

-   In light of the various difficulties in obtaining visas, industry is
    seeing a reduction in talent that they have grown to depend on for
    filling the technical workforce. What role, if any, should NSF play
    (in conjunction with other industries/agencies) to help ensure that
    the US does not lose its technical workforce? Dr. Bordogna said NSF
    has been proactive in looking at the US domestic population and
    participates in a high-level committee that is looking at students
    and visa issues. The problem is serious. Not only is there a
    shortfall of US citizens and various challenges with visas, but
    other countries are now recruiting US citizens to work there. The
    research community can help by raising the issues in their academic
    institutions, industry and other government agencies. NSF is working
    to implement programs to attract and retain students such as the
    graduate program. The workforce issue is a high priority.

-   The AC/GEO has been discussing the image problem for geosciences and
    is actively considering ways to be more proactive in promoting
    geosciences. What is NSF doing to promote science to the public? Dr.
    Bordogna said NSF has been working on this for decades with success
    in some areas more than others. The challenge is to get to a place
    where academe faculty represents the diversity we are hoping to
    achieve. NSF is trying to bridge programs that will provide a
    pathway from K through PhD levels. The professional societies,
    academia, and industry all need to make a commitment to broadening
    participation. It is also important to recognize the different needs
    and perspectives among the different disciplines. Dr. Bordogna
    encouraged AC/GEO not to despair and said NSF is working to find
    ways to accelerate this success and find people who know how to do
    it.

-   How does NSF balance funding individual research grants with larger
    facility research? With other agencies cutting back on individual
    grants, will NSF fill the gap? Dr. Bordogna said NSF is working to
    make the best use of available funding to support the best people
    with good ideas so it can remain at the frontier of science. NSF can
    also manage solicitations to improve the success rates (i.e., more
    focused announcements to limit response). It is difficult for NSF to
    fill the gap at other agencies with its constricted budgets, but it
    is important that unsolicited ideas continue to be submitted,
    reviewed, and funded. Dr. Bordogna envisions more collaborative
    proposals both within and outside NSF. He noted that Centers do not
    account for a large percentage of the funding.

Dr. Detrick and the AC/GEO thanked Dr. Bordogna for meeting with the
group.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m.

***Thursday, October 28, 2004***

# Plenary Session 2

The AC/GEO held Division Subcommittee meetings in the morning for
Atmospheric Sciences, Earth Sciences and Ocean Sciences. The full
plenary meeting reconvened at 1:35 p.m.

## GEO 2000 Implementation

Dr. Detrick provided a brief history on the process that GEO went
through for program planning for Geosciences beyond 2000. He noted that
program officers in GEO and the AC/GEO *Ad hoc* Subcommittee on GEO2000
Implementation have been engaged in the review.

The *Ad hoc* Subcommittee submitted a draft report to GEO at the April
2004 meeting. The report stressed a concern that GEO maintain the health
of core programs, capitalize on infrastructure investments with parallel
science investments, and focus on diversity. The Subcommittee identified
and discussed emerging science opportunities, infrastructure challenges,
and partnerships. On the basis of the report, the AC/GEO concluded that
GEO2000 remains an extremely versatile document and currently does not
need to be rewritten.

Dr. Detrick invited Dr. David Lambert (EAR) to update the AC/GEO on
activities of the program officers since the last meeting. There has
been at least one program officer involved in the planning group from
each GEO division. The goal has been to assess the progress the GEO
Directorate has made in achieving goals identified in the GEO2000
Strategic Plan.

Program officers were challenged to determine opportunities where GEO
can work with the rest of NSF and with other agencies, organizations,
and international partners to develop an integrated plan for addressing
the emerging, crosscutting research areas in the geosciences. Some
themes that were common to all three divisions were identified. Dr.
Lambert reviewed the timeline and process to date in the program officer
input process which culminated in a draft document entitled
"Interdisciplinary Opportunities in Geosciences -- 2004" (August 9,
2004). The draft report was shared with the AC/GEO. It highlighted
important and timely integrative research opportunities in the
geosciences with strong potential for revolutionary discovery.
Crosscutting issues and areas of interface between divisions of GEO that
address important, exciting, and challenging themes of science,
education, infrastructure, and technology development were identified.

The major points in the document include:

-   A common science challenge throughout GEO is the need to understand
    the complexity of the interactions among systems and at the
    interfaces between systems of our planet

-   A strong need to enhance and strengthen the core programs

-   The development of an efficient and appropriate management structure
    to respond to new opportunities within the GEO communities

-   The need to support longer-term, interdisciplinary synthesis and
    research centers that facilitate transformational advances.

Dr. Lambert reviewed the six integrated challenges (i.e., significant
overlap among ATM, EAR, and OCE) which included:

-   Abrupt Environmental Change: Resultant Impacts and Responses

-   Biogeochemical Cycles

-   Global Water Cycle

-   Geophysical Dynamics

-   Complexity and Non-Equilibrium Dynamics in earth Sciences

-   Environmental Hazards

Infrastructure or platform activities were also identified. All three
divisions in GEO have pressing infrastructure needs, many within the
mid-size infrastructure funding gap (\$2M to \$50M). The current
strategy for education and diversity needs to be enhanced. The GEO
community needs to be made more aware of funding opportunities in NSF
diversity programs and the experience of GEO graduate students need to
be broadened.

Implementation and management strategies are a challenge for integrative
activities. The program officers recommended that GEO:

-   Find the appropriate structure for solicitations, review, and budget
    management of crosscutting themes -- with the science dictating the
    structure (potentially different for each of the 6 areas).

-   Use the existing management structure in core programs to the
    maximum extent possible.

-   Consider Biocomplexity in the Environment (BE) transition plans to
    provide funding for some priority crosscutting themes.

When the AC/GEO reviewed an earlier draft document in the spring, they
identified coupled human-natural systems as a major theme. Members felt
that it needed more emphasis in the current version. Dr. Detrick
suggested they might be able to show the relevance of coupled
human-natural systems in each of the six theme areas. The group also
suggested that the term "abrupt" be defined as it is used in the
document.

Dr. Leinen summarized the AC/GEO discussion and recommendations. In
general, the AC/GEO seems to be in agreement on the six integrated
themes identified. They encouraged the descriptions of each area to be
fleshed out so they had similar levels of detail. They also suggested
the information and management section have additional clarification and
the implementation strategy be made clearer. Dr. Leinen said the program
officers saw this as an "internal document" and they will continue
working with the AC/GEO to get community feedback.

Dr. Detrick suggested the AC/GEO establish a small subgroup to draft an
*EOS* article in the context of GEO2000 that would synthesize the
achievements and new directions they see, using the AC/GEO report,
program officer draft materials, and the divisional draft materials as
input. The draft article would be circulated to AC/GEO members for
review and comment over the next couple of months. It was noted that
such an article might help focus attention in the community on things
GEO is thinking about and provide a chance for community input and
discussion.

Dr. Leinen said program officers strongly responded to the request for
input to management and GEO very much appreciated their recommendations.
The program officers reiterated the importance of maintaining the health
of core programs to the extent possible given a flat budget scenario.
Dr. Leinen asked the AC/GEO for input on any non-financial tools
available to strengthen and enhance core programs and what makes a
strong and vital program. She noted that program officers have a great
deal of expertise in interdisciplinary activities. One recommendation
was that cross programs are important, but they should be managed at the
lowest level possible (at the program officer level). Dr. Leinen said
GEO supported this view, however, sometimes even at the directorate
level they do not control how things are managed. GEO would advocate to
the best of their ability for program officers to manage these
activities. Dr. Leinen said that GEO has established a Program Officer
Advisory Group to work with GEO management on a regular basis.

With the themes suggested, the program officers noted some areas could
be addressed with the transition of BE. GEO is working with the groups
that manage BE as an NSF-wide activity and has gotten agreement for GEO
to manage the coupled-biogeochemical portions of BE for FY2006 and
FY2007.

Dr. Leinen said that GEO management sees this planning as an important
activity that helps set the stage for division and cross-division
activities. GEO hopes to develop a solicitation for the
interdisciplinary work and may fund a workshop to bring the communities
together. Dr. Leinen asked the AC/GEO for feedback on the most important
ways to enhance interdisciplinary activities.

The AC/GEO noted this was an excellent process for identifying areas
that are important to core programs and suggested GEO think about
formalizing it to take place on a regular basis, perhaps every three
years or so.

## Discussion: Balancing New Science and Ongoing Commitments -- Budget Scenarios

At the spring AC/GEO meeting, it was requested that an analysis be
undertaken to determine the potential impact of planned MREFC projects
on GEO with various budget scenarios proposed. In response, Mr. Will
Smith, Staff Associate for Budget, presented several budget scenarios
for GEO. These scenarios were presented and discussed with GEO
management.

Mr. Smith clarified what the qualities of MREFC projects are and how
they are funded. The MREFC account supports construction and
commissioning. The GEO R&RA account supports all operation, maintenance
and research related activities.

He noted the factors that were used to influence his analysis:

-   Validity of operations estimates for projects -- had estimate
    reviewed by program staff to determine "minimum best value"
    operating levels.

-   Three budget scenarios were modeled: flat funding, 2.5% annual
    growth, 5% growth

-   Historical patterns for R&RA over 25 years (7% average annual budget
    growth)

-   Community has made a strong case that MREFC projects are a high
    priority activity for GEO

Mr. Smith showed a table of GEO budget projections, new facility
operation costs, and the available GEO budget for each budget scenario.
He noted that GEO would ask an external group to revalidate these
operating and maintenance estimates. By 2011 all MREFC projects will be
fully operational.

To summarize, he observed that:

-   In a budget doubling environment, there was no question that all
    planned projects could be accommodated

-   A scenario of 5% average growth enables all planned projects to
    proceed

-   More refined projections will require better cost estimates, which
    GEO is developing. But even then, the timing of MREFC projects and
    their actual budgets (both unknown) are important factors

-   Looking forward, major new geoscience infrastructure platforms are
    about to come online (HIAPER and AMISR in 2005)

-   The geosciences research community has told GEO these and other
    infrastructure projects are required.

Dr. Leinen said these are useful scenarios for consideration. The most
likely scenario is flat funding for a few years and then an increase. If
groups advocate for science, they increase the likelihood of improving
the budget numbers. The NSF community has laid extraordinary
opportunities for science on the table and she urged the AC/GEO members
and scientific community to communicate this effectively so that the
budgets may be increased. Dr. Detrick added that as individuals,
institutions, and organizations could help in terms of promoting and
selling the importance of the MREFC projects and science and O&M to
support them.

## Committee of Visitors (COV) Reports

Dr. Detrick noted there were two COV reports for the AC/GEO to review
and approve.

### ATM: Lower Atmosphere Research Section

Dr. Dennis Hartmann, COV Chair, summarized the findings of the COV for
the ATM Division's Lower Atmosphere Research Section (LARS). The COV
worked with the assigned template and tried to review a representative
sample of approximately 10% of proposals. They had positive responses
for all of the questions posed to the COV and were quite impressed with
the care that went into dealing with individual proposals and the
ability of the program officers to provide useful feedback to
investigators. There was more significant representation by women, but
still certain minorities are underrepresented. They found positive
outcomes (and provided examples) that met NSF's strategic goals for
People, Ideas and Tools. Minor recommendations were made. In general,
the review was positive. Dr. Hartmann said the management and program
staff are doing well and in particular, successful field programs were
organized and conducted during this period.

The Division expressed its appreciation to the COV and to Dr. Hartmann
for their efforts in undertaking the review.

In response to a comment on challenges faced in finding rotators, Dr.
Pamela Stevens, Section Head for LARS, noted NSF could do better in
communicating the benefits rotators have gained from their experience.
GEO would welcome any advice for what would make it easier for people to
come into NSF in these positions.

The AC/GEO agreed to accept the LARS COV report.

### EAR: Instrumentation and Facilities

Dr. Susan Brantley, COV Chair, summarized the report findings of the EAR
COV on Instrumentation and Facilities (IF). Overall the COV thought
program officers are doing an excellent job. There were good examples in
terms of science, outreach, and successful programs. Substantive
discussions were about the distribution of big vs. small awards. The
program has very large deviations in project size and scope with 13
facilities funded. They group used several metrics to assess this and
found that the program is fair and serves the community well. The
disciplinary balance of panelists did not seem to always match the
disciplinary balance of proposals, but this was being addressed in 2004.
Efforts were also being made to educate the research community to
provide more consistent treatment of the review criteria.
Recommendations included documenting site visits for large facilities
and workshops to educate communities on how to utilize the facilities
more. The group was impressed with the program officers and how well
they knew their community.

Regarding the COV process itself, the COV felt they did not have enough
time and further suggested that statistics needed to address the COV
template questions should be provided ahead of time. It was noted that
NSF does not always collect the data asked for in the template.
Consequently conclusions are difficult to make. Dr. Leinen said the
AC/GEO could communicate with the Advisory Committee for GPRA to review
the template to provide guidance to NSF how best to remedy the
situation. It was also noted that underrepresented groups often
underreport since NSF calls for the information on a voluntary basis.
Mr. Smith added that other groups are concerned about the template.
Efforts are underway to integrate FastLane with the template to
streamline the collection of data to credibly answer the questions.

The Division thanked the COV and Dr. Brantley for their efforts in
undertaking the review.

The AC/GEO agreed to accept the EAR/IF COV report.

Dr. Detrick added his thanks to the COV chairs and the COV members for
their work.

## Division Subcommittee Reports

### Atmospheric Sciences (ATM)

Dr. Estelle Condon summarized the ATM division discussions. The group
discussed the COV report. In addition, they heard reports on the two
major construction activities. HIAPER (expecting delivery mid-December
to early January) is on time and on budget with a new hanger in place.
Fifteen proposals have been selected for instrumentation. The Advanced
Modular Incoherent Scatter Rader (AMISR) is in "Phase One" and will be
in place in Poker Flat, AK, by summer 2005. The group also heard a
summary briefing on IT security from Dr. Cliff Jacobs. Dr. Moyers said
the division got advice on strategic planning and strategic decision
making from the National Academy of Science which has given them
questions to consider and processes to be used by this group. The group
also had a review of budget/staffing and educational activities. The ATM
program looks very healthy and they are doing great things.

### Earth Sciences (EAR)

Dr. Sharon Mosher noted that the divisional meeting is one of the
highlights of the AC/GEO and is time well spent. With additional staff
in EAR, the workload situation has improved, but more support is still
needed as areas grow and more research comes online. She commended
program officers for improving the processing time for award decisions
even with a large increase in the number of proposals. The group
reviewed the budget and the COV report and heard a status report on
EarthScope which is on time and on budget. The dedicated satellite
portion of EarthScope has not been funded and the impact of this was
discussed. Strategies for the program in a flat budget scenario were
discussed and it was noted that it is important to continue to fund new
and exciting research to keep the community healthy. The group also
discussed space issues in the NSF building. Dr. Leinen said it is a real
issue at NSF. Salary and expense funds have to be used for rent and OMB
controls what NSF can ask for.

### Ocean Sciences (OCE)

Dr. Larry Mayer summarized the OCE divisional meeting. The OCE division
is in a time of transition but it is being handled very well. Major
upcoming activities include fleet replacement and three OCE MREFCs
(Ocean Drilling, Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI), and Alaska Area
Research Vessel (AARV)). There is uncertainty if the ocean drilling
project will be funded in the FY2005 budget. This is tied into the
international program as well. Current research needs have been met
through short-term contracts which are more costly than a long-term
plan. The OOI project may be deferred or spread out over a longer
period. The AARV project appears to be moving forward. The group thought
some of the O&M estimates were low. The science represented by the MREFC
projects is still excellent and a high priority. The group also reviewed
the two COV reports, discussed ways to improve the retention of IPAs,
and suggested a clarification document/web page be available with more
examples of outreach and broader impacts. Dr. Peach said the education
community may be able to help provide examples. In the discussion of
GEO2000, the group reviewed the large OCE programs such as CLIVAR and
JGOFS. Excellent ocean science is going on and they were happy to see a
process of internal review in place for many of these programs. Other
reports touched on in the discussion included the Information Technology
Infrastructure report and NSF's report to the report from the
Commissioner of Oceans.

In response to the concern about space issues, Dr. Leinen said NSF has
developed a telecommuting policy with the unions and telecommuting is
available to anyone whose job allows them to telecommute and who show
responsible behavior in their evaluations. There are several options
such as 1 day a week or situation telecommuting. GEO encouraged
employees to consider it. For the spring 2005 AC/GEO meeting, they can
get a better sense of NSF-wide participation.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m.

***Friday, October 29, 2004***

The AC/GEO reconvened at 8:40 a.m. as the Education and Diversity (E&D)
Subcommittee.

## Education and Diversity Subcommittee

Dr. Cheryl Peach, chair of the Education and Diversity Subcommittee,
noted that the E&D subcommittee meets with the AC/GEO as a whole because
of the broad interest of AC/GEO members. She introduced Dr. Jacqueline
Huntoon, GEO Program Director for Diversity and Education and reviewed
the topics for discussion. A GEO Education Working Group met earlier in
the week and a brief report on discussions and recommendations will be
produced and provided at the spring 2005 meeting for approval.

### Geosciences Education Working Group

Dr. Huntoon summarized the GEO Education Working Group discussions from
their meeting October 25-27, 2004. Ms. Janelle Hopkins, an Einstein
fellow at NSF and a high school teacher, talked about the Geosciences
Education: Vision and Strategy.

The charge was to investigate the effectiveness of prior and ongoing
geosciences E&D programs in GEO and to develop guidelines that will be
used in the future to refine its programs and guide its funding
decisions. Membership included people from industry, education
specialists, and geosciences researchers. The tasks of the working group
were reviewed. From summary materials, the group identified emerging
needs and opportunities related to geosciences.

Geosciences education programs are resulting in a community of
scientists dedicated to promoting and improving E&D in geosciences and
projects were created that provide a wealth of expertise, programs, and
materials. The group established criteria for a successful program: the
project shows demonstrable lasting impact; the project has been well
implemented; and the project included successful components such as well
articulated needs, clearly stated goals/objectives, a strong
implementation plan, an evaluation plan that aligns with the
goals/objectives.

Dr. Huntoon shared the specific recommendations from the second GEO
Education Working Group. General recommendations for the geosciences
field at large:

-   Public relations -- use a variety of marketing techniques to
    demonstrate that careers in the geosciences are exciting, relevant,
    challenging, and available. Encourage industry member to participate
    (lead) this effort.

-   Education -- teach broadly and well. Evaluate education projects,
    disseminate best-practices, emphasize application of quantitative
    skills, emphasize concrete applications, emphasize careers

-   Broadening Participation -- an overarching goal. Longitudinal
    efforts are required and evaluations must be emphasized.
    Dissemination is needed and long-term support should be allowed.
    Site visits are critical.

-   Community Building: Education must be a community-wide effort.
    Improved education benefits all. Leadership in the basic research
    community motivates others. Highlighting quality research in
    geosciences education rewards practitioners.

Questions:

-   There are champions in each program but often they are unaware of
    what other people have done. Is there a globally used method to
    collect information? Dr. Huntoon said the web site DLESE is intended
    to disseminate information and is seen as a critical component of
    the information sharing process. At the very minimum DLESE should
    highlight the best practices that are developed through NSF funding.

-   Dr. Huntoon said they hired a contractor to evaluate the
    effectiveness of programs but found that this was not possible --
    often evaluations were not required and/or the results of the
    evaluations were not captured in FastLane. They have made
    suggestions to NSF for capturing data in the future. For future
    funding, NSF will be able to implement ways to get evaluation
    feedback. Site visits will also be important.

-   Dr. Huntoon said there are a lot of ways to evaluate the learning
    outcomes before and after such as measuring affective changes (how
    person feels, etc.). Geoscientists will have to retrain or work with
    professionals in other disciplines to get this kind of outcome-based
    assessment. Dr. Mosher suggested they work with professional
    societies and other interested in this.

-   One AC/GEO member pointed out that the IGERT program does not allow
    a salary for someone to review or evaluate the program. Dr. Huntoon
    said this was a good point and IGERT program could use some changes.
    In GEO Education programs, funding for this is allowed and GEO has a
    contractor to help people come up with evaluation measures.

Dr. Huntoon passed out data that was requested at the last AC/GEO
meeting on bachelor, master and doctorate degrees in geosciences for
minority, other/unknown, non-resident, and white populations.
Geosciences appear to hold minorities at a higher percentage than other
fields at the graduate level. Tables with raw data were provided as
well. Another chart showed faculty salaries nation-wide for all
departments and then for just science.

### Program Updates

[Centers for Ocean Sciences Education Excellence (COSEE)]{.underline}.
Dr. Giselle Muller-Parker provided an update on the COSEE program. The
program was established to spark and nurture collaborations among
scientists and educators. The goals of the program were reviewed. COSEE
is organized with a network of collaborative partnerships in ocean
sciences requiring one research institution, one formal education
entity, and one informal education provider. In FY2002, seven centers
were funded. Additional funding was provided by ONR and NOAA to help
start some of these centers. A central coordinating office was
established with a National Advisory Board and a National COSEE Council.
The roles of the coordinating office were summarized. The network of
COSEE centers is diverse and the network models for each center are
somewhat varied. There are 27 institutions that participate with 33 PIs
and co-PIs. Core activities and sample projects from each of the centers
were provided. The summary of programs really highlighted the broad
diversity of programs being developed by these seven centers.

The US Commission on Ocean Policy mentions COSEE and said that the
National Ocean Council (NOC) should relocate and expand COSEE within the
NOC structure to include tripling the number of regional centers to 21
with each center receiving at least \$1.5M/year for an initial 5-year
period.

The second solicitation just came out (NSF 05-503). It calls for
optional letters of intent. A meeting of potential and current COSEE PIs
will be held at the AGU meeting December 2004. Awards should be
completed by August -- October 2005. Dr. Muller-Parker clarified that
COSEE is within the Integrated Programs section of Ocean Sciences. Dr.
Leinen said that in addition to being a solicitation, there was a
special component of COSEE to fund the coordination office. The GEO
Directorate/Ocean Science program handles the selection of awards for
Centers. Three centers will be competing for renewal. Dr. Muller-Parker
noted that there are mechanisms in place for each center to do
evaluations. The central coordinating office is also tasked with
evaluation of the entire network and each program.

Dr. Leinen said the issues of education and outreach and
capacity-building programs is a problem for all of the discipline
sciences and GEO is working hard to make this part of the process.
Programs have come a long way in the last six years.

[Significant Opportunities in Atmospherics Research and Science
(SOARS)]{.underline}. Mr. Bernard Grant provided an update on the SOARS
program, now in its 10^th^ year. Mr. Grant reviewed the future S&E
workforce and the SOARS Protégés (1996-2004) percentage of graduates of
18-24 year olds, graduate schools in atmospheric sciences and in the
SOARS program. The SOARS mission is to bring ethnically diverse students
into careers in the atmospheric and related sciences. Students get to do
original research and then present it at the end of their summer in the
program. Mentoring is extensive and multi-dimensional. During the first
year of the program, students have 4 mentors. In the second year, they
have 2 mentors. The program emphasizes professional development, a
supportive community and multiple years (up to 4 years) with flexible
financial support. Photos of students in various institutions were
shown. The SOARS mentoring model includes a peer mentor, a research
mentor, a communications mentor, and a community mentor. Dr. Thomas
Windham developed this mentoring model which focuses on the protégé.
SOARS success stories were shared. Out of 90 protégés since 1996, there
are 10 PhD candidates and 1 PhD, 29 MS degrees, and 34 in STEM graduate
degree programs. SOARS sponsors include NSF, Cooperative Institute for
Research in Environmental Sciences, Dept of Energy, NASA, NCAR, and
NOAA.

In 2002 SOARS received the Presidential Award for Excellence in Science,
Mathematics, and Engineering Mentoring. SOAR funded the University of
CO-Boulder to do an evaluation of the program to identify, categorize
and clarify the relative importance of factors that contribute to the
success of the SOARS program, including its structural, organizational,
and social components. The report is expected the latter part of FY2005.

### EHR Perspectives

Dr. Jeff Ryan, Program Director, Division of Undergraduate Education
(DUE), EHR Directorate, shared opportunities for DUE funding in
geosciences research and education and ways to get EHR and GEO more
engaged in education. In DUE there is only one rotator in geosciences
and in DUI there are none. This should give the AC/GEO an Indication of
the demand (other disciplines have several full-time people).

GEO-relevant programs in EHR/DUE include:

-   Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) - \$46M in
    FY05 (est.)

-   National SMETE Digital Library (NSDL)

-   Director's Award for Distinguished Teaching Scholars (DTS)

-   Advanced Technical Education Program (ATE)

Dr. Ryan pointed out that EHR is often mandated by Congress what
programs it will fund. Details on the CCLI program were provided. The
FY2006 solicitation will be revised to improve program flexibility and
broaden participation in STEM educational activities. Only about 4% of
proposals received for CCLI are in the geosciences. Less than \$1M was
funded in geosciences out of a \$40plus M budget in CCLI. There is a
need to encourage applications to this program to improve the presence
of geosciences.

Dr. Ryan reported that seven workshops were held in 2003-04 for
Geosciences Faculty with the "On the Cutting Edge" project. The NSDL
program includes DLESE. No explicit GEO Pathways projects were funded in
FY2004. There was one award in DTS. In FY2004, there were 2 nominees
(out of 98 applicants). He encouraged the group to nominate people in
the geosciences.

Dr. Ryan talked about the NSF-wide CAREER program. This program is the
primary means of engaging young faculty in the integration of research
and education. GEO CAREER submissions and awards are lower (4%) than all
other R&RA directorates (ENG, MPS, BIO, CISE are as high as 40%). Other
directorates follow a capacity building model in the way they use this
award. GEO tends to use it as an honorific award. Again, GEO was
encouraged to take advantage of this program to its fullest extent.

The ATE program is the only NSF educational program which specifically
targets community colleges. In FY2004, funding was approximately \$45M.
A community college must be a major participant in ATE
proposals/projects. The GEO participation in ATE is primarily in
geospatial technologies and environmental technologies with 12-15
proposals a year mostly from geography and ecology faculty. One problem
is that there are very few geosciences faculty in community colleges. A
few centers of excellence in ATE have been funded in Geosciences MATE
(Marine Advanced Technology Education) and ATEEC/MIT-LIFE (advanced
technological education and environmental center). There is potential
for doing things with ATEEC support.

Dr. Detrick noted there would be an upcoming COV for CAREER and names of
potential nominees to serve on it should be submitted to Dr. Leinen.

### Planning for MREFC/E&D at Spring AC/GEO 

Dr. Peach said a large number of MREFCs would be coming online over the
next several years. These projects will present high profile
opportunities to demonstrate GEO's dedication to integrating research
and education. She proposed that the next AC/GEO meeting have a panel
session and invite key people with experience in building large
education and outreach programs around major scientific initiatives to
address some of the topics outlined in the handout she distributed. The
goal is to identify success strategies. The AC/GEO supported this
planning for the next meeting.

Dr. Paula Rizzoli suggested Dr. Roberta Johnson at NCAR be invited. The
Southern California Earthquake Center has very successful education and
outreach program as well.

Dr. Peach said the committee would also look at the web description for
Criterion 2 (broader impacts) to see how it could be expanded.

Dr. Peach concluded the Education and Diversity Subcommittee meeting.

# Plenary Session 3

Dr. Detrick reconvened in plenary session at 11:00 a.m.

## Other Topics

### NSF Priority Area Updates

[Human and Social Dynamics (HSD)]{.underline} Dr. Clifford Jacobs
highlighted the Human and Social Dynamics FY2004 competition. Primary
emphasis areas included: Agents of Change, Dynamics of Human Behavior,
and Decision Making and Risk. Resource secondary emphasis areas
included: Modeling Human and Social Dynamics, Instrumentation and Data
Resources, and Spatial Social Science. 800 proposals were received for
694 projects. 37 projects were funded with a total of \$21.7M. GEO
funded four projects to include: 1) Agricultural Decision-Making in
Indonesia with El Nino -- Southern Oscillation Variability: Integrating
climate Science, Risk Assessment and Policy Analysis and 2)
Interoperability Strategies for Scientific Cyberinfrastructure: A
Comparative Study. The key elements of these two projects were listed.
Details on the FY2005 HSD competition were reviewed. The announcement
will be more focused to help alleviate the proposal pressure.

Updates on other NSF Priority Areas were provided in the meeting
notebooks for Collaboration in Mathematical Geosciences (CMG),
Information Technology Research (ITR), Nanoscale Science and Engineering
(NSE), and Cyberinfrastructure.

[Sensors and Sensor Networks]{.underline} Dr. Alexandra Isern provided
an update on the FY2004 Sensors and Sensor Networks competition. Last
year GEO (with ENG, BIO, OPP, MPS and EPSCoR) was officially part of the
competition. This year, GEO and OPP are participating with ENG. She
noted that the solicitation may have been a little too broad, but that
OCE was pleased with the results. The anticipated funding was \$36M, but
in actuality, more were funded than expected. GEO funded \$4.6M of
proposals. Data was shown on the award distribution by NSF program area.
For FY2005, the solicitation has been strengthened with some terms
better defined (i.e., what is meant by 'partnerships'). Next year PIs
are instructed to contact appropriate program officers before submitting
their proposals.

### Information Technology Research Retrospective 

Dr. Steve Meacham provided a summary on the transition of the
Information Technology Research (ITR) Priority Area. This priority area
ended in FY2004 with a five-year total funding of \$1.25B. The success
rate in the final year was lower than in earlier years. For geosciences,
79 ITR projects have been awarded since FY2000 including 32 medium
awards and 3 large awards. Most of these were co-funded with CISE. Dr.
Meacham grouped the awards into categories: enhancing observing systems,
numerical models, data assimilation, data analysis, and data management
and distribution. Awards involved partnerships with computer scientists
that made possible things that geosciences could not have done alone.
Dr. Meacham shared some specific examples of mid-sized award
partnerships that have allowed modeling to take place at new levels and
that are developing new capabilities for data assimilation and
sensitivity analysis usable by numerical modelers in a range of
geoscience disciplines. He noted that these projects are enhancing the
capabilities in geosciences. The three large collaborations between
geoscientists and computer scientists, funded jointly by geosciences and
computer sciences are developing additional 'structure' to allow
scientists in geoscience disciplines to use and share collections of
data, models and analysis tools more readily in their research. Each
project includes geosciences research activities that exploit the
technology being developed and whose needs guide the efforts of the
computer scientists involved. Examples include: the Community Modeling
Environment at the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), an
effort to comprehensively model earthquakes and the ground motions that
they produce; the Linked Environment for Atmospheric Discovery (LEAD),
research in on-demand, adaptive, multi-scale, assimilative modeling of
strong mesoscale storms; and the GEON project which focuses on data
integration and modeling in the geological sciences and seismology.
These large activities could not have happened without ITR.

### Cyberinfrastructure Subcommittee Report

Dr. Paola Rizzoli reported on the activities of the AC/GEO CI
Subcommittee. It has received reports from several very active groups in
the geosciences community that have been assessing the
cyberinfrastructure needs of the geoscience disciplines. Its members
also had a fruitful meeting with Dr. Sangtae Kim, the Director of the
Division for Shared Cyberinfrastructure (SCI) at NSF. Dr. Kim and his
SCI colleagues hope to continue collaboration between CISE and other
directorates and maintain good communication between domain and computer
scientists. The Subcommittee recommended GEO and CISE continue to
jointly provide opportunities for collaborations between geoscientists
and computer scientists, in the post-ITR environment. It was felt the
gains from ITR needed to be leveraged to continue strengthening domain
and computer science efforts in IT. As GEO funds become available when
ITR projects end, GEO faces a number of challenges in deciding what to
fund next. There may be some ITR-initiated collaborative activities that
continue to provide value to communities within the geosciences. To
maintain these efforts while also providing opportunities for new
activities that bring the benefits of cyberinfrastructure to more
communities within the geosciences, the base of support for ITR-like
activities needs to be increased. It is not clear how much CISE is
willing to co-fund. Dr. Leinen said GEO needed guidance from the
research community and is looking at ways to balance the portfolio. How
can these necessary investments be made without having an adverse impact
on the other parts of GEO? She encouraged the group to help promote the
need for new funding and support joining forces with other programs.
They all would "do the best they can" to not loose what has been gained
in the past five years with ITR.

### Dr. Meacham thanked the AC/GEO subcommittee. They have emphasized to the computer scientists that they want to continue fruitful relationships with computer scientists and this helps support the collaboration. 

### Update from the ERE Advisory Committee Meeting

Dr. John Wilson, AC/GEO Liaison to the Environmental Research and
Education Advisory Committee (ERE AC), provided an update on the most
recent ERE AC meeting. The ERE AC sponsored a workshop on water issues
with the Department of Energy. A report will be submitted to the ERE AC
and publicly available sometime in the spring of 2005. Key topic areas
identified were listed. The ERE AC is also looking at an update and
reexamination of the 10-year plan document that was distributed several
years ago. Another work in progress is a leadership summit on observing
systems.

## Outgoing AC/GEO Member Presentations

A tradition of the AC/GEO is to hear presentation by outgoing members.
Drs. Hartmann and Rizzoli were invited to make brief presentations.

**Dr. Hartmann presented "The Fixed Anvil Temperature 'FAT'
Hypothesis"**, one of his current research topics. FAT provides an
explanation for temperatures at the top of the clouds in the tropics.
Dr. Hartmann shared a graphic of the greenhouse affect and how it is
measured. Net cloud forcing (how clouds change and respond to global
warming and cloud feedback) is an indicator of climate sensitivity. The
FAT hypothesis is that the temperature of the anvil clouds will appear
at a fixed temperature due to a number of interrelated causes. Dr.
Hartmann tested the hypothesis by raising sea surface temperature (SST)
over a large area to see if it raised cloud temperature. The peak of the
anvil cloud did not change with SST, and although the pressure did
change, tropopause measurements did not change at cloud top. His
conclusion was that the favored temperature for tropical anvil cloud
tops should remain approximately constant during climate changes of
reasonable magnitude. The emission temperature of the rotational lines
of water vapor should also remain approximately constant during climate
change. These conclusions imply relatively strong water vapor and
infrared cloud feedback \-- all else being equal.

**Dr. Rizzoli presented a report on "Venice".** The "*Acqua Granda*"
(Venice under 2 meters of water) has spurred international interest on
scientific issues connected to the "*acqua alta'* and the possibilities
for an engineering solution to preserve the city of Venice. Dr. Rizzoli
described how the *La laguna* in Venice was developed during the period
from 1550 to 1850. In the early 1990s large industries were developed on
reclaimed land and siphoned off much of the groundwater producing
subsidence around Venice. Today Venice is 23 cm lower than it was 100
years ago and currently, the city is under water about 1/3 of the year,
a major disruption to the local economy. Under certain climate
conditions, storm surges and high winds are causing very high water in
the city and flooding has become more and more frequent. Dr. Rizzoli
showed details on the various solutions that have been proposed and how
her knowledge as a geoscientist has contributed to the efforts. Many
aspects are modeled in the studies (economic, hydrologic, navigation,
etc.). A series of structures (e.g., jetties, barriers, and gates) has
been proposed to control the flow of water through the three inlets to
Venice. However, since each serves a different purpose, different
solutions were proposed for each of them. She noted that a team now has
a prediction model in place to predict the potential for high water
level 3 days in advance. The barriers can then be adjusted in
anticipation of these changes. The design of the barriers takes into
account water level changes in 100 years and will help eliminate the
extreme events. She illustrated this complex challenge \-- protect the
island, protect the environment, protect the ecosystems, and protect the
city -- for the members.

## Wrap-Up

Dr. Leinen thanked the outgoing AC/GEO members for their contribution
and presented them with a plaque in appreciation. She highlighted Dr.
Rizzoli's role with Cyberinfrastructure and Dr. Hartmann's chairing the
COV. She noted that GEO continues to keep past members on a list server
for meeting summary minutes and other information relevant to GEO.

Dr. Detrick said one of the important outcomes of the meeting was the
time spent reviewing the changing budget situation in terms of how to
move ahead on various initiatives and MREFC activities with core
programs. The AC/GEO welcomed the candor that Dr. Leinen and other
management in GEO showed in discussing the budget projections. The most
important message from the AC/GEO to Dr. Leinen is that they realize the
difficult times and hard choices that need to be made, but GEO and the
research community cannot back away from pursuing opportunities
identified in infrastructure and science areas. The AC/GEO will help as
best they can to move ahead and endorse continuing to pursue new
research opportunities even in a difficult budget climate.

Action Item Review:

-   Dr. Detrick will help draft an *EOS* article on where they stand
    with implementation of GEO2000 and some of the new directions the
    community is heading. He asked for volunteers (one from each
    division area) for subgroup to help draft an article to be
    circulated to full committee for review.

-   The AC/GEO recommended that the COV template questions and available
    data be better aligned. They will work more closely with the GPRA AC
    to get more congruence between questions asked and information
    available to COVs.

-   In education discussions, need to develop more quantitative
    assessment of the success of some of the education program
    initiatives that are underway. Continue pursuing this activity.

-   Suggested names for the CAREER COV should be provided to Dr. Detrick
    or Dr. Spence

-   Next meeting will consider a special session on education and
    outreach for MREFCs

-   Dr. Detrick and Dr. Silver will consider a mini symposium on coupled
    human and natural systems for the Spring 2005 AC/GEO meeting and
    will identify people that bring different perspectives to the topic

-   The ERE Occasional Paper on water will be distributed prior to the
    next AC/GEO meeting.

The AC/GEO supported submitting a letter to the NSF Director,
highlighting issues and recommendations of the group. Dr. Detrick agreed
to draft the letter summarizing the discussions and the commitment to
pursuing activities. Dr. Leinen said Dr. Bement would read and pay
attention to such a letter as he takes advice from advisory committees
very seriously.

The proposed dates for the next AC/GEO meeting are April 27-29 or May
11-13, 2005. \[Note: Spring meeting dates are May 11-13\]. Fall meeting
dates proposed were October 5-7 and Oct 26-28, 2005. \[Note: Fall
meeting dates will be October 5-7\]. Confirmation would be sent via
email to AC/GEO members.

Dr. Detrick asked for nominations for new AC/GEO members to be submitted
to Dr. Leinen.

Dr. Detrick thanked everyone for attending and contributing. With no
further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 1:55 p.m.