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

**April 17-18, 2001**

#### National Science Foundation

**Arlington, VA**

**Meeting Summary**

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

**Dr. David W. Simpson**, **Chair,** Incorporated Research Institutions
for Seismology, Washington, DC

**Dr. Kim A. Kastens, Vice-Chair** Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory,
Columbia University, Palisades, NY

**Dr. Gail Ashley**, Department of Geological Sciences, Rutgers
University, Piscataway, NJ

**Dr. Roger C. Bales**, Department of Hydrology & Water Resources,
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

**Dr. Peter Cornillon,** Graduate School of Oceanography, University of
Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI

**Dr. Kelvin K. Droegemeier,** Center for Analysis and Prediction of
Storms, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK

**Dr. Michael F. Hochella, Jr.**, Department of Geological Sciences,
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA

**Dr. Kenneth S. Johnson**, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute,
Moss Landing, CA

**Dr. Timothy Killeen**, National Center for Atmospheric Research,
Boulder, CO

**Dr. John A. Orcutt**, Director, IGPP, Scripps Institution of
Oceanography, La Jolla, CA

**Dr. Judith Parrish**, Department of Geosciences, University of
Arizona, Tucson, AZ

**Dr. Joyce Penner**, Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space
Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

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

**Mr. Robert Ryan**, WRC-TV, Washington, DC

**Dr. Lynne D. Talley**, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla,
CA

**Dr. Leon Thomsen**, BP Amoco Upstream Technology, Houston, TX

**Dr. Thomas Windham**, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research,
Boulder, CO

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

**Dr. Otis B. Brown,** Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric
Sciences, University of Miami, Miami, FL

**Dr. Donald L. Paul**, Vice President for Technology and Environmental
Affairs, Chevron Corporation, San Francisco, CA

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

**Dr. Margaret Leinen**, Assistant Director, GEO

**Dr. Larry Clark,** Head, Ocean Science Section

**Dr. Donald Heinrichs,** Acting Director, Division of Ocean Sciences

**Dr. Clifford A. Jacobs,** Facilities Coordinator, Atmospheric Sciences

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

**Dr. Michael Reeve,** Head, Ocean Facilities Section

**Ms. Vanessa Richardson,** Director, Operations and Analysis

# **Ms. Jewel Prendeville,** Staff Associate for Diversity Program Development

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

**Dr. Thomas W. Spence,** Senior Associate for Science Programs and
Coordination

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

**The spring meeting of the Advisory Committee for Geosciences (AC/GEO)
was held on April 17-18, 2001**

**at the National Science Foundation in Arlington, Virginia.**

# **April 17,2001**

### Welcome, Introductions, Agenda and Follow-up from the Fall 2000 AC/GEO Meeting

Dr. David Simpson, Chair, called the meeting to order at 8:40 a.m. and
introduced the new members: Dr. Peter Cornillon, Dr. Kelvin Droegemeier,
Dr. Joyce Penner, Dr. Leon Thomsen, and Dr. Thomas Windham.

Dr. Simpson reviewed the topics on the agenda:

-   Concern about how Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) reports
    are handled at NSF

-   AC/GEO's contribution to a cross-directorate report to be developed
    which is similar to the Directorate for Mathematics and Physical
    Sciences (MPS) RISE document

-   Implementation of GEO 2000 Plan and the responses to the scientific
    challenges proposed

-   Confirmation of representatives to two Committees of Visitors (COV),
    one on Lower Atmospheric Facilities and the other on Earth Sciences

-   Brief overview of the current NSF-wide initiatives

-   Presentation by a representative from the Office of Legislative and
    Public Affairs

-   Subcommittee meetings.

Dr. Simpson said the most important items on the agenda are the
subcommittee meetings and the discussion on the Implementation of GEO
2000 plan. He announced the following GEO staff vacancies: a Division
Director for the Division of Ocean Sciences (OCE) and a Section Head for
Marine Geosciences.

### Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)

Mr. William Smith, GEO Staff Associate for Budget, outlined the GPRA
requirements. Each Federal agency must submit a strategic plan with a
5-year time horizon (updated every 3 years), an annual performance plan,
and an annual performance report. The first revision of NSF's strategic
plan was made in FY 2001. Performance will be measured against the
outcome goals in the three areas: people, ideas, and tools. Performance
is assessed by using data sources, COV reports, annual program reports,
final project reports, and independent studies.

The AC/GEO is tasked to assess Directorate's performance and present a
draft assessment at the November meeting. Representatives to the COVs
and a GPRA contact person should be appointed by AC/GEO. Smith described
the COV process and said that every 3 years each program at NSF is
reviewed by outside experts to maintain high program management
standards, improve program performance, make sure there is openness with
the community, and that judgments are in line with the GPRA process.

In response to Dr. Kim Kastens' question about whether there is ever
feedback on the GPRA assessment submitted by this group, Mr. Smith
replied no, but there is a great amount of feedback on the entire NSF
report. There is supposed to be a link between budget and performance
but it is still too early in the process to connect them.

The AC/GEO then met in their subcommittee task groups for the remainder
of the morning.

### Working Lunch: GEO Issues for Discussion with the Director

Dr. Simpson said that a letter had been sent to Dr. Rita Colwell, NSF
Director, expressing the following concerns:

the budget; the implementation of GEO 2000 Plan; the future of the
initiatives; and the impact of the initiatives on Directorates. He asked
the group if there were other issues they would like to introduce.

Dr. Lynne Talley commented that she is concerned about what's happening
in climate sciences in relation to the initiatives and also concerned
about the fate of the old initiatives when new ones are introduced. Dr.
Leinen responded that as chair of the interagency Subcommittee for
Global Change Research (SGCR) of the U.S. Global Change Research Program
(USGCRP), she has observed that many in the community may be waiting for
the strategic plan to come out and to see what this Administration will
do about the program. Also, no presidential science advisor has been
appointed. Dr. Colwell has strongly supported the global change program
and sees the Biocomplexity in the Environment Initiative as a complement
to the program. Dr. Leinen suggested the topic be introduced at the
meeting with Dr. Colwell.

Dr. Leon Thomsen sees a great opportunity in this area for NSF to
cooperate with private industry. Dr. Leinen suggested that Dr. Thomsen
raise the issue with Dr. Colwell.

The AC/GEO discussed the budget increase (only 1.3 percent). NSF had
expected to receive increases similar to last year in order to double
the NSF budget over the next five years. Dr. Leinen said last year the
academic community was very effective in getting the word out about
money needed for their science and she urged the GEO AC to follow that
model if they talk to Congress about the current budget. Dr. Leinen said
one of the differences this year is that the community will likely be
more focused because of the low budget proposed by the President.

Dr. Peter Cornillon asked why Polar Programs is separate from GEO. Dr.
Simpson suggested putting that question on the agenda for the fall
meeting and inviting a representative from Polar Programs to make a
presentation.

Mr. Robert Ryan said he would like to ask Dr. Colwell for more
information about the cross-directorate initiatives; particularly what
is in the conceptual stage and what she sees in the future.

### Update on GEO

Dr. Leinen presented information on the GEO budget. The request for FY
2002 was for \$558.02 M. Last year GEO had more than a 15 percent
increase and that money is now coming in. This year's budget is lower by
0.06 percent. The areas of emphasis are the initiatives:

-   Biocomplexity in the Environment (BE), l.82 percent increase over FY
    2001 (\$23 M)

-   Information Technology Research (ITR), no increase from FY 2001
    (\$10.9 M)

-   Nanoscale Science and Engineering, no increase from 2001 (\$6.8 M)

-   Learning for the 21st Century, new in FY 2002 (\$2.45 M)

-   Interdisciplinary Math Research which is contained in the MPS
    Directorate, new in FY 2002 (\$20 M).

Dr. Leinen also outlined the budget according to strategic goals:

-   *People \--* increases in ADVANCE and IGERT, steady support in REU,
    CAREER, and GEO diversity and education.

-   *Ideas* \-- increase in biocomplexity and research in preparation
    for EarthScope. No major reductions.

-   *Tools* \-- increases in ship operations and the Ocean Drilling
    Program; steady support for DLESE and most other facilities.

Other areas of emphasis are Planetary Metabolism (\$75 M); Planetary
Energetics and Dynamics (\$120 M); and Planetary Structure (\$82 M).
There were no new MRE starts in FY 2002. For EarthScope, \$17.44 M was
requested in FY 2001 but no funds were appropriated and no MRE funds
were requested in FY 2002. For HIAPER \$12.5 M was appropriated in FY
2001.

Dr. Leinen said if there were additional funds, she would invest more in
MRE and the initiatives. Dr. Kastens remarked that since the new
Administration is interested in education, more funds may be
forthcoming. Dr. Leinen said that NSF should demonstrate its ability to
lead in math and science, and that it is prepared to take on additional
funding. Should NSF get more funding for math and science, it may come
at the expense of the states' education grants. Most education funds go
to the states in the form of block grants.

Dr. Mary Jane Perry remarked that there were 500 biocomplexity proposals
submitted and the success rate for the full proposals was only about 6
percent but the success rate for incubation proposals was greater. Dr.
Clifford Jacobs, Facilities Coordinator, ATM, said that about 15 percent
of ITR's invited proposals will be funded for FY 2001. In Nanoscience,
about 5--10 percent are being funded.

Dr. Leinen said that the proposals were the result of huge expenditures
of time in the scientific community in order to get all the disciplines
together. It is very discouraging that the payoff is so small. There was
a discussion about the value of the initiatives and that perhaps some of
the funding should go to core disciplines.

.

Dr. Judith Parrish said that even with a 5-15 percent success rate there
is a lot of science that is not funded and she's concerned that the low
success rate may impact the science. Dr. Simpson said there may be some
budget recovery because of the high level of enthusiasm in the Senate.

Dr. Jarvis Moyers, Director, ATM, said one way to increase the success
rate is to decrease the number of proposals submitted. Dr. Perry
remarked that the initiatives should be called trans-disciplinary rather
than interdisciplinary or cross-disciplinary. NSF is crystallizing a new
way to do science, bringing the human dimension into decision making.
Dr. Michael Hochella commented that NSF is not creating these
initiatives; the scientists are. NSF is doing a superb job of taking
them to the community.

### Reports from Subcommittee Chairs

# **Meeting of the Atmospheric Sciences Subcommittee**

Dr. Timothy Killeen, chair of the ATM Subcommittee, summarized the
discussions and announced that Dr. Joyce Penner will chair the COV for
Lower Atmospheric Sciences. Their report will be due on October 1. Dr.
Jacobs talked about mid range facilities (\$10 to \$50 M) and how they
should be integrated to become part of an overall strategy. He also
discussed interagency cooperation, cost sharing, and partnering and
interaction with the private sector. He reviewed milestones and the
performance and management of UCAR and NCAR. The recompetition for FY
2002 is underway. The subcommittee discussed the implementation of GEO
2000 Plan and the Division's involvement in the initiatives. In the
Biocomplexity Initiative, the Division is involved in areas such as
carbon and geochemical cycles. ITR and cyber infrastructure are also
well aligned with GEO. They also discussed interdisciplinary programs,
MRE, and the need for atmospheric and ocean observing systems. Mr. Ryan
introduced a topic for a possible new initiative on mesoscale
observations and the interface between weather and climate.

##### Meeting of the Earth Sciences Subcommittee

Dr. Gail Ashley, chair of the EAR Subcommittee, provided a summary of
their discussions. They talked about a COV on instrumentation and
facilities. The group reviewed division activities in relation to the
Implementation of GEO 2000 Plan, the National Research Council (NRC)
report on "Basic Research Opportunities in the Earth Sciences" and
reports from meetings and workshops.

Activities for EAR for next year will include:

-   EarthScope

-   BioEarth (geobiology, water and carbon cycles, and critical zone)

-   Geoinformatics

-   Earth Centers

They agreed there is a change going on in Earth sciences and the concept
of EarthScope is a reflection of it.

# **Meeting of the Ocean Sciences Subcommittee**

Dr. John Orcutt, chair of the OCE Subcommittee, said there is currently
a search for a division director in OCE and, as a result of the
reorganization, there is an opening for a Section Head for marine
geosciences. Another staffing issue is the concern about the impact of
initiatives on the workload for OCE staff. Dr. Mike Reeve reviewed the
plans for an Alaska Region Research Vessel (ARRV) to replace the *Alpha
Helix* and the relationship between the Office of Polar Programs and
GEO. They discussed the differences between deadlines and target dates
for the core programs. For core programs there is a target date rather
than a deadline and late proposals are accepted. It was suggested that
NSF make the due dates consistent (e.g., possibly all use deadlines).
There was a report on a workshop on the Center for Ocean Science
Education Excellence (COSEE). A program announcement will be released
later this year. Dr. Don Rice gave a talk on an ocean sciences carbon
cycle research initiative which had a working group meeting recently at
NSF. Dr. Larry Clark gave an update on the Ocean Observatories
Initiative MRE and how it could be managed in OCE in the future. They
also discussed data management and Dr. Cornillon gave a brief review of
a coastal data management program. The group decided to put that first
on the agenda for their next subcommittee meeting.

### Implementation of GEO 2000: Ideas, People, Tools

Dr. Leinen said that in FY 2000, 2,900 proposals judged 'excellent' to
'very good' were declined by NSF (9,763 were funded). In response to a
question, she described the selection process, noting that one key
requirements is to have a balanced program with funds widely dispersed
across subjects and institutions. Newer investigators may also be funded
to encourage them. High risk proposals may be rated low because the
review process tends to be somewhat conservative. Program decisions to
fund these types of projects account for why some proposals rated less
than excellent may be funded.

Dr. Leinen remarked that the directorate publication, GEO 2000, has been
very successful and other directorates now want to develop similar
documents. It has had a major impact on the Foundation because it is a
science plan. Now, the directorate needs a plan for implementing GEO
2000. The implementation plan will be used internally to establish
timelines for budget requests and for planning activities, and is
centered on People, Ideas, and Tools.

Dr. Leinen said the questions for the AC/GEO to address are:

-   Are we on track?

-   How can we more effectively leverage funds?

-   Are there other broad themes that need to be addressed by better
    coordination and planning?

-   Which elements in the science plan are addressed by our regular
    programs and which ones are not?

Interdisciplinary elements needing new strategies for implementation are
Earth cycles (water, carbon, biogeochemical); BioEarth (interactions
between earth systems and biological processes); and cyberinfrastructure
in geosciences.

Dr. Leinen asked Dr. Dick Hilderbrandt, a representative from the
Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) directorate, to
provide an update on the CISE vision for cyberinfrastructure. He talked
about the connection between cyberinfrastructure and science and
engineering. This is the fourth year of the Partnerships for Advanced
Computational Infrastructure Program created as a result of the Hayes
Task Force report. The program is growing and they are beginning to
deploy some very large terascale computer systems, such as the
Pittsburgh Supercomputer Center, and one at the San Diego Supercomputer
Center. The two CISE infrastructure programs are Advanced Computational
Infrastructure and Advanced Networking Infrastructure. Recent
technological advances have been made in grid computing; virtual
reality, multiple site telepresence (emerging technologies); digital
libraries; networking advances for high performance networks; and
middleware. CISE envisions a new cyberinfrastructure with shared
instruments, manipulation of tera- to peta-byte size data sets, high end
computation for simulations, and access to data gathered kept in other
places. Results must be presented visually or through virtual reality or
telepresence. A solicitation is out for a distributed terascale
facility, and a Blue Ribbon Panel has been commissioned to: 1) evaluate
the performance of the [Partnerships for Advanced Computational
Infrastructure](../../../../../../../../cise/descriptions.nsf/eef5d4d8b7944a85852565d30064ba55/c35975a518730127852565d90077e112%3FOpenDocument)
(PACI) program; 2) recommend new areas for CISE that will respond to the
future needs of the community; and 3) recommend an implementation plan.
The panel meetings will be open to all, so members of the AC/GEO should
attend and make the panel aware of what their cyberinfrastructure needs
are.

Dr. Simpson said the geosciences community drove some of the earlier
work in computer science and has intellectual capabilities to share. Dr.
Leinen said the geosciences community will need the networking and
storage provided by advances in cyberinfrastructure and we should expand
cyberinfrastructure for environmental science as well.

Dr. Moyers said he is looking at planetary metabolism, specifically
biogeochemical and carbon cycles because of their interdisciplinary
nature. There are activities being supported across the divisions in
GEO, but we should have a coherent carbon cycle program and form a
committee to create a virtual program that puts together a framework
that will build on and augment the coordination process. The current
plan is to position ourselves to integrate with other activities at NSF
such as the Biocomplexity Initiative; let the community know what we
want and focus the program; and address the staffing issue. The goal is
to have a procedure in place for FY 2002 and be a possible model for a
cross-discipline and cross-directorate project.

Dr. Leinen noted that the FY 2001 budget includes funding for Earth
cycles and hazards; and emerging investments such as
cyberinfrastructure, BioEarth, and science in support of MRE
(EarthScope, HIAPER, Ocean Observatories Initiative, and Ocean Drilling
Program). She asked the AC/GEO to consider what impact the NSF-wide
initiatives have on GEO and how we can best engage our community to take
advantage of the opportunities provided by the initiatives. The
implementation plan includes provisions for funding mechanisms for
tools, MRE, individual investigator equipment infrastructure; NSF wide
initiatives; and mid-size infrastructure. GEO is now proposing a
mid-size infrastructure account which will require approval of the NSB
and Congress and would allow us to prioritize our own investments. She
urged the AC/GEO to continue advising on education and diversity and on
areas for cross division projects.

The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m. to enable the group to attend a
showing of "Solar Max", an IMAX production at the National Air and Space
Museum.

# **April 18, 2001**

Dr. Simpson called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.

### Status Reports: Diversity and Education

Ms. Jewel Prendeville provided an update on the Diversity Program for FY
2001. The goal of the program is to encourage and increase participation
of the under-represented population in geosciences research and
education. A workshop held in August led to a program announcement in
December. Three types of awards were encouraged to establish and enhance
geosciences education and research at Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCU), Minority Institutions (MSI) and tribal colleges;
encourage activities that foster partnerships between and among HBCU,
MSI and tribal colleges, and traditional 2 and 4 year institutions; and
provide outreach activities to underrepresented populations.

About \$3 M was allocated for FY 2001 to fund 15 awards for up to 5
years. About eighty proposals were received and approximately 2/3 came
from non-minorities, but with minority co-PIs; the rest were submitted
by minority PIs. Five included community college participation, and 27
were submitted by HBCU and MSI. A panel review meeting will be held in
May and will include representation from the AC/GEO. There will be
written reviews from panelists. The geoscience education program
deadline was April 17 and 78 proposals were received.

Comments following the presentation focused on whether the proposals
submitted by minority PIs would be evaluated using the same criteria as
those submitted by non-minority PIs. Ms. Prendeville said the same
criteria would be used, and the guidelines were in the solicitation.

Mr. Ryan suggested that since the overall goal is to bring minority
populations into the geosciences, minority graduate students should be
placed in classrooms as role models for K-12 populations. Ms.
Prendeville said some of the proposals provide for use of graduate
students as role models.

In response to a question from Dr. Thomsen about industry participation
in the program, Ms. Prendeville said she has talked to private
foundations but not to a particular industrial group. However Dr. Leinen
said that NSF has been meeting with a group that includes about 25 major
corporations for the past few years. Dr. Thomsen said as a member of a
large corporation he would be interested in participating in such a
program but a mechanism for outreach is necessary.

Dr. Michael Mayhew provided an update on the Digital Library for Earth
Science Education (DLESE) which is a collection of high quality
materials that provides access to earth data sets, discovery,
distribution and support services; and new community networks for
interaction. It began as a confluence of two initiatives: 1) the
establishment of the Geosciences Education Working Group within GEO and
the Shaping of the Future of Undergraduate Earth Science Education
Initiative established by the EHR Division of Undergraduate Education,
and 2) the interagency Digital Library Initiative, Phase 2. DLESE is
part of the National SMETE Digital Library (NSDL). A community workshop
was held in August 1999 to create a plan for building and governance of
the library. A prototyping stage through FY 2001 is jointly funded by
GEO and EHR. DLESE has assumed a leadership role in NSDL and some
technologies are in place. The DLESE Program Center, located at the
University Center for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) has developed a
prototype graphical user interface; a prototype resource discovery
system; a metadata framework based on IMS standards; and a prototype
on-line cataloging tool. DLESE is governed by a steering committee but
also has standing committees and a large group of working and interest
groups. The DLESE Data Set Working Group has developed a plan for
finding useful data, transporting protocols, data formatting, and
exploring data for educational purposes.

Dr. Kenneth Johnson asked about the cost of DLESE. Dr. Mayhew said that
DLESE is regarded as a facility and will have a budget of a few million
dollars beginning in FY 2002. Dr. Orcutt asked about copyright
restrictions for downloading information. Dr. Kastens said the steering
committee investigated that and decided that the intellectual property
belongs to the original owner who made the information available on the
Web. In response to a question about the contents of the library, Dr.
Kastens said there are ongoing collections assessments to identify gaps
and for quality control.

### NSF Priority Area: Learning for the 21st Century

President Bush's statement that "No child be left behind" set the stage
for his education initiative which includes provisions for:

-   Research-based action (activities based on research on how people
    learn) to improve education

-   Eliminating performance gaps (minority/majority comparisons)

-   Teacher quality assessment

-   Accountability through annual assessment.

Dr. Judith Sunley, Interim AD for EHR, noted that the Math and Science
Partnerships (MSP) were established in an effort to strengthen math and
science in K-12 and the Administration has asked NSF to take the lead in
the MSP initiative. Funding for FY 2002 is \$200 M with \$110 M
redirected from existing education activities. It is expected that \$1 B
will be allocated over 5 years. The key issues identified include: too
many teachers in math and science who are teaching out of their field;
too few schools with challenging curricula and textbooks; and too few
students taking advanced coursework.

This initiative has been budgeted as a new sub-account in EHR and is
focused on K-12. The plan is to have a competitive merit-reviewed
program involving a combination of infrastructure building and action.
Consultation with the community is required for program features such as
partnership eligibility, and to attract the math science, and
engineering communities. Dr. Thomas Windham asked about outreach to the
community and whether NSF would have become involved without the
President's directive. Dr. Sunley said that NSF has been involved in
teacher preparation but where there is interaction between graduate
students with scientific content expertise and K-12, there are better
results. Dr. Parrish said that researchers have wanted to become
involved in education, and it would be useful if Dr. Sunley could
provide an example of how such a proposal should be structured. Dr.
Sunley said an outreach activity to do that is in the planning stage.

The main elements of the initiative are the science of learning;
IT-enabled tools for learning; integration across systems of education
(e.g., K-12 and higher education); and formal and informal education.
Centers for Learning and Teaching and Science of Learning Centers will
be established.

Dr. Sunley spoke about building bridges between education, human
resource development and disciplinary communities, and the workforce for
the math and science partnerships. She asked for suggestions on getting
the geosciences community involved. Dr. Simpson asked Dr. Sunley to
prepare a short paper on her suggestions for interaction and provide it
to the AC/GEO. There will be follow-up on it for the next meeting.

Dr. Sunley said she would like to see states designing their own
assessments around their own standards. Dr. Thomsen commented on
teachers' low salaries and the loss of good people into industry for
better paying jobs.

Dr. Kastens elaborated on the science of learning for geoscience
education. She suggested the following topics for inclusion:

-   Spatial representations (maps, cross-sections, block diagrams, etc.)

-   Vast expanses of space and time

-   Understanding of systems with multiple causality chains

-   Learning in the field

-   Learning from data

-   Translating from reality to data equations and vice versa.

### NSF Initiatives

-   For FY 2002, funds for the Math Initiative are uncertain. There is a
    plan for a collaboration between MPS and GEO. A workshop, Frontiers
    of Math in the Geosciences, was held in March with 70 participants.
    There will be a special session about the initiative at the Spring
    AGU meeting in May. From September-June 2002 the initiative will be
    a theme at the summer program for the Institute for Math and
    Geosciences in Minneapolis.

-   For the Nanoscale Science and Engineering Initiative, 400 proposals
    and 70 pre-proposals for centers were received. They have been
    reviewed and awards will be made soon. Some proposals were in
    geosciences.

-   The review of the proposals received for The Biocomplexity in the
    Environment Initiative will be in June. The same four topic areas as
    last year were included but Dr. Margaret Cavanaugh, Office of the
    Director, asked for suggestions for additional topics. About 400
    proposals were submitted.

-   Proposals are currently under review for the Information Technology
    Research Initiative. Geoscience was well represented in the proposal
    submission.

Dr. Michael Hochella noted that biocomplexity is a fusion between
geosciences and biology and asked what the breakdown for submission was.
Dr. Cavanaugh said that there were about 50 proposals in geoscience, 150
for geobiochemical cycling, and about 40 on carbon cycling, water
cycling, soil and geomicrobiology, equally split. There were also about
55 instrument development proposals.

The AC/GEO was pleased with the numbers of geosciences proposals
submitted, but concerned about the impact of initiatives on the workload
on program officers. Dr. Simpson said the question of staffing should be
further considered.

### Major Research Equipment (MRE) Updates

##### EarthScope

Dr. Herman Zimmerman, Director, EAR, discussed the Basic Research
Opportunities in Earth Sciences (BROES) report produced by the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS), which said that the Earth sciences community
should be doing investigations of continents and studying the role of
fluids and the nature of the lower continental crust. The Earth sciences
community has been developing EarthScope which includes the United
States Seismic Array (USArray), the San Andreas Fault Observatory at
Depth (SAFOD), the Plate Boundary Observatory (PBO) ,and the
Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR).

EarthScope will provide education and outreach for students and the
public, Internet access to real-time data, and follow-up programs with
the science community. About \$2 M has been invested for pre-EarthScope
development in the form of workshops, data management development,
international coordination, and instrument development. Approximately
\$171.4 M has been proposed for the next 5 years.

-   USArray consists of seismological instruments (about 400 broadband).
    It is called "Big Foot" and will stay deployed for about 2 years and
    then move step wise across the country. It also will have some
    portable arrays to get to target key structures. USGS will also be
    involved using a system of permanent seismometers.

-   SAFOD will be constructed through a 4 km deep drillhole in the San
    Andreas Fault. Instrumented side cores will be built later. Long
    term monitoring is planned for 20 years.

-   PBO is a distributed observatory of high precision geodetic
    instruments. Global Positioning System (GPS) instruments will be
    deployed in a backbone array from Mexico to Canada. Some existing
    arrays will be used. Over 800 GPS installations are expected.

-   InSAR is a dedicated science driven satellite mission that will
    provide dense spatial and temporal measurements of the North
    American and Pacific plates to monitor changes in deformation during
    and possibly prior to an earthquake.

Mr. Ryan asked whether state governments have been involved or asked to
contribute funding. Dr. Zimmerman said they have been in close contact
with the states and there will be more involvement later. Mr. Ryan asked
if there is a way to get funding partnerships between insurance
companies, states, and the private sector. Dr. Leinen said that the
insurance sector has been involved in climate change very peripherally
and the geoscience community has tried to get them to increase their
support. Dr. Orcutt remarked that industry will probably be involved in
the long-term maintenance and survey and that the states may become more
involved in the future.

# **Ocean Observatories Initiative**

The Ocean Studies Board of the NAS reported in July 2000 that the
community needs to have a better way to study ocean processes that
require long-term observations. OCE responded with a plan to meet these
needs. Dr. Clark, OCE, reported on the Ocean Observatories Initiative
(OOI). It includes basic infrastructure with a broad-based network
accessible to all. There are three components: a plate scale observatory
in the Pacific with a seafloor fiber optic cable system; relocatable
moored buoys; and coastal observatories (cable running to shore).

The budget request for basic infrastructure is \$120 M over 5 years to
be submitted in FY 2003. Pilot projects and feasibility studies are
underway stressing education and outreach opportunities and computer
science and communications engineering expertise. The initiative has
been reviewed and approved by the NSB. The ocean sciences have been
driven by spatial exploration, and most data collection has been done in
an expeditionary mode; however many of our best research problems are
not well-suited to those methods. Access to data from OOI would be
provided to all researchers.

Dr. Killeen asked whether there is any cooperation between EAR and OCE.
Dr. Clark responded that there are natural synergies, and there is
already cooperation in data management. An interdisciplinary ocean
science observatories steering committee has been formed. Dr. Simpson
noted that one of the themes in the implementation of GEO 2000 includes
long-term observatories.

### Implementation of GEO 2000: Ideas, People, and Tools (continued)

Dr. Leinen asked the AC/GEO to return to the discussion of the GEO 2000
themes, the management in GEO, the tools necessary for implementation,
and to consider ways in which to get the community to take advantage of
the initiatives. Dr. Hochella asked how one could keep the community
interested in EarthScope and the Ocean Observatories Initiative while
the funding is delayed. Dr. Zimmerman said for EarthScope they have set
aside \$2 M for preliminary funding and prototypes and there are
workshops; OOI is being treated the same. Dr. Orcutt asked if it was
possible for NSF to have a capital fund to support an interim plan. Dr.
Leinen said it would have to be approved by Congress, but she suggested
stressing the need to Dr. Colwell.

Dr. Roger Bales said he doesn't think that at NSF there is an
understanding of the long-term nature of observatories. Dr. Killeen
remarked that GEO's role in both the ITR Initiative and Biocomplexity
Initiative is not sufficient for accomplishing GEO's plan and suggested
that the AC/GEO propose standalone initiatives. Dr. Simpson said that
could be a component of the implementation plan.

Dr. Killeen suggested mesoscale regional studies as one of the criteria
for the themes but Dr. Simpson said it would be difficult to define the
region. Dr. Hochella remarked that historically geosciences has reached
out to other fields and what has been suggested is that we turn the
tables and have physicists and chemists ask how they can integrate into
geosciences.

Dr. Leinen said that any plan for GEO would have to address a national
strategic initiative. ITR developed after concern was expressed about
the lack of connectivity among the various computational efforts. The
community had been talking about this issue for many years and finally
captured the attention of the President's Information Technology
Advisory Committee (PITAC). Other NSF directorates would have to be
involved with GEO in shaping it, and it would have to different from the
other initiatives (e.g., Biocomplexity Initiative). Dr. Simpson asked if
it would be possible to make new initiatives interagency rather than
interdirectorate. Dr. Leinen noted that interagency connections are
significant, but the focus should first be on NSF directorate
participation.

The AC/GEO agreed that the following themes in implementation of GEO
2000 should be developed further: long term-observatories; and diversity
and education . Dr. Cornillon added that access to data from numerous
sources and interoperability among these sources is not well addressed.
Dr. Simpson said that should be included as a topic for discussion at
the fall meeting.

### Meeting with NSF Director

Dr. Rita Colwell, Director, NSF, updated the AC/GEO on NSF's budget,
which includes a 1.3 percent increase (\$56 M). Graduate stipends will
be increased from \$16 K to \$20 K per year, and NSF will utilize \$20 M
for the new math initiative. She has had discussions with the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) about increasing grant size and duration and
she asked the group to participate in a study on it. Salaries for
support staff at NSF have been increased, however, NSF's total budget is
only \$4.5 B. She stated that at least \$12-14 B is required for NSF.
She encouraged AC/GEO to help publicize NSF's need for more funds.

Members of the AC/GEO introduced the following topics for discussion:

-   Dr. Talley asked about NSF's commitment to climate science which
    requires long-term funding. Dr. Colwell responded that we have not
    done a good job of incorporating the human element into climate
    studies and social sciences could be more involved. It would be
    helpful to have the public understand what we're doing and why. We
    have to be able to transmit this.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Mr. Ryan asked about how the AC/GEO could propose a new initiative.
    Dr. Colwell said that the new initiatives are generated by advisory
    committees and workshops and from discussions of what scientific
    issues are cutting edge but not being investigated. The Directorate
    for Social, Behavioral, & Economic Sciences (SBE) initiative will
    probably be the next initiative to be funded. The current
    initiatives are funded for 5 years.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Dr. Thomsen asked how the private sector can become involved with
    NSF since there are large potential areas of mutual interest between
    geosciences and industry and these collaborations are not being
    addressed by NSF. He also commented that there is an education and
    manpower shortage in his field. Dr. Colwell said his comment is
    encouraging and they need to explore it further. In the past she has
    heard from industry and Congress that NSF could be much more
    effective and perhaps NSF could establish an industry council.
    Another source of interaction is through the science centers where
    there is industry-university participation. She added that the most
    fertile source for a workforce are the community colleges, women,
    and minorities. Dr. Windham mentioned the SOARS(Significant
    Opportunities in Atmospheric Research and Science) program which was
    initiated by ATM 5 years ago. Its goal is to contribute to a
    pipeline that would produce scientists. Its target audience is
    under-represented populations (minorities and women).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Dr. Orcutt asked about global scale observation plans that require
    MREs and whether some initiative funds could be used. He also asked
    about the possibility of a capitalization plan. Dr. Colwell
    responded that could change the way they do science in the
    initiatives. She noted that observational capability is important
    but very expensive. The NSB is currently assessing tools needed in
    the 21st Century.

-   Dr. Kastens asked about the impact of GPRA results both within and
    outside NSF. Dr. Colwell said that it is evident that Congress reads
    the report. NSF uses it for guidance, however the GPRA goals have to
    be realistic and within budget. Eventually the information will be
    used to set agency budgets.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Mr. Ryan commented that science education is not improving. Dr.
    Colwell said that bringing science and engineering into education is
    critical. She thinks we can bring graduate students in science and
    engineering into the classroom early on to link students with
    scientists.

### Dr. Colwell thanked the Committee for its support of NSF programs.

### Working Lunch: Trends and Opportunities in the Geosciences

Two of the AC-GEO members were invited to present their thoughts about
trends and opportunities.

Dr. Johnson remarked that biogeochemical sensors are becoming
operational, for example, the HALE Mooring Station. Moorings demonstrate
more information than ships and provide remote sensing, physical,
bio-optical, and chemical measurement. The Hawaii Ocean Time series
(HOT) demonstrated that the ocean has much yet to reveal. For example,
it has recently been determined that *Archaea* may constitute up to 50
percent of the biomass of the open ocean. There are many linkages
between biogeochemical studies and physics. We are in the very early
stages in the biochemical field. He suggested that NSF use SBIR funds to
target the growing pool of functional but prototype sensors and bring
them to the broader community. The NSF Ocean Observatory Initiative will
create the market. Dr. Simpson suggested finding an industry partner.

Dr. Parrish pointed out a problem in the geosciences workforce. As
faculty progress and establish their research reputations, they are
obligated by their institutions to take on heavier workloads in teaching
and service, and because of the time pressures, may get out of synch
with the rapid changes in funding trends. They may also become trapped
by their successes -- there is strong pressure from reviewers that
actually discourages scientists from trying to enter new fields, even
when the fields in which they established themselves are no longer being
adequately funded. That they have already proven themselves as
researchers is not recognized when they try to change fields to keep up
with funding trends. This is in contrast to younger researchers who have
no previous reputation in any particular field and thus are given the
benefit of the doubt when entering the professions. Thus, quite a lot of
experienced, proven intellectual power embodied in senior faculty is
potentially being wasted. Some faculty members may have as much as 10-15
years of their research lifetime remaining. This has repercussions for
the future workforce as well. Students who observe previously highly
successful faculty struggling to get funding become very discouraged,
not only by the lack of funding success but by the increasing workloads
they see their advisors taking on. Dr. Parrish suggested NSF consider a
program that would explicitly provide opportunities for senior
researchers to enter new fields. In addition, she pointed out that
senior faculty, who have already established their research reputations,
commonly acquire an interest in broadening the scope and impact of their
work. She recommended that NSF become involved by making sure that
Criterion 2 (e.g., broader impact of the research) is taken seriously by
proposal reviewers.

Dr. Hochella asked Dr. Parrish to comment specifically on women
teachers. Dr. Parrish said that she doesn't think there has been enough
research on the problem of attracting women. Dr. Cornillon suggested
sabbaticals as an opportunity for retraining women who have been out of
the workforce.

### Presentation on the NSF Office of Legislative and Public Affairs (OLPA)

Mr. Terry Schaff, Director, Legislative Affairs, OLPA, spoke about the
difference in the NSF budget from last year. Hearings will start next
week in the House Science Committee and appropriation bills are expected
by the summer. Dr. Simpson mentioned the AC/GEO's interest in MRE. Mr.
Schaff said they are already looking at HIAPER, but if they increase the
budget it's not known whether EarthScope and NEON (which are not in this
years budget) will be considered. Dr. Simpson asked how the AC/GEO can
interact with Congress. Mr. Schaff suggested working through their
professional associations and informing people about the excitement of
the science.

Dr. Simpson asked about feedback from the GPRA report. Mr. Schaff
responded that GPRA is very important to Congress. Success stories are
particularly valuable. Dr. Killeen asked whether the IPCC document on
climate studies has had any affect on Congress. Mr. Schaff said that
there is a lot of concern about the Administration's position.

Mr. Curtis Suplee, Director, OLPA, asked the AC/GEO to help prepare a
document similar to RISE, which would include contributions from all of
the directorates and the ACs. He will collate it and submit it back to
the ACs for approval and revisions. Mr. Suplee also asked the AC/GEO to
help him publicize GEO's efforts and accomplishments by:

-   Informing OLPA about current activities and journal publications for
    input on NSF's website

-   Advising OLPA when they are scheduling a workshop so that OLPA could
    film and web cast it.

-   Helping OLPA to create some events such as workshops or symposia
    that members of Congress could attend.

-   Providing graphics on events such as earthquakes so that they can be
    put on NSF's website.

Mr. Ryan said the public is very interested in weather phenomena and
such activities as the weather report can be a resource for effective
public outreach and education. Dr. Droegemeier remarked that geosciences
will have its place when society sees a connection to it. The real
challenge is to relate science to people's lives. Mr. Suplee said people
are interested in global climate change, earthquakes, and the ocean. Dr.
Thomsen suggested publicizing GEO's efforts at the annual AGU meeting.
Dr. Killeen suggested that NSF help with the general interaction between
journalists and science. Mr. Suplee said that journalists are not able
to make a judgment about science; they need experts in the field. NSF
could become a source.

### Follow-up Discussions and Drafting of Recommendations

-   Dr. Simpson announced that Dr. Johnson and Dr. Bales will work with
    him and Dr. Kastens on the GPRA report.

-   For the Fall meeting, a representative from the Office of Polar
    Programs will be invited to make a presentation since there is so
    much interaction between Polar Programs and GEO.

-   Cross-divisional interaction on data management and the close
    interaction between EarthScope and Ocean Observatories Initiative
    will be explored.

-   Dr. Hochella will chair the EAR Committee of Visitors (COV) and Dr.
    Penner will chair the ATM COV.

-   Work on implementation of GEO 2000 will continue, particularly
    long-term observatories and diversity and education.

-   The AC/GEO will contact Dr. Sunley about interacting with her on
    Learning for the 21st Century.

-   The AC/GEO will follow up on Mr. Suplee's request for material to
    contribute to a combined NSF document.

-   Dr. Talley suggested for the next meeting talks be structured as Dr.
    Leinen's did by including questions to promote discussion.

-   Dr. Cornillon said it would be helpful to have a briefing book with
    short descriptions of the presentations in advance.

-   Drs. Kileen, Perry, Bales, and Talley will work together on
    implementation issues for the next meeting.

The minutes from the November 2000 meeting were approved with some
slight revisions proposed by Dr. Kastens. The fall meeting will be held
on November 1-2, 2001. The meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m.

###### AC/GEO Action Items

-   Drs. Simpson, Johnson, Bales, and Kastens will work on the GPRA
    report.

-   For the Fall meeting, a representative from the Office of Polar
    Programs will be invited to make a presentation.

-   Cross-divisional interaction on data management and the close
    interaction between EarthScope and Ocean Observatories Initiative
    will be explored.

-   Dr. Hochella will chair the EAR Committee of Visitors (COV) and Dr.
    Penner will chair the ATM COV.

-   Work on implementation of GEO 2000 will continue, particularly
    long-term observatories and diversity and education.

-   The AC/GEO will contact Dr. Sunley about interacting with her on
    Learning for the 21st Century.

-   The AC/GEO will follow up on Mr. Suplee's request for material to
    contribute to a combined NSF document.

-   As suggested talks should be structured to include questions to
    promote discussion.

-   As suggested the briefing books should have short descriptions of
    the presentations in advance.

-   Drs. Kileen, Perry, Bales, and Talley will work together on
    implementation issues for the next meeting.