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

**April 13-14, 2005**

#### National Science Foundation

**Arlington, VA**

**MEETING SUMMARY**

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

**Dr. David Skole**, **Chair**, Center for Global Change & Earth
Observations, University of Michigan, East Lansing, MI

**Dr. Deborah Estrin**, Center for Embedded Networked Sensing,
University of California, Los Angeles, CA

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

**Dr. Ellen Kabat-Lensch**, Arts and Sciences, Scott Community College,
Bettendorf, IA

**Dr. Gary D. Libecap,** Department of Economics, College of Business,
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

**Dr. Robert L. Lichter,** Merrimack Consultants, LLC, Atlanta, GA

**Dr. Bruce E. Logan**, Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
PA

**Dr. Diane M. McKnight,** Department of Civil, Environmental, and
Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO

**Dr. Anthony F. Michaels**, Wrigley Institute for Environmental
Studies, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

**Dr. Ashanti J. Pyrtle,** College of Marine Science, University of
South Florida, St. Petersburg, FL

**Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd**, Global Participation Measurements, Goddard
Space Flight Center, NASA, Greenbelt, MD

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

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

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

**Dr. Jack Dangermond,** Environmental Systems Research Institute,
Redlands, CA

**Dr. Eloy Rodriguez**, Division of Biological Sciences, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY

**Dr. Joshua Schimel**, Biological Sciences, University of California,
Santa Barbara, CA

**Dr. Jerry R. Schubel**, Aquarium of the Pacific, Long Beach, CA

**Dr. Susan G. Stafford**, College of Natural Resources, University of
Minnesota, Twin Cities, St. Paul, MN

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

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

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

# 

# The eleventh meeting of the Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education (AC-ERE) was held April 13-14, 2005, at the National Science Foundation in Arlington, Virginia.

# Wednesday, April 13, 2005

## Welcome and Introductions

Dr. David Skole, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 8:40 a.m. and
welcomed a new member, Dr. Gary D. Libecap. Introductions were made.

Dr. Skole reviewed the accomplishments of the AC-ERE. It has helped
outline a broad outlook for Environmental Research Education at the NSF.
Now they are looking at how to implement the agenda in a time of budget
constraints. The challenge is to think about how to be very strategic
and do more with less by prioritizing and identifying key areas that NSF
can really make advances despite budget constraints.

The meeting agenda has outreach and service to society. The AC-ERE can
be thinking of ways to excite and educate the popular culture/citizens.
Dr. David Campbell, Executive Secretary to the AC-ERE, comes out of the
Education and Human Resources Directorate and can help the AC look at
environmental education. Dr. Skole thanked AC-ERE members for their
participation and hard work.

## NSF Update on Budget and Environmental Programs

Dr. Margaret Leinen, Assistant Director for Geosciences and NSF ERE
Coordinator, provided and update on the NSF budget and environmental
programs. She congratulated the group on the completion of the *Complex
Environmental Systems: Pathways to the Future* document, which created
quite a stir outside NSF.

[NSF Budget:]{.underline} The FY04 budget was \$5.6B and the FY05 budget
request is \$5.745 B but as enacted by Congress, there was a cut of
nearly 2%. The FY06 request is an increase of about 1% at \$5.605B
(lower than FY05). NSF was allowed to ask for an increase in the budget,
but many agencies were not in this extremely constrained budget time.
NSF is part of a new appropriations committee in the House and is now
together with NASA, NIST and NOAA. Mr. Wolf, chairman of the House
appropriations committee, met with Dr. Bement and commented that he had
not heard from anyone that the NSF budget needed to be increased. Dr.
Leinen stressed the need to communicate the importance of science and
the need for increased funding to the new appropriations committee.

[NSF Website:]{.underline} The NSF website has undergone a major change
with strong improvements in what is there for the general public and for
interested scientists. Interactive stories will be featured for a few
months.

[Biocomplexity in the Environment (BE):]{.underline} Dr. Leinen
summarized the outcome of the FY05 BE Competition. There were 94 full
proposals received and 10 for development activities (less than \$100K).
The total requested funding was \$164M and \$15.6M is available in
funds. The MUSES panel review will be held April 21-22, 2005. The
success rate of this competition is projected to be around 10%. Panel
recommendations of "large" proposals for Coupled and Natural Human
Systems (CNH) ranked 6 proposals with high priority, 7 with medium, and
4 with low. 55 were declined.

[Innovations in Environmental Education (EdEn) Venture
Fund]{.underline}: When EHR joined BE, the directorates formed a special
internal NSF fund that program officers could use when they had an
environmental proposal with an outstanding educational component. In
FY03, \$830K was funded for 21 awards. In FY04, \$770K was funded for 19
awards. A chart displayed the distribution of proposals by directorates
and the funding contribution made by EdEn to each directorate. Another
chart showed the number of proposals funded that directly impacted
underrepresented groups. In FY05, \$750K is available for EdEn with an
April 15 and June 15 deadline for program officers to submit co-funding
requests.

[The Evolution of the BE Program:]{.underline} Dr. Leinen reviewed the
evolution of the BE program which started in 1999. Over the years the
program has narrowed the priority area to be more specific. Though BE
was originally planned as a five year program, Dr. Bement has approved
the decision to continue BE through FY07, specifying that the program
should transition during this time. The ERE Working Group has classified
what will happen to the individual programs beyond FY07 as:

-   Programs that can be managed by individual directorates

-   Programs that require NSF-wide management

-   Programs that won't continue in present form

Transition plans for the programs within BE were highlighted:

-   Instrument Development of Environmental Application (IDEA) -- has
    held a planning workshop to consider how to proceed on environmental
    sensors and sensor networks. One option is to have a special
    environmental component in the Sensor and Sensor Networks
    competition.

-   Genome-Enabled Environmental Science and Engineering (GEN-EN) --
    discussions are underway to continue genomics research as an evolved
    program called Environmental Genomics (GEO, BIO and OPP). Program
    officers are looking at how this will work with a possible
    competition in FY06.

-   Coupled Biogeochemical Cycles (CBC) -- will become a single,
    coordinated program on global cycles, including carbon cycles and
    water cycles and biogeochemistry with the GEO Directorate as the
    lead.

-   Coupled and Natural Human Systems (CNH) -- as a framework for
    integrated research in complex environmental systems. The AC-ERE is
    particularly interested in the future of CNH. Because its programs
    cover the full range of natural, social, behavioral, economic, and
    physical sciences and engineering, NSF is uniquely positioned to
    advance CNH NSF-wide. The program will continue through FY2007 but
    how to migrate after that is still under discussion.

-   Materials Use: Science, Engineering and Society (MUSES) --- will
    continue under ENG and hopes to continue after FY07.

Other BE Activities include: Ecology of Infectious Diseases (EID),
Microbial Genome Sequencing (MGS), Tree of Life, Environmental Molecular
Science Institutes (EMSI), EdEn, and International Partnerships. The
transition of these programs is easier to plan as they already have been
housed in separate divisions.

[Other ERE Activities]{.underline}: Dr. Leinen said that ERE has forked
a working group on environmental observatories called the Environmental
Networks Taskforce that will invite participation from all observation
systems with representation from all directorates and offices. This
NSF-wide group includes EarthScope, NEON, LTER and others. Observation
issues they are dealing with include cyberinfrastructure, environmental
permitting, and synergies between systems.

Challenges for Environmental Programs: 2005-2010

-   Support interdisciplinary ERE activity -- maintain visibility and be
    proactive in NSF, external community and with other agencies.

-   Coordinate shared ERE interests -- transition of BE into the core,
    form and lead teams on shared interests and promote synthesis
    efforts at various scales.

-   Strongly promote involvement of underrepresented groups.

Dr. Leinen concluded by commenting that she is watching the debates on
creationism, intelligent design, and evolution. Over 20 states have
pending legislation requiring that creationism and intelligent design be
taught with evolution. This brings home the importance of science and
complex systems.

## Reports on Recent ERE Activities

[BE Principal Investigator Meeting]{.underline}. Dr. David Campbell
reported on the March 21-23, 2005 meeting of PIs awarded BE grants.
There were about 150 people in attendance with featured speakers. Dr.
Bement presented on the Long View of Environmental Research at NSF.
There were several breakout sessions. Notes are being assembled and a
report will be posted on the NSF website. The research on complex
environmental systems is just coming to fruition at NSF. NSF may host
another conference in September 2006. Topical areas are also having
their own PI meetings. The AC-ERE suggested that NSF look at the
top-down vs. bottom-up approach to the PI meetings to see if they can
determine what is most effective.

[Publications of "Complex Environmental Systems: Pathways to the Future"
Document]{.underline}. Dr. David Skole provided a background on the
AC-ERE produced *Pathways to the Future* document which came out of the
*Complex Environmental Systems* 10-year Outlook document, and was
intended to raise visibility and create interest in ERE. The document
puts forth some strategic actions NSF can take to continue to move
forward with ERE, and also talks about opportunities. Dr. Skole said the
document has been well received and thanked the NSF staff that supported
the AC-ERE in creating the document. AC-ERE members were encouraged to
share the publication with their Deans and their colleagues. NSF also
had an opportunity to brief OSTP and OMB on the document and it was
shared with the NSF counter-part in Germany as well.

[Sensors Workshop]{.underline}. Dr. Alex Isern, Program Director,
OCE/GEO, presented a summary from the activities of the Environmental
Observing Networks Task Force on Sensors for Environmental
Observatories. A working group of the IDEA program identified a lack of
consensus in the area of sensors that were being developed. The workshop
tried to focus on sensors that measured parameters known to be
high-priority measurements cross-cutting all science areas.

The workshop report, currently in draft, will be released soon. The
draft workshop recommendations included:

-   Hold a series of workshops

-   Establish an electronic journal for timely dissemination of sensor
    and sensor net technology

-   Develop software and education modules to make real-time data from
    environmental observing systems accessible to students, teachers,
    and the general public

-   Technologies: Power, nanotechnology, durability, mobile sensing and
    computing, data interfaces

-   Quality assurance and control and self-calibration issues are
    important for deployment

-   Longer-term funding commitments

-   MRE accounts can help establish a network, funding for maintenance
    will be ultimately more costly

-   Support building of testbeds to study scientific phenomena and
    understand deployment issues at a small scale before expanding as
    well as for testing new technologies

-   Standards need to be developed to ensure interoperability of sensor
    network and data

-   Cultivate interactions with industry and other agencies.
    Announcement runs out of ENG directorate -- feel this has led to an
    exclusion of industry in the solicitation call. Can't exclude
    industry from the start -- need to encourage industry -- important
    to include industry from the start so the design of the sensor can
    be optimized.

The AC-ERE said they heard wonderful things about the workshop and its
organizations. Dr. Estrin stressed the need for making the technology
usable and putting together specifications and having discussions with
industry to build the sensors. She suggested a focus on the instruments
the research community needs the most and forming a group that would
write standards and encourage industry to build towards those standards.
The potential market dollars would need to be projected for industry to
have incentive to develop these types of instruments.

Dr. Skole suggested the AC-ERE breakout group continue the discussion
and report back to the full committee. There is a lot of experience in
other agencies on some of these issues (NASA in particular) that ERE can
learn from.

The group also talked about environmental impact issues from
environmental sensor networks. Environmental assessments and permitting
can cause significant costs for projects. The Office of Polar Programs
has two staff that work on environmental assessment issues. Some NSF
Program Officer may not be trained to deal with these kinds of emerging
issues.

[Cyberinfrastructure Workshop]{.underline}. Dr. Steve Meacham, Program
Director, ATM/GEO, reported on the Cyberinfrastructure Workshop held
December 6-7, 2004. The workshop held a discussion on "CI for
Environmental Observatories" to bring together a group of researchers
from different environmental observatory efforts with a number of IT
researchers and to promote the sharing of information for environmental
observing systems. People in community have told NSF that CI is an
important part of the effectiveness of observing systems. Many people
working on the design of environmental observing systems (EOS) are also
involved in the discussions to design CI. There were 23 people invited
and some were tasked to put together ideas, present, and lead the
discussion. The meeting was very effective and they found a lot of
excitement in sharing ideas and saw potential on ways to integrate
ideas. Dr. Meacham handed out a summary of the workshop discussion. No
formal report was published. The workshop found there is a need for
environmental-serving science groups to discuss the grand vision and
there is a need for environmental observatory testbeds. Topics discussed
were listed. A deadline to respond to the CI solicitation, which is an
excellent opportunity for environmental researchers, will be due May 27,
2005.

[Integrated Earth Observing System]{.underline}. A public engagement
Workshop is planned for May 9-10, 2005 in Washington, DC to discuss the
IEOS strategic plan (with 6 near-term opportunities to include data
management). NSF wants input from the scientific and industrial
community and other stakeholders.

## Occasional Paper on Water

The AC-ERE heard several updates on workshops and reports related to
water and discussed the draft AC-ERE occasional paper on the subject.

[Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality.]{.underline} Dr. Pam
Stephens, Section Head, ATM/GEO, serves as the NSF representative on the
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Subcommittee on Water
Availability and Quality that is under the Committee on Environment and
Natural Resources. The subcommittee is co-chaired by the US Geological
Survey and EPA and has members from more than a dozen federal agencies.
It focuses on water resources within the US for both human and
ecological needs. Dr. Skole briefed the subcommittee in December 2004. A
recent report has been published on water availability entitled "Science
and Technology to Support Fresh Water Availability in the United States"
(www.ostp.gov/NSTC/html/swaqreport_2-1-05.pdf). Questions raised
included 1) Do we have enough water? (Concluding was we do not know
because we do not have enough data.) and 2) What should we do about
that? (A number of items were outlined.) Subsequently, the subcommittee
has been asked to write another strategic document to encompass both
quantity and quality. They are in the process of putting together a
vision document for the President and his advisors and the report will
be made available in the summer of 2005. Following the report,
agency-specific implementation plans will be developed. Dr. Stephens
said she is encouraged by the interest in the White House.

The AC-ERE asked if the subcommittee was the best forum for agency
cooperation and if there was an opportunity to comment or provide input
for the next report. The majority of the agencies on the subcommittee
are mission agencies with short-term goals. What is NSF's role in
advocating fundamental research? Dr. Stephens said there is tension at
times, but the forum is working. She also clarified that the report
focuses on the domestic water situation.

[Water Workshop Report and AC-ERE Draft Occasional Paper on
Water.]{.underline} Jean Futrell distributed a summary of the September
2004 workshop, co-sponsored with NSF and the Department of Energy, on
"Water: Challenges at the Intersection of Human and Natural Systems."
The workshop report should be distributed late summer 2005.

Dr. Futrell also distributed a rough draft of an AC-ERE occasional paper
on "Complex Environmental Systems: Water at the Intersection of Human
and Natural Systems" for input from the full committee. The intention is
to present research on water that can be done in a budget constrained
environment.

John Wilson added that Robyn Smyth helped with the occasional paper. The
finished document is anticipated to be about 5 pages. The draft needs to
be polished. The paper puts the issues related to water in context with
the Pathways document and emphasizes the growing need for
interdisciplinary water research. Three themes focused on in the
workshop included: coupling of cycles and processes, coupling of human
and natural systems across spatial and temporal scales, and prediction
in the face of uncertainty. The paper also discusses barriers and needs
that came out of the workshop and ends with a series of suggestions. Dr.
Wilson said he would like to see a little more "punch" in the document
and more on the theme of coupled and human and natural systems. He also
suggested that the paper make stronger references to several supporting
documents, not just the workshop report, as a basis for the
recommendations.

Dr. Libecap noted the paper was missing reference to economics or other
social sciences. Dr. Futrell requested that he provide language to be
included.

Dr. Skole thanked Drs. Futrell and Wilson for work on the draft. It was
suggested that after the final water workshop report is disseminated,
the AC-ERE include it as a reference. Feedback on the draft from the
AC-ERE was requested during the breakout sessions.

## Working Lunch -- Film "Strange Days on Planet Earth"

During a working lunch, the AC-ERE watched a multi-media presentation
entitled "Strange Days on Planet Earth," produced by Mark Shelley, Sea
Studios Foundation, Monterey, CA. The program, scheduled to air on
Public Television, focused on the complexity and interconnectedness of
ecosystems and is a 4-hour public television series on invasive species,
Climate Change, Loss of Predators, and Toxins in the Water. In addition
to the television program, there is information and interactive
activities on the PBS.org web site called Strange Days with 4MAT
learning. This asks questions targeted towards the public, such as: What
should I care? What do experts say? What can I do? The project also has
a consortium of 17 zoos, aquariums, science centers, and botanical
gardens that reach visitors, members, volunteers, teachers and students
in a variety of methods. The "Citizen Science Invasive Species Impact
Program" has six sites funded to do this program. Mr. Shelley said the
project worked with eBay (invasive species were being sold on eBay) to
identify filters to find sales of invasive species and direct users to a
web site with information on invasive species. National Geographic
Magazine did an article on "Invasive Species;" other events to promote
the film include university screenings, festivals, panels, and parties.
The program has received extensive promotion and is hosted by actor
Edward Norton. NSF funding will help do formative testing on the
effectiveness of the program and media formats. Initiatives are in place
to continue the project with goals to build awareness, increase
understanding, and encourage involvement and engage the public in these
activities.

The AC-ERE watched the first hour segment of the television show which
will air on PBS May 1, 2005.

The AC-ERE asked what the project costs were. Dr. Shelley said each
episode had a production cost of about \$1.5M per hour with additional
costs for outreach and promotion. The three-year overall project budget
is \$9M. The conservative estimate is that they will reach 20 million
people with 4 hours of programming. A press release or 30-second news ad
cannot reach this many people. Strange Days 2 will be devoted to the
ocean. Family fishing communities and adaptive management will be
featured. The AC-ERE members encouraged Dr. Shelley to be sensitive to
gender issues. Dr. Shelley said that they tried to feature diversity in
gender, race, and non-US researchers and take this very seriously.

Dr. Shelley said that the while the program is advocates for science in
general, no specific solutions are proposed in an effort to avoid
advocacy for one group over another. The science shown in the whole
series is peer-reviewed science. He also stressed the importance of
getting scientists and journalists together to understand how each one
is perceived. One way to do this is for scientists to attend science and
natural history film festivals.

## Plans for International Polar Year

Dr. Karl Erb, Director, Office of Polar Programs, provided an overview
of the state of planning going on internationally and nationally and
within NSF for International Polar Year (IPY) 2007-2008. The
International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) began planning for IPY
about 4 years ago ([www.igy.org](http://www.igy.org/)) and developed a
vision that called for the various nations interested in polar research
to plan for activities. The National Academy of Sciences developed "A
Vision for the International Polar Year, 2007-2008". The Office of
Science, Technology and Policy (OSTP) asked NSF to take a lead role in
organizing the federal agency preparations for the IPY. Dr. Bement is
coordinating these efforts. Within NSF an IPY working group has been
formed. The list of names was presented. The IPY work will be supported
through unsolicited proposals and special solicitations for large,
multi-investigator projects with the merit review process in place.

Activities supported for IPY hope to: determine the environmental status
of the Polar Regions; quantify social change; provide global linkages;
investigate frontiers of science in the Polar Regions; use the unique
vantage point of the Polar Regions for research; and explore cultural,
historical, and social processes in the human dimension.

Dr. Erb reviewed some of the current studies being done. In Arctic
Climate Change Research, the Study of Environmental Arctic Change
(SEARCH) and the International Study of Arctic Change (ISAC) projects
will probably be a focus for IPY to establish a circumarctic observation
system to help characterize the state of the environment in the Polar
Regions and to better understand the change that is going on there. The
West Antarctic Ice Sheet Program (WAIS) looks at ice dynamics studies of
the Siple coast ice streams. An extensive field camp is required which
could be used for other purposes as well. Hopefully, Life in the Cold
and Dark is another major theme to be addressed. New tools for
biological research on genomics in adaptation and evolution are needed.
Programs like "Teachers Experiencing Antarctica and the Arctic" have an
impact on the future education of citizens and scientists and engineers.
Education and outreach will be a very important part of IPY. NSF is
developing an agency wide outreach program for both formal and informal
education.

Marie Bundy, Program Officer, OPP, summarized some of the things
proposed from the NSF directorates, some of which may already be
underway but share in the goals for IPY. There is a new science and
technology center in Kansas on Ice Sheet Dynamics. EHR is doing outreach
and informal education. The Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences
Directorate, (SBE), can explore cultural aspects in the Polar Regions
and social economic transformations, endangered languages, etc.
Individual interests of the different directorates have been brought
forward, but Dr. Bundy would like to see cross cutting issues as well.
Data management is an example. Education and Outreach is one of biggest
cross cutting issues and is also of interest to the international
community.

Dr. Skole asked if the observatory work will link to polar orbiters to
take advantage of biophysical parameterization that is possible in the
Polar Regions. Dr. Erb said OPP has been talking with NASA about
coordinating land-based and satellite-based efforts. NSF is hoping that
NASA will develop a plan to coordinate ground measurements taken at the
same time as satellite measurements. Dr. Erb said he thinks IPY will
help broker international agreements that might be more difficult at
other times.

## Charge to Task Groups and Task Group Membership

Dr. Skole reviewed the sub topics for the task groups.

Group 1 -- Bruce Logan, chair (Robyn Smyth, NSF co-chair) -- Discuss
Water Workshop Report and Water Occasional Paper and any other
occasional paper status if there is time. What needs to be done to get
them published? What might need to be put into paper that is not there
now? Report back to AC-ERE. .

Group 2 -- Jean Futrell, Chair -- CI and Sensors (Alex -- NSF co-chair).
Discuss emerging issues on sensors. What are they going to do on the
Observing Systems Workshop (what needs to be done, etc.)?

Group 3 -- Ellen Kabat-Lensch, Chair (Dave Campbell NSF co-chair) --
Diversity Workshop and what should the AC-ERE be doing more on science
and society?

The group broke for the Task Group meetings at 2:05 p.m. with plans to
adjourn at 3:30 p.m. for a presentation by ERE Distinguished Speaker,
Dr. Greg Asner, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Stanford, CA.

# Thursday, April 14, 2005

The meeting reconvened at 8:35 a.m. Materials were distributed on
indigenous populations and the water report web site was listed
(waterusgs.gov/owq/swaq.pdf).

## Task Group Reports and Discussion of Ongoing Projects

Group 1 -- Water Workshop Report and Water Occasional Paper

Dr. Logan summarized the discussion from the Task Group on water and the
occasional paper. The group talked about societal needs, science
opportunities, and then recommendations. Dr. Wilson added that the
centralizing theme of coupled natural-human systems is important. Dr.
McKinght noted the importance of having something that is "catchy" and
makes a strong case for water. Dr. Libecap stressed the need to include
social science, particularly law and economics, with issues like
property rights, management, and allocation. Dr. Libecap agreed to write
a paragraph to include in the occasional paper. Dr. Ashanti Pyrtle is
going to draft specific opportunities in education to be included. Dr.
Wilson will take the lead with assistance from Drs. Futrell, Libecap and
Logan in revising it, and the draft will be submitted to the AC-ERE.

Dr. Leinen said in terms of NSF, it is important to identify specific
science questions that need to be addressed. What is it that they are
not doing? Dr. Logan said they started trying to identify specific
questions, but the group was concerned that if the questions were too
specific, they might exclude some communities. Dr. Leinen gave some
examples from the Cyberinfrastructure occasional paper. It is a
challenge to identify these questions. Dr. Logan said the concept of
coupling human and natural systems is not being done which is the first
strong point they hoped to make. Dr. Skole gave examples from the
workshop: recognition of need for water research to be spatialized
geographically in terms of coupled systems. There is no such thing as a
pure natural hydrological cycle anymore -- humans are now a part of this
cycle, and scientists are not fully addressing that. The consequences of
research approaches in coupling human and natural systems are not clear.
It is the scale of the research? What are the things that are missing?
The group discussed linking across scales and water rights and
allocation, water and economics, and livelihood systems.

Group 2 -- Cyberinfrastructure and Sensors

Dr. Anthony Michaels said the main discussion focused on the critical
missing "production phase" in the development of sensors. The challenge
is to get small companies engaged to build sensors for observing systems
on specs. To ensure success, this issue has to be looked at carefully
and early in a very generic sense. The interface between the science of
sensors (funded by NSF) and actually producing enough to populate the
observation network is missing. The group talked about the need for a
meeting or workshop to identify test cases and what it takes to get
small/big companies to understand the benefit of investing in this
transition work themselves with the opportunity to sell the sensors at
the end. The AC-ERE members that participated in the discussion felt
strongly that this issue needs to be solved for observing systems.

Dr. Leinen said there might be parallels with the seismological
community and the development of new seismometers and also with
incoherent scatter radar. It is important that the AC-ERE called this to
NSF's attention. ERE will report back to the AC-ERE at the next meeting
with details on how they are approaching this. Dr. Futrell said the
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is acquiring some experience in
this area and is currently in a prototyping stage, and will have to go
through this type of process for Homeland Security.

Dr. McKnight commented that from the perspective of the field
deployment, there is a large effort involved in terms of field time and
a fair amount of risk that scientists are taking. Things do not become
routine until 3-4 years into the project. This should be addressed at
the workshop as well. How do you encourage investment of time and effort
on something that may not work very well for the first several years?
Dr. Marshall said NASA has two network projects that have successfully
worked with this intermediate developed and they may have resources that
can be tapped by ERE.

The planned May 23-25, 2005 Scientific Observing Systems for
Environmental Solutions workshop in Sante Fe, NM, anticipates about 25
science participants. The workshop will look at the environmental
challenges faced by observing systems and try to link science questions
in grand environmental challenges and questions society asks. They also
hope to create linkages across observing systems. Materials on different
observing systems will be reviewed prior to the meeting to include large
MREFC facilities such as NEON, CLEANER, CUASI, EarthScope, LTER, JGOFS
and etc. A matrix of questions will be developed and they will look at
the commonalities and crosscutting issues such as data collection, CI,
education, and social sciences. Education, outreach and diversity will
be touched on several times through the meeting. The products that will
result from the workshop include: a community meeting with a summary
report (on the web), an occasional paper with recommendations to NSF,
and an overview document/glossy publication that clearly expresses the
value of observing systems for addressing environmental questions in
service to society.

The AC-ERE recommended that someone from the social sciences community
be invited to participate. Dr. Libecap will provide some suggestions.
Dr. Michaels will email the draft agenda and list of invited persons to
the AC-ERE members.

Dr. Skole said there are broad issues relevant to this workshop:

1)  Dr. Bement had asked the question: How do you balance the
    development of new sensor/sensor network and deploying
    them/maintaining them vs. creating new ones/R&D vs. funding
    fundamental science? How to maintain the balance should be explicit.
    In other agencies this has been difficult. Dr. Michaels said ocean
    sciences has had some success with research ships and agreed that
    the AC-ERE should provide some input back to Dr. Bement, perhaps at
    a future meeting.

2)  How do you deal with massively distributed open data services and
    data systems? In particular, how does one maintain openness and
    security at the same time? Backups in the traditional mode are not
    feasible, but it is critical if data is lost. Scientific operating
    systems don't exist (like Oracle, MS) which pushes limits for
    security and manageability.

3)  How do we begin to think about linking sensors and virtual reality,
    particularly in a visualization mode? There is potential for
    outreach and education.

4)  There is a need to link environmental infrastructure and technical
    capacity.

Dr. Leinen noted Dr. Skole's questions were wonderful. Cybersecurity,
sensors, and virtual reality are issues where the AC-ERE may want to
invite a program officer from the CISE Directorate to share what is
being funded and what issues they are trying to solve to start a dialog
with CISE. Dr. Lichter added that the National Research Council, Council
of Sciences Roundtable had issued a report on computers and
communication that might be helpful to look at.

Group 3 -- Diversity Workshop

Dr. Ellen Kabat-Lensch led the Education, Communication and Diversity
Task Group. It was suggested that the Diversity Workshop be held in
conjunction with the DELESE Workshop July 6-8, 2005. The focus of the
workshop will be on how environmental sciences can be used to draw
diversity into the sciences and attendees will include groups from K-12,
undergrad/community colleges, informal education, and teachers. Small
group sessions will be conducted to identify strategies and successful
and transferable models that can be used. Prior to the conference,
principal investigators that have been funded for diversity activities
in the environmental sciences will be contacted with three questions:
What did you propose to do? How did you do it? How do you know you did
it? The results of this survey will be incorporated into a living
document. Dr. Lichter said additional questions might include: What
exists? What is known to be effective and how do you know it is? What is
needed? What is NSF's role? The outcome of the workshop would be a
report (or web portal as a resource) that would list continuing research
on what exists, and some way to assess how good it is. Also might want
to consider an occasional paper. About 30 people, including social
scientists, would attend the workshop. Dr. Kabat-Lensch asked for
contributions/participation from anyone in the committee and said they
are open to recommendations of who should be invited to participate.

The AC-ERE commented that NSF guidance/suggestions related to broader
impacts for environmental projects would be helpful. They also talked
about the need to do more as an advisory committee to address the issue
of diversity. The group suggested that the workshop, planned for the
summer of 2005, instead be made into a planning session to ensure that
the workshop is a success. This would allow more time for the necessary
background work to be completed. They also discussed using a contractor
to help gather data. One member mentioned the Minority Environmental
Learning Diversity Initiative will be having a major conference at the
end of August at the University of Michigan and encouraged the AC-ERE to
interface with this group as well. Dorsetta Taylor is the contact.

## Additional Topics for Plenary Discussion

[Communicating Science to the Public]{.underline}. Dr. Michaels said he
had a conversation with Dr. Bement on how to educate the public on
science and the value of science. One of the Wrigley Institute's board
members is from a big advertising agency. An idea proposed was to get ad
executives together and ask their advice on how they would communicate
science to the general public in a brain storming session with Dr.
Bement. Dr. McKnight said it might also be an opportunity to involve
some of the scientific professional societies. The challenge will be to
get actionable suggestions out of the meeting. Dr. Michaels clarified
that this would be a pro-bono meeting and the desired outcome would be
to capture some of the strategies that underlie the process of
communicating science/images to the public.

[Status of Proposed Occasional Papers.]{.underline} Dr. Libecap offered
to revisit the issue of **Behavior, Economics, and the Environment** and
review what the AC-ERE has already done/discussed. A panel meeting was
held at the fall 2004 meeting. The AC-ERE talked about if they want to
keep the **Working on Teams and Managing Large Projects** topic on the
list. Dr. Logan agreed to take the lead. The **Synthesis and
Interdisciplinarity** topic is still in the early stages and the AC-ERE
will have an update at the next meeting.

[Ongoing AC-ERE topics]{.underline}. Topics to carry forward from the
last AC-ERE for more discussion include the importance of visualization
tools in proposal submissions, writing proposals in a new and current
way, and built/engineering environments.

[AC-ERE Membership.]{.underline} Dr. Logan noted that several AC members
would be rotating off. The AC-ERE wants to make sure there is transition
for these members and new members. Dr. Leinen said ERE is considering
increasing the size of the AC slightly. Efforts are made to help ensure
broad representation with participation from at least one federal
agency, one private sector company, and the various disciplines involved
in environmental research. It was suggested that an AC-ERE member be
selected from the environmental consulting area as well as someone who
can help provide more input in education and diversity.

## ERE Issues for Discussion with the Deputy Director

Dr. Skole agreed to provide an overview of the ERE AC discussions.
Additional questions the AC-ERE would like to pose include:

-   What is the feedback on the "Pathways to the Future" document?

-   Issue of sensors and development effort

-   How might the new House and Senate Appropriations process impact
    things and what can the AC-ERE do to help?

-   Congress zeroed budgets for Science and Technology Centers (STCs).
    Why?

-   The current budget proposes funding shifts to the Dept. of Education
    for some fundamental research. What would implications be if this
    does carry through?

-   What are NSF insights on what appears to be an emerging tension at
    NSF between the blending of societal applications (Criterion 2) with
    pure research? How might things change over the next decade?

-   To what degree can policy implications be made from NSF research?

-   Pleased they are taking on Foundation-wide synthesis of CI but
    caution that this evolving together.

## Office of the Director Guidance and Meeting with Joseph Bordogna, Deputy Director

Dr. Skole welcomed Dr. Bordogna and welcomed any guidance he could offer
for ways the AC-ERE can support the NSF more. Dr. Bordogna shared some
of the things NSF is doing in view of the times. He shared excerpts from
the book "Science: The Endless Frontier" by Vannevar Bush which was a
basis for forming the NSF. Basic scientific research is basic science
capital; science cannot like unto itself alone. Commitment should be 5
years or more for basic research. NSF knows from experience that if they
stay true to these things, they can really do research at the frontier.
Dr. Bordogna also referenced the 1967 essays "Science is not Enough" by
the same author.

Dr. Bordogna said the *Pathways to the Future* document is well received
by senior management at NSF and he congratulated the group on an
excellent document that can help NSF make choices with their current
budget constraints. Coupled Natural and Human Systems is a strong theme.

Dr. Bordogna talked about the need for integrative strategies to develop
capital, integrate research and education, and promote partnerships. The
National Science and Technology Council is organized to help promote
interagency collaborations. Dr. Bordogna briefly reviewed key elements
in the sources and documents that NSF uses as guidance: The Office of
Management and Budget/Office of Science Technology and Policy FY2005 R&D
guidance areas; NSF's "Fulfilling the Promise" (NSB 03-151) publication
with responds to the Authorization Bill calling for doubling of the NSF
budget; NSF's R&D Investment Criteria; the President's Management
Agenda; and NSF Priority Areas. Specific elements in these sources were
listed in the slide presentation. Dr. Bordogna shared this with the
AC-ERE to demonstrate the multifaceted issues that NSF works with and
argues for on a daily basis.

Dr. Skole gave a broad overview of the AC-ERE discussions and
activities. He suggested this might be the age of the environment
(commenting on Rita Colwell's "Age of Biology"). The world is also being
pushed to live in the age of environmental information and science
supported decision-making. The AC-ERE has worked to help develop the new
ERE program at NSF as part of a four-step process: 1) Defining
vision/outlook, 2) defining strategy, 3) designing the architecture, and
4) then establishing the management. This AC has been extraordinary in
putting those ideas behind them and thinking of vision and strategy.
Publications produced from the group include the 10-year vision document
*"Complex Environmental Systems: Synthesis for Earth, Life, and Society
in the 21^st^ Century,"* and the strategy document "*Complex
Environmental Systems: Pathways for the Future.*" The AC-ERE is now
working on three initiatives: 1) water in terms of complex environmental
systems, to include a report of a major community workshop last fall and
an occasional paper. 2) A new workshop, report, and occasional paper on
Scientific Observatories for Environmental Science, which will look at
NSF's new initiatives and identify crosscutting issues. 3) The AC-ERE is
starting work in the area of workforce and diversity with a workshop and
assessment effort planned to provide recommendations to NSF in this
area. The AC-ERE discussed science and society and the mechanisms and
means by which the taxpayer can understand and benefit from science and
education. He informed that the group saw a film by NSF-funded Mark
Shelley called *Strange Days on Planet Earth.*

Introductions were made and then the AC-ERE members led with questions
for Dr. Bordogna:

-   What is the impact of the new House and Senate Appropriation
    Committees on NSF and how does NSF differentiate itself from the
    other agencies? Dr. Bordogna said being associated with Veterans
    Affairs and Housing has been a barrier in the past. The new
    committee structure should be helpful, but it is hoped that it will
    not result in competing for budgets between NASA and NSF. The
    agencies need to partner and push for increased budgets for science
    overall. With a new committee and new people, NSF also has to work
    to build new relationships. This is positive for the NSF.

-   Large Center-scale activities is one tool to get research done. The
    AC-ERE members have noted with dismay that Congress has cut funding
    for some of the Centers. How can the AC-ERE help find the right role
    for Centers and where does NSF fit in? Dr. Bordogna said there has
    not been a Centers Policy for senior management although there are
    certain criteria that Centers must meet, including
    cross-disciplinary research and researches that can help create a
    paradigm shift. Current centers that appear discipline-based operate
    differently than pure disciplined-based centers did years ago. NSF
    wants to ensure that funding is for frontier research, not just
    filling in the knowledge base. Centers should result in developing a
    workforce and intellectual capital. NSF is robust on those
    principles and is trying to ease out centers that do not fall under
    the general principles. Money spent on education and research should
    be seen as an investment. NSF is a research and education agency and
    centers do that in glorious form. Others that are called "Centers"
    may not.

-   A lot of environmental research will inherently have some policy
    implications. On the one hand, it may be a great opportunity to link
    policy with actual research, but on the other hand, policy might be
    controversial and stray from basic research. Is there guidance on
    how to handle policy implications that come out of research? Dr.
    Bordogna said that the American people have given NSF and academia
    carte blanche to move in research directions that might be
    questionable (on the frontier). Academe is the knowledge entity that
    creates knowledge, integrates it and transfers it. Government is the
    enabler. NSF represents brand, merit, and quality -- powerful
    things. The best way for NSF to influence policy is to get the facts
    and put them into the system. The "nuggets" of quality research that
    is being done help do this. NSF should not get entangled with the
    political end of this process.

-   As the AC-ERE understands the President's budget, the proposal is
    that NSF's role in education is changing with much more focus on
    research and much less on support for implementation, which would
    shift more strongly toward the Department of Education. What are the
    implications for this if the budget is approved? Dr. Bordogna said
    NSF finds out what works and DOE implements it. The processes are
    very different (merit review, frontier research). NSF has asked EHR
    to identify "big things that work" and to look back at how/why
    things were formed to include successes like LSAMP with 400K
    students affected by the program. NSF will respond by demonstrating
    what really works and how we build on it, which starts to define a
    new relationship.

The AC-ERE thanked Dr. Bordogna for his continuing leadership with NSF
and the scientific enterprise. Dr. Skole thanked Dr. Bordogna for
meeting with the AC-ERE. Dr. Bordogna thanked the AC members for helping
to inform the NSF.

## Working Lunch: Overview of Environmental Molecular Sciences Institutes (EMSI)

Katharine Covert, Program Director, Division of Chemistry/MPS, provided
an overview of the EMSI program. The EMSI program is the showcase in
Chemistry for environmental chemistry research. The EMSI program has
also been an explicit partnership with the Department of Energy. These
are small institutes but they are expected to have very active outreach
programs. The program was started in FY98 and runs every other year.
Currently 7 EMSIs are funded across the US, each with a distinct
technical focus. Dr. Covert shared a few examples of projects from the
centers to demonstrate the diversity of the program.

Dr. Covert summarized that EMSI is supporting superb environmental
molecular science and building partnerships between academe and national
labs. They are hosting creative outreach programs to K-12, community
colleges, science journalists and the public. Upcoming events for EMSI
include a meeting at NSF August 26-27, 2005 with PIs and a symposium at
the American Chemical Society meeting August 28-Sept 1, 2005 with a
discussion of Research, Education, and Outreach in the NSF/DOE
Environmental Molecular Science Institutes. Future challenges for EMSI
include securing funding for an increasing interdisciplinary program.
Funding is always a challenge and raises questions about award size and
duration. EMSIs are larger than the typical PI award, but do not have as
much funding as big Centers. Should they think about changing the
funding level/duration for the EMSIs? Advice from the AC-ERE was
welcome.

The AC-ERE said the EMSIs have been productive and have worked to get
researchers together. Dr. Covert said there should be a strong review
process to ensure that the right people from the disciplines are
engaged. The challenge is in putting together the panels for review. Dr.
Leinen said that ERE could use more advice on who should be involved in
the review process and biology is showing up more and more in the EMSI
program's projects. Dr. Futrell said the national laboratories value the
interaction with the EMSI program and it has been a great success in
coupling research and education into an applied mission agency.

The AC-ERE talked about access to national laboratories. Many
investigators could do more if they had access to these types of
facilities. Dr. Covert said that CHE is a program that provides
supplements to students and faculty to use these unique facilities
through an arrangement with NIST. It was suggested that NSF look at ways
to facilitate collaboration between EMSIs and these facilities as a
place to start.

There are many examples where science is being integrated into K-12 and
undergraduate curriculum as a result of the EMSI program. Every annual
report provides examples of revisions to existing curriculum and new
course development (i.e. in environmental molecular science). The FY04
solicitation received 30 proposals and NSF expects to fund 1 or 2,
possibly 3. Each involves on average 10 people. Many are
multi-institutional. Dr. Covert was asked what NSF does to follow-up on
the collaborations proposed to see if they continue and the distribution
among disciplines is balanced. She said the different kinds of
collaborations take time to build and the science changes over the five
years. They are trying to create a structure within EMSIs that is
flexible enough to persist through this. Dr. Leinen said large projects
at NSF go to a review board that looks to see that budgets support
issues related to diversity to assess if it might be marginalization.
Dr. Covert said NSF also conducts a site visit in the third year of the
EMSI before determining funding/renewal.

## National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON)

Bruce Hayden, PI, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of
VA, said the NEON project has been in discussion for seven years. It has
just completed its first 6 months of funding. Dr. Hayden's presentation
showed the stages for NEON project formation, why NEON is needed, and
how it will be transformational. NEON will enable new science. The
vision for NEON is to provide the capacity to forecast future states of
ecological systems for the advancement of science and the benefit of
society. The vision from the NEON Design Committee and the NEON mission
were also shared. The schedule is to complete the project in 21 months.
It was started in September 2004. The NEON program office was
established. The project has to be incorporated to run NEON by January
2006. A Project Execution Plan is due June 2006 and will be provided to
Congress. About 160 people were selected to participate in committees. A
chart showed the NCC and Project Structure. Committees were also
established to include National Network Design; Science and Human
Dimensions; Education; Facilities and Infrastructure; and Consortium
Development. The formal design process includes engineering/design
specifications balanced with financial goals/limitations and science
requirements/goals. NEON is a partnership between NSF and the National
Network Design Committee. Dr. Hayden talked about the plans for
achieving the goals in the design process. The project has an extensive
traceability matrix (with 1400 rows) but, at the detail project level,
they expect 20,000 plus rows. The first meeting had a thematic focus,
the second an instrument focus, and the planned June meeting will have
an integration focus.

The NEON project office has been established at the American Institute
of Biological Sciences (AIBS). The front end of the business is a very
detailed process that requires that you move quickly and the AIBS
structure greatly facilities the ability to hire people quickly. Dr.
Hayden provided details on the complexity of setting up such a
large-scale process and forming the corporation. He provided details and
summarized the accomplishments of the two meetings held so far. Details
on the infrastructure issues were shown.

The next meeting will look at the number of observatories and where they
will be and the reference design will be developed this fall. NEON will
occupy large pieces of the landscape and should be integrated with all
levels of education. Platforms may be from urban to wild ecological
gradients. A second model focuses on water-related landscape units and
might be able to be dovetailed with urban to wild. They use a variety of
methods/models to aid in decision-making process.

Dr. Hayden said he is working to present NEON to many groups to get buy
in. The AC-ERE asked questions about the process for identifying the
science questions NEON will address, the regions selected, and how NEON
will fit in with other networks.

Dr. Skole thanked Dr. Hayden for his presentation.

## Additional Discussion of Topics Identified

The AC-ERE discussed additional topics that had been identified.

[How to reframe and move the economics and environment occasional
paper.]{.underline} Dr. Libecap agreed to take the lead and start by
reviewing what the AC-ERE has done in the past. Dr. Skole said the
occasional paper is a mechanism to provide a document to NSF and outside
NSF on what really matters in a particular research area. The document
should identify key important areas where the community could be engaged
in a dialog. For the next meeting, Dr. Libecap will prepare a working
outline/discussion draft and then the AC-ERE can discuss what further
action should be taken, specifically in terms of making recommendations
to the NSF. It was noted that David Lightfoot, the new SBE AD will be at
NSF by October and it might be a good opportunity to engage him and get
SBE input.

[Location for next AC-ERE meeting.]{.underline} Although the group
talked about holding the meeting at NCAR in Colorado, if held at NSF,
the new ADs for BIO and SBE could be invited in addition to having the
NSF Director participate. The AC-ERE supported this idea.

[Incorporating more visualization in proposals and in reporting and
progress reports for research projects.]{.underline} The AC-ERE wanted
to encourage NSF to explore ways to incorporate more graphics/videos in
research proposals and progress reports. Questions rose including:

-   How can NSF ensure that color graphics will be printed in color?

-   Can video clips be included in proposals?

-   Is there enough bandwidth to do this?

-   Can PowerPoint templates be established to help present research
    "nuggets"?

Dr. Campbell said there could be links in proposals but reviewers are
not required to view the links. Issues of equity and fairness also come
up (how long can it be? Can everyone have the same access to
technology?). It might be possible to offer something on an optional
basis. The AC-ERE suggested that the annual progress reports might be
the first place to try this or prototype with a few ERE proposals. Dr.
Meacham said that currently some reviewers click on links, others do
not. It may erode the reviewer pool if it became required. There is a
lot of potential to explore new things even with the Divisions. One
problem with links is that they tend to go away over time so there would
no longer be an historic record. The AC-ERE agreed to include a
recommendation in their letter to Dr. Bement to experiment and explore
ways of presenting visual data in NSF reports. Examples could be
included on the AC-ERE web site.

[Discussion of NEON Presentation.]{.underline} The AC-ERE talked about
the presentation they heard on NEON. They were concerned that the
science questions had not been formulated or articulated yet. The
presentation was focused on the process. The science questions need to
reflect the need for long-term measurements. They suggested asking for
routine updates on NEON at the AC-ERE meetings where they can further
explore the science questions and the design features without as much
focus on the process. The group was reminded that NEON has only started
meeting in January 2005. The presentation was "true to the process" but
there are concerns about being so far down the line (footprints of the
observing system) without having the science questions up front.

The NEON program manager, Elizabeth Blood, joined the AC-ERE to respond
to their concerns. She said that there are a number of very good science
questions in all of the historic NEON documents. The NSA also looked at
environmental grand challenges and decided NEON was the appropriate
platform. They selected six of those issues (topics that make up
subcommittees) and have been working on going from these vary large
questions related to biodiversity and invasive species to a more
detailed science questions. NEON has been structured in terms of
planning and the design process is to go from the science to the
infrastructure. All platforms and designs flow from science questions.
For future presentations on NEON, they could provide examples of the
science questions with 3 or 4 sub questions right after the vision
statement. She thanked the AC-ERE for providing feedback and let them
know that the team will be working to improve the presentation. She also
noted that within each subcommittee, there is at least one social
scientist to help address questions on a national scale. There are also
several cross-cutting observing systems activities they are involved in.
Social Sciences, Education, and Forecasting are three issues that are
important in all observing systems.

## Wrap-up and Next Meeting Plans

Dr. Skole summarized the action items.

ACTION ITEMS SUMMARY

1)  Water occasional paper finalization (John Wilson)

2)  Diversity Workshop (Ellen Kabat-Lensch point of contact )

3)  Observatories Initiative Workshop and follow on documents (Anthony
    Michaels)

4)  Pro-bono ad forum (Anthony Michaels)

5)  Letter to Dr. Bement (Dr. Skole)

Dr. Skole noted it was his last meeting as chair and it has been an
extreme pleasure to be of service to NSF. Because of the AC-ERE members'
hard work, the group has been able to accomplish a lot. He thanked NSF
staff Mary Mosley, Susan Henson, Melissa Lane, Robyn Smyth, and David
Campbell for their hard work and said the NSF ERE Working Group has been
spectacular. He thanked Dave Campbell, Marge Cavanaugh, and Dr. Leinen.

Dr. Skole turned the meeting over to the new chair Anthony Michaels. The
AC-ERE and Dr. Leinen thanked

Dr. Skole for his leadership.

Dr. Michaels announced that the next AC-ERE meeting would be held on
October 19-20, 2005 and potential agenda topics include:

-   Have follow-up on observing systems (i.e. panel) with NEON, OOI,
    ORION

-   Have electronic approval of Water Occasional Paper by summer. The
    Water Report will be released around the same time. In the fall have
    a brief update and perhaps talk about next issues.

-   Diversity Workshop update -- status of planning efforts

-   Touch on communication of science issue

-   Health of the young scientists in the community as it comes through
    -- perhaps talk in the context of observing systems.

-   Discussion of balance between new infrastructure, operations, and
    core science (response to Dr. Bement's question).

-   Other issues: Leadership, forecasting and human health issues -- may
    evolve

The AC-ERE talked about having the October meeting at NSF instead of
NCAR as originally planned.

Other meeting dates are April 12-13, 2006 and October 18-19, 2006. Dr.
Leinen said there are 7 liaisons from NSF advisory committees on the
AC-ERE with terms expiring December 2005. She invited recommendations
from the AC-ERE members. Dr. Leinen presented Dr. Skole with a plaque
for his service on the AC-ERE.

With no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 3:35 p.m.

**April 13-14 AC-ERE Meeting Action Items**

-   Dr. Libecap noted the AC-ERE water occasional paper was missing
    reference to economics or other social sciences. Dr. Futrell
    requested that he provide language to be included and forward to
    her. Dr. Ashanti Pyrtle is going to draft specific opportunities in
    education to include.

-   Dr. Wilson will take the lead on the occasional paper on water with
    assistance from Drs. Futrell, Libecap and Logan and then the revised
    draft will be submitted to the AC-ERE.

-   ERE will report back to the AC-ERE at the next meeting with how they
    are approaching the issue of sensor production for observing
    networks.

-   Cybersecurity, sensors, and virtual reality are issues where the
    AC-ERE may want to invite a program officer from the CISE
    Directorate to share what is being funded and what issues they are
    trying to solve to start a dialog with CISE.

-   The AC-ERE suggested presentations on NEON, OOI, and ORION at the
    next meeting.