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

**April 14-15, 2004**

#### National Science Foundation

**Arlington, VA**

**MEETING SUMMARY**

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

**Dr. David Skole**, **Chair**, Basic Science and Remote Sensing
Initiative, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI **Dr. Joan
Brennecke,** Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Notre
Dame, Notre Dame, IN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# The ninth meeting of the Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education (AC-ERE) was held April 14-15, 2004 at the National Science Foundation in Arlington, Virginia.

# Wednesday, April 14, 2004

## Welcome and Introductions

Dr. David Skole, Chairman, called the meeting to order and welcomed the
following new members: Dr. Deborah Estrin (AC-CISE representative), Dr.
Ellen Kabat-Lensch, and Dr. Ashanti Pyrtle. He reviewed the agenda and
listed the following meeting goals:

-   Review the Committee of Visitors (COV) report on Biocomplexity in
    the Environment (BE),

-   Discuss future development of occasional papers and other projects,

-   Participate in task group meetings, and

-   Engage in a panel discussion on Integrating Observing Systems for
    Complex Environmental Systems.

## Brief Overview of the ERE Portfolio 

Dr. Marge Cavanaugh, Staff Associate for the Environment and Chair,
Working Group on Environmental Research and Education (WG-ERE),
described the origin of the AC-ERE. In 2000, the National Science Board
(NSB) issued a report advising NSF to focus more activities and funds on
the environment and to establish the Advisory Committee on Environmental
Education and Research (AC-ERE). In that year, approximately \$600 M was
spent on Environmental Research and Education (ERE). This has grown to
approximately \$1 Billion in FY 2004, nearly 20 percent of NSF's total
budget. Approximately one-half of the ERE budget is housed in the
Directorate for Geosciences (GEO) and about one-fourth is housed in the
Directorate for Biosciences (BIO).

The Biocomplexity in the Environment (BE) Initiative, which was created
as a result of NSF's focus on the environment, has encouraged
interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary programs, and has become a
model for other interdisciplinary programs across NSF. The AC-ERE
report, *Complex Environmental System: Synthesis for Earth, Life, and
Society in the 21^st^ Century; a 10-year Outlook for NS (CES report),*
outlined directions to meet the challenge of expanding environmental
science and engineering problems and opportunities. The report
recommended focus on:

1.  Coupled natural and human systems (with an emphasis on integrating
    social sciences)

2.  Coupled bio/physical systems (emphasis on climate, geosciences, and
    ecosystems)

3.  People and technology (related to engineering, technical solutions,
    and social sciences)

4.  Infrastructure/technical capacity (for example, Long Term
    Environmental Research (LTER), National Center for Atmospheric
    Research (NCAR), sensor technology)

5.  Environmental education and workforce (for example, Integrative
    Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT), Advanced
    Technological Education (ATE), Digital Library, and Diversity).

The five NSF program grant areas in BE are Dynamics of Coupled Natural
and Human Systems (CNH); Coupled Biogeochemical Cycles (CBC);
Genome-enabled Environmental Science and Engineering (GEN-EN);
Instrumentation Development for Environmental Activities (IDEA); and
Materials Use: Science, Engineering, and Society (MUSES). Thirty grants
totaling \$32 M were awarded in those programs in FY 2003. This
committee has continued to support a leadership role by the BE
Initiative.

NSF is currently in the early implementation stage of the
recommendations made in the ERE report. Of particular interest are:
environmental synthesis (water research, and supportive infrastructure,
such as, sensor networks, integrated observing systems, and
cyberinfrastructure) and environmental science and engineering
education, particularly in support of building a diverse workforce.
Consistent with the *CES* report, these topics link social, natural, and
physical systems and require study by the combined efforts of many
disciplines. Dr. Cavanaugh encouraged the AC-ERE to continue its work on
water research in order to advise NSF about how to focus efforts in this
area.

The committee discussed institutionalizing a process for
interdisciplinary planning. They said cyberinfrastructure should be
concerned about software and middleware, as well as hardware.
Environmental cyberinfrastructure (ECI) would be a good test bed for
other areas. The earlier ECI workshop report led to the AC-ERE's
occasional paper on cyberinfrastructure, which has sparked some thoughts
on environment-specific research. Dr. Estrin was asked to look into this
and report to the committee about progress in this area**.**

## Primer on the NSF Budget Process 

Marty Rubenstein, NSF Budget Office, described the annual process of the
budget allocations and said the Budget Office works on three budgets at
the same time. Currently, they are completing the allocations and
spending for FY 2004; the budget for FY 2005 has been presented to
Congress; and the budget for FY 2006 is in the planning stage. The
Budget Office leads the NSF process and assembles the request. The
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) makes changes and recommendations
and forwards the President's budget request to Congress. NSF has an
opportunity to appeal changes made by OMB. Congress reviews the budget,
makes further recommendations and returns it to the NSF. A revised plan
is developed. This process takes about one year to complete.

Budget requests are the result of input by the directorates and meetings
of working groups, staff, advisory committees, and workshops. The
National Science Board (NSB), Senior Management, Assistant Directors,
the OMB, the OSTP/NSTC and Congress put the policy and strategic
direction in place. Performance is measured and evaluated by Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) documents, annual reports, Committee
of Visitor (COV) reports, and the Advisory Committee for GPRA.

## Committee for Visitors (COV) on Biocomplexity in the Environment

Dr. Elizabeth Kelly, Co-Chair, Committee of Visitors, said their charge
was to evaluate the integrity and efficiency of the review and award
processes and management of the BE Initiative. They used a sample of 150
proposals (awarded and declined), selected proportionally from each of
the five topic areas. The report consisted of their findings and
recommendations, the subsequent outcomes as they applied to NSF's
strategic goals, and NSF's response. Their report is summarized below:

-   The reviewers were excellent but the COV was concerned that the
    reviewer pool may be too small and needs to increase its diversity.
    NSF agreed and suggested expanding the reviewer pool by looking into
    relevant programs such as CAREER, IGERT, and ADVANCE.

-   Criterion 2 (related to diversity and service to society) was often
    given only cursory attention in the write-ups, so the COV
    recommended providing a template and some examples for mail
    reviewers and panelists.

-   The COV was in unanimous agreement that the BE competition has
    played a large role in supporting interdisciplinary research and was
    strong in integrating research and education and social and physical
    sciences, but has not yet reached a full level of collaboration. The
    COV recommended that in order to encourage social scientists to
    apply to this program, qualitative methods as well as quantitative
    methods should be included for evaluating proposals. NSF respected
    this recommendation and will work with the community on how to
    proceed.

-   The COV recommended an improved submission form for collaborative
    proposals. NSF agreed and said that they had already proposed a new
    form.

-   The WG-ERE and BE staff is doing excellent work, but they have a
    heavy workload, which is complicated by the budgeting process for
    multi-divisional awards, and need more support. NSF responded that
    they recognize the problem, but with limited funding, it may be
    difficult to increase staff.

-   The COV is concerned with the future of BE because the Priority Area
    ends in FY 2005. The time frame for the accomplishments of
    interdisciplinary research is insufficient.

In the discussion that followed, the AC-ERE commended the COV report.
Dr. McKnight questioned why some highly rated proposals were not funded
and expressed concern that budget constraints may restrict
interdisciplinary projects. All agreed that there is a problem in
encouraging the reviewers to pay attention to Criterion 2. Dr. Lichter,
the representative from CEOSE, said that committee is of the same
opinion and he will encourage the cooperation of both CEOSE and the
AC-ERE to work together to make Criterion 2 more important to the
reviewers. The ACERE members concurred with the COV's concern that the
BE priority will be ending and strongly recommended some form of
continuation. The OMB and OSTP should be made aware of their concern.

Dr. Skole said the AC-ERE has the opportunity to respond to the COV
report and could stress particular recommendations, promote the
continuation of BE, and should also highlight recommendations that were
in the *CES* 10 year outlook. Dr. Cavanaugh said the COV report and any
response made by the AC-ERE would be posted on a website, but also
suggested that letters could be sent to Dr. Leinen or Dr. Arden Bement,
Acting Director of NSF, at any time. Dr. Skole suggested writing an
occasional paper on Biocomplexity.

The ACERE voted unanimously to accept the COV report.

## Orientation to Task Group Meetings

Dr. Skole charged the task groups to consider both tactical and
strategic agendas by assessing the status of past activities from
previous meetings, discussing ongoing activities, and suggesting some
new activities. He asked that the task groups look into what's missing
in their respective activities and add issues that have been mentioned,
such as the continuation of the BE priority. He gave some specific
instructions for discussion to each task group.

## Frontiers in Complex Environmental Systems: Consider the occasional papers already in the pipeline and make suggestions for others. 

-   Environmental Infrastructure and Technical Capacity: Discuss the
    water workshop and the possibility of occasional papers on water
    issues, and also on simulation and modeling and on sensors.

-   Education, Communication, and Diversity: Production of occasional
    papers and making presentations to professional societies and
    Minority Serving Institutions (MSI).

## The AC-ERE then separated into their respective task groups for the next hour.

## AC-ERE Task Group Reports

Following the breakout sessions, brief reports on each task group
meeting were presented.

**Frontiers in Complex Environmental Systems:** Dr. Logan, Chair, said
his group has set a deadline of May 30 for reaching a decision on which
occasional papers the task group wishes to pursue. They also considered
encouraging a workshop on the management of large projects. He suggested
that all workshop suggestions should be endorsed by the Education,
Communication, and Diversity task group. The group also discussed three
other possible topic areas: Materials (possibly green chemistry),
Biocomplexity, and Energy.

**Environmental Infrastructure and Technical Capacity:** Dr. Futrell,
Chair, said his group had a spirited discussion on a water workshop.
Since it is such a broad topic and so many workshops on water have
previously been held, it is important to find out what has already been
done. Although they did not discuss the other two topics on their agenda
(sensors, and simulation and modeling), they agreed that these are
important issues to pursue.

**Education, Communication, and Diversity:** Dr. Kabat-Lensch, Chair,
said the group discussed the following issues: (1) status of tenure
review paper. The survey is out and has a return date of May 1. They
hope to have a report for the October meeting; (2) the concept of
sponsoring a forum for professional societies has been deferred until
tomorrow; and (3) a workshop on Minority Serving Institutions. At the
October meeting, Dr. Lichter will provide more details concerning what
might be valuable in such a workshop.

Dr. Skole asked the group to postpone further discussion on the task
group reports until the next day in order to revisit the question of
writing a letter about the COV report. They should consider BE's future
evolution in the context of the challenges described in the *CES*
report. The inherent vulnerabilities of cross-directorate management
also need to be discussed.

## Discussion of ACERE Response to BE COV Report 

Dr. Michaels noted that the BE priority has been a successful model and
has effected changes around universities with regard to
interdisciplinary research. Dr. Logan agreed and said his students are
working at interfaces, but are faced with difficulties when they write
proposals because they are not addressing a single discipline. Dr.
Ashanti said she attended a CAREER awards forum and was cautioned not to
write multidisciplinary proposals. Young professors find it difficult to
become tenured when they are considered interdisciplinary.

NSF is making progress in handling interdisciplinary proposals because
of the Priority Areas. A suggestion was made to create a separate
directorate for BE, but then a unique group of reviewers would be
required, and it would dilute the funds available to the present
directorates. BE may end as an entity but the intellectual areas that it
has spawned will continue. The reviewer situation for interdisciplinary
proposals is problematic.

Dr. Cavanaugh noted that the Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO)
and the Directorate for Mathematics and Physical Sciences (MPS) have
created budget lines to accommodate interdisciplinary activities, and
that this helps with both sustained funding and attention to these
areas. Also, it is not accurate that BE is ending in FY 05. The FY 2005
budget request includes a request for continued support in FY 2006 and
FY 2007. This is an expression of intention by NSF and is based on
comments by the AC-ERE that 5 years wasn't long enough.

It was noted in discussion that the *CES* report offered a specific
10-year plan and it would be a good time for NSF to accept the issues
set forth in that document, such as water and environmental synthesis,
and possible create a Complex Environmental Systems program or an Office
of Environmental Research and Education. Many AC members supported the
idea of an Office and thought it would serve as a test-bed for
continuing in the direction of broadening and redefining disciplines. It
was suggested that the AC request information from NSF on how to create
an Office.

## Synthesis Panel: Integrating Observing Systems for Complex Environmental Systems

Dr. Michaels introduced the panel: Dr. Berrien Moore III, Dr. John Aber,
and Dr. Ronald Eguchi and said their presentations would focus on
observing systems in relation to the complex environmental systems and
in building connections. Many new systems are in place to gather
information on environmental issues.

**Carbon Cycle**

Dr. Moore said the carbon cycle is intensely monitored by the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA); however, it has less
commercial appeal than weather. In addition to the emissions of fossil
fuel burning, a strong El Nino has caused an increase in carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere. Emissions have increased from the 1980s to the 1990s.
TheCO~2~ concentration in ice cores is increasing and the projection is
high for the next 100 years. CO~2~ is more soluble in cold water than in
warm water.

The ARGO Float System primarily measures the salinity and temperature
but not the carbon content. Remote sensing is the key to measurement
because it can span time and space. NSF has been involved with Large
Basin Technology. The ocean carbon challenge is making instrumentation
that is affordable and can be distributed on a large scale. Terrestrial
measurement of CO~2~ is also being done.

Other monitoring devices are orbiting carbon observatories that measure
global carbon sources and sinks from space. Surface flux uncertainties
improve dramatically by using a satellite system. Other data collecting
devices are remote sensing aircraft; ocean remote sensing; and biomass
inventory. However, all the information must be collected and analyzed.
Up to now geo-referenced emissions inventories have been unavailable.
Other problems besides CO~2~ concentrations are species extinctions,
human population, and nitrogen. A Climate Change panel is studying the
mitigation and impact and will possibly integrate carbon models into the
climate models. In the ocean sampling, key measurements should be
dissolved inorganic carbon, but it would also be good to get some
measure of nitrogen and phosphorous.

#### Application of Remote Sensing Technology for Disaster Response

Dr. Eguchi spoke about the human connection in disaster. His company is
studying the use of remotely sensed data to create building inventory
development; damage detection algorithms for large earthquakes; and high
resolution of commercial satellite data. They are using remote sensing
to estimate amount of built areas versus non-built areas to determine
the role of building inventories in loss estimation and reduction and
for quantifying exposure and risk. The current approach is to get data
from the county tax assessor, use models from census or proxy-based
data, and create models using land use information. Each city has its
own footprint so they created a building height signature and then
created a graph. This helped integrate the total floor area for the city
for insurance purposes.

In order to detect damage from earthquakes, they create damage detection
maps using remote sensing. After the World Trade Center bombing, the use
of remote sensing was used to gather data. After the earthquake in
Turkey in 1999, they compared the ability to assess damage first by
flying over the area and second by using SAR imaging. They were able to
create a damage detection map using the remote sensing technique. It
proved to be more effective than visual techniques in gathering
important destruction data.

Dr. Eguchi said the big research challenges are in designing sensors
that have higher resolution and broader bandwidth. The focus should be
on first responders. Other possible uses suggested by the committee were
to use the data to measure refugee exodus and track their movement and
to look at the data from the bottom up and see where development is
taking place. Dr. Eguchi noted that combining remote sensing with GIS
would be useful.

Integrating Environmental Research and Measurements into Policy-Relevant
Prediction Systems

Dr. Aber focused his presentation on the use of remote sensing in
forests. He said our ecosystems are witnessing rapid changes. The
physiological responses are interactive and non-linear. There is much
complexity in the interaction of stressors and ecosystems, and land use
has changed over time. In order to understand this complexity, there are
six key requirements:

-   Address the identifiable, accessible, and relevant questions: What
    do we need to know? For example, in the Northeast Forests, we must
    identify their economic value in tourism, maple sugar, wood, their
    aesthetic and social values and the quantity and quality of water.

-   Provide an initial integrative system view, for example, an LTER
    project that uses site sampling to create models that generate
    hypotheses. Then do regional sampling to create regional databases.
    Enter the data collected into GIS in order to get regional
    predictions. Models are used as the core.

-   Create simple database models. Models have to open sourced and
    exchangeable, and provide interactions with measurements, and
    provide validation and not calibration.

-   Integrate remote sensing with GIS. An example he provided is the
    Airborne Visible Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS). It showed
    the prediction of production from Foliar nitrogen concentration. He
    said photosynthetic balance is the primary controller of carbon.

-   Provide a strong ground truth component.

-   Have long- term data sets for continuity.

## Discussion

In the discussion that followed, Dr. Moore commented that flux towers
are valuable, particularly if the areas around the towers are monitored.
Dr. Skole said that he does not expect to see geo-synchronous
high-resolution measurements in the near future. The committee asked
what science the AC-ERE should promote. Dr. Aber mentioned synthetic
structure models as a start. Many agencies make routine measurements but
the government would like to standardize them and instrumentation is
necessary to do that. It would require a national environmental
monitoring network. Traditionally, research has not been involved in
long-term measurements; it has just been operational.

Dr. Michaels noted that the National Ecological Observatory Network
(NEON), the Ocean Observing System, CLEANER, and CUASI are all emerging
now, and he would like to focus on preparing some action items as a
result of the presentation and subsequent discussion. Dr. Skole
presented the following items for consideration:

-   The ocean community's need for technological implementation of
    floating entities.

-   The need to drive operations by scientific questions

-   The need to think about end-to-end integrated observations and
    models (observations across scales).

-   Build an approach that is truly regionalized.

-   Stress the value of flux towers for long-term studies.

-   Think in terms of spatial and spectral equipment that would lead to
    science-driven needs for future observational data equipment.

Dr. Moore said what will emerge as a concern is availability of long-
term observations. We are facing problems in linkage to operational
agencies because there is a difference between their missions and
research needs. An AC member asked if there is a way for the group to
promote an interagency organization. Dr. Michaels said the group should
emphasize the need for sensors and NEON. The ACERE should stay focused
on recommendations to NSF. The Long Term Environmental Research (LTER)
project has been a test bed for NEON; long- term measurement was its
main purpose.

Dr. Leinen remarked that NASA and NSF regularly discuss observations.
Research wasn't initially identified as one of the Global Observations
Network priorities, but that has changed and there are discussions about
it in Congress and OMB. Many research budgets have been reduced, so the
scientific community has to fully engage the operational agencies and
the OMB or they could lose access to the data. However, NASA satellites
are involved in research and if there are storms and property loss is
exacerbated by lack of prediction then it will become more important.

Dr. Skole said there is an overlap between research requirements and
management and they are mutually reinforcing. If we clearly articulate
then we can get some synergy, but Dr. Leinen said there isn't enough
money available for all of the necessary observations. The AC can help
by providing advice about how to prioritize. It would be useful to have
an SBE representative at the next meeting to address the issue of
environmental drivers since they deal with survey instruments and census
data.

Dr. Leinen said that inventories of existing observatories have been
developed. The objective should be to first identify the sensors that
haven't been invented yet, review the inventory of existing
observations, and decide whether they are the right sensors for the
questions that we have. Dr. Skole says NSF has the capability to do this
because they have resources needed to support a workshop or study that
would have an impact on the Federal government in the area of
operational vs. research by producing a paper like the Atkins Report or
the environmental cyberinfrastructure report.

Dr. Leinen suggested focusing on the example Dr. Graedel had mentioned:
integrating social sciences databases and physical sciences databases
because it has not been done. There is a complete gap in social sciences
observations and NSF has been asked to close the gap because most of the
observation has been on detection, not on the drivers.

Dr. Collins said there should be a conceptual framework for this
integration and suggested enlisting people from NEON, CLEANER, and SBE
in order to synthesize on the front end. However, an AC member noted
that everyone has a different objective so we will be looking at drivers
and data sets that are different. It will be necessary to synthesize the
drivers and the objectives. There should be some collaboration of
Coupled Human Dynamics and NEON and it should be done early on in the
process so that population data, carbon data, and forest data can all be
integrated. Dr. Skole remarked that the social science theory is bigger
than the observational data, so we could assess the human drivers and
response and decide what environmental gaps need to be filled. It could
be the subject of an occasional paper.

Other suggestions for promoting integration included preparing a paper
summarizing all the suggestions given and asking the National Research
Council to start from there to identify the grand challenges associated
with observations. On the science side, it is important to include fine
scale data and not only very large data sets, gigabytes, supercomputers,
and large-scale storage. Also, there needs to be a way to access the
data and transmit to requestors. It could be put on the Internet so that
someone could compare their data with the data that comes from the
systems. Dr. Skole said he proposes digital scale modeling.

The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

***Thursday, April 15, 2004***

The meeting reconvened at 8:30 a.m.

## Status Report on NSF Budget and Environmental Programs

Dr. Leinen noted that the new Assistant Director of NSF, Dr. Arden
Bement, is a strong supporter of NSF's programs and that ERE is in a
unique position as an across-the-board NSF representative group.

##### Budget Update

The BE request for FY2005 is level at \$99.8M. Support for FY2006 and
FY2007 is requested at \$102M and \$104M, respectively. The ERE
portfolio for FY2005 is level. The Major Research Equipment and
Facilities Construction (MREFC) includes \$47.5M for EarthScope, \$12 M
for NEON, and \$41M for scientific ocean drilling vessels.

The NSF budget request included more funds for new staff, updated
computer systems, advances to e-jacket submission, and additional
funding for travel. The FY2005 request is moving slowly through
Congress. Both House and Senate hearings have been held, but because of
the budget deficit and defense issues, money is tight. Congress approves
and respects NSF, but they are challenged because of the economy and
defense issues.

The FY2006 budget preparation is in very early stages. There is a
convergence of AC-ERE's message and NSF's thinking. BE has fostered
important areas of multidisciplinary research and there has been an
impressive response from the community. Collaborations between the
social sciences and the natural sciences and engineering have not yet
achieved levels hoped for, but it is important for NSF to continue
support of interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary programs. The major
challenge is to expand those commitments. Many concerns that are being
brought up at this AC were discussed at the AD meeting that she had just
attended.

To ensure that the best of the BE research continues after FY2007, it is
important to plan its evolution. This will require input from the
AC-ERE. The same challenges are present at the universities: maintaining
the strength of the disciplines while encouraging interdisciplinary
research. If some descriptions of those organizational challenges and
the models developed could be put in writing it would be helpful.

A second budget concern is how to ensure that researchers have the next
generation of observation capabilities. The MREFC funding simply
provides the hardware for platforms. What is needed is integration
between systems, research ideas, hardware, and information. Smaller, but
still substantial, infrastructure is also necessary. The problem is to
first design them and then to get funding to operate them. The
operational cost for each year is estimated to be 10 percent of the
total construction cost. All of the directorates should be involved in
the planning and integration of the observing systems. Dr. Leinen asked
the group for suggestions regarding:

-   How to handle interdisciplinary proposals

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Expanding the reviewer pool to be more diverse

-   Obtaining additional staff to handle interdisciplinary proposals.

Highlights of the evolution of BE for FY 2006 are:

-   CNH and MUSES plan to continue as ongoing programs with specific
    solicitations.

-   The GEN-EN program may be integrated with other programs on
    environmental genomics.

-   IDEA is being incorporated into sensors and sensor network
    competition.

-   CBC will be defined as a distinct program, but publicized along with
    research opportunities on carbon and water cycles and
    biogeochemistry.

The topics being considered most strongly by the NSF ERE working group
in order to implement the goals set forward in the *CES* report are:

-   Environmental synthesis

-   Water in complex environmental systems (e.g., water for urban
    environments; water's transformations in the environment)

-   Interactions of earth, life, and society

-   Environmental simulation science and engineering

-   Observation by designs

-   Integrated environmental research and education.

## 

## Discussion

The *CES* report lists many more topics for implementation but NSF does
not have resources to work on all of them, certainly not at the same
time. What Dr. Leinen presented allows progress on many of the specific
issues. It is expected that OSTP and OMB will respond to the water issue
as a topic needing attention and there are discussions going on among
many directorates about water research.

Dr. Leinen noted that computer scientists and engineers talk about their
special role in observations, but it is important to integrate science
concepts into environmental cyberinfrastructure. She noted the unusual
nature of this AC because it is made up of many disciplines. A
suggestion for getting these communities to work together is to hold
workshops.

Dr. Logan commented that it would be enlightening to have a dialog
between NSF and universities on interdisciplinary research. In addition,
in large observational platforms, there is a need for both engineers and
scientists to be involved. Larry Clark, WGERE member, said that he
thinks that there is a sense of appreciation for the synergy between ENG
and the amalgamation of science into engineering projects, as well as
much collaboration between GEO and BIO and ENG.

Dr. Kelly asked Dr. Leinen if she envisions another priority area like
BE. Dr. Leinen said that at NSF, the core activities have not yet been
transformed to be both disciplinary and interdisciplinary, so the
challenge is to refine and encourage a different culture that is
seamless. We are already discussing, for example, how to integrate
sensors with other sensor programs. The culture of single disciplines is
antithetical to the science problems of the future. Dr. Skole said that
Dr. Leinen's comments are the essence of what the AC-ERE needs to
accomplish over the next year.

## Reports and Discussion of AC-ERE Projects and Topics from Task Group Reports

Dr. Skole said a major goal of the meeting is to develop an explicit
strategy for coalescing the vision of ERE and the success of BE into a
cohesive implemented program that sustains the community, science, and
NSF programs. The objective for AC-ERE should be to develop and
disseminate a strategic plan for implementation of *CES* and the
evolution of BE. The *CES* synthesis/outlook report frames a 10-year
agenda. Occasional papers provide briefings on priority areas. The COV
report provides lessons learned from the BE as a flagship prototype.
There are various community-building efforts to be made, including
workshops, support for leadership activities for projects with many
investigators, interdisciplinary research best practices, and various
outreach efforts.

Dr. Skole presented work plans and timelines for occasional papers on
water, synthesis, observing systems, simulation and models, sensors, and
environmental education; and workshops. His suggested schedule is:

-   June 2004: Workshop on Water; Economics Occasional Paper

-   July 2004: Water occasional paper; Synthesis occasional paper

-   August 2004: Workshop on Observing Systems

-   October 2004: Completion of draft for implementation document

-   December 2004: Publication of implementation document.

Dr. Skole said he envisions the implementation document to be about 10
pages long and to consist of three parts:

-   Part 1 should present the science and priority areas of *CES* based
    on synthesis as the mandate; and give a general overview, based on
    input from the *CES* report, occasional papers, and the BE COV. It
    should identify topics that can be integrated into core disciplines
    as well as ones that would require special support and would remain
    part of a focused effort in *CES*.

-   Part 2 should provide options for the management and
    institutionalization of the programs; for example, a discussion of
    the creation of an Office of Interdisciplinary Environmental
    Science; strengthening the WGERE by adding staff; and other models
    and options.

-   Part 3 should include ways to enhance and ensure excellence, build
    community, and create new interdisciplinary faculty positions.

(The above description was later revised to accommodate some of the
comments made in the group during the Discussion.)

Dr. Skole requested a draft outline within the next 6 weeks, to be
vetted by the Executive Committee and distributed to the entire ACERE.
He suggested having a summer meeting to draft the text in order to have
the final draft ready for the October meeting with vetting again in
December and roll-out in January.

Suggestions for additions or revisions to the planned document were:

-   Include interdisciplinary programs of various directorates as
    models; change the word "science" in Part 1 to "science and
    engineering"; and include diversity and workforce possibly as
    Part 4. (Others thought education should be in Part 1 or integrated
    throughout the document.)

-   Dr Logan agreed that the planned document would be comprehensive,
    but was concerned about the evolution of the BE priority area, since
    it emanated from an interdisciplinary program, and then is reverting
    to disciplines. His concern is that BE encompasses several
    disciplines, so how can it thrive with so many homes. He endorses
    the idea of an Office of Interdisciplinary Research.

-   Dr. Leinen suggested including "outcomes" in the document since they
    are important to NSF.

-   Dr. Lichter said that the word "options" should be underscored, and
    suggested including industry. Also instead of making education and
    diversity explicit, it should be integrated.

-   Dr. Graedel suggests putting Part 2 in the format of "scenarios".

Because of the discussion, some additions were made: Education and
Diversity was added as an explicit topic; Options/Sciences and Create
Models were added to Part 2; and Strategy and Nurturing were added to
Part 3.

The document will be directed to NSF, but should also be targeted to the
community to reinvigorate and remind them about the movement of the
program. It should work externally as well as internally at NSF.

## ERE Issues for Discussion with the Acting Director

The AC-ERE members identified some issues for discussion with Dr. Arden
Bement, Acting Director, NSF:

-   Inform and brief Dr. Bement about what the AC-ERE does

-   Integrating and linking observing systems should be driven by
    science questions

-   Interdisciplinary issues and their effect on the directorates

-   The role and future of community colleges

-   Cyberinfrastructure as it relates to environmental issues

-   Tenure possibilities for new faculty interested in doing
    interdisciplinary research

-   The problem of graduate students in interdisciplinary programs.

## O/D Guidance and Meeting with Arden Bement, Acting Director

Dr. Bement, Acting Director, thanked the AC-ERE for their service. He
spoke about the many research activities underway at NSF such as global
climate change, renewable resources, and green chemistry and of NSF's
good working relationship with industry and professional societies. He
said he was very impressed with the *CES* document and with the
diversity of backgrounds in the AC-ERE. The following issues were raised
for discussion with Dr. Bement:

-   Dr. Skole said one of the goals of the AC-ERE had been to produce
    the *CES* report and it had provided a broad agenda. Many of the
    topics raised are now being considered for implementation and the
    group is concerned about what the models are for managing
    interdisciplinary research across directorates. Also in the AC's
    panel on observing systems, the question was raised about how to
    include the science in creating the observing systems. Dr. Bement
    said he is very aware of the group's interests.

-   Dr. Bennecke said the committee would like to foster
    interdisciplinary research but NSF is not set up for it. She asked
    how it could be managed within the confines of NSF. Dr. Bement said
    that although the directorates are disciplinary, there are many
    possibilities for interdisciplinary research at the program level.
    The priority areas are intended to transform the core, but a
    transformation strategy is needed. He asked the AC-ERE to provide
    input for that. Also there is a fund proposed in the FY06 request
    for innovative research and for interdisciplinary research but it is
    not very well funded. There has been much discussion at NSF on the
    issue of interdisciplinary research. When the NSB approves a
    priority it is sustainable.

-   Dr. Michaels commented that BE has been an interesting pilot and has
    stimulated ideas in the core which are already migrating back into
    the disciplines, but then it becomes difficult to keep the priority
    as it is. He asked what the AC and the community can do go keep the
    research going. Dr. Bement said that NSF needs to integrate more
    across the directorates. Interdisciplinary projects are of special
    interest to him, and he is working with the ADs on the issue. He
    praised Dr. Leinen as being a most effective leader for the BE
    priority area. At a recent meeting with the ADs, the issue of
    cyberinfrastructure and the subject of science drivers was brought
    up. He said the AC-ERE had an opportunity to advise on how to
    structure the cyberinfrastructure into environmental research and
    education.

-   Dr. Prytle remarked that it is hard for the young scientists to
    foster and encourage interdisciplinary research. Dr. Bement said
    that it is essential for all that the interdisciplinary programs be
    based on strong disciplines. IGERT programs have been created to
    handle graduate programs that are not discipline-specific. Dr.
    Prytle responded that in order to do research that will be
    productive and result in grants and tenure, one has to concentrate
    on a single discipline. Interdisciplinary study becomes almost a
    handicap. She is concerned because young scientists can't get the
    big interdisciplinary awards, and there are no small ones. Dr.
    Bement said it is important to pay attention to the core and agreed
    that NSF needs to support more individual investigator grants and
    pay attention to untenured teachers and provide younger faculty
    opportunities to make the rank in tenure. However, we are beginning
    to see more individuals who are footed in more than one discipline.

Dr. Skole thanked Dr. Bement and said he will send him a letter
outlining the discussion points.

Dr. Logan said at his university they created a series of environmental
institutes across campus that have several focal points and a
representative from each. Dr. Skole said that is what the working groups
at NSF have done. Dr. Michaels suggested getting someone to make a
presentation about this that NSF could possibly distribute widely. An
NSF attendee to the meeting said the Council of Graduate Schools has
produced a summary of different types of interdisciplinary programs
across the universities and he will send Dr. Skole a copy.

## Working Lunch: Green Energy Production from Wastes Using Bacteria 

Dr. Logan spoke about hydrogen energy and making electricity, using
bacteria. Using microbial fuel cells (MFC), a device that uses bacteria
to oxidize organic matter and produce electricity, it is possible to
recover previously unavailable energy. This could make biohydrogen
production economically viable. Currently 7 percent of our electricity
is used for water and wastewater infrastructure. Food processing plants
produce a lot of waste.

In order to generate hydrogen, you have to use heat treatment. If you
don't keep a low pH, you don't get good results. The best substrates are
sugar-based. In batch tests, you can get 26 percent conversion and using
a continuous process can double it. There is great potential from large
food processing plants (up to \$10 K to \$.5 M per year in production).

Dr. Logan's research project is a result of a grant from NSF. He built a
large single compartment continuous flow MFC and showed that it could
generate power. If you pour wastewater into the system and add various
substrates you can increase power. Adding glucose increases the amount
of power recovered. There are economical considerations using industrial
wastewater. In the US, wastewater is free. It costs \$1K per
kilowatt-hour to build a power plant and the cost would be much less for
recovering wastewater. Wastewaters have high potential for producing
hydrogen for energy. Combining hydrogen and methane makes it even more
productive.

Dr. Skole presented Dr. Graedel with a certificate of appreciation
because he is rotating off the AC-ERE. He cited Dr. Graedel's many
important contributions to the committee.

## Reports and Discussion of AC-ERE Projects and Topics from Task Group Reports

**Environmental Infrastructure and Technical Capacity Task Group**

-   Dr. Futrell, Chair, reported on the progress of the *Workshop on
    Water and Complex Environmental Systems*. He has met with members of
    the Steering Committee and they asked for suggestions from the
    AC-ERE. The tentative workshop title is "Water, Crisis at the
    Interface of Human and Natural Systems", and it is scheduled for
    June 24-25. There will be five speakers in a two-day session to be
    followed by breakout sessions. Suggested topics for discussion are:
    Nanoscale and Microbial Interfaces; Interface Between Ecology and
    Hydrology; Watershed; Coastal Estuaries; and Social Dimensions (of
    the preceding topics). There will be 20 participants including
    AC-ERE members: Drs. Pyrtle, Skole, and Michaels. Dr. Michaels
    suggested another topic, the Human Aspect. Dr. Collins noted
    changing the word "Crisis" in the title to "Challenge" or
    "Opportunities". Dr. Lichter suggested including an educational
    dimension. Suggestions were also given for participants. All agreed
    that after the workshop, AC-ERE members would develop an occasional
    paper on Water as a Complex System. After further discussion about
    the date for the workshop, they suggested that the organizers may
    have to consider postponing the workshop until September and that
    the AC-ERE occasional paper would be developed in October.

-   Dr. Cavanaugh suggested that another way to promote their interest
    in the issue of water as a complex system is to write a letter to
    NSF. Dr. Skole agreed to write the letter to Dr. Bement and
    considered it a very important task that may impact the budget.

-   Dr. Futrell said they also discussed *sensors, simulation, and
    modeling* and the possibility of a workshop on the subject of
    observing systems. Dr. Leinen suggested talking to other
    directorates such as ENG and GEO about the idea. Dr. Skole said he
    prefers writing a paper on the subject first, and seeing if it
    evolves into a workshop. He asked Dr. Michaels and Dr. Estrin to
    write a "provocative" paper instead of a comprehensive occasional
    paper to other AC-ERE members.

##### 

##### Frontiers in Complex Environmental Systems

-   Dr. Logan, Chair, said Dr. Skole is going to write an occasional
    paper on Behavior, Economics and Environment.

-   During a discussion about a possible workshop on managing large
    projects, it was suggested that they contact the program managers in
    IGERT to get their input on training students to work on teams. Dr.
    Michaels suggested meeting with leadership experts to get guidance.
    Dr. Lichter noted that surveys of graduate students supported by the
    Pew Charitable Trusts and the Sloan Foundation revealed that
    graduate students don't get enough training in working in teams or
    in managing large projects. The group suggested having a one-day
    panel discussion with participants from IGERT and Science and
    Technology Centers (STCs) for AC-ERE. Dr. Michaels suggested
    interviewing some of the BE Principal Investigators (PI) to talk
    about their experiences. Dr. Cavanaugh remarked that there is a BE
    PI meeting scheduled for March 2005. It was decided to have further
    discussions at the October meeting.

##### Education, Communication, and Diversity

-   Dr. Kabat-Lensch, Chair, said that there was discussion of
    developing an occasional paper on Synthesis: Tenure Review to be
    ready for the October meeting. Dr. Collins said that there was a
    synthesis panel in Santa Barbara that he attended and also he gave a
    paper at the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on interdisciplinary
    programs at universities. NAS is informing the NRC on the subject.
    There is also a survey in progress that he and Dr. Michaels and Dr.
    Pfirman are sending to 120 Deans. The paper that resulted from the
    Santa Barbara meeting appeared in *Science*. Dr. Collins is
    currently working on a paper with the president of his university.

-   The second issue discussed was a workshop about minority programs.
    Dr. Lichter said that CEOSE may be interested in co-sponsoring a
    workshop, and suggested asking that committee to join in a
    discussion at the next meeting. Dr. Pyrtle remarked that the thrust
    of this program should be on graduate education, early faculty, and
    early career.

-   Another item under discussion was Materials on Best Practices for
    Informal Education and K-12 Outreach. The task group members were
    very interested in the topic, but didn't know how to obtain
    information. Dr. Kabat-Lensch said that her university is working
    with MIT to create a model for best practices. She offered to make a
    presentation about it at the next meeting. Dr. Pyrtle said that the
    Office of Polar Programs and ENG have workshops for minorities and
    women and encouraged having a workshop on interdisciplinary research
    for new investigators.

## Wrap-up and Next Meeting Plans

Dr. Skole announced that the next AC-ERE meeting would be held on
October 19-21, 2004. Suggested possible panel topics for the meeting are
Green Chemistry; Diversity; Managing Large Projects; and Sustainable
Technologies. After some discussion, it was decided that there would be
a panel on Diversity and the other topics would be deferred.

Dr. Skole presented a certificate of appreciation to Dr. Kelly who is
rotating off the committee. The meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m.

**Action Items**

-   Dr. Estrin will look into the progress on the cyberinfrastructure
    priority area with relation to software and middleware specific to
    environmental research and report back to the AC-ERE.

-   Prepare a response as an addendum to the BE COV report highlighting
    the importance of BE in light of their recommendations and the *CES
    10-year Outlook*. Per NSF policy, the response will be posted along
    with the BE COV report on the NSF ERE website.

-   Write an occasional paper on Biocomplexity.

-   Dr. Lichter will develop more concrete ideas for a possible workshop
    on MSIs and present it at the October meeting.

-   Get information from NSF on how new offices are created. This is
    related to the AC-ERE interest in having an Office of Environmental
    Research and Education created at NSF.

-   Promote a workshop among computer scientists, engineers, and
    environmentalists to integrate environmental science into
    cyberinfrastructure.

-   Dr. Skole will obtain a copy of a summary of different types of
    interdisciplinary programs across universities.

-   Dr. Skole plans to submit a proposal for a workshop on Water as a
    Complex System.

-   Dr. Skole will write a letter to Dr. Bement on many of the issues of
    concern to the AC-ERE including water as a complex system and the
    continuation of BE.

-   Managing large projects will be discussed in the Frontiers task
    group in October.

-   Dr. Michaels and Dr. Estrin will write a "provocative" paper on
    sensors, simulation, and modeling and circulate it among AC-ERE
    members.

-   Dr. Skole will write an occasional paper on Behavior, Economics, and
    Environment.

-   Dr. Kabat-Lensch will begin to develop an occasional paper on
    Synthesis: Tenure Review.

-   Include a panel on Diversity in the agenda for October AC-ERE
    meeting.