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

**April 28-30, 2004**

**National Science Foundation**

**Arlington, Virginia**

**MEETING SUMMARY**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Dr. Samuel Myers Jr.**, HHH Institute of Public Affairs, University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis, MI (CEOSE liaison)

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

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

**Dr. Cheryl Peach,** University of California at San Diego, Scripps
Institution of Oceanography, San Diego, CA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Ms. Judy Hayden,** Administrative Officer

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Dr. Pamela Stephens,** Section Head, Lower Atmosphere Research, ATM

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

**Dr. James Yoder**, Director, Division of Ocean Sciences

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

The Advisory Committee for Geosciences (AC/GEO) held its spring meeting
April 28-30, 2004 at the National Science Foundation in Arlington,
Virginia. Before the meeting, members had an opportunity to attend a
symposium on "Perspectives on Abrupt Climate and Environmental Change"
held in the morning on April 28 at NSF.

## Wednesday, April 28, 2004

# Plenary Session 1

## Welcome and Status of Actions from November 2003 AC/GEO Meeting

Dr. Robert Detrick, Chair of the Advisory Committee for Geosciences,
called the full plenary session to order at 1:30 p.m. and invited
members to introduce themselves.

Dr. Detrick reviewed the action items from the November 12-14, 2003
meeting and provided an update as to their status. Dr. Detrick asked for
a motion, which was seconded and approved, to accept the November 12-14,
2003 AC/GEO Meeting Summary.

Dr. Detrick invited Dr. Tom Spence to review the agenda and relevant
meeting documents.

## Report on the Directorate for Geosciences

Dr. Leinen provided an update on activities within GEO.

[Budget Issues]{.underline}: The FY05 budget request has been submitted
to Congress. The overall budget (\$5.745B) represents an approximate 3%
increase for NSF. This is one of the larger increases when compared to
other federal agencies. NSF is in the planning process for FY06. The
largest increase in the NSF budget was for Salaries and Expenses (S&E).

Salaries and Expenses Budget: One of the objectives of an increase in
the S&E budget was to increase the number of positions at NSF to help
alleviate the increased demands on program managers resulting form the
significant increase in the number of proposals received. Current
proposals are often more complex and multidisciplinary than those in the
past.

Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction: The FY05 request
included \$12M to begin deployment of the National Ecological
Observatory Network (NEON), \$40.85 for Scientific Ocean Drilling and
\$30M for the Rare Symmetry Violating Process (RSVP).

GEO Budget History: Dr. Leinen showed a chart of trends in the GEO
budget from 1993 to 2005. For two years in a row, the budget request and
the enacted budget have been much flatter than in previous years. The
GEO budget has a 2.2% increase -- lower than the total of other NSF
directorates.

There is still uncertainty about the fate of the FY05 budget and there
may be a continuing resolution for FY05. Congress may take action on the
budget that would differ from the Administration's proposal. There was
no specific news to share at this time, although all are aware of tight
constraints on the budget as a result of the budget deficits and the
impact of the war in Iraq.

Regarding the future budget outlook, OMB "guidance" for NSF shows a flat
line or decrease in the NSF budget from FY05-FY09. Every year agencies
submit a budget that fits the guidelines but sometimes the final budget
is higher. The current guidance reflects OMB's recognition that we are
dealing with very constrained times.

[Other Topics under Discussion]{.underline}: Dr. Leinen noted a number
of Priority Area topics under active discussion with NSF management. For
example, the Information Technology Research (ITR) priority area ends
after 2004 and the Nanoscale Science and Engineering (NSE) priority area
will end after the FY05 competition. For the Biocomplexity in the
Environment (BE) priority area, Dr. Colwell had asked for a budget that
would continue BE through 2007 and this is the scenario included in the
President's budget. Dr. Leinen noted that GEO has had success through
its modest investments in BE. Much exciting science has come out of
research funded through BE.

Biocomplexity in the Environment: The working groups for BE and
Environmental Research and Education (ERE) have proposed an overall
philosophy to NSF management. They propose to include Coupled
Biogeochemical Cycles (CBC) and Materials Use Science Engineering and
Society (MUSES) under multi-directorate management. Genome-Enabled
Environmental Studies (GEN-EN) would be managed by GEO, BIO and OPP. The
Instrument Development for Environmental Application (IDEA) would
continue under Sensors and Sensor Networks competitions while the
Coupled Human and Natural Systems (CNS) would continue to be managed as
an NSF-wide activity. These recommendations would permit BE to continue
but undergo evolution in FY06 and FY07.

Two new activities have been proposed: 1) Water as a Complex
Environmental System -- ERE/AC is sponsoring a workshop, tentatively
planned for September 2004, to discuss future evolution of the topic and
to identify ideas for programmatic guidance; and 2) a Synthesis Center
for the Environment modeled after National Center for Ecological
Analysis and Synthesis in BIO.

Regarding other priority areas, Mathematical Geosciences has had
partnership solicitations and Human and Social Dynamics (HSD) issued its
first solicitation.

Dr. Leinen raised a few other topics. She noted that NSF continues to
broaden community participation in research. In the past efforts focused
on targeted programs (i.e., ADVANCE or Minority Serving Institutions).
In the last few years, NSF has been engaging Congress in discussions
about Criterion 2 and how it is affecting nearly all of the NSF awards.
NSF has described how it is capturing information on this criterion.
CyberInfrastructure (CI) is another issue being discussed. Within CISE,
a new division (Division of Shared Infrastructure) has been established.
It will manage some major CyberInfrastructure centers. CISE is looking
at ways to capture information from scientific domain sciences to
provide feedback to CI groups to shape their investments in Partnership
for Advanced Computational Infrastructure (PACI) centers, etc. They have
already seen some success from the ITR program in this area.

[MREFC Projects]{.underline}: MREFC projects have become a major topic
of discussion in NSF and in the external community. The National
Research Council (NRC) released a report (Brinkman report) that
addressed the perception of these projects by the external community.
The report notes difficulties NSF faces in making priorities among the
various competing equipment proposals from the research directorates.
The report noted that in the past, NSF has not shared much of the
thinking behind the funding decisions with the community. NSF has
assumed that going through the National Science Board (NSB) was
"transparent" to the scientific community since NSB meetings were open
to the public. It is important to ensure that research communities and
Advisory Committees understand how NSF approaches the MREFC projects.
Consequently, the NSB and NSF are developing a formal response to the
report. It will be discussed at the NSB meeting next week. In addition,
NSF received a letter from Senator Christopher Bond, Chairman of the
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee, requesting that the NSB look at all
of the existing projects that are listed for potential future funding.

The GEO Directorate is particularly concerned about its MREFC projects
and their relationship with other large centers and activities. Dr.
Leinen invited AC/GEO to consider the impact of large facility
operations on the overall GEO budget. For example, what will a flat
budget scenario do to proposed MREFC activities? Large MREFCs follow a
"generic" profile beginning with a substantial initial investment in
design for first few years, then a building/construction phase for
several years (3-4 years), and finally a period when the facilities
begin operations. When looking at the timeline for all MREFC projects
currently underway, one finds that on average the operation and
scientific research portion of the expenditure is about 10% of the total
cost of the construction per year. For example, a \$100M project would
cost about \$10M to operate each year.

Dr. Leinen noted some aspects for the GEO outlook:

-   MREFCs currently online include HIAPER (High-Performance
    Instrumented Airborne Platform for Environmental Research) and
    EarthScope

-   MREFCs in next two years would include Integrated Ocean Drilling
    Program (IODP), the Alaska Region Research Vessel (ARRV), and the
    Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI)

-   Totals for Operations and Management (O&M) based on planning is
    about \$85M per year

-   Totals for science increments based on planning is about \$4M per
    year

-   Total for FY05 is about \$50M (7% above 2003)

-   Total for FY09 would need to be about \$125M (17% above 2003 -- a
    2.5% increase for 6 years).

Dr. Leinen shared her concern that with flat budgets, the needed
increases to cover operations might not be there. At a time when there
are uncertainties about the NSF budget, accommodating the operations of
MREFCs will be problematic, not just for GEO, but for all directorates.
Dr. Leinen invited the Committee to advise GEO how it should proceed to
manage the MREFC budget so as to minimize the impact on other activities
while assuming a flat or slow growth scenario overall. The Committee
could provide advice about what things are important to do and what
things could be omitted.

Dr. Leinen updated the Committee on GEO mid-sized infrastructure
funding. The OCE division made a presentation to NSB on regional
research vessels planned for the academic fleet, ATM is continuing to
fund the Advanced Modular Incoherent Scatter Radar (AMISR), and EAR is
funding projects in CI and other related areas.

Dr. Leinen also noted progress in implementing GEO2000. Motivated in
part by the report of the AC/GEO Ad hoc Subcommittee to be discussed
later in the meeting, the directorate has initiated a planning process
related to GEO2000. The first results of those discussions were shared
with Division Subcommittees last fall. At this meeting, the AC/GEO will
hear from program officers about GEO themes that are being considered.

**Questions/Discussion:**

-   Dr. Spence agreed to provide an NRC link to it.

-   AC/GEO was told about how the NSF requested budget faired against
    President's budget -- but how has the President's budget faired with
    Congress? Dr. Leinen said in the last 4 years, Congress has given
    NSF more than the President's recommended amount. Prior to that, the
    NSF usually got very small increases/decreases compared to
    President's budget.

-   What confidence does GEO have in the MREFC O&M estimate of \$85M a
    year with all five MREFC projects implemented? Dr. Leinen noted
    that, based on the costs for the R/V Alpha Helix, we have estimates
    for the ARRV, although we expect operational costs may increase. For
    the IODP, program directors have worked with the Japanese on
    operation costs of the program and we have historical knowledge
    about the current Ocean Drilling Program. We probably have least
    confidence in the number for the OOI since we have not funded
    similar projects before, but we have looked at comparables in the
    cable industry, etc. In each case we have had access to extensive
    analyses to assist in developing expectations for O&M costs.

-   Will money be put into the directorates to mange the Priority Areas,
    in particular BE? Dr. Leinen said currently the BE funding is
    distributed among the directorates. NSF is considering the
    difference between that and managing it NSF-wide.

-   Supposing an indefinitely flat NSF budget and increasing MREFC
    operating costs, wouldn't core budgets have to decrease? Dr. Leinen
    said that the directorate really needs advice from the community on
    what investments are really necessary. It is possible that MREFC
    operating costs will impact core research and we would appreciate
    assistance in planning our strategy.

-   How do MREFCs compete across the NSF? Dr. Leinen said that any
    directorate could put forward an MREFC proposal. The ADs and Deputy
    Directors discuss the options. The entire planning process often
    takes place over five to seven years.

Dr. Leinen concluded with some humorous scenes about solar flares from
the "Daily Show with Jon Stewart".

The Committee adjourned its Plenary Session to enable the Education and
Diversity Subcommittee (E&D) to meet.

## Education and Diversity Subcommittee

Dr. Cheryl Peach called the Education and Diversity Subcommittee (E&D)
to order noting that it usually meets as a Committee of the Whole
because of the broad interest among members. She introduced Dr.
Jacqueline Huntoon, GEO Program Director for Diversity and Education,
and Dr. Judith Ramaley, Assistant Director for Education and Human
Resources (EHR), Drs. Don Thompson and Art Hicks, EHR staff. The EHR
guests were invited to assist GEO in considering ways to more fully
address topics relevant to all three geoscience divisions as they relate
to the various education and human resource programs in EHR. Dr. Peach
noted that E&D also wanted to consider ways to incorporate education and
diversity programs into large MREFC projects, and to identify best
practices and guidelines for PIs launching these large initiatives.

Dr. Peach provided updated the members on relevant Subcommittee issues:

-   In the Committee of Visitors (COV) report, there were comments about
    the usage of statistics related to the Digital Library for Earth
    Systems Education (DLESE). Dr. Mary Marlino provided some updated
    statistics which indicated large increases in the number of visits
    to DLESE sites from 2002 to 2004.

-   The recently released report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
    that focuses on the future of the oceans and ocean scientists is now
    in draft form and available online for comment. There is a very
    prominent chapter on ocean science education. Dr. Peach was enthused
    about the inclusion of multi-directorate collaborations and the
    recognition of the Centers for Ocean Science Excellence (COSEE) as
    part of a new thrust in ocean science awareness for the nation. The
    proposed organizational structure calls for a new National Ocean
    Council including a Committee on Ocean Science, Education,
    Technology and Operations. She invited members to keep it on their
    'radar screens'. Currently this element is proposed to be funded
    through NOAA. She encouraged members to read the report and provide
    comments if they wish. She noted that it is important to have
    balance between research and operations.

### GEO Education and Diversity

Dr. Jacqueline Huntoon presented some data on the Louis Stokes Alliances
for Minority Participation (LSAMP) Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Bachelor of Science degrees that showed that a
significant number of students (22,000) had been produced through this
program. While it has been successful in increasing minority
participation, the data also show a small percentage of students (1%)
have received degrees in geosciences and environmental science.

Dr. Ramaley recognized the geoscience student issues, but wished to
first address the broader societal goals of NSF and how they depend on
two critical points: 1) investigators we support learn to approach
education issues and the integration of education and research with the
same excitement and rigor as they do research itself, and 2)
institutions become porous and connected by creating alliances,
collaborations, and working relationships that reduce the extent to
which efforts are bounded by single departments or single institutions.

Broadening participation is not an end in its own right -- it should be
central to the means -- excellence in science -- so that it becomes a
natural part of what we do. We don't want special programs that address
this on the edge. We need to look for natural assets we already have and
look for ways to support the PIs. Things they can build on need
collective response.

Dr. Ramaley read Merit Criterion 2, noting that it provides a powerful
policy and operational tool. NSF is accumulating responses that show
people are inventing and interpreting this criterion in a creative
fashion. As we continue to develop ideas, we have to find a way to
capture the knowledge generated through Criterion 2 so it becomes more
readily available to a broader audience. The challenge is that there are
systems in place that move research findings into the public
(publications, conferences, etc.), but we don't have similar mechanisms
to move this knowledge/information into education realm. As we move
ahead and identify best practices/approach -- need to look at ways of
capturing and disseminating the information as well.

Dr. Ramaley agreed that the goal of assuring diversity can be met
through two avenues: 1) inclination, motivation, and interest, and 2)
capacity (of individuals, institutions, partnerships and alliances).
Both must be actively cultivated. Broadening the involvement of
individual institutions is beneficial -- we are hoping that as we
interact across the boundaries of the directorates, we might guide our
decisions in ways to have EHR interact with other directorates. We want
to introduce new capabilities into existing programs. We need to provide
PIs with assistance in interpreting Criterion 2 in a way that creates an
asset that can support educational and public benefits at the same time.
How we measure the results of this becomes extremely important to
geoscientists. It is important for the GEO/AC to figure out what to
measure about inclination and capacity that will allow geoscientists to
benchmark whether the efforts are making a difference in the advancement
of science and public understanding.

Dr. Ramaley's final message -- not just about geosciences -- but also
about the health of science in general and depth of understanding of the
role of science in society -- was that science is not monolithic. It's
about infusing your distinctive findings and worldviews into the
thinking of other fields so that even if you don't end up with an
immediate result, you will have many other partners who are sympathetic
and inclined to work with you on key issues. As the diversity of
interest grows and participation grows, the power and value of what you
can contribute more broadly will grow.

Dr. Don Thompson, Deputy Assistant Director, EHR, said there has been an
increase in the LSAMP program over the past several years. Across the
country, there are 31 alliances engaging from 3 to 52 campuses. The
purpose is to grow STEM graduates from the minority communities. He
showed a breakout that represented a population nearly half
African-American and half Hispanic. LSAMP represents 163 institutions,
including all 33 tribal colleges, Historic Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs), and other Minority Serving Institutions (MSI).

Dr. Thompson also noted the Alliances for Graduate Education and the
Professorate (AGEP), another NSF project that provides a counterpart to
LSAMP for graduate education. It represents 19 institutions and is
beginning to help bridge to the doctorate degree. It is designed to move
students from LSAMP to doctorate programs. He reported that 70% of LSAMP
students have received master or doctorate degrees, a rate that is
higher than the general population. Dr. Thompson noted that the LSAMP
groups have worked together for years. The groups have to match the NSF
funding with other institutional commitments. The program has identified
this as a critical element. In some cases, state legislatures and
private industry have committed to the program.

Dr. Art Hicks, LSAMP Program Officer, presented data on geoscience/earth
science degrees. Since it was first initiated in 1991, the program has
produced more than 200,000 graduates in STEM fields. There are annually
about 200,000 students participating in the program and about 400
campuses that partner with NSF in the 31 sites (soon to be 32) around
the country. He showed a chart indicating the number of underrepresented
minorities graduating with STEM degrees in the academic year 2002-2003
by race/ethnicity and discipline. Geosciences degrees numbered 161, and
environmental science degrees, 304.

Dr. Hicks shared some biographies and photos of students in the bridging
to doctorate program and provided a document about 130 students in the
program. He noted two essential things needed to encourage minority
students to enter graduate school: 1) stipends must be competitive with
job salaries, and 2) graduate programs must be marketed for the short
duration to get them to "bite" and once getting their interest, they may
stay the course. Some will transfer to other programs after the two
years.

-   Dr. Peach asked for specific suggestions about how individuals or
    institutions can link with program. Dr. Thompson responded by asking
    GEO to consider: 1) if its funding is going to places where LSAMP
    programs are; 2) are they in LSAMP regions; 3) how are schools in
    geosciences or environmental sciences linked with existing
    researchers currently funded in LSAMP areas; and 4) how can they
    influence schools/departments that house geoscience programs. Dr.
    Hicks further suggested that to ensure that some number of students
    transition to doctorate programs, students should be supported by
    geosciences. Geosciences could perhaps "buy" a slot at an LSAMP site
    and ensure that students in the majors they seek fill one of the
    slots. For undergraduates, geosciences could partner with LSAMP
    institutions and look at ways for the campuses to develop more
    geoscientists. He felt that if more resources were offered, there
    would be good results.

-   Dr. Ramaley said that the amount of money needed is much less than
    you think, but attention is required. Investigators at sites with
    students could request REU grants which just requires a little
    targeting. At the doctoral level, since there weren't any in
    geosciences, she said we need to be working with undergraduates to
    persuade students to pursue a bridge program in your field.

-   Dr. Peach noted that we may have more of a systemic problem --
    student awareness in choosing degrees.

-   Dr. Huntoon said since the last GEO/AC meeting, she has worked with
    PIs in California, New Mexico, and Texas who have active programs
    for undergraduates in geological sciences. The problem is they are
    unable to get into recruiting structures to recruit LSAMP students.
    She would like to use LSAMP structure to increase student
    production. The California group has been active in geosciences
    education and she has received proposals for add-ons to the LSAMP
    program. Now the California program is principally focused on
    mathematics and would like to do something based more in
    mathematical applications relevant to geoscience/environmental
    science. The problem is that using the existing LSAMP structure,
    funding would be taken from the mathematics department. She noted
    problems in building these collaborations, taking advantage of
    existing efforts, and integrating them more effectively. Dr.
    Thompson said there are opportunities to work on this problem.

-   Dr. Samuel Myers proposed broadening the scope of the discussion by
    noting that geosciences stands out by showing wide differences even
    among the minorities. How do you explain these differences? How much
    is related to preferences? Why are there differences in minorities
    that are participating? Are role models lacking for African
    Americans? The list had more Hispanic institutions compared to
    African-American institutions. Does the faculty research have a
    bearing on who is selected for the laboratories?

-   Dr. Walter Lynn also noted that geosciences is grossly
    underrepresented, but thought that one would see the same thing if
    you considered the entire student population. Historically schools
    don't have geoscience departments so students don't have adequate
    exposure to opportunities.

-   Dr. Huntoon added that even at K-12 level, students are not exposed
    to geoscience and environmental science. It is not unique to
    minority institutions.

-   Dr. Myers noted the disparity between Hispanics and
    African-Americans in environmental sciences is not as great.
    Geoscience is more interdisciplinary than other directorates since
    there are multiple routes to a PhD program. In order to build up the
    case, we should shift our conversation to look at this as an
    opportunity instead of a problem. For example, biology is a route to
    get into geosciences and African-Americans represent a large share
    of biological programs.

-   Dr. Susan Brantley noted that the time scale over which funding is
    made available is important. For example, IGERT at Penn State brings
    in students for the summer and now has up to 20% for minorities. But
    the graduate levels have not been able to retain them in their
    program. She thought that with the undergraduate programs they
    learned how to reach out to institutions and built relationships,
    but they are finding it harder to translate to graduate program.
    IGERT funding is for 5 years. That may indicate the time it takes to
    get statistical returns for single PIs or institutions to show
    results.

    Dr. Peach thanked Drs. Ramaley, Thompson and Hicks for meeting with
    them and proposed that the dialog between GEO and EHR continue.

### Opportunities to Enhance Diversity in the Geoscience Program

Dr. Huntoon showed data on population demographics projected for
2000-2050. The number of bachelors degrees awarded from 1966 to 2000 was
shown by discipline and for masters and doctorate degrees. Additional
data was presented on degrees by ethnicity, disciplines, gender, and
salaries.

She indicated some effective strategies to increase diversity:

-   Show relevance

-   Build partnerships

-   Promote mentoring -- helping students who don't have prior knowledge
    how to tailor resume, give presentation, applying for grad school,
    etc.

-   Provide financial support

-   Publicize career opportunities

-   Incorporate undergrads into research experiences

### Geosciences Education Working Group Update

Dr. Huntoon noted plans to set up a Geoscience Education Working Group
to meet in the fall of 2004 as a subgroup of E&D. She requested
Committee input on the formation of this subgroup and approval for its
establishment. Membership has not been determined although it was
suggested that some members of the E&D COV be included. Dr. Peach will
review the nominations.

An external contractor has been tasked with examining all of the awards
for solicitations related to education and diversity that were reviewed
through the AD's Office to determine those that have been successful and
those that were not. Once the data have been collected, a report will be
compiled to help develop strategies for NSF to better focus its efforts
in the future.

Additional comments:

-   Dr. John Wilson noted that geoscientists are among the lowest paid
    and thinks institutions undervalue faculty in geosciences. What is
    the salary in relation to other fields? Can NSF get at these
    numbers?

-   Dr. Leinen said for public universities this is not a problem. Most
    states require that salaries for public officials be in public
    domain. American Geological Institute or American Geophysical Union
    have done this for some time. UCAR collects data on atmospheric and
    oceanographic scientists and might know what universities will
    provide data.

    ACTION: Dr. Detrick asked for a motion to approve the Geoscience
    Education Working Group. The Committee supported its establishment.
    A report on the GEO Education Working Group meeting should be
    provided at the fall session of the E&D Subcommittee.

ACTION: Dr. Huntoon will investigate salaries for faculties for
comparison between geosciences and other fields.

ACTION: Dr. Huntoon should query LSAMP students that selected
geosciences majors to provide information for future GEO action. She
should provide comparable information for the non-minority groups in
geosciences to see the differences between minorities and non-minorities
in their selection of geosciences as a career

Dr. Peach concluded the E&D Subcommittee meeting.

Dr. Detrick reminded members that the Division Subcommittee meetings
would be held on Thursday morning and adjourned the meeting at 5:25 p.m.

***Thursday, April 29, 2004***

During the morning, the AC/GEO members met in individual Division
Subcommittee meetings for Atmospheric Sciences (ATM), Earth Sciences
(EAR), and Ocean Sciences (OCE).

# Plenary Session 2

Dr. Detrick called the full plenary session to order at 1:30 p.m. and
invited Dr. Susan Kidwell, whose term on the Committee ends this year,
to make a presentation.

## Member Presentation

Dr. Kidwell presented "Understanding Complex Natural Systems: Why Dig Up
the Past?" She indicated how modern-day observations and experiments are
combined with geo-historical data and modeling to help study natural
systems. Her methods offer ways to look at the degree of change before
and after human impact to understand how and why biological/ecological
systems react. Further, they provide ways to test hypothesized links or
cause/effect relationships, and assist present day and future
predictions.

She proposed several biological questions that need geo-historical
information for their answers:

-   Do species migrate or go extinct in response to climate change?

-   If they migrate, do communities shift coherently or do they
    disassemble?

-   If the become extinct, what controls selectivity?

-   Are changes linear or non-linear?

-   Is the disturbance ever constructive (i.e., is it a driver of
    innovation)?

-   What is the sensitivity of response to spatial scale, type of
    extrinsic driver, and what are the intrinsic biotic factors?

-   What is the relationship between extinction risk and habitat
    preferences, geographic range, and functional group?

-   What are the relationships between community state or habitat type
    and the susceptibility of community to invasion, both pre- and
    post-human activities?

-   In general, are human impacts or biotic responses to them
    qualitatively different than those of natural systems?

-   Is there a single set of principles?

Dr. Kidwell wondered aloud if the rock record was up to these jobs. She
noted that biologists have little monitoring data and it is usually of
short duration. Geological information may enhance our ability to track
biomarkers and could give us essential ecological information.

Dr. Kidwell shared results from her work: Live/Dead Analysis Studies.
Samples of shell populations (mollusk studies) have live and dead
assemblages. She compared "death assemblages" sieved from the upper part
sedimentary column with the local live community and charted live/dead
ratios of various species. Her analyses of these assemblages showed them
to be useful in providing data to answer some biological questions.

Summary:

-   There is a critical need for geo-historical perspectives on
    ecological systems at all scales

-   Even ordinary geo-records will be immensely valuable and the process
    is practical

-   Although ecologists and geologists are separated by directorates,
    department and societies, as well as expertise, NSF offers many
    opportunities to promote collaborative efforts.

-   It would be advantageous to add "geo-historical" expertise to the
    ERE/AC.

The AC/GEO members asked several specific questions about Dr. Kidwell's
research.

## Division Subcommittee Reports

Dr. Detrick invited the various Division Subcommittees to provide
reports on their meetings held in the morning.

**ATM -- Dr. Robert Harriss**

Dr. Harriss summarized some of the remarkable advances that were enabled
over the last several years when there were budget increases. They show
the payoff, but also show there is much more to harvest. He cited the
abundance of exciting new data (e.g., to address important issues
related to water cycle and other interdisciplinary, interagency
projects). For the future, it is important to harvest as much as we can
from these recent campaigns before we initiate the next activities. In
the facilities area, advances include HIAPER, which is coming on-line at
the right time for science to make big advances. Observation related to
the warming of the lower atmosphere is expanding and may reflect the
overall integrated impact of greenhouse gas accumulations in the
troposphere. This is a determining factor in a lot of the chemistry that
takes place in the atmosphere. Understanding the impact of the changing
tropopause will be critical. HIAPER will carry instruments to observe
changes in physics/chemistry of the atmosphere. COSMIC (Constellation
Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere and Climate) also offers
the potential to gather information over regions that are currently
under sampled and the data from COSMIC has the potential to
revolutionize weather prediction. The Subcommittee also had a
presentation on AMISR and how space weather science will benefit from
its installation. The group also discussed the rapid advances being made
on the implementation of next-generation models that are critically
needed. The division is supporting research on models that will follow
massive ejections from the sun to the earth's atmosphere.

**EAR -- Dr. Thomas Jordan**

Dr. Jordan stated that the Division Subcommittee discussions are very
informative and helpful. He noted that funding for EarthScope has now
begun. One highlight of the meeting was the presentation by program
officers of "EAR -- Interfaces: Horizons in the Earth Sciences". Dr.
Sharon Mosher provided an overview of the document. It is a blueprint
for EAR and addresses interdisciplinary studies of key interactive Earth
systems and looks at cross-disciplinary questions. It does a good job of
integrating the observations that ensure the geological record. Dr.
Mosher shared several questions that the group identified, for example,
the need to strengthen core programs and some specific enhancements in
geobiology, education, etc. Overall it was viewed as a very exciting
document and would be good to share with the community. Dr. Jordan said
research proposals continue to increase without increase in staff. The
funding of EAR proposals was compared with other divisions and may
reflect on the ability for EAR to take full advantage of EarthScope. EAR
must be careful not to lose enthusiasm of the community. EAR has
reorganized its structure to take be more responsive to community needs
and program developments.

Dr. Leinen reminded the members that EAR now has 3 new positions. The
proposal load is still large but the directorate is exploring ways to
deal with it.

**OCE -- Dr. Larry Mayer**

Dr. Mayer reported on the OCE Division Subcommittee. He noted that the
community shares the excitement of growth years, but also faces the
consequences of earlier increases. The OCE budget steadily increased
from 2001-2003, but was level for 2004. One consequence is the need to
meet the increasing costs of ship-time (e.g., fuel and insurance) that
poses some difficult choices to be made. He wondered if there were
similar problems with other divisions. The group also discussed budget
concerns in respect to MREFCs for OCE. The IODP will put tremendous
pressure on the budget over the next few years and some were concerned
that the O&M estimates might be on the low side. The group also talked
about long-term fleet replacement issues. It also looked at potential
new initiative areas and the cross directorate/cross disciplinary
ramifications (e.g., population connectivity in marine systems, carbon
cycle, biocomplexity, abrupt climate change) although it will be
difficult at present to look seriously at new initiatives. Striking a
balance between core and focused areas will be challenge in the future.
The group discussed a proposed study by National Academy's Ocean Study
Board on Earth System Processes where the oceans play a key role and the
National Ocean Commission Report released April 20, 2004. The latter
report called for formation of National Ocean Council in the Executive
Branch. It identified NSF and its very clear mission regarding basic
research, and included a positive citation of COSEE, one of the Division
of Ocean Sciences education programs. Some members thought report was
very NOAA-centric.

There was a follow-up comment related to cross-division programs: the
North American Carbon Program will draw on every element of GEO in both
fundamental and integrated ways and it will be crucial to have agreement
on the GEO approach on carbon issues. Dr. Leinen said the interagency
working group has done a good job in identifying the roles that are
appropriate for the agencies, and that the divisions will cooperate to
meet the goals of the program.

## Issues for AC/GEO Meeting with Acting NSF Director

Prior to the meeting of AC/GEO with Dr. Arden Bement Jr., the acting NSF
Director, Dr. Detrick asked members to identify some particular issues
for discussion.

-   Policy of NSF regarding the Smithsonian Institution: Dr. Leinen
    clarified the issue by recalling that there has been an NSF policy
    in place for 25 years whereby NSF would not fund federal agencies
    unless: 1) there is a strategic need (e.g., deploying field
    experiment requiring external assistance), 2) critical
    activities/equipment that aren't available in academic community,
    or 3) there is an international connection that has to be
    facilitated through another agency. In any event, NSF will not
    provide salary for other federal employees. The Smithsonian asked
    for salary support for their non-federally supported scientists. A
    Science article said the NSF Director would enter into an MOU for
    this purpose, but subsequently, it was determined that no MOU would
    be executed.

-   NSF-wide interest in CI: CI requires some degree of permanence for
    infrastructure and data and a stable platform so data is available
    in the long-term. The concept of infrastructure must address the
    "long-life" of the infrastructure capability.

-   MREFC account: The NRC study (Brinkman report) and interest from
    Senator Bond has prompted the NSB look again at all existing
    projects.

-   The budget scenario: What is the NSF view on big versus little
    science in context of a modest budget growth scenario? What should
    be the balance between major infrastructure investments and the core
    science?

## Meeting with Dr. Arden Bement, Acting Director, NSF

Dr. Detrick welcomed Dr. Bement to the AC/GEO meeting and said the
members look forward to hearing Dr. Bement's remarks. Introductions were
made around the table.

Dr. Bement noted how valuable the Advisory Committees are to the NSF. He
noted that the AC/GEO membership includes representatives of two ocean
institutes, a NASA research lab, numerous universities, and relevant
disciplines. He said he also had an opportunity to glance at the Ad hoc
Subcommittee's response to GEO2000 and feel they have identified a
number of key topics and issues for the future. He was especially
impressed by GEO's outreach to draw in other directorates (i.e., EHR and
SBE) and address issues related to diversity and increasing
participation in the field.

Dr. Bement addressed several points of interest to the members at the
outset.

-   Current and projected budgets: He testified before Senate and House
    Appropriation and found strong bipartisan and bicameral support for
    the NSF budget. Congress is trying to decide what to do with NASA
    budget that competes with NSF funding. The FY2005 will not reflect a
    robust increase since the federal budget scene has changed. In
    constrained budget, what do we want to protect, what do we want to
    sustain, what are the tradeoffs, how much flexibility do we need in
    the core? FY2006 will probably be a tighter year than FY2005 and
    budgets may be flat beyond that. It is not yet known what OMB
    guidance will be, so the agency will have to deal with several
    potential scenarios. Generally speaking, NSF does better than
    average compared to other agencies. We will continue to push hard
    the next budget cycle.

-   MREFC: GEO has 2 of the 3 major projects in the FY2005 budget and 2
    in the FY2006 budget as well as long-term plans for replacing the
    academic research fleet. In the meantime, NSF must take into account
    what total lifecycle costs will be (e.g., mortgages, commitment for
    operation and maintenance) in the future. It is a very challenging
    budget process and involves looking at what we want to sustain and
    what to protect. We also need to pay attention to the success rate
    for proposals. We are working to increase award size and extend
    award duration work against us in getting broader participation. We
    have to pay attention to success rates.

-   Smithsonian issue: There is language in the conference appropriation
    bill that requires NSF/NSB to accommodate the Smithsonian
    Institution in a manner different from other federal agencies. NSF
    tried to address that within existing policy in a draft MOU with
    Smithsonian that would be consistent with current policy. However,
    the MOU has been set aside as the Congress considers the issue
    further.

-   Staffing levels: The FY04 budget included some additional FTEs, but
    no funding for them. FY05 has a request for 25 additional FTEs, but
    that is not enough. We have an ongoing business study to assist NSF
    in identifying how many positions are needed and to develop a human
    resources plan for us. This will give us a basis for future requests
    to increase staff. Apart from FTEs, we have to provide more support
    for our program officers (e.g., administrative and travel funds).
    Their jobs have become more difficult and challenging due to the
    increased complexity of proposals. It is important to support them.

-   Advocating for NSF budget: Because of Administration priorities for
    funding homeland security and the war on terrorism, and with growing
    budget deficits, there is a need to build public awareness about the
    importance of continued support for basic research. The entire
    community needs to support this. Grass roots support is critical and
    we welcome your assistance.

-   Search for NSF Director: Dr. Bement noted that he is still the
    Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
    (NIST) so he wears two hats. He noted that there are a few people
    under active consideration and he understands that the intent of the
    Administration is to fill position before the election, although it
    might not be possible for confirmation before then. Dr. Bement may
    be here somewhat longer.

Specific Questions:

-   Dr. Paola Rizzoli: Referencing Senator Christopher Bond's letter and
    the March meeting of the NSB which approved a resolution making all
    Smithsonian Institution scientists eligible to apply for NSF
    support, Dr. Rizzoli urged NSF not to implement the NSB
    recommendation. Dr. Bement said the NSB Chairman agreed with
    Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee to put the matter
    on hold. He said it was the NSF intention, even if we did arrive at
    an acceptable MOU, that full Congressional approval would be sought
    before implementing the MOU. However, he reassured the members that
    "Everything is on a dead stop until resolved by the Office of
    Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and appropriate committees on
    the Hill.

-   Dr. Mosher: Regarding NSF's view of CI, she noted that data for
    science is rapidly increasing, that much of it is 'ephemeral', and
    that things in cyberspace can disappear. Dr. Mosher asked if NSF has
    given thought to the need for permanent platforms for the types of
    things that can be accessed by the community under the title of CI.
    Dr. Bement noted there are many different points of view on CI --
    one view is that it's a misnomer. To him, infrastructure implies
    long-standing and dynamic capability, but elements that are not
    fixed in place (e.g., data libraries, middle-ware, sensor networks).
    The various fields of science have to weigh in to develop the
    concepts. When we get into how things are stored, should the US be
    working independently? The problems we are dealing with are
    international -- global change, climate change, nanoscale science,
    etc. NSF is wrestling with this as new concepts come along. Dr.
    Mosher noted the concerns on part of the community that in certain
    CI initiatives, people are putting considerable time into building
    databases and software, but may not have appropriate places for them
    to be maintained. Dr. Bement said we will no doubt be in position to
    generate databases far faster than we can evaluate them -- but what
    good is the data if we can't evaluate them? In some cases don't have
    retrieval methods to retrieval data in a consistent format. These
    are real challenges. Workshops are dealing with them, but we have no
    clear answers yet.

-   Dr. Harriss: Regarding NSF role in helping the Department of
    Homeland Security, Dr. Harriss noted that some sensors NSF has
    previously developed or in process of developing may have a lot to
    offer. Dr. Bement reported that NSF has been approached and has
    established MOUs with DHS and other agencies to invest on their
    behalf, although maintaining that work must adhere to NSF's standard
    review practices and policies. We are receiving some funding to
    support these agencies. He agreed there are a lot of areas where NSF
    can be helpful to them.

-   Dr. Peach: Regarding moving Math/Science Partnership funding to the
    Department of Education. Dr. Bement noted that this was proposed in
    the FY05 budget, but will depend on the Congressional appropriation
    process. NSF will maintain funds to complete the awards it has
    already made. NSF will maintain responsibility whatever the funding
    sources. It is important that adequate resources get to the
    teachers. Dr. Peach expressed concern that interest and connection
    to research community might be lost if funds shift. Dr. Bement
    concurred and will work to ensure programs continue to be effective.

-   Dr. Detrick: Returning to the recent NRC Brinkman report on the
    management of MREFC requested NSB to reexamine current projects in
    the queue, Dr. Detrick asked how this might play out? Dr. Bement
    said NSF and the NSB have put a lot of hard work into developing an
    appropriate response to the Brinkman report. NSF is basically in
    agreement with the high-level findings/recommendations in report. As
    we examine details in the report, we are finding that we have been
    doing a lot of things all along but no one knew about them. The NSF
    response reflects this and will be transmitted to Congress later
    this year. In the meantime, we do have a requirement for the NSF to
    respond to Senator Bond to validate the FY05-FY06 projects in light
    of the Brinkman report. We have done this and will report soon.
    Going forward we will have a more robust process in place. We are
    taking the issue very seriously and working hard in hope of
    satisfying Congress.

-   Dr. Lynn: Regarding CI. Dr. Lynn noted there are rapid changes in
    technology related to CI. He recalled the plight of FAA trying to
    revamp their system -- the technology changed more rapidly than the
    time it took to implement new systems. He sees similar issues facing
    NSF with the rapid evolution of CI. Dr. Bement conceded that once
    you build a legacy system you have to nourish it or pay the price of
    reinventing it. CI is an ephemeral area that we will have to deal
    with and clearly we don't have all the tools in place. We must
    remain flexible and be able to adapt to whatever evolves. Patching
    software becomes a losing proposition.

Dr. Detrick thanked Dr. Bement for meeting with the AC/GEO and wished
him success in his position as Acting Director.

## Report of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on GEO2000 Implementation

Dr. Detrick invited the members to discuss the AC/GEO response to Dr.
Leinen's presentation related to issues that the directorate faces -- a
potentially flat budget and the need for appropriate MREFC investments.
He linked the topic with the Report of the Ad hoc Subcommittee on
GEO2000 Implementation as well as the reports from program officers on
their views of emerging research directions. He noted the common thread
suggesting we need to have a healthy geosciences program -- a strong
core science program (our 'seed corn'), state-of-the-art infrastructure
to support research in core/priority areas, and the ability to pursue
emerging new research directions. It is essential to be able to direct
appropriate resources into those new and exciting emerging areas. This
afternoon will focus on the MREFC and some of issues Dr. Leinen raised
in her presentation.

Dr. Detrick provided background on the establishment of the *Ad hoc*
Subcommittee on GEO2000 Implementation by citing its charge:

-   Assess progress in achieving goals of GEO2000

-   Determine if the document still provides a useful framework for
    evaluating future programmatic needs

-   Identify challenges in GEO2000 that our community cannot address
    within the current array of GEO programs

-   Identify new partnerships with other parts of NSF that are necessary
    to meet these challenges

-   Determine if there are new challenges/opportunities that were
    unforeseen at the time that GEO2000 was written or that were not
    possible to implement when it was written?

The *ad hoc* Subcommittee[^1] met in August 2003 and presented a
preliminary report at the November 2003 AC/GEO meeting. The final report
was for members to accept at this meeting. Dr. Detrick noted that to
some extent, some progress is already underway, for example, the
presentations by Program Officers tomorrow.

Report Findings:

-   Usefulness of GEO2000 Plan -- the four broad science themes and the
    three societal issues have provided a flexible intellectual
    framework

-   Progress in Implementation

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   GEO has been proactive in implementing the recommendations of the
    GEO2000 plan

-   GEO has also been proactive in providing the computational
    infrastructure necessary to support the increasing demands of
    modeling, data analysis and management, and research.

-   GEO has developed two innovative educational programs to address
    GEO20000's educational goals -- DLESE and COSEE

The report also identified emerging new science opportunities

-   Coupled Human-Natural Systems

-   Abrupt Climate Change Biogeosciences

-   Role of Water in Geosciences

In addition, it described emerging infrastructure requirements (e.g., in
situ observation systems, sensors and sensor networks, CI, and
large-scale computing capabilities) and potential emerging partnerships
(e.g., CISE with CI, Mathematical Geosciences (MPS), Sensor and Sensor
networks (ENG, CISE), and EHR).

Continuing challenges and concerns:

-   Maintain the health of core disciplinary science programs and the
    same time increasing funding level for priority programs.

-   Capitalize on infrastructure investments with parallel investment
    sin the science programs that will operate, maintain and utilize
    this infrastructure

-   Address the lack of diversity in GEO and expanding educational
    opportunities.

Discussion:

-   When asked how the report will feed back into the process, Dr.
    Leinen said that the Subcommittee reports stimulated the process for
    the Program Officer's reports. The report has had substantial
    influence and is serving its purpose. Now we are trying to get a
    broader sense of all of geoscience, not limited to the views of the
    six people on the Subcommittee. The intent of the Program Officer
    activity was to take the first step of determining what we at NSF
    hear from the community in terms of exciting research, etc. There
    have been two steps: 1) discussions within the Divisions
    Subcommittees (reported at last meeting) and 2) considerations of
    the opportunities and challenges across the directorate to identify
    common themes that might not fall into any specific discipline.
    Tomorrow's reports from program officers will focus on the things
    that are cross-directorate. Program officers want to engage in
    discussion with AC/GEO and see what kind of actions the AC/GEO might
    wish to take -- possibly to come back with questions/concerns that
    would request another round and presentation at fall meeting or to
    propose mechanisms to engage the broader scientific community in
    this process. In the constrained budget climate in the near term,
    what is the AC/GEO advice to GEO? How much new activity should we
    take on? What will be your advice regarding the impact of O&M for
    MREFC on research? We look forward to a healthy dialog.

-   Dr. Mayer said that sounds like a very sensible approach and
    wondered if this was the first time this has happened and will the
    process be ongoing? Dr. Leinen said it would not happen every year.
    She noted that EAR sections had retreats and the process was quite
    involved. Dr. Detrick clarified that Subcommittee determined they
    were not best group to look at research opportunities, but could
    assess progress towards goals in GEO2000. In the future, a more
    normal process would be for Program Officers to be the initiators
    and the for AC/GEO members to respond. Dr. Leinen suggested that
    every 3-4 years GEO should reassess whether or not they are on
    track. That assessment has been handled in different ways in the
    past. Some AC/GEO sponsored community workshops were held to develop
    the GEO2000 document, for example.

-   Dr. Lynn noted that in commercial realms, a five-year plan is
    common, but it gets updated about every 3 years. He asked what
    percent of funds are committed to existing projects? Dr. Leinen
    suggested somewhere between about 1/3 and 2/3 of GEO funds are
    committed to existing projects, but that number varies by division.

-   Dr. Kidwell noted that the report of A*d hoc* Subcommittee
    identified a small number of areas for attention but the program
    officers have developed a longer list. She urged the directorate to
    retain a focused and narrow list.

-   Dr. Jordan observed that the report is a first pass of 6 people
    meeting for 2 days. We will expect the divisions to develop a longer
    list.

-   Dr. Jordan expressed the view that the list of issues tends to be
    biased towards fluids. In the view of some solid earth scientists,
    all things don't necessarily interact \-- some solid-earth phenomena
    portrayed in GEO2000 are decoupled from other Earth systems. He
    thought the view in the report was too narrow to adequately
    represent the issues in geosciences.

-   Dr. Detrick suggested that the AC/GEO should respond to the report
    and assist in prioritizing topics, but it may be more important to
    get broader community input into the process. He saw the process as
    evolutionary. He asked for a motion to accept the report of the Ad
    Hoc Committee. It was accepted.

-   Dr. Leinen said that the Program Officer presentations for tomorrow
    would focus on things that touch all areas of the directorate and
    not be limited to the details in division reports. She suggested
    some things that are very important in the divisions may also need
    to be handled in geo-wide/coordinated fashion.

    ACTION: Members accepted the report of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on
    GEO2000.

## 

## Discussion of Operating with Flat Budget

In response to Dr. Leinen's budget remarks during her presentation, Dr.
Detrick asked AC/GEO to consider the issue of flat or slowly increasing
budget scenarios. Dr. Leinen invited members to provide advice to GEO
regarding the potential impacts on the core, new initiatives, and MREFC
under different scenarios.

Dr. Leinen proposed Scenario 1: \$85M/year for O&M and \$40M for
research. This works if budgets increase at 2.5% per year. She asked if
that strategy was reasonable? What would be the impact on the ability to
pursue new research directions? What kinds of questions can we ask to
get useful information?

Dr. Detrick suggested that several scenarios could be presented. The
Committee asked for additional background information on the process by
which operating costs were developed and on models used for determining
what happens in the future.

Dr. Leinen agreed that there will be difficult decisions in that
environment but said that what we need to invest in must be maintained.
She was not sure if this group can provide advice on those kinds of
priorities since it poses an incredible challenge, but was genuinely
interested in the response of the community. We need to think about what
absolutely needs to be preserved. What are we most concerned about and
what would be the impact of cutting certain areas rather than others?

Members appreciated that the directorate invited AC input but expressed
some limitations on how helpful they could be. They also wanted to know
if the issues to be discussed could be shared with the community.

Dr. Leinen said it is important that the community knows that Congress
did an abrupt turn from a commitment to doubling the NSF budget to
nearly flat funding. Even this year, Congress asked NSB to document what
they would do with additional funding. It's important that the community
understands that the mood has changed in Washington. I can't translate
that to percentages or budgets now, but we are not on doubling path. We
don't want community to be surprised when they see budget.

ACTION: Provide AC/GEO with information needed to be able to discuss
these financial issues at the fall meeting. The Committee requested
information on the processes and assumptions that have gone into
calculations for costs and information on the impact of those figures on
the rest of the GEO budgets under a couple of different funding
scenarios for the budget. The topic should be included on the agenda for
the fall meeting

The meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.

***Friday, April 30, 2003***

Dr. Detrick reconvened the meeting at 8:30 a.m.

# Plenary Session 3

## Emphasis for Geosciences in the Next Five Years: Program Officer Perspectives

A program officer from each division provided a brief summary of the
divisional discussions.

Dr. Rodey Batiza, Program Director, Oceans Drilling Program in OCE, said
the program directors went through GEO2000, held several meetings, and
tried to identify the most important and exciting topics in Ocean
Sciences.

Research topics identified include:

-   Role of the ocean in the carbon cycle and the effects and
    implications for climate change

-   Causes and consequences of abrupt environmental changes in ocean
    systems on short to moderate time scales, including historical time
    scales of up to several millennia

-   Environmental hazards in the ocean: causes, consequences and the
    scientific basis of mitigation

-   Dynamics of the mantle convection, lithospheric subduction and the
    ocean-continent transition.

-   Geobiology -- geology, chemistry and biology interconnections

-   Dynamics of open ocean convection, mid-latitude subduction and the
    mixed layer/thermocline interactions

-   Non-linear ecosystems dynamics

-   Infrastructure and community activities

-   Education

Dr. David Lambert, Program Director, Instrumentation and Facilities
Program in EAR, summarized the process they went through in EAR and
planning documents used in identifying research topics. They identified
examples of some of the timeliest and appropriate science targets to
look at in the next ten years. The "Interface" document that EAR
developed posed 12 questions. Dr. Lambert noted those that overlapped
with other divisions and provided a summary of the EAR recommendations:

-   Strengthen contributions from core programs

-   Initiate mid-size activity of some type

-   Expand observational or laboratory infrastructure

-   Expand enhanced computational infrastructure

-   Nurture developing communities

-   Facilitate collaborations and partnerships

The division discussions spent considerable time on mid-size activities
that would empower the community to make transformational progress in
the sciences and to develop flexibility to support CI-type including
high-performance computing. They referred to community initiatives,
workshops, and conferences. Collaborations with other organizations were
also cited as important (e.g., NASA, DOE, USGS, private sector and
international partnerships).

Members noted the absence of an explicit mention of educational
activities. Dr. Lambert noted that all EAR large facilities are
encouraged to have education/outreach programs. It was recalled that
InSAR was intended as part of EarthScope. Dr. Jim Whitcomb said that
InSAR depends on NASA leadership and so far they have not been
successful in obtaining funding although other options would utilize
foreign satellites (e.g., Japanese, European, Canadian). He said that
lacking InSAR will not put a stop to the science, but EarthScope would
significantly benefit from a dedicated satellite for science. Dr. Leinen
added that the Earth Science Enterprise at NASA has worked very hard to
get funding for this project but to date has not been successful.

Dr. David Verardo, Program Director, Paleoclimate Program in ATM,
provided a summary of the process ATM went through to identify the core
activities and values for the five-year ATM vision. He noted it is an
iterative process and involved staff at all levels and thanked them for
assistance in this process. The ATM program officers believe the core
programs are the basis of ATM research. The also noted that diversity is
an area of emphasis and would like to increase the representation of
currently underrepresented groups. The science was organized along the
NSF goals of People, Ideas and Tools. Some challenges ahead relate to
decision making under uncertainty. ATM wants to improve the
understanding of weather risks, weather warning systems, and urban air
quality. They addressed complexity through data assimilation and
cross-scale coupling. They noted the need for CyberInfrastructure and
observing and sensing improvements.

Dr. Verardo also provided an update on the draft addressing GEO-wide
"visions" or "interface". Program officers identified crosscutting
issues and interfaces among divisions and programs in GEO that provide
important, exciting, and challenging themes for science, technology, and
education. Program officers thought the geosciences community would be
anxious to continue to pursue these activities as articulated in GEO2000
and other documents.

The program officer groups identified topics where integration across
programs, divisions, directorates, and agencies is essential. Some
challenges noted include:

-   Abrupt Change

-   Environmental Hazards

-   Geophysical Dynamics

-   Non-Linear Dynamics in Systems

-   Biogeochemical Cycles

-   Global Water Cycle -- think reliable fresh water supply

-   Sensors and Sensor Systems

-   Education and Diversity

-   Ideas, People, Tools: Implementation of Focused Research

Comments:

-   Dr. Harris: It's important that 'people' includes everyone. The
    percent of NSF's investment that really goes into the people (K-16
    on) is still very modest. We are about to see a demographic
    implosion where many people will retire and we will need a vibrant
    and diverse workforce to lead this nation forward. So, we need to
    increase our investments no matter how stressful the funding
    situation is.

-   Dr. Mosher: What are the incentives to link GEO-level and core
    program resources? Dr. Leinen said the program officers were
    concerned that when there is a GEO-wide or NSF-wide theme,
    incentives would there be for them to reserve resources from their
    budgets when they are having to say "no" to other people more
    central to their programs.

-   Dr. Wilson: Would be possible from program officers from different
    divisions to identify the most important parochial projects? Dr.
    Verardo said this process was to look at "interfaces" where the
    divisions can work together. There are many research topics that can
    be done within the divisions.

-   Dr. Jordan: Perhaps the word "vision" might be reconsidered since
    this document doesn't articulates the vision of Geosciences. The
    entire issue of how the planet evolves is not included as a
    crosscutting issue. The document appears to deal with the
    here-and-now and not long-term issues. Important that this Committee
    understands the purpose of this document. Dr. Verardo said this was
    intended as an internal document.

-   Dr. Leinen noted that the *Ad hoc* Subcommittee said that *GEO2000*
    provided a good framework for the geosciences and covered a lot of
    the overarching issues. But the Subcommittee was looking for what
    has happened since 1998 that we should pay attention to -- i.e.,
    what's happening in the science, what has been addressed, what new
    areas to focus on. The charge to program officers was to answer
    those same questions. The program officers have identified those
    challenges in their individual divisions and when they came
    together, saw some things that were common affect the whole field
    (i.e. education, diversity, sensor systems) -- and they want to call
    attention to those issues in addition to subject matter issues.
    Seeing a mix of topics that caught the attention of program
    officers.

-   Dr. Kidwell: I see the document as outlining themes for future work.
    A nice thing about the GEO2000 document was that it was flexible and
    it did not identify themes by discipline -- it broke out of the
    usual discipline-by-discipline characterization of GEO. She thought
    the program officers did a terrific job identifying things we can do
    in common but leaves lot of room to fit in things that are strictly
    OCE, ATM or EAR. As an initial draft it's a nice improvement on
    GEO2000 with some sharper topics. The program officer work
    integrates well and builds on what the A*d hoc* Subcommittee was
    trying to do last year.

-   Dr. Rizzoli: The document is really good and has taken common themes
    among the divisions. She praised the program officers for providing
    a good starting point and identifying some very important themes.

    Dr. Detrick invited comments about where this document should go
    from here? He asked for advice on how to proceed. Are the broad
    topics appropriate in this document? Are these topics to be
    addressed within the existing program budgets or will additional
    funding be needed?

    Dr. Leinen said that program officers will welcome advice from
    AC/GEO. GEO has started a dialog based on the *Ad hoc*
    Subcommittee's report, the program officers have presented what they
    are hearing from their community, and now it's time for the AC/GEO
    to respond. Are members happy with the direction we have been going
    in for current investments or are there other activities that you
    want to receive more emphasis? Since the AC/GEO determined that
    there is no need now for a glossy new document, how do you recommend
    we discuss this issue with the broader community? Town Meetings at
    AGU? Other formats? Should there be some communication from the
    AC/GEO to EOS or some other publication? AC/GEO should take this
    issue for discussion and provide advice.

    Discussion

-   Dr. Mayer addressed interactions with community and noted that the
    program managers have used input from the community -- the reports
    are summations of community input. Until the issue is taken further
    and given different focus is there something to communicate to the
    community.

-   Dr. Jordan said that community feedback is important but documents
    need to be put into appropriate context. What are the capabilities
    of putting this out? Is it appropriate for it to be distributed as
    an EAR item? Could the Subcommittee endorse and circulate it as
    document of AC/GEO? Could it be an EOS article from the EAR
    Subcommittee of AC/GEO?

-   Dr. Harriss said that we should communicate priorities: first to
    increase investments in people, second to invest in making existing
    data widely available and secure, and third to invest in new data
    that addresses national priorities. These don't become anyone's
    specific project but it is important to have community behind those
    strategic priorities.

-   Dr. Mosher said it is important to emphasize the importance of basic
    fundamental research -- advances we are seeing today are based on
    investments that were made in the past. Don't think we should EVER
    go to Congress without emphasizing the importance of fundamental
    research.

-   Dr. Leinen invited the Division Directors to comment on the use of
    these documents. Dr. Zimmerman was pleased with the EAR document
    noting that it reflects many of the sources of information they have
    been getting from the community (both formally and informally). He
    said that the document program officers put together reflects the
    sources very well. Dr. Moyers was pleased with the planning in the
    ATM division. Program managers got together and talked about things
    in a way that isn't all that common in the busy season for program
    officers. He thought that we will find new opportunities to
    encourage priority areas to move forward -- through core programs
    and perhaps combination of mechanisms. Dr. Yoder said that program
    managers in OCE prepared this as an internal document that might
    have some influence on the budgets at the GEO level. He said that
    OCE has had extensive workshops to plan the ocean drilling program,
    carbon cycling work, etc. Program officers were trying to capture
    things that overlapped across GEO. Some topics originated with
    community planning/documents.

    Dr. Detrick summarized the discussion. AC/GEO members were generally
    pleased with the process and recognized that these documents are
    working drafts. Members could encourage continued development of
    these documents and solicit updates at the next meeting. Program
    staff could be asked for an assessment on how well they can address
    the topics that were identified and note those that will require
    special attention.

    ACTION: GEO should continue to develop 'new opportunity' documents
    for the divisions and for GEO. These should be presented at the next
    AC/GEO meeting. In addition, program officers should consider how to
    address those topics that may require special attention.

## CyberInfrastructure Subcommittee Update

Dr. Steve Meacham provided an update on the CyberInfrastructure
Subcommittee. He noted some membership changes: Dr. Peter Cornillon has
been replaced by Dr. Larry Mayer and Dr. Kelvin Droegemeier has been
replaced by Dr. Estelle Condon. Other members include Drs. Jordan,
Mosher and Rizzoli.

He updated members on the three Task Groups:

ATM -- CI Research, Development and Education for the Atmospheric
Science (CyRDAS) [http://www.cyrdas.org](http://www.cyrdas.org/) held
town meetings at both AGU and AMS meetings. In the fall of 2003 there
were six focus group meetings around the country and a final report is
being drafted this summer.

EAR -- ES-CI Forum (Earth Sciences CI Forum) has outlined its six main
goals: advocacy, communications, outreach, education, coordination, and
liaison. They held an inaugural meeting February 2004 at USC. A series
of workshop reports will also be coming out with the notion they will be
synthesized into a single document. A workshop on "Computational
Geoinformatics" will be held May 2-4 in Washington DC to investigate the
future high performance computational needs of the Earth Science
community in the US for the next 5-10 years. EAR is also working to
pursue links with other science disciplines and state and federal
agencies.

OCE -- Community Planning Group has developed recommendations for
possible pilot projects for:

-   federation of databases

-   sharing of datasets

-   processing pipelines

-   standard services

-   collection in a box

-   data preservation

-   data discovery and visualization.

    Also CI is an element in the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI).
    The group is also drafting a report.

    Dr. Meacham noted that CI is not a uniquely GEO topic. Geoscientists
    are trying to learn from other disciplines that are working with CI
    (e.g., physics, biology, engineering, etc.).

    Some recent geosciences community activities include:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A National Geosciences Technology Forum (GTF) will be announced in
    society newspapers (EOS, *BAMS*) with a meeting in the fall of 2004.
    It will try to bring groups together with common interests (ATM,
    EAR, OCE, Hydrological, environmental and computer sciences).

-   CI and Education in the Geosciences -- a workshop was held April
    2004 and a report will be produced.

    Related NSF activities:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   NSF is working on developing a plan for an integrated approach for
    shared CI, some interdisciplinary activities and domain CI. The plan
    will be shared with directorates who will then work to implement it.

-   CISE has been reorganized to include a new Division of Shared
    Infrastructure with Dr. Sangtae Kim as Director. He will work to
    communicate with other directorates at NSF on shared CI.

-   Dr. Cornillon attended the CISE/AC meeting and suggested that we
    find ways to learn from the discussions that other ACs are having.
    He found that they are talking about some of the same issues.

-   Two of the Gordon Bell Prizes for high-end computing went to
    geosciences. Dr. Jeroen Tromp (Cal Institute of Technology) and Dr.
    Omar Ghattas, (CSU). A third award went to investigators in Japan
    for their work in developing new computational infrastructure.

    Discussion:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Dr. Rizzoli suggested that common themes be extracted when three
    reports are completed. She also suggested that Dr. Kim be invited to
    attend future meetings to help integrate GEO & CISE.

-   Dr. Kim was pleased to attend part of the AC/GEO meeting and looked
    forward to future interactions. He noted that there are many areas
    in the GEO directorate that have high profile examples showing
    applications of CI.

    ACTION. GEO/AC members should interact more with other directorates
    and CISE in particular on CI issues. A CI update should be provided
    at the next meeting.

## Update from CEOSE Liaison

Dr. Samuel Myers, CEOSE Liaison to AC/GEO, praised GEO for its
commitment to diversity in both what it says and what it does. He noted
that a big CEOSE activity is to produce a 10-year report to see what
CEOSE has done, i.e., look back to 1982 to see progress in expanding
workforce in respects to gender, diversity and identify difficulties in
assessing effectiveness of NSF's initiatives. He specifically requested
some "nuggets" to bring life to the work that NSF is engaged in
increasing representation of women, minorities and persons with
disabilities for use in the CEOSE report. He noted that we have not
talked too much about persons with disabilities. Perhaps there are
examples of how geoscience has been dealing with persons with
disabilities, e.g., evidence of exceptional undertakings to incorporate
people with visible and invisible disabilities. If so, that would be
valuable input as well. Few seem to know exactly what NSF has done to
ensure that these scientists with disabilities were accommodated.

Dr. Myers also discussed local disaggregation of data on scorecards. He
noted that it's not obvious that geoscience is one thing since there are
a wide number of points of entry into geoscience fields. If he provided
numbers of where they were in 1982 to now -- would that be helpful?

Dr. Leinen said there are several examples they have used in the NSF
annual report and the GPRA process and GEO will convey those directly to
Dr. Myers. She noted as examples the SOARS program that has gone on for
7 years. It provides end-to-end mentoring for students prior to college
and has an 80% success rate of graduating people who have been in the
program. Another example is Opportunities to Advance Diversity that has
formed a consortium with community colleges in the Los Angeles area to
expose them to geoscience for the first time.

Dr. Leinen noted that CEOSE has hired a consulting firm to help them
identify the data for persons with disabilities. She said it was an area
where GEO has been really challenged. Because it is a field-oriented
science, there are many barriers for people with various physical
disabilities. But there are virtual field experiences, often used as
alternative to fieldwork, that may provide examples of ways geoscience
has expanded opportunities for people to participate. Dr. Leinen
proposed to ask the GEO Education team to talk about such data and bring
back to E&D Subcommittee.

ACTION: GEO should identify and provide nuggets and examples of
activities that increase diversity in the field, and in particular,
outline progress made to engage people with disabilities for use in the
CEOSE report.

## Sensor and Sensor Networks Update

Dr. Francisco Chavez updated members on recent activities related to
sensors and sensor networks. The solicitation for proposals on this
topic closed a few months ago and there were 630 proposals (more focused
this year). There were some interesting partnerships among various
groups. In the environmental area, a large percentage of small teams
were geo-related. Panels will be held in June. A possible workshop on
sensors and sensor networks has been discussed by informal NSF groups
(Network Observing Systems for Environment and the Biocomplexity in the
Environment IDEA working group).

## NSF Priority Area Updates

Dr. Detrick noted that written updates on a number of NSF Priority Area
topics were provided in handouts. Some highlights were noted:

-   Biocomplexity in the Environment -- received favorable comments from
    their COV;

-   Nanoscale Science and Engineering -- GEO leveraged its investment by
    about a factor of 3 (investing \$1.5M but obtaining \$4.4M in funds)
    on geo-related awards.

-   Human and Social Dimensions -- Solicitation produced over 700
    proposals. Panels are being planned for June.

## Other Business

Dr. Roger Smith reminded the Committee about plans for an International
Polar Year (2007-2008) noting that it is planned to occur on the 50^th^
anniversary of the IGY. In the House, there is a resolution requesting
that major agencies be involved. If passed in the Congress, there may be
a requirement for NSF to respond. Dr. Smith said he is working on
proposal for an International Helophysical Year -- IHY encompassing
things from the ground up to space weather for 2007/2008. The most
important outcome from these 'years' may again be the legacy items that
result.

Dr. Detrick noted a few future AC/GEO activities:

-   Dennis Hartman will chair COV for Lower Atmospheric Research Section
    and present a report at next meeting

-   A combined meeting of CI Subcommittees will convene before the CISE
    meeting (October 22, 2003) with participants attending the CISE
    meeting. An update will be provided for AC/GEO.

-   GEO Education Working group to meet in the fall and report their
    activities to the E&D Subcommittee.

-   Dr. Wilson continues as the AC/GEO representative on the ERE/AC

-   Dr. Harriss will be the AC/GEO representative on the GPRA/AC.

Dr. Detrick summarized action items:

-   Members accepted the Meeting Summary of the Fall 2003 Meeting.

-   Members accepted the report of the *Ad hoc* Subcommittee on
    *GEO2000* Implementation and agreed that *GEO2000* does not need to
    be redone at this time.

-   Members were pleased with the division and directorate planning
    documents and recommend that the planning continue. GEO should
    provide an update at the next meeting with an assessment of progress
    that can be made on some of those activities with existing
    resources/programs and those that might require special attention.

-   GEO should provide information at next meeting on assumptions that
    went into calculation for MREFC O&M costs and information on the
    impact on accumulating those resources on other programs under a
    couple of scenarios.

-   Members requested that the NRC study of MREFC (Brinkman report) URL
    to be shared with members.

-   The next meeting should begin with a briefing focused on education
    and outreach activities associated with the MREFCs. Dr. Detrick will
    work with Dr. Peach to identify potential speakers from GEO MREFC
    facilities.

-   A response to the *EOS* article was shared with Dr. Zimmerman and
    the EAR Subcommittee to draft a reply for Dr. Detrick to transmit to
    the respondent.

-   Members agreed to establish a Geoscience Education Working Group
    under the E&D Subcommittee.

-   For the CEOSE report, GEO should provide examples of activities
    (nuggets) that indicate steps taken to increase diversity, in
    particular with respect to people with disabilities, in geosciences.

-   A follow-up visit by LSAMP program officers should be scheduled for
    a future AC/GEO meeting.

-   Dr. Huntoon should query LSAMP students that selected geosciences
    majors to provide information for future GEO action. She should
    provide comparable information for both minority and non-minority
    groups in geosciences to see the differences in their selection of
    Geosciences as a career. Salary comparison data were also requested.

Dr. Detrick announced the dates for the fall meeting would be October
27-29, 2004.

Dr. Detrick thanked everyone for his or her participation and a
productive meeting. With no further discussion, the meeting was
adjourned at 11:50 a.m.

[^1]: Members of the *Ad hoc* Subcommittee included Drs. Joyce Penner,
    Estelle Condon, Robert Detrick, Susan Kidwell, Mary Silver, and John
    Wilson