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

**May 3-6, 2006**

**National Science Foundation**

**Arlington, Virginia**

**MEETING SUMMARY**

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

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

**Dr. Ellen Druffel**, Earth System Science, University of California,
Irvine, CA

**Dr. James Hansen**, Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA

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

**Dr. Mark Hixon**, Department of Zoology, Oregon State University,
Corvallis, OR

**Dr. Raymond Jeanloz**, Departments of Earth and Planetary Science and
Astronomy, University of California, Berkeley, CA

**Dr. James Kinter**, Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies,
Institute for Global Environment and Society, Inc., Calverton, MD

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

**Dr. Charles Marshall**, Department of Earth and Planetary Science,
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

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

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

**Ms. Maria Pirone**, Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc.,
Lexington, MA

**Dr. Mary Jo Richardson**, Department of Oceanography, College of
Geosciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX

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

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

**Dr. Sean Solomon**, Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie
Institution of Washington, Washington, DC

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

**Dr. Margaret Leinen**, Assistant Director, Directorate for Geosciences
(GEO)

**Dr. Margaret Cavanaugh**, Deputy Director, Directorate for Geosciences
(GEO)

**Dr. Richard Behnke**, Section Head, Upper Atmosphere Research,
Division of Atmospheric Sciences (ATM)

**Mr. Lawrence Clark,** Program Director, Ocean Sciences Division (OCE)

**Dr. Arthur Goldstein**, Acting Director, Division of Earth Sciences
(EAR)

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

**Dr. Jill Karsten**, Program Director, Education and Diversity Program
(GEO)

**Dr. Julie Morris**, Division Director, Ocean Sciences Division (OCE)

**Dr. Jarvis Moyers**, Director, Division of Atmospheric Sciences (ATM)

**Mr. William Smith**, Staff Associate for Budget (GEO)

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

**Dr. James Whitcomb**, Section Head, Deep Earth Processes (EAR)

The Advisory Committee for the Geosciences Directorate (AC/GEO) held
their spring meeting May 3-6, 2006 at the National Science Foundation in
Arlington, Virginia.

***Wednesday, May 3, 2006***

# Plenary Session 1

## Welcome, Introductions of New Members, Agenda, Status of Actions from Last Meeting 

Dr. William Brune, Chair, AC/GEO, called the full plenary session to
order at 9:10 a.m. The following new members were welcomed and
introduced: Dr. Ellen Druffel, Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Mark Hixon, Dr.
James Kinter, Dr. Charles Marshall, and Dr. Mary Jo Richardson.
Additional nominations for the AC/GEO were invited.

Dr. Brune reviewed the action items from the fall meeting, updated their
status, identified the items that remained, and reviewed the agenda for
the current meeting. He asked for approval of the minutes of the October
2005 meeting. The minutes were approved and accepted.

## Orientation for Members

Dr. Margaret Cavanaugh, Deputy Director, GEO, described the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that applies when a federal official
receives advice regularly from a group that contains one or more
non-federal members and discusses and deliberates on a subject. FACA
committees must be chartered through the Government Services Agency
(GSA) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Meeting notices
must be published in the [Federal Register]{.underline}, minutes of the
meetings must be kept, and annual reports on costs, activities, and
membership must be filed. A Designated Foundation Official (DFO) is
responsible for compliance with FACA rules. NSF staff members must be
present at the meetings. The AC/GEO must adhere to FACA rules according
to the GEO charter. One of the activities of the AC/GEO is to conduct
Committees of Visitors (COV). Membership of the AC is about 15. When
forming a committee, diversity is paramount. Each member of the
committee must sign a declaration of conflicts annually.

# *Reports on the Divisions*

# Division of Atmospheric Sciences (ATM)

Dr. Jarvis Moyers, Division Director, Division of Atmospheric Sciences
(ATM), reported on activities within his division:

-   [RAINEX-Hurricane Rainband and Intensity Change
    Experiment]{.underline}, a collaboration of NSF and NOAA. Using
    instrumented aircraft, researchers studied Hurricanes Katrina and
    Rita and obtained unprecedented data to study intensity changes in
    hurricanes. Because of the intense hurricane season last summer,
    they were able to sample several storms.

-   [T-REX, Terrain--Induced Rotor Experiment]{.underline}. In the
    Sierra Nevada they looked at terrain-induced turbulence caused by
    wind over the mountains. This was the first use of the High
    Performance Instrumented Airborne Platform for Environmental
    Research (HIAPER) aircraft. HIAPER showed the path of the wind
    turbulence but results have not yet been released.

-   [MILAGRO (Megacity Initiative-Local And Global Research
    Observation).]{.underline} This experiment over Mexico City looked
    at the influence on local, regional, and intercontinental areas by
    the Mexico City source and at local pollution, how it is diluted,
    and its affect on climate. It is a joint venture between NASA, DOE,
    and NSF.

-   [CISM (Center for Integrated Space Modeling).]{.underline} The
    Center is simulating a space weather event from the Sun to the
    Earth. It is coupled across scales and is being done to build a
    community type model to the one built for the climate community by
    NCAR in the 1980s. It is a very interactive program that ranges from
    graduate student summer programs to public and scientific
    communities.

# Division of Earth Sciences (EAR)

Dr. Arthur Goldstein, Acting Director, Division of Earth Sciences (EAR),
provided an overview of current research centered on the processes that
operate within and on the surface of the Earth at the intersections of
the lithosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere and that function
in the evolution of the Earth System. EAR comprises two sections:
Surface Earth Processes and Deep Earth Processes. Major activities
include: field based studies; theoretical and computational studies;
state-of-the-art laboratories and infrastructure; educational studies;
international studies; Major Research Equipment and Facilities
Construction (MREFCs); and Science and Technology Centers (STC).

EAR's budget request for FY 2007 is for \$152.3 M, an 8.7 percent
increase over FY 2006. The largest amount is requested for the
Instrumentation & Facilities program which was awarded \$33 M for 2005.
Current projects include:

-   EarthScope, which will image the seismic construction of the
    continent, is expected to cost about \$200 M. The construction
    should be finished by 2008.

-   Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS).

-   UNAVCO, Inc. a geodetic consortium.

-   National Center for Earth Surface Dynamics (NCED) that is focused on
    stream channels.

-   Sustainability of Semi-Arid Hydrology and Riparian Areas (SAHRA)
    Center (to ensure water in a changing world).

# Division of Ocean Sciences (OCE)

Dr. Julie Morris, Director, Division of Ocean Sciences (OCE) provided an
update of the activities of OCE. She said that OCE has a national role,
to be the major research agency for ocean sciences today because it
provides about 70 percent of federal funding for academic ocean
research; about 75 percent of funding for the academic research fleet
operations; and 60 percent of the support for the scientific ocean
drilling programs. The OCE priorities for FY 2007 are: the Ocean
Observatories Initiative (OOI), the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program
(IODP); providing scientists with access to the sea via modern
infrastructure (balanced between research and education); Natural
Hazards; NSF Science and Technology Center (STC) for Coastal Margin
Observation and Prediction; Non-Equilibrium Ecosystems Dynamics; and the
network of Centers for Ocean Science Excellence (COSEE) and other ocean
education programs

The budget request for OCE for FY 2007 is \$307 M, a 6.5 percent
increase over FY 2006. The day rates for global class ships have
increased because of the increase in training costs, security, an aging
fleet and higher cost of fuel. The contributions from other agencies are
flat so NSF costs are going up. There was a one third decline in ship
days in FY 2006. Current projects include:

-   The Hawaii Ocean Time Series at Station ALOHA. It has shown dramatic
    changes in microbial community structure and nutrient cycling as a
    result of changes in large-scale ocean atmosphere interactions.

-   Circulation Obviation Retrofit Kit (CORKS)---designed to study fluid
    flow, crustal processes, life in sub sea floor ocean. Data samples
    are retrieved by submersible or ROV.

-   Rapid Response Cruise to "eruption" at 9 degrees on the East Pacific
    Rise. New Horizon departed San Diego on 5/3/06 for 5-6 days on
    station.

-   Integrated Lithosphere Experiments (an observatory is projected).

-   Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI)---a major MREFC project that
    should answer a wide array of science questions. It will have
    several components such as global scale moored buoy systems;
    regional scale seafloor fiber optic cable system; coastal
    observatories; and autonomous vehicles roaming oceans.
    Cyberinfrastructure will allow real time interaction. People can be
    "at sea" without going to sea and many educational opportunities
    will be provided for K-12.

-   Other research vehicles include Arctic Region Research Vessel; RCRV;
    R/V Langseth; a seismic vessel now being modified; the RHOV, a
    project in the third year of a 6-year design and build process; and
    the Scientific Ocean Drilling Vessel (SODV), which will begin
    scientific operations in FY 2007.

A public workshop was held in April 2006 to devise a national ocean
research priorities plan.

Dr. Morris said that fleet costs have doubled between 1999 and the
present because of the higher fuel costs, response to homeland security
concerns, and environmental permitting. She suggested that costs could
be cut by encouraging a limited time at sea by emphasizing that a lot of
science could be accomplished using new technology and data sets that
weren't previously available.

The AC/GEO then broke for Division Subcommittee meetings for Atmospheric
Sciences, Earth Sciences, and Ocean Sciences.

# Plenary Session 2

The full AC/GEO meeting was reconvened at 1:30 p.m.

# *Report on the Directorate for Geosciences*

Dr. Margaret Leinen, Assistant Director, GEO, provided an update on
activities within the Directorate.

[Budget]{.underline}: The budget request for GEO for FY 2007 is \$744.85
M, a 6 percent increase over FY 2006. The increases were requested for
the Divisions of Earth Sciences, Ocean Sciences and Atmospheric
Sciences. Funds for Innovative and Collaborative Education and Research
(ICER) remain the same as last year. The FY 2008 budget request will be
submitted to the National Science Board in September. It then goes to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and is returned to NSF in
November for final adjustments.

The President has proposed to double the science and technology budget
over the next ten years. In his State of the Union Address, he mentioned
the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). The Initiative focuses on
science and technology for innovation and on science and technology
education for Americans. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) stated
that in order for the U.S. to maintain competitiveness, it must invest
in science, technology, education, and engineering. This has resulted in
a positive budget climate for NSF with overall annual growth projected
at about 7.9 percent.

[Infrastructure:]{.underline} GEO is supporting the operation of the now
completed HIAPER. EarthScope, and the Advanced Modular Incoherent
Scattered Radar (AMISR) are now in process. GEO is also pursuing
strategic investments in observational capabilities such as the
replacement of ALVIN, regional research vessels, and new MREFC projects
such as the Alaska Region Research Vessel (ARRV) and Ocean Observatories
Initiative (OOI). GEO will continue to support the development of
cyberinfrastructure.

[Research and Centers]{.underline}: Research programs across GEO have
increased over \$18 M. Two new Science and Technology Centers are being
funded by GEO. An additional Science and Technology Center is in
process.

[Major Facility Investments]{.underline}: In addition to the completed
HIAPER, there are several other facilities still under construction. The
following amounts were requested for FY 2007: EarthScope, \$27.4 M;
Scientific Ocean Drilling Vessel (SODV), \$42.88M; OOI, \$13.5 M; and
AARV,\$56 M.

[Innovative and Collaborative Education and Research
(ICER):]{.underline} This is a new sub-activity for some NSF-wide and
GEO-wide programs. It includes cross-directorate programs such as
Biocomplexity in the Environment (BE), the Mathematical and Physical
Sciences Priority Area, Ecology of Infectious Diseases; cross-GEO
education programs; and international geosciences programs. Examples
include GEO Teach, Opportunities for Enhancement of Diversity in the
Geosciences, and GeoEd.

[GEO Investments in NSF-wide Activities]{.underline}: National
Nanotechnology Initiative, \$9.65 M; Climate Change Science Program,
\$157.72 M; Networking & Information Technology R&D, \$14.56 M;
Biocomplexity in the Environment, \$37.22 M; Mathematical Sciences,
\$3.53 M; and Human and Social Dynamics, \$1.35 M.

[Biocomplexity in the Environment (BE)]{.underline}: Current
competitions in BE include Carbon and Water in the Earth System;
Materials Use: Science, Engineering, and Society; and Dynamics of
Coupled Natural and Human Systems. The first of these activities is
being managed by GEO. Program reviews are a new mechanism for providing
advice on future science directions. Unlike the Committee of Visitor
(COV) reviews they will focus on "science" rather than 'process" and
will be chartered as a subcommittee reporting to the Advisory Committee.
One member of the AC/GEO will be required to sit on this subcommittee.
The first of the program reviews will be in the Cycles program which has
included Coupled Biogeochemical Cycles; Water Cycle Research; Integrated
Carbon Cycle Research; Biogeosciences; and Carbon and Water in the Earth
System. The AC/GEO and the AC/ERE will jointly manage the reviews. Dr.
Leinen asked for volunteers.

[National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) , Committee on
Environment and Natural Resources (CENR):]{.underline} This is the
President's science advisory. The CENR covers much of the GEO interests
and has subcommittees on global change, air quality, water availability,
ecosystems, disaster reduction, toxics and risk, earth observations,
ocean science and technology, and dioxin. The President has asked each
of these groups to develop a strategic plan.

[What's Going on in Washington:]{.underline} Recently, Senator Sununu
(R-New Hampshire) said that NSF should get out of education research and
leave it all to the Department of Education. However, at the end of a
recent ocean science conference in Denver, the White House
representative said that the integration of research and education is
very important, and we need to find ways to show Congress that this is
the case.

Dr. Roger Smith noted that everyone is aware that in New Orleans
flooding problems will happen again and noted the role of GEO. Dr.
Leinen agreed and said that there was an independent study done by
leaders of the academic community funded in part by NSF that showed a
lack of knowledge of the hydrology that led to the destabilization of
the levees. The National Science Board (NSB) has held three workshops
since the hurricane. It was determined that most of the deaths
associated with hurricanes were due to flooding, and this has changed
the thinking of the Corps of Engineers.

In response to a question about whether the American Competitiveness
Initiative will hamper foreign graduates, Dr. Leinen said that the
business community has had discussions about this with the President so
he has been made aware of the problem

# *NSF Strategic Plan*

Dr. Margaret Cavanaugh, Deputy Director, GEO, said that an update of the
NSF Strategic Plan is required by the Government Performances and
Results Act (GPRA) every 5 years. The current strategic plan was
structured around outcome goals in ideas, tools, people, and
organizational excellence.

The update will be a focused plan that will more clearly articulate core
values and mission, and will be integrated with the NSB's "2020 Vision
for the National Science Foundation", December 2005. Many themes were
gleaned from public comments such as a need to improve math and science
education, to attract the best and brightest to study and perform
research, to balance support for investigators with the development of
world-class research infrastructure, to continue to coordinate research
efforts with other organizations, and to further enhance consistency and
transparency of the merit review process. The new goals projected that
are consistent with NSB strategic priorities are discovery, learning,
research infrastructure, and stewardship.

A draft is to be made available to the NSB for discussion at their May
9-10 meeting. Discussions with and feedback from the Advisory Committees
are planned. Comments will be incorporated and a new draft will be
prepared in June. Feedback from the AC/GEO should be received by May 20.
The NSB approval is expected at their August meeting. The new strategic
plan must be submitted to OMB and Congress by September 2006 so that it
can be in effect by the start of the fiscal year, October 2006.

# *Plans for Beyond GEO 2000 Document*

Dr. Brune said the AC should focus on the next planning phase (Beyond
GEO 2000) as advice on the science consistent with the Strategic Plan.
He asked the AC to develop a firm time line, to engage the community,
and to recommend people who could contribute to developing the plan. He
asked Drs. Smith, Lynn, and Mayer to report on their recent
teleconferences about the plan.

**S*ummary of Division Phone Conferences***

Dr. Roger Smith, reporting on the ATM subcommittee conference calls,
said the discussion highlighted the following points: The document needs
to be responsive to community expectations and in line with the
People-Ideas-Tools mode of planning. A working group will be formed to
include participation of ATM experts, members of the AC/GEO, and experts
in the field from the community. Dr. Brune will make decisions on
participants and contact them. A process of community involvement needs
to be designed, such as town meetings. Drafts should be distributed at
NSF and Congress.

Dr. Larry Mayer reported on the OCE subcommittee conference calls. It
was agreed that the plan must be in sync with the NSF Strategic Plan,
and it should be made available to the committee as soon as possible to
ensure that the work on Beyond GEO2000 is compatible. The committee
should also look at the lessons learned by GEO 2000. The general view
was that it didn't have a great impact on the community. However, since
that time there has been an effort to engage the OCE program managers at
NSF. They also discussed the potential audience of the report.

Dr. Walter Lynn reported on the EAR subcommittee conference calls. Their
discussions lead to several action items:

-   Identify the intended audience: NSF director, other agencies and the
    Congress, research community, broader outreach to the public.

-   Identify ad-hoc committee members who will take the lead in putting
    together the document.

-   Identify modes of communication of the report.

They reviewed a time line and agreed that although GEO 2000 is still
valid, it needs to be updated and re-configured in order to be a guide
for the next 5 years. It should also be responsive to the new Strategic
Plan.

***Discussion***

Dr. Brune provided a time line for Beyond GEO2000: draft ready for
public comment in May 2007; discussions on revisions, and additions at
the AC/GEO October 2007 meeting; and final publication in February 2008.
Dr. Leinen said the AC's role is to provide advice to NSF, but not to
Congress, the OMB or any other branch. The primary audience of the
document is NSF.

Members of the group commented that a better plan would be to go to
professional meetings to publicize the document and get input, and then
prepare the draft. Dr. Maria Pirone said that the American
Meteorological Society (AMS) and the American Geophysical Union (AGU)
meetings are to be held very soon. Dr. Smith said they should develop
some talking points for town meetings and prepare a power point
presentation.\
\
Dr. Leinen suggested that the AC/GEO meet during the next few months and
visit professional meetings in order to devise an initial plan for
discussion at the October 2006 meeting. The AC/GEO agreed that the
publication should be in line with activities discussed at the
Directorate retreat, the Divisions' publications, and the Strategic Plan
that will be completed by October. Dr. Moyers said that his group is
still working on a decadal plan that will probably be undertaken in
2007. Dr. Morris said that OCE is planning a publication that will work
well with the timeline.

Dr. Leinen commented on the AC/GEO's desire to interact with other NSF
Directorates in the initiatives. Dr. Brune asked about other
Directorates' intentions to prepare a publication describing future
plans similar to Beyond GEO2000. Dr. Leinen said that the Office of
Polar Programs (OPP), Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO), the
Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR) and the Directorate
for Engineering (ENG) are all undertaking similar plans in order to
provide advice for the Strategic Plan. Dr. Leinen said the NSB is
interested in transformational research and in long lived data and is
looking into preserving data from the past, and has just completed a
report on international data preservation.

The discussion continued with suggestions for getting the community
involved such as town meetings and/or poster sessions at AGU and AMS
conferences, an article in EOS, a dedicated Website, contacting former
members of AC/GEO, a dedicated e-mail address, obtaining a list of all
professional meetings in the geosciences field, and obtaining a list of
professional electronic newsletters.

Discussion was invited on who should serve on the committee preparing
the document. Suggestions were:

-   Younger people with fresh ideas;

-   Former members of the AC/GEO;

-   People familiar with funding;

-   Representatives of disciplines other than the geosciences;

-   A balance between researchers and educators, federal vs. private
    sector;

-   A representative from each of the subcommittees on the current
    AC/GEO;

-   Total of 12-15 members.

Dr. Brune asked the group to provide suggestions for committee members,
ideas for the Strategic Plan and topics for sidebars for the document.

Dr. Leinen said the GEO2000 was an aspirational document rather than an
implementation one and they have to decide which direction they should
take for the Beyond/GEO 2000 document. She said it influenced
discussions at the Assistant Directors meetings from planning one year
ahead to talking about plans for the next ten years.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

***Thursday, May 4, 2006***

The AC/GEO reconvened at 9:05 a.m. with an Education and Diversity
Subcommittee meeting attended by the full AC/GEO membership.

## Opportunities for Collaborative Education and Research with Tribal Colleges and Universities

Dr. Robert Harris, Chairman, Subcommittee on Diversity and Education,
introduced Mr. James Rattling Leaf, Sinte Gleska University, Rosebud
Reservation, South Dakota and Dr. Dan Wildcat of Haskell Indian Nation
University, Lawrence, Kansas.

**Mr. James Rattling Leaf** spoke about his geosciences experience at
his university and thanked the science community for helping to advance
his university. Their mission is to strengthen their nation through
education, focusing on community, economic and human development and to
teach while preserving the Lakota values and heritage. His community
represents an untapped resource and he would welcome collaboration. He
hopes to be able integrate his students into the science community and
enhance their experience by developing funding, finding scholarships,
and providing mentoring and internships. He spoke about several efforts
already in existence:

-   ESINTE (Earth Science IN Tribal Enterprise) that provides a
    framework to link their culture to earth science;

-   A collaboration between the Sicargu Policy Institute and the USGS
    (they signed a memorandum of understanding in 2000);

-   NativeView, a grass roots effort to promote geosciences education;

-   The EROS Data Center at Sioux Falls, SD.

Other activities have helped advance the study of geosciences in his
community such as a grant from the Partner for Innovation program at
NSF. The result was the Rez Mapper, using Global Information System
(GIS) technology, which was an interactive community-mapping program for
the Rosebud Lakota Nation. The process was to take historical photos and
link them to the land. Other activities are the He Sapa Summer Camp, a
4-day camp that focuses on how the landscape relates to science, the
Native Visions Summer Institute for college students that teaches how
geosciences fit into their culture, and an EpSCOR project to integrate
the tribal colleges with other schools in South Dakota.

Geosciences research, education, and practice are highly interwoven with
the Native American culture. However advancement depends on extensive
cyberinfrastructure, observing systems, workforce and community.
Participation and effective partnerships among academic, government, and
professional organizations must be met in order to accomplish their
goals.

Dr. Brune asked if any evaluation has been done as a result of these
efforts. Mr. Rattling Leaf said most students want to stay on the
reservation and they would welcome some field science programs. Dr.
Jeanloz commented that teaching earth science is important for everyone
and he asked if they have considered linking with other institutions in
the native community. Mr. Rattling Leaf said they have gotten together
with other institutions and the students see the value of collaboration.

**Dr. Dan Wildcat**, author of "*Power and Place*", made the case for
integrating education and research because the native culture is very
experiential. He is not opposed to technology but thinks that some
technologies diminish the community. The geography of the Native
American tribes is very diverse but they all understand the relationship
of air, water, and earth. A key principle for geosciences is to have
everyone think about where they live. Students at tribal colleges are
very much aware of their environment, but to instill a desire to study
science, it's necessary to relate it to where they live. Reducing
biodiversity will reduce culture diversity. He wants his students to
maintain their culture, while using technology to strengthen their
community. In order to achieve the goals he has set for his students, he
noted the following:

-   Tribal colleges must build infrastructure.

-   Partnerships must be built but tribal colleges must have an equal
    voice and participate fully.

-   Opportunities must be provided for internships and summer programs
    (students from tribal colleges have much to contribute).

-   Tribal colleges must invite place-based study of environmental
    science and encourage large universities to come to Native American
    land to learn how the land, air, and water are integrated. The 35
    tribal universities can provide that opportunity since their lands
    are so diverse.

Dr. Smith said that the University of Alaska has asked Native Alaskans
to join that institution but university institutions are often very
conservative and disciplines and departments are divided, which is not
the way the Tribal Colleges are constructed. They are more integrated
and often welcome people as colleagues even if they don't have degrees
because they are respected for their knowledge. There is a concern that
if students move to other areas for internships, they may not return
because there are fewer jobs in their areas, but through EpSCOR, they
are looking at ways to keep the workforce there.

**Dr. Tom Wyndham**, Office of the Director, NSF, provided an update of
NSF's collaboration with the Tribal Colleges. They have worked with
SOARS and NCAR as well as various directorates at NSF such as the
Directorate of Biological Sciences (BIO), Directorate of Engineering
(ENG), and the Directorate for Computer and Information Science and
Engineering (CISE). Currently they are in discussions with Program
Officers associated with the Cyberinfrastructure Initiative (CI). He
encourages inviting these underserved communities to participate and
encourage relationships with them.

***Discussion***

Dr. Samuel Myers said that many students from reservations have
commitments to them and don't want to leave, but if they do, they often
have difficulty in adjusting. Also there is a lack of PhDs working at
those universities to provide mentoring. Dr. Wildcat suggested a model
to have collegial partnerships so that native students can work with
PhDs but really do their work where they call home, and suggested
building a consortium to create a PhD program. CEOSE talks about faculty
exchanges and working with mainstream universities in science.
Incentives should be provided to encourage faculty at large universities
to come to tribal colleges to teach. Also there is a need to encourage
interdisciplinary degrees. There is little incentive to junior faculty
to go out of their discipline. Dr. Wyndham concluded that mentoring is a
two-way street: good ones expect to learn from their protégés.

Dr. Harris thanked Dr. Wildcat and Mr. Rattling Leaf and asked the group
to think of opportunities for the students for research in their native
lands and home areas.

## Update on GEO E&D Programs and COV Planning

Dr. Jill Karsten, Program Director, GEO Education and Diversity Program,
provided an update on NSF strategies in GEO education and diversity. She
said there is an increasing interest in the program because of the
implications of the "broader impact" requirements. The Geosciences
Education Team (GET) coordinates the activities with the EHR
Directorate. Key programs are Geosciences Education (GeoEd);
Opportunities for Enhancing Diversity in the Geosciences (OEDG); Global
Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE);
Geosciences Teacher Training (GEO-Teach); Cyberinfrastructure Support
for Geosciences Education (e.g. DLESE); Centers for Ocean Sciences
Education Excellence (COSEE); STCs and MREFC affiliated programs; and
cross directorate programs such as EESE, CI-TEAM, REU, RUL, ADVANCE, and
CAREER. Program goals are to: provide a diverse, well-trained
geosciences workforce; assure that earth science is taught at the K-12
level and by well trained teachers; provide secondary students with
access to earth science research; make sure GEO's research investments
are integrated with its educational investment; and provide the
necessary infrastructure.

***Key Programs***

-   [GeoED]{.underline}---Results of the November 2005 competition were
    frustrating; funding rate was less than 20 percent. Dr. Karsten felt
    the solicitation was written too broadly and would like advice from
    the AC/GEO on making it more specific.

-   [OEDG]{.underline}---Focused on broadening participation, biannual,
    October 2006 is the next competition. Program evaluation is through
    a contract with the American Institute of Research (AIR).

-   [GLOBE]{.underline}---New solicitation issued December 2005, for 3-5
    projects at \$1 M each for up to 4 years. Review is underway. It is
    a hands-on international student project whose purpose is for
    education, not research.

-   [GEO-Teach]{.underline}---This new program is to provide
    professional development to science teachers. The solicitation was
    issued December 2005 and will award one to three projects of \$3 M
    each year for up to 5 years. It will be funded through a cooperative
    agreement. Dr. Karsten asked the AC/GEO for suggestions for
    panelists.

-   [GEO-ED Cyberinfrastructure --]{.underline}GEO intends to
    discontinue supporting DLESE and has sent a "Dear Colleague" letter
    to get community input. They also notified the DLESE program office
    advising that GEO will stop funding it after FY 2007 and new
    resources should be identified. GEO will help with the transition
    and will convene two workshops to identify K-12 teacher user needs.

-   [COSEE]{.underline}---In the past year, three new COSEEs joined the
    network and a sustainability workshop was held. Goals were set for
    the next three years. Activities planned for 2006-2007 are a
    Committee of Visitors (COV) review, a program evaluation, a special
    issue of *Current* on COSEE products.

Dr. Karsten shared her plans for the future. She said it is important to
coordinate what GEO and EHR are investing. Also the scope of the
solicitations should be made more specific. She asked for suggestions
for members of the COV. She hopes to develop a vibrant, diverse,
innovative geosciences community, define a strategic plan for all GEO
education efforts, develop protocols for OAD and Divisions coordination,
and encourage graduate student/postdoc professional development. She
sees opportunities because of the Protect American's Competitive Edge
(PACE) Act, the American Competitiveness Initiative, the potential
doubling of the NSF budget, and new initiatives in EHR. She asked for
volunteers to the group that is being formed at NSF to help redesign the
AP Environmental Science course. She will suggest it be renamed the
Earth and Environmental Science course. There is a concern that many of
the programs could be shifted to the Department of Education so it is
important for NSF to stay active and involved.

# Plenary Session 3

## Working Lunch: Outgoing Member Presentations

Dr. Brune announced the tradition of the outgoing members making
presentations at their final meeting.

**Dr. Walter Lynn** presented on "Fracture Detection and
Characterization with Seismic Anisotropy". Data is integrated with
seismic information and geologic information. Neural network technology
is used to train the integration of all information at various known
well locations and prospectivity maps are made for future oil and gas
well locations. The Barnett Shale site located in Texas is 7000 ft. deep
and full of gas, so drilling had to be done to a great depth. This
technique is used to help predict how the rocks will fracture. As a
result, there has been a great increase in wells at the Barnett Shale
site. Anisotropy is the value of the measurement and depends upon the
direction of the measurement. There are many causes of azimuthal
anisotropy. Seismic energy can be affected in many ways and velocity is
significant in interpreting the data. There are major challenges
presented by this technology. There is a huge quantity of complex
information that must be analyzed and correlated in a time frame that
provides useful and cost-effective information to reservoir engineers.
Results must be cast in terms of reservoir models. Also in the oil
industry, there is not much R&D, but more experts and case histories are
needed to push the technology.

**Dr. Larry Mayer** presented on "Changing Perspectives of the Seafloor:
New Directions in Seafloor Mapping and Data Visualization". New
technologies are being developed to collect data by sensors and
visualization. He gave a brief history of ocean mapping which started
with testing depth using a lead line. SONAR was later developed but lead
lines were still in use. In the last 20 years, multi beam sonar has been
developed which gives high-resolution horizontal and vertical depths,
and this has revolutionized the study of the sea floor. This new
perspective provides new insights but also a huge amount of data
(1,500,000 gigabits per hour). The data density provides redundancy for
increased accuracy and allows researchers to visualize and quantify the
data. It is now possible to investigate shipwrecks and sunken tanks from
World War II. His group is trying to get high resolution acoustically
and are also working with fisheries to track whales. They have mapped 1
M square kilometers using the focused multi beam. Information is
available on the web at [www.ccom.unh.edu](http://www.ccom.unh.edu/).

## Subcommittee Reports

***ATM Subcommittee***

Dr. Roger Smith, Subcommittee Chair, summarized the ATM discussion in
which an update was given on the facilities:

-   HIAPER is now in operation, on budget and on time, in the Sierras.
    It's going to serve a few thousand experimenters.

-   The Advanced Modular Incoherent Scatter Radar (AMISR)---R &D project
    now under development. There have been a few problems so it may only
    have 10 K instead of 12 K units. But it does have subsets in Alaska
    and Peru. The performance is better than planned. The result is that
    operation will begin at Poker Flat in the fall. There will be 300
    users of that facility and it can be operated remotely by an
    Internet connection. There are 5 AMISR graduate students being
    funded. It has been designed so that the faces can be moved and will
    be shared by Resolute Bay and Poker Flat.

-   The current computing capacity at NCAR is about 700 gigaflops
    sustained. Within about a year it is expected to increase to about
    2300 gigaflops when the new procurement is installed.

-   The subcommittee discussed a petascale collaboratory that NCAR is
    interested in leading, however there are questions about
    expenditure, need, and scale.

-   There was a discussion about the International Polar Year (IPY)
    because of the projects that overlap with GEO.

-   NCAR management review was good with some recommendations about
    human resources. NCAR has two roles: the science that can be done
    there and the technical services they can provide. They now have two
    airplanes, but they don't have enough people to provide adequate
    technical assistance.

## EAR Subcommittee

Dr. Raymond Jeanloz, Subcommittee Chair, provided an update on the EAR
subcommittee meeting.

-   Budgets are flat but the workload is increasing.

-   The OCE and EAR Division Directors have opportunities for new kinds
    of collaborations in and out of GEO such as with EHR.

-   EAR budget is heavily weighted in instrumentation and there is a
    concern about the facilities that are not directly supporting
    science and also about long-term sustainability. There needs to be a
    plan. Universities don't currently cost share but there may be
    opportunities to coordinate better with the universities.

-   The US Array project is successful. There are 400 stations with
    transportable arrays, but there is a need to engage the local
    communities that will have special interest.

-   A heavy proposal load seems to be Foundation wide. There are long
    term implications for initiatives that are short lived but it is
    important to keep the community engaged.

-   EAR's involvement in cyberinfrastructure is in GEO informatics but
    close collaboration with other Directorates must be continued.

## OCE Subcommittee Report 

Dr. Mayer summarized the OCE division discussion. Since the last
meeting, Dr. Julie Morris has been named Division Director. The
following discussion points were made:

-   [Budget]{.underline}: The division is encouraged and hopeful about a
    budget increase. There was a discussion about the observatory and
    research vessels. There are now three MREFCs that may begin soon,
    and they are very costly. The committee also looked at budget
    allocations between core research and the MREFCs (infrastructure vs.
    research). There has been a decrease in the core budget between 2002
    and 2005.

-   [Infrastructure Costs]{.underline}: There is added expense now to
    OCE infrastructure because of the cost of permitting and the higher
    cost of fuel and there is a need to be more proactive in informing
    the community about the increased costs. They should make an effort
    to mitigate the problems by establishing standard protocols for
    permitting.

-   [Success rates:]{.underline} There was a decrease in the success
    rate in 2005. Some OCE program managers have considered easing the
    workload by limiting the number of reviews and/or changing the panel
    review methods. The subcommittee was in agreement but felt there is
    still value in both mail and panel reviews and suggested
    discouraging resubmissions and limiting parallel awards first before
    making the changes in the review structure. The subcommittee did not
    address how to increase the success rate.

## Preparation for a Visit from NSF Deputy Director

In preparation for the visit, Dr. Brune asked the AC/GEO what issues
they would like to discuss with Dr. Kathie Olsen, Deputy Director. Among
the topics mentioned for discussion were:

-   The evaluation of cross-disciplinary initiatives;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   NSF's relationship to global scientific research;

-   Suggestions for the next NSF strategic plan;

-   Advancing science through international relationships;

-   Plans for future if budget is significantly increased;

-   The continuation of cyberinfrastructure;

-   Promoting research and participation at the tribal colleges.

## Visit from Kathie Olsen, Deputy Director, NSF

Dr. Kathie Olsen, Deputy Director, NSF, thanked the AC/GEO for their
hard work and great contribution to NSF. She noted that GEO is one of
the major directorates that has always thought in terms of global
science and economy, but now is the time for all of the directorates to
begin to think internationally.

[President's Competitiveness Initiative:]{.underline} She reviewed NSF's
participation in the President's Competitiveness Initiative. NSF is
hoping to get a 7.9 percent increase, but it still has to be approved by
Congress. Because geosciences affect everyone, it may be easier to get
the public interested. NSF's mission is science, and research and
development.

[Strategic Plan]{.underline}: A draft of the Strategic Plan has been
shared with the ACs. Dr. Olsen asked for suggestions that would then be
given to OMB. Currently, it is a working document.

[Budget]{.underline}: Work is being done now on the FY 2008 budget. At a
recent Congressional hearing, there was a suggestion that NSF not be
involved with education and should leave it all to the Department of
Education. She is opposed to this and feels that you can't separate
education from research. The OAD is considering writing an editorial
about this for "Science". She considers it important to continue
education at NSF.

***Discussion***

[Cross Disciplinary Initiatives]{.underline}: One issue mentioned in the
strategic plan is the cross disciplinary initiatives. The AC/GEO asked
what kind of evaluation of these interdisciplinary projects has been
done to determine what worked. BE is being reviewed at the directorate
level. Is there any review expected at the next level? Dr. Olsen said
the primary means of review is the COV, but that takes 3 years. The
cross-disciplinary projects eventually go into the directorates. Much of
the evaluation that has been done is anecdotal and turns up in nuggets.
COVs only look at the process, but she would like the AC/GEO's feedback
on other methods of evaluation. The AC/GEO asked if she could share with
them any of the lessons learned about the interdisciplinary projects.
Dr. Olsen said that there isn't usually enough time before the project
goes back to the directorate. She agrees that there must be a better
plan in place to review these projects and will bring it up at the next
AD meeting, and would appreciate suggestions from the AC/GEO.

[Strategic Plan Suggestions:]{.underline} The Strategic Plan
acknowledges the global nature of science, but the plan doesn't make
clear how international work is good for the U.S. Dr. Olsen agrees with
the importance of the topic and will add something stating that in the
Strategic Plan. Dr. Jeanloz recommended studying hazards internationally
and how the knowledge can then be applied in the U.S. The International
Polar Year (IPY) often stresses the polar aspect of it but it is
worldwide. Dr. Olsen suggested both topics for sidebars. Dr. Mayer noted
that NSF is described as doing basic research, and yet the draft casts a
very applied tone. Is that an intentional change? Dr. Olsen said she
will check on that and also agreed with the suggestion that discovery
science should be mentioned early in the document. Other suggestions
were that "service to society" should be mentioned in the core values
section; and although "technology" is introduced early in the plan,
there is no mention of "people" until much later in the text. Dr.
Richardson said she is pleased that "people, tools and ideas" have
become "discovery", but thinks that some of the wording is too passive.

[Budget:]{.underline} If the budget is increased, how will you balance
money for current programs, infrastructure, and new programs? Dr. Olsen
envisions more money but doesn't think it will be used to start new
initiatives. More money needs to be moved into the programs because
success rates are too low and NSF wants to encourage more creative
proposals. The NSB has allocated an amount for the MREFC's. Also, there
may be more workshops and surveys to assess success.

[Cyberinfrastructure Initiative:]{.underline} The Office of
Cyberinfrastructure is still in its early days. GEO is heavily involved
in cyberinfrastructure and there is a need for coordination with the
Office of Cyberinfrastructure. Cyberinfrastructure has energized the
community. NSF will continue to invest heavily in it. The new Office is
a mechanism for coordination across the sciences.

[Tribal Colleges]{.underline}: Dr. Harriss called attention to the
presentations from the faculty of the two tribal colleges in the E&D
Subcommittee. They described their landscape as part of their
livelihood. The colleges are growing and they appreciate NSF's help, but
they would like to see direct support in their home territory so their
students will stay. How can NSF encourage studying and teaching at their
site? Because of some constraints, they view research and education
separately, but they think there are many opportunities to conduct
research on their reservations so both could be integrated. Dr. Olsen
said NEON has started to develop and needs 20 sites. She will suggest
that they put some of the observatories in the Plains.

Dr. Olsen thanked everyone for a lively discussion and asked that they
submit their suggestions for the Strategic Plan to her in writing.

## Follow Up to Dr. Olsen's Visit

-   Dr. Brune said he thought the discussion went very well and that the
    AC/GEO provided excellent input into the Strategic Plan early on in
    the planning stage. He urged the group to send their comments and
    suggestions about the Strategic Plan to him and he will forward
    them.

-   Dr. Myers said that he was unclear about Dr. Olsen's response to the
    question about whether NSF supports basic science or science for the
    good of society. Dr. Hixon said NSF supports basic science that
    serves society and it should be made clear in the Strategic Plan.
    NSF supports the spectrum and some of it may look applied, but there
    is a national benefit to supporting fundamental research.

-   An AC member asked if the Strategic Plan is supposed to encourage
    NSF to reach out to other agencies, for example, collaboration in
    hurricane research. Dr. Leinen said Dr. Olsen's excitement about
    geosciences is genuine. She was very interested in the comments and
    suggestions provided by the group in the discussion. She is
    encouraged by the President's Competitiveness Initiative, and the
    effect it will have on NSF's budget, however, there is concern about
    priorities in the U.S. government considering energy problems, the
    war, and the budget deficit.

## Program Review 

Dr. Leinen said that she would like the AC/GEO's input on evaluating the
success of the Coupled Biogeochemical Cycles programs that have been
part of BE and are coming to a close. Should the program continue in
some form as an interdisciplinary activity or should this type of work
be handled in the three separate divisions? Typical COVs do not consider
this type of question since they emphasize the review process rather
than the science content. There was a community call for
interdisciplinary studies, but should programs in this area continue? It
is important to review the science to decide whether the research should
continue in this way.

Dr. Harriss said that part of the review process should be to talk to
graduate students and post docs whose education was interdisciplinary.
The structure of the panel would have to be interdisciplinary. It's
important to do research this way because if you don't have
interdisciplinary programs, people will never learn to understand each
other's science. Universities are now encouraging interdisciplinary
studies. Dr. Leinen said she would like suggestions for panel reviewers
and former AC/GEO members would be very welcome.

Dr. Leinen asked how the review should be conducted. It would be
important to decide what data should be given to the reviewers. Dr.
Mayer suggested tracing the genealogy of a proposal to see what was
declined and how they were changed to make them acceptable, and what
scientific impact the research had. This will be the first review of its
kind and if it is successful will become a prototype of the ones to
follow. The AC/GEO agreed that program reviews could be conducted under
its auspices, as suggested by Dr. Leinen, and that members of the review
committee would be identified from the AC/GEO in the same manner as for
COVs.

The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.

***Friday, May 5, 2006***

# Plenary Session 4

The full AC/GE meeting was called to order at 9:10 a.m.

## NSF Priority Area Updates

[Human and Social Dynamics Priority]{.underline}

Dr. Sara Ruth (ATM), the GEO representative for the HSD priority area,
said there hasn't been much involvement by GEO with this priority and
they would like suggestions for getting them engaged. Integration of
natural and social science is essential to this priority. For example,
topics of concern are the growth of the world population and water
shortage. Dr. Jeanloz suggested promoting the priority at the AGU
meeting.

[Mathematics and Physical Sciences Priority]{.underline}

This priority is in its fifth year and part of its future funds will be
fenced. Currently they are deciding whether it will be continued as a
priority or whether it will go back into the programs. Dr. Kinter said
there was a cross-directorate solicitation that included ENG and BIO
that sought to come up with new methods for collaboration. Only 30
proposals were submitted and only two were considered creative. The
funds that were appropriated for this were merged into more successful
programs.

[Biocomplexity Initiative]{.underline}

Dr. Margaret Cavanaugh summarized details of BE. This priority deals
with coupled biogeochemical cycle, water cycle, and carbon cycle and
ends in 2007 so a program review would be timely. The MUSES program is
now supported and managed by ENG. The Coupled Human and Natural Systems
program is broad so several directorates will partner to keep it
ongoing.

## Cyberinfrastructure 

Dr. Stephen Meacham, Program Director, Office of Cyberinfrastructure,
summarized activities in cyberinfrastructure.

-   Dr. Dan Atkins is the Director of the new Office of
    Cyberinfrastructure. NSF supports about \$600 M of research on
    cyberinfrastructure. Of that amount, \$180 M is in the Office of
    Cyberinfrastructure; the rest is divided among the Directorates. Dr.
    Atkins' Strategic Vision comprises four chapters: high performance
    computing; data; collaboratories and observatories; and virtual
    laboratories. The draft is available on the Web and he asked the
    AC/GEO to review it and send their comments.

-   The high performance computing chapter has three components:
    acquisition of hardware; investments in developing better system
    software and better program environments; and developing next
    generation scientific codes.

-   The Office has been pursuing a two-track policy: (1) investing in
    mid-size computers. Many interesting proposals were received in
    response to the solicitation. They have been reviewed and awards
    will be made in September. The typical size of the awards will be
    \$15 to \$30 M; and (2) developing a petascale facility. A
    solicitation is being prepared and a request for funding is in the
    2007 budget. The total cost will be \$200 M for a single facility.
    NCAR is organizing a workshop for the fall.

-   The MPS Directorate and DOE are putting together a computational
    grid. Their working group includes representatives from all the
    directorates. They are working on application software and have had
    workshops with other agencies. Two competitions will be held and
    solicitations will invite people to team. The awards will be made in
    September.

Dr. Brune asked how the transition from the ITR priority was
progressing. Dr. Meacham said the ITR was very broad and the new Office
is concentrating on more focused competitions.

## ERE Advisory Committee Report

Dr. Leinen provided an update of the most recent Advisory Committee for
the Environmental Research and Education (AC/ERE) meeting. Three topics
were highlighted:

-   Water and Earth Systems: How NSF should proceed on water science and
    water quality research and how NSF could invest to create a
    synthesis between human use of water and the water cycle. A workshop
    was held to bring the community together.

-   Dynamics of Coupled Natural and Human Systems: This was a very
    successful part of BE. Large awards were made and it helped
    encourage the social sciences to become involved with physical
    sciences. Dr. Leinen is working on finding a way to continue it as a
    program once BE ends because it involves working across the
    directorates.

-   Observing Systems: Observatories collect a variety of the
    terrestrial and ecological data. They are concerned with how to
    leverage the networking and sensors to benefit several disciplines.
    They helped to form a working group for observatories within the
    Foundation.

The AC/ERE would like to have a representative from the AC/GEO join
their committee.

Dr. Harriss noted that professional societies for wastewater have
programs on water sustainability, and it would be advantageous to get
federal and local government representatives together with private
sector water management officials. Dr. Leinen agreed and said that a
federal plan for water research is underway and she will mention it at a
meeting on water quality and availability.

## GPRA Advisory Committee Report

Dr. Robert Harriss is the AC/GEO representative to the AC/GPRA. This
Advisory Committee was formed as a response to the passage of the
Government Performance and Results (GPRA) Act. The Act allows the
government to assess its performance through outcomes and goals.
Scientific objectives and performance are evaluated annually. The AC is
formed around the three themes that define the assessment: people,
ideas, and tools. A set of metrics has been established to measure
performance. Nuggets (descriptions of research produced as a result of
funding) are prepared by the programs and the AC/GPRA reviews them.
Nuggets that are most representative of the GPRA objectives are selected
and included in a report to OMB. NSF has ranked very high in the past.

## CEOSE Advisory Committee Repot 

Dr. Samuel Myers, Jr., provided an update on the activities of the
Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering (CEOSE).
Their report to Congress is due in December. One of the key components
of the report is to identify what needs improvement. Some of the issues
identified are:

-   There are no comparable CEOSE committees in other agencies;
    interagency participation is being considered.

-   A review of pipelines and programs that NSF has implemented in the
    past to promote diversity and equal opportunities.

-   The goal to transform institutions to make them welcome divergent
    and diverse groups.

-   Defining "Disabilities". Many people may have been misdiagnosed.

-   The possibility of a clearinghouse for outstanding women scientists.
    CEOSE would like a diverse pool of scientists. There is a shortage
    of women in all the advisory committees.

-   The data and reliability of the results of surveys on ethnicity of
    doctoral recipients. There is a concern about misinterpreting
    African vs. African American.

-   Evaluation of whether a community college education can lead to
    success.

Dr. Jeanloz suggested looking at the Frontiers of Science Symposium for
future members of the AC/CEOSE in order to broaden the community to
include African Americans and women.

## International Polar Year (IPY) Update 

Dr. Roger Smith reported on the IPY. He noted that many nations are
contributing to this international scientific union. NSF has a large
part of the U.S. investment. GEO's portion is \$5 M. The IPY is
attempting to get people to understand that geoscience is very important
to their lives and well being. Congress is not aware of the IPY's
international influence since they think that it only encompasses the
science that is being carried out in Alaska. He hopes that IPY will show
the relevance of polar science to the U.S. in terms of climate change
from Polar Regions. The National Academy of Science (NAS) leads the U.S.
participation.

## Concluding AC/GEO Issues

[Presentations to Outgoing Members]{.underline}

Dr. Leinen presented a certificate of appreciation for service on the
AC/GEO to outgoing members: Drs. Lynn and Mayer. She thanked them for
their valuable advice in very important areas.

[Review of Action Items]{.underline}:

Dr. Brune reviewed the following action items:

-   Nominations for new AC/GEO members should be mailed to Dr. Spence.

-   Send suggestions for future activities for the Subcommittee on
    Education and Diversity to Dr. Harris.

-   Provide comments for defining "disabilities" to Dr. Myers.

-   GEO needs nominations or a volunteer for an AC/GEO representative to
    serve as a liaison with the AC/ERE.

-   Comments on Strategic Plan (passive vs. active) to be submitted to
    Dr. Brune as soon as possible.

-   Nominations or a volunteer for Chair for program review of
    biogeochemical cycles are welcome.

-   Follow up on Dr. Karsten's offer to help GEO secure a booth or
    distribute flyer at the AGU meeting.

-   Review Dr. Spence's list and make suggestions for Beyond GEO2000
    committee. The committee should be diverse and include
    representatives from EAR, ATM, and OCE. Past presidents of societies
    may be good selections for Chair or members.

-   Dr. Richardson will be the AC/GEO members for the COV on OCE.

-   Dr. Pirone offered to get a booth or poster session at meeting of
    American Meteorological Society (AMS).

[Dates of Future Meetings]{.underline}

The date of the next meeting is October 4-6, 2006. Tentative dates for
the spring meeting are April 18 or 25 or May 2, 2007. Dr. Brune thanked
everyone for a very productive meeting. With no further discussion, the
meeting adjourned at ll:50 a.m.