From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Tue Oct 12 14:45:28 1993 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA04262; Tue, 12 Oct 93 14:45:25 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa17299; 12 Oct 93 14:45 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA01885; Tue, 12 Oct 93 11:38:23 PDT Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 11:20:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Erratum, Stream data catalog To: streampub@lternet.washington.edu, PI@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Dear Stream catalog authors and PIs: Please note the following and include an erratum note with any copies of the stream catalog you distribute from your site. On p. 44, IV.B.: Chlorophyll units should be mgm-2 NOT ug m-2 (micrograms) From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Tue Oct 12 16:51:38 1993 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA04497; Tue, 12 Oct 93 16:51:34 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa02962; 12 Oct 93 16:51 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA02914; Tue, 12 Oct 93 13:45:41 PDT Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 13:38:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Press Coverage of LTER Program To: PI@lternet.edu Cc: cBledsoe@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Dear PIs: FYI, I've learned that this Friday's issue of Science magazine will contain Rich Stone's article on the LTER Program. (He's the writer who attended the All Sci Meeting. I've also tracked down an article that appeared prior to the meeting as a result of our promotion in the Rocky Mountain News. It features the Niwot Ridge and Central Plains sites and provides a summary on the whole Program. I'm sending copies to the two Colorado sites, but if any of the rest of you would like a copy, please let me know. Stephanie LTER Network Office From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Fri Oct 15 18:38:24 1993 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA04884; Fri, 15 Oct 93 18:38:11 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa09800; 15 Oct 93 18:37 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA18194; Fri, 15 Oct 93 15:36:38 PDT Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1993 15:16:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: New LTER Network slides To: PI@lternet.edu Cc: jGosz@lternet.washington.edu, pPenhale@lternet.washington.edu, tCallahan@lternet.washington.edu, aSocci@lternet.washington.edu, jEdwards@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Dear PIs: As noted in an earlier message, I have sent each site one set of the new slides, one of the new ecosystem map with the LTER sites located (which appears in the new brochure), and one of a simpler two-color map developed at the Network Office by Ken Bible. Following is a list of the particular individuals to whom the slides were sent. Please ask for duplicates from the person listed for your site. When making duplicates, please include the statement regarding copyright restrictions on the ecosystem map. AND - Fred Swanson ARC - John Hobbie BNZ - Keith Van Cleve CDR - David Tilman CPR - Bill Lauenroth CWT - Judy Meyer HFR - David Foster HBR - Hubbard Brook JRN - Bill Schlesinger KBS - Kay Gross KNZ - Alan Knapp LUQ - Robert Waide MCM - Robert Wharton NWT - Nel Caine NTL - John Magnuson PAL - Robin Ross SEV - Bruce Milne VCR - Bruce Hayden Other: NSF - James Gosz, DEB Polly Penhale, Polar Programs Caroline Bledsoe From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Thu Oct 21 14:11:16 1993 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA09245; Thu, 21 Oct 93 14:11:15 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa20977; 21 Oct 93 14:11 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA06698; Thu, 21 Oct 93 11:07:58 PDT Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 10:46:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Article on LTER in SCIENCE Magazine To: PI@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Dear PIs: The release date I was given for the SCIENCE article resulting from our presswork at the All Scientists Meeting turned out to be an internal one at the magazine. The issue containing the LTER article is Vol. 262, October 15, 1993, which I now understand will be out THIS Friday. Stephanie Martin Publications LTER Network Office From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:sollinsp@ccmail.orst.edu Fri Oct 22 17:42:54 1993 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA12585; Fri, 22 Oct 93 17:42:51 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa16647; 22 Oct 93 17:42 EDT Received: from gaia.ucs.orst.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA12107; Fri, 22 Oct 93 14:37:59 PDT Received: from ccmail.orst.edu (ccmail-5.UCS.ORST.EDU) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu with SMTP id AA16670 (5.67a/IDA-1.5 for ); Fri, 22 Oct 1993 14:37:54 -0700 Received: from cc:Mail by ccmail.orst.edu id AA751321941 Fri, 22 Oct 93 13:32:21 PST Date: Fri, 22 Oct 93 13:32:21 PST From: sollinsp@ccmail.orst.edu Message-Id: <9309227513.AA751321941@ccmail.orst.edu> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: "Soil survey" survey Status: OR Dear Colleagues: At the All-Scientists Meeting, we offered to compile information on soil surveys and soil maps available for each LTER site. Since it is not clear who at each site is most involved in soil survey, we have addressed this to the site PIs and ask that you forward it to the appropriate people at your site. In responding, please include the following information. If more than one survey or map has been done, we'd appreciate a separate paragraph on each. If no survey or map has been done, please describe any future plans, or indicate that nothing is planned. date authors, affiliations area covered (name, size, boundaries -- indicate if part of larger survey) map scale sampling density (pits, auger holes) sampling depth sampling by horizons or depth? analyses performed were pedons classified? by what system? are profile descriptions available? field and lab data available? data available as GIS layer (indicate GIS system) soil samples archived? report available? (citation) paper maps available? (contact person) future plans We will compile the information and write it up as an article for the LTER newsletter. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Phil Sollins / Rich Boone From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Wed Oct 27 17:34:32 1993 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA21772; Wed, 27 Oct 93 17:34:30 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa26254; 27 Oct 93 17:34 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA20376; Wed, 27 Oct 93 14:26:51 PDT Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 14:26:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: "Official Minutes" from Climate Committee (fwd) To: PI@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR LTER CLIMATE COMMITTEE MEETING Estes Park, Colorado ALL SCIENTISTS MEETING 9/19/93 Minutes recorded by Phyllis Adams and edited by David Greenland. Present at the meeting were: Doug Schaefer (LUQ), Les Viereck (BNZ), Phyllis Adams (BNZ), Emery Boose (HRF), Lloyd Swift (CWT), Alok Sikka (AND), Robert Griffiths (AND), Randy Wynne (NTL), Paul Bolstad (CWT), John Magnuson (NTL), Rick Ingersoll (NWT), Tim Bardsley (NWT), Alan Yeakley (CWT), Dale Robertson (NTL), Douglas Moore (SEV), Peter Homann (AND), Mark Losleben (NWT), Joan Foote (BNZ), Karen Baker (PAL), David Greenland (AND,NWT). Apologies: Tim Kittel (CPR), Bruce Hayden (VCR). The LTER Climate Committee meeting opened with introductions of all participants and a short summary of the function and history of the group. REVIEW OF ACTIVITIES SINCE LAST MEETING: Although no major projects have been undertaken within the last 3 years, members of the Climate Committee participated in a number of activities. These include: A. An update of the climate description document was proposed at the 1990 meeting. A proposal, "An Updated Climatic Description and Synthesis Document for Long- Term Ecological Research Sites", written by David Greenland, Tim Kittel, and Bruce Hayden, was submitted to NSF Long-Term Studies in March 1992. Although it had the support of the LTER Coordinating Committee, this proposal was rejected by NSF due to other funding priorities. Jerry Franklin has recommended that this proposal be resubmitted especially in light of the current emphasis by NSF on intersite research activities. B. The decision at the 1990 meeting to distribute climate related information resulted in the Climate/Ecosystem Dynamics (CED) newsletter. This document, produced by Bruce Hayden, is distributed approximately every six weeks by e-mail, and has proved to by very entertaining and informative. C. GCM generated data have been uploaded to the LTER network system, and are available on line for select areas. Bruce Hayden and Rudolf Nottrott were responsible for this. D. David Greenland participated in the Ninth Annual Pacific Climate (PACLIM) Workshop at Asilomar, CA April 21-24, 1992 resulting in a proceedings publication, "Climate Studies in the Long-Term Ecological Research Program" E. The Climate Committee was represented by David Greenland at the LTER/NASA Remote Sensing Workshop at Sevilleta in November 1992. A separate Network report on this Workshop is available from the Network Office. A spin-off publication from this was "Use of satellite-based sensing in land surface climatology" D. Greenland. Progress in Physical Geography. 17(4)461-474. F. As representative of the Climate Committee, David Greenland has provided advice and information to various requests including data for the updated Blue (Green) Book. Climate Committee members have also supported and aided the LTER Data Managers efforts to develop an Inter-Site on line Climate Database. CLIMATE AS A CORE AREA A proposal was presented by John Magnuson to designate Climate as a core area for LTER studies. This concept developed out of the concern recently expressed in the ten year review document to re-examine the core areas, because climate is viewed as a basic component of LTER sites and is specifically considered in many of the principal hypotheses investigated at individual sites. Climate is not only a disturbance factor common to all sites but a major driving control of the whole ecosystem of the sites. Advantages of having climate as an explicit core area were discussed and included the facts that it would : -- Help to emphasize the important two way interaction between the atmosphere and biosphere and thus aid the generation of better research questions. This relates particularly to the kinds of questions that climatologists ask of ecologists and vice versa. --Provide for more effective convergence of atmosphere / biosphere links. There is already in atmospheric science a growing awareness of the need to pay heed to the biosphere, and in ecology there is a growing awareness of the need to treat atmospheric processes. The already existing, and very important, convergence of these trends in the two disciplines would be speeded if climate were considered more explicitly in LTER core areas. --Provide better spatial and temporal scaling of climate variation for process based distributed modeling efforts. --Provide better link to climate models and the climate modeling community so that ecologists could enter into more direct dialog with the latter community. --Stimulate development and seeking out of climatic expertise at the institutions where LTER sites are based. --Promote active use of climate database at each site. --Emphasize the fact that climate and climatic data is one of the few synthesizers available across the LTER Network. It was decided that David Greenland, on behalf of the Climate Committee, would write to the LTER Coordinating Committee expressing these views. REVIEW OF CLIMATE WORK AT LTER SITES A representative of each LTER site (of those that were present) gave a brief summary of historical climate records available as well as some of the more important past and ongoing climate-related projects at the LTER sites. Common themes include measurements of micro/meso scale variables and fluxes, hydrological measurements and modeling, and some type of atmospheric deposition measurements. Many sites have established, or are establishing, a mesoscale network of observing stations to supplement the data from the their "primary" meteorological sites. Climate data have been used at all sites to drive ecological models such as Forest Gap Models and CENTURY. Certain sites pursued climate-related studies which would be impossible, for various reasons, to duplicate across all sites. Outstanding examples of these are the carbon dioxide flux eddy- correlation tower studies at Harvard Forest, coherence among lake climate and chemistry at the North Temperate Lakes, and the lightning strike studies at the Sevilleta site. Rick Ingersoll reported on the data managers project which surveyed data collected electronically at the sites. This survey identified common problems and is updated twice a year and is available on Gopher. Concerns were expressed about how best to perform a times series analysis / synthesis of climate data of the LTER sites. In some cases, standardization of the analyses may not pick up the correct time window needed to detect anomalies. A robust analysis across sites will have to incorporate identification of that window individually for each site. Doug Schaefer agreed take responsibility for, and be lead author on, a paper which reviews already completed and in progress climatic studies and observations at LTER sites. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER ACTIVITIES There was discussion about a variety of potential research and other projects which could be pursued by the Climate Committee. The following summarizes the activities finally agreed upon for the next three year period. A. Resubmit proposal--the proposal to update the Climatic Description and Synthesis Document will be rewritten and resubmitted to NSF. B. CED Advertisement--David Greenland will submit a letter to the LTER Network News about CED and how to get on the mailing list. C. Revision of Site Climate Analysis Document--a proposal will be submitted to revise the Site Climate Analysis document. D. Participate in El Nino activities-- Climate Committee members will actively participate in the El Nino workshop at the LTER All Scientists Meeting, and will be involved in activities resulting from that workshop. From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:jcallaha@nsf.gov Mon Nov 15 08:52:13 1993 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA14457; Mon, 15 Nov 93 08:52:12 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa07907; 15 Nov 93 8:52 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA13508; Mon, 15 Nov 93 05:48:33 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA33824 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Mon, 15 Nov 1993 08:52:40 -0500 Message-Id: <199311151352.AA33824@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.washington.edu Subject: Questions Date: Mon, 15 Nov 93 08:52:40 EST From: "James T. Callahan" Status: OR Tim Seastedt recently asked about REU supplements for LTERs. You may have received REU supplement info from our division recently. For LTER DO NOT request ANY supplements until asked to do so. I don't, at this time, have any idea what the supp funds pictire will be for FY94. Tom Callahan From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:parmentr@puerco.unm.edu Mon Nov 15 10:28:03 1993 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA14636; Mon, 15 Nov 93 10:28:02 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa24302; 15 Nov 93 10:27 EST Received: from puerco.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA13806; Mon, 15 Nov 93 07:24:12 PST Return-Path: Received: by puerco.unm.edu (5.57/VISION/14Apr88/C) id AA10540; Mon, 15 Nov 93 08:24:05 -0700 Date: Mon, 15 Nov 93 08:24:05 -0700 From: parmentr@puerco.unm.edu Posted-Date: Mon, 15 Nov 93 08:24:05 -0700 Message-Id: <9311151524.AA10540@puerco.unm.edu> To: pi@lternet.edu Status: ORS Memo to: ALL LTER RESEARCHERS From: Bob Parmenter, Sevilleta LTER Subject: REU Site Program at Sevilleta The UNM Department of Biology is soliciting applications from undergraduate students for participation in a Research Experiences for Undergraduates Program at the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge. If you know of any undergraduates that might be interested in spending the summer of 1994 on the Sevilleta as an REU student, please have them contact me at the address/phone/email listed below. Thanks for your cooperation! -- Bob Parmenter ********************************************************************** 1994 SUMMER RESEARCH EXPERIENCES FOR UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS WITH THE SEVILLETA LONG-TERM ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH PROGRAM The UNM Department of Biology is continuing its NSF-sponsored site program for RESEARCH EXPERIENCES FOR UNDERGRADUATES (REU). The program is designed to promote the inclusion of undergraduate science majors in scientific studies in collaboration with the Sevilleta LTER Program. As such, the Sevilleta REU Program will again offer 10 undergraduate research stipends to selected students during the summer of 1994. The Sevilleta Research Region: Students will participate in ongoing ecological studies of plants, animals, and biogeochemical cycles, involving the Sevilleta Research Region in the central Rio Grande valley of New Mexico. The research sites include the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge, Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, the Sierra Ladrones Wilderness Study Area, and the Magdalena Mountains (Cibola National Forest). These areas cover approximately 1,000 square miles of central New Mexico, and include a wide variety of biomes and habitat types. Habitats under study include Rio Grande Riparian Cottonwood Forest, Chihuahuan Desert, Great Plains Grasslands, Great Basin Shrub-Steppe, Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands, Mixed-Conifer Forests, and Subalpine Spruce-Fir-Aspen Forests and Meadows. Elevations in the study areas range from 4,400 ft at the Rio Grande to almost 11,000 ft in the Magdalena Mountains. REU Program Description: Students will assist UNM biologists with ongoing field research projects in botanical and zoological studies during the summer of 1994 (12 weeks). In addition, each student will undertake an independent research project in collaboration with a selected faculty advisor. Project topics in 1994 include studies of grassland wildfires, mammalian parasitology, arthropod ecological physiology, plant ecology, and riverine nutrient dynamics. These projects will teach the student how to (1) develop hypotheses, design and implement a scientific study, (2) analyze and interpret data, and (3) write a scientific manuscript for journal publication. Students also will give pre-project and post-project seminar presentations to fellow REU students and UNM faculty and staff. Students will also participate in the UNM Biology Course, ECOSYSTEM RESEARCH TECHNIQUES, (BIOLOGY 402, 3 Credit Hours), during the summer semester at the Sevilleta Field Station (tuition will be free). Student Housing: Students will live at the UNM Sevilleta Field Research Station located near the Headquarters of the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge. Students will be given quarters with other REU students in 3-bedroom houses at the station. Lodging is free for REU students. Houses contain fully-equipped kitchens for meal preparation. Student Stipends: Each student will receive a $230/week stipend for participating in the 12 weeks of the REU Program. Eligibility and Qualifications: Student applicants must be enrolled in an undergraduate college or university program, and must not have received their degree prior to the summer program. Applicants must be U.S. citizens. Students should have a strong academic background in biology and ecology, and be highly motivated for independent research. Knowledge of computers, word-processing software and basic statistics would be extremely useful, but not required. The UNM REU Program is an equal opportunity program; women and minorities are encouraged to apply. The Sevilleta Field Station is also wheelchair accessible. APPLICATION DUE DATE: February 25, 1994. SUCCESSFUL APPLICANTS WILL BE NOTIFIED STARTING MARCH 14, 1994. FOR APPLICATION PACKETS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: DR. ROBERT R. PARMENTER REU PROGRAM COORDINATOR DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY, CASTETTER HALL UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87131. Telephone: 505-277-7619 FAX: 505-277-5355 Bitnet: PARMENTR@UNMB.BITNET Internet: parmentr@sevilleta.unm.edu **************************************************************************** From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:deb@aristida.cfnr.colostate.edu Mon Nov 15 16:15:15 1993 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01627; Mon, 15 Nov 93 16:15:13 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id ab11213; 15 Nov 93 16:15 EST Received: from aristida (aristida.CFNR.ColoState.EDU) by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA14061; Mon, 15 Nov 93 08:54:03 PST Received: by aristida (4.1/SMI-DDN) id AA08654; Mon, 15 Nov 93 09:53:58 MST Date: Mon, 15 Nov 93 09:53:58 MST From: Deb Coffin Message-Id: <9311151653.AA08654@aristida> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Post doc position in ecology Status: ORS PLEASE CIRCULATE: POST-DOCTORAL ASSOCIATE POSITION (Available Immediately) One position is available for a post-doctoral associate to evaluate interactions between grasses,shrubs, and trees in order to understand controls on the tallgrass prairie-forest transition in North America. The work will be part of a research project in which we are evaluating changes in species and lifeform composition for a gradient from the shortgrass steppe in northeastern Colorado to tallgrass prairie and deciduous forest in eastern Kansas. Our objectives are to use field studies, archival data, and simulation modeling to account for existing patterns in vegetation and ecosystem processes under current environmental conditions, and to assess potential responses of ecosystems to environmental variability, including climate change. We are using four simulation models in the analysis: two individual plant growth models, one for grasslands (STEPPE) and one for forests (ZELIG), a nutrient cycling model (CENTURY), and a soil water model (SOILWAT). Applicants should have a strong ecological background, and preferably good quantitative skills. Good oral and written communication skills are essential. This is a 1-year appointment with the possibility of renewal depending on funding availability. Salary is $28,000/y. This is a collaborative project between D. P. Coffin, T. B. Kirchner, W. K. Lauenroth, W. J. Parton, and D. L. Urban at Colorado State University, and H. H. Shugart and T. M. Smith at the University of Virginia. Interested persons can contact Dr. Debra Coffin (telephone: 303/491-7662; email:deb@aristida.cfnr.colostate.edu) for additional information. Applicants should send a cover letter, CV, copies of publications, and names, addresses and phone numbers of three references to either Debra P. Coffin or William K. Lauenroth, Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523. The position will remain open until a suitable candidate is found. Colorado State University is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer. Women and minorities are encouraged to apply. Office of Equal Opportunity, 21 Spruce Hall, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523. From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Wed Nov 24 14:34:45 1993 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA21336; Wed, 24 Nov 93 14:34:44 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa20149; 24 Nov 93 14:34 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA29480; Wed, 24 Nov 93 10:44:03 PST Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 09:28:01 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: 2nd International Conference on Science & Mgmt. of Protected Areas To: PI@lternet.edu, LMERPI@lternet.edu Cc: jGosz@nsf.gov Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR 11/24/93 Dear PIs: The Network Office received notice of a conference you may wish to attend. The 2nd International Conference on Science & the Management of Protected Areas, May 16-20, 1994, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, will be a forum for a government and university scientists, managers, consultants, non-government organizations, and interested individuals. THEME: Ecosystem Monitoring and Protected Areas (The conference will consider the science and management of whole-system monitoring in both terrestrial and marine environments.) ENDORSERS: World Conservation Union (IUCN), WWF Canada, Man and the Biosphere Program (Canada), The George Wright Society, Science and the Management of Protected Areas Association and Parks (Canada). The conference will utilize the following format: OVERVIEWS: 45-minute illustrated talks on broad topic areas. Speakers will be invited to introduce sessions devoted to particular topic areas, including: 1. Protected Areas, biosphere reserves and global change 2. Ecological Monitoring programs and networks 3. Ecosystem monitoring in ocean environments 4. Methods for ecosystem monitoring and data analysis 5. Assessing the effectiveness of monitoring programs 6. State of the Environment Reporting 7. Environmental impact assessment 8. Partnerships and volunteers in monitoring programs 9. Ecological monitoring and public education 10. Ecological and environmental indicators 11. Measuring and monitoring biodiversity 12. Landscape management and ecosystem integrity 13. Ecosystem monitoring and human health PAPERS: 15-minute presentations (+5 minutes for questions) on specialized topics falling within identified topic areas. These will form the primary content of the conference and will be based on abstracts received from interested individuals. Papers will be published in camera-ready format and complete manuscripts must be received by the time the conference ends--May 20, 1994. (The official language of the conference will be English.) POSTERS: Displays will be mounted on boards. Several boards should be arranged to fit within 1.1.2m and should contain enough information to be self-explanatory. WORKSHOPS: Workshop will provide opportunities for activities such as meetings of working groups, development of proposals, and discussion. Workshop proposals are welcome and may be made at any time, but priority for room space will be assigned in order of receipt. SYMPOSIUM: A symposium on Marine Protected Areas will be held. EXHIBITS: Exhibit space will be available for commercial, government, other exhibitors, and for demonstrations on information and data management technology. ABSTRACTS: Abstracts for papers and posters are due no later than January 15, 1994. REGISTRATION FEE: $160 (Canadian), which includes payment for the proceedings ($50 value) FOR MORE INFORMATION and abstract forms: Mr. Neil Monro, Parks Canada, Historic Properties, Upper Water Streeet, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, B3J 1S9, 902-426-7012 (FAX). From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:jerry@lternet.edu Mon Nov 29 19:05:13 1993 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA02958; Mon, 29 Nov 93 19:05:12 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa16488; 29 Nov 93 19:05 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA14427; Mon, 29 Nov 93 16:03:55 PST Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 16:03:55 -0800 (PST) From: Jerry Franklin Subject: International LTER business To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, jGosz@lternet.washington.edu, Daniel Pommert , kBible@lternet.washington.edu, gStought@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR To: LTER Principal Investigators, J. Gosz, Net. Office Staff From: Jerry Franklin, Chair, LTER/CC Subject: Followup on International Summit and other int'l aspects of the LTER program Jim Gosz called recently to (1) report on what he found out during a recent trip to Hungary (copy trip report attached) and (2) what NSF is prepared to do in supporting the initial development of international collaborative activities. International Programs at NSF is very interested in encouraging the development of links between US LTER sites and comparable foreign programs. Identification of paired sites and initiating actions that would make such partnerships a reality have high priority. NSF is ready to entertain proposals for initiating international activities. There are currently funds in the range of $100,000 for use over a 3-year period to get things started. Funding could come either as supplements to existing LTER grants or as part of an umbrella grant to the network office. The network office intends to seek some funding for such activities, particularly those associated with implementing the recommendations of the International LTER (ILTER) group; however, I would prefer to see as much support as possible go directly to sites as supplements to existing grants. Types of activities that NSF is thinking about include: (A) CONFERENCES, such as on methods, standardization. There is already a proposal for such a session in Hungary involving US and European scientists in spring '94. Emphasis is on having scientists present who are interested in comparability and compatibility. (B) EXCHANGES FOR PLANNING COLLABORATIONS. Support for travel and other meeting related expenses to explore potential for pairing sites in US and elsewhere. Where you need to have some scientists travel to a foreign site for 1 to 2 weeks to work with personnel on the objectives and mechanics of an exchange and/or partnership, for example. (C) TRAINING. Support for training of foreign personnel at the level of students or higher. PLEASE KEEP ME PERSONALLY INFORMED OF YOUR PLANS AND ACTIVITIES RELATED TO YOUR INTERNATIONAL INITIATIVES SO THAT I CAN MAINTAIN AN OVERVIEW AS TO THE TYPE AND LEVEL OF LTER INVOLVEMENT. ----------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 02 Nov 93 14:37:14 EST SUMMARY TRIP REPORT FOR HUNGARY, October 23 - 29, 1993, by JAMES R. GOSZ Purpose: Identify potential partnerships among research sites and scientists for the Long Term Ecological Research program of NSF and the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. This trip was developed and supported by the Eastern Europe Program (B. Thompson) of INT and the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. James Gosz of NSF and James Brunt (Data and Information Management Specialist) of the University of New Mexico visited research Institutes and sites to discuss potential interactions with the LTER program. INT financed the travel to Budapest and the Hungarian Academy of Sciences made logistical arrangements and covered expenses in Hungary. This trip follows a meeting in Washington, D.C. between James Gosz, Ms. Bonnie Thompson (INT) and Professor I. Lang, former Secretary General of Hungary during which the LTER program was discussed along with potential interactions. The trip to Hungary was proposed by Professor Lang. This trip also follows and complements the results of the International Summit at the LTER All Scientists meeting in September of 1993 where recommendations and working groups were identified to pursue: 1) international directory of research sites; 2) international connectivity and communication; 3) standards and comparable methodology; 4) partnerships and promotion. The Hungarian trip addresses all of these topics. Dr. Edit Kovacs-Lang and Dr. Gabor Fekete of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences attended the International Summit and helped plan the trip. Hungarian Hosts: The Hungarians responsible for hosting and organizing the trip were: Professor Istvan Lang - former Secretary General, Science Policy Advisor to the President of the Hungarian Academy, and Chairman, Hungarian National MAB Committee. Dr. Edit Kovacs-Lang, Director of the Institute of Ecology and Botany, Hungarian Academy of Science. Dr. Gabor Fekete, Hungarian Academy of Science. Ms. Katalin Pigler, Section Head, Office of International Cooperation. Significant Meetings: Sunday, Oct. 24 Professor Istvan Lang Professor Gabor Vida, Head, Dept. of Genetics, Eotvos L. Univ. Ms Katalin Pigler This meeting was to discuss general objectives, outline the LTER program and potential international collaboration, and the strategy for the trip. Tuesday, Oct. 26 Ministry for Environmental and Regional Policy and National Authority for Nature Conservation Dr. Janos Tardy, Deputy Secretary of State and President, National Authority for Nature Conservation Dr. Istvan Major, Head, Department for Wildlife Protection Dr. Gyula Biczok, Head, Department for Geology & Landscape Protection Dr. Odon Radai, Senior Advisor Dr. T. Patkai, Information Management Mihaly Vegh, wetland specialist Wednesday, Oct. 27 Professor Istvan Lang Professor Istvan Teplan, General Director, Department of Natural Sciences, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Dr. Edit Kovacs-Lang Dr. Gabor Fekete Ms. Katalin Pigler Mr. Larry Cohen, U.S. Embassy This meeting was to summarize trip findings to date and identify future actions. In addition to these meetings, approximately 30 other scientists presented results and discussed research with us during the site visits. Sites/Institutes Visited: Institute of Ecology and Botany, Vacratot Lake Balaton and the Balaton Research Institute of Limnology, Tihany National Authority for Nature Conservation Kiskunsag National Park and Headquarters, Kecskemet Bukk National Park Sikfokut, MAB research area, Eger Botanical Department Teacher Training College, Eger General Findings: Professor Istvan Lang wrote in a recent book that Hungary has both feet on the ground - one in the 20th century and the other in the 19th century. This is a general summary of our findings as well. We encountered a modern, Western approach to ecology mixed with classical European methodology for classifying flora, etc. There are tremendous data sets that have been collected routinely and with consistent techniques, but for the most part, they are on paper and few of them published. They are just entering the computer age, not for lack of desire as much as lack of funds to purchase modern technology. There is a curious mix of interests in modern, quantitative techniques and qualitative, classical surveys. They have good taxonomic capabilities and some sites have extensive biological surveys. At least one site has information that is close to an "All Taxa Survey". Mapping is performed by hand and there is little capability for GIS or spatial analysis. The Institutes have a few PCs and some have email capabilities. Electronic data management occurs in a few situations using a dbase approach. There is little simulation modeling although there are valuable data sets that could allow such. In general, we were impressed by the quality and extent of the research data collected throughout Hungary. There are a number of sites proposed as "Protected Areas" that would complement an International LTER program. They are keenly interested in international interactions and would willingly develop collaborative research programs, share data and techniques, and coauthor publications. Most sites have extensive data sets that would interest U.S. scientists in testing hypotheses, models, etc., and the Hungarians are eager to share them. Potential Interactions/Collaboration: Site Partnerships - There are excellent sites with long term data sets and/or extensive biological surveys that can form the the basis for productive interactions with scientists at comparable U.S. LTER sites. Cross-site or Regional Collaborations - There are outstanding regional to country-wide data sets that are the basis for analyses of broad-scale dynamics. These range from floristic analyses from the late 1800's and early 1900's to a 30 year survey of light traps for insects performed at 42 stations distributed over the country. The light trap data is a DAILY quantification of insects (species, sex) in both agricultural and forest habitats. In some cases, a single trap has some 600 species recorded for a single year. This data combined with the climate data, has shown distribution changes of selected species during the recent climate warming in Hungary. Little has been done with the data regarding community analysis or biodiversity changes. Conferences/Workshops/Training - The Hungarians are eager for exchanges of scientists and have already proposed two workshops (Developing Methods for International Collaboration, GIS Applications in Natural Conservation). They also are very interested in training in GIS, Data Management and Simulation Modeling. James Brunt will address training activities in his report. Next Steps: Identify LTER sites and scientists that are interested in developing collaborative research proposals and programs. The information we gained will be presented to the LTER community. Immediate Funding Sources - proposals to INT can continue to develop scientist exchanges and workshop activities. Proposals to the Joint U.S. - Hungarian program will allow modest funding of joint activities. Mr. Larry Cohen indicated that the joint program has not received proposals in Environmental Protection this year (LTER-like proposals would qualify) and the probability of funding is very high! For further information contact me or Ms. Bonnie Thompson of International Programs at NSF. Her email address is: bhthomps@nsf.gov -------------------END OF MESSAGE----------------- From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:N_FETCHER@upr1.upr.clu.edu Thu Dec 2 15:25:51 1993 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA12713; Thu, 2 Dec 93 15:25:47 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa02468; 2 Dec 93 15:25 EST Received: from UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA02506; Thu, 2 Dec 93 12:23:03 PST Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 16:22 AST From: N_FETCHER@upr1.upr.clu.edu Subject: Survey of academic bureaucracies To: pi@lternet.edu Message-Id: <99482710FC9FC11120@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU> X-Envelope-To: pi@lternet.edu X-Vms-To: IN%"pi@lternet.edu" Status: ORp TO: Subscribers to OTS-L and LTERNET FROM: Ned Fetcher Dept. of Biology University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras As part of the accreditation process for the Middle States Review Board, I have been asked to evaluate our administration. It has always been my impression that many operations at UPR take much longer than elsewhere, but I have little data to support this. Recently, we received a memo detailing the steps needed to submit a proposal to NSF (without matching funds or cost-sharing). The memo states that we need to get the approval of the Personnel Office, the Finance Office, Dept. Chairperson, Dean of Natural Sciences and the Chancellor before the proposal can be sent. The official estimate of the time to accomplish all this is 10 working days. In my experience, it can be done in 5-6 days if no crucial individual is out of the office. I would like to conduct an informal survey to compare the speeds with which different campuses process proposals. If you will send the following information, I will be happy to share the results with you: 1) No. of approvals required (UPR example, 5) 2) Official estimate of time for approval (UPR example, 10 working days) 3) Your unofficial estimate based on your experience (UPR example, 5-6 days) Please indicate if you want your institution to remain anonymous. Thanks in advance for your contribution to the study of comparative bureaucracy. Ned Fetcher n_fetcher@upr1.upr.clu.edu From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Wed Dec 8 20:52:59 1993 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07465; Wed, 8 Dec 93 20:52:57 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa06631; 8 Dec 93 20:52 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA04841; Wed, 8 Dec 93 17:51:49 PST Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 17:51:49 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Salmon Symposium Announcement (fwd) To: PI@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Dear PIs: You or your colleagues may be interested in this symposium announcement. ***** PACIFIC SALMON AND THEIR ECOSYSTEMS: STATUS AND FUTURE OPTIONS ***** Westin Hotel, Seattle, Washington 10-12 January 1993 An important two and one-half day symposium on Pacific Salmon is occuring in early January. This meeting will address changes in Pacific Northwest Salmonid populations, factors responsible for those changes, and options for restoration. If you would like more information on program content, please contact Deanna J. Stouder at (206) 685-2724 or by e-mail at stouder@u.washington.edu. We encourage you to take advantage of the early registration fee until 15 December. If you need registration information, please contact Continuiing Education at (206) 543-0867. We hope you will attend. This symposium should prove to be an interesting and informative event. ****************************************************************************** From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:jhobbie@lupine.mbl.edu Wed Jan 5 17:36:12 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01612; Wed, 5 Jan 94 17:36:11 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa18683; 5 Jan 94 17:36 EST Received: from aqua.whoi.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA18593; Wed, 5 Jan 94 14:25:38 PST Received: by aqua.whoi.edu (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA13042; Wed, 5 Jan 94 17:24:43 -0500 Received: from eco17.lupine.mbl.edu (ECO17.MBL.EDU) by lupine (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA02192; Wed, 5 Jan 94 17:13:56 EST Date: Wed, 05 Jan 1994 17:25:44 From: jhobbie To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, jcallaha@nsf.gov, jerry@lternet.edu, smartin@lternet.edu Subject: Scientific Goals of LTER - Draft Cc: jhobbie@lupine.mbl.edu Message-Id: Status: OR Note to LTER PI's: We all have received many suggestions about the goals and future of LTER over the past year. Many of these would af- fect the structure -- increase the number of sites, change the manage- ment, triple the funding for each site. These are important but should be matched by and be interactive with ideas about the scientific approaches and scientific goals of the next decade. When our success is judged in 2003, what will the criteria be? It is likely that the degree of networking will be an issue as well as the scientific value and outcomes of the networking. One outcome of the networking should be increased synthetic and predictive ability that would cover spatial and temporal scales beyond a single site or the span of a single project. Many of these ideas are now (1993) a part of the goals of LTER as laid out in the new brochure. These new LTER goals (understanding at long temporal and broad spatial scales, major synthesis and theoretical efforts, providing in- formation for the identification and solution of societal problems) have been added to the basic site- and question-oriented research of the first 12 years of LTER. Clearly there has to be additional fund- ing for LTER to reach the goals. But will the structural changes of expanding the number of sites, increasing the funding, or improving the access to remote sensing be sufficient? There needs to also be a careful analysis of the goals and the steps needed to reach them. Perhaps we will decide to recommend no change in the way LTER opera- tes. Or perhaps we might recommend a new model incorporating radical changes such as having the next two new LTER projects be wholly com- parative studies across sites or be modeling projects that deal spe- cifically with cross-site synthesis. While the answers are not clear, I think it is clear that we need to discuss the ideas and come up with an implementation plan. Is the present LTER mode of operation ade- quate or do we need to invent a different model for the next decade? Please think about the following document as a first step towards an implementation document, that is, it is an exposition of the goals and approaches. After we all discuss and fine-tune this, then we need to follow through on the next step. My suggestions for developing an implementation plan are: -- hold a small two-day workshop of five or six LTER P.I.'s and several NSF people -- refine current document on LTER scientific goals in light of comments from LTER P.I.'s -- develop strategy and tactics to make sure that we can get where we want to go over the next decade. These include specific goals and specific types of RFP's, initiatives, funding opportunities, etc. -- develop a financial plan to support the strategic and tactical planning The present document grew out of discussions at the LTER Coor- dinating Committee meetings in April 1993. The outline was developed by B. Hayden, J. Hobbie, and T. Seastedt after an initial discussion that included F. Swanson and R. Waide. The outline was re-evaluated at the 31 July 1993 meeting of the Coordinating Committee in Madison, Wisconsin, in light of the recently published Ten-Year Review of the LTER Program by the Risser/Lubchenko Committee. Copies of the outline were distributed to PI's at that time. At the request of Jerry Franklin at the September 1993 All-Scientists Meeting, I have now pro- duced a written document. The LTER Executive Committee will be meet- ing at the end of January. Please send your comments ASAP so this document can be discussed. Thanks, John Hobbie (jhobbie@lupine.mbl.edu) Draft of December 31, 1993 SCIENTIFIC GOALS FOR THE NEXT DECADE OF LTER INTRODUCTION During 1993 the LTER program underwent an extensive review by an NSF committee charged with an evaluation of past achievement and with development of ideas about future goals and program improvements. In addition, the LTER Executive Committee and the scientists of the Coor- dinating Committee produced statements about various changes and goals for the future. Many of the suggestions concerned administrative or funding issues such as the need to vastly increase funding for each individual site and the need to expand the number of sites. Other suggestions dealt with scientific issues and scientific goals such as the need to expand the ecological knowledge from specific research sites to larger regions. This present document has been assembled by the LTER Coordinating Committee to address the scientific future of LTER and describe the implementation steps [not in this document yet] to achieve the scientific goals of the next decade of LTER research. The goals of the LTER from 1980 to 1992 can be summarized from the 1991 brochure (Long-Term Ecological Research in the United States, A Network of Research Sites. Sixth Edition, LTER Publication No. 11) as follows: to study ecological phenomena occurring over decades and centuries, to study natural variability, to study long-term trends in natural ecosystems, to set up a coordinated network of sites to facil- itate comparative experiments, and to use the long-term data sets to reveal pattern and control at several levels of ecosystem organiza- tion. The ecological questions to be studied are different for each site but research at each site has included developing information on basic ecological factors such as climate and soils and on fundamental ecological processes such as primary production, decomposition, and interactions of higher trophic levels. Each site was also expected to study the effects of human or natural disturbance. The current goals of the LTER are stated in a 1993 brochure (LTER, National Research Sites with a Common Commitment, LTER Network Office, University of Washington): "Understanding general ecological phenomena which occur over long temporal and broad spatial scales Creating a legacy of well-designed and documented long-term experi- ments and observations for use by future generations Conducting major synthesis and theoretical efforts Providing information for the identification and solution of socie- tal problems" Over the decade of 1994-2004, ecologists everywhere and the LTER scientists in particular are asked to take on additional tasks. We are asked to produce information on the interactions between the natu- ral world and society, especially on the effects on natural resources of management decisions, of pollution, and of large-scale changes such as climate and landuse. In other words, ecologists must strive for a predictive understanding of these interactions. It will not be enough, however, to understand the interactions at a handful of specific sites. Instead, the predictions must be valid at larger scales of ecosystems, regions, and even continents. The LTER program has operated as individual sites pursuing ques- tions best suited to research at that site. Excellent research has been carried out at the sites and a good start has been made in some cases on joint research among sites. Yet, in the future all the sites must be engaged in strong efforts to synthesize their information to reach the understanding at the larger scales of space and time. Each site must continue its own research agenda but must also work with consortia of sites as well as incorporate data from all sites and larger regions into the understanding. Each site must include the synthesis of the traditionally disparate approaches of population, community, ecosystems, and landscape ecology in answering specific questions. We seek a new synthetic approach to ecological sciences that integrates the knowledge, techniques, and approaches of these subdisciplines. To reach these goals in the next decade, significant new research initiatives are needed in the following areas: Comparative Process Studies, Functional Bases for Biodiversity, Modeling, Regionalization, and Ecological Interactions with Society. These new initiatives are not intended to replace the current long-term and question-driven re- search of the LTER sites. Rather, the new research will add to and build upon the data, insights, and infrastructure developed in the first ten years of LTER. It is important to note that none of the goals or new research initiatives are unique to the LTER program. What is unique is the ap- plication of these goals and initiatives to a large program at 18 sites. The challenge will be to incorporate new site requirements, opportunities for special research funds, and management into the pro- gram while retaining the strong site-based research. COMPARATIVE STUDIES OF ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES The type of predictive understanding needed by the LTER program incorporates information from a wide variety of sites. For an ecological process, such as soil respiration in temperate forests, data are needed from measurements over a wide range of temperatures and forest productivities in order to establish the full range and variation of response to environmental factors. This type of compara- tive knowledge is necessary to understand the biotic and abiotic con- trols for processes. The knowledge of controls, in turn, is the basis for modeling and prediction. One successful LTER intersite comparative study has been of lit- ter decomposition. A number of standardized litters are being in- cubated at many sites to separate the controls due to temperature and moisture from those due to the physical and chemical nature of the particular litter material. But comparative studies of processes need not be as extensive or as expensive as the litter study. Many of the measurements of popula- tions, communities, and ecosystem processes already underway at the LTER sites can be made a part of a comparative study but only if there is adequate preparation and agreement about the methods to be used and the format of the data reports. FUNCTIONAL BASIS FOR BIODIVERSITY The maintenance of a diverse biota is now recognized as an impor- tant goal for the management of natural resources. Recently, the con- cept has evolved to the understanding that ecosystem function plays a role in sustaining biodiversity and biodiversity plays a role in ecosystem functions and processes. This is really an extension of the ecological catch-word "structure and function". In this case, the structure part must include individual species. Obviously the inter-relationships between diversity and ecosystem functions are complex. They are best studied at long-term sites, such as the LTER network, where aspects of biodiversity including popula- tions and communities, genetics, evolution, and ecosystem function are being studied. When made a part of comprehensive studies, it may be also possible to group species into functional groups. These group- ings will be vital for modeling at larger spatial scales where it may be necessary to lump species by attributes, depending upon the partic- ular questions being asked. MODELING The construction of mathematical-dynamic models are a key method of scientific synthesis. Models incorporate the current understanding of a process or of ecological dynamics and give us a way to test our understanding. In some cases a model has progressed to the point where predictions may be made of the dynamics of a population, com- munity, or ecosystem. Ecological models are usually based upon processes and the con- trols of these processes. For this reason, modeling is an important activity for comparative studies that include information and under- standing from a number of the LTER sites. In turn, the different con- ditions found across the LTER network allows models and their predic- tions to be tested in a wide variety of habitats. The development of ecological models is a vital step in the prog- ression towards regionalization and the analysis of the interactions between the natural word studied by ecologists and the human society. Some of the successful models such as the GAP-type models of forest growth and the GEM models of carbon and nitrogen cycling have already been applied in a number of LTER sites. A decomposition model of the intersite litter decomposition study is under development. These suc- cessful models have often been based upon biogeochemistry. It will be necessary for LTER researchers to combine models of ecological com- munities with the biogeochemical models. REGIONALIZATION The intensive measurements at each LTER site cover a small area, usually a few square kilometers. Some of the ecological changes that occur at a site can only be interpreted by studying a larger region, such as the landscape or water basin. Studies of a larger region also allow investigation of global budgets of such materials as sulfur trace gases or of carbon gases. Human interactions with ecological systems are also best studied at the regional scale where large changes take place caused by shifts in land-use and by management de- cisions. For these reasons, the LTER network needs to be able to model and predict at the regional level. It is usually not possible simply to take a detailed ecological model developed on an LTER site and apply it at a larger spatial scale. Instead details and even processes must be aggregated, an is- sue that needs much more research. One complication is that details that are critical to include for a model at one level turn out to be unimportant at other levels. From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:adub@lternet.edu Wed Jan 5 12:17:42 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA00735; Wed, 5 Jan 94 12:17:41 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa17550; 5 Jan 94 12:17 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA22363; Wed, 5 Jan 94 09:07:35 PST Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 09:07:35 -0800 (PST) From: Adrienne Whitener Sender: Adrienne Whitener Reply-To: Adrienne Whitener Subject: Missing mission statement To: pi@lternet.edu, jGosz@lternet.edu, jCallahan@lternet.edu, jEdwards@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Status: OR Regarding a letter from Jerry Franklin that we mailed on December 30, concerning LTER Executive Committee Meeting and Governance: The enclosure cited in the text of the letter wasn't noted at the bottom, and so was overlooked. Here is the Network Office Mission Statement. (It can also be found in the strategic planning document and on page 3 in the Personnel Directory). If you would like us to mail a separate hardcopy to you, please advise. We apologize for the inconvenience. --Adrienne ------------------------------ LTER Network Office Mission The Network Office was created by the LTER Network to facilitate activities needed to achieve the LTER mission and objectives. Specific responsibilities of the Network Office include: (a) Facilitating communication and data sharing among the LTER sites and between the LTER program and other scientific communities; (b) Supporting the planning and conduct of collaborative research efforts including provision of some technical support services; (c) Leading some intersite scientific activities; and (d) Providing a focal point and "collective" representation of the LTER Network in its external relationships. Since the Network Office is the primary entity focused at the network rather than at individual sites, the office often plays an active role in stimulating or catalyzing network activities rather than functioning completely in a passive or support role. (Last paragraph is language from Strategic Planning document, finalized at the October 1989 LTER Coordinating Committee meeting at Harvard Forest.) From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:jerry@lternet.edu Thu Dec 30 18:08:29 1993 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA20932; Thu, 30 Dec 93 18:08:28 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa12257; 30 Dec 93 18:08 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA07336; Thu, 30 Dec 93 15:07:06 PST Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 15:07:02 -0800 (PST) From: Jerry Franklin Subject: LTER Exec. Meeting & Governance To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, jGosz@lternet.washington.edu, jCallahan@lternet.washington.edu, jEdwards@lternet.washington.edu, net@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: ORp To: LTER PIs December 30, 1993 From: Jerry Franklin, Chairman, LTER/CC Subject: LTER Executive Committee Meeting & Governance The Executive Committee is meeting January 29-31 in Washington, DC with the governance/structure of the LTER/CC and mission/structure of the Network Office as primary topics. We will also be dealing with more routine issues and beginning to develop a collective policy on publication. An NSF representative will meet with us to provide the NSF perspective on these issues on the morning of January 29 and again on January 31 to review the conclusions of the meeting. The Executive Committee wants to solicit your views on several of these topics prior to the meeting so that we can consider them during our discussions. The plan is for the Committee to develop a position paper, possibly with several alternatives, for the full LTER/CC to consider at the time of its spring meeting. PLEASE SEND ME YOUR RESPONSES AT THE NETWORK OFFICE BY JANUARY 21; unless you advise me otherwise, I will share them verbatim with the full Executive Committee. I expect all of you to weigh with your opinions on these very important issues. There is a tendency for LTER/CC dialogues to be dominated by a few individuals. There are 18 programs out there and the Executive Committee would like to see this reflected in the responses. Questions are numbered for ease in response. Organization and Operation of the LTER/CC and Network Office How should the Chair of the LTER/CC be selected and for what tenure (1a)? What are the major responsibilities of the Chair and, hence, what attributes are most important (1b)? We have operated on the assumption that the Chair should be a well-established scientist with high credibility outside LTER. We have also assumed that it is difficult (and expensive) to acquire such senior people on a full time basis. Hence, the following question. . . Should the LTER/CC and Network Office have a full-time Executive Director to facilitate the internal operation of LTER/CC and supervise the personnel and activities of the Network Office (2)? This has been discussed in terms of an established mid-career ecological scientist, i.e., one with scientific credentials but also someone with an administrative bent. The issues of the Chair and an executive director are obviously interrelated. Whether LTER has one or both, what are the lines of accountability and what are the levels of independent responsibility (3)? The answer to this question has to take into account the fact that the PI on any NSF grant or other agreement obviously is ultimately accountable directly to the funding agency for what happens. The Network Office has always operated with two masters-- NSF and LTER/CC and will presumably continue to do so in the future. It has consistently carried out a variety of tasks that NSF needed to have accomplished and for which NSF provided funding. Such Network Office programmatic activities and responsibilities will be more explicitly recognized when the funding mechanisms changes (as planned) from a grant to a cooperative agreement beginning early in 1995. What should be the major activities/responsibilities of the Network Office (4)? Consider the existing mission statement for the network office (enclosed) as well as the dramatic expansion that is postulated for the LTER program, including activities currently facilitated or carried out by the network office. The location and mobility of the Network Office are important issues. If one assumes its importance and scale will decline in the future it is not as complex an issue. However, the probability is that the Network Office will actually increase in staff and activity level with significant expansions in the domestic and international LTER programs. There are significant costs (measured in efficiency, dollars, etc.) associated with relocation of an office of this type, including turnover of skilled staff. Alternatives include permanent status, periodic moves (5 to 10 year intervals), and a distributed office (multiple locations), perhaps where some portions (activities and personnel) are essentially fixed and others rotate among locations. What is your view on the relative merits of permanence or mobility for the network office (5)? Proposals have been made that the full LTER/CC should have more of a role in directing the activities of the Network Office. The Executive Committee was created to provide for significant involvement of PIs in the LTER Network-level activities on a timely basis. The earlier approach of operating as a committee-of-the-whole was a time-consuming and exhausting process for all concerned and did not provide for rapid responses to various challenges and opportunities, including those provided by NSF. Lack of continuity in site representatives at the LTER/CC has limited its ability to function as an informed body (while clearly entraining more of the LTER scientists in the network activities). One possibility is to create more committees from the LTER/CC to deal with specific topics, such as network- level publications. We have closely followed that model in creating many continuing committees, such as data management, climate, etc., but these are not explicitly drawn from the LTER PI group. How do you view the existing relationship between the LTER/CC, Executive Committee, and LTER/Chair (6a)? Would development of additional committees, such as one to deal with a network publications program, improve the full committee's involvement in network activities (6b)? Should we continue to allow for rotation of site representatives at the LTER/CC or should regular attendance of one or two individuals (presumably PIs) be required (6c)? Participant continuity and, probably, more frequent and longer meetings would be essential if the full LTER/CC is given more direct management responsibility for LTER network activities. Would you find these changes acceptable (6d)? Network Publications There was an extended discussion of network-level publications at the last LTER/CC meeting. Specific proposals existed for publication of a book based upon the All-Scientist meeting as well as for sponsorship of an entire book series identified with LTER. There was no resolution on either point and we lost potential editors for an All-Scientist volume. NSF expects some publication(s) out of the All-Scientist meeting as well as network initiatives for a more extended publication program. One proposal for moving things forward has been to create a publications committee from LTER/CC to develop a policy and process for major LTER-sponsored publications. Do you feel that establishing an LTER/CC Publications Committee is a good way to get this activity moving again (7a)? If not, what alternative do you propose (7b)? Finally, are you willing to serve on the committee (7c)? Other Items for Consideration Do you have any additional items that you would like to have the Executive Committee consider at the January meeting (8)? The current plan for the next full meeting of the LTER/CC is April 22 to 24, 1994, possibly in Washington, DC. Site representatives would need to arrange to be in DC by noon on April 22 so that we can interact with NSF representatives before beginning our deliberations. This will be a very important meeting where we will be dealing as a full committee with the topics discussed above. I expect the Executive Committee to come to that meeting with a white paper outlining alternatives and relevant arguments. I expect LTER/CC to make some decisions at that meeting. This is a closed meeting so we plan only one representative per site and it should almost certainly be one of the PIs. The scheduled date is over a weekend which seemed to be the majority preference at the Estes Park meeting. However, there was also strong support for a weekday meeting (e.g., noon April 20 through April 22). What are your preferences with regards to meeting date (9a)? Do you have suggestions with regards to format, participants, or location (9b)? Who do you expect your site representative to be (9c)? HAPPY NEW YEAR! cc. Bledsoe Network Office Personnel Gosz, NSF Callahan, NSF Edwards, NSF From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:jgosz@nsf.gov Tue Jan 11 10:14:29 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA09743; Tue, 11 Jan 94 10:14:28 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa08939; 11 Jan 94 10:14 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA13292; Tue, 11 Jan 94 07:13:32 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA32456 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 11 Jan 1994 10:17:18 -0500 Message-Id: <199401111517.AA32456@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: fyi Date: Tue, 11 Jan 94 10:17:18 EST From: "James R. Gosz" Status: OR NSF Issues Solicitation for the Academic Research Infrastructure Program The Academic Research Infrastructure Program (ARI) is designed to improve the condition of research equipment and facilities in our Nation's academic institutions in all disciplines. In FY 1994 separate competitions will be held for facilities modernization and instrumentation. This solicitation (Announcement No. NSF 93-172) is for proposals for the support of instrumentation development and acquisition only. Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be competing for about $55 million in FY 1994. The proposal success rate for the previous ARI competition was approximately 26%. The goals of the instrumentation component of the ARI Program are to: - - Support the acquisition, through purchase or development, of major state-of-the-art research instrumentation; - - Improve accessibility to and greater utilization of modern research instrumentation by scientists, engineers, and graduate and undergraduate students; and - - Foster the development of the next generation of research instrumentation through partnerships between academic researchers and private sector instrument developers. The purpose of this component is to improve research infrastructure through focused investment in the acquisition or development of major research instrumentation used for research and research training. The program also seeks to initiate instrumentation development partnerships between academia and industry. The Program will assist in the acquisition or development and maintenance and technical support of major research instrumentation that is not usually available through other NSF programs. Proposals may be for a single instrument, a large system of instruments, or multiple instruments that are used to address a common problem. A list of assorted instruments without a common research theme will not be reviewed. Awards for instrumentation will range from $100,000 to $2 million. Lesser amounts will be considered from proposals representative of undergraduate institutions or from the mathematics, social, behavioral and economic science communities. The Program will provide support for instrumentation used in research and research training in those fields of science and engineering normally supported by NSF. Proposals may be submitted by institutions of higher education, independent nonprofit research institutions, research museums, and legally incorporated consortia thereof. Computer systems or networks necessary for the purpose of carrying out research are acceptable. Proposals for computer networks as general purpose equipment will not be reviewed. Matching or cost-sharing at the level between 30-50% of total eligible project costs is required with the 50% level being strongly encouraged. The matching or cost sharing may be from any private or non-Federal public source and may be in cash or in kind, fairly evaluated (see OMB Circular A-110, Attachment E). An institution may only submit two proposals in response to this solicitation. However, the institution may, in addition, be included as a member of a consortium that is submitting a separate proposal. Proposals must be received by 5 p.m. March 15, 1994. For further information please contact: Office of Science and Technology Infrastructure Academic Research Infrastructure National Science Foundation Room 1270 4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22230 (703) 306-1040 E-Mail: ari@nsf (BITNET) ari@nsf.gov (INTERNET) ------- End of Forwarded Message From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:jcallaha@nsf.gov Tue Feb 1 09:50:27 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA09844; Tue, 1 Feb 94 09:50:25 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa07500; 1 Feb 94 9:50 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA13819; Tue, 1 Feb 94 06:47:50 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA31915 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 1 Feb 1994 09:51:59 -0500 Message-Id: <199402011451.AA31915@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.washington.edu Cc: jgosz@nsf.gov Subject: LTER Project Supplements for FY 1994 Date: Tue, 01 Feb 94 09:51:58 EST From: "James T. Callahan" Status: ORS Attached to this message as an ASCII file (You can detach and download it.) is a memo explaining the specifications for supplements to LTER projects in FY 1994. You will notice some changes from the past. If you have questions or need explanations or clarification, please contact me directly. I will be away from the office FEB 4 - 20 while traveling to conduct the PAL on-site project review in Santa Barbara and at Palmer Station, Antarctica. WPC4 TO. FROM. SUBJECT. The purpose of this communication is to clarify the allowablerequests and application procedures for supplemental funding forLTER projects in Fiscal Year 1994. You will notice that thescope of the requests continues to change in response to thechanging needs and opportunities for LTER. Please communicatedirectly with me at the earliest opportunity if furtherclarification is needed. . .FIRST. ., each LTER project may submit only . .ONE. . supplement requestpackage. Items in the package must be individually justified inthe context of LTER. The text must not exceed 10 pages total. Only one budget may be submitted. A budget justificationstatement should make it completely clear what costs areattributable to each allowable request item (from the listingbelow). . .SECOND. ., requests should be sent directly to me and be postmarkedno later than Thursday, March 17, 1993 (earlier is better). Original and 10 copies must be sent in the same package. . .THIRD. ., allowable requests include: . . . ...... .. .. .. . . .. . .FOURTH. ., available funds will be limited (perhaps as much as$1.0M) and the total dollars requested is likely to be large. Inno case should single site requests exceed $75K. Multi.site/network requests should not exceed $150K. As always, costsharing from institutional and other non.NSF sources is stronglyencouraged and will reflect positively in the evaluation of thesupplement requests. . .FINALLY. ., in considering and scoping out what is desirable andrealistic, please keep reminding yourselves that LTER isfundamentally a network oriented, collaborative research effort,the common denominators for which are the five core researchareas and the long time frame.. .. . From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Tue Feb 1 13:31:37 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA10259; Tue, 1 Feb 94 13:31:36 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa16173; 1 Feb 94 13:31 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA15064; Tue, 1 Feb 94 10:20:49 PST Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 10:20:48 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Sending Files Via FTP To: PI@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Dear PIs: The instructions I provided for sending newsletter contributions to your site's scratch subdirectory assumed that you have a login account on LTERnet. If, in attempting to send files you see the message that you are not a valid user, you need to have Daniel or Rudolf here at the Network Office set one up for you. Alternatively, you could send files as a guest, or anonymous, user by following these steps: 1. Type "ftp lternet.edu" to connect to the LTER system. 2. At the initial prompt, type "anonymous" to sign on as a guest user. 3. At the password prompt, press the indent or tab key. 4. At ftp>, type "bin" (binary) to ensure the file arrives as formatted. 5. Type "cd/scratch". (This will put your file in a generic directory where the recipient can pick it up.) 6. Type "send filename" (or get filename" if you are retrieving a file). The message "Transfer Complete" indicates that the file has probably transferred successfully. To double-check, type "ls" to view a listing of current files. 7. Notify the recipient that you've transferred the file, and provide him/her with the file name. Again, if you are experiencing any difficulties, please check with your site technician or Data Manager, or notify me and I will work with the Network Office technical people to solve the problem. From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:jvc@lternet.edu Wed Feb 2 15:17:50 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA14074; Wed, 2 Feb 94 15:17:48 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa25850; 2 Feb 94 15:17 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA24703; Wed, 2 Feb 94 12:05:36 PST Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 12:05:36 -0800 (PST) From: John Vande Castle Subject: LTER EXEC D.C. Meeting adn Appropriations Committee information To: LTER Principal Investigators Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR The LTER Executive Committee had a productive meeting in Washington D.C. this past weekend, which included discussions with NSF personnel on Monday. Jerry Franklin will be distributing a summary of the meeting soon. Prior to this meeting I attended an NSF funded TERC workshop on "Incorporation of GIS into pre-college education". My role represented LTER as a scientific resource for education/research linkages - which was also discussed during the LTER-EXEC/NSF meetings. This would need coordination, but sites might be interested if coordination and funding became available. Merril Ridd, who attended the conference has just received NSF funding to develop curriculum to include exposure to, and use of GIS in pre-college education, and is interested in potential linkages. A full report from the conference will be available from TERC. Other discussions lead to NSF funding status, and discussion of information regarding sites providing information to members of Senate Appropriations committees (not as a lobbying effort, but perhaps to let them know what an LTER is, and that one or more was present in their state/district). -jvc John Vande Castle, Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) - Network Office Univ. of Washington, College of Forest Resources, AR-10, Seattle WA 98195 Phone: 206 543-6249 FAX: 206 685-0790 Email:jvc@lternet.edu --------------------- Forwarded message ------------------------- To: jvc@lternet.edu Subject: Appropriations Committees Subject: Senate Appropriations Action On September 8, 1993, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies marked up and reported their version of the FY 1994 appropriations act. This bill contains funding recommendations for the National Science Foundation. Overall the Senate is recommending a total appropriation of $2981.9 million, which would be almost a 9% increase over the FY 1993 level of $2733.5 million and $39.4 million below the House recommendation of $3021.3 million. For Research and Related, the Senate bill is recommending a total of $1940 million. The House bill recommends $2045 million. The Senate's recommendation is $81 million or 4% above last year's level. For a new account renamed Research Infrastructure (which includes the Academic Research Facilities and Instrumentation program), the Senate is recommending an appropriation of $125 million. The House bill recommends the budget request of $55 million. For Education and Human Resources, the Senate is recommending $569.6 million. This is identical to the House recommendation and represents an increase over FY 1993 of $82.1 million or nearly 17%. For Salaries and Expenses, the Senate is recommending an appropriation of $115.5 million -- an increase of $4 million over last year, but $5.5 million below the House's FY 1994 level. In other accounts, the Subcommittee is recommending an appropriation of $2 million for the Critical Technologies Institute -- an increase of $1 million above the request and House level; $5.2 million for relocation expenses -- an amount equal to the House; and $3.99 million for the Office of Inspector General -- an amount equal to the House recommendation. Mark up by the full Senate Appropriations Committee is expected tomorrow, September 9. Floor action in the Senate, followed by a conference between House and Senate members, is likely during the week of September 20. Conferees will be the members of the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies with the key issues for NSF being the recommendations for Research and Related, the facilities/instrumentation program, and NSF salaries and expenses. Major Program FY93 FY94 %Inc House Senate Conf Research 1859 2204 18% 2045 1940 Education 487 556 14% 570 570 Polar Programs 221 228 3% 221 221 Facilities & Instruments 50 55 10% 55 125 Other 116 136 17% 131 127 =============================================================== Total, NSF 2734 3180 16% 3024 2981 House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Rep. Louis Stokes (D-OH), Chairman Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) Rep. Jim Chapman (D-TX) Rep. Dean Gallo (R-NJ) Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) Rep. Esteban Torres (D-CA) Rep. Ray Thornton (D-AR) Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Chair Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Sen. Al D'Amato (R-NY) Sen. Bennett Johnston (D-LA) Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) Sen. Chris Bond (R-MO) Sen. Robert Kerrey (D-NE) Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) - ------- End of Forwarded Message From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Wed Feb 2 16:56:27 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA14612; Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:56:26 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa12217; 2 Feb 94 16:56 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA25389; Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:47:07 PST Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 13:47:07 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: GRASS 4.1 Short Course To: PI@lternet.washington.edu, GIS@lternet.washington.edu, labtech@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR LTER neither recommends or endorses this course. This is an item sent for inclusion in the LTER Network News, which would be inappropriate, but some of you may be interested or wish to share this information with colleagues or students. GRASS 4.1 for Resource Analysis Short courses (5 days); July 25-29, 1994 Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO Instructor: Dr. Fred Limp Registration Fee: $795 To register or for additional information, contact: Office of Conference Services Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 303-491-7501 or 303-491-0667 (FAX) From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Mon Feb 7 13:56:01 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA28414; Mon, 7 Feb 94 13:55:59 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa04828; 7 Feb 94 13:55 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA27952; Mon, 7 Feb 94 10:39:46 PST Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 10:39:45 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: fyi (fwd) To: pi@lternet.edu, lmerpi@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 04 Feb 94 16:55:50 EST From: James R. Gosz Note: OSTP = Office of Science and Technology of the President - - ----------------------------------- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: January 31, 1994 Bill Toohey or Rachel Kunzler (202) 224-4654 REMARKS OF U.S. SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI FOR THE OSTP FORUM ON SCIENCE IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST I want to thank the President's Science Advisor, Dr. Jack Gibbons, and OSTP Associate Director for Science, Marcy Greenwood, for inviting me this morning to this forum on the future of federal science policy. I commend them for bringing together so many great individuals from government, the academic community, and the private sector to talk about one of the most important topics of our day. As you know, I chair the Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies. It's an $88 billion portfolio that oversees and funds 25 different federal agencies. Outside of Senator Inouye's Subcommittee on Defense, it has the largest amount of discretionary spending of any Subcommittee in the federal appropriations process. It has four agencies that play a substantial role in funding science initiatives: EPA, the Department of Veterans Affairs, NASA, and the National Science Foundation. What makes it among the toughest assignments on the Appropriations Committee is its diversity. We fund aid for the homeless at HUD. We oversee the world's largest managed care health care system at the VA. And we make investments in science and technology which are the key to America's future. This morning, however, I'm not here to talk about funding or about bureaucracy. Instead, my message is a call to arms. We in 1994 are at a defining moment in history. We have seen the collapse of Communism and the end of the Cold War. Now we are in a new war -- the war for America's economic future. To win that war, we need strong leadership. To move aggressively to claim the markets of the new world order. And for that, we need a navigational chart to show us how to win jobs today and jobs tomorrow -- with science and technology as the cornerstone of our strategy. This new world order has profound repercussions for federal science policy. For the last half century -- whether in high energy physics or high performance computing -- federal science investments have largely been driven by one over-arching "strategic" objective - - --America's national military security. From smart bombs to supercomputers, investments have predominantly been driven by what contributions they make to enhancing our defense industrial base. Even the National Science Foundation, driven by Vannevar Bush's assessment of our endless scientific frontier, was a child of America's cold war policy. Now the Berlin Wall has fallen. Democracies have sprung up where once dictatorships reigned. Our nation's destiny as we approach a new millennium hinges more on our national economic security, not our miliary might. And this change has created a crisis in the science community. Old assumptions about how to organize ourselves and how to spend increasingly limited dollars seem out of step with where we as a new age democracy must move. Unless we develop a new strategy that fits the realities of the new world order, science and science funding run the risk of being left out and left behind. A good example of this changing tide was last fall's decision to terminate the supercollider, a decision I did not support. The SSC represented the classic good scientific idea, funded for the best of intentions, but gone awry. Every time you turned around, it suffered from yet another cost overrun or technical complication. No one could adequately articulate how it fit into our national strategy so that a majority of the Congress could understand its importance for our economic future. It over promised results, and understated cost. That pattern -- all too common in large federal science projects -- is what led to its demise. And the tragedy its cancellation caused was that some of the world's best scientists, having spent the better part of their professional lives working on this project, have now seen their work go up in smoke. Without a national strategy in science, and the will to see that this strategy gets implemented, federal science funding is sure to become a continuing target of opportunity for what I call the "cut cruisers" in Congress. They are my colleagues, who in a desire to cut the deficit, falsely identify science and technology as the new pork barrel spending of the 1990's. And their numbers are growing every year in both the House and the Senate. Several years ago, in response to the challenges for science in the new world order, NSF chief Walter Massey established a Commission on the Future of the NSF. The Commission's report was an important first step to begin to sort out how we should proceed with federal science policy. Last fall, my Subcommittee, as some of you might be aware, decided to elevate this debate by calling for a comprehensive reevaluation of how NSF does business, and a plan of action to keep science at the heart of our nation's economic strength. I truly believe that there is a new paradigm emerging in how science is conducted and how science policy is organized. It's based upon the principle that science -- should lead to the new ideas and new technologies -- which should lead to jobs, particularly in manufacturing. Because manufacturing is truly the engine of our economy, and our industrial strength. And in our efforts to generate those jobs, we must have a sense of urgency. Because as a nation, the U.S. is losing ground. The U.S. is losing time. And the U.S. is losing opportunities. To regain the ground we have lost over the last two decades, we must seek models of collaboration between our universities and the private sector. We must focus our science investments more strategically -- around national goals that are important to economic growth and whose results will ultimately improve people's day-to-day lives. We must train our scientists and engineers, whether they are undergraduates or PhD candidates, so they are ready to work in strategic areas in the private sector. We must prepare our best and brightest for the challenges of a job market with the uncertainties brought about by a new global economy, instead of lifelong careers in universities. The ideas that I proposed last fall are controversial -- praised by some condemned by others. The split in opinion about them reflects deeper divisions within the science community about its future in the new world order. The most controversial aspect of the Subcommittee's proposals was its call for a greater investment in "strategic" research -- a phrase used by many but which until now has lacked a common definition. In fact, we said that 60 percent of what NSF research should go for should be strategic. People ask, "What do you mean by strategic research, and where did you get the so-called 60 percent solution?" By strategic research, I mean investments in science that are focused around important national goals. Some of these have been identified already by the FCCSET process: climate change, advanced manufacturing, biotechnology, and high performance computing. Others, like research on our civil infrastructure, or magnetic levitation technology, are strategic subjects that involve only one or two agencies. It does not mean that every NSF or NIH grant must result in six patents and four commercial licensing agreements. Nor does it mean that every proposal must guarantee a private sector payoff in a specific number of years. It does mean that we should be spending more than half of our basic research dollars in areas we consider strategic. Our investments in science and our science policy will become a new superhighway of ideas and technology to achieve national goals. And the best federal model I know that outlines what we consider strategic is in my very own state, whose Nobel laureate director, Harold Varmus, is here today -- the National Institutes of Health. If you look at how NIH is organized, it is grouped around strategic areas to treat and cure disease and illness -- crucial to our national well-being and which touches the day-to-day lives of millions of Americans. NIH is not organized like a university. We don't have the National Institute for Molecular Biology, we have the National Cancer Institute. We don't have a National Institute for Behavioral Science, but a National Institute for Mental Health. Within these institutes is a range of research activities -- from the most basic aspects of life and medical sciences, to the most applied activities which lead to stunning new treatments and medicines that fight disease. And in this sweeping continuum of scientific research, NIH saves lives, creates jobs, and strengthens our nation's productivity. At the heart of what we seek to do is retrieve the value of scientific activity for the post-Cold War world, without abandoning the very best of scientific inquiry or investigation. Science should continue to be the place where we test new theories, break new ground, and do that which delights scientists and mesmerizes the world -- the surprise of new discoveries. We must, however, begin to organize scientific activity, at NSF and throughout the federal government, horizontally. We must be willing to see the connections between particular disciplines which historically have few links at universities or in our federal labs -- and to structure our agencies and programs accordingly. NSF's current directorate structure is organized the way science departments are at universities. It's my belief that we need to reexamine that premise -- not because universities are organized incorrectly, but because it is the role of the federal government to be a catalyst to help get the knowledge and technologies created in our academic community into the market place. Federal science institutions need to be more nimble and more agile. Perhaps it's time for NSF to reorganize -- over time -- into a series of institutes like manufacturing, climate change, high performance computing, or other strategic areas. And even those agencies that try to be more strategic don't always get it right. That's why when we identified a problem at NIH with the amount of research devoted to the unique needs of women, and the bureaucracy wouldn't respond to these concerns, we created an Office of Women's Health. So too at a place like NSF. We created an office to deal with facility and instrumentation modernization, because there was a tremendous vacuum in dealing with our research infrastructure at universities, big and small, throughout the country. Our organizing principle for our vision of the NSF is based upon sound experience at NIH. The so-called 60 percent solution is based upon the Clinton Administration's request for the NSF for 1994 -- which proposed that 55 percent of NSF's budget should be for research in "strategic" areas. The Congress didn't pick which areas were strategic, NSF did. We simply asked them to increase their focus by 5 percent. The implications of this change to a more strategically-driven approach does not mean the end of basic research. We must do far more basic research in strategic areas. Those doing this research must recognize there's a national purpose for their work. In short, we need to rekindle in the scientific community a new sense of patriotism. That their work is funded by ordinary taxpayers -- the checkout clerk at the grocery store or a machinist on the assembly line at GM. It is not an entitlement, and it is not always guaranteed. And people will expect to see results -- not necessarily immediately, or so that every idea leads instantaneously to the marketplace. But that their basic research is part of a continuum of excellence to solve problems with new ideas and new theories. This new scientific patriotism also means having the willingness to collaborate more with industry. The private-sector Council on Competitiveness, in their landmark report, "Gaining New Ground", said that the reason we could restore our prowess in so many critical technology areas was because we had the best minds in the finest academic institutions in the world. But too often the collaboration between industry and the university community was too scattered or uneven to move ideas into the marketplace quickly. Over the last several years, various models have emerged to try and address this private sector-university collaboration. Some models have worked well, others less so. What we need to do, as a community, beginning at the NSF, is take a hard look at all of the various models, and undertake a serious evaluation of what works and what doesn't, and why. We should do this review quickly and thoroughly so that we invest our limited federal dollars so that we strengthen successful models, and eliminate those that aren't. Because we don't have one dollar to waste in the war for our economic future. Finally, as we begin to set out on a research agenda that has a strategic focus, we must build in rigorous milestones and evaluation of our efforts. In areas like manufacturing or high performance computing, we need to ask ourselves: o what goals do we seek to achieve; o what are the specific benchmarks along the way we can measure our progress in achieving these goals; and o how do the federal investments we make parallel the priorities we have set in these areas. When NASA starts a major space science project, every 6 months they report to the Congress on how their current efforts compare to their original estimates for cost, schedule and scientific and technical content. It holds them accountable to the public, to the Congress, and to the President. It helps them spot problem areas that can then be addressed. We need those kind of measurable benchmarks for strategic initiatives like manufacturing and high performance computing. These are investments, not just for the sake of those who do the research, but for all Americans. And as investments, the public needs to know where we're going, why we're going there, and once we start, how well we're doing to reach the goals we set out to achieve. These challenges in the days ahead will not be easy. And our deliberations to achieve them should not be reckless. But we must move forward with urgency. Today, we are just 2,752 days from the year 2000. A new millennium is coming. A new century will be born. We need to make sure that America's scientists and engineers will help us chart the way so our economy is strong, and we enjoy the quality of life we have enjoyed since the end of the Second World War. And I look forward to working with all of you so the future of science is as bright as the images from the Hubble Telescope -- contact lens and all. - ------- End of Forwarded Message ------- End of Forwarded Message From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:cohenw@ccmail.orst.edu Thu Feb 24 12:33:45 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA11028; Thu, 24 Feb 94 12:33:44 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa15625; 24 Feb 94 12:34 EST Received: from gaia.ucs.orst.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA26497; Thu, 24 Feb 94 09:28:30 PST Received: from ccmail.orst.edu (ccmail-4.UCS.ORST.EDU) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu with SMTP id AA29255 (5.67a/IDA-1.5); Thu, 24 Feb 1994 09:28:20 -0800 Received: from cc:Mail by ccmail.orst.edu id AA762109926 Thu, 24 Feb 94 09:12:06 PST Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 09:12:06 PST From: cohenw@ccmail.orst.edu Message-Id: <9401247621.AA762109926@ccmail.orst.edu> To: pi@lternet.edu, remote@lternet.edu, lmer@lternet.edu, cern@lternet.edu Subject: Landsat Pathfinder Program Status: OR CANDIDATE TEST SITES FOR THE LANDSAT PATHFINDER GLOBAL TEST SITE INITIATIVE The Landsat Pathfinder Program is a NASA activity, of which the objective is to provide the science community with data sets from Landsat MSS and TM sensors in support of Earth System Science and the study of global change. Along with other Pathfinder Programs, Landsat Pathfinder activities are seen as precursors to NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS) and will provide near-term data sets with which to develop and test the various components of the EOS Data and Information System. The Landsat Pathfinder Program currently has three priority foci: the North American Landscape Characterization Project, The Humid Tropical Forest Project, and the Global Land Cover Test Site Project. While the first two projects are well developed, the Test Site Project is just taking shape. The purpose of the Test Site Project is to develop a multitemporal MSS, TM, and 1 km AVHRR data base for a number of test sites around the globe to support research, development, testing, and validation of improved algorithms for EOS. The test sites selected are to represent a wide range of global land cover types, be well characterized on the ground, have on-going field-based monitoring programs, and be of interest to the international global change research community. The first phase of the project is to select the test sites and develop the basic image data base. The second phase is to prototype further developments of the data base using one or more sites. A third phase is likely to be the implementation of prototype developments on other sites. The purpose of this message is to alert you that you can have significant input to the Test Site Project. Immediate input that you can have is to suggest test sites. Not all suggested sites will be chosen, but with possibly as many as 100 sites globally being selected, it seems worth the effort of making suggestions. Test site sizes are expected to be variable. For each site, a 500 km by 500 km rectangle, with the test site at the center, will be identified. For this rectangle, daily AVHRR data from May 1992 through April 93 will be registered to the Digital Chart of the World, and MSS data from the 70s and 80s and TM data from the 80s and 90s will be coregistered. The site is expected to supply a land cover type map for the site. Selection of MSS and TM scenes will be made in consultation with a site PI. What is needed now for each suggested site is: 1) lat/long for site center; and 2) a site PI or contact person. At this time, only sites in North America are required. Very shortly, international sites will be selected. Please inform me with test site suggestions at Warren Cohen Forestry Sciences Lab 3200 SW Jefferson Corvallis, OR 97331 503-750-7322 (voice) 503-750-7329 (FAX) cohen@fsl.orst.edu (internet) S26L05A (DG) *** Unfortunately, the window of opportunity for site selection is short. Please have your suggestions to me by 7 March (94).*** Thanks, Warren From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:adub@lternet.edu Fri Mar 11 20:01:45 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA15639; Fri, 11 Mar 94 20:01:40 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa27288; 11 Mar 94 20:01 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA20920; Fri, 11 Mar 94 16:59:44 PST Date: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 16:59:43 -0800 (PST) From: Adrienne Whitener Subject: APRIL EXEC/CC TRAVEL INFO To: pi@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR LTER Executive and Coordinating Committee Meetings, April 21-24, 1994, Arlington, VA PLEASE NOTE THESE DEADLINES: BY ** MARCH 21 ** GUARANTEE YOUR HOTEL ROOM BY ** APRIL 5 ** ARRANGE AIRLINE TICKETS (Instructions below) This is a LIMITED meeting, to be attended by one representative per LTER site, plus the Executive Committee. The Exec meeting begins at 8am on Fri 4/22; the CC meeting begins at 1pm, also on Fri 4/22. Please read and bring with you the full agenda and other information that was recently mailed to site PIs. Schedule your travel according to the following agenda. THURSDAY 4/21: EXEC COMMITTEE TRAVEL DAY Execs should arrive by 730pm for dinner with Jerry FRIDAY 4/22: COORDINATING COMMITTEE TRAVEL DAY 8am-noon: EXEC MEETING, hotel conference room (Execs only) 1pm-4pm: CC MEETING begins at NSF SATURDAY 4/23 8am-530pm: Closed CC meeting, hotel conference room SUNDAY 4/24 8am-3pm: CC meeting, continued, hotel conference room PLEASE SCHEDULE DEPARTURES AFTER 3PM, Sunday, 4/24. LODGING: A block of single rooms is reserved at the ARLINGTON RENAISSANCE HOTEL, 950 N. Stafford St., Arlington, VA. PLEASE PHONE THE HOTEL AND GUARANTEE YOUR ROOM WITH A CREDIT CARD BY MARCH 21, 1994: 1-800-228-9898. Identify yourself as an LTER meeting participant. The hotel is one block South of, but adjacent to, the Metro Ballston Station and NSF building. (Yes, you heard right - you will have single rooms. No doubles are available during the meeting dates, and the per person rate is the same.) The rate is $97.46/night (incl. tax), and will be reimbursed by the Network Office. Check-in time is 3pm; check-out by noon. AIRLINE TICKETS: GLOBAL EXPRESS TRAVEL, 1-800-448-2211: Air travel for Exec Committee members plus one CC rep per site will be direct-billed to the LTER Network Office. Contact John, Ann or Annie in Corporate Travel at Global Express, and identify yourself as a participant in the LTER meeting in Arlington, VA. You can fly into either Dulles or Washington National. If you add non-LTER travel to your itinerary, please request a quote for the additional cost so you can reimburse the Network Office. GROUND TRANSPORTATION: From Washington National-- On the Metro Blue Line, take the "Addison" train West to Roslyn Station. Transfer to the "Vienna" train on the Orange Line, and disembark at Ballston Station ($1 fare). The Arlington Renaissance Hotel is one block South of, but adjacent to, the Ballston Metro Station and the NSF building. >From Dulles International-- Take the Washington Flyer shuttle to Metro West Falls Church Station ($8 fare). On the Orange Line, take the "New Carrollton" train East to Ballston Station ($1 fare). The Arlington Renaissance Hotel is one block South of, but adjacent to the Ballston Metro Station and the NSF building. The Network Office has ordered Metro System Guides and a Washington Flyer timetable, which will be mailed to you as soon as we receive them. FOOD: Group dinner reservations will be made at nearby restaurants for the Exec on Thursday night and the CC on Friday and Saturday. You will pay for your own meals and be reimbursed by the Network Office. With the exception of catered lunch on Sunday, there will be no group reservations for breakfasts and lunches. Snacks and beverages will be served in the hotel conference room at morning and afternoon breaks. A hardcopy of this message and additional travel information will be mailed to you; please send E-mail to aWhitener@LTERnet.edu if you would prefer NOT to receive further travel info in the mail, or if you have any questions. ----THE END--- From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:adub@lternet.edu Mon Mar 14 12:15:02 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA06635; Mon, 14 Mar 94 12:14:58 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa25728; 14 Mar 94 12:14 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA28107; Mon, 14 Mar 94 09:11:43 PST Date: Mon, 14 Mar 1994 09:11:43 -0800 (PST) From: Adrienne Whitener Subject: APRIL EXEC/CC INFO clarifications To: pi@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR My original message showed the CC travel day as 4/22, the same day the CC meeting begins at 1pm. If you can't make it to Arlington by noon or 1pm on 4/22 with same-day travel, please feel free to travel on 4/21! PLEASE NOTE: The dates in the hotel reservation system are check-in 4/21 or 2/22, check-out 4/24. Our group room rate only applies to that time frame. If you arrive earlier or depart later, they will take your reservation, but your room rate for the extra days will be almost DOUBLE the group rate. Also, BE SURE TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF AS LTER, and DO NOT mention NSF!! They have hundreds of NSF groups, and will easily be confused. Thanks. --Adrienne ---------------------------------------------------------------- | Adrienne Whitener | phone: (206) 543-4853 | | LTER Network Office | FAX: (206) 543-7295 | | Univ. of Washington, AR-10 | E-mail: AWhitener@LTERnet.edu | | Seattle, WA 98195 | | ---------------------------------------------------------------- From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Thu Mar 24 13:01:08 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA12341; Thu, 24 Mar 94 13:01:07 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa07721; 24 Mar 94 13:01 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA22012; Thu, 24 Mar 94 10:00:10 PST Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 10:00:10 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Presentation on Palmer Station To: pi@lternet.edu Cc: aWhitener@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Those of you who plan to arrive early for the Coordinating Committee Meeting may wish to consider attending this presentation. =========================================================================== Stephanie Martin University of Washington PH:206/543-6764 Publications Coordinator AR-10 FAX: 543-7295 LTER Network Office Seattle, WA 98195 or 685-3091 e-mail: sMartin@LTERnet.edu (Internet) sMartin@LTERnet (Bitnet) =========================================================================== ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 24 Mar 94 10:33 EST From:ppenhale@nsf.gov To: smartin@lternet.edu Thursday, April 21, 8 pm, NSF , Room 375 The Antarctican Society Meeting "Aerobics to Zodiacs: An A to Z Guide to Life at Palmer Station" A slide=illustrated talk by Ms. Ann Peoples, Station Manager, Palmer Station The lecture is open to the public. ------------------------------------------------------------------ I thought those PIs who arrive the day before the CC meeting might be interested in attending, to get a view of the area surrounding one of the Antarctic LTER sites. With our new building, people need to come into the building and go to the second floor NSF general public lobby with guard. The South doors are always locked, so they need to enter through the north door or through the walkway from the Metro station or from the mall. From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:jgosz@nsf.gov Fri Apr 1 09:35:48 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA11257; Fri, 1 Apr 94 09:35:46 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa09376; 1 Apr 94 9:35 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA09482; Fri, 1 Apr 94 06:28:34 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA18231 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4); Fri, 1 Apr 1994 09:27:49 -0500 Message-Id: <199404011427.AA18231@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Cc: smartin@lternet.edu, jerry@lternet.edu Subject: Special announcement Date: Fri, 01 Apr 94 09:27:44 EST From: "James R. Gosz" Status: OR LONG-TERM ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH Special Announcement LTER Project Augmentation for Regionalization, Comprehensive Site Histories, and Increased Disciplinary Breadth Special Competition DEADLINE FOR PROPOSALS: May 1, 1994 OBJECTIVE: Managing the earth's natural resources is important but complex. Decisions concerning the management of those resources need to be based on the values expressed by diverse constituencies and represent judgments by decision makers who consider as much evidence as possible. Many such decisions have been made without adequate knowledge of the consequences of the actions as they relate to the near-term and long-term availability and quality of natural resources and vital ecological processes. The scientific community must consider these needs in research designed to acquire knowledge relevant to national priorities. The most useful information about natural resources will have several characteristics: * the data will be of sufficient duration that it will be possible to distinguish short-term variation from long-term trends * the data will have been collected over enough different environmental conditions and spatial scales so that researchers can determine the range of conditions to which the results can be meaningfully extrapolated and applied * the data must measure the important considerations from all the relevant points of view, e.g., physical and biological features, social and economic characteristics * there must be an understanding of the uncertainty of the data (i.e. accuracy and/or precision) * any program designed to provide this information must be based on a stable framework so there is both a continuity to the data collection and a convenient methodology for translating the data in a manner that is most useful (for example, a Geographic Information System) The LTER program contains many of the essential elements needed, particularly a structure for providing long-term measurements, continuity, scientific rigor, a close coupling between ecological patterns and studies of the processes determining these patterns, and an organized framework for collecting, archiving, and making information available. This Special Announcement is to augment the LTER program in a way that enhances these objectives. In Fiscal Year 1994 the LTER Program will provide significant augmentation for two or three LTER projects to facilitate development of "regionalization", "comprehensive site histories", and "increased disciplinary scope". Regionalization is interpreted as the expansion of scientific objectives and analyses to the regional scale through the involvement of investigators from other institutions (academic, governmental, or private) and research sites in the biogeographic area of an extant LTER project. Comprehensive Site History is defined as the development of long temporal data bases and analyses, retrospective as well as prospective, of the biological (including human) and physical environmental character of an extant LTER site for increasing the accuracy of projections into the future. Increased Disciplinary Scope addresses the development of broader collaborations with investigators in disciplines such as social and economic sciences, systematics, population biology, physiological ecology, neuroscience, physical environmental sciences, mathematics and computer science, and science education. Review of requests will specifically emphasize these three areas as well as the changes in project organization and management required by the augmentation. SUBMISSION PROCEDURE: All current LTER projects funded through the Division of Environmental Biology are eligible to submit requests. Identification of scientific questions/hypotheses is left to the discretion of investigators. Review of augmentation proposals will emphasize the evaluation of new questions/hypotheses and the incorporation of additional expertise to address them effectively. Care should be taken to demonstrate clearly how the expanded research builds upon and augments previously supported LTER project themes and objectives. New collaborations and associations of investigators are specifically encouraged as are alliances with other research-supporting agencies. Each project must be prepared as a request for support to commence on the next funding anniversary date of the subject LTER project, and may be proposed to run only for the period of time remaining on the current LTER award. Although a request must involve investigators based at the appropriate LTER site, the Program emphasizes that not all investigators involved must be LTER investigators. Non-LTER investigators are encouraged to contact the appropriate LTER Principal Investigator to discuss participation (see the attached table). Review of the requests will be by an interdisciplinary panel and in accordance with standard NSF merit review guidelines. Budget requests may range up to $500,000 per year for the appropriate time period. Preparation and submission must follow the proposal guidelines given in the "Grant Proposal Guide" (GPG), NSF 94-2. Note especially that a 15-page limit applies to the project description portion of the proposal, including figures and tables. No letters of endorsement or other appendices are allowed. Required NSF forms are found in GPG which is available from: NSF Forms and Publication Unit 4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA. 22230 Tel: 703-306-1130, FAX: 703-644-4278 Proposal length, format, and content specifications stated in GPG will be strictly enforced. Ten copies of each request must be transmitted directly to the Long-Term Studies Program, the Division of Environmental Biology, Room 635, NSF, Arlington, VA 22230, postmarked no later than May 1, 1994. Packages should be clearly marked "Do Not Open in Mail Room - Deliver Directly to Addressee." Grants awarded as a result of this announcement (solicitation) are administered in accordance with the terms and conditions of NSF GC-1, "Grant General Conditions," or FDP-II, "Federal Demonstration Project General Terms and Conditions," depending on the grantee organization. Copies of these documents are available at no cost from the NSF Forms and Publications Unit, phone (703) 306-1130, or via e-mail pubs@nsf (BITNET) or pubs@nsf.gov (Interent). More comprehensive information is contained in the NSF Grant Policy Manual (NSF 88-47, July 1989), for sale through the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. The telephone number at GPO is (202) 783-3238 for subscription information. INQUIRIES For inquiries related to this announcement, contact Dr. James T. Callahan, Division of Environmental Biology, at 703-306-1483 (e-mail jcallaha@nsf.gov). LTER PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS H.J. Andrews, Frederick Swanson Jornada, William Schlesinger 503-750-7355 919-684-2453 Arctic Tundra, John Hobbie Kellogg, Philip Robertson 508-548-3705 616-671-2267 Bonanza Creek, Keith Van Cleve Konza Prairie, Alan Knapp 907-474-6927 913-532-7094 Cedar Creek, David Tilman Luquillo, Robert Waide 612-625-9922 809-767-0334 Central Plains, William Lauenroth Niwot Ridge, Timothy Seastedt 303-491-7581 303-492-3302 Coweeta, Judy Meyer North Temperate Lakes, John Magnuson 706-542-3363 608-262-3014 Harvard Forest, David Foster Sevilleta, Bruce Milne 508-724-3302 505-277-5356 Hubbard Brook, Charles Driscoll Virginia Coast Reserve, Bruce Hayden 315-443-3434 804-924-7761 From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:jgosz@nsf.gov Fri Apr 1 09:40:59 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA11279; Fri, 1 Apr 94 09:40:55 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa10026; 1 Apr 94 9:40 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA09487; Fri, 1 Apr 94 06:33:41 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA13391 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4); Fri, 1 Apr 1994 09:33:06 -0500 Message-Id: <199404011433.AA13391@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Cc: smartin@lternet.edu, jerry@lternet.edu Subject: Special Competition Date: Fri, 01 Apr 94 09:33:04 EST From: "James R. Gosz" Status: ORf LTER CROSS-SITE COMPARISONS AND SYNTHESES and LTER INTERNATIONALIZATION - ------------------------------------------------------ - ---------------------------------------- Special Competition DEADLINE FOR PROPOSALS: May 1, 1994 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION The Long Term Studies Program of the Division of Environmental Biology (DEB), Biological Sciences Directorate (BIO) of the National Science Foundation (NSF), in recognition of the need to stimulate broad-scale syntheses and comparisons across multiple sites announces its intent to support proposals for Cross-Site Comparisons and Syntheses. Projects are expected to address: * ecological questions or hypotheses of a long-term nature that can best be addressed through comparative studies or syntheses among long-term ecological research sites (LTER and non-LTER) that possess long-term data sets. In a similar fashion, the Program announces its intent to support proposals for LTER internationalization that specifically: * address the collaboration of U.S. LTER scientists and projects with colleagues in other countries. OBJECTIVES It is clear that managing the earth's resources is not only important but complex. Research designed to provide scientific information on understanding and managing these resources must be based on a stable framework to assure that there is both continuity to the data collection and a convenient methodology for translating the data to the decision-maker in a manner that is most useful. The present LTER program contains the nucleus of a vitally important national effort. The current set of LTER sites can be integrated with other individual research programs in the U.S. to provide a more effective framework through a network of sites and better integrated information bases. Primary objectives are to: * integrate and synthesize information from long-term ecological measurements across appropriate sites in order to help understand the dynamics of ecological systems, provide a baseline against which to measure environmental changes, and evaluate and mitigate the adverse impacts of human activities; * expand the representation of sites involved in comparisons and syntheses and enhance the spatial dimensions of current research projects to represent additional conditions/habitats so that it will be possible to determine the conditions under which lessons learned in one location can be applied to other locations. Collaboration with scientists and research programs in other countries also is expected to expand the knowledge base and number of sites involved in cross-site comparisons and syntheses. For LTER Internationalization efforts, the primary objective is to: * encourage research that specifically involves the collaboration of U.S. LTER scientists and projects with colleagues in other countries. The proposed activity should be a logical extension of an established activity of the counterpart U.S. LTER project. * assist in developing long-term ecological research programs in major ecological or geographic regions world-wide. SUBMISSION PROCEDURE: The specific definition of research topics is left to the initiative of the investigators. Although each request must involve investigators based at at least one LTER site, the Program emphasizes that not all Principal Investigators involved must be LTER investigators. Non-LTER investigators are encouraged to contact the appropriate LTER Principal Investigator for collaboration opportunities (see the attached table). Both types of proposals must be prepared as requests for standard awards of one-to-three-year duration and may not exceed $75,000 as an annual rate of support nor $200,000 for the total project costs. In the case of requests for LTER Internationalization support, proposers are encouraged to document significant cost sharing (in currency or in kind) by the foreign collaborator. Bilateral and multilateral collaborations are equally encouraged. Proposals will be reviewed in accordance with standard NSF merit review guidelines as described in the "Grant Proposal Guide" (GPG), NSF 94-2. The merit review process will center upon the four criteria detailed in GPG (page 13). In addition, special attention will be given to each proposal's plan for building upon research already on-going, achieving broad applicability of the research results, and integrating those results into LTER project and Network data bases. Preparation and submission of proposals must follow the guidelines given in the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) (NSF 94-2). Note especially that there is a limit of 15 pages for the Project Description section, including text as well as visual materials. No letters of endorsement or other appendices are allowed. Required NSF forms are found in GPG which can be obtained from: NSF Forms and Publication Unit 4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA. 22230 Tel: 703-306-1130 FAX: 703-644-4278 Ten copies of the proposal must be transmitted directly to the Long-Term Studies Program, Division of Environmental Biology, Room 635, NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230 postmarked no later than May 1, 1994. GRANT ADMINISTRATION Grants awarded as a result of this announcement will be administered in accordance with the terms and conditions of NSF GC-1, "Grant General Conditions," or FDP II, "Federal Demonstration Project General Terms and Conditions," depending on the grantee organization. Copies of these documents are available at no cost from the NSF Forms and Publications Unit (as referenced above). More comprehensive information is contained in the NSF Grant Policy Manual (NSF 88-47, July 1989), for sale through the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. The telephone number at GPO is (202) 783-3238 for subscription information. INQUIRIES For inquiries related to this announcement, contact Dr. James T. Callahan, Division of Environmental Biology, at 703-306-1480 (e-mail jcallaha@nsf.gov). For information regarding electronic submission of proposals, contact the Electronic Proposal Submission Project Leader, Division of Information Systems (DIS) via electronic mail to eps@nsf (BITNET) or eps@nsf.gov (INTERNET) or by telephone at (703) 306-1144, X-4662. LTER PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS H.J. Andrews, OR; Frederick Swanson Jornada, NM; William Schlesinger 503-750-7355 919-684-2453 Arctic Tundra, AK; John Hobbie Kellogg, MI; Philip Robertson 508-548-3705 616-671-2267 Bonanza Creek, AK; Keith Van Cleve Konza Prairie, KS; Alan Knapp 907-474-6927 913-532-7094 Cedar Creek, MN; David Tilman Luquillo, PR; Robert Waide 612-625-9922 809-767-0334 Central Plains, CO; William Lauenroth Niwot Ridge, CO; Timothy Seastedt 303-491-7581 303-492-3302 Coweeta, NC; Judy Meyer No. Temp. Lakes, WI; John Magnuson 706-542-3363 608-262-3014 Harvard Forest, MA; David Foster Sevilleta, NM; Bruce Milne 508-724-3302 505-277-5356 Hubbard Brook, NH; Charles Driscoll Virginia Coast Res., VA; Bruce Hayden 315-443-3434 804-924-7761 From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:adub@lternet.edu Fri Apr 8 11:04:01 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA16269; Fri, 8 Apr 94 11:03:59 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa20068; 8 Apr 94 11:03 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA16168; Fri, 8 Apr 94 08:01:47 PDT Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 08:01:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Adrienne Whitener Subject: Symposium announcement (fwd) To: pi@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 07 Apr 94 23:30:31 EST From: david rapport Final Announcement and Update 1st International Symposium on Ecosystem Health & Medicine: Integrating Science, Policy, Management June 19 - 22, 1994, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Organized by the International Society of Ecosystem Health and Medicine and the University of Guelph The symposium date is fast approaching. This is a final reminder and update. Note that the early registration and abstract submission deadlines have been extended. we're looking forward to seeing you in Ottawa! New Deadlines: Deadline for Contributed Abstracts: May 1, 1994 Deadline for Early Registration: June 1, 1994 (late registration available at the meeting) Additional Speakers: Richard Levins, Harvard University School of Public Health Lynton Caldwell, Indiana University, Public and Environmental Affairs Kathryn Sullivan, Chief Scientist, NOAA Emerging Scientists Forum: Open to Graduate students and PDF's . Contact Bruce Forbes e-mail address; bforbes @ envsci. uoguelph. ca For More Information: see following Aims & Scope: This international symposium aims to develop an integrated science for effective management of regional and global environments. The transdisciplinary field of ecosystem health and medicine bridges the social, health and natural sciences to encourage integrated approaches to assessing, maintaining and improving the health of ecosystems. The symposium program will promote dialogue across disciplines to explore the conceptual and science base for this emerging field, the implications of changes in ecosystem health for human health, and practical applications to policies and programs. The goal is not only to develop the science of ecosystem health assessment, but also to promote healthy public policy and to inspire change. This symposium will attract the participation of professionals in ecosystem science and management, medical and health sciences, environmental ethics, law and policy and ecological economics, for the purpose of exploring common strategies in forging a new integrated ecosystem health practice. Major Themes: Assessing Ecosystem Health The Human Health / Ecosystem Health Interface Linking Science, Ethics and Policy Symposium events: Featured Speakers, including: Henry Kendall, Thomas Lovejoy, Eugene Odum, Francesco di Castri, Kristin Shrader-Frechette, David Ehrenfeld; Richard Levins, Lynton Caldwell, Kathryn Sullivan Transdisciplinary Panels, such as: Indicators of Ecosystem Health; Bioethics and the Environment; Global Environmental Change and human health; Legal and Policy Frameworks. Interactive Workshops, including: social Values and Ecosystem Health Objectives; Trends in Environmental Law; Linking Science, Ethics and Policy. Contributed Display Area Presentations. Special Forum for graduate students and post-docs. Contact Bruce Forbes: e-mail address: bforbes @ envsci.uoguelph.ca Sponsors include: US EPA, Environment Canada, Health Canada, Forestry Canada, US Forestry Service, NOAA, BLM, Parks Canada, Royal Society of Canada FOR MORE INFORMATION OR TO REGISTER: Contact: Carol Partland Phone: (519) 824 4120 ext 2967 FAX: (519) 767 0758 Internet: cpartlan@oac.uoguelph.ca Mailing Address: Office of Continuing Education 159 Johnston Hall University of Guelph Guelph Ontario N1G 2W1 Canada Dr. David J. Rapport University of Ottawa Department of Biology 30 Marie Curie Priv. Ottawa, Ontario CANADA K1N 6N5 internet: drapport@acadvm1.uottawa.ca Telephone: (613) 567-7672 Fax: (613) 567-1177 ------------------------------END OF MESSAGE--------------- From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:jgosz@sevilleta.lternet.washington.edu Fri May 6 08:47:51 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA13991; Fri, 6 May 94 08:47:50 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa04877; 6 May 94 8:47 EDT Received: from ariel.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA16795; Fri, 6 May 94 05:44:56 PDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by ariel.unm.edu with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #5) id m0pzPGe-00001dC; Fri, 6 May 94 06:44 MDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA10402; Fri, 6 May 94 06:44:35 -0600 Message-Id: <9405061244.AA10402@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Fri, 6 May 94 06:44:34 MDT X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: SCS Status: OR I would like to compile the various types of interactions the sites have had with the SCS. I got the sense from the recent CC meeting that there were good examples of mutual benefit to LTER sites and SCS and I would like to go back to the SCS office here in Washington to see about continuing (or expanding) their interaction with us. You can reply to this message or send brief descriptions to jgosz@nsf.gov thanks jim gosz From bph@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU Tue May 10 14:59:51 1994 Received: from [128.143.42.123] (bphmac.evsc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA26174; Tue, 10 May 94 14:59:38 EDT Date: Tue, 10 May 94 14:59:37 EDT Message-Id: <9405101859.AA26174@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU> To: jhp7e@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU From: John Vande Castle (by way of bph@amazon.evsc.virginia.edu (Bruce Hayden)) X-Sender: bph@amazon.evsc.virginia.edu Subject: LTER EXEC and CC Notes Status: O Following is a text copy of the discussions during the LTER EXEC and CC meeting this past weekend. Please note that any errors or omissions are mine. Please forward an important corrects to me, and I will update the copy here. A paper copy will be sent to the site PI in the next mailing. -jvc John Vande Castle, Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) - Network Office Univ. of Washington, College of Forest Resources, AR-10, Seattle WA 98195 Phone: 206 543-6249 FAX: 206 543-7295 or 685-0790 Email:jvc@LTERnet.edu ___________________________________________________________________________ LTER Executive and Coordinating Committee Meeting Notes 4/20/94-4/23/94 Washington D.C. (Notes by John Vande Castle (JVC), LTER Network Office) LTER Executive Committee Meeting 4/21/94 Jerry Franklin, Fred Swanson, Judy Meyer, Tim Seastedt, John Hobbie, Caroline Bledsoe and John Vande Castle. The first agenda item was discussion of the LTER 2000 Document, and goals for LTER in the next decade. For example, in the future, expansion of intersite comparison needs to be emphasized. Regionalization in the future will include inter-regional comparisons approaching global scales. A focus on more general items of comparative research, regionalization, site history etc. should be considered, rather than specific (pet) projects. Individual scientific projects should not be excluded, but would be in addition to the general outline. The RFP for new proposals should include this. John Hobbie suggested the initial text be expanded by October 1994. This document will be open for modification at the fall CWT-LTER/CC meeting with the ultimate goal for publication in a journal like BioScience. The CWT meeting could be a place for teams to put together specific items. This activity would also act as a "record keeping" and documentation of the history of LTER. Fred Swanson suggested that there be discussion of the formation of a group or committee that tracks the interaction between LTER and other agencies, for example between LTER and NASA, USGS, etc. There needs to be interaction from the sites, as well as a more organized effort from within LTER for these types of interactions. There needs to information flow to and though the network office. Within the LTER Network, there should be specific liaisons to each of the various agencies. If an executive director is included at the Network office, this person could see that these interactions were working. Discussion of the CWT/CC meeting suggested that it be science oriented, but will include reports from committee groups, intersite projects, what augmented sites have proposed, and "intersite" bytes. The first afternoon session of the LTER/CC would be devoted to interaction with NSF. This will be followed by discussion with NSF, and then follow this with discussion within the CC, after NSF representatives leave. The rest of the meeting was devoted towards finalizing the final agenda for the LTER/CC meeting beginning in the afternoon. ___________________________________________________________________________ Agenda LTER/CC Meeting, April 22-24, 1994 4/22/94 2-5pm Meeting with NSF officers: (a) Report from NSF (b) Interaction with NSF on current NSF Initiatives (supplements, RFP's etc.) (c) Interaction with NSF on-line datasets (e.g. Genomic Model, etc.) 5-6 LTER CC discussion of NSF actions/intentions 7p Dinner @ D'Angelo Restaurant 4/23/94 8-10 Governance Issues (a) New Process--coop agreement for Network Office (not grant) (b) Chair--criteria and selection (c) Executive Committee--role and expansion (d) LTER/CC Representatives--permanent or rotating (e) Executive Director--criteria and selection (f) Location of LTER Network Office (g) Expanded Committee Structure (1) Publications (2) Programs and Workshops (3) Others (4) Representation at LTER/CC meetings? 10:30-12 Report on Proposal/supplement prep. activities by sites (60 min) LTER Responsibilities & expectations re on-line datasets (30 min) 12-1:30p Lunch 1:30-3:30 Governance (cont.) 3:30-4:00 Break 4-5:30p LTER Science Agenda Document/Article (60 min) Hobbie All Scientists Meeting Discussion (30 min) Review/Future 6:30p Dinner @ Rio Grande Cafe 4/24/94 8-10 Governance (closure) Science Document (decision on action steps) 10-10:30 Demo @ coffee break: Mosaic Home Pages (LTER, FLED, etc.) (Nottrott) 10:30-12:30 Election of new LTER Exec Members Meeting Schedule (a) CWT/Fall 1994 (Meyer: Agenda formtg. incl. Science Agenda, Committee Reports, Augmentation,Cross-Site proposals) Regionalization Document (Hayden) NASA Collaboration (Vande Castle) International Activities (Franklin) Network of Networks and All-Site Bibliography (Bledsoe) LMER Report (Hobbie) Vote of Appreciation (for Adrienne Whitener) _________________________________________________________________________ LTER COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES Attending: Mary Clutter, Tom Callahan, James Gosz, Bob Wharton, David Tilman, Charles Driscol, David Foster, Robin Ross, Josh Schimel, John Hobbie, John Magnuson, Fred Swanson, Judy Meyer, Tim Seastedt, Kay Gross, William Schlesinger, Jerry Franklin, John Vande Castle, Bruce Hayden, Robert Waide, Cheryl Dybas, Roger Hanson, Indy Burke, Alan Knapp, Bruce Milne. (NSF representatives present from 2:00 to 5:00) Friday - April 22 2:00-6:20 The LTER Coordinating Committee (CC) meeting commenced with information from the National Science Foundation and discussion with the LTER/CC Tom Callahan initiated discussion by pointing out that the LTER Network Office grant is up for renewal on Feb 1 1995. Along with the planned changes in LTER This could potentially be a cooperative agreement between LTER and NSF. This would be in submission of a formal proposal, followed by a document with agreement on what the Network Office will do and what NSF will do. Part of this would be a site review. Tom suggested a site review of the Network Office before the LTER Network Data Managers meeting in September of 1994. JVC and Jerry should see how the NSF STC and other cooperative agreements at the University of Washington have been arranged for background on how best to implement a cooperative agreement. Current Special Competitions: Cross-site syntheses, regionalization and internationalization, and LTER site augmentation. Eleven sites showed that they would be submitting augmentation proposals. Kay Gross asked about what will be included in the augmentation, in the form of increased support for existing site work. Tom suggested that these types of activities need to be part of the augmentation proposals. The augmentations will be in the form of supplemental funding to existing LTER grants. There were 30 cross site proposals planned for submission as indicated by show of hands by the CC members. LTER Project reviews will include: MCM, BNZ, ARC, KBS, HBR, and NWT. Tom suggested that the LTER Network use its resources to facilitate the review process and for other sites to help the sites under review. Tom requested names of people suitable for panel review of the augmentation and cross-site proposals. There was some discussion that add-hoc review should be included and that reviewers need background information on what the history of the activity has been. Mary Clutter discussed the importance of the new international LTER efforts. Many countries are looking to the United States for leadership in these efforts. Jerry mentioned plans to get some type of congressional briefing regarding LTER activities. For example a retreat or "tour" of VCR would be possible. This could be done during a recess period. Mary suggested that LTER could sponsor a congressional visit. This could include a visit to the Arctic or Antarctic sites. Mary also suggested there be a presentation to the National Science Board - for FY95. Jim Gosz discussed the importance of increased visibility for future and increased funding: new activities, for instance regarding interaction with K-12 education. As part of this, two pre- proposals were circulated for student and teacher interaction with LTER sites. These were submitted to ascertain initial interests for these activities. Kay Gross and Josh Schimel pointed out the time commitment involved in this type of activity by site personnel. The "Proposal A" was viewed best since it involved a teacher/student team, having the teacher manage the education and allow the teacher to spread the experience back to other students. Jim mentioned that in the president's current budget plans, funding for NSF was enhanced for global change, and high performance computing and communication. Total R+D funding is planned as essentially flat, but there would be some shift of defense R+D funding to other groups, including NSF (also NASA, EPA etc.). Funding for LTER sites is proceeding along agreed forms of first providing funding for sites to better do existing and expanded research, to enhance sites to Center level funding, and last to add more sites as funding comes available. Supplemental funding was discussed as positive for all sites who submitted, within some limitations. Soil Conservation Service interaction, where the SCS has come and performed a soil characterization was also seen very positive, and continued interaction was encouraged Tom suggested there be an on-line calendar of upcoming events related to LTER activities be established (by the Network Office). The calendar should be sent out on a regular and frequent basis via Email to PI@LTERnet.edu. This calendar of the LTER Bulletin and Newsletter is good, but an Email psoting could be more frequent. Tom also suggested that 3 key NSF people be included in the PI@LTERnet.edu Email group. NSF is also interested in any information they can use as examples ongoing research, that would be interesting to other groups. Part of this request is for a current need of information on technology transfer. Information from the sites and Network Office can be sent to NSF at: CDybas@nsf.gov. Cheryl will send information such as press releases, etc. to PI@lternet.edu Jim Gosz pointed out that sites must realize that data from the site research be made available on line. There was much discussion on how to get this information together. Jim Gosz pointed out that the CC had made a quantum leap in now deciding to getting data made more available. The discussion centered on having the Network Office act as a lead on organizing this activity, and have it as a point of activity for the LTER Data management group. Although this initial discussion indicated that the mechanism would not be difficult, later realization of the need for proper documentation, publication reference and perhaps hierarchical access restrictions suggested this activity proceed with caution (see notes on later discussion). An invited speaker by NSF, Dennis Helso of USGS - National Water Quality Assessment (NWQA) presented a short briefing regarding NWQA activities. Funding for the program was started in 1991, more sites added in 1994. The activities of the program are staggered every three years. By stretching the sampling period of the entire network to three years NWQA can cover three times the area of an annual sampling program. The research is focused in part on nutrient/contaminant loading to watersheds. There is also a need to use reference sites for comparison - thus a potential linkage for LTER activities. Jerry gave background on the International LTER networking activities. The report from the initial meeting last September in Estes Park is in final publication stages by the Network Office. A follow-up meeting in Rothemstadt is planned following the August 1994 INTECOL meeting in the UK. As part of this, an assessment of the electronic networking capabilities will be made by members of the LTER Connectivity Committee. Tom said that proposals for international collaborations, for instance to NSF-INT would have a good chance for funding. The late afternoon session included general discussion regarding the information NSF provided and other concerns at the sites: John Hobbie brought up the issue of the equity of the sites. NSF should be reminded that all the sites should be given the opportunity, thus the need for continued funding opportunities next year. Josh Schimel discussed the need to recognize the need for proper funding to cover LTER research as mentioned in the 10-year review document. David Tilman suggested that LTER as a network should push to spread LTER like funds out to the other ecological research groups. This is important regarding non-LTER funding, and LTER being seen as a money-rich program. Indy Burke pointed out the importance of ad-hoc reviews for proper review, as well as the perception of the review process for LTER funding. Judy Meyer bought up the issue of cross-site funding, and its importance, especially to outside groups not currently associated with LTER. Robert Wharton pointed out that the Antarctic sites have not been able to compete for supplemental funds, and OPP needs to coordinate so that these two sites do not fall behind. Robin Ross mentioned that funds have been hard to find even for data management activities by the Antarctic sites. She indicated that these sites might be able to acquire funds by submitting cross-site proposals. David Foster pointed out the importance of making sure the reviewers have the proper background, thus the need for proper ad-hoc reviewers. Charles Driscol pointed out the timing issue regarding the RFP's - It would be better if the RFP's were better coordinated and had better timing. William Schlesinger agreed with what NSF had presented, and was encouraged. Kay Gross pointed out the importance to include funding for people to do the work. Equipment by itself cannot be funded. Alan Knapp was also pleased with what NSF had presented, and thought the information presented by NSF was positive. Robert Waide said that information regarding the result of student funding needs to be transmitted by NSF more rapidly. Supplemental funding seems to have gotten more competitive. Information of what should be included in the proposals regarding augmentation needs to be more clear. He also said that on-line data was another back- door activity, not originally present in grant conditions by NSF. Tim Seastedt pointed out individual items that can be brought up to needed levels. Also that the importance of PR to the public and press, such as that emphasized by NSF representatives. John Magnuson pointed out the importance of the support and interaction that NSF gives to the LTER program. Reviewers need have a very broad background, and not be narrowly focused to be able to assess all the activities of site augmentation proposals. He also mentioned that late REU funding can be held until the following year since timing of the funding for this might not be in sync with the needs for offers to students. Bruce Milne discussed the proliferation of opportunities does cause some problem on the perception of clear goals of the LTER site program. He suggested that some thought be made to optimize the activity of the Network. Not all sites should be doing the same activities. Specialists to handle "outside" activities should be brought in as part of the research, rather than having existing researchers change activities because of the demands of the LTER program. ____________________________________________________________________________ Saturday, April 23 1994 LTER Future Governance Discussion: Background for the day's discussions was based on the document produced from the LTER Executive Committee meeting which was distributed to each site PI prior to the meeting. The updated LTER Governance document, as modified by these discussions will be distributed to LTER principal investigators by the Network Office. Jerry Franklin discussed the procedures with NSF for future operation of the LTER Network Office, with a change to a cooperative agreement for tasks performed by the Network Office. Jerry polled the CC for reactions: All sites agreed with the plan for future operations. Kay Gross mentioned that this allows more accounting for activities by NSF on the operations. John Magnuson asked how the cooperative agreement would be judged, and Jerry said that the current activities and products that are produced will continue to be the reference. Jerry mentioned the importance of realizing the scale of the program that LTER is moving toward, with the Network Office providing the infrastructure for a program approaching $20M. David Tilman brought up the issue of knowing what was in the proposal, and was assured that a review of what was to be submitted to NSF be a part of the fall CC meeting in CWT. The CC indicated a consensus, and further polling site representatives was not needed. Discussion of the future Chair of LTER opened with mention of what was included in the background information generated prior to, and resulting from the previous LTER Executive meeting. The function of the LTER Chair was discussed, and included the duties as head of the Exec, CC, and leader of initiatives of the Network etc. The personal goals and satisfaction, and also what motivates people to act as chair was also discussed. Jerry mention that this was one of the reasons the EXEC wanted this as a position that did not require a full time position, and would have the executive director of the Network office and perhaps other help, such as a post- doc would be included in the Network Office. Bruce Hayden pointed out that arrangement be quite flexible to suit whatever was needed for the best person for the position. William Schlesinger suggested that an "outside" person be added to the selection committee, to provide a wider perspective to the selection, and that the person selected should be committed to, and not overcommitted to other projects. Jerry said that a person from the 10 Year review committee or others suggested, would be included. Judy Meyer raised the issue that a site PI might not also be the LTER Chair. Discussion suggested that the Chair should probably not also act as a site PI. David Foster asked about the view that support for the Network Office and Chair include research activities, and discussion mentioned that research needs to be a part of the activities. The procedure to select a chair was discussed including if this should be fully advertised. The selection was decided to not limit the selection to an LTER PI, but allow for any outside person familiar with the operation of LTER. The credentials of the person or persons selected will be circulated. The CC agreed unanimously that the selection should proceed as planned with selection at the fall CC meeting. The vote will be by secret ballot. Expansion of the LTER Executive committee was discussed as a method to have wider involvement of the site PI's in operations, with the EXEC acting to perform much of the initial work. It was decided to increase the EXEC members to 5 people, and to have the Chair act as non-voting member. Jerry mentioned that the structure of the LTER/CC is proposed to allow for both closed and more open meetings. It was recommended that there be a primary contact, but it be open to flexibility. The importance of continuity was discussed, and the need that the CC representative be able to speak for the site. This is especially important for the "limited" meetings. It was agreed that there be a regular site representative with a commitment for a three year period with the recognition that this be flexible for sites who are able to represent the site in a team framework. Discussion of the Executive director of the Network Office: The individual will need to reside wherever the Network Office is located. The person needs to be committed to the position as a career, as a science advocate. The selection of this person will be determined primarily with interaction of the new chair, and selection proceed once the chair is selected. The concept of having an Executive director who will interact directly with the Chair was accepted by the CC, although there was further discussion that an established scientist may need to be hired at the faculty level, and the potential to move the office could possess a problem for that individual. Much discussion centered on operations of the Network Office activities. Better involvement of the CC in the cooperative agreement is planned, beginning with discussions at the September CC meeting. The location of the network office followed discussion of information in the EXEC document. The need to be flexible was important, that the Office remain in Seattle for the near future, with review as needed, on a one to two year basis, as other changes in structure of LTER occur. The CC agreed that the Office remain for the near future. LTER/CC discussion of changing the committee structure, included expansion of committee structure to cover issues within LTER. Specific recommendations were made for a committee to manage issues of syntheses and common measurements be included. Indy Burke suggested that the committees be science based. Charles Driscol emphasized the need for a common measurement approach. It was suggested that the "program" committee be altered to a "Syntheses" committee, with an initial charge is to develop a MMP (minimum measurement program). Key Gross asked that the MMP be linked to the science program. The diversity of the individual programs needs to be included. Discussion suggested that this should include seven people, with initial membership by Charles Driscol, Bob Wharton, Kay Gross, and Josh Schimel. The financial needs of these groups will need to be included, and their activities in the Network Office cooperative agreement. Discussion of All Scientists meeting activities emphasized the support and need for this meeting to continue on a three year basis. Assilimar was suggested as a location for September of 1996. The next meeting will be needed for Assilimar for perhaps 1000 people. JVC will check that this will be appropriate, available and can handle up to 1000 people. LTER Science Agenda: Discussion was based on the Long-Term Research Agenda document which built on the original LTER 2000 program initially submitted to NSF. The science agenda was formulated by John Hobbie who will coordinate the activity, for five areas of focus, and compile an document for the September LTER/CC meeting. A plan for publication will proceed as an article in BioScience, perhaps as part of a special issue. Discussion continued to the regionalization activity by Bruce Hayden, in producing an electronic document. Currently there are five sites that have the on-line document ready, and part of the "Mosaic", World Wide Web. The document includes color imagery that is difficult and expensive to publish in other forms. Discussion about concerns included what each site considers in regional research, and the fact that this is something under construction. The implications and significance were noted for future work and information access, potential for a hard-copy run and even to congressional briefings. Kay Gross lead discussion of acquisition, reconstruction and access of long-term datasets. Included in this is the ability to include information to document past datasets. The initiative is to find and archive important long-term datasets, especially of "orphaned" or "at risk" datasets. The ESA committee working on this activity will be submitting a report by the Snowbird ESA meeting. JVC gave a background on the LTER/NASA interaction regarding Landsat data acquisition and sun photometer work. The "demonstrat" data access and analysis program was presented, showing the basic functions of how to browse the real-time and archived data, generate information on atmospheric aerosol and water vapor concentration, and derive corrections for satellite sensors. With the installation of a sun photometer, an LTER site becomes a reference source for calibration of satellite data. There was much concern about the NASA interaction involving Warren Cohen, and knowing what the status of the landscape assessment program is. Concern centered on the lack of information and what the status of the proposal is. The committee suggested that Warren provide information to the LTER/CC within the next ten days as to what was being doing and the status of this proposal. Jerry provided background on the International LTER Networking meeting held at Estes Park. NSF has provided funding for assessment of electronic networking connections, database assessment and to demonstrate potentials for network activities. Kay Gross suggested that a letter of support from Jerry be included by sites that are representing LTER activities. The international networking activity will continue with the upcoming meeting in the UK. Caroline Bledsoe gave background on the new LTER bibliographic database that is now online on the LTERnet data server accessible by gopher and mosaic server, which has been developed by herself, Harvey Chin and Rudolf Nottrott. John Hobbie gave background on the status of the LMER program. There is now a competition for renewal and new sites. There were seventeen proposals including four of the five exisiting sites, with about seven to be funded. Judy suggested that Network-wide information be compiled on overhead rates etc. that have been negotiated. JVC will compile the material, compiling the list anonymously: one list of institutions involved, and a second, but not linked list, of the overhead rates negotiated, and how much if any is redistributed back to the program. This information will be distributed with a letter from Jerry to the site PI group for information. The information made available for distribution within LTER itself rather than for general distribution. Discussion of the collecting and distributing information on the organizational structure used for management of the sites was suggested. It was decided to make this a key point of the VCR meeting in a year. The CC discussed extensively the need to put LTER data on-line. Bruce Hayden proposed that a model be developed by the data management group to put on-line a complete metadata structure and data itself as well as attribution (whose data, who put it on-line). This motion was voted unanonamous. Jerry also got a commitment from the entire CC to get one dataset online by the end of the year after much discussion. The final vote for two new EXEC members and Kay Gross and Bruce Hayden were elected by majority votes. There was a short roundtable for the sites to exchange information on the basic elements of site augmentation proposals that they were planning to submit. Rudolf Nottrott gave a brief presentation of the on-line Mosaic information server of the LTER Network including its capabilities of LTER bibliographic searches (from work of Caroline Bledsoe and Harvey Chin), access to on-line site information, as well as display of the LTER electronic volumes, such as the LTER Regionalization document under preparation by Bruce Hayden. The LTER/CC meeting was adjourned late in the day Saturday, completing the agenda. _________________________END OF DOCUMENT_________________________________ From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Tue May 10 21:37:16 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA27439; Tue, 10 May 94 21:37:14 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa19074; 10 May 94 21:37 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA20541; Tue, 10 May 94 18:35:09 PDT Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 18:35:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Bioscience item To: PI@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI, the September issue of BioScience will carry an item by Cheryl Dybas, NSF Legislative Affairs, on canopy research which derives from the current issue of the Network News. For your future reference, this is a good example of how a single news item can sometimes receive surprisingly broad coverage. In this case, it started with a notice sent by Nalini Nadkarni to site PIs. I picked it up for the newsletter and passed it on before the newsletter was out to Cheryl at NSF. She picked it up for the NSF Tip Sheet which goes out to targeted journals, magazines and newspapers, and it caught the eye of BioScience editors. Please continue to send me or Cheryl news on any new and interesting experiments, collaborations, and research results that we can highlight to get the word out to the larger community. Thanks! From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Wed May 11 12:09:43 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA29265; Wed, 11 May 94 12:09:42 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa25720; 11 May 94 12:09 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA22464; Wed, 11 May 94 09:01:28 PDT Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 09:01:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Cheryl Dybas/NSF Contact Info To: PI@lternet.washington.edu Cc: cDybas@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Dear PIs: When you do have site news items that you would like to send directly to Cheryl Dybas at NSF for wider distribution or for development as stories, you can do so via e-mail. Cheryl is in the LTER database, so her address is: cDybas@LTERnet.edu (or cDybas@nsf.gov). Her phone, fax and address follow. Cheryl Dybas Senior Science Writer Legislative Affairs, Room 1245 National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, Virginia 22230 Ph: 703-306-1070 Fax: 703-306-0159 =========================================================================== Stephanie Martin University of Washington PH:206/543-6764 Publications Coordinator AR-10 FAX: 543-7295 LTER Network Office Seattle, WA 98195 or 685-3091 e-mail: sMartin@LTERnet.edu (Internet) sMartin@LTERnet (Bitnet) =========================================================================== ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 18:35:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: PI@lternet.washington.edu Subject: Bioscience item FYI, the September issue of BioScience will carry an item by Cheryl Dybas, NSF Legislative Affairs, on canopy research which derives from the current issue of the Network News. For your future reference, this is a good example of how a single news item can sometimes receive surprisingly broad coverage. In this case, it started with a notice sent by Nalini Nadkarni to site PIs. I picked it up for the newsletter and passed it on before the newsletter was out to Cheryl at NSF. She picked it up for the NSF Tip Sheet which goes out to targeted journals, magazines and newspapers, and it caught the eye of BioScience editors. Please continue to send me or Cheryl news on any new and interesting experiments, collaborations, and research results that we can highlight to get the word out to the larger community. Thanks! From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:jgosz@nsf.gov Sat May 14 10:57:38 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA06438; Sat, 14 May 94 10:57:36 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa07882; 14 May 94 10:57 EDT Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA15616; Sat, 14 May 94 07:54:59 PDT Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA24357 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4); Sat, 14 May 1994 10:54:47 -0400 Message-Id: <199405141454.AA24357@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu, AERC@lternet.edu Cc: jerry@lternet.edu, smartin@lternet.edu Subject: NSF needs help! Date: Sat, 14 May 94 10:54:45 EDT From: "James R. Gosz" Status: ORS Increases for the NSF 1995 budget are at risk. You can help and now is the time. See in particular the last paragraph. jim Appropriations Process Underway May 12, 1994 The House Appropriations Committee meets today to give its final approval to figures instrumental in determining the federal budget for the fiscal year beginning on October 1. The outlook for space station funding remains unclear -- although it could be worse. The "college of cardinals," as they are often referred to on Capitol Hill, met yesterday to carve up the $508.65 billion discretionary spending budget for fiscal year 1995. House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wisconsin) and the thirteen appropriations subcommittee chairmen gave preliminary approval to figures which they formally vote on today. Indicative of the difficulties facing the committee is the fact that next year's figure has declined from this year's $510.07 billion. The space station could have met an early death if the Appropriations Committee had given the VA, HUD, Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee a less-than-generous amount of money for what are called "outlays." Outlays are the amount of money which the government actually spends in a fiscal year, which includes bills coming due for commitments made in a previous year. VA, HUD subcommittee chairman Louis Stokes (D-Ohio) said he needed $73.3 billion in outlays in order to assure continued space station funding. He got just a bit less than $73 billion. Obey said of the $73 billion: "These numbers don't rule out the space station, and they don't guarantee it." An aide to Stokes said that they could fund the station with that figure, although left unsaid is where the subcommittee would cut the other $350 million in outlays for this year. Pressure is continuing to mount on the subcommittee to assure adequate funding for the VA and HUD. Also bearing on the space station's future is how much NASA receives for both budget authority (money for FY 1995 and beyond) and for outlays. As reported in FYI #63, House science committee chairman George Brown (D-California) was pressuring the appropriations subcommittee to give NASA a $14.3 billion budget for next year. He is backing away from that figure a bit. "It doesn't have to be $14.3 billion," Brown is now saying; "We're within $300 million to $400 million of a satisfactory outcome to this thing.... There are wonders that can be done." Brown said he would be satisfied with around a $14 billion budget for NASA. This does not ensure that the space station is home free. Still a problem is securing enough votes to defeat any floor amendment to terminate the station. The Ranking Republican on the science committee, Bob Walker (Pennsylvania), citing concerns about the budget and Russian participation, said, "I've told the administration don't expect me to deliver 75 percent of the Republicans. We'll be lucky if we get 50 percent." In other areas of the budget, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee received a discretionary spending budget of $20.37 billion, down from $21.88 billion this year. Subcommittee chairman Tom Bevill (D-Alabama) warned that there would be "No new starts. That is the way it's looking right now," for water projects. There is no early indication of the outlook for the Department of Energy's science programs. The National Institute of Standards and Technology is funded by the Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee. Here the news is better. This subcommittee's allocation rose from $22.95 billion this year to $26.06 billion for next year. NIST and anti-crime programs are in for sizeable increases for next year, prompting one subcommittee member to predict, "We are going to have to make substantial cuts in existing programs." The National Science Foundation is funded through the VA/HUD subcommittee. It is believed that the House appropriations subcommittee will markup its bill the week of June 6, followed by Senator Barbara Mikulski's (D-Maryland) subcommittee during the week of July 16. It is being reemphasized that letters to Stokes and Mikulski from their colleagues will play an important role in determining how their subcommittees allocate department and agency budgets. These letters are, in turn, a reflection of the mail which representatives and senators receive in the next few crucial weeks from their constituents. From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:jgosz@nsf.gov Sat May 14 10:59:17 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA06443; Sat, 14 May 94 10:59:15 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa08019; 14 May 94 10:59 EDT Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA15636; Sat, 14 May 94 07:57:21 PDT Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA17005 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4); Sat, 14 May 1994 10:57:09 -0400 Message-Id: <199405141457.AA17005@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu, AERC@lternet.edu Cc: jerry@lternet.edu, smartin@lternet.edu Subject: reference material Date: Sat, 14 May 94 10:57:08 EDT From: "James R. Gosz" Status: OR Communicating With Congress The following information is based on the AIP brochure, "Communicating with Congress." For a copy of this brochure, send a self-addressed, stamped (29 cents) long business envelope to: AIP, Government and Institutional Relations, One Physics Ellipse, College Park, Maryland 20740-3843. WRITING TO A MEMBER OF CONGRESS: Limit the letter to one page, and usually one subject. The letter must be legible. Organize your letter into three distinct paragraphs: In the first paragraph: State your reason for writing Establish your "credentials" In the second paragraph: State your position Use facts to back up your position Describe the legislation's impact on you Note the bill number (H.R. xx or S. xx) when appropriate The final paragraph asks for some type of action. Recommended address format: The Honorable___________ United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator__________: The Honorable __________ United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative___________: Send your letter in care of the relevant committee when you are writing to a Member of Congress who does not represent your district or state. See FYIs #11 and 12 for selected appropriations subcommittee rosters. MEETING WITH A MEMBER OF CONGRESS: Make your appointment at least 3-4 weeks in advance Capitol switchboard telephone number: 202-224-3121 Consider arranging a meeting in the state or district office Be prepared Research the issue Cite the bill number and title of any legislation involved Research the background and interests of your Member of Congress Keep to the point of your visit Choose a small number of issues Make your case early in the visit Select one spokesperson for group meetings Try to include at least one constituent of the Member Plan your presentation Expect your meeting to last about 15 minutes Congressional aides These staff members are dedicated and influential Staff aides often draft key components of legislation Staff aides frequently meet with constituents Leave a one-page summary End your appointment on time Thank the legislator or aide Follow up with a thank you letter Take the opportunity to stress the key points of your visit Offer to provide assistance From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:jgosz@nsf.gov Sat May 14 11:06:26 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA06450; Sat, 14 May 94 11:06:24 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa08518; 14 May 94 11:06 EDT Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA15645; Sat, 14 May 94 08:03:03 PDT Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA18968 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4); Sat, 14 May 1994 11:02:51 -0400 Message-Id: <199405141502.AA18968@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu, AERC@lternet.edu Cc: jerry@lternet.edu, smartin@lternet.edu Subject: Committee members Date: Sat, 14 May 94 11:02:50 EDT From: "James R. Gosz" Status: OR House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Rep. Louis Stokes (D-OH), Chairman Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) Rep. Allan Mollohan (D-WV) Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) Rep. Jim Chapman (D-TX) Rep. Dean Gallo (R-NJ) Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) Rep. Esteban Torres (D-CA) Rep. Ray Thornton (D-AR) Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, Independent Agencies Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Chair Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Sen. Al D'Amato (R-NY) Sen. Bennett Johnston (D-LA) Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) Sen. Chris Bond (R-MO) Sen. Robert Kerrey (D-NE) Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Tue May 17 16:17:21 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA17899; Tue, 17 May 94 16:17:20 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa16146; 17 May 94 16:17 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA02155; Tue, 17 May 94 13:12:07 PDT Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 13:12:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: TFA Study To: PI@lternet.edu Cc: gLikens@lternet.washington.edu, tCallahan@lternet.washington.edu, jGosz@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI, Cheryl Dybas at NSF tells me that she's getting press calls about the TFA Adsorption in LTER Soils study featured in the current newsletter. Again, she picked the item up from the Network News for the tip sheet she sends out to journals and newspapers. It looks like this will continue to be a good way to get information on LTER work out to a wider audience. =========================================================================== Stephanie Martin University of Washington PH:206/543-6764 Publications Coordinator AR-10 FAX: 543-7295 LTER Network Office Seattle, WA 98195 or 685-3091 e-mail: sMartin@LTERnet.edu (Internet) sMartin@LTERnet (Bitnet) =========================================================================== From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:jerry@lternet.edu Thu May 19 08:59:05 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA25036; Thu, 19 May 94 08:59:02 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa03815; 19 May 94 8:59 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA12646; Thu, 19 May 94 05:55:48 PDT Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 05:55:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Jerry Franklin Subject: Re: TFA Study To: Stephanie Martin Cc: PI@lternet.edu, gLikens@lternet.washington.edu, tCallahan@lternet.washington.edu, jGosz@lternet.washington.edu In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Great, Stephanie! Jerry From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:beth@sparc.ecology.uga.edu Mon May 23 09:43:49 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA09118; Mon, 23 May 94 09:43:47 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa02276; 23 May 94 9:43 EDT Received: from sparc.ecology.uga.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA06519; Mon, 23 May 94 06:38:40 PDT Received: from [128.192.18.63] (cwt63.ecology.uga.edu) by sparc.ecology.uga.edu (4.1/25-eef) id AA02939; Mon, 23 May 94 09:44:23 EDT Date: Mon, 23 May 94 09:44:23 EDT Message-Id: <9405231344.AA02939@sparc.ecology.uga.edu> From: Beth O'Grady Reply-To: Beth O'Grady To: pi@lternet.edu, agordon@evbhort.uoguelph.ca, jbrunt@sevilleta.unm.edu, dgreenland@lternet.edu Cc: awhitener@lternet.edu Subject: Oct.Exec./CC meetings at Coweeta Status: OR Below is a list of Representatives who have notified us they are planning to attend the October CC meeting at Coweeta. We appreciate the early responses. It is now time to phone in your credit card guarantees to the motel. We are under deadlines from the motel to finalize our plans because October is a peak tourist month and lodging in the area is scarce. You may still cancel or change names on rooms, but the guarantees will allow us to hold the rooms for the group. Phone your reservation to: Quality Inn, 706/746-5373. State that you are with the University of Georgia LTER meetings. The rate is $69 per room, and $89 if you plan to stay through a weekend night. The Network Office will pay travel, food, and lodging expenses for one rep per site plus Exec. Committee members. If your site is not represented, you need to contact me ASAP. Thanks!--Beth This is a tentative schedule: 19 Oct., Wed. 9:00AM Executive Committee meeting, Coweeta 1:00PM Coordinating Committee meeting, Quality Inn conference room 5:00 Social, Quality Inn 20 Oct., Thurs. 9:00AM Meetings, Quality Inn Conference room 5:00PM Barbecue, Kelly Park 21 Oct., Fri. 9:00AM Field trip to Coweeta 1:00 Leave for airports SITES REPRESENTATIVES Andrew Fred Swanson, Stan Gregory Arctic Bonanza Creek Cedar Creek Central Plains Coweeta Judy Meyer Harvard Forest David Foster, + 1 Rep. Hubbard Brook Jornada Wm. Schlesinger Kellog Konza Alan Knapp, John Blair Luquillo Robert Waide McMurdo Niwot Tim Seastedt, + 1 Rep. North Temp.Lakes 2 Reps. Palmer Station Sevilleta Virginia Coast Res. Bruce Hayden, John Porter NETWORK OFFICE Jerry Franklin Rudolph Notrott John Vande Castle Caroline Bledsoe Harvey Chinn NSF James Gosz MISCELLANEOUS Josh Greenberg (grad student rep.) James Brunt (data mgt. committee chair) David Greenland (climate) Andrew Gordon (Ontario) Beth O'Grady, Coweeta LTER Site Institute of Ecology 711 BioSciences Bldg. University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602-2602 PHONE 706/542-3363 FAX 706/542-3344 email beth@sparc.ecology.uga.edu Beth O'Grady, Coweeta LTER Site Institute of Ecology 711 BioSciences Bldg. University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602-2602 PHONE 706/542-3363 FAX 706/542-3344 email beth@sparc.ecology.uga.edu From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:dhelsel@usgs.gov Tue May 31 13:41:46 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA21010; Tue, 31 May 94 13:41:44 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa05469; 31 May 94 13:41 EDT Received: from srv1rvares.er.usgs.GOV by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA04174; Tue, 31 May 94 10:37:29 PDT Received: from [130.11.50.52] (dhelqvarsa [130.11.50.52]) by srv1rvares.er.usgs.GOV (8.6.7/8.6.4) with SMTP id RAA02041 for ; Tue, 31 May 1994 17:37:43 GMT Message-Id: <199405311737.RAA02041@srv1rvares.er.usgs.GOV> Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 13:36:35 -0500 To: pi@lternet.edu From: Dennis Helsel X-Sender: dhelsel@srv1rvares Status: OR I spoke about the NAWQA program of the USGS at your recent meeting in Arlington, VA. Although our national coordinators are in contact, I believe there would be added beneficial to both LTER and NAWQA if individual scientists were also speaking with one another. To get that started, I'd like to get location information on your LTER site. I'll then get that plotted along with our NAWQA site maps to determine which sites are located within or near one of the 60 large NAWQA study units. I would appreciate getting the name of the appropriate contact person on your staff by email. They could then send either a polygon or point coverage of latitude/longitude for the watershed you are studying to our GIS specialist, Kerie Hitt (kjhitt@usgs.gov). Kerie will work with them on formats, etc. We will put the map together, and return to each of you either the national map (probably overkill) or the names and locations of all NAWQA studies in your vicinity. Thanks in advance for your help. Either email (preferred) or call me (703 - 648 -5713) if you have any questions. From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Tue Jun 7 13:38:16 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA12554; Tue, 7 Jun 94 13:38:12 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa06066; 7 Jun 94 13:38 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA18845; Tue, 7 Jun 94 10:33:00 PDT Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 10:33:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Hungary/CEDAR-new Internet resource/Int'l funding To: pi@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR I received this and the following messages from Jim Gosz: Subject: Re: Announcing New Environmental Gopher In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 02 Jun 94 19:24:09 -0100." <199406021727.AA34908@note1.nsf.gov> Date: Tue, 07 Jun 94 11:11:40 EDT From: "Bonnie H. Thompson" International Programs, NSF . . . Requested from Dianna Freckman a list of those Hungarian institutions which must be considered in an overall network plan. These Steve Goldstein will discuss with his Eastern Europe contacts who are responsible for long-term planning of national systems. I also described NSF's interest in working with neighboring countries in the near-term. Steve says he has worked with GEO on related matters for Global change activities and welcomes working with LTERs. He immediately thought of a couple of new data sources that may be of interest of US LTER researchers since they are so oriented toward electronic networking. I am attaching his message to this note for you reference; please send it on to others if you feel it is newsworthy. Also Steve mentioned that there has been a recent NATO message about funds for equipment purchase (for EE sites) if working with US (NATO nations) for work in certain topics ...which includes environment! So...at minimum, Steve Goldstein will be a helpful source of info and advice. We need to think of how to channel things. In her brief report to me, yesterday, Dianna says that the Fall meeting to be held in Hungary as the final stage has been postponed until February 1995. My guess is that this responds to the Hungarian's lack of funds in 1994. They get budgets on a calendar year basis and will have new monies in 1995 and will have budget for the meeting. Goldstein's message about a data base follows: Comments: Resent-From: Fabio Metitieri From: Fabio Metitieri Subject: Announcing New Environmental Gopher X-To: newnir-l@ITOCSIVM.CSI.IT To: Multiple recipients of list NEWNIR-L Resent-To: Bonnie Thompson Resent-Date: Mon, 06 Jun 94 13:54:18 EDT Resent-From: "Steve Goldstein Ph +1-703-306-1949" - - ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- In announcing CEDAR's environmental gopher to the general public, the staff would like to take this opportunity to extend its thanks for the encouragement and technical support provided by the following individuals: Czeslaw Jan Grycz and Darek Milewski The Wladyslaw Poniecki Charitable Foundation, Inc. Barbara Rodes World Wildlife Fund - US Gerard Cunningham UNEP Infoterra/PAC ****************** Special thanks to: Dr. Konrad Zirm Austrian Federal Ministry for Environment, Youth and Family Dr. Werner Pillmann The International Society for Environmental Protection *************************************************************************** CEDAR is happy to make available to the public a Gopher server dedicated to environmental information. Host: pan.cedar.univie.ac.at Port: 70 The server is still under development; please report problems or suggestions to system-info@pan.cedar.univie.ac.at. Update announcements will be made periodically to notify the public of new data sets added to the system. Information currently available from the Gopher includes: 2. Austrian Federal Ministry for Environment, Youth and Family/ Austrian Environmental Information Act. 3. United Nations Environment Programme: Infoterra/ About INFOTERRA. Search the Infoterra International Experts Database Search for Infoterra National Focal Points by country UNEP Infoterra Thesaurus of Environmental Terms. 4. The Central and Eastern European EcoDirectory Project/ Welcome to the EcoDirectory - ReadMe About the EcoDirectory Project Browse the CEE Environmental Libraries Database (entries)/ Search the CEE Environmental Libraries Database How to search the EcoDirectory by country. >> Poniecki Foundation Gopher/ How to Submit Changes to this Gopher Database 7. Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe/ The Bulletin/ 1. CEDAR/ General Information about CEDAR Available Publications from ISEP. Access to Databases/ Search CEED, the CEE Environmental Experts Database Search ERIN (Environmentally Relevant INformation) Newsletters/ The Gopher will also provide links to environmental, UN and other systems. Point your Gopher software to: pan.cedar.univie.ac.at, port 70 We hope you find the information on our server useful. Sincerely, The CEDAR Staff - - -- Joerg Findeisen find@cedar.univie.ac.at Central European Environmental Data Request Facility CEDAR - ------- End of Forwarded Message ------- End of Forwarded Message From @lternet.lternet.washington.edu:kjhitt@qvarsa.er.usgs.gov Fri Jun 10 12:36:48 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07700; Fri, 10 Jun 94 12:36:47 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa22602; 10 Jun 94 12:36 EDT Received: from QVARSA.er.usgs.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA02345; Fri, 10 Jun 94 09:34:10 PDT Received: by EDOC Distributor (Rev. 2.2/DIS-II) on srv2rvares.er.usgs.gov; Fri, 10 Jun 1994 12:33:47 -0400 Message-Id: Comments: Direct questions on this SMTP header to $edoc.help@qvarsa.er.usgs.gov Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 12:33:32 -0400 From: "Kerie J. Hitt" To: pi@lternet.edu, jgosz@nsf.gov, smartin@lternet.washington.edu Subject: LTER/NAWQA map Status: OR ----- Map of LTER sites and USGS NAWQA study units available ----- As suggested by Dennis Helsel, I have prepared a quick map of LTER sites and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) study units so that we can determine which LTER sites are located within NAWQA study units. I used the point location coordinates of LTER sites given in the 1990 Long-Term Ecological Research network core data set catalog. If more accurate coordinates or area boundaries are available, they can be incorporated into the map later. The map is available as a GIF file from anonymous ftp on 130.11.51.209. The file is called lter.gif and is located in the subdirectory called pub. If other file formats or other ways of distributing the file are needed, please let me know. My phone number is 703/648-6854 and my email address is kjhitt@usgs.gov. ---Kerie Hitt From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Fri Jun 10 14:54:18 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA08112; Fri, 10 Jun 94 14:54:16 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa18064; 10 Jun 94 14:54 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA03436; Fri, 10 Jun 94 11:51:42 PDT Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 11:51:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: House markup language (fwd) To: pi@lternet.washington.edu Cc: lmerpi@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 10 Jun 94 13:58:48 EDT FYI. The Full Committee markup will be June 20. The Senate markup will be July 11. Subject: House Appropriations Mark Up of FY95 NSF Budget Date: 10 Jun 94 09:39 EST Text item: Text_1 On June 9, 1994, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies marked up the FY 1995 appropriations act that contains funding recommendations for the National Science Foundation (NSF). The Subcommittee was provided with a very constrained allocation. They worked with an allocation that is $413 million below what the President's budget requested for the agencies and programs in the Subcommittee. In the context of this constrained environment, and similar to the authorization bill introduced by House Science, Space and Technology Committee Chairman George Brown, NASA was funded at a level of $14 billion, $240 million below the request. Within that amount, space station was fully funded at the requested level of $2.1 billion. For NSF, the subcommittee is recommending a total of $3106 million in new budget authority. This amount is 3% over last year. The table below compares the subcommittee's recommendation to the budget request and the FY 1994 level. STATUS OF FY 1995 NSF APPROPRIATIONS ($ in millions) ACCT FY94 FY95 FY95 FY95 FY95 PLAN REQ HSE SEN CONF R&RA 2164 2349 2217 ARFI 105 55 100 MRE 52 70 70 EHR 570 586 586 S&E 118 131 124 OIG 4 4 4 REL 5 5 5 NSF 3018 3200 3106 R&RA: Research and Related Activities ARFI: Academic Research Facilities and Instrumentation MRE: Major Research Equipment EHR: Education and Human Resources S&E: Salaries and Expenses OIG: Office of Inspector General REL: Relocation Reimbursement to GSA For Research and Related Activities, the Subcommittee has recommended a total of $2217 million. This represents an increase of $53 million - -- or 2.5% -- over FY 1994 but is below the budget request by $131 million. Within the recommendation, in addition to a general reduction of $65.9 million, the Subcommittee has included specific reductions from the request for global change research (-$33 million), high performance computing (-$29 million), the critical technologies institute (-$2 million), and civil infrastructure systems (-$1.5 million). For the Academic Research Infrastructure account, the Subcommittee has recommended a total of $100 million -- $45 million more than the request. For the new Major Research Equipment activity, the Subcommittee has recommended $70 million in new budget authority. This includes funds for the construction of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) and the GEMINI telescopes. In addition, the subcommittee rescinded $35 million in FY 1994 funds for LIGO and then reappropriated this same amount for LIGO in the FY 1995 Major Research Equipment account. For Education and Human Resources, the Subcommittee has provided the budget request of $586 million -- this represents an increase of 3% over the FY 1994 level. Within the funds provided the Subcommittee has made the following changes to the budget request: +$5 million for the EPSCOR program; +$5 million for the advanced technological education program; +$1 million for the Model Institutions of Excellence program; +$750,000 for the Partnerships for Minority Student Achievement program; +$500,000 for summer science camps; +$1 million for rural systemic reform; +$4 million for new starts in the graduate traineeship program; +$3 million for urban systemic reform; and -$20.25 million as a general reduction. For Salaries and Expenses, the Subcommittee has recommended $124 million -- a 5% increase over last year's level. The Office of Inspector General would be funded at $4 million and the $5.2 million requested to repay the General Services Administration for relocation reimbursement was provided in the Subcommittee's recommendation. Full Committee action is expected during the week of June 20 with House floor action to follow on or about June 27. From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Fri Jun 10 21:10:52 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA08883; Fri, 10 Jun 94 21:10:49 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa15147; 10 Jun 94 21:10 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA06221; Fri, 10 Jun 94 18:08:25 PDT Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 18:08:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Fall 1994 LTER Network News Contents (fwd) To: pi@lternet.washington.edu Cc: pLeahy@lternet.washington.edu, dHelsel@lternet.washington.edu, sDraggan@lternet.washington.edu, cDybas@lternet.washington.edu, jGosz@lternet.washington.edu, tCallahan@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Dear PIs and other potential contributors: It's time to finalize the contents of the Spring-Fall 1994 LTER Network News. Below, I've listed contributions I will be attempting to solicit and confirm over the next couple of weeks with the author or authors noted. These topics are suggested only at this point. Please call or send me a message as soon as possible if you are willing to contribute something on the topic listed next to your name. Also, please let me know if you have any additional news and calendar items, recent site publications (if I'm short on room, "submitted" or "in press" citations are the first eliminated except for those from featured sites), or meeting and workshop reports, and I will try to work them in. I WILL NEED ALL COPY AND OTHER MATERIAL BY AUGUST 19. (I plan to have the newsletter completed when I go on vacation Sept. 12.) TEXT SUBMISSIONS: It works best if you send your contribution to me in text format via electronic mail or via ftp (see instructions below) with a backup hard copy sent via regular mail (including any special formatting, such as super- and subscripts). I will be discussing length and other specifications with contributors individually. PHOTOS, FIGURES, ILLUSTRATIONS: Ideally, I need original high-resolution line art (original laser print or disk file with software used noted) and black and white prints of photographs. However, if you have original negatives or color slides, they can usually be converted successfully depending on the quality of the image. Color prints are the least desirable and are most often unusable. Please provide photographer/illustrator credit (full name or exactly as it should appear) and brief caption information for each item. Also note whether I may keep the material for our files or if you would like it returned. Thank you! FALL/WINTER 1994-5 NETWORK NEWS FEATURES: Central Plains (Burke/Lauenroth/Coffin) Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory (Meyer/Swank) LTER Governance Changes & Reflections on LTER (Franklin) LTER Role in National Biological Survey (Pulliam or Franklin--premature?) UPDATES & MEETING REPORTS: Bibliographic Database update and usage report (Bledsoe/Chinn) LMER Program--new & renewed sites (John Hobbie) LTER - EPA/EMAP awards (Draggan/Martinko, EPA/EMAP) Network Support System update (Nottrott) Other?: CROSS-SITE/COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH: NASA Collaboration update (Vande Castle) Cross-site Belowground Synthesis Project (Bledsoe) Conservative Tracer Addition to Streams (DeAngelo) Population studies in LTER (Allison and Lent, Harvard Forest) Sustainable Biosphere Initiative Office (new director) USGS-LTER Interactions (Leahy or Helsel/USGS) New site experiments, collaborations, results? INTERNATIONAL: ILTER Steering Committee Meeting (Nottrott/Heal) Hungary exchange (Freckman; Magnuson/Coffin/others, photos) GTOS Meeting (Baumgardner, Purdue) Other?: PUBLICATIONS: Recent site publications and LTER Network publicity (compiled by SM) New Network Office Publications: ILTER Report, Personnel Directory, El Nino Workshop Report Other publications of interest: CALENDAR: LTER Meetings: LTER/CC & Exec NSF deadlines and target dates Other?: SENDING PUBLICATIONS FILES VIA FTP (NOTE: This procedure has been changed slightly since last issue) To send text or graphic files to me for the newsletter or bulletin or other publications projects, follow the steps below (I'll use AND as an example, and assume you all have accounts on LTERnet. Those who do not first need to connect to LTERnet as guest users.) If you are using DOS or UNIX, first go to the directory in which the file you wish to send resides, then: 1. Type/enter "ftp lternet.edu". 2. When the``Name'' prompt appears, type/enter``anonymous''. 3. The message that a guest login is OK appears. At the "Password" prompt, type/enter your password if you have an account. Type/enter the "indent" or "tab" key followed by your e-mail address if you are an anonymous user (the address will not appear on your screen as you type it in). 4. At the ftp prompt (ftp>), type/enter "bin" (for binary) to ensure the file arrives as formatted. 5. Type/enter "cd /pub/upload/and" to set the path to the AND subdirectory. (If you have a GUI, graphical user interface, ftp program on a Mac, you may be able to save this information for future sessions.) 6. Type/enter "send filename" (or get filename" if you are retrieving a file). The message "Transfer Complete" indicates that the file has probably transferred successfully. To doublecheck, type "ls"to view a listing of current files and see if the one you just sent is there. 7. Disconnect from lternet.edu by entering ``quit''. 8. Notify me via e-mail(sMartin@LTERnet.edu) that the file has been transferred and is in your site's subdirectory. If you encounter difficulties, consult with your local computer technician or check with me and I'll work Daniel Pommert at the Network Office to find a solution. =========================================================================== Stephanie Martin University of Washington PH:206/543-6764 Publications Coordinator AR-10 FAX: 543-7295 LTER Network Office Seattle, WA 98195 or 685-3091 e-mail: sMartin@LTERnet.edu (Internet) sMartin@LTERnet (Bitnet) =========================================================================== From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:woodc@ccmail.orst.edu Mon Jun 13 13:03:33 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA02780; Mon, 13 Jun 94 13:03:31 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa02896; 13 Jun 94 13:03 EDT Received: from gaia.ucs.orst.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA15381; Mon, 13 Jun 94 10:01:20 PDT Received: from ccmail.orst.edu (ccmail-4.UCS.ORST.EDU [128.193.4.34]) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu (8.6.8.1/8.6.6) with SMTP id KAA05524 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 1994 10:00:55 -0700 From: woodc@ccmail.orst.edu Received: from cc:Mail by ccmail.orst.edu id AA771526749 Mon, 13 Jun 94 09:59:09 PST Date: Mon, 13 Jun 94 09:59:09 PST Message-Id: <9405137715.AA771526749@ccmail.orst.edu> To: pi@lternet.edu, woodc@ccmail.orst.edu Subject: FROM: FRED SWANSON Status: OR We expect several young researchers to visit for 6-12 month periods during the next couple of years under "training" sponsored by World Bank funding to the Chinese Ecological Research Network. I expect that this is part of a program dispersed across the LTER network. Is your site now or expecting to host CERN researchers for training under this program? Thanks, Fred Swanson From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:freckman@picea.cnr.colostate.edu Mon Jun 27 16:23:14 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA04299; Mon, 27 Jun 94 16:23:12 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa14530; 27 Jun 94 16:23 EDT Received: from picea (picea.CNR.ColoState.EDU) by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA26617; Mon, 27 Jun 94 13:21:20 PDT Received: from [129.82.104.84] by picea (4.1/SMI-DDN) id AA06639; Mon, 27 Jun 94 14:20:45 MDT Date: Mon, 27 Jun 94 14:20:44 MDT Message-Id: <9406272020.AA06639@picea> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: PI@lternet.edu From: "Diana W. Freckman" Subject: Hungarian-LTER potential collaborations Status: OR LTER SCIENTISTS VISIT HUNGARIAN NATURE RESERVES As part of an NSF International Program grant funded to Diana Freckman (MCM) and Debra Coffin (CPR) at Colorado State University, 10 LTER scientists visited the Hungarian Nature Reserves from May 22 to 29 (1994). The visit and grant are part of a continuation of increased interest in the long term data sets on climate and biodiversity in Hungary noted by NSf Division of Environmental Biology Director, Dr. James Gosz, and Sevilletta LTER data management specialist, Dr. James Brunt in an earlier visit to Hungary in 1993. The objective of the grant is to promote the exchange of knowledge on biodiversity research between Hungarian scientists, who are world leaders in conducting biological surveys, and US scientists, who are among the world leaders in ecosystems research. Three meetings are planned in 1994-95 as part of this collaboration with the Hungarian scientists. Dr. Edit Kovacs-Lang is organizing the collaborators from Hungary. Participating Hungarian organizations include the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Institute of Ecology and Botany with participation by the Plant Protection Institute, the Limnological Institute in Tihany, the Institute of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, Hungarian Universities and the Hungarian Natural History Museum. The purposes of the 9-day trip in May were to identify: (1) a research basis for collaboration; (2) potential sites and scientists for collaborative partnerships; and, (3) long term biological survey data bases that would be useful in comparison to USA LTER data bases. LTER Participants included Linda Blum and Bruce Hayden (VCR), Jack Lattin and Tim Schowalter (AND), John Magnuson (NTL), Bob Parmenter and Terry Yates (SEV), Bob Waide (LUQ) and Freckman and Coffin. More than 20 Hungarian scientists participated in the meeting. The second meeting will occur in September when Hungarian scientists visit LTER sites (KBS, SEV, CPER, AND) to discuss management, analysis, and synthesis of long-term data. The final meeting will be a workshop in February 1995 in Hungary to initiate and establish research collaborations between Hungarian and US scientists in areas of biodiversity and climate change. LTER participants were impressed with the quality and quantity of data on biodiversity that have been collected in the past and are currently being collected by Hungarian scientists. Hungary has three climatic types (humid atlantic, dry continental, and mild submediterranean) that, along with the topography, contribute to produce an ecologically interesting aridity gradient for soils and vegetation over relatively short distances. Hungarian scientists have long term data sets dating to as early as the late 1800's of climate, and terrestrial and aquatic taxonomic groups. A number of types of ecosystems exist within Hungary, from dry, sandy grasslands to wet, loess grasslands to temperate forests, and lakes. LTER participants were fortunate to visit all types of these systems. One site visited was the Kiskunsag National Park, an area of 30,000 hectares, which was the site of an all-taxa survey. This park, composed of six different ecosystems, is a good example of a mosaic of ecosystems, each influenced by land management. Within this park are marshes, meadows, steppes, forests, agricultural fields, and saline lakes. The organisms have been identified and results published in a series of books, two volumes each on the flora and fauna. The groups studies appear very complete. For example, the fauna includes vertebrates (and their parasites) and soil invertebrates, such as tardigrades and nematodes. POTENTIAL AREAS FOR COLLABORATION Eastern Europe has ecosystems comparable to North America, and a comparison of various community-structure data sets (biodiversity, trophic analyses, etc.) would be productive for both groups. Additionally, data sets of different taxonomic resolution could be examined in terms of landscape level changes, stability of food web structures in disturbed ecosystems, social-economic issues, effects of land use management, and climate. Connection of the LTERs to the Hungarian long-term biodiversity data is important because the Hungarians are one of the few groups that can compare a recent survey of taxa to one taken 40 years ago - on the same sites (Mahunka, 1991). The linkage with the Hungarian scientists will provide critical information on biodiversity that will enhance and strengthen both programs as well as add to our knowledge of the relationships among species, ecosystems, and human use. According to Dr. Kovacs-Lang, and from Dr. Gosz's summary of his trip to Hungary, the Hungarians believe that this collaboration with United States LTER scientists can expand the use of their data sets. For example, electronic data management occurs in only a few situations, using a dbase approach. The Hungarian Institutes have a few PCs and some email capabilities. Mapping is performed by hand and there is little Hungarian capability for GIS or spatial analysis. Simulation modeling is not performed, although the data sets for such an effort are extensive. Few of the Hungarian data sets have community analyses. Thus, there are quality data sets that exist on a regional to country-wide basis that could be the basis for the analysis of broad-scale dynamics. The LTER scientists have extensive experience in the management, analysis, and synthesis of large amounts of long-term data. This experience and the associated technological advances in computer software, simulation modeling, and geographic information systems would be invaluable to the Hungarian scientists for data management and interpretation. There are a number of sites that could exist as long term ecological research sites in Hungary, including National Parks and Biosphere Reserves with lakes, streams and rivers, all having a history of long term biodiversity data collection. Areas of common interest with the LTERs would include land management and human use, grazing, fire, biomonitoring (short term) vs trend monitoring (which species is selected for trend analysis), climate change and policy issues such as maintenance of funding for long term sitesland use, and continuation of scientific resources such as systematics. LTER participants were enthusiastic about the possibilities for collaboration, and noted the strengths of the long term data sets and the focus on training of scientists in systematics and taxonomy in Hungary. Recommendations for initiating and improving research collaborations between US and Hungarian scientists are as follows: 1) Invite Hungarian scientists to attend workshops in the US where topics would include the long term species database management, and the use of GIS and simulation modeling to analyze long term data in order to provide a better understanding of the relationships between species diversity and ecosystem function; 2) Exchange of graduate students and scientists between Hungary and the US; 3) Establishment of an international electronic link between the USA LTER and Hungarian scientists, research programs, bibliographic lists, and data sets through LTERNET ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ Diana W. Freckman, Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory and College of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 PHONE 303/491-1982, FAX 303/491-1965, EMAIL,dfreckman@lternet.edu, OR freckman@picea.cnr.colostate.edu From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:jcallaha@nsf.gov Tue Jun 28 09:29:55 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA06087; Tue, 28 Jun 94 09:29:54 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa15358; 28 Jun 94 9:29 EDT Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA00786; Tue, 28 Jun 94 06:28:41 PDT Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA42669 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 28 Jun 1994 09:28:09 -0400 Message-Id: <199406281328.AA42669@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: LTER Project Annual Reports Date: Tue, 28 Jun 94 09:28:09 EDT From: "James T. Callahan" Status: OR Folks- Just a reminder to all of you to try your best !!! to have your annual reports to the program by July 15. This is the best compromise date I can think of. Reports need not be long or elaborate, but they should be useful and meaty. I don't intend to provide specific guidelines for content, but your attempt to synthesize a year's activities into a 3-5 page document that is readable and useful would be appreciated. Real scientific accomplishments should be emphasized, especially those we might be able to get some good press out of. Thanks, Tom From jgosz@sevilleta.lternet.washington.edu Sun Jul 10 12:07:51 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA10452; Sun, 10 Jul 94 12:07:49 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa27899; 10 Jul 94 12:07 EDT Received: from ariel.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA03578; Sun, 10 Jul 94 09:04:45 PDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by ariel.unm.edu with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #5) id m0qN1MD-00001dC; Sun, 10 Jul 94 10:03 MDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA04124; Sun, 10 Jul 94 10:03:56 -0600 Message-Id: <9407101603.AA04124@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Sun, 10 Jul 94 10:03:56 MDT X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: director position Status: OR Does anyone know of a qualified person for the position described below? jim gosz --- Forwarded mail from >From URIEL@vms.huji.ac.il Sun Jul 10 09:49:55 1994 Received: from VMS.HUJI.AC.IL by ariel.unm.edu with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #5) id m0qN18Z-00001dC; Sun, 10 Jul 94 09:49 MDT Received: by HUJIVMS (HUyMail-V6n); Sun, 10 Jul 94 18:49:51 +0300 Date: Sun, 10 Jul 94 18:49 +0300 Message-Id: <10070094184941@HUJIVMS> From: To: jgosz%sevilleta.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: network Dear Jim, Long time since we corresponded. Hope all is well with you. Recently I visited India, to advise the Government of one of their desert states, Gujarat, on estalishing an Institute for Desert Ecology Research. They are now looking for a director. Do you happen to know someone in the US, ecologist of an Indian origin, at mid career or somewhat earlier, that you think is suitbale for this challenge? please let me know. Thanks, Uriel Safriel --- End of forwarded message from From smartin@lternet.edu Wed Jul 13 15:15:50 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA25746; Wed, 13 Jul 94 15:15:43 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa01600; 13 Jul 94 15:15 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA27007; Wed, 13 Jul 94 12:11:39 PDT Date: Wed, 13 Jul 1994 12:11:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: International LTER Summit Report To: PI@lternet.edu, ILTER@lternet.washington.edu Cc: LMERPI@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR I am in the process of distributing copies of the completed report of the September 1993 International LTER (ILTER) Summit. Five copies will go out to each of the Summit participants and the U.S. LTER sites, and 2 to each Land-Margin Ecosystem Research (LMER) site and NSF participant (the Division of Environmental Biology will have a large quantity shortly). I will also be sending a supply for the ILTER Steering Committee's upcoming August 1994 meeting in the United Kingdom and copies to past international LTER Network Office contacts. Let me know if any of you would like additional copies for distribution to interested colleagues and any current or potential international research partners. Alternatively, feel free to send me complete names and addresses and I will forward copies to them directly. ALso, if you plan to attend an international meeting in the near future, you may wish to take a few copies along. Thank you. =========================================================================== Stephanie Martin University of Washington PH:206/543-6764 Publications Coordinator AR-10 FAX: 543-7295 LTER Network Office Seattle, WA 98195 or 685-3091 e-mail: sMartin@LTERnet.edu (Internet) sMartin@LTERnet (Bitnet) =========================================================================== From parmentr@puerco.unm.edu Wed Aug 17 18:55:54 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA04023; Wed, 17 Aug 94 18:55:51 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa00582; 17 Aug 94 18:55 EDT Received: from puerco.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA23336; Wed, 17 Aug 94 15:54:00 PDT Return-Path: Received: by puerco.unm.edu (5.57/VISION/14Apr88/C) id AA00465; Wed, 17 Aug 94 16:53:50 -0600 Date: Wed, 17 Aug 94 16:53:50 -0600 From: parmentr@puerco.unm.edu Posted-Date: Wed, 17 Aug 94 16:53:50 -0600 Message-Id: <9408172253.AA00465@puerco.unm.edu> To: pi@lternet.edu Status: OR ANNOUNCEMENT FOR: AUTUMN 1994 TECH JOBS AT SEVILLETA LTER As part of the Sevilleta LTER Program, I need to hire eight (8) research assistants for field sampling this fall. The positions will last for 7 weeks, beginning in mid-September. Would you please pass this along to any recently graduated students who might be interested in full-time field work for September and October this fall? Thanks! Sincerely yours, Bob Parmenter Sevilleta LTER ***************************************************************************** JOB ANNOUNCEMENT Eight (8) Biology Department Field Technician Positions Department contact: Dr. Robert R. Parmenter Department of Biology University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 Telephone: 505-277-7619 Email: parmentr@sevilleta.unm.edu Email: PARMENTR@UNMB.BITNET Pay rate and hours: $6.00/hour, 40 hours/week; daily hours variable. Job Duration: Mid-September through October, 1994; total of 7 weeks full-time. Job location: Workers must be able to work at the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge, Socorro, New Mexico from Monday to Friday each week. Housing and kitchens will be provided free of charge at the Sevilleta Field Research Station. Food must be provided by the employee. Job Description: The field work includes measuring plants and abundances of vertebrate and invertebrate animal populations. Some computer data entry work will be performed. Generally, individual technicians will work either on plants or animals, but not usually both. Qualifications: College-level biology coursework preferred. Previous experience in field biological studies preferred. Skills in identifying plants and animals desirable. Applicants should be in good physical condition, as outdoor activity is required. Some typing or computer data entry capability is desired. Applications: Contact Bob Parmenter at Sevilleta LTER for application materials. Applications are due no later than Friday, August 26, 1994. From smartin@lternet.edu Thu Aug 18 13:18:06 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA06619; Thu, 18 Aug 94 13:18:04 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa16301; 18 Aug 94 13:17 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA04196; Thu, 18 Aug 94 10:14:21 PDT Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 10:14:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: NSF Postdoc competition, FYI To: PI@lternet.washington.edu, LMERpi@lternet.washington.edu, students@lternet.washington.edu, jobs@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR (Sorry for the length!) Subject: Postdoctoral Research Associates in Computational Science and Engineering The announcement for the FY95 Postdoctoral Research Associates in Computational Science and Engineering has just been placed on NSF's electronic Science & Technology Information System (STIS) (NSF 94-104). It is also attached at the end of this message. This very successful program has been supporting postdocs from all disciplines for the last four years; in FY94 sixteen postdocs were supported, 2 in Biology, 2 in Chemistry, 3 in Computer Science, 3 in Engineering, 3 in Materials, 2 in Math, and 1 in Physics. This year the deadline for submission has been moved up to November 1, 1994. DIVISION OF ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING OFFICE OF CROSS DISCIPLINARY-ACTIVITIES DEADLINE: NOVEMBER 1, 1994 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION CISE Postdoctoral Research Associates in Computational Science and Engineering and, Associates in Experimental Science The Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) Directorate of the National Science Foundation plans a limited number of grants for support of Postdoctoral Research Associateships contingent upon available funding. The Associates are of two types: o Associateships in Computational Science and Engineering (CS&E Associates) supported by the New Technologies Program in the Division of Advanced Scientific Computing (DASC) in cooperation with other NSF CS&E disciplines (CS&E Associates). The objective of these Associateship awards is to increase expertise in the development of innovative methods and software for applying high performance, scalable parallel computing systems in solving large scale CS&E problems. o Associateships in Experimental Science (ES Associates) supported by the Office of Cross Disciplinary Activities (CDA) . The objective of the ES Associateship awards is to increase expertise in CISE experimental science by providing opportunities for associates to work in established laboratories performing experimental research in one or more of the research areas supported by the CISE Directorate. These awards provide opportunities for recent Ph.D.s to broaden their knowledge and experience and to prepare them for significant research careers on the frontiers of contemporary computational science and engineering and experimental science. It is assumed that CS&E Associates will conduct their research at academic research institutions or other centers or institutions which provide access, either on site or by network, to high performance, scalable parallel computing systems and will be performing research associated with those systems. It is assumed that ES Associates will conduct their research in academic research institutions or other institutions devoted to experimental science in one or more of the research areas supported by the CISE Directorate. Who may submit Universities, colleges, and other research institutions as described in Grants Proposal Guide (GPG), (NSF-94-2) are eligible to submit proposals to this program. For CS&E Associateships the institution must have access to high performance, emerging parallel computing systems. For ES Associateships, the institution should have an established laboratory performing research in CISE experimental areas, as described in Guide to Programs, NSF 93-167. Associateship awards will be based on proposals submitted by the sponsoring institution. The principal investigator will serve as an unreimbursed scientific advisor for the research associate. Research associates should not be listed as co-principal investigators. Each proposal must include a research and training plan for the proposed research associate in an activity of computational science and engineering in any of the fields supported by DASC, other NSF CS&E programs or experimental research supported by the CISE Directorate. To be eligible for this support, individuals must: (1) be eligible to be appointed as a research associate or research assistant professor in the institution which has submitted the proposal, (2) fulfill the requirement for the doctoral degree in computational science and engineering, computer science and engineering or a closely related discipline by September 30, 1995. Award Amounts, Stipends and Research Expense Allowances Awards will range from $33,200-$46,200 for a 24 month period. The award will include $29,000-$42,000 to support the Research Associate (to be matched equally by the sponsoring institution). There will also be an allowance of $4,200 to the sponsoring institution, in lieu of indirect costs, as partial reimbursement for expenses incurred in support of the research. The annual award to the research associate will be composed of two parts: an annual stipend (salary and benefits) that may range from $25,000-$38,000, and a $4,000 per year research expense allowance expendable at the Associate's discretion for travel, publication expenses, and other research-related costs. There is no allowance for dependents. The effective date of the award cannot be later than January 1996. Matching Funds The institution must match the NSF award on a dollar for dollar basis excluding the $4,200 granted in lieu of indirect costs. Matching funds may come from grants from other NSF programs, other agencies' programs, or from other institutional resources. Matching fund arrangements are the responsibility of the submitting institution and must be detailed in the budget request. Evaluation and Selection Proposals will be reviewed by panel in accordance with established Foundation procedures and the general criteria described in the GPG brochure, and additional criteria specific to the Postdoctoral Research Associateships Program. The review panel will consider: the candidate's ability, accomplishments, potential as evidenced by the quality and significance of past research, long range career goals, the likely impact of the proposed postdoctoral training and research on the future scientific development of the applicant and on the parallel computing infrastructure of the US (for CS&E Associates) or on Experimental Science in CISE disciplines (for ES Associates), the aspects of the candidate's research and education, such as broadening research associates' knowledge and experience by a change in institution, advisor, or research area, and the adequacy of the sponsoring institution's access to high performance and/or experimental computational resources to support the proposed research. Application Procedures and Proposal Materials To be eligible for consideration, a proposal must contain forms which can be found in the GPG brochure. Required are a Supplementary Application Information Form (NSF Form 1225-one copy), a Current and Pending Support Form (NSF Form 1239-one copy) to be completed by the Principal Investigator (the scientific advisor), and one original and twelve copies of: (a) Cover page with institutional certificates (Form 1207). Title should indicate whether the proposal is an CS&E Postdoctoral Associate or ES Postdoctoral Associate. (b) Budget (Form 1030). (c) Statement with details regarding matching funds and their source. (d) Personal career goals statement not to exceed one single-spaced page, written by the research associate applicant, that describes the career goals of the applicant and what role the chosen research, scientific advisor and sponsoring institution will play in enhancing the realization of these long-range career goals. (e) Statement of results from prior NSF support (of the Principal Investigator) related to the proposed research. (f) Biographical sketch of the principal investigator as called for in the GPG brochure. (g) Up-to-date curriculum vitae of the research associate applicant including a complete list of publications, but no reprints (a thesis should not be included, but a thesis abstract may be included). (h) Proposal abstract, less than 250 words, of the training and research plan. (i) Training and research plan (not to exceed three single-spaced typewritten pages). This should propose research which could be carried out during the award period. The creativity, description and essential elements of the research proposal must be those of the research associate applicant. The research plan should show the broadening aspects of the proposed research. (j) Statement from the proposed postdoctoral advisor nominating the research associate indicating the nature of the postdoctoral supervision to be given if the award is made. (k) Statement from the advisor clearly describing the computing facilities and resources that will be available to support the proposed research. (l) Three recommendations (normally including one from the doctoral advisor). Training and research plans should be provided to your references to assist their recommendations. Please note that the research description page limit is less than the research description page limit specified in GPG. All application materials must be: (1) received by NSF no later than the deadline date November 1, 1994; (2) be postmarked no later than five (5) days prior to the deadline date; or (3) be sent via commercial overnight mail no later than two (2) days prior to the deadline date, to be considered for award. Send completed proposals with supporting application materials to: National Science Foundation - PPU Announcement No. 4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22230 Additional Information If you wish additional information, please contact New Technologies Program Director, DASC, at 703-306-1970 (e-mail: ntpd@nsf.gov) for CS&E Associates or Program Director, CDA, at 703-306-1980 (e-mail: espd@nsf.gov) for ES Associates. Copies of most program announcements are available electronically using the Science and Technology Information System (STIS). The full text can be searched on-line, and copied from the system. Instructions for use of the system are in NSF 94-4 "STIS Flyer." The printed copy is available from the Forms and Publications Unit. An electronic copy may be requested by sending a message to "stis@nsf.gov" (Internet). The Foundation provides awards for research in the sciences and engineering. The awardee is wholly responsible for the conduct of such research and preparation of the results for publication. The Foundation does not assume responsibility for such findings or their interpretation. The Foundation welcomes proposals on behalf of all qualified scientists and engineers and strongly encourages women, minorities, and persons with disabilities to compete fully in any of the research and research-related programs described in this document. Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities (investigators and other staff, including student research assistants) to work on an NSF project. See program announcement (NSF 91-54), or contact the program coordinator (703) 306-1697 for more information. In accordance with Federal statutes and regulations and NSF policies, no person on grounds of race, color, age, sex, national origin, or disability shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistance from the National Science Foundation. NSF has TDD (Telephone Device for the Deaf) capability which enables individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Division of Human Resource Management for information relating to NSF programs, employment, or general information. This number is (703) 306-0090. Grants awarded as a result of this announcement are administered in accordance with the terms and conditions of NSF GC-1, "Grant General Conditions," or FDP-II, "Federal Demonstration Project General Terms and Conditions," depending on the grantee organization. Copies of these documents are available at no cost from the NSF Forms and Publications Unit, at (703) 306-1130, or via e-mail (Internet:pubs@.nsf.gov). More comprehensive information is contained in the NSF Grant Policy Manual (July 1989) for sale through the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. "Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 47.070, Computer and Information Science and Engineering." The information requested on this application material is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. It will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals and may be used and disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the review process and to other government agencies. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records" and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records" 56 Federal Register 54907 (October 23, 1991). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of your receiving an award. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Herman G. Fleming Reports Clearance Officer Division of Contracts, Policy, and Oversight National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22230 And to: Office of Management and Budget Paperwork Reduction Project (3145-0058) Washington, DC 20503 OMB#3145-0058 P.T. 34 K.W.1004000,0600000 ------- End of Forwarded Message From smartin@lternet.edu Wed Aug 24 12:43:44 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA25026; Wed, 24 Aug 94 12:43:43 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa26739; 24 Aug 94 12:43 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA06762; Wed, 24 Aug 94 09:39:48 PDT Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 09:39:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: New Research Assistant Position--Harvard Forest LTER site To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, jobs@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR NOTE: September 1, 1994 Application Deadline! RESEARCH ASSISTANT IN FOREST ECOLOGY The Harvard Forest Long-Term Ecological Research Program is investigating the impact of natural and human disturbance processes on landscapes of central New England. The research focuses on central Massachusetts and involves collaborative studies in the areas of physiological, population, community and ecosystem ecology, as well as archaeology, paleolimnology, and atmospheric chemistry. We are seeking an individual with a strong background in ecology, botany or forestry to undertake fieldwork and data analysis in forest community ecology. Responsibilities will include field sampling of forest vegetation in long-term and experimental plots, statistical and GIS analysis of modern and historical data, maintenance of experiments, equipment and long-term data, report writing and collaboration on diverse research projects. Requirements include a BS or MS in ecology, biology or forestry, relevant and related experience, and extensive familiarity with spreadsheet, database and statistical software. Related experience in vegetation mapping, GIS, or air photo interpretation would be very helpful. The individual will work closely will the research group of Dr. David Foster to undertake diverse projects in forest ecology. The appointment will be made on an annual basis and is renewable, based on performance evaluation and the availability of funding. Salary will be commensurate with experience. Please send resume, academic transcripts, and three letters of recommendation to Dr. David Foster, Harvard Froest, Harvard University, P.O. Box 68, Petersham, MA 01366 BY SEPTEMBER 1, 1994. Harvard University is an Equal Opportunity Employer and applications from women and minorities are strongly encouraged. =========================================================================== From schlesin@acpub.duke.edu Fri Aug 26 08:59:18 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01149; Fri, 26 Aug 94 08:59:17 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa02602; 26 Aug 94 8:59 EDT Received: from acpub.duke.edu (mercury.acpub.duke.edu) by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA17996; Fri, 26 Aug 94 05:57:17 PDT Received: from schlesin.botany.duke.edu (schlesin.botany.duke.edu [152.3.12.76]) by acpub.duke.edu (8.6.8.1/Duke-2.0) with SMTP id IAA16516; Fri, 26 Aug 1994 08:57:11 -0400 Message-Id: <199408261257.IAA16516@acpub.duke.edu> X-Sender: schlesin@popserv.acpub.duke.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 07:05:16 -0400 To: pi@lternet.edu, Judy Meyer From: "William H. Schlesinger" Subject: X-Mailer: Status: OR Judy: My life is too chaotic to edit ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS, so I guess I have no conflict of interest in serving with Orians on a committee to select new editors. William H. Schlesinger James B. Duke Professor Departments of Botany and Geology Duke University Durham, N.C. 27708-0340 Phone: 919-660-7406 Fax 919-684-5412 Email: schlesin@acpub.duke.edu Home Office: 919-489-2247 From adub@lternet.edu Mon Oct 10 17:57:00 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA25078; Mon, 10 Oct 94 17:56:59 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa06517; 10 Oct 94 17:56 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA14555; Mon, 10 Oct 94 14:54:03 PDT Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 14:54:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Adrienne Whitener Subject: message from Jerry Franklin To: pi@lternet.edu Cc: jlubchenco@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: ORp ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A hard copy of this memo, including attachments, will be mailed to the Extended PI list this week. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To: LTER Principal Investigators October 10, 1994 From: Jerry Franklin, Chair, LTER/CC Subject: Nomination for next Chair LTER/CC and Director LTER Network Office As per our procedures adopted last spring, the Executive Committee has proceeded to solicit nominations and contact candidates for the next chair of the LTER Coordinating Committee; Jane Lubchenco was added to our group for this "search" process. During the process 15 individuals were nominated, all of them by scientists within LTER. Although LMER and LTREB PIs were contacted, no nominations were offered. Six of the nominees were from within our LTER ranks and three (Gosz, Hayden, and Magnuson) received more than one nomination. Of the nominees, three indicated an interest in the Chair. Magnuson and Hayden both indicated a willingness to serve if we lacked an appropriate and willing candidate but, otherwise, preferred not to be considered for the Chair at this time because of pressing site responsibilities. Gosz indicated both an interest in the Chair and an ability to devote a significant amount of time to the job during the next several years, including a half-time commitment during 1995. A copy of his CV and a letter outlining his vision for the LTER Network is enclosed. The Executive Committee has considered Dr. James Gosz' qualifications and is pleased to unanimously recommend him to the full LTER/CC as our candidate for Chair of the LTER/CC and Director of the LTER Network Program for 1995-1997. We think that LTER is very fortunate to have someone with Dr. Gosz' experience, ability and dedication that is willing to take on the responsibilities of the Chair. Discussion and voting on the Chair will occur during the closed session of the LTER/CC on October 19. Enclosures: Gosz CV Gosz letter cc:Lubchenco From adub@lternet.edu Mon Oct 10 19:03:12 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA25296; Mon, 10 Oct 94 19:03:08 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa17133; 10 Oct 94 19:03 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA14963; Mon, 10 Oct 94 15:57:01 PDT Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 15:57:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Adrienne Whitener Subject: Draft Agenda: Oct. LTER/CC meeting Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Apparently-To: Apparently-To: Status: ORp JFFranklin, 10/10/94 TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR THE LTER/CC MEETING COWEETA HYDROLOGIC LABORATORY, OCTOBER 18-21, 1994 October 18 Executive Committee and West Coast participants fly in October 19 9:00 a.m. Executive Committee meeting 1:00 p.m. LTER/CC, CLOSED MEETING (one designated representative per LTER site, LTER committee chairs, LTER Executive committee members) 4:30 p.m. LTER/CC closed meeting adjourn 5:00 p.m. Social October 20 8:30 a.m. LTER/CC, open meeting (all participants) 12:00 Lunch 1:00 p.m. LTER/CC, open meeting (continued) 4:00 p.m. Adjourn 5:00 p.m. Barbecue October 21 a.m. Field trip to Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR LTER/CC CLOSED MEETING NSF Comments Discussion of comments and proposed agenda Election of new chair Brief reports from PIs receiving supplemental grants Brief reports from standing committees (mainly to clear away questions/problems for reports in open meeting) Data Management Climate Publications Technology Synthesis Graduate Student Consideration of location for 1996 All-Scientist meeting Report on Network Office review Report on Network Office proposal Commentary on and suggestions of workshops Advice and comment by LTER/CC on proposal Discussion on approaches to LTER network "outreach" (How do we incorporate other sites/networks?) TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR LTER OPEN MEETING NSF Staff comments Report by the LTER Chair Activities and changes Network Office review Network Program proposal Reports from the standing committees Climate Publications Technology Synthesis Graduate Student Data Management Report of committee Discussion of on-line data sets issues Demonstration of new capabilities International LTER activities ILTER meeting and plans Canadian LTER activities Report on NSF Supplemental awards Site supplements, x-site, and international Bledsoe report Issues for discussion in LTER/CC open meeting Workshops: subjects and structures Outreach: basis for recognizing affiliate LTER sites LTER Science vignettes 3-minute "site bytes" on current scientific findings from each LTER project ---------------END----------------- From smartin@lternet.edu Wed Oct 12 15:45:34 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA03401; Wed, 12 Oct 94 15:45:30 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa25792; 12 Oct 94 15:45 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA00391; Wed, 12 Oct 94 12:42:31 PDT Date: Wed, 12 Oct 1994 12:42:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: LTER Collaboration Grant-Sponsored Publications (fwd) To: pi@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Status: OR For attachment to the cooperative agreement which will replace the Network Office collaboration grant, I'm updating the list of publications sponsored under the grant. I need your help to identify them correctly. Let me apologize in advance if I've inadvertently omitted anything important.=20 Please review the attached list and provide me with any corrections and/or additions. Note particularly any incomplete citations, if you would. The publications listed here should be those which are products from Network Office-sponsored workshops, meetings, subcontracts, or other activities for which the Network Office provided support. If some of those listed were strictly from site support, they should not be be included.=20 I hope to gather your corrections before the upcoming LTER/CC meeting, that is before next Tuesday, but I will also have some copies of the list at Coweeta to solicit this information.=20 Thank you for your assistance. Stephanie Martin Publications Coordinator LTER Network Office 206-543-6764/206-543-7295 (FAX) sMartin@LTERnet.edu =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D LTER COLLABORATION GRANT-SPONSORED PUBLICATIONS Aber, J. D., C. Driscoll, C. A. Federer, R. Lathrop, G. Lovett, J. M. Melillo, P. Steudler, and J. Vogelmann. 1993. A strategy for the regional analysis of the effects of physical and chemical climate change on biogeochemical cycles in Northeastern (U.S.) Forests. Pages 36-48 in: P.J. Bacon (ed.). Long-Term Ecological Research and Regional Prediction. Elsevier Science Publishers: Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Ecological Modelling (67)1.=20 Bhowmik, N. G. 1987. Hydrologic research at LTER sites. EOS 68(37)745, 750, 756.=20 Bildstein, K.L. and Brisbin, Jr. I.L. 1990. Lands for long-term research in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 4:301-308.=20 Brunt, J. W., J. Porter and R. Nottrott. 1990. Internet Connectivity in LTER: Assessment and Recommendations. LTER Publication No. 7. Long-Term Ecological Research Network Office, University of Washington:Seattle, WA. 36 pp.=20 Burke, I. C. and W. K. Lauenroth. 1993. What do LTER results mean? Extrapolating from site to region and decade to century. Pages 19-36 in: P.J. Bacon (ed.). Long-Term Ecological Research and Regional Prediction.=20 Elsevier Science Publishers: Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Ecological Modelling (67)1.=20 Burke, I. C., T. G. F. Kittel, W. K. Lauenroth, P. Snook, and C. M. Yonker. 1991. Regional analysis of the central Great Plains: sensitivity to climate variability. BioScience 41:685-692.=20 Caine, N. and F. J. Swanson. 1989. Geomorphic coupling of hillslope and channel systems in two small mountain basins. Z. Geomorph. N.F. 33(2):189-203.=20 Carpenter, S.R., T.M. Frost, J.F. Kitchell, T.K. Kratz, D.W. Schindler, J. Shearer, W.G. Sprules, M.J. Vanni, and A.P. Zimmerman. 1991. Patterns of primary production and herbivory in 25 North American lake ecosystems. In J. Cole, G. Lovett, and S. Findlay (eds.) Comparative Analyses of Ecosystems: Patterns, Mechanisms and Theories. Springer-Verlag, NY.=20 Crum, J. R. G. P. Robertson, and F. Nurnberger. 1990. Long-term climate trends and agricultural productivity in southwest Michigan. Pages 53-58 in: Greenland, D. and L. W. Swift, Jr. (eds.). Climate Variability and Ecosystem Response. General Technical Report SE-65, USDA Forest Service, Southeast Experiment Station, Asheville, NC. 90 pp.=20 Foster, D. R. and E. Boose. 1992. Technology Development in the LTER Network_Current Status of GIS, Remote Sensing, Internet Connectivity, Archival Storage and Global Positioning Systems. (LTER Publication No. 12) LTER Network Office, University of Washington, Seattle. 23 pp.=20 Franklin, J. F. 1988. Importance and justification of long-term studies in ecology. Pages 3-19 in: Likens, G. E. (ed.). Long-term studies in ecology: approaches and alternatives. Springer-Verlag: New York.=20 Franklin, J. F. 1988. Past and future of ecosystem research_contributions of dedicated experimental sites. Pages 415-424 in: Swank, W. T., and D. A. Crossley (eds.). Forest Hydrology and Ecology at Coweeta. Springer-Verlag: New York.=20 Franklin, J. F. (ed.). 1990. 1990's Global Change Action Plan: Utilizing a Network of Ecological Research Sites. (LTER Publication No. 4) Long-Term Ecological Research Network Office, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 36 pp.=20 Furrer, G., J. Westall, and P. Sollins. 1989. The study of soil chemistry through quasi-steady-state models. I. Mathematical definition of model. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 53:595-601.=20 Furrer, G., P. Sollins, and J. Westall. 1990 . The study of soil chemistry through quasi-steady-state models. II. Soil solution acidity. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 54:2363-2374.=20 Greenland, D. 1986. Standardized meteorological measurements for long-term ecological research sites. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 67:275-277.=20 Greenland, D. (ed.). 1987. The Climates of the Long-Term Ecological Research Sites. (LTER Publication No. 2) Occasional Paper No. 44, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder. 81 pp.=20 Greenland, D. 1990. Climate variability at Niwot Ridge in the Twentieth Century. Pages 59-62 in: D. Greenland and L. W. Swift, Jr. (eds.). Climate Variability and Ecosystem Response. General Technical Report SE-65, USDA Forest Service, Southeast Experiment Station, Asheville, NC.=20 Greenland, D. 1993. Climate studies in the Long-Term Ecological Research Program. Pages 5-11 in: K.T. Redmond and V.L. Tharp (eds.). Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Pacific Climate PACLIM Workshop. Technical Report 34 of the Interagency Ecological Studies Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, Sacramento, CA Department of Water Resources. 194 pages.=20 Greenland, D. (ed.). 1994. El Ni=A4o & Long-Term Ecological Research Sites. LTER Publication No. 18. LTER Network Office, University of Washington: Seattle, WA. 57 pp.=20 Greenland, D., and L. W. Swift (eds.). 1990. Climate Variability and Ecosystem Response. General Technical Report SE-65 (LTER Publication No. 6), USDA Forest Service, Southeast Experiment Station, Asheville, NC. 90 pp.=20 Greenland, D., and L. W. Swift, Jr. 1991. Climate variability and ecosystem response: Opportunities for the LTER Network. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 72:118-126.=20 Greenland, D., and L. W. Swift. 1990. Overview of climate variability and ecosystem response. Pages 85-90 in: Greenland, D., and L. W. Swift (eds.). Climate Variability and Ecosystem Response. General Technical Report SE-65, USDA Forest Service, Southeast Experiment Station, Asheville, NC. 90 pp.=20 Harmon, M.E. and H. Chen. 1991. Coarse woody debris dynamics in two old- growth ecosystems. BioScience 41:604-610. Hayden, B. P. 1990. Climate change and ecosystem dynamics at the Virginia Coast Reserve 18,000 B.P. Pages 76-84 in: D. Greenland and L. W. Swift, Jr. (eds.). Climate Variability and Ecosystem Response. General Technical Report SE-65 , USDA Forest Service, Southeast Experiment Station, Asheville, NC.=20 Hayden, B. P., R. D. Dueser, J. T. Callahan, and H. H. Shugart. 1991. Long-term research at the Virginia Coast Reserve. BioScience 41:310-318.=20 Harmon, M. E., and H. Chen. 1991. A comparison of coarse woody debris dynamics in two old-growth forest ecosystems: Chanbai Mountain, PRC and H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest, USA. BioScience 41:604-610.=20 Ingersoll, R. and S. Chapal. 1992. The Management of Electronically Collected Data Within the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) Program: A Survey Conducted in January 1992. LTER Network Office, University of Washington: Seattle, Washington.=20 Kittel, T. G. F. 1990. Climatic variability in the shortgrass steppe. Pages 67-75 in: D. Greenland and L. W. Swift, Jr. (eds.). Climate Variability and Ecosystem Response. General Technical Report SE-65, USDA Forest Service, Southeast Experiment Station, Asheville, NC.=20 Kittel, T.G.F. 1991. Continental-scale response of the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index to climate variability. ESA Annual Meeting, San Antonio, TX, August 1991. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Amer. 72 (2, Suppl.):162. Abstract.=20 Kittel, T.G.F. (In preparation.) Relationships between variability in climate and a satellite-derived vegetation index across North America. Remote Sensing of the Environment.=20 Kittel, T .G. F., D. S. Schimel, W. J. Parton, D. S. Ojima, H. W. Hunt, and R. L. Sanford, Jr. (Submitted.) Biogeochemical response to climate change and elevated CO2. Nature.=20 Kratz, T. K., B. J. Benson, E. Blood, G. Cunningham, and R. Dahlgren. 1991. The influence of landscape position on temporal variability in four North American ecosystems. The American Naturalist 138(2):355-378.=20 Kratz, T. K., J. J. Magnuson, P. Bayley, B. J. Benson, C. Berish, C. Bledsoe, E. Blood, C. J. Bowser, S. Carpenter, G. Cunningham, R. Dahlgren, T. M. Frost, J. Halfpenny, J. Hansen, D. Heisey, R. Inouye, D. Kaufman, A. McKee and J. Yarie. (Submitted.) Comparison of spatial and temporal variability of ecological parameters from 12 diverse North American ecosystems.=20 Lauenroth, W.K., D.L. Urban, D.P. Coffin, W.J. Parton, H.H. Shugart, T.B. Kirchner and T.M. Smith. 1993. Pages 49-80 in: P.J. Bacon (ed.) Long-Term Ecological Research and Regional Prediction. Elsevier Science Publishers: Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Ecological Modelling (67(1).=20 Lee, T.J., R.A. Pielke, T.G.F. Kittel, and J.F. Weaver. 1991. Atmospheric modeling and its spatial representation of land surface characteristics. In: Proceedings, 1st International Conference in Integrating Geographical Information Systems and Environmental Modeling.=20 Long-Term Intersite Decomposition Experiment Team (LIDET). 1993. Long- Term Decomposition Experiments. 1993 LTER All Scientists Meeting, Estes Park, Colorado, USA, September 18-22, 1993.=20 Long-Term Intersite Decomposition Experiment Team (LIDET). In review. Meeting the challenge of long-term large-scale ecological experiments. BioScience.=20 LTER Network News. Newsletter of the U.S. LTER Network (semi-annual). LTER= =20 Network Office, University of Washington:Seattle, Washington.=20 Magnuson, J.J. and C.J. Bowser. 1990. A network for long-term ecological research in the United States. Freshw. Biol. 23:137-143.=20 Magnuson, J.J. T.K. Kratz, T.M. Frost, C.J. Bowser, B.J. Benson, and R. Nero. 1991. Expanding the temporal and spatial scales of ecological research and comparison of divergent ecosystems: roles for LTER in the United States. Pages 45- 66 in P.G. Risser and J.M. Melillo (eds.). Long-Term Ecological Research, An International Perspective. SCOPE 47. Wiley & Sons, Chichester.=20 Michener, W.K. A.B. Miller, R.W. Nottrott (eds.). 1990. Long-Term Ecological Research Network Core Data Set Catalog. Belle W. Baruch Institute for Marine Biology and Coastal Research, University of South Carolina:Columbia. 322 pages.=20 Michener, W.K. J.W. Brunt, and S.G. Stafford. 1994. Environmental Informati= on Management and Analysis: Ecosystem to Global Scales. Taylor & Francis. Ltd.:London. (Any LTER support?) =20 Milne, B.T. 1991. Lessons from applying fractal models to landscape patterns. Pages 199-235 in M.G. Turner and R.H. Gardner (eds.). Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology. Sevilleta LTER Publication No. 5. Springer-Verlag, New York.=20 Lauenroth, W. K., D. L. Urban, D. P. Coffin, W. J. Parton, H. H. Shugart, T. B. Kirchner, and T. M. Smith. (In press.) Modeling vegetation structure-ecosystem process interactions across sites and ecosystems. Ecological Modelling.=20 Lee, T. J., R. A. Pielke, T. G. F. Kittel, and J. F. Weaver. 1991. Atmospheric modeling and its spatial representation of land surface characteristics. In: Proceedings, 1st International Conference in Integrating Geographical Information Systems and Environmental Modeling.=20 Litz, S., K. V. Le, T. Giblin, A. Beller, T. G. F. Kittel, and D. S. Schimel. 1991. A temporal GIS for global change research. Proceedings, GIS/LIS '91 Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA October/November 1991.=20 Long-Term Ecological Research Network (LTER) 1994-5 Personnel Directory. 1994. Long-Term Ecological Research Network Office, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 158 pp.=20 Magnuson, J. J. 1990. Long-term ecological research and the invisible present.. LTER Publication No. 9. BioScience 40:495-501.=20 Magnuson, J. J., B. J. Benson and D. K. Hill. 1990. (In press.) A long-term ecological research network in the USA and the potential of a lake site to address global change issues. Symposium on Concepts in Ecosystem Science, Kiel, West Germany, October 1989.=20 Magnuson, J. J., B.J . Benson and T. K. Kratz. 1990. Temporal coherence in the limnology of a suite of lakes in Wisconsin, U.S.A. Freshwater Biology 23:145-159.=20 Magnuson, J. J. and C.J . Bowser. 1990. A network for long-term ecological research in the United States. Freshwater Biology 23:137-143.=20 Magnuson, J. J. and J. A. Drury. 1991. Global Change Ecology. Pages 304-311 in: The World & I.=20 Magnuson, J. J., T. K. Kratz, T. M. Frost, B. J. Benson, R. Nero, and C. J. Bowser. 1991. Expanding the temporal and spatial scales of ecological research and comparison of divergent ecosystems: roles for LTER in the United States. In: P. G. Risser and J. M. Melillo (eds.). Long-Term Ecological Research: An International Perspective. SCOPE 47. Wiley & Sons:New York.=20 Magnuson, J.J. T.K. Kratz, T.M. Frost, C.J. Bowser, B.J. Benson, R. Nero. 1991. Expanding the temporal and spatial scales of ecological research and comparison of divergent ecosystems: roles for LTER in the United States. Pages 45-66 in: P.G. Risser (ed.) Long-Term Ecological Research: An International Perspective. SCOPE 47. John Wiley & Sons:Chichester. 294 pages.=20 Meyer, J. (ed.). 1993. Stream Research in the Long-Term Ecological Research Network. LTER Publication No. 15. LTER Network Office, University of Washington:Seattle, WA. 114 pp.=20 Michener, W. K., D. M. Allen, E. R. Blood, T. A. Hiltz, B. Kjerfve and F. H. Sklar. 1990. Climatic variability and salt marsh ecosystem response: relationship to scale. Pages 27-37 in: Greenland, D. and L. W. Swift, Jr. (eds.). Climate Variability and Ecosystem Response. General Technical Report SE-65, USDA Forest Service, Southeast Experiment Station, Asheville, NC. 90 pp.=20 Milne, B. T. 1991. Lessons from applying fractal models to landscape patterns. Pages 199-235 in M. G. Turner and R. H. Gardner (eds.). Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology. Sevilleta LTER Publication No. Springer-Verlag: New York.=20 Nottrott, R.W., J.F. Franklin, J.R. Vande Castle (compilers). 1994. International Networking in Long-Term Ecological Research. LTER Publication No. 17. LTER Network Office, University of Washington:Seattle, WA.=20 O'Neill, R. V., S. J. Turner, V. I. Cullinan, D. P. Coffin, T. Cook, W. Conley, J. Brunt, J. M. Thomas, M. R. Conley, and J. Gosz. 1991. Multiple landscape scales: an intersite comparison. Landsc. Ecol. 5:137-144.=20 Pielke, R.A., G. Dallu, J.S. Snook, T.J. Lee, and T.G.F. Kittel. 1991. Nonlinear influence of mesoscale landuse on weather and climate. J. Climate ( In press) Pielke, R.A., G. Dalu, T.G.F. Kittel, J.Lee, D. Ojima, and X. Zeng. Influence of surface heat and moisture fluxes on climate and weather. Submitted to J. Soil and Water Conservation.=20 Pielke, R. A., T. J. Lee, J. F. Weaver, and T. G. F. Kittel. 1990. Influence of vegetation on water and heat distribution over mesoscale-sized areas. Pages 46-49 in: Eighth Conference on Hydrometeorology October 22-26, 1990, Kananaskis Park, Alberta, Canada. American Meteorological Society, Boston, Mass.=20 Pielke, R. A., D. S. Schimel, T. J Lee, T. G. F. Kittel, and X. Zeng. 1993. Atmosphere-terrestrial ecosystem interactions: implications for coupled modeling. Pages 5-18 in: P.J. Bacon (ed.). Long-Term Ecological Research and regional prediction. Elsevier Science Publishers: Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Ecological Modelling 67(1).=20 Pielke R. A., G. Dalu, J. R. Garratt, T. G. F. Kittel, R. A. Stocker, T. J. Lee and J. S. Snook. Influence of mesoscale land use on weather and climate and its representation for use in larger-scale models. Journal of Climate.=20 Risser, P. G. 1991. Long-Term Ecological Research and Global Change. SCOPE Series. John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY.=20 Risser, P.G. and J.M. Melillo. 1991. Long-Term Ecological Research, An International Perspective. SCOPE 47. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester. 294 pp.=20 Risser, P.G., J.M. Melillo, and J.R.Gosz. 1991. Current status and future of long- term ecological research. Pages 275-284 in: P.G. Risser (ed.). Long-Term Ecological Research, An International Perspective. SCOPE 47. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester. 294 pp.=20 Robertson, D. M. 1990. Lakes as indicators of and responders to climatic change. Pages 38-46 in: D. Greenland and L. W. Swift, Jr. (eds.). Climate Variability and Ecosystem Response. General Technical Report SE-65, USDA Forest Service, Southeast Experiment Station, Asheville, NC. 90 pp.=20 Runkle, J. R. 1992. Guidelines and sample protocol for sampling forest gaps. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-283. LTER Publication No. 14. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. 44 pp.=20 Seastedt, T.R. and J.M. Briggs. 1991. Long-term ecological questions and considerations for taking long-term measurements: Lessons from the LTER and FIFE programs on tallgrass prairie. Pages 153-170 in P.G. Risser (ed.) Long-Term Ecological Research: An International Perspective. SCOPE 47. John Wiley & Sons:Chichester. 294 pages.=20 Schimel, D.S., T.G.F. Kittel, and W.J. Parton. 1991. Terrestrial biogeochemical cycles: Global interactions with the atmosphere and hydrology. Tellus 43AB:188- 203.=20 Schlesinger, W. H., et al. 1992. Soil-warming experiments in global change research. Report of a workshop held in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, September 27-28, 1991.=20 Shugart, H. H., et al. 1988. Report of the National Science Foundation Advisory Committee on Scientific and Technological Planning for Long-Term Ecological Research Projects.=20 Shugart, H.H. 1990. Modeling future changes of vegetation succession. Pages 61- 67 in: Proceedings of the Symposium on Global Change Systems. American Meterological Society, Boston, Massachusetts.=20 Shugart, H. H., G. B. Bonan, D. L. Urban, W. K. Lauenroth, W. J. Parton, and G. M. Hornberger. 1991. Computer models and long-term ecological research. Pages 211-239 in: P. R. Risser (ed.). Long-Term Ecological Research and Global Change. SCOPE 47. John Wiley & Sons:Chichester.=20 Solute Dynamics Workshop. 1990. Concepts and methods for assessing solute dynamics in stream ecosystems. Proceedings of a workshop at the University of Mississippi, February 1989. Jrnl. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 9(2):95-119.=20 Swanson, F. J., and J. F. Franklin. 1988. The Long-Term Ecological Research Program. EOS: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 69:34, 36, 46.=20 Swanson, F. J. and R. E. Sparks. 1990. Long-term ecological research and the invisible place. (LTER Publication No. 9) BioScience 40:502-508.=20 Swanson, F. J., T. K. Kratz, N. Caine, R. G. Woodmansee. 1988. Landform effects on ecosystem patterns and processes. BioScience 38(2):92-98.=20 Swift, L. W., Jr., J. B. Waide, and D. L. White. 1990. Application of the Z-T extreme event analysis using Coweeta streamflow and precipitation data. Pages 13-18 in: Greenland, D. and L. W. Swift, Jr. (eds.). Climate Variability and Ecosystem Response. General Technical Report SE-65, USDA Forest Service, Southeast Experiment Station, Asheville, NC. 90 pp.=20 Tilman, D. and D. Wedin. 1991. Oscillations and chaos in the dynamics of a perennial grass. Nature 353:653-655.=20 U.S. Long-Term Ecological Research Network:National Research Sites with a Common Commitment. 1993. LTER Network Office, University of Washington:Seattle, WA. 8 pp.=20 Van Cleve, K., and S. J. Martin. 1991. Long-Term Ecological Research in the United States, A Network of Research Sites 1991. Sixth Edition. (LTER Publication No. 11) Long-Term Ecological Research Network (LTER) Office, University of Washington, Seattle. 178 pp.=20 Vande Castle, J. R. 1991. Remote sensing and modeling activities for long-term ecological research. Pages 544-55: in: GIS/LIS '91 Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA, October/November 1991, Proceedings, Volume 2. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing.=20 Viereck, L. A. and P. C. Adams. 1990. Variation in microclimate among sites and changes of climate with time. Pages 19-26 in: Greenland, D. and L. W. Swift, Jr. (eds.). Climate Variability and Ecosystem Response. General Technical Report SE-65, USDA Forest Service, Southeast Experiment Station, Asheville, NC. 90 pp.=20 Westall, J., P. Sollins, P. Berberg, and G. Furrer. (In preparation.) The study of soil chemistry through quasi-steady-state models. III. Buffering of soil solution acidity by fast vs. slow reactions in five temperate-zone forest ecosystems. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta.=20 Woodmansee, R. G. 1990. Biogeochemical cycles and ecological hierarchies. Pages 57-71 in: I. S. Zonneveld and R. T. T. Forman (eds.). Changing Landscapes: An Ecological Perspective. Springer-Verlag, New York.=20 Zak, D. R., D. F. Grigal, S. Gleeson and D. Tilman. 1990. Carbon and nitrogen cycling during secondary succession: constraints on plant and microbial productivity. Biogeochemistry 11:111-129, =20 Zak, D. R. and D. Tilman. (In preparation.) Factors controlling microbial biomass along a climatic gradient in North America. Ecology.=20 =1A From smartin@lternet.edu Tue Oct 25 15:43:49 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07416; Tue, 25 Oct 94 15:43:48 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa21815; 25 Oct 94 15:43 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA17137; Tue, 25 Oct 94 12:40:47 PDT Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 12:40:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Federal Funds Used to Modernize Reearch Labs (fwd) To: PI@lternet.edu Cc: LMERPI@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR National Science Foundation October 14, 1994 NSF PR 94-61 69 COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES RECEIVE FEDERAL FUNDS TO MODERNIZE RESEARCH LABS Fourth Round of NSF Awards Total Nearly $53 Million U.S. academic research facilities -- long revered for their collective role in keeping the nation at the forefront in science and engineering, and for educating future researchers -- will receive a $52.8 million federal shot-in-the-arm to help modernize laboratories and related research areas, thanks to grants from the National Science Foundation's Academic Research Infrastructure (ARI) Program. In addition to the modernization component, ARI also provides financial support for state-of-the-art research instrumentation. [See NSF PR 94-62.] The ARI Program, established by Congress as part of the Academic Research Facilities Modernization Act of 1988, requires successful applicants to provide matching funds. As a result, the 69 colleges and universities receiving federal grants this year for modernization activities will contribute an additional $85.9 million in funds from their own coffers as well as from state and local governments and the private sector. "I am extremely pleased that this is the fourth time we are able to make these modernization awards," said Nathaniel Pitts, director of NSF's office of science and technology infrastructure. "The federal dollars, when combined with the matching funds, result in a partnership which will dedicate nearly $139 million to the repair and renovation of this country's aging labs and research facilities, some of which are more than 100 years old," Pitts added. Recipients of the awards include 22 baccalaureate- and masters-degree-granting institutions, and 47 doctoral-degree-granting institutions located in 32 states and one commonwealth. Included among this year's grantees are three research museums and one non-profit research institution. The awards were highly competitive: only about 25 percent of the 285 proposals (from 224 institutions) received federal funding. Nearly $220 million was requested in the proposals. The awards range in size from about $111,000 to Union College in upstate New York to $2 million each to Auburn, North Carolina A&T State, and Stanford universities (which will, for example, match the federal contribution with an additional $9 million to renovate its chemistry research facilities). The projects are expected to take from one to five years to complete. Typically they involve renovating out-dated laboratories and other research facilities; upgrading or replacing antiquated plumbing, heating, ventilating, air-conditioning, and electrical systems; and replacing inefficient or broken laboratory equipment. Amherst College, for example, will combine a $1.78 million dollar NSF award with matching funds to renovate and replace nearly 20,000 square feet of biology, neuroscience, and psychology laboratory space located in two buildings that are 139 and 83 years old. Florida International University will use a $1.5 million NSF award and matching funds to renovate about 27,000 square feet of biology research space which had deteriorated over time, including replacing an inadequate fire sprinkler system. Franklin and Marshall College with its $1.5 million NSF award and matching funds will modernize more than 30,200 square feet of research and research training areas by modifying electrical and plumbing systems, installing a distilled water system and effective ventilation and air-conditioning systems, and upgrading an existing fume hood system to bring it into compliance with EPA standards. And the University of South Dakota will use a $145,700 NSF award and matching funds to renovate more than 1,550 square feet of human factors research laboratory space housed in a 64-year old building. Since the inception of the ARI Program, NSF has made 237 awards totaling more than $145 million to 153 institutions. -end- Attachment: Awards List can be obtained from Michelle Edwards, Office of Legislative and Public Affairs, Room 1245. ***For more information on NSF PR 94-61, contact Michael Fluharty (mfluhart) via E-Mail or at 703/306-1070.*** - - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you have items to be posted to the OLPA News bulletin board please send them to "olpa-news@nsf.gov". To reply to this message from cc:Mail please answer "N" when asked: "Do you wish to retain all the original addresses?" - - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------- End of Forwarded Message ------- End of Forwarded Message From smartin@lternet.edu Tue Oct 25 15:44:07 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07421; Tue, 25 Oct 94 15:44:04 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa21891; 25 Oct 94 15:44 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA17113; Tue, 25 Oct 94 12:39:35 PDT Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 12:39:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: State of the Art Instrumentation Awards (fwd) To: PI@lternet.washington.edu Cc: LMERPI@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR National Science Foundation October 14, 1994 NSF PR 94-62 NSF MAKES AWARDS TO 145 INSTITUTIONS FOR STATE-OF-THE-ART INSTRUMENTATION Nearly $53 Million Awarded By Academic Research Infrastructure Program Thanks to grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF), 145 institutions nationwide will receive a total of $52.8 million to acquire or develop state-of-the-art scientific instrumentation. The grants were made by NSF's Academic Research Infrastructure (ARI) Program. In addition to providing federal funds for instrumentation, ARI also supports the modernization and renovation of research facilities. [See NSF PR 94-61.] The ARI Program was established by Congress as part of the Academic Research Facilities Modernization Act of 1988. As with the modernization and renovation component, successful applicants for instrumentation grant support are required to provide between 30 and 50 percent in matching funds. State-of-the-art instrumentation is "crucial to achieving scientific discoveries, discoveries which enhance the nation's well-being and help ensure future prosperity," said Nathaniel Pitts, director of NSF's office of science and technology infrastructure. About 155 of the awards, he added, provide instrumentation in strategic areas, eight areas designated for special emphasis by the Clinton Administration because of the significant potential they have for enhancing the quality of peoples' lives. These areas include advanced materials and processing, biotechnology, and high performance computing and communications. Pitts said that the merging of federal research support with that from other sources provides a strengthening of partnerships between the federal government, academic institutions, and industry. "It's critical if we are to continue to remain at the forefront in developing state-of-the-art instrumentation and in training people how to use it," Pitts added. The awards are targeted at research institutions whose research equipment needs range between $100,000 and $2 million. Seven awards totalling $1 million or more were made, while a few awards of less than $100,000 were made, primarily to undergraduate institutions or to projects within mathematics or the social, behavioral, and economic sciences. The awards normally do not exceed three years in length, except in instances which involve the development of new research instrumentation in which case the awards can be made for a maximum of five years. The awards were competitive: only about 43 percent of the 429 proposals received federal funding. Nearly $175 million was requested in the proposals. Engineers at North Carolina State University, for example, will match dollar-for-dollar their $1.45 million NSF grant in order to acquire test bed instrumentation for studies to increase the durability and extend the life of bridges, highways, and buildings. Their research will focus on new materials, fatigue performance, environmental conditions, improved construction processes, and the interaction among building components. Chemists at Yale University will receive $480,000 to supplement the institution's $1.3 million contribution for the acquisition of a high field nuclear magnetic spectrometer which will be crucial to their research in polymers, catalysis, and biology. Geologists and geological engineers at the University of North Dakota will receive $192,000 to acquire multi-disciplinary water quality instrumentation essential to research, education, and engineering design projects in water quality. And University of Texas at Arlington researchers will use their grant on a five-year project to develop instrumentation for high performance robotics used in industry settings. NSF has three mechanisms to support the acquisition and development of research instruments. In addition to the ARI program, instruments are also funded through individual investigator-initiated research grants and through 16 instrumentation programs within the disciplinary areas of NSF. Awards made through the ARI Program are larger than those normally offered through other NSF programs. -end- Attachment: Awards List can be obtained from Michelle Edwards, Office of Legislative and Public Affairs, Room 1245. ***For additional information on NSF PR 94-62, contact Michael Fluharty (mfluhart) via E-Mail or at 703/306-1070.*** - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you have items to be posted to the OLPA News bulletin board please send them to "olpa-news@nsf.gov". To reply to this message from cc:Mail please answer "N" when asked: "Do you wish to retain all the original addresses?" - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- End of Forwarded Message From smartin@lternet.edu Wed Oct 26 12:09:36 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA10161; Wed, 26 Oct 94 12:09:31 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa27606; 26 Oct 94 12:09 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA23663; Wed, 26 Oct 94 09:07:37 PDT Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 09:07:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Fall LTER Network News To: PI@lternet.edu, NET@lternet.washington.edu Cc: jGosz@lternet.washington.edu, mAllen@lternet.washington.edu, tCallahan@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: ORr Just so you all know why this issue of the newsletter has been delayed a little. It was already a couple of weeks behind due to my vacation and some late contribution changes when I returned from the LTER/CC meeting to learn that the University of Washington print plant went on strike! Unfortunately, this will delay final delivery another week. Thanks for your patience. You should see your copies in another couple of weeks at the latest. =========================================================================== Stephanie Martin University of Washington PH:206/543-6764 Publications Coordinator AR-10 FAX: 543-7295 LTER Network Office Seattle, WA 98195 or 685-3091 e-mail: sMartin@LTERnet.edu (Internet) sMartin@LTERnet (Bitnet) =========================================================================== From smartin@lternet.edu Wed Oct 26 14:55:17 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA11154; Wed, 26 Oct 94 14:55:11 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa01147; 26 Oct 94 14:55 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA25383; Wed, 26 Oct 94 11:49:27 PDT Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 11:49:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Sender: Stephanie Martin Reply-To: Stephanie Martin Subject: GLOBE Program Proposal Solicitation To: PI@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Status: OR NSF has asked that this message be forwarded widely on LTERnet. Please share the information with your colleagues. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 26 Oct 94 10:10 EST The National Science Foundation (NSF), representing itself, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), invites proposals for participation in the Science and Education component of the Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) Program. These agencies are conducting this solicitation on behalf of the GLOBE Program, a federal interagency program in which the three agencies are participants. Funding provided through this announcement will support a developing international program with an ambitious goal: to create a global network linking the international environmental science community with the pre-college age school children of the world and their teachers. Through partnerships among scientists, educators (from both formal classrooms and informal education programs), and students, the students would be trained to make and transmit to participating scientists a wide range of measurements of key environmental parameters which will be of genuine value in advancing the scientific understanding of global environmental change. Through an enriched science curriculum, students throughout the world would attain a higher degree of science and mathematics literacy, an improved understanding of the nature of the environment in in the part of the world where they live, and a shared sense of the global environment as a complex, dynamic system of which they are a part. Proposals are sought which address one or more of the following GLOBE Program elements: 1) formation of scientist-educator teams which will assist in providing schools with data collection, data analysis, and visualization capabilities in one or more of three key science areas, 2) development of coordinated educational materials in support of the science measurements, 3) involvement of the team in teacher training, and 4) documentation and evaluation of the program as it evolves. Through the review process, priority will be given to applicants who can demonstrate 1) a willingness to incorporate student-derived data into the scientists' own environmental and global change research activities, 2) substantial institutional cost-sharing, and 3) likelihood of demonstrable results within the first year of effort. An Announcement of Opportunity, which contains a detailed description of the competition, will be released on or about October 28, 1994; deadline for receipt of proposals is December 15, 1994. Any award is subject to availability of funds. Proposals will be evaluated by a peer review panel, which will meet in January, 1995. Written requests for copies of the announcement should be directed to Dr. Barrett Rock, The GLOBE Program, 744 Jackson Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503. For information on how to obtain the Announcement of Opportunity electronically from the National Science Foundation, contact: stis@nsf.gov (Internet), 703-306-0214 (voice mail), or 703-306-0090 (TDD). All proposals submitted by responsibile sources will be considered. From jvc@lternet.washington.edu Tue Oct 25 22:45:51 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA08440; Tue, 25 Oct 94 22:45:45 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa14092; 25 Oct 94 22:45 EDT Received: from time.lternet.washington.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA20174; Tue, 25 Oct 94 19:45:28 PDT Received: by time.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA03655; Tue, 25 Oct 94 19:44:03 PDT Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 19:44:03 -0700 (PDT) From: John Vande Castle Sender: John Vande Castle Reply-To: John Vande Castle Subject: New NET Staff To: LTER Data Management Group , LTER Network Office , LTER Principal Investigators Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Status: OR Most of you know Daniel Pommert will be leaving us to follow his wife to the other side of the globe. I know he has helped many of you with one thing or another, but here at NET he has helped all of us with many things on a daily basis. His professional expertise and dedication has advanced all our efforts. We will miss him, but something tells me that he will always be "out there" It wasn't easy, but we found an eager person to replace Daniel at the keyboards. Raymond Bero comes to us from CERL (but not of GRASS fame). He has an amazing background in Unix and Sun machines, especially for a young guy... Please welcome him to LTERland! His Email, is of course rbero@lternet.edu and part of the usual LTER groups including NET@LTERnet.edu Daniel and Raymond will be working tag-team until Daniel's new adventure starts in mid-November. -jvc John Vande Castle, Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) - Network Office Univ. of Washington, College of Forest Resources, AR-10, Seattle WA 98195 Phone: 206 543-6249 FAX: 206 543-7295 or 685-0790 Email:jvc@LTERnet.edu From jerry@lternet.edu Wed Oct 26 10:52:06 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA09741; Wed, 26 Oct 94 10:52:04 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa16265; 26 Oct 94 10:51 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA22516; Wed, 26 Oct 94 07:50:37 PDT Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 07:50:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Jerry Franklin Subject: Re: New NET Staff To: John Vande Castle Cc: LTER Data Management Group , LTER Network Office , LTER Principal Investigators , LAB@lternet.washington.edu, ERG@lternet.washington.edu, JGosz@lternet.washington.edu In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Congratulations to Rudolf and John for finding such a wellqualified replacement! Jerry Franklin On Tue, 25 Oct 1994, John Vande Castle wrote: > > Most of you know Daniel Pommert will be leaving us to follow his wife to > the other side of the globe. I know he has helped many of you with one > thing or another, but here at NET he has helped all of us with many things > on a daily basis. His professional expertise and dedication has advanced > all our efforts. We will miss him, but something tells me that he will > always be "out there" > > It wasn't easy, but we found an eager person to replace Daniel at the > keyboards. Raymond Bero comes to us from CERL (but not of GRASS fame). > He has an amazing background in Unix and Sun machines, especially for a > young guy... Please welcome him to LTERland! His Email, is of course > rbero@lternet.edu and part of the usual LTER groups including NET@LTERnet.edu > > Daniel and Raymond will be working tag-team until Daniel's new adventure > starts in mid-November. > > > -jvc > John Vande Castle, Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) - Network Office > Univ. of Washington, College of Forest Resources, AR-10, Seattle WA 98195 > Phone: 206 543-6249 FAX: 206 543-7295 or 685-0790 Email:jvc@LTERnet.edu > > > > From foster@lternet.edu Fri Oct 28 15:36:53 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA18333; Fri, 28 Oct 94 15:36:50 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa10942; 28 Oct 94 15:36 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA13854; Fri, 28 Oct 94 12:35:09 PDT Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 12:35:08 -0700 (PDT) From: David Foster Subject: Technology Committee To: pi@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR To: Principal Investigators, LTER sites From: David Foster, Chair of LTER Technology Committee Re: Technology Development in LTER The LTER Technology Committee, working with the Coordinating Committee has a great opportunity to promote the application of technology in ecological studies by making recommendations to NSF concerning technology development in LTER and participating in discussions on directions for future LTER supplements. In order to generate well-informed discussion the Technology Committee has set as a first priority the assessment of the current status of technology of all types (computing, remote sensing, analytical equipment, field sampling devices, etc.) across the LTER Network. In order to translate this information into meaningful and insightful recommendations for technology advancement in LTER and ecological sciences, we need to add a broad array of senior scientists to the LTER Technology Committee at the user and development ends of technology. I would like to solicit your recommendations (and volunteers) for membership on this committee and suggestions concerning directions that we pursue. Thanks very much for your assistance. From jgosz@nsf.gov Tue Nov 1 09:15:41 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA27692; Tue, 1 Nov 94 09:15:39 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa21601; 1 Nov 94 9:15 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA02182; Tue, 1 Nov 94 06:14:28 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA25086 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4); Tue, 1 Nov 1994 09:14:26 -0500 Message-Id: <199411011414.AA25086@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Cc: smartin@lternet.edu Subject: fyi Date: Tue, 01 Nov 94 09:14:26 EST From: "James R. Gosz" Status: OR ............... PCAST NEWS ITEM First Meeting of President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology The President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) held its first meeting this week. During one and one-half days of discussion, open to the public, this private-sector committee broadly reviewed the administration's science and technology goals and grappled with how it should provide advice to President Clinton and the cabinet-level National Science and Technology Council (NSTC.) Vice President Gore announced the membership of PCAST on August 3 during the release of the administration's science policy document, "Science in the National Interest." PCAST is co-chaired by John Gibbons, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and John Young, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard Co., and has seventeen members drawn from academia, private industry, and other institutions (see FYI #130.) Before the meeting started, PCAST members were introduced to Vice President Gore. (President Clinton was preparing for his trip to the Middle East.) Gore welcomed the committee and engaged in an informal discussion touching on the diversity of the members' backgrounds and the perspective that they could provide on issues in science, technology, and society. In opening remarks, Gibbons discussed an over-arching concern of the administration: deficit reduction. Drawing down the deficit will free-up capital to invest in science and technology, Gibbons said. He reaffirmed the administration's view of science and technology as the "centerpiece" of an investment strategy. Gibbons briefly discussed how science funding is changing, citing efforts to reallocate money from defense to civilian budgets, as well as increasing cooperative agreements with private industry. The first hours of the meeting consisted of four ten-minute presentations and brief Q&A by the Associate Directors of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP.) M.R.C. Greenwood, discussing "World Leadership in Basic Science, Mathematics, and Engineering," identified three critical issues for PCAST: "Determining the Investment (including Federal Role; Private Sector Role); Improving Participation and Access in Science; Enhancing Science Education and Public Literacy." Referring to the budget caps on discretionary spending, Greenwood cautioned that there would be "substantial difficulties in maintaining the investment" in science and technology. She spoke of increasing public and private funding of R&D to approximately 3% of the gross domestic product (now 2.6%,) a goal in "Science in the National Interest." One PCAST member asked about the downsizing of the defense budget, and its effect on physics and mathematics funding. Greenwood called this a "critical issue," acknowledging that perceptions about the relevance of fundamental science to the traditional mission agencies may be changing. The challenge, she said, is "how to sustain the physical science base in a rational way." In his presentation on "Technology for Economic Growth," Skip Johns cited budget constraints which necessitate reorienting federal spending, rather than just increasing it. He discussed the Technology Reinvestment Program, the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, the National Space Transportation Policy, the National Information Infrastructure, and education/training programs. In response to questions, Johns said "we take metrics very seriously" in determining a program's success. Jane Wales' discussion on "Enhancing National Security and International Cooperation" revolved around applying technology to new defense needs and stability/security. She touched on the need to increase international collaborative efforts, while acknowledging the difficulty of building a lasting domestic consensus for this approach. Wales mentioned India, Russia, China, South Africa, Brazil and Argentina as countries requiring special attention since they have the means of producing weapons of mass destruction. She urged the science and technology community to strengthen its relationships with these and other countries, saying that often such ties were more important than those between governments. The final presentation, entitled "Environmental Quality and Sustainability" was given by Bob Watson. Watson stressed the need to frame issues so that they will not be seen as the environment v. the economy. He spoke of cooperative efforts involving the social sciences, science, and technology for the resolution of environmental problems in a manner that would involve all stakeholders. A White House conference is planned for December. The second half of the day's discussions centered on possible agendas for PCAST. Gibbons started with what he called a "shopping list" of possible areas that could be handled by the committee as a whole or subcommittees. Suggested topics included a strategic R&D priority review, the role of science and technology in global security, and sustainable development. Alluding to the long lead time in the federal budget making process, he said that any PCAST recommendations made by next March or April (a very short time) will be incorporated into the 1997 budget request. Discussion on the second day continued to address how the committee could best spend its time. Announcing that the NSTC's nine committees were each developing strategy papers, Gibbons suggested that a useful activity for PCAST might be forming into small groups and writing brief responses to each strategy paper. (The NSTC committees are: Health, Safety and Food R&D; Information and Communication R&D; National Security; Civilian Industrial Technology; Fundamental Science; International Science, Engineering and Technology; Environment and Natural Resources Research; Transportation R&D; and Education and Training R&D.) Another role Gibbons foresaw was responding to three reviews currently being conducted on the DOD, DOE and NASA federal laboratory systems. This, he said, was a longer-term initiative that the committee could revisit at its next meeting in February, 1995. As a third activity, Gibbons said the OSTP staff would work with the committee over time to refine the list of issues the committee had put forward as important (education, environment, investment, health, and national security), and try to identify useful tasks relating to those issues. From vancleve@gis.lter.alaska.edu Thu Nov 3 15:33:15 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07313; Thu, 3 Nov 94 15:33:10 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa09382; 3 Nov 94 15:33 EST Received: from gis.lter.alaska.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA06007; Thu, 3 Nov 94 12:30:36 PST Received: from aspen.lter.alaska.edu by gis.lter.alaska.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA19508; Thu, 3 Nov 94 11:28:17 AKS From: vancleve@gis.lter.alaska.edu To: PI@lternet.edu Subject: SUPPORT MEMO FROM LTER SITES Date: Thu, 3 Nov 94 21:29:18 GMT Message-Id: <9411032129.123C54@aspen.lter.alaska.edu> X-Mailer: SelectMAIL 1.0 Status: OR TO: LTER Site Principal Investigators FROM: K. Van Cleve Principal Investigator BNZ LTER SUBJ.: Request for written support from LTER colleagues DATE: November 2, 1994 The University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) recently has been conducting a major academic program review. Part of the review involves consideration of the disposition of formula funds (McIntire-Stennis funds) that come to the Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station (AFES) at UAF. Over the years we have received substantial support for the BNZ LTER program from the MS funds, via proposals that addressed questions dealing with structure and function of northern boreal forest ecosystems. This has been the basis for much of the early research that supported our successful funding of the BNZ LTER site in 1987 and renewal in 1992. These funds, granted to the Forest Soils Laboratory, continue to provide major logistic, infrastructure and analytical support services to LTER investigators and the UAF community in general. We are concerned that loss of this support will jeopardize our competitive standing come 1998 and renewal time and send a signal to NSF that the UAF administration is not committed over the long haul to support our LTER efforts. The attached letter is one version of a supporting letter we are asking you to send to the following individuals. You can modify as you see fit. Some of you may not support the use of formula funds in the way we have been able to use them. That may determine whether you can suppport our position. The statewide University President, President Komisar, will make recommendations to the Board of Regents by the end of this month (November). An immediate response from you to him and Chancellor Wadlow and Provost Keating could greatly strengthen our position with regard to this vital support. Faxing your response on your institutional letterhead would be the best. Fax and telephone numbers are appended. Thanks very much in advance. University of Alaska System President Jerome Komisar (907) 474-6342 University of Alaska Fairbanks Chancellor Joan K. Wadlow (907) 474-7225 University of Alaska Fairbanks Provost John P. Keating (907) 474-6725 Knowledge of proposed program changes that are currently underway at the Uni-versity of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) are starting to circulate to the outside world. Some of these potential changes have us very worried about the UAF institutional support for the National Science Foundation funded Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program administered through the School of Agriculture and Land Resource Management (SALRM) at UAF. The LTER program is a national program with eighteen sites in the US and Antarctica. The LTER program has an INTERNATIONAL reputation for the quality of both its pro-gram direction and the research carried out at each of the sites. The program in place at UAF represents the only boreal forest LTER installation in the United States. The establishment of a LTER research site requires a commitment from the scientists involved for a number of years prior to initial funding. The work that preceded the initial LTER funding at UAF, in 1987, represented a 25 year commitment to developing an understanding of the ecology of the boreal forest in the vicinity of Fairbanks. This work to a large extent was carried out with the use of McIntire Stennis formula funding to the Forest Soils Laboratory within SALRM. Without this source of funding the establishment and subsequent measurements in a series of research plots would have only been temporary. At this point in time there is approximately a 30 year data base on climate and tree growth in a set of research sites near the LTER site at Fairbanks. The LTER program is helping to add to this data set in additional sites and hopefully, eventually with the same long term perspective. This information base is of substantial significance, in the context of impacts of climate and societal change on renewable resources in the north. It is an invaluable contribution to sustanined forest ecosystem management in the northern boreal forest of interior Alaska. In addition to the quality of the research being proposed for LTER funding, there is a requirement for institutional support at the site of the research. This is a necessity to help verify that the institution at which the program will be funded also has a long-term com-mitment to the research. This commitment should extent beyond the careers of individual scientists and administrators at the institution. One of those commitments is the reduction in overhead costs at the institution. In addition at Land Grant schools across the country their is also a need to support the LTER program through appropriate use of available for-mula funds. At UAF formula funding increases the amount of money available for LTER research by 50%. This results in increased capability of the LTER program at UAF and enhancement of the laboratory facilities on the UAF campus. The support and quality of work that is accomplished through the Forest Soils Laboratory does have a national rep-utation. In addition, the formula funding agency also receives a 200% increase in the work that can be carried out in support of the formula funded programs. Significant changes to the structure of formula fund distribution at UAF would seriously cast doubt on the long-term institutional commitment to the LTER program and significantly reduce the potential for continued NSF funding of the LTER program at UAF. We urge you to seriously consider the implications of these types of changes by talking with Dr. Van Cleve the principal investigator of the LTER program at UAF. From glwheel@comp.uark.edu Tue Nov 8 22:25:36 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA25307; Tue, 8 Nov 94 22:25:32 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa25618; 8 Nov 94 22:25 EST Received: from comp.uark.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA11206; Tue, 8 Nov 94 19:23:16 PST Received: (from glwheel@localhost) by comp.uark.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) id VAA17258; Tue, 8 Nov 1994 21:22:08 -0600 Date: Tue, 8 Nov 1994 21:22:08 -0600 (CST) From: "Garland L. Wheeler" Subject: Re: Sustainable forestry in S. To: Kevin.Martin@mmc.mcdermott.com Cc: ecolog-l@umdd.umd.edu, forest@nic.funet.fi, pi@lternet.washington.edu In-Reply-To: <"Macintosh */PRMD=MCDERMOTT/ADMD=MCI/C=US/"@MHS> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR do nothing. If $$ are not much of an interest then given time the whole system will be native. On Fri, 4 Nov 1994 Kevin.Martin@mmc.mcdermott.com wrote: > > Worldtalk 400 Sustainable forestry in S. Mississippi > Some friends have 80 acres of land in S. Mississippi. Currently it is planted > with plantation pine for harvest in about 7 years. They wish to have the land > make the transition to a sustainable system with native species etc. They are > not specifically interested in the $$$ value of the harvest. > > I am looking for contacts/information etc that would help them in the > transition. > > Regards, Kevin Martin > > > From jcallaha@nsf.gov Thu Nov 10 09:06:31 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01990; Thu, 10 Nov 94 09:06:30 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa26230; 10 Nov 94 9:06 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA19457; Thu, 10 Nov 94 05:36:14 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA26431 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Thu, 10 Nov 1994 08:36:08 -0500 Message-Id: <199411101336.AA26431@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Announcement Date: Thu, 10 Nov 94 08:36:07 EST From: "James T. Callahan" Status: OR Folks- Please pass along to their many friends and colleagues the news that Liz Blood and Bill Michener are the proud new parents of Alissa, an almost 8-pound daughter, born on this past Tuesday, November 8. Parents and offspring all doing well. They expect to be home by the weekend and will, surely, be checking e-mail regularly. Tom Callahan From jgosz@nsf.gov Fri Nov 11 09:41:30 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07163; Fri, 11 Nov 94 09:41:29 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa17464; 11 Nov 94 9:41 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA08049; Fri, 11 Nov 94 06:40:53 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA19763 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Fri, 11 Nov 1994 09:40:49 -0500 Message-Id: <199411111440.AA19763@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: fyi Date: Fri, 11 Nov 94 09:40:47 EST From: "James R. Gosz" Status: OR First Impressions: Impact of Election on Science Funding and Policy Making predictions about the impact of the election on future science budgets and policies is difficult. The election is certain to have profound effects on the how Washington does business. At the same time, there will be a familiarity in how Congress sets the federal science budget, and determines science policy. There is talk on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue about cooperation next year on initiatives such as welfare reform. Only time will tell whether this will occur; many observers are predicting gridlock. Although gridlock may prevent passage of new policy initiatives (such as the President's investment strategy), the appropriations process funding governmental operations will continue. By October 1, 1995, the Congress must enact thirteen appropriations bills that respond to the President's budget request. Although political brinkmanship may come into play as the President and Congress struggle to meet this deadline, in the end, the appropriations bills will be passed. Science funding and policy have generally enjoyed bipartisan support. The House science committee has long touted its bipartisan approach to legislation, which is also true of other science-related authorizing committees. An absence of partisan bickering has characterized the VA, HUD, independent agencies appropriations subcommittees and the energy and water development appropriations subcommittees. Battles about funding for mega-projects such as the SSC or space station have not been along strict party lines, either in committee or on the floor. This approach will probably continue. At the same time, there are two over-arching factors that will importantly affect science-related budgets and policy. The first is the change-over in committee chairs and staff. Republican majorities in each chamber ensure their control of committees. No longer will Rep. George Brown (who won with 51% of the vote) and Senator Barbara Mikulski have direct control over their committee's and subcommittee's agendas and legislation. Their Democratic committee staffs, who besides outnumbering their Republican counterparts, have largely been responsible for the drafting of legislation, planning of hearings, and floor strategy, will become minority staff. This shift will be especially important in the appropriations process, which generally relegates minority participation to a minor role. The way in which Congress does business could also change. The Republican Contract with America pledges a cut in the number of House committees, and a one-third reduction in committee staff. This contract also states that the new majority party will "work to enact additional budget savings," and a "balanced budget/tax limitation amendment." Where the new Republican appropriations chairs and their staffs will make budget cuts in science and technology programs has yet to be seen. All of this will have to get underway quickly: Congress reconvenes on January 3, when the Republican majority has pledged to pass major reforms in the committee system and in budgeting procedures. It is more important than ever to find ways to sell our science. The Network Office will be heavily involved. We will need your help. From jgosz@nsf.gov Mon Nov 14 16:39:59 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA16221; Mon, 14 Nov 94 16:39:58 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa22756; 14 Nov 94 16:39 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA23295; Mon, 14 Nov 94 13:29:36 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA13647 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Mon, 14 Nov 1994 16:29:14 -0500 Message-Id: <199411142129.AA13647@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: fyi Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 16:28:59 EST From: "James R. Gosz" Status: OR I now have a copy of the Republican "Contract with America" document and thought you would be interested in some of the details. The plan does not include enough spending cuts to pay for its proposed tax cuts and balance the budget. Indeed, according to the Republicans' own estimates, the net effect of the tax breaks and spending cuts in the contract itself is to increase the deficit by $148 billion over five years. To help reduce their shortfall, the Republicans offer a list of "examples of possible offsets" totalling $176 billion over five years. The following list is from a much larger list totalling $176 billion. Each value represents the total to be cut over the five year period. $ in billions Restructure the State Department 1.160 Restructure the Agency for International Dev. 1.310 Freeze the Peace Corps 0.086 Reduce Educational & Cultural Exchange Programs 0.276 Reduce Funding for Energy Technology Development 2.139 Consolidate Other Agencies into Federal Land Mgmt. 3.226 Abolish Bureau of Mines 0.872 Abolish Geological Survey 3.261 Abolish National Biological Survey 0.139 Downsize Minerals Management Service 0.485 Restructure Bureau of Reclamation 0.427 Reform Bureau of Indian Affairs 0.215 Impose a Moratorium on Land Purchases 1.066 Improve Forest Management Efficiency 0.155 Freeze funding for NOAA 0.805 De-Emphasize Permanence in Superfund Clean-ups 1.140 Eliminate funding for Kennedy Center for Arts 0.102 Reduce Funding for Resource Conservation and Develop. 0.610 Restructure Non-Farm Service Agencies 0.535 Reduce Funding for Cooperative State Research Serv. 0.331 Extension Service Refocus 0.505 Reduce Agriculture Research Service 0.830 Reform Farmers Home Administration 0.423 Reduce Spending for the High Performance Computing 1.230 Eliminate the Advanced Technology Program 0.819 Eliminate the Interstate Commerce Commission 0.188 Reduce the Overhead Rate on Federally Sponsored University Research 1.620 Limit rate of Growth for NSF 0.346 That should be enough to tickle your interest, whatever it may be! Here is the proposal language to Limit the Rate of Growth of the National Science Foundation: Description: The National Science Foundation (NSF) provides funding for research activities in the areas of biological sciences, computer and information sciences, engineering, geosciences, mathematical and physical sciences, polar research and behavioral sciences. This proposal would restrict the rate of growth in the NSF to 1 percent less than the rate of inflation. Savings: The proposal would save $30 million in budget authority and $12 million in outlays in the first year, and $476 million in BA and $346 million over five years, compared with the baseline. Keep tuned!! From jgosz@nsf.gov Tue Nov 22 09:31:36 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA15018; Tue, 22 Nov 94 09:31:35 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa07711; 22 Nov 94 9:31 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA22604; Tue, 22 Nov 94 06:30:59 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA25152 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 22 Nov 1994 09:30:51 -0500 Message-Id: <199411221430.AA25152@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: fyi Date: Tue, 22 Nov 94 09:30:50 EST From: "James R. Gosz" Status: OR Subject: Gopher for Political Information FYI--I received the following information on the Biodiversity Information Center listserver. It is a useful database of information on political matters, Federal agencies, budgets, etc. The following message was written in the context of how to get a copy of the Republican Contract with America, but the database has lots of other interesting items. For those interested, the http format is gopher://garnet.berkeley.edu:1250/11/.political/.party/.repub/.contract The server has many interesting political discourse subjects. To access the higher level menus, just go to gopher://garnet.berkeley.edu:1250/1 and that will take you to the Electronic Democracy Information Network (EDIN). From bmilne@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon Nov 28 15:34:46 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA03837; Mon, 28 Nov 94 15:34:45 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa26188; 28 Nov 94 15:34 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA23753; Mon, 28 Nov 94 12:30:28 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA03697; Mon, 28 Nov 1994 13:29:22 -0700 Date: Mon, 28 Nov 1994 13:29:22 -0700 From: Bruce Milne Message-Id: <9411282029.AA03697@sevilleta.unm.edu> To: pi@lternet.edu Status: ORS Two Post Doctoral Positions Sevilleta LTER The University of New Mexico Enclosed is the official announcement of two positions with the Sevilleta LTER (Bruce Milne, Principal Investigator). UNM hiring practices require that applicants follow the enclosed instructions and mail a CV and cover letter to one of the addresses listed below. Please make reference to the requisition number and job title in the cover letter. Ideally the successful applicants will begin work in January 1995. SUMMARY OF DUTIES: Two post-doctoral ecosystem/landscape positions to implement spatially explicit models of: (1) energy and water balance for the 100,000 ha Sevilleta LTER site, and (2) ecosystem processes of production and decomposition. The above statement reflects the general duties considered necessary to describe the principle functions of the position identified and shall not be considered inclusive of all work requirements that may be inherent in the position. MINIMUM REQUIREMENT: Ph.D. in Biology, Earth Sciences or related field. Two (2) years related post baccalaureate experience. Publication record. Modeling, Geographic Information Systems, data base, UNIX, C and/or Fortran programming experience. DESIRABLE SKILLS, KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITIES: TDR experience. Three (3) years post-baccalaureate experience. JOB TITLE: SENIOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATE STAFF II REQUISITION NUMBER: 941964*A DEPARTMENT: BIOLOGY APPLICATION PERIOD: November 28, 1994 through December 16, 1994 EEOC JOB GROUP:3 STARTING SALARY:30,000/YR GRADE: 99 Full-Time Position/Regular TO APPLY: Applications/resume must be received by Human Resources Office at 1717 Roma NE, Albuquerque, NM or Health Sciences Center, Med Bldg. 2, Room 101 North Campus, Albuquerque, NM 87131 no later than 5:00PM on December 16, 1994. Resumes must list employment dates by month/year and must be accompanied by a cover letter with an original signature. Include names and phone numbers of three references. Applicants must indicate the requisition number (941964*A) and job title (SENIOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATE STAFF II) on the cover letter. The University of New Mexico is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and Educator From nadkarnn@elwha.evergreen.edu Tue Nov 29 12:15:02 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA08149; Tue, 29 Nov 94 12:15:00 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa03764; 29 Nov 94 12:14 EST Received: from elwha.evergreen.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA01278; Tue, 29 Nov 94 09:14:41 PST Received: by elwha.evergreen.edu (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA06800; Tue, 29 Nov 94 09:14:11 -0800 Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 09:14:11 -0800 (PST) From: Nalini Nadkarni Sender: Nalini Nadkarni Reply-To: Nalini Nadkarni Subject: forest canopy structure/database workshop To: pi@lternet.edu Cc: students@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Status: OR Designing the Forest Canopy Researcher's Workbench Computer Tools for the 21st Century March 15-18, 1995 An NSF-Sponsored Workshop -- Call for Participation The Problem: Forest canopy communities are important in maintaining the diversity, resiliency, and functioning of the ecosystems they inhabit. However, no field protocols or analytical methods for studying the underlying structure and spatial distribution of canopy-dwelling organisms are as yet generally accepted. With both interest and data from new access techniques increasing dramatically, canopy researchers are recognizing the need for tools to manage and analyze their data. These ecologists need to deal with: (1) new types of data, (2) a great deal more data, and (3) the necessity of sharing data over time among researchers with both similar and separate research questions. The Solution: In July 1993, an interdisciplinary team was awarded a two-year planning grant from the Database Activities Program of the National Science Foundation to collect ideas, approaches, and software on managing, processing and interpreting 3-D spatial data for canopy researchers. The co-PIs, Nalini Nadkarni (The Evergreen State College) and Geoffrey Parker (Smithsonian Environmental Research Center) are bringing together forest canopy researchers ("domain scientists"), quantitative scientists and computer scientists to establish methods to collect, store, display, analyze, and interpret 3-D spatial data relating to tree crowns and forest canopies. With computer scientist Judy Cushing and quantitative scientist David Ford, they are compiling research questions, examining potentially applicable information models and software tools already in use in canopy research and allied fields, and developing conceptual models and recommendations to address analysis and information needs of forest canopy researchers. The Workshop: A crucial step in this process is a 3-day workshop where domain scientists from forest canopy and allied fields, spatial information specialists and computer scientists will work together to suggest solutions to the canopy researcher's data management and analysis problems. Our objective is to deal creatively and realistically with analyzing and interpreting 3- D tree canopy data at many spatial scales. The workshop will be informal and intense. After introductory presentations and round-table discussions on research issues facing canopy researchers, other domain scientists and computer scientists will show how similar problems are being addressed in allied fields. During subsequent workshop sessions, participants will break into small interdisciplinary groups focused on particular areas of canopy research. Workshop session summaries will be presented to and discussed by the whole workshop, and workshop findings will be disseminated in writing to all participants. Expected workshop outcomes include: identification of potential analysis tools, software and ancillary data sources for canopy researchers, a draft information model, exploration of common protocols for data collection and exchange, and identification of development tasks and research questions. The venue for the workshop is The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. At the southern tip of Puget Sound (60 miles south of Seattle), Evergreen is highly reputed for its innovative interdisciplinary approach to teaching and learning. An optional field trip Saturday, March 18, will involve traveling to a canopy study site (a giant construction crane in Wind River, Washington, about 3 hours from Olympia). Informal discussions will continue both at the site and Carson Hot Springs. Spouses are invited. We will provide child care for a nominal fee. Activities in the field will wind down about 4pm Saturday. The workshop will run from 6pm, Wednesday, March 15 to 6pm Friday, March 17. Evening sessions are scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday. A registration fee of about $150 will cover meals and transportation between the hotel and Evergreen. Transportation from Seattle-Tacoma Airport can be arranged for a nominal fee. Accommodations will be about $65 per night. Computer Tools for the 21st Century March 15-18, 1995, Olympia, Washington Workshop Application To apply to attend the workshop, send this application form along with a one-page position paper on your current research. The paper should describe your current research (citing two or three current publications), and indicate how your work relates to data management and analysis problems facing canopy researchers. A limited number of NSF travel awards are available; please indicate if you are interested in being considered for one. Workshop invitations and notifications of support will be sent by mid December 1994. Feel free to consult workshop organizers Judy Cushing or Nalini Nadkarni for suggestions on your position paper (cushing@cse.ogi.edu and nadkarn@elwha.evergreen.edu). Last Name: ______________________________________ First Name(s): ______________________________________ Title: ______________________________________ Field (Discipline):____________________________________ Research Area(s):____________________________________ Institution: ______________________________________ Address: ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Phone: _________________ Fax: ________________ email: ______________________________________ _____ I am requesting an NSF travel grant to attend the workshop. _____ I will probably attend the Saturday excursion and seminar at Wind River. _____ I will definitely not attend the Saturday excursion and seminar at Wind River. _____ I will likely bring a guest to Wind River. _____ Children (indicate how many and ages) will accompany us to Wind River. ______________________________________ Email or mail this application and your white paper to: Julie Moberg, Canopy Workshop Logistics mobergj@elwha.evergreen.edu LAB II, The Evergreen State College Olympia, WA 98505 From nadkarnn@elwha.evergreen.edu Tue Nov 29 12:15:07 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA08155; Tue, 29 Nov 94 12:15:05 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa03782; 29 Nov 94 12:15 EST Received: from elwha.evergreen.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA01277; Tue, 29 Nov 94 09:14:16 PST Received: by elwha.evergreen.edu (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA06794; Tue, 29 Nov 94 09:13:46 -0800 Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 09:13:45 -0800 (PST) From: Nalini Nadkarni Subject: International Canopy Network To: pi@lternet.edu Cc: students@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL CANOPY NETWORK (ICAN) Participants at the recent International Canopy Symposium at The Marie Selby Botanical Gardens in Sarasota, Florida, reached a consensus to establish the International Canopy Network (ICAN). This organization exists to facilitate communication among indiv iduals and institutions concerned with research, education, and conservation of organisms and interactions in forest canopies. ICAN brings together activities formerly carried out by the NSF-funded Canopy Research Network (CRN), which facilitated communication among canopy researchers, and The Canopy Institute (TCI), a not-for-profit organization to facilitate conservation throug h interpretation of canopy research to non-scientists. Uniting these two organizations combines the structure of a tax-exempt corporation with 501(c)3 status and the networking capacity of the CRN. By including researchers, educators, conservationists, an d arborists under one "crown", links among these groups will be facilitated. Currently, the Board of Directors consists of six members who represent the constituent fields of research, education, conservation, and arboriculture. The Directors serve two-year terms and meet semi-annually, or as needed. The Board of Directors will ex pand or change to reflect the interests of the ICAN. We will also form an Advisory Council, which will consist of up to twenty members who will take part in decisions on an ad hoc basis. Some of the current core activities of the ICAN include maintenance of the email bulletin board, circulation of the quarterly newsletter (titled "What's Up?"), maintenance and expansion of a citations bibliographic database on aspects of canopy science, a nd the researcher directory. Future activities include the initiation of an images library (slides and video), a compilation of a directory of museum collections of arboreal organisms, and creation of interpretive posters for school children. Individuals may take on projects of interest to them, and share results and products with the rest of ICAN. For example, two individuals are investigating the use of MOSAIC for communication of text and graphical materials for those electronically connected to the ne twork. Activities until now have been supported by a National Science Foundation grant, which will terminate in 1995. We therefore need to set up a subscribership so the organization can be self-supporting in the long term. We are now calculating costs, and anti cipate that an annual membership will be between $20 and $50, with a sliding scale to accommodate all participants. Details on subscribing will follow in the January, 1995 newsletter. At this time, send in suggestions, nominations for the Advisory Council (including yourself), and volunteer for any activity that would contribute to the network. We look forward to your input. ______________________________________________________________________ For more information on the ICAN, you may communicate directly to us: Nalini Nadkarni (nadkarnn@elwha.evegreen.edu) or Joel Clement (clementj@elwha.evergreen.edu). To communicate to the network, type to canopy@lternet.edu. From smartin@lternet.edu Tue Nov 29 20:54:34 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA10204; Tue, 29 Nov 94 20:54:30 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa09876; 29 Nov 94 20:54 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA06658; Tue, 29 Nov 94 17:52:28 PST Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 17:52:28 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Sender: Stephanie Martin Reply-To: Stephanie Martin Subject: LTER/CC Minutes To: pi@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Status: ORp Here are the minutes from the recent LTER/CC meeting. They will also be sent via regular mail to the extended PI list. Please let me know of any corrections for the permanent record. I apologize for the delay in getting them to you, as well as the length--it was a productive meeting! Thank you, Stephanie Martin LTER Network Office =========================================================================== M I N U T E S LTER Coordinating Committee Meeting October 19-21, 1994 Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory AFTERNOON, CLOSED SESSION, OCTOBER 19, 1994 In attendance: LTER site representatives (see attached list-regular mailing only), Network Office staff (Martin, Nottrott, Vande Castle), NSF representatives (James Gosz & Mike Allen, DEB) NSF Report (James Gosz, DEB) Reorganization There are significant, positive changes taking place at the National Science Foundation. The number of program officers will increase up to 60 or 70 total, with one permanent position (Tom Callahan) to provide a memory within the system. Two permanent people each will remain in Population Biology, Ecological Studies, Ecology, and Long-Term Projects. Of the Long-Term Projects positions, one will deal with research collections, the other with survey and inventory. During discussions at NSF, it fell out that the LTER-LMER projects person would be a rotator, a development that could have distinct advantages. Tom Callahan has been fighting for LTER virtually by himself (and LTER has been the only program whose budget has consistently been increased); another person is needed to focus on interagency aspects and develop linkages with the systematics community. Thomas Dillenwald (?) and Mike Allen (for another year) will work together to maximize memory and new ideas in rotator and permanent positions assigned to Long-Term Studies. Gosz solicited suggestions for good candidates to be scheduled in advance, allowing them time to "get their lives together." DEB is trying to develop a longer-range plan and a mechanism for identifying the best people. Candidates should be visionaries who have broad backgrounds and training. These will not just be "proposal jacket processing jobs"; rotators will be involved in developing science initiatives with input from the community. While two-year rotators are preferred, NSF will accept those available for just one. A search is currently being conducted to fill James Estes' position. Scott Collins' position (Ecological Studies) will become permanent. Gosz urged the LTER community to take advantage of the opportunity these changes provide by taking a more active role in proposing initiatives and guidelines and contributing program officers. The LTER Network is now better organized, more mature, and better able to respond to such changes as opportunities. He noted that the scientific expertise needs to come from within the community, not the agency. He also cautioned that the LTER model is being closely scrutinized across agencies; anything that looks like an entitlement will be viewed with suspicion. Budget (Gosz) Biological Sciences doesn't yet have a concrete budget, due to the changes at NSF and the "new" way the agency is doing business. Gosz anticipated that within a month he might know about any augmentation or supplemental opportunities. He distributed an invitation from Survey and Inventory to submit proposals under LTREB that, while not a formal program solicitation, indicates that the program will be developing proposals to augment sites. He noted that several such opportunities exist for LTER with the heightened interest in biodiversity and sustainability across programs--although these concepts may be defined differently. He urged the sites, as they look ahead to working on site proposals, to anticipate cross-site or augmentation competitions of some type along biodiversity themes. There will not be a request for proposals; word will probably come via electronic mail. This is a standard program that entertains proposals in mid-November and mid-May. (Jim Estes is currently the relevant program officer.) Data Sharing Relative to Current Policy (Gosz) It is now grant proposal policy at NSF to instruct panelists to look for data sharing components; proposals that don't include data sharing will be denied. The policy reads that NSF-funded projects should "share data, samples, physical collections, software, and inventions." While NSF has in the past expected data to be shared, this was never enforced. LTER should take a leadership role in providing the broader scientific community access to datasets on-line. The global change research program is using new language about what is expected from grantees who get funded--schedules and plans for data turnover to a publicly accessible archive must be submitted. Although there is still no actual enforcement mechanism, NSF will use "embarrassment and shame"--and program officers with long memories. Tony Janetos reports that for NASA's field campaigns potential PIs were told that they must contribute to a public archive. The community accepted this proviso, and no one's data got scooped. Gosz noted that the LTER data managers had taken an important step forward on this issue at their September meeting. Although the associated issue of obtaining credit for publishing datasets was not resolved, he noted that on-line LTER datasets would provide a visual model that could indirectly shake loose more funding with a feedback to more models, and so on. James Brunt, Data Management Committee Chair, reported that there had been a lot of discussion about putting datasets on-line since the September meeting. A table indicating what all sites are doing has been completed, and a preliminary review shows there is no technical reason that sites can't comply. The datasets will be available and queriable on-line to the LTER community for some scientific purpose, and they will include descriptions of metadata standards, access system, and technical capabilities that allow participation. There is more involved in developing the kind of system that would be accessible to anyone in the scientific community. Legal issues will need to be addressed, as will the potential for misuse of data. An informal poll of the sites as to whether they were "on track" in putting one favorite dataset on-line revealed that most are. Information on which datasets were initially being put on-line was collected (see list attached-regular mailing only). Augmentation Competition "Post Mortem"(Allen) Two LTER site augmentations have been awarded, one to North Temperate Lakes (Tim Kratz-Upper Midwest Lakes and Their Landscapes: 1800-2100) and the other to Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory (Judy Meyer-Causes and consequences of land cover change in the Southern Appalachians). Responses to other proposals will be back soon. These first two augmentations will be extremely important in generating more and they will need the Network's support. NSF realizes the need to extend the opportunity to rest of the Network, but it is too early to say how many, or if any, more sites will be similarly "ramped up." The panel felt that in terms of general direction all proposals were good, but the program is money-limited. Many strong proposals sought to expand present work to social and economic aspects. The two awarded thought more in terms of biodiversity. Some PIs expressed concern that these first augmented sites will gear up with a bang but, without a longer-range commitment, could stall out in six months. Allen acknowledged that NSF will probably have to make decisions on subsequent awards before any information is back from first two. It was suggested that this is probably a test to see if the Network can work effectively with the two sites funded, and if the two can help promote the idea of augmentation, further reinforcing NSF leadership's view of LTER as a flagship program. NTL and CWT were asked to place their proposals on-line for Network access. (Abstracts will be provided in the Spring 1995 issue of Network News.) JF pointed out that using sites as expert systems, stepping outside to interpret on a larger scale, will very much be the wave of the future in funding for science. He reminded the group what an extraordinary opportunity LTER has and will have in being participatory in the program's future. He noted that while these opportunities can sometimes be painful, the payoff can be monumental. Network Office Site Review (Allen) Mike Allen reported that NSF conducted the first on-site review of the Network Office (NET) September 20-21. While the review is not yet completed, in general the review was quite positive. Concerns included whether there would be appropriate support and space at the University of Washington. JF will be using the results of the review to develop the Network Office cooperative agreement, which will replace the grant as funding mechanism. The review addressed two areas: (1) Was NET accomplishing its goals, and (2) What should NET accomplish? As the Network matures, there is a need to reassess directions. AFTERNOON SESSION Network Office Program & Budget Jerry Franklin reported that the full-fledged September LTER Network Office (NET) site review, originally being approached as a pre-proposal discussion, came as a surprise for which there was little time to prepare. The morning of the review, staff learned that the next proposal was to be prepared prior to negotiation for not two, but six years. The new funding mechanism for NET will be a cooperative agreement, along the lines of the University of Michigan model. He noted that cooperative agreements must abide by the same guidelines as site proposals and circulated copies of the draft proposal for site comment. He also reminded representatives that support for NET is not from the competitive pot available to the LTER sites, but from a combination of Environmental Biology, International Programs and Polar Programs sources. If not to NET, these funds would go to other programs, not LTER. NET will prepare an annual report for NSF and draft a proposal for the next year's activities, to be submitted to NSF after PI input prior to the fall LTER/CC meeting. There will be an annual site review and a national advisory committee, and NSF and NET will negotiate an agreement subject to an independent panel and Network review. Following review, which will probably occur at two- to three-year intervals, the Office could be moved. The outside review strongly reinforced that NET should not be located at one of sites or at the Synthesis Center. At least for a significant time, it is not desirable for either group to lose identity to the other. By the end of 1995, the new Chair and Executive Director should be fully on board and will be revisiting this issue as/if it arises. For this proposal, the University of Washington has made commitments of additional space, as well as contributions to the salaries of John Vande Castle, the new Executive Director, and support for two research assistants, and the GIS Laboratory manager. PIs were asked to provide advise to JF within a week in two areas: (1) continuance of work done in past and the expansion as per the LTER/CC's decisions of last spring--recruiting an Executive Director, expanding the committee structure, and providing additional support for the Chair--and (2) what workshops/synthetic activities NET should be involved in over the next two years in some way? In general, NET workshops should not clearly stand alone as separate proposals, or they may not stand up to the peer-review process. Sites were also asked to consider: * Should NET be the permanent home for "orphan datasets" (such as NIN's). * A comparison of RS/GIS datasets is proposed with U.K.'s Ecological Change Network. Should we look at a broader array of technical innovation, such as measurement technologies, beyond just storage and compiling? * Funds are requested for outreach activities associated with beginning a global network (ILTER), defining relationships to other sites and networks, and developing internationally, ($250,000-$350,000 total--25%-30% of the budget). What level of outreach and involvement is appropriate? In the discussion on possible workshops that followed, it was proposed that a mechanism to revisit core areas (how do they help/impede?) be identified, and that a series of question-driven workshops to establish standards for each core area be supported. JF noted that if the group came forward with alternatives to the core areas NSF might entertain substitutes; simply trashing them wouldn't fly. Any substitute would need to tie the sites together as the core areas have. The group was asked to think further on the issue, and consider the next All Scientists Meeting as the possible forum for five core-driven workshops to identify intellectual standards. National & International Outreach-Who Will Participate? JF noted that the collaborative activity initiated under ILTER is not intended to replace the valuable scientist-to-scientist interactions that have occurred in the past. The Network Office (NET) will likely become a clearinghouse of such activity involving the sites. We want many flowers to bloom, but we need to know where the flowers are. The developing international network has begun to look at the same problems that LTER has as a network--namely, who will participate? ILTER will probably work to develop national or regional network nodes, eventually de-emphasizing NET's central role. JF charged the group to develop a vision of how LTER should relate to both national and international agencies and groups. Through what critera do we judge "appropriate" partners? Is it enough to simply have a shared goal or mission? We are beginning to use capabilities as a filter. Does a given site have the capability to communicate and exchange data as we do as LTER site? Should LTER define different levels or grades of affiliation or participation? One level might be to encourage outside sites to regularly participate on the DM Committee. AFTERNOON CLOSED SESSION One representative per site met to vote on the nomination of James Gosz for the next chair of the LTER Network. A role call indicated that all were present except Niwot and Cedar Creek. [Seastedt sent in a vote for Niwot prior to the meeting.] Nomination of Next LTER/CC Chair--James Gosz Unanimously Elected Following the procedure adopted by the Coordinating Committee last (LTER/CC) spring, the Executive Committee solicited nominations and contacted candidates for the next LTER/CC Chair. Fifteen individuals were nominated, all LTER scientists. Both LMER and LTREB PIs were contacted, but no additional nominations were offered. Three nominees--Gosz, Hayden and Magnuson--received more than one nomination. Of the nominees, three indicated an interest. Magnuson and Hayden both indicated a willingness to serve, but because of pressing site responsibilities preferred not to be considered at this time. The Executive Committee considered James Gosz' qualifications and his interest and ability to devote a significant amount of time to the position over the next several years, and unanimously recommended him to the full Committee. The nomination was seconded by Judy Meyer. Following discussion the group agreed that Gosz' leadership style would suit the future needs of the Network well, and the vote was unanimously in favor. JF will act as executive director for the next year, maintaining ILTER chairmanship during the transition period, eventually passing the responsibility on to Gosz. LTER/CC MEETING, THURSDAY OCTOBER 20, 1994 NSF News & Funding Situation (Jim Gosz & Mike Allen) As a result of last year's push in Congress for NSF to do more strategic research in areas of national need, a long-range strategic plan was requested from the agency. The $3.2 billion budget is up $200 million over last year, although the amount targeted for research activities is below that requested in the Administration's budget. A $50 million increase from $100 million has been requested for research infrastructure (including research equipment). This is the year to submit for research instrumentation in general. The Foundation has identified eight strategic themes, several of interest to LTER. These themes are cross-divisional and multi-disciplinary and include Biodiversity, Water and Watersheds, Environmental Technology, and Research Management. (The last two are particularly likely to result in opportunities; special announcements are currently being written.) While DEB would like to offer funds for augmentation, cross-site work and internationalization, opportunities are more likely to be in terrestrial ecology, trace gas or complex experiments of multiple interacting factors and atmosphere-terrestrial feedbacks (including wetlands and streams). When the budget shakedown occurs, they hope to get word out about opportunities electronically with longer lead time than in the past. PIs were urged to be thinking now what shape these might take. Biodiversity approaches might be to improve fundamental understanding from genes to landscapes, poorly-known habitats and species, adaptation of organisms to environmental changes (human-economic aspects included), and water-watersheds approaches to improve our predictive understanding of fluxes, changes to water systems, knowledge to develop mitigating strategies, and sustainable economic development--all of which are directly relevant to LTER and are broad enough to include much of what LTER is interested in doing. Due to the division reorganization that has resulted in the Long-Term Projects person being a rotator, LTER has an important opportunity to identify someone with strengths in the areas of restoration and bioremediation. Standing Network Committees/Committee Structure (Committee Structure) At the last meeting, the LTER/CC decided that it wanted to support an expanded committee structure to encourage more LTER investigators to become actively involved in creating Network policies and programs. JF noted that the first task of each committee is to propose a charter, then to decide how chairs should be selected and membership formed, what rights and privileges members should have, the scope and nature of activities to be undertaken, and what should be the financial commitment. Currently, the Network Office budget includes support for an annual Data Managers (DM) meeting at a level of $40,000, including a regular meeting and workshop. There are also two proposals under development for workshops in the technology area, and the climate group, which has a supplemental grant that does not include general committee support, submitted a proposal at the meeting. Following a recommendation from the Executive Committee, the DM Committee has proposed that an information management group of three to four principal investigators attend the annual DMs meeting to ensure that Network data management activities are guided by those involved in developing and designing the site research programs. In general discussion on committee structure, the point was made that the Network doesn't need a separate committee for each problem, but a committee to focus on approaches. It was also noted that committees should be able to meet via electronic means between annual meetings or regular LTER/CC meetings. Before inviting current chairs to report on their committees' activities, JF opened discussion on how committee development had been progressing. Among the suggestions: (1) committees should form a steering committees or "guidance group" which includes members who do not attend LTER/CC meetings; (2) committee chairs should be LTER/CC members, so that activities are led by the sites; (3) committee steering groups should be comprised of lead PIs; (4) technical people should not lead committee activities; critical decisions should be made by PIs; and (5) users and administrators alike should be represented on committees. Publications (Hayden) The Publications Committee (LTER/PUB) has been active since the April meeting, communicating primarily via electronic mail throughout the summer to outline Committee structure and procedures. A key issue discussed was how to approach quality control and where to inject it. One model would be for the Committee to review a project at the outline level (helping to determine appropriateness of topic and content), leaving the peer-review responsibility to the editor. In another model, the Committee would be involved in soliciting reviewers. LTER/PUB members are evenly split on this question; Hayden sought the larger groups' views to help finalize these issues. A possible policy might involve the LTER/PUB providing an assistance role in the early stages and quality control in assistance to the publisher during the review process. Hayden noted that there are publishers interested in doing a series on work at the sites, and that a sequence of books in a series probably involves some sort of commonality. The LTER/PUB could help in setting standards. Some of the concerns that arose from discussion included: (1) the intended product should meet the approval of LTER community up front; (2) an implied censorial power is not comfortable for everyone; (3) a poor quality product might be produced which would reflect badly on the community; (4) agency partners such as USFS have their own editorial process/clearance procedures which sometimes need to be accommodated in joint projects. It was proposed that the LTER/PUB provide quality control on those publications that speak for the entire network and carry the LTER Network imprimatur, working with publishers to identify appropriate reviewers and ensuring that reviewers are selected. Proposals for network-scale projects should be submitted to the LTER/PUB in the form of a comprehensive outline. All sites voted in favor, some with the proviso that the criteria used is applied equally to all proposals. It was also decided that authors and editors of informal Network Office (NET) publications (such as the recent El Nino report) should provide information to NET regarding other related products in advance, to avoid unintended "scoops." Stephanie noted that a recommended citation will be added to all NET science publications in future to ensure proper attribution. Hayden requested that e-mail comments on these and other publications issues noted below be sent to LTER/PUB at pub@LTERnet.edu. All will be logged. He also noted that the Committee would like to have a PI-level Data Manager repesentative to inform the discussion on electronic publications. (Anyone interested is urged to contact Hayden.) Other issues: Should the Publications Committee have an advisory role with regard to Network Office products and electronic publications? To what degree should the Committee help in the area of electronic publications? Technology (Foster) Chair (pro tempore) David Foster noted he would strongly welcome and encourage involvement of anyone interested in Network technology issues to participate on the Technology Committee (LTER/TECH). The group has not been active lately and is presently in a state of reorganization, but there are new now opportunities for funding and cross-site work. The greatest immediate need is to identify a core group of individuals, users and developers alike (technical people and people with science needs that can be addressed by technology), to become involved. New participants were asked to come forward, especially as some currently involved are not interested in continuing. An e-mail request will be sent to all PIs. Foster asked the group for ideas of possible efforts the LTER/TECH might undertake. Among those put forward: (1) conduct an overall assessment of technology across the Network, (2) conduct an assessment of remote imagery needs and issues, (3) explore collaboration with a major NSF science/technology center at University of Washington (led by Lee Hood), and (4) Bruce Hayden noted that the NET review panel has a recommendation with regard to technology activities (the results of the review are not yet available). It was agreed that the most important step to take would be to provide a current assessment of the state of technology development in the Network, analogous to the one completed on RS/GIS a few years ago. Since then, there have been major advancements both at the sites and in technology development in general. NSF opportunities may provide supplemental awards to enhance technology use across the network and at individual sites. The NET proposal will contain a request for a technology workshop and a site assessment. It was noted that some sites have found technical solutions that could be shared with other sites with similar needs, and that it is important to extend new capabilities to all the sites. Teleconferencing was suggested as a good supplemental approach to communicating about technologies. Gosz noted that NSF funding is available for obtaining this capability. JF reminded participants that as the largest organized group of ecological scientists, LTER is expected to be on the cutting edge technologically. Synthesis (Wharton) Chair (pro tempore) Robert Wharton reported he had received some suggestions for workshops from the sites in response to his query for comments on standards and ideas for synthesis activities prior to the meeting. He requested help in determining a direction and a set of intellectual objectives for the committee and suggested a small workshop to define standards. In the discussion that followed, concerns were expressed about (1) conducting synthesis by committee, (2) the problem of trying to proceed with activities before standards are developed, (3) avoiding the problem of individual method advocates holding sway, (4) avoiding interruption of any standardization work already under way, (5) ensuring that methods are tied to science questions, and (6) having standards in place by the next round of proposals. It was pointed out that the document drafted by Hobbie and others on future directions in LTER research (provided at the meeting for comment) defines several synthesis objectives. Proposals included: (1) structuring workshops to address developing standards for the first four core areas, (2) structuring the Committee to act as a standards clearinghouse, (3) separating standards development and intellectual synthesis to ensure that the latter doesn't slip into the background, and (4) including sites outside the present network. Wharton invited those interested to meet prior to the next day's meeting to discuss the subject further and report back to the larger group. Jim Gosz noted that it was evidence of LTER's maturity that they are talking about synthesis. (JF remarked that it was almost a revolution at the level of the original MSI document!) (Discussion the next morning addressed the need to first define "synthesis" before determining how best to facilitate network-level synthesis. As a start, a series of workshops to develop standardization methods was proposed: (1) soil measurements (physical/chemical biology, Phil Robertson to organize; intended product, a volume of methods); (2) NPP (Indy Burke, similar product); (3) water measurements (not defined further, Charles Driscoll a possible organizer); (4) consumer dynamics (Bob Waide, tentatively); and (5) decomposition (folded back into soils, consult with LIDET re meeting at Kellogg next October). JF noted that, in principal, support for four workshops total was probably feasible over the next two-year period. Wharton will send the workshop proposals to the sites for further comment. Gosz urged the group to think beyond the ecosystem process level to other areas, such as scaling and biodiversity. He challenged them to develop up front taskforces for a subset of biome-level standards (soils, waters, etc., for forests). There was support for involving the Land-Margin Ecosystem Research (LMER) sites among others and for taking an efficient hierarchical approach. This would involve people from similar systems getting together to develop standards first, then from different systems--thus avoiding ecosystem-level disagreements at the upper level and enabling comparison among broad ecosystem types. Climate (Greenland) David Greenland highlighted Climate Committee activities since the All Scientists Meeting and noted the availability of "El Nino and Long-Term Ecological Research Sites," a new report published by the LTER Network Office that documents the proceedings of the El Nino Workshop at the 1993 All Scientists Meeting. The Committee is continuing to pursue the idea of having climate designated as a core area for LTER studies. Most sites have considerable climatic data, but the Committee is discussing what should go on-line as a representative record, not necessarily including all temperatures or satellite data. They agreed a year ago to the generic intention to have climatic data from all sites on-line. Climate data is the most requested and among the most understandable and the least problematic. In discussion, some expressed the view that the job of a committee should be to document its activity on-line. This would provide information for synthesis, and would yield different information than if each site took its own approach. There was some agreement that climate is a logical place to begin standardization and quality control. Greenland noted that it is pointless to establish standards unless they're followed and monitored. NADP, for example, has a very good set of standards and a subcommittee that visits each site to enforce implementation and monitoring. JF commended Greenland for chairing the Climate Committee so effectively over the years, noting that the committee has been operational in a meaningful way since its inception. Gosz noted that this activity is an extremely important demonstration of what LTER is doing to get this information on-line; it comes close to satisfying NSF's policy without them having to wield a club. Graduate Students (Greenberg) Elected LTER Student Committee Chair Josh Greenberg acknowledged Caroline Bledsoe's guidance and support in getting a committee established following last year's All Scientists Meeting. The students have set up an on-line bulletin board (students@lternet.edu) with assistance from the Network Office and met a second time at the August ESA meeting in Knoxville, TN. Activities considered for the future include developing student information packets, strengthening interaction with PIs, and possibly creating a Mosaic page linked to the LTER home page. PIs were asked for their ideas and assistance on how to support student work at the sites. To support students to conduct intersite research, Josh proposed that an intersite scholarship program be instituted for a trial period (probably a year). Students could apply for funds through a review group including one student to do comparative work at other sites ($2,000 per student, 10 per year). Results could be written and presented in the newsletter and/or on-line. PIs were generally supportive of the proposal; however, some felt the students were thinking too small, that they'd need travel and supplies for a year, over and above what they're doing at their sites. It was noted that some of the best research at the sites is being done by LTER graduate students. Others felt the program should start small, but still as a network activity. Several PIs remarked that they would be happy to consider requests from students. NSF representatives cautioned that it would be important not to appear to create a select group, and that much of such work could already be feasible under the dissertation improvement program. Such seeding could be useful, so long as it is not tied to developing a proposal. Jerry Franklin noted that LTER has done little to promote students, reminding PIs that NSF had challenged them in the past and they'd "dropped the ball." It was proposed and unanimously approved that $20,000 would be requested in the NET proposal to stimulate student participation in intersite activities. (CPR voted yes with the caveat that the resulting data be published.) Data Management (James Brunt) Data Managers Committee Chair James Brunt reported that the Data Managers (DMs) have been organized since 1980 and that, as a group, they are moving more and more towards intersite cooperation. DMs now have a task force of six individuals (PI-level or proposal developers) that elects one person to report to the LTER/CC. This year's annual meeting included special sessions on metadata and involved several outside agency people. Due to its success, DMs propose to bring in more representatives from outside agencies at future meetings. A draft of the 1994 meeting report will be circulated electronically for comment. The 1988 MSI document will be revised as the Recommended Technological Capabilities document, or RTC. This activity will be led by John Briggs at Konza Prairie. Drafts will be circulated to PIs for comment. The RTC is perceived as an important step toward achieving the goal of putting datasets on-line. While it is easy to put data on line with current technology, Brunt noted, there is much more involved in making it useful for research. Site datasets will be on-line this year, but in just a flat form. The next step will be to move to queriable datasets with standards in place. To ensure that science drives the RTC process, the Executive Committee decided that a team of three to four PIs should meet with the Committee. Just five to six DMs have PI status now. This will be even more critical in the near future as the Data Managers will also be "on point" in ILTER activities. Interested PIs were urged to come forward to help advance this activity. BioScience Article (Hobbie) John Hobbie circulated a working draft of the document he and several PIs have been working on, a collective statement of LTER science looking to the next decade, based on the LTER2000 document, which will be submitted to BioScience. He acknowledged the need to include more site case histories and language that explains the different levels of work at sites. The paper will probably include about two case histories per section, related figures, four to five references for each section, photos and site maps. He noted that case histories should be from the published research. Each section author will be listed as an editor with Hobbie. During discussion other suggested changes included: (1) add a comment to the introduction on LTER's goals, (2) note mechanisms correctly and clearly with reference to current ones to be consistent, (3) try to get across the idea that the parts of LTER are at different stages and take different approaches, and (4) sketch a vision of where LTER is going in the conclusion in terms of these different stages of maturation. There was some discussion about whether BioScience was the best venue; Hobbie will also try Science. The group agreed that the draft was a good start and there was general support to move ahead, with site input due to the section authors in two weeks. Hobbie noted that the revised draft will be sent to the Publication Committee for a quality-control review, since this is a network-scale publication. Jerry Franklin thanked him for initiating and advancing the activity. AFTERNOON All-Site Bibliography & DREAM SUITE Project (Bledsoe and Hastings) Caroline Bledsoe gave a brief history of her contribution to LTER over the past six years, from developing the first personnel directory with Robert Robbins (NSF) to working on activities ranging from the Network of Networks, Trace Gas Network, Belowground Root Biology Group, and the Graduate Student Committee to her present subcontract at NET for the bibliographic project. She showed an on-line bibliography usage table, described search capabilities and limitations, and noted that she and Harvey Chinn are preparing two publications for submission to BioScience. Bledsoe and Jordan Hastings (MCM) will lead a synthesis project funded through a combination of cross-site supplements and Network Office support to develop and use software tools for synthesis of root biomass data from a number of LTER and non-LTER sites. They will start with XROOTS, Exploration of Root Observations and Organized Technical Software. Workshops over the 2 1/2 years of the project include: Agroecosystems (Alvin Smucker/KBS), Grasslands (Bill Lauenroth/CPR), Forest Ecosystems (Ron Hendrick, CWT). Root biomass, site data, climatic data, and soils data are needed from the sites for these workshops. Jordan Hastings provided an overview of the Tool Suite part of the project, a data and information system conceptually divided into two functions: reference and maintenance programs. The design will be frozen at some point, and real data loaded and linked to the bibliography. Applications will be coordinated with the database design and a review of the ecological literature, and developed interviews with practicing root scientists. The tools currently available which come closest to what biologists need will be assessed, and existing projects and programs or components thereof will be used to create the best package. Organizing committees of the workshops will also use these tools in cooperation with site data managers to install and distribute them networkwide. Hastings noted that the ideal Tool Suite for ecologists is likely to come from small projects like this and from collaboration with public and commercial groups. FY 1994 Special Competition for Cross-Site/International Research Awards James Gosz and Mike Allen noted that NSF constructed an interdisciplinary panel for the FY 1994 Special Competition for Cross- Site/International Research. The dynamics in the panel proved to be almost as important as the proposals: reviewers were solicited from sociology, archaeology, and other disciplines. For the international awards, international reviewers were also brought in. Review comments were written before panelists met as a group. Awardees were: John Aber (HFR). Forested and agricultural landscapes of New England and Ireland Caroline Bledsoe (UC Davis/NET). A comparison of belowground productivity at a number of sites in North America. Dave Coleman (CWT). Interaction between biodiversity and decomposition processes at three moist, warm, broad-leaved forest sites (Luquillo, La Selva, Coweeta) on similar soil types. Will coordinate with LIDET decomposition team. Anne Giblin (ARC). Comparison of the stoichiometric relationships among benthic fluxes of oxygen, carbon, sufur, nitrogen and phosphorous from sediments in a variety of lakes (Hubbard Brook, North Temperate Lakes, Arctic). Dave Greenland (AND/NWT). Comparative climatological analysis of the LTER sites. Mark Harmon (AND). Comparison of the carbon dynamics of two major coniferous forest regions (the Pacific Northwest and northwestern Russia) to determine the major factors controlling the spatial and temporal patterns of carbon stores and fluxes. Bill Lauenroth (CPR). With Indy Burke and Osvaldo Sala (temperate grassland site in Pategonia), looking at differing controls on decomposition with a strong international component. Ongoing collaboration building on approximately 10 years of work. John Magnuson (NTL). Intersite project to work with international sites (Northern Highland Lake District) on (1) landscape organization of lake districts in respect to landscape position, (2) area turnover species in lakes, and (3) ice phrenologies as climate change and variability indicators. Ed Whitelaw (an economist with an LTER-oriented grant). Intersite project to describe/explain linkages between ecosystems and local/regional economies at six LTER sites (AND, BNZ, CWT, HBR, SEV, NTL) and examine whatever feedbacks exist. Site Science Reports--"An exciting discovery or new approach" (not all recorded) VIRGINIA COAST (Hayden) - Have recently established relationships with one of counties they're located in to develop GIS for the county and share bird nesting site and annual bird count datasets. New outside collaborators include a DOE person from U of V, who is looking at the sedimentary platform to mainland, the rate and fate of transfer, and tracers of bacterial transports to marshes from well-field. VCR is engaged in a campaign to buy land ($2 million) for a long-term lab facility. SEVILLETA (Brunt) - SEV is moving into second funding cycle with work based on a watershed system using swap models and solar flux models (they will hire a new post-doc in this area). Based on existing datasets they are developing international efforts with Hungary and Mexico (Mapimi MAB site with Jornada), and are meeting with CPR and JRN on an intersite grassland project. Other collaborations include: Kitchell/stable isotope studies, agricultural and non-agricultural lands adjacent to wetlands; Kay Gross/EROL grant to do work at Sevilleta. PALMER (Ross) - PAL completed its August 1993 winter cruise off Palmer peninsula looking at ice vs. water habitat, (1) measuring the light field under ice, (2) taking water samples, and (3) collecting and censusing grazers. They found that the most activity is concentrated in the ice habitat in winter. Looked at the distribution of larval krill, they found that krill were not in the water column. The surprise was that not only was microbial activity higher than in water column, but that the ice was a hotter spot in terms of production than in summer. MCMURDO (Wharton) - MCM completed its first LTER season last fall and winter, and the data is just back from placing a network of stream gauges and soil transects in Taylor Valley. Polar Programs funded a GIS workshop in which PAL and MCM were major players. MCM has been asked to put on workshop in Santa Fe, NM concerning environmental management of the site. Antarctic sites don't compete for augmentation awards as do other LTERs; because of their unique funding arrangement, they have to go through Polar Programs to extend their research activities. With additional support from Polar Programs, MCM will be offering post-docs (sites encouraged to refer potential candidates among their students). Twenty-six scientists and students, and two New Zealanders, will be conducting the 1994-5 field season between now and February. NIWOT (Diggle) - Niwot researchers have nearly completed monitoring biotic activity under snow, and a new now fence was put in place last winter. Tim Seastedt recently returned from Austria, where he was exploring a formal collaboration with the University of Innsbruck. New faculty positions at Boulder are expected to enhance the LTER program. LUQUILLO (Zimmerman) - Puerto Rico has experienced a drought since May, the driest period recorded, although in Luquillo Forest there is still some rainfall. At the annual meeting in January LUQ researchers will begin looking at the effects. Jead Lodge has an article in a recent issue of Tree on nutrient pulses, hurricanes, and steady state. A grad student had an article in Kansas Journal that was picked up as a "hot paper" in Science News. Recently funded by NASA to look at land management and relationship to global climate and the effect of land use on forest recovery. The project also involves the Institute of Tropical Forestry and David Foster at Harvard Forest. KONZA (Knapp) - KNZ PIs are writing a synthesis volume, with Bruce Hayden to co-author the climate chapter. Konza looks at questions in tallgrass prairie belowground, whether it is a source or sink for carbon? They aare establishing a crop micrometeorlogist collaboration with DOE, USDA and others to put up four towers in burned and unburned and grazed fields to collect annual estimates. The instrumentation, which measures energy, water and carbon flux, is mostly belowground and fairly unobtrusive, making it both fire and weatherproof. JORNADA (Schlesinger) - Jornada will be featured in an upcoming article in Discover magazine that describes the entire set of measurements and an informal cross-site comparison of grassland and shrublands between Central Plains, JRN, and sites in the Great Basin comparison. HUBBARD BROOK (Fahey) - The Hubbard Brook Foundation was recently incorporated. Element cycling--particularly calcium--drives much of the work at HBR. Their annual session on birds captures the attention of the local community. Recent work shows that the neotropical bird population is declining; the big spikes in population may be linked to masking of tree seeds. HARVARD FOREST (Foster) - As a result of the augmentation proposal process, HFR has new collaborators--a paleolimnologist and a policy person from the Kennedy School of Government to look into forest management policy in the area. Several collaborative projects are ongoing with Luquillo. The site has a recent article in UPRO on wind disturbance and hurricane disturbance. They've found that synthesis papers going back to original proposal are still relevant, but they've gone back to reinterpret the landscape in light of historical events. It now appears that disturbance at the site is linked to an early significant salvage lodging operation--human rather than natural disturbance. CENTRAL PLAINS (Burke) - CPR has begun a new grazing experiment, a large study on how grazing influences soil organic matter, comparing grazed and ungrazed areas. Their interpretation: grazing creates less variation than plant presence vs. absence. They've found that the review process is a way to help the site grow. Based on the result of their site review, they have been addressing a deficit in data management. Called in Brunt (SEV), Michener (NIN), and a specialist from UC Santa Barbara for a thorough review, and they recommended adding personnel. BONANZA (Viereck) - BNZ is bringing the Caribou-Poker Creek Watershed formally into the system. Such experimental watersheds have always been a part of the University program, but not the LTER program. The site will be getting a new bridge, improving access to a number of research areas on both sides of the river. H.J. ANDREWS (Swanson) - HJA has been working with NASA and the Forest Service looking at landuse and ownerships in the Cascades and Western Washington from the early 70s to the present time, and changes to attributes, such as carbon stores. They're also conducting peak flow analysis with 40 to 50 years of data from small experimental watersheds, looking at effects of landuse, cutting and roads and changes in peak flows. The "stream team" has obtained funding from other sources to install restoration experiments. Those installed under LTER will be compared with above- and below-treated reaches over four to five years, looking at trout growth, carbon flux and invertebrate densities. As expected, the treated reach is increasing rates of production to the aquatic community. ARCTIC TUNDRA (Hobbie) - Three new laboratories have been established with NSF support. Neal Laine visited in August. Bruce Peterson N15 addition to streams model appears to work for streams at other sites using stable isotopes. A workshop involving CWT and AND is planned). An arctic land-atmosphere group, ITEX (international tundra experiment), is using Toolik Lake in an effort involving 20 arctic sites using ARC methods and manipulations for measuring leaf growth, etc. (Judy Meyer suggested a possible collaboration with CWT.). Network Office (Vande Castle & Nottrott) John Vande Castle reported that recent technological improvements at the Network Office have enabled reprocessing of data from the LTER-NASA collaborative experiment. Thanks to the assistance of Diane Wickland's group at NASA, Mission Earth data can now be accessed, as well as the Oak Ridge biogeochemical archive including FIFE, OTTER and other datasets. The data scanner has come on-line, and the sites are being solicited for their input as to where sun photometers should be deployed. The LTER-NASA proposal for a land-cover classification/assessment is progressing; the 13 participating sites are sending evaluations to Warren Cohen (AND) for a November 1 deadline. This is presently the largest dataset in Network. Rudolf Nottrott provided a demonstration of some of the new LTERnet capabilities utilizing Mosaic public domain software. Gil Calabria, Coweeta data manager, demonstrated the Mosaic "home page" put on-line for Coweeta since the September 1994 Data Managers meeting. Most of the sites are engaged in similar activity. (Other Network Office activities not reported at the meeting: Adrienne Whitener worked with Beth O' Grady at Coweeta to organize and coordinate the LTER/CC meeting and travel and has been assisting in preparation of the budget for the upcoming Cooperative Agreement. Lynne Hendrix coordinated much of the preparations for the International LTER meeting in the United Kingdom in August and the September Data Managers meeting in Seattle. Daniel Pommert has departed the Network Office for a year in Egypt and has been replaced by Raymond Bero, recently of CERL. Stephanie Martin has been developing or is planning to develop: (1) a Mosaic version of the general LTER program information contained in the brochure (now in text form on the LTERnet gopher), (2) "LTER Fact Sheets" to feature significant LTER intersite experiments and synthesis activities, and (3) a "pocket-sized" update of the 1991 site directory. Other publicity/public information tools are being considered for development over the next budget period, to include site press packets and presentation materials, portable loaner displays on synthesis experiments, an LTER poster, a simplified brochure, and others. (Sites should contact Stephanie with any suggestions.) Canada (Bruce LaZerte) Bruce LaZerte, Aquatic Science Section, Ministry of Environment and Energy, Ontario, provided a brief overview of long-term ecological research development in Canada with a few comments on the work of his section (See brochure attached for more information--in mailed copy.) Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project (Brian Brookshire) Brian Brookshire gave a presentation on the Missouri Ozark Ecosystem Project (featured in Issue #15 of the LTER Network News) and invited LTER site scientists to consider the Project for individual or multiple site investigations. (See more information attached--in mailed copy.) International Activities (Franklin) The International LTER (ILTER) steering committee met at Rothamsted Station in the United Kingdom August 27-28 with 18 members representing seven countries. The group focused primarily upon mission definition and development of an action program for improved communications among sites and scientists. (Further detail in the current issue of the Network News.) Meetings of the ILTER Steering Committee are planned for Hungary (1995), Latin America (1996), China (1997), Canada (1998), Africa (1999), and the United States (2000). The process of identifying primary ILTER participants has begun with La Selva and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI). The Connectivity Committee will look at current capabilities and what it would take to bring these sites up to a comparable level or to the capacity of a node in a global network. Jerry Franklin noted that full partners need comparable communication and data sharing facilities, as well as a shared mission. Collaboration/LTER Affiliation JF asked the group to reflect on where we are as a network. He noted that reaching out from the LTER community there are many ways to incorporate other types of sites. As the network-to-network concept has evolved, we've been contacted by DOE ParkNet, NBS, individual sites like Barro Colorado and La Selva, and others who would like to have a closer relationship with the LTER Network. There has always been the question of degrees of comparability in terms of technical capability, various levels of an extended network. It is no longer in LTER's best interests, JF noted, to "stiff-arm" these approaches. We need to develop mechanisms and criteria for an expanded approach to incorporate other sites. We have to actively engage this subject because the pressure is growing, and we'll be in a much better position if we look ahead. We can't claim we're too busy. For the near-term, NSF has chosen the alternative of augmenting existing sites, but we can't rely solely on NSF support if we want a better-distributed network. By what criteria would you recognize a partner? What do we do about single sites, not affiliated with networks? Among the comments: (1) We shouldn't be so strict in selecting affiliates (2) We should include non-LTER sites as question-driven affiliates (3) If formalizing a partnership, do we add expectations and/or responsibilities? (4) What is the time drain for the sites? (5) Will an increase in collaboration dilute site work? (6) What is the scientific payoff? (7) What would the impact be on the Network Office? (8) The partner's sponsoring agency should have to buy in and support the site(s) at the LTER level (9) The Memoranda of Agreement might be an appropriate mechanism for collaborations (10) We need list of criteria, a classification for partnership before we can proceed. (11) The intensity of the relationship should vary with the level of affiliation (12) The network-of-networks idea seems to be developing as an exchange between equals, a way out of increasing responsibilities (13) The LTER Network might evolve into acting as a clearinghouse, rather than the top of the pyramid, for the long-term. Bruce Hayden noted that the Hungarians seek a blessing from the LTER/CC and have indicated that they will do all that LTER does. They want a stamp of LTER approval and some benefit of affiliation, and they intend to redesign their terrestrial ecology program based on the LTER model. Such programs want to do research with us, learn techniques and technologies, but they are also looking for sources of money and ways to leverage dollars within their own countries. One initial approach, already being explored through the ILTER network, is for individual sites to identify and develop question-driven satellite sites. It was decided that a subgroup of the Executive Committee would be developed to explore alternative ideas on how to proceed on this issue. Meeting Schedule Next LTER/CC Meeting: April 19-25, 1995. This will be a small meeting at the Virginia Coast Reserve site. Travel will be via the Norfolk airport. Meeting and travel details will be sent via electronic mail from the Network Office as usual. Fall 1995 LTER/CC Meeting: JF suggested that the October meeting be held at Skamania Lodge on the Columbia River near Portland, Oregon instead of in Seattle at the Network Office as previously announced. Other suggestions included (1) Tucson, Arizona in conjunction with a biosphere program meeting (Jordan Hastings/MCM) and (2) Lincoln, Nebraska at the Soil Conservation Service (James Gosz/NSF). The date and location were not finalized. Next All Scientists Meeting. JF suggested the group revisit the issue of where to site and what time of year to hold the next All Scientists Meeting. He noted that alternative times of year would allow use of university campuses, which tend to be lower-cost than commercial facilities. Summer is not good because of conflicting society meetings and field seasons. January is not suitable because the two Antarctic sites are fully involved in their field season at that time and would not be able to participate. During discussion it was suggested that the meeting be scheduled to follow the ESA meeting, thus saving on travel cost and presentation/ poster development time, or that it be located at the Keystone Center, Snowbird, or Jackson Hole. Jerry polled the sites for time-of-year preferences and most preferred mid-September or January. It was decided to meet in mid-September 1995 as in 1993. Executive Committee Position Nominees Requested Nominees are requested for a replacement for Tim Seastedt on the Executive Committee. Send names to Jerry Franklin via electronic mail by December 15. From mallen@nsf.gov Wed Nov 30 09:29:21 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA11498; Wed, 30 Nov 94 09:29:20 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa25413; 30 Nov 94 9:29 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA09147; Wed, 30 Nov 94 06:29:07 PST Received: from xrelay.nsf.gov by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA25899 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Wed, 30 Nov 1994 09:28:52 -0500 Received: from cc:Mail by xrelay.nsf.gov id AA786216386; Wed, 30 Nov 94 09:23:49 EST Date: Wed, 30 Nov 94 09:23:49 EST From: mallen@nsf.gov Message-Id: <9410307862.AA786216386@xrelay.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: REU supplements Status: OR Dear PI's: You will soon receive a general DEB letter regarding REU supplements. Please disregard the procedural information described therein. Tom and I will be sending out guidelines for LTER REU (and other) supplements for FY 95 shortly. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Mike Allen Program Director, LTPEB, DEB, NSF From jgosz@nsf.gov Wed Nov 30 12:57:47 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA12268; Wed, 30 Nov 94 12:57:46 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa21776; 30 Nov 94 12:57 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA10969; Wed, 30 Nov 94 09:54:39 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA17453 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4); Wed, 30 Nov 1994 12:54:28 -0500 Message-Id: <199411301754.AA17453@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Cc: jbrunt@lternet.edu Subject: Soil Classification survey Date: Wed, 30 Nov 94 12:54:28 EST From: "James R. Gosz" Status: OR Stephanie reminded me that Phil Sollins generated a soil survey report for a number of sites. Twelve responded. I will use that for the request for information on what surveys have been made for those twelve sites. If other sites want to be involved, they need to supply that information. All sites need to supply the other information listed in my first memo if they want to participate. jim gosz From smartin@lternet.edu Wed Nov 30 14:46:48 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA12758; Wed, 30 Nov 94 14:46:42 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa20519; 30 Nov 94 14:46 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA12113; Wed, 30 Nov 94 11:42:56 PST Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 11:42:55 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Corrected LTER/CC Minutes To: pi@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Jim Gosz provided some important corrections relative to his discussions at the meeting which are incorporated below. The corrected version will also be sent out via regular mail to the extended PI list. Please disregard the version of the minutes I sent out yesterday and excuse the inconvenience. Thank you, Stephanie Martin LTER Network Office =========================================================================== M I N U T E S LTER Coordinating Committee Meeting October 19-21, 1994 Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory AFTERNOON, CLOSED SESSION, OCTOBER 19, 1994 In attendance: LTER site representatives (see attached list-regular mailing only), Network Office staff (Martin, Nottrott, Vande Castle), NSF representatives (James Gosz & Mike Allen, DEB) NSF Report (James Gosz, DEB) Reorganization There are significant, positive changes taking place at the National Science Foundation. The number of visiting scientist program officers will decrease to 60 or 70 percent of the total. At this time, there are only 3 permanent program officers and 10 visiting scientists. Tom Callahan is one of the permanent program officers and he will be moved to the Ecosystem Studies program. He will continue to interact with the LTER program to provide a memory within the system for that program. One permanent program officer will be present for each program (Systematics, Population Biology, Ecology, Ecosystem Studies. In the Long-Term Projects cluster, the permanent position will deal with programs on research collections and survey and inventories. The LTER-LMER projects person would be a rotator, a development that could have distinct advantages. Tom Callahan has been fighting for LTER virtually by himself (and LTER has been the only program whose budget has consistently been increased); another person is needed to focus on interagency aspects and develop linkages with other disciplines. Thomas Callahan and Mike Allen (for another year) will work together to maximize memory and new ideas in rotator and permanent positions assigned to Long-Term Studies. Gosz solicited suggestions for good candidates to be scheduled in advance, allowing them time to "get their lives together." DEB is trying to develop a longer-range plan and a mechanism for identifying the best people. Candidates should be visionaries who have broad backgrounds and training. These will not just be "proposal jacket processing jobs"; rotators will be involved in developing science initiatives with input from the community. While two-year rotators are preferred, NSF will accept those available for just one. A search is currently being conducted to fill James Estes' position. Scott Collins' position (Ecological Studies) will become permanent. Gosz urged the LTER community to take advantage of the opportunity these changes provide by taking a more active role in proposing initiatives and guidelines and contributing program officers. The LTER Network is now better organized, more mature, and better able to respond to such changes as opportunities. He noted that the scientific expertise needs to come from within the community, not the agency. He also cautioned that the LTER model is being closely scrutinized across agencies; anything that looks like an entitlement will be viewed with suspicion. Budget (Gosz) Biological Sciences doesn't yet have a concrete budget, due to the changes at NSF and the "new" way the agency is doing business. Gosz anticipated that within a month he might know about any augmentation or supplemental opportunities. He distributed an invitation from THE Survey and Inventory PROGRAM to submit proposals. While not a formal program solicitation, this invitation indicates that the program will entertain proposals from LTER sites. This is a standard program that entertains proposals in mid-November and mid-May. Mike Allen is currently the relevant program officer since Jim Estes returned to his university. He noted that several such opportunities exist for LTER with the heightened interest in biodiversity and sustainability across programs--although these concepts may be defined differently. He urged the sites, as they look ahead to working on site proposals, to anticipate cross-site or augmentation competitions of some type along biodiversity themes. Data Sharing Relative to Current Policy (Gosz) It is now grant proposal policy for some programs at NSF to instruct panelists to look for data sharing components; proposals that don't include data sharing will not fare well. The general NSF policy reads that NSF-funded projects should "share data, samples, physical collections, software, and inventions." While NSF has in the past expected data to be shared, this was never enforced. There will be increased interest at NSF for ways to encourage the scientific community to share data. LTER should take a leadership role in providing the broader scientific community access to datasets on-line. The global change research program is using new language about what is expected from grantees who get funded--schedules and plans for data turnover to a publicly accessible archive must be submitted. Tony Janetos reports that for NASA's field campaigns potential PIs were told that they must contribute to a public archive. The community accepted this proviso, and no one's data got scooped. Gosz noted that the LTER data managers had taken an important step forward on this issue at their September meeting. Although the associated issue of obtaining credit for publishing datasets was not resolved, he noted that on-line LTER datasets would provide a visual model that could indirectly shake loose more funding with a feedback to more models, and so on. James Brunt, Data Management Committee Chair, reported that there had been a lot of discussion about putting datasets on-line since the September meeting. A table indicating what all sites are doing has been completed, and a preliminary review shows there is no technical reason that sites can't comply. The datasets will be available and queriable on-line to the LTER community for some scientific purpose, and they will include descriptions of metadata standards, access system, and technical capabilities that allow participation. There is more involved in developing the kind of system that would be accessible to anyone in the scientific community. Legal issues will need to be addressed, as will the potential for misuse of data. An informal poll of the sites as to whether they were "on track" in putting one favorite dataset on-line revealed that most are. Information on which datasets were initially being put on-line was collected (see list attached-regular mailing only). Augmentation Competition "Post Mortem" (Allen) Two LTER site augmentations have been awarded, one to North Temperate Lakes (Tim Kratz-Upper Midwest Lakes and Their Landscapes: 1800-2100) and the other to Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory (Judy Meyer-Causes and consequences of land cover change in the Southern Appalachians). Responses to other proposals will be back soon. These first two augmentations will be extremely important in generating more and they will need the Network's support. NSF realizes the need to extend the opportunity to rest of the Network, but it is too early to say how many, or if any, more sites will be similarly "ramped up." The panel felt that in terms of general direction all proposals were good, but the program is money-limited. Many strong proposals sought to expand present work to social and economic aspects. The two awarded thought more in terms of biodiversity. Some PIs expressed concern that these first augmented sites will gear up with a bang but, without a longer-range commitment, could stall out in six months. Allen acknowledged that NSF will probably have to make decisions on subsequent awards before any information is back from first two. It was suggested that this is probably a test to see if the Network can work effectively with the two sites funded, and if the two can help promote the idea of augmentation, further reinforcing NSF leadership's view of LTER as a flagship program. NTL and CWT were asked to place their proposals on-line for Network access. (Abstracts will be provided in the Spring 1995 issue of Network News.) JF pointed out that using sites as expert systems, stepping outside to interpret on a larger scale, will very much be the wave of the future in funding for science. He reminded the group what an extraordinary opportunity LTER has and will have in being participatory in the program's future. He noted that while these opportunities can sometimes be painful, the payoff can be monumental. Network Office Site Review (Allen) Mike Allen reported that NSF conducted the first on-site review of the Network Office (NET) September 20-21. While the review is not yet completed, in general the review was quite positive. Concerns included whether there would be appropriate support and space at the University of Washington. JF will be using the results of the review to develop the Network Office cooperative agreement, which will replace the grant as funding mechanism. The review addressed two areas: (1) Was NET accomplishing its goals, and (2) What should NET accomplish? As the Network matures, there is a need to reassess directions. AFTERNOON SESSION Network Office Program & Budget Jerry Franklin reported that the full-fledged September LTER Network Office (NET) site review, originally being approached as a pre-proposal discussion, came as a surprise for which there was little time to prepare. The morning of the review, staff learned that the next proposal was to be prepared prior to negotiation for not two, but six years. The new funding mechanism for NET will be a cooperative agreement, along the lines of the University of Michigan model. He noted that cooperative agreements must abide by the same guidelines as site proposals and circulated copies of the draft proposal for site comment. He also reminded representatives that support for NET is not from the competitive pot available to the LTER sites, but from a combination of Environmental Biology, International Programs and Polar Programs sources. If not to NET, these funds would go to other programs, not LTER. NET will prepare an annual report for NSF and draft a proposal for the next year's activities, to be submitted to NSF after PI input prior to the fall LTER/CC meeting. There will be an annual site review and a national advisory committee, and NSF and NET will negotiate an agreement subject to an independent panel and Network review. Following review, which will probably occur at two- to three-year intervals, the Office could be moved. The outside review strongly reinforced that NET should not be located at one of sites or at the Synthesis Center. At least for a significant time, it is not desirable for either group to lose identity to the other. By the end of 1995, the new Chair and Executive Director should be fully on board and will be revisiting this issue as/if it arises. For this proposal, the University of Washington has made commitments of additional space, as well as contributions to the salaries of John Vande Castle, the new Executive Director, and support for two research assistants, and the GIS Laboratory manager. PIs were asked to provide advise to JF within a week in two areas: (1) continuance of work done in past and the expansion as per the LTER/CC's decisions of last spring--recruiting an Executive Director, expanding the committee structure, and providing additional support for the Chair--and (2) what workshops/synthetic activities NET should be involved in over the next two years in some way? In general, NET workshops should not clearly stand alone as separate proposals, or they may not stand up to the peer-review process. Sites were also asked to consider: * Should NET be the permanent home for "orphan datasets" (such as NIN's). * A comparison of RS/GIS datasets is proposed with U.K.'s Ecological Change Network. Should we look at a broader array of technical innovation, such as measurement technologies, beyond just storage and compiling? * Funds are requested for outreach activities associated with beginning a global network (ILTER), defining relationships to other sites and networks, and developing internationally, ($250,000-$350,000 total--25%-30% of the budget). What level of outreach and involvement is appropriate? In the discussion on possible workshops that followed, it was proposed that a mechanism to revisit core areas (how do they help/impede?) be identified, and that a series of question-driven workshops to establish standards for each core area be supported. JF noted that if the group came forward with alternatives to the core areas NSF might entertain substitutes; simply trashing them wouldn't fly. Any substitute would need to tie the sites together as the core areas have. The group was asked to think further on the issue, and consider the next All Scientists Meeting as the possible forum for five core-driven workshops to identify intellectual standards. National & International Outreach-Who Will Participate? JF noted that the collaborative activity initiated under ILTER is not intended to replace the valuable scientist-to-scientist interactions that have occurred in the past. The Network Office (NET) will likely become a clearinghouse of such activity involving the sites. We want many flowers to bloom, but we need to know where the flowers are. The developing international network has begun to look at the same problems that LTER has as a network--namely, who will participate? ILTER will probably work to develop national or regional network nodes, eventually de-emphasizing NET's central role. JF charged the group to develop a vision of how LTER should relate to both national and international agencies and groups. Through what critera do we judge "appropriate" partners? Is it enough to simply have a shared goal or mission? We are beginning to use capabilities as a filter. Does a given site have the capability to communicate and exchange data as we do as LTER site? Should LTER define different levels or grades of affiliation or participation? One level might be to encourage outside sites to regularly participate on the DM Committee. AFTERNOON CLOSED SESSION One representative per site met to vote on the nomination of James Gosz for the next chair of the LTER Network. A role call indicated that all were present except Niwot and Cedar Creek. [Seastedt sent in a vote for Niwot prior to the meeting.] Nomination of Next LTER/CC Chair--James Gosz Unanimously Elected Following the procedure adopted by the Coordinating Committee last (LTER/CC) spring, the Executive Committee solicited nominations and contacted candidates for the next LTER/CC Chair. Fifteen individuals were nominated, all LTER scientists. Both LMER and LTREB PIs were contacted, but no additional nominations were offered. Three nominees--Gosz, Hayden and Magnuson--received more than one nomination. Of the nominees, three indicated an interest. Magnuson and Hayden both indicated a willingness to serve, but because of pressing site responsibilities preferred not to be considered at this time. The Executive Committee considered James Gosz' qualifications and his interest and ability to devote a significant amount of time to the position over the next several years, and unanimously recommended him to the full Committee. The nomination was seconded by Judy Meyer. Following discussion the group agreed that Gosz' leadership style would suit the future needs of the Network well, and the vote was unanimously in favor. JF will act as executive director for the next year, maintaining ILTER chairmanship during the transition period, eventually passing the responsibility on to Gosz. LTER/CC MEETING, THURSDAY OCTOBER 20, 1994 NSF News & Funding Situation (Jim Gosz & Mike Allen) As a result of last year's push in Congress for NSF to do more strategic research in areas of national need, a long-range strategic plan was requested from the agency. The $3.2 billion budget is up $200 million over last year, although the amount targeted for research activities is below that requested in the Administration's budget. A $50 million increase from $100 million has been requested for research infrastructure (including research equipment). This is the year to submit for research instrumentation in general. The Foundation has identified eight strategic themes, several of interest to LTER. These themes are cross-divisional and multi-disciplinary and include Biodiversity, Water and Watersheds, Environmental Technology, and Research Management. (The last two are particularly likely to result in opportunities; special announcements are currently being written.) While DEB would like to offer funds for augmentation, cross-site work and internationalization, opportunities are more likely to be in terrestrial ecology, trace gas or complex experiments of multiple interacting factors and atmosphere-terrestrial feedbacks (including wetlands and streams). When the budget shakedown occurs, they hope to get word out about opportunities electronically with longer lead time than in the past. PIs were urged to be thinking now what shape these might take. Biodiversity approaches might be to improve fundamental understanding from genes to landscapes, poorly-known habitats and species, adaptation of organisms to environmental changes (human-economic aspects included), and water-watersheds approaches to improve our predictive understanding of fluxes, changes to water systems, knowledge to develop mitigating strategies, and sustainable economic development--all of which are directly relevant to LTER and are broad enough to include much of what LTER is interested in doing. Due to the division reorganization that has resulted in the Long-Term Projects person being a rotator, LTER has an important opportunity to identify someone with strengths in the areas of restoration and bioremediation. Standing Network Committees/Committee Structure (Committee Structure) At the last meeting, the LTER/CC decided that it wanted to support an expanded committee structure to encourage more LTER investigators to become actively involved in creating Network policies and programs. JF noted that the first task of each committee is to propose a charter, then to decide how chairs should be selected and membership formed, what rights and privileges members should have, the scope and nature of activities to be undertaken, and what should be the financial commitment. Currently, the Network Office budget includes support for an annual Data Managers (DM) meeting at a level of $40,000, including a regular meeting and workshop. There are also two proposals under development for workshops in the technology area, and the climate group, which has a supplemental grant that does not include general committee support, submitted a proposal at the meeting. Following a recommendation from the Executive Committee, the DM Committee has proposed that an information management group of three to four principal investigators attend the annual DMs meeting to ensure that Network data management activities are guided by those involved in developing and designing the site research programs. In general discussion on committee structure, the point was made that the Network doesn't need a separate committee for each problem, but a committee to focus on approaches. It was also noted that committees should be able to meet via electronic means between annual meetings or regular LTER/CC meetings. Before inviting current chairs to report on their committees' activities, JF opened discussion on how committee development had been progressing. Among the suggestions: (1) committees should form a steering committees or "guidance group" which includes members who do not attend LTER/CC meetings; (2) committee chairs should be LTER/CC members, so that activities are led by the sites; (3) committee steering groups should be comprised of lead PIs; (4) technical people should not lead committee activities; critical decisions should be made by PIs; and (5) users and administrators alike should be represented on committees. Publications (Hayden) The Publications Committee (LTER/PUB) has been active since the April meeting, communicating primarily via electronic mail throughout the summer to outline Committee structure and procedures. A key issue discussed was how to approach quality control and where to inject it. One model would be for the Committee to review a project at the outline level (helping to determine appropriateness of topic and content), leaving the peer-review responsibility to the editor. In another model, the Committee would be involved in soliciting reviewers. LTER/PUB members are evenly split on this question; Hayden sought the larger groups' views to help finalize these issues. A possible policy might involve the LTER/PUB providing an assistance role in the early stages and quality control in assistance to the publisher during the review process. Hayden noted that there are publishers interested in doing a series on work at the sites, and that a sequence of books in a series probably involves some sort of commonality. The LTER/PUB could help in setting standards. Some of the concerns that arose from discussion included: (1) the intended product should meet the approval of LTER community up front; (2) an implied censorial power is not comfortable for everyone; (3) a poor quality product might be produced which would reflect badly on the community; (4) agency partners such as USFS have their own editorial process/clearance procedures which sometimes need to be accommodated in joint projects. It was proposed that the LTER/PUB provide quality control on those publications that speak for the entire network and carry the LTER Network imprimatur, working with publishers to identify appropriate reviewers and ensuring that reviewers are selected. Proposals for network-scale projects should be submitted to the LTER/PUB in the form of a comprehensive outline. All sites voted in favor, some with the proviso that the criteria used is applied equally to all proposals. It was also decided that authors and editors of informal Network Office (NET) publications (such as the recent El Nino report) should provide information to NET regarding other related products in advance, to avoid unintended "scoops." Stephanie noted that a recommended citation will be added to all NET science publications in future to ensure proper attribution. Hayden requested that e-mail comments on these and other publications issues noted below be sent to LTER/PUB at pub@LTERnet.edu. All will be logged. He also noted that the Committee would like to have a PI-level Data Manager repesentative to inform the discussion on electronic publications. (Anyone interested is urged to contact Hayden.) Other issues: Should the Publications Committee have an advisory role with regard to Network Office products and electronic publications? To what degree should the Committee help in the area of electronic publications? Technology (Foster) Chair (pro tempore) David Foster noted he would strongly welcome and encourage involvement of anyone interested in Network technology issues to participate on the Technology Committee (LTER/TECH). The group has not been active lately and is presently in a state of reorganization, but there are new now opportunities for funding and cross-site work. The greatest immediate need is to identify a core group of individuals, users and developers alike (technical people and people with science needs that can be addressed by technology), to become involved. New participants were asked to come forward, especially as some currently involved are not interested in continuing. An e-mail request will be sent to all PIs. Foster asked the group for ideas of possible efforts the LTER/TECH might undertake. Among those put forward: (1) conduct an overall assessment of technology across the Network, (2) conduct an assessment of remote imagery needs and issues, (3) explore collaboration with a major NSF science/technology center at University of Washington (led by Lee Hood), and (4) Bruce Hayden noted that the NET review panel has a recommendation with regard to technology activities (the results of the review are not yet available). It was agreed that the most important step to take would be to provide a current assessment of the state of technology development in the Network, analogous to the one completed on RS/GIS a few years ago. Since then, there have been major advancements both at the sites and in technology development in general. NSF opportunities may provide supplemental awards to enhance technology use across the network and at individual sites. The NET proposal will contain a request for a technology workshop and a site assessment. It was noted that some sites have found technical solutions that could be shared with other sites with similar needs, and that it is important to extend new capabilities to all the sites. Teleconferencing was suggested as a good supplemental approach to communicating about technologies. Gosz noted that NSF funding is available for obtaining this capability. JF reminded participants that as the largest organized group of ecological scientists, LTER is expected to be on the cutting edge technologically. Synthesis (Wharton) Chair (pro tempore) Robert Wharton reported he had received some suggestions for workshops from the sites in response to his query for comments on standards and ideas for synthesis activities prior to the meeting. He requested help in determining a direction and a set of intellectual objectives for the committee and suggested a small workshop to define standards. In the discussion that followed, concerns were expressed about (1) conducting synthesis by committee, (2) the problem of trying to proceed with activities before standards are developed, (3) avoiding the problem of individual method advocates holding sway, (4) avoiding interruption of any standardization work already under way, (5) ensuring that methods are tied to science questions, and (6) having standards in place by the next round of proposals. It was pointed out that the document drafted by Hobbie and others on future directions in LTER research (provided at the meeting for comment) defines several synthesis objectives. Proposals included: (1) structuring workshops to address developing standards for the first four core areas, (2) structuring the Committee to act as a standards clearinghouse, (3) separating standards development and intellectual synthesis to ensure that the latter doesn't slip into the background, and (4) including sites outside the present network. Wharton invited those interested to meet prior to the next day's meeting to discuss the subject further and report back to the larger group. Jim Gosz noted that it was evidence of LTER's maturity that they are talking about synthesis. (JF remarked that it was almost a revolution at the level of the original MSI document!) (Discussion the next morning addressed the need to first define "synthesis" before determining how best to facilitate network-level synthesis. As a start, a series of workshops to develop standardization methods was proposed: (1) soil measurements (physical/chemical biology, Phil Robertson to organize; intended product, a volume of methods); (2) NPP (Indy Burke, similar product); (3) water measurements (not defined further, Charles Driscoll a possible organizer); (4) consumer dynamics (Bob Waide, tentatively); and (5) decomposition (folded back into soils, consult with LIDET re meeting at Kellogg next October). JF noted that, in principal, support for four workshops total was probably feasible over the next two-year period. Wharton will send the workshop proposals to the sites for further comment. Gosz urged the group to think beyond the ecosystem process level to other areas, such as scaling and biodiversity. He challenged them to develop up front taskforces for a subset of biome-level standards (soils, waters, etc., for forests). There was support for involving the Land-Margin Ecosystem Research (LMER) sites among others and for taking an efficient hierarchical approach. This would involve people from similar systems getting together to develop standards first, then from different systems--thus avoiding ecosystem-level disagreements at the upper level and enabling comparison among broad ecosystem types. Climate (Greenland) David Greenland highlighted Climate Committee activities since the All Scientists Meeting and noted the availability of "El Nino and Long-Term Ecological Research Sites," a new report published by the LTER Network Office that documents the proceedings of the El Nino Workshop at the 1993 All Scientists Meeting. The Committee is continuing to pursue the idea of having climate designated as a core area for LTER studies. Most sites have considerable climatic data, but the Committee is discussing what should go on-line as a representative record, not necessarily including all temperatures or satellite data. They agreed a year ago to the generic intention to have climatic data from all sites on-line. Climate data is the most requested and among the most understandable and the least problematic. In discussion, some expressed the view that the job of a committee should be to document its activity on-line. This would provide information for synthesis, and would yield different information than if each site took its own approach. There was some agreement that climate is a logical place to begin standardization and quality control. Greenland noted that it is pointless to establish standards unless they're followed and monitored. NADP, for example, has a very good set of standards and a subcommittee that visits each site to enforce implementation and monitoring. JF commended Greenland for chairing the Climate Committee so effectively over the years, noting that the committee has been operational in a meaningful way since its inception. Gosz noted that this activity is an extremely important demonstration of what LTER is doing to get this information on-line; it comes close to satisfying NSF's policy without them having to wield a club. Graduate Students (Greenberg) Elected LTER Student Committee Chair Josh Greenberg acknowledged Caroline Bledsoe's guidance and support in getting a committee established following last year's All Scientists Meeting. The students have set up an on-line bulletin board (students@lternet.edu) with assistance from the Network Office and met a second time at the August ESA meeting in Knoxville, TN. Activities considered for the future include developing student information packets, strengthening interaction with PIs, and possibly creating a Mosaic page linked to the LTER home page. PIs were asked for their ideas and assistance on how to support student work at the sites. To support students to conduct intersite research, Josh proposed that an intersite scholarship program be instituted for a trial period (probably a year). Students could apply for funds through a review group including one student to do comparative work at other sites ($2,000 per student, 10 per year). Results could be written and presented in the newsletter and/or on-line. PIs were generally supportive of the proposal; however, some felt the students were thinking too small, that they'd need travel and supplies for a year, over and above what they're doing at their sites. It was noted that some of the best research at the sites is being done by LTER graduate students. Others felt the program should start small, but still as a network activity. Several PIs remarked that they would be happy to consider requests from students. NSF representatives cautioned that it would be important not to appear to create a select group, and that much of such work could already be feasible under the dissertation improvement program. Such seeding could be useful, so long as it is not tied to developing a proposal. JF noted that LTER has done little to promote students, reminding PIs that NSF had challenged them in the past and they'd "dropped the ball." It was proposed and unanimously approved that $20,000 would be requested in the NET proposal to stimulate student participation in intersite activities. (CPR voted yes with the caveat that the resulting data be published.) Data Management (James Brunt) Data Managers Committee Chair James Brunt reported that the Data Managers (DMs) have been organized since 1980 and that, as a group, they are moving more and more towards intersite cooperation. DMs now have a task force of six individuals (PI-level or proposal developers) that elects one person to report to the LTER/CC. This year's annual meeting included special sessions on metadata and involved several outside agency people. Due to its success, DMs propose to bring in more representatives from outside agencies at future meetings. A draft of the 1994 meeting report will be circulated electronically for comment. The 1988 MSI document will be revised as the Recommended Technological Capabilities document, or RTC. This activity will be led by John Briggs at Konza Prairie. Drafts will be circulated to PIs for comment. The RTC is perceived as an important step toward achieving the goal of putting datasets on-line. While it is easy to put data on line with current technology, Brunt noted, there is much more involved in making it useful for research. Site datasets will be on-line this year, but in just a flat form. The next step will be to move to queriable datasets with standards in place. To ensure that science drives the RTC process, the Executive Committee decided that a team of three to four PIs should meet with the Committee. Just five to six DMs have PI status now. This will be even more critical in the near future as the Data Managers will also be "on point" in ILTER activities. Interested PIs were urged to come forward to help advance this activity. BioScience Article (Hobbie) John Hobbie circulated a working draft of the document he and several PIs have been working on, a collective statement of LTER science looking to the next decade, based on the LTER2000 document, which will be submitted to BioScience. He acknowledged the need to include more site case histories and language that explains the different levels of work at sites. The paper will probably include about two case histories per section, related figures, four to five references for each section, photos and site maps. He noted that case histories should be from the published research. Each section author will be listed as an editor with Hobbie. During discussion other suggested changes included: (1) add a comment to the introduction on LTER's goals, (2) note mechanisms correctly and clearly with reference to current ones to be consistent, (3) try to get across the idea that the parts of LTER are at different stages and take different approaches, and (4) sketch a vision of where LTER is going in the conclusion in terms of these different stages of maturation. There was some discussion about whether BioScience was the best venue; Hobbie will also try Science. The group agreed that the draft was a good start and there was general support to move ahead, with site input due to the section authors in two weeks. Hobbie noted that the revised draft will be sent to the Publication Committee for a quality-control review, since this is a network-scale publication. Jerry Franklin thanked him for initiating and advancing the activity. AFTERNOON All-Site Bibliography & DREAM SUITE Project (Bledsoe and Hastings) Caroline Bledsoe gave a brief history of her contribution to LTER over the past six years, from developing the first personnel directory with Robert Robbins (NSF) to working on activities ranging from the Network of Networks, Trace Gas Network, Belowground Root Biology Group, and the Graduate Student Committee to her present subcontract at NET for the bibliographic project. She showed an on-line bibliography usage table, described search capabilities and limitations, and noted that she and Harvey Chinn are preparing two publications for submission to BioScience. Bledsoe and Jordan Hastings (MCM) will lead a synthesis project funded through a combination of cross-site supplements and Network Office support to develop and use software tools for synthesis of root biomass data from a number of LTER and non-LTER sites. They will start with XROOTS, Exploration of Root Observations and Organized Technical Software. Workshops over the 2 1/2 years of the project include: Agroecosystems (Alvin Smucker/KBS), Grasslands (Bill Lauenroth/CPR), Forest Ecosystems (Ron Hendrick, CWT). Root biomass, site data, climatic data, and soils data are needed from the sites for these workshops. Jordan Hastings provided an overview of the Tool Suite part of the project, a data and information system conceptually divided into two functions: reference and maintenance programs. The design will be frozen at some point, and real data loaded and linked to the bibliography. Applications will be coordinated with the database design and a review of the ecological literature, and developed interviews with practicing root scientists. The tools currently available which come closest to what biologists need will be assessed, and existing projects and programs or components thereof will be used to create the best package. Organizing committees of the workshops will also use these tools in cooperation with site data managers to install and distribute them networkwide. Hastings noted that the ideal Tool Suite for ecologists is likely to come from small projects like this and from collaboration with public and commercial groups. FY 1994 Special Competition for Cross-Site/International Research Awards James Gosz and Mike Allen noted that NSF constructed an interdisciplinary panel for the FY 1994 Special Competition for Cross- Site/International Research. The dynamics in the panel proved to be almost as important as the proposals: reviewers were solicited from sociology, archaeology, and other disciplines. For the international awards, international reviewers were also brought in. Review comments were written before panelists met as a group. Awardees were: John Aber (HFR). Forested and agricultural landscapes of New England and Ireland Caroline Bledsoe (UC Davis/NET). A comparison of belowground productivity at a number of sites in North America. Dave Coleman (CWT). Interaction between biodiversity and decomposition processes at three moist, warm, broad-leaved forest sites (Luquillo, La Selva, Coweeta) on similar soil types. Will coordinate with LIDET decomposition team. Anne Giblin (ARC). Comparison of the stoichiometric relationships among benthic fluxes of oxygen, carbon, sufur, nitrogen and phosphorous from sediments in a variety of lakes (Hubbard Brook, North Temperate Lakes, Arctic). Dave Greenland (AND/NWT). Comparative climatological analysis of the LTER sites. Mark Harmon (AND). Comparison of the carbon dynamics of two major coniferous forest regions (the Pacific Northwest and northwestern Russia) to determine the major factors controlling the spatial and temporal patterns of carbon stores and fluxes. Bill Lauenroth (CPR). With Indy Burke and Osvaldo Sala (temperate grassland site in Pategonia), looking at differing controls on decomposition with a strong international component. Ongoing collaboration building on approximately 10 years of work. John Magnuson (NTL). Intersite project to work with international sites (Northern Highland Lake District) on (1) landscape organization of lake districts in respect to landscape position, (2) area turnover species in lakes, and (3) ice phrenologies as climate change and variability indicators. Ed Whitelaw (an economist with an LTER-oriented grant). Intersite project to describe/explain linkages between ecosystems and local/regional economies at six LTER sites (AND, BNZ, CWT, HBR, SEV, NTL) and examine whatever feedbacks exist. Site Science Reports--"An exciting discovery or new approach" (not all recorded) VIRGINIA COAST (Hayden) - Have recently established relationships with one of counties they're located in to develop GIS for the county and share bird nesting site and annual bird count datasets. New outside collaborators include a DOE person from U of V, who is looking at the sedimentary platform to mainland, the rate and fate of transfer, and tracers of bacterial transports to marshes from well-field. VCR is engaged in a campaign to buy land ($2 million) for a long-term lab facility. SEVILLETA (Brunt) - SEV is moving into second funding cycle with work based on a watershed system using swap models and solar flux models (they will hire a new post-doc in this area). Based on existing datasets they are developing international efforts with Hungary and Mexico (Mapimi MAB site with Jornada), and are meeting with CPR and JRN on an intersite grassland project. Other collaborations include: Kitchell/stable isotope studies, agricultural and non-agricultural lands adjacent to wetlands; Kay Gross/EROL grant to do work at Sevilleta. PALMER (Ross) - PAL completed its August 1993 winter cruise off Palmer peninsula looking at ice vs. water habitat, (1) measuring the light field under ice, (2) taking water samples, and (3) collecting and censusing grazers. They found that the most activity is concentrated in the ice habitat in winter. Looked at the distribution of larval krill, they found that krill were not in the water column. The surprise was that not only was microbial activity higher than in water column, but that the ice was a hotter spot in terms of production than in summer. MCMURDO (Wharton) - MCM completed its first LTER season last fall and winter, and the data is just back from placing a network of stream gauges and soil transects in Taylor Valley. Polar Programs funded a GIS workshop in which PAL and MCM were major players. MCM has been asked to put on workshop in Santa Fe, NM concerning environmental management of the site. Antarctic sites don't compete for augmentation awards as do other LTERs; because of their unique funding arrangement, they have to go through Polar Programs to extend their research activities. With additional support from Polar Programs, MCM will be offering post-docs (sites encouraged to refer potential candidates among their students). Twenty-six scientists and students, and two New Zealanders, will be conducting the 1994-5 field season between now and February. NIWOT (Diggle) - Niwot researchers have nearly completed monitoring biotic activity under snow, and a new now fence was put in place last winter. Tim Seastedt recently returned from Austria, where he was exploring a formal collaboration with the University of Innsbruck. New faculty positions at Boulder are expected to enhance the LTER program. LUQUILLO (Zimmerman) - Puerto Rico has experienced a drought since May, the driest period recorded, although in Luquillo Forest there is still some rainfall. At the annual meeting in January LUQ researchers will begin looking at the effects. Jead Lodge has an article in a recent issue of Tree on nutrient pulses, hurricanes, and steady state. A grad student had an article in Kansas Journal that was picked up as a "hot paper" in Science News. Recently funded by NASA to look at land management and relationship to global climate and the effect of land use on forest recovery. The project also involves the Institute of Tropical Forestry and David Foster at Harvard Forest. KONZA (Knapp) - KNZ PIs are writing a synthesis volume, with Bruce Hayden to co-author the climate chapter. Konza looks at questions in tallgrass prairie belowground, whether it is a source or sink for carbon? They aare establishing a crop micrometeorlogist collaboration with DOE, USDA and others to put up four towers in burned and unburned and grazed fields to collect annual estimates. The instrumentation, which measures energy, water and carbon flux, is mostly belowground and fairly unobtrusive, making it both fire and weatherproof. JORNADA (Schlesinger) - Jornada will be featured in an upcoming article in Discover magazine that describes the entire set of measurements and an informal cross-site comparison of grassland and shrublands between Central Plains, JRN, and sites in the Great Basin comparison. HUBBARD BROOK (Fahey) - The Hubbard Brook Foundation was recently incorporated. Element cycling--particularly calcium--drives much of the work at HBR. Their annual session on birds captures the attention of the local community. Recent work shows that the neotropical bird population is declining; the big spikes in population may be linked to masking of tree seeds. HARVARD FOREST (Foster) - As a result of the augmentation proposal process, HFR has new collaborators--a paleolimnologist and a policy person from the Kennedy School of Government to look into forest management policy in the area. Several collaborative projects are ongoing with Luquillo. The site has a recent article in UPRO on wind disturbance and hurricane disturbance. They've found that synthesis papers going back to original proposal are still relevant, but they've gone back to reinterpret the landscape in light of historical events. It now appears that disturbance at the site is linked to an early significant salvage lodging operation--human rather than natural disturbance. CENTRAL PLAINS (Burke) - CPR has begun a new grazing experiment, a large study on how grazing influences soil organic matter, comparing grazed and ungrazed areas. Their interpretation: grazing creates less variation than plant presence vs. absence. They've found that the review process is a way to help the site grow. Based on the result of their site review, they have been addressing a deficit in data management. Called in Brunt (SEV), Michener (NIN), and a specialist from UC Santa Barbara for a thorough review, and they recommended adding personnel. BONANZA (Viereck) - BNZ is bringing the Caribou-Poker Creek Watershed formally into the system. Such experimental watersheds have always been a part of the University program, but not the LTER program. The site will be getting a new bridge, improving access to a number of research areas on both sides of the river. H.J. ANDREWS (Swanson) - HJA has been working with NASA and the Forest Service looking at landuse and ownerships in the Cascades and Western Washington from the early 70s to the present time, and changes to attributes, such as carbon stores. They're also conducting peak flow analysis with 40 to 50 years of data from small experimental watersheds, looking at effects of landuse, cutting and roads and changes in peak flows. The "stream team" has obtained funding from other sources to install restoration experiments. Those installed under LTER will be compared with above- and below-treated reaches over four to five years, looking at trout growth, carbon flux and invertebrate densities. As expected, the treated reach is increasing rates of production to the aquatic community. ARCTIC TUNDRA (Hobbie) - Three new laboratories have been established with NSF support. Neal Laine visited in August. Bruce Peterson N15 addition to streams model appears to work for streams at other sites using stable isotopes. A workshop involving CWT and AND is planned). An arctic land-atmosphere group, ITEX (international tundra experiment), is using Toolik Lake in an effort involving 20 arctic sites using ARC methods and manipulations for measuring leaf growth, etc. (Judy Meyer suggested a possible collaboration with CWT.). Network Office (Vande Castle & Nottrott) John Vande Castle reported that recent technological improvements at the Network Office have enabled reprocessing of data from the LTER-NASA collaborative experiment. Thanks to the assistance of Diane Wickland's group at NASA, Mission Earth data can now be accessed, as well as the Oak Ridge biogeochemical archive including FIFE, OTTER and other datasets. The data scanner has come on-line, and the sites are being solicited for their input as to where sun photometers should be deployed. The LTER-NASA proposal for a land-cover classification/assessment is progressing; the 13 participating sites are sending evaluations to Warren Cohen (AND) for a November 1 deadline. This is presently the largest dataset in Network. Rudolf Nottrott provided a demonstration of some of the new LTERnet capabilities utilizing Mosaic public domain software. Gil Calabria, Coweeta data manager, demonstrated the Mosaic "home page" put on-line for Coweeta since the September 1994 Data Managers meeting. Most of the sites are engaged in similar activity. (Other Network Office activities not reported at the meeting: Adrienne Whitener worked with Beth O' Grady at Coweeta to organize and coordinate the LTER/CC meeting and travel and has been assisting in preparation of the budget for the upcoming Cooperative Agreement. Lynne Hendrix coordinated much of the preparations for the International LTER meeting in the United Kingdom in August and the September Data Managers meeting in Seattle. Daniel Pommert has departed the Network Office for a year in Egypt and has been replaced by Raymond Bero, recently of CERL. Stephanie Martin has been developing or is planning to develop: (1) a Mosaic version of the general LTER program information contained in the brochure (now in text form on the LTERnet gopher), (2) "LTER Fact Sheets" to feature significant LTER intersite experiments and synthesis activities, and (3) a "pocket-sized" update of the 1991 site directory. Other publicity/public information tools are being considered for development over the next budget period, to include site press packets and presentation materials, portable loaner displays on synthesis experiments, an LTER poster, a simplified brochure, and others. (Sites should contact Stephanie with any suggestions.) Canada (Bruce LaZerte) Bruce LaZerte, Aquatic Science Section, Ministry of Environment and Energy, Ontario, provided a brief overview of long-term ecological research development in Canada with a few comments on the work of his section (See brochure attached for more information--in mailed copy.) Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project (Brian Brookshire) Brian Brookshire gave a presentation on the Missouri Ozark Ecosystem Project (featured in Issue #15 of the LTER Network News) and invited LTER site scientists to consider the Project for individual or multiple site investigations. (See more information attached--in mailed copy.) International Activities (Franklin) The International LTER (ILTER) steering committee met at Rothamsted Station in the United Kingdom August 27-28 with 18 members representing seven countries. The group focused primarily upon mission definition and development of an action program for improved communications among sites and scientists. (Further detail in the current issue of the Network News.) Meetings of the ILTER Steering Committee are planned for Hungary (1995), Latin America (1996), China (1997), Canada (1998), Africa (1999), and the United States (2000). The process of identifying primary ILTER participants has begun with La Selva and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI). The Connectivity Committee will look at current capabilities and what it would take to bring these sites up to a comparable level or to the capacity of a node in a global network. JF noted that full partners need comparable communication and data sharing facilities, as well as a shared mission. Collaboration/LTER Affiliation JF asked the group to reflect on where we are as a network. He noted that there are many ways to incorporate other types of sites. As the network-to-network concept has evolved, we've been contacted by DOE ParkNet, NBS, individual sites like Barro Colorado and La Selva, and others who would like to have a closer relationship with the LTER Network. There has always been the question of degrees of comparability in terms of technical capability, various levels of an extended network. It is no longer in LTER's best interests, JF noted, to "stiff-arm" these approaches. LTER needs to develop mechanisms and criteria for an expanded approach to incorporate other sites. The pressure is growing to actively engage this subject, and we'll be in a much better position if we look ahead. We can't claim we're too busy. For the near-term, NSF has chosen the alternative of augmenting existing sites, but we can't rely solely on NSF support if we want a better-distributed network. By what criteria would you recognize a partner? What do we do about single sites, not affiliated with networks? Among the comments: (1) We shouldn't be so strict in selecting affiliates (2) We should include non-LTER sites as question-driven affiliates (3) If formalizing a partnership, do we add expectations and/or responsibilities? (4) What is the time drain for the sites? (5) Will an increase in collaboration dilute site work? (6) What is the scientific payoff? (7) What would the impact be on the Network Office? (8) The partner's sponsoring agency should have to buy in and support the site(s) at the LTER level (9) The Memoranda of Agreement might be an appropriate mechanism for collaborations (10) We need a list of criteria, a classification for partnership before we can proceed (11) The intensity of the relationship should vary with the level of affiliation (12) The network-of-networks idea seems to be developing as an exchange between equals, a way out of increasing responsibilities (13) The LTER Network might evolve into acting as a clearinghouse, rather than the top of the pyramid, for the long-term. Bruce Hayden noted that the Hungarians seek a blessing from the LTER/CC and have indicated that they will do all that LTER does. They want a stamp of LTER approval and some benefit of affiliation, and they intend to redesign their terrestrial ecology program based on the LTER model. Such programs want to do research with us, learn techniques and technologies, but they are also looking for sources of money and ways to leverage dollars within their own countries. One initial approach, already being explored through the ILTER network, is for individual sites to identify and develop question-driven satellite sites. It was decided that a subgroup of the Executive Committee would be developed to explore alternative ideas on how to proceed on this issue. LTER/CC Meeting Schedule Next LTER/CC Meeting: April 19-25, 1995. This will be a small meeting at the Virginia Coast Reserve site. Travel will be via the Norfolk airport. Meeting and travel details will be sent via electronic mail from the Network Office as usual. Fall 1995 LTER/CC Meeting: JF suggested that the October meeting be held at Skamania Lodge on the Columbia River near Portland, Oregon instead of in Seattle at the Network Office as previously announced. Other suggestions included (1) Tucson, Arizona in conjunction with a biosphere program meeting (Jordan Hastings/MCM) and (2) Lincoln, Nebraska at the Soil Conservation Service (James Gosz/NSF). The date and location were not finalized. Next All Scientists Meeting JF suggested the group revisit the issue of where to site and what time of year to hold the next All Scientists Meeting. He noted that alternative times of year would allow use of university campuses, which tend to be lower-cost than commercial facilities. Summer is not good because of conflicting society meetings and field seasons. January is not suitable because the two Antarctic sites are fully involved in their field season at that time and would not be able to participate. During discussion it was suggested that the meeting be scheduled to follow the ESA meeting, thus saving on travel cost and presentation/ poster development time, or that it be located at the Keystone Center, Snowbird, or Jackson Hole. Jerry polled the sites for time-of-year preferences and most preferred mid-September or January. It was decided to meet in mid-September 1995 as in 1993. Executive Committee Position Nominees Requested Nominees are requested for a replacement for Tim Seastedt on the Executive Committee. Send names to Jerry Franklin via electronic mail by December 15. - --- End of forwarded message from Stephanie Martin ------- End of Forwarded Message From smartin@lternet.edu Thu Dec 15 12:47:17 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA05535; Thu, 15 Dec 94 12:47:15 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa22852; 15 Dec 94 12:47 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA18031; Thu, 15 Dec 94 09:44:06 PST Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 09:44:06 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: EPA funding opportunities, new (fwd) To: PI@lternet.washington.edu, students@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR EPA has announced plans for a new program of grants and fellowships for environmental research to be carried out by universities. The program will double the Agency's existing research grants program in FY 1995 with an additional $22 million. EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) will be soliciting applications from universities and will jointly work with NSF to evaluate proposals. The program will fund research in areas of ecosystems, environmental technologies, global change, and socioeconomic issues. ORD will also seek applications from graduate students under a new fellowship program for environmentally-related studies. ORD expects to issue 100 fellowships totaling $4 - $5 million in FY 1995. The fellowships will provide 2-year support for masters students and 3-year support for doctoral students. Solicitations for the fellowships will be issues in mid-December and those for the grants will be in early January, 1995. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, CALL EPA ORD AT 202-260-7473. From smartin@lternet.edu Thu Dec 15 14:49:54 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA06055; Thu, 15 Dec 94 14:49:52 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa23007; 15 Dec 94 14:49 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA19970; Thu, 15 Dec 94 11:49:11 PST Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 11:49:10 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Sender: Stephanie Martin Reply-To: Stephanie Martin Subject: Re: EPA funding opportunities, new (fwd) To: PI@lternet.washington.edu, students@lternet.washington.edu Cc: kNadelhof@lternet.washington.edu In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Status: OR My earlier message about new EPA funding opportunities was forwarded from another source, and I've just learned that the contact phone number listed is not functioning or not being answered. I called the administrative office and learned that the best way to receive further information on these grants and fellowships is to send a request via fax including your name, address and phone number (important if you have specific questions) to the attention of: Virginia Broadway EPA-ORD Fax: 202-260-0211 The administrative office phone number for ORD is 202-260-7676. Stephanie Martin LTER Network Office =========================================================================== From jvc@lternet.washington.edu Fri Dec 16 19:44:01 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA10132; Fri, 16 Dec 94 19:43:59 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa15840; 16 Dec 94 19:43 EST Received: from time.lternet.washington.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA07270; Fri, 16 Dec 94 16:43:58 PST Received: by time.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA10136; Fri, 16 Dec 94 16:41:45 PST Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 16:41:45 -0800 (PST) From: John Vande Castle Subject: EPA Graduate Fellowship Solicitation (fwd) To: Student research group , LTER Principal Investigators Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: ORS From: ARNOLD KUZMACK 202-260-5821 Subject: EPA Graduate Fellowship Solicitation PLEASE FORGIVE THE CROSS-POSTING. WE WANT THIS TO GET THE WIDEST POSSIBLE CIRCULATION. EPA-600-F-94-041 1995 Announcement for Graduate Student Fellowships Sponsored by the UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY APPLICATION SUBMISSION CLOSING DATE: FEBRUARY 13, 1995 Apply to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Office of Exploratory Research (8703) 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 SOLICITATION FOR GRADUATE FELLOWSHIP APPLICATIONS - 1995 OFFICE OF EXPLORATORY RESEARCH INTRODUCTION The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites applications for graduate fellowships in academic disciplines at the forefront of environmental science and technology: the physical, biological, and social sciences; mathematics and computer science; and engineering. These fellowships are intended to help defray costs associated with advanced environmentally-oriented study leading to the masters or doctoral degree. EPA expects to award approximately 100 new multi-year graduate fellowships in 1995. The remainder of this notice presents pertinent background information and describes the application and review process. BACKGROUND The mission of the EPA is to provide leadership in the nation's environmental science, research, education, and assessment efforts; make sound regulatory and program decisions; and carry out effective programs and policies to improve and preserve the quality of the national and global environment. Science and technology are central to virtually every aspect of environmental protection and seem certain to take on progressively greater importance during the foreseeable future. Both the public and private sectors will need a steady stream of well-trained environmental scientists and engineers if our society is to meet the environmental challenges of the future. Through its office of Research and Development, the EPA is anticipating that need by offering financial assistance for advanced study in academic disciplines relevant to its mission. ELIGIBILITY Applicants must be citizens of the United States or its territories or possessions, or lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence. EPA graduate fellowships are intended for students already enrolled in a full-time graduate program at an accredited U.S. college or university. Women, minorities, and disabled students who are pursuing graduate degrees in one of the eligible fields are especially encouraged to apply. TENURE The term of a graduate fellowship is negotiated with students and ordinarily covers a period of 9 to 12 months for each fellowship year; funds for unutilized months are forfeited. Students seeking a masters degree are supported for a maximum period of two years; students seeking doctoral degrees are supported for a maximum period of three years. STIPENDS AND ALLOWANCES The Graduate Fellowship Program provides up to $34,000 per year of support. A maximum of $68,000 will be provided for masters fellows (2 years) while doctoral fellows can receive up to $102,000 in support (3 years). Individuals accepting this support may not concurrently hold other Federal scholarships, fellowships, or traineeships. The $34,000 annual support covers stipend, tuition, and expenses as follows: Stipends during l995-96 will be $17,000 for 12-month tenures and prorated monthly at a maximum of $1,417 for shorter periods. Stipends are paid directly to the Fellow. At its discretion, each fellowship institution may supplement a Fellow's stipend from institutional funds in accordance with the supplementation policy of the fellowship institution. Tuition support will be up to $12,000 per year, depending upon the policies of the fellowship institution, paid directly to the institution. An expense allowance of up to $5,000 (paid to the institution) will be provided for the direct benefit of the fellow, e.g., for health insurance, books, supplies, and travel to scientific meetings. EVALUATION AND SELECTION Each applicant will be evaluated in terms of his/her potential for successful graduate study, as evidenced by academic records, faculty recommendations, and career goals and objectives. Applicants pursuing a masters degree will be evaluated further on their outlined plan of study and/or proposed thesis research. Applicants pursuing the doctoral degree will be evaluated further on the technical merit of their plan of proposed dissertation research and its relevance to the EPA mission. Panels of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers selected by EPA will perform the reviews. In the review process, the applicants will fall into two categories: masters and doctoral. Students seeking a masters degree will compete against each other, and students seeking a doctoral degree will compete against each other. Selections of awardees will be made by EPA based on the panel evaluations, program goals, and availability of funds. The written evaluation summarizing the review panel's findings will be made available to the applicant. HOW TO APPLY Interested students may request an application from the following sources: Campus offices of Graduate Deans, Deans of Mathematics, Science, and Engineering Departments, and Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies. or Virginia E. Broadway Attn: Graduate Fellowships Office of Exploratory Research (8703) Room 3102, NEM 40l M Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20460 E-MAIL BROADWAY.VIRGINIA@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Fax No: 202-260-0211 Application A complete application consists of the following documents: EPA Form 5770-2 (pages 1 and 2), "Fellowship Application" - Submit an original and two copies. EPA Form 5770-4, "Fellowship Applicant Qualifications Inquiry" - Recommendations from three scientists or faculty members are required. EPA Form 5700-49, "Debarment and Suspension Certification" - This form should be signed by the applicant. One page statement outlining Plan of Study and/or Proposed Thesis Research. - This applies to those students seeking a masters degree. The statement should be co-signed by the applicant and sponsor. A statement (up to five pages) summarizing Plan of Proposed Dissertation Research - This applies to those students seeking a doctoral degree. The statement should be co-signed by the applicant and sponsor. Academic transcripts. Transcripts must bear the official institutional seal. PLEASE NOTE: Each applicant should arrange with registrars and sponsors to have transcripts and recommendations mailed to the applicant in sealed envelopes. The original Form 5770-2 (and two copies), sealed transcript(s), sealed recommendations, and statement of study/research plans should be placed in one envelope and mailed to the following address: Virginia Broadway Office of Exploratory Research (8703) Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Room NE 3102 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Telephone No: 202-260-7473 Applications will be considered invalid if all of the components (see above) are not mailed to EPA in the same envelope. February 13, 1995: Deadline for receipt of application. It is the applicant's responsibility to meet the deadline. If the application is mailed within five (5) days prior to receipt date, it is recommended that express mail or courier service be used. Mid-April 1995: EPA will notify all applicants regarding their status. The letters of notification will be sent to each applicant's permanent address. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY GRADUATE STUDENT FELLOWSHIPS Fields of Specialization Engineering Physics and Astronomy 6240 Agriculture 8180 Optics 6245 Ocean 8200 Physics of Fluids 6250 Bioengineering 8210 Plasma 6330 Chemical 8220 Solid State 6350 Civil 8260 Theoretical Physics 6388 Computer Engineering 8299 Physics, other (specify) 6390 Electrical and Electronic 6476 Materials Life Sciences 6532 Engineering Science 0250 Forestry 6580 Industrial 0300 Horticulture 6585 Systems Engineering 0999 Biochemistry 6620 Mechanical 1299 Biophysics 6716 Petroleum 1545 Plant Pathology 6799 Engineering, other (specify) 1599 Botany(including Plant 9996 Environmental Physiology) 1820 Cell Biology Mathematical Sciences 1822 Structural Biology 7050 Applications of Mathematics 1829 Neurosciences 7150 Probability and Statistics 1830 Ecology 7199 Mathematics, other (specify) 1870 Biological Oceanography 1874 Marine Biology Computer and Information Science 1880 Molecular Biology and Engineering 1899 Biology 7210 Computer Science - languages 2299 Life Sciences, other (specify) and systems 2499 Genetics 7220 Software Engineering 3299 Microbiology 7230 Database Systems 3899 Pathology 7240 Artificial Intelligence 4510 Anatomy (including robotics and 4570 Entomology expert systems) 4590 Fish and Wildlife 7250 Information Technology 4699 Zoology and Organizations 9992 Environmental Sciences 7270 Computer Systems Design (including signal processing) Psychology (Clinical Psychology not eligible) 7280 Scientific Computing 4158 Physiological 7290 Networks and Communication 4190 Social 7299 CISE, other (specify) 4199 Psychology, other (specify) Chemistry Social Sciences 5230 Analytical 0693 Biological Anthropology 5290 Inorganic 0695 Cultural Anthropology 5330 Organic 0697 Physical Anthropology 5331 Polymer 0699 Anthropology, other (specify) 5350 Physical 8599 Economics (Business Administration 5370 Theoretical not eligible) 5399 Chemistry, other (specify) 8799 Geography (excluding Physical) 9994 Environmental 9399 Political Science 9499 International Relations Earth Sciences 9599 Sociology (Social Work not 5740 Geochemistry eligible) 5760 Geography (Physical) 9699 Urban and Regional Planning 5779 Marine Sciences 9818 Demography 5780 Geology 9899 Social Sciences, other 5800 Geophysics (specify) 5845 Hydrology 5860 Paleontology and Paleobotany 5889 Earth Sciences 7400 Atmospheric Sciences 7799 Physical Oceanography 9993 Environmental From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon Dec 19 12:42:03 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA14786; Mon, 19 Dec 94 12:41:56 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id ab26828; 19 Dec 94 12:41 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA06055; Mon, 19 Dec 94 09:40:41 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA11877; Mon, 19 Dec 1994 10:39:24 -0700 Message-Id: <9412191739.AA11877@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Mon, 19 Dec 94 10:39:24 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: fyi Status: OR --- Forwarded mail from "James R. Gosz" >From jgosz@nsf.gov Mon Dec 19 10:32:34 1994 Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA05982; Mon, 19 Dec 94 09:33:48 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA47061 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Mon, 19 Dec 1994 12:33:27 -0500 Message-Id: <199412191733.AA47061@note1.nsf.gov> To: jgosz@lternet.edu Subject: New House Science Comm. Date: Mon, 19 Dec 94 12:33:27 EST From: "James R. Gosz" The New House Science Committee Chairman Sets Agenda FYI No. 169, December 16, 1994 Wednesday afternoon, the incoming chairman of the newly-renamed House Committee on Science held a briefing to explain his committee's agenda for 1995. At the end of the hour-long presentation, it was clearly evident that Robert Walker (R-PA) has a clear view of where he wants to take his committee. Rep. Walker's views are important from a number of perspectives: as chairman of the House Science Committee, vice chairman of the House Budget Committee, and as a key player in the House Republican leadership. Because of the great interest in the direction of science policy and funding in the new Congress, this FYI is of an extended length. Topics are shown in capital letters. Walker began by noting current chairman GEORGE BROWN's (D-CA) presence, saying "we intend to work in close cooperation on developing the agenda of this committee, as we have done in the past...I assure you that our continued working relationship will serve the best interests of science and the country." Addressing the COMMITTEE'S NEW NAME, Walker said that dropping the words "technology" and "space" is not an indication that the committee was diminishing the importance of these areas. He noted that it was keeping its current jurisdiction, and was adding energy research, oceanography, and other responsibilities. The NEW SUBCOMMITTEE NAMES (Space and Aeronautics, Basic Research, Energy and Environment, and Technology) "reflect what the true priorities of this committee will be over the next couple of years." Walker said FULL COMMITTEE HEARINGS will be "related to the future." An early January hearing will receive testimony from relevant cabinet members asking them "to look at the next century, and tell us what they think their various agencies and departments should be doing to prepare us for the new economy and the new culture...." NASA has already agreed to participate. The SUBCOMMITTEES will work "aggressively" on MULTI-YEAR AUTHORIZATION bills for NASA, DOE, NSF, and NOAA. Walker hopes for better cooperation from the Senate in passing these bills than there has been in the past. This should help, he later said, to place science policy decisions back in the authorization committees. The subcommittees will also be charged with doing "a lot" of oversight activity. "As chairman of the committee, what I'd like to do is engage in a DIALOGUE with the American people, the SCIENCE COMMUNITY, and with my colleagues which reasserts the value of science as a means for bringing our country a future of sustained growth built on new discoveries, and based upon improved technology that's derived from those new discoveries," Walker said. The new chairman predicted that his committee will highlight how ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT and reduced regulations will nurture an environment conducive to being able to "invent our ways out of crises." As an example, he plans to act soon on the House-passed HYDROGEN RESEARCH BILL, which died upon adjournment. "In my view, real science is not something that should be used to confirm a political agenda," Walker stated. He predicted early hearings on MISSION TO PLANET EARTH, the GLOBAL WARMING PROGRAM, and a number of other programs where he said there have been "concerns raised about whether some of the science being done is more in tune with politics than it is with real scientific measurement." Walker said he wants to ensure that the Mission to Planet Earth program is "going in the right direction." In fulfilling the committee's portion of the Republican Contract with America, Walker said that he would act "very quickly" on RISK ASSESSMENT LEGISLATION. Regarding the SPACE STATION, Walker described himself as an "enthusiast," and said the committee will move "aggressively on" the program. He later said, "As far as I am concerned, it's certainly safe," adding "Republicans have always been pretty supportive of space station...." Walker supports incentives for commercial space activities, and has already talked with the new House Ways and Means chairman. Asked about future NASA FUNDING, Walker replied, "I believe that the space program, if it is going to maintain its ability to be a technological driver in our society, has to at least get resources enough to allow it to keep up with inflation." Walker wants to get more nongovernmental space funding, saying, "I don't think that everything we do in space has to come through the front door of NASA." He later expressed support for the "small sat" program. The new chairman wants the committee to be "dramatically involved" in EDUCATION, citing its jurisdiction over the National Science Foundation. He continued, "I believe in UNIVERSITY-BASED RESEARCH," saying that some federal science centers should move to a university association. He cited NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory as a model. Walker characterized Rep. Brown's moves against academic EARMARKING as courageous. "That is work we will continue in this Congress." Walker will work for a way to penalize academic institutions seeking earmarks. "They need to know that if they try to by-pass us, there may be a penalty for them in so doing." He will work with the appropriations committee to prevent earmarking. During a question period, Walker was asked about NIST's TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS. He said he was supportive of NIST's core program "that provides a very, very important role for our country," citing standards-setting. "I am less than enthusiastic about some of the places where they have moved toward becoming the font of national industrial programs; the ATP Programs [Advanced Technology Program] and some things of that type. I would rather divert some of the monies that are headed in that direction toward the core program...." He later said he favors the ultimate elimination of ATP. "We are probably going to look at the ELIMINATION OF SUCH AGENCIES," Walker said, when asked about a Republican Budget Committee staff memo suggesting that USGS and the Bureau of Mines be eliminated. In regard to specific agencies, Walker said, "I don't know." Insofar as the Office of Technology Assessment, he declared, "I have an open mind on that; I believe that they have done some valuable work." He wants the office restructured to "be more relevant to the legislative process." Walker later added that his committee will work closely with the appropriations committee if any programs are defunded. He was "not prepared" to discuss specific programs. Walker indicated his continued support for a new cabinet-level DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE. He is awaiting the administration's plans for downsizing the federal government. Such a department would "ensure that there is a voice for science at the cabinet table." When asked about FUSION PROGRAM funding, Walker replied: "I think we need to take a look at the money we have been spending in the fusion area. It's certainly an area that we have to look at in hearings; the Department of Energy may be coming forth with some recommendations in that area.... What we can't afford to do is to have massive cost overruns in that program. It is a program where there has been a lot invested over a period of a lot of years. And I think it now needs to be examined very, very carefully in light of a lot of budget constraints that we're going to have." Later in the briefing, discussion returned to the DOE FUSION PROGRAM, and Tokamak funding. "I am concerned about the fact that that particular project has gone up in cost by about 50%, and as a result, has captured my attention," Walker exclaimed. He said he "was not prepared to make that kind of judgement" when asked about shutting down magnetic fusion research. Walker supports international cooperation for expensive programs. The new chairman was also asked about the NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION. "I will tell you that my own bias with regard to NSF is toward having NSF be essentially a basic science agency, rather than an applied science agency. I believe that too much of NSF money is getting diverted these days toward applied research. And I would like to see NSF be far more concentrated on being a basic research kind of agency, supporting basic research at the university level." When asked about a Republican Budget Committee staff suggestion to limit budget increases for NSF, Walker replied, "I don't know. I'm not familiar with the staff document. I wasn't on the Budget Committee at that point." He then spoke of his, and incoming House Speaker Newt Gingrich's (R-GA) long-standing desire "to see these programs move forward. I don't think that has changed. How much we are able to do with the constraints...and the need to approve our balanced budget, I'm not sure yet." Walker said that his service as Vice-Chairman of the House Budget Committee will be important in this regard. At the end of the briefing, Walker spoke of a commonality of science and technology interests with the WHITE HOUSE. He advocated cooperation between his committee and White House policy makers on moving programs forward. --- End of forwarded message from "James R. Gosz" From smartin@lternet.edu Mon Dec 19 12:53:58 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA14875; Mon, 19 Dec 94 12:53:49 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa29163; 19 Dec 94 12:53 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA06224; Mon, 19 Dec 94 09:54:16 PST Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 09:54:16 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Re: On-Line Datasets-Addition & Inclusion in Next Newsletter (fwd) To: PI@lternet.washington.edu, dman@lternet.washington.edu In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Rick Ingersoll has brought me up-to-date about the information he has pulled together on on-line datasets across the Network. His project was apparently completed prior to the recent LTER/CC meeting where representatives were asked to identify a "favorite" dataset that would be on-line by January. For the wider audience the newsletter reaches, his chart is probably the most comprehensive format for presenting the information. He has agreed to provide an introduction and an update for the next newsletter. Please disregard my earlier request for information about which datasets to highlight for your site. Thank you, Stephanie Martin LTER Network Office From smartin@lternet.edu Wed Dec 21 13:37:59 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA22208; Wed, 21 Dec 94 13:37:58 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa29896; 21 Dec 94 13:37 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA18444; Wed, 21 Dec 94 10:33:37 PST Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 10:33:36 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Re: Help on "Nuggets" To: "James T. Callahan" Cc: pi@lternet.edu In-Reply-To: <199412192028.AA16751@note1.nsf.gov> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR I'd appreciate receiving a copy of any responses on this. Good ideas for newsletter articles may be found therein. Thanks, and happy holidays! =========================================================================== Stephanie Martin University of Washington PH:206/543-6764 Publications/Public Info. AR-10 FAX: 543-7295 LTER Network Office Seattle, WA 98195 e-mail: sMartin@LTERnet.edu (Internet) =========================================================================== On Mon, 19 Dec 1994, James T. Callahan wrote: > Folks- > > In preparation for our arguments in your behalf for $$$ in FY 96 and beyond, > we ask that you comb through your actual and virtual files for interesting, > meaningful, and currents advances in science. Items should be 1 or 2 para > graphs in length, intersting to and readable by an educated layperson, and > current in terms of the work of your project. > > Please respond to both me and Mike Allen not later than January 5, 1995. > > Here's hoping that the Holiday Season brings only good things - and lots > of them - to you and to your loved ones. > > Thanks for all your hard work and help now and in the past. > > > Tom Callahan > > From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Wed Dec 21 13:43:07 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA22227; Wed, 21 Dec 94 13:43:06 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa00922; 21 Dec 94 13:43 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA18510; Wed, 21 Dec 94 10:42:17 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA00965; Wed, 21 Dec 1994 11:40:57 -0700 Message-Id: <9412211840.AA00965@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Wed, 21 Dec 94 11:40:57 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: Stephanie Martin Subject: Re: Help on "Nuggets" Cc: pi@lternet.edu Status: OR Stephanie I think that many of the "site bites" that were presented at the CC meeting at Coweeta could be worked into "nuggets". jim From jgosz@nsf.gov Wed Dec 21 22:53:17 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01020; Wed, 21 Dec 94 22:53:15 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa05976; 21 Dec 94 22:53 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA22161; Wed, 21 Dec 94 19:53:07 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA18470 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Wed, 21 Dec 1994 22:52:45 -0500 Message-Id: <199412220352.AA18470@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: DOE - Near Miss! Date: Wed, 21 Dec 94 22:52:45 EST From: "James R. Gosz" Status: OR Near Miss: Department of Energy Avoids Termination December 20, 1994 At noon yesterday, President Clinton announced $10.6 billion in proposed cuts in the Department of Energy's budget over the next five years. It could have been worse: there has been considerable speculation in Washington over the last few days that the administration might have recommended DOE's termination. However, the Department of Energy, and physics-related research sponsored by DOE, are by no means out of the woods. Congressional Republicans will offer a counter proposal to President Clinton's FY 1996 budget request containing deeper budget cuts. Shortly before the president's announcement, new Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM) was asked if Republicans would recommend termination of cabinet departments. His response: "Absolutely, I wouldn't be surprised if there are two." Last November, incoming Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole (R-KS) cited DOE as a possible target, saying "I don't see any useful purpose it serves. It can be wrapped into something else." Yesterday's White House announcement was accompanied by a "Highlights" document explaining the proposed DOE budget cuts. They are: 1.) termination of the clean coal program, 2.) privatization of the Naval Petroleum Reserves, 3.) sale of uranium, 4.) streamlining nuclear waste clean-up, and 5.) "significantly reduce costs in DOE's applied research programs through requiring more cost-sharing and through cuts in lower priority programs." At an afternoon briefing, DOE Deputy Secretary Bill White stated that many funding decisions must yet be made. DOE's budget is $17.7 billion, most of which goes to contractors. He said they are going "to be expected to run their business like you would a normal business in a competitive market, rather than as some kind of government contracting operation with a semi-entitlement mentality." Citing the $10.6 billion in proposed cuts, White said, "these numbers may change, but not the bottom line. The bottom line we are planning on. The allocation within the five year savings may change based upon a number of activities which...the department is doing, and our review of additional information we get about different things...." White said the total could ultimately be higher. The first activity White discussed was the [Robert] Galvin Commission examining DOE's national laboratories, "which are so important to this nation, and which are at the heart of this department's operations. Those laboratories are extremely valuable national assets, but we want to make sure that they are run in a way that is competitive with what you would see in the private sector, and that they respond to real needs of not only the Department of Energy but the whole community of users who depend on Department of Energy programs for the applied research done at those laboratories. And that includes the Department of Defense, the National Science Foundation, and private enterprise.... What the Galvin Commission says about those labs and their operations...will be critical in figuring out how we allocate the $10.6 billion." White was asked how DOE could fund the Advanced Neutron Source, ITER, and TPX under this budget climate. He was specifically asked if fusion projects "are essentially dead." White's reply: "That might be premature. It means that before we undertake a major new project we have some hard choices that we're going to make, and we are making them. It means that we won't submit budgets that the Secretary [O'Leary] and I saw when we first got here that showed this slope of increasing out years [costs].... With respect to individual projects, we are both doing a review and preparation for the finalization of the 1996 budget to be submitted.... And with respect to fusion in particular, there is an advisory group that is going to assist us in making a choice on that program.... You have obviously spotted some issues there that are the same issues that we are confronting." An additional question was asked about the national laboratories, and whether DOE had already decided to close a lab or a technology center. White responded: "The Galvin Commission is going to...tell us what we can do with the labs." He added, referring to the physics advisory group, "That is, and let's be quite candid, what is the extent of future commitments that we make on fusion projects and the like. But that decision, the decision concerning particular facilities, has not been made." The Galvin Commission is scheduled to report in February. White doubts that any decisions will be made before DOE's FY 1996 budget request is sent to Congress in February. from: Public Information Division American Institute of Physics From jgosz@nsf.gov Wed Dec 21 22:57:48 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01100; Wed, 21 Dec 94 22:57:47 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa06265; 21 Dec 94 22:57 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA22173; Wed, 21 Dec 94 19:58:05 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA23345 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Wed, 21 Dec 1994 22:57:43 -0500 Message-Id: <199412220357.AA23345@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: House Science Committee Date: Wed, 21 Dec 94 22:57:43 EST From: "James R. Gosz" Status: OR Today Rep Walker announced the new chairs of the Subcommittees for the House Science Committee. They are: Subcommittee on Basic Research: Rep Steve Schiff (R-NM) Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics: Rep James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) Subcommittee on Technology: Rep Connie Morella (R-MD) Subcommittee on Energy and Environment: Rep Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) Some of you out there may have ways of interacting with these individuals! From smartin@lternet.edu Tue Dec 27 18:42:40 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA27936; Tue, 27 Dec 94 18:42:39 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa27612; 27 Dec 94 18:42 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA14272; Tue, 27 Dec 94 15:40:44 PST Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 15:40:44 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Interdisciplinary Conference, Jun 21-25, FYI To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, lmer@lternet.washington.edu, students@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR This conference may be of interest to some of you or your colleagues. As with any national or international conferences or meetings which you may attend, feel free to contact me for LTER Network materials to distribute or display, if you deem it appropriate. Stephanie Martin Publications & Public Information Network Office =========================================================================== INTERDISCIPLINARY CONFERENCE ON THE ENVIRONMENT *********************************************** Park Plaza Hotel and Towers BOSTON, Massachusetts, USA, June 21-25, 1995 CALL FOR PARTICIPANTS The Interdisciplinary Environmental Association (IEA) in conjunction with Assumption College invites you to participate in the FIRST MAJOR INTERDISCIPLINARY CONFERENCE ON THE ENVIRONMENT! We take the initiative to organize this conference because of the increasing need to combine ideas and research findings from different disciplines to enhance our understanding of how nature works and how the interactions between the natural environment and human institutions are globally interconnected. The conference is aimed at the layperson and it FOCUSES on: (I) What do different disciplines have to offer with respect to environmental and resource problems, their solutions, and the institutions associated with them? (II) What are the implications of the globalization of environmental concerns for all life on planet Earth? The conference is open to all ideologies, political persuasions, and academic as well as nonacademic disciplines. Participants may organize sessions (please ask for "Session Organizer Guidelines"), present papers, chair sessions, discuss papers, or simply observe. To facilitate communication papers must be written at a layperson's level and they will pass a peer review process prior to presentation and publication in the Conference Proceedings. Awards will be given to outstanding papers. With your help we hope to disseminate the Conference Proceedings all over the world to libraries, legislators, governmental agencies, and nongovernmental organizations. The program will consist of small seminar - type sessions meeting concurrently as follows: chairperson, three or four presenters, with at least one discussant assigned to comment on each paper. (Other formats, such as moderator and panelists, also might be used.) Time allocated for each session is one hour and 45 minutes. Additionally, the program will have one general session panel with invited speakers. * To ORGANIZE SESSIONS please ask for "Session Organizer Guidelines". Submission fees for one or two papers are waived for papers in organized sessions. * To participate as a PRESENTER: - Please, submit 3 copies of one or two papers before or on February 28, 1995; - The submission fee is $20 per paper. - Each manuscript should be accompanied by an abstract of no more than 100 words; - Manuscripts of more than 10 single-spaced pages will not be considered; - Papers must not have been published, accepted, or submitted for publication elsewhere; - Because papers will be evaluated using a blind review process authorship should be identified only on a removable cover page; - The discipline that fits best your paper should be typed on the top right corner of the cover page; - For coauthorships please include names, affiliations, and addresses of all authors on your cover page and indicate who will serve as paper presenter; - All papers presented in the conference will be published in the Conference Proceedings. Instructions on style will be attached to the acceptance letter; - The title of your paper(s) is (are): __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ * If you wish to serve as a DISCUSSANT and/or a SESSION CHAIR please indicate below the disciplines of your preference. "Session Chair and Discussant Guidelines" as well as copies of the papers to be discussed will be mailed to you as soon as the sessions are organized. Disciplines____________________________________________________ CONFERENCE REGISTRATION FORM Last Name______________________________________________________ First Name and M.I.____________________________________________ Nickname for Badge_____________________________________________ Position/Title/Rank____________________________________________ Mailing Address________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ Telephone: Day (___)________________ , Night (___)__________________ Fax: (___)________________ , E-Mail: _______________________________ CONFERENCE FEES (DUE FEBRUARY 28,1995) 1. Registration $230 x __ = ______ 2. Student Registration (verification required) $130 x __ = ______ 3. Paper Submission Fee $20 x__ = ______ 4. After February 28, 1995 Add Late Fee $50 x __ =______ 5. Guest Fee $50 x __ = ______ Total Amount Due = ______ Note: Registration fees include "guest speakers - awards" luncheon, one copy of the Conference Proceedings, membership to the IEA, and all other conference expenses. Payments: ___ My check is attached payable to IEA (in U.S. dollars drawn on a U.S. bank). ___ Please charge my ___Visa or ___ MasterCard. Credit Card Number______________________________Exp. Date___________ Authorized Signature________________________________________ Refunds: Individuals applying for program participation but not accepted are eligible for fee refunds. Cancellations must be in writing and are subject to a $20 handling fee. No refunds will be given for cancellations after March 30, 1995. Refunds will be processed after conference. HOTEL RESERVATION: Boston Park Plaza Hotel and Towers * Housing in Boston is very limited. Please make reservations early! __ Double or __ Single * Special Conference Rate : $99 plus tax. * First night's deposit required with reservation. * Check-in time: 2:00 pm, Check-out time: 12:00 pm. * First night's deposit: ___ My check is attached payable to Park Plaza Hotel and Towers (in U.S. dollars drawn on a U.S. bank). ___ Please charge my ___Visa or ___ MasterCard. Credit Card Number______________________________Exp. Date___________ Authorized Signature________________________________________ For more information on housing please contact: Park Plaza Hotel and Towers 64 Arlington Street, Boston MA 02116-3912, Tel: (617) 426-2000, Fax: (617) 423-1708 Reservations Tel: (800) 225-2008 For more information or for anything else you might need please Mail, Call, Fax, or E-mail to: CONFERENCE CHAIR: Dr Demetri Kantarelis IEA, Economics/Foreign Affairs Dept Assumption College 500 Salisbury street Worcester, MA 01615-0005, USA Tel: (508) 767-7557 Fax: (508) 799-4502 E-mail: dkantar@eve.assumption.edu CONFERENCE CO-CHAIR: Professor Kevin Hickey IEA, Economics/Foreign Affairs Dept Assumption College 500 Salisbury street Worcester, MA 01615-0005, USA Tel: (508) 767-7296 Fax :(508) 799-4502 PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THIS ANNOUNCEMENT TO YOUR COLLEAGUES AND FRIENDS. THANKS! From smartin@lternet.edu Tue Jan 3 15:04:00 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01192; Tue, 3 Jan 95 15:03:59 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa03274; 3 Jan 95 15:03 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA11050; Tue, 3 Jan 95 12:02:04 PST Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 12:02:04 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: ANNOUNCEMENT--James R. Gosz Assumes Duties as LTER Chair To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, students@lternet.washington.edu, NET@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR JAMES GOSZ ASSUMES DUTIES AS LTER COORDINATING COMMITTEE CHAIR On January 1, 1995, Dr. James R. Gosz officially assumed his new duties as elected chair of the LTER Network Coordinating Committee and director of the LTER Network Office at the University of Washington in Seattle. Dr. Gosz will be working closely with outgoing chair Dr. Jerry F. Franklin over the next year to ensure a smooth transition in leadership and the functions of the coordination office. Franklin will continue to be involved in the LTER Program, providing administrative assistance to Gosz and chairing international LTER (ILTER) activities during 1995. His eventual goal is to shift back into major scientific involvement in intersite LTER projects and to produce a book on the LTER sites and program for general audiences. During 1995, Dr. Gosz will be on sabbatical from his University of New Mexico faculty position, allowing him to concentrate on his new LTER responsibilities. As LTER Chair, he will seek to build expanded relationships between LTER and other agencies, societies and government on the values and scientific advancements of long-term research programs and dedicated research sites, including comparisons with non-LTER sites and research efforts. Gosz also hopes to oversee the development of additional communication infrastructure and enhanced national and international Network-wide computational abilities, as well as expanded public education programs. ******************************** end *************************************** From bph@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU Thu Jan 5 10:46:25 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07389; Thu, 5 Jan 95 10:46:24 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa09680; 5 Jan 95 10:46 EST Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA24603; Thu, 5 Jan 95 07:46:20 PST Received: from amazon.evsc.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa09498; 5 Jan 95 10:44 EST Received: from [128.143.42.13] by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07382; Thu, 5 Jan 95 10:44:44 EST Date: Thu, 5 Jan 95 10:44:42 EST Message-Id: <9501051544.AA07382@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: PI@lternet.edu From: Bruce Hayden Subject: Site Syntheis volumes Plans Status: OR the publications committee needs to know which sites are planning site synthesis volumes. There will be a report from the committee to the executive committee and then from J. Gosz to Mary Clutter. that meeting is next week so I need this info pronto!!!!! Thanks Bruce From bph@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU Thu Jan 5 11:15:13 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07593; Thu, 5 Jan 95 11:15:12 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa15709; 5 Jan 95 11:15 EST Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA25030; Thu, 5 Jan 95 08:13:46 PST Received: from amazon.evsc.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa15299; 5 Jan 95 11:12 EST Received: from [128.143.42.13] by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07576; Thu, 5 Jan 95 11:12:11 EST Date: Thu, 5 Jan 95 11:12:10 EST Message-Id: <9501051612.AA07576@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: PI@lternet.edu From: Bruce Hayden Subject: Synthesis Contributions Status: OR More Help needed! Please (an pronto) inform me for the publications committee of the following: Edited books in which LTER scientists played the lead or leading roles. (editors or numbers of chapters) Journal Issues in which LTER scientists played the lead or leading roles. (editors or numbers of chapters) Also please advise of any other publication synthesis activities Thanks again bruce From smartin@lternet.edu Mon Jan 9 17:26:22 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA21991; Mon, 9 Jan 95 17:26:20 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa27911; 9 Jan 95 17:26 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA21704; Mon, 9 Jan 95 14:25:24 PST Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 14:25:23 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Spring '95 newsletter topics (fwd) To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, students@lternet.washington.edu, NET@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Status: OR Dear LTER PIs, students, staff, et al.: =09Below is a preliminary topics/proposed contributors list for the next LTER Network News. Please let me know if you have anything to add or if you are unable to contribute something by the deadline noted. I'll be confirming with each of those listed as contributors over the next week to discuss length, content, and other specifications. Thank you!=20 Copy (including text, photos, artwork, etc.) deadline: February 28, 1995 Spring/Summer 1995=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Proposed LTER Network News Topics & Contributors General Features:=20 =09Outgoing Chair Jerry Franklin reflects on 15 years of LTER=20 =09Incoming Chair Jim Gosz looks ahead through 1997=20 Site Features=20 =09North Temperate Lakes (J.Magnuson or T.Kratz)=20 =09Sevilleta (B. Milne or B. Parmenter) Site News (Any interesting news to report? Short items only, please)=20 =09HFR Lab Upgrade (R. Boone)=20 =09VCR News (B. Hayden) RECEIVED =09PAL News (R. Ross)=20 =09CWT (S.=09Donaldson) RECEIVED Network Office=20 =09LTER/EXEC Teleconference (Vande Castle/Nottrott) =09Newsletter readership 1987-1995 (graph, SM)=20 =09Cooperative Agreement/NET Expansion (Franklin/Gosz)=20 =09Network on-line resources (SM & R. Nottrott)=20 =09Site on-line LTER Datasets (R. Ingersoll) RECEIVED Committees (Chairs: any recent activities to report?)=20 =09Climate (D. Greenland, chair)=20 =09Data Management (J.Brunt)=20 =09Graduate Students (J. Greenberg)=20 =09Publications (B. Hayden)=20 =09Synthesis (B. Wharton)=20 =09Technology (D. Foster) National=20 =09USFS - NSF MOU (Douglas Ryan,USFS) RECEIVED =09NBS=D5 Information Infrastructure (NBII) (Trudy Harlow)=20 =09NASA Collaboration (J. Vande Castle/W. Cohen)=20 =09NSF Special Competition Awards-Recipients & Topics=20 =09Center for Ecological Analysis & Synthesis (R. Ross)=20 =09Cross-Site/International Research (compiled by SM)=20 =09U of WA/U of WI Graduate Freshwater Research Traineeships=20 =09LMER Program developments (J. Hobbie or D. Scanlon) =09Other agency collaborations? International=20 =09Collaboration with CERN--update? (J. Brunt)=20 =09Collaboration with Hungary--update? (D. Freckman)=20 =09ILTER activities (J. Franklin)=20 =09ERIN, Australian program (excerpted by SM) RECEIVED =09Other international collaborations?=20 Workshops=20 =09Reports on recent workshops -any?=20 =09News on upcoming workshops (info needed):=20 =09 Spring '95 xroots agroecosystem workshop (C. Bledsoe)=20 =09 7/95 conservative tracer addition to streams (D'Angelo) Publications=20 =09Recent site publications (only in press or published, please)=20 =09Recent pubns & publicity on LTER program and sites (SM)=20 =09Recent publications of interest (SM) Calendar (compiled by SM) =09Upcoming EXEC, CC & All Sci meetings=20 =09NSF program deadlines and target dates=20 =09Other funding opportunity deadlines=20 =09Other workshops and meetings of interest to LTER? NEXT ISSUE, FALL 1995:=20 =09Site features: PAL and MCM =09Other suggestions? >->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->= ->-> Stephanie Martin=09 University of Washington PH:206/543-6764 Publications/Public Information CFR, AR-10=09=09 FAX: 543-7295 LTER Network Office=09 Seattle, WA 98195=09=09 =20 e-mail:=09sMartin@LTERnet.edu (Internet) >->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->= ->-> From jgosz@nsf.gov Wed Jan 11 18:08:44 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA28262; Wed, 11 Jan 95 18:08:42 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa09681; 11 Jan 95 18:08 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA10533; Wed, 11 Jan 95 15:07:44 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA19161 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Wed, 11 Jan 1995 18:07:07 -0500 Message-Id: <199501112307.AA19161@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: fyi Date: Wed, 11 Jan 95 18:07:07 EST From: "James R. Gosz" Status: OR Subject: Final report of Forum on Global Change Modeling -- Part 1 Here is the final version to be submitted for publication and sent (by Mike MacCracken) to GAO. ******** On October 12-14, a Forum on Global Change Modeling was held at the invitation of the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (SGCR) to help address requests from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and from Congressman Dingell to the GAO. The Forum labored to produce a consensus document and to provide the GAO representatives a sense of the debate on issues related to the use of climate models to influence policy. The charge to the panel and the report are attached. The invited participants included: Eric Barron (chair), Joyce Penner, Chuck Hakkarinen, Dan Lashof, Jerry Mahlman, Pat Michaels, Roy Jenne, Richard Lindzen, Tamara Ledley, and Tom Wigley. In addition, Mike MacCracken, Ken Bergman, Jay Fein, Mike Riches, Lowell Smith, Richard Poore, Robert Schiffer, Dave Goodrich, Courtney Riordan, Ghassem Asrar, Robert Watson, Tony Janetos, Rick Piltz and Scott Sandgathe participated as agency, congressional and OSTP representativies. The report has been positively reviewed by a wider segment of the climate community. Still, the forum participants believe that this report is just a beginning. It includes the judgement of participating experts and reviewers, as opposed to detailed arguments, on the credibility of climate model projections. However, the community needs to take the next step of elucidating fully the reasons models make the predictions that they do. This effort should be a significant part of a rational approach to determine whether models are behaving reliably. A thorough international assessment is also being conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; it is due to be published in late 1995. Summary of Discussions Forum on Global Change Modeling October 12-13, 1994 Forum charge: The charge to those attending the Forum and to those who submitted written comments is to develop a brief statement on the credibility of projections of climate change provided by General Circulation Models as background for potential interpretation of model results in the context of developing and considering national policy options. The focus of this effort is specifically on the climate aspects of the entire global change issue, and thus not on the emission scenarios, the consequences of change to ecosystems and natural resource systems, or the socio-economic implications and potential for responses. Working objective formulated by Forum participants: The attendees at the Forum decided to develop an ordered list of statements from "virtually certain" to "uncertain" that summarizes the major findings and implications stemming from climate system model experiments (most commonly with general circulation models) and the issues being debated in the scientific literature, and to express these statements in terms that indicate their potential policy relevance. The participants agreed to include with each ranked statement the basis for the consensus view. In addition, the participants at the Forum agreed to provide indications of where opportunities exist for early progress in reducing uncertainties and improving confidence in model projections. The report which follows consists of three parts. First, a number of conclusions are identified as "virtually certain", based on observations, experiments, and models. These conclusions provide a significant starting point for discussion, yet they do not directly stem from climate system model experiments. These statements are provided in part 1 as an introduction. Second, the ranked statements which refer to model experiments and predictions are given in part 2. Finally, a list of opportunities for early progress in reducing uncertainties is given in part 3. PART 1. Introduction A number of the scientific elements that are the basis of conclusions concerning future climate change do not stem directly from climate system models. In many cases, these elements are subject to little or no debate because of their level of certainty. As statements they may even appear to some as almost trivial because of the frequency with which they are stated. Yet, in concert with the response to the Forum's specific charge, these statements provide both context and conclusions on the credibility of climate models for developing and considering national policy options. Seven statements which provide this context follow: (1) Greenhouse gases absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, which includes the wavelengths of radiation emitted by atmospheric gases and clouds and by the Earth's land and oceans. Basis: Laboratory experiments with greenhouse gases and spectrally resolved studies of radiation absorption and transmission in the atmosphere indicate that a number of gases that are present in the atmosphere are capable of absorbing and emitting infrared radiation. The most important of these so-called greenhouse gases is water vapor. Other important natural greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, ozone, methane and nitrous oxide. (2) Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides and chlorofluorocarbons, the greenhouse gases, are significantly increased above preindustrial levels, and the increase is due to anthropogenic activities. Basis: Carbon dioxide: The observed atmospheric concentration is 30% above preindustrial levels as determined from air trapped in ice cores and direct measurements. The concentration is continuing to increase. The measured (and estimated) anthropogenic sources (from fossil fuel consumption, deforestation, and agriculturally-induced oxidation of humus) are significantly larger than the anthropogenic sinks (reforestation). Changes in carbon isotopic composition of atmospheric carbon dioxide indicate that fossil carbon and biomass reduction have contributed significantly to the increase in the atmospheric concentration. There is no serious debate about the fact that fossil fuel consumption and land-use change are the contributors to increased concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Methane: The observed atmospheric concentration is more than 100% above preindustrial levels as determined from air trapped in ice cores, and the concentration has been increasing over recent decades. Estimated changes in anthropogenic sources (e.g., agriculture, energy resource production and use) are broadly consistent with measured increases in atmospheric concentrations and are large compared to anthropogenic sinks or anthropogenically-induced reductions in emissions (e.g., reduced wetlands). Nitrous oxide: The observed atmospheric concentration is about 10% above preindustrial levels as determined from air trapped in ice cores. Estimates of anthropogenic sources (e.g., nylon production, agriculture) are broadly consistent with measured increases in atmospheric concentrations and are large compared to anthropogenic concentrations; no anthropogenic sinks are recognized. Chlorofluorocarbons: Preindustrial concentrations were virtually zero and there are no natural sources for most of these compounds. Thus, the observed increases in atmospheric concentrations are due solely to human activities. Anthropogenic sources (e.g., refrigeration, industrial) are large; not anthropogenic sinks are recognized and natural removal processes for most CFCs have a time constant of order a century. The rise in atmospheric concentrations of regulated gases has slowed and nearly stopped due to recent reductions in emissions. Chemically active gases: The concentrations of CO, nitrogen oxides, and non-methane hydrocarbons are higher than pre-industrial values over large regions. These gases can, through a series of chemical interactions, induce changes in the lifetimes, and thus the concentrations, of radiatively active gases, including ozone and methane. As an example, the concentration of tropospheric ozone in some regions is significantly above its level in the nineteenth century. There is evidence that the concentrations of carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, and nitrous oxide have also changed over geological time. In many cases these changes have been a driving factor in the different climates that are associated with time periods of altered concentrations. Based on straight- forward physics and thermodynamics, the global concentrations of water vapor must also have changed over geologic time, acting primarily in response to the values and distribution of temperature, continental geography and orography.