Minutes, External Initiatives Incubator Committee
May 17, 2000
Team members attending: C. Henry, B. Lippke, J. Marzluff, C. Oliver, C. Ryan
Also attending: C. Jacobs-Young, D. Paun
Agenda items included:
•
Review of draft minutes
•
Proposal "A Model for Interdisciplinary Teaching Partnerships Integrating Business Curriculum within
Technical Programs
•
Continued discussion of proposal "Sustainable Community Landscapes"
•
99-00 and 00-01 work plan
Minutes of previous meetings were approved.
D. Paun presented a proposal for a project integrating a business curriculum within technical programs, including
CFR curricula. She said the School of Business Administration (SBA) and CFR currently cooperate through the
SBA's Retail Management Program, which allows two CFR courses (FM 320 and 321) to be substituted for SBA
courses required of CFR students who are in SBA's program. She said she was currently exploring a similar
opportunity with faculty in the School of Pharmacy, that the project was still in the exploratory stages, and that no
written proposal was available at this time. Input from the Incubator Team on how to proceed -- i.e., whether
developing a UIF or a Tools for Transformation proposal would be most appropriate -- was requested. She said
many professional students, whether in pharmacy, forest resources, or other programs need business skills -- an
interdisciplinary program in business education for non-business school majors could provide these skills. Team
questions and comments included:
•
Would a graduate component be appropriate?
•
What would be the relationship to or impact on existing certificate programs available through UW
Outreach?
•
Research and discussions with faculty involved in an already existing model, CQS [math and quantitative
skills for non-math UG majors] sponsored by CFR, COFS, and the Office of Undergraduate Education,
could be useful and provide insights into strategies and approaches.
The team encouraged the development of a written preproposal after research into the CQS model. Concern was
expressed that it would be difficult for the proposal to meet UIF objectives but that it could easily fit one-time Tools
for Transformation funding.
The team continued discussion from a previous meeting on the proposal for team support presented by L. ChalkerScott ("Sustainable Community Landscapes"; see 5/5/00 minutes for full discussion of the proposal). The team
agreed to provide summer funding for the proposal in the amount of $7,000, with deliverables as listed in
authorizing memorandum, below:
(1) Determine level of interest in and support for focused projects to promote sustainable management of human-altered ("urban") landscapes in the Puget Sound r
•
CFR and other UW faculty
•
WSU extension agents and researchers
•
community colleges
•
community groups
•
K-12 faculty and staff (including K-12 expertise at the UW in the K-12 Institute for Science, Math, and Technology)
•
professionals (e.g., arborists, nursery managers, landscape managers, landscape architects and planners)
(2) Develop and convene an organizational meeting of interested participants to explore project development and funding opportunities
(3) Prepare a written proposal that could be submitted for foundation, corporate, or UW funding support
As the stated objectives of the initiative are to: (1) increase the percentage of sustainable landscapes in the Puget Sound region (2) increase public awareness of su
occurrence of harmful management practices in terms of plant health care and watershed viability, the Incubator Team requests that you explore collaboration with
urban ecology, urban forestry, landscape management, sustainable resource science, restoration ecology and all other appropriate connections. Projects such as th
order to be successful. Broadening the support team within the College should help to gain wider support from the community at large.
We would anticipate several indirect benefits to the College, including new avenues for funding support, enhanced service reputation within the K-12 network, and p
programs. We would like periodic progress reports on major accomplishments either verbally or by email that would be shared with the Incubator Team and that can
sponsored efforts.
The team discussed the draft Incubator Team worksheet for 00-01. As the status of the team beyond 6/30/00 was
unclear, the team approved the 99-00 report of accomplishments, and agreed that the 00-01 plans were contingent
upon the decisions of the new administration.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 2:30 p.m.
June 7, 2000
Team members attending: C. Henry, B. Lippke, J. Marzluff, R. Northey, C. Ryan, W. Welzenbach
Also attending: L. Chalker-Scott, D. Friedman
D. Friedman, Associate Provost for Academic Planning, attended the meeting at the team's invitation, and gave an
overview of the UW's UIF and Tools for Transformation initiatives. Points included in the discussion of UIF
included:
•
The most significant change in the third round of UIF awards is a revision of the funding split between
interdisciplinary cross-unit initiatives and unit-specific initiatives. The portion of the fund set aside for unitspecific proposals has been increased from 33% to 40%. Cross-unit proposals will compete for 60% of the
fund.
•
Guidelines for submission of cross-unit proposals remain largely unchanged: preproposals are due to dean
10/31/00; to provost 12/15/00; notification to those asked to submit full proposals 03/01/01; full proposals
to provost 04/30/01; announcement of winners 06/01/01.
•
In coming months, president and provost will appoint review teams for each UIF1 award to review all
funded projects in their fourth year of operation. To evaluate the overall UIF program, president will
commission an external review team of individuals from within and beyond UW.
•
To encourage a greater link between cross-unit UIF projects and the strategic plans of participating units,
endorsing cover letters must explain how the proposal supports strategic goals. Transmittal letters from
deans and other unit heads need to present a compelling case for each proposal's "fit" with strategic
directions.
2
•
Important criteria for a successful preproposal: it must be a powerful idea, must build on existing strengths
within the proposing units, and it cannot be funded in any other way (e.g., because of its futuristic or
revolutionary nature).
Questions and discussion included the following points:
•
Potential difficulties involved in documenting that a proposal is "on the cusp" or "at a new level" were
discussed. D. Friedman reported that there has been remarkable unanimity among preproposal review
committee members on which projects demonstrate or document this criterion; thus, she suggested the
strength or power of an idea can be communicated.
•
How to handle review processes within units -- the "political" constraints that may result in deans signing
all proposals that come his/her way. For example, the Incubator Team had a review process for CFR
sponsored UIF proposals that looked at a check-list of criteria, communicated suggestions for
improvements to proposal authors, and made final recommendations to the dean. However, there did not
seem to be a fully motivating mechanism to encourage or ensure response to constructive criticism or to
ensure that only those proposals meeting UIF criteria were forwarded to the provost.
D. Friedman also briefly discussed the Tools for Transformation initiative. She said that an additional $5 million had
been authorized for this initiative, which provides one-time start up funds intended to enable departments and
programs to respond to new challenges and to remove impediments to change in order to achieve strategic
institutional and unit goals. One major criterion for these proposals is demonstrated ability for the project to carry
itself after Tools money runs out. She noted that CFR has been quite successful in getting Tools projects funded. She
said that she was always available to discuss potential Tools projects at any stage of development and that there was
no limit on the number of proposals that could come from each college. Turnaround time for Tools proposals
depends on the stage of development of the proposal and the amount of funding requested.
The team thanked D. Friedman for the opportunity to be briefed on the UIF and Tools for Transformation processes.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 2:30 p.m.
May 5, 2000
Team members attending: L. Brubaker, C. Henry, B. Lippke, R. Northey, J. Perez-Garcia, C. Ryan, G. Schreuder, S.
Strand, W. Welzenbach
Also attending: L. Chalker-Scott, R. Gustafson
Agenda:
•
Project proposals
•
Sustainable community landscapes (L. Chalker-Scott)
•
Sustainable enterprises (R. Gustafson)
•
Development of models to project habitat and timber impacts (B. Lippke)
•
Phytoremediation (S. Strand)
(1) L. Chalker Scott presented a proposal "Sustainable Community Landscapes." She said the goal was to encourage
collaboration among educators, professionals and students in urban horticulture to promote sustainable management
of human-altered ("urban") landscapes. Objectives of the project are to:
•
Increase percentage of sustainable landscapes in the Puget Sound region
•
Increase public awareness of sustainable management practices
3
•
Reduce occurrence of harmful management practices in terms of plant health care and watershed viability
Projects could include replacement of sub-optimal public plantings with sustainable landscapes and development of
standards for suitable management of human-altered landscapes. Request for funding from the team was one
month's salary plus funding for an organizational meeting. The month's salary would be used to gauge level of
interest and support from UW faculty, WSU extension agents and researchers, community colleges, community
groups, K-12, and professionals. The team encouraged the presentation of this project to D. Friedman for possible
Tools for Transformation funding. Team members suggested potential links with King County, Federal Landscape
funding opportunities, and other CFR programs and initiatives, including sustainable resource science, urban
ecology, and urban forestry. The team also suggested exploring foundation funding and that a formal written
proposal should be an additional "deliverable" if the project is given team support.
(2) R. Gustafson presented a proposal for an interdisciplinary "Institute for Sustainable Enterprises." The institute
would:
•
Develop workable definition(s) of sustainability
•
Develop metrics of sustainability
•
Develop methodologies for assessing sustainability.
•
Apply metrics and methodologies to select enterprises
The team encouraged exploring links and level of interest among UW units and faculty in business (environmental
management), environmental and civil engineering, public policy, political science, landscape architecture, and
PRISM, among others. It was suggested that perhaps an inventory of UW researchers involved in sustainability
issues might be a good next step.
(3) B. Lippke discussed the development of models to project habitat and timber impacts that will be an important
RTI tool. He said the credibility of the few existing models is a problem, and that much good data still needs to be
converted into workable models. This could be viewed as a piece of the sustainability metrics focus of proposal #2.
One way to attempt this would be to reassemble the original data collection teams to work on models. This would
need to be a highly structured process with a definite product and mechanism for "buy-in" at each stage. It was
suggested that workshops might be a good way to find out where problems with models (or lack thereof) currently
exist. One ultimate goal would be an educational process that would foster support for re-monitoring studies. No
Incubator Team funding support was requested at this time, as RTI should have the funding to support the modeling
portion of this effort.
(4) S. Strand discussed his previously submitted written request for two months of salary to:
•
Prepare an NSF IGERT proposal on environmental remediation and restoration
•
Develop inter-unit UIF on bio/phytoremediation
•
Prepare proposal for NSF Science and Technology Center on phytormediation with U of Georgia
The team agreed that these projects, although high risk, have a potential for a very positive impact for CFR. Because
available Incubator Team funding through 6/30/00 is approximately $14,000, with no commitment of renewal after
that date, the team agreed to fund one month of salary at this time, with a possibility for further funding, subject to a
review of funds available and competing requests from other CFR researchers.
April 19, 2000
Attending: B. Lippke, J. Marzluff, R. Northey, J. Perez-Garcia, S. Strand, W. Welzenbach
Agenda items included:
4
•
Review of draft minutes
•
Project status reports
•
New funding opportunities
•
External UIF
•
Minutes of previous meetings were approved.
Project status reports:
•
Project leaders for phytoremediation (S. Strand) and urban ecology (J. Marzluff) reported that they were
developing NSF IGERT preproposals.
•
The urban ecology initiative was awarded $322,210 in one-time temporary funds from the Tools for
Transformation (TforT).
•
The GIS coordinated curriculum proposed by CFR and CoFS was awarded unit-specific UIF and joint
TforT funding (a total of $35,556 biennial funding to CFR for the UIF portion and $54,302 one-time
temporary funding from TforT to CFR/CoFS. The TforT allocation will provide workstations and other
equipment for the new GIS Lab.
•
J. Perez-Garcia reported that work on the carbon project included a preproposal, "Integrated Assessment of
Global Change Research: Forest Sector Land Use Changes," to colleagues and collaborators at MIT,
USDA, U of Alaska and Marine Biological Laboratories, with positive response. Other possibilities
include: (1) NSF's Methods and Models of Integrated Assessment; (2) EPA; and (3) DOE?
•
B. Lippke said that in conjunction with the Rural Technology Initiative (RTI), landscape measures (e.g.,
stream temperatures, stand types) for habitat could be linked to LMS models. Ideally, core teams would be
established to develop modeling framework for West-side and East-side for uplands and riparian/in-stream
forest types.
New funding opportunities:
•
NSF Science and Technology Centers (STC) Integrative Partnerships. Notice of intent deadline is 6/15/00.
The team discussed several potential projects that may be appropriate for this funding: collaboration with U
of Georgia on phytoremediation; possible "piggybacking" with ATI?
•
CSREES Integrated Research, Education and Extension Competitive Grants Program -- Water Quality.
Proposals are due 6/6/00. J. Perez-Garcia said that he would develop an outline for an alternative
management proposal re: fish and forest plan integrating water quality research. Copies of the proposal
were sent to CSS (S. Bolton) and ONRC (J. Calhoun).
February 28, 2000
Attending:
L. Brubaker, J. Fridley, C. Henry, B. Lippke, J. Marzluff, R. Northey, C. Oliver, J. Perez-Garcia, C. Ryan, P.
Schiess, G. Schreuder, S. Strand, D. Thorud
Agenda items included:
•
Incubator Team status report, including budget status
•
Fact sheet competition
5
•
External UIF
•
Updates on precision forestry cooperative and CESU proposal
Included in agenda materials was a status report on Incubator Team activities for the period June 99-January 00
prepared for the 2/18/00 Winter Quarter all-College meeting. It was agreed that this report should be posted on the
CFR Web site, as have previous Incubator Team reports. Giving a budget status report, B. Lippke said the incubator
team had approximately $15,000 remaining in funding that it could spend by the end of the fiscal year.
The team reviewed the results of the second fact sheet competition. Awards presented at the 2/18 all-College
meeting were: 1st prize to "Wind River Canopy Crane Research Facility," 2nd prize to "The Landscape Management
System: Using emerging technologies in forestry applications," and 3rd prize (a four-way tie) to "Monitoring Urban
Streams: Strategies and protocols," Riparian Conversion Monitoring Data Collection Protocols," "Sediment and
Road Density Reduction", and "Can the Douglas-fir Pitch Moth, Synanthedon novaroensis, (Hy. Edwards) Ruin
Pruning Investments?" The team agreed that efforts must now be expended on final editing of the fact sheets, and
their compilation into a packet. It was also agreed that having them available on the CFR Web page would be a
useful goal.
The team discussed the upcoming round of the external UIF competition. Current projects underway for this
competition are the Urban Ecology Initiative and the Remediation Initiative, both of which will also compete for
NSF IGERT funding. Other possible project areas discussed were a rural health/safety/forestry-related project that
might be explored with the School of Medicine and the School of Public Health and Community Medicine and a
spatial analysis initiative focusing on biospatial statistical problems in forests as sources of wood products, habitat,
and carbon storage; and oceans, with relation to fisheries habitat and climatological and geophysical data.
S. Strand requested and received an additional one month of salary from the team to fund: (1) a full proposal to the
EPA for a regional hazardous substance research center and (2) development of proposals for IGERT funding for an
interdisciplinary program in environmental restoration and UIF funding for an interdisciplinary program in
remediation.
The team agreed that it would seek copies of funded UIF proposals as "best practice" examples for CFR's future UIF
efforts. It also agreed to solicit UIF proposal ideas from the CFR community via email.
D. Thorud reported that the precision forestry cooperative was in the position of having to spend $377,000 by the
end of the fiscal year and that a plan was being developed to accomplish this.
B. Lippke reported that the CFR proposal for the Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit-PNW site had been selected
subject to a site visit. The team provided partial funding for the preparation of this proposal.
The team briefly discussed renewing its efforts to connect with sources of foundation funding.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 12:30 p.m.
February 7, 2000
Attending:
C. Henry, B. Lippke, J. Perez-Garcia, P. Schiess, G. Schreuder, D. Thorud
Agenda items included:
•
Precision Forestry Cooperative
•
Rural Technology Initiative
D. Thorud reported on the Precision Forestry Cooperative. He said an implementation team consisting of, among
others, D. Briggs, J. Fridley, and R. Gustafson, were drafting a plan for an expenditure of project funds needed to be
completed by 7/1/00. The funding will result in a new CFR faculty member. He said that meetings were being
6
planned with external stakeholders to get their input on the cooperative's role in developing precision forestry
technology.
B. Lippke reported that the Rural Technology Initiative (RTI) would be a natural corollary to precision forestry
research and could serve as the tech transfer component of the project. Discussion and questions included the
following points:
Current RTI work has involved setting priorities compiled from the responses of faculty, staff, and rural advisors.
The January 2000 RTI priorities which all received 60+ percent support were (in order of highest percent support):
landscape management case studies, riparian case studies, survey of rural problems and needs, accreditation for
forestry training center courses, serial sequence of LMS short courses, carbon sequestration pilot and protocol
development, operator and site performance monitoring for training center treatments, treatment effect monitoring,
training regional thinning and processor operators, and a certified data bank of pruned and thinned acres.
The team briefly discussed a concern that the Forestry Training Center had been doing more logging than training;
however, logging was essential to support payment on equipment for the training function.
The RTI has the potential to fund perhaps 10 students; how can an RFP be written in time to recruit students? If
interested faculty commit to projects, the funding will be available. Possible projects might involve riparian case
studies and collaboration with the School of Public Health and Community Medicine on risk/accident training,
among others.
How do the RTI priorities fit with WSU Extension projects and priorities? Discrepancies in needs should be
identified.
Discussion of some of these topics may occur at the Summit 2000 Washington Private Forest Forum scheduled for
the end of March 2000.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 12:30 p.m.
January 31, 2000
Attending:
B. Lippke, R. Northey, C. Oliver, C. Ryan, P. Schiess, G. Schreuder, S. Strand, W. Welzenbach
Agenda items included:
•
CESU proposal update
•
RFPs and info re: ncasi, USDA, federal bioenergy/biotechnology, Royalty Research Fund
•
Incubator Team project status reports
•
Fact sheet portfolio
B. Lippke reported that the CESU proposal had been completed by the 1/15/00 due date, with funding assistance for
writing the proposal from the Incubator Team.
The team was provided with RFPs for projects by the National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream
Improvement, Inc. (ncasi) and the Royalty Research Fund, and information on potential federal research funding in
the areas of agricultural research in rural areas and biotechnology and bioenergy as related to forest industries.
The ncasi RFP on "evaluating the effectiveness of the shifting mosaic approach to landscape management in the
Pacific Northwest," was the subject of a meeting attended by team member J. Marzluff, among others, which
focused on emphasizing the potential microstructure and habitat measurement aspects of such a project. ncasi
member companies include Champion and Plum Creek, and several team members reported they had talked to some
7
of the RFP contact names re: various aspects of the project. Several suggestions for support for the proposal were
communicated.
The USDA sponsored project on agricultural research in rural areas calls for $180 million in new USDA
investments aimed at boosting rural economies, promoting agricultural research, and developing new agricultural
products and practices. B. Lippke said a proposal submitted jointly by UW/WSU/U of Idaho in a previous
competition for similar research was not successful in the prescreening process. Currently, there may be some
linkages between proposed USDA projects and the federally funded rural technology initiative (RTI).
Other possible new funding sources discussed were DOE (carbon) and NSF (biological complexity).
Incubator Team project status reports were provided by B. Lippke (CORRIM and RTI), G. Schreuder (FIA), and
Strand (phytoremediation).
B. Lippke reported that the RTI had been federally funded for $900,000. The funding source is not a grant, but
rather a line item. On a related project, the Forestry Training Center at Forks also received funding of $600,000 as a
separate line item to buy out equipment. UW will be collaborating with WSU, as well as the state funded UW
precision forestry cooperative, to provide the tech transfer arm for research on riparian studies and how it relates to
costs and alternatives presented by regulatory requirements. B. Lippke also reported that CORRIM was still seeking
additional funding, but would proceed in a start up mode given the strong support from industry and the USFS.
G. Schreuder reported that the FIA project was essentially on hold. He said there was difficulty in getting needed
industry interest on this project. With regard to the USFS inventory process, the decision has been made to merge
forest health initiatives with the FIA but this will take time to implement.
S. Strand reported continued work on the 3/14/00 due date for the EPA proposal for hazardous substance research
center. Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology and UCal-Berkeley are partners in the proposal;
Stanford and OSU will be competitors. He said some money in the project was earmarked for public education.
The team briefly discussed recent results of the use of alternative tree species for pulp and paper, including the
difficulties encountered with poplar with regard to opacity.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 12:30 p.m.
December 1, 1999
Team members attending:
L. Brubaker, C. Henry, B. Lippke, J. Marzluff, R. Northey, J. Perez-Garcia, C. Ryan, P. Schiess, S. Strand
Also attending:
G. Bradley, D. Peterson
Agenda items included:
•
Review of 11/17 minutes
•
Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit proposal (Bradley, Peterson)
•
Internal UIF proposal
•
Fact sheets
The minutes of the 11/17/99 meeting were approved. New members C. Henry and R. Northey were welcomed to the
team.
Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit (CESU) proposal. G. Bradley and D. Peterson presented supporting materials
for their request for Incubator Team funding:
8
The federal government is establishing a network of CESUs to provide research, technical assistance, and education
to federal land management, environmental, and research agencies, and their potential partners; an RFP is seeking
proposals from universities to participate in the network.
A CESU will be established in the Pacific Northwest (including SE Alaska) region
The CESU would fund a full-time "research broker," working on creating a network for interdisciplinary funding in
ecosystem studies. This would ideally be a former program manager; position could be staff or faculty. The UW
would provide office space [and basic administrative support?]
D. Peterson and D. Johnson are facilitating the proposal, but cannot be involved directly.
Opportunities to involve graduate students could be developed in the proposal.
Fifteen % cut rate for indirect costs has already been approved by Provost for this project
OSU will also submit proposal; do we compete or cooperate/create consortium? What unique advantages does UW
have to offer?
The team agreed to provide funding in the amount of $3,000 for development of the proposal, to be completed in
time to meeting the 1/15/00 due date. The team requested that development of the proposal include input from E.
Shulenberger, UW Office of Research.
Internal UIF proposal discussions. B. Lippke reported that:
Deans Nowell and Thorud met with involved faculty and staff of CFR and CoFS on a joint proposal to increase GIS
support and instruction. Use will be made of the GIS lab in the new Fisheries building, and the proposal involves
personnel from both Colleges. By pooling limited staff resources, it is hoped that some economy of scale savings
can be realized.
The work completed on a proposal for a broader-based spatial analysis program involving spatial statistics, remote
sensing, laser mapping, photogrammetry, and GIS could be continued and submitted in the next multi-unit UIF
competition. This program ideally would have a monitoring and measuring focus on biospatial statistical problems
in forests, as both sources of wood products, habitats, and carbon storage; and oceans, with relation to fisheries
habitat and climatological and geophysical data.
Phytoremediation. S. Strand reported that March 14, 2000 is the deadline for the EPA hazardous substance site
proposal. Whether the UW would enter the competition as a secondary partner with Stanford or take the lead is still
undecided. This proposal would have a problem-oriented approach. He said work is continuing on a potential multiunit UIF proposal (Microbiology, CIVE, Biochemistry, and CFR) that would focus on research in molecular
techniques applicable to remediation.
Urban Ecology. J. Marzluff and C. Ryan reported that the Urban Ecology proposal is being revised and refined.
CORRIM/RTI. B. Lippke reported on funding for CORRIM and the Rural Technology Initiative RTI); a concern
with RTI funding is that the necessary infrastructure for outreach could be severely impacted by I-695.
Carbon Initiative. J. Perez-Garcia reported that he would devote time in December to work on this project.
Fact Sheets. The team agreed that fact sheets on the canopy crane, carbon cycling, FIA, LMS, second-growth forest
habitat, restoration, invasive species, and life-cycle analysis would be helpful in completing a CFR Fact Sheet
portfolio.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 2:30 p.m.
November 17, 1999
9
•
Team members attending:
L. Brubaker, B. Lippke, J. Marzluff, C. Oliver, J. Perez-Garcia, C. Ryan, P. Schiess, G. Schreuder, S.
Strand
•
Agenda items included:
•
Internal UIF competition
•
Status of Incubator Team-funded projects
•
Fact sheet competition
•
Internal UIF proposal discussions.
G. Schreuder reported that:
•
He believed there was faculty support for the need for a spatial analysis program that would include spatial
statistics, remote sensing, laser mapping (LIDAR), high precision photogrammetry, and GIS. Ideally, the
program would have a monitoring and measuring focus on bio-spatial statistical problems in forests, as
both sources of wood products, habitats, and carbon storage; and oceans, with relation to fisheries habitat
and climatological and geophysical data.
•
The UW has bits and pieces of this larger interdisciplinary conceptual scheme, with the research
component notably missing.
•
CoFS has set aside a lab facility for GIS staffed by part-time post doc; CFR has GIS lab with part-time
staffing provided by Phil Hurvitz; the USFS cooperative within CFR also is a partial resource and provides
a link with Civil Engineering.
•
Current needs include equipment (especially software) and money for its future maintenance, and staffing.
•
Staff, with a background in spatial statistics and applied mathematics, would work with faculty, staff, and
student researchers to produce demonstrable results.
•
Other options to obtain bits and pieces of this program would be Tools for Transformation and educational
grants.
•
Support from Deans Thorud and Nowell is essential to the proposal's success.
•
The team discussed the proposal and agreed that the deans, faculty, and staff involved should meet as soon
as possible for clarification of CoFS/CFR support and to accommodate the December 1 internal UIF
proposal deadline.
•
Urban Initiative.
J. Marzluff and C. Ryan reported that the Tools for Transformation urban ecology proposal for $300,000
over two years received a good reception in preliminary talks with Debra Friedman. The project would
establish "tiger teams" of graduate and undergraduate students to address urban ecology projects, with
participation from forest resources, geography, and urban design and planning. The transformative goal is
to transition to a sustained team approach to urban ecology, producing joint graduate theses. Questions and
points discussed included:
•
How to keep program funded in the long run? Projects would be attractive to foundations focusing on
educational and urban environment grants.
•
Program could also act as a problem-solver for agencies such as DNR, but how to keep from being viewed
as a competing consulting entity?
•
Would project work better for master's or Ph.D. graduate students?
10
•
Phytoremediation.
S. Strand reported that a new faculty member in CIVE was committed to cooperation with
bio/phytoremediation projects, but that he wouldn't arrive here until next summer. Funding requests may be
made via a multidisciplinary UIF proposal next fall. Additional grant funding is being explored, as well as
the potential for receiving funding for an EPA hazardous site center.
•
Forest Inventory Analysis.
B. Lippke and G. Schreuder reported that:
•
There is currently discussion about combining the USFS FIA and forest health monitoring databases.
•
Parameters of forest inventory analysis are currently in a state of flux.
We need to get a proposal on riparian modules to WFPA; how to approach them?
Rural Technology Initiative.
B. Lippke reported that the RTI was still a direct line item ($1.4M) in the congressional budget.
Fact Sheets.
The team was requested to review the provided list of fact sheets currently under consideration and (1) to identify
six or seven key fact sheets; and (2) to list additional fact sheets needed to provide a comprehensive set.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 2:30 p.m.
October 20, 1999
•
Team members attending:
L. Brubaker, B. Lippke, J. Marzluff, C. Oliver, J. Perez-Garcia, S. Strand, D. Thorud
•
Agenda items included:
•
Internal UIF competition
•
Status of Incubator Team-funded projects
•
Fact sheet competition
•
Team membership
•
Work plan for 1999-00
•
Internal UIF competition.
D. Thorud reported that CoFS and CFR were discussing a joint UIF proposal for GIS technical support and
instructors, housed in a lab in the new CoFS building. The total biennial award would be $60,000 ($30,00
each for CFR and CoFS), with the possibility of additional Tools for Transformation funding for
maintenance. The internal UIF proposal due date is December 1, 1999. The team briefly discussed
information about the UIF distributed at an administrator's workshop that morning. Some characteristics of
successful proposals were presented:
•
Process to outcome well described
•
Clear communication to scholars in other fields
•
Future state described in compelling way
•
Builds on substantial resources already in place
11
•
As well as the most common mistakes:
•
Too much emphasis on funding for "talking," e.g, developing networks; these should already be well
developed
•
Too "center-oriented"; center shouldn't be focus or end point; desired outcomes more important
•
Too much emphasis on project as a "mini-grants" program
•
Status reports.
Project leaders J. Marzluff (urban initiative) and S. Strand (phytoremediation) gave brief status reports.
Both are in the process of determining possible funding sources. S. Strand said that a potential new faculty
hire in Civil Engineering might open up possibilities for a joint project in bio/phytoremediation.
•
Fact sheet competition.
The team reviewed the results of the Summer Quarter fact sheet competition. It was agreed that all but two
of the fact sheets received should be included in a draft portfolio to be presented at the Winter Quarter allCollege meeting. Two fact sheets were returned to their authors, who were encouraged to resubmit them in
the next competition, to be scheduled for Autumn Quarter 1999. It was agreed that fact sheets on carbon,
LMS, and the Canopy Crane project, among others, were important to complete CFR portfolio.
•
Team membership.
Two nominations for team membership were received, Bob Northey and Chuck Henry. It was agreed that
they would be asked to serve on the team.
•
With regard to the work plan for the coming year a few items were briefly discussed:
•
The possibility of a project on rural technology transfer (perhaps a UIF proposal) that would combine
aspects of medicine, forestry, fisheries, and business. Roger Rosenblatt was cited as a possible participant
in such a project.
•
Inviting Dave Peterson and Daryll Johnson to an upcoming meeting of the team to discuss their projects.
•
An Agenda 2020 RFP, which was agreed to be distributed to S. Strand, T. Bradshaw, D. Briggs, C. Oliver,
R. Edmonds, T. Hinckley, E. Turnblom, and J. Johnson
FIA: how to be a closer participant in the process; how to communicate more effectively with WFPA; how to make
an appropriate link to GIS as a land calibration system
The meeting adjourned at approximately 2:30 p.m.
September 21, 1999
•
Team members attending:
J. Fridley, B. Lippke, J. Marzluff, C. Ryan, P. Schiess, G. Schreuder, S. Strand
•
Agenda items included:
•
Input on draft 99-00 goals
•
Status reports on summer projects
•
Fact Sheet competition
•
There was a consensus that the draft goals were acceptable and that a work plan should be developed to
accomplish them.
12
Project leaders [Fridley, ATI; Marzluff/Ryan, Urban Initiative; Strand, Phytoremediation; Schreuder, Forest
Inventory Analysis and Assessment] gave brief status reports. Written reports were submitted by C. Ryan and S.
Strand.
B. Lippke reported that the carbon cycling project had been delayed because J. Perez-Garcia had been working on a
short-term global trade grant.
On the ATI project, J. Fridley that precision forestry had been awarded a .5M biennial budget by the legislature.
Work was in progress to assemble an advisory board, probably in the form of an Executive Board and a Technical
Advisory Committee. He reported the results of a meeting of industry representatives (VPs and others interested),
where the response was generally positive. He said that issues surrounding the level of analysis (e.g., square meter,
riparian zone, individual tree) still needed to be resolved. Overlap in the resolution of data, as well as possible
missing links in the data needed to be identified.
On the FIA project, G. Schreuder reported that a meeting with WFPA would be scheduled. He also said that the
current conflict over FIA in Oregon needs to be understood before we can go forward with the project.
On the phytoremediation project, S. Strand reported that he and others working the project had reached consensus
that phytoremediation should be combined with bacterial bioremediation in order to broaden its intellectual appeal
and increase its chances for funding. He is working with colleagues in Microbiology and Civil Engineering; the
main emphasis would be genetic engineering applied to phytoremediation and the methods of molecular microbial
ecology applied to the problem of bacterial remediation. He said that funding remained problematic. One possibility
is an open EPA competition for a West Coast hazardous substance research center is upcoming, with a deadline
probably next fall. An IGERT pre-proposal for submission in spring of 2000 will also be prepared.
B. Lippke reported on the Rural Technology Transfer project. He said that it was still in the Senate budget for 1.6M.
P. Schiess reported that the Training Center was still a separate line item.
The committee discussed a plan for judging the fact sheets that had been submitted. A list of criteria was approved
and all members were asked to fill out "grading" sheets.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 3 p.m.
August 31, 1999
•
Team members attending:
B. Lippke, J. Marzluff, C. Ryan, G. Schreuder
•
The agenda focused on a discussion of the team's 1999-2000 draft goals and ways to achieve them.
•
The goal categories were: fund as many priority projects as possible; develop fact sheets and better PR
packages on CFR research; and coordinate more "show and tells" with legislators and other influential
potential supporters/funders.
•
Team members present agreed that these were important goals to work on. The project areas discussed for
funding were:
•
CORRIM: needs money to fill gap left by DOE (close to a sure thing with more work).
•
Rural Tech Transfer: in the hands of conference with the support of a large rural consortium (50/50 chance
for $1million plus).
•
Advanced Technology Initiative: has been funded but needs a plan that will produce results; must be linked
to other on-going programs.
13
•
Forest Inventory Analysis and Assessment (funding support): need proposal for WFPA support and state
funding.
•
Urban Ecology Initiative (funding support): any new tactics that should be considered?
•
Bioremediation (funding support): determine first set of tactics.
•
Carbon mitigation studies (funding support): develop an educational presentation and first set of tactics for
extended funding.
Submit internal UIF (which project?): next steps up to DBT
It was agreed that developing a network of CFR contacts with key constituents was a high priority. The key players
and decision makers in Olympia and Washington, DC need to be identified.
The team also discussed the importance of establishing contacts with foundations, with the assistance of the UW
office on corporate and foundation relations.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 3 p.m.
June 7, 1999
Team members attending:
B. Lippke, J. Perez-Garcia, C. Ryan, G. Schreuder, S. Strand; also attending: E. Anderson, D. Ford
Agenda items included:
•
Potential QERM collaboration with Incubator Team initiatives
•
Deliverables for project supplemental support
•
Workplan
QERM Collaboration.
D. Ford and E. Anderson, representing QERM, made a presentation to the team on potential QERM collaboration
with team initiatives. They explained that QERM students (usually Ph.D. candidates) generally have degrees in math
and expertise in quantitative and analytical sciences. While students are fully funded for their first year, they often
need funding for subsequent years. At one time QERM grad students were funded by CFR to provide statistical
"consulting" services to the College. The team discussed possible projects that might need modeling and statistical
support provided by grad students, e.g., urban ecology, FIA, CORRIM, and others. The team agreed to keep QERM
advised of the funding status of these projects and of the possible need for student support.
Deliverables for Project Supplemental Support.
The team discussed the applications for summer project support by the Incubator Team and agreed upon
deliverables for each project as follows:Urban ecology initiative:
•
a revised NSF IGERT proposal
•
identification of and contact with appropriate foundations for funding
•
materials for approaching foundations for funding, including a fact sheet that can be used for general
promotion
•
a "Tools for Transformation" proposal to present to D. Friedman
Phytoremediation initiative:
14
•
develop and prepare an IGERT proposal for a CFR instructional program in phytoremediation for
submission either in Fall 1999 or Spring 2000
•
vigorously pursue contacts with the U.S. EPA for support of an educational program in phytoremediation
•
develop contacts with Prof. Rich Meagher at the University of Georgia in order to establish funding for a
national center in phytoremediation research between our two institutions
•
develop and prepare detailed course outlines for two undergraduate courses in phytoremediation and
provide two overview lectures that can serve as introductions for these courses
•
prepare a fact sheet on the phytoremediation program and/or research findings of interest to policy makers
Forest inventory analysis initiative:
•
a statement of what some other states are/have been doing, with emphasis on Oregon
•
a fact sheet to be submitted to the WA legislature in the next session
•
a plan for a forest assessment process with funding needs and key participants identified
•
assistance in organizing one or more meetings with clients/users
•
availability for follow-up meetings with staffers, users, clients, etc.
Carbon cycling initiative:
•
a white paper illustrating the positive role forests have on the economy and the environment, focusing on
carbon cycling through forests and forest products and how forest management and products are an integral
part of future climate change discussions
•
a fact sheet on the findings
Workplan.
The team discussed various aspects of the 98-99 workplan. B. Lippke said that the team's most recent progress
report (Spring Quarter 99), as well as a fact sheet on the Stettler seminar, were now available on the CFR internal
Web page. A short discussion ensued of the possible ways to achieve performance measurement of the Incubator
team; one suggestion was to count number of "facilitations."The meeting adjourned at approximately 2 p.m.External
Initiatives Incubator TeamMinutes, June 22, 1999Team members attending: B. Lippke, J. Perez-Garcia, C. Ryan, G.
Schreuder, P. SchiessAgenda items included:
•
Initiative updates
•
Fact sheet competition
Initiative updates.
B. Lippke presented brief status reports on several CFR initiatives:
•
Advanced Technology Initiative - J. Fridley is preparing a written proposal to present to the Provost. The
initiative will be a "classic" 5-year review project funded with long-term (10-15 years) seed money
($500,000 expected in first two years, during which time progress will need to be shown.) Strategic
linkages with other CFR centers and research areas (e.g., SMC, CINTRAFOR, wildlife, timber harvesting)
were pointed out.
•
Rural Technology Transfer - $2.5M (out of $3.5M requested) currently included in Senate Interior
Committee bill.
•
Forest Inventory Analysis - It was reported that the Oregon forest industry council had recently rejected
FIA data and did their own analysis.
15
•
Washington Private Forest Forum - At a recent meeting there was a consensus that a need for certification
programs exists. Currently WA DNR does certification training; could CFR also fill this need?
Fact sheet competition.
The team discussed holding a competition to encourage the production of fact sheets. The following announcement
was approved by the team for posting via email and photocopies:The External Initiatives "Incubator Team" is
soliciting new fact sheets from all CFR researchers (faculty, students, staff) for a College portfolio of information
pieces on current, cutting-edge research topics. Fact sheets are an extremely useful way to communicate with public
audiences, including external stakeholders, legislators and their staff, and potential funders.Prizes will be awarded!
Closing date for submitting your fact sheet is Friday, September 24th, 1999. Awards will be made at the Autumn
Quarter all-College meeting on Friday, October 1st. 1st prize is dinner for two at a **** restaurant!2nd and 3rd
prizes will be surprises! Each fact sheet should be a succinct (1 or 2 sheets, 8 1/2 x 11), engaging summary of:
•
an ongoing research project, outlining the problem or topic, the methodology, and the results to date
•
a proposed research project, stating the problem and the expected impacts of its solution
•
a broader interdisciplinary initiative, project, or concept in which the College has an established or
emerging expertise
The fact sheets should be written for mid-level policy- or decision-makers such as public officials, industry
managers, and foundation contacts, who will not necessarily have a scientific background. Some CFR researchers
have already developed fact sheets (e.g., CINTRAFOR and Urban Forestry). Fact sheets currently under preparation
by Incubator Team members are:
•
carbon cycling
•
phytoremediation
•
urban ecology initiative
•
Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA)
•
Landscape Management System (LMS)
•
second-growth forest habitat
Fact sheets we would like to have (and maybe these already exist and we're just not aware of it!) include:
•
canopy crane
•
Stand Management Cooperative projects
•
large woody debris and other riparian topics
•
others? [restoration; invasive species; life-cycle analysis; biosolids; etc.]
The meeting adjourned at approximately 2 p.m.
May 24, 1999
Attending:
J. Fridley, B. Lippke, John Perez-Garcia, Clare Ryan, G. Schreuder, D. Thorud
The meeting focused on a review of requests for Incubator Team financial support for internal UIF and other project
development.
Internal UIF Process: B. Lippke reported that the Internal UIF approval process is very different from last year's
process. The amount of money available is limited to 1/3 of the amount the College has contributed to UIF for this
year. If the College can bring forward a proposal having the elements of a new initiative that is in concert with the
16
its strategic plan, the Provost will approve its funding. Since funding will be approximately $16,000 per year, it will
be insufficient to support a new faculty resource unless ways can be found to leverage the amount.
He said that five projects have come forward as possible internal UIF candidates:
1.
GIS, in cooperation with other academic units and with the anticipation of matching support from the UG
College. This project also seeks to leverage the available dollars with a Tools for Transformation request to
fund initial hardware needs. This proposal has the highest leverage potential for the College and should be
considered as a first choice. Preliminary discussions are now taking place among the School of Fisheries,
the Colleges of Arts and Sciences and Architecture and Urban Planning, and the Provost. Substantive work
on alternative proposals might better wait until this proposal is thoroughly explored.
2.
Introducing two phytoremediation courses. This could be done under the available UIF funding, and could
provide a pilot effort toward a broader program to obtain additional research funds, i.e., an IGERT
proposal.
3.
Capstone course Web management. This proposal has received a substantial degree of support from both
divisions. It also has potential leverage capabilities with other funding sources such as Tools for
Transformation. There has been some concern that the case for permanent, as opposed to temporary
funding, may not be easily defended; hence a request to Tools for Transformation may be more
appropriate.
4.
Urban Ecology Initiative. A program of introductory courses could provide a stepping stone to the broader
objectives envisioned for this program.
5.
Community consortium for landscape renovation/installation. This program would operate like a "Habitat
for Humanity," with the object being landscapes or landscape restoration rather than houses. While an
intriguing proposal, the development is at a very early stage and might best seek support from Tools for
Transformation or at least seek feedback on their interest.
The team agreed all five projects should be advised to consider alternative funding sources, since internal UIF
proposals will not be in competition. The above order is probably a good reflection of the team's estimation of
priorities for pursuing an internal UIF proposal. The Dean is leading the effort for the GIS proposal; if it falters,
reconsideration of the next best candidate will be necessary.
B. Lippke further reported that three of the internal UIF proposals as well as three others have made requests for
(summer) funding support from the team to develop multidisciplinary proposals. The six projects requesting
Incubator Team support are: Forest Inventory Analysis, Carbon Modeling; Phytoremediation; Urban Ecology; the
Community Landscape Consortium; and Analysis of Vegetation Complexes within the Stand Management
Cooperative's field data.
There is not enough money available to fund all six proposals. The team discussed the requests and agreed that the
following four have priority.
1.
The Forest Inventory Analysis project has received support from WFPA for the College to take on the role
of providing a continuous assessment process for timber availability and habitat monitoring at the state
level. We will need to develop a proposal with WFPA this summer as the basis for seeking funding.
2.
The College has some comparative advantages in carbon modeling. However, this project did not receive
funding over the last year and perhaps as a result did not make much progress. Sources of external dollars
are available for carbon analysis and ways to tap these should be explored.
3.
The College has a comparative advantage in phytoremediation and could expand this program. Developing
a plan that is complementary to other College programs is in order.
4.
The Urban Ecology Initiative made substantial progress over the last year but may need help to develop
proposals for the next round.
17
It was agreed that the Incubator Team will attempt to support each of these four programs with the financial support
equivalent to about one month's salary for each, assuming agreement can be reached on deliverables. Possibilities
for funding the other projects will be considered in the future. It was agreed that D. Briggs and L. Chalker-Scott
should consider attending a future meeting to discuss how best to support their proposals.
May 3, 1999
Attending:
B. Lippke, C. Oliver, J. Perez-Garcia, C. Ryan, G. Schreuder, S. Strand
Agenda:
•
ATI/Rural Technology Transfer (RTT) status reports
•
Internal UIF -- CFR candidates
•
Phytoremediation, Strand
•
Capstone Management, Fridley
•
Urban Ecology Initiative, Marzluff/Ryan
•
GIS Consortium, Bare/Office of UG Education
•
Brainstorm session with E. Shulenberger re: phytoremediation
•
Seed money for project development:
•
Carbon cycle?
•
FIA?
•
Fact sheets
B. Lippke reported on the status of ATI and RTT. He said that the final outcome of the ATI initiative is $2.5M to
UW and $1.5M to WSU. Of the UW's funding, $.5M will be for precision forestry, providing a complement to the
WSU funding, of which $.5M will be for precision agriculture. He also reported that the RTT $3.5M proposal for
federal funding was still in the running. In the long run, ATI and RTT could work together as components of an
economic development/outreach effort in rural areas.
The internal UIF was discussed; however, since the unit-specific guidelines were not yet available, the discussion
involved some speculation. It appears, however, that 1/3 of total CFR UIF contribution is the maximum that can be
requested; and that no peer review will take place. Several strategies were suggested: (1) pick only one project and
make sure that it has a compelling rationale; the Dean will have to make the case that the project is in line with CFR
goals; (2) try to obtain leveraging funds; i.e., combine with other schools and colleges, tools for transformation,
external, and other funding sources.
S. Strand discussed phytoremediation as a candidate for internal UIF funding. He said that he had explored
cooperation with the genome project, but that T. Bradshaw was concentrating his funding requests at the federal
level. Internal UIF funding might provide enough funds to teach a class or two in phytoremediation, for which
demonstrated demand exists. B. Lippke encouraged a meeting with E. Shulenbarger to discuss various strategies for
funding phytoremediation. Additional attendees would also include Milt Gordon, Lee Newman, and Dean Thorud.
S. Strand said that he would contact E. Shulenbarger to arrange the meeting.
Other candidates for internal UIF funding were briefly summarized: Urban Ecology Initiative; Capstone
Management (which might also be a good candidate for Tools for Transformation funding); and the GIS Consortium
(with the Office of Undergraduate Education).
18
Requests for Incubator Team "seed money" proposal development funding received to date were listed: carbon
cycle; phytoremediation; and FIA. B. Lippke said he would send out a request for additional proposals, which would
be discussed at the 5/24 Incubator Team meeting.
Fact sheets, addressed to the policy-maker level, that need to be developed are:
•
LMS (an executive summary fact sheet; as well as a longer piece which might tie LMS into the Montreal
protocol)
•
Urban Ecology
•
Carbon Cycle
•
Phytoremediation
The team then discussed the following items not on the prepared agenda: (1) ideas for symposia, which included
carbon sequestration/climate change, rural/urban technology links, and phyto- and bioremediation; (2) follow-up
from the GMA meets ESA conference and a discussion of need to make contacts to develop structure for getting
students involved in projects; (3) a more in-depth discussion of the ATI).
The ATI discussion included comments that theoretical modeling (the middle link) is missing in the proposal, i.e.,
how to bridge the chasm between scientific research and applications like LMS. The need for new positions that
would focus on modeling and technical communications was suggested. It was also pointed out that in order to
respond and plan in a strategic way, it is crucial to know all of the arguments that were made on behalf of ATI that
resulted in its being approved by the legislature.
The meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
April 26, 1999
Team members attending:
J. Fridley, B. Lippke, J. Marzluff, C. Oliver, J. Perez-Garcia, C. Ryan, G. Schreuder; also attending: M. Dietz and L.
Clauss
Agenda
•
Discussion with Martha Dietz and Louise Clauss of the UW Development Office/Corporate and
Foundation Relations re: foundation funding strategies
•
Status updates on ATI, CORRIM, and Rural Technology Transfer Initiative
•
Request for summer funding/carbon cycle
Martha Dietz and Louise Clauss introduced themselves: M. Dietz is the Assistant Vice President for Corporate and
Foundation Relations; L. Clauss assists her in providing outreach to help schools and colleges who don't have
foundation fundraising personnel.
M. Dietz explained that the Alumni-Donor Information System (ADIS) was currently converting all of its records to
a new database system (ADVANCE) and that when this is completed the ability to do searching and prospect
tracking will be enhanced. She said, however, that as a general rule potential foundation funding seekers should (1)
identify possible sources of funding; (2) check with the Development Office to determine whether a specific
Development staff person is assigned to these foundations; and (3) forward proposals to Development Office who
can review and provide helpful input. She said only a small number of the many existing foundations have a specific
person assigned to them. She also said that some very large foundations who may already have a relationship with
the UW or with whom the UW is seeking to establish a relationship (e.g., the Paul Allen Foundation) should be
approached only through central channels (e.g., the Provost's Development Committee). Therefore, it is important to
take the first step of confirming protocols with her office.
19
C. Oliver asked how CFR could be proactive in seeking funding; the unique perspectives CFR researchers and
educators have on the intersections of technology, the environment, and natural resources would likely be of interest
to many foundations. A brief discussion of particular projects and topics, such as carbon sequestration, biodiversity,
habitat restoration, sustainable forest management, the canopy crane project, and others ensued. M. Dietz concurred
that projects and topics like these would be of interest to a number of foundations.
L. Clauss said that the old paradigm of state funding for public universities and foundation funding for private
institutions was breaking down. She said that most foundations have Web sites and that doing searches on key words
in, for example, the Community of Science Web server, could be productive. She also suggested that reviewing
annual reports from peer institutions for their foundation funding sources could be useful. A number of foundations
that have funded environmental/natural resource/public policy/education/economic development research were
briefly mentioned: MacArthur Foundation; Ford Foundation; Bullitt Foundation. She said that the Kellogg
Foundation was interested in economic development in particular and the PEW Charitable Trust as well as the
Weyerhaeuser Family Foundation (based in MN) were interested in public policy issues. She offered some
suggestions for pursuing foundation funding:
•
Maintain good network connections with alumni who have gone on to work for or have contacts with
foundations.
•
Don't overlook small, local foundations that may be looking for projects with regional focus.
•
Develop one-page executive summaries or fact sheets on key topics needing funding.
•
Try to get UW Provost or President's signatures on funding proposals.
Team members agreed to keep in contact with the Development staff and thanked both for attending the meeting.
B. Lippke gave a brief update on the ATI (still in the running for $3M), CORRIM (probably a "go"), and the Rural
Technology Transfer Initiative (presentations made to Congressional staff?). He also distributed a request by J.
Perez-Garcia for Incubator Team funding to work on a carbon sequestration fact sheet.
The meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
April 5, 1999
Attending: B. Lippke, J. Marzluff, C. Oliver, J. Perez-Garcia, C. Ryan, G. Schreuder
Agenda items included:
•
Review of March 15, 1999 minutes
•
Status report of ongoing activities: CORRIM; ATI; Rural Technology Transfer; UIF; FIA; Urban Ecology
Initiative; Carbon Cycle
•
Stettler seminar follow-up activities: fact sheet; planned "brainstorm" session with E. Shulenbarger re:
genome program/phytoremediation/bioremediation
•
Fact sheet
•
Foundation support
The minutes of the March 15 meeting were approved.
C. Ryan reported on the "GMA meets ESA" leadership conference sponsored by UW and King County and targeted
at local elected county officials. She reported that the conference had good attendance – county staff were present as
well as elected officials – and that it served as a "wake-up" call in the context of the salmon listing and provided an
overview of resources available at the UW. In addition, panel participants from Oregon and San Diego, CA
20
presented perspectives from two states that were already addressing these issues – a consistent message from these
jurisdictions was to "expect conflict and litigation." Although there is concern about "unfunded mandates," it
appears that a great deal of federal money will be available; the important thing will be to have organized and timely
proposals.
B. Lippke reported that the outcome of CORRIM funding request will be known in July or August, and that if it is
funded money will be available in October. He also reported that both Democrats and Republicans had funding for
ATI in the state budget legislation ($1M, Republicans and $4M Democrats). The precision forestry initiative,
although not the UW’s first priority, may have a good chance of being funded under either, but especially the $4M
scenario. With regard to the rural technology initiative, he said that he and C. Oliver would be making a
presentation to the congressional delegation at the end of the week. He also reported that: K. Duffield has the most
recent information on the UIF technology proposal in which CFR is a participant; refinement on FIA needs and next
steps needs to be carried out before further action is taken; and that J. Perez-Garcia was submitting a proposal for
one month’s salary to work on carbon cycle project.
C. Oliver suggested that wood products be considered as a component in carbon sequestration; if this concept could
get into refereed literature, a productive exchange of ideas might ensue. Many complex questions, e.g., who gets $
credits for sequestration in wood products, need to be addressed. The team briefly discussed the merits of a
symposium on carbon cycle issues. An informal "carbon team," consisting of ES and M&E faculty, have met once
or twice, but not recently. J. Marzluff said that he would invite participation in this interdisciplinary group at the
upcoming ES faculty meeting. Several possible resources/sources of information were brought to the team’s
attention: graduate student R. Marsh, D. Darr of the USFS economic research group; and the Isak Walton League.
B. Lippke said that a summary of points discussed during the Stettler seminar would be prepared. He also said that
he would like to get a group of faculty, including S. Strand, C. Henry, L. Newman, and T. Bradshaw to "brainstorm"
genome project/phytoremediation/ bioremediation issues with E. Shulenberger of the Office of Research.
The team discussed fact sheets and which topic areas should have highest priority: LMS; carbon sequestration; fire
ecology; habitat work being done by S. West; marbled murelet; and forest health.
The team reviewed briefly some preliminary information from the Laird Norton Foundation. The benefit of having a
representative from the UW Development Office discuss the protocols and strategies of approaching foundations for
support was discussed.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 2:30 p.m.
March 15, 1999
Team members attending: B. Lippke, C. Oliver, J. Perez-Garcia
Also attending: D. Ford
The team briefly discussed the draft rural technololgy transfer proposal and made suggested changes, including:
•
Include more specifics in "statement of problem/proposed solutions" paragraphs
•
Provide "organizational" chart/graphic representation of what virtual technology network might look like
•
Define more clearly how extension agents would be a part of the proposal
Additional suggestions and remarks:
•
Identify who we aren't "turning to" presently; i.e. secondary manufacturers. It was pointed out that these are
not really rural and are generally located along I-5 corridor.
•
Better to get support from one or large two groups rather than many smaller ones.
•
Better to start with one focused project in one place; if it works expand to other locations.
21
•
Build in Alaska Wood Utilization Center as a link
D. Ford then briefly discussed the statistical support that QERM might be able to offer to potential interdisciplinary
projects. He said he would like to offer the Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Quantitative Ecology and
Resource Management as an interdisciplinary resource that could be particularly useful in preparing proposals. He
said nterests range from new statistical methods through modeling of ecosystems and many such applications run
through potential research proposals. Faculty in the program come from many academic units. How to provide
funding for such assistance/support needed to be discussed. Because so few team members were present, it was
requested that D. Ford return some time during Spring Quarter to discuss further.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 3 p.m.
Minutes, March 8, 1999
Attending: B. Lippke, J. Marzluff, C. Ryan
Agenda Item : Reaction to UIF multi-unit proposal screening
Comments were solicited on what was learned by the UIF selection process. Team members suggested that,
although, the variance in views was probably large on the selection committee (just like it was for our internal
reviews), some themes may show through even though the committee feedback is limited.
•
Selection committee appeared to like innovative centers or programs -- centers with curriculum or program
to administer research (not our preferred use of the terms). [? UW centers don’t administer curriculum]
•
Educational Technology is in.
•
Can’t be fuzzy in describing interdisciplinary roles; have to be reasonably specific, i.e. not too broad.
•
Links between departments must be clear.
•
New faculty must be identified as to what they add.
Other comments:
•
There was a general feeling that subjects with a professional spin are considered innovative.
•
A new and innovative science that needs to be extended into a new educational program theme might stack
up well.
•
We should generally (but not exclusively) be targeting other sources of funds where the program needs are
clearer and where the probability of responding with a winning bid is higher.
Agenda item: CFR proposals and themes that might fit the Internal UIF due Autumn 1999.
•
Urban ecology initiative: proposal apparently was viewed as too unfocused. Other funding sources
(foundations) are probably a better bet.
•
Environmental science: POE link was disadvantage; the links were not clear. There was probably a sense
that POE is already a new thrust, whey do they need more?
•
Technology initiative might get high support levels from industry and legislature but not from a UIF
committee. It should be targeted toward tech transfer to rural communities; this would be well received in
government circles.
22
Genetics and remediation have the potential for taking innovative science forward. Genetics may be too
multidisciplinary for an internal UIF. Either would have to focus on taking an already successful research program
and developing important new curriculum, as we have already been very successful at raising research dollars.
Minutes, March 1, 1999
Attending: L. Brubaker, J. Fridley, B. Lippke, J. Marzluff, C. Oliver, J. Perez-Garcia, S. Strand
Agenda Items:
•
Advanced Technology Initiative (ATI)
•
Proprosal by S. Strand for internal UIF funding (phytoremediation center)
The team briefly discussed the status of the ATI. Although not the UW’s first priority, the precision forestry
initiative has an advantage in that it is the only one with the possibility of addressing state’s urban/rural income
disparity. It was pointed out that in further developing this initiative, links with ONRC need to be explored and
strengthened. Federal funding opportunities for this project may also exist. C. Oliver mentioned a recent article in
Foreign Affairs that discussed new advances in producing ethanol from wood; he wondered whether this might also
be a component in a technology transfer initiative involving rural areas.
S. Strand presented a draft proposal for internal UIF funding for a UW center to study the use of phytoremediation
in the cleanup and restoration of contaminated groundwater, soils, and sediments. He said the center would build on
an existing core of faculty with an established reputation in the field, and that UW research could be expanded into
new areas environmental remediation using plants, with an emphasis on genetic engineering. Public acceptance and
student interest should be high, as phytoremediation has the advantages of being economical, passive, long-lived,
and highly effective. New undergraduate courses might provide an overview of phytoremediation; graduate courses
would cover remediation of organic and metallic toxins and provide an integrative approach to
remediation/restoration.
Comments from the team included:
•
There would be a benefit to tying the proposal in with existing CFR efforts (i.e., T. Bradshaw’s genome
and poplar research and the biosolids component of C. Henry’s renewable resource science project,
including S. Brown’s research).
•
It might be possible to broaden the proposal even more, and tie in the ethanol-from-wood component –
result center might be something like "Center for Genetic Applications of Plants."
•
An even broader approach might be a program or center on "Engineered Ecological Systems."
•
There could be benefit to exploring links with regional agencies in King County and the City of Seattle
working on remediation/restoration projects.
•
A strengthened proposal would more clearly tie in new or existing curriculum elements affiliated with the
proposed center.
Minutes, February 1, 1999
Attending: L. Brubaker, B. Lippke, C. Oliver, J. Perez-Garcia, C. Ryan, P. Schiess, D. Thorud
Agenda Items:
•
Progress report on incubator team projects
•
Fact sheet development
23
•
UIF internal proposal
•
Advanced Technology (ATI) – possible new proposal on genome research
The draft incubator team progress report was reviewed and revisions were suggested. The final report will be made
available on the CFR internal home page. It was noted that at least two incubator team projects that received
supplemental summer funding from the team and been successfully carried through to a final product.
Team members were requested to each think about developing a fact sheet on one or their research areas. These
could then be used as models or templates in encouraging other CFR researchers to do the same. A portfolio of
sample sheets was distributed with the agenda. Suggested priority topics included carbon storage and landscape
management systems.
The team briefly discussed the UIF internal process. It should be consistent with CFR mission, goals, and priorities.
D. Thorud suggested that it might be possible to rework the Advanced Technology precision forestry initiative as an
internal UIF proposal if this does not get funded by the legislature.
D. Thorud reported that a additional ATI proposal currently under discussion is a program in genomics for
coniferous trees. This is research that will certainly be done – the question is no longer whether but when and by
whom? Private forest industry alone is probably not equipped to do this, but multinational seed companies may soon
make the switch from agricultural products to trees; research results would then almost certainly be proprietary.
Washington, with its forest land base, potential funding by legislature, and cooperation among UW, WSU, and
industry would be equipped to carry out such research.
With regard to ATI proposals, it was noted that proposals with a forestry-based focus could have the best chance at
addressing rural/urban income disparity in the state, currently a "hot" topic. Innovative ways in which "high-tech"
forestry/resource management or research can exist in benefit rural communities should be explored. CFR faculty
have already done work in phytoremediation of resource-based industrial sites (i.e., mines).
The team discussed preparations for the Stettler seminar, now scheduled for Monday, March 8. Confirmed panel
participants to date are D. Briggs, C. Henry, J. Marzluff. J. Franklin is a tentative panel member. Suggestions for
panel members outside CFR were: D. Baldwin and R. Stonecypher. B. Lippke agreed to call Vice Provost Kwiram
for other possible names.
The meeting adjourned at 3 p.m.
Minutes, January 25, 1999
Attending: L. Brubaker, B. Lippke, C. Oliver, J. Perez-Garcia, C. Ryan, P. Schiess
Agenda items:
•
Advanced Technology Initiative (ATI) update
•
Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA) update
•
Urban Ecology Initiative update
•
Work plan review
B. Lippke reported that four ATIs were going forward from the UW to the legislature: infectious disease research;
construction technology; computer technology; and precision forestry. The precision forestry initiative might have
an advantage in that it is the only one of the four proposals that might directly contribute to supporting the state’s
rural economies. The forestry initiative proposes developing new technologies for improving forest management and
engineering and wood processing. The next step will be to coordinate support for the proposal among legislators and
industry.
24
B. Lippke reported that the FIA is moving slowly until agreement is reached on the Timber-Fish-Wildlife
negotiations. Some unclear definitions with regard to riparian research need to be clarified, and if FIA includes
riparian data, an enhanced sample and possible more sample plots will be needed.
C. Ryan reported on the status of the Urban Ecology Initiative and related projects. She said that March 1 is the date
for UIF final proposal invitations, and that they are also awaiting final decision on IGERT funding. The group did
receive $425,000 in NSF funding for data collection on impact of urban patterns on ecosystem dynamics. A related
effort is an upcoming leadership conference on ESA/GMA issues to be held at CUH on March 19. She said this
conference is aimed at elected county (King, Kitsap, Snohomish, Pierce) officials who will be impacted by the
impending salmon listing, and would probably be the first in a number of meetings to help determine what science is
available and/or needed to formulate and implement policy. Some county staff will also likely attend the conference.
The team reviewed work plan items still pending:
•
Internal UIF proposals. CFR target is to submit at least two internal proposals due date not yet formally
announced but will probably be sometime in Autumn ’99. Team members were encouraged to spread the
word among their fellow faculty. Summer funding from the team might be used to support development of
strong competitive proposals.
•
Fact sheet development. It was decided that sample formats should be collected and distributed to the team.
The team discussed the various audiences (i.e., legislators, general public, research cooperators, potential
donors) that these information pieces might be addressed to. Some ideas on fact sheet development
included: use research project summaries as basis; use graduate program area summaries as basis; use
Community of Science research description as narrative as basis.
•
Stettler seminar on research networks/cooperatives. The seminar was tentatively scheduled for March 10
[subsequently rescheduled for March 8].
The team discussed the CFR target of generally improving CFR visibility. It was suggested that strong involvement
in the upcoming SAF annual meeting in Portland would be beneficial. In addition, the current restructuring of the
College’s Visiting Committee to include a working group on public relations and information was noted as a helpful
development. Closer ties with the CFRAA were also seen as helping CFR "connect." It was suggested that the team
might meet annually with the CFRAA Board of Trustees, or its president.
The team discussed the general question of awareness of funding opportunities for interdisciplinary projects. It was
noted that that next cycle of NSF Science and Technology awards was beginning that someone in CFR could be
developing a proposal. It was noted that a number of foundations might have funding available for innovative
educational initiatives, and the questions was how to find out about these. Several steps were proposed: a search on
funding databases (i.e., through the Community of Science); inviting Development Office staff to meet with the
team and provide information on resources in this regard.
The meeting adjourned at 3 p.m.
Minutes, November 18, 1998
Attending: J. Fridley, C. Hamilton, B. Lippke, C. Ryan, G. Schreuder
Agenda items included:
1.
Review of UIF status/new UIF proposal: "Biodiversity"
2.
Advanced Technology Initiative: "Precision Wood Processing and Resource Management"
3.
Start of discussion on Private Forests Forum
The team briefly discussed the status of UIF proposals and reviewed comments received since the last meeting. A
new proposal on "Biodiversity: Linking Education, Research, and Outreach at UW" [Lead: Arts & Sciences, with R.
25
Gara as concurring CFR signature] was distributed for review. All comments are distributed to CFR proposal
leaders/participants via email minutes. Additional comments received since 11/4 meeting:
Urban Ecology: Reads like a research proposal. Focus seems to be on graduate education. Because faculty in Land
Use Economics is proposed, seems to need endorsement of Economics Department.
Sustainable Resources Initiative: Needs to tie in with Sustainable Materials Initiative proposed by CAUP. If it
doesn’t the two proposals appear competitive rather than complementary. POE should take the lead for the new
degree program. On bottom of page 2 of proposal, plural of curriculum is curricula, not curriculums.
Ecological Gardens: What courses would be taught? Question on Salaries/Benefits portion of estimated biennial
budget.
GIS: Introduction inflates need for program. Need to explain why new money is needed to coordinate and integrate
existing programs. Proposal requests three new faculty members: for how many students? In proposed budget, why
one facility manager more expensive than three faculty? Development of ties with local agencies and firms a
potential for raising money?
Global Studies: CFR not listed as a participant in the draft. Why are we reviewing this?
Conflict Resolution: Needs better statement of the need for, product/output of, and how to "use" the proposed
dispute resolution center.
A copy of the CFR New Technology Initiative, "Precision Wood Processing and Resource Management" forwarded
to A. Kwiram on 11/18 was distributed for review. B. Lippke said the initiative was reopened with a very short
response time, and that the UW may submit up to three initiatives to the legislature. It is unclear at this point,
however, whether the program will be funded. J. Fridley wondered whether the Technology Alliance was lobbying
for the program to be funded, and, if so, whether our proposal was consistent with its concerns. No one was aware of
lobbying efforts other than those by UW/WSU (who are both submitting initiatives). It was pointed out that the CFR
initiative could conceivably go straight to the legislature for funding, but that submitting it through the UW would
be the preferable route.
The topic of the Private Forests Forum was introduced by B. Lippke, who raised the question: How should CFR
respond to private sector requests for assistance on implementing the new and more complicated forest practice
regulations designed to provide future streamside protection? Industry is aware that the new regulations will involve
substantial monitoring, increased research, and adaptive management. He said the issues involved included:
economic assessment; biological assessment; instruction/training to certification standards; participation in standard
setting; supplemental funding; public education; how to find best expertise; how to manage quicker credible reviews
than scientific journal route; how to be responsive, i.e, who will be on "response team."
It was clarified that the forum arose because of industry concerns over DNR standard-setting procedures and
certification training programs. Industry feels that the UW should provide some assistance on providing criteria for
standards and for providing training and certification through CPE programs and other instruction.
The question, essentially, is can or should CFR be in an organized "response" mode to provide this assistance. B.
Lippke provided an example of industry recently needing to know what old-growth stands look like as a corollary to
defining future conditions. He said a graduate student funded by CINTRAFOR who was familiar with relational
databases and the FIA, industry, and USFS samples was able to supply the information and provide good public
relations exposure for CFR. But, he said, it was networking luck and not a formalized routing mechanism that
initially brought the question to CINTRAFOR. He said he was currently serving on a task force consisting of UW
[CINTRAFOR and Economics Department], DOE, DNR, WPFA, and WFFA working on an economic assessment
of the emerging rule; a request certain to come in the very near future is for alternative management scenarios of
future conditions.
The team discussed the issues and broader concepts associated with the question raised; points discussed were:
26
•
Who should pay for this kind of service? Should CFR provide these kinds of analyses free of charge and, if
so, on what internal budget? Should centers build up flexible pool of funds to always be in response mode?
Funding often comes with a demonstrated ability to perform.
•
Questions to CFR on forest practice regulations might involve faculty and researchers in engineering,
hydrology, silviculture, economics – how to make sure the appropriate person or group responds?
•
From a larger perspective, a negative or noncommittal response on any issue from one person within CFR
will be understood by external clients as a negative response from the College as a whole – this becomes a
public relations issue. Proper channeling of requests can be extremely important.
•
Interdisciplinary research centers seem logical response points – how to ensure that center directors and
affiliated faculty are aware of requests from external clients? Perhaps a Board of Center Directors who
meet or at least communicate on a regular basis? Faculty cross-fertilization that results from center
affiliation might effectively accomplish this, but may too often depend on luck and suffer from lag.
•
Does competition among centers and "creaming" incoming projects do a disservice to CFR in the long run?
Could it allow some things to fall through the cracks?
•
In addition to possible competition among centers, are there gaps between centers that might prevent an
informed response?
•
Does CFR need a gatekeeper to route requests? Could Outreach Director perform this service? What
resources would a gatekeeper need to get access to responders? Is Private Forests Forum coordination
adequate?
The committee was requested to review the points discussed in preparation for "working lunch" meeting scheduled
for 11/23 at which other team members will be present. B. Lippke requested the team to form a subcommittee to
develop a recommendation. G. Schreuder expressed interest; J. C. Oliver, and P. Schiess and, possibly, J. Marzluff,
will be at 11/23 meeting and are logical candidates.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 3:45 p.m.
November 23, 1998
Team Members Attending:
J. Fridley, C. Hamilton, B. Lippke, C. Oliver, J. Perez-Garcia, C. Ryan, P. Schiess, G. Schreuder, D. Thorud
Also attending:
K. Duffield, D. Hanley, S. West
Agenda topic: Private Forests Forum
The team briefly recapped discussion from previous (11/18/98) meeting on how to respond to incoming needs of
private forest sector: see minutes from that meeting.
Participants discussed various issues relating to:
1.
challenges to landowners posed by new regulatory mechanisms;
2.
dissemination of CFR research in response to need;
3.
creation of an organized response mechanism to channel questions.
Points raised included:
New regulatory mechanisms:
27
•
New riparian regulations will require certification, which could result in enormous training need. DNR's
HCP calls for professionally licensed engineers; this requirement may be extended to other forestlands, as
well.
•
UW will probably not act as "certifiers," but could train to certification standards.
•
Neutral body should probably perform certification.
•
Training to certification standards involves long-term effort.
•
Currently many questions exist about the state of research knowledge; e.g., are three-tiered riparian zones
realistic and based on good science?
Dissemination of research:
•
Students coming out of CFR, if given "state of the art" training, can educate DNR and other forestland
employers.
•
A currently existing successful CE program for USFS foresters has not attracted industrial foresters. Why?
•
Research could successfully be funneled through CPE. Using graduate students as instructors could provide
graduate student funding.
•
Dissemination of research characterized as a three-level need:
•
"quick response" need, for which D. Hanley has been serving as semiofficial gatekeeper. This kind of
response to "quick answer" questions has generally been satisfactorily handled.
•
"intermediate response" need requiring fairly short-term specific expertise in response to a well-defined
problem. This is sometimes handled well by CFR but no informal mechanism to route requests.
•
"long-term response" need, which involves educating both CFR students and providing CE to professionals
in the field. Curricular oversight and review and the coordination efforts of CPE office are the logical loci
of long term response. This kind of response needs strengthening.
•
CFR needs to routinely provide research results in a timely manner; in many cases the ingredients of a
response already exist, but clients may be unaware of this. Suggestions to remedy this included: annual
public meeting to provide overview of research; revival of WA State Forestry Conference; Private Forests
Forum conference to explore and develop topics of research needs; development of research "briefing
papers."
•
Dissemination of research should include knowing what resources are available at WSU and OSU and
directing questions there if CFR cannot respond (or respond quickly enough).
Organized CFR response:
•
Should CFR take responsive or proactive stance? How to be proactive before forest practices requirements
are known? In either case, CFR needs to have well-organized mechanisms in place.
•
Centers ideally are the best referral points. Can centers respond quickly enough? Are there gaps in center
research areas? This model would require faculty "buy-in" and commitment of centers to work together.
•
Alternatively, could use CPE office to perform gatekeeping function, with use of internal web site/email list
to inform all researchers of incoming needs and requests.
•
And/or would formation of an identified "response team" be helpful? Could this team serve the gatekeeper
function? For questions arising from new riparian regulations, such a team would need expertise in
28
engineering, economics, silviculture, hydrology, and wildlife. Should this team be a subset of the Incubator
Team? Could there be a mechanism funded by a membership fee for external clients? This would result in a
pool of available resources, but would first require CFR to demonstrate that it can be responsive.
•
In any case, organized response should be coordinated with WSU.
•
In any case, monitoring and follow-up procedures would be needed to ensure that needs are met with
appropriate information.
Volunteers to serve on an ad hoc group to further refine our resonse approach, meetings to be convened by K.
Duffield, were: Duffield, Fridley, Hanley, Oliver, Perez-Garcia, Schiess [Marzluff, not present, but would be
requested to participate.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 3:45 p.m.
October 28 and November 4, 1998
November 4, 1998
As of November 4, 1998 the following UIF proposals were under review:
CFR Lead:
*Urban Ecology
*Sustainable Resources
*Ecological Gardens
CFR Cooperator:
*GIS Undergraduate Teaching (Lead: Office of Undergraduate Education)
*Transformation through Technology (Lead: School of Medicine?)
*Sustainable Materials Education and Research (Lead: College of Architecture & Urban Planning)
*Center for Conflict Resolution: (Lead: School of Law)
*Technical Writing (Lead: College of Engineering)
*Integrated Global Studies (Lead: Graduate School of Public Affairs? Jackson School?
All of the proposals except the last three listed were in the form of final preproposals to Deans and Vice Presidents,
with a signed cover sheet attached. The conflict resolution, technical writing, and global studies proposals were still
in draft form as of 11/4/98.
With regard to the UIF application cover page, the team discussed the importance of how information is conveyed
on this page, and suggested changes as noted below in the discussion of specific proposals. It was noted that the
format is confusing and poorly designed, as evidenced by the differing interpretations of signature placement and
related information.
The following remarks and suggestions were made with regard to the proposals:
(1) Urban Ecology
*The application cover page should be corrected to list only David Thorud in top portion, as proposal leader. Other
deans should be listed below under concurring signatures. David Hodge is Acting Dean of Arts and Sciences; John
Simpson no longer at UW. Format of application cover page doesn't show the interdisciplinarity of the proposal
within Arts & Sciences; not clear which departments are represented. Chairs of participating departments should
also sign the proposal.
*The use of "Urban Ecology" as the title of the initiative was discussed. As had been noted in an earlier meeting,
this term has a specific sociological meaning will cause reviewers some confusion. A suggestion for a new title was
"Ecology in an Urbanizing Environment." [A subsequent search of the web on the phrase "urban ecology" turned up
some examples of its use; it appears that the strictly sociological usage has undergone some change in recent years.
29
*It was noted that this proposal reads very much like a research grant proposal (understandably, since participants
have been working hard on a related NSF grant proposal). The danger, it was suggested, is that reviewers might also
read it that way.
*The output or "product" of this proposal appears to be new knowledge that could make the UW a center of
expertise in the nation or on the West Coast. Ideas contained in the paragraph on page 2 re: relevance of Seattle and
UW could be reworked into the introduction to provide a more dynamic framing of the proposal's outcomes.
*A concern was raised by one reviewer about the concept of team teaching. Although ideally suited for this
initiative, the track record for team teaching in CFR (and perhaps elsewhere in the UW) has not been good.
(2) Sustainable Resources
*It was suggested that since the Program on the Environment (POE) is the "umbrella organization" proposed in this
initiative, POE should be the lead on this proposal, perhaps signed by POE co-directors. It is not clear why Fred
Campbell's signature is included as concurring; the curriculum proposed is a CFR curriculum.
*A proposal, "Sustainable Materials Research and Education," led by the College of Architecture and Urban
Planning, was received by the team just prior to 11/4 meeting. This initiative would establish a new Center to be
housed at the former Sand Point Naval Station. Concern was raised that these two proposals were very similar in
title and subject matter, and that reviewers may conclude that further work on integrating these two projects is
needed before submission to UIF. Each project has components that would strengthen the appeal of the other. The
CFR Sustainable Resources proposal in its current form is essentially a proposed CFR curriculum. A careful linkage
of the two proposals would enhance the interdisciplinarity of both.
*The last paragraph on page 1 of the proposal appears to equate "ecological restoration" with "soil restoration." The
Society for Ecological Restoration (Susan Bolton is involved in this) looks at ecological restoration as a much
broader concept.
*As was noted in an earlier meeting, the budget line item referring to lab maintenance might better be folded into an
operations line item, as maintenance funding requests are rarely successful.
(3) Ecological Gardens
*It was noted that this proposal consolidates needs, but the question was raised whether it fits the UIF criteria as an
important "new" effort.
*A suggestion was made that this is in large part a "capital projects/facilities" proposal and that the lead might better
come from one of those offices.
(4) GIS Undergraduate Teaching
*It was noted that Fred Campbell should sign the cover page as the proposal leader, rather than Bruce Bare.
*A reviewer suggested that the proposal "glues together" a lot of existing capabilities, which would allow the UW to
consolidate its strengths. This may or may not fit the UIF criteria of "new" projects.
*The idea that GIS is or may become a basic requirement for employment with a resulting demand for more GIS
courses, may be overstating the case, and might cause reviewers' skepticism.
(5) Transformation through Technology
*The lead was apparently under discussion. It appears that a subsequent decision was to have the School of
Medicine as lead. The Dean of Medicine should then be the only name under Dean or Vice President on top part of
form. Contact person should probably not be David Thorud but perhaps UWired contact, Ed Lazowska. Signatures
at bottom should show respective titles and units.
(6) Sustainable Materials Education and Research - see comments under (2).
(7) Center for Conflict Resolution
*This proposal is still in draft stage. It was noted that it "consolidates" existing strengths, but in its new structure
would fulfill an unmet need.
30
(8) Technical Writing:
*Another proposal in draft stage; on page 3 (last paragraph in "Who is on the team" section) the Division of
Ecosystem Sciences is referred to as supporting the project. It was noted that students in M&E would also
participate.
*A vagueness on the details of how upper- and lower-level class teaching would be coordinated was questioned.
(9) Global Studies
*Another proposal in draft stage; another example of consolidation of existing resources.
*It was noted that there were no specific, clearly defined outcomes.
Remarks, which apply in some respects to all of the proposals:
*Weak connection between budget proposal and stated goals.
*Often an unclear sense of how commitment of all involved units would be structured.
*Proposals were clearly improving through constant rewriting and review.
Since many team members were unable to make both meetings, copies of all proposals, these draft minutes, and a
rating sheet were provided to all members to provide another chance for input.
The final proposals are due in the Provost's office no later than December 15, 1998.
October 28, 1998
Attending 10/28: C. Henry, J. Fridley, B. Lippke, J. Marzluff, B. McKean,J. Perez-Garcia, P. Schiess, G. Schreuder
Attending 11/4: J. Fridley, B. Lippke, J. Perez-Garcia, C. Ryan, with written comments from G. Schreuder and C.
Oliver
Both meetings focused on review of UIF proposals; notes from both meetings re: UIF are combined in these
minutes.
Other topics briefly covered in the 10/28 meeting were:
*Confirmation of current team members continued participation.
*B. McKean reported that an Alliance 2020 research committee has been formed which he chairs. A major focus of
the Alliance currently is an endowed scholarship fund drive whose goal is to raise $16 million for eight schools with
pulp and paper programs.
*B. Lippke reported that the Private Forests Forum project was moving forward, with the concept approved in a
recent WFPA meeting.
*G. Schreuder reported that a meeting with USFS re: forest inventory analysis produced an agreement among
cooperators.
*It was agreed to schedule the Stettler seminar for Autumn Quarter; R. Stettler has been contacted and has expressed
his willingness to present his ideas on forming research cooperatives.
*It was agreed that the team project on fact sheet development needs to take priority, once UIF proposals have been
reviewed and recommendations made.
October 21, 1998
Attending:
J. Fridley, C. Henry, B. Lippke, J. Marzluff, C. Oliver, C. Ryan, G. Schreuder
Agenda items included:
(1) Status of UIF Proposals
CFR Lead: (1) Urban Ecology Initiative (Marzluff, Ryan); (2) RRS (Henry)
31
CFR Cooperator: (1) GIS; (2) Transformation Through Technology
(2) Capstone Project Proposal
B. Lippke introduced the topic of UIF proposals, saying that the four major proposals provided with the agenda were
presented to the team for their review, rating, and feedback. Feedback would be helpful to the proposals' preparers,
as well as providing a basis for a recommendation to the Dean. The College's target for 98-99 is to put forward two
competitive UIF proposals.
C. Henry reported on the status of the renewable resources proposal. He said a dinner meeting on 10/14/98 had 16
participants from UW's Colleges of Forest Resources, Engineering, Architecture and Urban Planning, Public Health
and Community Medicine, and from the Program on the Environment. At this meeting, a draft UIF preproposal was
presented, followed by discussion of the name, scope, and administration/organization of the program. The name
preferred by participants was "Sustainable Resources Initiative"; a desire to expand the program to include
engineering and design, and economics, business, and policy was supported. Expansion of the program's scope
would involve an increase in the budget proposed in the draft. POE was viewed as the preferred umbrella
organization and was seen as an opportunity to tie together concepts now fragmented throughout UW curricula and
programs.
The team briefly discussed the potential difficulties in substantial cooperation with the School of Business. C. Henry
said that input from this meeting, from the Incubator Team, and others interested would be reviewed in redrafting
the proposal.
J. Marzluff and C. Ryan reported on the Urban Ecology Initiative. The major thrusts of the initiative, as outlined in
the preproposal are to: (1) advance and develop an integrated theory of urban ecology: (2) link diverse disciplines
and apply research/education to real projects; (3) create partnerships between UW and the outside community; (4)
provide enhanced, efficient educational opportunities; take advantage of areas where UW has comparative
advantages and uniqueness; (5) increase ability to leverage funds; (6) respond to significant current public issues; (7)
foster collaboration across multiple units; (8) improve productivity by removing duplication of teaching and
research efforts; and (9) transform work environment by creating interdisciplinary teams. The team briefly reviewed
and commented on the preproposal draft and made some suggestions for minor changes in wording. With regard to
the proposed budget request, it was suggested that the budgeted items for faculty and director were too low.
The team discussed the two UIF proposals in which CFR were cooperators: (1) the GIS proposal led by CQS and
submitted through the Office for Under-graduate Education, and (2) the Transformation through Technology
proposal led by UWired. The team agreed to review both preproposals and submit any comments to the proposal
leaders and for discussion at the next team meeting.
Time being short, the team only briefly discussed the concept of the integrated capstone project submitted by J.
Fridley, R. Gustafson, and T. Hinckley. Projects, solicited from local or regional companies or agencies, would
provide a means for students to synthesize knowledge and skills acquired in their studies. They would also be
beneficial to the College as a whole, its faculty, and the client organizations as a way to build strong external
relationships for the College.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 3:45 p.m.
External Initiatives Incubator Team Minutes,
September 15, 1998
Attending:
C. Henry, B. Lippke, J. Perez-Garcia, P. Schiess, G. Schreuder
Agenda items included:
(1) Status of UIF Proposals Urban Initiative (Marzluff, Ryan) Remote Sensing (Schreuder) RRS (Henry) WA
Ecological Gardens (Hamilton)
32
(2) Strategies for 1998-99: how to keep up the interest and creativity; provide quality response on selected
proposals; make progress on outreach goal; be more responsive to outreach requests; network more effectively;
communicate opportunities and progress with faculty.
B. Lippke drew the team's attention to the UIF prepoposal checklist included in the agenda materials. The list,
derived from feedback noted in the review of last year's UIF process, presented the following questions for selfreview: * Aligned with unit and University goals? * Coordination of Deans on joint proposals? * Documentation
that existing funds (e.g. instructional budgets) are not available? * Written for campus-wide audience of reviewers,
not just for peers? * Detailed budget developed for each specific participating unit (who, what, and how much for
each element of proposal)? * Documentation of full support from all participating units (no redundancies, no vague
relationships)? * Documented mechanism for measuring success? * Consideration of space and facility needs? *
Demonstration that proposal is important, new effort that builds on unit's strengths?
J. Marzluff and C. Ryan were unable to attend the meeting, but provided the team with a short email summary of
current activities. Essentially, the working group has been meeting regularly, with each participating unit lining up
support from deans and chairs and developing statements of support for the proposal.
G. Schreuder reported on the GIS/remote sensing proposal. He said he recently learned that Geography was
submitting its own proposal that did not include remote sensing but only GIS data management; it was unclear
whether or not this proposal would be a 1/3 unit-specific proposal, which has a later due date. If it is a 2/3 proposal,
the extent to which it would be interdisciplinary across units was unclear. He said that although he wouldn't be able
to talk to colleagues in Engineering until the start of the quarter, he was aware that Engineering might not have a
commitment to either GIS or remote sensing. P. Schiess and G. Schreuder agreed that a need exists for remote
sensing capability on the campus, and that the College now has a very well equipped lab.
C. Henry reported on the RRS UIF proposal. He said that RRS had received interim funding from Tools for
Transformation to help develop the program, including funding for a UW compost demonstration garden to be used
for teaching and research. A "working dinner," planned for early October, includes potential participants from a
number of campus units, including Program on the Environment, Engineering, Architecture and Urban Planning,
and Public Health and Community Medicine. Questions to be discussed at the workshop will be program name,
scope, leadership, physical infrastructure support, budget, and concurrence, with additional topics to be developed.
Unclear at this point, he said, was whether the program's scope would be strictly science-based, or whether it would
include engineering and policy aspects. The question of how Civil and Environmental Engineering might fit into the
program was discussed: it is an "unknown" at present, but some support has been expressed from that unit. Also to
be further developed is the exact role that the Program for the Environment (POE) may play with regard to RRS. At
present, POE is essentially unstructured, and there is some thought that the RRS program, if administered by POE,
would give it the benefit of a str uctured curriculum track.
The team discussed the WA Ecological Gardens UIF proposal, which had been forwarded to the Dean by C.
Hamilton. The proposal, originally submitted during the last round of UIF funding, is accompanied by an updated
prospectus prepared by C. Hamilton and W. Talley (Campus Landscape Architect). It was unclear to the team
whether the proposal was meant to be a 2/3 interdisciplinary or a 1/3 unit-specific proposal. Although co-signed by
the Botany Department, the proposal requests additional faculty, staff, and facilities within one academic unit only.
Connections with units such as Civil Engineering, Landscape Architecture, Zoology, and the Burke Museum are
cited in the proposal in terms of possibilities for the future.
With regard to the UIF proposals under discussion the team remarked:
* In all of the UIF proposals under discussion, an important point is that a non-unit-specific proposal should
demonstrate and document support (i.e., faculty, staff, facilities) from all units involved. Merely demonstrating that
more than one unit will benefit from a proposal is probably not sufficient.
* Specifically with regard to the GIS/Remote Sensing Proposal, the team discussed whether it might be framed in
terms of a unit-specific remote sensing/photogrammetry proposal, given the difficulties in coordinating with
Geography and Engineering. Discussion by G. Schreuder, P. Schiess and S. Reutebuch would be a beginning; other
units, such as Geological Sciences, Fisheries, Urban Design and Planning, and possibly Engineering, might then be
approached at a later time.
33
* Specifically with regard to RRS, the team felt the request for funding may in fact be too modest. Currently,
existing CFR faculty are already teaching the courses in the proposed curriculum, and the UIF reviewers might
wonder why additional funds are necessary.
* With regard to the WA Ecological Gardens, the team requested clarification whether this was intended as a 2/3 or
1/3 (unit-specific) proposal. As written, the proposal does not demonstrate new multidisciplinary benefits but rather
proposes an extension of existing programs.
* It was noted that scarcely a month remains until the internal deadline for this year's UIF proposals (October 30,
1998), and that development of fully supporting teams generally takes some time.
The team briefly discussed some ideas about how to organize its work for the coming year. It was suggested that a
need exists in the College to document our comparative research advantage. It was also suggested that better
networking mechanisms need to be developed, as well as a more formal way to explore funding possibilities from
major granting agencies.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:30 a.m.
August 18, 1998
Attending:
L. Brubaker, B. Lippke, J. Marzluff, C. Oliver, J.Perez-Garcia, C. Ryan, G. Schreuder
Agenda items included:
(1) CORRIM Status
(2) Washington Ecological Gardens: possible resubmission of last year's proposal
(3) Remote Sensing/GIS/FIA Status Report
B. Lippke reported that the CORRIM Phase I proposal had not been funded, as hoped. He said that opportunities
existed to remodularize the effort and that all possibilities of getting at least some funding were being explored.
The team received a copy from C. Hamilton of last year's WA Ecological Gardens UIF proposal, with some
changes. The chair requested that team members review the proposal for discussion at the next meeting.
G. Schreuder reported that he had been unable to meet with the Remote Sensing/GIS UIF proposal participants in
other units. He said that earlier in the year he had some discussions with Civil Engineering and N. Crisman in
Geography. The team suggested additional contacts to be explored in connection with this proposal: T. Alcock at
ONRC, P. Hurvitz, and possibly Landscape Architecture, and Ocean and Fishery Sciences. Another suggestion was
made that this proposal might be narrowed down to an FIA effort and submitted as a 1/3 UIF unit-specific proposal.
This would involve coordination and cooperation with USFS. The general consensus of the team, however, was that
GIS/remote sensing was currently a missed opportunity in the College and that an effort to fund and coordinate it
campus-wide would be useful.
The team agreed that being able to review last year's funded UIF proposals that be helpful [these proposals are
available for review at the Suzzallo reference desk], and that a checklist of criteria for potentially successful
proposals would be useful. It was noted that the UIF seminar, originally scheduled for summer, had been postponed
until October so that its utility in the current round of proposals would be limited. [The seminar has been canceled,
according to information received from the Provost's Office.]
The team then began a general discussion of outreach efforts and how the College could improve communication
with external audiences and stakeholders, The challenges involved in faculty time and effort directed toward
outreach were discussed, as well as ways to provide a more focused way to "get the message out." The possibility of
including the new Outreach Director as a member of the team was suggested. The proposal earlier submitted by D.
Thorud for a multidisciplinary "response" task force was another possibility discussed.
34
Other items briefly mentioned were: Rep. Jim Buck's current development of a state "salmon plan" which could
profitably draw on a consolidated pool of UW expertise; and the possibility of having G. Bradley report on meetings
with King County.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:30 a.m. The next scheduled meeting was set for 10:30 a.m., 9/15/98, in
Anderson 107E.
Minutes, July 28, 1998
Attending: D Briggs, B. Lippke, J. Marzluff, C. Oliver, D.Thorud
Agenda items included: (1) Report on RRS project progress (C. Henry/D. Briggs) (2) CORRIM status (3) Additional
week's funding for FIA/GIS/Remote Sensing project (G. Schreuder) (4) Natural resource education for
schoolteachers (5) Interdisciplinary working group
The team reviewed a memorandum from C. Henry reporting the status of the RRS project. As the report addressed
the points of clarification requested by the team in an earlier meeting (relationship/funding opportunities with POE;
project team membership), the incubator team agreed to grant the request for $3,750, to be matched by POE. The
team had some concerns about the timeline of completing a competitive UIF proposal following a workshop in late
September or early October, as the internal due date for the 2/3 UIF proposals is November 15, 1998. The team
encouraged C. Henry to have the proposal substantially drafted for review in advance of the scheduled workshop.
The team reviewed once again the list of projects to be submitted as UIF proposals: (1) RRS; (2) Urban Ecology
Initiative; and (3) Remote Sensing/GIS. It was further clarified that the FIA component of the FIA/GIS/Remote
Sensing project was not a UIF candidate but could be developed as a forestry module of the UW's Advanced
Technology Research Initiative.
The team discussed the request for additional support for the FIA/GIS/Remote Sensing project by G. Schreuder.
With regard to the remote sensing component, D. Thorud said that a Murdock Charitable Trust preproposal
regarding the research capabilities of remote sensing was denied earlier this year; however, matching funds for such
a proposal may come from A. Kwiram. He said that UG instructional GIS with some remote sensing component was
still a high priority for units on campus such as Forest Resources and Ocean and Fishery Sciences.
With regard to the FIA component, getting USFS to buy off on any proposal developed by CFR is essential before
the proposal goes to the legislature. Another source of current uncertainty is the still-in-process TFW agreement,
which will have some bearing on FIA. The usefulness of added plots and increased data collection should be an
important aspect of the proposal. D. Thorud agreed to check on the internal UW timetable for the Advanced
Technology Initiative and to call F. Stormer of USFS. The team agreed to grant G. Schreuder's request for an
additional week's salary, with another week to be provided, if needed.
B. Lippke reported that at a 7/9/98 AFP&A meeting, the CORRIM Phase I proposal got high marks. A response
from DOE is expected soon. He also reported that in facilitation of the natural resource training for schoolteachers
proposal submitted by R. Edmonds, he had arranged a lunch meeting with R. Edmonds, A. Wagar, and Barbara
Lippke, an elementary school principal. During this meeting information on how best to incorporate materials into
school curricula, as well the challenges involved in developing standardized public school curricula and motivating
teacher participation, were discussed. A Tools for Transformation pilot project in which teachers attend a class on
steps in curriculum development might be a possibility.
D. Thorud asked the team to think about the idea of a CFR interdisciplinary working group that would respond to
emerging issues and requests for support.. This would essentially be a "response team" responding to external or
internal needs. Whether this could be an extension or another dimension of Incubator Team activity, or whether best
conceived as another ad hoc working group was a question left for consideration.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:30 a.m. The next scheduled meeting of the team was noted to be August
18, 1998 at 10:30 a.m. in 107A Anderson.
35
June 16, 1998
Attending:
G. Allan, D Briggs, L. Brubaker, R. Edmonds, B. Lippke, J. Marzluff, J. Perez-Garcia, C. Ryan, K. Wolf
Agenda items included:
(1) Review of draft minutes
(2) Status of new Advanced Technology Initiative
(3) Research topic "portfolio" for foundation contacts
(4) NSF budget memo
(5) Status reports on urban initiatives and FIA projects
(6) New projects
Brief items of business:
•
The team reviewed draft minutes, which will be published via email and on the CFR internal home page.
•
B. Lippke said the UW was going to "rekindle" the Advanced Technology Initiative for the next legislative
session, but that no specific information is available at this time.
•
The team was reminded that a "portfolio" of research topics (brief proposal ideas) would be a useful tool
for L. Houck, Major Gift Officer, in her communications with foundations. The team will solicit input from
all CFR researchers and make it available in a brief standardized format that can be lined up with various
foundation interests.
•
B. Lippke asked team members to review a NSF budget memo for items that might be appropriate for team
attention. On a brief reading of the memo, L. Brubaker said the material regarding applied molecular
biology might fit with CFR research on poplar genetics. She said she would make sure T. Bradshaw was
aware of the memo.
Status reports:
•
B. Lippke reported that a meeting regarding the FIA project had been scheduled with USFS program
manager Sue Willits for 7/1/98.
•
J. Marzluff and C. Ryan reported that the urban initiative project had passed its first hurdle, and had
received UW institutional match funding for the submission of a preproposal to the NSF IGERT Program.
New proposals for summer funding:
(1) K. Wolf presented a proposal "Social Sciences and Urbanizing Ecosystems: Developing a Framework for
Integration." The project would work to develop a coherent social sciences program within CFR by formalizing the
human dimension component of its expertise. The project would first do a "gap analysis" of CFR researchers'
current research and courses in order to identify strengths and determine future needs. Products of the project would
include: framework and typology of resources-based social sciences and projects; web pages and brochures;
integration of social sciences into CFR curricula; development of "capstone" courses for undergraduates; and more
coordinated response to RFPs.The project would also lay the groundwork for a UIF proposal emphasizing holistic
strategies for resources in urbanizing landscapes.
The team and participating colleagues discussed the proposal and asked questions, made suggestions, and gave
encouragement, as follows:
•
Although some of the project's objectives should be viewed as intrinsic to currently ongoing curricular
review and integration at the division, undergraduate curriculum group, and graduate program group levels,
the integration aspects of the proposal wo uld be a potential candidate for Tools for Transformation
funding.
36
•
Funding agencies increasingly require "human dimensions" perspectives to be built into research proposals;
a coherent presentation of social science expertise within CFR would make the College better able to
respond quickly to RFPs. It was suggested that one part of this "response team" approach, developing a
support package for some specific projects, would help define and focus the effort further.
(2) R. Edmonds presented a proposal "Natural Resource Education for School teachers." The project's premise is
that (1) Seattle area schoolteachers' preparation for presenting natural resource material could be improved along
with (2) CFR's efforts to provide natural resource education for these school teachers. A project seeking UIF funding
could be developed in collaboration with other UW academic units involved in natural resource topics such as
COFS, Education, Engineering, Botany, Zoology, and others. Products of the proposal would be traditional courses
designed for summer or evening schedules; and web-based courses supplemented by field trips.
The team and participating colleagues discussed the proposal and asked questions, made suggestions, and gave
encouragement, as follows: A survey of teachers might be developed to determine why current efforts, such as the
Cascade Institute and A. Wagar's summer course for teachers, have had low enrollments.
•
The target to which natural resource materials should be directed was discussed, as well as the types of
materials that would be useful. Should this be the teachers themselves, or those responsible for developing
and approving school curricula? Would offering courses or providing curriculum development material
such as videotapes, booklets, etc. be more beneficial to teachers? It was suggested that an essential step
would be information exchange and eventual partnership with the College of Education to answer these
questions.
•
Other sources of information that might give insight include teacher outreach projects currently coordinated
by the Temperate Forest Foundation, and the "Teachers in Trees" project of Green River Community
College, now defunct but once very successful.
•
Some aspects of the proposal, if developed further, might be a potential candidate for Tools for
Transformation funding.
B. Lippke said that material on Tools for Transformation, distributed during Spring Quarter via email to the CFR
community and in memo form to division chairs, is available via the UW's home page at
http://www.washington.edu/change/letter.html; or contact C. Paul (cece@u.washington.edu).
G. Allan asked about the status of the carbon sequestration project. Team members said that currently T. Hinckley
was working on a TECO (NSF/DOE/USDA) feasibility study proposal for a center for studies of carbon
sequestration in woody plants. Other activity on this project is the development of a briefing paper for congressional
delegations on carbon linkages currently being prepared by J. Perez-Garcia, B. Lippke, C. Oliver, S. Thomas, and T.
Hinckley.
K. Wolf suggested that the team increase its efforts to communicate with the CFR community. It was agreed that a
status report of projects currently under discussion by the team be posted on the CFR internal home page.
Possible meeting times for Summer Quarter '98 were being explored; it was hoped that at least several meetings
could occur during the summer break.
The meeting adjourned at approximately noon.
June 2, 1998
Attending:
B. Lippke, L. Brubaker, C. Henry, J. Marzluff, J. Perez-Garcia, C. Ryan, Gerard Schreuder
The purpose of the meeting was to consider summer funding for development/ preparation of proposals as outlined
in the following request emailed to all faculty:
37
The External Initiatives Incubator Team would like to encourage serious proposal development efforts at
multidisciplinary research such as, but not limited to, preparation for a UIF submission. Since UIF proposals are due
next fall, these would probably require some work during this summer. The Incubator Team has funds available to
buy a few week's of summer salary, and, by using some of next year's funds, could help support several proposal
efforts. The team has already funded four weeks of effort on the Forest Inventory Analysis proposal identified
earlier by the team, along with related work on a remote sensing proposal for UIF consideration. If you have ideas
and would like support, please submit a one-page proposal on what you could deliver, give n assistance, or plan to
attend the next Incubator Team meetings to discuss your idea.
C. Henry presented a proposal for a Renewable Resources Program. He requested summer funding of $5,000 to
develop the proposal. The proposal was presented as three alternatives:
•
Alternative I, an interdisciplinary proposal in the fields of restoration ecology, life cycle analysis, soils and
soil amendments, recycling, and remediation, to be coordinated by the UW's Program on the Environment
(POE).This alternative would be submitted for the UIF 2/3 category reserved for interdisciplinary
proposals.
•
Alternatives II and III, proposals covering the same fields as Alternative I but administered within CFR.
Alternative II proposes a new renewable resource sciences curriculum with science core courses,
environmental electives, and special emphasis courses. Alternative III proposes an integrated approach to
existing CFR curricula with core courses in environmental policy, science, and engineering that develop a
renewable resource focus.Either alternative could be submitted for the UIF 1/3 category reserved for unitspecific proposals.
The team discussed the alternatives and their implications, including ownership of degree in Alternative I, ability of
POE to support/coordinate Alternative I, and the differing role of engineering courses in the three alternatives. If
Alternative I were chosen, perhaps a joint degree between POE and CFR could be developed. In any case, the ideal
would be to develop several specific degree tracks that focus on job opportunities for graduates. The team agreed
that this would be an excellent candidate for its support. Suggestions and deliverables requested included:
•
Request for support may be too modest to accomplish the objectives. The team suggested C. Henry look for
someone to assist him with the project.
•
A flexible approach that might first target the UIF 1/3 category might be used as to lay the groundwork for
and increase the chances of success of a larger, interdisciplinary 2/3-category proposal.
•
Broadening the network of support would substantially increase prospects of success. [C. Henry said that
presently interested participants were R. Harrison, K. Ewing, S. Strand, D. Briggs, and R. Lee.]
•
Relationship with POE, whether as coordinating unit as in Alternative I, or as possible participant in
Alternatives II and III, needs to be explored and presented.
J. Marzluff and C. Ryan presented a proposal for team support for development of the urban initiative project. The
team's support would be used to help reach three relatively short-term goals:
1) Continue work on proposal preparation for NSF IGERT program, due7/15/98
2) Work with D. Friedman on preparation of "tools for transformation" proposal
3) Plan and host a 2-day meeting with UW researchers and local, state, and regional managers early in Autumn
1998, in which UW researchers would present their view of urban ecology issues and solicit managers' views on
research needs.
Requested support was one month's summer salary each, and an additional $3,000 for autumn meeting support.
Suggestions and deliverables for this project requested included:
38
•
The team discussed potential collaborators in addition to those previously reported for the urban initiative.
It was suggested that some highly visible and well-known researchers might add weight, particularly to the
NSF proposal.Names suggested were P. Kareiva (Zoology) and L. Shemanski (population genetics).
•
Development of a meeting plan for the autumn meeting
•
Development of course descriptions, including integrative aspects
•
Development of UIF preproposal
The consensus of the team was to support both proposal requests. In addition to the funding already allocated to FIA
and GIS/remote sensing projects, this might require the team to use some of next year's money. Because all of the
proposals involve a teaching component, it was decided to explore supplemental funding possibilities from the
Dean's Office.
With regard to the Surdna Foundation material distributed at the previous meeting, it was decided that CFR faculty
should be requested, via email, to provide L. Houck with a short statement of one or two research projects with
potential for multiple foundation funding. These could be a stand-alone project or a component of an already
ongoing research project.
The team agreed to meet next on June 16, 1998 at 10:30 a.m. in 107A Anderson. The meeting adjourned at 11:30
a.m.
cfr.washington.edu
39