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:
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:
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. Chalker-Scott ("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 region from:
(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 sustainable management practices and (3) reduce occurrence of harmful management practices in terms of plant health care and watershed viability, the Incubator Team requests that you explore collaboration with ongoing CFR/UW expertise and initiatives in urban ecology, urban forestry, landscape management, sustainable resource science, restoration ecology and all other appropriate connections. Projects such as this generally require a broad team of expertise in 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 perhaps increased student interest in CFR 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 be integrated into a CFR progress report of 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:
Questions and discussion included the following points:
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:
(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:
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:
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:
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:
Project status reports:
New funding opportunities:
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:
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:
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 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:
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 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:
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:
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 multi-unit 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
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?
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
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 all-College 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.
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.
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:
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:
Initiative updates.
B. Lippke presented brief status reports on several CFR initiatives:
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 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:
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.
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:
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).
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:
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
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.
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:
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:
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 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:
Additional suggestions and remarks:
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.
Other comments:
Agenda item: CFR proposals and themes that might fit the Internal UIF due Autumn 1999.
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:
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:
Minutes, February 1, 1999
Attending: L. Brubaker, B. Lippke, C. Oliver, J. Perez-Garcia, C. Ryan, P. Schiess, D. Thorud
Agenda Items:
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:
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.
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:
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:
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. 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:
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:
Points raised included:
New regulatory mechanisms:
Dissemination of research:
Organized CFR response:
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.
*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.
(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)
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)
(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 self-revi