National Science Foundation Science and Technology Center

National Center for Earth-surface Dynamics

(NCED)

First Annual Report 8/1/2002 – 7/31/2003

(http://www.nced.umn.edu)

St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Department of Civil Engineering Department of Geology & Geophysics University of Minnesota 2 Third Ave. S.E. Minneapolis, MN 55414

1 ACRONYM & ABBREVIATION KEY

AGU American Geophysical Union AISES American Indian Science and Engineering Society APEXES Academic Programs for Excellence ion Engineering and Science CA Cellular Automata CAN Cooperative Agreement Notice CIC Council of Independent Colleges CSDMS Community Surface-Dynamics Modeling System CSM Community Sediment Model DLESE Digital Library for Earth System Education E/KT Education and Knowledge Transfer (NCED) E-STREAM Earth-science Teacher Researchers Exploring Active Modeling FDLTCC Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College FSLE Finite Size Lyaponov Exponent GIUH Geomorphological Instantaneous Unit Hydrograph HBCU’s Historically Black Colleges and Universities ITCEP Institute of Technology Center for Educational Programs MSROP Minority Summer Research Opportunity Program MU-SPIN Minority University-Space Interdisciplinary Network NAMS Native American Math and Science Camps NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NCALM National Center for Airborne Laser Mapping NCAR National Center for Atmospheric Research NCED National Center for Earth-surface Dynamics NRCEN National Research Center Educator Network NSF National Science Foundation PATH, Inc. Professional Association of Treatment Homes, Inc. PI Principal Investigator PUR Public Understanding of Research SAB Science and Advisory Board SACNAS Society for Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans in Science SAFL St. Anthony Falls Laboratory SHPE Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers SMM Science Museum of Minnesota STC Science and Technology Center STEM Science Technology Engineering Mathematics TED Transport, Erosion and Deposition URE Undergraduate Research Experience USGS United States Geological Survey USIP Undergraduate Summer Internship Program XES eXperimental EarthScapes

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYM & ABBREVIATION KEY...... 2

I. GENERAL INFORMATION ...... 4 1a. General Information...... 5 1b. Biographical Information for New Faculty...... 6 2. Executive Summary...... 6

II. RESEARCH 1a. Overall Research Objectives...... 9 1b. Research Performance Indicators...... 9 2. Research Problems ...... 9 3. Focus Areas at the Center...... 10 Focus Area 1: Landscapes and Seascapes...... 11 Focus Area 2: Depositional Basins ...... 16 Focus Area 3: Biogeomorphology/Ecological Fluids Dynamics...... 20 Focus Area 4: Integration of Morphodynamic Processes Across Environments and Scales ...... 23

III. EDUCATION 1a. Educational Objectives...... 28 1b. Performance and Management Indicators ...... 28 2. Problems ...... 28 3. Internal Educational Activities ...... 29 4. External Education Activities ...... 31 5. Professional Development Activities ...... 34 6. Integrated Research and Education...... 35 7. Internal and External Educational Activities Future Directions...... 36 Tables (Activity Reports) for Section III...... 37-43

IV. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER...... 1a. Objectives ...... 44 1b. Performance and Management Indicators ...... 44 2. Program Problems...... 44 3. Knowledge Transfer Activities ...... 44 4. Knowledge Transfer Outcomes and Impacts ...... 48 5. Knowledge Transfer Future Plans and Directions...... 49 Tables (Activity Reports) for Section IV...... 50-55

V. PARTNERSHIPS ...... 1a. Partnership Objectives ...... 56 1b. Partnership Performance and Management Indicators...... 56 2. Problems ...... 56 3. Partnership Activities ...... 57 4. Other Outcomes and Impacts ...... 58 5. Plans for the Next Reporting Period...... 58

VI. DIVERSITY ...... 1a. Overall Objectives ...... 59 1b. Performance and Management Indicators ...... 59 2. Problems ...... 60

3 3. Accomplishment and Contributions to the Development of U.S. Human Resources in Science and Engineering...... 60 4. Future Plans to Enhance Diversity ...... 61 5. Impact of Programs or Activities on Enhancing Diversity...... 62

VII. MANAGEMENT 1a. Organizational Strategy and Structure ...... 63 1b. Performance Indicators ...... 63 2. Management Problems ...... 65 3. Management and Communications Systems...... 65 4. Advisors ...... 66 5. Strategic Plans ...... 66

VIII. CENTER-WIDE OUTPUTS AND ISSUES...... 68 1. Publications ...... 68 2. Conference Presentations...... 70 3. Other Dissemination Activities...... 72 4. Honors and Awards ...... 74 5. Center Graduates ...... 74 6. General Outputs of Knowledge Transfer ...... 74 7. List of Participants ...... 75 8. Summary Table ...... 77 9. Media Publicity ...... 77

IX. INDIRECT/OTHER IMPACTS ...... 78

X. BUDGET 1, Current Year ...... 79 2. Unobligated Funds ...... 80 3. Budget Sheets, Requested Award Year...... 81 4. Support from All Sources...... 90 5. Cost Sharing ...... 90

APPENDIX A: Biographical Information for New Faculty...... 100 APPENDIX B: NCED Organization Chart ...... 102 APPENDIX C: Advisory Board Meeting ...... 103 APPENDIX D: Media Publicity Materials...... 112 APPENDIX E: Building A Community Surface Dynamics Modeling System: Rationale and Strategy ...... 124

4 GENERAL INFORMATION 1a. Date submitted May 1, 2003 Reporting period August 1, 2002 – April 30, 2003 Name of the Center National Center for Earth-surface Dynamics Name of the Center Director Gary Parker Lead University University of Minnesota Contact information Address 2 Third Ave. S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55414 Phone number (612) 624-4606 Fax number (612) 624-0066; (612) 624-4398 Email address of Center Director [email protected] Center URL www.nced.umn.edu Participating Institutions Institution 1 Name University of California-Berkeley (Earth & Planetary Science) Contact person William E. Dietrich Address Earth and Planetary Science, Berkeley, CA 94720 Phone number (510) 642-2633 Fax number (510) 643-9980 Email address of Center Director [email protected] Role of Institution at Center Expertise on geomorphology, and biochemistry via 2 PIs (Dietrich, Banfield) Institution 2 Name University of California-Berkeley (Integrative Biology Contact person Mary E. Power Address Integrative Biology, Berkeley, CA 94720 Phone number (510) 643-9776 Fax number (510) 643-6264 Email address of Center Director [email protected] Role of Institution at Center Expertise on ecology and food webs Institution 3 Name Massachusetts Institute of Technology Contact person David Mohrig Address Dept. of Earth Atmosphere and Planetary Sciences, 77 Massachusetts Ave. Bldg. 54, Cambridge, MA 02139 Phone number (617) 253-9429 Fax number (617) 258-7401 Email address of Center Director [email protected] Role of Institution at Center Expertise on coastal and submarine geomorphic systems Institution 4 Name Princeton University Contact person Ignacio Rodriguez Iturbe Address Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, C318A Engrg. Quad., Princeton, NJ 08544 Phone number (609) 258-2287 Fax number (609) 258-2799 Email address of Center Director [email protected] Role of Institution at Center Expertise on geomorphologic scaling and ecohydrology Institution 5 Name Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College Contact person Andrew Wold Address 2101 14th St., Cloquet, MN 55720 Phone number (218) 879-0867 Fax number (218) 879-0814 Email address of Center Director [email protected] Role of Institution at Center Ecology and diversity through connection to the Native American community

5 Institution 6 Name Science Museum of Minnesota Contact person Patrick Hamilton Address 120 West Kellogg Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55102 Phone number (651) 221-4761 Fax number (651) 221-4514 Email address of Center Director [email protected] Role of Institution at Center Educational partnership

1b. Biographical Information for New Faculty (Attach as Appendix A)

The following new faculty are to be added as principal investigators to the National Center for Earth- surface Dynamics:

Jacques C. Finlay (Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota) Gregory V. Wilkerson (Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, University of Wyoming)

Finlay will strengthen our research in Focus Area 3: Biogeomorphology/Ecological Fluid Dynamics. Wilkerson will strengthen our research in Focus Area 1: Landscapes and Seascapes. Brief resumes are attached in Appendix 1.

2. Executive Summary

The National Center for Earth-surface Dynamics (NCED) officially came into being on August 1, 2002. It is the first national center devoted to understanding the dynamics of the Earth’s surface. NCED is headquartered at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and includes participants from the University of California, Berkeley; Princeton University; the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College, and the Science Museum of Minnesota. In nine months, NCED has gone from ideas on paper to a functioning Science and Technology Center, and has begun uniting a group of disparate participants into a coherent team.

Vision and mission NCED’s vision is of an integrated, predictive science of the processes and interactions that shape the Earth’s surface. Our mission is to quantify critical processes of landscape and seascape evolution; to develop practical tools to help us live sustainably on our planet’s dynamic surface; and to maximize the value and impact of our research by integrating it with education and knowledge-transfer programs involving a broad spectrum of stakeholders and the general public.

NCED’s mission focuses on the following two practical goals: (1) Sustainability and restoration of landscapes and associated ecosystems (2) Responsible use of landscape and seascape resources

Research highlights

Our research effort is organized into four Focus Areas: (1) Landscape and seascape evolution; (2) Depositional Basins; (3) Biogeomorphology/Ecological fluid dynamics; (4) Integration of morphodynamic processes across environments and scales. The overall goals of each focus area, the first year research accomplishments, and how they relate to the overall mission of NCED are detailed in the relevant Focus Area reports. Highlights of the research include:

• Design and fabrication of new experimental equipment for studying debris flows, fluvial sedimentation, and river-vegetation interaction.

6 • New algorithms for “geomorphic transport laws” applicable to long-time scales and natural landform evolution. • New results showing scaling in vegetation of drainage basins and in hydraulic geometry. • Emerging collaborations. o Porté-Agel, Foufoula-Georgiou, Voller and Paola on applications of scaling and turbulence theory to morphodynamic modeling o Mohrig and Banfield on microbiological controls on bed evolution o Dietrich, Parker and Mohrig on terrestrial and submarine debris flow mechanics and channel formation o Hondzo and Power on fluid-flow effects on nutrient dynamics o Porté-Agel and Parker on large-eddy simulation (LES) modeling of turbidity currents o Perg and Parker on how cosmogenic isotopes record landscape variability • Progress toward choosing a common NCED research field site. Angelo Coast Reserve/Eel River system, California is the leading candidate. • Syntheses of particulate flux laws specifically adapted for morphodynamic applications (landscape evolution and fluvial transport so far, submarine transport and sedimentary basins to come this summer). • Development, with major NCED participation, of a blueprint for a large-scale community surface- dynamics modeling system to which NCED research will contribute.

Education • Development of a new program, E-STREAM (Earth-Science Teacher/Researchers Exploring Active Modeling), to pair in–service and pre-service teachers with NCED researchers. • Collaboration between research personnel and the Science Museum of Minnesota to develop the new Science Park adjacent to the museum. Initial conceptual plan for the Park completed, major exhibit components planned, and most components prototyped. • Approximately 75 K-12 and 50 undergraduate students visited NCED facilities or received NCED- related classroom instruction in Year 1; 440 K-12 aged children received NCED related material or visited the Science Museum of Minnesota through NCED’s collaboration with the Professional Association of Treatment Homes, Inc..

Knowledge transfer • A total of 28 peer reviewed journal publications and 9 peer reviewed conference proceeding papers acknowledged NCED support during its first nine months of operation. 9 of these involved collaborations outside the PI’s research group. • NCED’s website http://www.nced.umn.edu was assigned a permanent address and server location and began functioning shortly after NCED came on line. • Initial steps toward the next, dynamic generation of the site, which among other functions will enable transparent sharing of data among PI’s and the research community. • Initial development of a collection of numerical surface-process routines that will be posted on the web site. • Initiation of visiting researcher program with 11 projects selected and 2 visits completed. • Industrial short courses reached 40 industrial scientists. • NCED participation in the SMM hosted conference on Public Understanding of Research in September 2002, leading to a new initiative to involved graduate research students in museum work.

Diversity • Pilot NCED content with the Native American Math and Science (NAMS) Summer Camp. • Attendance at the national American Indian Science and Engineering Society’s National Science Fair for NCED NAMS campers. • Initiation of NCED Summer Undergraduate Intern Program one year early.

7 Management • First meeting of research PI’s, Science Museum of Minnesota staff, and Education and Knowledge Transfer Directors at Angelo Coast Reserve, California in September 2002. • Vision and mission statements for the Center were shortened and clarified. • First meeting of NCED Science Advisory Board, including most PI’s, in February 2003. • Establishment of regular communication among directors, administrative staff and PI’s. • Development of metrics for measuring Center performance. • Videoconferencing systems installed and tested at all NCED institutions and regular meetings established.

Center-wide outputs • Six awards, including the election of two PI’s to national academies. • Graduate degrees finished: 4 Ph.D, 4 MS; 2 faculty placements. • 15 major media reports.

Impact • A new web of collaborations established in fields (geomorphology, sedimentary geology, civil engineering, ecology) that have long been disparate. • A new collaboration between a major research university and science museum on exhibit development expected to reach approximately one million people per year. • National media reports on NCED in Science, USA Today, and the Associated Press. • Leadership in a national effort to improve the scientific basis for stream restoration. • Leadership in integrating social science with surface process research. • Recognition of the value of sedimentary process research by the oil industry as reflected in industrial short courses, internal research programs, and hiring practices. • Significant faculty participation in education and knowledge transfer.

8 II. RESEARCH

1a. Overall Research Objectives

The overall research objectives of NCED, as defined in our mission statement, are to quantify the major physical, biological, and chemical processes and interactions that shape the Earth’s surface, and in so doing, to develop practical tools for sustainable living on our planet’s ever-changing surface. The specific research objectives are: • Determine the laws governing the fluxes that shape the Earth’s surface and determine how they vary as a function of environment, time, and space scale; • Understand the feedback between morphology and flux laws; • Understand the interactive feedbacks among biological, physical and chemical processes across landscapes; • Understand the space-time organization of landscapes and seascapes (in terms of their morphology, hydrology and ecology) and its relationship to underlying physical processes; • Understand how Earth-surface history is recorded in surfaces and the deposits preserved between them.

1b. Research Performance Indicators

The following indicators are being used to evaluate the performance of NCED researchers: • Peer-reviewed publications in professional books and journals; • Reference citations; • Presentations at professional society meetings; seminars; etc.; • Number and impact of collaborative interactions (internal and external); • Amount of data, algorithms, and other research products provided; • Additional leveraged support for NCED-related research; • Awards and other research-related recognition; • Achievement of milestones given in the SIP (detailed below for each Focus Area).

2. Research Problems

Sharpening the focus of NCED research. The main research problem we have faced in our first year – raised by external reviewers, our Science Advisory Board (SAB), and NCED participants – is that it is not clear what is distinctive about NCED research. Accordingly, we have worked to better define criteria by which we can evaluate both PI research and proposed participant research [e.g., via the (Industrial Cooperative Research/apprenticeship Program (ICRP) and Industrial/Government Intern Program (IGIP) programs] for “fit” within NCED. The criteria are:

(1) All NCED research must be directly connected to surface morphology. NCED does not study all processes that occur at the Earth’s surface. There must be a clear and direct connection between the process or effect in question and surface dynamics.

(2) Priority will be assigned to projects based on their potential impact on surface dynamics. We use the following measures of impact: Frequency of occurrence. Is the process or morphologic feature widespread (in space or in time)? For example, for studies of a particular field area, is the focus only on that area, or will knowledge be developed that can be applied to a broad class of systems? Magnitude. How strong is the effect in question? A process may be rare or localized but exert a disproportionate effect on the system. The focus here is on quantities such as magnitude of a flux (e.g. of sediment or nutrients); or relative change in a key system property (e.g. fractional change in ecosystem properties as a result of disturbance). Generality of application. This is mainly applicable to ideas or abstract models. How broad is the class of processes to which the concept applies?

9

Guidelines such as these, along with our improved vision and mission statements, will help us focus NCED research more clearly, and articulate better how each project contributes to NCED’s overall mission. Common field sites, such as the Angelo Coast Reserve (discussed further in Appendix C), will also promote integration and teamwork. Finally, we believe that continued parallel work to define and realize the “Community Sediment Model” project (now known formally as CSDMS; Appendix E), with which NCED is closely allied, will help to further focus NCED research. This project is discussed in more detail under Topic 4 of the Management section.

Geochemistry research component. SAB members suggested that NCED could make a contribution to understanding global geochemical cycling by developing a research component on the geochemistry of particle flux and storage. This is an issue we are evaluating carefully. One possibility is to look for someone interested in the relation of geochemical fluxes and surface dynamics in the coming year.

Social science research component. A final important research problem is development of a social- science research component within NCED. NSF recommended this when NCED was funded, and has included funds for supporting it. The PI group as a whole is excited about the possibilities of integrating the human dimension into our research; none of the existing PIs knows how to actually implement this social sciences program. After consultation with NSF and other colleagues with experience in social sciences, we have developed a two-stage plan for developing the social-science program. The first stage is to convene a full-day workshop at SAFL with senior representatives of a range of social sciences that could contribute to NCED’s mission (e.g. economics, sociology, human geography). Invitees to the workshop also include a few select scientists and engineers with experience in bridging the gap between the natural and social sciences. The charge to the participants in this initial workshop will be limited to helping us design an effective social-science program; they will not be active participants in the program themselves.

Invitations for this program-design workshop were sent out in March. We provided a range of possible dates in spring and early summer, but so far have not been able to find one when a majority of our invitees can come. We may have to move the workshop to the fall to find a workable date.

3. Focus Areas at the Center

There are four focus areas: 1. Landscapes and Seascapes 2. Depositional Basins 3. Biogeomorphology/Ecological Fluid Dynamics 4. Integration of Morphodynamics Processes Across Environments and Scales

10 Focus Area 1: Landscapes and Seascapes

Objectives

To understand the flux laws governing landscape and seascape evolution, and the feedback between morphology and flux laws,

In order to make better predictions of landscape evolution and better interpretations of Earth-surface history as recorded in landscapes.

Focus Name Landscape and Seascape Evolution PI Name Team Leaders: William Dietrich and Gary Parker Participants (over 160 hours) Name Status 1 Gary Parker Faculty, University of Minnesota (Civil Engineering) 2 William Dietrich Faculty, University of California-Berkeley 3 David Mohrig Faculty, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4 Lesley Perg Faculty, University of Minnesota (Geology) 5 Jim Buttles Postdoc, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 6 Svetlana Kostic Postdoc, University of Minnesota 7 Yoshiaki Akamatsu Postdoc, University of Minnesota 8 Kyle Straub Graduate student, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 9 Leslie Hsu Graduate student, University of California-Berkeley 10 Leonard Sklar Graduate student, University of California-Berkeley 11 Boyko Dodov Graduate student, University of Minnesota Affiliates (under 160 hours) 1 Efi Foufoula Faculty, University of Minnesota (Civil Engineering) 2 Chris Paola Faculty, University of Minnesota (Geology) 3 Scott Wright Graduate student, University of Minnesota 4 Miguel Wong Graduate student, University of Minnesota 5 Alessandro Cantelli Graduate student, University of Minnesota 6 Elowyn Yager Graduate student, University of California-Berkeley 7 John Stock Graduate student, University of California-Berkeley 8 Taylor Perron Graduate student, University of California-Berkeley Funding (reporting year) NSF $447,000 NSF Leveraged $105,000 Other $109,000 Funding (anticipated for next year) NSF $405,000 NSF Leveraged $144,000 Other $101,000

Activities, Outcomes, and Plans

Note: In this and subsequent sections, italicized text will be used to highlight results specifically related to milestones from the Strategic and Implementation Plan.

11

Review existing relations for the transport, erosion and deposition of sediment for landscapes and basins. This effort is being led by Dietrich and Parker but involves a number of NCED researchers. The central issue is that, while we understand a good deal about the laws that govern sediment flux on short time scales, a variety of observations show that these laws cannot be applied in a direct, simple way on geologic time scales. In addition, there are also many erosive processes for which we lack theory or observation, such as debris flow valley incision or erosion of hillslopes by landslides. This is important to NCED because our ability to predict the dynamics of surface morphology can never be better than the accuracy to which we know the laws that govern mass flow on the surface. Two major reviews have been completed. Manual 54 of the American Society of Civil Engineers on “Sedimentation Engineering” is meant to provide current knowledge and insight about all aspects of sediment transport for civil engineering applications. It has just been revised and Parker has contributed Chapter 3, entitled “Transport of Gravel and Sediment Mixtures”. This contribution provides a broad overview of the current understanding of mixed-grain size gravel transport. There is no comparable summary in the literature. The chapter will form a launching pad for further discussion this summer about future directions of collaborative research.

Dietrich has just published a lengthy review article with his research group on current understanding of what the group has termed “geomorphic transport laws” (Dietrich et al., 2003). The edited volume in which the review article is published provides diverse views on the challenges of making predictions about geomorphic form and processes, hence it will serve as a valuable volume to the NCED group to review and debate in future meetings. The chapter by Dietrich et al. has been the basis for invited talks given by Dietrich at Stanford, ETH (Zurich), Caltech and a Penrose Conference in Taiwan. These presentations and the discussions that followed have helped focus debate about future research needs in geomorphology.

These first two reviews provide an up-to-date understanding of short-term and long-term surficial processes shaping landscapes. A comparable review for seascape processes is now being developed by the NCED group. One step in this direction has been initiated by Mohrig. In order to obtain data to motivate transport, erosion and deposition (TED) laws, he wrote a successful proposal to Shell Exploration and Production Company to obtain seismic data and sediment cores collected from the greater Auger Basin, located about 240 km southwest of New Orleans, Louisiana, on the upper continental slope. The seismic data volume covers a surface area of about 490 km2 and the last 3.5 million years of erosion and sedimentation. Starting this summer Mohrig and his student William Lyons will be mapping submarine channels and debris flows/slides in 3D, providing a data set to guide development of TED laws for the seascape.

Voller is writing a book on “Numerical Methods for Moving Boundary and Phase Change problems in which a section of the book is devoted to the development of sediment flux laws. He is collaborating with Paola on basic concepts to be incorporated into this book. This contribution will inform and guide both landscape and seascape TED development. In a related effort, Paola has distributed notes to all NCED participants on formulation of a generalized sediment mass balance equation. The goal is to develop a general form of the Exner equation of sediment balance that can accommodate geologic processes such as uplift, soil formation and creep, and weathering.

Develop a model for sediment entrainment, bed incision, transport and deposition by debris flows and other processes in subaerial and subaqueous environments. This effort involves Dietrich, Parker, Mohrig and Perg. Debris and related mass flows are much less well understood than ordinary fluid flows. They are important to NCED because debris flows play a major role in shaping the landscape, but we do not understand their dynamics nor their erosional mechanisms well enough to formulate a debris-flow geomorphic transport law. The project will entail extensive experiments with variable properties of flow materials and substrates and field studies to motivate and test theory. The theory to be developed will be the foundation for a long-term geomorphic transport law. A review paper is planned but has not yet been initiated. The group’s primary efforts have focused on developing the experimental facilities, theory and analytical capabilities for surficial process studies.

12 John Stock, a graduate student working with Dietrich, is completing a dissertation on observational evidence of debris flow incision into bedrock. He has proposed the rough outline of a geomorphic transport law for debris incision into bedrock, which includes the effects on network structure and weathering on the longitudinal shape of valleys cut by debris flows. He has proposed that bedrock incision should vary as a power law function of inertial grain stress exerted on the boundary. This hypothesis (and others) will be tested experimentally.

Parker and Dietrich are developing a large-scale experimental facility to study how debris flows cut through bedrock. Trial experiments have been done with two conveyor belt flumes, a rotating drum, and a rotating, tipping disk to explore how best to get a range of debris flow behavior and monitor stresses and erosion rates. Dietrich and graduate student Leslie Hsu visited the NCED center in Minneapolis and discussed at length various design concepts with Parker and several of the NCED technical staff. Observation during one of the visits of on-going debris flow experiments at Minneapolis on non-eroding beds was very helpful. At Berkeley a Fall semester graduate seminar on debris flow mechanics focused on key papers and previous experiments. A design is now being finalized for a 5 m diameter rotating drum. This design will be reviewed by the Minnesota group. Dietrich has obtained permission to take over a building at the Berkeley Richmond Field Station in which the drum will be housed.

At MIT, Mohrig is building a 10 m long, 0.3 m wide and 1.5 m deep channel to study subaqueous debris flows and slides. In addition, he has started work on gaining access to a volume of industry-owned seismic data that are necessary to quantify the style, pattern and magnitude of substrate remobilization associated with submarine debris flows. These efforts by Mohrig, Parker and Dietrich will provide a means to generate critical data to compare subaerial and subaqueous debris flow mechanics and erosion processes.

Perg and Parker are developing theoretical and observational methods for deciphering rates of processes in erosional and depositional environments using cosmogenic radionuclides and related approaches. They have started the derivation of a general conservation equation for the tracking of cosmogenic radionuclides in both erosional and depositional environments. They will present their initial results at the INQUA meeting in July. In addition, Perg is working with Sujoy Mukhopadhay (Harvard University) to develop 21Ne cosmogenic nuclide analytical techniques, and to apply 10Be and 21Ne to examine alluvial fan processes (lobe switching and fan smoothing). This work, sponsored by NCED, should lead to seed data to enable them to write an NSF proposal for additional funding.

Develop a general model for river incision into bedrock. This project is led by Dietrich and Parker. It is important to NCED because, while river flow is reasonably well understood, the means by which rivers incise into bedrock and thus create erosional topography are not. Two projects are underway to increase our understanding of bedrock incision processes and theory. Leonard Sklar is completing a dissertation project with Dietrich that has focused exclusively on the mechanics of wear and consequent bedrock incision by river sediment. He has developed a theory which successfully predicts experimental findings demonstrating that sediment supply and grain size dominate wear rates. Application of Sklar’s theory to river profile evolution shows that for a wide range of rock uplift and hardness, grain size and sediment supply are the primary controls on channel slope. A series of papers will be submitted in the next several months on his findings.

Parker, in collaboration with Dietrich and others, has formulated a generalized numerical model of bedrock incision that combines wear, plucking and macroabrasion. The theory has been circulated and discussed amongst the group and further progress awaits the arrival of a new graduate student in the fall of 2003, who will pursue this topic for a Ph.D. thesis.

Develop averaged flux laws for turbidity currents. This project is led by Mohrig and Parker. Turbidity currents are a kind of dilute submarine avalanche. They are important to NCED because they are one of the major mechanisms by which sediment reaches the deep sea; they also create much of the topography of the continental slope and rise. Although much progress has been made in recent years on understanding the mechanics of turbidity currents, we still do not have a sufficient basis to formulate long- term geomorphic transport laws for them.

13

Parker is working with an NCED postdoctoral fellow, Svetlana Kostic, to develop a general numerical model of turbidity currents that incorporates an erosion function developed in an NCED-related NSF project by one of Parker’s other students, Scott Wright. When preliminary results are available they will be provided to Mohrig and Porté-Agel for further discussion and development. Parker has also begun work with Porté-Agel on developing Large-Eddy Simulation (LES) models of turbidity current mechanics.

Mohrig and graduate student William Lyons have obtained access from Shell Exploration and Production Company to seismic data and sediment cores from the greater Auger Basin, on the upper continental slope off New Orleans, Louisiana. The seismic data volume covers a surface area of about 490 km2 and the last 3.5 million years of erosion and sedimentation. Maps of erosional and depositional surfaces as well as long-profile measurements through time will be used as boundary conditions for numerical study of turbidity currents with the intent of investigating how these individual-event models can be upscaled to a form useful for describing continental slope evolution. Mohrig and Lyons are also analyzing relatively coarse-grained turbidites filling exhumed submarine channels of the Miocene Capistrano Formation, San Clemente, CA to determine the most appropriate hydraulic parameter for separating bedload from suspended load transport by these currents. Bed thickness, grain size and sorting data as functions of relative elevation above channel thalwegs are also being used to investigate vertical stratification of sand- size particles within currents. Durations of currents are also being constrained using this data. Once preliminary results become available they will be provided to Parker and Porté-Agel for discussion and incorporation into numerical codes. This information together with distributions of reconstructed current velocities, thicknesses and durations will be used as additional constraints on transport laws for submarine slope systems.

Mohrig is working with graduate student, Kyle Straub and post-doc, James Buttles to determine experimentally the controls on submarine channel-levee formation and submarine-channel elongation (propagation of levees in the downslope direction). The first set of experiments has been completed and was successful. Results will be shared with Parker and Porté-Agel this spring. A relevant manuscript has just been accepted: Mohrig, D., and Marr, J.D., Constraining the efficiency of turbidity current generation from submarine slides, slumps and debris flows using laboratory experiments: Marine and Petroleum Geology.

Dynamics of Delta Channels. The goal here is to understand the behavior of channels on deltas of large rivers undergoing subsidence. The project is led by Parker and Dietrich. The topic is important to NCED because deltas are major components of the landscape whose dynamics have been relatively understudied. In addition, we have identified coastline loss along the Mississippi Delta as a major practical/social issue to which NCED can contribute. Thus, we will make a particular effort to look at differences between natural and artificial channels in this project.

This problem is being approached through experiments, modeling and field work. Parker’s group has developed a first numerical model of quasi-2D fan-deltas with a self-formed channel and backwater effects. Parker has been gathering contacts in regard to the Mississippi Delta project, including the US Army Corps of Engineers, Tulane University, the USGS and others. An NCED postdoctoral fellow, Yoshiaki Akamatsu, will arrive in May, 2003 to work on the project. After Akamatsu arrives, Parker will organize a visit to Louisiana to gather data and formalize contacts with other agencies and universities. Perg has used the Mississippi Delta issue as a focal point in her geomorphology class and is working on applications of cosmogenic nuclides in alluvial fans, which should also be transferable to deltas.

Deltas advance through channel extension and lateral spreading of sediment. Joel Rowland, a Berkeley graduate student, is focusing his work on the mechanisms which control the formation of channels by sediment laden flows entering still water. He has field sites in Alaska, Papua New Guinea and Louisiana, and has begun constructing an experimental system to explore what controls channel formation. The focus is on “tie channels”, which are channels that extend from rivers into adjacent lakes, mostly resulting from river meander cutoff (oxbows). Parker and Dietrich have debated tie channel formation mechanisms for many years. Mohrig has discussed these features with Dietrich and Rowland and has offered the use

14 of the Morphodynamics Lab at MIT to explore tie channel formation. Mohrig’s extensive laboratory experience in documenting fine-scale channel processes will be helpful in the anticipated experiments.

Human-landscape interactions. This effort involves Paola, Wold, Voller and Foufoula. It is important to NCED because landscape dynamics influence humans in many ways; moreover, humans have become one of the dominant agents in landscape change. Our effort in this will be focused on developing a joint social science-surface process research component within NCED. More information on this project, including progress to date, is reported in part 2 (Research problems) of the overall Research section.

In a related development, Dietrich is involved in studies in the Sonoma and Napa watersheds in Northern California directed at identifying the linkages between land use activity and aquatic ecosystem function. Both projects are driven by regulatory authority emanating from total maximum daily load assessment requirements. A third project will begin this summer on developing methods for assessing and predicting cumulative watershed effects which will be supported by the US Forest Service. All three projects will benefit from analysis tools emerging from NCED.

15 Focus Area 2: Depositional Basins

Objectives

To understand flux laws governing depositional systems, and how the interplay of those flux laws with depositional topography creates sedimentary deposits and stratigraphy,

In order to make better predictions of the geometry and lithologic characteristics of subsurface fluid conduits and reservoirs, and make better use of the archive of Earth history represented by the stratigraphic record.

Focus Name Basins PI Name Team Leaders: David Mohrig and Chris Paola Participants (over 160 hours) Name Status 1 David Mohrig Faculty, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2 Chris Paola Faculty, University of Minnesota (Geology) 3 Gary Parker Faculty, University of Minnesota (Civil Engineering) 4 Vaughan Voller Faculty, University of Minnesota (Civil Engineering)) 5 Lesley Perg Faculty, University of Minnesota (Geology) 6 Christina Kaba Graduate student, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 7 William Lyons Graduate student, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 8 Priyadarshini Ranganath Graduate student, University of Minnesota 9 Michael Kelberer Graduate student, University of Minnesota 10 Wonsuck Kim Graduate student, University of Minnesota 11 Nikki Strong Graduate student, University of Minnesota 12 Bin Yu Visiting Faculty, University of Minnesota 13 Svetlana Kostic Postdoc, University of Minnesota 14 Juan Fedele Postdoc, University of Minnesota 15 Damien T. Kawakami Undergrad student, University of Minnesota Affiliates (under 160 hours) 1 Efi Foufoula Faculty, University of Minnesota (Civil Engineering) 2 William Dietrich Faculty, University of California-Berkeley 3 Jacob Violet Graduate student, University of Minnesota 4 Wes Lauer Graduate student, University of Minnesota 5 Horacio Toniolo Graduate student, University of Minnesota 6 Joel Rowland Graduate student, University of California-Berkeley 7 John Stock Graduate student, University of California-Berkeley 8 John Sanders Graduate student, University of California-Berkeley 9 Cliff Reibe Postdoc, University of California-Berkeley Funding (reporting year) NSF $606,000 NSF Leveraged $323,000 Other $228,000 Funding (anticipated for next year) NSF $404,000 NSF Leveraged $261,000 Other $151,000

16

Activities, Outcomes, and Plans

Development of flux laws (transport, erosion, deposition or TED) for application to basin systems. This effort involves Mohrig, Paola, and Perg and is closely related to the parallel effort in Focus Area 1. The central issue is the same for both groups: while we understand a good deal about the laws that govern sediment flux on short time scales, a variety of observations show that these laws cannot be applied in a direct, simple way on geologic time scales. This is important to NCED because our ability to predict the dynamics of surface morphology can never be better than the accuracy to which we know the laws that govern mass flow on the surface.

One main cause of the disparity between short-term and long-term flux behavior is the high degree of intermittency of surface-transport systems. This intermittency is associated with both internal dynamics (e.g., morphologic features like bedforms and bars store and release sediment over a range of time scales) and intermittent forcing (e.g., floods and storms in which most material flow occurs in a small fraction of the total time).

Another major effect is that the relative importance of the various processes that affect sediment flow varies with time and space scale. For example, tectonic subsidence is unimportant for most engineering problems but dominant in geologic ones. In addition, complex processes such as bar formation and local scour may be critical in the design of a bridge or power plant but averaged out over long time scales.

Most of these effects have been studied at least to some degree. However, relatively little has been done to synthesize them into a comprehensive view of how short-term and long-term fluxes and flux laws are related. One important exception is a review paper by NCED colleague Dietrich and co-workers on “geomorphic flux laws”, which addresses some of the issues in developing morphodynamic laws for the conditions and length scales appropriate for geomorphology. In this project, the Basins team (Mohrig and Paola) are building on this framework with depositional systems in mind. We have begun work on two review papers that we expect to submit this fall on TED laws on time and space scales appropriate for sedimentary basins. The papers will address the nature of flux laws, how their coefficients and forms should change as we go to geologic scales, and how paleofluxes may be estimated from preserved strata. We will make extensive use of a summary of “Transport of Gravel and Sediment Mixtures” just completed by Parker. Because this work depends critically on time and length scale, we are working with NCED colleagues in Focus Area 4 (integration and scaling) in this project. In particular, one approach we are working on intensively involves using techniques from turbulence theory to parameterize fluxes on “subgrid” space and time scales (those below the resolution of interest for a particular problem). For this we are working closely with NCED’s turbulence specialist (Porté-Agel).

Part of the data support for these analyses will be existing literature data. Another main component is experiments, especially the long-term ones we are doing in our subsiding-floor EXperimental EarthScape (XES) basin at SAFL. By combining high-resolution topography with observations of experimental strata and known forcing, we can recreate some of the intermittency that leads to variation in sediment flux laws with increasing space and time scale.

Another major data source for constraining flux laws is field data. This includes estimates of long-term sediment flux rates from field experiments such as Perg’s studies of littoral sediment flow off Santa Cruz, CA. In addition, seismic data allow us to measure sediment depositional volume and geometry. Mohrig and graduate student William Lyons are working with data from the upper continental slope off New Orleans, Louisiana (Auger Basin), and the Miocene Capistrano Formation of California to provide constraints for turbidity-current transport laws. This work is discussed under Focus Area 1 but will be applicable to understanding submarine depositional systems as well as seafloor morphology.

Formation of submarine channels. The central issue here is that, while channelization in alluvial river systems is reasonably well understood, formation of channels by turbidity currents in the ocean is not. Key differences include the scale of submarine channels (they are typically much larger than alluvial

17 channels) and the relative importance of erosional versus depositional (constructional) processes. Alluvial channels are almost entirely erosional, while submarine channels are both erosional and depositional. The topic is important to NCED because channelization in any system dramatically alters the spatial and temporal pattern of sediment flow and thus of morphologic change. The conditions and dynamics of channel formation are thus of first-order importance in any system in which they occur. Mohrig’s group is conducting experiments at MIT on the effect of subtle channel topography on flow and sediment flux fields, with the aim of investigating the feedbacks that cause channels to grow. The first set of experiments examines the interaction of currents with irregularities in channel planform (degree of superelevation and spilling of currents out of channel at bend). The second set of experiments is designed to look at flow and depositional patterns as currents get very thick (a factor >10) relative to the depth of the guiding channel. Initial experiments have been performed, and the results from the first series will be available this summer. The experimental data will also be compared with channel geometry data from the Auger Basin dataset discussed under Focus Area 1. Finally, an unexpected development in this work is the possibility that there are important dynamical similarities between submarine channels and subaerial tie channels (small connector channels that link main channels and lakes on river floodplains). The latter are obviously more accessible than submarine channels, so this is potentially an important development. The connection is being developed by Mohrig and Dietrich with UCB graduate student Joel Rowland. Parker and NCED engineer Jeff Marr have done preliminary experiments on channel formation at SAFL. Parker is also designing a new experimental facility for the study of submarine channel formation. This program will complement that of Mohrig and be closely coordinated with it.

Three-dimensional moving-boundary dynamics of continental-margin systems. A “moving boundary” is an internal boundary within a system at which there is a change in transport dynamics. The change could be in one or more transport coefficients or in the nature of the transport laws themselves. A nice surface-dynamics example is the shoreline, which represents a transition from river-dominated to wave/current-dominated sediment motion. The interesting thing about these internal boundaries is that they can shift as the system evolves – hence “moving boundaries” – so they must be tracked through time if the system is to be modeled accurately. Understanding moving boundary dynamics is important to NCED because they are part of all large-scale Earth-surface systems. Other examples include the gravel- sand transition in rivers and the transition from wave/current to mass-flow dominated transport on subaqueous clinoforms. In these systems, the dynamics of the moving boundaries are as important as the dynamics of the domains they separate.

The formal study of migration of interfaces such as the shoreline using moving-boundary methods was led by John Swenson, now at the University of Minnesota Duluth, with NCED PIs Voller, Paola, and Parker. Moving-boundary methods have been intensively developed for industrial applications such as melt solidification in castings. This provides a sizable body of theory that can be immediately transferred to surface-dynamics applications. The connection is so strong that a book Voller is writing called “Numerical Methods for Moving Boundary and Phase Change Problems” will now include a section devoted to surface-dynamics applications. Swenson, Voller, and Paola continue to work on new applications to surface problems. Our focus now is moving to 3D models, which of course are both more challenging and more realistic than the 2D work we have done so far. We also did an experiment in the XES basin at SAFL on shoreline response to imposed base-level fluctuations. The experiment was designed to look at the superposition of long-term (relative to an appropriate characteristic time for the basin) and short-term fluctuations. We are making use of the data from this experiment in various ways, but one of the most important is via the high-resolution record of shoreline position through time for these cycles. This will be used as a high-quality reference data set for comparison with model results.

An additional data set that will be useful in constraining moving-boundary models is being developed by Mohrig and graduate student Christina Kaba. This is a continental-scale margin project targeting the Cretaceous-Paleocene depositional system in the subsurface of the North Slope of Alaska (National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska) via a regional grid of seismic lines covering about 9000 km2. Core and well logs tied to the seismic data are being used to calibrate the interpreted seismic geometries; all the data are available through the USGS. The data set will include the long profile for the fluvial system through time and space, the position of the shoreline, width and slope for the continental shelf and width, height,

18 and gradient of the continental slope. This geometric data, together with a numerical model for larger- scale continental margin evolution, will allow us to reconstruct the flux of sediment from the Brooks Range over geologic time.

Interaction of autogenic and external signals in depositional systems. This effort is led by Paola and also involves Porté-Agel, Foufoula, Mohrig, and Voller. Nearly all surface transport systems exhibit some degree of self-organization (spontaneous formation of patterns in space and/or time). Common examples of self-formed patterns in natural transport systems include bedforms, channel bars, river braiding and meandering, and dendritic drainage networks. A less obvious side effect of spontaneous pattern formation is that it often leads to spontaneous fluctuation and instability in the system. For instance, river bars store sediment as they grow and release it as they decay, leading to variation in the sediment flow down the channel. We refer to such fluctuations as ‘autogenic’; the idea is closely related to so-called ‘autocycles’ in sedimentary geology. Autogenic variability is important to NCED because (1) it strongly mediates sediment flow through natural systems (see flux laws above), and (2) it introduces variability in surface systems that interacts with externally forced variability in important ways. For example, an important part of NCED’s mission is to improve our ability to interpret records of past surface conditions in sediments and landscapes. Autogenic variability complicates this, because it can produce features (e.g., river terraces) that might be taken as evidence for externally driven change (e.g., an increase in rainfall) if not interpreted correctly.

We think analysis of autogenic processes is poised for major advances by application of emerging ideas in the theory of complex systems. For example, the well known sand-pile model of Per Bak and co- workers, though not a very good model of flowing sand, is a simple way of producing and studying autogenic fluctuations numerically. We are also studying autogenic fluctuations produced experimentally, in the XES basin and other systems at SAFL. The most recent XES experiment produced what we believe will be the most extensive data set available on autogenic variability as a function of base-level variation. In an earlier experiment we found that the relative intensity of autogenic fluctuations in shoreline position was attenuated during periods of rapid base-level fall. We are working up similar data from our recent XES experiment on base-level cycles, and have also taken advantage of the NCED-sponsored visit of Tetsuji Muto (Nagasaki University) to begin collaborating with him on this topic. Muto has done a series of simple experiments that vividly demonstrate autogenic variability during valley formation and shoreline retreat.

Because of the overlap in the study of ‘complexity’ and scaling behavior, we are working closely with NCED colleagues in the Scaling group (Focus Area 4) on these problems. In particular, Paola, Porté- Agel, Foufoula, and Voller have been working on applying ideas and techniques from turbulence, perhaps the ‘type example’ of autogenic fluctuation, to autogenic processes in surface dynamics.

Dynamics of Delta Channels. This project is joint with Focus Area 1. As explained in that section, it is important because deltas are major components of the landscape that have been relatively under studied, and coastline loss along the Mississippi Delta is a major social issue to which NCED can contribute. Further discussion of activities in this project can be found in Focus Area 1.

19 Focus Area 3: Biogeomorphology/Ecological Fluid Dynamics

Objectives

To understand the interactive feedbacks among biological, physical and chemical processes across landscapes,

In order to account for the strong influence biology has on the evolution of landscapes, and the reciprocal influence of surface dynamics on ecosystems.

Focus Name Biogeomorphology and Ecobiological Fluid Dynamics PI Name Team Leaders: Mary Power and Miki Hondzo Participants (over 160 hours) Name Status 1 Mary Power Faculty, University of California-Berkeley 2 Miki Hondzo Faculty, University of Minnesota (Civil Engineering) 3 Jill Banfield Faculty, University of California-Berkeley 4 Jacques Finlay Faculty, University of Minnesota (Geology) 5 Lesley Perg Faculty, University of Minnesota (Geology) 6 Andrew Wold Faculty, Fond du Lac 7 Kay Rezanka Faculty, Fond du Lac 8 Chris Paola Faculty, University of Minnesota (Geology) 9 Gary Parker Faculty, University of Minnesota (Civil Engineering) 10 William Dietrich Faculty, University of California-Berkeley 11 Ignacio Rodriguez-Iturbe Faculty, Princeton University 12 Rebecca Forman Graduate student, University of Minnesota 13 Arno Hammann Graduate student, Princeton University 14 Michal Tal Graduate student, University of Minnesota 15 Kelly Caylor Postdoc, Princeton University 16 Jennifer Macalady Postdoc, University of California-Berkeley Affiliates (under 160 hours) 1 Jason Kennedy Faculty, Fond du Lac 2 Efi Foufoula Faculty, University of Minnesota (Civil Engineering) 3 Vaughan Voller Faculty, University of Minnesota (Civil Engineering) 4 David Mohrig Faculty, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5 Wes Lauer Graduate student, University of Minnesota 6 Jack Sculley Graduate student, University of California-Berkeley 7 Mike Limm Graduate student, University of California-Berkeley 8 Jeanette Howard Graduate student, University of California-Berkeley 10 Camille McNeeley Graduate student, University of California-Berkeley 11 Maria S. Bergstedt Graduate student, University of Minnesota 12 Ben O’Connor Graduate student, University of Minnesota 13 Ranjan Muthakrishnan Undergrad student, Univ. of California-Berkeley 14 Chris DiVittorio Undergrad student, Univ. of California-Berkeley 15 Dina Dobraca Undergrad student, University of Minnesota Funding (reporting year) NSF $690,000 NSF Leveraged $46,000 Other $194,000 Funding (anticipated for next year) NSF

20 $701,000 NSF Leveraged $49,000

Other $160,000

Activities, Outcomes, and Plans

Thin layers and nutrient dynamics. This project is led by Hondzo and Power. The overall objective is to study processes where the external forcing is physical, and the responses are biological and chemical. The unifying concept is the presence of “thin layers,” i.e., layers that show strong gradients or physical, biological and chemical parameters. This is important to NCED because it implies that the interaction of morphology and nutrient flow may be controlled by the behavior of zones that occupy only a small fraction of the flow field. Through laboratory and field experiments, Hondzo’s group is working to determine flux laws for O, N, and P species at the interfaces of solid substrates and moving water. Ongoing laboratory measurements on α species will address the following hypothesis: (a) the driving mechanisms of nitrogen cycling are chemical and physical conditions and the responses are biological processes; (b) the key physical and chemical variables involved in nitrate uptake at the sediment-water interface are dissolved oxygen concentrations, turbulence characteristics, organic carbon content, and inorganic nitrogen concentrations; (c) the location and extent of nitrate uptake intensity depends upon these key physical and chemical variables. In this view, many of the controlling parameters for the flow of these nutrients are localized and heterogeneous in natural systems (e.g., streams, lakes). The localization is highly dependent on the interaction of flow and topography (macro and micro). This physically mediated heterogeneity of nutrient flow is thus a key element in the interaction of morphology, food webs, and ecosystems.

During the September 2002 NCED workshop, Hondzo, Finlay, and Power chose study sites at the Angelo Reserve in which to extend these measurements of microgradients to the field. We will extend this study to look down the drainage network of the South Fork Eel and its tributaries at taxonomic, abundance, and interaction changes involving periphyton, invertebrate primary consumers, and whole stream metabolism (respiration and photosynthesis) surveyed in conjunction with these fine scale measurements of nutrient and gas fluxes mediated by near boundary flow and biofilms. The new laboratory facilities at the Angelo Coast Range Reserve were inspected and found adequate to support this project. This collaboration between these three PIs and their students will begin in summer 2003.

Physiology to food webs in river networks. This project, led by Power, will dovetail with field and laboratory investigations of thin layers. The goal here is to begin thinking in terms of a hierarchy of morphological controls over specific taxa in an ecosystem. Food-web dynamics is critical to NCED because food webs form the foundation of ecosystems and are intimately linked to earth surface processes and geomorphology. This year, a team of UC Berkeley postdocs, graduate and undergraduate students working at the Angelo Reserve are studying armored caddis fly grazers, freshwater mussels, salmonids, riparian sedges and periphyton down drainage networks with this concept in mind. The group will collect information on scale dependencies and scale free aspects of the distributions, abundances, performances and interactions of these and as many other river and riparian taxa as practicable. These data will help constrain scaling-based models of ecosystem-landscape interaction such as those being developed in the Scaling group (Focus Area 4). A review paper on effects of landscapes and hydrological regimes on distributions and performances of key elements in river food webs is in outline form at this time, and should be submitted this summer.

A second major branch of this work is led by Wold and Finlay (a PI slated to join NCED in Year 2) and involves the biogeomorphology of wild rice. Part of the motivation for choosing this topic is its importance to upper midwestern native communities: increasing involvement of youth from these communities in science is one of NCED’s main educational goals. This year Wold and Finlay have identified initial field sites in northeastern Minnesota, and begun recruiting students and faculty from Fond Du Lac Tribal and

21 Community College to assist in the research. Data collection will include but not be limited to water chemistry and organisms for isotopic/food web analyses. The overall goal is to elucidate the role of wild rice in lotic and lentic ecosystems as it relates to food webs and nutrient cycling.

Biotic feedbacks to river morphology. In effect, this project is a complement to the previous one: the goal is to investigate some of the very strong controls that riparian biota have on river morphology. NCED participants include Power, Parker, Perg, Paola, and Foufoula. It is important to NCED because biota are thought to strongly influence river channel form and river system dynamics. Primary areas of influence are channel confinement, bank stabilization, and floodplain development. Initial laboratory studies so far have provided baseline data on braided-stream channel patterns that will be used as a baseline against which the effects of vegetation developed under various dischange-seeding scenarios will be compared. Based on previous experiments we have carried out, we are confident that vegetation effects alone will be strong enough to convert braided channel morphologies (e.g., aspect ratio) to those typical of meandering channels. Experiments in the coming year will show how these changes are modulated by variation in the relation of seeding to discharge variation. The project is joint with Scaling (Focus 4).

In addition, during the September Angelo workshop, we identified a large cobble bar along the South Fork Eel River that was promising for long term field monitoring of vegetation effects on channel width and island formation. This bar is one of several sites where a cohort of now 3-year old alders are showing exceptionally heavy recruitment, and is also at the base of the new Angelo canopy access facility. Cameras can be positioned in 60 m tall redwoods overlooking the site, to give long term digital data on relative changes in channel plan form, bar morphology, and the structure of the riparian tree assemblages on the bar over time. Event driven monitoring can capture the immediate impacts of large floods on these features.

Mechanisms of soil formation and landscape lowering. This project focuses on microbiogeochemical controls on weathering and erosion of landscapes and is led by Banfield with participation by Dietrich and Jenn Macalady, an Assistant Professor at Carleton College. It is important to NCED because it will forge new insights about the role of microbially mediated weathering in surface processes and landscape evolution. This is a rich and virtually unstudied area of research. The group is working on a granite weathering profile in New South Wales (Australia) exposed in a trench as well as a ridge-hillslope transect, and the strategy is to combine geochemical and biological sampling. Zr concentrations systematically increase within the soil profile, indicating that it can be used as an index of extent of chemical weathering. Zr-corrected elemental concentrations as functions of depth and distance from the ridge indicate that significant mass loss occurs by dissolution, as opposed to physical transport. Within soils, most element abundances vary systematically with depth relative to the soil-saprolite interface, suggesting a lower degree of physical mixing within the soil layer than expected. Polar lipid fatty acid (PLFA) analyses were done in parallel with geochemical analyses to measure microbial biomass through the weathering profile. The data indicate a decrease in microbial biomass from >108 cells/g in the soil to ~107 cells/g in the saprolite, and that microbes are abundant in the soil-saprolite interface, especially under shallow soils. Thus the microbes potentially affect rate-limiting weathering reactions occurring there. Microbial community structure also changes significantly with depth below the soil surface. Bacterial 16S rDNA clone libraries from the zone of intense phosphate solubilization are dominated by Acidobacteria, Verrucomicrobia, Bacteroides, Plancotmycetes, and Proteobacteria.

Planned work will focus on mapping fungal biomass with depth and across the ridge-hillslope transect; investigating the relationships between organic carbon concentrations and microbial biomass and activity; determining sources of carbon and of energy fueling biological activity in zones within the granite weathering profile where geochemical analyses indicate intense chemical weathering is occurring; and investigating mechanisms by which saprolite micro-organisms attack minerals such as highly insoluble phosphates.

22 Focus Area 4: Integration of Morphodynamic Processes Across Environments and Scales (Group leaders: Foufoula, Rodriguez-Iturbe)

Objectives

To understand the space-time organization of landscapes and seascapes (including morphology, hydrology and ecology), the existence of similarity across scales and environments, and the physical basis for this similarity.

In order to unify flux laws and morphodynamic models across environments, to extend existing understanding by exploiting similarity and analogy, and to develop techniques for using measurements and insight obtained over small scales for parameterization over large scales.

Focus Name Integration of Morphodynamics Processes Across Environments and Scales PI Name Team Leaders: Efi Foufoula and Ignacio Rodriguez-Iturbe Participants (over 160 hours) Name Status 1 Efi Foufoula Faculty, University of Minnesota (Civil Engineering) 2 Ignacio Rodriguez-Iturbe Faculty, Princeton University 3 David Mohrig Faculty, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4 Chris Paola Faculty, University of Minnesota (Geology) 5 William Dietrich Faculty, University of California-Berkeley 6 Gary Parker Faculty, University of Minnesota (Civil Engineering) 7 Vaughan Voller Faculty, University of Minnesota 8 Fernando Porte-Agel Faculty, University of Minnesota (Civil Engineering) 9 Lesley Perg Faculty, University of Minnesota (Geology) 10 Svetlana Kostic Postdoc, University of Minnesota 11 Yoshiaki Akamatsu Postdoc, University of Minnesota 12 Boyko Dodov Graduate student, University of Minnesota 13 Violeta Lima Vivancos Graduate student, University of Minnesota 14 Amit Jain Graduate student, University of Minnesota 15 Nenad Bjelogrlic Graduate student, University of Minnesota 16 Joshua Rubin Undergrad student, University of Minnesota Affiliates (under 160 hours) 1 Bojan Guzina Faculty, University of Minnesota (Civil Engineering) 2 Venugopal Vuruputur Postdoc, University of Minnesota 3 Svetlana Kostic Postdoc, University of Minnesota 4 Doug Jerolmack Graduate student, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5 Sukanta Basu Graduate student, University of Minnesota 6 Horacio Toniolo Graduate student, University of Minnesota 7 Jacob Violet Graduate student, University of Minnesota 8 Joel Rowland Graduate student, University of California-Berkeley 9 James Stoll Graduate student, University of Minnesota 10 Matt Carper Graduate student, University of Minnesota 11 Michal Tal Graduate student, University of Minnesota Funding (reporting year) NSF $541,000 NSF Leveraged $105,000 Other $93,000 Funding (anticipated for next year)

23 NSF $438,000 NSF Leveraged $191,000 Other $96,000

Activities, Outcomes, and Plans

Spatial organization of vegetation in river basins. This project, joint with Focus Area 3, is led by I. Rodriguez-Iturbe. The goal is to quantify the spatial organization of vegetation around the drainage network structure. The framework aims to interpret the drainage network as a template around which functionally different types of vegetation organize themselves with characteristics that are independent of scale and, up to a point, also independent of the peculiarities of each watershed. The project is important to NCED because of its potential to reveal basin-scale coupling between vegetation and drainage patterns. This in turn could condition how both systems are modeled. A methodology was introduced that allowed mapping the spatial distribution of each type of vegetation into a 1-D function following the drainage network structure (similar to the width function previously used in geomorphology). Lack of stationarity in these functions was handled by normalization with the GIUH (Geomorphological Instantaneous Unit Hydrograph). In addition, a statistical analysis of the water balance at the daily scale was carried out such that the spatial distribution of soil moisture, evapotranspiration and runoff could be obtained. These were also mapped in 1-D functions following the template of the river network. Preliminary results indicate that the power spectra of the time series of vegetation organization as well as those related to transpiration follow very clear power laws over an extended range of scales, and that these spectra do not flatten in the low frequency range. Moreover, the exponents of these spectra remain unchanged with the scale of the basin under analysis.

We are now in the process of implementing models that describe the statistical structures and signatures that have been identified in ways that are also appealing from the physical point of view. Towards this goal, we have started the adaptation of random cascades which will distribute randomly each type of vegetation in consecutive sub-divisions of the area of the basin occupied by that type of vegetation, along the drainage network.

Streamflow dynamics and predictability. This project is led by Foufoula in collaboration with graduate student Boyko Dodov. The goal is to quantify how the spatio-temporal distribution of rainfall and basin geomorphology affect the nonlinear dynamics of runoff at flood time scales. It is important to NCED because runoff prediction is a critical component of modeling drainage basin evolution; existing erosion models ignore runoff variability or treat it simplistically. An approach for “hydrologically-relevant” phase- space reconstruction was proposed acknowledging the fact that rainfall-runoff is a spatially extended (large number of degrees of freedom) dynamical system. The methodology was applied to two basins in Central North America using 6-hour streamflow data and radar rainfall images for a period of 5 years. The proposed methodology was used to: (a) quantify the dependencies between runoff dynamics and the spatio-temporal dynamics of precipitation, (b) study how runoff predictability is affected by the trade-offs between the level of detail necessary to explain the dynamics of forcing and the reduction of complexity due to the smoothing effect of the basin, and (c) explore the possibility of incorporating process-specific information (in terms of catchment geomorphology and an a-priori chosen uncertainty model) into nonlinear prediction. Preliminary results indicate the potential of using the proposed methodology to understand via nonlinear analysis of observations (i.e., not based on a particular rainfall-runoff model) runoff predictability and limits to prediction as a function of the complexity of spatio-temporal forcing relative to basin geomorphology.

Scaling in hydraulic geometry. This project is led by Foufoula in collaboration with graduate student Dodov. The goal of this project is to quantify how hydraulic geometry (denoted as HG and defined as the power law relationships between channel properties and river flows) change as a function of contributing

24 area (scale) and frequency of discharge. This research is important for NCED because it can provide a basis for quantifying how stream channel properties (e.g., velocity, cross-sectional area, width, and depth) change as one moves downstream in a single river basin keeping a fixed discharge frequency, or at a given stream location (fixed contributing area) for varying frequency discharges. The practical implications of this quantification is the development of runoff routing methods in ungaged basins based on geomorphic properties of the stream network (i.e., hydraulic properties of streams and network topology).

A multiscaling model for stream cross-sectional area and discharge was proposed and tested using observations from 85 stations in Oklahoma and Kansas. This multiscaling model was then used to derive a revised HG that reflects scale-dependency. The revised HG was combined with geomorphologic analysis of the stream network via the “network of nonlinear reservoirs" concept to develop a modeling scheme termed "Geomorphologic Nonlinear Reservoirs in Network (GNRN)" for runoff routing in ungaged catchments. The performance of this modeling scheme was tested in a basin in Oklahoma under several rainfall events with satisfactory results.

Further research (in collaboration with Paola and Parker) which investigate (a) the physical basis of these multiscaling relationships and (b) their potential for regionalization for the purpose of runoff prediction in ungauged catchments.

Spatial organization of coastal channel networks. Mohrig, in collaboration with Gene Rankey (U. of Miami) and graduate students Christina Kaba and Doug Jerolmack (both at MIT), have begun a comparison of sinuous tidal channels on Andros Island, Bahamas, with sinuous river channels. This work is important to NCED because of the potential for rapid advance by applying our well developed understanding of fluvial channel dynamics to the understudied but important case of tidal channels. One question is to determine why muddy tidal flats covered with sinuous channels preserve very few occurrences of meander-loop cutoffs. Eight days of fieldwork this March on the 3 Creeks tidal flats, Andros Island, The Bahamas, provides the preliminary data for this study. A laser theodolite was used to map tidal channel bathymetry and an acoustic Doppler profiler was deployed to measure changes in the structure of the flow field associated with ebb and flood tidal forcing. In addition, cores were collected and described from bars within a sinuous, tidal channel to further elucidate the processes of river-bottom evolution and channel migration in this environment. Spatial patterns of erosion and deposition in this studied channel are not systematic and deviate significantly from those of a ‘typical’ meandering river channel. These data and their implications to the generation of coastal channel networks will be shared with NCED members this summer.

Spatial organization of river channel beds. The bottoms of most sandy river channels are worked in trains of bedforms of different scales. Particularly important are dunes and bars, which scale with the local flow depth and channel width, respectively. This work is important to NCED because bedforms and bars dominate the roughness of sand-bed rivers, and serve as “paleo-current-meters” in the stratigraphic record. Dunes, the smaller elements, moving across a bar on a riverbed are migrating through flow and sediment-transport fields that are changing spatially in response to the larger-scale bar topography. These changes in flow and sediment transport modify the dune morphology as each bedform propagates downstream by altering the pattern and/or rates of erosion and deposition over it. In turn the dunes modify the bar topography by either adding sediment to or eroding sediment from the larger scale topography during their migration. Mohrig is working with graduate student Doug Jerolmack on a set of experiments in the Morphodynamics Lab at MIT designed to isolate and quantify the spatial and temporal interactions between adjacent subaqueous dunes and larger-scale bar topography. These experiments will provide the data necessary to understand the rates at which all the river bottom topography can change. This data is important because among other things it is necessary for generating a predictive model relating channel discharge of water to stage. Preliminary results from neighboring dune experiments have demonstrated that relatively subtle differences in bedform geometry produce stable, meta-stable, or unstable bed configurations. Interactions between the flow field and the varying bottom topography produce intervals of no and/or slow evolution of bedform shape and size punctuated by intervals of rapid evolution in bedform shape, size and number (under conditions of constant water

25 discharge and depth). Resulting patterns of channel-bottom topography and associated rates of change will be shared with NCED members this summer.

Predictability of systems involving interactions over many scales. This project is led by Foufoula in collaboration with Porté-Agel, graduate student Sukanta Basu and post-doctoral associate Vuruputur. The goal of this project is to quantify the intrinsic predictability of Earth-surface systems as a function of scale. It is important to NCED because it will provide the first estimates of how the chaotic nature of these systems limits our ability to model them at a prescribed spatial and temporal scale. We have developed a new method to estimate predictability of chaotic systems as a function of scale. The method is based on the so-called Finite Size Lyapunov Exponent (FSLE). As opposed to the traditional procedures based on maximum Lyapunov exponents that consider only errors at the smallest fastest-evolving scales, FSLE is able to consider perturbations of finite size that apply to a range of intermediate scales. Thus, FSLE is able to assess how predictability changes with scale (e.g., the grid size or time scale associated with a numerical model). The new method was used with high-frequency air velocity and temperature measurements to study the predictability of atmospheric boundary layer flows. Results show an enhanced predictability at large scales and a clear effect of external forcing (flow stratification) at those scales. Further research will investigate the predictability of selected earth-surface systems that show chaotic behavior.

Numerical modeling strategies for multi-scale processes. This project, led by Voller together with Porté-Agel, Paola, and Foufoula, investigates numerical methods that will have a role in modeling bio- geomorphic processes across large ranges of time and space scales. It is important to NCED because we aim to develop modeling strategies that can be applied to a broad range of mixed-domain problems that typify surface systems (e.g., partially vegetated landscapes). Work on a number of sub-projects has been initiated. (1) Rule based (cellular automata, CA) and stochastic (Monte-Carlo) methods have been developed for solving simple sediment transport problems. The novel feature in this work is that the rules in the system are chosen to mimic the coefficients in a more traditional finite difference approach. The result, when applied to a set of test problems, matches those of traditional approaches but, surprisingly, with an improved efficiency. This result opens the way for computations that can naturally couple rule- based (appropriate for organic-dominated domains) and deterministic (for physically dominated domains) models and hence more readily allow for accurate and appropriate descriptions of multi-physics problems occurring at multiple scales. An immediate application area is in improving current CA models of braiding rivers. A paper is in preparation and will be sent to Int. Journal of Num. Methods in Heat and Fluid Flow in June 2003. (2) Volume averaging is a common approach in modeling multi-phase problems (e.g., the modeling of a solidifying alloy). With this approach fluxes across interfaces, with fine scale structure, can be appropriately averaged and used in a model with a discrete cell size much larger than the length scale of the interface structure. A study of these approaches is underway. A current line of research involves investigating how scaling analysis could be used to improve the effectiveness of capturing the fine scale structure in a volume averaging. This has potential relevance to the majority of geomorphic models, which cannot resolve the finest scales of important processes. A related idea, borrowed from the phase change literature, is to use a ‘pseudo-porosity’ to account for subgrid-scale dynamics of boundaries such as stream banks. (3) The expected range of scales in bio-geomorphic problems has been estimated to span 5 to 6 orders of magnitude. In the ideal world computer power (storage and execution speed) would be sufficient to account for all the space and time scales present in a direct simulation of the problem. Currently this is well beyond existing computing capabilities. This situation underscores the drive and the need to develop numerical strategies for multi-scale processes. Computer power however, is increasing at a surprising rate, raising the question: Will innovative strategies for multi-scale modeling rapidly become redundant, to be replaced by direct simulations? Drawing from recent work (initiated during the NCED gestation) [Voller and Porté-Agel, JCP, 2002] a preliminary answer to this question indicates that computer power to resolve all the scales in a direct simulation of a bio-geomorphic process will not be available for 50-100 years (depending on the problem to be solved). A short note outlining these findings is in preparation.

Turbulence analogies to modeling earthscapes. This project involves Porté-Agel, Paola, Foufoula- Georgiou and Voller. The goal is to improve our ability to model earth-surface systems by taking advantage of the analogies between these systems and turbulence. Turbulence is a chaotic, multiscale,

26 self-similar system that has received a great deal of attention in the physics and engineering communities. This has led to a detailed understanding of the relationship between the underlying physics and the resulting complex multiscale eddy structure. An effort is underway to develop a similar understanding between the well-known scaling behavior displayed by river networks and the underlying physical processes. This is important to NCED because turbulence is a mature field of research, so transferring techniques could lead to innovative approaches to model Earth-surface systems. In particular, we are assessing the use of an analog to ‘large-eddy simulation’ (the state-of-the-art numerical technique for turbulent flows) for Earth-surface systems. Moreover, we plan to explore subgrid-scale modeling ideas recently introduced in the turbulence community, that take advantage of the self-similarity between resolved and subgrid scales.

Vegetation effects on braided river hydrology and morphology. This project is led by Paola and Foufoula in collaboration with graduate student Tal. It is joint with the Biogeomorphology focus area. As explained in the Biogeomorphology Section, the topic is important to NCED because biota are thought to strongly influence river channel form and river-system dynamics. We are studying scaling and basic probabilistic structure of braided rivers (i.e., density functions of depth and velocity) in order to determine how the introduction of vegetation changes the scaling behavior. The plants (alfalfa) will be seeded in conjunction with alternating high and low discharges in a simplified experimental analog of the natural cycle of plant colonization and flooding in river systems. We expect that the vegetation will break the scaling already known to exist in braided river patterns; we are especially interested in how this occurs and what clues it may offer for the transition from river braiding to meandering. So far we have done the initial experiments needed to characterize the ‘pure’ braided system in the absence of vegetation. First results for vegetation effects will be available this summer.

27 III. EDUCATION

1a. Educational Objectives

Internal education program goals • Promote integrated cross-disciplinary education in surface-process science; • Incorporate research experiences and results into undergraduate education; • Increase participation by underrepresented groups.

External education program goals • Increase general public understanding of Earth-surface dynamics; • Promote K-12 student and teacher understanding of Earth-surface dynamics, with an emphasis on creating research experiences; • Increase participation by underrepresented groups.

1b. Performance and Management Indicators

Our goal is to achieve significant and measurable progress in the following areas:

Internal indicators: • Graduate students and faculty participation in NCED education; • Graduate student participation in professional development activities; • Intra-institutional collaborative experiences among NCED graduate students; • Direct undergraduate participation in NCED research programs. External indicators: • Participation and progress on SMM outdoor exhibits and programming; • The Science Museum of Minnesota has established a comprehensive project timeline for the development of its Science Park and the NCED exhibits that will populate it. The museum's Science Park management team meets weekly to review the timeline and its numerous milestones to determine whether sufficient progress is being made and where resources need to be reallocated to keep the work on schedule; • Participation of K-12 students in NCED education programs; • Participation of K-12 student in SMM school outreach program; • Participation by pre-service and in-service teachers in NCED education programs; • Effectiveness in converting research into educational tools.

2. Problems

Development of an effective evaluation program NCED plans include retaining an external consultant to assist us in developing an evaluation plan. However, the money was budgeted for Years 3 and 5; this activity needs to begin in Year 2. Early in Year 2, the education and knowledge transfer directors will be conducting a survey of literature on the evaluation efforts of other NRCEN centers to determine best practices and to determine where expenditure of existing funds could have the greatest impact during Year 2. Funds will be reallocated in Year 2 for evaluation. As a minimum goal for Year 2, evaluation mechanisms will be developed for capturing data from Year 2 ongoing programs.

28 Graduate professional development In a review of Year 1 activities, it was determined that NCED’s Strategic and Implementation Plan did not sufficiently address graduate student professional development. During Year 2, NCED will address this void by creating and piloting the E-STREAMS program (see Section 3B).

Education Programs publicity While we have piloted many of our education programs in Year 1, participation has not been at the level we hope to achieve. We are identifying target audiences for these programs and creating new promotional materials. NCED’s redesigned dynamic website (see Section IV.3.A) will assist in reaching a broad audience. We have also been developing collaborations with the local and national science and education communities that will assist us in our recruiting efforts (see Section 4E).

Faculty/Graduate student participation While NCED faculty and graduates have shown considerable enthusiasm for participation in NCED education programs, we need to create more effective mechanisms to facilitate such interaction. In Year 1, some of the ways faculty were involved in the Education Programs included:

• advising students from the Undergraduate Research Experience (see Section 3A) and the Undergraduate Summer Internship Program (see Section IV.3F); • teaching a course on modeling that uses examples from NCED research at the Universities Summer Honors College, a program for high school students at the University of Minnesota (Voller).

In Year 2, faculty and graduate students will

• interact with K-12 teachers through the SMM School Outreach programs and NCED’s E- Stream program, and • mentor foster youths from PATH and students in the SMM Youth Science Center (see Section 4C).

Coordination with MN/DOT on the Explorers Program NCED feels our collaboration with MN/DOT Explorers Program has not developed to our expectations. We anticipate being more completely involved in next year’s planning process to incorporate more NCED related experiences.

3. Internal Educational Activities

3A. Undergraduate Research Experience

Goals: The goals of the Undergraduate Research Experience are to • provide undergraduates an opportunity to actively participate in research; • promote graduate study; • increase participation by underrepresented groups in NCED research.

Description: Paid undergraduate interns work side by side with graduate research assistants and faculty throughout the academic year. In collaboration with University of Minnesota minority programs, such as APEXES (Academic Programs for Excellence in Engineering and Science), underrepresented undergraduate students are targeted for recruitment. In future years, students will also be recruited from Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College and the Native American Math and Science Program. Students who participate in this program will be evaluated as candidates for NCED’s graduate positions.

29 Outcomes: Three students were hired by the time of this report preparation to participate in the Undergraduate Research Experience. In addition, 2 undergraduate students were hired to work on NCED research at Carleton College in Northfield, MN with Macalady, a member of Banfield’s research group (Biogeomorphology focus).

Year 1 Activities: See Table 3A, end of Section III.

3B. E-STREAM: Earth-Science Teacher/Researchers Exploring Active Modeling

Goals: The goals of the E-STREAM program are to • provide NCED’s education program the opportunity to incorporate the unique and diverse perspectives of K-12 educators into the development of learning tools and activities that reflect NCED’s research; • strengthen K-12 teacher and informal educator understanding of scientific research in Earth- surface dynamics; • provide K-12 teaching and learning tool design experiences to NCED graduate students and involve all NCED graduate students in NCED education programs; • create tested classroom-ready activities and learning tools that reflect NCED’s research; • establish enduring cohorts of formal and informal educators and researchers who can continue to collaborate after the lifespan of the STC; • create a model program that places teachers in university research programs and incorporates teaching experiences into graduate programs.

Description: Pre-service and in-service teachers will join NCED research teams to work on specific research projects. The educators will be integral members of the research teams, participating at the level of an undergraduate intern. Teams of pre-service and in-service teachers and NCED graduate students will create classroom-ready activities which will then be tested in the classrooms of the participating educators and other local schools. The activities will be evaluated and collected, then broadly disseminated through NCED and SMM school outreach programs.

Year 1 Activities: See Table 3B, end of Section III.

3C. NCED Recruitment Strategies

Goals: The goals of NCED recruitment activities are to: • recruit top-quality graduate candidates; • increase participation in NCED research at the undergraduate and graduate level by United States citizens, nationals, lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens of the United States, and especially women and members of underrepresented groups.

Description: Dalbotten and Campbell are exploring the effectiveness of recruitment strategies for underrepresented groups. We are also exploring ways to form a collaborative STC-recruitment strategy across Centers’ undergraduate and graduate programs. We have partnered with the University of Minnesota’s Graduate School Outreach Program to develop methods to promote educational opportunities at NCED. Finally, we are working to identify and create partnerships with minority-serving undergraduate institutions and professional societies.

Outcomes: 12 students from underrepresented groups have expressed an interest in undergraduate and graduate programs at NCED and requested information packets.

Year 1 Activities: See Table 3C, end of Section III.

30 4. External Education Activities

4A. Science Museum of Minnesota Earthscapes Exhibits

Goals : The goals of the Science Museum of Minnesota’s Earthscapes Exhibits are to create an outdoor science park that will: • engage visitors with the Earth’s surface and the processes that shape it; • familiarize visitors of all ages with dynamic surficial processes.

Description: When the Earthscapes Exhibits officially open in summer 2004, the public will discover an engaging aesthetically-pleasing outdoor space in which play is the vehicle for scientific exploration. Through the metaphor of miniature golf or just by exploring, visitors will encounter processes that shape the Earth’s surface. Topics to be explored in Science Park include drainage basins, watersheds, erosion, sediment transport and deposition, fans and deltas, human-landscape interaction, river braiding and meandering, dams and floods, food web ecology and submarine deposition. Interactive interpretive exhibits will provide alternative supplemental opportunities for in- depth scientific exploration.

Families with young children will find developmentally appropriate activities that engage children of ages 6-14 in the content and principles of Earth science. School-group audiences, largely 4th-6th grade, will find experiences and content that support formal science curriculum. Visitors of all ages and abilities, including those choosing not to golf, will find ways to engage in the science content by enjoying the landscape of the Park, observing activities, and reading stories relevant to the setting and its science content.

Outcomes: In Year 1, NCED and SMM staff collaborated to create a park “walk-through”, design golf holes and exhibits, conduct a landscaping “charette”, test prototype exhibits with children, and preview these activities outdoors in Science Park. Specific holes and exhibits developed at the time of report preparation (subject to further testing) include: • Holes: o River bend. Water and sediment flow briefly through a gorge-like channel with a single large bend. Once the water is shut off (briefly), a new pattern of waves and other shapes appears on the bed. Golfers must putt over this complex ever-changing surface, avoiding scour holes, sand bars and the imminent return of the flow. o Hydraulic jump. Water enters the hole area down a steep spillway, creating a sheet of laminar flow. This flow is quickly directed into a narrowing channel, creating a dramatic standing wave. Golfers must putt across the sheet flow, using the force of the spillway flow to direct their ball to a target placed beyond the channel without getting caught in the channel flow. o Gulf hole. Golfers will conclude their game by putting into the ocean and watching their ball find unexpected paths over a model of the intricate topography of the sea floor. Exhibits to accompany this hole will demonstrate underwater landslides and the impressive topography and turbulence of the deepwater environment. • Exhibits: o Erosion and deposition recorder model (teeter-totter tectonics). In this clear sided flume with rainfall and layered sediment, visitors can change deposition and erosion patterns within seconds by manipulating water level . As they watch, intriguing sand patterns evoke natural formations and record erosion of the “mountains”. When erosion is complete, the entire flume can be tilted to reverse the water-sediment flow. o Interactive stream table. This model braided channel encourages sand and water play by 6 to 8 people at a time. A sediment-water mixture flows through the channel from a single source at a slight incline. As the water flows down the incline, constantly changing natural patterns of waterflow can be dammed, channeled or simply observed by players. o Living meander. This sculptural contemplative element of the park design will allow visitors to observe NCED researchers actively engaged in ongoing study of the ways

31 in which the interaction of vegetation, sedimentation and water flow influence meander development. The Environmental Experiment Center building, which will be central to Science Park research and education activities, was completed in 2003. NCED Education staff met with SMM School Contact and Youth Science Center staff to initiate coordinated program development related to surface processes and Science Park.

Year 1 Activities: See Table 4A, end of Section III.

4B. Native American Math and Science Camps

Goals: The goals of the Native American Math and Science Camps are to increase students’ interest, confidence, and abilities in math and science by exposing them to a curriculum rich in Native history, culture, and values. The specific goal of NCED’s collaboration with NAMS is to present NCED research in a culturally and historically relevant Native American context.

Description: Up to 15 Native American high-school students spend 10 days at the University of Minnesota during the summer to learn about math and surface process science from a Native perspective. Through the NCED/NAMS partnership, we are developing a curriculum for expanding the camps to a four-year program. NCED has developed curriculum for 2nd year campers, a civil engineering curriculum focused on riverways and hydrology linked to Native history and culture. Students build river models at SAFL, study basic concepts of hydrology, conduct experiments on sedimentation and water flow, and have a field experience at a Minnesota river or lake.

Outcomes: In summer 2002, NCED piloted a program on rivers and dams to NAMS campers. 6 students spent time at SAFL participating in physical and computer-based modeling with NCED staff and graduate students. 2 NAMS campers were chosen by their peers to present results from the pilot year at the 2003 American Indian Science and Engineering Society’s National Science Fair. Campers returning in 2003 will have the opportunity to choose to do in-depth research on dam removal as an option for their 4th year.

Year 1 Activities: See Table 4B, end of Section III.

4C. PATH Foster Youth Science Enrichment Program

Goals: While funded entirely from University of Minnesota matching dollars, NCED’s PATH program is an important part of our external programming. PATH youth are frequently from underrepresented groups and both youth and foster families lack opportunities for activities that spark enthusiasm for science, technology, engineering, and math careers. NCED-PATH programming provides such opportunities.

Description: Passes and family memberships to SMM are made available to foster youth and their families through the Professional Association of Treatment Homes, Inc. (PATH, Inc.). PATH staff collaborate with NCED and SMM to promote the program and to develop other science enrichment activities. In addition, PATH staff advise NCED and SMM education staff on working with special needs youth.

Outcomes: 36 PATH foster family members visited the SMM in the first 3 months of the program. In addition 360 science enrichment kits were distributed to PATH foster youth. Feedback has been positive. One PATH social worker wrote: “Just wanted to drop you a note to thank you for the Science bags. They were a big hit with the kids. Responses I got were all positive from the foster parents and children. They made comments like, “Science is my favorite”, and “Maybe I will be a scientist when I grow up”. All the families and kids expressed interest in going to the Science Museum in the future, maybe you could let me know how that process works. Thanks again to

32 everyone involved, I truly think the project has been a success so far, the children have gained an extra interest in science and the Museum has made the community more aware.”

Year 1 Activities: See Table 4C, end of Section III.

4D. MnDOT Explorers

Goals: The Goal of NCED’s relationship with the Explorers program is to provide information about careers in surface process science to high school students from the Twin Cities metro area, with an emphasis on students from underrepresented groups.

Description: Each month, up to 15 high school students learn about various career paths in science. Professionals meet with them to talk about their jobs and tour their facilities. NCED is the University of Minnesota host to these students, who will tour SAFL and learn about careers in surface process this spring.

Year 1 Activities: See Table 4D, end of Section III.

4E. NCED Collaborations

Goals: The goals of the NCED education program in pursuing new collaborations are to: • Create and fund new programs that fulfill the mission and goals of NCED’s education program; • Identify opportunities for leveraged funding and joint programming; • Build partnerships with the community and nationally; • Refine the mission of the NCED education programs.

Description: In Year 1, NCED staff placed a special emphasis on exploring leveraged funding opportunities and joint programming possibilities, locally and nationally. Dalbotten and Campbell have identified key organizations within and outside of the University of Minnesota that address issues of science education and participation by underrepresented groups and women. We are also working to establish connections with local schools.

Outcomes: On a national level, we have familiarized ourselves with contacts and programs within NASA and NCAR that have shared goals. Locally, we have begun an active relationship with the Pratt School in the Minneapolis School District. We are participants in a grant proposal with the Mathematics Department, Univiversity of Minnesota. Working with others within the University of Minnesota, we have begun to identify and discuss institutional barriers to participation by underrepresented groups. Finally, we have formed an Education Advisory Panel made up of representatives within the University of MN, partner institutions and interested individuals from the community to advise us in the goals, missions and future planning for NCED’s education programs.

Year 1 Activities: See Table 4E, end of Section III.

4F. Fond du Lac Riverwatch Program

Goals: • Develop NCED education program at partner institution focusing on Native American students; • Involve middle-school youth in field-based research; • Provide Native American youth exposure to STEM careers;

33 • Address “pipeline” issues by establishing educational linkages between NCED middle-school, high-school and higher-education opportunities by coordinating Riverwatch and NAMS camps.

Description: Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College and NCED are in the process of planning two summer camps for 6-8 grade students. The boys’ camp will be held in late July and the girls’ camp will be held in early August 2003. FDLTCC will coordinate these camps with the NAMS camps. The Riverwatch camps will include a mix of lab science and field science and will focus on introducing the students to the scientific method. One overnight outing is proposed for each camp. The camp will be called the “Gidakiimanaan Lodge.” This means “Our Earth” in Anishinaabe.

Year 1 Activities: See Table 4F, end of Section III.

5. Professional Development Activities

14 NCED or NCED-related graduate students and post-doctoral associates presented NCED research at national professional meetings. 18 NCED or NCED-related graduate students and post- doctoral associates presented or attended NCED related and safety trainings at SAFL. In addition, graduate students participated in NAMS camps programming, planning and delivery of industrial short courses and assisted in public tours. In Year 1, poster presentations, seminar attendance and workshop/tour participation helped expose students to NCED’s interdisciplinary approach to earth- surface dynamics.

NCED Seminars – Seminar Series held Wednesdays at St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Date Presenter & Affiliation Subject Sept. 18, 2002 Eugene Rankey Carbonate coasts as complex systems: A top-down University of Miami approach integrating remote sensing, GIS, and carbonate sedimentology Oct, 2, 2002 Vaughan Voller A discussion of some modeling tools for multi-scale University of Minnesota modeling. Nov. 13, 2002 Boyko Dodov, Grad student, A stochastic multiscaling model for downstream University of Minnesota hydraulic geometry: Theory and application for runoff routing in ungaged catchments Nov. 15, 2002 Rick R. Mastbergen, Delft Part 1: Hindered erosion and breaching of sand, Hydraulics, The Netherlands theory and experience Nov. 15, 2002 Jan H van den Berg, Types of active breaches in nature and Utrecht University, sedimentological significance The Netherlands Dec. 4, 2002 Michal Tal, Grad student, Effect of vegetation on channel planform in University of Minnesota noncohesive beds Jan. 22, 2003 Lesley Perg, University of Balancing the budget: Be in the Santa Cruz Minnesota Coastline and the Western Alps Jan. 29, 2003 Dr. John M. Nestler, Comprehensive hypothesis explaining juvenile Environmental Laboratory, salmon swim path selection in the complex US Army Engineer & hydrodynamic environments of natural rivers and Research and Development designed hydraulic structures Center Feb. 12, 2003 Sukanta Basu, Grad student, Dynamical systems approach to atmospheric University of Minnesota turbulence Feb. 26, 2003 Allen Hunt Theory for downstream transport of large clasts National Science Foundation Mar. 5, 2003 Chris Rehmann, Univ. of Zebra mussel transport in rivers Illinois, Urbana

34 Mar. 12, 2003 Miguel Wong, Grad student, Exploring the catacombs of sediment transport: University of Minnesota Does the bedload equation of Meyer-Peter and Muller fit its own data? Apr. 2, 2003 Chris Kummerow Trends in climate rainfall products – are they Colorado State University correct? Apr. 16, 2003 Michal Tal, Grad student, Riparian vegetation as a primary control on channel University of Minnesota characteristics in noncohesive sediments

6. Integrated Research and Education

In Year 1 the Center also integrated research and education in the following ways:

• We have explored methods for identifying core concepts illustrated by SAFL modeling that can be used in inquiry-based classroom, museum exhibit and tour experiences. The first year of NAMS programming and Undergraduate Research Experiences has served as models for integrating NCED research into educational programming. • NCED faculty in all participating institutions are introducing NCED research into freshman seminars, and into geomorphology, sedimentary geology and civil engineering undergraduate and graduate level courses. We will begin disseminating curricular material from these courses for general use via our web site in the coming year. • Mohrig began a collaboration with Anna Eleria of the Charles River Watershed Association, a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the Charles River and its watershed. They discussed the best ways to use data collected by students in his class on the Charles River to refine the organization’s model predicting the water quality of the river. This water-quality information is posted for all recreational users of the urban river. • FDLTCC began discussions of the possibility of involving River Watch teachers and schools in preliminary data collection for stable isotope analysis of river food webs. These data can give insight into where biota are connected to the landscape and provide new research experiences for River Watch students. • We are developing collaborations among NCED partners, and particularly with SMM staff, to create innovative inquiry-based hands-on methods of scientific exploration in teacher training, classroom and informal education settings. • The Science Museum and the NCED held discussions on the feasibility of incorporating a living meander research model into the outdoor Science Park. This model would be used by NCED researchers to study the relationships between floodplain flora and river channel dynamics. Science Park visitors would not be allowed to interact with the model directly. The model would, however, be interpreted to visitors, and would be designed so that it serves both as a research tool and as an aesthetic component of the park.

35

7. Internal and External Educational Activities Future Directions

In addition to continuing and improving programming initiated in Year 1, our plans for Year 2 include:

Internal: • Design and implement E-STREAM pilot program; • Explore the possibility of creating a unified surface process curriculum for all NCED graduate students; • Incorporate themes from NCED research into all relevant undergraduate courses; • Improve graduate student communication within and among NCED institutions for the purpose of developing new connections among NCED research projects.

External: • Establish speakers’ bureau, identify audiences and speakers; • Plan and implement traveling Mississippi River exhibit; • Science Museum of Minnesota Earthscapes Exhibits grand opening; • Plan and pilot Earthscapes-related curriculum for SMM School Contact and Youth Science Center programs; • Set up scholarship committees for NAMS and PATH scholarships; • Develop RiverWatch program with Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College and continue to explore connections to NAMS camps.

36 Section III Tables

Table 3A. Undergraduate Research Experience Year 1 Activities

Year 1 Activities Undergraduate Research Experience Intended Audience Undergraduates at the Univ. of MN Date Location Led by Attendees November 2002 University of Jeff Marr NA Minnesota Flyers—appx. 200 distributed with emphasis on underrepresented students January 29, 2003 University of Jeff Marr Appx. 15 Minnesota APEXES open house recruiting event for I.T. minority students February 19, University of Diana Dalbotten, Appx. 100 2003 Minnesota, Dept. of Karen Campbell Civil Engineering Career fair hosted by ASCE Univ. of Minnesota student chapter January, SAFL Jeff Marr 3 February, 2003 Hires and assignments

Table 3B. ESTREAM Year 1 Activities

Year 1 Activities E-STREAM: Earth-Science Teacher/Researchers Exploring Active Modeling Intended Audience NCED graduate students, pre-service and in-service teachers and informal educators Date Location Led by Attendees October, 2002- SAFL Karen Campbell Diana Dalbotten, Tony Murphy February, 2003 Discussions and planning around a graduate student/teacher education program March 1, 2003 SAFL Karen Campbell NCED PI’s, Diana Dalbotten Presentation of preliminary program to NCED March 11, 2003 SAFL Karen Campbell and Larry Thomas and Mary Ann Diana Dalbotten Steiner, SMM Integration of E-STREAM with SMM School Contact programs April 1, 2, 2003 NSF Karen Campbell, Diana Wayne Sukow, Thomas Dalbotten Baerwald, Jill Singer, Rich Lane, Dragana Brzakovic, Mike Mayhew Discussion of E-STREAM proposed program at NSF

37 Table 3C. Recruitment--Year 1 Activities

Year 1 Activities Recruitment Intended Audience Potential NCED graduate students from underrepresented groups Date Location Led by Attendees October 21, 2002 SAFL Diana Dalbotten Kathryn Johnson, U of MN graduate school, Trish Collopy, Civil Engineering, Gary Parker Meeting with Grad School outreach office to explore recruiting strategies for underrepresented students November 3-6, National Indian Diana Dalbotten and Educators and policy makers 2002 Education Mark Bellcourt in the field of Native American Association Education Conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico Attended workshops on Native American education November 7-10, AISES Diana Dalbotten and Native Americans in the fields 2002 Conference, Mark Bellcourt of science and engineering Tulsa, Oklahoma Career Fair booth October 31, 2002 Boulder, CO Karen Campbell James Harrington, MU-SPIN NASA minority recruiting program Informal meeting with James Harrington to familiarize MU-SPIN with NCED educational opportunities December 12, Oglala Lakota Diana Dalbotten Native American 2002 Tribal College, undergraduate students Rapid City, South Dakota Invited speaker to MIE students—recruited for graduate program and undergraduate summer research opportunity January 8-12, SHPE Diana Dalbotten and Hispanic undergraduate 2003 Conference and Karen Campbell students Career/Graduate School Fair, New Orleans, LA Recruited for graduate program and undergraduate summer research opportunity

38 Table 4A. SMM Earthscapes Year 1 Activities

Year 1 Activities SMM Earthscapes Intended Audience Public, school children, general community Date Location Led by Attendees March 20 SMM Kathy Wilson, SMM vice 30 Science Museum upper- president for external and middle-level managers relations Cost Centers Managers' Meeting: Patrick Hamilton, project director for the museum's outdoor Science Park, made a presentation to the group regarding the outcomes from a two-day Science Park architecture landscape design charette held earlier in the week. March 22 Pat Hamilton General readership (approx. 414,300) StarTribune newspaper article: The StarTribune published an article on the front page on its Metro section on Saturday, March 22 describing the Environmental Experiment Center building, which will serve as the headquarters for the museum's Science Park and NCED exhibits and programs.

April Pat Hamilton General readership (approx. 12,500) Merriam Park Post newspaper article: The Merriam Park Post, a St. Paul neighborhood newspaper, published a half-page article with picture on page 5 of its April issue describing the Environmental Experiment Center building, which will serve as the headquarters for the museum's Science Park and NCED exhibits and programs.

February 27 and Pat Hamilton General public March 7 KFAI radio aired a story about the Environmental Experiment Center on Thursday, February 27 and on Friday, March 7 during its 6:00 p.m. newscasts.

December 18 SMM St. Paul Riverfront 7 Regional travel writers Corporation Familiarization Tour: The Science Museum of Minnesota was a stop on a travel writers familiarization tour hosted by the St. Paul Riverfront Corporation on Wednesday, December 18. The purpose of the tour was to acquaint travel writers with all of the projects underway in anticipation of the culmination of the Grand Excursion in downtown St. Paul in July 2004. Science Park will be the museum's premier attraction for the Grand Excursion and the museum used the familiarization tour as an opportunity to promote its partnership with NCED in the creation of this outdoor educational attraction. December 2002- SMM & SAFL Jim Roe, SMM, Exhibit 10 SMM/NCED staff: on-going Consultant research PI’s, exhibit developers, educ/kt staff Earthscapes Exhibit Development: Regular meetings have occurred between NCED researchers and SMM staff to design, develop and test exhibits and golf holes.

39 Table 4B. Native American Math and Science Camps Year 1 Activities

Year 1 Activities Native American Math and Science Camps Intended Audience Native American high school students Date Location Led by Attendees August 2002 SAFL Mark Bellcourt 7 Native American youth, Jeff Marr, Michal Tal, Miguel Wong, Michelle Schneider

Students participated in dam removal experiments and other education activities related to NCED research November 1, Canoncito Mark Bellcourt and Tribal youth leaders and 2002 Reservation, Diana Dalbotten students from NAMS camps New Mexico Tour of Tojajilee High School and Youth Center on Canoncito Reservation November 1, Albuquerque, Mark Bellcourt and School board members, 2002 New Mexico Diana Dalbotten parents, youth leaders, and NAMS campers NAMS awards banquet honoring students in the program November 3, Albuquerque, Mark Bellcourt and Tribal representatives 2002 New Mexico Diana Dalbotten Planning meeting for formal partnership between NCED and Canoncito November 6, Albuquerque, Mark Bellcourt and Gregory Cajete, Native 2002 New Mexico Diana Dalbotten American Studies Department at University of New Mexico Discussions about culturally sensitive strategies for Native American science education February 22-26, SAFL Mark Bellcourt, Diana Alicia Robertson, Jerrad 2003 Dalbotten, Jeff Marr Platero

NAMS campers visited U of MN to prepare for AISES Science Fair and visit U of MN admissions March 13, 14 Albuquerque, Mark Bellcourt, Jeff Native American middle New Mexico Marr, Alicia Robertson, school and high school Jerrad Platero students and teachers

AISES science and college fair; NCED booth at college fair, Robertson and Platero presented NAMS research via poster, Marr served as a fair judge, Bellcourt recruited for 2003 NAMS camp.

40 Table 4C. PATH Foster Youth Science Enrichment Year 1 Activities

Year 1 Activities PATH (Professional Association of Treatment Homes) Foster Youth Science Enrichment Program Intended Audience Foster youth and their families Date Location Led by Attendees September 28, Woodbury, MN Karen Campbell Appx 300 PATH employees 2002 and foster families Path anniversary picnic—promoted NCED-sponsored passes and memberships to Science Museum September- Minneapolis, MN Diana Dalbotten Lynn Lewis, Karen Campbell December 2002 Ongoing planning meetings December, 2002 SAFL and PATH Diana Dalbotten PATH staff, Karen Campbell, Debbie Pierzina Developed and distributed 350 science enrichment kits for PATH foster youth September, 2002 SMM Diana Dalbotten PATH foster families Appx 40 people utilize NCED-sponsored passes to SMM April, 2003 PATH Diana Dalbotten Mary Ann Steiner (SMM), Karen Campbell, Lynn Lewis (PATH), Jan Hoppe (PATH) Meeting to discuss PATH training of SMM staff to work with special needs foster youth

Table 4D. MnDOT Explorers Year 1 Activities

Year 1 Activities MnDOT Explorers Intended Audience High school students Date Location Led by Attendees 10/16/2 University of Diana Dalbotten Potential explorers, Emeric Minnesota Pratt, Ben Sharpe, IT Student Affairs

41 Table 4E. Collaborations Year 1 Activities

Year 1 Activities Collaborations Intended Audience Date Location Led by Attendees October 24, 2002 SAFL Diana Dalbotten Elise Eberhardt from Minnesota Public Works Association and teacher from Chiron Middle School, Minneapolis Tour of SAFL and discussion of potential collaborations November 4, SAFL Karen Campbell Paul Morin (NCED), Glenn 2002 Schuster, U. S, Satellite Laboratory Discuss NCED support for Schuster’s proposal for a NASA education grant November 2002 SAFL Diana Dalbotten Karen Campbell, Charles Nguyen (NCED), LaChelle Drayton (APEXES, University of Minnesota), Mark Bellcourt (NAMS), Mary Ann Steiner (SMM), Trisha Collopy (Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota) First education advisory panel meeting. Topic was mission and goals of the NCED education program. November 2002 SAFL Chris Paola Undergraduates from Carleton College course GEO 260 with Professor C. Cowan Tour of SAFL and discussion introduced undergrad students to experimental surface process research. CP used facilities and results of NCED research on experimental stratigraphy to illustrate basic stratigraphic principles. December 2002 SAFL and SMM Karen Campbell Thomas Grimm and partner, Diana Dalbotten, Tony Murphy, Pat Hamilton, Efi Foufoula, Gary Parker, Chris Paola, Vaughan Voller Thomas Grimm approached NCED requesting a partnership in applying for NASA CAN grant to assume responsibility for the GLOBE program. After several meetings, NCED and SMM determined that Grimm’s plans did not sufficiently align with NCED’s mission November- University of Diana Dalbotten, Karen Jeff Marr, Gary Parker, December, 2002 Minnesota Campbell Alexandra Janosek (Math Department), Dr. Harvey Keynes (Math Department), Dr. Olson (Math Department) Met with U of MN Math Department’s ITCEP summer program to discuss NCED support for ITCEP proposal for an NSF education grant. NCED agreed to propose as a partner on this grant to offer elementary and middle school teachers workshops connecting math with science. December 30, St. Paul, MN Karen Campbell Rusty Low, University of 2002 Minnesota Science Centrum Discussion of NCED cooperation with U of MN Science Centrum K-12 outreach program December, 2002- Minneapolis, MN Karen Campbell Paul Morin, Joan McLeod, April, 2002 Pratt School parent, Jane Greene, Pratt School teacher Ongoing meetings to discuss partnership with local elementary school; school visits and field trip for third grade class

42 Table 4F. Fond du Lac Riverwatch Year 1 Activities

Year 1 Activities Fond du Lac Riverwatch Intended Audience Native American K-12 and college students Date Location Led by Attendees October 3, 2002 Cloquet, MN Diana Dalbotten, Karen Paul Morin, Charles Nguyen, Campbell Andy Wold (NCED), Mary Ann Steiner (SMM) Visit to Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College to learn more about their programs, meet president and biology professor, discuss RiverWatch and Native American Science workshop plans

43 IV. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER

1a. Objectives

The National Center for Earth-surface Dynamics’s Knowledge Transfer goals are to:

• Exchange NCED research and educational results with a diverse audience, including stakeholders and the public; • Infuse NCED research with diverse perspectives by actively involving underrepresented groups, stakeholders and the public in NCED research and events.

1b. Performance and Management Indicators • Center website and data-sharing as measured by datasets, activities and research posted; • Workshops, special sessions and town-hall meetings presented; • Number of non-NCED educators, professionals and stakeholders reached by Center presentations and activities; • NCED related software products developed and distributed; • Promotion of Community Surface Dynamics Modeling System (CSDMS); • Publicity as measured by press releases, print stories, and broadcasts.

2. Program Problems

In NCED’s first year, many Knowledge Transfer goals remain simply goals, as this grant year has been devoted to planning and research is still in the formative stages. Much Knowledge Transfer effort has been directed at assuring effective means for communication in future years, via teleconferencing, improved website functionality, and robust digital data archiving.

3. Knowledge Transfer Activities

3A Center Web Site (http://www.nced.umn.edu)

Goals: The goals of the NCED website are to: • Communicate NCED research and educational results with a diverse audience, including stakeholders and the public; • Allow NCED research community members to directly contribute data and research results to the website to be shared; • Provide a tool to facilitate Center administration; • Provide a virtual community in which NCED participants, students, stakeholders and the general public can discuss and become informed about earth-surface dynamics.

Description: In order to fulfill the goals for the website, the NCED website team decided to move from a static, “hand built” environment requiring intensive maintenance by one or a few people to a database-driven site in which information can be entered once and reused multiple times, and a simple web-based interface allows many people to maintain and contribute text, images and other content. Our vision is to move “ownership” of the site from a single individual to the entire Center staff with this virtual community site environment.

Outcomes: NCED mounted a static site with current information about the Center, maintained in a timely manner, during Year 1. We identified a vendor to help us move to the dynamic environment described above and have a pilot site under way.

Year 1 Activities: See Table 3A, end of Section IV.

44 3B. Video-conferencing

Goals The goals of NCED videoconferencing are to: • Connect Center participants (for instance, conduct live research meetings, PI discussions, etc.); • Enable intra-institutional graduate student interaction and professional development; • Enable NCED to efficiently interact with NSF and other STC’s; • Reduce time and money spent on travel, while improving communication among Center participants.

Description: NCED investigated available technologies, visited sites where video-conferencing was working well, and selected an Internet 2-based method utilizing Polycomm, Inc. equipment.

Outcomes: We constructed consistent video-conferencing carts which were shipped to each partner institution and tested all units in their final locations. PI’s, staff, students, and visitors began utilizing the technology regularly.

Year 1 Activities: See Table 3B, end of Section IV.

3C. Data-archiving

Goals: The goals of the NCED data-archiving program are to ensure lasting preservation of and broad access to NCED data in a manner consistent with national standards and NSF-led cyberinfrastructure initiatives.

Description: NCED staff and researchers are in regular communication with disciplinary colleagues and NSF on broad cyberinfrastructure developments. In Year 1, NCED has initiated a collaboration with digital archivists at the University of Minnesota Libraries to preserve and make accessible NCED data in a standards-based way. NCED is piloting a data-archiving environment as part of its dynamic website environment.

Year 1 Activities: See Table 3C, end of Section IV.

3D. Collaboration with Digital Library for Earth System Education (DLESE)

Goals: The goals of the NCED DLESE collaboration are to enable broad access to NCED developed digital educational materials by cataloging them with standard metadata through the NSF-funded digital library for Earth System Education.

Description: In Year 1, NCED staff met with various DLESE participants and will attend the DLESE annual conference to learn more about how NCED and DLESE can best cooperate.

Year 1 Activities: See Table 3D, end of section IV.

3E. Computer modeling/software development

Goals: The goals of the NCED computer modeling/software development program are to develop and make widely available effective educational and modeling tools to further broad understanding of earth science and the process of scientific research.

Description: In Year 1, NCED staff learned about various stereo-projection techniques and their potential uses as educational tools. We piloted use of Geo-Walls and stereo posters with recruiting and educational groups and attended the national Geo-Wall summit to learn from other Geo-wall users.

45

Outcomes: We have developed a stereo poster of U.S. topography and vegetative-cover to help promote NCED.

Year 1 Activities: See Table 3E, end of Section IV.

3F. Undergraduate Summer Intern Program

Goals: The goals of the Undergraduate Summer Intern Program are to: • Provide undergraduates from outside NCED institutions an opportunity to participate in NCED research; • Recruit NCED graduate students; • Increase participation by underrepresented groups in NCED research.

Description: Summer undergraduate interns work side by side with graduate research assistants and faculty for 10 weeks. In collaboration with the University of Minnesota Minority Summer Research Opportunity Program and the CIC, underrepresented undergraduate students from HBCU’s and other minority-serving institutions are targeted for recruitment. In future years, students will also be recruited from Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College and the Native American Math and Science Program. Students who participate in this program will be evaluated to determine their eligibility for NCED’s graduate positions.

Outcomes: NCED’s USIP program was budgeted and scheduled to begin in Summer 2004. However, because the University of Minnesota will host the Committee on Institutional Cooperation’s Summer Research Opportunity Program’s SROP Conference in 2003, bringing more than 500 underrepresented students interested in graduate study to the University of Minnesota, we decided to begin our USIP program in 2003. 10 students have been offered NCED-sponsored internships at time of report preparation, of which 6 were women and 8 were from underrepresented groups. In conjunction with the CIC SROP conference, tours will be offered at SAFL for the visiting students and NCED will host a table at the graduate fair. NCED faculty and staff will act as host institution volunteers throughout the conference events.

Year 1 Activities: See Table 3F, end of Section IV.

3G. Social Science Workshop

Goals: The goal of the social science workshop is to provide guidance to NCED staff and PI’s in planning a social science component of NCED.

Description: Senior social scientists from various disciplines have been identified, interviewed and invited to participate in a workshop at SAFL the summer or fall of 2003.

Outcomes: Workshop being scheduled at time of report preparation.

Year 1 Activities: See Table 3G, end of Section IV and Section II.

3H. Small Grants Visitor Programs: Industrial Government Intern Program/International Cooperative Research Program

Goals: The goals of the small grants visitor programs are to: • Make NCED research facilities and methods available beyond the primary NCED community; • Create cooperative research relationships within the scientific community; • Encourage cooperation across disciplines and research areas.

46

Description: 9 international academic and U.S. industrial / government visitors were invited to conduct research using NCED facilities. Participants were awarded grants of $25,000 to $30,000 each to participate in ongoing activities at the Center. Research results will be documented on the NCED website and data archives. Participants' experiences will be evaluated.

To date 4 teams have visited us under the auspices of the visitor programs. All of them have interacted extensively with NCED staff. The exchange of information has been a benefit to both sides. Based on this experience, we are excited about th eprospects for further innovation and synergy offered by the visitor’s program.

Outcomes: Researchers listed below were selected to participate in Year 1 research at SAFL:

Name Employer Project Subject Yoichi Okura Forestry and Forest Experimental study of subaerial landslides Products Research Institute, Erosion Control Laboratory, Japan Lincoln Pratson Duke University Flow dynamics and rheology of mud-rich gravity flows Robert Anderson University of California, Experimental development of slot Santa Cruz canyons John Buffington University of Idaho Effects of channel morphology on intergravel flow within the shallow hyporheic zone of gravel-bed rivers; implications for channel restoration and aquatic habitat Chris Bromley Oregon State University A laboratory investigation of the variables that control the rate and volume of sediment movement through and out of impoundments during dam removal Tom Coulthard University of Wales Experimental physical modeling of anabranching river evolution Suzanne Leclair University of Ottawa Experiments on the investigation of turbidite-system sedimentation: The origin of Waftites (sandy deposited flrom suspension with no traction) Aaron Packman Northwestern University Solute transport in armored and sorted streambeds Greg Pasternack University of California Technology Transfer in Aid of Field Studies of Natural Hydraulic Jumps in Mountain Channels Horacio Toniolo University of Alaska, Experiments on Reservoir Sedimentation Fairbanks Peter Wilcock John Hopkins University Sand routing over a coarse immobile streambed

Packman, Okura and Leclair have already completed their visits under the Small Grants Visitors Programs. Coulthard is presently in residence; the visits for the others have been schedule for the near future.

47 3I. Industrial Short Courses

Goals: The goals of NCED industrial short courses are to: • Make NCED research facilities and methods available to the industrial community • Enhance American industry and infrastructure through NCED research

Description: These 2 to 4 day short courses on earth-surface dynamics for industrial researchers include a series of lectures coupled with laboratory experiences to provide researchers a better understanding of processes that they have never observed directly.

Outcomes: • 3 short courses of 3-4 days duration each on “Shallow Water and Deep Water Depositional Processes” were presented to approximately 40 representatives from the oil industry; • David Mohrig and Chris Paola led a presentation and discussion with representatives of the oil industry in January 2003.

3J. Collaborations with Outside Organizations

Goals: The goals of the NCED knowledge transfer program in pursuing new collaborations are to: • Create and fund new opportunities that fulfill the mission and goals of NCED’s Knowledge Transfer program; • Identify opportunities for leveraged funding and joint programming; • Build partnerships with the community and nationally; • Refine the mission of the NCED Knowledge Transfer program.

Description: In Year 1, NCED staff placed a special emphasis on exploring opportunities for joint program development, locally and nationally. Karen Campbell and Diana Dalbotten have identified key organizations that address issues of surface process science and policy as well as participation by underrepresented groups and women in surface process science careers.

Outcomes: Internationally, Chris Paola participated in a 3-day international conference on “Public Understanding of Research (PUR)” at the Science Museum of Minnesota in 2002. The conference dealt with a wide variety of topics and involved some 70 participants from museums, media and research organizations. One of the goals expressed at this conference was to improve connections between researchers and museums. Therefore, NCED has proposed to create a new type of graduate assistantship (analogous to a research or teaching assistantship) called a “Museum Assistantship.” A Museum Assistant graduate student would work with museum personnel on a mutually agreed upon topic such as exhibit development, content provision, or direct interaction with the public. This idea will be tested with one or more NCED graduate assistants in Year 2. This and other ideas for improving relations between research and informal science education organizations are outlined in a paper on “Improving Public Understanding of Scientific Research: A View from the Research Side,” submitted by Paola for the conference proceedings. On a national level, we have familiarized ourselves with contacts and programs within both NASA and NCAR whose Knowledge Transfer goals are compatible with those of NCED. Locally, we have presented information about NCED to the Association for Women Geoscientists and the Minnesota legislature.

Year 1 Activities: See Table 3H, end of Section IV.

4. Knowledge Transfer Outcomes and Impacts

NCED PI’s delivered presentations and workshops to teachers, agencies and consultants, piloted an interdisciplinary course and developed instructional materials.

48

Outcomes: • Interdisciplinary course on microbial ecology, to be promoted at professional conferences, piloted at Carleton College; • E-book on sediment transport and alluvial fan morphodynamics drafted; • Videoclips, illustrating NCED concepts, developed for web-site posting; • NCED-focused session of the Gilbert Club, the professional association for theoretical geomorphologists, held; • NCED related topics and opportunities presented to members of California Science Teachers Association; • Watershed sediment budget workshop presented to California agencies and consultants; • GSA presentation on clinoforms proposed and accepted; • Plans being made for use of data, collected by undergraduate students at MIT, in local water quality planning in Massachusetts; • Web site established and next dynamic generation under development; • First Social Science Workshop: planning initiated; • 3 Industrial short courses presented; • IGIP/ICRP visitor programs: proposals solicited, researchers selected, 4 visitors hosted to date; • Paola participated in international Public Understanding of Research conference at SMM; paper submitted for proceedings.

Year 1 Activities: See Table 4, end of Section IV.

5. Knowledge Transfer Future Plans and Directions

In addition to continuing and improving programming initiated in Year 1, our plans for Year 2 include:

General Knowledge Transfer Activities • Coordinate with Education Program to pilot interaction between E-STREAM and small grants visitors; • Plan first Earth Workshop; • Plan Graduate Summer School; • Fully implement dynamic website; • Select method for data archiving; • Attend DLESE annual conference; • Reallocate funds budgeted for Years 3 and 5 evaluation consulting, so this effort can begin in Year 2.

Institution Specific Activities • Improve publicity for small grants visitor promotion to ensure industrial/government applicants; • Present Geo-wall activities at regional K-12 conference organized by Northland Foundation (cooperation with Science Museum of Minnesota).

49 Section IV Tables

Table 3A. Website Year 1 Activities

Year 1 Activity Website Intended Audience NCED researchers, students, participants, affiliates, stakeholders and the public Date Location Led by Attendees September- Minneapolis, MN Karen Campbell Barry Schaudt, U of MN November, 2002 Digital Technology Center, Charles Nguyen, NCED Obtain domain name, server, software, get “live” website hosted at U of MN’s Digital Technology Center October, 2002- Minneapolis, MN Karen Campbell Diana Dalbotten, Jeff Marr, February, 2003 Charles Nguyen, staff from UrbanPlanet.com University of Minnesota Content Management System Committee members Exploration of potential technologies/vendors to upgrade web site from static “hand-built” site to dynamic database-driven content management system. UrbanPlanet.com identified as preferred designer/vendor April, 2003… Minneapolis, MN Karen Campbell Diana Dalbotten, Jeff Marr, Charles Nguyen, staff from UrbanPlanet.com Design and implement new dynamic database-driven content management system.

Table 3B. Video-conferencing Year 1 Activities

Year 1 Activity Video-conferencing Intended Audience NCED researchers and students Date Location Led by Attendees September, 2002 Angelo Reserve, Karen Campbell All NCED PI’s CA Presentation on need for and uses of NCED video-conferencing solution; discussion of where to place units September- Minneapolis, MN Charles Nguyen Karen Campbell, Paul October, 2002 Morin Visits with U of MN units already using video-conferencing, U of MN networking staff, vendors to determine best technology October, 2002- Minneapolis, MN Charles Nguyen Karen Campbell February, 2003 Design and purchase carts and components, test, ship to partner institutions, establish local technology contacts, test units “in field” March 1, 2003 SAFL Charles Nguyen All NCED PI’s Live demonstration at P.I. retreat, conferencing to partner units at Berkeley and MIT

50

Table 3C. Data-archiving Year 1 Activities

Year 1 Activity Data-archiving Intended Audience Students and researchers Date Location Led by Attendees October 28, 2002 University of Mary Power Karen Campbell, Diana California- Dalbotten, 50 government, Berkeley research institution and academic attendees Attend seminar on Bioinformatics presented by John Deck, Berkeley Natural History Museums October 31- Boulder, CO Karen Campbell Researchers interested in November 2, Cyberinfrastructure 2002 Attend NSF invited conference on “Cyberinfrastructure for the Environmental Sciences” November 13, SAFL Karen Campbell Karen Campbell, Eric Celeste, 2002 University of Minnesota Libraries General discussion of digital archiving of research data at U of MN and MIT Libraries November 14, SAFL Karen Campbell Diana Dalbotten, Paul Morin, 2002 Chuck Thomas (University of Minnesota Libraries) Discussion of U of MN Libraries digital archiving solution and its applicability to NCED data archiving needs January, 2003 University of Karen Campbell Karen Campbell, Paul Morin, Minnesota Chuck Thomas (University of Libraries Minnesota Libraries) Pilot using U of MN digital archiving system for Jurassic Tank data and “peels” February 17, University of Wyoming, Dag Nummedal 2003 Laramie, WY and David Mohrig Meeting to discuss outlining a proposal to industry and government to set up a center to house and disseminate non-proprietary seismic data for use in scientific research. February 19, SAFL Karen Campbell Paul Morin, David Maidment 2003 (University of Texas) Discussion with Maidment of cyberinfrastructure for hydrology and possible collaborations with NCED and Maidment’s grant March, 2003… SAFL Karen Campbell Paul Morin, John Butler (University of Minnesota) Ongoing discussions with U of MN Libraries’ new head of digital projects April 2003 SAFL Karen Campbell Paul Morin, Diana Dalbotten, Charles Nguyen, Michael Kelberrer, Charles Weed, Bill McMahon Kick-off meeting with UrbanPlanet, Inc. to launch redesign of NCED website and begin design of data-sharing online database April 2003 SAFL Karen Campbell Walt Snyder, NSF Telephone meeting regarding NCED’s data archiving plans in relation to NSF Geo-informatics initiative

51 Table 3D. DLESE Year 1 Activities

Year 1 Activity Collaboration with DLESE Intended Audience External educators Date Location Led by Attendees November 14, SAFL Karen Campbell Diana Dalbotten, Paul 2002 Morin, Cathy Manduca Met with Cathy Manduca, Carleton College and DLESE to learn how NCED can collaborate with DLESE January 22, 2003 SAFL Karen Campbell Diana Dalbotten, Paul Morin Video conference with Tamara Ledley, DLESE to discuss NCED participation in August 2003 DLESE conference

Table 3E. Computer modeling/Software development Year 1 Activities

Year 1 Activity Computer modeling/software development Intended Audience External educators and researchers Date Location Led by Attendees November 10, St. Paul, MN Paul Morin 50 museum educators from around 2002 the country

Presentation to NASA Earth Science Institute attendees on NCED visualization activities that can be applied to informal education November 14, North Dakota Paul Morin 40 2002 State University Talk to the geology and education departments at NDSU about NCED visualization activities November 15, North Dakota Paul Morin 50 2002 State University Talk to the geology departments at NDSU about NCED visualization activities December 6-10, San Francisco, Paul Morin ~ 500 2002 CA American Geophyscial Union poster on floor and visualizations at Scripps booth December 18, Minneapolis, MN Paul Morin 25 2002 Presentation to College of Liberal Arts policy committee on use of visualization in the classroom January 17, 2002 University of Paul Morin Diana Dalbotten, Karen Campbell, Minnesota Kent Kirkby (U of MN Geology Dept.), Larry Thomas, Alan Nelson (SMM), Dave Wiggins (U.S. Park Service) Discuss collaborative development of Mississippi River-related curricula and especially use of stereo-imaging June, 2003 Arizona Karen Campbell, Paul Morin Attend national Geo-Wall summit

52 Table 3F. Undergraduate Summer Intern Program Year 1 Activities

Year 1 Activity Undergraduate Summer Intern Program (USIP) Intended Audience Undergraduate students from outside the University of Minnesota Date Location Led by Attendees October 21, 2002 SAFL Diana Dalbotten Kathryn Johnson, University of Minnesota Graduate School Discuss with Grad School outreach office possibility of partnering with CIC MSROP program to recruit underrepresented students for summer program Winter 2002-3 Various Kathryn Johnson U of MN and other CIC schools recruiting trips to minority serving institutions promote NCED January, 2003 University of Diana Dalbotten Kathryn Johnson, Trisha Minnesota Civil Collopy, Gary Davis, (Civil Engineering Engineering) Discuss Graduate School recruitment strategies using visiting undergraduate summer internships February 13, University of Diana Dalbotten Karen Campbell, Kathryn 2003 Minnesota Johnson Coordinate NCED USIP with U of MN MSROP March-April, University of Diana Dalbotten Kathryn Johnson, Karen 2003 Minnesota Campbell, Gary Parker Reviewed applications, selected students to attend USIP, made offers June—August, SAFL Karen Campbell Kathryn Johnson, Diana 2003 Dalbotten, Gary Parker, other NCED PI’s USIP students attend first NCED USIP

Table 3G. Social Science Workshop Year 1 Activities

Year 1 Activity Social Science Workshop Intended Audience Social scientists and NCED P.I.’s Date Location Led by Attendees September, 2002 Angelo Reserve Chris Paola NCED PI’s Discuss how to add a social science component to NCED September- SAFL Chris Paola December, 2002 Contact various social scientists to solicit interest in attending workshop on social science component for NCED November, 6, SAFL Professor Ken Keller SAFL and NCED faculty 2002 University of Minnesota and students Humphrey Institute Seminar title: “Laboring at the intersection of science, technology and public policy: Halford Mackinder’s insight” March, 2003 SAFL Chris Paola Set date for workshop 2003 SAFL Chris Paola Hold workshop

53 Table 3H. Collaborations with outside organizations Year 1 Activities

Year 1 Activity Collaborations with outside organizations Intended Audience varied Date Location Led by Attendees September 2002 St. Paul, MN Dave Chittenden, Chris Paola, Pat Hamilton, Science Museum of 70 museum educators and Minnesota journalists from around the world International conference on museums and the Public Understanding of Research—Paola contributed ideas for engaging public in research process using NCED’s ideas. October 17, 2002 SAFL Karen Campbell Members of local chapter, Association for Women Geoscientists Hosted monthly chapter meeting for consultants, scientists, faculty and students; presented information about NCED, provided tour of SAFL November 11-15, SAFL and SMM Karen Campbell Diana Dalbotten, Paul 2002 Morin, Pat Swanson, Joel Halvorson, Pat Hamilton, Alan Nelson, SMM Cooperated with SMM on various activities for NASA Earth Institute for museum educators from around the U.S.; hosted tour and presentation about NCED at SAFL January 22, 2003 University of Gary Parker Karen Campbell, Diana Minnesota Dalbotten Attended U of MN Legislative Lobbying event to promote U of MN interests to the members of the state legislature—NCED was invited to present at a booth featuring notable Institute of Technology programs April 2003 Berkeley William Dietrich 20 researchers Dietrich co-organized an NSF sponsored an educational workshop on a proposal to create a National Center for Airborne Laser Mapping (NCALM). Creation of the Center would lead to high resolution topographic data that would greatly improve surface process research.

54 Table 4. Other outcomes or impacts of knowledge transfer activities

Year 1 Activity Other outcomes or impacts of knowledge transfer activities Intended Audience varied Date Location Led by Attendees October 27, 2002 San Francisco, Julie Scotchmoor, c. 200 CA Berkeley Natural History Museums Mary Power spoke and presented at California Science Teachers’ Association as part of a professional development program for teachers entitled, “Earth’s History and the Nature of Science”. Power promoted opportunities for high school students to engage in NCED-related research at the Angelo Reserve, an NCED facility and the relevance of such research to citizens’ choices about land use and water allocation in California. Winter 2002-2003 Carleton College, Jenn Macalady Carleton College Northfield, MN undergraduate students Developed and piloted integrated cross-disciplinary curriculum that bridges biology, chemistry, geology, and physics to explain basic facets of microbial ecology at earth’s surface; focuses on behavior of microorganisms responsible for dynamic earth surface processes such as weathering and elemental cycling, and on how transport properties of microbial habitats affect these dynamics Curriculum will be presented at professional meeting short courses in future grant years. Winter 2002-2003 SAFL Gary Parker Develop a selection of video clips on turbidity currents, submarine debris flows, delta formation and bedrock incision to be placed on NCED website Winter 2002-2003 SAFL Gary Parker Completed first draft of e-book, “Fundamentals of Sediment Transport and Morphodynamics with Applications to 1D and Quasi 2D Modeling Fluvial Fans and Fan-Deltas” 2003 Berkeley William Dietrich 20 individuals from local State agencies, Federal agencies, a private consulting company and Berkeley graduate students William Dietrich co-organized and led a three-day workshop on Watershed Sediment budgets. December 2002 Berkeley William Dietrich 157 individuals from around the world William Dietrich organized and led the annual Gilbert Club meeting which focuses on theoretical geomorphology. The meeting provides an opportunity for graduate students, postdocs, faculty, government researchers, some consulting geomorphologists to gather annually to hear major talks and debate issues in geomorphology. Special presentations this year were also made by 1) Rich Lane, NSF Program Manager for Geology and Paleontology , 2) Tom Farr , lead scientist at the Jet Propulsion Lab for the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) program, 3) Bob Anderson, founding editor of the just started AGU. Journal of Geophysical Research –Earth Surface. NCED was also described. March 2003 Cambridge, MA David Mohrig Lincoln Prattson, David Mohrig, Wrote successful proposal for Technical Session T122 to be presented at 2003 Geological Society of America Annual Meeting. Topic: “Clinoforms, Past, Present and Modeled”. February 4, 2003 Cambridge, MA David Mohrig Anna Eleria of Charles River Watershed Association Discussion of how best to use data collected by students in Mohrig’s Charles River class to refine Association’s model predicting water quality of the river.

55 V. PARTNERSHIPS

1a. Partnership Objectives

NCED cooperates with a diverse group of partners in order to fulfill its goals in regard to education, knowledge transfer and research. The objectives of our partner interaction can be summarized as follows: • Developing access to members of underrepresented and disadvantaged groups for integration into Center activities at all levels (Native American Math and Science Summer Camp, University of Minnesota APEXES Minority Program, Minnesota Department of Transportation Human Resources, Professional Association of Treatment Home, Inc.); • Integrating the most advanced information and computing technology into Center activities (University of Minnesota Office of Information Technology, University of Minnesota Supercomputing Institute, Digital Library for Earth Systems Education); • Maintaining liaison and knowledge exchange with government research organizations carrying on research closely allied to the goals of NCED (NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Hydrological Sciences, Bureau of Reclamation Sedimentation and River Hydraulic Group, USDA National Sedimentation Laboratory, Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Environmental Services, US Forest Service Redwood Sciences Laboratory, NOAA GAPP Program, US Geological Survey Coastal and Marine Geology Team); • Interacting with and streamlining knowledge transfer to the private sector (Stillwater Sciences, Inc., R2 Consultants, Inc., Minnesota Erosion Control Association); • Exchanging information with US foreign universities on Earth-surface dynamics (University of Illinois, Universidad Nacional del Litoral, Argentina, Universidad Central de Venezuela).

1b. Partnership Performance and Management Indicators

Relevant performance indicators can be summarized as follows: • Success in using partners to recruit members of underrepresented groups to NCED activities at all levels; • Implementation of local, national and international conferences and meetings with partners; • Implementation of joint research with partners; • Exchange of information with partners through annual NCED-hosted meetings; • Working with partners to improve our education and knowledge transfer efforts.

2. Problems

Interaction with the following organizations has proceeded from the commencement of the Center: Native American Math and Science Summer Camp, University of Minnesota APEXES Minority Program, Minnesota Department of Transportation Human Resources, Professional Association of Treatment Homes, Inc., University of Minnesota Office of Information Technology, University of Minnesota Supercomputing Institute, and the Digital Library for Earth Systems Education. Interaction with government agencies, foreign universities and entities in the private sector has been delayed by the sheer logistics of getting the Center up and running. Present plans call for a joint NCED-funded meeting with these latter partners sometime in the last two weeks of October 2003.

56 3. Partnership Activities

The nature of the partner interactions are summarized in the table below.

Outside Collaborator Institution Area of Collaboration Steve Cawley, Associate VP and Chief Office of Information Technology, Design of NCED data repository Information Officer University of Minnesota Mark Bellcourt, Director, TRIO/Student Native American Math and Science Implementation of Summer Camp Support Services Summer Camp, University of Minnesota (NCED now funds it) Donald G. Truhlar, Director Supercomputing Institute for Digital Integrating advanced computing into Simulation and Advanced Computation, NCED’s research effort University of Minnesota LaChelle Y. Drayton, Associate Director APEXES Minority Program, University of Attracting students from Minnesota underrepresented groups into NCED Craig Fixler and Frank Ligon Stillwater Sciences, Inc. Stream restoration and dam removal Michael P. Ramey R2 Consultants, Inc Stream restoration and dam removal Paul R. Houser, Head, Hydrological NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Integration of advanced hydrological Sciences Branch information into NCED research C. Ted Yang, Manager, Sedimentation US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Collaboration on numerical modeling of and River Hydraulic Group Reclamation river morphodynamics Carlos V. Alonso, Research Leader, US Department of Agriculture, National Collaboration on the integration of river Channel and Watershed Processes Sedimentation Laboratory and basin dynamics Leo Holm, Section Director, Office of Minnesota Department of Transportation Bioengineering for streambank Environmental Services Landscape/Forestry/Turf Establishment protection Mark Carlson, Director, Office of Human Minnesota Department of Bringing members of underrepresented Resources Transportation/Human Resources groups into NCED activities Thomas E. Lisle Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Pacific Collaboration on the dynamics of Southwest Research Station forested watersheds Richard Lawford, GAPP Program, Office National Oceanic and Atmospheric Integration of advanced remote data of Global Programs, Office of Oceanic Administration, US Department of collection techniques into the NCED and Atmospheric Research Commerce effort Timothy D. Plant, Chief Executive Professional Association of Treatment Promoting STEM careers to foster youth Officer Homes, Inc. (funded solely from match) Jay Michels, Administrator Minnesota Erosion Control Association Collaboration with the private sector on erosion control Cathryn A. Manduca Digital Library for Earth Systems Linking NCED to the Digital Library to Education, University Corporation for enhance the education and knowledge Atmospheric Research transfer efforts Homa Lee US Geological Survey, Coastal and Collaboration on seascape morphology Marine Geology Team Western Region and morphodynamics Mario Luis Amsler Universidad Nacional del Litoral, Collaborative research on large, lowland Faculdad de Ingenieria y Ciencias rivers such as the Parana. Hidraulicas Jose L. Lopez, Director Instituto de Mecanica de Fluidos, Collaboration on river engineering Faculdad de Ingenieria, Universidad Central de Venezuela Marcelo Garcia Ven Te Chow Hydrosystems Collaboration by joint use of Laboratory, University of Illinois experimental facilities on morphodynamics

Partner interactions to date include the following: • Hosting and funding the Native American Math and Science Summer Camp in the summer of 2002; • Working directly with the University of Minnesota APEXES minority program to recruit underrepresented students; • Working with Stillwater Sciences on publications related to dam removal; • Working with R2 Resources on the effect of floodwater extraction on stream morphology; • Collaborating with the Ven Te Chow Hydrosystems Laboratory to develop our Visitors’ Programs; • Discussing data archiving with the University of Minnesota Office of Information Technology; • Collaborating with the Minnesota Department of Transportation on a research program for bioengineering techniques for river bank protection; • Planning an international meeting on large, low-slope rivers with the Universidad Nacional del Litoral, Argentina;

57 • Exchanging information with the Digital Library for Earth Systems Education; • Working with the Professional Association of Treatment Homes, Inc. to involve foster children in NCED educational activities (funded entirely with match funds).

4. Other Outcomes and Impacts

There are no other major outcomes and impacts to be reported at this time.

5. Plans for the Next Reporting Period

The interaction with government agencies, foreign universities and entities in the private sector should be more fully developed by the time of the next annual report. In particular, we anticipate the following. • Finalizing the Ven Te Chow Hydrosystems Laboratory, University of Illinois as an alternative site for our Small Grants Visitor Program; • Further planning for an international conference on large, lowland rivers to be held at the Universidad Nacional del Litoral, Santa Fe, Argentina, adjacent to the Parana River; • Participation by NCED private-sector partners in a workshop on river restoration to be held on August 15, 2003; • Development of joint research and data exchange programs with government partners; • Partial support of the annual conferences of the Minnesota Erosion Control Association.

58 VI. DIVERSITY

1a. Overall Objectives

NCED strives for increased participation by United States citizens, nationals, lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens of the United States, and especially women and members of underrepresented groups in all NCED activities.

1b. Performance and Management Indicators.

NCED uses NSF’s Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering, 2002 report (http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf00327/start.htm) to benchmark participation by individuals in these groups. Our goal is to achieve participation which is approximately above the national average as indicated in that report. Participants are surveyed to determine race/ethnicity/gender and disability status. Statistics for the first year of the Center are reported in this annual report (see Table below).

Specific goals:

• Educate up to 15 Native American K-12 students per year in the Math and Science Summer Camp; • Provide opportunities for up to 5 undergraduate students from underrepresented groups to participate in summer research internships at NCED; • Develop a system to follow up with K-12 students from underrepresented groups and provide research opportunities to keep them engaged in science; o Provide guidance to them for application to colleges and keep statistics indicating enrollment in colleges and/or recruited by the University of Minnesota or any other NCED participating institutions; o The initial target is to recruit 1 or 2 of these students per year; • Achieve 20-30% participation in the graduate student program and post-doctoral research program by members of underrepresented groups; • Involve the P.I.’s and the leaders of the Education and Knowledge Transfer programs (6 women in all) in extensive interaction with underrepresented groups at all levels (K-12 to post graduate school).

59

NCED 2002-03 Diversity Statistics (Participants & affiliates) Gender Underrepresented Groups Citizenship Category Total M F Hispanic Asian African Native Other US Non Perm etc. Amer. Amer. US Resid. Faculty 18 14 4 2 1 13 0 5 Visiting Scientist 1 1 1 1 Staff 14 8 6 1 14 Postdocs 7 4 3 1 4 3 Graduates 39 28 11 3 5 29 10 Undergrads 22 14 8 3 1 2 1 19 3 Pre-college 0 Teachers 0 Other 5 4 1 5 Research 4 4 4 Scientist Total 110 77 33 8 9 3 1 0 88 17 5 Percent 70% 30% 7% 8% 3% 1% 0% 80% 15% 5%

The numbers given above do not include a) participants in our Visitor Programs, b) employees of the Science Museum of Minnesota, c) NCED Partners, d) members of our Science Advisory Board, and e) K-12 teachers participating in NCED training activities.

2. Problems

A problem we encountered during Year 1 was the absence of travel funds specifically designated for recruiting students from underrepresented groups into NCED. In subsequent grant years a portion of the Education Programs budget will be targeted for this purpose. In Year 1, we have invested a considerable effort in identifying key University of Minnesota resources and establishing partnerships which will be in place for the second year. In order to achieve diversity, our Center must address both issues of increasing the total pool of available candidates from underrepresented groups and of recruiting those candidates. We have worked to find a balance between these two goals in our first year.

3. Accomplishments and Contributions to the Development of United States Human Resources in Science and Engineering

Post-graduate and graduate level • Funding provided for 3 research fellows/research associates; • The International Cooperative Research/Apprenticeship Program has brought or will bring in the current funding year 9 researchers from universities to work on projects in cooperation with NCED; • NCED provides direct funding for 12 graduate students annually.

Undergraduate level • The NCED Undergraduate Research Experience provides funding for 6 undergraduate students annually to work at SAFL for NCED. Members of underrepresented groups are recruited through the University of Minnesota APEXES program, (U of MN General College), and minority Learning Resource Centers at the University of Minnesota. • The NCED Undergraduate Summer Intern Program is providing funding for 5 undergraduate students to participate in research at SAFL in summer 2003. Members of underrepresented groups have been recruited in conjunction with the University of Minnesota’s Graduate School Outreach Program and through recruiting efforts at minority conferences (such as AISES, SHPE) and at Oglala Lakota College. NCED will take advantage of a unique recruiting opportunity on July 25, 2003, when the University of Minnesota will host the Committee on Institutional

60 Cooperation’s Summer Research Opportunity Program’s SROP Conference, bringing more than 500 underrepresented students interested in graduate school to the University of Minnesota. This conference will include tours of SAFL and promotion of NCED research and programs. NCED faculty and staff will represent the Center at conference events and a graduate school fair in conjunction with this conference.

K-12 level • NCED is developing school contact and Youth Science Center programming to complement the Earthscapes Exhibits in Science Park at the Science Museum of Minnesota. These programs have a special emphasis on inner-city students and students from underrepresented groups. • NCED’s Earthscapes Exhibits will be prototyped at the Science Museum of Minnesota in summer 2003. These exhibits will offer a significant educational opportunity for students and the general public. • NCED piloted the Native American Math and Science Summer Camp providing educational training for 5 Native American K-12 students in 2002. The camps are designed as a springboard to encourage Native American students to pursue undergraduate and advanced study, and careers in science and engineering.

Industrial/Government Level • The Industrial Short Courses provided a means of communicating research and education products to American industry.

All levels • The 4 women among the PI’s and the 2 women in leadership of the Education and Knowledge Transfer Programs serve as role models and mentors for women in science and science education. Two of the PI’s (Efi Foufoula and Lesley Perg) gave mentoring talks at the IT Graduate Women’s Luncheon on March 28, 2003.

4. Future Plans to Enhance Diversity

In addition to continuing and improving programming initiated in Year 1, our plans for Year 2 include:

Postgraduate and Graduate level • Developing NCED’s E-STREAM program to provide teachers with a significant opportunity to participate in research and develop classroom activities in conjunction with that research. A special effort will be made to recruit teachers from inner-city or minority-serving schools; • Evaluating graduate programming and exploring graduate curricular changes in surface-process science; • Recruiting at minority professional organization conferences and college fairs; • Organizing and conducting conference exploring issues of Native Science.

Undergraduate level • Evaluating undergraduate programming and exploring undergraduate curricular changes in surface-process science; • Setting up scholarship committees for NAMS and PATH scholarships; • Recruiting at interinstitutional minority association events for Undergraduate Research Experience; • Recruiting student leaders from university minority student associations (SHPE, NSBE, AISES) to serve on Education Advisory Panel; • Systematically identifying and contacting Tribal College staff with whom to explore ongoing recruiting and other educational partnerships.

K-12 level • Planning and implementing traveling Mississippi River exhibit;

61 • Science Museum of Minnesota Earthscapes Exhibits grand opening; • Planning and piloting Earthscapes-related curriculum for SMM School Contact and Youth Science Center programs; • Develop functioning RiverWatch program at Fond du Lac and continuing to explore connections between Fond du Lac and NAMS camps.

Each of the programs listed above offers NCED an opportunity to involve members of underrepresented groups and women in programs that increase their exposure to and create enthusiasm for STEM careers.

5. Impact of Programs or Activities on Enhancing Diversity at the Center

Although, in Year 1, we have only just begun our efforts to enhance diversity in the Center, some progress has been made. Significant milestones include: • Undergraduate Summer Internship Program. NCED’s USIP program was budgeted and scheduled to begin in Summer 2004. However, because the University of Minnesota will host the Committee on Institutional Cooperation’s Summer Research Opportunity Program’s SROP Conference in July 2003, bringing more than 500 underrepresented students interested in graduate school to the University of Minnesota, we decided to begin our USIP program in 2003. 10 students have been offered NCED-sponsored internships at the time of report preparation, of which 6 are women and 8 are from underrepresented groups. In conjunction with the CIC SROP conference, tours will be offered at SAFL for the visiting students and NCED will host a table at the graduate fair. NCED faculty and staff will act as host institution volunteers throughout the conference events. • AISES (American Indian Science and Engineering Society)/SACNAS (Society for Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans in Science)/Tribal College opportunities. Our booth at the AISES national conference college fair led to an invitation to speak at Oglala Lakota Tribal College on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. This visit led to several students seeking information about graduate study at NCED and participation in future undergraduate summer internships. In Year 2, in addition to AISES, we plan to attend the national SACNAS conference to pursue similar opportunities. • Native American Math and Science (NAMS) Camps partnership with Canoncito Reservation. In Year 1, we opened discussions with school board members and youth leaders from the Canoncito Navaho Reservation in New Mexico. The goal of these discussions is to increase the involvement of Canoncito youth and other members of the community in the NCED/NAMS programs. We discussed making the program more affordable by using community elders and youth leaders as chaperones and camp counselors, while lowering costs to the reservation. We hope to develop this relationship into a model partnering with additional tribes.

62 VII. MANAGEMENT

1a. Organizational Strategy and Structure

During our first nine months of operation, we have learned a good deal about what it means to run a national Center. As we have learned, we have clarified and elaborated our management goals. The goals of NCED management are to: (1) articulate clear objectives for the Center as a whole and ensure that all Center participants understand and agree to work toward these objectives; (2) provide clear expectations for participants, along with guidance for meeting these expectations; (3) make decisions on issues affecting Center performance, involving all relevant Center participants; (4) organize effective communications among Center participants so that NCED functions as a team; (5) promote and organize NCED activities, opportunities, and products to the public and our colleagues in research, government and industry; (6) organize Center-wide activities such as workshops, annual reports, and Science Advisory Board (SAB) meetings; (7) monitor and evaluate NCED’s progress towards its goals; and (8) collect, organize, and make available NCED products, including published research papers, educational products, and data. This includes developing and maintaining the Center website.

There have been no major changes to NCED’s overall structure since the Center began operation in September, 2002. In January, 2003 we hired a new Deputy Director - Administration, Rochelle Storfer, who has enthusiastically taken up supervision of much of the day-to-day operation of the Center. Our previous Deputy Director - Administration, Pat Swanson, still offers her services on a part-time basis. Our accountant, Sheri Carlson, has departed, and we expect to hire a replacement for her soon.

Directorate Gary Parker, Director Efi Foufoula-Georgiou, Co-Director Chris Paola, Co-Director Karen Campbell, Knowledge Transfer Director Diana Dalbotten, Education Director Rochelle Storfer, Deputy Director - Administration

• Oversight and implementation of the management objectives listed above

Focus Leaders Area 1 Landscapes and Seascapes: William Dietrich, Gary Parker Area 2 Basins: David Mohrig, Chris Paola Area 3 Biogeomorphology/Ecological Fluid Dynamics: Mary Power, Miki Hondzo Area 4 Integration across Environments and Scales: Efi Foufoula-Georgiou, Ignacio Rodriguez-Iturbe

• Coordination of research efforts within focus area • Organization of monthly teleconference for focus area participants • Summarize focus area results for NCED management

1b. Performance Indicators

The primary job of NCED management is to enable the research and E/KT teams to carry out their responsibilities effectively, so the measures applied to those groups apply indirectly to the Center

63 management as well. In addition, the performance of Center management can be measured against the eight criteria listed above. Using these, major indicators for our first year include:

(1) articulate clear objectives. Based on comments from the Science Advisory Board (SAB), we have revised our vision and mission statements to make them shorter and clearer. (2) provide clear expectations for participants. At the initial NCED workshop at Angelo Reserve (explained under (6) below), we included 6 hours for discussion of Center performance and expectation issues. (3) make decisions on issues affecting Center performance. The three co-directors have met weekly to review and discuss NCED issues. Additional NCED personnel have been involved in these meetings as appropriate. There are additional weekly meetings involving the Director (Parker) and members of the administrative staff to review administrative issues, as well as biweekly meetings of the entire directorate largely focused on education and knowledge transfer. Major decisions made in the first year include letting go a PI in the original group (Richard Iverson of the USGS); inviting two new PIs (Jacques Finlay and Greg Wilkerson) to join; changing the makeup of the SAB, discussed in more detail in part 3 of this section; and decisions to involve NCED in major new initiatives including an NRC sponsored stream-restoration workshop and an NSF- sponsored workshop on new initiatives in stratigraphy and paleobiology. (4) organize effective communications among Center participants. This topic is discussed in the next section (Management and Communications Systems). (5) promote NCED. We view this as a shared effort among all the PIs, but one for which the Center management has particular responsibility. During our initial nine months, one of our major promotional activities was to get our two programs for external participation in NCED (ICRP and IGIP) up and running successfully. The initial activities under these programs are discussed in more detail in the Knowledge Transfer section. Now that the Center has begun to function, we are also organizing special sessions for two major international meetings in the coming year (GSA and AGU). The Center will host the semiannual international Rivers, Coastal and Estuarine Morphodynamics Conference in the fall of 2005, and will organize an international meeting on large, lowland rivers at the Universidad Nacional del Litoral on the Parana River in Argentina in 2006. The other major promotional activity for this year was to get the NCED web site up and running. We are also planning major improvements for the coming year. This is discussed further in the Knowledge Transfer section. (6) organize Center-wide activities. We held an initial retreat and workshop at Angelo Reserve, California, an NCED facility, in October 2002. The workshop lasted for three days and provided the PIs their first chance to interact and exchange ideas as a group. It was intended to encourage teamwork and collaboration among the PIs as well as giving us a chance to discuss a number of organizational issues. Much of the activity during the workshop was in the form of self-selected groups, and the interactions led to formation of several new and unanticipated collaborations. The second major Center-wide activity of year 1 has been the first meeting of the SAB, which most of the Center PIs attended. This was important as it provided a chance for the Board members to meet the PIs and find out about their research in person. The SAB’s report and our responses to it are included as Appendix A to this report. (7) monitor and evaluate NCED’s progress. Development of the metrics for all aspects of NCED activity, reported here for each major facet of NCED, is one of our major steps toward effective evaluation of Center activities as a whole. We have compiled extensive data pertaining to these metrics. (8) collect, organize, and make available NCED products. Some of our effort along these lines (e.g., publications) is reflected in this report. Our major effort, though, has been in setting up the NCED web site. The web site is clearly going to be one of our major outlets to the public and the various scientific communities that will benefit from NCED’s work. We have had an initial version of the web site operational since near the inception of NCED in 2002. After some investigation, we have decided to contract out further development of the main web site to a private contractor, as

64 discussed in the Knowledge Transfer section. One of the main highlights of the upgraded website will be a flexible system for archiving and tagging NCED data so that it can be readily accessed from the outside. Our plans for the data-sharing facilities are patterned after those used in LTER websites.

2. Management Problems

Apart from transient logistical problems (e.g., replacing our accountant), the main management problems that we have identified derive from the newness of our Center, and the unfamiliarity of all of us with this type of activity. Based on feedback from the site visit team set up by NSF for the STC competition (October 2001), our SAB, and our own internal discussions, we think our major management problems are:

(1) The Center’s overall research focus is still too broad. We plan to work with the PI team this year to sharpen it. The first step is the new set of criteria we have proposed for NCED research, given in Section II of this report (Research). (2) Levels of collaboration vary among the PIs. It is not clear that all the PIs fully understand the commitment required to participate in a Center such as NCED, and the management team must do a better job of communicating this. We are also continuing to work on improving the level of general communication among the group members, starting with the videoconferencing system (discussed more in the next section). Based on initial results we are optimistic that this will substantially enhance communication but we have to continue working on getting everyone to use it regularly. (3) PIs are not yet in the habit of keeping adequate records of their NCED activities. To help with this, we have streamlined our system for activity reporting, and plan to switch to a faster web-based setup this year. These changes should make the record keeping as painless as possible. We expect these changes, along with continued cajoling, to lead to a smoother and more reliable data collection system in the coming year.

3. Management and Communications Systems

The Angelo Reserve workshop mentioned above represents our first major effort toward promoting better communication among NCED PIs and professional staff. The workshop time was divided about evenly between discussion of logistic and administrative issues and discussion (both structured and unstructured) of research and E/KT topics. An important and encouraging observation is the high level of enthusiasm the PIs showed for the E/KT discussions.

A second major effort for the first nine months of Center operation was to get the videocommunication facilities up and running at all NCED sites. This includes three locations within the University of Minnesota system and two locations within the University of California, Berkeley system. The videoconferencing system became operational in January 2003. We have held videoconferences involving small groups of PIs (e.g., the Basins group has met this way twice) but have not yet established regular videoconference meetings among all the groups. Setting up regular videoconferences is one of our major management goals for the coming year; the first of these was held on April 29, 2003. An initial goal is to extend the regular meetings we have established among SAFL PIs to the larger group using the videoconference system. We will also use the videoconference system for our first Center-wide ethics training session on May 14, 2003.

One of our major goals for this year is to improve participation of graduate students in NCED communication, especially between institutions. Though this could eventually involve exchange of students among institutions, for the immediate future we see this as being primarily via videoconferencing. Not surprisingly, we have already found that the graduate students have taken to the new system even faster than the faculty have.

65 4. Advisors

During our first nine months of operation we made a few changes in the composition of our Science Advisory Board (SAB), based largely on difficulty in getting some board members to participate and on a better sense of the type of advice we needed. The present composition of the board is given in Table VII- 1. Minutes of our first SAB meeting are given in Appendix C.

5. Strategic Plans

Vision and Mission. We changed our Vision and Mission statements to make them shorter and clearer, in response to suggestions by the SAB. The new Vision and Mission statements are:

NCED’s vision is of an integrated, predictive science of the processes and interactions that shape the Earth’s surface. Our mission is to quantify critical processes of landscape and seascape evolution; to develop practical tools to help us live sustainably on our planet’s dynamic surface; and to maximize the value and impact of our research by integrating it with education and knowledge-transfer programs involving a broad spectrum of stakeholders and the general public.

NCED’s mission focuses on the following two practical goals. (1) Sustainability and restoration of landscapes and associated ecosystems, including • Landscapes that are heavily eroded or have the potential to become so, such as deforested terrain or overgrazed land; • Landscapes in which instability and change could have major social consequences, such as an avulsion of the Mississippi River or mass flows in steeplands regions; • Landscapes and ecosystems such as large floodplains and alluvial fans that are compromised by the activities of humans. (2) Responsible use of landscape and seascape resources, including • Prediction and mitigation of deleterious effects of resource extraction activities on the landscape,such as mining and timbering; • Improved estimation, prediction, and management of resources contained in sedimentary deposits, such as groundwater, minerals, and hydrocarbons; • Better prediction of Earth-surface response to climatic and other changes based on information recorded in landscapes, seascapes, and sedimentary strata; • Evaluation of potential disasters associated with resource extraction such as terrestrial and undersea landslides.

Alliance with the Community Sediment Model project. A major part of our strategy for reaching our goals is to help catalyze a larger, community-based effort called the Community Surface-Dynamics Modeling System (CSDMS). The CSDMS project (informally called “Community Sediment Model”) proposes to develop a suite of quantitative computer models for understanding past and predicting future evolution of the Earth's surface over a wide range of time and space scales. The combination of CSDMS and NCED will greatly enhance the practical application and impact of NCED research.

Based on this overall strategy, we have invested considerable effort this year into helping develop the blueprint for CSDMS. NCED co-director Paola has worked this year with five collaborators to write a white paper outlining plans for CSDMS. This white paper is complete and is currently circulating for comment within NSF and the CSDMS community. It will be presented at NSF formally later this spring. CSDMS will be a considerably larger effort than NCED, and will focus on model building, with heavy emphasis on code development and management. NCED will focus on providing the process understanding and algorithms needed to construct these models. We anticipate that the main CSDMS effort will get under way next year. We also expect that as the structure of CSDMS becomes clear, NCED may make adjustments to strengthen the collaboration between these two closely linked efforts. A draft copy of the CSDMS white paper is included as Appendix E of this report.

66 Table VII-1. Science Advisory Board External Name Affiliation 1 David Cacchione U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA 2 S. Dhamotharan URS Corporation, Houston, TX 3 Robert M. Hirsch U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA 4 Rick Sarg ExxonMobil Exploration, Houston, TX 5 Richard Sparks Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign IL 6 Grace S. Brush The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 7 Ron Shreve University of California, Los Angeles, CA 8 John L. LaBrecque NASA, Solid Earth & Natural Hazard Program, Washington, DC 9 Anthony Murphy College of St. Catherine, St. Paul, MN 10 Rhea Graham State of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 11 Daniel Sarewitz Center for Science, Policy & Outcomes, Washington, DC 12 Madonna Yawakie Turtle Island Communications, Brooklyn Park, MN Internal 13 G. David Tilman Dept. of Ecology, Evolution & Behavior, UofM 14 Karl A. Smith Dept. of Civil Engineering, UofM

67 VIII. CENTER-WIDE OUTPUTS AND ISSUES

1. Publications

Peer Reviewed: Published

Dietrich, W. E., D. Bellugi, A.M. Heimsath, J.J. Roering, L. Sklar, and J.D. Stock, Geomorphic transport laws for predicting the form and evolution of landscapes. In Prediction in Geomorphology, P. Wilcock and R. Iverson, eds., AGU Geophysical Monograph Series, V. 135, p. 103-132, 2003. Hondzo, M. and H. Wang. Effects of turbulence on growth and metabolism of periphyton in a laboratory flume, Water Resources Research, 38(12), 131-139, 2002. Perg, L.A., R.S. Anderson and R.C. Finkel. Use of cosmogenic radionuclides as a sediment tracer in the Santa Cruz littoral cell, California, United States, Geology, v. 31(4), p. 299-302, 2003. Perg, L.A., R.S. Anderson and R.C. Finkel. Use of a new 10Be and 26Al method to date marine terraces, Santa Cruz, California, USA: REPLY, Geology, v. 30(12), p. 1148, 2002. Voller, V.R. and F. Porte-Agel. Moore's law and numerical modeling, Jour. of Computational Physics, 179, 698-703, 2002. Wang, H., M. Hondzo, C. Xu, V. Poole, and A. Spacie. Dissolved oxygen dynamics of streams draining an urbanized and an agricultural catchment, Ecological Modelling, 160, 2003. Wilcock, P.R., J.C. Schmidt, M.G. Wolman, W.E. Dietrich, D. Dominick, M.W. Doyle, G.E. Grant, R.M. Iverson, D.R. Montgomery, T.C. Pierson, S.P. Schilling, and R.C. Wilson. When models meet managers: Examples from geomorphology. In Prediction in Geomorphology, P. Wilcock and R. Iverson, eds., AGU Geophysical Monograph Series, V. 135, p. 103-132. p. 27-40, 2003.

Peer Reviewed: In Press Strong, N., B.A. Sheets, T.A. Hickson, and C. Paola. A mass-balance framework for quantifying downstream changes in fluvial architecture, Sedimentology, 2003. Tal, M., K. Gran, A.B. Murray, C. Paola, and D.M. Hicks. Riparian vegetation as a primary control on channel characteristics in noncohesive sediments. In: Riparian Vegetation and Fluvial Geomorphology: Hydraulic, Hydrologic, and Geotechnical Interactions, S.J. Bennett and A. Simon, ed., American Geophysical Union, 2003.

Peer Reviewed: Submitted Basu, S. and E. Foufoula-Georgiou. Detection of nonlinearity and chaoticity in time series using the transportation distance function, submitted, Physics Letter A. Basu, S., E. Foufoula-Georgiou, and F. Porte-Agel. Predictability of atmospheric boundary- layer flows as a function of scale, submitted, Geophysical Research Letters. Bergstedt, M., M. Hondzo, and J. Cotner. The effects of small-scale fluid motion on bacterial growth and respiration, submitted, Hydrobiologia. Brooks, P.C. and G. Parker. Experimental study of erosional cyclic steps in cohesive material and bedrock, submitted, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE. Caylor, K.K., H.H. Shugart and I. Rodriguez-Iturbe. Tree canopy effects on simulated water stress in Southern African savannas, submitted, Ecosystems, March 2003. Cui, Y., G. Parker, C. Braudrick, W.E. Dietrich, B. Cluer. Dam removal express assessment models (DREAM). Part 1: Model development and validation, submitted, Journal of Hydraulic Research.

68 Cui, Y., C. Braudrick, W.E. Dietrich, B. Cluer, G. Parker. Dam removal express assessment models (DREAM). Part 2: Sample runs/sensitivity tests, submitted, Journal of Hydraulic Research. Cui, Y. and G. Parker. Numerical model of sediment pulses and sediment supply disturbances in mountain rivers, submitted Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE. Daly, E., A. Porporato and I. Rodriguez-Iturbe. Modeling photosynthesis, transpiration and soil water balance hourly dynamics during inter-storm periods, submitted, Journal of Hydrometeorology, April 2003. Daly, E., A. Porporato and I. Rodriguez-Iturbe. Ecohydrological significance of the coupled dynamics of photosynthesis, transpiration and soil water-balance, submitted, Journal of Hydrometeorology, April 2003. Dodov, B. and E. Foufoula-Georgiou. Incorporating the spatio-temporal distribution of rainfall into nonlinear analyses of streamflow dynamics: Methodology development and a predictability study, submitted, Water Resources Research. Dodov, B. and E. Foufoula-Georgiou. A multiscaling model for at-station and downstream hydraulic geometry: Conceptual framework and implementation for runoff routing in un-gaged basins, submitted, Water Resources Research. Feyaerts, T., M. Hondzo, and R. Donovan. Dissolved oxygen mass transfer at the sediment- water interface at low Reynolds numbers, submitted, Limnology and Oceanography. Lamb, M.P., T. Hickson, J. Marr, B. Sheets, C. Paola and G. Parker. Surging vs. continuous turbidity currents: flow dynamics and deposits in an experimental intraslope minibasin, submitted, Journal of Sedimentary Research. Mohrig, D. and J. Marr. Constraining the efficiency of turbidity current generation from submarine debris flows and slides using laboratory experiments, submitted, Marine and Petroleum Geology. Mohrig, D. and Buttles, J. Shallow channel constructed by deep turbidity currents: Implications for interpretation of submarine and other remotely sensed landscapes, to be submitted, Geology, summer 2003. Mohrig, D. and Smith, J.D. Tying the spatial evolution of dunes to bar growth in a sandy river, to be submitted, Journal of Sedimentary Research, summer 2003. Parker, G. and H. Toniolo. Note on the analysis of plunging of density flows, submitted, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE. Toniolo, H., G. Parker and V. Voller. Role of ponded turbidity currents in reservoir trap efficiency: formulation, submitted, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE. Toniolo, H., G. Parker and V. Voller. Role of ponded turbidity currents in reservoir trap efficiency: experiment and simulation, submitted, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE. Vuruputur, V., F. Porte-Agel, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, and M. Carper. Multiscale interactions between surface shear stress and velocity in turbulent boundary layers, submitted, Journal of Geophysical Research.

Peer Reviewed Conference Proceedings

Guzina, B.B., D.H. Timm and V.R. Voller. Prediction of thermal cracking. To appear in proceedings of Thermal Process Modeling, Nancy, France, April 2003. Porté-Agel, F., M. Carper, R. Stoll, N. Bjelogrlic. Scale-dependence and subgrid-scale modeling for LES. Proceedings of the 15th Symposium on Boundary Layers and Turbulence. Wageningen, The Netherlands, July 2002.

69 Voller, V.R. A Control volume finite element solution of unsaturated flow in layered soils, Comutational Methods in Water Resources, 105-112, 2002.

Peer Reviewed Conference Proceedings: Submitted Blom, A.. Accounting for vertical sorting in river morphodynamics. Submitted to RCEM 2003, 3rd IAHR Symposium, River, Coastal and Estuarine Morphodynamics, Barcelona, Spain, 1-5 September. (Parker is one of Blom’s advisors.) Kostic, S. and G. Parker. Physical and numerical modeling of deltaic sedimentation in lakes and reservoirs. Submitted, International Association of Hydraulic Research Congress Thessaloniki, Greece, August 24-29, 2003. Parker, G. Persistence of sediment lumps in approach to equilibrium in sediment-recirculating flumes. Submitted, International Association of Hydraulic Research Congress Thessaloniki, Greece, August 24-29, 2003. Parker, G. and T. Muto. 1D numerical model of delta response to rising sea level. Submitted to RCEM 2003, 3rd IAHR Symposium, River, Coastal and Estuarine Morphodynamics, Barcelona, Spain, 1-5 September. Toniolo, H. and G. Parker. 1D numerical modeling of reservoir sedimentation. Submitted to RCEM 2003, 3rd IAHR Symposium, River, Coastal and Estuarine Morphodynamics, Barcelona, Spain, 1-5 September. Wong, M. Does the bedload equation of Meyer-Peter and Müller fit its own data? Submitted, XXX International Association of Hydraulic Research Congress Thessaloniki, Greece, August 24-29, 2003. (Parker is Wong’s advisor.)

2. Conference presentations

Basu, S. and E. Foufoula-Georgiou. Multiscale noise removal of chaotic geophysical signals. European Geophysical Union, Nice, France, April 2003. Basu, S. and E. Foufoula-Georgiou. A novel measure for QPF verification and its usefulness in multimodel ensemble forecasting. European Geophysical Union, Nice, France, April 2003. Buttles, J. and D. Mohrig. Building topography with channelized turbidity currents: An experimental approach. Submarine Slope Systems: Processes, Products and Prediction, Liverpool, UK, April 27-29, 2003. Dietrich, W.E., J. Roering, A. Heimsath, D. Bellugi, L. Sklar, and J. Stock. Unexpected hollows: numerical modeling of soil production and non-linear soil transport and the initiation, persistence and dynamics of unchanneled valleys. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, December 6-10, 2002, F546. Dodov, B. and E. Foufoula-Georgiou. A generalized multiscaling model for hydraulic geometry (HG). European Geophysical Union, Nice, France, April 2003. Dodov, B. and E. Foufoula-Gerogiou. A multiscaling model for stream hydraulic geometry: implementation for runoff routing in ungauged basins through the geomorphologic nonlinear reservoirs in network (GNRN) concept. European Geophysical Union, Nice, France, April 2003. Foufoula-Georgiou, E. From boundary-layer turbulence to hydrologic response: Recent results on scaling, nonlinearity, and predictability. American Geophysical Union, San Francisco, December 2002. Guzina, B.B., D.H. Timm and V.R. Voller, Prediction of thermal cracking. Thermal Process Modeling, Nancy, France, April 2003.

70 Kaba, C. and D. Mohrig. Construction of shelf-edge clinoforms by turbidites: Torok Formation, Alaska. Alaska Geological Society Technical Conference, Fairbanks, AK, April 25, 2003 Lohse, K., W.E. Dietrich. Hydrological properties and flow paths change with 4.1 million years of soil development in the Hawaiian Islands. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, December 6-10, 2002, p. F442. Lyons, W. and D. Mohrig. Reconstructing the effective thickness, velocity and sediment-transporting characteristics of turbidity currents from sandy deposits filling slope channels: Examples from the miocene capistrano formation, USA. Submarine Slope Systems: Processes, Products and Prediction, Liverpool, UK, April 27-29, 2003. Mohrig, D. and J. Buttles. Shallow channels constructed by deep turbidity currents: Application of laboratory experiments to the interpretation of submarine landscapes. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, December 6-10, 2002. Mohrig, D. and C. Pirmez. Using the stratification produced by climbing dunes to estimate the filling histories of submarine turbidite channels. Submarine Slope Systems: Processes, Products and Prediction, Liverpool, UK, April 27-29, 2003. Perg, L.A., F. von Blanckenburg, and P. Kubic. Cosmogenic nuclide budget in a glaciated mountain range (W. Alps). Goldschmidt Conference, Davos, Switzerland, August 19-24, 2002. Perg, L.A. F. von Blackenburg, and P. Kubic. Using cosmogenic nuclides to examine erosional steady-state in the western Alps. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, December 6-10, 2002. Perron, J.T., W.E. Dietrich, A.D. Howard, J. McKean, and J.R. Petinga. Low-gradient debris slopes and implications for water-driven sediment transport processes on Mars. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, December 6-10, 2002, F850. Porté-Agel, F., M. Carper, R. Stoll, N. Bjelogrlic. “Scale-dependence and subgrid-scale modeling for LES”. Proceedings of the 15th Symposium on Boundary Layers and Turbulence. Wageningen, The Netherlands, July 2002. Porté-Agel, F. “Scale-dependence and subgrid modeling for large-eddy simulation of the atmospheric boundary layer”. Solicited talk at the 2003 of the joint meeting of the European Geophysical Union and the American Geophysical Society. Nice, France, April, 2003. Sklar, L. and W.E. Dietrich. Thresholds of alluviation in an experimental bedrock channel and controls on rates of river incision into bedrock. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, December 6-10, 2002, F561. Stock, J., D. Bellugi, W.E. Dietrich, D. Allen. Comparision of SRTM topography to USGS and high resolution laser altimetry topography in steep landscapes: Case studies from Oregon and California. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, December 6-10, 2002, F583. Toniolo, H. and G. Parker. Experimental and numerical simulation of sedimentation in reservoirs and lakes. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, December 6-10, 2002. Toniolo, H. and G. Parker. Depositional turbidity currents in diapiric minibasins on the Continental Slope: Theory, Experiments and Numerical Simulation. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, May 11-14, 2003. Venugopal, V., F. Porté-Agel, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M. Carper. "Multiscale interactions between surface shear stress and velocity in turbulent boundary layers". 2002 Fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union. San Francisco, California, December 2002. Venugopal, V., M. Carper, F. Porté-Agel, E. Foufoula-Georgiou. "Multiscale interactions between surface shear stress and velocity in turbulent boundary layers and their implications on LES boundary conditions". 2003 of the joint meeting of the European Geophysical Union and the American Geophysical Society. Nice, France, April, 2003.

71 Violet, J.A., C. Paola, L. Pratson and G. Parker. Channel deposits in a submarine turbidity current experiment. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Pacific Section Meeting, Long Beach, May 21-23, 2003. Violet, J.A., B.A. Sheets, C. Paola, L.F. Pratson and G. Parker. Filling of a salt-withdrawal minibasin on the continental slope by turbidity currents: Further research. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, December 6-10, 2002. Voller, V.R. Moving boundaries in sediment transport, Workshop on Fluid Flow Modeling, Los Alamos, January 2003. Vuruputur, V., M. Carper, F. Porté-Agel, and E. Foufoula-Georgiou. Multiscale interactions between surface shear stress and velocity in turbulent boundary layers and their implications on LES boundary condition formulations. American Geophysical Union, San Francisco, December 2002. Yager, E., J. Kirchner, and W.E. Dietrich. Prediction of sediment transport in steep boulder-bed channels. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, December 6-10, 2002, F582.

3. Other Dissemination Activities

University of Minnesota, Dean’s, Director’s and Department Head NCED Information Luncheon, Gary Parker, Efi Foufoula, Chris Paola presented an Overview of NCED. January 29, 2003, University of Minnesota Walter Library. Workshop on Scaling in Geomorphology, Part 1, April 19, 2003, University of Minnesota, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory. Workshop on Scaling in Geomorphology, Part 2, May 17, 2003, University of Minnesota, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory. Seminar on NCED Mississippi Delta Project for Minnesota Engineer’s Club on April 18, 2003. “Experimental Geomorphology” session at Fall AGU meeting, December 2002, San Francisco (Paola, session co-organizer).

Seminars by Gary Parker The fate of the delta of the Mississippi River: Can an STC help? Delivered at the National Science Foundation, October 16, 2002. Modeling of river incision in uplifting mountain watersheds. Delivered at the University of California Davis, October 31, 2003. Modeling sediment trap efficiency of reservoirs. Delivered at the University of Twente, the Netherlands, March 7, 2003. Erosional and transportational cyclic steps. To be delivered at Northwestern University, May 30, 2003.

Invited Talks by Chris Paola Experimental stratigraphy: the Lexus or the Olive Tree? ETH, Zurich, Switzerland, January 8, 2003. Recent results in experimental stratigraphy. Shell Exploration and Production, Houston, TX, January 14, 2003. Recent results in experimental stratigraphy. ExxonMobil Upstream Research, Houston, TX, January 16, 2003.

Seminars by W. E. Dietrich Processes of erosion and landscape evolution. Delivered at the Penrose Conference on tectonics, climate, and landscape evolution in Taiwan, January 13, 2003. How big is a hillslope: linking process mechanics to form and evolution of landscapes. Delivered at Stanford University January 29, 2003.

72 How big is a hillslope: linking process mechanics to form and evolution of landscapes. Delivered at the ETH , Zurich February 5, 2003. The notion of geomorphic transport laws: key to linking tectonics, climate and landscape evolution. California Institute of Technology, Delivered April14, 2003.

Seminars by M. Hondzo The influence of physical processes on small-scale biological growth in lakes and rivers, Delivered at the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland, February, 2003. Diffusional mass transfer at the sediment-water interface in a turbulent flow, Delivered at the Johns Hopkins University, April, 2003.

Seminars by D. Mohrig Interaction of dunes and bars in a sandy river and the evolution of river-bottom topography. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, MIT, December 20, 2002. Shallow channels constructed by deep turbidity currents: application of laboratory experiments to the interpretation of submarine landscapes. Department of Geological Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, January 17, 2003. Shallow channels constructed by deep turbidity currents: Application of laboratory experiments to the interpretation of submarine landscapes. Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Wyoming, February 17, 2003.

Seminars by Lesley Perg Life’s a beach: Cosmogenic radionuclides along an active margin coastline. Delivered at the University of Arizona, September 12, 2002. Mixing it up: Cosmogenic radionuclides in the California coast and Swiss Alps. Delivered at Carleton College, November 6, 2002. Life’s a beach: Cosmogenic radionuclides along an active margin coastline. Delivered at Franklin and Marshall College, November 22, 2002. Balancing the budget: 10Be in the California coast and Swiss Alps. Delivered at Saint Anthony Falls Lab, January 22, 2003.

Seminars by E. Foufoula-Georgiou From atmospheric boundary layer to hydrologic response: Scaling properties and interpretation. Delivered at the Water Resources Science Seminar, University of Minnesota, February 25, 2003. Multiscaling in hydraulic geometry and nonlinearity in hydrologic response. Delivered at the Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, University of Minnesota, March 7, 2003. Scaling in precipitation and basin hydrologic response. Delivered at the ETH, Zurich, Switzerland, March 14, 2003. Multiscale multisensor estimation of precipitation. Delivered at the European Center for Medium Weather Forecasting, Reading, England, March 4, 2003.

Seminars by V. Voller Modeling across scales, SAFL and Geo Mechanics seminars, November, 2002.

Congressional Presentations. –I. Rodriguez -Iturbe On the links between photosynthesis and soil water balance. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, December 2002, San Francisco. Session: State of the Art in Ecohydrology. Abstract published in the AGU Abstracts Volume for the Meeting.

73 4. Honors and Awards

Recipient Reason/purpose Award Name and Contributor Date for Award 1 Gary Parker Research contributions Fellow, American Geophysical 2/2003 Union 2 Miguel Wong Outstanding graduate Anderson Award, St. Anthony 4/2003 student Falls Laboratory, Univ. of Minnesota 3 Efi Foufoula Research contributions Member, European Academy of 3/2003 Sciences 4 Boyko Dodov Research merit MSI Research Fellowship 2/2003 5 Fernando Porté- Research contributions McKnight Land-Grant 2003- Agel Professorship, Univ. of Minnesota 2005 6 William Dietrich Research contributions Member, National Academy of 4/2003 Sciences

5. Center Graduates

Student or Post doc Degree(s) Years to Placement name Degree 1 Horacio Toniolo Ph.D. 3 Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alaska, Fairbanks 2 Scott Wright Ph.D. 3 USGS, Sacramento, California 3 Violeta Lema M.S. 2 Consulting, Spain Vivancos 4 Leonard Sklar Ph.D. 9 Assistant Professor, San Francisco State University 5 John Stock Ph.D. 6 Mendenhall Postdoctoral Research Fellowship, U.S. Geological Survey 6 Rob Stoll M.S. 2 Ph.D. candidate, Univ. of Minnesota 7 Maria Bergsted M.S. 2 Ph.D. candidate, Univ. of Minnesota 8 Ben O’Connor M.S. 2 Ph.D. candidate, Univ. of Minnesota

6a. General Outputs of Knowledge Transfer Activities

NCED patents, licenses and start-up companies

None.

6b. Describe other outputs of knowledge transfer activities during reporting period.

Lesley Perg • Taught a unit on the geomorphic issues surrounding the Mississippi River Delta (class discussion on McPhee’s The Control of Nature and other handouts, and class projects) in Geomorphology (senior/intro grad level). • Presentation at the Institute of Technology of the University of Minnesota (physical sciences and engineering) women graduate student luncheon about research and experiences as a woman in science. • Attended the CRONUS-Europe and CRONUS meetings, which seek to outline a research plan to determine cosmogenic nuclide scaling and production rates.

74

Voller: • Writing a book to be published by John Wiley, “Numerical Modeling of Moving Boundary and Phase Change Problems,” Sections on this book contain problems taken from the NCED area. • Gave a presentation, “Moving Boundaries in Earth Scape Systems,” at a workshop on computational modeling run by Los Alamos National Lab. • Delivered the following seminar--Scaling Issues in Modeling Landscapes at both SAFL and for the Geo-Mechanics Group in the Civil Engineering Department. • Presented a poster at the 2nd Conference on Thermal processing Modelling--Prediction of thermal cracks. A section of this poster covered NCED topics.

Parker • Parker is developing an e-book “Fundamentals of Sediment Transport and Morphodynamics and Applications to 1D and Quasi-2D Modeling Fluvial Fans and Fan-Deltas.” The first draft is completed.

7. List of all Participants removed for data privacy

75

Category: (a) undergraduate students, (b) graduate students, (c) faculty, (d) visiting faculty, (e) other research scientists, (f) postdoctorates, (g) pre-college students, (h) teachers, (i) educators, and (j) other participants Gender: Female, Male Disability: Hearing Impairment, Visual Impairment, Mobility/Orthopedic Impairment, Other, None Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino, Not Hispanic or Latino Race: American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, White Citizenship: U.S. Citizen, Permanent Resident, Other non-U.S. Citizen.

8. Summary Table removed for data privacy

9. Describe media publicity. Provide examples in Appendix D.

• “Power of the Purse: Down-to-the-Wire Talks Shape a New NSF Center,” Science, Vol. 297, 26 July 2002. • “Minnesota lab’s special tank is having earthshaking results,” USA Today, December 2002. • “U of M, Science Museum Partners in $19.3 Million Grant,” News Release, University of Minnesota Press, Wednesday, August 28, 2002. • “U, Science Museum get Earth study grant,” Minneapolis Star Tribune, Thursday, August 29, 2002. • “College shares grant for Center,” by Steve Kuchera, Duluth News Tribune, Friday, August 30, 2002. • “U’s St. Anthony Falls Laboratory will share $19.3 million grant from National Science Foundation,” University of Minnesota Brief, Vol. XXXII, No. 27, September 4, 2002. • “St. Anthony Falls Laboratory to lead new NSF Science and Technology Center,” Items, a publication of the Institute of Technology, University of Minnesota, September 2002. “University of Minnesota will be Home to a National Center for Earth Surface Dynamics,” News release sent to University of Minnesota External Relations, October 2002. • “St. Anthony Falls Lab wins NSF grant,” Alumni Bridge, newsletter of the Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota, Fall 2002. • “Research at university lab is an earth-moving experience,” St. Paul Pioneer Press, Friday, November 29, 2002. • “The St. Anthony Falls Laboratory in History,” by E. Silberman, R. Arndt, G. Parker, E. Foufoula- Georgiou, C. Paola. • “A New Center at the Falls,” by Sarah Barker, Minnesota, The Magazine of the University of Minnesota Alumni, November-December 2002. • “Lab studies rivers from ‘Jurassic Tank’”: Newsday (New York, Monday, December 16, 2002; CTV, Canada, Wednesday, December 18, 2002; ABC News, Monday, December 16, 2002; Times Daily, Alabama, Monday, December 16, 2002; Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Florida, Monday, December 16, 2002. • “A river runs through it: Lab studies rivers from Jurassic Tank”, Canoe News, Canada, Wednesday, December 18, 2002. • National Center for Earth-surface Dynamics, WCCO-AM, 11:10 a.m., December 19, 2002. • Guest appearance by Karen Campbell, NCED Knowledge Transfer Director, on the Ruth Koscielak Show, January 2, 2003. • “Science Museum constructs building that makes its own energy,” Science Museum of Minnesota Press release, January 29, 2003.

IX. INDIRECT/OTHER IMPACTS (optional)

The National Center for Earth-surface Dynamics is specifically designed to bring together researchers who might not otherwise collaborate. As a result, it can reasonably be expected that the Center will achieve research results that could neither have been expected nor planned for at the time of the writing of the proposal. If the Center is to be truly successful in a way that could not be achieved through individual research grants, some of these unpredicted, serendipitous results should count as among the major achievements of the Center.

At least one such serendipitous, unexpected collaboration has borne fruit. Perg is a specialist in the use of cosmogenic radionuclides as tracers to determine sediment erosion and deposition. Parker is a specialist in sediment modeling. Together, they have devised a new, unified theoretical framework for describing the balance of radioactive tracers in erosional, transportational and depositional environments. Their new framework offers a powerful tool for the study of sediment morphodynamics. Their close collaboration is a direct result of interaction through NCED.

78

X. BUDGET

1. Current Award Year. The three-column summary budget table given below reflects total NSF funding for the whole National Center for Earth-surface Dynamics Center for the current award year (August 1, 2002 – July 31, 2003). (removed)

79

2. Unobligated funds.

The total amount of unobligated funds is $723,903. This amount resides in the following categories: salaries and fringe, $230,018; participant expenses, ($10151); supplies and travel, ($29,463); equipment, $332,293; indirect costs, $91,807; and subcontracts [Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College, Science Museum of Minnesota, University of California Berkeley (Earth and Planetary Science, W. E. Dietrich), University of California Berkeley (Integrative Biology, M. E. Power), Princeton University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology], $109,400.

The largest category of unspent money consists of equipment. It proved impossible to purchase all the budgeted equipment in Year 1, and as a result the remaining purchases have been deferred to Year 2. All remaining purchases will be made in Year 2. Among salaries and fringe, the unspent money consists largely of money that was not spent for a Senior Visiting Fellow in Year 1 and money that was not spent on postdoctoral fellows. People for these positions have been recruited, and the money will be spent in Year 2. The bulk of the money unspent by the subawardees resides with the University of California Berkeley (Earth and Planetary Science) and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and is associated with deferred graduate student hiring. Hiring obligations have been made so as to use this money in Year 2.

It is of value to note here that some of the funds with the University of Minnesota were reallocated and designated for expenditure in Year 1 before determining the above totals. The total amount of money so reallocated is $221,838. The money in question was pooled by all the principal investigators at the University of Minnesota to purchase capital and non-capital items, the need for which was not foreseen in the original budget. These items are designed to enhance the performance of the Center as a whole. They are enumerated below. Non-capital items include overhead in the cost. (removed)

3. Budget Sheets, Requested Award Year.

Signed budget sheets for Award Year 2 (August 1, 2003 – July 31, 2004) are provided below for the following institutions: University of Minnesota (prime) and the following seven subawardees; Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College, Science Museum of Minnesota, University of California Berkeley (Earth and Planetary Science, W. E. Dietrich), University of California Berkeley (Integrative Biology, M. E. Power), Princeton University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Wyoming.

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

4. Support from All Sources (removed)

5. Cost Sharing

The cost sharing for Year 1 (August 1, 2002 – July 31, 2003) and the commitment for cost sharing for Year 2 (August 1, 2003 – July 31, 2004) are documented in the attached letters from the following institutions: University of Minnesota (prime) and the following seven subawardees; Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College, Science Museum of Minnesota, University of California Berkeley (Earth and Planetary Science, W. E. Dietrich), University of California Berkeley (Integrative Biology, M. E. Power), Princeton University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Wyoming. The University of Wyoming provided no cost sharing in Year 1 because it was not a member of NCED during that period.

90 5.

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99 Appendix A: Biographical Information for New Faculty--removed for data privacy

100 Appendix A: Biographical Information for New Faculty--removed for data privacy

101

Appendix B: NCED Organization Chart

CENTER STRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT

Executive Committee External Science Advisory Board Director: TWELVE MEMBERS BAN FI ELD GARY PARKER DIETRICH FOUFOULA HAMILTON Deputy Director HONDZO Administration Co-Directors: MOHRIG ROCHELLE STORFER EFI FOUFOULA & CHRIS PAOLA PAOLA PARKER PERG PORTÉ-AGEL POWER Director Knowledge Transfer Director Education Accountant KAREN CAMPBELL DIANA DALBOTTEN RODRÍGUEZ-ITURBE TO BE HIRED VOLLER WOLD (FINLAY) (WILKERSON)

Science Museum XES Facility Coordinator Coordinator PAT HAMILTON CHRIS ELLIS Focus Area Leaders 1) DIETRICH & PARKER 2) MOHRIG & PAOLA 3) POWER & HONDZO 4) FOUFOULA & RODRÍGUEZ-I. Fond du Lac Coordinator for ICRP, Coordinator IGIP ANDY WOLD JEFF MARR

102 Appendix C: Advisory Board meeting

Science Advisory Board (SAB) of the National Center for Earth-surface Dynamics (NCED)

Report of First Meeting 27-28 February 2003, Review, and Recommendations

External Board members (not from University of Minnesota and not co-PIs in NCED) present: Grace Brush, Dhamo Dhamotharan, Robert Hirsch, Anthony Murphy, Rick Sarg, Richard Sparks (Chair), Madonna Yawakie. Internal Board members present: Karl Smith, G. David Tilman (both are from the University of Minnesota, but are not co-PIs in NCED)

The Science Advisory Board (SAB) for the National Center for Earth-surface Dynamics (NCED) met for the first time on 27-28 February 2003 in Minneapolis. The meeting was held at the Science Museum of Minnesota on the first day and at St. Anthony Falls Laboratory on the second day. The initial briefing session was led by NSF Program Officers Dragana Brzakovic and H. Richard Lane from the NSF, who described the Foundation’s expectations and review process.

A key point was that an NSF-selected review team (separate from the SAB) will conduct an annual progress review. Starting the second year, NSF determines whether to continue funding the Center for another year based largely on the evaluation of the NSF review team. The first year evaluation will concentrate on program management, with the understanding that the research and education programs need a year or more of activity in order to have something to report. In contrast to the NSF annual performance evaluation, which determines whether funding will continue, the role of the SAB is to advise and assist the Center. SAB will help define NCED’s niche and help NCED prepare for the annual NSF review, and SAB members will serve as ambassadors for NCED to the larger scientific community and public.

A second point was that advisors from the University of Minnesota (Karl Smith and David Tilman) are considered to be “internal” to the NCED, which is administered by the University of Minnesota, and that the external advisory board comprises people from outside the University. Also, any SAB member who subsequently starts working with the NCED (i.e., receives money, other than travel to SAB meetings) must relinquish his/her position on SAB.

At this first meeting, SAB received a briefing binder and heard from the three co-directors and from each of the co-investigators. We were asked to do the following:

1. Select a Chair.

2. Review the strategic plan, particularly the mission and vision statements.

3. Describe performance indicators for NCED.

4. Review the charter for the SAB.

SAB accomplished the first three charges, and completed the fourth by email correspondence. Although we did not have time to review the strategic plan in great detail, we did consider and commented upon the mission and vision statements. Details follow.

1. Richard Sparks agreed to serve as Chair.

103 2. Mission and Vision.

Considerable thought and discussion among the co-Directors, had gone into these statements, which had gone through several revisions (see section II, pages 5-6 of the Strategic and Implementation Plan). Nevertheless, the SAB noted that the focus or “big idea” of the NCED was not clearly communicated to the SAB in the oral presentations by the co-Directors and the co-PIs. Even though the co-PIs were asked to describe in two to five minutes how their work related to the central focus and what excited them about the work they planned to do, the presentations were more like short reports on their current and planned research. Some researchers did describe collaborations they hoped to undertake with the other co-PIs.

The vision and mission statements themselves need to be very short and pithy (one sentence), although they can and should be elaborated upon in subsequent text. The statements should be something that every member of the team can readily call to mind. We suggest that the first sentence in the Vision statement be the vision, with perhaps the addition of “prediction” or “predictive capability”. Predictive capability is an important contribution that should emerge from a quantitative approach that unifies both geological/ecological understanding and engineering tools and planning perspectives.

The second sentence of the Vision statement would actually make a good Mission statement, because it has all the action verbs: lead; quantify; develop tools; communicate.

3. Measures of Success.

NCED’s success will be measured by the sum of contributions in each of seven areas:

NCED success = Sum ((Big Idea) +(sum PI Research) + (PI Interaction) + (SMM) + (Education & Curiosity Development & Transfer) + (Small Grants) + (Relevance & Engagement, including communities of color))

Each of the terms in the above equation are described in more detail below, after noting an abbreviation and explaining what is meant by “curiosity development”.

SMM = sum of activities of the Science Museum of Minnesota. This is such a unique (among the Science and Technology Centers) and important component that its potential contribution to NCED was singled out as a term in the “success” equation. Over 1.3 million visitors come to SMM each year and some proportion will be influenced by NCED contributions to the “Earthscapes” outdoor exhibit. The scientific quality of “Earthscapes” and the degree of interaction between NCED scientists and exhibit designers will be components of success.

“Curiosity Development” is wording that was suggested by David Tilman at this first meeting, after Program Officer Dragana Brzakovic stated that “outreach” is commonly understood as short-term activities (public information) and does not describe what NSF is interested in funding. In addition, SAB did not like the term “information transfer” alone, because active learning goes beyond mere transfer of information from an information generator to a recipient. Science is a way of knowing about the world, a curiosity-driven process and approach that generates excitement, as well as knowledge and understanding. Providing the knowledge without the process is a meager portion of what science should be. Also, there should be some flow of information back to the scientists from those being educated– which also relates to the last term of relevance and engagement. There needs to be some way of evaluating whether information was utilized and whether curiosity development & transfer worked.

The Big Idea. The NSF Program Solicitation for the Science and Technology Centers (STCs) states: “STCs must have a unifying research focus involving any area(s) of research supported by the Foundation.”

As already noted above, the focus did not come across in presentations, although the NCED co-Directors had devoted considerable effort to defining the focus in the vision and mission statements. The co-PIs should be able to describe the win-win for both the NCED program and for themselves. How does each

104 of them fit in? What is most exciting to them? What will they gain from NCED? What will each of them contribute to the whole?

Sum of PI research. The team has a good mixture of seasoned researchers and young scientists and post-docs. However, they can’t just continue previous lines of individual research, although they will certainly build on their previous work. See next item.

PI interaction. The Science and Technology Centers are supposed to be integrative partnerships, so one of the most important measures of success will be how individuals came together in NCED to do some important and exciting things they would not have done alone. This group of scientists is certainly interested in each other’s work, as evidenced by the questions they began to ask of each other while presenting to SAB.

They need to meet together, perhaps most often by video-conferencing (because of cost efficiency) but also face-to-face, and not just once a year when they are called in for the NSF site review. They will need time for “science” discussions, not just administrative matters.

It would also be helpful to pick one, two, or three places where they will work together and where the theory and tools that they develop will be ground-truthed. The Angelo Forest already seems to be one such place, and in fact they have held a planning meeting there, where several of the co-PIs have on- going work. They might also benefit from an additional place somewhere in the Upper Mississippi Basin, and not too distant from the St. Anthony Falls Lab, which is the administrative center for NCED and where most of the scientists are located.

Education & curiosity development & transfer. See comments above on SMM. As good as SMM and the “earthscapes” outdoor exhibit promises to be, there are still important groups that do not come to SMM. Can NCED reach out to these groups through this part of the program? The importance of picking a few places to work together has been mentioned above. One criterion in the selection process might be opportunities to engage a local community, such as the Native American communities in the headwaters and tributaries of the Upper Mississippi River. Again, two-way communication between the researchers and the community is important.

The educational contribution and legacy of NCED depends in part on capturing and sharing what is learned about designing, building, and engaging learners in the “outdoor science exhibits” and in recruiting and retaining under-represented minorities in educational programs. Success of the “curiosity development and transfer” of the SMM program needs to be documented through systematic research (including observations, interviews, surveys, etc.) using methodologies as rigorous as those used in the earth-science aspects of NCED. It should also be shared through publication in appropriate journals.

Small grants. This component should be done well or not done at all. Doing it well will impose a significant administrative cost. A focus needs to be developed, which can change with each year’s competition. The review criteria need to be developed and described in the solicitation, which must be widely advertised. Reviews would have to be done by experts outside the host institutions, to assure that there is no bias in favor of “insiders”.

Relevance & engagement, including communities of color. Here again, as in education/curiosity transfer, two-way communication between the researchers and the communities will be important. What are the issues for the communities: access to educational opportunities for their children? Ecosystem dynamics that create local problems? As mentioned above, include community as part of place-to-work selection.

105 Other concerns, recommendations.

Selection of Mississippi Delta as a place or problem. While it is attractive to use the subsidence tank available at the SAF Hydraulic Lab, the hypoxia problem that the co-Directors mentioned operates on a much shorter time scale and does not involve subsidence. The problem involves nutrients, biologically active molecules: C, N, P, other nutrients and micronutrients–materials in addition to inorganic sand and silt.

Regardless of whether the group chooses to work on Gulf eutrophication and hypoxia, the program may need a stronger link to biota through a systems ecologist, or a (2nd choice) biogeochemist.

Although general principles and findings may apply to many environments and scales, there should be a strong element of field testing. Helps provide focus. If tools, principles apply to broad array of problems and places, then they should certainly apply to the places NCED selects. Places heard during presentation included several different continents and one other planet besides earth.

Administration. Consider adding a biologist from outside U MN as a co-Director. NCED is strong in physical processes – all three co-Directors. Such an appointment would elevate the importance of biology within NCED and provide some direction from outside U MN.

4. SAB Charter.

The SAB did not have time to review the draft Charter thoroughly at the first meeting, but the SAB members were asked by the Chair to comment by email. Based on five responses, the Charter is acceptable, with the exception of the review role of SAB for the cooperative grants program. The concern is that the SAB may not have the technical expertise nor the time to do technical reviews of the proposals (which may number up to 50 per year, as the program becomes more widely advertised), which should be arranged by the NCED itself. Following an independent technical review arranged by NCED, the SAB could comment on relevance of selected proposals to the objectives and mission of NCED.

Summary

The SAB was impressed with the facilities and the expertise assembled in the NCED. There is a good mixture of well-established scientists and young investigators, and a high level of enthusiasm was apparent. They obviously have the potential to fulfill the very ambitious program outlined in the proposal. The connection to the Science Museum of Minnesota is particularly beneficial, in terms of “curiosity transfer”.

SAB had several constructive suggestions, which are mentioned above. Two items seemed so important and to cut across so many aspects of the program that we mention them again here: (1) program focus and (2) field work. (1) We recognize that NCED is in the very earliest stages of development, and that investigators certainly will build upon their previous work. However, one key intent of the program is to foster integration that would not be achieved by multiple grants to single investigators. We are concerned about the large number of geographic locations where NCED scientists propose work (including Mars), and feel the program would benefit from using a few places to focus their research and their efforts to interact with local and regional communities. (2) Although SAB recognizes that NCED seeks to develop tools that will have broad application, we also feel that those tools need to be tested and ground-truthed in the field. Thoughtful selection by the NCED group (not just by the co-Directors) of a few primary field sites would help with program focus, create opportunities for interactions among researchers (fostering true interdisciplinary research, rather than just multidisciplinary research), thoroughly ground the more theoretical work, and better connect educational opportunity and problem-solving science to communities of color.

106

NCED REPLY TO THE SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD REPORT

The Science Advisory Board (SAB) submitted their written report to NCED on March 24, 2003 following the board meeting in Minneapolis on February 27-28, 2003. Present at the Board meeting were: Richard Sparks (chairman elect), Grace Brush, Dhamo Dhamotharan, Robert Hirsch, Anthony Murphy, Rick Sarg, and Madonna Yawakie, as well as two internal board members, Karl Smith and C. David Tilman (both at the University of Minnesota but not NCED PIs). Not present at the meeting were: Ron Shreve, John LaBreque, Rhea Graham, Daniel Sarewitz. (David Cacchione of the Menlo Park Office of the US Geological Survey was later appointed to the SAB.)

The meeting was constructive and appreciated by all PIs and co-directors. It provided useful feedback that already has helped our focus and has enhanced our efforts towards integrative research. Below is our point-by-point reply to the SAB report (following the same headings as in that report).

Mission and Vision. Following the recommendation of SAB we have revised our mission and vision statements to be much shorter (one sentence) and capture more distinctly the focus of the Center’s research. The revised statements are found in the Executive Summary of the 1st year report and are repeated below for completeness.

Revised Vision and Mission NCED’s vision is of an integrated, predictive science of the processes and interactions that shape the Earth’s surface. Our mission is to quantify critical processes of landscape and seascape evolution; to develop practical tools to help us live sustainably on our planet’s dynamic surface; and to maximize the value and impact of our research by integrating it with education and knowledge-transfer programs involving a broad spectrum of stakeholders and the general public.

NCED’s mission focuses on the following two practical goals. (1) Sustainability and restoration of landscapes and associated ecosystems, including • Landscapes that are heavily eroded or have the potential to become so, such as deforested terrain or overgrazed land; • Landscapes in which instability and change could have major social consequences, such as an avulsion of the Mississippi River or mass flows in steeplands regions; • Landscapes and ecosystems such as large floodplains and alluvial fans that are compromised by the activities of humans. (2) Responsible use of landscape and seascape resources, including • Prediction and mitigation of deleterious effects of resource extraction activities on the landscape,such as mining and timbering; • Improved estimation, prediction, and management of resources contained in sedimentary deposits, such as groundwater, minerals, and hydrocarbons; • Better prediction of Earth-surface response to climatic and other changes based on information recorded in landscapes, seascapes, and sedimentary strata; • Evaluation of potential disasters associated with resource extraction such as terrestrial and undersea landslides.

It is noted that presentations from all the PIs were not included in the original agenda. However, the SAB felt that it would be beneficial to have all PIs present their research in a 2-3 minute summary and also comment on how their research fits into the Center’s objectives. The PIs had to do this “on the spot” without any visual aids. Their focus was on their own research rather than its integration with the Center’s broader goals and objectives. Following the SAB report, steps have been taken to assure that all PIs are in tune with the Center’s goals and present their own research relevance to the Center’s goals as opposed to a stand-alone effort. For example, we have proposed a slide template with NCED’s revised vision and mission statements that PIs can use to explain how their work fits into NCED and supports its goals.

107

Measures of Success. The SAB proposed a formula to measure NCED’s contributions as follows

NCED success = Sum (Big Idea) + (sum PI research) + (PI interaction) + (SMM) + (Education & Curiosity Development & Transfer) + (Small Grants) + (Relevance & Engagement, including communities of color)

They made specific comments in each of the above components and our reply to these comments is given below.

The Big Idea. The observation of SAB that the focus of NCED did not come across in the PI presentations is well taken. A series of meetings has been initiated since then at which each PI is asked to present to the whole group an account of his or her response to the very questions that the SAB asked: How does each PI fit in the center? What is most exciting to them? What will they gain from NCED? What will each PI contribute to the whole? Integration of a diverse group (uniquely and purposely assembled to address the multidisciplinary topic of Earth-surface dynamics) takes time and the eight months since the Center commenced have not apparently been enough for that purpose. Both the Center directorship and the PIs have the “Big Idea and Integration” as a top priority for the next several months.

Sum of PI research and PI Interaction. The three main issues brought up in this aspect of evaluation were (1) new collaborative research uniquely spurred by NCED, (2) more frequent research meetings, and (3) selection of a field site at which PIs can come together to ground-truth their research and collaborations.

As documented in the 1st year report, several new collaborative research initiatives among PIs have commenced because of NCED. Of course, not all of these have yet yielded concrete results. However, they have paved the way to new exciting directions in surface dynamics that would not exist without NCED. A case in point is drawing analogies between turbulence (scaling theories and modeling approaches) to geomorphic processes. Another is the use of concepts related to uncertainty in observations and model parameterizations towards probabilistic prediction of landscape evolution.

It is much more important for the long-term success of the center to keep the big idea in mind and work towards capitalizing on the unique strengths of each PI in relation to a common goal, rather than to capitalize on a few quick collaborations that can claim immediate results. The University of Minnesota PIs have had research meetings almost every week with a few exceptions. We plan to continue these meetings and enlarge their scope by including PIs from the other participating institutions via videoconferencing. The plans for videoconferencing are discussed in more detail in the main report.

The SAB proposed to establish a site which can serve as a “ground-truthing” of our theories and multidisciplinary collaborations towards well established themes. The PIs took this idea seriously and spent a good part of the second day of the meeting toward establishing such a site and defining some possible research themes on which research can start immediately. The Angelo Coast Reserve has potential for focusing NCED research and interdisciplinary collaboration. A possible focus for field-site research is the “Future of the Eel River System” as discussed below (based on the March 1, 2003 meeting of the PI’s).

The Future of the Eel River System

Goal: Develop physical and ecological models to predict landscape and ecosystem dynamics for: 1) exploring coupled landscape and ecosystem evolution 2) assessing effects of climate change (doubling CO2) 3) guiding landuse and restoration geomorphology

The idea here is that by focusing on the “future” we can address both the theoretical motivation of our work (quantification and mechanistic explanation of earth-surface processes) and the practical application (tools for landuse management and planning).

108

Some example general needs that can be addressed using the Eel River system: 1) theory for production, transport, and storage of sediment on hillslopes and down through the river network 2) theory for scaling up local mechanistic theories of transport to large landscape-scale applications 3) theory for channel morphology (e.g. width, slope, grain size) 4) theory for network-based food web systems 5) theory for interaction of fluvial and biotic processes

Some observations about the Eel. Research can be done on all scales from individual particles or organisms to the entire watershed (about 3500 km2). There is an opportunity to link terrestrial and offshore studies because STRATAFORM (http://www.strataform.unh.edu/) collected a large amount of data on offshore deposition rates, patterns and processes. The sediment yield from the Eel is high (15 million tons/yr- 5th highest in US, and equal to 4000 t/km2-yr- according to USGS web page). This high sediment discharge is due to relatively rapid uplift (reaching several mm/yr near the coast), mechanically weak rocks, which leads to massive earthflows, and to landuse, especially tractor logging (some estimates place half the sediment load as anthropogenic). Attached are a few maps to give location. It is estimated by GCM’s that doubling of CO2 may cause a doubling of average annual precipitation in parts of the Eel. This is a pretty interesting prediction! What can we say will happen to a system if annual precipitation doubles? Is hillslope erosion linearly linked to precipitation? How will channels adjust? What will be the ecological consequences? This seems like a good question to chew on as it points to our lack of basic knowledge and challenges us with something society would like to know. The discussion group then did the exercise of asking what each participant might do that could be linked together under the banner of the Future of the Eel River system.

Participants and their subject area: Lesley Perg- feedbacks of tectonics, streams, abiotic fluxes David Mohrig –particle and solute transfers to offshore and ocean storage Fernando Porté-Agel- turbulence structure and effects on flow and sediment transport in steep channels Miki Hondzo– effect of near boundary thin layers on fluxes and primary productivity Vaughan Voller– propagation of large perturbation, hybrid mixed models, connections Chris Paola– vegetation effects on channel geometry (estuary, islands) Efi Foufoula-Georgiou– scaling up hydrologic and sediment transport processes Ignacio Rodriguez-Iturbe – vegetation scaling William Dietrich- river incision mechanics, network-based sediment routing, earthflow transport laws Mary Power– foodweb and species interactions within and across habitats Jacques Finlay– spatial scale of biogeochemical and foodweb fluxes Jill Banfield- climate control on microbial influences on chemical weathering Gary Parker- bedrock-alluvial transition and collaboration with Dietrich Andrew Wold- comparison of river habitat in Minnesota and California Greg Wilkerson- controls on bankfull channel morphology Pat Hamilton- use of a natural laboratory in science education

Education and Curiosity development and transfer. SAB found that NCED’s collaboration with the SMM on the “Earthscapes” outdoor exhibits is unique and outstanding but that effort should be expanded to reach farther out to groups that might not be participants of SMM activities. The suggestion was to foster local community activities. As detailed in the Education part of the 1st year report, there are several programs in progress that address this issue. The Native American Math and Science summer camps, the extensive tours of NCED/SAFL facilities to school children, the plans of SMM to develop traveling exhibits, and the efforts of Andy Wold at Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College to gear Native American youth research involvement towards projects dealing with wild rice production issues all constitute steps towards community-based educational activities.

The SAB emphasized that it is not sufficient to transfer “knowledge” but develop and transfer “curiosity”. NCED PIs agree with this important distinction and keep it in mind in all of its educational efforts. SMM has in place a program of elaborate evaluation and documentation of its educational activities, and the NCED Education component is tapping on this expertise to develop its own evaluation/documentation

109 system of curiosity transfer (i.e., follow-up of whether young participants pursued a science career path) and recruitment/retention of underrepresented groups.

The SAB proposed to publish education related activities and the outcomes of our collaboration with SMM in appropriate journals. One such article has already been written (Paola) and we anticipate that several more will follow as the exhibits become established and tested. One of the PIs (Foufoula) serves on the newly established Science Advisory Board of SMM and will follow up on methods to disseminate the NCED/SMM collaboration to national and international audiences via publications and conference presentations.

Small grants. The SAB suggested modifications to the small grants program administration, related to (a) review process and (b) the development of an annual research focus which is clearly stated in the solicitation and forms an important criterion in the selection process. NCED had initially envisioned that SAB will act as the review body of the small grant proposals. However, we agree that this will be too much work for SAB, and for next year we are developing a mechanism by which three external reviews will be solicited for each proposal. The results of these external reviews will be considered by the co- directors, and a priority list for funding will be provided to the SAB. The SAB will consider both external reviews and the internal prioritization list and make its final recommendations for funding to the NCED administration. Fairness, excellence in the proposed research, and relevance of the proposed work to the annual research theme as described in the proposal solicitation will be considered in the SAB’s final recommendations.

Relevance and engagement, including communities of color. The SAB stressed that it is important to include a two-way communication between researchers and the community. NCED has been very proactive in fostering interaction with the Native American community (in education and research) and also in establishing programs by which underrepresented groups can participate in educational activities.

Other concerns, recommendations. The SAB brought up three main other issues: (i) selection of the Mississippi Delta as a place for research work and demonstration, (ii) selection of a field testing site, and (ii) the addition of a fourth co-director with background in biology and outside the University of Minnesota.

(i) The Mississippi Delta was discussed as a place at which NCED’s research can have an impact. Gary Parker has already started an activity which focuses on the “sinking” of New Orleans. The SAB proposed that the Mississippi delta can also serve as a site for other research themes such as nutrient cycling (including nutrients attached to sediment – biosediment transport) and its relevance to the hypoxia problem. It was also proposed that NCED should consider questions of climate change impacts on sediment transport and nutrient cycling.

(ii) As discussed above, considerable effort was expanded on developing a field-site that can integrate and focus NCED research activities. The details of this effort were discussed in the PI interaction subsection.

(iii) The three co-directors happen to also be the co-leaders of the 3 (out of 4) research focus areas; focus area 1 (Landscapes and seascapes), focus area 2 (Basins) and focus area 4 (Integration of morphodynamics across environments and scales). As a result, each one of them presented, in the first day of the meeting, the overall goal and research activities in these areas. The leaders of focus area 3 (Biogeomorphology and Ecological fluid dynamics) are Mary Power (an ecologist) and Miki Hondzo (a biological fluid dynamics expert). Mary Power presented to SAB an overview of the goals and research activities of this focus area.

We want to stress that there should be no confusion between the administrative leadership (Parker, Paola and Foufoula) and the research leadership (leaders of the 4 focus areas). We believe that adding one more co-director in the area of biology will not be an effective way of addressing the concern of the SAB, namely that biology/ecology is not represented as strongly as physical processes in the Center research leadership. We are fully committed to supporting the biology/ecology component of the Center and we

110 are confident that we can accomplish this by strengthening the interaction of focus area 3 with the other focus areas.

SAB Charter. The NCED administration accepts the revision to the SAB charter which calls for removing the responsibility of reviewing the small grants proposals. Instead, external technical reviews of these proposals will be solicited by NCED and will be provided to SAB (together with a priority funding list prepared by the co-directors) for their final funding recommendations.

111 Angelo Reserve

Figure 1, Location of the Angelo Coast Reserve

Figure 2. Eel River Basin

112 Appendix D: Media Publicity

Examples starting on next page.

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

March 2003 Building a Community Surface Dynamics Modeling System Rationale and Strategy

CSDMS Working Group

James Syvitski (University of Colorado) Chris Paola (University of Minnesota) Rudy Slingerland (Penn State University) Dave Furbish (Florida State University) Pat Wiberg (University of Virginia) Greg Tucker (Oxford University)

with contributions from scientists at the NSF CSM Workshop, Boulder, CO, February 2002 A Report from the Scientific Community to the National Science Foundation Page 2 Building a Community Surface Dynamics Modeling System

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Working Group wishes to express its appreciation to INSTAAR, The University of Colorado, for hosting the 2002 NSF CSM Work- shop. …….

Cover Illustration: Simulated topography of New Jersey continental shelf in response to Quaternary glacial-eustatic sea level varia- tions (courtesy of Alan Howard) This report may be cited as: XXXXX

The workshop and this report were funded by the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommen- dations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the National Science Foun- Page 3

Contents

Executive Summary 4

Chapter 1 Introduction 6

Chapter 2 Nature of Community Surface Dynamics Modeling System 12

Chapter 3 Building Towards CSDMS 18

Chapter 4 A Strategy for Moving Forward 24

References 28

Appendix I NSF CSM Workshop Participants 29

Appendix II A Compilation of Current Allied Models 31

Photo courtesy of James Syvitski Page 4 Building a Community Surface Dynamics Modeling System

Executive Summary The Earth’s surface, with its inter- knowledge from interlinked fields, Key Scientific Challenges woven physical, biological, and Six fundamental scientific questions streamlining the process of idea gen- chemical systems, is the setting for form the core research that CSDMS eration and hypothesis testing most life and human activity. Most of would address: through linked surface dynamics us tend to think of the surface as rela- models, and • What are the material fluxes associ- tively static. But, viewed on a slightly ated with the main physical, bio- longer time scale, our planet’s sur- enabling rapid creation and applica- logical, and chemical transport tion of models tailored to specific set- face is dynamic in ways that parallel processes? How do these fluxes the more familiar dynamism of the tings, scientific problems, and time depend on hydrologic, climatic, atmosphere or the oceans. Wise scales. tectonic, and lithologic boundary management of resources and In 2001 the National Research Coun- conditions? wastes on this dynamic surface re- cil defined five “national imperatives” • How are surface processes cou- quires predictive tools comparable to for future Earth-science research: (1) pled, and how does this coupling those routinely applied to the atmos- discovery, use, and conservation of affect the rates of transport? phere and oceans. Yet today’s frag- natural resources; (2) characteriza- mented and often qualitative nature • How do these material fluxes tion and mitigation of natural haz- shape the surface of the Earth? of surface-process research is retard- ards; (3) geotechnical support of ing progress towards this goal. commercial and infrastructure devel- • How do material fluxes vary across time and space scales? To address this state of affairs, 68 opment; (4) stewardship of the envi- scientists attended an NSF-sponsored ronment; and (5) terrestrial surveil- • How is the history of surface evolu- workshop in February, 2002 (see lance for global security and national tion recorded in surface morphol- Appendix I for a list of participants). defense. CSDMS will play a key role in ogy and stratigraphy? all five imperatives. Wise develop- The workshop’s central recommen- • How do linked surface-process en- dation is that: ment and use of water and liquid vironments communicate with one hydrocarbons requires a clear under- Our science community invest in a another across their boundaries, standing of the origin and structure and co-evolve in time? unified, predictive science of surface of the underground reservoirs that processes through the development host them. Many natural hazards Recommendations of a Community Surface-Dynamics We recommend that: such as landslides, river floods, and Modeling System (CSDMS). CSDMS is coastal erosion will be better pre- (1) NSF together with other inter- envisioned as a modeling environ- dicted only through improved under- ested agencies and industry es- ment containing a community-built standing of feedbacks among com- tablish an initiative called the and freely available suite of inte- plex and distant parts of the Earth Community Surface-Dynamics grated, ever-improving software surface system. At present, fragmen- Modeling System (CSDMS) with modules predicting the transport tation of understanding is a major an initial life span of ten years. and accumulation of sediment and obstacle to the development of “best solutes in landscapes and sedimen- (2) CSDMS be a modular modeling available” integrated methods for tary basins over a broad range of system aimed at providing tools solving problems in these areas. time and space scales. for scientists to tackle problems Quantitative modeling provides a at a variety of time and space This modeling environment would framework in which researchers from scales. catalyze surface process research a variety of disciplines can express over the coming decades by: their ideas in a precise, consistent (3) An initial steering committee for- format. mulate a detailed interdiscipli- empowering a broad community of nary implementation plan and scientists with computing tools and Page 5

CSDMS is a virtual National Science Foundation Lab ex- supervise execution of the initia- isting in each of our com- tive. puters. The scientific ideas contained within are never (4) Observational and experimental out of date because of con- research be coordinated to test tinuous updates by the CSDMS predictions at a variety of community. A national in- frastructure links modelers levels. together, reduces duplica- (5) A Community Surface-Dynamics tion, and facilitates model Data Bank for existing and newly testing. Applications of models to problems of so- acquired surface-process data be cietal interest are promoted established under a separate NSF as non-specialist users as- Geoinformatics program. semble models in a user- friendly, graphical environ- (6) A national center be established ment, requiring relatively to help the community coordi- little knowledge of com- nate its efforts, ensure standards puters or computer pro- for code are maintained, and gramming. enhance protocols for informa- tion exchange. The Center should contain a dedicated CSDMS server and support per- sonnel. (7) Distributed nodes within and outside the US provide shorter- term homes to sub-discipline working groups to foster infor- mation exchange and the devel- opment of specific modules.

The goal is to develop a unified, predictive science of surface processes….. Page 6 Building a Community Surface Dynamics Modeling System INTRODUCTION

1 large areas and the populations that engine brings fresh rock to the sur- WHY IS EARTH- inhabit them. We need only extend face, where it is eroded and depos- our time horizon slightly to see that a ited as layers of sediment. These SURFACE DYNAMICS quantitative understanding of sur- “layers” are better visualized as a face dynamics is the cornerstone of three-dimensional complex of buried IMPORTANT? environmental science. geomorphic forms: beach ridges, river channels, deep sea fans, etc – As our human population grows, so Because the surface is the the tendons and integuments that will the stresses associated with the environment underlie our planet’s skin. This subter- The world’s media make frequent give and take between humans and ranean architecture, in addition to reference to “the environment”, but the terrestrial and ocean environ- being an archive of Earth history, is rarely do we ask exactly what is ments. Often the places we find most the repository of nearly all hydrocar- meant by this term. Often what is desirable to visit and inhabit – coast- bons, groundwater, and a variety of meant is the Earth’s surface, with its lines, riverbanks, and alpine environ- other economic mineral deposits. interwoven physical, biological, and ments – are the most unstable and Wise development and use of these chemical systems, all overprinted by dynamic parts of the planetary sur- economically crucial resources re- human influences. Instinctively, we face. Agriculture is almost entirely a quires a clear understanding of the are drawn to the living parts of this surface-based industry, and as events origin and structure of the under- tapestry – the “ecology” – that is like the infamous “Dust bowl” illus- ground reservoirs that host them. both the most appealing and the trate, can be dramatically affected by most threatened. But the Earth’s sur- poor management. Sediment parti- Not all of the record of surface his- face itself is the cradle and the arena cles, especially fine ones, often ad- tory is buried. Because the Earth’s for its biological systems, from terres- sorb chemicals whose fate we need surface evolves relatively slowly, geo- trial alpine regions to the depths of to follow and control. Often this par- morphic forms at any instant carry a the ocean. The physical, chemical, ticulate flux exits to the ocean sea- memory of past conditions. Recent and biological systems of the Earth’s floor, where “out of sight” often research indicates that some present- surface are so deeply interwoven means “out of mind”. The seafloor day surface forms could have ages in that the surface is more like the living represents roughly 70% of the Earth excess of 200 million years. A careful skin of our planet. surface, and therefore “out of mind” reading of surface forms can provide is not the wise pathway to our un- insight as to how the surface envi- Most of us tend to think of the sur- derstanding natural and anthropo- ronment has responded to past envi- face as relatively static. But, viewed genic fluxes. Wise management of ronmental changes. Extracting the on an appropriate time scale, our surface-related resources and wastes information recorded in landscapes planet’s surface is dynamic in ways requires predictive tools comparable requires a sophisticated understand- that parallel the more familiar dyna- to those routinely applied to the at- ing of how landscapes and seascapes mism of the atmosphere or the mosphere and oceans. work. oceans. And the time scale need not be very long. Dramatic events like landslides can occur in seconds. Sub- The Earth remembers: the past WHAT’S WRONG tle but common forms of landscape as the key to the present change can control nutrient flow There is another, more subtle but WITH THE PRESENT and population stability, especially in equally important way in which sur- steep terrains. Over years to decades, face dynamics affects all of us. Over APPROACH? changes in critical surface features the span of geologic time, the cease- like beaches and rivers can affect less working of the Earth’s tectonic We know a great deal about the myr- Page 7 iad processes that shape the Earth’s The Promise of CSDMS…. surface, transport material over it in Can Better River Management in Illinois Save particulate and dissolved form, and the Coastal Zone of Louisiana? provide the arena for surface life. But there are two major shortcomings to EXAMPLE TO FOLLOW... the present state of organization of surface-process research:

• It is highly fragmented. Research that bears directly on major surface proc- esses is conducted in Earth sciences, civil engineering, oceanography, meteorology, biology (mainly ecol- ogy), forestry, agriculture, soil science and, increasingly, physics and mathe- matics. The multiplicity of fields that are now contributing to surface- process science is all to the good – it is reinvigorating the field and bring- ing a host of new ideas and method- ologies. But it also means that the knowledge base is highly frag- mented. This poses a significant chal- lenge, particularly for planners and other practitioners, because many important problems, like ecosystem management in morphologically un- stable areas, cut across disciplinary boundaries. Fragmentation of under- standing is a major obstacle to the development of “best available” inte- grated methods for solving prob- not lems. yet been observed. We stress that modeling of surface processes. The • The state of understanding of critical any form of prediction, as opposed fragmented and often qualitative na- surface-dynamics processes is very to simple cataloging, is a major step ture of surface-process research at pre- uneven. In many areas, it is still quali- in the evolution of a science. Because sent gives us a unique opportunity to quantitative predictions are more tative. It is not hard to see that the develop these tools in a collaborative, surface is one of the most complex specific than qualitative ones, they modular fashion from an early stage. In systems on Earth. Faced with such are more useful and also more test- this report, we present a blueprint for complex systems, in which a particu- able than qualitative predictions. To lar outcome or state can be exqui- realize the potential of surface- developing an integrated, quantitative sitely sensitive to the details of history process science, we must strive for framework for surface-process model- or setting, it is natural to begin by quantitative prediction. ing through an initiative called the describing and cataloging what is Community Surface-Dynamics Model- there and what seems to have hap- HOW CAN WE DO ing System: CSDMS. pened. But to provide the tools we

need for living wisely on our planet’s BETTER? surface, we must move from descrip- tion of what we see to prediction of what we have not seen. This in- What we need is a unified, predictive WHY IS CSDMS THE cludes both prediction of surface science of Earth-surface dynamics. At RIGHT PROJECT? evolution in the future, and predic- the heart of this effort lies the develop- tion of parts of the system that have ment of tools to promote quantitative Page 8 Building a Community Surface Dynamics Modeling System

Because mathematical analysis and modeling lie at the heart of quantitative prediction The core of this proposal is to develop mathematically based models. Mathematical analysis can be done with pencil and paper. But if the target system is complex, the models usually end up in numerical form, either be- cause numerical methods are a convenient way of solving well understood equations, or because some computational models have no analytical equivalent [Wolfram, Casti REFs]. But in either case, the goal remains the same: to provide testable, usable, quantitative predictions. There is a more subtle motivation to emphasize modeling in our quest for integration and prediction. One of the A goal of CSDMS is to better predict the occurrence of natural hazards ,such as this great practical obstacles to integration 30 million cubic meter landslide at Jo Feng Her Shan, Taiwan , triggered by the Chi of knowledge across disciplines is dif- Chi earthquake. Twenty people were buried in the slide and two streams were ferences in language (jargon) that arise dammed. (photo courtesy of Greg Tucker). from disciplinary traditions. Mathemat- ics can help bridge this divide because put from all of the communities that vanced skill sets in the research com- quantitative modeling provides a could benefit from CSDMS products. munity. framework in which researchers from a One of the main practical products of variety of disciplines express their ideas CSDMS will be one or more complex WHAT WOULD BE in a precise, consistent format. models, pre-assembled from CSDMS Why a ‘community model’? components. These will be used for THE BENEFITS OF We envision CSDMS to be a modular, practical predictive modeling of surface CSDMS? flexible modeling environment that will evolution, much as weather and cli- mate models are used now. Modeling provide tools for a broad spectrum of In its recent report on Basic Research surface dynamics is a problem of com- users with diverse aims, skills, and inter- Opportunities in the Earth Sciences, parable complexity to modeling oce- ests. This kind of flexibility requires in- the National Research Council (NRC, anic and atmospheric dynamics. The CSDMS will be a commu- 2001) identified five “national impera- experience of the oceanic and atmos- nity-built and freely tives” that future Earth-science re- pheric communities, discussed in more available suite of inte- search must address: grated, ever-improving detail later, teaches us that develop- • discovery, use, and conservation of software modules pre- ment of such large, complex numerical natural resources; dicting the transport and models rapidly becomes a task for an accumulation of sedi- entire research community. The com- • characterization and mitigation of ment and solutes in land- munity approach, in which many re- natural hazards; scapes and sedimentary searchers pool their efforts, allows effi- • geotechnical support of commercial basins over a broad cient development of models that are and infrastructure development; range of time and space more powerful than any single group scales. could achieve on its own. It also inher- • stewardship of the environment; and ently maximizes the diverse and ad- • terrestrial surveillance for global se- Page 9

curity and national defense. ric of life within and upon it. Major ap- that will help us live sustainably on the The CSDMS program will contribute plication areas would include land-use Earth’s dynamic surface and under- fundamentally to all five of these im- planning, forest management, waste stand the past for prediction of the pre- peratives by providing, for the first disposal, habitat support, management sent and future. time, an integrated, cross-disciplinary of scenic recreational areas, and river and coastline restoration. set of quantitative modeling tools for WHY IS NOW THE Earth-surface dynamics. Finally, although terrestrial surveillance per se is mainly a matter of observa- RIGHT TIME? Natural resources, including virtually all hydrocarbons, most groundwater, and tion, modeling is an attractive alterna- tive where the desired data are not A Community Grass-roots Effort many commercial minerals, are hosted has Already Begun available. This is particularly true for in sedimentary strata. Prediction of key A panel convened in March 1999, by marine seafloor environments where properties of these subsurface strata NSF identified a “Community uncertainty in our knowledge is of would be a prime target of CSDMS re- Sedimentary Model” as a high priority growing concern. For all inaccessible search and would lead to better tech- NSF research initiative in sedimentary areas, CSDMS models would provide a nology for finding, developing, and geology. The science plan of the viable means of predicting and charac- managing these critical resources. As Margins Source-to-Sink Program calls hydrocarbons are collected from terizing the terrain and strata. deeper and deeper offshore reservoirs, In summary, CSDMS will provide inte- characterization with CSDMS models grated, quantitative modeling tools TABLE 1 would allow increased efficiency in recovery. CHALLENGE RESPONSE

Surface-process related natural hazards Involves a multiplicity of fields, scales, Emphasize flexibility, adaptability, and include landslides, floods, and coastal interests, and applications modularity erosion. None of these can be reliably forecast or mitigated at present; land- Although ‘big science’, CSDMS should Provide a suite of tools at a variety of slides alone account for some thou- not stifle individual creativity scales for researchers with novel or sands of deaths and billions of US dol- unorthodox ideas lars in damage worldwide in a typical year. The same is true for the impact of As a highly visible program, CSDMS Start by adapting existing code to a storm surge, river floods, and coastal must deliver desirable products in a common framework with community erosion. The foundation for mitigating timely manner managed protocols natural hazards is a well-grounded, predictive understanding of how the Large, complex models like those pro- Maintain close ties with field and ex- surface environment, with its myriad duced by CSDMS are difficult to test perimental programs; insist that both interconnected subsystems, actually individual modules and integrated works. models be tested by all available means Sediment geotechnical properties in Large and complex program requires (1) Provide for a centralized facility to many cases are controlled by the pro- management manage CSDMS development duction, transport, and deposition of (2) Learn from experienced colleagues the sediment, and are critical to safe in other fields (e.g. atmospheric construction of structures ranging from science) oil pipelines to housing developments. Important aspects of surface processes Allow for paradigm shifts. Link with CSDMS model products would become are still not well understood laboratories and research groups a routine part of environmental stew- worldwide that continue to develop ardship through the intimate connec- new insights into critical processes tion between the surface and the fab- Page 10 Building a Community Surface Dynamics Modeling System for “the progressive development of a rated in this enterprise, include: the first generation system up and community-level suite of earth surface running in less than five years. The • rapidly evolving techniques for dynamics models for mass routing, development of the full suite of graphics and visualization that will deposition, and morphodynamic make the results of complex simula- components and fully evolved “best prediction as a conceptual framework tions and datasets comprehensible , available” models would take and as a central focus for the Source- approximately ten years. The program to-Sink project” (MARGINS Science • new methods for handling systems should begin with the array of fields that span a wide range of length Plan, Source-to-Sink Studies). And the that contribute to surface-process scales (see sidebox “Elucidating Scale U.S. Office of Naval Research science, to help form a substantial Dependence in Numerical Models”), STRATAFORM program, which began base. The main challenges are listed in in 1996 and continues to the present, • adaptive mesh-generation tech- Table 1. demonstrates the Navy’s commitment niques for problems requiring vari- The next section gives some broad sci- to collaborative efforts to develop a able spatial resolution, and entific background and illustrates what integrated, predictive model for the • new methods for handling problems the CSDMS might look like. This is fol- continental margin sedimentary with internal boundaries, which in- lowed by a discussion of how the system. NSF has also recently funded a clude boundaries between surface CSDMS effort would build on existing new Science and Technology Center transport environments. efforts already underway across the called the National Center for Earth- Furthermore, we can draw upon the Earth sciences. We close with a plan surface Dynamics, whose primary mis- management experience of communi- for implementing the CSDMS. Supple- sion is to promote the integrated, ex- ties that have already embarked on mental materials, including an assess- perimental study of surface dynamics. construction of collaborative models ment of the current scientific basis for As the research community began to like CSDMS. Several prominent repre- the CSDMS, organized by transport organize around these ideas and pro- sentatives from oceanography and environment, are contained in the Ap- grams, it became clear that it was time meteorology joined us at the February pendices. to set up the structure for an inte- workshop. Their advice is summarized grated, collaborative modeling effort later in this report. referred to informally as the There are also many components of “Community Sediment Model”. This surface modeling in place. Indeed, we realization led to the first Community expect that CSDMS development Sediment Model workshop, held in would begin by putting these existing Boulder, Colorado in February of 2002, models in a consistent and accessible sponsored by the National Science framework. These are reviewed in Ap- Foundation. This report is an out- pendix II. growth and summary of that work- shop. The Tools and Background are in WHAT ARE THE Place The skin of the Earth – the “Critical MAIN CHALLENGES, Zone” – is one of the most complex AND HOW WILL WE systems known. If we had to start from scratch, CSDMS would require a Hercu- ADDRESS THEM? lean effort to complete. Luckily, that is not the case. Rather, CSDMS can be Developing the CSDMS as envisioned, built using techniques and experience will be a large, complex task, with from across science and engineering, timelines discussed at the end of this particularly drawing on allied fields report. With adequate and that have developed analogous mod- coordinated funding, we expect the els. Key developments to be incorpo- first tools to appear within a year, and Page 11 CSDMS—-the Right Program at the Right Time Surface-process science today is reminiscent of atmospheric science in the early-mid twentieth century. The transition from qualitative to quantitative analysis is underway across many of the relevant subfields, but the work is fragmented and in many cases available only to research specialists. Integrated, predictive surface-process models do not exist. Yet living on the Earth’s surface in the face of competing demands on the environment and changing climate require the best quantitative tools science can provide. The existing dispersed and uncoordinated research structure is not an effective way to develop these tools. We need a community surface modeling system now because:

• CSDMS addresses research imperatives that are critical to society;

• The stage has been set by previous research; and

• CSDMS will enhance the value of existing observational programs and help unify the broad range of scientific com- munities that work on surface processes.

Page 12 Building a Community Surface Dynamics Modeling System NATURE OF A COMMUNITY SURFACE 2 DYNAMICS MODELING SYSTEM (CSDMS)

Sidebox 1

The Emerging Challenge of Coupling Physical and Biological Systems GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Although the initial focus of the CSDMS effort will be on physical proc- esses, a particularly exciting challenge facing the Earth-surface dynamics community is to increasingly incorporate key ingredients of physical- The objectives outlined in Chapter biological coupling in models of landscape and stratigraphic evolution. 1 require a new vision of how we This is important for two essential reasons. First, in many situations the study surface dynamics. We must physical dynamics of a system provide an underlying abiotic template for synthesize quantitative process the existence of life, fundamentally influencing the spatiotempotal struc- models that can be applied to prob- ture and function of this life. It is becoming clear that, to holistically un- lems ranging from modeling land- derstand the biotic structure and function of an ecological system re- slide risk in a national park to pre- quires understanding the coupled behavior of it biotic and abiotic parts dicting the subsurface geometry of together. Perhaps the best studied example is that involving advection- hydrocarbon reservoirs formed dispersion-reaction systems in riverine, estuarine and marine environ- over millions of years. ments, where physical advection and dispersion combine with autotro- phic-heterotrophic-nutrient interactions to produce rich spatiotemporal General Requirement 1: Inclusivity distributions in biotic concentrations. An understanding of the dynamics CSDMS must include both physical this coupled behavior is essential for enlightened stewardship of ecologi- and non-physical processes that cal systems, balancing preservation against exploitation associated with directly affect surface evolution or growing, worldwide socioeconomic pressures. Second, in many situa- mass fluxes. Examples of non- tions strong physical-biological feedbacks occur such that to understand physical processes include soil for- the physical dynamics of a system fundamentally requires understanding mation, which is chemical and bio- its biological parts. A brief list of key examples among many includes: logical as much as physical, mass • the strong interaction between river flow, channel-boundary stress, wasting by dissolution, surface sta- and the stabilizing effects of vegetation on sediment mobility, as these bilization by plant roots, and sedi- influence river stability and switching between braiding, meandering ment stirring by submarine fauna. and avulsion behavior; Sidebox 1 elaborates on the chal- • the strong interaction between vegetation and flow on tidal-marsh lenges of coupling physical and platforms, as this influences inundation frequency, sedimentation rates, biological systems. nutrient fluxes, and plant productivity and zonation in coastal-marshes; General Requirement 2: Modularity • the production of soil from bedrock associated with biogenic disrup- Because there is no single research tion of the soil-bedrock interface in conjunction with hydro- group or program that can pro- geochemical and biogeochemical processes; and duce a system this wide-ranging, • bioturbation of marine sediments, as this attenuates high-frequency CSDMS must be structured so that signals in the stratigraphic record, and therefore bears on interpreting it will attract and support the best the fidelity of such signals as records of external forcing. efforts of the diverse research com- munities that will provide its scien- Page 13 tific understanding. The “research constructed so that it can be readily managers, not scientific researchers. interface” of CSDMS must be a highly adapted as new scientific understand- Thus CSDMS must provide modular development environment ing and new computational tools are “application interfaces” that make it that allow researchers to concentrate developed. Modular structure is key usable by non-specialists, and prod- on CSDMS components in which they here, with data structures that allow ucts that can be easily understood are expert. new variables and algorithms to be and managed. We envision these as implemented without damaging the complete models, assembled from General Requrement 3: Cutting Edge rest of the model code. This require- CSDMS modular components. CSDMS must treat key properties of ment implies an object-oriented, exten- General Requirement 6: Living with the surface system (Table 2) using the sible framework for CSDMS. Uncertainty latest concepts in Geoinfomatics. General Requirement 5: User Friendly We take for granted that sophisti- General Requirement 4: Extensible In many cases, the people posing the cated predictions of the weather will If CSDMS to be durable, it must be problems to be solved by CSDMS are be readily available and that these

Table 2: Key Properties of Surface Systems Most models are usually constructed by combining basic principles (e.g. conservation laws, constitutive laws) with insight about what the important aspects of the dynamics are likely to be. In our view, the following are the critical issues that are generic to sur- face-dynamics models. Most of these are associated with nonlinearity in one way or an- other:

Self-organization. The myriad fascinating spatial patterns that develop in surface mor- phology, from bedforms to drainage networks, are largely self-generated – they form spontaneously due to system’s internal dynamics as opposed to being imposed from without. Model structures must be flexible enough to anticipate and accommodate self- organization.

Localization. One of the recurring features of self-organization is strong localization of key quantities such as material flux and strain. Channelization of flow in streams is a common and dramatic example of this. Localization implies the need for computation structures with adaptive, variable resolution.

Thresholds. A common form of nonlinearity in surface-morphology processes is a thresh- old at which some phenomenon (e.g. sediment movement) begins. Thresholds can lead to abrupt changes, which can confound models if not accounted for correctly.

Strong coupling/interconnection. Particularly as one goes to longer time scales, coupling between environments (e.g. fluvial and shoreline) and across scales becomes critical. Even at short time scales, landscapes cannot be modeled without properly coupling hill- slopes and river channels, even though the two regimes have very different transport dynamics. This means that, as we strive for modularity in design, communication among computational elements is critical.

Scale invariance. The Earth’s surface is covered with fractals; indeed, many ‘type exam- ple’ fractals are associated with surface patterns. The lack of a single well-defined length scale as implied by fractal behavior, makes division by scale harder. But it can also be exploited to extrapolate model results, or deal with subgrid-scale dynamics.

Interwoven biology and chemistry. To progress as quickly as possible, the CSDMS must begin with existing models, which tend to emphasize physical processes. But the inti- mate connection among physical, biological, and chemical processes must be accounted for in program design. This means including colleagues in these disciplines from the out- set, and enlisting their help in designing modules that can accommodate biological and chemical processes smoothly. Page 14 Building a Community Surface Dynamics Modeling System predictions will be uncertain; indeed, it in the context of weathering dynam- a prospect located in shallow-marine the uncertainty is routinely expressed ics. She quickly finds relevant CSDMS deposits. She has some information as part of the prediction. In this sense, modules under sediment production about paleogeography from seismic the weather-forecasting community and diffusive transport. She gets the data and wants to evaluate the likeli- has done the rest of science a great input her model needs without having hood of sand reaching the area in service: it has accustomed the public to to write code for processes outside her question. She uses a CSDMS strati- the idea that, even with the best possi- main area of interest. She also uses the graphic package to evaluate a range of ble technology, there are natural sys- extensive set of pre- and post- scenarios conditioned by information tems whose behavior simply cannot be processing and visualization tools from on stratal geometry and sand content predicted exactly. CSDMS to provide input and visualize of up-dip strata. The simulations do and analyze her results. Her model not provide a definitive answer but do The Earth’s surface changes much adds new predictive capabilities for the help quantify the risk associated with more slowly than the atmosphere mineralogy of clays in fluvial sediment the prospect. does, but one similarity that we expect loads, which could influence the be- is the presence of high-dimensional Maverick havior of the clay fraction throughout dynamical chaos, with its associated A researcher who does not use large, the transport and depositional system. unpredictability. Surprisingly little effort comprehensive models and is not a It is adapted for use in CSDMS and has been made to study chaos formally member of any CSDMS-related group placed in the “untested” category to in Earth-surface dynamics. Our asser- has an idea for a new scheme for mod- await her testing and integration. tion is based mainly on the observation eling stratigraphy using game theory. that many kinds of surface patterns Civilian planner She checks the CSDMS web site out of from sand dunes to river channel net- A planner in the US Forest Service is curiosity and finds that there is no indi- works appear to behave stochastically, working on a set of scenarios for man- cation that anyone has ever used this and on the fact that many surface aging a national forest. He selects a approach. Despite the fact that her processes involve turbulent fluid flow, pre-packaged CSDMS model that is algorithms are entirely novel, she is which is itself one of the type examples optimized for studying short-term ero- able to use CSDMS components to of high-dimensional chaos. The chief sion processes and coupled to a hydro- quickly build a GUI around her model, implication for modeling is that model logical model that provides runoff and to visualize and analyze the re- structures must be designed from the data. He quickly sets this model up for sults. beginning to handle stochastic behav- his specific case using GIS interface ior, and to provide estimates of uncer- tools provided through CSDMS to in- tainty along with predictions. put topography and vegetation cover information. The model provides pre- KEY DESIGN ELEMENTS dictions of likely sediment yield to local streams for the scenarios he has in DESIGNING WITH THE mind. USERS IN MIND Military planner The above constraints, together with A lieutenant has been asked to evalu- the ideas and desires of the community ate the likely seismic structure of shal- as expressed at the 2002 February low subsurface strata in an area where workshop, form the basis for the pro- To make the potential uses of CSDMS there is no data available. He uses posed structure of CSDMS. We also more tangible, we present here five CSDMS stratigraphic components rely on information science principles vignettes to illustrate how members of along with known recent sea level, and the experience of allied groups different communities might use tectonic, and climate history to con- such as NCAR, whose ESMF, a high- CSDMS: struct a simulation of the likely strati- performance framework for Earth sci- Researcher graphy, along with estimates of uncer- ence modeling & data assimilation, A researcher in soil science is working tainty for the simulation. offers many parallels to CSDMS. on a new model of clay-mineral trans- CSDMS should be a community-built formations in soils and wants to place Petroleum geologist An exploration geologist is working on and freely available suite of integrated, Page 15 ever-improving software modules pre- nents to serve as a toolkit for earth sys- ics (e.g. cellular automata); dicting the transport and accumulation tem modeling. These components • tools for model nesting and interac- of sediment and solutes in landscapes would include a series of model com- tion across scales (see Sidebox 2); and sedimentary basins over a broad ponents, input/output routines, pre- range of time and space scales. The and post-processing routines, visualiza- • protocols and techniques for linking system should be based on algorithms tion methods, archives of modules. modules or domains with different solution techniques (e.g. classical that mathematically describe the proc- Workshop participants agreed that differential equation and rule-based) esses and conditions relevant to sedi- CSDMS should be an environment or One possible configuration for a CSDMS architecture is presented in Figure 1. It draws heavily upon ideas Tentative Software Architecture tested in RiverTools, a software toolkit for the analysis of digital terrain and Standard Utilities Modules Toolkit river networks (Peckham, 2003), the Maintained by systems people User-provided, “heart” of CSM. Standard tools. Modular Modeling System for hydro- Should use toolkit if possible. May be user provided, General Data Structure May have own internal data but closely scrutinized. logic studies (Leavesley, 1997), A Geo- Contains 3D + time data. Mem structures, but should I/O to Stores/retrieves/converts graphic Environmental Modeling Sys- General Data Structure. Solvers for data in various geometries. Legacy OK w/ minor changes. Specific eqs. tem for air quality studies (Bruegge Disk Has standard interface that all modules can invoke. Generic and Riedel, 1994), Spatial Modelling Net Inside workings and Module PDE Solvers Environment for simulation of spatial Data formats are “hidden” from Grid Math systems, and DEVS-C++ , a project to modules. Module Generators develop a high performance modeling Math tools General Graphic Renderer and simulation environment to support Module etc. Displays 3D + time data: source, modeling of large-scale, high resolu- Sections, movies, maps, etc. obj, exe … Dialog tion landscape systems. CSDMS in this Builders Module “Connecter” configuration contains three major Application that interactively source, Graphic connects modules to run jointly, Tools components: Standard Utilities, Mod-

App obj, exe Utils consecutively, recursively, etc. I/O ules, and a Toolkit. A system supervisor, Web Interface Figure 1 etc. in the form of GUI, provides an interac- Runs apps. or modules on web. tive environment for user access. The Standard Utilities component ment/solute transport and deposition system for conducting modeling stud- maintains and stores all data and vari- in a complete suite of earth environ- ies, containing the following elements: able arrays in a compact and quickly ments, and should contain input/ • a user-friendly graphical interface; retrievable format. It also contains tools output, visualization, and data man- used to input, analyze, and prepare • agement tools to form a user-friendly interchangeable community- spatial and time-series data for use in contributed process modules; modeling environment. The scientific model applications, and GIS tools for infrastructure for CSDMS should be • i/o and visualization tools; domain definition and spatial data coordinated and funded by govern- analysis. An important component is ment agencies and industry and • linkers and interfaces to transfer data among different modules; the Module Connector, an application should be structured to allow sedimen- that allows users to easily link together tary modelers from the geological, • protocols for linking modules; process-modules from the module li- oceanographic, and engineering com- • grid generators; brary to build a model, thus providing munities to determine the optimum graphical, icon-based model construc- • algorithms, input parameters, feedback equation solvers; tion. loops, and observations to better pre- • tools for developing grids adapting The Module Component contains a dict sedimentary processes and their dynamically; products. variety of community-supplied, com- • tools for unconventional mathemat- patible computer programs simulating CSDMS needs to contain many compo- Page 16 Building a Community Surface Dynamics Modeling System sedimentary processes. Several mod- front/boundary tracking. ture. The CSDMS modeling system will ules for a given process may be pre- encompass the entire “source to sink” Requirements of each mod- sent, each representing an alternative suite of surface environments. conceptualization or approach to simu- ule The 2002 workshop group thought Managing community input lating that process. Conceptualizations that each module should have some One of the most difficult management in a module may be of the traditional “common approach”. One possibility issues in designing a community-based PDE form, cellular, or rule-based. Each would be a finite volume/ finite differ- model is allowing input from a diverse module will be built around basic con- ence approach to mass conservation community while maintaining stan- servation equations, beginning with and momentum conservation. There dards for both compatibility and pre- conservation of mass. This is typically was some concern that this might not diction quality for the code. The 2002 expressed via the Exner equation, allow for other approaches (e.g. those workshop group, based on input from which states that the change in surface not based on differential equations) to experienced colleagues, thought that elevation at a point is proportional to be incorporated into the modeling sys- this could be handled by establishing a imbalances in the particulate fluxes tem. For example, could a biologist hierarchy of module categories rang- and loss or gain of material to geo- who uses a rule-based approach work ing from “proposed but untested” to chemical and tectonic processes. In this with a module with this underlying “fully tested and recommended for manner the resulting morphological structure? Would it be able to accom- routine application”. evolution of the Earth’s surface can modate moving boundaries? The con- feed back into the processes causing Data structures clusion is that the modeling system the particulate fluxes. It is particularly The 2002 workshop group called for should be able to incorporate novel important that biological, as well as definition of a unified data structure computational strategies such as parti- chemical and physical effects be incor- that might provide a backbone for the cles, agents, and cellular automata. The porated into each process module. various model components, and to link model system also must accommodate the various modules. The data struc- The Toolkit contains the basic informa- dynamic moving boundaries and allow ture must be defined so that model tion technology for generating grids the modeled geomorphology to components can communicate with and solving equation sets, such as evolve. This includes sophisticated han- each other and pass information back high-order PDE and hybrid PDE/ dling of material and momentum ex- and forth. The data structures also cellular solvers, adaptive meshes, auto- change across boundaries. Finally, the must have the flexibility to evolve as mated mesh and algorithm selection, model system must be able to accom- modules evolve. They will probably not time-stepping, and domain coupling modate distributed “source terms”, be constant in space during a long- procedures. Automatic code genera- which can be notoriously difficult to time-series model run, and different tors will construct spatial simulations handle in conservation algorithms. values within the data structure will be and enable distributed processing over updated in response to disparate time- a network of parallel and serial com- Model nesting Models or modules would be nested in and-space scales, as the wide variety of puters, allowing the user transparent temporal or spatial scales (1) at high modules rely on the data structure. access to a network of computing fa- resolution to bring high resolution to Therefore, links between the data cilities. particular regions or (2) at low resolu- structure and modules will require cru- Ideally the dynamic grid generators tion to track evolving boundary condi- cial (and complex?) interpolation meth- would use combinations of physically- tions. High-resolution grids could be ods. based criteria for morphodynamic sta- embedded in lower resolution grids bility as well as recognition of internal (e.g., for floodplains or channels in self-organizing dynamics to optimize drainage basin models). Also, high- and regenerate grids “on the fly” dur- frequency solutions could be used in ing simulations. The generic PDE some modules to characterize system solvers would be adaptable high order components (e.g. bedforms or mixed- methods aimed at efficient PDE solu- grain sediment transport) than cannot tions for typical (e.g. fixed mesh) cases readily be parameterized at the longer as well as more difficult cases such as time scales of the main model architec- Page 17

Sidebox 2

Elucidating Scale Dependence in Numerical Models

An overarching challenge in the CSDMS effort is to develop sound theoretical and numerical foundations for accommodating the many orders of magnitude in space and time scales that are of interest in modeling Earth-surface processes. This is a multi-part challenge involv- ing issues of spatiotemporal aver- aging and sub-grid parameteriza- tion, enlightened mesh generation and time stepping, multi-scale reso- lution and interpolation, and avail- ability and use of varying- resolution data sets. For example, what is the emergent behavior at coarse resolution of physicochemi-

Figure 1. Topographic Map of Coos Bay, OR, area based on 2-m horizontal resolu- tion LIDAR data; total east-west distance is 425 m, contour interval is 20 m. cal processes operating at fine resolution? For diffuse transport operating at meter lengthscales, the character- istic horizontal lengthscale associ- ated with topographic curvature sets an upper limit on the grid size that contains meaningful dynami- Figure 2. Map of topographic curvature based on 16 m resolution data.

cal information for modeling the evolution of the topography by diffuse transport. At Coos Bay, OR (Fig. 1), this lengthscale is about 15 m (Fig. 2). Larger grid sizes (Fig. 3) do not adequately “see” this essen- tial dynamical information. Many areas of Earth’s surface have 30-m (or coarser) resolution DEM data Figure 3. Map of topographic curvature coverage; and large-scale numeri- based on 40 m resolution data. cal models often must be run at coarse resolution. Thus, a key chal- lenge is to elucidate how sub-grid scale processes like diffuse transport manifest themselves at coarser scales, and how numerical models Page 18 Building a Community Surface Dynamics Modeling System BUILDING TOWARDS CSDMS 3

The CSDMS program represents a What Do We Know Now? culmination and integration of a set —-The Case of Rivers and Lakes of independent, grass-roots efforts that have been going on for some River systems are one of the best understood of all major transport time. These programs embody the systems, due to their accessibility and importance to commerce and momentum the research community recreation. Most of our understanding of basic sediment transport in unidirectional flow comes from experimental and field work moti- has already built up toward integra- vated by problems of river engineering. The last twenty years have tive, comprehensive surface-process seen physical scale models largely replaced by numerical modeling models. They also will provide the for solution of routine hydraulic-engineering problems. Computa- starting point for CSDMS develop- tional fluid-dynamics (CFD) techniques have developed to the point ment. We review some of them here, where even fairly complex, three-dimensional flows can be modeled accurately. but stress that this is only a sample to give an idea of what has been done. In recent years there has been increasing appreciation of the inter- Table 3 provides a summary of some play of physical and biological processes in controlling river dynam- of these models; Appendix II presents ics. The most influential biological processes involve riparian vege- a compilation of existing models in tation. Major effects include binding of sediment particles by plant roots, and flow resistance offered by above ground vegetation. allied disciplines with which CSDMS Many researchers believe these effects play a predominant role in must interact.. determining channel form and behavior.

Existing engineering-oriented river models include the US Army LANDSCAPE MODELS Corps of Engineers HEC series and associated models for sediment motion, as well as comparable models developed in Europe (listed more completely in Appendix II). At larger scales, a series of simula- tion models for alluvial stratigraphy, with an emphasis on avulsive

channel switching, have been developed with the aim of predicting Landscape evolution models simu- three-dimensional stacking of channel bodies. At the largest scales, late the flux of mass across a topog- the space- and time-averaged evolution of river long profiles is usu- raphic surface and the changes in ally modeled with some form of the diffusion equation. In this ap- topography that result. Although proach, coefficients are determined by suitable averaging of dynam- pioneering efforts were underway as ics at smaller time and space scales. early as the 1970’s, most landscape evolution models have been devel- Frontier areas in modeling river dynamics include: locally complex oped since the early 1990s. Land- three-dimensional geometries (e.g. channel confluences and strong scape evolution models, by defini- bends), where common turbulence closures can break down; prob- tion, operate on time scales relevant lems involving both flow and sediment transport (e.g. channel evo- to the development of landforms, be lution over decadal or longer time scales); transport of typical they hillslope forms such as scarps mixed-size sediments under natural conditions; channel-floodplain and cuestas, short-term fluvial fea- interaction; biological effects; understanding the self-organization tures such as fill terraces, or entire of river networks; modeling the dynamics of steep and/or infre- river basins and mountain ranges. quently occupied channels; coupling river channels to hillslope sedi- Target timescales used in landscape ment-delivery systems; and controls, spatial and temporal statistics, modeling studies have ranged from and predictability of avulsions and other channel shifts. 102 to 107 years, and target spatial 0 4 2 scales from 10 to 10 km . Examples Sediment transport in lakes has received relatively little attention of current landscape evolution mod- from the research community. One of the byproducts of CSDMS els include CAESAR, CASCADE, would be a transfer of knowledge from the marine realm to the CHILD, DRAINAL, EROS, GILBERT, problem of lake sedimentation. Page 19

GOLEM, SIBERIA, and ZSCAPE. These What Do We Know Now? are steadily maturing in terms of the —-The Case of the Coastal Zone range and level of detail in the proc- esses represented. Because of the importance of coastal areas to society, a good deal of Despite the wide range in time and effort has been put into understanding and predicting coastal sedi- space scales of interest, all or most ment transport, especially that of sand. The US Army Corps of Engi- landscape evolution models share sev- neers has a large coastal program including advanced methods of eral common ingredients. Topography predicting sediment flow and coastal change on relatively short is represented in the form of a discrete (year to decade) time scales. Comparable programs are well devel- set of cells or elements. Most models oped in Europe as well. Recently the US Navy sponsored a coordi- use a uniform (raster) grid representa- nated, intensive study of coastal sediment transport at Duck NC tion, but there are at least two exam- (REF). Nonetheless, because of the complexity of flow and sediment ples (CASCADE and CHILD) that use an dynamics under breaking waves, even basic prediction of sediment irregular triangulated framework. This transport in the surf zone is still difficult, and is currently done using latter approach allows for adaptive re- semi-empirical methods. meshing, and in that respect provides a useful input to CSDMS. Precipitation is Prediction of the dynamics of fine sediment in this environment is applied as a boundary condition, and less well developed. In particular there is a critical need for methods the resulting runoff is routed across the that can account for the strong biological influence in fine-sediment discretized topographic surface. The dynamics. Passage of fine particles through the gut of filter-feeding combination of runoff, local surface organisms can result in conversion of fine, cohesive particles to silt slope, and material properties then or sand-size, noncohesive pellets. In-sediment biological processes drives a set of process rate laws. These (e.g. burrowing, deposit feeding) also influence erodibility and alter the topography, which in turn transport of coastal sediments. alters the rate laws, leading to a self- evolving system. Typically, the rate Spatial scales represented by landscape the former case, the models resolve laws used for erosion and mass trans- evolution models range from small up- smooth hillslope topography and are port represent long-term average rates land catchments to entire orogens. In able to apply transport laws for both rather than discrete events, although some models now include a stochastic, event-based representation of proc- esses such as flooding (e.g. CHILD) and Table 3 bedrock landsliding (e.g., ZSCAPE). Some Common Surface Process Models

Model Developer Use SEDFLUX INSTAAR 2D & 3D event-based stratigraphy

NCSTM USGS, NOPP, ONR continental-shelf sediment transport

SLICE shelf model URS shelf stratigraphy

HEC series US ACE river engineering

DELFT-3D DELFT coastal erosion

MIKE Delft river flow and sedimentation

SEQUENCE LDEO 2D time-averaged stratigraphy

ETH river model[s] ETH river and delta engineering

CHILD Tucker, MIT/Oxford landscape evolution Univ UK/OSU SIBERIA Willgoose, Univ Leeds landscape evolution UK landscape model Howard , Univ VA landscape evolution Page 20 Building a Community Surface Dynamics Modeling System

hillslopes and channels. In the latter (A) case, grid resolution is normally too coarse (on the order of one to tens of square kilometers) to capture individ- ual hillslope and headwater topogra- phy, and hillslope processes therefore are treated as sub-grid scale. The list of processes incorporated in landscape evolution models is growing rapidly. In addition to basic rate laws for runoff erosion and hillslope diffu- sion, some models now incorporate additional rate laws or algorithms to describe landsliding, vegetation, multi- ple grain sizes, stream meandering, floodplain (overbank) sedimentation, groundwater sapping, quasi-2d surface flow, ice sheet growth, non-steady and non-uniform hydrology, orographic precipitation, simple treatment of ma- rine deposition and shoreline move- ment, and coupling with normal-fault or thrust-fault displacement models. Many of these “exotic” process models are in an experimental stage, and will continue to mature over the next sev- eral years.

Landscape evolution models have suc- ceeded at the most basic test of repro- (B) ducing fundamental properties of river basin landscapes (both in terms of pat- tern and statistical signatures), as well as typical landforms such as convexo- concave hillslopes, ridge-valley topog- raphy, faceted spurs, alluvial fans, and similar features. Along the way, they have shown promise as devices for enhancing insight into landscape dy- namics, for yielding counter-intuitive “surprises,” and for generating and exploring quantitative, testable hy- potheses. Landscape modeling has also been applied to engineering prob- lems, such as the long-term stability of waste-rock landforms on mining sites. There are a number of important chal- lenges to further development and application of landscape evolution models. Many of these are shared with challenges. For example, bankfull Fresh water plumes from the other Earth surface transport models, channel width is a fundamental spatial Huanghe (A), and a numerical model and have been discussed elsewhere in scale in fluvial transport and erosion, (B) (photo courtesy of James Syvitski). this report. Our knowledge of many of and yet it remains difficult to resolve the important process laws is still fairly explicitly in a domain that consists of rudimentary, and much work remains an entire drainage basin (see also Side- is many orders of magnitude smaller to be done in testing and refining box 2). Likewise, flood duration is a than timescales associated with drain- these. There are also important scaling basic timescale in fluvial systems, yet it age basin formation. Finally, there re- Page 21 mains a need for good validation tests What Do We Know Now? for landscape evolution models, both —-The Case of Continental Shelves from experimental and field cases. CDSMS will help to overcome many of Modeling of sediment transport on the continental shelf is relatively these challenges by (1) making it easier to design and test alternative ap- highly advanced at present due to strong collaboration between the proaches to scaling problems, (2) fos- marine sediment-dynamics and circulation modeling communities. tering the refinement of rate laws and Much of the interest in model development in these regions stems facilitating their incorporation in land- from concerns about seabed stability, contaminant transport, an- scape models, and (3) empowering the thropogenic effects and links to ecosystems, leading to an emphasis communication across disciplines that on models that resolve processes at relatively short time scales. The will be essential to developing data time scales necessary to represent transport processes and seabed sets for model testing, validation, and response generally decrease with decreasing water depth, making it refinement. challenging to construct models that couple shallow and deep re- gions of the ocean.

New community initiatives are underway to develop modeling sys- COASTAL AND CONTI- tems for the coastal zone and continental shelf. These efforts aim to treat nearshore hydrodynamics, sediment transport and seabed NENTAL SEDIMENT morphology using a tightly coupled set of process modules for TRANSPORT MODELS waves, circulation, and the seabed. Another major focus is to couple three-dimensional ocean circulation models, such as the Princeton Ocean Model, with boundary-layer formulations for wave-current interaction and sediment transport algorithms. Examples of related Integrated models exist that investigate ocean-circulation models are given in Appendix II. longer term stratigraphic and seascape evolution of continental margins. The Beyond dealing with the complexity of the wave-current interac- time scales addressed in these models tions that drive continental-shelf sediment transport, a major chal- generally prohibit detailed treatment lenge in shelf transport modeling is integrating these physical proc- esses with biological processes that influence sediment dynamics. of sediment or fluid dynamics, relying This is particularly important for correctly predicting the behavior of instead on parameterizations of the the fine fraction of the sediment load. important processes. required in any other part of the ma- algorithms. Examples include ROMS A currently funded NOPP (National rine environment. (Regional Ocean Modeling System, Ocean Partnership Program) project is Rutgers), DELFT3D (WL/Delft Hydrau- devoted to developing and verifying a A second modeling effort, led by the lics), ECOM-SED (HydroQual) and comprehensive community model to USGS with preliminary funding from EFDC (TetraTech). A goal of the com- predict nearshore hydrodynamics, sedi- NOPP, is aimed at developing a com- munity modeling initiative is to use one ment transport and seabed morphol- munity sediment-transport modeling or more of these models as a starting ogy using a tightly coupled set of proc- system for the coastal ocean point to develop an open architecture, ess modules for waves, circulation, and (continental shelf and estuaries) modular model with a three- the seabed (http:// (http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov / dimensional circulation model as a chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/ ~kirby/ project-pages/sediment-transport/; backbone and a variety of tested sedi- NOPP). In this region, complex wave Sherwood et al., 2002;). Shelf morpho- ment transport modules that can be hydrodynamics drive persistent and dynamics are closely tied to the wave plugged into the main model. An im- often intense sediment transport capa- environment and ocean circulation. As portant aspect of the nearshore and ble of significantly altering bed mor- a result, a major focus of sediment coastal ocean community modeling phology on short time scales (minutes transport model development for shelf programs is development of a suite of to hours). The highly dynamic nature regions is to couple three-dimensional test cases that can be used to test mod- of this region and the strong feedbacks ocean circulation models, such as the ules before accepting them into the among flow, transport and morphol- Princeton Ocean Model, with bound- modeling system. ogy necessitates a level of spatial and ary-layer formulations for wave-current temporal resolution exceeding that interaction and sediment transport While most nearshore and shelf sedi- Page 22 Building a Community Surface Dynamics Modeling System ment transport models are designed to What Do We Know Now? investigate processes over short time —-The Case of Carbonates scales (hours to months), some two- dimensional models have been devel- The distinctive aspect of carbonate sediments is their production, so oped to look at longer-term morphol- most effort in carbonate modeling has gone to developing produc- ogic and stratigraphic evolution of the tion functions. This work has been done largely in the carbonate coastal region. These models are dis- sedimentary-geology community. In models that also account for transport and re-deposition of carbonate sediments, these are han- cussed in the next section. dled by the same methods as are used for clastic sediment transport. A goal of the community modeling At present, there has been limited communication between re- searchers working on carbonate dynamics and the physical trans- initiative is to use one or more of these port process community. The importance of carbonate structures as models as a starting point to develop morphodynamic elements, the influence of physical processes on an open, modular architecture with a carbonate-producing ecosystems, and the common occurrence of three-dimensional circulation model as mixed clastic-carbonate sediments on the coastlines and shelves of a backbone and a variety of tested the world, all highlight the need for closer collaboration between sediment transport modules that can these communities in surface-process modeling. be plugged into the main model. An time scales are those on which tectonic additional important aspect of the subsidence and/or eustatic sea-level nearshore and coastal ocean commu- STRATIGRAPHIC change become important. Their main nity modeling programs is develop- hallmark is that they track not just the ment of a suite of reference cases that MODELS current topographic surface but also a can be used to test modules before stack of surfaces that represent re- accepting them into the modeling sys- “Stratigraphic” surface-dynamics mod- corded stratigraphic information. In a tem. els are those intended for study of de- sense, stratigraphic models are a sur- positional systems over geologic time face-dynamics analog of climate mod- scales. Generally speaking, geologic els in atmospheric sciences, in that they use spatially and temporally averaged What Do We Know Now? representations of short-term proc- —-The Case of Hillslopes and Sediment Production esses. Long-term stratigraphic models Versions of the standard diffusion equation, usually in one spatial of fluvial systems, for example, often direction, have been used extensively over the past three decades use some form of diffusion equation to or more to model hillslope evolution (e.g. Fernandes and Dietrich, represent evolution of the surface mor- 1997). These implicitly refer to vertically-integrated soil transport phology. The diffusion coefficient in under restrictive conditions pertaining to the porosity (or bulk den- this representation is a parameteriza- sity) of the soil, the boundary conditions imposed on the hillslope, and the time scales of evolution considered. However, despite its tion of high-frequency channel dynam- popularity and apparent empirical success, the diffusion model does ics (typically of the order of 1-1000 yr). not yet have a clear theoretical basis. Only limited work has been Analogous parameterized models have undertaken to describe the details of diffusive transport, and only a been developed for the coastal and few field-based studies have been undertaken specifically to provide continental shelf regions (eg., Storms et empirical evidence to test it (e.g. Clarke et al. 1999; Gabet 2000). In general, little is known about how diffusive transport actually al., 2002). Coupling of shelf/coastal works — in particular, how quasi-random motions of individual soil and fluvial models, for example, allows particles collectively contribute to en masse motion. modeling of shoreline transgression and regression in response to changes Current geochemical modeling is based on simplified “box” models: in sea level. conservation of mass within soil/bedrock system is coupled with re- action kinetics for major minerals/ions, loosely connected with hy- Development of quantitative, process- drology (water input/loss). Microbial effects are just beginning to based stratigraphic models began in be investigated in detail using modern methods of microscopy and earnest in the 1970s and 1980s after genetic analysis. Biogeochemical effects have not yet been incorpo- rated in sediment production models. development of the first geodynamic Page 23 models of basin subsidence. Since then However, NCED’s mission is to provide there has been a proliferation of mod- THE NATIONAL CEN- scientific insight on key surface proc- els, with somewhat slower progress in esses. It does not have the personnel applying and testing them. A compre- TER FOR EARTH- or the resources to create the compre- hensive review of stratigraphic models hensive computer-modeling environ- that can provide a basis for the long- SURFACE DYNAMICS ment called for in CSDMS. NCED would term components of CSDMS can be be a major partner in the CSDMS effort, found in Paola (2000). The National Center for Earth-surface providing scientific support, experi- Dynamics (NCED) is a recently funded mental and field data, and cooperating NSF Science and Technology Center in leading the workshops and meet- SOURCE TO SINK PRO- devoted to integrated study of surface ings that would be required to main- GRAM: NSF MARGINS processes. At present it involves ten tain community involvement with Principal Investigators from five re- CSDMS.

search institutions as well as industrial and government partners. Thus its in-

The overarching goal of the MARGINS terests are closely aligned with CSDMS. Source-to-Sink initiative is to develop a quantitative understanding of margin What Do We Know Now? dispersal systems and associated strati- —-The Case of Continental Slopes and the Deep Ocean graphy, so that we can predict their response to perturbations, such as cli- Models of turbidity currents range from simple one-dimensional in- matic and tectonic variability, relative tegral models (e.g., Parker et al., 1986) that predict current speed, thickness, and density along the flow path to complex two- sea-level change, and land-use prac- dimensional models that resolve details of the vertical structure of a tices. Source to Sink consists of focused turbidity current (e.g. Felix, 2002). Most of these models account in field investigations of landscape and some fashion for entrainment of ambient water into the turbidity seascape evolution, and of sediment flow, entrainment (or deposition) of bed sediment, and friction with transport and accumulation in selected the bed. They have been used to simulate the formation of a subma- rine fan, including channel-levee systems, (Imran et al., 1998) and dispersal systems. A key feature of this stacked turbidite deposits (Pratson et al, 2000). Internal tides may program is the collective effort to inves- affect slope sedimentation (Cacchione et al., 2002), but this effect tigate well-selected field sites, where has yet to be included in models of slope morphology. the complete source-to-sink system can be analyzed. Quantitative modeling is Models of submarine debris flows are not as advanced as those for integrated into the research: model subaerial debris flows or turbidity currents. Most of the existing models (e.g. Imran et al., 2001) are one-dimensional models that predictions help guide aspects of select conserve mass and momentum for one or more possible debris flow field programs; field observations vali- rheologies (e.g., Bingham, Hershel-Bulkley). Among the potentially date/verify model outputs; numerical important processes not well represented in existing submarine de- modeling explores forward and inverse bris flow models are disaggregation, hydroplaning, and secondary source-to-sink questions; and a com- turbidity current generation. The debris flow model BING has been used to simulate runout and deposition on submarine fans, as well prehensive modeling effort is to link as the stratigraphy created by stacked debris flows (Pratson et al, the suite of products through a Com- 2000; Marr et al., 2002). Two-dimensional, and ultimately three- munity Sediment Model, akin to the dimensional, models are needed to understand the spatial patterns Princeton Ocean Model or the Com- of deposition and the cumulative depositional record of debris flows munity Climate Model. and turbidity currents.

Modeling of open-ocean sedimentation away from the continental margin is not highly developed. Upper ocean biogeochemical mod- els are able to predict seasonal fluxes of biogenic particles to the ocean bottom in good agreement with sediment trap observations (e.g., Lampitt et al., 2001). Interannual variations in these fluxes are not well represented by the models (Lampitt et al., 2001). Page 24 Building a Community Surface Dynamics Modeling System

A STRATEGY FOR MOVING FORWARD 4 the atmosphere, oceans, groundwa- nating and improving diagnostic ter, glaciers, and lithosphere. Predic- calculations of FMS-based models, LEARNING FROM OUR tive, quantitative models for these and input data preparation for COLLEAGUES subsystems already exist in some form, such models. Common preprocess- and are listed in Appendix II. We also ing and post-processing software are included to the extent that the expect that as CSDMS develops, mod- needed functionality cannot be One of the most important features els for ecosystems and human behav- adequately provided by available of the 2002 workshop was a series of ior will progress to the point where third-party software. presentations by leaders of existing they can be connected to CSDMS as collaborative modeling efforts in vari- well. • A rigorous software quality review ous areas of the Earth sciences. and improvement process to assist Ocean modeling systems provide a in contributed component models. These focused less on the technical good example of current practices in The development and initial testing details of the models than on how collaborative modeling (for a valuable of these component models is they are organized and managed. review from the perspective of the largely a scientific question, and Some of the features these col- U.S. Navy see Preller, 2002). The most would not fall under FMS. The leagues considered essential to the general ocean modeling system, and quality review and improvement success of a project of this type were: thus perhaps the most directly appli- process includes consideration of (a) compliance with FMS interface • A single central coordinating facil- cable to CSDMS, is the Geophysical and documentation standards to ity to manage the project over the Fluid Dynamics Laboratory’s Flexible ensure portability and inter- long term; Modeling System (FMS). FMS is a soft- operability, (b) understandability • Communication among project ware framework for supporting the (clarity and consistency of docu- participants; efficient development, construction, mentation, comments, interfaces, execution, and scientific interpretation and code), and (c) general compu- • Recognition of individual contribu- of atmospheric, oceanic and climate tational efficiency without algo- tion to the project while maintain- system models. FMS comprises the rithmic changes. ing public access to, and owner- following: ship of, the products; • A standardized technique for ver- • A software infrastructure for con- sion control and dissemination of • Highly modular design so that indi- structing and running atmospheric, the software and documentation. vidual model components can be oceanic and climate system models. replaced without side effects; This infrastructure includes software • High-quality graphical interfaces to handle parallelization, input and for both pre-processing and post- output, time management, data PROPOSED ORGANI- processing; exchange between various model grids, makefiles, and simple sample In addition to giving us advice and ZATION OF A CSDMS run scripts. This infrastructure guidance, these associated modeling should largely insulate FMS users PROGRAM efforts will also communicate directly from machine-specific details. with CSDMS as we attempt to model • A standardization of the interfaces highly integrated, coupled problems. The administrative structure pro- between various component mod- Critical parts of the Earth system that posed for CSDMS is borrowed di- els. are not part of CSDMS itself but that rectly from the climate modeling will interact strongly with it include • Software for standardizing, coordi- community. It consists of an advisory Page 25 board, a steering committee, and a Sidebox 3 series of working groups. The working The Role of Applied Mathematics and Computational Science groups will be defined by disciplines and by themes (scaling, computational There is an important, ongoing role in the CSDMS effort for applied mathe- methods I/O and IT, etc.) in that some maticians and computational scientists. Specifically, ours is a science (and groups are disciplinary, some are cross- culture) that has not yet fully enjoyed the benefits of strong interactions cutting themes, and some are groups with these allied disciplines, as have fields like fluid dynamics, ocean and at- that consider issues concerning tech- mospheric sciences, and more recently, biological and medical sciences. nology. Earth-surface dynamics research is ideally poised for quantum advances as Steering committee we increasingly, and fully, engage applied mathematicians in pursuing a The CSDMS scientific steering commit- deeper understanding of the complex dynamical systems that are a hallmark tee should be an interdisciplinary body of this field. Moreover, this is not only an opportunity for achieving signifi- with members from both the process- cant advances consonant with the vision of the NSF Mathematical Sciences level research community and monitor- and Geosciences (CMG) initiative, but is also an opportunity to increasingly ing agencies. It would provide coordi- incorporate applied mathematics as an essential, innate part of our science nation, scientific vision, and decide on culture, including the training of students. Examples of topics in applied resource allocation. The 2002 work- mathematics that are particularly relevant to Earth-surface dynamics include: shop group also proposed that the • homogenization theory applied to Earth-surface transport processes; steering committee should decide on version control and the release of • the physical and chemical basis for sub-grid parameterization in numerical model components. They will serve as models; a liaison between the technical exper- • inverse theory applied to parameterization and optimal resolution; and tise expressed in the disciplinary groups and funding agencies and the • information and complexity theory applied to multi-scale Earth-surface systems. wider community. By “computational scientists” we mean individuals possessing a blend of ex- Disciplinary groups pertise in disciplinary science, applied mathematics and computing tech- Disciplinary working groups would be niques – and a flair for developing and applying advanced computing tech- responsible for creating and managing niques to science problems. Engaging such scientists at ground level in the the various process modules, and pro- CSDMS effort is particularly important in view of the accelerated rate at viding continuity to meet long-term which innovations in numerical methods and computer technology are oc- project objectives. They will be set up curring. Examples that are particularly relevant to CSDMS include: to cover general areas of research – such as coastal environments. It is im- • algorithm development, notably involving mesh generation and optimal portant to prevent these from becom- resolution; ing overly specialized (the whole struc- • advanced visualization, notably involving large multi-scale 4-D fields; and ture would become unwieldy if, for example, it had separate dune, near- • the co-designing of architecture, algorithms and data-processing software. shore, estuarine, mid-shelf, outer-shelf, etc. groups). These disciplinary groups will also be set up to be “permanent” As “keepers of the code” these groups up the hierarchy from technology structures to provide continuity to the will make decisions on what tools or group to steering committee to advi- project. Several disciplinary groups processes are in the disciplinary toolkit sory board. would cut across disciplinary science, (Fig. 2). They are responsible for qual- Responsibilities of the disciplinary including scaling, testing (field/lab), ity-control for the algorithms and proc- working groups include: advanced computational, IT, software esses that are included for their area of engineering, software and data man- expertise. They set the priorities for • technical quality control agement, benchmark data, and proto- modeling within a discipline, and facili- • adequacy of testing col development. tate the movement of these priorities Page 26 Building a Community Surface Dynamics Modeling System

• setting scientific priorities for the disciplinary science. Several ideas were surface is not inadequate computer group proposed as themes for these types of code but inadequate scientific under- groups, including scaling, testing standing. Developing models that are • Making recommendations for re- source prioritization (field/lab/comp), advanced computa- both computationally sophisticated tional, IT, software engineering, soft- and scientifically sound requires that • stimulating proposals and input from ware and data management, bench- code development proceed in parallel the community mark data, and protocol development. with, and interact strongly with, field, • experimental, and analytical studies scientific review, and Geographic distribution aimed at filling gaps in our understand- • technical documentation. A national center is envisioned to ing. house the core server and information The vision we have laid out in this re- port is quite broad. We believe it is es- sential to begin a project like CSDMS with a view that is as comprehensive and inclusive as possible. But the first steps in building something usable will require that we focus on those proc- esses that are currently best under- stood and for which quantitative mod- els are available. Initial priorities The 2002 workshop group provided input as to which activities should have the highest priority in the early stages of the project. Legacy codes and least- effort methods would be used where appropriate to provide initial deliver- ables from the project (Figure 2). As a first step, we recommend that legacy codes be modified/engineered so that they can interact with each other Figure 2. Donated modules graduate to different levels within the CSDMS modeling system. of QC and integration. Two things must be done at the outset of the design phase: 1) define the mas- ter data structure and linking methods Technology groups technologists responsible for keeping so that different modules can ex- These groups cut across disciplinary the system running, whereas distrib- change data with each other 2) de- science, and are primarily concerned uted nodes should provide homes for velop and make available tools for with the technical-computational as- working groups and support their building or incorporating new mod- pects of the CSDMS. They ensure that functions. ules. the modeling system functions prop- erly and is accessible to users. Their Thus, we will begin work on CSDMS by charge includes software protocols THE NEXT STEPS collecting and systematizing the mod- and technology, and model standardi- els we have, starting with the disci- zation. plines where surface-dynamics model-

ing has been central: geomorphology, Crosscutting groups We stress that the greatest obstacle to engineering, oceanography, and sedi- Several of the groups will cut across predicting the behavior of the Earth’s mentary geology. Initial CSDMS models Page 27 will inevitably reflect the biases of broad community involvement should up to work in the CSDMS framework. those disciplines. But we see the be to develop a list of "grand chal- CSDMS expanding in many directions lenge" problems for CSDMS. from there. Most importantly, we see Objectives: first five years the influence of integration to come reflected now in the design of our • Develop a functioning management modeling strategy. The watchwords structure. This is to address unre- will be modularity, flexibility, and ex- solved core issues such as computing pandability. By this we mean that mod- platforms, protocols, and refining the ules will be structured to allow for in- roles of working groups. clusion of neglected processes or con- • Develop protocols for linking mod- nections as smoothly and cleanly as ules. possible. For example, perhaps for a • Define common data structures and variety of reasons a first-pass hillslope interfaces to link transport processes. evolution module cannot explicitly in- clude vegetation effects. The goal will • Incorporate and standardize “legacy be to design the module so that such code” from the modeling commu- effects could readily be added in the nity. future. • Develop communication tools such As pointed out above, integrated mod- as web sites and forums through professional societies. eling is more advanced in some of our sister sciences, including hydrology • Develop and make available the first (e.g. MODFLOW), glaciology (e.g. EIS- toolkits for pre- and post-processing, MINT), oceanography (e.g. Modular and model visualization. Ocean Model), and atmospheric sci- • Develop standards for benchmarking ence (e.g. NCAR Community Climate and testing modules with the setup Model). We are taking advantage of of standardized data sets. our later start by learning all we can • Develop and make available the first about community model development set of standard computational tools, from colleagues with experience with including low-level routines (I/O er- these model packages. The communi- ror handling and data exchange); as cation we began in the 2002 work- well as grid generators and PDE/flux shop will be continued with ongoing solvers. contact and advice from our col- • Develop and make available the ini- leagues in allied fields. tial graphical user interface (GUI) and Objectives and deliverables documentation. This report is intended to provide a Objectives: first ten years blueprint for the first five to ten years of what we hope will be on ongoing Our objective in ten years is to provide project. We believe it is crucial that the a fully functioning, tested, and inter- scientific community realize benefits nally consistent CSDMS with capability from CSDMS within the first five years of addressing practical as well as re- of the project. The linked models search problems in surface-process should be applied to answer important science across a range of time scales scientific questions that are intractable from human to geologic time scales. with individual modules. The applica- We expect that in ten years we could tions must address national needs. largely eliminate “legacy” code and Indeed, one of the initial avenues for have a system written from the ground Page 28 Building a Community Surface Dynamics Modeling System

REFERENCES

WORK IN PROGRESS servatory, Palisades, NY. Beaumont et al., 1992 Tucker and Slingerland, 1994 Bruegge, Reidel, 1994 Voorde, 1997 Bingham, Hershel-Bulkley Wolfram Cacchione et al., 2002 Casti Dehler et al., 1997 Ellis, et al., 1999 Hill, 2002 Hyett and Signell, 1999 Felix, 2002 Imran et al., 2001 Lampitt et al., 2001 Leavesley, 1997 Marr et al., 2002 Moutney and Westbrook, 1997 Paola, C., 2000, Quantitative models of sedimentary basin filling: Sedimentology, v. 47 (suppl. 1), p. 121- 178. Parker et al., 1986 Peckham, S., 2003, Pratson et al, 2000 Preller, 2002 Schlische, 1991 Sherwood et al., 2000 Slingerland, R., Syvitski, J. P., Paola, C., 2002, Sediment Modeling System Enhances Education and Research. EOS, Trans. American Geophysical Unnion, De- cember 3, 2002, p. 578-579. Storms et al., 2002 Stuart et al., 1998 Syvitski, J. P., Paola, C., and Slingerland, R., 2002, Workshop on development of a community sediment model. NSF MARGINS Newsletter No. 8, MaAR- GINS ffice, Lamont-Doherty Earth Ob- Page 29

APPENDIX I NSF CSM WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS BOULDER. CO , FEBRUARY 2002

Robert Anderson Department of Earth Science, UCSC Earth Sciences Santa Cruz

Suzanne P. Anderson Center for Study of Imaging and Dynamics of the Earth, Earth Sciences Department, University of Calafornia

Mike Blum Department of Geosciences, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

James Buttles Earth, Atmoshperic and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Robert M. Carter Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University

Tom Drake Department of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, North Carolina State University

William E. Dietrich Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of California

Carl T. Friedrichs Physical Sciences, Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Sergio Fagherazzi Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Verginia

David Jon Furbish Department of Geological Sciences and Center for Earth Surface Processes Research, Florida State University

Jeffrey Geslin ExxonMobil Upstream Research Co.

W. Rockwell Geyer Applied Ocean Physics and Engineering Department at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI)

Daniel M. Hanes Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering, University of Florida

Courtney Harris Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Bil Haq NSF

Rachael D. Hilberman Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR), University of Colorado

Phil Hill Geological Survey of Canada, Sidney

Alan Howard As-Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

Eric Hutton Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR), University of Colorado

Chris Jenkins Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR), University of Colorado

Garry Karner Columbia University

Christopher Kendall University of South Carolina

Albert J. Kettner Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR), University of Colorado

David Kinner Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR), University of Colorado

H. Richard Lane NSF

Dawn Lavoie NSF

Shawn Marshall University of Calgary

David Mixon Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR), University of Colorado

A. Brad Murray Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences/ Center for Nonlinear and Page 30 Building a Community Surface Dynamics Modeling System

Complex Systems, Duke University

Damian B. O'Grady ExxonMobil Upstream Research Co.

Irina Overeem Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR), University of Colorado

Chris Paola Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of Minnesota

Nana Parchure U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC)

Gary Parker St. Anthony Falls Laboratory, University of Minnesota

Scott D. Peckham Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR), University of Colorado

William Tad Pfeffer Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR), University of Colorado

Nathaniel G. Plant Neval Research Lab., Stennis Space Center, Mississippi

Ross D. Powel Department of Geology and Environmental Geosciences, Northern Illinois University.

Lincoln F. Pratson Earth & Ocean Sciences, Duke University

Marina Rabineau Centre National de Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)

Chris Reed URS Greiner Corporation

Rick Sarg ExxonMobil Upstream Research Co.

Mark Schmeeckle Florida State University

Steve Scott U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC)

Rudy L. Slingerland Department of Geosciences, The Pennsylvania State University

Lawson M. Smith U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC)

Michael S. Steckler Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University

J. Scott Stewart Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR), University of Colorado

John B. Swensen University of Minnesota Duluth

Donald Swift Old Dominion University

James P. Syvitski Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR), University of Colorado

Dan Tetzlaff Western Geco

Torbjörn E. Törnqvist Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, Chicago

Gregory Tucker School of Geography & the Environment, University of Oxford

Bill Ussler Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute

Gert Jan Weltje Department of Applied Earth Sciences, Delft University of Technology

Pat Wiberg Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia Page 31

APPENDIX II A COMPILATION OF CURRENT ALLIED MODELS

ATMOSPHERIC AND CLIMATE MODELS The atmospheric science community is the progenitor of earth system modelers. The advanced stage of this community reflects the immediate practical need for weather forecasting in all of its manifestations, and the concern for heating up of the atmosphere due to the greenhouse effect. The trade-offs in atmospheric modeling are between the need and use of very powerful computers and the application of less complex models. Weather forecasts models like the Univ. of Michigan’s CMF (Coupled Model Forecast) system provides one-week, two-week, four-week, and long lead forecasts. Weather models come in the following flavors:

• Short term models (ETA, NGM - Nested Grid Models, AVN - Aviation models, RUC - Rapid Update Cycle models); • Medium range forecast models (MRF; ECMWF – the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting, UK- MET); • Mesoscale and experimental models (MESO-ETA, MM5 –mesoscale weather model generation 5, MASS – Mesoscale Atmospheric Simulation System, WRF – Next generation weather research and forecast model); • Regional models (RSM – Regional Spectral Models, RAMS – Regional Atmospheric Modeling System, ARPS – Advanced Regional Prediction System); • Coupled and global prediction systems (NOGAPS - Navy Operational Global Atmospheric Prediction System, COAMPS – Coupled Ocean Atmosphere Mesoscale Prediction System, GEM – Canada’s Global Environmental Multiscale Model, SEF – Canada’s Global Spectral Model, IFS – EC Spectral Integrated Forecasting Systems) Weather models have become so common, that there are few developed countries that do not operate such models for weather predictions. The advanced models all have assimilation schemes that allow new environmental data, from ground or remote (i.e. satellite, balloons, other platforms) observations, to work in tandem with the numerical predic- tions, to correct for the inevitable drift in model predictions over time. The most advanced models have been used in con- junction with a (NCEP) reanalysis of historical (last 40 years) observations to learn where model algorithms succeed and fail, and where observations are spatially biased. The goal of climate modeling is to develop a complete set of climate sub-system models, each with their unique time scale range, a feature very much relevant to the advancement of a community sediment model. The Atmosphere sub- system models include processes that cover time scale of hours to days. The biosphere sub-system models include dy- namics across months to decades or longer. The cyrosphere and the oceanic sub-system models include developments across days to centuries. Paleo climate models include dynamics that see the polar ice caps grow and shrink along with sea level across centuries to hundreds of thousands of years. The disparity in these time scales forces climate models to become modular or hierarchical in their form, with different manifestations employed depending on the nature of the scientific problem. For example the atmosphere with an oceanic mixed layer, the atmosphere with the global ocean, the ocean with carbon cycles, and even ice sheets with a simplified ocean-atmosphere model. Climate models include 3D general circulation models (GCMs), coupled ocean-atmosphere models (AOMs), Energy Bal- ance models (EBMs), and radiative-convective models. The primary goal of climate model is to investigate the sensitivity of climate to changes in the forcing functions (solar radiation, green house gases, trace elements, etc.). Atmospheric GCMs or AGCMs consist of a 3D representation of the atmosphere coupled to the land surface and the cyrosphere and is similar to that used for numerical weather prediction. An AGCM has to be provided with data for sea surface tempera- Page 32 Building a Community Surface Dynamics Modeling System ture and sea ice coverage. An AGCM coupled to a slab ocean predicts the sea surface temperatures, and the ocean trans- port is specified and remains constant for the model run. A coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation model (AOGCM) is complex and attempts to provide a more complete suite of feedbacks between the circulation dynamics within the ocean and those within the atmosphere. Regional Climate Models (RCMs) take their regional boundary condi- tions from AOGCMs and local features, such as mountains, which are not well represented in the coarser resolution of global models. With such a rich history of model development, the atmospheric community has begun to develop a number of Atmos- pheric Model Intercomparison Projects (AMIPs). The WCRP AMIP is a standard experimental protocol for global atmos- pheric general circulation models (AGCMs). It provides a community-based infrastructure in support of climate model diagnosis, validation, intercomparison, documentation and data access. This framework enables a diverse community of scientists to analyze AGCMs in a systematic fashion, a process that serves to facilitate model improvement. Virtually the entire international climate modeling community has participated in this project since its inception in 1990. The ICRCCM III project is the Intercomparison of Radiation Codes in Climate Models Phase III. This is a typical example of how the at- mospheric community comes together to share their expertise and code on 1D solar radiative transfer codes, especially those used in NWP and GCMs to interpret and handle unresolved clouds. PIRCS is a Project to Intercompare Regional Climate Simulations so as to provide a common framework for evaluating strengths and weaknesses of regional cloimate models and their component procedures through systematic, comparative simulations.

OCEAN MODELS Oceanographers have largely recognized the difficulty in building a “universal” ocean model that can treat accurately phenomena on all spatial and temporal scales in the various ocean basins of the world. The limitation is computer size and CPU speed and an imperfect parameterization of the physical processes, such as turbulence. Ocean modeling efforts have diversified, some concerned with the turbulent surface boundary layers, some with continental shelves, and many with the meso-scale eddy-resolving circulation in a given part of, or a whole, ocean basin (considered state-of-the-art). Models that aim to give real-time nowcasts/forecasts have become coupled with real-time observations (i.e. satellite altim- etry and IR sensing). Ocean models can be hydrodynamic, thermodynamic or both and designed to resolve estuaries, seas or whole oceans. Some of the models have a free surface, others simply the computation and have a rigid lid. The vertical degrees of freedom type models as fixed level, isopycnal, sigma-coordinate, reduced gravity-coordinate and semi- spectral. Models are typically typed as baratropic (vertical integration of currents) or baroclinic, depending on their han- dling of density variations. Further, each of the ocean models can be classified on how they handle boundary friction (such as with the sea floor), and how they are forced (such as the nature of the wind field). Model solutions include (1) both implicit and explicit schemes; (2) both profile (multi-level) and bulk (mixed layer –deep layer exchange) schemes; and (3) tidally-averaged and tide-forcing models.

List of Popular Ocean Models ACOM - Australian Community Ocean Model (after MOM) ADCIRC – Advanced Hydrodynamic Circulation model for shelves, coasts and estuaries BOM – Bergen Ocean multipurpose Model for shelf and coastal waters BRIOS – AWI Ocean circulation and sea ice model CCAR – Colorado Global Tidal Model COHERNS - European multipurpose model for shelf and coastal waters DieCAST - a 3D lake or ocean model from Sandia Labs ECBILT/CLIO –Dutch atmosphere ocean general circulation model ECOM-si - Estuarine, Coastal and Ocean Model (semi-implicit) FMS = Flexible Modeling System from GFDL HAMSOM - A 3D German - Spanish model. Page 33

HIM – Hallberg Isopycnal Model HOPE – Hamburg Ocean Primitive Model HYCOM – Hybrid Coordinate Ocean Model from Miami MICOM - Miami Isopycnic Coordinate Ocean Model MITgcm – MIT general circulation model MIKE 3 - A 3D model from DHI MOM-GFDL - Modular Ocean Model NCOM - NCAR CSM (Climate System Model) Ocean Model NRLLSM – Navy Research Laboratory global thermodynamic model PC TIDES – rapidly relocatable tidal model POM - Princeton Ocean Model (see TOMS) QUODDY - A 3D finite element code from Dartmouth college QTCM – Quasi-equilibrium Tropical Circulation Model ROMS – Rutgers Regional Ocean Modeling System SCRUM - S-Coordinates Rutgers University Model SEOM – Spectral Element Ocean Model SHORECIRC – nearshore circulation model SPEM - S-coordinate Primitive Equation Model SWAN – simulating waves nearshore TOMS – Terrain Following Ocean Modeling System WAM – 3rd generation Wave Action Model WW3 – Wave Watch III global next generation wave model Many of these models have families with genealogical aspects to their extensive history. MOM, POM and TOMS are ex- amples that can provide valuable insight to the CSDMS initiative. For example the GFDL Flexible Modeling System (FMS) is a software framework for supporting the efficient development, construction, execution, and scientific interpretation of atmospheric, oceanic and climate system models. Code for most of these models is available through the web, although an extensive learning curve is needed to properly modify and even use these model systems. Often time the code comes with an extensive documentation of code imple- mentation (e.g. Kantha and Clayson, 1998). Along with the development of ocean models, has been supporting databases that are used for initialization and dy- namical forcing. These include bathymetry, wind stress, and salinity and temperature climatology. Most of these data- base atlases are available on line to the public. Data assimilation systems include OCEAN MVOI (a 3D ocean multi- variate optimal interpolation system), MODAS (modular 3D ocean data assimilation system), and HYCOM a consortium for data assimilative ocean modeling. A valuable aspect to the ocean modeling community is in the production and sharing of visualization products (stills and movies). These have become very popular with the K-12 community and college students. The best of the sites include government labs that have the infrastructure to produce these visualization tools (e.g. http://vislab-www.nps.navy.mil/ ~braccio/mpeg.html). With such a rich history of model development, the ocean community has begun to develop a number of Ocean Model Intercomparison Projects (OMIPs). These include:

AOMIP (Arctic Ocean Model Intercomparison Project) CMIP (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project) Page 34 Building a Community Surface Dynamics Modeling System

DYNAMO (Dynamics of North Atlantic Models): Simulation and assimilation with high resolution models DAMEE-NAB (Data Assimilation and Model Evaluation Experiments) - North Atlantic Basin DOME (Dynamics of Overflow Mixing and Entrainment) OCMIP (Ocean Carbon-Cycle Model Intercomparison Project) As a result, knowledge is being rapidly gained on the fundamentals and on the quality and methods of data ingestion and model verification and uncertainty. In summary there are several comprehensive ocean-modeling families that exist worldwide. The community is both large and mature. There already exist a number of overlapping projects that bring sediment transport and stratigraphic model- ers together with the ocean modeling community.

COUPLED OCEAN-ATMOSPHERE AND OTHER EARTH SYSTEM MODELS While ocean models and atmospheric models did not develop in complete isolation of one another, there was enough of a community jump to make this kind of interaction and system development a large undertaking. Here are a few of the key developments in this area. CCM3 - The NCAR Community Climate Model is a stable, efficient, documented, state of the art atmospheric general cir- culation model designed for climate research on high-speed supercomputers and select upper-end workstations. The model is both developed by the community and is freely available from NCAR along with source code and documenta- tion. CCM4 is in development and NCAR has provide the community with coding standards (i.e. http:// www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/ccm4/codingstandard.shtml) CSIM - The NCAR CSIM Sea Ice Model includes active thermodynamic and dynamic processes. The model is driven by the heat, momentum, and freshwater fluxes provided at the upper and lower ice boundaries by the atmospheric and oce- anic model components, respectively. CSIM, in turn, provides the appropriate boundary fluxes required by the atmos- phere and ocean in the presence of ice. CSM – Climate System Model with four component models (atmosphere - CCM3, land - LMS, ocean - MOM, sea-ice) cou- pled through a Flux Coupler (FC) that allows separate development of the components with unique spatial resolution and time step. Individual components can be created, modified, or replaced without necessitating code changes in other components. CSM components run as separate executables, communicate via message passing, and can be distributed among several computers. The FC controls the execution and time evolution of the complete CSM by controlling the ex- change of information between the various components. FMS - The Flexible Modeling System is a coordinated effort among all global modeling groups at GFDL to produce a shared modeling infrastructure that enhances communication while reducing redundant efforts among GFDL scientists. At present, the FMS includes two global atmospheric models, a large assortment of atmospheric physical parameteriza- tions, a comprehensive atmosphere-ocean-land-ice coupler, and an array of support tools. Initial efforts to produce a new version of the Modular Ocean Model (MOM) that would build upon FMS tools are underway. The FMS is key to minimiz- ing the stress of GFDL's anticipated transition to scalable parallel computer architectures by isolating parallel memory management and I/O issues in a few modules that are shared by all FMS components. LSM – NCAR Land Surface Model can be used stand-alone or coupled to the global model (CCM or CSM) to investigate land surface physics. LSM examines biogeophysical and biogeochemical land-atmosphere interactions, especially the ef- fects of land surfaces on climate and atmospheric chemistry. The model has several components including biogeophys- ics, the hydrological cycle, biogeochemistry, and dynamic vegetation. PCM – NCAR/DOE Parallel Climate Model is similar to CSM but has been adapted to execute on scalable parallel com- puters with the goal of running long-duration simulations. Increases in spatial resolution also requires smaller time steps be taken for stability and accuracy, increasing the computational cost to simulate a specific period. Page 35

Global coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation models are complex and thus the Ocean-Atmosphere communi- ties have come together and developed intercomparison projects such as CMIP – the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. CMIP began in 1995 under the auspices of the Working Group on Coupled Models (WGCM) of WCRP-CLIVAR. CMIP has received model output from the pre-industrial climate simulations ("control runs") and 1% per year increasing- CO2 simulations of about 30 coupled GCMs. A recent phase of CMIP extends the database to include all output originally archived during model runs. PMIP – the Paleoclimate Modeling Intercomparison Project is the WCRP-CLIVAR equivalent for coupled models designed to produce simulations in the geological past. The PMIP experiments are designed to evalu- ate model sensitivity to climate forcing, Tropical Climates at 6 kyr and at 21 kyr BP, Extra-Tropics at 6 kyr and 21 kyr BP, Ocean Forcing At The Last Glacial Maximum, and Ice Sheet Mass Balance to study the impact of LGM boundary condi- tions on the simulated climates of the tropics. A valuable aspect of the climate modeling community has been the development of educational images and movies from numerical simulations, such as the high resolution T170 simulations from the NCAR CCM (e.g. http:// www.scd.ucar.edu/vets/vg/CCM2T170/ccm2t170.html)

RIVER MODELS Modeling packages for analysis of river dynamics have largely been developed for solving engineering problems. Thus they tend to focus on short time scales and assume the topography is known. In North America, the US Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE) has been a leader in developing these models. In Europe, some of the principal groups include the Danish Hydraulics Insitute, Delft GET NAME, and ETH Zurich. Well developed river models include:

• HEC - The HEC series…. • MIKE – MIKE was developed in The Netherlands… • ETH – This is a series of river-evolution models developed at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich…

GLACIER AND ICE SHEET MODELS The cryosphere is important in many ways in shaping the landscape, some direct and some indirect. This includes the impact of sea ice, permafrost, glaciers and ice sheets. Glacial dynamics modeling is farther along than morphodynamic or stratigraphic modeling. Glaciology is more traditionally viewed as being part of geophysical sciences, thus scientists from this field are typically well trained in computational science. The first generation of comprehensive ice sheet and glacier models is now coming into play. EISMINT (European Ice Sheet Modeling INiTiative) Model Intercomparison activity has the objective to test and compare existing numerical ice-sheet, ice-shelf, and glacier models as they are run by several groups worldwide, in order to nar- row down uncertainties and to enable participating groups to upgrade their own models. The groups aims is to compare the performance of models under real-world situations and under much more challenging conditions. Areas of activity include the comparison of Greenland ice sheet models, Antarctic ice sheet models, ice-shelf models, tests involving ther- momechanical coupling, and grounding-line treatments. Other international programs include: ACE - Antarctic Climate Evolution, focusing on long time scales (50My). It will make use of the sedimentary record, and any earthscape modeling effort that handles such processes may become relevant. SCAR - Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, an international effort, linking from sediment to climate. IMAGES – high resolution marine records focusing on ice-rafted debris. Components include entrainment of sediment subglacially, transport of sediment within the ice to the calving front, generation of icebergs by calving, transport of ice- bergs in oceanic currents, and decay of the icebergs so that they disgorge their sedimentary particles over the site of deposition. Page 36 Building a Community Surface Dynamics Modeling System

Major issues in ice-sheet modeling is in the handling of iceberg calving, basal hydrology, basal flow with implications for ice stream dynamics. Advances in these subjects would have direct link to the modeling of sediment entrainment, trans- port and deposition from flowing ice. The basis of ice sheet modeling is continuum-mechanical models of ice deforma- tion under gravity. There are several 3D models that resolve 3D velocity, temperature, stress fields and well as ice sheet thickness. These models can be solved in finite element or finite difference schemes at a 5 to 100 km resolution. Other approaches to modeling glacier flow exist, including flowline or planform models that permit higher resolution and in some cases, higher order dynamics. Ice sheet models are generally successful with large scale areas and volumes such as Greenland or Antarctica. They can resolve the formation and destruction of ice sheet at the time scale of a glacial cycle. They are presently well integrated with climate and isostatic models. The community has considerable experience with intercomparisons and in establish- ing benchmarks. Ice sheet model uncertainties include a full understanding or paramaterization of ice rheology (complications include anisotropy, impurities, water content). Mass balance problems typically relate to the skill of the climate model employed, model resolution and how ablation is parameterized. Future advances in ice sheet modeling will be in capturing subgla- cial drainage, including storage and routing, developing non-deterministic approaches to iceberg calving, and modeling basal flow and ice streams at different scales and time. The Glaciological community is also working to improve 3D simu- lation of glacier flow across complex terrain. It is worth emphasizing the degree to which glaciers have impacted continents, directly or indirectly. Where ice-sheets or glaciers have not overridden the landscape, the impacts are more subtle, but can be very large: (1) the glacially-derived loess blankets deposited across a large fraction of Europe, Asia, and North America; (2) the down-stream fluvial systems that deliver paraglacial pulses of sediment to the ocean; (3) the flexural isostatic response within some hundreds of km from the ice edge; and (4) the impact of the ice sheets on the atmospheric and thus ocean circulation. The influence of glaciers is therefore far-reaching.

HYDROLOGICAL MODELS The hydrological community has developed as diverse groups of experts and academics, and these include geographers, geoscientists, environmental scientists, ecologists, civil and environmental engineers, and reservoir scientists. This diver- sity in training and expertise has also been mirrored in the how the community has developed their kitbag of tools and models. With so many small-scale environmental problems and societal needs that require nowcasts and forecasts, hy- drological models are often packaged as commercial software, or poorly documented one-of-a-kind software. While some model intercomparison studies have occurred, the hydrological community still needs to come together as a com- munity. Hydrological models became an integral part of storm drainage planning and design in the mid-1970s. Several agencies undertook major software developments and these were soon supplemented by a plethora of proprietary models, many of which were simply variants on the originals. The proliferation of PCs in the 1990s has made it possible for most engi- neers to use state-of-the-art analytical technology for purposes ranging from analysis of individual pipes to comprehen- sive storm water management plans for entire cities. Hydrologic models are used to extend time series of flows, stages and quality parameters beyond the duration of measurements, from which statistical performance measures then may be derived. Often the models are used for design optimization and real-time control. Rainfall is the driving force for all hydrologic simulation models. Continuous simulation or statistical methods offer alter- natives to the use of pre-defined design rainfalls. For example, a selection of historic storms can be made from a continu- ous simulation on the basis of the return period of the runoff or quality parameter of interest, e.g., peak flow, maximum runoff volume, maximum stage, peak runoff load, peak runoff concentration. These events, with their antecedent condi- tions for runoff and quality, can then be analyzed in more detail in a single-event mode. Rainfall is variable in space as well as in time; some models can simulate storm motion and spatial variation that can strongly affect runoff. Page 37

Hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality models can be classified either as deterministic, or stochastic, or some combina- tion of these two types. Processes that are too complex or poorly understood to be modeled deterministically may be represented by statistical characteristics, while many statistical models also employ simple process-type mechanisms. Quantity models convert rainfall into runoff and perform flow routing. Quality models often begin with calibration and verification data.

Public-domain software usually is produced by either government agencies, particularly in the USA, or academic institutions. Below is short list of commonly used models: BASINS – EPA multipupose environmental analysis system QUAL2E – EPA Enhanced stream water quality model RORB RAFTS – Australian rainfall-runoff and streamflow routing models HEC – US ACE surface runoff model suite SWMM – EPA Storm Water Management Model IDRO – Italian rainfall-runoff and storm-forecasting model IRIS – Cornell U. Interactive River System Simulation program WQRRS – US ACE Water Quality for River-Reservoir System TOPMODEL – hillslope hydrology simulator HydroTrend – Colorado U. climate-driven sediment discharge simulator WEPP – DOA Water Erosion Prediction Project model MODFLOW – USGS groundwater model (see details below) ANSWERS 2000 – Virginia Tech Areal Nonpoint Source Watershed Environment Response Simulation FHANTM – U. Florida Field Hydrologic And Nutrient Transport Model FEFLOW – Finite element multipurpose groundwater model MIKE 11 – River flow simulation model with data assimilation WATFLOOD – Canadian integrated models to forecast watershed flows

There is one hydrological software package that deserves attention as we go forward with the development of a Com- munity Sediment Model: the U.S. Geological Survey Modular Ground-Water Flow Model (MODFLOW). MODFLOW was developed in the 1970’s to handle 3D, transient groundwater dynamics. It was an effort to reduce redundancy so efforts by the community would be more productive. By the 1980’s MODFLOW external users exceeded use within the USGS. By the commercial efforts start building up around MODFLOW, although the latest release, MODFLOW-2000, can be downloaded free from the USGS. During the 1999-2000 period, 23,000 copies were downloaded from the web. Lessons learned from the effort (after M. Hill, 2002):

• Only modular, carefully programmed, well-documented software can form a foundation for good future science. • Achieving this takes substantial extra time. • Arranging for this extra effort to be rewarded is very important and can be very difficult. • Some of those involved also need to publish white literature to stay current and avoid isolation. • Need a ‘keeper of the code’ who keeps things modular. This person’s edicts can seem burdensome and petty, but if done well is worth the aggravation. It’s very important to support this person because they will get hassled a lot. • Such a program can provide a superhighway for researchers to get their ideas used • Contributions from many types of efforts can be invested instead of lost There are many international programs that promote large-scale hydrological modeling and experiments. The World Meteorological Organization’s World Climate Research Program offers the Global Water and Energy Experiment Page 38 Building a Community Surface Dynamics Modeling System

(GEWEX). This program couples studies of land-atmosphere and databases for regional and global modeling. The Inter- national Geosphere-Biosphere Program offers the Biospheric Aspects of the Hydrological Cycle (BAHC) that is designed to enhance land surface-atmosphere transfer schemes. The Global Runoff Data Center (GRDC) housed in WMO-GRDC, Federal Institute of Hydrology, Koblenz, Germany offers the world’s largest storehouse of global runoff data. Individual countries also provide national data repositories (e.g. U.S.G.S., Water Survey of Canada, etc.).

LITHOSPHERE MODELS Lithospheric models have direct links to morphodynamic and stratigraphic models via tectonic forcing of landscapes and basins at long time scales. Present models are the products of individuals or small research groups, so there are many models of modest size and scope but few comprehensive ones. Lithospheric models come in three flavors: (1) thermal models where a heat source drives hydrothermal (plastic, viscous) circulation within the lithosphere; (2) mechanical mod- els, where motion is prescribed and material is deformed either through fracturing or faulting; and (3) thermomechanical models were the two processes are combined to understand the plate motion or mountain building episodes. Litho- spheric models are typically developed to study singular environments, such as the oceanic lithosphere, the continental lithosphere, hot-spots, subduction zones, extensional environments, thermal blanketing, underplating, and the develop- ment of passive margins. Lithospheric models are used to study of earthquake seismology, geodynamics, modern tecton- ics, geothermics, and the development of continental margins. Some of the models are commercial (e.g. ANSYS – cou- pled thermomechanical finite element software). Most of the models are unnamed and exist in poorly document and primitive states within the academic community. Examples of simple half-graben models (Schlische, 1991) include extensional basin or continental filling models that can separated into detachment fault models, domino-style fault block models, and fault growth models. Other simplified models include force balance models (Mountney and Westbrook, 1997), and fold and thrust models (Stuart et al., 1998). More advanced lithospheric models include stretching and subsidence models, and fault movement models (Dehler et al., 1997; Voorde et al., 1997). Below is an assortment of academic models:

Zscape – landscape evolution model (tectonics + surface processes) CITCOM – 2D finite element model of mantle dynamics FISR – Forward and Inverse Strain Rate model FGM – Edinburgh Fault Growth Model FCM – Dutch Frontal Convergence Model

CSDMS STARTING POINTS The CSDMS project is not starting from scratch. Morphodynamic modeling is best developed in the arena of fluvial sys- tems and the coastal ocean. There are a number of landscape models that simulate evolution in topography with time; these are mainly aimed at erosional systems (Beaumont et al., 1992, Tucker and Slingerland, 1994; Ellis et al., 1999). Exist- ing models for surface dynamics that will provide a point of departure for CSDMS development include:

CASCADE – Australian surface process model SEQUENCE – LDEO stratigraphic continental margin model SedFlux – INSTAAR modular continental margin model SEDPAK – USC geometric continental margin model SEDSIM – Stanford sedimentary facies model NOPP nearshore model NCSTM Coastal Community Sediment Transport Model NCSTM the National Community Sediment Transport Model initiative (NOPP, USGS) is promoting the development of an open-source numerical model for sediment-transport in coastal regions (Sherwood et al., 2000). The NCSTM initiative pro- Page 39 vides a forum for collaboration between U.S. federal agencies, academic institutions, and private industry, with the goal of adopting and/or developing one or more models for use as scientific tools by the research community working on coastal issues.