|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Committee on the Collaborative Large-scale Engineering Analysis
Network for Environmental Research (CLEANER)
Water Science and Technology Board
Division on Earth and Life Studies
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu
OCR for page R2
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the
Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn
from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of
Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee
responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard
for appropriate balance.
Support for this study was provided by a grant from the National Science
Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in
this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of
the National Science Foundation.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-10229-4.
Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press,
500 5th Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202)
334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2006 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
OCR for page R3
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating
society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research,
dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the
general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress
in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal
government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is
president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the
charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of
outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the
selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the
responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of
Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national
needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior
achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National
Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of
Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions
in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The
Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences
by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon
its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr.
Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of
Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology
with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal
government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the
Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in
providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and
engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both
Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Wm. A.
Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
www.national-academies.org
OCR for page R4
OCR for page R5
COMMITTEE ON THE COLLABORATIVE LARGE-SCALE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS NETWORK FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH (CLEANER)
DANIEL P. LOUCKS, Chair, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
PEDRO J. ALVAREZ, Rice University, Houston, Texas
MARY JO BAEDECKER, U.S. Geological Survey, Emeritus, Reston,
Virginia
JAMES W. BOYD, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
RICHARD A. CONWAY, Union Carbide Corporation (retired),
Jacksonville, Florida
JOHN W. DAY, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge
CHARLES T. DRISCOLL, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York
TONY R. FOUNTAIN, University of California, San Diego
EDWIN E. HERRICKS, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
ROBERT J. HUGGETT, Michigan State University (retired), Seaford,
Virginia
TIMOTHY K. KRATZ, University of Wisconsin, Madison
JEFFREY M. LAURIA, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., Columbus, Ohio
JUDITH L. MEYER, University of Georgia, Athens
TAVIT O. NAJARIAN, Najarian Associates, Eatontown, New Jersey
CHARLES R. O'MELIA, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
NRC Staff
STEPHEN D. PARKER, Director, Water Science and Technology Board
DOROTHY K. WEIR, Research Associate
The activities of this committee were overseen and supported by the National Research
Council's Water Science and Technology Board (see Appendix A for listing).
Biographical information on committee members is contained in Appendix B.
v
OCR for page R6
OCR for page R7
Preface
Environmental engineers and scientists have long worked to understand
better the interactions between humans and their natural and built environments
and how they affect each other. These relationships become increasingly
important as growing urban populations and economic development degrade the
quality of environmental resources and alter the types and functioning of
ecosystems. With an increasing interest in the sustainable use of natural
resources, the recognition of society's dependence on ecological goods and
services, and the perceived long-term continuing decline of the quality of our
air, land, and water resources, it becomes increasingly important to prevent
irreversible damage to the environment and its ecosystems. We must improve
our understanding of environmental processes in order to predict the likely
impacts resulting from alternative environmental resource management policies
and practices.
The quality of our environment is influenced by both natural forces and
human activities. To better understand and predict future conditions under
alternative resource management strategies and human influences, many
engineers and scientists believe that an improved research infrastructure is
needed to observe the characteristics, processes, and phenomena that take place
in our natural and built environments over short temporal and broad spatial
scales. In response to this perceived need, the National Science Foundation
(NSF) is considering establishing several types of observatory networks.1 These
observatory networks are to provide improved capabilities for near real-time
dynamic monitoring, modeling, and analysis of hydrologic and ecological
processes. A common goal of these networks is to advance our understanding of
complex environmental systems, thereby enhancing our overall predictive
capacities and adaptive management approaches.
Environmental observatory networks are believed to be critical for
addressing the primary environmental challenge for today's society: to more
fully understand the functioning of our present and future ecosystems and to find
more effective ways of sustaining the supply and quality of environmental
resources and ecological goods and services provided by those systems. At the
core of this challenge is the need to better understand the interactions within and
among the atmospheric, hydrologic, geophysical, ecological, and human
components of our environment. To accomplish this will require networks of
1 These networks include the Collaborative Large-scale Engineering Analysis Network
for Environmental Research (CLEANER), the Consortium of Universities for the
Advancement of Hydrologic Science, Incorporated (CUAHSI) Hydrologic Observatories,
the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), the Geosciences Network
(GEON), the Ocean Observatory Initiative (OOI), and the Arctic Observing Network.
vii
OCR for page R8
viii Preface
various field and remote measurement devices in communication with computer
systems for data compilation, storage, and analyses. Together these network
components must be able to transform a patchwork of local measurements into a
comprehensive integrated picture of the coupled environmental-human system.
These proposed environmental observatory networks would enhance
opportunities for research on environmental-human interactions and processes.
Coordinated multi-disciplinary data sensing, monitoring, collection, and
modeling strategies could lead to a more comprehensive vision of how best to
assess, forecast, manage, and protect complex environmental resources over
temporal and spatial scales not presently assessed.
The committee of scientists and engineers with expertise in environmental
engineering, hydrology and hydrogeology, ecology, coastal and marine science,
computer science, and economics that wrote this report was organized by the
National Research Council (NRC) and charged to advise the NSF on the
Collaborative Large-Scale Engineering Analysis Network for Environmental
Research (CLEANER) initiative's science plan. It was also asked to comment
on the overall value of networked environmental observatory facilities for
improving our understanding of complex water resource systems. While we
focus mainly on water, as charged, we cannot help but also consider the effects
that managed water quantity and quality regimes have on natural ecosystem
functioning and human activities. Any study of those effects must be based on
ecosystem and social impact data, as well as hydrologic and environmental data.
An improved ability to predict the interactions among natural environmental and
human systems will require integrated sets of hydrologic, environmental,
ecosystem, and social science data. These data must be collected over the
temporal and spatial scales in which important human-environmental
interactions take place.
Our study period lasted only several months. In preparation for our first
and only meeting in late 2005, committee members provided in advance written
material relevant to the assignment. At our meeting we were briefed by NSF
representatives on the current status and long-term plans for CLEANER and
other (CUAHSI and NEON) associated networked observatories. Following the
meeting, all members of the committee participated in the development of this
report. The report represents a consensus of all committee members with
respect to our findings and recommendations.
We are grateful to Patrick Brezonik, Douglas James, and Elizabeth Blood
from the NSF who contributed to our understanding of relevant NSF goals,
constraints, activities, and plans concerning observatory initiatives. The
committee hopes the advice we provide in this report proves useful as they and
their colleagues proceed with the planning and implementation of these
observatory programs.
As chair, I thank all committee members for their thoughtful and timely
contributions to this review in what surely must be among the shortest duration
and more intense studies of the NRC. On behalf of our entire committee I also
thank our project manager Dorothy Weir, Research Associate with the Water
OCR for page R9
Preface ix
Science and Technology Board, and the Water Science and Technology Board's
Director, Stephen Parker. They organized the overall effort from beginning to
end, managed all communications, and dealt with all the usual and numerous
logistical details. We thank them both for their contributions to our
deliberations and development of this report.
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their
diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures
approved by the NRC's Report Review Committee. The purpose of this
independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist
the NRC in making its published report as sound as possible and will ensure that
the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and
responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript
remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish
to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Dr. Patrick R.
Atkins, Aluminum Company of America; Dr. Chaitanya K. Baru, University of
California, San Diego; Dr. Kenneth R. Bradbury, Wisconsin Geological and
Natural History Survey; Dr. George M. Hornberger, University of Virginia; Dr.
Perry L. McCarty, Stanford University; Dr. Patrick J. Mulholland, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory; and Dr. Leslie L. Shoemaker, Tetra Tech, Inc.
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments
and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or
recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release.
The review of this report was overseen by Dr. Diane M. McKnight of the
University of Colorado. Appointed by the NRC, she was responsible for making
certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in
accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were
carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests
entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
Daniel P. Loucks, Chair
OCR for page R10
OCR for page R11
Contents
SUMMARY 1
1 INTRODUCTION 8
CLEANER, 9
Scope and Purpose of this Report, 13
2 CLEANER AND THE OBSERVATORY APPROACH 15
Value of the Observatory Approach, 16
Can CLEANER Be Transformative?, 17
How Can CLEANER Fill in the Gaps?, 18
Summary, 20
3 GRAND WATER CHALLENGES AND RESEARCH 21
QUESTIONS
Research Criteria, 22
Research Areas, 22
Summary, 32
4 IMPLEMENTING ENVIRONMENTAL OBSERVATORIES 34
Coordination of Environmental Observatories, 35
CLEANER Cyberinfrastructure Issues, 39
Dissemination, Outreach, and Education, 43
Some Necessary Conditions, 43
Summary, 48
REFERENCES 51
ACRONYMS 53
APPENDIXES
A Water Science and Technology Board 57
B Biographical Sketches for Committee on the Collaborative 58
Large-scale Engineering Analysis Network for Environmental
Research (CLEANER)
xi
OCR for page R12
