CRC Community Modeling Project Business Plan

DRAFT (7-1-03)

Steering Committee:

Raleigh Hood (chair), UMCES

Hugh Ducklow, VIMS

Don Weller, SERC

Bob Wood, UMCES

Peter Wilcock, JHU

Eileen Hofmann, ODU/CCPO

Tom Gross, NOAA

Alexy Voinov/Tom Maxwell, U. Vermont

CRC Staff

Kevin Sellner, Executive Director

Sydney Arny

CRC Member Institutions

The Johns Hopkins University

University System of Maryland

Smithsonian Institution

The College of William and Mary

The Academy of Natural Sciences

Old Dominion University

I Introduction:

At the request of the CRC Board of Trustees the Steering Committee provides here a general business plan for the CRC Community modeling Project (CRC CMP). This plan details the products, services and benefits that will be generated by this effort, and thus elaborates what the board of trustees of the CRC-member institutions can expect to receive in return for their investment. This plan also details the costs associated with the project, and how the SC anticipates that it will recover costs. Although direct grant and contract support is anticipated, much of the return from this effort will be indirect, i.e., it will be realized in the form of enhanced research and overhead for all CRC-member institutions.

The SC advocates that, if the CMP can demonstrate success and significant return in the first two years of operations, then the CRC’s annual investment should be maintained at significant levels over the course of the 5 year effort. This proposition is based upon the fact that research operations based upon 100% soft money are extremely difficult to maintain under any circumstances, and that a “community effort” requires a significant amount of hard money support from the CRC. The SC considers that the CRC investment essentially represents an expression of support from its member institution administrations to foster excellence in its research community and encourage new, innovative modeling activities. Further, it is important to realize that hiring and retaining highly qualified personnel in the CMP project manager position will be very difficult should the position transitions to 100% soft money. Hard money is needed to attract and retain a first-rank scientist as the CMP manager in a competitive market, which will, in turn, provide increased visibility and credibility for the project.

It is also important to emphasize that the CMP embodies a significant part of the CRC mission and that the CMP will be a vehicle for realizing many of the core CRC functions. The CRC mission is to “…support scientific and technical activities (including research) in the tidal Chesapeake Bay, its drainage basin and adjoining airshed, as well as adjacent offshore waters of the Middle Atlantic Bight.” Supporting scientific and technical activities (specifically modeling-related research) is what the CMP is intended to do. The CRC mission also includes: 1) efforts to assemble teams of scientists and engineers to work with public-policy specialists to design and undertake multidisciplinary studies; 2) provide access to scientists on a scale large enough to attack complex Bay or system-wide problems; and 3) assist management agencies by producing new insights, assessing knowledge, conducting workshops and symposia, and contributing to

educational programs. These are all central components of the CMP as well. Thus, the CMP will carry out a significant part of the CRC's functions. This, together with the potential for enhanced overhead return, justifies long term CRC support for the CMP.

II Products, Services and Benefits:

1. Community-wide workshops and meetings:

The annual project workshops discussed in the strategic plan will provide an important service to the CRC-member institutions and the Chesapeake Bay research community in general by increasing communication and interaction. These workshops will also facilitate interaction between observers and modelers, and promote interdisciplinary research in general, that is essential for modeling the estuary and the watershed.

2. Facilitation of collaborative efforts among CRC-member faculty:

An important goal of the CRC CMP is to generally enhance and facilitate collaborative research efforts among the CRC institutions and also between academic scientists and more management-oriented researchers at the CBP and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.

It is anticipated that this project will lead to significant enhancement of all of these interactions and will therefore strengthen what are now relative weak and sporadic connections between the research and management communities.

3. Data base development and standardization:

An important product that will be generated by this project will be a set of standardized data base products that can be used for model development, forcing, validation and general research. These data sets will be made freely available to anyone who wishes to download and use them. Obtaining these kinds of data is often a major impediment to new model development and application efforts. A major focus of this effort will be on obtaining and serving Chesapeake Bay data sets that are not already available as part of the CBP monitoring program efforts.

4. Source code consolidation and documentation:

In addition to providing data base products, this project will act as a clearinghouse for consolidation, standardization and dissemination of model source code and documentation. This service will enhance modeling-oriented research and management efforts throughout Chesapeake Bay because it will provide access to models and tools that are not currently available.

5. Model development:

It is anticipated that this project will support a variety of model-oriented research efforts that will enhance existing models and create new models intended for a variety of applications. This project will also be centered around efforts to develop a new, state-of-the-art research model system for Chesapeake Bay and its watershed that can be used for a variety of research applications. It is anticipated that this new system will ultimately pave the way for the development of a new generation of management-oriented models.

6. Model applications:

In addition to research and development, many opportunities exist for model applications, i.e., using a model to help with management decisions and environmental impact assessments. Although the primary aim of this effort is to facilitate and promote modeling-oriented research, it is anticipated that the models that are developed, consolidated and documented as part of this effort will, at some level, be used for more applied applications.

III Direct Costs:

With increases included to cover the cost of the current CMP project manager salary, the annual budget for the first 5 years of the CMP is on the order of $129,000 – 146,000 per year (see revised budget below). If the NOAA/NCBO contribution of $50,000 per year can be maintained, this requires an annual investment of ~$79,000 - $99,000 to maintain the CMP project at the level proposed in the strategic plan.

IV Income Sources:

The basic model advocated here is similar to that of a traditional university faculty position, where the core support for the position is provided by CRC institutions and NOAA/NCBO contributions. These contributions cover the full cost of the project in the first two years and thereafter cover the majority of the salary of the project manager and at least some basic operating expenses (e.g., workshop and meeting costs). As with an academic faculty position, the project manager will be expected to raise additional grant and contract support, and pursue a vigorous modeling-oriented research program that is focused on the achieving the general goals detailed above in the CMP strategic plan. The SC envisions that the CMP will generate two forms of income: 1) direct grant and contract support that will augment the core CRC funding, and 2) increased overhead return that will indirectly pay for the CRC investment in the CMP.

The dollar amounts in the text below pertain to years 3-5 of the project (see revised project budget below).

1. Direct grant and contract support:

As discussed above, an important source of funding for this project will be through direct grant support obtained through traditional funding sources, i.e., grant applications submitted to federal and state agencies such as NOPP, NSF, Sea Grant, DOE, DNR, etc.

It is anticipated that these grant applications will be collaborative with other researchers at CRC-member institutions and that they will support and expand the core CMP model-oriented research, database development, and web-site construction activities.

The models, tools and databases that will be developed as part of this project will have many potential applications in the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed, including for environmental management and impact assessment. A central idea articulated in the strategic plan is that the CMP will take over at least some aspects of the research and model development that are currently carried out by the CBP and the Army Corp of Engineers. Under this scenario, for example, the Chesapeake Bay Program might contract with the CMP to develop models for specific processes in the estuary or the watershed (e.g., an oyster filtration sub-model). Under an alternative scenario, the CMP might be contracted to apply an existing model in a particular region or for a specific management or environmental assessment purpose.

The SC expects that the project office will, ultimately, maintain 1-3 grants and/or contracts per year totaling $50,000 -$150,000 per year in direct income. These funds can contribute some level of salary support for the CMP project manager, e.g., following the academic scientist model, as much as 25%. These funds can also help defray the costs of hardware upgrades, supplies and travel. The SC estimates that G & C income will therefore cover ~ $32,000- $36,000 per year of the CMP core operating expenditures in years 3-5 of the effort, requiring that the CRC invest ~$55,000 - $60,000 per year over this time period. Thus, $14,000 - $114,000 per year would be available from “leftover” G & C funds to provide support for additional personnel (e.g., staff, students and postdocs), hardware (computers and equipment) and operating expenses.

2. Enhanced overhead return for CRC-member institution:

The remaining direct costs ($55,000 - $60,000 per year) incurred by the CRC-member institutions to support this project will be offset at some level by enhanced overhead return. The fundamental premise here is that the CMP will significantly enhance grant- and contract-based research support at CRC institutions. The CMP will act as a hub for developing inter-institutional collaborative efforts, and it will provide modeling tools and data bases that will facilitate these efforts. The CRC CMP will make researchers at the member-institutions more competitive in the grant and contract market.

The following provides an illustration of how much additional grant and contract support would have to be generated to cover the remaining cost of the CMP: If it is assumed that each of the six current CRC-member institutions will contribute approximately $10,000 per year to this effort in years 3-5, and further that the average overhead return on grants and contracts for these institutions is about 40%, then the CRC CMP would have to generate an additional $25,000 per year* of enhanced funding per institution to cover the cost of the investment, or a total CRC-wide increase in G & C support of approximately $150,000 per year. This is the equivalent to a modest increase in funding success of 1-3 additional grants and/or contracts per year among the six member institutions.

*Note: The overhead return estimate here does not hold for SERC. Smithsonian Institution overhead currently averages 30.3%. Of that, only 6.3% returns directly to SERC. Smithsonian Institutions's CRC dues are paid from SERC funds, so at 6.3% return, SERC would need to generate about $160,000 in new grants to repay the $10,000 SERC investment in the CMP.

V Funding Plan 2003-2004 and Beyond

The success of the CMP will ultimately depend on extramural support. There are two primary extramural funding sources for this effort, research and management application. The sources of funding for the former are easily identified and with experience and recognition for the CMP, success through competitive, peer review programs wil likely increase.

2003

In 2003, funding for the CMP will be primarily through the on-going cooperative agreement with the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office. This agreement provides $50,000 for CMP staff salary, fringe benefits, and 10% indirect through September, 2003; it is likely these funds will be used to secure some webmaster skills. Additionally, NOAA CBO, NOAA NOS, and CRC have established an active collaboration where NOAA funding covers the new project manager’s salary through September, 2003. For the period October-December, 2003, the two NOAA partners have agreed to a similar arrangement, although the agreement cannot be put in place until October.

Funding for 2004 and beyond is dependent on access to federal funding programs. CMP and CRC staff will meet with the new NOAA NOS Administrator to expand research areas of the National Ocean Partnership Program (NOPP) to include community modeling. It is anticipated that the administrator will revise the NOS interest in the NOPP funding announcement (BAA) to permit application, review, and potential funding of the CMP for the next few years. Additionally, CMP and CRC staff will request that NOS consider the Chesapeake Observing System and Modeling Program as a Demonstration Project for creating a model academic-federal-state partnership centered on retrieval, analysis, presentation, and model development of real time data for coastal waters. If this is successful, multi-year funding for the CMP is secure.

CRC and the CMP are in discussion with NOAA’s NOS/CSDL on yearly collaboration whereby CRC member institutions provide model experts for yearly appointments as NOAA Intergovernmental Personnel Appointments (IPA). These individuals would work on a proposed Chesapeake Bay Pilot Study, through an internal annual NOS funding opportunity, as research scientists with the CSDL laboratory. Proceeds would not only cover salary and fringe benefits for member institution scientists but some CMP administrative costs.

Other funding opportunities will also provide funding for the CMP. NOAA’s CSCOR has announced funding for Ecological Forecasting through the competitive, peer review process. The CMP SC is meeting to derive recommended budgetary guidelines for any CRC researcher seeking funding from this program, as dependence on the CMP, its manager, and its products is inherent to each application. These guidelines will be distributed in late August, 2003 for discussion within the CRC modeling community and institutions and serve as the foundation for future grant applications involving the CMP or its products. Guidance will be provided on providing support for the manager’s salary (if involved in the proposed research) or alternatively, subcontracts for CMP products such as models, databases, or analytical products.

The Northeast Observing System (NEOS) is also seeking support, through proposal submissions on governance and demonstration projects. The Chesapeake Observing System and Modeling Program, a collaboration of UMCES, VIMS, ODU, CRC and NOAA NOS and NOAA CBO, may form to be a subregional Pilot Project portion of the NEOS submission. The meeting to formalize this subregional activity is scheduled for September and should the collaboration be established, the CMP will be identified as the modeling capacity for the subregional project.

2004

The cooperative agreement (through September, 2004) between NCBO and the CRC includes $50,000 salary, fringe, and indirect for the CMP’s project manager. With the late 2003 salary coverage agreed to by NOAA NOS and NOAA CBO (see 2003 above), full salary coverage for the project manager is assured. At a maximum, then, CRC reserves need only cover planned CMP semi-annual workshops, meetings of the CRC member institution modeling community to discuss community model developments and plan CMP activities for the following half-year. And even these workshops may become part of the grant applications discussed above (NOPP, NOS Partnership Program, Ecological Forecasting), resulting in even lower demand on CRC reserves to under an ideal situation, no CRC funds are required for the CMP at all. Ideally, CMP will be part of grant-supported projects identified above, i.e., NOPP, NOS Partnership Program, Ecological Forecasting, or NEOS, providing salary and administrative resources for the CMP manager.

2005-

As the CMP models are developing and being applied and refined in the research communities, Federal, state, or industry requests for model applications will be encouraged through activities of the CRC Executive Director, CMP project manager, and the CRC member institution modelers. Use of these model and module approaches by public staffs in the region will require substantial exposure of these individuals to model and module output in order to familiarize these potential users with the power of the suite of models; otherwise there will be a commitment to the ‘status-quo’, or the single model approach of the CBP. It is envisioned that transfer of the modeling skills and development of model output for public or private priorities will become a subcomponent of the CMP effort, an applied arm of the project. Initially, CRC member institution modelers will be asked if they wish to oversee these transfers and applications, and if so, CMP support will be garnered from agreements established between the requesting agency, the investigator, and the CMP for project manager salary or project administration. If CRC modelers do not wish to oversee these applications to the lay community, then the CMP might expand to include staff to undertake the transfer or within house analyses for subsequent transfer of the model/modules or results. However, without substantial and continued dialog with and distribution of model results to this user community, CMP success with more applied agencies for safeguarding health, resources, or economies, will remain in jeopardy.

Basic CMP research will continue through the normal proposal and peer review process, so NOPP, NSF, EPA, NOAA will be approached as new funding opportunities are either announced or encouraged.

VI Concluding Comment:

The SC emphasizes that the overarching goal of the CMP is to facilitate modeling-oriented research and the ability of research community to explain and make predictions about the Bay and its watershed. Organizing workshops, promoting collaboration, and doing database and model development are all part of the CMP (and CRC) mission. It is not, however, realistic to expect that the CMP will produce a revenue stream from sales or licensing of models or exclusive contracts. Such an approach is inconsistent with the basic concept of a community model and would work against the broader objectives of the CMP and the CRC.

The case has been made here that the CMP will, at some level, defray the cost of its operations. However, the reality is that the research community is asking the CRC board to invest in project that has an uncertain future, and to speculate on potential benefits and revenue sources that are not yet secured. It is clear that the CMP embodies a significant part of the CRC mission and that the CMP can act is a vehicle for carrying many of its core functions. In a very real sense, then, this investment represents an investment in the CRC and the research community as a whole that can be justified even in the absence of tangible monetary return.

Revised 5 Year Budget with Income Sources

CRC Community Modeling Project
Category	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4	Year 5
Res. Scientist, with 3% COLA	88000	90640	93359	96159	99044
Fringes (20%)	17600	18128	18672	19232	19809
Hardware
HP Server with Linux, additional disk & RAM	6000	0	0	0	0
PC Computer	3000	0	0	0	0
Hardware upgrades and additional disk	0	0	3000	0	3000
Supplies & general operating expenses	1500	1500	1500	1500	1500
Travel	1500	1500	1500	1500	1500
Other
Computer networking, sys admin, backup fees	1000	1000	1000	1000	1000
Semi-annual CRC modeler meetings*	10000	20000	20000	20000	20000
TOTAL	128600	132768	139031	139391	145853
NOAA CBO Contribution	50000	50000	50000	50000	50000
Additional Cost	78600	82768	89031	89391	95853
1. Direct Grant and Contract Support: Salary from G & C (25% of total salary) Hardware from G & C Supplies & general operating from G & C Travel from G & C Total G & C support for core operations Remaining Additional Cost to CRC members	0 0 0 0 0 78600	0 0 0 0 0 82768	28008 3000 1500 1500 34008 55023	28847 0 1500 1500 31847 57544	29713 3000 1500 1500 35713 60122
*6-month meetings to discuss model updates