|
|
  |
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION SUMMARY MINUTES APPROVED BY THE SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD July 23, 1998 Dr. Crosby (Executive Director) officially called the first meeting of the NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB) to order, welcomed the SAB, provided a brief overview of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requirements related to the SAB, and described the meeting agenda and protocol for conducting the meeting. Dr. Beeton (SAB Chairman) provided a brief overview of the NOAA-University partnership effort over the last few years and the recommendations that led to the chartering of the SAB. SAB Members introduced themselves (see SAB attendees list at the end of these minutes) Dr. Baker (Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, and Administrator of NOAA) welcomed the SAB and discussed the purpose of the Board, which is to advise him on long- and short-range strategies for NOAA research, education and application of science to resource management. SAB activities and advice will provide necessary input to ensure that NOAA's science programs are of the highest quality and provide optimal support to resource management. The Under Secretary also provided a short presentation on global environmental and socio-economic trends. He then discussed the current NOAA organizational structure and strategic planning process, examples of NOAA's involvement with interagency cooperation such as the National Ocean Partnership program (NOPP) and the Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources (CENR), and trends over the last decade in annual research funding for the federal agencies in general, and specifically for NOAA. SHORT PRESENTATIONS BY REPRESENTATIVES
OF OMB AND NOAA LINE AND PROGRAM OFFICES Louisa Koch (Commerce Branch Chief, Office of Management and Budget [OMB], Executive Office of the President): A short overview of the federal budget process was presented. Congress is presently finalizing the FY1999 appropriations. There is a potential for a budget surplus. However, the FY2000 budget will most likely be balanced, with overall agency funding, on average, remaining level. While earmarks can be viewed as providing assistance to specific projects, they tend to make overall agency budget management difficult. In order for NOAA's research budget to increase, a strong case must be made to OMB as to the importance and relevance of both the new activities and for continuing current programs. Dr. Robert Winokur, Assistant Administrator, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS): NESDIS is responsible for NOAA's satellite remote sensing system. The system consists of 4 satellites (2 geostationary, 2 polar orbiting) . Some issues of interest include continuity, technology, partnerships, new applications, Geosynchronous Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) products, and data system capability. There were questions concerning new sensors and the condition of old paper records. In 2007 there will be a new satellite sensor. Degrading paper records are being transcribed from paper records to digital data (but there is a backlog). Following the presentation, the SAB commented on the need for greater focus on forecasting sea level rise. John Jones, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, National Weather Service (NWS): NWS has Cooperative Institutes with 5 universities. Partnerships such as Cooperative Operational Meteorological Education and Training (COMET) and SEASTAR programs were briefly mentioned. Science priorities were discussed including quantification estimation, effect of topography on coastal weather regimes, and locally hazardous weather. Following the presentation, the SAB discussed the ties to OAR and other line officeís research needs, connections between research and operations, and improvement of forecast algorithm. Dr. Michael Hall, Director, Office of Global Programs (OGP): OGP has university partnerships in which the universities share in more than half of the funding. OGP operates primarily through grants. Research needs include a better understanding of carbon cycling. Research efforts need to be more model based. The different time scales of climate variability make modeling difficult. We need to know how climate behaves from El Niño to inter-decadal time scales. Upon completion of Dr. Hall's presentation, the SAB brought forward the following issues: Continuity of databases when university labs are becoming part of the NOAA infrastructure - can they maintain long term data sets for users? How can we better predict events (short term) that have cascading events?; The U.S. Global Change Program is not as coordinated as it should be. NOAA should take a leadership role; There is a need for fusion of disciplines, and universities can help; OGP needs to pay more attention to forecasting for sea-level rise. Dr. W. Stanley Wilson, Deputy Chief Scientist, NOAA: Overview of the Global Ocean Observing system (GOOS) was provided. We have the technical capability to implement such a global ocean observing system, but we do not have the in situ system that is needed. The availability of real-time data could be used to initialize models. The next logical array is the north Atlantic. The Global Ocean Data Assimilation Experiment (GODAE) will demonstrate the utility of gathering such data. We need to demonstrate that we can do it for an ocean basin. Such an array system development would cut across the line offices of NOAA and across other agencies with ocean-related responsibilities. Following Dr. Wilson's presentation, the SAB brought forward discussion on the need for NOAA to optimize its existing assets with more cooperation within NOAA (between line offices). GOOS is primarily concerned with the physics and chemistry of the ocean - we have done little to increase our capacity to monitor globally the biological component. Rolland Schmitten, Assistant Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS): NMFS is a science-based organization. Science output is provided to 8 Fisheries Management Councils. NMFS currently operates 8 vessels, but this is being reduced to 6 due to increased contracting. There is an absence of adequate fisheries data, and research vessels need to be improved. Ecosystem approaches need to be looked at. There is an attempt to direct resources into social and economic aspects of fisheries science and management. Fishery scientists and their findings are being questioned by industry, environmental groups and some of the general public. Following Mr. Schmitten's overview, the SAB engaged in discussion on the following topics: shellfish jurisdiction of NMFS - mostly state waters; Essential Fish Habitat - recognition of the importance; There needs to be a combination of habitat protection/enhancement and stricter regulations, but there is limited resources for enforcement; public education is important - people can not be helped if they don't want to abide by the regulations. Dr. David Evans, Assistant Administrator, Office of Ocean and Atmospheric Research (OAR): OAR is traditionally the focal point for NOAA research science. The SAB should consider where the focal point for science should be in NOAA - should it be OAR or should it be the Office of the Chief Scientist? There is a lack of visibility for NOAA basic science. NOAA scientists should be measured not only in traditional ways, but also how they support NOAA management-oriented responsibilities. Mission-oriented research is no longer "bad". Following Dr. Evans presentation, the SAB questioned the extent that OAR research focuses on sea level rise and how it effects coastal managers. Some Board members said NOAA should be able to make predictions, other than weather. CAPT William Turnbull, Director, High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC): HPCC provides computational tools for weather forecasting. The Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) program provides environmental data that are collected by nearly 5,500 schools worldwide. Following CAPT Turnbull's presentation, the Board asked if the data gathered from the schools was of any scientific value. CAPT Turnbull responded that the data collected has met the scrutiny of scientists. The Board also suggested that HPCC may also be looked to for support of other computationally intensive NOAA initiative, such as marine ecosystem modeling. Dr. Nancy Foster, Assistant Administrator, National Ocean Service (NOS): Under the reorganization of NOS, there are Science Centers for Coastal Ocean Science that have been established. Some of these Science Centers were former OAR, NMFS and Coastal Ocean Program (COP) programs and facilities. NOS looks to broaden the scopes of the lab research, and hopes to bring managers and scientists together. There is a need to provide translation of research results into formats understandable to user groups. There will be more research on non-point source pollution. NOS would like to build a predictive capability for harmful algal blooms. NOS will work with NMFS on habitat issues. The challenge is to balance long and short term research. NOS would like to see a subcommittee on coastal ocean resources formed. Following Dr. Foster's presentation, discussion occurred on cooperation with other line organizations and other agencies. The Board made a point that NOS needed to avoid duplication of science programs. A point was made that the National Science Foundation (NSF) Land Margin Ecosystem Research program was being scaled back, to which Dr. Foster responded that discussions with NSF are underway on potential collaboration to fill gaps. The Board was also interested in any NOS efforts to develop better predictive environmental modeling, to which Dr. Foster responded that the Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) was beginning to examine this area. Regarding linkages to international organizations, the SAB was informed that an international agenda was being developed within NOS. When asked how identification of long and short-term goals was developed by NOS, the SAB was informed that input is received from the labs and academia. The Board noted that in the area of blue water research, some former COP programs (which are being transferred to NOS) such as Global Ocean Ecosystems Dynamics (GLOBEC) studies, and OAR's role in this area, are examples of two research organization models in NOAA which are confusing and apparently overlapping. The Board asked for comments
from Admiral James Watkins, USN (Retired), President, Consortium
for Oceanographic Research and Education (CORE): ADM Watkins gave the following overview and perspective: CORE was established 3 years ago. CORE has 52 institutional members. It is a lobbying organization. Historically, the driving force for ocean research in the U.S. was the Soviet Union. Up to 40% of the research was for naval purposes. There is no longer a Soviet Union and ocean research funding has declined. Research and Development (R&D) are usually grouped together in budget processes. This tends to cloud a clear understanding of the relative proportion of budgets that are directed toward research, and has made it easier to shift emphasis from research to development. This has led to a decline in the amount of funding for research to the benefit of development. We need to break out research from development during the budget process. This is also true for ocean research. 7% of R&D was traditionally for research. Now it is 4%. We need to speak up. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reports are great, but poorly implemented. The international component of the National Ocean Partnership Program (NOPP) needs to be strengthened. Following Admiral Watkins' presentation, the SAB inquired about the role of CORE in ocean research. CORE does not set research priorities, but acts as a facilitator. The Board asked for comments from Kerry Bolognese, Assistant Director-Federal Relations, National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC): Mr. Bolognese informed the Board that NASULGC member universities provide to the nation a substantial part of its oceanic and atmospheric education, research and development, and service base, and also support and rely on NOAA in their endeavors. Accordingly, NASULGC had just released a report entitled "Recommendations for the future of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration", and provided each SAB member with copies. This report is built on the principle that an effective, efficient NOAA, working in close partnership with the nation's universities, is absolutely essential to the well being of our nation. The report is organized around a series of six imperative derived from that principle and proposes a set of 14 recommendations that flow from those imperatives. He encouraged the Board to review and discuss the report. The Board thanked Mr. Bolognese for the report, but felt that they would need to have more time to read it before engaging in a discussion on it. A suggestions was made that the Board may be able to discuss this report at their next meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT / INPUT Dr. Elliott Norse, President,
Marine Conservation Biology Institute (MCBI): Large scale distribution patterns of organisms are important and the concept of biological diversity has barely penetrated NOAA. MCBI strongly recommends that science programs in NOAA begin to place an emphasis at marine biological diversity. NOAA scientists and research programs need to adopt a new paradigm focused on multi-disciplinality. Marine scientists need to learn from the field of terrestrial conservation biology, but there are distinct differences and needs (which he has described in his book on marine biodiversity). A marine conservation biology initiative is critical to NOAA's future success in resource management and as an early warning of potential calamities. The nation is looking for leadership in NOAA that will promote marine conservation biology. The SAB thanked Dr. Norse for his eloquent and passionate presentation, generally agreed with the importance of studying and conserving biodiversity, and asked him asked how he would translate his proposal into an initiative, given that a static level of overall research funding would mean that funds must be reallocated from existing NOAA programs. Dr. Norse suggested one avenue would be an evaluation of existing programs and elimination of "non-performers," but that he preferred additional funding to NOAA specifically for the marine conservation biology initiative. Kerry Kehoe, Legislative Council for the Coastal States Organization (CSO): Mr. Kehoe thanked Dr. Baker for appointing a coastal zone manager to the SAB. However, NOAA science information is not available to coastal managers to make decisions. States do not know the science capabilities of NOAA and do not know how to access the data or how to use them. Mr. Kehoe did acknowledge that the National Oceanographic Data Center of NESDIS had formed a committee (the Coastal Ocean Data, Information and Products [CODIP] committee which he was part of and for which Dr. Crosby was the former Chair) which was attempting to focus on these issues and needs. However, he felt that NOAA needed to make a more NOAA-wide effort towards providing data and value added data products available in a user friendly and accessible format. Following Mr. Kehoe's presentation, the SAB asked questions and entered into discussion - The issues of the need for training of coastal managers was discussed (School of Marine Affairs at the University of Washington used as an example of a good source of training), as was the role of technical assistance to local governments to assure consistent standards and effective implementation of stewardship responsibilities. Mike DeLuca, Associate Director, Institute of Marine and Coastal Science, Rutgers University: Mr. DeLuca advocated the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) as an example of a NOAA partnership program with the states that focuses on the "science to management theme". NERRS sites serve as long-term natural laboratories, and are local networks with state and federal partnerships. If SAB establishes a subcommittee for coastal science issues, SAB should focus on the NERRS model. Following Dr. Deluca's presentation, the SAB discussed the possibility of manipulative research in reserves and relationship to National Association of Marine Laboratories (NAML) - Manipulative research would be possible to varying degrees at different NERRS sites. There is some overlap and communication with the National Association of Marine Laboratories, with many NERRS sites closely associated with university and marine labs. OPEN DISCUSSION BY SAB Basic vs. Applied Research Education Funding Communication Partnerships Credibility of Science in
NOAA Organization of NOAA Structure of the SAB Dr. Crosby called the meeting to order. Dr. Beeton posed a question to the SAB on behalf of Dr. Baker - "Is NOAA getting the right data and getting it to the user?" OPEN DISCUSSION BY SAB General Data Concerns Types of Data Data Access Data Quality Data Delivery Data Storage The Strategic Plan The one-page science program and priorities provided by the LO's didn't seem to synchronize with Strategic Plan. There appears to be a disconnect between strategic planning teams and the science priorities of line offices. Strategic planning initiatives run up against the needs of the line office with the latter taking priority. Environmental Prediction is asking right questions and aiming for the right research. Because stewardship questions are often more difficult to frame, is not clear that the Environmental Stewardship portfolio is asking the right questions or aiming for the right research. Cross-Cutting Research vs. Research
within Line Offices SAB Steering and Sub-Committees Future Meetings January 1999: Miami The sites were selected for the
opportunity to see how NOAA labs, Line and Program Offices, and
academia work together and apply science. The steering committees
will work out the agenda and topics with the SAB Executive Director. CHAIR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Dr. Vera Alexander, Dean, School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska Mr. Peter M. Douglas, Executive Director, California Coastal Commission Dr. Patricia Gober, Professor, Department of Geography, Arizona State University Dr. Susan S. Hanna, The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, Washington, DC Dr. Diane M. McKnight, Associate Professor, Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering Dept., University of Colorado Dr. Arthur E. Maxwell, Professor Emeritus, Institute for Geophysics, University of Texas Dr. Jake Rice, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat Dr. Joanne Simpson, Chief Scientist for Meteorology, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Dr. Denise M. Stephenson-Hawk, Professor of Physics, Clark-Atlanta University Dr. Warren Washington, National
Center for Atmospheric Research, Climate and Global Dynamics
Division Dr. Otis Brown, Dean, Meteorology
& Physical Oceanography Dr. Leonard J. Pietrafesa, Head,
Department of Marine, Earth & Atmospheric Sciences Dr. Soroosh Sorooshian, Professor,
Hydrology & Water Resources, University of Arizona Dr. Richard W. Spinrad, The Oceanography Society and Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education, 1755 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington, DC 200036-2102 Mark A. Burnham, UCAR, 1233 20th St., NW, Suite 610, Washington, DC 20036 Amy Mathews-Amos, Marine Conservation Biology Institute, 205 N. Edgewood St., Arlington, VA Dr. Elliott Norse, President, Marine Conservation Biology Institute, 15806 NE 47th Court, Redmond, WA 98052-5208 Peter Folger, American Geophysical Union, 2000 Florida Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20009-1277 Tony MacDonald, Coastal States Organization, Washington, DC Lee Stevens, Sea Grant Association, 2813 Lee Oaks #102, Falls Church, VA 22046 Mike DeLuca, Associate Director, Institute of Marine and Coastal Science, Rutgers University, 71 Dudley Rd., New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8521 Kerry Kehoe, Legislative Counsel, Coastal States Organization, Washington, DC Randy Showstack, Reporter, EOS, American Geophysical Union, 2000 Florida Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20009-1277 Approximately 12 NOAA staff from various Line and Program Offices were also in the audience. |