NOAA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
JANUARY 28, 1999
MIAMI, FLORIDA

SUMMARY MINUTES APPROVED BY THE SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD

Official Call to Order and Review of Meeting Format- Dr. Michael P. Crosby
Dr. Crosby officially called the meeting to order, welcomed the Board, reviewed the agenda, and announced the new Science Advisory Board (SAB) Web site (http://www.sab.noaa.gov).

Introduction of the NOAA SAB Chair and Board Members and Opening Statement of the Chair - Dr. Alfred Beeton
Dr. Beeton and the other Board members present introduced themselves. Dr. Beeton discussed the purpose of having the meeting in Miami - presence of Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory (AOML), Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC), partnership with academia (i.e. the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences), as well as an opportunity to visit the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and be briefed on the National Undersea Research Program. Dr. Beeton then gave the members an opportunity to make an opening statement. Dr. Joanne Simpson commented positively on the tour of the Hurricane Center the previous day and said she was pleased with the partnerships that exist between the center and other facilities such as AOML.

Welcoming remarks, review of purpose of the NOAA SAB, update on FY99 NOAA science programs and budget - Dr. D. James Baker
Dr. Baker began by reading the purpose of the SAB from its charter. He then commented on the importance of the Board to NOAA and stated that the members were selected for their diverse backgrounds and ability to look across disciplines. Dr. Baker said he was looking for the Board to help in: 1) narrowing the scope in determining what things in the area of science NOAA is doing right and what things need improvement or should be done differently; 2) contributing to the national dialogue on environmental research - helping to determine how we set a national science policy for environmental research; and 3) how NOAA can improve its science programs and their linkage to environmental forecasting and resource management. He stated that the Board is also important in their potential contributions to a national and international dialogue on environmental research. He further stated that the level funding situation for research is an important problem to consider and that later deliberations of the Board should consider organizational issues such as "is NOAA organized in the right way to make the most effective use of its resources to meet its mission goals?" He followed by stating that the Board is an important new element in NOAA research. Dr. Baker commented that the context of NOAA science, as we move toward the next couple of years, revolves around change in the areas of global warming (atmospheric chemistry), ocean chemistry, and population (increasing population leads to stresses on resources). Those changes, he stated, are principal driving forces for NOAA science.

In the area of budget, Dr. Baker noted that the NOAA budget has increased by an order of magnitude since 1971, and that there was a 10% increase in the FY99 budget that he attributed to a recognition of NOAA's value to both science and society.

Dr. Baker went on to give a brief overview of NOAA strategic planning, which is divided into two areas: environmental stewardship (building sustainable fisheries; recovering protected species; sustaining healthy coasts) and environmental assessment and prediction (advancing short-term warning and forecast services; implementing seasonal to interannual climate forecasts; predicting and assessing decadal to centennial change; promoting safe navigation). When discussing environmental stewardship, Dr. Baker pointed to the Presidential initiatives (including support for ocean technology as well as the issues cited above) announced at the National Ocean Conference held in June, 1998 and NOAA's progress on meeting those initiatives. He stated that the Conference was an important step in getting attention focused on the ocean and that NOAA needs to be sure that commitment will be maintained through the Congress. In the area of assessment and prediction, Dr. Baker discussed issues including building up the aging network of sampling systems, upgrading computers to keep pace with advancing information technology, expanding the array of profiling floats (Tropical Ocean Global Atmosphere-Tropical Atmosphere Ocean [TOGA-TAO] Array), and monitoring CO2 and other gases in compliance with Kyoto agreements. Dr. Baker stated that NOAA needs advice from the SAB in how best to balance all of these issues in the strategic plan. He also brought up the topic of areas not covered directly by the strategic plan and stated that such areas do need to be a part of NOAA's agenda and that he wants the strategic plan to be flexible enough to accommodate these areas. Dr. Baker went on to state that NOAA is looking for new ways of doing things, new technology, and he also cited education (both public and Congressional) as a critical issue saying that it is good to be able to point to specific examples of success in the area of education.

Overview of suggested NOAA science priorities for FY2001
Dr. Beeton stated that the suggested science priorities are broad categories that cut across all parts of NOAA. The seven goals of the Strategic Plan have a cross-cutting relationship and NOAA therefore needs to determine where the cross-cutting science and research should be. He commented that the suggested science priorities fall into five major categories (improve and integrate data acquisition and observing systems; improve data management, assessment, and delivery; improve our understanding of natural systems; improve the ability to predict; improve restoration and remediation techniques) into which just about any issue can fit. Dr. Beeton stated that categories are so broad by necessity, and prioritization of specifics is needed within the categories.

Dr. David L. Evans (NOAA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Ocean and Atmospheric Research) commented that there is a struggle to identify specific topics in the broad categories that warrant attention, but that are also narrow enough to be tackled by a single investigator or program. This identification of specific science issues that need to be focused on is a work in progress within NOAA and the document presented to the Board is only a draft document. Dr. Evans asked the question, "what will the public get from NOAA science priorities?" and stated that the support structure will be lost if we don't identify specifics. He would like the SAB to engage NOAA in a meaningful way to identify priorities that fall somewhere between broad and specific - the identification of important areas of research in a more specific fashion. He also raised a few specific topics himself, including quantitative precipitation forecasts, data assimilation, impact of fishing gear, and the effect and role of refugia. He stated that NOAA needs the SAB's help in setting priorities, determining what will have the biggest impact and using these priorities as marching orders in developing the strategic plan.

SAB Discussion
It was noted that there appears to be an absence of a specific reference to the importance of education, and though it is implied, it needs to be kept in mind. Education would tie into Sea Grant.

The question was raised as to how one gets from the broad science priorities of the draft NOAA science priorities to the specific priorities within the Line Offices, and what the SAB's role is in this.

Some Board members felt no sense of emphasis on or clear understanding of the purpose of the research - the research needs to be geared towards actual use by decision makers, towards the outcome. There is not sufficient emphasis on the science needed to improve integrated coastal zone management, for example an understanding of the dynamics of watersheds. A suggestions was made that NOAA science needs to demonstrate a greater connection to the improvement of our ability to manage coastal and ocean resources. There is a lack of rapid response capability- the ability to quickly respond to questions to which the coastal zone managers need answers immediately.

Other Board members felt a need to spell out in more detail the ability to predict (i.e., environmental change). How will research done in labs be used to do actual predictions? It is important to build partnerships in this area.

The discussion then moved to the need for a more robust integration of social sciences. How does NOAA perceive and encourage the input from social scientists? Small changes in the wording of the draft document could convey how NOAA perceives input from social scientists - what information is needed for what purpose and allow better integration and interaction between science, social science, and coastal stewardship.

The Board then focused specifically on the 'Improve our understanding of natural systems' category in the draft NOAA science priorities document, and comments were made that implementation depends on the ability to monitor and gather data in the long term and emphasize a process-oriented type of research. A question was asked regarding how we can be more adaptable to finding out what is actually driving events, specifically episodic events. Research cruises must be planned so far in advance that it is possible to miss something important.

Strategic Planning team overview examples at a general level

Sustain Healthy Coasts, with focus on "Harmful Algal Blooms" - Margaret Davidson (NOAA Strategic Planning Team Lead)
Margaret Davidson gave a presentation on NOAA's efforts to sustain healthy coasts which included a discussion of NOAA's vision, programs, and capabilities and NOAA's activities regarding the current issues of harmful algal blooms, hypoxia and eutrophication, non-indigenous species, and multiple stresses. Also covered were habitat restoration, protection and management efforts; activities to sustain human coastal communities through the National Disaster Reduction Initiative; and advances in biotechnology research (Sea Grant). Ms. Davidson concluded by commenting that sustaining healthy coasts is about working across Line Offices and not only fulfills NOAA objectives, but also Department of Commerce objectives.

SAB Discussion
Some Board members commented that sustaining quality of life should also be considered by the Sustain Healthy Coasts (SHC) team, as well as identifying the best technology for prevention and source reduction rather than just monitoring water quality.

Ms. Davidson responded that the SHC team is working on that for 2001 and engaged to look at coastal GOOS - observations applied to protection.

The Board felt that there was a need to develop mechanisms to get Sea Grant research results more efficiently to other parts of NOAA and the public, media, Congress, etc. Sea Grant has great outreach capability but there is a need to get Sea Grant more involved with the rest of NOAA - more communication is needed. The question was also raised on whether there was cooperation with EPA in watershed issues

Ms. Davidson informed the Board that the SHC team is starting to bring Sea Grant to the table with the strategic planning process. She further stated that NOAA works with EPA on non-point source issues. Discussions are taking place at the working level. NOAA also works with USGS.

Members of the Board believe that there is too much focus on strategic planning, that there also needs to be a focus on strategic application. NOAA should pay attention to processes so managers have confidence in science on which they base their decisions. Implementation should also be an integral part of the strategic plan. How is the program described implemented? With other agencies? Across Line Offices?

Ms. Davidson responded that there has been frustration among the heads of the planning teams that they have had little ability to implement. Implementation is left to the Assistant Administrators of the Line Offices.

Advanced Short-Term Warning and Forecast Services, with focus on "Hurricanes at Landfall" - Louis Uccellini (NOAA Strategic Planning Team Leader)
Louis Uccellini gave a presentation on NOAA's Advanced Short-Term Weather Forecast Services (ASTWF) that included a discussion of key objectives; the supporting research strategy (establishing user-service-science linkages); and the involvement of over 200 scientists, forecasters, and end users in the U.S. Weather Research Program process, through which there is opportunity to leverage interagency resources. The highest priority example of the user-service-science linkages in supporting research activities, Hurricanes at Landfall, was discussed in detail. This discussion included user needs and societal benefits (greater accuracy leads to reduced loss of life and property); forecast goals (increasing lead times and reducing forecast errors); research, observational, and operational implementation issues; and a review of the 5-year plan.

SAB Discussion
Some members stated that the team has made an excellent plan that is starting to be implemented and effects every part of NOAA's missions. Partnerships are important in other areas not mentioned. New data, techniques, and partnerships might allow better intensity forecasting, which has shown little improvement. Better understanding of sea surface-atmosphere interaction is needed. Remotely operated aircraft would allow the retrieval of data not reachable by standard aircraft.

The Board asked about the development of observational devices and Quantitative Precipitation Forecast (QPF) capabilities. They also questioned public understanding of risk and probabilities. There is potential for educational opportunities in using rainfall and hurricane data to teach risk and probability.

Dr. Uccellini responded that this remains an issue with NOAA, but that satellites are used for observations and for QPF assessment. In the area of QPF forecasting, NOAA is able to put probabilities on the amount of rainfall, but not with great certainty. NOAA wants to be able to provide a 3 day forecast. The public doesn't just want to know the probability of rain, but also how much rain there will be. On the issue of education, college students are reached, but there hasn't been a specific thread to tie in other levels of education.

The Board also expressed concerns about urging people to move from the coasts inland during hurricanes, and subsequently subjecting them to risk of death by drowning in the inland flooding. They also expressed interest in the potential for using QPF and other data for river flow and level forecasts.

Dr. Uccellini responded that coasts do need to be evacuated, but improved ability to specify where and when is needed. He also stated that NOAA is using forecasts of where maximum rainfall will be in the river forecast models.

The SAB discussion then moved to the relationship between research and operations - how to bridge research results with user benefits. The Board didn't see where there should be a conflict between research and operations but emphasized the importance of close working relations and good communications.

Dr. Uccellini responded that change over the past 10-15 years towards acceptance of modeling as a basis for forecasts has brought the research and forecast people together, as well as engaging the data assimilation group. The biggest gap is in going from research to operations.

The SAB thought that putting NWS field offices on campuses has increased communication between forecasters and faculty and has lead to improved operational forecast schools. Building research teams starts at the bottom and builds up, rather than NOAA making a link at the top and then the teams fall into place. Perhaps the SAB can provide advice on how to make sure NOAA gets the people needed to build the strongest teams.

NOAA clearly needs joint efforts. How do we build links? Through co-location, a sense of common modeling. The National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) cannot operate in a vacuum. It is not sufficient to just co-locate facilities at universities. The head of the facilities need to be involved. The data developed at the universities needs to get out to be used.

Public Input Session
Dr. Crosby opened this session with a comment that the SAB briefing books contain written public input from two sources: the Marine Conservation Biology Institute (MCBI) and the Estuarine Research Federation (ERF).

MCBI is a non profit conservation organization dedicated to advancing the science of marine conservation biology to conserve marine species and ecosystems. MCBI commented on the environmental stewardship goals and scientific research areas of NOAA's strategic plan and recommended that NOAA: take a holistic approach that integrates the strategies so that the overall plan is mutually reinforcing; improve integration by linking management goals through the common scientific foundation necessary to achieve them and approach goals from an integrated, multidisciplinary research program; establish an extramural research program in marine conservation biology that can provide more thorough information on managing marine ecosystems; and provide the new science of marine conservation biology the support it needs to address growing problems into the new millennium.

ERF is an international organization whose purpose is to promote research in estuarine and coastal waters, to promote communication between members of affiliated societies, to conduct meetings and to be available as a source of advice in matters concerning estuaries and the coastal zone. ERF invited the SAB or a subcommittee of the SAB to attend their next conference and meet with members of the Federation's Governing Board.

Dr. Louie Echols - Director of University of Washington Sea Grant, Representative of the National Association of State University and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC)
Dr. Echols's comments were based on "Recommendations for the Future of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration," a white paper by NASULGC and included in the SAB briefing book. The white paper was in part a result of a meeting (that was roughly 50% NOAA and 50% academic) that grew out of a concern by the academic research community for the fate of the Department of Commerce at the time. The key component of the white paper is that research and the associated activities of education, technology transfer, outreach, etc. are essential to NOAA's mission and future. The white paper suggests greater flexibility and adaptability, more thinking about the future, streamlining the organization, and establishing a firewall (not a decoupling) between research and operation/programmatic activities. There is a need for stronger initiatives in the areas of hazard reduction, biotechnology, and biodiversity. The white paper also urges NOAA and the SAB to continue to foster NOAA/University partnerships.

Dr. Joseph Prospero - Director of the Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies
Overview of the nature of cooperation between joint institutes and NOAA
There are 11 joint institutes with 500-550 employees. Research is dynamic and creative at these institutes. With fewer full-time equivalents (FTE) in NOAA, joint institutes will grow. Joint institutions need to become more intimately involved in the planning process. There is a need for more structural and coherent interaction with NOAA (a continuity in contact) but also a need to maintain the identity and flexibility of the institute. There will be a meeting of the joint institution directors in Silver Spring on April 12 and 13. Dr. Prospero extended an invitation to the SAB to attend the meeting, and noted that any interested Board members should contact him for further information.

SAB Subcommittee Chairs Reports

Subcommittee on Coastal Science
Mr. Peter Douglas: The approach of the subcommittee is to look at the stewardship mission of the strategic plan and how it relates to coastal science and then determine, from a stewardship perspective, if NOAA is asking the right questions and, if so, if NOAA is making the best use of available expertise. The subcommittee will also ask if it is at a useful scale to inform and improve stewardship decision making.

The Board agreed with the approach of the Subcommittee on Coastal Science.

Subcommittee on Scientific Synthesis and Application
Dr. Patricia Gober: It was noted that the issue of "scientific synthesis and application", taken at face value, was exceptionally broad, potentially covering everything that the SAB was to address. This subcommittee realizes that there are other aspects of the "synthesis and integration" than just the social sciences. However, the subcommittee's focus on the human/social aspects of "application" is consistent with the SAB discussions during the July 1998 meeting. Therefore, the preliminary approach of the subcommittee (as listed on the handout provided) is to undertake the following tasks: assess the strategic plan, identify barriers to synthesis, identify exemplars of synthesis, learn lessons from outside NOAA, and make recommendations. The idea is to examine the sociology of science and determine how groups (scientific cultures) work together successfully and what barriers are faced. The subcommittee also plans to query social scientists about challenges and opportunities when working with physical and natural scientists. Dr. Gober stated that she hears that social science is important but hasn't seen this importance brought to reality. There is a need to identify the barriers in this area. The hope is to make recommendations in 2 years in the form of a white paper which should be seen as a living document that will change as feedback is received.

Dr. Baker: The subcommittee should take the time necessary to do it right, but there is a need for short term as well as long term results. The subcommittee should give some short term results when available - possibly to feed into the FY2001 budget cycle if received before April 14, 1999. But work of the subcommittee should not be sacrificed for the sake of politics.

Mr. Rolland Schmitten (NOAA Assistant Administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service): The survey by the Subcommittee on Scientific Synthesis and Application would most likely show that the National Marine Fisheries Service is short on economists and social scientists. Any report that shows the need for supporting social scientists would be helpful.

Board members stated that more social science activity can be found within Sea Grant and that some information on the impact of global change on human populations can be gained from the Office of Global Programs.

Subcommittee on Data Issues
Dr. Soroosh Sorooshian: Little has been done to date. However, a conference call will be set up with Dr. Susan Hanna, and then an agenda for action will be set.

The Board stated that model output is now data, and it is important to identify who will handle this and make it a community resource. Perhaps there is a need for a research center to take care of data and provide high quality data.

Dr. Baker: The entire community has not solved the data problem. NOAA's problems with data are not a matter of money. For example, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration issued contracts to various entities to address the problem, but this still did not solve the problem.

More General SAB Comments
There is a need to examine the social ramifications of a policy or regulation. However, social scientists may not be interested in asking the social questions that scientists want answered.

There is also a need for a heightened educational focus, at different levels (i.e., K-12, college, non-traditional), across the spectrum. There needs to be a direct focus on how to educate each group in the next generation of citizens. There needs to be education on how to use the information NOAA provides. Education should be a component of each subcommittee's work, and it should be at the forefront, not just a tack on.

However some Board members also caution that NOAA needs to be careful not to overdo it, not to overwhelm users with too many packages that may be inappropriate for the user's purpose and level.

The SAB Chair asked if the Board should appoint another subcommittee on education/communication (both internal communication - within NOAA and external communication - going out to the community/public).

SAB responses included:

Instead of a separate subcommittee, education should be incorporated into the existing subcommittees.

The three existing committees should follow up with an incorporation of education into their plans and then discuss at next meeting.

The subcommittees have their hands full already and there is a fear that education will be shortchanged.

Subcommittees should add education in and think about it with each question the subcommittees ask.

The SAB should establish a small group on education charged with working with each subcommittee so it won't be an entirely separate issue.

Communication is fundamental in science. An agenda item for the next meeting should be the following: what is the best way the SAB can help NOAA with its task of incorporating education.

There is no specific line item for education, but an education inventory was prepared for NOAA while Dr. Beeton was Chief Scientist. Each Sea Grant office also has an education, communication, and outreach component

***ACTION ITEM***
A copy of the inventory should be found and provided to each SAB member for review.

***ACTION ITEM***
There was agreement with the idea to put together a small group that would focus on education and work with the three existing subcommittees to incorporate education into their activities. Dr. Denise Stephenson-Hawk, Dr. Vera Alexander, and Dr. Arthur Maxwell will serve as the education group.

Dr. Baker suggested that it may be useful to assign a NOAA liaison specifically for each subcommittee who would work closely with the Executive Director to be sure the subcommittees receive any information they need to conduct their activities.

The Board thanked NOAA for suggesting a SAB subcommittee/NOAA liaison and agreed this would be helpful.

***ACTION ITEM***
Dr. Crosby was asked to follow up with the Assistant Administrators to have NOAA staff appointed as liaisons.

Discussion on NOAA science policy
Dr. Baker opened the discussion with comments on four reports provided to the Board in their briefing books.

Comments on the Ehlers Report ("Unlocking Our Future") - It is a good report, but it did not get good reviews. It is the first attempt by Congress to pull together science policy. There is an opportunity now to build a new science policy. Today, post cold war, we not only have defense and health as policy drivers, but we also have environmental science.

Comments on the NASULGC white paper - thought it was helpful. It recommends that NOAA should be reorganized into three line organizations. The rationale for this has some merit, but it is important for the Board to give careful review and consideration to the NASULGC recommendations prior to reaching a final consensus on which, if any, should be endorsed by the Board.

Comments on "Research Pathways for the Next Decade" - It is the latest statement from the global change community on where we are and where we should be going.

Comments on the Ocean Research Advisory Panel (ORAP) report - This came about from a request from Congress regarding an ocean observing system.

Dr. Otis Brown added that the ORAP report is skimpy in the area of renewable resources and he (as a member of the committee that developed the report) welcomes any comments on the report particularly in that area. Comment can be made until February 2, 1999 at NOPP@brook.edu.

Dr. Beeton commented on NASULGC white paper stating that a number of things in the white paper have been or are being accomplished such as development of the SAB, creating a new strategic plan, and leading the national disaster reduction initiative. There has been progress in the areas outlined by the white paper, and the report is being taken seriously. Regarding the Ehlers Report, he agrees with Dr. Baker that NOAA does need to follow up and give accolades to Congress and perhaps invite interested Congresspersons to sit in on SAB meetings in the future because it is not often that this kind of effort/input is received from Congress on science and science policy.

A general SAB comment on the NASULGC white paper was that they need to give more attention to the hydrologic sciences, and better inclusion of hydrologic members in the group which prepared the document should be considered.

Potential SAB participation/oversight in NOAA science panel reviews
Dr. Evans opened the discussion by stating that there are Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) problems in seeking independent reviews from outside reviewer groups since federal agencies are not allowed to ask for a group to come to a consensus regarding science programs and activities. NOAA can ask for reviews from individual persons, but NOAA cannot ask for a consensus from a group. The role that the SAB could assume is to be the home of the science review process - to assume ownership of peer the review process, not to do them, but to be involved in the process. The SAB could be the formal group to give formal (i.e. official) status to the results of a science peer review panel. Working groups would report to the SAB and the SAB would report results of the working groups. This is something that the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research could use and would find very helpful.

A question from the Board was whether this would be within the charge of the SAB.

Dr. Crosby responded that from his reading of the SAB charter and FACA regulations, SAB participation in, and/or oversight of, NOAA science panel review was well within the SAB charter.

Dr. Baker suggested that the first thing for the Board to discuss is if this is a good thing to do, and if so, the second thing to discuss is how best to do it.

SAB Discussion and Comments
The SAB sees a need for a peer review process within the agency, but is concerned about how to proceed. What is the value added? Or is the SAB just a convenient group? NOAA is very broad. The members of the SAB have very broad backgrounds, but the SAB is not as broad as NOAA.

The SAB could get bogged down in trying to get at the details of all of NOAA, but it could perhaps look at groups within NOAA to make sure they are reviewed adequately. There are concerns that the SAB won't be able to get at the detailed level.

There was strong support for the request. A few people from the SAB would be reviewers and it would increase the credibility of the science review panel process. Peer review of the process used by the science review panels would be an asset - sitting down with people who know about the process

It is an important role and the SAB should not worry about it adding on to the time commitment. The SAB would enable the process to go in a more effective manner.

Who would pick the reviewers? Is the SAB to oversee the process? How do you pick your reviewers? Is there a bias? It could be worked out so that the SAB is not given much extra work. The role of the SAB is to oversee peer review.

The SAB should have a role in coming up with criteria for the different types of reviews. The SAB should come to an agreement on who the reviewers should be.

There was some concern about giving the SAB "stamp of approval." It may be too much to ask the Board to base their actions on the findings of one or two Board members. There was concern that the SAB could lose credibility if it is asked to put its "good housekeeping seal of approval" on work it has not adequately reviewed (there is not enough time to do it).

Does NOAA have a process for reviewing its departments? Lab reviews were done by the Office of the Chief Scientist, but they have not been done for awhile. Reviews occur but NOAA has a potential for FACA problems if they are not conducted according to FACA guidelines. The SAB could look at the ways NOAA reviews or uses the science review panel process. There seems to be a misunderstanding about FACA. Why can the SAB provide a service that cannot be done elsewhere? What is the difference between FACA and non-FACA?

Dr. Baker in answer to the FACA question: Because NOAA cannot ask a group of outsiders (composed of non-federal employees) to come to a consensus, however if it is vetted through the SAB it is okay for the SAB to give advice as a group. This is because the SAB is a chartered "FACA" committee. SAB does not have to take on this task. It is up to the Board what it wants to do.

More SAB Comments
Peer review is not the issue. It is integral to NOAA. What we need to know is what the process is now for each component so the Board can come to a consensus. The SAB needs a definition of what NOAA sees as an appropriate way for the Board to be involved.

This is a critical issue. The Board would like NOAA to provide more specifics and then the SAB could come back to the topic after getting more information.

The SAB has much to lose if it doesn't take up the invitation to oversee the review process. The SAB gains as much as NOAA does in being the oversight body.

Dr. Evans commented that he would be happy to put together a more concrete report for the next meeting. At this time, he just wanted to find out if the topic was one the Board would be interested in. He suggested that perhaps the SAB could put together a small group of its members who are interested in working with him on getting together the necessary information for the next meeting.

Mr. Schmitten encouraged the Board to take on an overview of the review process that NOAA is using, not the individual review panels. The Board could determine if the process is appropriate, useful, etc.

The Board asked for clarification of the working group versus the subcommittee process and whether the Board can come to a consensus.

Dr. Crosby responded that a Federal Advisory Committee, such as the SAB, that has been chartered in accordance with FACA can provide group consensus recommendations to a federal entity such as NOAA. A subcommittee of a "FACA" advisory committee must be composed entirely of individuals who are also members of the parent advisory committee (i.e. individuals who have been formally approved as advisory committee members). Working groups of an advisory committee may be established to do specific tasks for the advisory committee, and members of the working group do not have to also be members of the parent advisory committee. These working groups must report their findings to the parent advisory committee, not to the federal agency. The advisory committee then formulates recommendations to the federal agency.

More SAB Comments
The Board needs a better understanding as to how final science proposal and programs decisions are made today. Who catalogues individual reviews from external non-FACA committee members to come up with the overall final review recommendation? Are the Assistant Administrators put in the position of potentially having conflicts of interest or unavoidable bias if they develop that final overall review recommendation of their own Line Office science program?

There was agreement with the potential for the SAB to review the overall procedure or process, but it was noted that there should be concern that every single group may petition the SAB.

There was concern that there is no way around the SAB making reviews of the qualifications of the individual panels and trepidation about the Board getting involved, but the SAB needs to come up with a way provide input about the science review panel process for NOAA. All of the Board members have limited time, so the SAB has to come up with a way to work this out, to develop the high level review of the science review panel process the Board can agree on. The SAB needs better guidelines on the broad picture of how NOAA conducts science panel reviews, examine these panel review models and figure out how the SAB can make this work.

The SAB could be involved in the NOAA science review panel process, but at a high level.

What is the purpose of this exercise? Is the review for the Chief Scientist and Dr. Baker or for the Line Offices? Who is the eventual user of the review document? The SAB Chair responded that the person who needs it and really uses it is the Assistant Administrator. The chair then suggested that the SAB put together a small group to work with Dr. Evans in putting together a document on how the SAB would be involved for review at the next meeting. This is a very important issue to consider at the next meeting.

***ACTION ITEM***
Dr. Jake Rice, Dr. Leonard Pietrafasa, and Dr. Arthur Maxwell agreed to work with Dr. Evans on working out a more detailed document on how the SAB may be involved in the review process and how the review process works now.

Closing Discussion
SAB Chair: The SAB's charge for the next meeting is as follows: continue to look at the strategic plan with possibility of making recommendations on strengthening it and identifying issues not represented in the plan; regarding the reports (Ehlers, NASULGC, Pathways) try to interact with Congresspersons interested in science; come to closure on the topic of peer (science review panels and the role of the SAB) review; continue working within the subcommittees

Tentative schedule for next meetings:

Seattle roughly the end of June, 1999
Boulder roughly the end of October, 1999
Washington, DC February, 2000 (in connection with the AAAS meeting)

***ACTION ITEM***
The SAB requested that Dr. Crosby respond on behalf of the Board to the ERF letter of invitation to attend the next conference and meet with members of the Governing Board. Members of the SAB would be interested in meeting with ERF's Governing Board. Dr. Crosby will take the appropriate actions, work with ERF, and report back to the SAB.