|
|
  |
NOAA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES APPROVED BY THE SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD July 7, 1999 Official Call to Order and Review
of Meeting Format - Dr. Michael P. Crosby (Executive Director,
NOAA Science Advisory Board) Introduction of the NOAA SAB
Chair and Board Members and Opening Statement of the Chair -
Dr. Alfred Beeton (Chair of NOAA Science Advisory Board) Welcoming Remarks and Review
of Purpose of the NOAA SAB - Dr. D. James Baker (Under Secretary
for Oceans and Atmosphere, and Administrator of NOAA) Dr. Baker stated that NOAA's Science Advisory Board assists him in maintaining a complete and accurate understanding of scientific issues critical to the Agency's missions, from forecasting weather to stewardship of the nation's fisheries. 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. Dr. Baker emphasized that the SAB will provide him with specific advice and recommendations on ALL aspects of NOAA's science programs and activities, across the various Line Offices. The principal foci for this third meeting of the Board are an overview and discussion of NOAA science as it is related to the Endangered Species Act; and presentation of options for, and a discussion of potential SAB participation/oversight in NOAA science program and panel reviews. The Board will also: hear an overview of NOAA-University of Washington/State of Washington partnership activities; be updated on the status of NOAA's FY2000 budget and summary of FY2001 strategic planning teams priorities; have a discussion on strategic planning related to science priorities; hear reports from the SAB sub-committees and issue group; and visit several key NOAA facilities in Seattle. OVERVIEW OF NOAA-UNIVERSITY/STATE OF WASHINGTON PARTNERHIP ACTIVITIES Washington Sea Grant Program
- Mr. Louie S. Echols, Director SAB Discussion The Board then asked to what extent Sea Grant has responded to the pressing science questions at NOAA and what portion of the Washington Sea Grant budget is used for community and economic development versus technology development. Mr. Echols replied that there are extensive interactions with at least six joint programs with NOAA and that 20 percent and 40 percent respectively, of Washington Sea Grant budget is used for community and economic development versus technology development. Mr. Echols also informed the SAB that in the area of environmental stewardship, there are extensive interactions with such agencies as the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team, the Department of Ecology, and with Oregon dealing with aquatic nuisance species. In addition, the Washington Sea Grant is closely related to Oregon and Alaska programs and has worked on some programs with California Sea Grant. Sea Grant has been involved in individual transferable quotas (ITQ) and related issues, as well as restoration activities from both biological and political sides. Ultimately the funding decisions are based on the quality of the proposals. Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecosystems
Regional Study (PNCERS) - Dr. David A. Armstrong SAB Discussion Mr. Gudes, NOAA Deputy Under Secretary, asked how long the pesticide spraying to control burrowing shrimp has been going on. Dr. Armstrong said the spraying has been taking place for 30 or more years, is outlawed in Oregon, but is still legal in Washington. More recent synergy of research programs has led to coupling objectives of PNCERS with a new initiative from the Western Regional Aquaculture Consortium. A four-year study will analyze the effects of bivalve aquaculture on juvenile salmonid habitat in the same estuaries studied by PNCERS. Pacific Northwest Climate Impacts
Group - Dr. Edward L. Miles SAB Discussion The Board then asked if all the critical players were brought on board at an early stage. Dr. Miles replied that the most major players came on board first but there were difficulties in connecting with some groups such as the Native Americans. The El Niño changed that by raising awareness and now these groups have joined this effort. Padilla Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve - Dr. Douglas Bulthuis SAB Discussion Joint Institute for the Study
of the Atmosphere and Ocean (JISAO) - Dr. David Battisti, Director JISAO has two main areas, "Task II" and "Task III." Task II covers the Collaborative Research Scientist Program between the University of Washington and PMEL. It handles all the research scientists they have to work on collaborative projects of mutual interest. Task III covers the grants and contracts that JISAO handles in their theme areas, most of them NOAA funded. The Hayes Center is an ongoing cooperative research project linking UW with PMEL. It deals with all aspects of climate and prediction, ranging from observation t climate impacts. Dr. Battisti cited examples of results from the JISAO/UW/NOAA collaboration: 1) the World Class Aerosol Research Program; 2) the Tropical Atmosphere and Ocean (TAO) array for ENSO forecasting; 3) the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and its relationship to salmon abundance in the Northeast Pacific Ocean; and 4) the Arctic Oscillation. SAB Discussion The Board then asked what other NOAA funds JISAO receives. The response was that grants are received under NOAA Task II. Dr. Bernard stated that no PMEL overhead is incurred as funds pass through PMEL from the NOAA Office of Global Programs. Mr. Gudes asked how much of the $7 million in funding is competitively awarded. Dr. Battisti replied at least 50 percent. [After confering that afternoon with his staff] Dr. Battisti reported to the SAB that somewhere between 72 and 85 percent of the annual budget is funded through peer reviewed, competitive awards. To the question of whether JISAO receives National Science Foundation (NSF) funding Dr. Battisti replied that it does receive NSF funds on a competitive basis. The Board felt that funding for the Joint Institutes, including overhead base levels of funding, research project funding and overall funding, may be a useful separate discussion topic for a future SAB meeting. OVERVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF NOAA SCIENCE AS IT IS RELATED TO THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Legal/Legislative Tutorial on
ESA as it Pertains to NOAA - Ms. Monica Medina (NOAA General
Counsel) Section 4 of the ESA defines "endangered" and "threatened" species. The Commerce Department deals with marine species and the Interior Department deals with terrestrial and interior freshwater species. To qualify for listing status a species must be threatened with extinction by any of the following five factors: 1) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; 2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes; 3) disease or predation; 4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or 5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. In the listing process economic factors cannot be considered. The listing process is time consuming and labor intensive. In a dire situation the Secretary can bypass formal listing procedures and statutory time frames if an emergency presents a significant risk to the well-being of a species. Once on the list, the agency develops regulations, usually including a prohibition on the "take" of a species. Looking at critical habitat is where economic analysis is supposed to come in but is rarely done because of concern that economics will spill over and affect the listing. "Critical habitat" is defined as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species on which are found physical or biological features essential to the conservation of a species and which may require special management considerations and protections (i.e., sites that provide food, water, shelter or breeding grounds). The ESA requires that the Secretary develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. Recovery plans are often not conducted with the same urgency with which the listing is done. This is an area where Congress is considering changing the Act. There is a bill pending in the Senate that would change ESA critical habitat and recovery plans. Section 7 of the ESA deals with the obligations of Federal agencies to conserve species. All Federal Agencies have a substantive duty to consult with the appropriate Secretary, to insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by the agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Informal and then possibly formal consultation occurs between the Action Agency and the Consulting Agency (NMFS at NOAA). The so-called "God Squad", composed of Cabinet Secretaries and Agency Administrators can grant an exemption from consultation requirements under Section 7. Section 9 of the ESA defines prohibitions on taking of an endangered species. The Act defines a "take" as an attempt to harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect an endangered species. Section 10 of the ESA addresses incidental take permits (ITP) and habitat conservation plans (HCP). Congress allowed for "incidental take" from non-federal entities. The purpose of the incidental take permit/habitat conservation plans program is to reduce conflicts between the government who wants to protect the listed species and private parties who want to pursue economic development. In order to issue an ITP, the Secretary must find that: the taking will be incidental (indirect); the applicant will minimize and mitigate impacts of taking; the applicant will ensure adequate funding for a conservation plan will be provided; and taking will not appreciably reduce likelihood of survival and recovery of species in the wild. The Clinton Administration put into effect the "no surprises policy" which allows the government to write a guarantee that if the person who applies for the habitat conservation permit is willing to commit resources and level of effort to protect a species over a long period of time (generally 50 years), the government will not ask them to do more, unless the situation is so bad that the government has done everything it can without getting results. At this point the government can revoke the permit as a last resort. Overview of Current NOAA Policy
Questions Related to ESA - Mr. William Stelle (NMFS Northwest
Region Administrator) Mr. Stelle also stated what he would like to see the SAB do: 1) help devise the science synergies and science capabilities that are waiting to be captured within NOAA and beyond to help solve this issue; 2) give strategic advice on the science program; and 3) share advice on science governance. He cautioned that the SAB must: 1) understand the complexity of this program before jumping in; 2) acknowledge the fact of fiefdoms in the science world; and 3) acknowledge and respect the limitations of science. SAB Discussion Pacific Salmon Research at the
Northwest Fisheries Science Center - Dr. Usha Varanasi (NMFS
Northwest Region Science Director) The big question in dealing with salmon is how to integrate all the information from various sources and clearly define what the particular problem is. The Cumulative Risk Initiative (CRI) was developed to plan, evaluate and integrate risks to salmon survival across all anthropogenic risk factors and throughout the entire life cycle. The Northwest Fisheries Science Center Cumulative Risk Approach includes: 1) problem definition; fresh water to the open ocean 2) risk assessment/jeopardy analysis; 3) risk management, alternatives/scenario analysis; 4) selection of management scenarios; 5) development of recovery plan(s); and 6) implementation of a work plan that includes research, monitoring and assessment. By understanding salmon biology well enough to effectively manage their recovery, it is important to take what is learned from this species with a complex life history, and apply that science to better management practices for a wide range of fish species. Science and ESA Listing Determinations
for Pacific Salmon - Dr. Robin Waples Freshwater Habitat and Salmon
Recovery: Relating Land Use Actions to Fish Population Responses
- Dr. Robert Bilby Cumulative Risk Assessment and
Population Viability Modeling - Dr. Peter Kareiva Monitoring and Evaluation for
Salmon Recovery Planning and Implementation - Dr. Tracy Collier SAB Questions and Discussion
of ESA Presentations The Board was also interested in what happens if the return of salmon changes dramatically from year to year. Some SAB members felt that uncertainties could be reduced by looking for relationships between many variables and recruits produced per spawning adult, not just a single species or an ecosystem. Dr. Beeton asked Dr. Kareiva to respond to a recent Science article that questions the value of population viability analysis (PVA). Dr. Kareiva said he is dealing with the issue raised in the article and holding a series of workshops on the methods to bring the best minds to consider and resolve the issue. The SAB then asked Mr. Stelle if he, as the Regional Administrator of NMFS, has the ability to direct its science resources to review specific projects that are high on manager's priority lists. Mr. Stelle said, yes, at the strategic level but not at the tactical level. Dr. Varanasi said she and the Science Center staff meet with NMFS Regional Managers in meetings and workshops to determine their needs, then the Center decides how to best meet those needs and science moves forward. Dr. Beeton queried Dr. Bilby on whether his approach incorporates the Oregon watershed model. He replied that his approach fits well with Washington and Oregon management and can use the approach with the data they now have. Dr. Rice agreed that there is a great deal we don't know about salmon and wanted to know how well NMFS has been able to marshal the non-salmon community involvement with Center efforts. Dr. Varanasi said they were holding workshops every two-three months to inform and involve the non-salmon community on Science Center activities. People committed to salmon realize science must move faster to prevent extinctions. New people are asking questions and more people are coming and communicating, including specialized institutions, such as land grant tribal colleges. Public Input Session with
SAB Discussion SAB Discussion Dr. James O'Brien, Chair, Board
on Oceans and Atmosphere, Florida State University, on behalf
of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant
Colleges (NASULGC), made a short presentation in which he stated
how NOAA can fulfill its mandate. The complete written public
statement submitted by NASULGC can be found at www.sab.noaa.gov/july0799nasulgc.html.
Dr. O'Brien offered the following suggestions of how NOAA may
better meet its environmental stewardship responsibility: Summary of Previous Discussions Board members were impressed with how well thought out the science approach is directed towards critical management needs in the Pacific Northwest. The SAB asked if it was part of the NOAA science mission here to work with state science agencies to help them build their capacity to answer ESA issues questions. Dr. Rosenberg said that this is an issue nationally for ESA and other natural resource science. Interaction with state science agencies is occurring in all regions. The Board also noted that there must be an already existing on-line database and wondered if this could be expanded. Discussion indicated that because of confidentiality agreements on commercial fisheries data, catch statistics are proprietary and could not be put on-line. However, it was mentioned that there is a NMFS and state initiative for cooperative statistics on the East Coast and that these data are available on CD-ROM. The Board asked if there was a NOAA policy on turnaround times on data. Mr. Withee, NESDIS Assistant Administrator, said the general policy covers near real-time distribution of several NOAA observation systems (i.e., NEXRAD, GOES, etc.) but data taken from research or non operational platforms is accessible on a non-discriminatory basis after a year. In practice, most NOAA observations are available much sooner than one year. July 8, 1999 Further SAB Discussion on NOAA
Science Processes Related to ESA and Potentials for Future ESA-Oriented
Science The Board was impressed with the PNCERS discussion but suggested increased involvement of the managers/planners making land use decisions at the state and local level. SAB members felt that there is a disconnect and a lack of coordinated communication between regulators and scientists. It appears that the science part of NOAA in general is not being used to inform managers effectively. It was the opinion of a few Board members that science based information useful to managers in North Carolina is simply not available from the federal government. Sea Grant has helped at the very local level to get science information to local managers. Some Board members noted that managers are a broader group than just agency managers and are not tightly defined in the Northwest. This includes watershed managers that bring together citizens at the local level. Delivery of scientific information also varies with political cultures. Scientists are often not sensitive to the regional culture in which their information will be used-this is where social science can help in this process. The SAB noted that ESA recovery plans should be designed to remove the species from the list. Science provides the knowledge of actions needed to achieve recovery and remove species from the list. On the concept of recovery plans, the SAB was interested in how the decision is made of what science will be needed in the future. There doesn't seem to be a structure to develop science information managers will need. Much of the information in the presentations was generic with no clearly delineated path to get to recovery. How you get to the point where you remove a species from the list should be fundamental. The SAB felt that science has been actively discouraged from going into areas where there isn't a community consensus and that the Board should consider setting forth parameters and criteria for involving social science in order for NOAA to better understand socio-economic factors contributing to consensus development. However, it was noted that recovery planning is a difficult process because of the strict listing deadline but lack of a strict deadline for recovery. There isn't a particularly clear path scientifically for recovery, and the research plan not leveraged by all groups involved (i.e., need synergy between all agencies). The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) stipulates that there should be scoping of economic and social impacts of options in advance. While there is such a process in place, it doesn't seem to have sufficient resources. SAB wondered how the Board could help advance getting other agencies to integrate their science with NOAA science. Perhaps this issue could be raised with the SAB counterparts of other agencies. The Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) is currently examining interagency efforts related to ESA. However, the CENR effort will likely be slower than NMFS needs to act. There may be synergies with NOAA and NSF to answer questions of at sea survival for the one year class of salmon. Questions regarding variance and at sea survival may be answered using information from, for example, Global Ocean Ecosystem Coupling (GLOBEC). Dr. Varanasi stated that information flow must be expedited. It is not necessary to spend time developing complex new research plans. Instead input is needed now for cumulative risk assessment (i.e., interactions between different variables). The SAB discussion then focused on to what extent did NOAA science comply with the decision to have the "No Surprises" clause. Was the decision based on science? Ms. Medina responded that the policy was agreed to at the highest levels. The idea in general was given a lot of thought by scientists. There is ongoing monitoring and evaluation. Adaptive management is built in. NOAA science and the technical part in it advocates for the concept of "no surprises" to include a biological component. Enormous resources would be spent litigating and those resources would be coming from the same people who would otherwise be doing the conservation plans on the ground. Ms. Medina stated that developing HCPs is very labor intensive. The real problem is that to implement them well a great deal of information is necessary and a great deal of work is required on both the agency and applicant's side. Doing recovery planning upfront is better than doing it lawsuit by lawsuit (i.e., with each timber sale). The Board queried if NOAA has input on who does the science for applicants. Ms. Medina responded no, but the analysis is done together between agency and permittee. It is a very integrated process. Dr. Varanasi said that there is a need to develop a dynamic data processing system (as opposed to data warehousing which is static) so that the new information can be immediately translated into the decision making process. The focus should be on that rather than developing huge new strategic science plans within NOAA. It was also noted that there is a significant backlog of applicants for HCPs (about 20 or 30). Cumulative risk assessment to date has dealt with the first order problems but not the second order part which is the interactions. The Board asked if in the process of doing status assessments on many species of fish, does NMFS look for connections with listing options. At what point does NMFS make the transition from "overfished" to "endangered"? Dr. Rosenberg responded that preventing overfishing is set at a much higher bar than extinction. Dr. Rosenberg believes that what Dr. Norse was talking about is that stocks that are not commercially important are not evaluated for overfishing. For the stocks that are actively managed by states or NMFS, the NOAA/NMFS Assistant Administrator has to determine whether they are overfished and, if so, develop a timeline to rebuild them. NMFS usually does an endangered species status review when petitioned. Dr. Rice explained that the general protocol for new and expanding fisheries is carefully laid out. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has several publications of how it should be done. The protocols are proactive, the funding is reactive. You can only get funding after someone says there's a problem The SAB then asked if there is an attempt by NOAA to inventory status and trends of species in the National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS) which are not targets of commercial fisheries. Dr. Rosenberg responded that the NMSs are involved in regular resources surveys that cover much of the coast (i.e., trawl survey, long line survey and acoustic survey). There are several federal surveys per year. As far as the Sanctuary Program doing specific evaluations, there isn't a regular assessment in NOAA sanctuaries. Part of the legislation requires that NMS do a survey of their resources. The sanctuaries have had a problem getting the fiscal resources to address inventory issues. Update on Status of FY2000 Budget
- Dr. D. James Baker Since the economy is doing so well, there may be opportunities for increased funding for NOAA priorities. This works well for NOAA because it's activities are broadly supported by both sides of the political aisle. The FY2000 Senate Mark for NOAA is an amount that is above the President's request. NOAA had some major new initiatives in 2000. Dr. Baker gave an overview and breakdown of the amounts requested and Senate Marks for the following FY2000 initiatives: Lands Legacy, Year of the Ocean, Resource Protection, South Florida Everglades Restoration, Clean Water Initiative, Natural Disaster Reduction Initiative, Climate in the 21st Century and Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Where NOAA did poorly for the Senate Mark was the Coastal Zone Management Program (requested $32 million and received $2 million). NOAA also did not get the requested funds for coral reef restoration and coastal dredging. However, NOAA did well in the Senate for the Natural Disaster Reduction Initiative. NOAA has been pushing hard the last few years for better information about floods and weather research program. NOAA had a brand new initiative for FY2000 of working with historically black colleges and universities to build infrastructure so that they can build environmental programs. The request from NOAA was $4 million. The President requested $1 million and Congress put down $0. The bottom line on the FY2000 budget is that NOAA went in with a big increase, and came out with an increase. Summary of FY2001 Strategic Planning
Teams' Priorities - Dr. D. James Baker Advance Short Term Warnings and Forecasts: One of the problems with Hurricane Mitch going into Honduras is that it changed its course and the models did not predict it. Hurricane Mitch reminded us that not only high winds but flooding can be very damaging. Climate Research Program: This program involves research on the earth's climate system; global carbon science and atmospheric chemistry; global water cycle; and the human dimensions and integrated regional assessments. It also includes observations for research such as the global ocean observing system (floats, altimetry, scatterometry, data assimilation; and trace gas) and monitoring (baseline observatories, global sampling network). ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation) Prediction: Includes climate system model output database; climate/weather links: risk assessment of high impact weather events; ocean and atmospheric observations; recurrent patterns of climate variability; computational challenges in climate modeling; climate prediction initiative; and human dimension and global change. Beyond ENSO: Northern extratropical variability (North Atlantic Oscillation, North Pacific Oscillation and Arctic Oscillation); global change; monsoons; and Atlantic tropical variability. Climate Impacts on Ecosystems: Regional integrated assessments, climate/weather links; ocean observations and technical developments; ENSO, PDO and Atlantic variability; hydroclimatology and water resources; and human dimensions of global change. Hurricanes: Climate/weather links; computational challenges in climate modeling; climate system model output database; ocean and atmospheric observations; Atlantic climate variability; causes of variability in CO2 sources and sinks; human dimensions of global change; and ENSO effects. Water Resources: Regional integrated assessments; global water cycle; climate/weather links; recurrent patterns of climate variability; human dimensions of global change; and climate prediction initiative. Carbon Cycle: The Northern Hemisphere Terrestrial sink; causes of variability in sources and sinks; global locations of sources and sinks; and future atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Ocean Observations: Integrated ocean observing system and contributing activities (altimetry and tide gauges; satellite derived vector winds) Outcomes: Reduced societal costs of climate anomalies related to ENSO; identify effects of climate variability on water resources; define carbon sources and sinks across oceans, land, and atmosphere; and link Earth's major ecological systems to climate variability and change. Promote Safe Navigation: Research in 2001 will focus on developing a Coastal Forecast System (CFS) to provide a national capability to measure, understand, analyze, and forecast coastal environmental phenomena that impact coastal economies, public safety, and environmental management. The research proposed will improve predictions and develop new products based on advancements in the coupled ocean/atmospheric system. In addition, the research proposed will develop new NWS and NOS operationally compatible information processing systems that can integrate coastal information and make it available in a timely fashion to decision makers. Fisheries FY2001 Research Areas: Initiate and expand research on ocean climate change applied to fisheries resource assessment models; develop advanced fish sampling technologies to improve NOAA's stock assessment capabilities; implement a multi-year comprehensive social sciences program to assess and predict effects of management actions on impacted communities; research to determine the causes of decline of endangered marine mammals and turtles; and research to aid Federal, state and private landowners and resource users in promoting the recovery of endangered Atlantic and Pacific salmonids. Sustain Healthy Coasts Research Areas: Map and characterize coastal habitats; identify the impacts of multiple stressors on coastal ecosystems (changing land use, nutrient pollution, invasive species, and climate change/atmospheric inputs to coral reefs); assess causes, consequences of changing ocean chemistry through increased remote sensing, in situ observations, and modeling; improve techniques for habitat restoration; characterize risks and model vulnerability to natural hazards; and explore and develop new byproducts from marine species. Discussion on Strategic Planning
Related to Science Priorities The SAB asked Dr. Baker to explain the timing needed for the Board to get their budget reviews to him. Dr. Baker responded that formal input from the SAB would be for the FY2002 budget by April 2000. He proposed that the NOAA Strategic Planning team leaders present proposals to the SAB based on what they have heard at the constituent workshops. Those team presentations in April would have dollar figures and be very specific. It would be a way for the Board to interact in a very substantive way before the budget is submitted by NOAA. The budget does not become administratively confidential until NOAA submits it to the Secretary. ***ACTION ITEM*** The SAB was curious as to what extent does NOAA submit a budget and then non-science administration policy really determine priorities. Dr. Baker responded that NOAA doesn't rank order its initiatives because lowest priority items may be cut without due consideration. However, NOAA does have some items that are ranked as highest priority. The top two program priorities are modernization of the Weather Service and revitalization of the Fisheries Service. Two areas that NOAA hasn't done well on are: 1) research - NOAA doesn't get the same increases as National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Health and 2) coastal areas - have to reorganize NOS to focus on coastal areas. ***ACTION ITEM*** Dr. Beeton noted that several members of the SAB participated in the most recent NOAA strategic planning constituent workshops and asked if those members wished to provide comments. Mr. Douglas thought it was good to sit in on the process but many stakeholders pushed their own pet projects. Nevertheless, SAB should take advantage of such opportunities to influence the process. Dr. Sorooshian stated that the process of brainstorming resulted in decisions that may not have been made if people had more knowledge about NOAA programs. Dr. Gober commented that at the session she attended she heard the parochial interests of the stakeholders and felt as though she was there representing NOAA science. There wasn't sufficient representation from the science community which caused an imbalance between stakeholders and science. There was considerable support for social science inquiry in the group Dr. Gober participated in, but participation of more social scientists would have helped. Dr. Hanna expressed confusion on just what NOAA aims to achieve with these constituent meetings. Only selected groups seem to participate. ***ACTION ITEM*** Presentation of Options for Potential
SAB Participation/Oversight in NOAA Science Program and Panel
Reviews - Dr. David Evans (Assistant Administrator, OAR/NOAA) Discussion on Potential SAB Participation/Oversight
in NOAA Science Panel Reviews The Board then wanted to know what added value the SAB would provide to the various reports. Concerns were voiced about being sure that a Board member be on each panel before the SAB would put the reports forward with its approval. Questions of depth of involvement for SAB to impact the science in NOAA were discussed. Questions of quality control of the science were also raised. Dr. Evans would like to see the Board involved in the nuts and bolts of the Agency. Some Board members felt as though the Board would be derelect in its duty if it ignored the science review role at NOAA, and viewed the SAB's role as trying to add value to the mission of NOAA and science. It was proposed that if the Board can adopt some overarching themes that serve as filters against which they evaluate science done at NOAA, then participating in the manner Dr. Evans suggested would be appropriate. However, concern was also expressed that many members of the SAB are fully committed to doing other things. Dr. Brown began a discussion of the makeup of the Office of Global Programs (OGP) Panel. A SAB working group for OGP could use most of the present group's expertise and could approve the charter and members for the OAR OGP Working Group. A memo from NMFS Assistant Administrator Penny Dalton states that oversight of the NMFS review process would be most helpful. The SAB could do audits and periodic reviews of the process itself. Dr. Rosenberg did not believe that establishing a SAB review process for particular NMFS science programs would be needed, at this time, and would prefer a NMFS-wide review rather than by location (i.e., regional science centers). Mr. Withee said that the data component already has aspects being reviewed by the Board, but the satellite side has not had an outside review in six years. He requested a FACA review team that would report through the SAB to Dr. Baker. NESDIS could use some advice in getting from research to operations; the quality of its products; the usefulness of its cooperative institutes; and the representativeness of the research community included in NESDIS programs. Dr. Scavia requested a working group of SAB to advise on NOS science review process across the board, rather than particular program or center activities. Mr. Jones, NWS Deputy Assistant Administrator, said that NWS headquarters is going through a reorganization, trying to establish an Office of Science and Technology. They've had NRC give them a roadmap of how to proceed once the modernization is done. He did not have a specific proposal at the time but thought there were areas where the SAB could provide recommendations. Dr. Baker, having to depart early, thanked the Board for one of the best advisory committee discussions he has sat in on. He especially appreciated the discussion on the budget and the role of science advice, and looks forward to hearing the recommendations that will come from this meeting. Concluding Discussion on Potential
SAB Participation/Oversight in NOAA Science Panel Reviews ***ACTION ITEM*** SAB discussion included the need to set principles (guidelines) with which to work and that reviews should focus on generalities of process rather than detailed reviews; the desire to use the existing working group (i.e., OGP) to do the reviews; and using basic review principles now in place in agencies. One scenario was that SAB working groups should include at least one active SAB member. The SAB member involved in the review should draft the terms of reference of the review and then present them to the Board for comments. After the review the SAB member on the working group would bring the report to the full Board for discussion. The SAB would then make recommendations to Dr. Baker. Dr. Crosby stated that the Board should not simply accept any existing team in order to satisfy Line Office desires to "FACA-certify" them, but the SAB needs to establish its own working groups. It would be appropriate however to fully consider existing review structures and protocols. Each SAB member would need to read the draft reports and the SAB itself would issue the final report to Dr. Baker. Dr. Evans said that he specifically requested three actions: 1) establish an advisory panel of OGP in light of existing review panel and history of program; 2) constitute a working group of the SAB-a parallel entity to review the Joint Institutes and Environmental Research Labs; and 3) constitute a working group of the SAB-a parallel entity to review the National Undersea Research Program (NURP). ***ACTION ITEM*** ***ACTION ITEM*** July 9, 1999 Discussion of Themes/Elements
when Dealing with NOAA Science Reviews · Quality and Credibility: NOAA science must be top quality. In general, NOAA is known for and should continue to strive for science that is acknowledged as being credible, reliable and respected. Therefore, NOAA science needs to be screened and evaluated through appropriate peer review as being of high quality and relevant in terms of informing policy decision-making. The SAB could help by reviewing and agreeing on some general standards of what should be included in all peer reviews. The Board should go on record as supporting the importance of NOAA science that the "outside" world sees as relevant, important and credible. · Timeliness and Scale: NOAA science should be timely in the sense that it will be conducted and completed in a timeframe that is useful to decision-makers. It must also be at a scale that is useful. · Science Connected to Policy: NOAA science should be directly linked to policy decision-making. NOAA science should be designed and conducted with the understanding it is intended to inform and improve decision-making relative to coastal and ocean stewardship responsibilities. · Capacity-Building: NOAA has multiple environmental stewardship responsibilities. Among these is to assist its state and local government partners to build capacity to address scientific and technical questions related to coastal and ocean governance. There are many ways NOAA can promote this agenda. One is to ensure this question is asked relative to NOAA science (i.e., Will this project build capacity, and if not how can it be adjusted to include such a component?) · Education: Protecting and restoring our environment for the benefit of current and future generations requires far-reaching public education initiatives, public support and public involvement. Collaborative stewardship is what is expected by the public and stakeholders and is a fiscal and political reality. NOAA also needs to train the environmental scientists and practitioners of the future. Therefore, an educational, public outreach and training component of NOAA science should be encouraged. · Efficiency: NOAA must effectively coordinate and integrate its scientific and technical capabilities to maximize efficiency, minimize redundancy and counter-productive overlap. There needs to be a greater effort to share expertise and this drive for efficiency must be made known to Congress in order to maintain funding and programmatic support. · Social Science Integration: Social science must be integrated into NOAA physical science work. But it is useless to simply include social science without an understanding of the role this involvement can play and what value is added to the inquiry. A set of criteria or a "checklist" of benefits that social science involvement will bring to the process could be developed by the Board. The SAB could ask for assistance from the social science community and provide NOAA a list of factors to be considered that would identify the value of including social science in a proposed physical-chemical-biological scientific inquiry. Mr. Douglas motioned for the SAB to adopt these seven themes and Dr. Alexander seconded the motion. The ensuing Board discussion noted that these are important questions to ask as they review NOAA science programs, but wondered if they were being proposed as necessary or just sufficient conditions for NOAA science projects and programs. The Board believes the intent of an SAB review is not to dis-approve a program that doesn't meet these criteria. The intent is to ask these questions relative to the review of NOAA science (i.e., have these factors been considered to a sufficient degree?). There was strong SAB support for the belief that NOAA is a mission agency that has an obligation to provide good scientific information to the policy makers. It also has an obligation for operational implementation. As a mission agency, it should be asked: 1) Is NOAA moving toward better operational implementation of its science results? and 2) Is NOAA providing good science to inform policy? The SAB discussion then moved to whether diversity within NOAA would be a part of education, policy or organizational issues. The SAB approved adding the category of "Diversity" to Mr. Douglas' proposed list of topics. It was also proposed to add "Inclusive" to the list of themes, acknowledging the merit of considering traditional ecological knowledge and users knowledge in some areas of NOAA science activities. After some discussion "Inclusive" was not accepted. A question was raised as to whether the "Social Science Integration" category might cause some political difficulty and cause a great deal of scrutiny. Board members felt that the SAB should use its best judgment on these matters. The credibility of the Board may be in question if the Board starts judging their actions by what politics dictate. The Board should not shy away from doing what, in its judgment, is right for fear of political backlash. ***ACTION ITEM*** The SAB will also establish three pilot SAB Working Groups to develop review processes that will incorporate the above themes and will be used to review various science efforts in NOS, OAR and NESDIS. At the October meeting the specific review procedures of the three pilot SAB Working Groups will be reviewed and approved if warranted by the Board. Mr. Douglas stated that the Board should think of itself as an official (i.e., a legally created entity with credibility and standing) advocate of sound science in NOAA and of efforts to expand the science and technology capabilities of the Agency (i.e., support faster computers and biological surveys of national marine waters). The message from the SAB should be simple and clear: Good science is essential to environmental protection and NOAA, as a principal steward, must be given the fiscal and leadership support to maintain and improve its scientific expertise and capabilities. Mr. Douglas made a motion focused on preparing for the transfer of power at NOAA in 2001 and Dr. Rice seconded the motion. ***ACTION ITEM*** The Board then discussed, and a consensus was reached, that the SAB needs to look at organizational issues on a continuing basis to identify for the Administrator organizational or operational impediments to the achievement of maximum effectiveness and efficiency in the delivery and application of excellent science and technology to coastal, ocean and atmospheric environmental stewardship responsibilities. This means spotlighting unproductive turf wars and similar situations where they occur. If a problem of this sort is identified that involves the conduct and delivery of good science, the SAB should bring attention to it. However, the Board felt it needs to guard against becoming officious intermeddlers. SAB SUB-COMMITTEE AND ISSUE GROUP REPORTS Sub-Committee on Coastal Science
- Mr. Peter Douglas, Chair The Sub-Committee on Coastal Science had some specific thoughts on the following subjects: 1) Information Dissemination/Education/Capacity
Building 2) Activities in Support of NOAA
Mission: Goals/Specific Plans/Outcomes/Assessment 3) Data 4) Efficiency/Effectiveness/Formal
Processes 5) Strategic Plan/Budget 6) Role of SAB The Sub-Committee felt, with respect to the coastal ocean, there is a need for a nationally coordinated program of integrated, long-term, near real time reporting in the chemical and biological arena in addition to traditional physical measurements. There is a need for an integrated network of these measurements in the coastal United States. It's an appropriate time to be addressing this because there is a move to create an integrated ocean monitoring system. Mr. Douglas made a motion that the Board endorse NOAA establishing and maintaining a coordinated coastal-ocean-estuarine monitoring program that includes physical-chemical-biological elements of measurement (i.e., temperature, salinity, nutrients, light and chloropyll). Dr. Pietrafesa seconded the motion. The Board discussed various aspects of this kind of monitoring program. Dr. Gober made a motion for an amendment that coastal-ocean monitoring include "human behavior" to the parameters being measured. Dr. Rice seconded the motion. Several SAB members stated they would not support the amendment, stating that the motion was to support an ocean monitoring system and land based patterns of human use is a very different consideration. It was suggested that the human activities on the land-based side be brought forward at the next meeting. ***ACTION ITEM*** Sub-Committee on Data Issues
- Dr. Denise Stephenson-Hawk ***ACTION ITEM*** Some areas are of particular concern identified by the Sub-Committee include: 1) NASA's contributions to, and expectations of NOAA's archives (with respect to Earth Observing System - EOS) still need to be clarified; and 2) NOAA's capacity to ingest the EOS data, and rationale for doing so must be stated clearly. The discussions of ESA and fisheries management issues, along with NOAA's growing focus on coastal issues would argue for a comprehensive approach to the long-term stewardship of its biological holdings. What is NOAA's integrated plan for these? Where will the resources come from? Is each Line Office "doing its own thing" on data? What are the plans for ensuring the accessibility to NOAA's spectrum of data holdings? The Sub-Committee suggested that NOAA take a fresh approach to its cost recovery program. Data charges continue to engender animosity within the research community; and more data are coming on-line. The SAB could help give some ideas for new approaches. The SAB is aware of some other US government initiatives in which NOAA may want to be active (e.g., NSF's Digital Environmental Network). Sub-Committee on Synthesis -
Dr. Patricia Gober, Chair ***ACTION ITEM*** Other activities the Sub-Committee would like to engage in: 1) initiate a conversation with the Strategic Planning Teams to discuss issues raised in the report and around the table here; 2) start collecting data and developing a list of NOAA's research activities in the social sciences. ***ACTION ITEM*** Issue Group on Education - Dr.
Denise Stephenson-Hawk, Lead ***ACTION ITEM*** Public Input Session with
SAB Discussion A final period of SAB discussion led to additional recommendations and action items as follows: 1) ESA Related to Salmon b) NOAA should give an increased emphasis to the estuarine and oceanic portion of salmon life history, with attention to migratory pathways, response to oceanic conditions (especially temperatures, mixed layer depths, nutrient status and productivity), and effects of climate variability with the aim of coupling the output with ongoing and excellent NOAA freshwater habitat research to aid the recovery and assess the potential health of salmonid stocks. c) NOAA Environmental Research Laboratories should be encouraged to utilize their significant atmospheric predicting and modeling capabilities to partner with NMFS efforts to develop and improve models to predict salmon population changes and associated uncertainties due to climate and habitat changes that include alterations of terrestrial habitat, "survival at sea" and other interacting oceanic variables. d) SAB recommends that immediately following the NMFS cumulative risk analysis workshops planned for the coming months, a revised medium or long-term science plan be prepared. The plan should ensure that necessary science activities be undertaken to address key sources of uncertainty in the cumulative risk analysis, and to strengthen understanding of critical processes and parameters in the recovery of salmon in the Pacific Northwest. e) SAB recommends that links to managers and management agencies be built explicitly into all stages of NOAA science initiatives related to salmon recovery. The reciprocal long-term goals of these linkages are to ensure the science products, now and in the future, are the most relevant and usable for managers, and to ensure managers understand the implications, importance and limitations of the science products. 2) The issue of developing SAB recommendations for improving the NOAA strategic planning process will be formally addressed at the next full SAB meeting in October. Dr. Stephenson-Hawk will compile major points made by SAB in Seattle, and provide them to Dr. Crosby who will distribute to the SAB for their review prior to the October SAB meeting. 3) The issue of marine biodiversity, and specifically Dr. Norse's suggestion that NOAA should, through the use of NOAA scientists and grants to outside (i.e., academic and NGO) entities, make a thorough examination of existing data to identify marine invertebrate and vertebrate species that are vulnerable to extinction, was tabled for discussion at a future meeting. 4) The issue of the Office of the Chief Scientist (OCS) and specifically the NASULGC recommendation that NOAA needs to maintain an active Office of the Chief Scientist for day-to-day management and oversight of its science enterprise, to serve as the principal advisor to the NOAA Administrator on core scientific issues, and be the chief coordinator of the NOAA-University Partnership; and that the OCS should be given a budget and other resources necessary to be effective in continuing to support the SAB and the NOAA-University Partnership, was tabled for discussion at a future meeting. DISCUSSION OF FUTURE SAB MEETINGS October 19-21, 1999 full SAB meeting in Boulder, Colorado. February 20, 2000 AAAS meeting in Washington, DC. This will not be a formal, full meeting of the Board, but rather an information gathering session for whatever subset of the Board is able to attend. Full SAB meeting sometime between March 27 - April 14, 2000 in Washington, DC/Silver Spring, MD. Full SAB meeting sometime between July 16-29, 2000 in Hawaii, Monterey, Woods Hole, or other venue with a concentration of NOAA facilities. ***ACTION ITEM*** SAB members will send Dr. Crosby preferred dates for a full SAB meeting during the March 27-April 14, 2000 timeframe as well as preferred dates for a full SAB meeting during the July 16-29, 2000 timeframe. JULY 7-9 SAB MEETING ATTENDEES Dr. Vera Alexander, Dean, School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska Mr. Peter M. Douglas, Executive Director, California Coastal Commission Dr. Otis Brown, Dean, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami Dr. Patricia Gober, Professor, Department of Geography, Arizona State University Dr. Susan S. Hanna (present 7/8 and 7/9), H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment Dr. Leonard Pietrafesa, Head, Department of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, North Carolina State University Dr. Denise M. Stephenson-Hawk, Professor of Physics, Clark-Atlanta University Dr. Jake Rice, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat Dr. Soroosh Sorooshian, Professor, Hydrology & Water Resources, University of Arizona SAB Executive Director SAB Members Not Attending Dr. Diane M. McKnight, Associate Professor, Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering Department, University of Colorado Dr. Arthur E. Maxwell, Professor Emeritus, Institute for Geophysics, University of Texas Dr. Joanne Simpson, Chief Scientist for Meteorology, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Dr. Warren Washington, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Climate and Global Dynamics Division [Dr. Washington participated in a Data Sub-Committee discussion via telephone conference call]. SAB Meeting Public Attendees Dr. David Battisti, Director, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington Dr. Kerry D. Bolognese, Federal Relations, National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, 1307 New York Avenue, Suite 400, Washington DC 20005 Dr. Edward Miles, School of Marine Affairs, Unversity of Washington, Seattle, Washington Ms. Roxanne Nikolaus, Science Associate, Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education, 1755 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 800, Washington DC 20036 Dr. Elliott Norse, President, Marine Conservation Biology Institute, 15806 NE 47th Court, Redmond, WA 98052-5208. Dr. Jim O'Brien, Chair, Board of Ocean and Atmosphere, National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2840. Approximately 15 NOAA staff from various Line and Program Offices were also in the audience.
|