SUMMARY MINUTES APPROVED BY
THE NOAA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
NOAA Science Advisory Board Meeting
October 19-21, 1999
Boulder, Colorado
October 19, 1999
Official Call to Order and Review of Meeting Format
Dr. Michael Crosby officially called the fourth meeting of the
NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB) to order at 11:00 A.M. and
explained the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) guidelines
for the meeting. The FACA seeks to ensure that all federal advisory
committees provide relevant advice. The FACA decision memo for
the NOAA Science Advisory Board was signed in 1996. The FACA
two-year charter was recently renewed and signed on September
24, 1999. The SAB is the only federal advisory committee to
advise the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and Administrator
of NOAA, Dr. D. James Baker, on science and resource management
issues.
Dr. Crosby turned the meeting
over to the SAB Chair, Dr. Alfred Beeton.
Introduction of the NOAA SAB
Chair and Board Members and Opening Statement of the Chair
(Dr. Alfred Beeton - Chair, NOAA Science Advisory Board)
Dr. Beeton welcomed everyone and reminded them that the Boulder
meeting would be Dr. Crosby's final meeting as Executive Director
of the SAB. He introduced Dr. Michael Uhart as the next Executive
Director of the SAB. He explained that Dr. Baker was not able
to attend the meeting. Dr. Baker looks forward to seeing the
SAB at the April 2000 meeting which he feels will be very important
because he wants the Board to have significant input in developing
NOAA's budget.
The Board members each introduced
themselves and then Dr. Beeton turned the meeting over to Dr.
David Evans.
Welcoming Remarks
(Dr. David Evans - Assistant Administrator, OAR - Representing
Dr. D. James Baker)
Dr. Evans thanked all of the SAB members for making time in their
busy schedules to be at the fourth SAB meeting. Dr. Evans explained
that Dr. Baker sent his regrets for not being able to attend
the meeting. He had planned to attend up to the preceding week,
but it was necessary for him to attend a meeting with the Secretary
of Commerce on budget and personnel issues which was scheduled
on short notice. Dr. Baker wanted to reaffirm with the Board
his strong commitment to the SAB. Dr. Evans presented remarks
prepared by Dr. Baker to the SAB.
Dr. Evans stated that immediately
following the close of the meetings in Boulder, Dr. Uhart would
replace Dr. Crosby as the SAB Executive Director. Dr. Uhart
is currently Director of the National Acid Precipitation Assessment
Program and is a Senior Meteorological Specialist in NOAA's Office
of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR). Dr. Crosby is beginning
a two-year detail from NOAA as the Senior Science Advisor for
marine and coastal ecosystems at the U.S . Agency for International
Development (USAID). The SAB has previously stated that NOAA
leadership and partnership efforts in the international science
arena are essential to support NOAA's mission and goals. The
purpose of Dr. Crosby's detail to USAID is to significantly enhance
NOAA's involvement in these international efforts. Dr. Baker
wanted to thank Dr. Crosby for his leadership and outstanding
work with the Board, and wish him well in his new position.
Cooperative Institute for Research
in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado
(Dr. Susan Avery - CIRES Director)
Dr. Susan Avery stated that the Cooperative Institute for Research
in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) is one of the eleven joint
institutes. CIRES was formed in the mid-1960s and is the oldest
of the joint institutes. The institute is a partnership between
the University of Colorado (CU) and NOAA. CIRES works with the
six OAR labs located in Boulder as well as other NOAA line offices,
such as the National Environmental Satellite and Data Information
Service (NESDIS) and the National Ocean Service (NOS).
Dr. Avery gave an overview of
the roles of the cooperative/joint institutes. She stated that
CIRES research is organized into divisions, centers, and research
themes. The two major research themes are health of the atmosphere
and biosphere and water resources.
The National Snow and Ice Data
Center (NSIDC) is a scientific data center that has had a long-standing
association with NESDIS. CIRES collaborates with the National
Center for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) on snow products.
CIRES works with the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC)
on NOAA-funded data rescue.
There is approximately a 50/50
split between CU and NOAA affiliation for CIRES staffing. With
regard to job classification, researchers with doctorates make
up 27%, support staff 18% (i.e., technicians, computer support
and data analysts), and graduate and undergraduate students comprise
15%.
CIRES expenditures for 1998 and
1999 are divided among funding sources accordingly: NOAA 53%,
NASA 18%, University of Colorado 11%, other universities 2%,
other federal agencies 5%, National Science Foundation (NSF)
10%, and non-federal agencies 1%.
Dr. Avery gave an overview of
the recent research highlights at CIRES, including: prediction
of climate variability, space weather modeling, crop release
of reactive organic compounds, warming of Antarctic ice shelves,
monsoon air-sea interactions (JASMINE/GOALS), and climate variability
and water in the interior West.
CIRES has done a great deal in
terms of promoting public awareness, including K-12 partnerships,
involving undergraduate students with CIRES research, and mentoring
graduate students in their research activities.
Questions and Discussion
Dr. Warren Washington asked how CIRES determines what research
should be done. Dr. Avery replied that they keep informed through
retreats and monthly fellows meetings where they discuss science
and cooperative agreement proposals. There is dialog and coordination
between the regional study centers, NOAA laboratories, and the
institutes so that there is no duplication of effort. The cooperative
agreement, formerly every three years, is now every five years.
During the five-year period they have one major research review
and other interim reviews.
Dr. Leonard Pietrafesa asked
if CIRES scientific staff carry university appointments. Dr.
Avery responded that CIRES staff do carry university appointments.
In many ways CIRES parallels the university track and some people
do become research professors. CIRES has 12 faculty who are fully
rostered as CU faculty.
Dr. Pietrafesa asked if there
was overlap with the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) water assessment
in the west program. Dr. Avery responded that CIRES has a close
working relationship with USGS scientists. CIRES is incorporating
remote sensing data into USGS hydrological models.
Cooperative Institute for
Research in the Atmosphere, Colorado State University
(Dr. Thomas Vonder Haar - Director, CIRA)
Dr. Thomas Vonder Haar explained that the Cooperative Institute
for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA) is one of the younger cooperative
institutes, formed in 1980. CIRA is in the College of Engineering,
along with the Department of Atmospheric Sciences, at Colorado
State University (CSU). The institute has been co-sponsored by
NESDIS and OAR since 1980.
CIRA's research themes include:
global climate dynamics, local weather forecasting, cloud physics,
satellite observations as applied to modeling and climate studies,
aerosol and visibility research, and social and economic impacts
of weather and science. CIRA's primary funding source is NOAA,
but it also receives funding from the National Park Service and
Department of Defense for the Center for Geosciences located
at CIRA. The institute is working with the Forecast Systems
Laboratory (FSL) and the Environmental Technology Laboratory
(ETL) in Boulder. Dr. Vonder Haar discussed how cooperative
institutes provide mechanisms for scientists who want to work
together but face organizational impediments. He discussed the
coincident NOAA-University priority mission areas. He also discussed
two-way research interactions (i.e., mission priorities, new
initiatives, entrainment and mentoring of new students, and international
activities with the Office of Global Programs and NESDIS).
Questions and Discussion
Dr. M.R.C. Greenwood asked Dr. Vonder Haar if CIRA has growth
money for new initiatives. Dr. Vonder Haar responded that the
base funding from NOAA can be directed to new areas (i.e., to
sponsor a post-doctoral student in a new area). Some of the
university funds are left for discretionary work to begin new
initiatives in CIRA's theme areas, and sometimes outside of its
theme areas.
Dr. Patricia Gober asked what
criteria are used to measure CIRA's success. Dr. Vonder Haar
replied that the measurement criteria include contributions to
NOAA's mission, journal publications, and the involvement of
students. The university also reviews CIRA independently from
NOAA. Dr. Gober asked if there is tension between the two review
bodies, NOAA, and the university review boards. Dr. Avery responded
that there is no tension with those two sets of reviewers.
Dr. Soroosh Sorooshian commented
that most of the CIRA students are getting their degrees in atmospheric
sciences. He asked to what extent is CIRA encouraging students
to pursue interdisciplinary work. Dr. Vonder Haar said that
there are about 80 students in atmospheric sciences and some
students come from other departments within the university such
as Physics, Math, and Hydrology.
Dr. Susan Zevin, Deputy Assistant
Administrator for NESDIS, asked about the demographics of the
faculty, particularly the research scientists (i.e., number that
have tenure, percentage of men and women). Dr. Avery responded
that not all of the faculty are tenured. Most of the fellows
who sit on the Council of Fellows for NOAA are senior. Women
are well represented and minorities are rather well represented.
CIRES has worked with the Smart Program in which the university
sponsors minority students to come to Boulder for the summer
to work on an undergraduate research program. CIRES made a presentation
at the minority serving students conference held by the Department
of Commerce (DOC).
Dr. Pietrafesa asked how the
cooperative institutes determine what problems may be of interest
to local forecasters. Dr. Vonder Haar responded that the National
Weather Service (NWS)-OAR-NESDIS troika mechanism brings a great
deal of interaction. They hold meetings which include NWS forecasters
and have visits by NWS Science Operations Officers who come through
CIRA. CIRA participates in training modules with 10-15 forecasters.
Through the use of virtual labs they have put products into
the forecasters' offices so that they can get feedback directly
to their scientists from the forecasters. There has always been
a NWS member on CIRA's advisory board.
Dr. Jake Rice commented that
the SAB struggles with the many NOAA missions, from the daily
practice versus long-term science support of policy decisions.
Dr. Rice asked how the cooperative institutes deal with preparing
knowledge for practice. Dr. Vonder Haar responded that in the
weather/climate arena they are no longer faced with those difficulties.
Dr. Avery commented that when a research project evolves into
a practical item that should be done in the private sector, they
try to spin it off.
Dr. Beeton stated that NOAA has
a strategic plan and the budget is put together by strategic
planning teams. He then asked if the cooperative institutes
have input in NOAA's strategic planning process. Dr. Vonder
Haar responded that the institutes know the NOAA strategic planning
goals so they can connect the strategic plan of the university
with the NOAA strategic plan. Dr. Avery commented that the
joint institutes have recently been invited to constituent group
strategic planning meetings. Mr. Douglas asked what could be
done to improve the NOAA strategic planning process. Dr. Avery
replied that the strategic planning elements were set up a long
time ago and there are two significant drawbacks with the way
that NOAA strategic planning is done. First, new research and
new ideas fall between the cracks because the strategic planning
process is boxed into old formulas. Second, the strategic planning
process is focused on products and services that can be delivered
in one-year time goals. Research is not done in one-year time
intervals.
OAR Response to SAB Recommendation
Concerning the Establishment of the OAR Working Group
(Louisa Koch - Deputy Assistant Administrator, OAR)
Ms. Louisa Koch referred the Board to the materials submitted
by OAR for the proposed Climate and Global Change Working Group,
including the Terms of Reference, Slate of Nominees for filling
future vacancies in the working group, and Draft Terms for the
NOAA Climate and Global Change Advisory Panel. Dr. Beeton said
that the full SAB could deal with the working group instead of
having it go to the Steering Committee.
Dr. Rice commented that the Terms
of Reference are self-evident. The existing review process is
only being modified slightly to dovetail closely with the SAB.
Dr. Rice made the following motion. The motion was seconded.
MOTION: To adopt the Terms
of Reference for a Climate and Global Change Working Group as
a framework for review of the Climate and Global Change Program.
Dr. Beeton asked for discussion
of the motion. Mr. Douglas said that the document does not specifically
incorporate the SAB's eight themes in the Terms of Reference.
By contrast, the NOS proposal makes reference to elements of
review that specifically refer back to these themes. The SAB
discussed the language to be used and amended the motion to include
the eight themes developed by the SAB at the July 1999 SAB meeting.
Dr. Washington expressed two
concerns. First, the Terms of Reference state that "Working
Group members will be appointed for four-year terms with the
opportunity for two additional terms." Twelve years is a
long term of office. Dr. Washington's second concern was that
the panel members' first term would end in 2000. He asked if
this amounted to a mismatch or discontinuity. One-third of the
terms expire in 2000, one-third of the terms expire in 2001 and
one-third of the terms expire in 2002. A discussion followed.
Dr. Rice commented that many
parts of NOAA already have processes in place to review the quality
of their science. To interface the activity of the Board with
these much more focused reviews is to make sure the SAB has some
kind of interaction with the reviews. If the SAB insists that
all parts of NOAA be reviewed in the same way, it will quickly
become a meddlesome group. At the July 1999 meeting, the SAB
wanted only mechanisms in which the Board could interact with
these other quality review groups, not tell each group how to
do their work in a uniform way.
Dr. Gober suggested that the
original language of the Terms of Reference "Working Group
members will be appointed for four-year terms with the opportunity
for two additional terms" be changed to "one additional
term" and strike the last sentence which currently reads
"Initial appointments to the working group will be for a
one-year term." It should be assumed that the terms will
be staggered.
An amendment to the motion was
made by Dr. Gober. The amendment was seconded.
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: To
change the language in the Terms of Reference from "be mindful
of" to "take into consideration"; change "two
additional terms" to "one additional term" and
strike the last sentence.
Dr. Beeton took a vote and the
motion was passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Ms. Koch will
send to the Executive Director, for distribution to the Board
members, the revised Terms of Reference for the Climate and Global
Change Working Group.
Dr. Beeton led the discussion
of the existing panel and the nominees. If the working group
is going to be under the SAB, the Board can choose to add or
replace the suggested nominees.
Dr. Rice made the following motion.
Dr. Pietrafesa seconded the motion.
MOTION: To accept the list
of potential nominees for the Climate and Global Change Working
Group.
Dr. Beeton asked for a discussion
of the motion.
Dr. Gober asked if the SAB or
NOAA would make the appointments to the working group. Dr. Rice
suggested that the SAB bring a slate of potential candidates
to NOAA's attention. The SAB would approve a list of candidates
but NOAA would select them.
Dr. Rice noted that the list
of candidates lacked an international scientist. All of the
candidates are employed at U.S. institutions. International people
could look at problems from a slightly different perspective
because they are working in settings which may make different
assumptions about how science in government institutions can
work. Dr. Rice proposed that the SAB make a strong encouragement
to include some people from centers outside the U.S. on the panel
that will be an advisory board to the SAB.
Mr. Douglas said that he would
rather give some direction to the appropriate appointing authority,
such as the SAB Chairman, because the SAB members don't know
the candidates' background or expertise.
Dr. Diane McKnight and Dr. Sorooshian
would like a paragraph of information on each of the potential
nominees.
ACTION ITEM: The SAB would
like information on the current and nominated members of the
Climate and Global Change Working Group, to determine if the
group has a balance of expertise, as appropriate. The Board
would like this information in the form of a matrix with each
candidate's name, scientific affiliation (i.e., physicist, biologist,
etc.), university affiliation, academic discipline, diversity
information (i.e., race, gender, geographic region), and international
affiliation. Dr. Evans will provide the SAB with an analysis
of the working group membership before the next SAB meeting.
The following motion was drafted
and made by Mr. Douglas. The motion was seconded.
MOTION: To approve the Terms
of Reference, as modified, and to authorize the SAB Chair, Alfred
Beeton, to consult with David Evans to make the appointments
of qualified experts to the pilot review panel giving strong
consideration to the appointment of a person working for a foreign
research institution. In making the appointments, Dr. Beeton
should consider diversity, gender, geographic distribution, and
constituency representation. The Board expects to see a history
of appointees with brief bios and other information to give the
SAB a good background understanding of the qualifications of
each appointee. The Chair is not limited to appointment from
the list of names submitted together with this item.
Dr. Beeton called a vote on the
motion. Dr. Sorooshian abstained, Dr. McKnight voted against
the motion, and all others voted in favor of the motion. The
motion passed.
NESDIS Response to SAB Recommendation
Concerning the Establishment of the NESDIS Working Group
(Dr. Krishna Rao - Senior Scientist, NESDIS)
Dr. Krishna Rao has been working with SAB member Dr. Otis Brown
to develop a blueprint for the NESDIS working group. The last
NESDIS science review was held nine years ago. Satellites are
one of the main components for climate monitoring and diagnostics.
Dr. Kathy Sullivan wanted a review conducted when she was the
NOAA Chief Scientist. Since then there has been no formal review
of NESDIS. However, internal reviews are held every month. An
outside group should look at the resources, the strengths, and
the weaknesses to determine if NESDIS has adequate connections
with outside groups, government entities (e.g., NASA) and the
international community. A list of people to serve on the working
group has been developed. The SAB can pick four to six people
off the list of proposed names or it can suggest names of people
who are knowledgeable about satellites. NESDIS would like to
conduct this review in April of 2000.
Dr. Beeton commented that in
the last paragraph of the Plan for Review of Satellite Related
Activities in NESDIS, it is stated that "The review should
be conducted either in late January or early February 2000."
Dr. Rao responded that would be changed to April.
Mr. Douglas made the following
motion. The motion was seconded.
MOTION: The SAB delegate the
authority to the Chair, to work with the appropriate NOAA person,
to make the appointment of individuals for the NESDIS working
group.
Dr. Beeton asked for a discussion
of the motion.
Dr. Greenwood expressed her concern
that there was a preponderance of oceanographers on the list
of proposed members for the working group. She wasn't sure if
the SAB had enough information for the Board to move ahead with
selection of members for a review or working group.
Dr. Sorooshian asked if the SAB
was setting up a new mechanism that parallels the National Academy
of Sciences (NAS) review process. Dr. Zevin said that in a formal
sense this could be viewed as parallel to the things the Academy
reviews. However, NESDIS wants something that can be conducted
in a timely fashion because they need the feedback. The NAS
process takes several months. Dr. Rice commented that the SAB
has a different role than the NAS. The SAB has FACA power to
make very specific recommendations. Given what a large portion
of NOAA's budget satellites represent, it is appropriate for
the Board to make recommendations on it.
Mr. Douglas agreed with Dr. Rice.
Regarding the appointees for the NESDIS working group, Mr. Douglas
hoped that there would be a diversity of expertise and representation
of user groups (groups which will be using data to make policy
decisions such as ocean stewardship).
Dr. Greenwood suggested that
the SAB address the following: What would the SAB expect from
such a review panel in terms of expertise and who on the list
represents that expertise? Is there disciplinary balance on
the list? In the case of NESDIS, she wasn't confident that there
was enough information on these nominees for the SAB to move
this ahead at this point.
Dr. Washington commented that
this is a critical time for NOAA, with convergence of the satellite
programs. He is unable to see how this interfaces with the other
agencies satellite programs and asked if this proposal was really
fleshed out.
Dr. Beeton said that the Board
could have NESDIS come back with a revised proposal to be given
to the Steering Committee.
Mr. Douglas commented that the
Proposed Guidelines for the Review should read parallel to the
ones the SAB approved in July 1999. The themes adopted by the
SAB should be woven into the work of the NESDIS review board.
In addition, "proper balance" and "proper mix"
as used in numbers three, four and five aren't very clear. Dr.
Rice commented that the word "proper" in front of
balance suggests that there is some global perfect balance, whereas
in reality the "proper" balance is always going to
depend to some extent on the interests of the person judging
the balance. It would help to see what the user community would
like to have in terms of services which they aren't receiving.
Dr. Greenwood would like to see
the convergence issue more explicitly addressed.
Dr. Washington suggested that
"hydrological" and "ecological" be included
in item four which currently reads "Is there a proper balance
in NESDIS's research activities between weather, climate, and
oceans?" The panel should also add a data (dissemination,
warehousing, etc.) issue.
Dr. Gober commented that she
had the sense that there is the insider crowd. She could offer
some names of people who would give a different perspective.
Dr. Zevin said that NESDIS would welcome more suggestions.
Dr. Sorooshian stated that it
is difficult to do these reviews with any depth in short period
of time. The SAB should consider what the results of a short-term
review might be.
Mr. Douglas withdrew his earlier
motion and replaced it with the following motion. The motion
was seconded.
MOTION: To ask NESDIS to revise
its proposed review process and the list of recommended appointees
consistent with SAB concerns (i.e., that SAB guiding principles
be woven into the review) and to authorize the Chair and Steering
Committee to approve the review process on behalf of the SAB.
To authorize the Chair, Alfred Beeton, in consultation with the
appropriate NOAA representative, to make the appointments to
this review panel, taking into consideration diversity, geographic
distribution, constituency involvement, gender, background and
expertise. The SAB expects to receive a listing of appointees
with their qualifications.
There was no further discussion.
The motion passed unanimously.
NOS Response to SAB Recommendation
Concerning the Establishment of the NOS Working Group
(Dr. Donald Scavia - Senior Scientist, NOS)
Dr. Donald Scavia worked with Mr. Douglas to develop the NOS
plan for a science review process. The current NOS proposal
is in draft form to allow the Board an opportunity to provide
input to the plan. The NOS working group plan will not be up
for a vote by the SAB at the current meeting, but rather it should
be on the agenda for the April 2000 SAB meeting.
Capt. Ted Lillestolen, Deputy
Assistant Administrator for NOS, stated that the objectives in
the NOS Science Review Processes document reflect recommendations
that the SAB provided.
Dr. Scavia explained that the
NOS Science Council has not yet reviewed the proposal. The plan
is for a series of panels that would convene and then end. These
would not be standing bodies. The organizational reviews would
take place every three to five years. There would be one SAB
member and external technical experts on the review panels.
Each review would have a self-evaluation component. The panel
may also do a site visit. In each of the three review processes
there are evaluation criteria that include recommendations from
the SAB's last meeting.
Dr. Pietrafesa stated that the
three to five year organizational review period may be insufficient.
Perhaps a two to three year cycle would be more appropriate.
Mr. Douglas clarified that a
SAB member is not required to be on the review panel. If NOS
would like SAB representation, they can request it.
ACTION ITEM: The draft plan for the NOS review process will
be distributed electronically to the SAB. Written feedback from
the SAB on the NOS proposal should be sent to the SAB Executive
Director by December 10, 1999.
NMFS Response to SAB Recommendations
Concerning the Endangered Species Act Related to Salmon
(Penny Dalton - Assistant Administrator, NMFS)
Ms. Penny Dalton gave an overview of how the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) is addressing the SAB's recommendations
concerning salmon and the Endangered Species Act.
The first SAB recommendation
was to strengthen connections with other agencies and bodies
outside the core NOAA-university community of researchers. NMFS
works with the conservation community, tribes and tribal organizations,
other federal agencies, regional and state efforts. There have
been a series of seminars with environmental groups and scientists.
The Northwest Fisheries Science Center is working with the Northwest
Indian College to develop the next generation of fisheries scientists.
An eight agency federal caucus has been convened by the NMFS
Northwest Regional Administrator to ensure coordination among
the agencies having formal responsibilities in respect to salmon
habitat and recovery. The acting Chairman of the Committee on
Environment and Natural Resources (CENR), George Frampton, requested
the CENR to look at the federal coordination of science for
salmon. The centerpiece of the regional program is the Cumulative
Risk Workshops (CRI). These workshops started last spring and
they are scheduled to go at least until next spring. Each workshop
has been attended by over 100 people. The local communities
are involved in the recovery and habitat conservation plans.
A coast-wide salmon research plan was developed three years
ago and will be published in 2000.
The second SAB recommendation
was that NOAA should give an increased emphasis to the estuarine
and oceanic portion of salmon life history. A partnership research
program for salmon research has raised $1 million from EPA. Ms.
Dalton gave a brief overview of the NMFS FY 1999 budget. Most
of the money spent in the NMFS regions is management related
and the majority of the money spent in NMFS centers is science
related. Twenty-two percent of the NMFS funding is spent on
ocean and estuary work.
Dr. Rice commented that one of the problems is the large investment
in the cumulative risk assessments which are done before ocean
risks are known. The large investment in the risk assessment
may not adequately identify the threats to the salmon because
they are only based on current research which is primarily in
fresh water. Ms. Dalton responded that in response to the SAB
recommendations, NMFS is paying more attention to ocean fisheries
with much of the information coming from the Alaska laboratory.
The third SAB recommendation
was that the 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. NMFS is working
with Environmental Research Laboratory (ERL) capabilities to
develop ocean indices based on sea surface temperatures. There
appears to be a correlation between ocean temperature and survival
of salmon (to explain the over 90 percent variation survival
for Coho salmon).
The fourth SAB recommendation
was that immediately following the NMFS cumulative risk analysis
workshops planned for the coming months, a revised medium or
long-term science plan be prepared. Ms. Dalton explained that
the workshops will not be completed until next spring. A conceptual
plan will grow out of the workshops. NMFS has prepared a draft
long-term research plan which was distributed to the SAB.
The fifth SAB recommendation
was that links to managers and management agencies be built explicitly
into all stages of NOAA science initiatives related to salmon
recovery. Ms. Dalton presented the salmon harvest model used
in ocean harvest management.
Questions and Discussion
Dr. Pietrafesa asked if the series of workshops could be open
and not subject to an invitation list. Ms. Dalton responded
that the invitation list is just to ensure that everyone who
should be informed about the workshops knows about them.
Dr. Rice commented that it is
essential to get a wider range of expertise involved in the salmon
problem. He suggested that ecosystem researchers from other
areas be incorporated.
OAR Response to SAB Recommendations
Concerning the Endangered Species Act Related to Salmon
(Louisa Koch - Deputy Assistant Administrator, OAR)
The Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL) is working
with the Alaska Fishery Science Center (AFSC) to understand the
role of varying ocean and atmospheric conditions on recruitment
to the pollock fishery in the Gulf of Alaska and, more recently,
in the Bering Sea. There is a budget initiative to expand this
effort. An expansive effort to add something to the Climate Diagnostics
Center (CDC) would be interesting but there isn't funding available
for it.
Questions and Discussion
Dr. Rice commented that the recovery plan addresses only recovery
in response to changes in selective fisheries. Some recovery
planning should involve responses to environmental conditions.
There are aspects of recovery planning to include the time salmon
are out of the river.
Discussion of the SAB Report
for the Next NOAA Administrator
(Dr. Beeton)
Dr. Beeton solicited ideas from the SAB for a report to the next
NOAA Administrator and distributed to the SAB what was put together
by himself, Dr. Rice, and Dr. Joanne Simpson.
Dr. Gober suggested that the
SAB decide how general or specific the report to the new Administrator
should be. She thought it should cover the main ideas, such
as integration of NOAA science and scientists in the strategic
planning process.
Mr. Douglas commented that the
report to the new Administrator ought to have a level of specificity.
The Board needs to show what it has done. The notion of stewardship
is very important to the mission of NOAA and it has taken a lot
of effort to get it elevated to a level of visibility. NOAA
also has a responsibility to be involved with international science.
Dr. Pietrafesa commented that
issue of data needs to be addressed now and in the future. NOAA
has an international portfolio and he isn't aware of what it
is. NOAA is clearly an international player and perhaps the Board
should be able to speak to that.
Mr. Douglas suggested that the
SAB appoint a small working group of Board members to draft a
document for the full Board to review at the next SAB meeting.
Mr. Douglas made a motion that
the SAB select a working group of SAB members to draft a document
for the new NOAA Administrator. The motion was seconded and
the Chair asked for discussion on the motion.
Ms. Dalton commented that there
is not a large difference between a report that is produced for
the new Secretary of Commerce and the new Administrator of NOAA.
Mr. Douglas modified his motion accordingly to include the new
Secretary of Commerce.
Dr. Gober commented that she was struck by the NSF National Science
Board Task Force on the Environment Interim Report. The Task
Force set forth a vision that involved infrastructure, education,
and the basic science that they want to contribute. That would
be the kind of document that states basic and applied science
have important roles in NOAA. That is the kind of message the
SAB should convey - science to build capacity. Dr. Greenwood
said that there was a congressional mandate that the NSF Task
Force report be written. It was a two-year process, there were
at least four hearings, a great deal of NSF staff worked on it,
and several drafts were written. She suggested that the SAB produce
a "preliminary" report which would be a useful and
up-to-date document.
Dr. Rice suggested that in an
era when vision statements are an essential part of bureaucracy,
the people at multiple levels of NOAA who deliver the vision
should be involved in creating it, rather than just the SAB.
If NOAA's vision statement is ten years old, it should be updated.
Mr. Douglas suggested that the
SAB report should stay away from skills that new Administrator
should have because that will be determined by the new President.
Dr. Beeton reminded the SAB that
a quorum was not available to vote on the motion for a report
to the next NOAA Administrator. A vote on the motion was deferred
until the next day. Dr. Beeton asked the SAB whom the logical
people would be to work on the report. Mr. Douglas, Dr. Gober,
Dr. Pietrafesa and Dr. Rice volunteered to serve on the working
group to draft a SAB report for the next Secretary of Commerce
and NOAA Administrator.
Public Input Session with
SAB discussion
No public input was received by the SAB.
The meeting was adjourned at
4:53 P.M.
October 20, 1999
Official Call to Order and
Review of Meeting Format
(Dr. Crosby )
Dr. Crosby officially called the meeting to order at 8:45 A.M.
Overview of Initial OAR Efforts
to Establish a Collaborative Coastal Ocean and Estuarine Monitoring
System
(Dr. David Evans Assistant Administrator, OAR)
Dr. Evans gave an overview of the initial OAR efforts to establish
a collaborative coastal ocean and estuarine monitoring system.
The National Ocean Research Leadership Council put forward a
strategy for ocean observations and there was a process to put
together a response to Congress. Last spring the response to
Congress was put forth as the document "Toward an Integrated
Ocean Observation Strategy." The National Ocean Partnership
office developed an implementation strategy. NOAA firmly embraced
the report sent to Congress last spring. NOAA has established
two working groups to develop implementation plans for those
observations consistent with NOAA's mission. The first group
will focus on ocean observations to improve climate and weather
forecasts. This group is establishing a small list of parameters
that need to be developed globally. The second working group
will focus on parameters to measure coastal and living resources.
Dr. Baker will chair both working groups.
Overview of Initial NOS Efforts
to Establish a Collaborative Coastal Ocean and Estuarine Monitoring
System
(Dr. Donald Scavia Senior Scientist, NOS)
Dr. Scavia remarked that while there is a broad interagency effort
for ocean and coastal monitoring, NOAA needs to determine the
part of the effort on which it is going to take the lead. Dr.
Nancy Foster, Assistant Administrator for NOS, has asked NOS
to put together their integrative coastal monitoring strategy
to fit into the overall NOAA strategy. One problem is that this
type of observing system costs a lot of money. The initial design
costs are $40-50 million. It is even more expensive to identify
the living resources. This kind of program can't just fit inside
the standard NOAA approach because it is too complex for the
system to handle. NOS could use advice on how to approach this
problem.
Dr. Pietrafesa suggested that
the NOAA-NOS should look to the NOAA-NWS for a model on how to
build the plan for a complex monitoring network. There will
be lessons learned both ways.
The three documents distributed
to the SAB: "A National Coastal Monitoring Program: Collecting
and Disseminating Information for Environmental Decision-Making,"
Draft "Clean Water Action Plan: Coastal Research and Monitoring
Strategy," and "A U.S. Coastal-Global Ocean Observing
System Report," will be made public over the next few months.
All three documents address biological,
physical, and chemical parameters. They intentionally don't
emphasize living resources. They all discuss a three-tier framework
for monitoring. Tier 1 focuses on existing programs which will
be integrated to do broad scale surveys along the coast (head
of the tide to the outer edge of the EEZ). This tier integrates
satellite data of watersheds from LANSAT and sea surface temperature
to include coastal and inland watershed data. It is looking
at changes to provide an early warning system at a national scale.
Dr. Pietrafesa stated that this
(i.e.,Tier 1 capability) should be NOAA's goal. It is achievable
and necessary for the future needs of the citizenry of the U.S.
Tier 2 ranges from national to
regional scale. It looks at cause and effect observing system
(loads in the system). It tries to answer the question of how
one identifies and satisfies users. Tier 2 involves the users
in the design and implementation strategy for each region.
Tier 3 is a set of intensively
studied index sites where there would be intense monitoring.
This tier is an evolution from NSF NTRL sites and some pilot
projects that NOAA and NASA have developed over the past few
years.
Questions and Discussion
Dr. Beeton commented that the regional approach is a good one.
When he read the recommendations the SAB made, the one word which
stood out was "collaborative."
Dr. Pietrafesa asked if NOS is
proposing to establish a backbone around the coastline in which
the Tier 1 and Tier 2 data can be clustered. By "backbone"
he means buoys, C-MAN stations, and water recorders at strategic
locations around the coast. Dr. Scavia responded that the observing
systems have been degraded over the last decade and need to be
improved. Many people agree that the backbone structure is necessary,
whereas communities say they have more immediate problems that
need to be addressed and therefore can't wait for the buoy network.
It is the regional scale with which many of the user constituencies
are concerned.
Dr. Rice commented that neither
science nor the user communities are well served by a large number
of individual programs which are individually inadequately funded.
He said that no one is suggesting the local problems should be
ignored. He suggested getting Tier 1 very sound before trying
to serve all the other very legitimate needs. The three tiers
are very good science and monitoring but if funding is short
only do what can be done well within the means available.
Dr. Pietrafesa pointed out that
the NWS WSD-88 program could serve as a working model for how
NOAA should approach the creation of a Tier 1 monitoring network.
Dr. Beeton asked exactly what
purpose monitoring serves. To identify the conclusion? What
is the bottom line?
Dr. Rice stated that fish have
been monitored for a long time in the marine system. A sophisticated
structure had to be developed to interpret the results of monitoring
the fish, and apply the results to management and policy questions.
It will involve creating a structured annual review and advisory
process.
Dr. Pietrafesa suggested that
the ocean side of NOAA had not developed the culture of monitoring
for the purpose of nowcasting or forecasting or even to providing
services to the public on a routine basis, such as has been the
tradition, mission, and charge of the NWS. But times have changed
and so have public demands, needs, and expectations and in order
for NOAA to be able to hindcast, let alone forecast on the oceanic
and marine side of the house, NOAA needs to establish a Tier
1 capability. That should be NOAA's focus here.
Dr. Sorooshian asked that because
the source of the pollutants is somewhat agricultural in nature,
to what extent is the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) involved.
Dr. Scavia responded that USDA has been involved. This is an
interagency effort driven by regulation. In the coastal area
NOAA has very little regulatory authority.
Conference Call with Dr. D
James Baker, Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA
Administrator
Dr. Baker apologized for not being able to attend the SAB meeting
in Boulder, reaffirmed his commitment to the SAB, and ensured
the Board that he is carefully considering what they recommend.
Dr. Baker suggested that the
SAB consider some high level recommendations for a new Secretary
of Commerce and Administrator of NOAA. For example, the report
could include budget trends in the line offices for research
and operations, a discussion about facilities, institutional
partnerships, etc.
Dr. Baker explained that this
is the final phase of a complex budget process. There are currently
numbers and report language for what is expected that NOAA will
receive. The National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) program is up $3
from $14 million last year. There is $2 million for the ARGO
BUOY Program which is a small but an important start as NOAA
looks to expand the ocean monitoring system. There are also
new increases in climate and global climate change beyond El
Nino methane and CO2. NOAA is also getting increased
funding for the Weather Research Program. There is approximately
$50 million for the salmon enhancement program. To date, NOAA
did not fare well in increases for coastal programs. The agency
did get $10 million for National Estuarine Research Reserve System
(NERRS) construction. NOAA also got money for new fisheries
vessels for science and stock assessments. These numbers are
not yet final. Based on these numbers, NOAA and NSF were treated
well by Congress. NOAA is up 6 percent from FY 1999 and NSF
is up 6.7 percent from FY 1999.
Dr. Baker stated that he and
Dr. Beeton, Dr. Crosby, and Ms. Susan Fruchter (Director of Policy
and Strategic Planning) have discussed getting the SAB engaged
in the strategic planning process because having input into the
budget process early on is important. Mr. Douglas asked about
the SAB's role in the strategic planning process and how the
Board's recommendations are going to fit into the recommendations
that are made by the NOAA Administrator. Dr. Baker responded
that the strategic planning teams put together their proposals
for new initiatives and then those recommendations go to the
NOAA leadership. In that process there could be several recommendations
from the SAB, saying for example there ought to be a stronger
emphasis in the research area. NOAA leadership will take the
SAB's recommendations very seriously. Dr. Baker said that he
would let the strategic planning teams know that there will be
a review of the teams' recommendations by the SAB.
Dr. Washington stated that the
NSF is getting ready to launch a report on interagency collaboration.
NSF is also considering having some sort of environmental library
at NSF. He asked if NOAA will have some involvement in these
initiatives. Dr. Baker responded that NOAA intends to look carefully
at the NSF report and the implications for NOAA. The idea of
assessments needs to be carried out as an interagency effort.
That report does have important implications for NOAA, although
the report was written for the NSF Science Board. In terms of
the environmental library, NOAA is one of the important suppliers
of weather and climate data. As the process goes forward, the
environmental library could provide a good distributed data system
to get information out to people. It is difficult to get funding
for this type of initiative but it is worth pursuing.
Dr. Beeton stated that the day
before the Board had discussed the report for a new NOAA Administrator
and what should go in that report.
Mr. Douglas made the following
motion. The motion was seconded.
MOTION: Ask the Chair to appoint
and work with a working group of SAB members to prepare a draft
letter/report to next Secretary of Commerce and NOAA Administrator
and schedule a review, discussion, and possible action by the
SAB on this letter/report at its April 2000 meeting.
The motion was unanimously passed.
Overview of the NOAA Report
on "The Nation's Environmental Data: Treasures at Risk"
(Dr. Susan Zevin - Deputy Assistant Administrator, NESDIS)
Dr. Zevin distributed the Executive Summary of the draft report,
"The Nation's Environmental Data: Treasures at Risk,"
and explained that NESDIS has done an extensive reworking of
the draft report to include significant input from NOS and NMFS.
If NOAA is to be the environmental information agency of the
future, answering questions and promoting public policy, it will
need to have an infrastructure that can respond in real time
or near real time. In the past only NWS has been able to do
this (i.e., NWS responses to changing weather conditions within
minutes to warn the public of natural disasters). We are on
the threshold of a public and a Congress that will demand answers
to environmental questions in real time. It will be a challenge
to put such an infrastructure in place over the next few years.
Dr. Zevin explained that in terms
of environmental data, it is important to understand the present
in the context of the past in order to predict the future. The
immense volume of data is outstripping the ability to ingest
and process the information. Technology allows for this amount
of data to be stored. The challenge will be how to archive, retrieve,
and distribute the data. The High Performance Computing Center
(HPCC) will be essential in order to manage the data sets.
Dr. Zevin presented the difficulties
in ingesting, archiving, managing and transmitting the large
variety of environmental data.
There has been a very large increase
in on-line requests. NESDIS takes in $2.4 million per year in
data sales but is charged $3.6 million out of their appropriations
every year. This has resulted in a net reduction of the base
appropriation for NESDIS. Once the information is on the web
it can be used by other people for free. Under law NESDIS can
only charge for the marginal cost of distribution of the information,
not including the cost of the infrastructure.
NESDIS has developed a proposal
for a national environmental archive and access system based
on a common platform. Standardization for media interfaces is
necessary. There will be a user gateway and centers of information.
For long-term stewardship of the data centers there is a $25
million budget. It is necessary to ingest the data, and to have
semantic information, calibration and validation quality control,
reprocessing, storage, access, and migration. All of these
functions must be a part of the infrastructure in order to use
the data. This archived information has to be stable, quality
controlled, well cared for, and robust.
Dr. Zevin said that the final
version of "The Nation's Environmental Data: Treasures at
Risk" should be ready in November to be cleared by Dr. Baker.
The line offices are reviewing and clearing the report currently.
She will distribute the report in draft form to the SAB at the
same time it is being reviewed by Dr. Baker.
ACTION ITEM: Susan Zevin will
provide the SAB with a copy of the draft Report, "The Nation's
Environmental Data: Treasures at Risk" in November and the
final version to the Sub-Committee on Data Issues when completed.
SAB Questions and Discussion
Dr. Rice commented on the non-linearities in cost and timeliness.
There is pressure to respond more quickly but quick response
demands do not provide for peer review of the information/advice
distilled from the data. There is an assumption that the information
does not have to be reviewed. That is a poor assumption because
quality control needs to be maintained on the conclusions based
on the data, as well as on the data themselves.
Dr. McKnight stated that the
technology is available to provide related and integrated data
instead of isolated data.
Dr. Sorooshian commented that
there is a lot that doesn't necessarily go into an executive
summary. He asked how much can be represented in a short document
that will articulate the point effectively to try to remedy the
situation. Dr. Zevin responded that there were some fairly specific
things that were sent to OMB.
Dr. Greenwood stated that there
is a middle ground that the Board needs to support. NOAA's databases
will be needed to deal with issues in the rapidly evolving environment.
There is an influx of data needs which will require hardware
and funding. The SAB could think about what is the compelling
case that could be made and if NOAA is beginning to get new types
of users. A very effective technique for leveraging people is
getting a spokesperson. The scientific community does not have
the influence that important businesses do.
Dr. Rao commented that with policy
issues such global warming, satellite data reprocessing is a
must.
Dr. Scavia commented that much
of the cost and pressure to react are because of the timeliness
requirement, as well as the volume.
Dr. Zevin responded that weather
data are relatively simple (single sources), deep ocean data
are the next simplest (multiple ocean receivers), and coastal
data are the most difficult (multiple point sources and multiple
point receivers). That will be the most difficult problem with
the architecture.
Dr. Denise Stephenson-Hawk commented
that in deciding on the archive mechanism, they also need to
think about how the public will use it. Integrating some databases
up front will make sense. NOAA should be proactive in establishing
relationships with other agencies on how the data are to be used.
Dr. Washington stated that the
issue of international data sharing appears to be missing from
the executive summary. That is an important issue that needs
to be addressed. Dr. Zevin responded that it is a sensitive
issue.
Dr. Evans commented that there
has been no discussion about what data are worth preserving.
He asked if a forum has been set up in which to discuss this
question. Dr. Zevin responded that these discussions are being
conducted internally.
SAB Discussion on Potential
Recommendations Related to the NOAA Strategic Planning Process
(Dr. Denise Stephenson-Hawk - SAB Member)
Dr. Stephenson-Hawk presented a revision of three strategic planning
recommendations made at the July 1999 SAB meeting. The question
to be asked is, are we taking the strategic plan to stakeholders
and showing how the line offices realigned their resources to
appropriately reflect stakeholder concerns? The SAB asked for
NOAA budget information in order to determine the alignment of
the line offices with the themes of the strategic plan. Questions
for the Board to consider are: In NOAA's operational budget,
what fraction of the strategic planning goals are being accomplished?
Is NOAA moving forward toward the goals of the strategic plan?
Mr. Douglas asked if the SAB
should limit itself to research goals in its review of the strategic
plan. The SAB cannot address the whole array of NOAA goals.
Dr. Beeton responded that the SAB will need some of the broad
information to determine whether the capability exists to meet
scientific research needs.
Dr. Stephenson-Hawk commented
that in looking at the science, it is important to look at how
the line offices integrate their science to address certain questions.
Mr. Douglas was interested in
the extent to which NOAA funds go to basic research versus applied
research. To better identify the resources going to policy,
he would like to see this type of information. Ms. Fruchter replied
that under the OMB guidelines, almost all of NOAA research is
considered applied. Dr. Evans commented that almost all of the
scientists in the agency see the work they do as applied - to
be driven by some sort of management needs (i.e., improving weather
forecasting).
Dr. Beeton reminded the Board
of the three recommendations made by the SAB at the last meeting
regarding strategic planning. These recommendations included:
a) NOAA should initiate a review
of the pertinence of its current strategic planning elements
for guiding the agency in the 21st Century.
b) NOAA Strategic Planning teams
should develop five year budget and strategic plans to present
to the Board in late March/early April 2000, and should be prepared
to clearly present the science components of these plans across
Line Offices.
c) Constituent meetings in the
NOAA Strategic Planning process should provide more background
information on the various thematic teams at the start of the
workshop session, and a greater effort should be made for better
representation of science interests, especially social scientists
in make-up of constituent groups (i.e., attempt to obtain a balance
of stakeholders/end-users and scientists).
Dr. Crosby commented that these
were recommendations brought up at the last meeting but the Board
felt it was not the appropriate time to adopt those recommendations.
Dr. Stephenson-Hawk commented
that in looking at the strategic planning process, the Board
was supposed to receive some information to help re-form the
recommendations. It's a question of how the dollars are being
used. For example, is NOAA helping to collect the information/data
to answer certain scientific questions.
Dr. Pietrafesa stated that the
budget process is very complicated and he would like up-to-date
materials of what came out of the recent conferences.
ACTION ITEM: Susan Fruchter
will provide the Board with FY 2000 budget data and information
to be presented at the April 2000 Science Advisory Board meeting.
These data and information should be provided as early as possible.
Dr. Greenwood stated that she
would like three pieces of FY 2000 budget information: 1) what
NOAA requested and what got de-railed; 2) what NOAA received
and how it was distributed; and 3) the differences with what
the agency actually did with the money-amount of discretion with
the allocation. The SAB could help formulate some counter arguments
to parts of the strategic plan that get de-railed during the
process. The Board would like to have this type of data prior
to the April meeting where there will be a FY 2002 budget presentation.
ACTION ITEM: Susan Fruchter
will provide the Board members with the following information
for the NOAA FY 2000 budget request: what NOAA requested and
what got de-railed; what NOAA received and how it was distributed;
and the differences with what the agency actually did with the
money (amount of discretion with the allocation).
Dr. Beeton reminded the Board
that Dr. Baker wants the SAB to give input to the NOAA budget
decisions so the Board has to understand the budget process.
Perhaps the strategic planning process should be revisited.
Dr. Beeton stated that the next SAB meting will be devoted almost
entirely to strategic planning related to the budget.
Dr. Beeton suggested that the
Board wait until the April 2000 meeting to move on Dr. Stephenson-Hawk's
revised recommendations. Dr. Stephenson-Hawk agreed that it
is not appropriate at this time to move on the strategic planning
recommendations.
Dr. Beeton commented that last
year some of the Board members attended the constituent workshops.
This year the workshops on stewardship will take place on February
10 and 11, 2000. The constituent workshops on assessment and
prediction will take place on February 15, 2000.
ACTION ITEM: Susan Fruchter
will ensure that each SAB member is invited to the February 2000
constituent workshops.
Mr. Douglas questioned the difference
between research for discovery and research for application and
policy making. He asked if all NOAA research is applied. Dr.
Gober commented that not all expenditures in NOAA's line offices
are in support of research. The Board is most interested in
the research components of the line offices. The Board wants
to know not only the size of the whole budget, but the size of
the research component and the particular research programs.
Ms. Fruchter commented that using OMB's definition NOAA spends
20-25% of its overall budget on research.
ACTION ITEM: Susan Fruchter will provide the SAB data and
pie charts of how much research there is in each strategic goal
vs. total spending in FY 2000.
Ms. Dalton noted that there is
a decrease in the flexibility of using the money because a portion
of it is earmarked with how it can be spent. She would be interested
in how the Board feels about the quality and type of earmarks.
Mr. Douglas suggested that for the April review it would be
useful to identify the funds that have been earmarked.
Ms. Fruchter commented that the
Strategic Planning Office uses the seven strategic goals to make
budget decisions. Then they send the budget to the DOC which
translates it by line office. Then the budget gets reported
by OMB by the line offices' recommended appropriations. The
report from Congress is by line office and not by strategic plan
goal.
Sub-Committee Report on Coastal
Science
(Peter Douglas - Chair)
Mr. Douglas brought the following issues from the Sub-Committee
on Coastal Science to the attention of the Board.
Mr. Douglas asked Dr. Uhart to
send to the line offices, or to Dr. Baker and then to the line
offices, the text accompanying each of the eight principals adopted
by the SAB at the July meeting.
ACTION ITEM: The SAB Executive
Director will send to the Assistant Administrators, through the
most appropriate means, the text accompanying each of the Science
Advisory Board's eight guiding principals for NOAA research.
With regard to implementing the
SAB's resolution on monitoring in NOAA, members of the Coastal
Science Sub-Committee or members of the SAB, may arrange for
some targeted Capitol Hill visits in April to relay the importance
of monitoring programs. Mr. Douglas asked for a list of the Congressional
staff people associated with the key issues dealt with by NOAA.
ACTION ITEM: The SAB Executive
Director will work with NOAA's Office of Legislative Affairs
to provide members of the Board with a list of the appropriate
congressional staff that members of the Board can visit in April
for the purpose of explaining the importance of monitoring to
research and science.
Another topic of discussion was
how information is disseminated to constituents and interested
groups in terms of the research that is done at NOAA. Mr. Douglas
suggested asking Dr. Baker to initiative a directive to establish
such as system. For example, a services center could be tasked
in each state to answer constituents' questions about what NOAA
is doing and where to find relevant information. Mr. Douglas
will offer a motion addressing this issue later in the meeting
(his recommendation was the last item addressed and voted on
October 20, 1999).
Dr. Pietrafesa stated that there
is a need for capacity building because the data are available
but the information may not be out there.
Dr. Washington asked if the request
made will require going through an archive, how will NOAA deal
with the associated costs. Mr. Douglas responded that they
did not address that issue. He'd like to be able to go to one
place for information, or to be put in touch with the right agency.
Sub-Committee Report on Data
Issues (Dr. Soroosh Sorooshian - Chair)
Dr. Sorooshian reported that, based on the report by Dr. Zevin
and the ensuing discussion, the Sub-Committee on Data Issues
is pleased with the progress. The sub-committee looks forward
to getting the full NESDIS report, examining it and making a
recommendation to the full Board whether or not to endorse it.
There are a couple issues the sub-committee has identified following
the discussion with Dr. Zevin. First, there is a point where
certain sets of data need to be thrown out. A rigorous process
must be gone through to determine which data sets are candidates
to be discarded. The second issue is the concern over free and
open exchange of data. Even within NOAA, this policy of free
dissemination of data is not clear. There should be some language
that NOAA line offices consider a unified policy available for
scientific purposes and exchange among segments of NOAA. NOAA
is asked to charge for some data, in terms of the cost of making
it available, yet other agencies may have the same data and make
it available to the user community for free. This may be something
that needs to be investigated at the national level.
Dr. Greenwood stated that the
issue of data archiving, sharing, formatting, and the costs associated
with these activities, are critical issues for the future. The
SAB should pay a lot of attention to them. They are not just
a NESDIS problem, but rather a NOAA problem. Dr. Greenwood stated
that of all the issues she's heard discussed at this meeting,
this one would be of greatest concern over the next five years.
Dr. Pietrafesa asked if the sub-committee
discussed the approach of compressing data. Dr. Greenwood replied
that the technical details of that approach were not discussed.
She commented that at some point a set of principles has to
be developed of how to deal with the data. Dr. Beeton expressed
his concern over what to do with old data sets.
Dr. Washington brought up the
issue of accessibility. There are certain things up on the server
that everyone wants and other things that are not accessed often.
Dr. Sorooshian commented that
many data centers are keeping redundant sets of many data.
Dr. Stephenson-Hawk stated that
there may not be an existing strategy to compress, filter, or
eliminate data sets, but there should be at least a common, shared
template to inform the public and Congress that this is something
that is being worked on.
Dr. Zevin stated that in the
conference report there is $4 million to be spent on a new coastal
management data center.
Sub-Committee Report on Synthesis
(Dr. Patricia Gober - Chair)
Dr. Gober stated the Sub-Committee on Synthesis felt that there
is a need to incorporate social science research into NOAA's
wider mission. The Executive Director's office provided the sub-committee
with the social science research projects conducted by each
line office in NOAA. Some of the information provided by the
line offices was incomplete.
The sub-committee reviewed the
social science information provided and has made some tentative
hypotheses on social science research in NOAA. The following
conclusions are based on an initial review of the materials and
the sub-committee would like to make a recommendation to the
full Board at the April meeting. First, there is a great deal
of social science research being done within NOAA. The sub-committee
was pleasantly surprised with the length of the list of social
science research and amount of funding. Second, there seems to
be an imbalance in social science research with a concentration
in fisheries and oceans and very little being done in climate.
The sub-committee would like some more information to explain
that imbalance. Third, the social science research is very strongly
centered on the bio-economic modeling of fisheries, but individual
projects are scattered, so the work as a whole is unfocussed.
It doesn't look like it is in support of any larger mission.
Dr. Rice stated that they were
looking not only for the economic profile but the social science
aspect as well. The majority of social science research projects
in NOAA are creating inventories of the demographics of communities.
Monitoring of biological and physical components of ecosystems
is valuable because there are process-based models that can use
the monitoring data to support decision making. There is no
comparable process-based understanding of how communities dependent
on fisheries are structured. There is a rich literature in
terms of perception of hazard but there is no evidence of a link
between this literature and NOAA's work. The Executive Director's
office will go back to the line offices and fill in the gaps
in the social science research information. With the additional
information, the sub-committee may come in April with a recommendation
that a panel be set up with some SAB members and other experts
to write a clear and concise statement of the problem.
ACTION ITEM: The Executive
Director will provide the Sub-Committee on Synthesis the social
science information not previously provided by the NOAA line
offices. The kind of data and information requested will be
coordinated with the Chair of the Sub-Committee on Synthesis.
The information will be provided to the Sub-Committee by December
31, 1999.
The Board discussed the role
of social science in NOAA, including the national climate assessment
and stewardship.
ACTION ITEM: The Sub-Committee
on Synthesis will draft and submit to the full Board at the April
2000 meeting the Terms of Reference for a panel to review the
extent of social science and economic research in NOAA.
Issue Group Report on Education
(Dr. Denise Stephenson-Hawk - Lead)
Denise Stephenson-Hawk asked if NOAA is involved, or should be
involved, in educational activities. During the last meeting
the Issue Group on Education asked for an update of the 1997
report "Towards a Strategic Plan for Education and Human
Resource Development within NOAA." The Executive Director's
office compiled the information on educational activities received
by the line offices and put together a matrix with the information.
The definition of education was broadly interpreted by the line
offices to include k-12, undergraduates, public outreach, etc.
Many of the activities listed in the matrix do not have dollar
amounts associated with them or a point of contact for the specific
programs. It is difficult to discern how focused the education
activities are and how the line offices are providing oversight
of the education activities. The issue group would like to know
what the impact of the programs is on the general public. The
issue group would like the matrix on education activities to
be completed to include dollar amounts spent on the programs
and contact people for the particular programs. There is not
a need for the information to go back in time before 1999.
ACTION ITEM: The Executive
Director will draft a memo from Dr. Baker to the laboratory directors,
cc the Assistant Administrators, asking for an update of the
educational information. The Executive Director will ensure that
the matrix of NOAA education activities previously provided to
the Issue Group on Education be completed by the line offices
and sent to the Lead of the Issue Group.
Mr. Douglas, on behalf of the
Sub-Committee on Coastal Science, presented the following motion
for a recommended coastal and ocean information dissemination
service. The motion was seconded.
MOTION: That the SAB ask Dr.
Baker to take appropriate action to establish, organize or otherwise
make operational an effective, efficient, user-friendly information
dissemination process whereby ocean and coastal scientific, educational
research and technical data and information and expertise (i.e.,
scientists, researchers, studies, reports, assessments) generated
by NOAA are readily made accessible to coastal policy makers
and/or implementers. The SAB urges that a system of local or
regional partnerships with universities, cooperative institutes,
marine laboratories, Sea Grant, and/or Coastal Service Centers
be utilized to provide this service in a nationally consistent
manner to better link science and policy, build capacity for
stewardship, promote education and maximize efficient use of
NOAA science to inform coastal and ocean stewardship and improve
decision-making at the international, national, regional, state
and local level.
A vote was taken to adopt the
recommendation. Dr. Gober opposed the recommendation. All others
voted in favor of adopting Mr. Douglas' recommendation.
Dr. Pietrafesa said that it is
important not to forget about the information being requested
by managers. The information can be put together from good data,
however coastal managers wouldn't know what to do with coastal
data. They need information packaged in a way they can use.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:55 P.M.
October 21, 1999
Official Call to Order and Review
of FACA Meeting Format
(Dr. Michael Uhart Executive Director, NOAA Science Advisory
Board)
Dr. Uhart called the meeting to order at 1:30 P.M.
Opening Remarks by Chair
(Dr. Beeton)
Dr. Beeton made a change to the agenda, indicating that Ms. Fruchter's
presentation would be the first item on the agenda for the afternoon.
Overview of Strategic Planning
Material Submitted with the FY 2000 NOAA Budget Request
(Susan Fruchter Director of Policy and Strategic Planning)
Ms. Fruchter gave the Board an overview of the NOAA strategic
planning and budget cycle process. Budget initiatives are developed
using strategic planning teams. The strategic planning teams
present their budget proposal to the NOAA leadership in April.
The budget request gets forwarded from the NOAA Administrator
to Department of Commerce. DOC gives NOAA feedback on the request
and then it goes to the Office of Management and Budget. While
the request is at OMB other White House offices can weigh in
with their priorities. Finally the budget request goes to Congress.
There are a lot of people in the process who can cut or add
to NOAA's budget. Things that NOAA thinks highly of may not
necessarily receive funding. Once the budget request is at the
White House, the various people who are champions of particular
themes weigh in.
At any given time NOAA is working
on three budget years. The Agency has now closed the books on
FY 1999, is spending the FY 2000 budget, and submitted the FY
2001 budget to OMB. NOAA has just begun the FY 2002 budget process.
There is a great deal of uncertainty because the Agency is putting
together a FY 2002 budget without knowing what the FY 2000 and
FY 2001 budgets look like.
Ms. Fruchter gave the Board an
example of a NOAA budget request that was successful and one
that was unsuccessful through the budget process.
NOAA submitted a FY 2000 request
to DOC for the Weather Research Program. The base deficiency
tried to make up for the lack of inflationary increases in OAR
over the years. OAR has had to reduce staff to try to compensate
for inflation. The funds were going to be used to hire more
people in the research labs. OMB did not approve this request.
It didn't go forward to Congress. The agency feels very strongly
about the Weather Research Program but has not been very successful
in obtaining significant funding increases.
NOAA asked OMB for $3.4 million
for hurricane and landfall research. NOAA was able to convince
OMB to approve a request of $1.5 million to Congress. Congress
recently approved $1.0 million. NOAA conducted many briefings
on the Hill as to the importance of this effort.
In the environmental area NOAA
put together a very broad-based $50 million initiative called
Habitat 2000. The initiative incorporated research, monitoring,
and assessment components. In addition, NOAA asked for $26 million
for protected species. These initiatives were reviewed and modified
by various White House offices. The initiative was segmented
into "Lands Legacy" which is a large program ($900
million) across several agencies. The White House gave NOAA
$100 million for the Lands Legacy initiative. The research component
of Habitat 2000 was not as successful.
Ms. Fruchter stated that the
Clean Water Initiative was started by President in FY 1999 and
then continued in FY 2000. The first year Congress appropriated
about two-thirds of the original request for the program.
Ms. Fruchter told the SAB that
at the April meeting they will hear the strategic planning team
proposals which will be presented to the NOAA Administrator for
the FY 2002 budget. They will also hear what the constituent
groups asked for and what NOAA did to address the constituents'
requests. In the past few years the Administrator's request
to DOC has been very similar to the strategic planning team's
request. Once the budget goes to the Secretary of Commerce it
is embargoed (usually from April to January). Dr. Uhart commented
that as a FACA committee the SAB can look at budget information
in a closed session.
Dr. Beeton said that the Board
will give advice to Dr. Baker in the initial steps of the budget
process. He stated that a record of the April meeting will be
sent to Dr. Baker.
Dr. Sorooshian asked Ms. Fruchter
what mechanisms were used to convince Congress to champion the
cause for hurricane research. Ms. Fruchter responded that NOAA's
Congressional Affairs office works with the line offices to
identify the people on the Hill who would likely champion their
programs. They spend from February until October briefing people
on Capitol Hill. There were more than 300 Hill briefings this
year. NOAA's budget request was $2.5 billion. The Senate gave
NOAA $2.6 billion. The House gave NOAA only $1.9 billion.
Dr. Stephenson-Hawk asked if
the strategic planning teams are involved at the various junctures
of the budget cycle to reorder priorities. Ms. Fruchter responded
that when NOAA gets a passback from the DOC, it goes back to
the teams and the line offices so they are involved. Dr. Stephenson-Hawk
asked if a list is available with all of the people on the different
strategic planning teams.
ACTION ITEM: Susan Fruchter
will provide the Executive Director with a list of the strategic
planning teams and their leads, including the infrastructure
team, for further distribution to the members of the Board.
Dr. Rice commented that the SAB
has a privileged position in the NOAA organizational chart.
He asked if there are other advisory boards at the same level
as the SAB. Dr. Crosby commented that there are other advisory
boards within NOAA. However, none of the other boards weigh
in on the budget process.
Mr. Douglas asked what the role
of the Vice President is in the budget cycle process. Ms. Fruchter
responded that many NOAA initiatives were the Vice President's
initiatives, partially because he's interested in environmental
issues and the GLOBE program.
Comments from Board Members
Regarding Visits to NOAA Facilities
(Lead - Dr. Beeton)
Dr. Rice said that he would rather visit fewer laboratories in
greater depth during the NOAA facility visits. Dr. Greenwood
commented that it is good to get an overview of all of the labs.
Dr. Gober said that it is important
for the Board to see the research that is going on but it wants
to hear more of the challenges and opportunities for these groups.
It would also be useful to know how the NOAA infrastructure
impedes their research. The Board wants to have a candid discussion
with the lab directors. Dr. Beeton said that if the Board is
to be helpful it needs to know what kinds of laboratory issues
need help.
ACTION ITEM: SAB members will
provide the Executive Director with potential topics they would
like the laboratory directors and others to address at future
NOAA facility visits. These topics will be considered by the
Steering Committee in developing the agenda for the next meeting.
Dr. Beeton stated that for directors
of research labs, if one is successful one is penalized for coming
up with new ways of doing things because that requires more money
for operations and less money goes toward research. If NOAA
wants more money for operations, then operations should be funded
so that the money does not get diverted from research.
Dr. Gober said that one of the issues Dr. Vonder Haar discussed
was the constant concern for base funding, and the growing inability
to create the next generation of atmospheric scientists because
the post-doctoral budgets are shrinking over time. Dr. Beeton
said that the base budgets for the institutes are very small.
There is not much money left over to be made available for post-doctoral
students.
Mr. Douglas suggested that it
would be more productive for the Board to look at how funds are
being spent and what kinds of actions can be taken to help. Dr.
Beeton responded that in April the Board will have some input
into the budget aspects of the agency.
Dr. McKnight said that it would
help to have information presented in terms of research scientists
not just dollar amounts. She is interested in whether
the number of scientists has gone up or down. The patterns and
trends in number of research scientists would help the Board
identify which groups have not had a Ph.D. recruited in recent
years. That information would be helpful to have at the April
meeting.
ACTION ITEM: The Executive
Director will ask the OAR laboratory directors for the trend
in the number of research scientists and an analysis of the impact
of operations on research, to be provided to the SAB Members.
Dr. Washington said he is concerned
with how NOAA treats the outside community. The Global Change
program purposely funds the global change research but they also
want to involve the outside community. Forty percent of the
funding is for outside groups. It may be appropriate for the
Board to discuss opportunities for more outside organizations
to contribute to NOAA's mission.
Dr. Stephenson-Hawk said that
she is not clear on the dynamics of the joint institutes. She
wanted to know how in times of decreased research funding there
is an increase in joint institute funding. Dr. Beeton explained
that the joint institutes have set base funding that comes from
NOAA headquarters. The cooperative institutes write grant proposals,
etc. The labs may go to the cooperative institutes to get expertise
that isn't available inside the labs. Dr. Stephenson-Hawk asked
how joint proposals are written and accepted by NOAA but not
expending the NOAA budget to do that. Ms. Koch explained that
money comes into the labs through the cooperative institutes
to work on things that NOAA can't pay for. For example, if NOAA
only has a $10 million increase and it is needed to keep the
satellites going, then it doesn't go into research. Therefore
when the NOAA share of the research funds decreases, then NOAA's
influence over what gets done is decreased.
Dr. Stephenson-Hawk said, for
example, if the operational cost of running the SEC goes up,
then the research must go down. She asked how it influences
the depth and breadth of research in the laboratory. Dr. Hildner,
Director of the SEC, was in the audience and responded to the
question. Dr. Hildner stated that when they encourage CIRES
to write proposals for NSF and NASA, they are responding to opportunities
whose criteria are determined by the other agencies. Therefore,
NOAA is not setting the agenda. NOAA can only get short-term
assistance that way.
Public Input Session with
SAB Discussion
(Leads - Drs. Uhart and Beeton)
There was no public input for the SAB.
Dr. Uhart read to the SAB a letter
received from Joy Bartholomew, Executive Director of the Estuarine
Research Federation (ERF). Her letter thanked the SAB members
who participated in the October ERF conference and expressed
a desire for future interaction between the ERF and the SAB.
ACTION ITEM: The Executive
Director will draft a reply to Joy Bartholomew of the Estuarine
Research Federation thanking the ERF for their letter and addressing
the ERF request to have one of their presidents appointed to
the NOS working group to develop a NOS review process.
Concluding SAB Discussions
on Priority Science-Related Issues for NOAA
(Lead - Dr. Beeton)
Mr. Douglas resumed the discussion initiated before the public
input session. Mr. Douglas stated that an increase in operational
funding does not necessarily mean a decrease in research funding.
He would like to know how political interference with research
from the White House and Congress impedes the pursuit of the
NOAA mission. Dr. Beeton stated that effort should be made to
protect NOAA research from political pressure.
Mr. Douglas asked what the SAB
could do or say about the earmarks from Congress.
Dr. Rice stated that he is pessimistic
that the Board will be able to differentiate the different types
of earmarks in a useful way. He said that it has been useful
for him to learn how partisan politics in the U.S. affects the
research of scientists.
Mr. Douglas said that he would
like the line offices to provide the Board with some information
of how earmarks interfere with their research capability. Dr.
Stephenson-Hawk stated that in order to look at how earmarks
impede NOAA research, they will also have to look at the other
side to determine at what point earmarks help NOAA research.
Dr. Gober asked what the SAB would do with the data once it
receives them. She didn't see the utility in collecting the
data because if they find that earmarks are impeding NOAA's research
flexibility, what can be done about it? Dr. Beeton suggested
that Ms. Dalton provide the Board with more information on the
impacts of earmarking on NMFS since she raised the issue earlier
in the meeting.
ACTION ITEM: Penny Dalton
will provide a statement to the SAB as to the adverse and/or
positive effects that earmarks or line items have on NMFS research
programs. It would be helpful to provide specific examples, options
for fixing the problem, and suggestions for what the SAB could
do about it.
Ms. Koch explained the OAR request
for a review process by the SAB. They would like a volunteer
from the SAB to work with OAR to develop a working group for
the reviews. Ms. Koch explained that OAR is asking to define
the process in a similar way that NOS did. They don't have operational
missions in the same sense as the NOS, so it would be similar
to Tier 1 of the NOS plan.
ACTION ITEM: OAR will draft
a proposal and Terms of Reference for a process to review the
OAR laboratories and joint institutes. Dr. Stephenson-Hawk
volunteered to serve as the SAB member to work with the working
group.
Future Meetings
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
annual meeting will be held in Washington, DC on February 17-22,
2000. The SAB has a session scheduled on the AAAS meeting agenda
on Sunday, February 20, 2000. This will be a "town hall"
style information gathering session to get information from constituent
groups. It will not be a FACA meeting. The Executive Director
will notify constituent groups of the SAB session at the AAAS
meeting.
The next full FACA SAB meeting
will be April 5-7, 2000 in Washington, DC. During this time
period the Board members will have time set aside to visit their
elected representatives. April 6 and 7 will focus on strategic
planning at NOAA.
The Board selected July 19-21,
2000 for a full FACA SAB meeting. Alaska was suggested for a
possible meeting place for the July meeting. Other possible
sites for the July meeting included Hawaii, Monterey, and Ann
Arbor.
ACTION ITEM: The Executive Director will distribute to Board
members the dates and sites for upcoming SAB meetings. The Executive
Director will ask the Board members for feedback on preferable
dates for the November 2000 SAB meeting.
Hawaii was the suggested site
for the November 2000 SAB meeting.
Summary of New SAB Recommendations
and Action Items
(Leads Drs. Beeton and Uhart)
Dr. Uhart reviewed the motions, action items, and recommendations
endorsed by the SAB at the meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 4:15
P.M.
OCTOBER 19-21, 1999 MEETING ATTENDEES
SAB Members Attending:
Dr. Alfred M. Beeton, SAB Chair, NOAA Great Lakes Environmental
Research Laboratory
Mr. Peter M. Douglas, Executive
Director, California Coastal Commission
Dr. Patricia Gober, Professor,
Department of Geography, Arizona State University
Dr. M.R.C. Greenwood, Chancellor,
University of California, Santa Cruz
Dr. Diane M. McKnight, Associate
Professor, Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering
Department, University of Colorado
Dr. Leonard Pietrafesa, Head,
Department of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, North Carolina
State University
Dr. Denise M. Stephenson-Hawk,
Provost, Spellman College
Dr. Jake Rice, Fisheries and
Oceans Canada, Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat
Dr. Soroosh Sorooshian, Professor,
Hydrology and Water Resources, University of Arizona
Dr. Warren Washington, Climate
and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric
Research
SAB Members Not Attending:
Dr. Vera Alexander, Dean, School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences,
University of Alaska
Dr. Otis Brown, Dean, Rosenstiel
School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami
Dr. Susan S. Hanna, H. John Heinz
III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment
Dr. Arthur E. Maxwell, Professor Emeritus, Institute for Geophysics,
University of Texas
Dr. Joanne Simpson, Chief Scientist
for Meteorology, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Approximately 20 NOAA staff
from various line and program offices were also in the audience. |