|
|
  |
SUMMARY MINUTES APPROVED BY
THE NOAA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD October 19, 1999 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 The Board members each introduced themselves and then Dr. Beeton turned the meeting over to Dr. David Evans. Welcoming Remarks 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. 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. 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 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. 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 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. 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 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. NMFS Response to SAB Recommendations
Concerning the Endangered Species Act Related to Salmon 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. 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. 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 Questions and Discussion Discussion of the SAB Report
for the Next NOAA Administrator 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. 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 The meeting was adjourned at 4:53 P.M. October 20, 1999 Official Call to Order and
Review of Meeting Format Overview of Initial OAR Efforts
to Establish a Collaborative Coastal Ocean and Estuarine Monitoring
System Overview of Initial NOS Efforts
to Establish a Collaborative Coastal Ocean and Estuarine Monitoring
System 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. 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 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. 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. 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 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. 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 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. 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) 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) 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. October 21, 1999 Official Call to Order and Review
of FACA Meeting Format Opening Remarks by Chair Overview of Strategic Planning
Material Submitted with the FY 2000 NOAA Budget Request 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 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. 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 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 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 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. Hawaii was the suggested site for the November 2000 SAB meeting. Summary of New SAB Recommendations
and Action Items The meeting adjourned at 4:15 P.M. OCTOBER 19-21, 1999 MEETING ATTENDEES 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. 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. 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. |