MOTIONS AND ACTION ITEMS APPROVED BY THE NOAA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD NOAA Science Advisory Board Meeting April 5-7, 2000 Washington, DC WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2000 ACTION ITEM (NMFS): At the request of Dr. Beeton and Mr. Douglas, NMFS will share the results of the independent budget review at a future meeting and will include any NMFS recommendations. ACTION ITEM (Pat Gober): Drs. Hanna and Gober will work with Ms. Koch and OAR on the wording of the Eight Themes. The revised themes will be provided to the Board before the next meeting, where the changes will be considered. ACTION ITEM (OAR): Submit terms of reference (TOR), a list of potential nominees, and an outline of the OAR review process to the Board for review. MOTION: The SAB requests that a social scientist be added to the list of NESDIS review panel members. ACTION ITEM (NESDIS): Present the Board with the vitae for the NESDIS science review panel members. The list should be longer than the current list and include a social scientist. MOTION: The NOAA Science Advisory Board approves the NOS proposal for science reviews. ACTION ITEM (Peter Douglas): Mr. Douglas and Drs. Alexander, Rice, and Washington will draft a set of options as to how the full Board and individual members can get involved in the formal evaluation of NOAA Science through review panels. ACTION ITEM (Margaret Davidson): The Sub-Committee on Coastal Science requests a report from NOAA on the status of the coastal monitoring program to include: who is doing what; what are the coastal science centers and do they overlap with existing labs or centers; and what is NOAA's role. MOTION: The Science Advisory Board thanks Dr. Baker for taking action on the Board's request to establish an ocean and coastal information dissemination service and asking Ms. Davidson to take an initial look at a dissemination system. The Sub-Committee recommends that the Board convene a cross-NOAA task force to design and implement a user-friendly data and products data center, pursuant to Ms. Davidson's suggestion and that NOAA provide the necessary resources to make it happen. MOTION: The Subcommittee on Coastal Science suggests that another NSULGC-NOAA partnership workshop be convened to identify what other steps can be taken to improve scientific and public support, and eventually, political support, for NOAA research and science and to follow up on the efforts of the last workshop. MOTION: NESDIS will provide the report "Treasures at Risk" to the SAB before it is sent out for review. ACTION ITEM (Ms. Glakin): Send the Board a memo as to the disposition and schedule of the report, including a most recent draft. MOTION: The SAB supports the Census of Marine Life and urges NOAA to support and participate in this long-term initiative. The SAB urges that NOAA support for this project not be at the expense of current or future fish stock assessments; but that it should include social scientists; that it create direct links with public outreach and education; and that data be collected and managed in ways that inform future ocean resource management decisions. MOTION: 1. Based on the list of social science research projects submitted by NOAA the following observations about NOAA's funding of social science research were made. A. NOAA's list of "social science projects" is an all encompassing lists of projects that are in any way to do with people, including fishery enforcement, personnel support, administration, education, public health advisories, planning and budgeting, and public relations. Much of this effort does not meet our standard for social science research - the process of describing, explaining, and predicting human behavior as practiced by individuals and groups. Moreover, the list contains several biologically oriented projects that contain only a tiny component. Although the list is quite long, the social science component is much smaller. B. In the realms of fisheries, NOAA's commitment to social science research emphasizes the economics of fisheries, an area that is most easily measured and can be integrated directly with scientific research on stock assessment. Less attention has been focused on the social structures of fishing communities and how these structures support or constrain achievement of NOAA's larger mission of building sustainable fisheries. C. Some of the social science on the list, particularly fisheries, is driven by the suite of laws, executive orders, and other regulatory requirements that NOAA is charged with implementing. For example, we note a cluster of recent "community profile" projects in NMFS to meet requirements of the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 which is concerned with community impacts of fisheries regulation. D. With certain notable exceptions, NOAA's social science research lack focus and direction. It appears that NOAA's strategy has been to fund an extremely wide range of social science research projects so long as they broadly support one of NOAA's larger goals. Included are projects dealing with the economic profiles of party boats and their patrons, and economic development studies of fishing industries. A large percentage of the projects appear to be developing inventories or profiles of economic factors associated with specific fisheries, without follow-up plans for using the information once collected. A second area of inquiry in OGP relates to human use of long-term climate forecasting, but includes as extremely broad range of topics and methodologies. This scattershot approach spreads social science too thinly and dissipates its ability to home in on and successfully answer questions of pressing societal concern. 2. Based on the above observations the Sub-Committee on Synthesis recommends that: A. NOAA convene a panel of experts to: * Conduct an in-depth examination of the types and level of social science research funded by NOAA, usingthe following definition of social science research - the process of describing, explaining, and predicting human behavior as practiced by individuals and groups; * Demonstrate the necessity of process-oriented research in understanding the mechanics by which human decision interact with NOAA's larger goals of environmental assessment and stewardship; * Recommend a short term social science research agenda that is focused on a manageable number of research questions that relate directly to NOAA's mission; and * Define a long-term research agenda that includes the social science research needed to address NOAA's mission, develop realistic funding estimates, and identify priority research programs. B. This panel of experts should consist primarily of social scientists in the environmental field, including representatives from inside and outside of NOAA. The panel will be appointed by the Chair of the Science Advisory Board upon consultation with the Board. C. The panel should present its findings by January 1, 2002. THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2000 ACTION ITEM (Al Beeton): The Chair of the SAB shall officially transmit the Board's recommendations and statements regarding the FY 2002 budget initiatives to Dr. Baker no later than April 17, 2000. ACTION ITEM (Louis Uccellini): Provide a copy of the white paper to Dr. Stevenson-Hawk. ACTION ITEM (Mike Uhart): Provide the Board with a list of appropriators in the House and the Senate. FRIDAY, APRIL 7, 2000 ACTION ITEM (Capt. Dave MacFarland): Provide Drs. Pietrafesa and Rice the package of technical reports from the Promote Safe Navigation (PSN) group. MOTION: The Science Advisory Board adopts the NOAA Universities Administrative Efficiencies Subcommittee as a Sub-Committee of the SAB. MOTION: The Board's involvement in the formal evaluation of NOAA science through review panels will be in the following manner. 1. At the request of an assistant administrator, or the appropriate office chief with the approval of the assistant administrator, the SAB will determine if it will officially participate in its capacity as a FACA approved board in the formal review of NOAA science by a science review panel. 2. The SAB Chair and the Line Office Assistant Administrator or the appropriate division chief will make the selection of panelists, after consultation with the entire Board. 3. The Board will review and approve the frame of reference for use by each review panel. 4. SAB members will be given the opportunity to serve on each review panel. When a member agrees to serve, that member will have principal responsibility for leading the discussion of the review panel's conclusions when its report comes to the Board for review and approval. The appropriate administrator or office chief will be responsible for taking the lead in making the presentation of the report to the Board. 5. If no member of the Board participates in the work of the review panel, the chair of the SAB will select a member to take the lead in conducting the initial review of the panel's report and who will have principal responsibility for leading the discussion of the report when it comes to the full Board for review and approval. The appropriate administrator or office chief will again be responsible for taking the lead in making the presentation of the report to the Board. 6. The report of the science review panel will be brought to the full Board for review and approval. 7. The SAB will provide sufficient time, possibly as much as one half day, on its next agenda scheduled after the report is submitted to it, for public discussion by the Board. MOTION: The NOAA Science Advisory Board authorizes the Chair of the SAB and the SAB Steering Committee to review and approve SAB involvement in reviews. MOTION: The SAB accepts the responsibility to review the appropriate sections of NOAA/DOC guidelines for all DoC aquaculture activities when they are available.