|
|
  |
SUMMARY MINUTES APPROVED BY
THE NOAA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD FRIDAY, APRIL 7, 2000 Official Call to Order and Review
of Meeting Format Dr. Uhart officially called the fifth meeting of the NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB) to order at 8:00 A.M. and explained the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) guidelines for the meeting. Continuation of Presentations
from NOAA Strategic Planning Teams The vision of the BSF team was presented along with their 3 objectives: eliminate and prevent over-fishing and overcapacity; attain economic sustainability; and develop environmentally & economically sound aquaculture. The current situation in fisheries and public policy implementation were explained. There were 3 recommendations: improve the information basis for fisheries management; expand the scale and scope of the stewardship process; and focus on synthesis and prediction. Dr. Holliday described a fisheries management system that was described in a 1998 Report to Congress. Questions and Discussion Dr. Alexander asked the value of the buoy system. Dr. Holliday replied that it is a complementary approach to other forms of data collection, as has been successfully done in ocean observing systems. Dr. Hanna complemented the very systemic and well-integrated plan. She supports the fisheries information system and commented that the funding effort includes a wide variety of state and local data, as well as a negotiation process prior to actual digitization. However, social science can be used to understand how the system works. Is there a way to include the message across that social science should be used in designing systems? Dr. Holliday replied that educational seminars for commissioners are affective for some councils. Mr. Douglas asked to what extent do you utilize NRC studies and reports (e.g., ITQ study, the importance of regional research)? Dr. Holliday said that they are powerful tools that provide valuable ideas and as independent evaluation. Mr. Douglas believes that NOAA should take the lead in regional research. Is NOAA doing anything? If so, in what way are you involved in ocean zoning? Dr. Holliday said that the FY2001 budget has something (in NOS) in sanctuaries. Mr. Douglas wanted to know to what extent NOAA is looking to safeguard certain aquaculture projects, especially siting. NOAA is looking at several things. Anything proposed? Dr. Holliday said that NOAA is working with the Office of Sustainable Development for a set of guidelines. Dr. Sorooshian asked the extent to which NMFS is cooperating with the Treasures at Risk? Dr. Holliday said the Treasures report is end-to-end and proposes standards. NMFS, and other offices are complying and contributing. Dr. Rice noted that the initiative adds 33 FTES to the stock assessment community. What percentage is this? Is it big enough to make a difference? Dr. Holliday added that stock assessments are completed by 133 people at 5 fisheries labs. Dr. Pietrafesa asked if there is a list of NMFS labs around the country and their foci. There is a list in the back of the NOAA Annual Business Report, which has been distributed to the SAB. Pat Gober congratulated Dr. Holliday on their use of social science and that it was integrated into the budget process; it will cost something to do it. Dr. Maxwell added that the team worked closely with Sea Grant. Are you also involved with their research? Dr. Holliday responded that the marine advisory service serves as a conduit for research needs. NMFS, Sea Grant, and the Office of Sustainable Development are partnering in aquaculture. Mr. Douglas asked if the team gets involved with reviewing Sea Grant proposals? Dr. Holliday responded that NMFS serves on panels and is asked by Sea Grant for themes for the requests for proposals. Continuation of Presentations
from NOAA Strategic Planning Teams Dr. Williams presented the RPS(Recover Protected Species) initiatives for FY 2002, including the performance measures framework. RPS's FY 2000 resource distribution of $90.23M and 637 FTES is all in NMFS. He noted that education is not fundamental in what we do because there is not a job description of an educator. People do it but it is a duty with no specific education requirements. The initiatives include: pacific salmon recovery and conservation and recovery of other listed and at-risk species (e.g., right whales and monk seals); conservation through foreign policy; ocean exploration and research; life extension of the RV McArthur; upgrade NMFS Galveston lab. Dr. Beeton asked for the total effort within NOAA. Is there a relationship between NOAA and other agencies? Sue Fruchter explained that there was $6M in FY 2000 and there will be $15M in the FY 2001 budget. Dr. Williams added that there are partnerships with other agencies but each agency has its own vision. Dr. Beeton asked if it is a partnership or competition. Dr. Williams responded that NMFS works with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which is similar organization to NMFS in NOAA. There are conflicting interests. It is difficult to work with all agencies; it takes changing organizational behavior. Dr. Beeton stated that, within RPS, it is a big issue because working with other teams is integral. Real partnerships are needed. We need to start at the planning level. Ms. Dalton said that it needs to be integrated. Pacific salmon at FWS is very important. There are weekly meetings regionally. People work together to solve local issues. Different areas have long standing programs within the field. The disagreement is within Washington because of politics and philosophies. There is more competition for resources. The problem is statutory responsibility versus scientific data. Dr. Hanna asked NMFS to provide details on how they intend to fix the conflict between RPS and Sustainable Fisheries. Ms. Dalton responded that NMFS is not sure if it is possible but it is a continuing concern. It is a priority. Dr. Hanna asked that since you want to use Sea Grant extension, what knowledge does NMFS have about the activities of Sea Grant already in this area. There are already activities in Oregon. Dr. Williams answered that they do not have much information yet and that they are aware of the capabilities and their shortcomings. Dr. Hanna suggested that RPS determine what Sea Grant extension programs are already doing. Dr. Rice noted that there has been no mention of fresh water species. Is there a jurisdictional issue? Dr. Williams said that the Fish and Wildlife Service has the statutory responsibility. Mr. Douglas asked if NMFS uses the carrying capacity concept. Is there any validity to using it for marine mammals, e.g. gray whales. Biologically the sustainable limit is lower than it was before. Ms Dalton replied that NOAA does not use carrying capacity, only loosely. It is used as a description of the lowest state of the ecosystem that is able to support that population. Dr. Maxwell asked if there was a general statement about the causes of decline of salmon, such as commercial fishing, hydropower, fish hatcheries impacts, or loss of habitat. Fishing is what got us here for salmon. Whaling is what got us here with regard to whales. Dr. Rice added that, for salmon, the changes in reproduction regime are a big problem, consistent with the idea that commercial fishing is causing the decline. Continuation of Presentations
from NOAA Strategic Planning Teams Capt. McFarland explained the Promote Safe Navigation (PSN) initiative. It includes the strategies for implementation, the different kinds of navigational responsibilities, and the strategies to help promote the use of information for non-navigation community, particularly the new ways to display information, of utilizing survey data, the primary areas of applied research and development, the creation of a strong partnership with USGS to help promote NGS-produced bathymetry and other survey technologies, including digitizing GIS models. Discussion and Questions Drs. Pietrafesa and Rice would like the package of technical reports from the Promote Safe Navigation (PSN) group sent to them. ACTION ITEM: NOS will supply the package of technical reports from the Promote Safe Navigation (PSN) to Drs. Pietrafesa and Rice. Mr. Douglas asked if they use commercial vessels to carry bathymetry equipment and to take observations in a cooperative manner. Capt. MacFarland said that they are looking into it. Dr. Hanna asked about the completion schedule for the GIS. Capt. MacFarland said that it will be completed by FY 2006. If it is to be done faster, more money is needed. Mr. Douglas suggested that you build in the needs of the water quality community, including water quality, debris, and oil recycling. Dr. Pietrafesa asked if the data are available on-line. Capt. MacFarland responded that there are data on-line through their web page. Dr. Hanna asked if there was
some international standardization to under-keel clearance. Capt.
MacFarland replied that the International Mariners Organization
has many standards and there are many others. The original subcommittee came as a result of some of the problems universities were having with NOAA administrative matters. Dr. Beeton felt that the subcommittee worked well, but was limited under FACA rules because of he inability to come up with a consensus. He strongly encourages the Board to approve their request to become a subcommittee of the SAB. Dr. Alexander made a motion. MOTION: The SAB adopts the NOAA/ University Administrative Efficiencies Subcommittee as a Sub-Committee of the SAB. Dr. Pietrafesa seconded the motion. Discussion of the motion began with Dr. Sorooshian asked for some examples of administrative inefficiencies. Mr. Nelson provided one, Fly America. Dr. Sorooshian asked if it would it relate only to NOAA. Mr. Nelson responded that it would, but the hope is that NOAA would join the Federal Demonstration Partnership. The motion was unanimously approved. In response to the action item: 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 made on Wednesday April 5, 2000, the following motion was submitted by Mr. Douglas. 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. Art seconded. Discussion regarding
the text of the motion ensued and changes were made to the text.
(The above motion has said changes). The vote was unanimous. Dr. Greenwood suggested that the Steering Committee should deal with SAB involvement in reviews. Mr. Douglas entered a motion. MOTION: Authorize the Chair and the SAB Steering Committee to review and approve SAB involvement in reviews. The motion was seconded by Dr. Greenwood. Discussion was called for but there was none. The motion was unanimously passed. Presentation on Aquaculture
and SAB discussion Mr. Conrad briefed the SAB on DOC and NOAA efforts to develop aquaculture policies. There is a deadline that NOAA has promised DOC. A panel will develop a set of guidelines that will help to prioritize requests for funding. The question is how should the Secretary rank the policies. It would be useful to send the guidelines to the SAB for their comment. Questions and Discussion Mr. Douglas was interested in what is being put together, including the scientific questions and if a review by the SAB is appropriate. Dr. Hanna said that it is important for the SAB to be involved. However NOAA subsidies have been a political roadblock. There is a need to understand the relationship between the capture fisheries and culture fisheries in the market. Mr. Douglas said that the SAB is not the right body to address the technical questions. There are technical and even peer-reviewed bodies for such reviews. Dr. Hanna said that economics and social components are a part of scientific investigation and Mr. Douglas said it would be a good idea to look at the draft guidelines. Dr. Greenwood made a motion. MOTION: The SAB accepts the responsibility to review the appropriate sections of NOAA/DOC guidelines for all DOC aquaculture activities when they are available. The motion was seconded by Mr. Douglas. The motion was opened for discussion. The discussion centered around the inclusion of socioeconomics in the aquaculture activities. A vote on the motion was taken. All voted yes, with Dr. Rice abstaining. SAB Discussion of NOAA Strategic Planning Team Presentations Dr. Beeton would like to be able to say what we thought of the process of team presentations. Does the SAB feel it is beneficial to Dr. Baker and the teams? Mr. Douglas said that the presentations were useful, a forcing agent. The teams addressed what the SAB wanted to hear. SAB requests for certain kinds of information were substantively incorporated. Value was added. Does non-consensus vs. consensus recommendations carry adequate weight? Dr. Gober said that only BSF's presentation contained a good socioeconomic component. NOAA is not a social science agency, but it could be more integrated. Dr. Rice agreed with Pat Gober. The presentations were educational, but it could be earlier in the budget process because we were told that it is really too late already for SAB input to the FY 2002 budget. If we had provided this a month or 2 weeks earlier, then that would be more helpful. Dr. Beeton said that the SAB could provide guidance on how the previous year's comments were addressed and then incorporated into the current year's presentation. Dr. Maxwell suggested more consistent and concise presentations. We need to get some feedback from the teams on what they think about the SAB involvement. SAB discussion on future meetings and site visits The Board discussed an April 2001 meeting in Monterey after the election and an October meeting in Woods Hole. As it is an election year, the Board decided that a conference call in December, after the elections, is a good idea. The call will determine how/when to meet the transition team, find out when the Board can meet with them, and determine a list of priority topics to be addressed. This would be sometime between November and Jan 20. Dr. Beeton was given the authority to put together the group that would meet with the transition team. Mr. Douglas moved to adjourn. Dr. Gober seconded. The motion to adjourn passed unanimously.
|