11^th NOAA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
TUCSON, ARIZONA
NOVEMBER 6-8, 2001

MINUTES APPROVED BY THE SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD

Tuesday, November 6, 2001 - Sheraton Tucson Hotel & Suites

Official Call to Order and Review of Meeting Format

Michael Uhart, Executive Director, NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB) opened the meeting. As the Science Advisory Board is a Federal Advisory Committee, Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) rules and procedures for public input were presented. The following SAB members were present: Al Beeton, Susan Hanna, Denise Stephenson-Hawk, Len Pietrafesa, Art Maxwell, Soroosh Sorooshian, Jake Rice, Vera Alexander, and Peter Douglas.

Opening Statement of the Chair and Self-introductions of the SAB Members Present

Al Beeton, Chair of the NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB) asked all presenters to state their names and backgrounds before speaking. Dr. Beeton asked the SAB members and the NOAA Assistant Administrators or their representatives to introduce themselves. NOAA was represented by Gen. Jack Kelly, NOAA Assistant Administrator for Weather Services. Dr. Randy Dole, Director of the NOAA Climate Diagnostics Center, represented NOAA Research, David Kennedy, Director of Response and Restoration, represented the National Ocean Service, and Dr. Usha Varanasi, Director of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, represented the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Welcoming Remarks and Opening Statement of the Acting NOAA Administrator Dr. Beeton read a memorandum from Scott Gudes, the Department of Commerce Acting Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, to the SAB. In his memorandum, Mr. Gudes said water is an emerging environmental issue for the Nation and that local, national and global water management decisions require an understanding of the factors affecting water issues. He asked the SAB to "take stock of NOAA'S current water programs and to evaluate how well NOAA is positioned to address the developing water issues and those of the future." Specifically, he asked the Board to provide him with "advice on how NOAA science, research, and education programs can be strengthened to improve the delivery of products and services and the utilization of them by the public and private sectors."

Peter Douglas moved that the agenda be changed, moving the presentation and discussion on the proposed DOC Aquaculture Guidelines to Wednesday. There was no discussion and all SAB members were in agreement.

NWS Water Related Activities Overview

Jack Kelly, Assistant Administrator for Weather Services, introduced himself. He explained how the NWS is integrating the disciplines and cultures of weather, climate and hydrology into the operations of the National Weather Service (NWS). General Kelly went through his presentation of NWS water-related activities. He said that hydrologic prediction systems are being introduced internationally. He presented a map of NWS Hydrometeorological Service Areas and the locations of River Forecast Centers. A limiting factor to expanding the number of forecast points is data availability and enough river and stream gages to represent the 4000 points that are forecasted. A distributed approach to forecasting is being developed in the NWS, rather than the lumped modeling method. NEXRAD radar provides useful rainfall estimates and its input in the models is being developed. The NWS Headquarters has been reorganized along the NWS mission lines. The Office of Hydrologic Development (OHD) is responsible for hydrologic science activities.

Gen. Kelly described the water-related challenges to the NWS: monitor and forecast the water cycle; improve atmosphere, land, and ocean prediction systems; translate full information content of weather and climate forecasts into hydrologic applications; improve hydrologic data assimilation, modeling, and forecasting; expand access to a consistent suite of hydrologic data and products; and improve water resource services. He said that the drought monitoring products are very popular because they were developed with the users. Development of probabilistic products is a social science issue. The public is not very receptive of probabilistic forecasts. The Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Services (AHPS) will insert new science into the NWS operations. It also is a technology infusion effort that has allowed a whole new suite of products. Mr. Douglas asked what the NWS does in the way of predicting water supply. General Kelly responded that other agencies have that responsibility and that the NWS must develop products and services that will serve those agencies and communities. Dr. Pietrafesa asked General Kelly to explain the connection between NOAA's products and services and the users. General Kelly said that predicting the availability of water (precipitation) is a crucial issue. General Kelly posed the question: "What is NOAA's shared vision? Ten years from now, what will our suite of products and services look like?" Dr. Beeton said that how the users use these services is important. Dr. Hanna asked how the NWS is building in the human component. General Kelly said that the NWS does not do basic research in support of atmospheric science. The NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (NOAA Research) is the research arm of the NWS. Susan asked if there is an effective mechanism of communicating the research needs to NOAA Research. Kelly said that there is a mechanism to communicate research needs, but how effective is it? He explained that the NOAA strategic planning teams make their recommendations on resource allocations. The NWS is a science-based operational organization. Dr. Maxwell asked about the quality of the hydrologic predictions. Gen. Kelly said that the NWS is starting a verification program and offered to come back in a year to provide verification statistics. Vera asked how fast NOAA Research can respond to NWS research needs. Gen. Kelly said that base funding for the NOAA research labs is not sufficient, which is a constraint on how fast NOAA Research can respond to research requirements. Dr. Dole said that there are a couple of initiatives that address user needs and the development of products and services. Dr. Sorooshian said that the hydrologic community thinks that the NWS does the hydrologic research in NOAA. He said that verification, human dimensions, and research into flood forecasting are areas of hydrologic research that could be taken up by NOAA Research. Dr. Rice said that, assuming that we have good medium range forecasts, what part of the agency resolves the relationship between what we can do and what is needed. Gen Kelly said that he does not think there is a forum today to do this. Dr. Hanna mentioned that the United States Geological Survey (USGS) is pulling stream gages out in areas of the northwest that deal with habitat. Gen. Kelly said that there is coordination with the USGS. He has talked with USGS budget examiners at the Office of Management and Budget and with congressional committees. The problem is with the upper levels of the USGS and it is a prioritization issue for them. It is above the level at which the NWS has any influence. In FY 2002, the President's budget has enough to sustain the current gages and add a few more. It is difficult to sell the need for data. Dr. Stephenson-Hawk asked who in the NWS is determining the needs for models, data collection, etc. Gen. Kelly responded that it is the Office of Services, working with the Office of Science and Technology and OHD. Dr. Stephenson-Hawk said that if the Office of Services is the integrator of requirements, then how do they do it and is it getting done. General Kelly offered that the Office of Services could brief the Board. Dr. Pietrafesa mentioned that there appears to be an overlap with USGS and NOAA. Both are doing modeling and own and operate precipitation gages and stream gages. Gen. Kelly said that there have been discussions with the USGS. Dr. Pietrafesa said that the US Weather Research Program (USWRP) needs to be mentioned. What is the role of the USWRP? Gen. Kelly said that it is but one weather research program and that it is underfunded. It has research foci in hurricane predictions and quantitative precipitation forecasting. He said that we have to figure out a way to get some dollars into it.

General Kelly presented his view of the issue that the SAB should consider: the need to expand research and development to improve the accuracy of atmospheric/land/ocean monitoring and prediction systems, to evolve distributed hydrologic models and data assimilation techniques, and to incorporate uncertainty information into hydrologic applications.

NWS Hydrologic Research Activities - Overview and Discussion

Gary Carter, Director of the Office of Hydrologic Development, introduced himself. Mr. Carter's presentation reiterated the NWS hydrology structure, that products and services are presented through the 13 RFCs and 121 Warning and Forecast Offices (WFO). The RFCs are working with the user community but more work probably needs to be done to organize nationally and involve social science. Mr. Douglas asked if NOAA is moving in the direction of supporting all of the possible water-related life decisions that will be made. Mr. Carter said that the NWS is in the early stages of developing the infrastructure to support science infusion efforts necessary to improve hydrologic predictions nationwide. We are breaking out of the mold of developing hydrologic requirements internally. He explained that there is a lot of technology that can be infused into improving observing, modeling, and prediction systems. The NWS started to collect verification data last April. There will soon be a 6-month assessment. Dr. Pietrafesa asked how precipitation estimation is being input into the models. Mr. Carter said that he is talking with NOAA Research and the National Severe Storms Laboratory about using radar and that there is a section in OHD that develops this capability. He briefly described some collaborative hydrologic research projects. He presented some accomplishments in OHD science infusion. He also presented the Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Services (AHPS), which are enhanced river and water resource forecasts provided in visually oriented, information rich displays. These water related forecasts include the probability of occurrence for large and small areas and for time periods from an hour to a season. This information enables government agencies, private institutions, and American citizens to make informed risk-based decisions for water resource management and actions to mitigate the dangers posed by floods and droughts. AHPS leverage our existing infrastructure and expertise, and augment NOAA'S capacity to work with the research community to quickly apply advances in science to enhance hydrologic predictions. With nationwide deployment of AHPS, NOAA'S partners and customers will reduce flood losses by $200 million each year, and improve the annual allocation of water resources for agriculture, energy, and river commerce by $500 million. AHPS is just beginning to get started, about $1 million per year. AHPS is a comprehensive program that will need a substantial investment, about $60 million. The first pilot is the Minnesota river basin. He presented NOAA's challenges: expediting operational distributed hydrologic modeling; augmenting the methodology to produce, deliver, and verify probabilistic forecast products; provide partners and customers with information and training to mitigate the adverse impacts of floods or droughts; and coordinate and leverage hydrologic research within and outside NOAA. Dr. Alexander asked if the NWS addresses water quality. He said that other agencies have that responsibility and that they use NWS products. Mike Smith, Office of Hydrologic Development, said that they would like to include contaminant transport into their dynamic modeling systems. Dr. Pietrafesa asked what the vertical resolution is of the geographic data from USGS. Dr. Smith said that it is changing all the time. Mr. Carter said that they are in constant contact with the USGS to improve geographic data. Dr. Rice asked how the funding is distributed between research and development and implementation. Mr. Carter said that there is only about $1M/ per year for AHPS, which does not leave much for additional research and training, including social science. Dr. Sorooshian said the SAB could make recommendations on resources. He asked if there is coordination in NOAA on the water cycle initiative? Mr. Carter does not think that the various water initiatives in NOAA have been coordinated in the most effective manner.

Distributed Hydrologic Modeling - Overview and Discussion Mike Smith, Office of Hydrologic Development, presented an overview of NWS distributed model development. Dr. Smith briefly described the components of a distributed hydrologic model and made a comparison of the lumped and distributed approaches. The benefits of distributed modeling are: finer scale modeling can lead to better results; ability to model and predict processes in the basin interior (flash flooding), land use change analysis; and parameterization is simplified using GIS data. He said that it is unclear as to which distributed model to use. The strategy to determine the type of model to be used includes the development of a distributed model by the OHD's Hydrology Lab (HL) and a Distributed Model Inter-comparison Project (DMIP) which will be used to evaluate several non-OHD models along with the OHD model. He presented the status of the HL distributed model and the DMIP. Responding to a question of who HL collaborates with, he said that HL is developing its model internally and that the DMIP is used to bring in other modeling ideas. DMIP is sponsored by NWS OHD/HL and GEWEX (Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment) Continental-scale International Project (GCIP), and its follow-on program, GEWEX Americas Prediction Project (GAPP). There is not a clear path to a distributed model for the NWS. That is why DMIP is needed. The DMIP plan was released to the hydrologic community for comments. There is no advisory committee. He listed the DMIP participants.

He was asked how OHD selects its models. Historically, each RFC chooses their own models, but lately there has been a tendency to use the Sacramento Model. Recently, there has been some concerns about the difficulty in calibrating the Sacramento Model. Dr. Hanna asked if cost is an evaluation criterion in the DMIP. Dr. Smith said that operational cost is an issue. The ease of calibration and parameterization are also evaluation criteria. Dr. Beeton asked why NOAA Research was not on the DMIP list of participants. Ken Mitchell, NCEP Environmental Modeling Center, said that within several NOAA Research labs (e.g., the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory and the National Severe Storms Laboratory) there is some capacity for hydrologic research, but there is no one lab. Gen. Kelly said that he has had no discussions with NOAA Research about hydrologic research. He said that this is not without precedent, as NMFS also does some of its own research. Dr. Smith said that there are several things that are needed to move distributed modeling forward. They are parameterization and calibration, run time issues, improved radar estimates of precipitation, and an implementation strategy for the RFCs. Dr. Dole asked who the intended end users are and how limited the NWS focus should be. Dr. Smith said that the NWS has only focused on how to improve its predictions.

NCEP Land Data Assimilation and Hydrologic Modeling Systems - Overview and Discussion

Kenneth Mitchell, National Center for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) Environmental Modeling Center, introduced himself and described the NCEP and the NCEP Environmental Modeling Center (EMC). He briefly described the time scales and product descriptions of the NCEP suite of prediction products. Future development is in the area of community global weather, climate models and regional models. The inclusion of land surface effects are needed to improve forecasts. Soil moisture and snowpack must be included. GCIP is a project that addresses soil processes. Ensemble prediction is also a new field of inquiry in shorter term predictions because even short range forecasts are an initial value problem. Probabilistic quantitative precipitation forecasting is possible with ensemble forecasting. Realistic soil moisture in coupled land-atmosphere climate models improves seasonal predictability. Atmosphere, ocean and land data assimilation of initial conditions are needed to improve weather and climate prediction. GAPP is a program intended to improve weather and climate prediction by bringing together meteorologists and hydrologists in coupled land-atmosphere modeling, land data assimilation, and water resource applications of weather and climate forecasts. The NWS is a staunch advocate of more atmospheric, ocean and land observations. He briefly described the NCEP Community NOAH (NCEP-OSU-Air Force-Office of Hydrology) Land-Surface Model, which includes multi-layer soils, vegetation, and snowpack. Mr. Douglas asked if there is any inclusion of what we put into the soil, such as fertilizer. Dr. Mitchell said that there is not, but the water cycle initiative includes a chapter that addresses nutrient coupling. The Eta model is a coupled land-atmosphere model. He described the LDAS (Land Data Assimilation System), the goal of which is to provide soil moisture and temperature initial conditions superior to the current EDAS (Environmental Data Assimilation System). The LDAS demonstration is hosted by NCEP/EMC with partners that include NWS/OHD, NESDIS, NASA, and Princeton. He presented some issues that the SAB should consider: expanding research into methods to account for weather and climate model forecast precipitation biases in hydrological models and water resource applications; increasing emphasis on improving forecast model physical parameterizations of precipitation and water cycle processes; staying on course with developing community weather and climate models and the linkages between weather and climate prediction; and sustaining momentum towards aggressive expansion of supercomputer power and mass-storage systems.

Hydrologic Research Collaborations Rick Lawford, Office of Global Programs (OGP), presented some thoughts on hydrologic research being conducted in other agencies and internationally. There are many linkages to other agencies and organizations. Mr. Douglas pointed out that the structure and partners he presented is not complete. Mr. Lawford said a strong NOAA water cycle program is essential for a strong national water program. This board should consider that if we are at a stage to structure water research this way, how should it be organized in NOAA? He showed a global map of the use-to-resource ratio. Water is overallocated in the western and southwestern US. There are several international and national initiatives with links to climate. He described some impediments to progress, i.e., scientific gaps. More rainfall in smaller areas is a modeled consequence of global warming. There is not a consistent prediction of soil moisture in the national assessment, so how does policy address the diverse predictions? He presented the preliminary goals of the WCRP/IGBP/IHDP (World Climate Research Program/International Geosphere-Biosphere Program/International Human Dimension Project) joint water project . NOAA has supported some of these activities through GEWEX. GEWEX also must include the energy cycle. Dr. Sorooshian is the chair of the GEWEX international scientific steering committee. Mr. Lawford described GCIP, which is funded mostly through the Office of Global Programs. There are outstanding issues that must be addressed: complex terrain, specifically snow cover, and better understanding of land and ocean surface processes. He described IGOS, including its structure and science goals. He described the water cycle initiative, its research strategy and the global water cycle pillar initiatives. The unpublished USGCRP long-term plan includes goals of the USGCRP water cycle program. The Department of Energy is using isotopes as identifiers (tags, tracers) to help quantify the water cycle. He presented some elements of a NOAA water cycle program, science related to: relationships between water vapor and radiant energy, clouds and precipitation processes; partitioning of energy fluxes at the surface; partitioning rain at the surface; generation of streamflow from surface runoff and subsurface inputs; production of products; adoption of new science and technologies to produce better products and services; and the demonstrated use of products by water resource managers.

Roundtable Discussion - Hydrologic Research Roundtable discussants were the Science Advisory Board, the Assistant Administrators or their representatives, Gary Carter, Director of the NWS Office of Hydrologic Development, Mike Smith, Office of Hydrologic Development, Kenneth Mitchell, NCEP Environmental Modeling Center, and Rick Lawford, Office of Global Programs. Dr. Beeton asked for comments by the SAB to begin the discussion. Dr. Hanna observed that there is little research or information on the demand side of services. Dr. Dole said that the Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments do this. Mr. Lawford said that the economic issues are broader than just NOAA. The studies that are done are very local. The other agencies have much of the responsibility for these types of studies. Dr. Dole showed a document, "Water and Growth in Colorado: A Review of Legal and Policy Issues," that is part of the western water assessment that addresses these issues. Dr. Varanasi said that much of this issue is related to water allocation, which will be covered on Thursday. Dr. Dole has not done as assessment on what the needs are regarding the water cycle. There is a need on the resource side. Dr. Sorooshian provided a short history of the socioeconomic needs for water. NOAA has not been a traditional player in socioeconomics. Many water decisions are at the state level. Mr. Douglas said that the new NOAA Administrator must tell the SAB what he expects of them. He suggested that the SAB can suggest to the new Administrator that the SAB look into this issue. What role NOAA takes must fit within its mission. Dr. Beeton said that this meeting will hopefully come up with some conclusions and recommendations that can be presented to the new Administrator. The SAB can set up a meeting with the new Administrator. Len says that there is not an integrated observing strategy for weather and climate. The modernization addressed weather observations. Climate monitoring has different requirements. Gen. Kelly said that the NOAA Climate Observations and Services Program has the responsibility to come up with an integrated observing system. He said there is a need to improve assimilation of radar data and assimilating satellite TRIMM data. The NPOESS requirements document is not finished. NOAA is trying to change the requirements to include climate, but DOD is a large contributor to NPOESS and they are not interested in climate. Dr. Rice reiterated the need to understand the users of the data and information in order to develop observing systems and the right suite of products. Dr. Sorooshian said that the lack of priority in measuring precipitation has lead to a slow improvement in measurement technologies. Mr. Douglas stated that understanding the process is equally important with observations. Regarding the water cycle, NOAA must at least ask the questions. What is the connection with changing the biology of soils, e.g.,the microbial community? Mr. Lawford said that other agencies are more interested in this. Mr. Douglas suggested that these processes have an effect on emissions to the atmosphere, which is part of NOAA's mission, and that at least NOAA should be an advocate of research in this area. Dr. Maxwell mentioned that weather modification research (for rainfall enhancement) is no longer being done. Gen. Kelly said that there is a BASC (NAS Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate) study of the future of weather modification research. Mr. Douglas asked for a briefing by DOE on CO₂ sequestration and its effects on climate. Can we do this? Dr. Sorooshian suggested that we get a briefing on the carbon cycle initiative and that it could be a theme for a future SAB meeting. What are other things we are doing in the deep ocean? Ants Leetma and Dave Evans could be asked to make presentations. Dr. Beeton suggested that we include people outside of NOAA and science to policy people, too. Gen. Kelly suggested that NOAA should keep the separation of science and policy. What science is being done? Are the right questions being addressed and answered, and how is science used? Dr. Beeton suggested that the meeting with the new administrator can determine what the SAB can do in this area. Dr. Stephenson-Hawk said that the SAB could evaluate what science is being done, what the gaps are and are they being filled, and is the science adequately supporting the NOAA mission. Dr. Sorooshian said that there would be a dramatic impact of hydrologic forecast accuracy on local decision-making. How is OHD taking the input from the communities to help design their programs? Dr. Stephenson-Hawk asked how NOAA seeks input on user needs. Gen. Kelly said that the NWS collects input in various fora, including constituent workshops and regional and local meetings with emergency managers. However, it comes down to a prioritization issue. Listening to all of the demands, the NWS sets the priorities. Dr. Rice suggests that the SAB look at some of the many studies that look at how science advises public policy. Mr. Carter said that what NOAA needs to do is to implement AHPS to establish a structure to foster implementation of new science. This board could consider some support for AHPS in its deliberations with the new administrator.

Roundtable Discussion - Research to Operations

Roundtable discussants were the Science Advisory Board, the Assistant Administrators or their representatives, Randy Dole, Director of the Climate Diagnostics Center, David Brandon, Hydrologist-in-Charge of the Colorado Basin River Forecast Center, Paul Sperry, Executive Director of CIRES, and Gary Carter, Director of the Office of Hydrologic Development.

Dr. Dole made a short statement. Research to operations is an important issue. The question is what is the core of NOAA services in the future? How can we transfer the advances of research into operations, research both conducted by NOAA and by universities? He thinks there will be a stronger involvement of users in the future. In this part of the world, water is fundamental. He commends the NWS for their strategic vision, weather, water and climate, and the technology infusion plan developed with NOAA Research. He thinks the plan should be expanded. The links between research and operational components are highly variable and ad hoc. What are the operational components that research should be addressing? The links between NOAA'S two major strategic themes, environmental stewardship and assessments and predictions, will become increasingly important. The explosion of the demand for climate information is putting major stresses on research labs to deliver routine products developed at the lab in collaboration with the users. There is a gap between operational needs and current research responsibilities in research lab missions. For example, there is no focus in NOAA Research on hydrologic prediction. Should there be a research counterpart to an operational program? NOAA research should not be doing operations. He presented some possible recommendations. Usha said there does need to be a close collaboration between research and operations. The NMFS has such a relationship between the regional science centers and the labs. NMFS has more regulatory responsibilities than operational responsibilities. Mr. Douglas stated that collocation is important, including a good relationship between the scientists and the implementers.

David Brandon introduced himself. River Forecast Centers (RFC) also have a development role. There are 15 collaborative projects between the 3 western RFCs and outside interests. Personal contact is important. Collocation is one model. A visiting scientist program is another collaboration model. Requirements should come from the operational side.

Paul Sperry introduced himself. He made a short presentation. Much of his presentation centered on the relationship between NOAA research labs and universities (e.g., CIRES). Mr. Douglas asked Dr. Sperry if he knows of any soil biology research being done for climate and the water cycle. Dr. Sperry said he did not know of any. Dr. Sorooshian believes that NOAA is not involved, but that the USDA Agricultural Research Service does such research. Dr. Sorooshian asked if there has been any consideration in expanding the cooperative institutes to ones that address some of these emerging issues, such as hydrology. Mr. Carter said that the Technology Infusion Plan and the list of collaborators that he presented this morning all address NWS operational requirements. Gen. Kelly wanted to know the question we are asking. He referred to the Crossing the Valley of Death report. Has NOAA been planning for success? Is NOAA a basic research agency or an applied, mission-oriented research agency? Somehow research must have been transitioned into weather forecast operations because forecasts have gotten better. He would ask the board on how NOAA should define research. What is the mission of NOAA? Is the research addressing that mission? What are the gaps and is NOAA addressing them? What is NOAA's process to transition research into operations? Are research observational networks now operational and, if so, how do we support them? The SAB is in the position to provide an unbiased view. Dr. Beeton asked if all of the research products are valuable and will be going into operations. Gen. asked how we determine that. Dr. Rice stated that part of the problem is that there are several issues that all present different problems. For example, a new observational sensor. You need to plan for the transition from research to operations. Dr. Sorooshian said that operations to research is a path for collaboration. TRMM (Tropical Rain Measuring Mission) is a mission that has demonstrated how important the instrument is. How is NESDIS helping NASA plan that mission? How do you make those products useful for operational purposes? Mr. Douglas suggested that although we know what NOAA's mission is, what are the long term prospects? NOAA's research is both applied and basic. The SAB has adopted 8 principles which address much of the issues we talked about today. Regarding hydrology and the water cycle, are there things we have heard that will form the substance of a recommendation? Dr. Rao said that we cannot cut the umbilical cord between operations and research. It is a continuous process.

Public Input

Chuck Hakkarinen, EPRI Environment Division, made a short presentation on NOAA's climate change program. Dr. Hakkarinen suggested that global changes in climate are projected to occur under ALL scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions, including stabilization of CO2 at 550ppm. He said that global climate models do not resolve these changes on the scales that matter -- regional and local -- for impacts assessment. NOAA can fill critical research needs to identify where climate changes might be most pronounced, when climate changes become detectable out of the "noise" of natural variability, and how the changes will be reflected in "routine" weather. He recommends that NOAA not spend a lot of time on global models, but on regional models.

SAB discussion on Recommendations

Dr. Sorooshian suggested that he and Mr. Douglas draft a recommendation that NOAA take the leadership in requesting that the National Academy of Sciences initiate a study of hydrometeorological observation requirements. Another recommendation might be that the SAB ask that NOAA coordinate its requirements of climate scale and weather scale predictions and products in the context of the water cycle initiative. The third one is that the OHD would benefit from an advisory group.

Adjourn for the day


Wednesday, November 7, 2001 - Institute for the Study of Planet Earth,University of Arizona

Official Call to Order and Review of Meeting Format Michael Uhart, Executive Director, NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB) opened the meeting. As the Science Advisory Board is a Federal Advisory Committee, Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) rules and procedures for public input were presented. The following SAB members were present: Al Beeton, Susan Hanna, Denise Stephenson-Hawk, Len Pietrafesa, Art Maxwell, Soroosh Sorooshian, Jake Rice, Vera Alexander, and Peter Douglas.

"University of Arizona: water cycle-related research activities"

Jonathan Overpeck, Director of the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth (ISPE), opened his presentation by saying that visualization is an important component of products. No one product can address all users. Dr. Overpeck described several users and what ISPE products address their needs. He described one of the climate services at the University of Arizona, CLIMAS (Climate Assessment for the Southwest Project), which is funded by the NOAA Office of Global Programs. It is based on stakeholder-driven climate science. He listed some of the existing partnerships. Mr. Douglas asked about how the real estate data are used in the fire model. Barbara Moorehouse, University of Arizona, answered it is used for assessments by fire managers. Dr. Rice asked how tribal issues are addressed. Dr. Overpeck responded that they are a full partners in the development of products. How is the private sector involved? He responded that they do look into what products can be transferred to the private sector, but that in some areas, the private sector does not provide the necessary products and services. Gen. Kelly said that there is a National Academy of Sciences report on the relationship of private services.

Dr. Sorooshian, an SAB member and Director of SAHRA (Sustainability of semiArid Hydrology and Riparian Areas) described another example of hydrologic research at the University of Arizona, SAHRA. It is an NSF Science and Technology Center. The center includes many partner institutions, states, and government agencies. He listed the overall science questions and objectives. The overall goals are to significantly advance the understanding of semi-arid hydrology and to bring that understanding rapidly to bear on practical problems of water resources policy, management and operational decision making. There is a big difference between the public and politics with respect to water. There are competing demands for water. Mr. Douglas asked about the SAHRA goals. Has SAHRA defined sustainable? Dr. Sorooshian said that they are struggling to define it. Dr. Pietrafesa asked if there are any estimates of how long it takes groundwater to recharge. Kathy Jacobs said that it is place-dependent. The time it takes for water to get to the underground runs from days to weeks.

James Shuttleworth, Professor of Hydrometeorology, talked about fine scale hydrometeorological modeling. It has to do with complexity and homogeneity. There are connections with the summer monsoon, correlations with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and Southern Oscillation Index. The real reason that we need this fine scale modeling is homogeneity. There is marked heterogeneity in both space and time. Mr. Douglas asked about the graph describing land cover influences on climate models. What kind of land cover are you looking at? Dr. Shuttleworth said that the study he is describing uses an over-simplistic description of the amount of vegetation and riparian habitat that is present. He said that agriculture and other land cover types are not included in the study.

Round Table Discussion - Regional Climate Services Structure

Roundtable discussants were the Science Advisory Board, the Assistant Administrators or their representatives, Roger Pulwarty, Office of Global Programs, Paul Sperry, Executive Director of CIRES, Randy Dole, Director of the Climate Diagnostics Center, and Jonathan Overpeck, Director of ISPE. Dr. Overpeck reiterated some of the lessons learned at ISPE. Climate is a key issue for decision makers but usually not the only issue. An iterated multistress approach is usually needed. Stakeholder partnerships must be sustained at all costs, or risk being lost. You must build trust, listen and be responsive. Being responsive means aggressive observations, modeling and research: climate and other natural science, social science, regional problems and scales. Strong university components are needed to provide regional knowledge, relationships and credibility, and integrated interdisciplinary research capability (e.g., natural and social sciences). Strong and flexible multi-agency relationships and an extensive education and training components are needed to establish a successful national climate services program.

Roger Pulwarty made a few comments to what came before. He also provided a program description of the Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments Program (RISA). In addition to his support of an iterated observing network, he discussed what are the effective delivery mechanisms for climate products and services. Dr. Pulwarty was asked if he believed that the necessary partnerships had been established. In response, he described the five RISA projects, the Pacific Northwest Assessment, the Climate Assessment Project for the Southwest, the California Applications Program, the Assessment of Climate Variability and Impacts on Agriculture in the Southeast, and the Western Water Assessment.

Paul Sperry provided an example of connections with a local region. In California, the private sector modified NOAA products and tailored them to the user. Dr. Hanna complemented SAHRA and ISPE on integrated and interdisciplinary work. She wanted to know to what extent do the climate services serve as a model. Dr. Dole said that climate services are developing now. We have a problem where we have a service commitment but little knowledge of the user needs. Dr. Alexander said that the success of this program is that the users see that this is a regional problem. Dr. Overpeck stated that he is worried about how we can keep the users involved. Dr. Rice asked what should be done to plan for that transition to service. It is important to make sure that the services continue after the research is done. Does there have to be a replication of ISPE 50 times? Dr. Overpeck said that there is an economy of scale and that will not be necessary. RISAs are pilots and not well funded. Dr. Hanna said that because of the type of stakeholder input, climate services is an easy sell. Everybody wins, unlike NMFS. There is no competition among the receivers of the information. Mr. Douglas asked why public funds are being used to fund a relative narrow set of users. There was no mention of the greater public good. Is it a good use of public funds? Dr. Pulwarty said that this is one of the fundamental questions. One reason for centering in universities is that there must be a strong input from the university community so that we can determine the future directions of services. Dr. Beeton said that in the Great Lakes, it was the stakeholders that created the demand rather than the climate services looking for stakeholders that need the information that can be provided. Dr. Overpeck said that it is important that stakeholders take the lead. They are also looking to us to let them know what kinds of services can be provided. Tom Peterson, NESDIS, asked about the services of the state climatologists and the regional climate centers. How do these fit into the vision of climate services? Dr. Overpeck said that they are partnering very closely with the Western Region Climate Center. The state climatologists are only funded by the states. Dr. Pulwarty said that we should clarify what we mean by climate services. A service must have value. Dr. Sperry said that it will take money, some minimal amount of support. We could set up pilot projects to demonstrate climate services. Dr. Dole asked if we should provide information that the government is capable of providing. The Endangered Species Act and habitat restoration are two uses of climate information and knowledge that can support policy decisions. Dr. Maxwell said that there is a parallel to Sea Grant. Dr. Beeton asked if NOAA is ready to step up and deliver a climate service. He added that he believes that NOAA resources and people are not dedicated to providing climate services. Dr. Sorooshian stated that the climate services money in NOAA is split among three line offices. How will that work in the future? With regard to the regional centers, what can we do at the federal level? There needs to be some coordination. Where would the funding come from? Dr. Beeton said that it is a people issue, too. How do each of the regions see as the value of climate services? Mr. Douglas said that there are competing needs for funding. How should that funding be distributed between universities and other structures to provide the services. If we are providing services to certain sectors, then NOAA is no longer an unbiased service.

SAB discussion of Recommendations

Vera made a motion for the SAB to make the following recommendations. She read the recommendations. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sorooshian. There was no discussion. The following recommendations were passed unanimously.

Recommendation: NOAA should assume the role of lead federal agency to set the national agenda in the modernization of hydrologic science and services for the United States. Federal agency responsibilities must be determined.

Recommendation: NOAA should take a leadership role in the international effort to design and implement the optimal mix of observations and integrative modeling required to facilitate the science and provide the weather and climate hydrologic information needed by the global community.

Recommendation: NOAA should embrace and advance the concept that the modernization of weather and climate hydrologic science and services within NOAA is cross-cutting and must be institutionalized. A leadership team consisting of senior representatives from NWS, NOAA Research, and NOS [and NESDIS] should report to the level of the NOAA Chief Scientist in the Office of the NOAA Administrator.

Recommendation: NOAA should work with its academic partners to conduct the science and adopt and institutionalize the most advanced scientific models and data assimilation strategies available from either within NOAA or from the academic community in implementing the modernization of hydrologic services in the U.S.

Recommendation: NOAA should work with its academic partners to engage the social sciences community to properly modernize hydrologic services in the U.S. Mr. Douglas moved that the SAB make a recommendation that the NRC conduct a study of hydrometeorological observations, monitoring, and measurement requirements. He read the recommendation. It was seconded by Dr. Maxwell. There was some discussion on minor wording changes. The motion passed unanimously.

Recommendation: The Science Advisory Board recommends that the Administrator request the National Research Council to conduct a study of the observation, monitoring and measurement requirements necessary to implement a comprehensive observation network for hydrometeorological and hydroclimatological purposes relative to the advancement of the National Water Cycle Initiative.

Mr. Douglas moved that the SAB make a recommendation about NOAA's leadership role in the National Water Cycle Initiative. He read the recommendation. It was seconded by Dr. Alexander. There was some discussion about the inclusion of a phrase ensuring that NOAA would ensure research in the effects of anthropogenic soil modification and some minor wording changes. Dr. Rice questioned the inclusion of anthropogenic soil modifications phrase. Dr. Sorooshian said that soil modification is part of the USDA mission. He suggests that the reference to anthropogenic soil modification should be generalized. Dr. Rice said that the interest in anthropogenic soil issues would be reflected in the minutes and that there is not a scientific basis for inclusion in the recommendation. Dr. Alexander said that including the phrase weakens the statement. Dr. Hanna would like to generalize and remove "the effects of." Dr. Stephenson-Hawk offered that NOAA scientists would probably already know of soil factors. Drs. Hanna and Rice suggest that the clause be stricken. Dr. Rice suggested a grammatical change. With the aforementioned changes in wording, the following recommendation passed unanimously.

Recommendation: The Science Advisory Board recommends that to improve NOAA'S leadership role in the National Water Cycle Initiative (WCI), the Administrator identify responsibility in NOAA for the coordination and advancement of climate-scale and weather-scale predictions, products, and services necessary and appropriate to support and inform the WCI. Further, the Board recommends that NOAA ensure that the full range of scientific queries and research relative to the WCI are addressed in partnership with other public agencies, academia, international entities and the private sector.

Mr. Douglas moved that the SAB make a recommendation that an advisory panel be established for the NOAA Water Cycle Initiative. He read the recommendation. It was seconded by Dr. Alexander. There was some discussion on some minor wording changes. The following recommendation passed unanimously.

Recommendation: The Science Advisory Board recommends that the Administrator establish either a NOAA Water Cycle Initiative (WCI) advisory body or request that the NOAA Science Advisory Board establish an SAB Working Group on the WCI for the purpose of providing advice to appropriate NOAA leadership, as determined by the Administrator, relating to the initiation, conduct and application of scientific research and data in furtherance of the development and implementation of NOAA'S responsibilities in support of the National WCI. It is further recommended, that the Administrator direct that such advisory body or group be composed of participants with a cross-section of scientific expertise in fields relating to the WCI and be selected from the public, academic and private sectors.

SAB discussion on Earlier Round Table

Dr. Rice said that he wanted to recommend that climate services is an important thing. Mr. Douglas said that it is not a science question and may not be the mandate of the Board. Dr. Rice did not see that it is out of line to make a statement that supports the development of products. Dr. Beeton said that there is a research agenda associated with a climate service. Dr. Sorooshian said that if regional climate services should include research, that the research could be focused on addressing the regional climate services needs. Is there going to be clash with other climate services structures, such as the state climatologists and RCCs? The University of Arizona effort is really a research effort. Dr. Rice referred to Dr. Sorooshian's presentation, the snowpack slide. He wanted to know that when the research has been moved into a product, how would it continue to be funded and continued. Dr. Dole said that there will be core federal services. Dr. Beeton asked Dr. Hanna what the social science aspects are with regard to relating to stakeholders. She responded that communication with stakeholders is not a research question, that there are established stakeholder communications methods and structures, such as extension. The research does include integrating the social sciences with the physical sciences. Dr. Hanna will draft a letter to the appropriate party here and the Administrator applauding what they are doing to integrate social science and physical sciences at the research level. It will go beyond climate services.

Action: Dr. Hanna will draft a letter to the appropriate parties in NOAA and the University of Arizona applauding what they are doing to integrate social science and physical sciences at the research level. Ocean Exploration Program - Update and Discussion

Michael Kelly, Office of Ocean Exploration (OE), briefed the SAB on activities and plans of the Ocean Exploration Program. It is all about partnerships, of which there are many. Dr. Alexander said that it looks like OE is following the recommendations of the Ocean Exploration Panel Report very well. Mr. Kelly said that the community is buying into this. The community also likes the fact that OE is taking 10 percent off the top for education and outreach activities. Mr. Douglas said that the SAB should be proud of this. One of the concerns that Marcia McNutt [Chair, Ocean Exploration Panel] raised at the Ocean Exploration Panel meeting was that OE should not become just a NOAA program, that it develop strong partnerships with DOD, NASA, and other federal agencies so that it would be seen by Congress as a multiagency program. He asked what OE has done to make the other agencies equal partners. Mr. Kelly responded that NOAA has taken the leadership necessary to begin new activities and is reaching out to other agencies through new partnerships and existing interagency functions. OE continues to improve relationships with other agencies. He said that the other agencies were waiting to see what happens before they fully vested themselves in the OE idea. There has been much more success with the university community; science programs were 82 percent of the OE budget, about half of which went out to universities. Dr. Beeton asked if they have been asked to provide input to the Ocean Commission. Mr. Kelly said that OE expects an invitation to address the ocean commission. Dr. Hanna asked if funding mechanisms are the problem with federal partners. Is there a requirement for matching funds with the other federal agencies? She said we must articulate the successes of the federal partnerships. Mr. Kelly said that the FY 2004 and FY 2005 strategic planning processes need to be coordinated. Another way is to support NOPP, but that would take away from OE ideas of ocean science. Dr. Alexander said that it would not have happened if NOAA had not taken the lead. Mr. Kelly suggested that OE be part of the NOAA Strategic Plan. Dr. Beeton suggested that he can send a letter to the OE office suggesting that.

Action: Dr. Beeton will send a letter to the Office of Ocean Exploration suggesting that OE become part of the NOAA Strategic Plan.

Demonstration of Climate Forecasts and Precipitation Products By University of Arizona Researchers Bisher Imam, Director of the Hydrologic Data and Information System (HyDIS) briefed the SAB on HyDIS. He presented the objectives of HyDIS. The issues addresses by HyDIS are ease of query, ease of acquisition, readiness for use by customers, and availability of ancillary data. A realtime demonstration of HyDIS was done.

Holly Hartman, a graduate student in the Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, described a system developed under CLIMAS that is web-based. Presentation and SAB discussion/action on DOC Aquaculture Guidelines

Dr. Hanna presented a background on the SAB comments on the DOC Aquaculture Guidelines. The request for comments from DOC came to the SAB through the NOAA Office of Sustainable Development and Intergovernmental Affairs at the March 2000 SAB meeting. The guidelines went to all SAB members, then Drs. Hanna and Rice and Mr. Douglas incorporated the SAB comments and drafted the SAB response. She highlighted the main points. There are drafts of the general comments and there are specific comments to each of the 12 guidelines.

The SAB discussed the draft of the general comments on the Guidelines. The role of other agencies in aquaculture was discussed. It was noted that Guideline 3 addresses cooperation with other agencies. Matt Borge, Office of Sustainable Development and Intergovernmental Affairs, explained the genesis of the DOC Aquaculture Guidelines. There was no further discussion of the draft of the SAB's general comments. Dr. Hanna read the draft of the specific comments and recommendations, guideline by guideline. Following her reading Guideline 1 and the draft comments, there was no discussion. There was also no discussion of the draft comments to Guideline 2. With regard to Guideline 3, Usha Varanasi said that there is already an coordinating organization on the west coast. There was no discussion of the draft comments on Guideline 4. For Guideline 5, the SAB, in general, supported the idea of the SAB forming a special review group. There was no discussion of Guidelines 6 through 12. Mr. Douglas motioned that the SAB accept the drafted comments and recommendations. Dr. Beeton seconded. There was discussion of the motion. Dr. Rice feels that this effort is not a constructive use of the SAB. Dr. Stephenson-Hawk said that the sentence in Guideline 10 regarding the efficiency of industry and government in developing new technologies and practices was subjective. Dr. Alexander asked Dr. Rice if he has any substantive responses. He said that most of his comments were incorporated through the many revisions and that he is willing to support what is here. The sentence was deleted, leaving the SAB with no comment on Guideline 10. The revised comments and recommendations were voted on and passed unanimously.

Action: The Chair will transmit the revised SAB comments on the Department of Commerce Aquaculture guidelines to the Under Secretary.

Update on Climate Research Initiative - Overview and Discussion

Dr. David Evans, Assistant Administrator for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (NOAA Research), called in to the SAB meeting. He thanked the SAB for working with NOAA Research on conducting lab and joint institute reviews. It looks like the first review is the Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory in the spring.

Dr. Evans then provided a brief history and update of the Climate Research Initiative, including his involvement in developing the initiative. The science community just wanted to get their case heard, which is what came out in the initiative. They wanted to present what they know, articulate what they don't know, and what needs to be known. In the President's Rose Garden speech (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html) he tasked the Secretary of Commerce to look at the science and see what investments needed to be made and he promoted cooperation among the agencies. Dr. Evans was asked by the Secretary of Commerce to lead the effort. The policy people wanted science tools to help them make decisions, such as models to evaluate the effects of various climate scenarios. They were asked to focus on developing products and tools. Another charge was to come up with a review of the $1.6 billion USGCRP program and improve coordination among the 12 agencies. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) made some pretty serious comments on the USGCRP and the Administration wanted to respond to those comments. Several models were put forward and they are now under discussion. Beginning in September, the working group started to work on implementation. The discussions still continue and the agenda is moving forward despite the events of September 11. Some time or another we will have some decisions on the subject.

Dr. Shuttleworth said he was on the NAS committee with USGCRP oversight. Their committee gave about equal weight to research on the carbon and water cycles, but the draft report does not weigh enough on water. Next week's NAS panel meeting will ask for an update on the President's initiative, but Dr. Evans thinks there is nothing new to say. With regard to the question about water, he said that many communities were concerned about how their interests were included in the report. The committee asked for briefings from many people on a lot of subjects, including observations, carbon cycle, and water cycle. Complete papers from the many agencies were requested but were not included explicitly in the report. The report relied on pre-existing documents. There is material on the water cycle in the report and the President's speech. It is unfortunate that the process did not allow ways of including all parts of the science.

The President's management agenda has a section on science on the OMB web page. Dr. Evans thinks that OMB will be seeking some important activities that will look at science management and evaluation.


Global Water Cycle Initiative - Overview and Discussion

Rick Lawford, Office of Global Programs, briefed the SAB on the GEWEX (Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment) Continental-scale International Project (GCIP) science issues and the contributions of GCIP to NOAA. He next briefed on the GEWEX Americas Prediction Project (GAPP), a follow-on program to GCIP. The objectives of GAPP are to (1) develop a capability to make reliable monthly/seasonal predictions of precipitation, evaporation, and surface hydrologic variables through improved land surface and boundary layer modeling as part of a global climate prediction system and (2) to interpret the results of climate predictions for optimum management of the Nation's water resources. He explained the GAPP components. Water resource management is supported by GAPP priorities. He provided perspectives on GAPP's future and described a possible NOAA Water Cycle Program. He noted that this proposed program has not had the opportunity for senior NOAA management review and support. He presented the three goals of the NOAA Water Cycle Initiative: (1) to quantify the role of surface and atmospheric processes in seasonal-to-interannual predictions of precipitation and its hydrologic consequences, (2) to assess the risk to water systems through improved climate projections and analysis of long-term changes in the global water cycle and (3) to improve the representation of precipitation processes in climate models, in partnership with USWRP. The USGCRP report, "A Plan for a New Science Initiative on the Global Water Cycle", the so-called Hornberger Report, said NOAA's water cycle program is too diffuse and that it needs to consolidate the goals around predicting variations and changes in the cycling of precipitation and their consequences. Dr. Beeton asked if this would be packaged as a stand alone initiative or packaged with something else. He suggests that NOAA move ahead in the existing water cycle initiative as a long term program but keep precipitation as a piece. Mr. Lawford clarified that the term "precipitation" really means water. Dr. Varanasi described a portion of the water cycle that is of interest to NMFS and recommended that they be included in the program. Dr. Beeton asked if the water cycle can be reduced into a single issue, like precipitation. Dr. Sorooshian said that it cannot be done. Dr. Rice said that it is the water cycle that is lacking the NOAA champion and not precipitation. Mr. Lawford asked the SAB to define what should be included in a water cycle program. Mr. Douglas and Dr. Sorooshian believe that the SAB does not have the expertise. Mr. Lawford said that the SAB could adopt the definition of the water cycle presented in the Hornberger Report. Most SAB members have not read the report so no endorsement is possible at this time. Dr. Rao suggested that NOAA needs to address how it fits into the national water cycle initiative.

Briefings and discussions on activities of SAB Subcommittees and Working Groups

Long-term Climate Monitoring Council Report Dr. Sorooshian is a member of the Council. His first meeting was the July meeting. He presented the report of the July meeting. The SAB thanked the council for their report.

Social Science Research Panel Susan Hanna, and SAB member and Chair of the Panel, provided a brief and informal report of the first meeting of the panel, October 23-24, 2001. She went through the agenda. On the second day, the panel made a slight modifications in the charge to the panel by the SAB. The definition of social science research and the wording describing the tasks of the panel were changed. The time line of the Panel's activities was also updated. Susan read the changes and the board agreed. Small changes in the charge were accepted. The time line was changed mainly to reflect a March 2002 delivery date. Gen. Kelly asked for the purpose of the report as it relates to decisions on the FY 2004 budget. He suggested that the report should be substantive, regardless of if it can be available for the FY 2004 budget cycle. Dr. Hanna described the sections of the report. There is a second meeting scheduled for January 2002. Dr. Rice asked for e-mail copies of what Dr. Hanna presented, i.e., the summary minutes. Dr. Uhart will distribute the minutes.

Action: Dr. Uhart will distribute the minutes from the October 2001 meeting of the Social Science Research Panel to the SAB.

Report of the Review of the NOS Geodesy ProgramDr. Len Pietrafesa, an SAB member and Chair of the review panel, provided a status report on the report of the review. The review was in June 2001. He described the review process. He briefly described the Geodesy Program. The written report is not ready yet. They hope to have a first draft by the last week of November and agreement on the recommendations in December. A report will be shared with NGS to ensure accuracy. A report will be completed by mid January. It will be presented to the SAB at the March 2002 meeting.

Report of the Review of the NOS Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research (CCEHBR)Dr. Jake Rice, an SAB member and chair of the review panel, presented a draft report. It is the complete report for the most part; the content is there. Jake encouraged the SAB to read at least the 8-page summary. There was panel agreement on the excellence of the research. Recruitment and retention is a problem at the lab. There is a huge turnover of junior staff. It will be presented to the SAB in March 2002 for review, discussion, and disposition.

Report of the Global Programs Working Group There was no report.

Education Subcommittee Dr. Denise Stephenson-Hawk, Chair of the subcommittee, reported that the NOAA education committee split up into 4 subcommittees. There is a planning subcommittee, an inventory subcommittee, a finance reporting subcommittee, and a toys subcommittee. She provided a status of each subcommittee. There was an August Request for Proposals for toys. The deadline is December 31, 2001.

NOAA - University Partnership Building Workshop

Dr. Beeton provided a short briefing on the upcoming workshop. It came about from a May 1996 partnership meeting. One of the recommendations was that NOAA have a science advisory board. There were other recommendations, including some on the use of ships. There was an agreement to make more use of the UNOLS (University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System). There were some grant process issues with recommendations. Last year, NASULGC (National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges) contacted Dr. Beeton about revisiting the partnership. Another workshop would revisit the outcomes of the past workshop, evaluate if the partnership is working, and look at new issues.

Adjourn for the day


Thursday, November 8, 2001 - Sheraton Tucson Hotel & Suites

Official Call to Order and Review of Meeting Format Michael Uhart, Executive Director, NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB) opened the meeting. As the Science Advisory Board is a Federal Advisory Committee, Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) rules and procedures for public input were presented. The following SAB members were present: Al Beeton, Susan Hanna, Denise Stephenson-Hawk, Len Pietrafesa, Art Maxwell, Soroosh Sorooshian, Jake Rice, Vera Alexander, and Peter Douglas.

Homeland Security Briefing

CAPT Ted Lillestolen, Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator of the National Ocean Service, described NOAA'S contribution to Homeland Security. The purpose of the program is to enhance and integrate NOAA's incident response capability. The objectives are to identify the emerging internal and external Homeland Security needs, organize to successfully respond to short- and long-term needs, and to jumpstart the process by identifying teams, activities and schedules. NOAA will develop products and services that will enhance incident response capabilities. This will be done within the existing budget. NOAA had people on-site to forecast for the World Trade Center response. Fisheries enforcement officers helped with the investigation and are also acting as air marshals. NOS provided hazardous materials support also. We are organizing the NOAA family. We are also trying to design systems that are adaptable to different activities and users. NOAA is concerned about the safety of our employees. Discussions are being held with the Office of Science and Technology Policy, NIMA, Navy, Coast Guard (USCG), USGS, and the EPA. Continuity of government (COG) needs are being addressed. NOAA is organized in 3 groups: capabilities, infrastructure and continuity of operations. He can provide an update at the next SAB meeting. Dr. Uhart asked if they will be identifying gaps. CAPT Lillestolen replied that they will. NOAA may have to address them by prioritizing. Dr. Hanna asked about the NMFS personnel assigned to other activities. CAPT Lillestolen responded that about half have been detailed to other activities. She asked how long this will go on. He does not know and NMFS is very concerned about their normal missions and duties. Dr. Rice asked if there is any reallocation of vessel time, either research or enforcement vessels. There has been some discussion, but in the US, NOAA has its research vessels that do not do enforcement. The USCG does the enforcement activities. Dr. Varanasi asked if he has seen a proposal about a vessel tracking system. He said that he has not heard specific discussions related to that. Opportunities in Water Science and Technology

Matt Borgia, NOAA Office of Sustainable Development and Intergovernmental Affairs, provided a little background and a broad overview of international water issues and activities. He described CISET (the White House's interagency Committee on International Science, Engineering and Technology). He introduced the report "NOAA Leadership and Involvement in the International Water Crisis (September 2001)." It has now been released. He asked that the SAB take a look at the report and that the SAB may be interested in responding to the recommendations in the report at the next SAB meeting. The report addresses the lack of organization and a lack of a NOAA-wide strategic viewpoint on water resource issues. Dr. Beeton asked if the incoming Administrator has been briefed on the report. Mr. Borgia said that, as far as he knows, the Administrator has not been briefed on the contents of the water report. Dr. Beeton suggested that it be connected to the water cycle initiative. Dr. Rice noted that NOAA does not have a leadership role in many of the issues that are raised and specifically regarding the solutions that are proposed on pages 6 and page 10. Some of the activities are not traditional NOAA activities. Mr. Borgia said that they are broad solutions and NOAA does not do these things in a broad management context. The report is much more global. Dr. Rice observed that the report's recommendations look similar to some of the recommendations that the SAB passed yesterday. Dr. Rice asked for a 2-pager that describes the issues and how they would like the SAB to address them.

Action: The Office of Sustainable Develop and Intergovernmental Affairs, in collaboration with the Office of International Affairs, will prepare a background paper on NOAA and water resources management, and specifically on pertinent issues on how NOAA might like the SAB to address them. This paper will be sent to the SAB prior to its March 2002 meeting.

Dr. Alexander said she was impressed with the report. NOAA science is applicable to so many parts of the report. Dr. Sorooshian said that science is a critical part of the technologies that are brought to foreign countries. Dr. Sorooshian mentioned several international activities in which NOAA plays a strong collaborative role. There are many WMO reports that address water issues. He thinks there has to be some degree of coordination. Mr. Borgia said that the response to hurricane Mitch is a success story. Dr. Beeton suggested that we bring up the coordination issue up at the March 2002 meeting. The SAB needs to look at the report and more background material is needed.

Round Table Discussion: Water Allocation Issues

Roundtable discussants were the Science Advisory Board, the Assistant Administrators or their representatives, Michael Schiewe, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Bob Collins, District Hydrologist of the Sacramento District of the US Army Corps of Engineers, Kathy Jacobs, Visiting Science Fellow in the Office of Global Programs, Linda Stitzer, Arizona Department of Water Resources, and Tom Maddock, University of Arizona.

Tom Maddock's area is ground water-surface water interactions. He deals mostly with legal issues. He sees that one issue is the use of extremely complex models in the legal process. He advises that it is still important to build those communication structures that help transfer this knowledge to the outside.

Kathy Jacobs introduced herself. She is working in OGP to help users get involved in the design of research. She provided some slides on the national assessment; she wrote the water chapter. She pointed to the conclusions of the report. Competition for water supplies is changing over time and is not the same everywhere. She said that surface water quality was tied to extreme events and that there is not enough monitoring of water quality, especially habitat. Groundwater quality and quantity is becoming more vulnerable because of switching from surface water to ground water. For heavy precipitation, floods and droughts, predictions of extreme events as well as trends are needed. Ecosystem vulnerability is a major issue. Humans can manage but we don't know enough to protect ecosystems and we do not understand how ecosystems change.

Michael Schiewe introduced himself and provided a short briefing on water allocation and its effects on Columbia River salmon. He described the various dams and authorities on the river and a graph of annual flow on the Columbia. He described the Columbia River Plume and compared the plumes of June 1999 and June 2001. Water is more than just the medium in which salmon live, ocean transition and riverine plume dynamics shape habitats and influence survival throughout a salmon's life cycle.

Linda Stitzer introduced herself. She briefed the SAB on how Arizona deals with water management and how weather issues impact their activities and regulations. The mission of the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) is to manage resources to ensure a long-term water supply for the state. Groundwater is the primary water supply, but the Phoenix area uses about 60 percent surface water. Long-term weather forecasts, currently based on historical data (climatology), are used to predict shortages on the Colorado River. No long-term weather variability scenarios are evaluated in the management plans or in groundwater models.

Bob Collins introduced himself, including the mission of the USCOE. He is the Sacramento district hydrologist. They are interested in every aspect of the hydrologic cycle. He is looking to NOAA for long- and short-term forecasts, QPF and snow level. Short-term forecasts (1-7 days) and shorter term for the flashy basins (hourly QPF preferred) are utilized. They are also interested in chemical and biological contaminant plume forecasts. Satellites and PACJET (Pacific Landfalling Jets Experiment) can improve the initialization and implementation of finer grid forecasts. At the recent PACJET workshop, he was shown that there is a lot of potential in PACJET to improve short term quantitative precipitation forecasts (QPF). Satellites are in-place that read the tops of clouds. We could monitor fronts better if there were shorter term observations to monitor cloud motion. More dropsondes, lidars, and buoys would improve the understanding of processes.

Dr. Rice asked how "safe yield" is defined. Ms. Stitzer replied that it is the point where pumping equals recharge. Tom Maddock said that there are natural discharges that are not being accounted for, so there is some disagreement on how that is managed. Dr. Hanna asked Ms. Stitzer about using water pricing to help regulate water demand based on climate or weather. Dr. Maxwell asked if the extent of the plume also has an effect on the ability of a fish to migrate upstream. Mr. Schiewe said that he is not aware of any correlation. Dr. Sorooshian said that there are two methods of recharge, mountain front recharge and streambed flooding. However, the quantification of these two methods is not well understood. There are a lot of ad hoc methods. Dr. Stephenson-Hawk asked if the local state offices are willing to change their best management practices, knowing that NOAA products and services are available. Do you generate the questions and ask NOAA to develop products? Ms. Stitzer said that ADWR has never accessed NOAA data and they have never interacted with NOAA. ADWR is mainly a ground water management agency and, as such, they deal mostly with USGS. Surface water managers have a greater need for weather data. They rely on the Bureau of Reclamation for forecasts of flows. Dr. Maddock offered that the traditional way of management must make better use of weather and climate information. The department has been using historical data, not predictions. Dr. Jacobs asked why we are developing products if we don't know the user. The science is excellent and the choice of the types of useful information is probably right, but it must be integrated into the operational systems of users. Dr. Maddock said that many states have legal restrictions on what information the regulatory agencies can use. There is a large investment in the current institutional structure and therefore they are averse to making changes.

Dr. Beeton entered a motion to recommend that "NOAA should do a better job in recognizing the needs of water users and communicating to the users the resources NOAA has to meet their needs." Dr. Maxwell seconded the motion. Dr. Stephenson-Hawk said that this motion is directed to no particular entity. Dr. Beeton responded that it is directed to the NOAA Administrator. Dr. Stephenson-Hawk expressed her concern with how SAB recommendations are being addressed by NOAA. Dr. Beeton said that the SAB staff is now doing such an analysis. Dr. Stephenson-Hawk asked if we can propose a template that would facilitate communication between NOAA and users. Dr. Maddock suggested that the motion say "users and needs of users." Dr. Rice said there is no system of identifying requirements and prioritizing what NOAA does to address those requirements. He suggests that we look at the Geodesy and CCEHBR reviews as well as what we learn at this meeting before we suggest that NOAA set up a methodology just for hydrology and water. Dr. Rice said that just because a user needs a product does not mean that there is a justification for NOAA to produce the product. Dr. Pulwarty said that it must be closely linked to the mission. It was suggested that this could be a topic for the next SAB meeting. Dr. Varanasi said we should look at a couple of examples of research to operations. Dr. Stephenson-Hawk asked if GPRA includes the idea of identifying and working with users. Dr. Beeton asked if the motion on the floor should be voted on or tabled until the next meeting. With the aforementioned changes in wording, the following recommendation passed unanimously.

Recommendation: NOAA needs to identify users and needs of water users and communicate to users the resources NOAA has to meet their demands.

Public Input

Jim Washburn, a faculty member at the University of Arizona in the Department of Hydrology and Water Resources made an oral statement. Over the years there has been very generous support from the NWS to support students. He raised concerns expressed by some of the students that career advancement opportunities for hydrologists in the NWS are limited. There was also concern as to how advancement is determined. There is a perception that if you have a hydrology rather than a meteorology background, your career advancement is disadvantaged. Bob Collins commented that the US Corps of Engineers and state and local agencies hire hydrologists. Dr. Alexander asked if Dr. Washburn had any idea of what this can be attributed to. He responded that one possible cause is a bias to advance meteorologists over hydrologists.

Final Adjournment