14th NOAA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
NORMAN, OKLAHOMA
November 5-7, 2002

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 – Oklahoma College of Continuing Education (OCCE) Forum

Official Call to Order and Review of Meeting Format

Dr. Michael Uhart, Executive Director, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) opened the meeting.  As the SAB is a Federal Advisory Committee, Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) rules and procedures for public input were presented. 

Introduction of the NOAA SAB Board Members and Opening Statement of the Chair

Dr. Al Beeton, Chair, NOAA SAB, welcomed board members and NOAA officials to the fourteenth NOAA SAB meeting.  The members of the SAB introduced themselves.  Following introductions, an overview of Review Panel composition, guidelines, and procedures was provided.

The following SAB members were present:  Dr. Alfred M. Beeton, Chairman, SAB; Dr. Vera Alexander, Dean, School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska – Fairbanks; Mr. David Blaskovich, Sales Executive in High Performance Computing at IBM; Dr. Robert B. Gagosian, President and Director, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute; Dr. Arthur E. Maxwell, Professor Emeritus, Institute of Geophysics, University of Texas; Dr. Leonard J. Pietrafesa, Director, External Affairs – College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, North Carolina State University; Dr. Richard D. Rosen, Vice President and Chief Scientist, Research and Development Division, AER Inc.; Dr. John T. Snow, Dean, College of Geosciences, University of Oklahoma; and Dr. Denise Stephenson-Hawk, Chairman, The Stephenson Group. 

NOAA line office representatives in attendance included:  Dr. David Rogers, Director, Office of Weather and Air Quality (NOAA Research), Dr. Donald Scavia, Chief Scientist, National Ocean Service (NOS), and Dr. W. Stanley Wilson, Senior Scientist, National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDIS).   

Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) Review Report

Vera Alexander, SAB member and a member of the CIRES Review Panel, highlighted key findings and directives resulting from the CIRES review conducted in September 2002.  Dr. Jack Calvert, National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Boulder, chaired the panel.  The CIRES joint institute has a relationship with several academic units at the University of Colorado and NOAA Laboratories in Boulder.  It is dedicated to excellence and innovation in the study of the geosphere, biosphere, and atmosphere.  The central CIRES mission is to understand and predict the effects of natural and anthropogenic perturbations on the earth system and determine how such  knowledge can be used to protect the health of the earth system.  The approach is interdisciplinary and translates basic research into operations.  

Overall, Dr. Alexander stated that the panel had a satisfactory experience and was uniformly impressed with the functions and services that CIRES provides to NOAA.  The Review Panel extensively interviewed CIRES Director Susan Avery and viewed posters exhibited as examples of ongoing research.  Dr. Alexander stressed the intensity of the poster session and its volume of information.  The Review Panel also spoke with established CIRES governance groups.  The Review Panel concluded that CIRES is a positive example of how a cooperative institute can function.  The structure is diverse and flexible.  All stakeholders have input so people are comfortable, and morale is very high.  There is much input from NCAR and the scientific community as a whole in that area. Thus, CIRES is able to take full advantage of the strength of the Boulder scientific community.  Block funding provides stability.  The research programs are innovative.  Further, there is a strong educational component, not only in K-12, but also at the graduate level and outreach to the general public.  The panel supports the contemplated extension into biological sciences and found the idea of an Environmental Technology Center attractive.   

Some areas that require attention include the perceived and real differences in the status of Federal employees versus University of Colorado employees in the laboratories, rigidity within the University, the threat of a shift towards contract versus grant research, and the perception of CIRES in funding agencies.  The Review Panel recommendations for improvement at CIRES included the following:

1.      Address the problem of rigidity within departmental structure.
2.      Recognize a greater fraction of those doing outstanding work through the employee award system. 
3.      Retain the current format of the cooperative agreement and retain and strengthen the current program structure.
4.      Continue innovative research, the visiting fellows programs, and outreach programs. 
5.      Consider creation of an employee handbook.
6.      Consider expansion to serve as a clearinghouse for selecting and recommending the use of scientifically accurate environmental classroom materials and public information. 

*** MOTION:  Dr. Snow motioned that the SAB forward the CIRES Review Panel report to NOAA Research.  Dr. Rosen seconded the motion.  The SAB passed the motion unanimously.

The SAB asked for further explanation regarding the contract discrepancy.  Dr. Avery elaborated that it resided in NOAA General Counsel legal review of the mandates of joint institute creation.  Lawyers called some functions into question and believed that much of the work under the cooperative agreement would more easily fit under a contractual arrangement.  She argued that the nature of the research necessitates a true partnership, and it cannot operate through a more traditional grant process.  Joint Institutes do more than just basic research; they offer a spectrum of benefits to NOAA, providing a vehicle to transition results of university basic research to application and implementation.  For example, the Western Water Assessment takes research to operations in managing water.  Dr. Rosen, who also served as a NOAA-CIRES Climate Diagnostics Center Review Panel member, sighted interesting features of the partnership.  As a member of the private sector, he was impressed by the transfer capabilities, not only to NOAA, but also to the private sector, and thought that the current process serves as a good model.  Dr. Wilson stated that there might be problems due to increased legal analysis by NOAA General Counsel, raising this as an issue of concern regarding cooperative agreements throughout NOAA.  SAB Members questioned how far Counsel might push, thus undermining cooperative ventures. 

Dr. Stephenson-Hawk asked for further elaboration regarding the disparity between CIRES and NOAA employees.  Dr. Avery responded that CIRES staff are University of Colorado employees.  NOAA employees are funded and supervised separately.  However, publications have co-authors that include both types of employees.  Further, there is a joint planning process and a common research plan, yet only NOAA employees are eligible for merit-based awards such as the Presidential Early Career Awards for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE).  In that way, CIRES is separate from research achievements.  

Dr. Snow cautioned that on page seven of the Review Report, panel members should be careful in articulating that though CIRES investigators have applied for external monies (e.g., National Science Foundation [NSF]), these specific projects were not NOAA funded, but external grant monies would leverage NOAA monies.  It could be viewed that laboratories with external funding are being distracted from NOAA missions.  Should they be fully funded and not need to go external?  This should be a point raised with NOAA senior management.     

*** ACTION:  Dr. Alexander will go back to the Review Panel Chair to revise the CIRES Review Report, and will send it back to Dr. Uhart for submission to NOAA Research senior management as motioned above. 

National Geodetic Survey (Geodesy) Program Review – Final Report

Dr. Pietrafesa, SAB member and Review Panel Chair, revisited the National Geodetic Survey (Geodesy) Program Review final report to respond to the questions of the SAB at the July 2002 meeting in Boulder.  The NOS National Geodetic Survey (NGS) is responsible for development and operation of the National Spatial Reference System, with emphasis on expanding opportunities for use of Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and advancing remote sensing technologies.  Dr. Pietrafesa presented the draft Review Panel response letter, which included excerpts from a letter from Charles Challstrom, Director of the NGS Geosciences Research Division (GRD), regarding recent progress reported by NGS.  This was an unofficial reply due to the inability of some review panel members to provide input.  Dr. Pietrafesa reported on Dr. Challstrom’s recommendations as follows. 

In Dr. Challstrom’s reply, he indicated that NOS agrees that the fundamental problem in NOAA’s geodesy research is a lack of resources.  Regarding the Review Panel observation that the current strategy for reliance on retirements to free up funds for re-tooling internal expertise is not adequate for the research situation, Dr. Challstrom recommends rebuilding core capability through a $1.0 million increase to base budget (half for in-house salaries and half for contracts) with this increase to be dedicated to geodesy research.  Dr. Challstrom also says that NOAA agrees that the decline in research is also due, in part, to personnel becoming increasingly devoted to operational activities such as Continuously Operating Reference Station (CORS) data analysis and oversight of products from the CORS network. 

Dr. Challstrom indicated that the following actions are underway to assist with delineating research and operational activities:  the transfer of the current Chief, GRD, to a non-supervisory Senior Researcher position; the transfer of the current Chief of the Systems Development Division, to be the new Chief of the GRD; the transfer of responsibility for annual revision of the NGS Research Plan to the new Chief, GRD, with only review by the NGS Chief Geodesist; the expansion of the Research Plan to include identification of existing and potential collaborators and users, the research budget and funding strategies, staff with specialization in vertical motion models, and Research Group and Engineering Group staff positions; standards for satellite geodesy, satellite orbit, propagations, and deformation models; GPS antenna calibration; the renewal of the Visiting Scientist Program; and an evaluation of the NGS organizational structure.

In addition, the Chief, GRD, will meet quarterly with the Chief, Remote Sensing Division, to coordinate research activities and insure the geographic information system (GIS) community needs are reflected in geodesy research activities, as appropriate.  The quarterly review of the NGS work plan elements specific to geodesy research will continue to be conducted by the NGS Deputy Director and NGS Chief Geodesist.  The Research Plan will retain its entries on program goals and activities, timetable, and performance metrics.  NOS will continue to explore the transfer of its absolute gravimetry program to the National Institute for Standards and Technology.  The organization has also contracted for the study of GPS Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) Technology.  In addition, NOAA is participating in testing and evaluation of the High Accuracy Nationwide Differential GPS test signal.  After combining the results of these efforts, NGS will develop a white paper summarizing the results and implications for a national RTK system.  To address the need for a core capability in geodesy research, the staffing plan that is part of the Research Plan, establishes targets for minimum core capability. 

Dr. Pietrafesa concluded by stating that the Review Panel commended the progress but further recommends that the NGS/GRD persist in addressing the following key issues/ recommendations:  the retention and enhancement of the NGS research enterprise through development of partnerships; development and implementation of a management of science planning process; facilitation of a national, integrated, seamless CORS network; the better definition and distinction among research, development, and operational activities; and utilization of the best available existing technology, eliminating duplication of effort wherever possible.  

Dr. Beeton also applauded the NOS/NGS/GRD forward movement and response to the July SAB recommendations and suggested sending this letter forward. 

*** MOTION:  Dr. Pietrafesa motioned that the SAB forward the NGS Review Panel letter to the NOS Assistant Administrator.  Dr. Maxwell seconded the motion.  The SAB passed the motion unanimously.

*** ACTION:  Dr. Pietrafesa and Dr. Maxwell will draft the transmittal letter needed to send the NGS-GRD Review Report forward to the Assistant Administrator. 

Dr. Scavia thanked the SAB and Review Panel for the review and follow-up discussions, and affirmed that NOS management is listening.  However, he asked what the protocol is for sending a formal response forward, cautioning that Dr. Challstrom’s response had not cleared NOS.  Dr. Snow advised that the SAB should not get into the habit of re-reviews.  Dr. Pietrafesa agreed, promoting a simple response procedure that includes acknowledgement of  “report received” and a summary presentation of current progress.  He also pointed out that the NGS review response was not from the parent agency, NOAA, or from the line office, NOS.  Dr. Beeton suggested highlighting this in the letter and sending it on to the NOS Assistant Administrator, who should then write a memorandum to the NOAA Administrator, Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr. (Ret.), for concurrence. 

Dr. Stephenson-Hawk asked for further elaboration regarding the issuing of sub-recommendations by the Review Panel.  Dr. Pietrafesa responded that nothing had been removed, and that any new content only provided specificity to recommendations that were generally suggested in the first review report.    

National Weather Service (NWS) – NOAA Research Technology Transfer Program

Dr. David Rogers, Office of Weather and Air Quality (NOAA Research), provided a progress update on the NWS-NOAA Research Science and Technology Infusion Plan (STIP) for water, weather, and climate services.  The STIP will establish a framework for end-to-end, research to operations, and Science and Technology (S&T) planning and execution.  To date, NWS has successfully completed their modernization and restructuring, resulting in improved products and services.  However, as products and services have stabilized, user needs and S&T have continued to advance.  How does NOAA respond and continue to improve?

1.      Know and anticipate customer needs.
2.      Evolve operational concepts.
3.      Train workforce.
4.      Infuse proven S&T.

Key elements to successful S&T infusion include:  the defining of roles and responsibilities and the process, the promotion of compatible architecture, and the planning of roadmaps leading to program, budget, and execution plans.  In combination, these will lead to early establishment of a link to operations and an effective and streamlined transition.  In reviewing operations, the program team will identify current S&T shortfalls and evaluate opportunities.  Planning and budgeting will center on S&T insertion into operations.  In turn, research and development (R&D) should identify opportunities and respond to operational shortfalls, make data and information available early, collaborate in utilization of S&T, and consult in maintenance of operational capabilities.  The overall STIP infusion process will be pulled by user-based needs and requirements and pushed by opportunities.  The process will rely on teamwork, commonalities and compatibilities, especially in regard to prediction systems and testbeds.  Ultimately, planners must envision compatible research and operational models through development and testing of new S&T, supporting improved operations in laboratory settings. 

Currently, NWS and NOAA Research are working to define the mechanisms to accelerate S&T infusion in disciplined, cost-effective manners.  Solutions will be integrated across service areas and will be based on performance measures.  Focus areas include:  severe weather, tropical cyclones, hydrologic services, climate services, observations, and numerical prediction.  By 2020 management envisions:

·         High-resolution, severe weather warnings with advance lead time and a high level of certainty.
·         Hydrologic 48-hr track forecast error of 80 nm; intensity forecast error of 12 kt.
·         Provision of a seamless suite of climate products and services.
·         Observations when and where needed.
·         A common model framework for climate/weather/water numerical predictions. 

Currently, strategic, program, execution, and budget plans are being developed and FY 05 initiatives are being generated. 

Dr. Pietrafesa questioned how resources were going to be maintained for both new S&T and existing NOAA operational observing systems, to which Dr. Rogers responded that now, more than ever, partnerships were needed.  NOAA does not need to operate every system that it needs access to.  Further, a sustainable system must migrate from R&D to operations.  For example, the NOAA Program Review Team (PRT) recommended that data buoys transfer to operations.  With budget cuts, this technology is at risk because there is no funding to maintain it.  Through systems architectural analysis, there will be careful consideration regarding which operational systems must be sustained.  Dr. Scavia emphasized the importance of a research plan when funding is limited, and asked if research funding should transfer to operations as the new systems become operational.  He agreed that a larger planning framework allows for review of outdated observations that could be eliminated.  Dr. Rosen cautioned that terminating older systems provides challenges to the climate change community, which may not diffuse as quickly as weather services progress.  Changes in data parameters could affect the climate community’s long-term efforts.  There is a difference in the cultures and needs of weather versus climate observations.  Dr. Beeton echoed concerns that R&D moving over to operations might promote excessive transfer of resources from R&D to operations.  What were the plans to protect from that?  Dr. Rogers assured that no substantial changes were being made and that the planning process helps to better articulate the R&D needs, thereby promoting R&D programs more effectively than has been done in the past. 

Dr. Snow added that he was surprised to see products and services leveling off since he viewed the NWS modernization and restructuring as having never finished.  For example, the U.S. Weather Research Program (USWRP) for the whole community has not been completed.  He questioned whether material presented was just a recasting of a decade ago, with a new push for USWRP.  Dr. Rogers explained that the USWRP languished because of the program’s narrow focus, preventing it from fully becoming a national program.  Previously, it was driven more by science opportunity instead of user input.  Presently, nine agencies are participating in the effort (e.g., DOD, DOE, FHWA), and though there is no more money, they are gaining a much better sense of what end user outcomes are and can develop a much broader portfolio of what R&D is needed. 

Dr. Gagosian agreed that the process should focus on R&D and offered the Global Ocean Observing System and the Navy as a model in transitioning research to operations.  This especially worked well for academia developing the instrumentation (e.g., Remotely Operated Vehicles).  Dr. Rosen endorsed the use of testbeds.  Mr. Blaskovich asked how non-NOAA laboratories fit into this.  For example, NCAR is becoming more community based.  Dr. Rogers identified the NWS National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) as partners, but stressed that globally, there are not many organizations doing this type of research.  He encouraged universities to make investments in this area.  Dr. Snow and Dr. Scavia counseled that NOAA has not defined a framework that would be used to help design coastal and mesonet networks.  They believed that this is the impetus behind several coastal observation fiefdoms and many incompatible private/state mesonets.   

In closing, Dr. Beeton pondered whether NOAA was too “stove-piped”, making cross-cutting difficult.  To this, Dr. Snow asked whether the STIP planning was going on independent of the NOAA strategic planning process.  Dr. Rogers explained that the strategic plan is not an action plan.  Thus, language has not been inserted in a formal way, but there will be inclusion of an overall statement. 

NOAA National Severe Storms Laboratory

Dr. James (Jeff) F. Kimpel, Director, provided a briefing on the NOAA National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL).  NSSL has partnered with the Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies (CIMMS) since 1978 to bring R&D and operations together.  Also housed within the laboratory complex is the NEXRAD Radar Operations Center (ROC).  NSSL, CIMMS and the ROC each provide the others with insight into research that is on the horizon.  NSSL consists of three R&D divisions:  forecasts, radar, and warnings.  In addition, there are operational offices that include facilities and services, administrative services, information technology, and the NSSL/CIMMS partnership office.  Except for a modest boost in FY 02, agency funding for NSSL has been level, but there has been an increase in funding from external sources.  Dr. Kimpel stressed that the additional funding has primarily been obtained through development of partnerships between NOAA and other agencies and is not entirely extraneous to NOAA operations, and thereby, does not detract from NOAA missions.  The number of federal employees has decreased, but this has been offset with an increase in CIMMS employees paid out of soft money. 

NSSL focuses on its primary customer, the NWS, and works in partnership with the NWS to enhance NOAA’s capability of providing accurate forecasts and warnings of all types of hazardous weather events.  Its location was chosen because it is the center of hail and tornado occurrences, allowing NSSL to develop expertise in weather radar; radar-based software development; severe weather field programs that use mobile, in situ, and remote observational capabilities; four-dimensional data assimilation; lightning dynamics; and forecast/warning improvements.  Theoretical, observational, and modeling studies lead to the understanding of severe weather and to the development of NOAA services.  However, much of the satellite/ radar data opportunities have not been fully utilized.   

For example, the NOAA Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer is used to produce daily vegetation maps.  Because living vegetation displays different convective/water processes, using daily maps can improve 24-hour temperature forecasts over those derived from the five-year average of vegetation data.  NSSL research has provided better than a degree reduction in uncertainty, an improvement of 25%, merely by using data operations already available.  Numerical simulation of thunderstorms developing along a dry line in western Oklahoma has enhanced the understanding of how and why thunderstorms develop.  The development of dual-polarization of radars might become as consequential as bringing Doppler radar online.  Single radar beams can be blocked by natural obstructions (e.g., trees).  Based on phase shifts and pulses, this technology has not only improved rainfall estimates, but also, based on microphysics patterns, enabled scientists to observe what is in the clouds.  NSSL is hoping to transition this into operations for FY 07, eventually completing dual-polarization of all radars.  Research will aid in homeland security through three-dimensional aircraft tracking and atmospheric chemical and biological detection, tracking, and forecasting. 

A new research opportunity rests in the phased-array radar.  Currently used only for military operations, NSSL plans to erect the first one dedicated solely for weather.  This radar can steer beams off the antenna everywhere instead of performing a sweeping volume scan.  In addition, it is exceedingly fast, performing a sweep in 20 seconds versus 15 minutes for current radars.  The challenges are to secure funds for research efforts, recruit appropriate talent, and reengineer the radar system.  NSSL is trying to get the cost of these radars to 10% of that charged to the Department of Defense, since they do not have to meet military specs.  Dr. Rosen asked if plans were in progress to dual-polarize the new phased-array radar, to which Dr. Kimpel replied that the technology does exist, and a small panel addition is under development.  

Dr. Beeton revisited NSSL’s decrease in full-time federal employees and stressed that most NOAA laboratories are experiencing a similar situation.  He desired that this trend not continue, leading to what might be considered only NOAA “assisted” laboratories instead of integral NOAA research and operation facilities.

The Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies (CIMMS).

Dr. Peter Lamb, Director, began with a profile of CIMMS.  CIMMS, funded through NOAA, provides research on mesoscale atmospheric systems associated with a wide variety of severe environmental storms, short-range prediction problems, and meteorological phenomena of the Great Plains; improves the effectiveness of research through close collaboration with the NSSL; and provides a center at which scientists working on problems of mutual interest may come together to work advantageously in an environment different from that already provided in the Federal and University structure.  In 2002, the facility comprised 188 University of Oklahoma personnel, 19.4% of the campus, and spent $11.65 million on research.  CIMMS focuses research in six thematic areas:

1.      Basic convective, mesoscale research (est. 1982),
2.      Forecast improvements (est. 1990),
3.      Climatic effects of/controls on mesoscale processes (est. 1990),
4.      Socioeconomic impacts of mesoscale weather systems and regional-scale climate variations (est. 1993),
5.      Doppler weather radar R&D  (est. 1996), and
6.      Climate change monitoring and detection (est. 2001).

CIMMS contributions include:  the birth and growth of the Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms (CAPS), funded through NSF; involvement in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program and fostering of other linkages with DOE; development of international meteorological and hydrological service activities; and enhancement of the NOAA-Joint Institute linkage. 

Specifically, CAPS was established at the University of Oklahoma in 1989 as one of the first 11 NSF Science and Technology Centers.  Its mission was, and remains, the development of techniques for the computer-based prediction of high-impact local weather, such as individual spring and winter storms, with the NEXRAD (WSR-88D) Doppler radar serving as a key data source.  The funding for 11 years was $17 million and the program continues to forge partnerships with major companies (e.g., American Airlines, Williams). 

The ARM Program is a multi-year effort created in 1989 to address the impact of clouds on radiative transfer, improve the methods to characterize clouds and radiative transfer in numerical climate models, and ultimately improve climate prediction.  Three major components include:  scientific support for site operations, research, and education/outreach.  The program has considerable interactions with NOAA and graduate student involvement.  Further, based upon its success in performing the role of Site Scientist for the ARM Program Southern Great Plains Cloud and Radiation Testbed, CIMMS was awarded a contract in July 2000 for the establishment of the ARM Data Quality Office. 

Recognizing that their organizations did not possess the expertise to capitalize on the seasonal prediction and application opportunities offered by the 1997-98 El Niño, leaders in national meteorological services of many developing nations prompted the 2001 CIMMS Third Workshop on Regional Climate Prediction and Applications.  The Workshop aimed to improve the capabilities of national meteorological services in developing nations by facilitating the understanding of the behavior of the global climate system, the use of such understanding to develop or adapt seasonal climate (especially rainfall) prediction schemes for their countries, and the working with other professionals in their countries to apply the prediction schemes in the management of agricultural production, water resources, energy generation and consumption, and public health.  Currently CIMMS cooperates and collaborates with the United Kingdom, Russia, Morocco, Ivory Coast, Niger, Ethiopia, Kenya, Vietnam, and Australia. 

With the recent establishment of the Institute for Energy, Economics and Policy at the University of Oklahoma, CIMMS has been able to develop further the linkages with the energy community.  Currently, CIMMS plays a key intermediate role on the “Water Pipe Freezing in the Southeastern United States” project funded by the Institute of Business and Home Safety.  They also had the leadership in the 2001 “American Meteorological Society-University of Oklahoma Policy Forum:  Weather, Climate, and Energy”, funded by Williams Companies, ENRON, DOE, and NOAA. 

Last, the NOAA-Joint Institute linkage is very healthy and strong, while many other institutes are trying to figure out how to make the link work.  Communication between stakeholders is very good, though the partnership has broken down some in the last 18 months also due to NOAA General Counsel’s analysis of the cooperative agreement process.  The review and resulting legal analysis lasted over five years, even though it was only two-thirds of one page (of a 65-page document) that caused legal concerns.  Dr. Lamb believes that the response was immensely disproportionate to the problem.  This slowed the flow of resources for over 15 months.  Every request for new money stopped at the Department of Commerce, equaling $5 million in debt to the University.  This was felt even more for CIRES.  Payment was finally made in September 2002.  The ramifications are huge, not only locally, but also nationally.  It delayed Doppler weather radar development for 15 months.  As with CIRES, Dr. Lamb explained the disparity between the Federal and University research process in regards to grant proposal periods.  Universities can only plan at a maximum of three years out, while NOAA laboratories are able to plan 15-20 years out.  

 Welcoming Remarks and Statement 

Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr. (Ret.), Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator, welcomed everyone to the meeting and to the Norman area, center of NOAA severe weather science and research.  He began by acknowledging NOAA as a premier scientific agency and stressing the need to leverage what is right about NOAA.  Current Agency priorities include:  an integrated corporate NOAA, cost schedule performance, climate change, program review implementation, international activities, and management.  Through making changes in organizational structure, grants, succession planning, strategic resource management, and requirements system, and by creating hands-on leadership and a respectful, diverse working environment, the Agency can make significant improvements in the future.  The SAB will be important to NOAA in successful accomplishment of these goals because of the connection it provides to the science community and the nation. 

 FY 2003 Appropriations Update

VADM Lautenbacher began by informing attendees that before adjourning for elections, Congress passed a Continuing Resolution until November 22^nd.  Congress will be in Session beginning November 12^th, with the major focus on appropriations.  To date, the only Bills that have passed are Department of Defense and Military construction.  All 11 others are still pending, including Commerce’s (i.e., NOAA’s).  The Senate has not passed a Budget Resolution, so they have no overall budget cap to deal with.  However, the House has a Budget Resolution, and thereby, is faced with a cap.  In addition, the House is trying to adhere to the President’s desire for 2% growth for non-military discretionary areas, which applies to nearly the entire NOAA budget.  There has been some discussion of an Omnibus Bill, or further, a yearlong Continuing Resolution.  In summary, there is much budget uncertainty.  The only mark has come from the full Senate Appropriations Committee, which gave Commerce a modest increase.  Increases came from boosts of:

·         $1.6M for the Under Secretary and associated offices,
·         $9.0M for the Climate Change Research Initiative ($18.0M total request),
·         $23.2M for Homeland Security,
·         $20.0M for Ocean Exploration,
·         $10.0M for Ocean Health,
·         $6.0M for Air Quality research in northeast (nothing was earmarked for the southeast),
·         $7.2M for the NWS Supercomputer,
·         $2.8M for NESDIS Critical Infrastructure Protection (in Senate mark & Supplemental),
·         $5.0M to establish a National Environmental Policy Act office in NMFS, and
·         $20.3M for Steller Sea Lion efforts ($22.2M total request).

He noted that Sea Grant remained in NOAA at $62.0 million.

VADM Lautenbacher voiced concerns over significant decreases, or complete lack of funding, in several key areas: 
·         Funding for pay raises was nearly $22M below the needed 4.1% increase.
·         IT Security request was not funded ($4.0M request).
·         Fisheries Finance Program account requested $24.0M in loan authority and got $5.0M.
·         Bill established base funding amounts with reprogramming restrictions for NOAA Research and NMFS.
·         All adjustments-to-base for inflation were denied ($22.0M in NWS alone).
·         NWS Aviation Weather was reduced by $2.5M.
·         AHPS was reduced by $1.6M.
·         Weather Forecast Office maintenance was reduced by $2.4M.
·         Radiosonde replacement in the Pacific was reduced by $0.5M.
·         Weather and climate supercomputer efforts were reduced by $1.2M.

Dr. Snow was especially concerned about the reduction in NWS Aviation Weather funding.  As financial hardship hits airlines, many are considering terminating their own weather units and will therefore be more dependent on NOAA and contractor aviation weather support. Further, as airlines are the major private supporters of aviation weather, academia will increasingly turn to NOAA for support. 

NOS Response to National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research (CCEHBR) Review Report

Dr. Scavia, NOS, provided a summary response to the SAB review of CCEHBR.  The review was conducted at the request of NOS to the SAB to examine the quality of the science being conducted, the level of connectivity with clients, and the integration of research across branches at the laboratory.  CCEHBR is one of five centers of NCCOS under NOS. The mission of CCEHBR is to provide scientific information needed to manage and protect coastal resources. The Review Panel generally found the science relevant and good, citing uniform customer satisfaction with CCEHBR products and services received.  However, though the Review Panel generally witnessed strong integration internally and within the larger Charleston research community, they believed there was room for greater synergy among the six research branches at CCEHBR.  The Review Panel believed that the funding level for, and formula within, NOS should be augmented to resolve the personnel recruitment and retention problem.  In addition, they identified problems with infrastructure and insufficient laboratory facilities.  Thus, they recommended a stronger commitment in actions and funding on the part of NOS to support scientific discovery and application of this information to the problems facing coastal ecosystems and communities.  The Review Panel also encouraged the development of a specific policy on staff time in regards to their ability to react quickly to coastal environmental crisis as they occur, and suggested that priority be given to establishing greater collaborative links to social scientists in the region.

Funding for CCEHBR is established by Congressional mandates.  If available, funding may be augmented by additional allocation of resources by NCCOS headquarters.  Full-time employee (FTE) ceilings imposed upon NOS as a whole hamper the retention of contracted junior research staff.  Further, the cost of contractors is 25% greater than FTEs salary and benefits costs, further impeding efficiency of financial expenditures by CCEHBR.  While the Hollings Marine Laboratory has provided new research space and equipment, CCEHBR’s operating budget is insufficient to meet the need for equipment replacement within the CCEHBR facility.

In response to the Review Panel recommendations, NOS may consider several potential innovative solutions, such as the use of Term/Temporary Appointments, which do not count against FTE ceilings.  This allows contract employees to accrue time in-service and receive full government benefits and provides substantial cost savings to the government.  To address general insufficiencies in the CCEHBR base budget, NCCOS has proposed setting aside a certain percentage of annual operating funds for new equipment upgrades.

To bring CCEHBR up to a full seven-year depreciation schedule for replacement of equipment would require $1million dollars/year beyond the current budget and renovation of the facility itself, $2.25 million.

CCEHBR clarified that partnered and external funding obligations do not detract from personnel responding to an emergency ad hoc.  Funded projects must be focused on research priorities established by NOAA, NOS, and NCCOS.  Their experience has been that externally funded and partnered projects provide greater exposure for, and technology transfer of, CCEHBR to a greater scientific and public audience.  NCCOS understands and supports scientific discovery and the application of scientific knowledge to coastal issues and includes these as vital components of its mission.  Since the review, CCEHBR scientists have developed two new links directly involving social scientists in research, and remain committed to developing more links with the social science community. 

***ACTION:  Dr. Donald Scavia will produce a cover letter and forward the CCEHBR response on to the NOS Assistant Administrator for addressing recommendations that the laboratory was unable to address.  This will get the response in the NOS tracking system.

In response, Dr. Beeton called SAB members’ attention to the “SAB Science Review Guidelines and Procedures” (03/29/02) under tab 13 of the briefing books.  Given that the SAB has now performed several NOAA laboratory reviews, he called for comments about the review process itself.  Dr. Scavia cited the usefulness of requiring the laboratory in review to prepare a detailed internal assessment prior to review by the panel.  Dr. Beeton also felt that the material criteria for the SAB review were adequate.  Dr. Scavia suggested an addition to protocol, promoting a pre-meeting between the Chair and laboratory Director so as to obtain undercurrents that help guide questioning.  Dr. Stephenson-Hawk asked Dr. Scavia if there were non-relevant aspects of the process, to which he replied that there were approximately seven to eight criteria.

***ACTION:  Dr. Donald Scavia will provide formal, written comments to the NOAA SAB suggesting modifications to, and identifying useful/irrelevant criteria within, the Science Review Guidelines and Procedure.

Dr. Snow suggested the development of a Joint Institute/Cooperative Agreement to address some of the CCEHBR problems.  Dr. Beeton informed members that most Joint Institutes are in NOAA Research, not NOS, but that indeed all parts of NOAA could benefit from partnerships.  He suggested making the recommendation to NOAA senior management.  Bill Fox, NMFS, stated that NMFS has programs with all the ocean-related Joint Institutes and thought they were an efficient management model.  Dr. Stephenson-Hawk cautioned that Joint Institutes should not be viewed as merely fixes to workforce problems.  Other dynamics should be looked at in trying to reconcile the employee shortage.  Dr. Snow clarified that through an Agreement, mutual, detailed research themes can be established, increasing total person hours on a topic and facilitating pooling of resources.  Dr. Alexander reiterated that in the review of CIRES, the Review Panel stressed how seamless operations were.  While there is a supervisory distinction between Federal and University personnel, they are programmatically mutual.   Dr. Beeton suggested an inventory and discussion of NOAA cooperative arrangements in general for the next NOAA SAB meeting. 

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) – Statute Review

Given the recent addition of newly appointed SAB Members, Dr. Uhart provided a more detailed description of FACA guidelines.  Congress found that there were numerous committees, boards, commissions, councils, and similar groups that had been established to advise officers and agencies in the executive branch of the federal government.  Further, they determined that they were frequently useful and beneficial means of furnishing expert advice, ideas, and diverse opinions to the federal government.  However, standards and uniform procedures should govern the establishment, operation, administration, and duration of such committees, and Congress and the public should be kept informed with respect to the number, purpose, membership, activities, and cost of advisory committees.  In many ways, regulating these advisory boards provides an umbrella of creditability.  Working groups under the purview of the SAB do not to have to hold meetings for a public audience since all actions have to be run publicly through the full SAB meetings.  Dr. Uhart advised that the SAB was created by NOAA and not by legislation.  SAB Members represent themselves in public forums, not NOAA.  

The U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP)

Dr. James R. Mahoney, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and Director of the CCSP, began with an announcement of the “U.S. Climate Change Science Program Workshop for Scientists and Stakeholders” to be held in Washington, D.C., December 3-5, 2002.  The workshop will initiate a comprehensive review of the updated research and reporting plans for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP); focus on key unresolved scientific issues, plans for needed global climate and ecosystem monitoring systems, and plans to develop and demonstrate decision support resources to facilitate public discussion about climate change issues; and review plans and schedules for future USGCRP Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) reports on specific findings.  The National Academy of Sciences will convene a special committee to review the plan documents, attend the workshop, and review comments coming into the website, then provide external and objective feedback to the CCSP.  Comments will pertain not only to the substance of the plans, but to the process used to come up with the plan as well.

The President’s Global Climate Change Initiative endeavors to take action on S&T initiatives to implement a comprehensive range of new and expanded domestic emissions reduction strategies leading to reduced greenhouse gas intensity of the United States economy by 18% in the next ten years.  In support of this, the President's FY 03 budget proposal includes $1.7 billion for research on climate and global change, of which $100 million is to go to NOAA.  Additionally, the budget includes new funding for the CCRI ($40M) with $18 million to go to NOAA.  Of this, the President’s Scientific Research Budget equals $868 million. 

The CCSP provides for consolidated interagency management of the USGCRP/CCRI and ensures consistency of the focused CCRI studies within the larger body of climate and global change research conducted by the USGCRP and other supporting programs.  Specifically, the USGCRP focuses on research in atmospheric composition, climate variability and change, ecosystems, global carbon cycle, global water cycle, human contributions and responses, and land use/land cover.  The CCRI emphasizes performance metrics and tracking of deliverables.  To this end, the CCRI focuses on key emerging science areas from on-going USGCRP research; climate quality observations, monitoring, and data management; and decision-support resources.  The CCSP developed the first comprehensive update to the strategic plan for the USGCRP (and CCRI) since the original plan, and the update was made available for public comment in mid-November, 2002.  A comprehensive review by the scientific community, interested stakeholders, the general public, and interested international specialists will occur at the December CCSP workshop. 

NOAA operations and services are at the core of the USGCRP (e.g., Climate Variability and Predictability, Climate Dynamics and Experimental Prediction, Climate Observations and Services Program, Atmospheric Chemistry, and Global Carbon Cycle) and the CCRI (e.g., Climate Modeling Center, Global Climate Atmospheric Observing System, Global Ocean Observing System, Aerosols, Carbon Monitoring, and Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments).  NOAA directly supports CCSP efforts through NOAA laboratory climate research, Regional Climate Centers, monitoring and prediction of intra-seasonal to inter-annual climate variability, and indirectly, through the Study of Environmental Arctic Change; National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System, Polar-Orbiting Environmental Satellites, and Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites; tide and current data; Fisheries and the Environment program; Automated Surface Observing System; and marine and aviation services. 

Dr. Pietrafesa stressed the importance of greater collaborative links to social scientists in academia and government centers.  Referencing the CCSP Workshop Agenda, he noticed that none of the breakout sessions were focusing on this topic.  Dr. Mahoney replied that sheer volume of material and time constraints prohibited having a breakout session focused on social science issues alone, but that one of the sessions did include a discussion of human contributions and responses to environmental change.  Social scientists will comprise a significant portion of workshop attendees. 

***ACTION:  Dr. Mike Uhart will peruse the CCSP website to identify a list of unresolved items and email these to the NOAA SAB members. 

Agenda Items for Future Meetings

The SAB discussed potential agenda items for future meetings, including:

1.      National Sea Grant Office/SAB Joint Session
2.      SAB/NOAA Research Committee Interactions
3.      Overview of NOAA-wide Cooperative Arrangements
4.      Revisions to the SAB Science Review Guidelines and Procedure
5.      NOAA Strategic Plan Implementation/Action Plan
6.      FY 2003 Appropriations Update
7.      U.S. Climate Change Science Program Progress Report
8.      Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System - Low Frequency Active Sonar and Marine Mammals
9.      Steller Sea Lion Population Collapse Briefing

In regard to having a joint session with the National Sea Grant Office, the spring meeting of the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education membership will occur March 5-6, 2003 in Washington, D.C.  Representatives from the Sea Grant Association (SGA) will likely attend.  SGA combines the capabilities of academic institutions nationwide that participate in the National Sea Grant College Program.  Alternately, Sea Grant Week 2003 will be April 27-30, 2003 in Galveston, Texas.  The Sea Grant Review Panel (a FACA committee) will conduct board meetings the Saturday and Wednesday of this conference. 

***ACTION:  Dr. Mike Uhart will pursue date/time availabilities with the National Sea Grant Office, using this information to shape the Agenda for the coming NOAA SAB meeting.

Art Maxwell, SAB member, initiated a more detailed discussion of the lawsuit filed August 7, 2002 by the Natural Resources Defense Council against the Navy and NMFS.  The suit seeks to enjoin the Navy from deploying Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System (SURTASS) Low Frequency Active (LFA) sonar in the world's oceans.  Since the Navy and NMFS seemingly continue to ignore the scientific warnings about powerful active sonars, animal and environmental advocates have turned to the federal courts to stop the use of these potentially lethal devices.  The Humane Society of the United States is a co-plaintiff with the League for Coastal Protection, Cetacean Society International, Ocean Futures Society, and Jean-Michel Cousteau.  Dr. Beeton advised that a more meaningful discussion would be best had at the next SAB meeting.  Dr. Gagosian cautioned that marine mammals are not “normal” subject areas; there are high emotions and much innuendo rather than fact.  Before having a public NOAA SAB meeting, it would be prudent for the SAB to research their facts, identify goals, and bound them. 

Dr. Snow asked Dr. Alexander and Dr. Fox to provide more details regarding the Steller Sea Lion population decline.  The world's largest species of sea lion seems to be starving to death.  Unless steps are taken to reverse the plummeting population of Steller Sea Lions that inhabit the northern Pacific, many scientists believe the species is doomed. As recently as 1960, more than 175,000 sea lions made their homes on islands off the Aleutian Peninsula and in the Bering Sea.  Today, only about 25,000 are left.  Many believe that because the mainstay of the sea lion’s diet is pollock, and the sea lion decline parallels the explosion of commercial fishing in the north Pacific, commercial fishing for pollock needs to be restricted.  While the Steller Sea Lion was finally listed as an endangered species in 1997, pressure by politicians and the fishing industry have caused federal regulators to be reluctant in restricting catch in the sea lions' feeding areas.  A U.S. District Judge ruled that NMFS failed to protect critical sea lion habitat, thus violating the Endangered Species Act, and issued an injunction prohibiting groundfish trawling within 20 nautical miles of sea lion rookeries and breeding areas.  That said, Dr. Alexander reminded that both ocean and climate inter-decadal variability plays just as significant a role as overfishing.  Climate variability and change affects the flux of nutrients through the Bering Strait and primary and secondary productivity.   

In closing, Dr. Gagosian pondered whether it was more convenient, and even achievable, for the SAB meetings to span only two days.  Members agreed that it would.  Dr. Beeton asked whether there should be more Washington, D.C. meetings, to which members thought that VADM Lautenbacher had earlier encouraged traveling to other NOAA facilities and interacting with employees in the field.  In this context, Dr. Gagosian offered Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution as the host for the fall 2003 (September/October) SAB meeting. 

Thursday, November 7, 2002 – Training & Conference Center
U.S. Postal Service National Center for Employee Development (NCED)

Official Call to Order and Review of Meeting Format

Dr. Uhart called the meeting to order. The following SAB members were present: Al Beeton; Vera Alexander; David Blaskovich; Dr. Susan Hanna, Oregon State University (via teleconference); Art Maxwell; Len Pietrafesa; John Snow; Denise Stephenson-Hawk. 

NOAA line office representatives in attendance included:  Don Scavia, NOS, and Stan Wilson, NESDIS. 

“The Nation’s Environmental Data: Treasures at Risk” – Update.  Dr. Wilson, NESDIS, reminded that The Nation’s Environmental Data: Treasures at Risk was a report to Congress on the status and challenges of NOAA’s environmental data systems as required by Public Law No. 102-567.  In September 2001, it was submitted to the House Science Committee, as well as the National Research Council’s Board on Earth Sciences and Resources.  The report is available online at:  http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/noaa_pubs/treasures.shtml.  The next version of the NOAA Data Management Report is due to Congress no later than October 31, 2003, and in August 2002, a cross-NOAA working-level team was organized to prepare this report.  The NESDIS Office of the Chief Information Officer is coordinating completion of the report.  Dr. Wilson asked the SAB to review the three NESDIS Data Centers and determine if there is an appropriate topic for consideration at the next SAB meeting.

Dr. Stephenson-Hawk asked if there is a data inventory across NOAA.  She said that there are some cases where NMFS data are not being made available.  Jamie Krauk, OAR, recommended that the Planning, Programming and Budgeting System become more end-to-end in dealing with data, especially observations that should be archived.  Dr. Pietrafesa informed members that this was a significant issue at last year’s NOAA-NASULGC Partnership workshop.

***ACTION:  Dr. Stan Wilson will provide information to the SAB Data Subcommittee for discussion at the next SAB meeting.

An Integrated Ocean Observing System – Review and Update

Dr. Wilson handed out the first of two reports to be developed out of a workshop hosted by Ocean.US (the National Oceanographic Partnership Program U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing Office) and tasked with completion of an implementation plan for the integrated U.S. ocean observing system.  The workshop, held March 10-15, 2002, at Airlie House in Warrenton, Virginia, was a collaboration of the member agencies of the National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP) and the U.S. Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) and was designed to be the culminating activity leading to a Congressionally-directed formal implementation plan.  Thus, after a decade of national and international coordination and planning, early starts and prototype efforts, and discussions between U.S. operational and research communities, there is now a consensus vision of what the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) will be.

Internationally, the U.S. IOOS is the U.S. contribution to GOOS, a United Nations activity that also has global and regional/coastal aspects.  Ocean.US and the U.S. GOOS Steering Committee (USGSC) share coordination.  Internationally, GOOS functions as an intergovernmental system; thus, the proper interface is the designated NOPP agency (NOAA) with Ocean.US in a formal supporting role.  In terms of science/technical interactions, the proper interchange is the USGSC.

A priority project (and major component of the ocean observing system) is the “Argo Project”.  Argo is a broad-scale, global network of 3000 autonomous, temperature/salinity/current profiling floats.  NOAA and the Office of Naval Research, through NOPP, fund the U.S. contribution to Argo. Deployment began in 2000 and is being implemented by NOAA, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of Washington, and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

Dr. Beeton asked if there was anything that the SAB could do.  He informed members that the NOAA Program Review Team recommended the relocation of the International Tropical Ocean Global Atmosphere (TOGA) program  - Tropical Atmosphere Ocean (TAO), currently supported by the NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL), to the NOAA Data Buoy Center.  The array is a major component of the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Observing System, the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) and the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS).  He questioned how to make observations of climate variables routine given that the benefit of the observations is not immediately seen.  The resolution of climate and climate observation issues will involve much research.  Should a research unit be operating a research observing system?  A discussion ensued about the suitability and possibility of the transfer of TOGA/TAO to the NWS. 

Tangential to this discussion, some members pondered whether informational briefings should occur in public sessions, but rather be left for executive sessions.  In addition, could some executive sessions be conducted via conference call to make overall length of the SAB meetings shorter?

***ACTION:  Efforts will be made at the next SAB meeting to limit Agenda Items to those where the SAB needs to make a decision and to discuss actions.

SAB Comments on NOAA Response to NESDIS Office of Research Applications (ORA) Review Report

Dr. Stephenson-Hawk, Review Panel Chair, informed attendees that she would not cover the ORA response to the SAB Review, citing a miscommunication between the ORA and the SAB as to what was desired and what was delivered.  This mishap highlighted that consideration needs to be given to a written protocol on how review follow-ups should be handled.  She suggested that the OAR timeline be used for all Line Office reviews.

***ACTION:  The NOAA response to the NESDIS Office of Research Applications (ORA) Review Report will be placed as an Agenda Item for the next NOAA SAB meeting.  Dr. Stephenson-Hawk and Dr. Beeton will prepare the transmittal letter and circulate it to the entire SAB for comment.

NOAA Council on Long-Term Climate Monitoring (CLTCM) – Update  (via teleconference).

Thomas R. Karl, Director, NOAA/NESDIS National Climatic Data Center, and Chair, CLTCM, began with a review of the purpose of the council:  (1) to evaluate and prioritize requirements for existing and planned climate-related observing systems; (2) to consider practices/systems that span the range of atmospheric, oceanographic, terrestrial, and cryospheric variables; and (3) to report findings to NOAA management.  Membership was reconstructed during Summer/Fall 2002.  Proposed changes to the CLTCM Terms of Reference include:  (1) additional reporting to the SAB; (2) information exchange and collaboration with the NESDIS Board of Directors, NOAA Climate Observations and Services Board, and NOAA Climate and Global Change Panel; and (3) involvement in recommending science priorities for data processing and archive, both intra- and inter-agency.  The Council will focus primarily on decadal time scales and longer, but seasonal / inter-annual time scales are also appropriate.  Dr. Karl described general Council operations in context of these modifications.  He informed members that the next CLTCM meeting would be January 15-16, 2003, in Washington, DC.  Planned agenda topics include:  climate observing system priorities, especially surface observations, tropospheric measurements, and NOAA data management and archival issues.  Dr. Beeton asked Dr. Karl if the CLCTM could also look into the transfer of TOGA/TAO from PMEL to the Data Buoy Center, to which he agreed.

Both Dr. Maxwell and Dr. Wilson questioned if the Council has adequate representation for ocean observations.  Dr. Beeton reminded that the SAB approved the changes to the Terms of Reference at a previous meeting, and that he has been involved all along with the setting up of the Council and its membership.

NOAA Social Science Review Panel – Update (via teleconference)

Dr. Susan Hanna, SAB member and Review Panel Chair, is completing the review draft for final comments by the Panel.  She briefly described the activities of the Panel to date, and indicated that the final report will be completed by the next SAB meeting in March, 2003.

Education Subcommittee – Update

Dr. Stephenson-Hawk, Subcommittee Chair, provided an update of the subcommittee activities.  Also discussed was the proposed addition of an education program in NOAA, which was a response to a recommendation by the NOAA Program Review Team.  The education program will be merged into the Office of Sustainable Development.  Education Subcommittee members include Dr. Alexander and Dr. Maxwell.  Dr. Gagosian agreed to become a member of the subcommittee.

Ocean Exploration Strategic Plan

The NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration is developing a new strategic plan.  To date, the report “Discovering Earth’s Final Frontier: A U.S. Strategy for Ocean Exploration” had been serving as the strategic plan for the Office.  Dr. Beeton suggested that SAB members could comment individually.  Members were also informed that there is an NRC report on Ocean Exploration coming out.  

***ACTION:  Dr. Vera Alexander will inform Mike Uhart, Executive Director, NOAA SAB when the NRC report is available.  

Public Statements and Unfinished Business

There were no public statements or unfinished business discussed.  The meeting was adjourned.