Summary Minutes

November 5-7, 2002 - Norman, Oklahoma

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.  

Wednesday, November 6, 2002 – Training and Conference Center
U.S. Postal Service National Center for Employee Development


Official Call to Order and Review of Meeting Format

Michael Uhart called the meeting to order.  FACA rules and procedures for public input were presented.  The following SAB members were present:  Al Beeton, Vera Alexander, Dave Blaskovich, Bob Gagosian, Art Maxwell, Len Pietrafesa, John Snow, Denise Stephenson-Hawk.

NOAA line office representatives in attendance included:  David Rogers, NOAA Research; Don Scavia, NOS; Stan Wilson, NESDIS; and Dr. William W. Fox, Jr., Director, Office of Science and Technology and Senior Scientist, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).   

 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 22nd.  Congress will be in Session beginning November 12th, 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 aworkshop 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.

July 9-11, 2002 - Boulder, Colorado

13th NOAA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
BOULDER, COLORADO
July 9-11, 2002

MINUTES APPROVED BY THE SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD


Tuesday, July 9, 2002 - Millennium Harvest House Hotel

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, Vera Alexander, Otis Brown, Susan Hanna, Art Maxwell, Len Pietrafesa, Jake Rice, Denise Stephenson-Hawk, Soroosh Sorooshian, and Warren Washington. NOAA line office representatives in attendance included Louisa Koch (NOAA Research), Michael Sissenwine (National Marine Fisheries Service), Jamie Hawkins (National Ocean Service) and Stan Wilson (National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service). 

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

Al Beeton, Chair of the NOAA Science Advisory Board, welcomed the members and NOAA officials to the thirteenth NOAA SAB meeting. The members of the SAB introduced themselves. 

Welcoming Remarks and Opening Statement by the Under Secretary 

Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr. (Ret.), Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, welcomed everybody to the meeting and to the Boulder area, center of NOAA atmospheric science and research. The Board is important to NOAA for the connection it provides to the science community and the Nation. NOAA has completed an internal program review and he has asked each of the SAB members to help him with carrying out the recommendations of the report. The report will serve to build a strong NOAA corporate structure, which is important for the future of NOAA. There are plans to establish a NOAA Research Committee with centralized science policy coordination and integration. 

Report of the SAB Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory (CMDL) Review Panel and SAB Discussion

Robert Harriss, Director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research Environmental & Societal Impacts Group, briefed the SAB on the review of CMDL and its outcomes, findings and recommendations. The review was conducted under the auspices of the SAB, and SAB members Art Maxwell and Len Pietrafesa participated in the review as members of the Review Panel. SAB Chair Al Beeton and SAB Executive Director Michael Uhart also attended the review to evaluate the role of the SAB in the laboratory reviews and the application of the SAB laboratory and science review guidelines. NOAA senior management at the review were Louisa Koch, Deputy Assistant Administrator for NOAA Research, David Hofmann, Director of CMDL, and Russell Callender, Director of the NOAA Research Office of Scientific Support.

In his briefing, Dr. Harriss provided background on the significance of the programs and projects at CMDL. CMDL has a world-wide reputation for quality and relevance, with a blending of observational techniques and monitoring with good science. CMDL products contribute to the development of National policy. One example is stratospheric ozone monitoring, the results of which contributed to the decisions coming out of the Montreal Protocol. 

The Review Panel made recommendations to the SAB and to NOAA Research thath are intended to maintain CMDL as a core national asset. The recommendations address replacement of equipment and maintenance of a monitoring baseline, development of an aggressive effort to enhance its human resources, development of new cross-cutting research initiatives to follow on the successes of the carbon cycle initiative, and the provision of adequate resources to meet the CMDL mission. SAB members and the NOAA senior management representatives at the meeting discussed CMDL operations and resources and the Review Panel report and recommendations. 

***MOTION: Dr. Pietrafesa motioned that the SAB forward the Review Panel report to NOAA Research with the following recommendation. Dr. Otis Brown seconded the motion. After further discussion, the SAB passed the motion unanimously.

The SAB endorses the Review Panel recommendations regarding the scientific programs of the NOAA Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory. Further, the SAB requests that NOAA Research report back to the SAB within one year regarding the status of the recommendations. Public Statement - Jim Souby, Executive Director, Western Governors Association

Mr. Jim Souby, Executive Director of the Western Governors' Association (WGA), introduced himself and provided a written statement. He described the membership of the WGA and mentioned their work with NOAA over the last decade on coastal and aquatic issues. He described the four priorities of the WGA following their annual meeting.

1. Forest health. WGA has been working with the Bush Administration and partnered with the United States Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior and other land management agencies to establish a 10 year management strategy. A strategy of this length is a difficult political problem because it is not an annual budget issue. NOAA assistance could be provided in determining the probability of lightning strikes and other relevant advice. 

2. Energy. There is a convergence of contributing factors such as drought in the west, hot weather in the southwest, and Canadian hydropower reductions. Electricity issues of 14 states in the region are interconnected. 

3. Drought. Congress has introduced legislation that stresses advanced preparedness and planning at the local and watershed level. NOAA has a major role through the drought mitigation center and other research activities, but WGA would like to see NOAA even more involved. 

4. Improvement of environmental management systems. Improvements are possible in management of air quality, water quality, habitat, invasive and endangered species, etc. The highest priority of the Western Regional Air Partnership is regional haze. This issue will be included in the Administration's clear skies initiative and a proposed market-based system of management. WGA also manages the development of the Mexican emission inventory system, training local communities to inventory emission sources. 

Mr. Souby also described Enlibra, WGA principles for environmental management in the west. The 10-year forest health strategy and the Western Regional Air Partnership are good examples of the Enlibra principles. Mr. Souby also discussed the potential for more cooperation between WGA and NOAA and the SAB. WGA has working groups of their own that bring information to the governors. He described a collaborative project with NASA and indicated that WGA has advocated increased funding for agencies where they see a mutual interest. The SAB agreed to distribute copies of Mr. Souby's written statement to the appropriate NOAA management.

Presentation on the NOAA Space Environment Center and SAB Discussion Dr. Ernest Hildner, Director of the NOAA Space Environment Center (SEC), described the position of the SEC in the organization of NOAA, indicating that it is not only a NOAA Research laboratory but is also part of the National Weather Service National Centers for Environmental Prediction. He described the SEC mission, including monitoring and prediction of the Earth's space environment. The SEC is the Nation's official source of space weather alerts, warnings and forecasts and is a multi-agency effort. Dr. Hildner described some benefits to society of space weather monitoring and forecasts, to satellites, navigation, airlines, astronauts, communication, and the distribution of electric power. Space weather refers to conditions in space that can influence the performance and reliability of space-borne and ground-based technological systems and can endanger human life or health. He described the space weather scales for three kinds of storms; geomagnetic storms, solar radiation storms and radio blackouts. The scales have been published in French German, Spanish and Chinese. Research and development at the SEC focuses on understanding the physics of storm-time changes and obtaining observations to drive and validate models, alerts, and forecasts. There is a new Solar X-ray Imaging instrument on the GOES 12 geostationary satellite that will be activated within a year and will provide dramatic images of the sun. The SEC holds Space Weather Week each year that provides valuable vendor contacts and user feedback. Dr. Hildner discussed SEC human resource needs, with a staff that is 50% smaller than several years ago and an increased demand for products. 


Wednesday, July 10, 2002 - Millennium Harvest House Hotel

Official Call to Order and Review of Meeting Format Michael Uhart, Executive Director, NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB) called the meeting to order. The following SAB members were present: Al Beeton, Vera Alexander, Otis Brown, Susan Hanna, Art Maxwell, Len Pietrafesa, Jake Rice, Denise Stephenson-Hawk, Soroosh Sorooshian, and Warren Washington.

NOAA-Academia Partnership Building Conference - Final ReportDr. Len Pietrafesa, SAB member and a member of the Conference Steering Committee, presented the final workshop report of the NOAA-Academia Partnership Building Conference held November 14 and 15, 2002 in Washington, DC. From the conference and subsequent feedback, the Steering Committee identified a general recommendation on the NOAA Strategic Plan and five priority issues. The general recommendation was as follows:

As the NOAA strategic plan is updated and revised, we urge that two general principles be incorporated across the body of the plan: 

A. Research and Education should be recognized as part of the core mission of NOAA. 
B. The partnership with the academic community should be recognized as one of the principle means toward fulfilling NOAA's mission.


The five priority issues were identified as follows:

Although many topics and themes were identified during the course of the conference, five areas have been identified as crosscutting priorities that emerged from the workshop groups:

1. Improve observation and prediction capabilities and data dissemination. 
2. Formalize education and outreach as a core NOAA mission area.
 
3. Streamline and modernize data management and dissemination.
 
4. Utilize a broader approach to ecosystems and living marine resources.
 
5. Explore new opportunities and evaluate current partnership efforts: centers of excellence.


Dr. Pietrafesa described the conference proceedings and provided more details of the activities and outcomes of each of the thematic sessions. He noted that the report of the NOAA Program Review Team conveyed many of the same ideas that were expressed at the conference. Dr. Beeton reported that he had spoken with Kerry Bolognese from NASULGC, who was having 1000 glossy copies of the conference proceedings prepared, and will also send the report summary via internet to attendees.

The SAB discussed alternatives for forwarding the Steering Committee recommendations and conference proceedings to NOAA for implementation. It was noted that many of the recommendations in the conference proceedings Integrated Action Plan, while well intentioned, were not practical or within the scope of the NOAA mission, and reflected every recommendation that was expressed, without critical analysis of merit.. However, many of the good ideas could be utilized in implementing the Program Review Team recommendations.

***MOTION: Dr. Maxwell motioned that the report of the conference be forwarded to NOAA senior management for consideration in the implementation of the recommendations of the Program Review Team. Dr. Rice seconded the motion. After further discussion, it was suggested that the cover letter should express the importance to NOAA of partnerships with constituents, and the value of the advice from outside NOAA that is contained in the conference reporter. The motion was passed by a unanimous vote.

The SAB also decided to review those items identified as SAB responsibility in the Integrated Action Plan, and determine what actions are appropriate, at the next SAB meeting scheduled in November 2002. 

Report of the SAB Geodesy Program Review Panel and SAB Discussion

Dr. Len Pietrafesa, SAB member and Chair of the Review Panel, presented the final report of the SAB-sponsored Panel on Assessing Geodesy Research in the National Ocean Service. Dr. Pietrafesa described the mission and technology goals of the Geodesy program and the many uses of its products and services. The National Geodetic Survey (NGS) is also responsible for the Continuously Operating Reference System (CORS) that provides Global Positioning System users with a link to the National Spatial Reference System for positional determination. Expansion of the CORS network would improve accuracy and resolution of positioning. The NGS is working with partners to increase coverage from the current 200 sites to 500 nationally. To keep pace with increasing demands for accurate and precise positioning information that influences everyday lives, commercial activities, public works, environmental protection and national security, the review panel makes the following recommendations for NGS:

1. NGS must not only retain, but also enhance its research enterprise.
2. Develop and implement a management of science planning process. 
3. Develop interaction with GIS community both at the national and international levels.
4. Facilitate a nationally integrated, seamless CORS network, consolidate CORS activities and advance the next generation of CORS. 
5. Distinguish among research, development and operational activities. 
6. Emphasize hydrographic surveys. 
7. Represent geodetic user community to GPS management. 
8. Transfer the absolute gravimetry program responsibility and facility.

SAB discussion of the report focused on the need for NGS to develop partnership opportunities to address research workforce reductions; possibilities for cost sharing or reimbursement for product delivery as a means of funding research; increased collaboration with other geodetic activties outside of NOAA; better identification of core customer needs and priority services as the demand for NGS products increases dramatically; the need to evaluate the tasks and responsibilities that NGS has historically assumed and is presently conducting, but that may be more efficiently and/or cost effectively available from other federal agencies or organizations; and the possibility that NOAA might want to undertake an assessment project regarding the mission requirements of NGS. The assessment project would include a review of the organizational structure and approach to serving customers, given that technology has changed greatly in the last 20 years. 

***MOTION: Dr. Washington motioned that the SAB accept the report of the panel, that Dr. Pietrafesa take the SAB comments and concerns back to the review panel for consideration, and that the SAB continue to review the NGS issues. The motion was seconded and was passed unanimously. 

SAB discussion of the SAB Eight Themes for Science Reviews 

The SAB discussed the application of the SAB eight themes for science reviews in the Geodesy Program Review Panel Report and the other science reviews which the SAB has sponsored. Given that NOAA is increasing the use of matrix management to improve coordination among line offices, there will be more blends of research and operations. The SAB lab/science review criteria were primarily developed to ascertain if laboratories and science programs are using the best science to support the NOAA mission, and not necessarily for review of operational components. The SAB might want to review research in the context of the mission responsibilities of the unit that is being reviewed Dr. Beeton asked the SAB members to examine the SAB lab/science review guidelines again and sent comments to Dr. Uhart.

Briefings and Discussions on Activities of SAB Subcommittees and Working Groups 

Subcommittee on Education: Dr. Stephenson-Hawk, Chair of the Subcommittee on Education, provided the SAB with a written comparison of the PRT recommendations regarding education at NOAA with the recommendations which were previously suggested by the SAB Subcommittee on Education. The recommendations in the PRT met or exceeded the recommendations of the Education Subcommittee. Education was defined in the NOAA Education White Paper as "a proactive communication imparting the value of NOAA science, products and services to K-12, college, graduate and postgraduate students and to educators and people of the nation and the world; promoting environmental stewardship and public safety; and fostering a sustainable economy."

PRT recommendation 55 proposes the renaming of the NOAA Office of Sustainable Development and Intergovernmental Affairs as the Office of Education and Sustainable Development. The Office Director has been tasked to work with the Education Committee to develop an Office plan. Dr. Stephenson-Hawk attended an Education Committee meeting in mid June where a percentage funding level for Education was discussed but not resolved. She presented the SAB with two questions for consideration: will the Office of Education and Sustainable Development coordinate/administer all NOAA education, research and outreach contracts awarded to educational institutions; and, will the SAB eight science themes be incorporated into NOAA Education strategic and operational plans.

Climate and Global Change Working Group: Dr. Otis Brown reported on the winter meeting of the Climate and Global Change Working Group. The main objective of the meeting was the integration of the request for end-to-end budget initiatives. Representatives of each of the line offices attended the meeting. The working group reviewed the parts of NOAA which are taking responsibility for certain pieces of the end-to-end processes and considered what would make reasonable initiatives, consistent with the mission and within certain budget envelopes. Gaps in some of the initiatives were also discussed, as was the sometimes lengthy transition from research to operations, the so-called "valley of death." It was clear that the National Weather Service identified itself as home for many of the functions, especially climate forecasting. In NOAA Research, advanced research initiatives were providing products that could be placed into operation, but it was unclear who would be responsible for the transition. The results of the deliberations were to be used in developing the 2004 budget initiatives. The Assistant Administrators of the NWS, NOAA Research and the National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service would like the Working Group to look at the breadth of NOAA climate activities. They also propose to reduce the number of climate advisory bodies through appropriate mergers. The SAB Council on Long Term Climate Monitoring could be one of the affected advisory groups.

Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarship Program: A written annual summary of the scholarship program was provided to SAB member, describing the status of the scholarship program, the status of applications for the 2002-2003 scholarships, and the five scholarships that were awarded for 2001-2002. The summary was prepared by Ruth Moore, NOAA National Ocean Service.

SAB Motion Regarding the Report of the NOAA Program Review Team After SAB discussion about the options for officially transmitting comments on the report of the Program Review team, Dr. Len Pietrafesa offered the following recommendation.

***MOTION: Dr. Rice moved to accept the following recommendation, Dr. Alexander seconded, and the motion was passed unanimously.

The SAB considers the report of the Program Review Team an important step toward positioning NOAA to better respond to the demands of the present and transforming the agency to meet the challenges of the future. The Board applauds the NOAA Administrator for having moved expeditiously with implementation of those recommendations he has accepted from the report. The Board looks forward to seeing the new NOAA strategic plan that will be based on these recommendations. Further, the Board recommends that the NOAA Administrator communicate to the Department of Commerce and the Office of Management and Budget the Board's support for his actions in this planning effort. 


Thursday, July 11, 2002 - Millennium Harvest House Hotel

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, Vera Alexander, Susan Hanna, Art Maxwell, Len Pietrafesa, Jake Rice, Denise Stephenson-Hawk, and Soroosh Sorooshian.

Council on Long Term Climate Monitoring Terms of Reference and Nominees for Subcommittee Membership

Dr. Beeton reminded the SAB that the Council on Long Term Climate Monitoring (CLTCM) Chair, Tom Karl, asked the SAB to accept the CLTCM as a working group. This was accepted at the June 2001 meeting, but without approval of Terms of Reference. Dr. Karl has provided a Terms of Reference and a list of nominees for CLTCM membership, for review and approval by the SAB. The SAB reviewed the Terms of Reference and made changes to terms of service language to make it consistent with the terms of service for SAB members as specified in the SAB charter. Other procedural and editorial changes were also recommended. 

***MOTION: Dr. Alexander motioned that the SAB approve the CLTCM Terms of Reference as revised by the SAB. Dr. Rice seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously by the Board. 

Dr. Maxwell suggested that Rick Rosen (Vice President and Chief Scientist at Atmospheric & Environmental Research, Inc.) and Ferris Webster (Professor at the University of Delaware College of Marine Sciences) be added to the list of primary nominees to the CLTCM. Dr. Beeton, as SAB chair and in accordance with the approved Terms of Reference, approved the list with the addition of the two individuals proposed, and will consult with the James Mahoney, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Deputy Administrator, for final determination of the CLTCM membership.

Agenda Items for Future Meetings

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

1. Geodesy review panel responses to SAB comments. 
2. Review of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences 
3. Report of the Social Science Review Panel 
4. Possible meeting with the NOAA Research Council 
5. Status of the NWS-NOAA Research Joint Planning Teams 
6. Update on the NOAA Climate Change Research Initiative 
7. A briefing of the SAB on advocacy limitations and financial disclosure requirements. 
8. Revisiting the SAB lab/science review guidelines. 
9. SAB advice and constructive input on setting performance measures at NOAA 
10. SAB responsibilities identified in the NOAA-Academia Partnership Conference report.

Board members were asked to email other suggestions to Dr. Uhart.

Public Statement - Mark McCaffrey, President, Boulder Creek Water Initiative

Mr. Mark McCaffrey, President of the Boulder Creek Water Initiative, introduced himself and provided an oral statement. He also serves as Vice-Chair of the Education and Outreach Committee of the Consortium for the Advancement of Hydrologic Sciences, Inc., and works as a Science Communications Specialist for the NOAA Paleoclimatology Program at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences. The main foci of his statement were education and outreach at NOAA, concerns about scientific illiteracy in the United States and the lack of understanding about scientific concepts, especially climate and hydrologic variability. He is concerned that NOAA has not done more, possibly because there is no funding mandate, but he is pleased that the NOAA Program Review addressed this issue. He strongly believes that NOAA resources should be correlated with science, math and technology education standards to help support science literacy efforts in this nation. He also advocates funding allocations to both outreach and "in-reach", education of NOAA staff. It is still unclear how NOAA will decide what percentage of funds will be devoted to education. He has concerns about the NASA model for allocating a percentage of program budgets to education, outreach and in-reach, but believes that if NOAA developed guidelines and support systems to ensure an integrated approach to education and outreach, the monies could be efficiently and effectively be used.

 

 

 

November 6-8, 2001 - Tucson, Arizona

11th 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 scienceThe 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 predictionsystems. 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

October 31-November 2, 2000 - Honolulu, Hawaii

8TH NOAA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
HONOLULU, HAWAII

SUMMARY MINUTES APPROVED BY THE SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD

Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - DoubleTree Hotel

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, Vera Alexander, Peter Douglas, Susan Hanna, Art Maxwell, Len Pietrafesa, Soroosh Sorooshian, and Warren Washington.

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

Al Beeton, Chair, NOAA Science Advisory Board welcomed the members and NOAA officials to the eighth NOAA SAB meeting. Dr. Beeton made an opening statement regarding the Board's function of advising the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, Dr. D. James Baker. Dr. Beeton noted Dr. Baker's regrets at not being able to attend and relayed his thoughts on several topics. Dr. Baker was pleased with the Board's input to NOAA's development of the FY 2002 budget at the April meeting. He supports another NOAA-Universities Partnership workshop and the process is underway to conduct such a workshop.

Report on Activities of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and Invasive Species Council

Dr. Beeton explained that the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force was formed by Congress to address two concerns: zebra mussel and ballast water introductions. He co-chairs the Task Force with Cathy Short, Assistant Director, Fisheries and Habitat Conservation, Fish and Wildlife Service. The February 1999 Executive Order called for the formation of an Invasive Species Council and development of a management plan by the Departments of Commerce (DOC) and Agriculture (USDA). A meeting of the Council was held in Shepherdstown, West Virginia October 23-25, 2000 to review the management plan. The plan is open for public comment until early November. New invasive species have been identified in San Francisco Bay. There are 140 invasive species in the Great Lakes. NOAA will shortly be issuing a call for proposals for critical invasive species problems.

The SAB discussed international efforts to address the invasive species issue and the global invasive species network. The main emphasis is on prevention and control. Don Scavia (Chief Scientist, National Ocean Service) said that the CENR (Committee on Environment and Natural Resources) has developed a science plan. Terrestrial species are being handled by the Department of the Interior and the USDA.

ACTION: Through the Executive Director, Don Scavia will distribute copies of the CENR invasive species science plan to the SAB members.

Briefing on the Sustainability of the National Undersea Research Program (NURP) and SAB Discussion

Barbara Moore, the Director of the National Undersea Research Program, briefed the SAB as a follow-up to the July 2000 meeting of the SAB in Fairbanks. She introduced Mike DeLuca, Director of the Mid-Atlantic Bight National Undersea Research Center, to lay the background for the briefing on the sustainability of NURP. He described the evolution of NURP from a facilities focus to a research-driven program. He provided the legislative background, including the fact that there is no authorization for NURP. NURP is primarily a grant program that provides expertise and tools to the undersea research community, leading to safe operations and economy of scale. He stated that there is a mixed record of support from NOAA. Even though there is a long history of service to NOAA, there is a lack of adequate, stable base funding. NURP is uniquely positioned to meet NOAA and national science priorities. NURP is seeking SAB support to make NURP a priority in the NOAA budget process. NURP has six regional centers; five are university-based and one is foundation-based. The budget was $13.6M in FY 2000. He provided a table of the frequency of different types of NURP underwater support between 1994 and 1999. The changes in the numbers of ROV (Remotely Operated Vehicle) operations and participating institutions are related to the budget. Early in the program, NURP only provided hardware and little science support. More recently, NURP has been providing more science support. The average science support for a project at the Mid-Atlantic Center is $150K. He described some of the facilities, including Aquarius, ALVIN, ROVs/AUVs (Autonomous Underwater Vehicle), LEO (Long-term Ecological Observatory), and NR-1. There is a lot of technology development going on. Data standards are being developed in the mid-Atlantic region. He said that their partners are the Office of Naval Research (ONR), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP). He described the NURP proposal process. Fish habitat characterization, recovery from fishing, coral characterization and ecosystem health studies, and studies of methane hydrates, oil seeps, and vents were provided as examples of significant accomplishments. A description of NURP accomplishments can be found on the NURP Web site,http://www.nurp.noaa.gov. In response to a question on the use of site characterization in long-term studies of climate change, Ms. Moore said that although there is not much coordination between the climate community and NURP, such coordination would be a good thing.

Mr. DeLuca presented a brief history of the NURP reinvention, which began in 1996, including specification of its mission and unique science and service parts of its mission, adding new vigor to the peer review process, competition between NURP centers, linking management with science, and an external evaluation process. Dr. Beeton asked about interactions with other programs, like Sea Grant. Mr. DeLuca replied that there was some, in the areas that require underwater components of research. NURP is now discussing a service role (NOS, NMFS, OAR). This will allow NURP to meet some of the mission needs (other than research) of the other NOAA line offices. Another opportunity is education, especially K-12. Two other opportunities for NURP are technology development and budget initiatives, such as the ocean exploration initiative.

He provided a funding history. He is seeking support from the SAB in current and future budget cycles. For the last couple of years, the NURP budget has included earmarks, such as JASON and the Center for Natural Products in Mississippi.

Dr. Beeton asked where the NURP strategic plan stands. Ms. Moore said that there is a draft ready to go to OAR. The advisory council for NURP has FACA implications. They have not been successful in getting a FACA slot so the SAB may get involved. Mr. Douglas asked about the NURP role in ocean exploration. Recalling that ocean explorations has been referred to as not being hypothesis-driven, Barbara said that not all of what NURP does has to be hypothesis-driven; NURP does have a role in ocean exploration. 

Hawaii Undersea Research Program for Hawaii and the Western Pacific

Alex Malahoff, Director of the Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory, followed Ms. Moore's presentation. Need a copy of his briefing. Many years ago NOAA decided to set up a deep sea dive capability in Hawaii. A major part of the Hawaii NURP's mission is to determine the relationships between different fish species for the purpose of restoring fish populations. The research results go directly to the managers. Dr. Malahoff provided a history of their operations and budget. NURP has been successful in leveraging ONR (Office of Naval Research) and NSF, and most recently DOD and private industry. He described funding of their ship. It is funded for 150-200 days at sea. It is a very reliable and safe vessel, able to survive severe weather, and serves as mother ship for PICES IV, a NURP manned submersible. He described the instrumentation and equipment on the ship. Dr. Malahoff described some of their studies in essential fish habitat, including two new frontiers in underwater research: studies of the possible formation of a new Hawaiian island and studies of extremophyles. 

Emerging West Coast Marine Protected Area Initiatives & Overview of Proposed NOS Science Review Panels and SAB Discussion

Don Scavia, Director, NOS National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, provided a status of the implementation of the Marine Protected Areas (MPA) Executive Order and MPA products and initiatives. Dr. Scavia briefly explained the major points of Executive Order 13158, including NOAA's role. He explained that the MPA Advisory Committee charter is in final review and that the selection of the committee members is underway. There are multiagency efforts to define exactly what an MPA is. The agencies will be submitting candidates to be inventoried and mapped. NOAA has announced three MPA centers: a coordination center in Washington, D.C., a science center in Santa Cruz, CA (in the NMFS lab), and a training and technology transfer center at the Coastal Services Center. He described a West Coast initiative to develop an analytic capability to support MPA designation along the west coast from California to Alaska. This initiative will encompass 5 National Marine Sanctuaries and 6 National Estuarine Research Reserves on the west coast, will benefit from existing significant large-scale research and monitoring efforts, and take advantage of growing nongovernmental leadership.

Dr. Scavia then invited the SAB to participate in the panel reviews of the National Geodetic Survey Geodesy Program and the Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research(CCEHBR). He also asked that the SAB help with panel membership, approach, etc. The meeting moved to the next agenda item.

On Thursday morning, discussion continued on this agenda item. Dr. Pietrafesa offered to sit on the panel reviewing the NOS Geodesy Program. Dr. Scavia said that the NOS might have 15 reviews coming up but that they are flexible in the level of collaboration with the SAB. Dr. Beeton mentioned that the SAB is specifically mentioned in the NOS Terms of Reference for science reviews, including panel membership. Dr. Scavia referred to the October 25, 2000 memorandum from Dr. Margaret Davidson, Assistant Administrator for NOS, to Al Beeton transmitting proposed science review plans for the National Geodetic Survey's Geodesy Program and the CCEHBR. The memorandum also included a request for participation in the two reviews. The review schedule for the CCEHBR is very aggressive. There would be an internal review first, followed by the formal external review. A list of suggested panel members was included with the memorandum. The NOS science review plan already approved by the SAB would be used. Since no SAB member present was able to be on the panel, it was suggested that the SAB members not present at this meeting be asked if they are interested. Dr. Scavia said that any SAB member on the panel would work on the review plan and help with a list of nominations for the panel. The review process and the extent of SAB involvement were discussed.

ACTION: The Executive Director will solicit the SAB members for their interest in participating in the CCEHBR science review.

ACTION: Don Scavia, the Chair of the SAB and the Executive Director will work on the process for the CCEHBR review, especially regarding the role of the SAB and reporting to the SAB.

Status of DOC Aquaculture Guidelines

The DOC Aquaculture Guidelines were presented to the Board by the Michael Uhart, Executive Director. Dr. Uhart noted that the guidelines are in draft form and SAB help and comments are being solicited by NOAA. Questions were raised about the guidelines in terms of the aquaculture industry need for subsidies. There was SAB discussion of the connection to sustainable development and how industry fits into the DOC aquaculture program.

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has a strong foothold into the policy regarding fresh water aquaculture – NOAA's mandate is marine aquaculture. Questions were raised about the relationship to coastal and deep water issues.

ACTION: Following the distribution of the DOC Aquaculture Guidelines, the USDA policy on aquaculture, and any other documentation, policies, or guidelines from other federal agencies to the SAB, each board member will provide the Executive Director with a list of scientific questions that need to be asked and answered with regard to a national aquaculture program. The SAB will advise the Under Secretary on the DOC Aquaculture Guidelines after discussion at a future meeting.

ACTION: The Executive Director will distribute a copy of the National Research Council Aquaculture Report to Susan Hanna, Peter Douglas, and Jake Rice.

A subcommittee on the Aquaculture Guidelines, consisting of Susan Hanna and Peter Douglas, was formed to look at the critical issues and how the SAB will deal with those issues. Jake Rice will be invited to participate. The subcommittee will focus on what the Board feels is needed as opposed to dealing with the individual details of each of the guidelines.

ACTION: In collaboration with other members of the Aquaculture Subcommittee, Dr. Hanna will draft a document for the SAB outlining the aquaculture issues relevant to the establishment of DOC Aquaculture Guidelines.

OAR Regional, Science-related Issues

Mary Langlais, Executive Director, OAR Office of Management and Information, presented an overview of OAR research in the Hawaii and the Pacific region. She described the significant NOAA research partnerships and long-term investment in Hawaii and the Pacific. She described the NOAA joint/cooperative institutes and the problem with level funding in the last several years. This level funding is used to fund infrastructures, i.e., staff and researchers, and has been decreasing in real terms. Since the Joint Institutes are considered the recipients of grants, they do not get cost of living adjustments. She presented another issue: the baseline atmospheric observatories are losing base funding due to inflation (level-funded). The FY 01 conference mark adds $3M for the baseline observatories. She described TOGA-TAO, now called the TAO Triton Array. This array is still considered research but has operational implications. Additional funding is needed to ensure the array is maintained at the current level. The SAB discussed the value of long-term observations, whether they are baseline atmospheric measurements used for making policy, or TOGA-TAO changing from a research network to one that is a critical need for climate predictions.

Public Input Session with SAB discussion

Dr. Beeton solicited public comment.

Linda Paul, Executive Director for Aquatics of the Hawaii Audubon Society and also Project Manager of the Western Pacific Fisheries made an oral statement. No written statement was provided. She said that the state of Hawaii has set aside 20 percent of the bottom fish grounds around the main Hawaiian Islands as "no fish zones" and some of the designated area extends into federal waters. There are no such zones as yet in the state waters in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands. She offered that there is a need for the SAB to look at ways to link NOAA research with state management needs since Hawaii does not have a continental shelf and most of the nonpelagic catch around the main Hawaiian Islands is caught in state waters. NMFS provides some funds to the state for enforcement. Regulation of coral aquaculture is another issue that deserves attention. Hawaii has a serious invasive aquatic species problem. She suggested that NOAA work with the state to establish a protocol that can be used to determine which species can be safely brought in and how they should be handled. NOAA could provide scientific support to add to the economic arguments being presented for aquaculture.

Tom Farewell, Director of the Oceanic Institute (OI), made a statement on the uniqueness of Hawaii in contributing to aquaculture. He provided no written statement but distributed an OI brochure to the SAB. He described the Oceanic Institute and its function. He described some of the technical capabilities of the OI, including tagging. He mentioned hatchery technology and fisheries restoration. The SAB asked several questions on many subjects about the Oceanic Institute and its operation.

Wednesday, November 1, 2000 - East-West Center

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, Vera Alexander, Peter Douglas, Susan Hanna, Art Maxwell, Len Pietrafesa, Soroosh Sorooshian, and Warren Washington.

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

Following a short opening statement by the Chair, the Science Advisory Board members introduced themselves.

Welcoming Remarks
Tom Schroeder, Director of the Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research (JIMAR) welcomed the SAB to the University of Hawaii (UH). He described the university system and some of the research programs at the university.

Briefing on the Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research (JIMAR)

Tom Schroeder, Director of JIMAR, briefed the SAB on JIMAR. JIMAR's origin was in tsunami research. JIMAR started from a memorandum of understanding with NOAA/OAR in 1977. The Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL) is the cooperating laboratory. Major NOAA customers are NMFS, NWS, and OAR/PMEL. A major part of the business is conducted with senior fellows at the university (UH). There are also four visiting senior fellows from other federal agencies or other countries. He broke down the budget of JIMAR. Total funding for the most recent four years from the Office of Global Programs (OGP), other OAR sources and labs, NWS, NMFS and other sources was $25M. Annual OAR base funding is $94K. There are 141 employees of which 117 are on the payroll. He described JIMAR programs and research on tsunamis and their precursors, equatorial oceanography, climate (including the International Pacific Research Center), the Pacific ENSO Applications Center Pilot Project, which conducts research and develops special climate products for the Pacific region, fisheries oceanography, and tropical meteorology (in collaboration with the NWS, USWRP, and the Hurricane Research Division in Miami). Dr. Sorooshian asked if there were any hydrology activities at the University. Dr. Schroeder replied that there is much on the observation side, but not on the modeling side. Hydrology is centered in the water resources center. Dr. Uhart asked if there are any issues relating to the movement of the ENSO Applications Center from a research mode to operations. Dr. Schroeder said that a full time position is needed. He feels that the result of NOAA research should be an application. To help with this, there is a cooperative agreement with the NWS. Dr. Schroeder answered a question about how the climate/ENSO research is cooperating with fisheries studies.

Overview of School of Ocean and Earth Sciences and Technology (SOEST)

C. Barry Raleigh, Dean of SOEST at the University of Hawaii, briefed the SAB on SOEST. SOEST is the largest institution at UH. There are approximately 40 projects being funded, at least in part, by NOAA. He described a few projects that relate very strongly to NOAA's current priorities, including CRESPO (Coral Reef Ecosystem Spectro-Photometric Observatory). CRESPO did the research and now NOAA is using the results of the research to map more coral reefs. Dean Raleigh also described NOAA's involvement with SOEST in coastal erosion and geochemistry studies. The sand budget (a quantitative analysis of the factors that change the amount of sand) of the islands is being developed. He described the building of a new SWATH (small waterplane area twin hull) research vessel by the Navy, to be operated by the university. He described Station ALOHA (A Long-term Oligotrophic Habitat Assessment) and the value of the long time series of chemical and physical properties of the ocean. [ALOHA is a physical-biogeochemical mooring in an open-ocean location.]

Briefing on the University of Hawaii (UH) Sea Level Center

Mark Merrifield, Director of the UH Sea Level Center, described the UH Sea Level Center. It is the NOAA center for the collection of world sea level data. He presented some successes of the center, including analyses of sea level data. Besides sea level analysis, the Center uses GPS at a few stations to correct for movements of the gauge (i.e., the land mass on which it is mounted), ending up with an accuracy of 1mm/yr. Dr. Merrifield explained the usefulness of the tide gauge data as continuity between different satellite altimetry systems. The center is also looking at the shorter time scale fluctuations in single tide gauges and their relationships to changes in sea state, meteorology, tides, etc. He described their tide data distribution network.

Fisheries Oceanography

Jeff Polovina, Chief of the NMFS SWFSC Ecosystem and Environment Investigations, said that the results of the most recent lab review are available. Dr. Polovina's briefing to the SAB was on fishery oceanography applied to marine ecosystems and essential fish habitat in the central Pacific. He briefly described some case studies of satellite remote sensing applied to pelagic ecosystems. Much of his presentation was spent describing the transition zone chlorophyll front. Ocean color data (SeaWiFS and NESDIS/Coastwatch) were used to delineate the region of high surface layer chlorophyll (to the north) and low chlorophyll (to the south). This is an 8000 km east-west front. Sea turtle migrations coincide with the position of the chlorophyll front because the front is a zone of enhanced aggregation of forage. Other species are also located along the front, such as albatross and albacore. Albacore catch rate differences between years can partially be attributed to a meandering front that concentrates the food chain (high fish populations). Dr. Hanna observed that fisheries research and fisheries management (stock assessments, etc.) are more closely linked in this region than others. Dr. Polovina was not familiar with other regions. Their key is the close proximity to the university and the close interaction. His background in stock assessment helps in focusing the research, as opposed to NSF-type of researchers.

Frank A. Parrish, Fishery Biologist, Ecosystem & Habitat Program, presented an overview of a joint NMFS/USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service) coral reef assessment of the US Line and Phoenix Islands. The motivation for the coral surveys and mapping was NMFS responsibilities, USFWS management of the Pacific Remote Island Nations Wildlife Refuge, Executive Orders and legislation. Dr. Parrish described the structure of the research teams and survey techniques for different kinds of surveys (e.g., fish, habitat, benthic, oceanographic, or observations). He highlighted the surveys around several islands, including preliminary findings based on the surveys for each island as well as general findings. One objective of survey analysis is to relate the survey information to remote sensing information.

George A. Antonelis, Jr., Chief, Protected Species Investigation Division, Honolulu Laboratory, SWFSC, described the protected species program and the recovery of the Hawaiian Monk Seal (HMS). The objectives of the Hawaii Monk Seal Program are to monitor and assess reproductive sites; study ecology, biology and natural history; investigate and mitigate factors mitigating recovery; and conduct community outreach and education. The HMS is an endangered species. Dr. Antonelis presented time series data of beach counts of monk seals and briefly described some known and potential causes of poor survival. Pup survival is an issue. Key areas of research are foraging ecology, habitat use, diet, prey abundance, epidemiology, assessment, and mitigation of impacts to enhance survival. He described public outreach efforts, research elements, and research approaches. He then described the major activities and accomplishments in sea turtle protection and recovery. In conclusion, Dr. Antonelis presented several protected species priorities for the future.

Pelagic Fisheries Research Program

Tom Schroeder described the pelagic fisheries research program (PFRP), a major part of the JIMAR program. He described the need for the program and the organization and operations of the program. He presented PFRP accomplishments, to date, in the areas of stock assessments, economics, tuna tagging, and oceanography. A future issue is fellowship support for graduate students in fisheries. Their peer review process is based on the NSF model of peer review. 

Tropical Meteorology

Gary Barnes, Associate Professor of Meteorology, UH, presented information on NOAA-JIMAR collaborations in weather and climate research. The major collaborators are the OAR Hurricane Research Division (HRD), the NWS Pacific Region, and the OAR Forecast Systems Laboratory. The HRD interactions are in the areas of hurricane intensity near landfall, wind field beyond the eye wall, ocean wave field and instability and shear in hurricanes. NWS interactions are in the areas of heavy rain episodes and Kona low structure, among others. He presented some research findings in the area of intensity and strength of hurricanes, heavy rainfalls, and the formation and evolution of the Kona low. [A Kona low is a subtropical cyclone that develops west of the islands, producing prolonged periods of heavy rain.] These findings are passed on to the NWS Warning and Forecast Office (WFO), which should lead to improved NWS predictions. Responding to a question, Dr. Barnes said that the interaction between faculty and students at UH and the WFO/Central Pacific Hurricane Center has improved dramatically, leading to more interest in forecasting on the part of students and several theses addressing real forecasting problems.

Hawaii Sea Grant

Jack Davidson, a former Hawaii Sea Grant director and representing Gordon Grau, the current Director, presented information on the University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program. The program mission involves economic leadership, coastal ecosystem health public safety, education and human resources. It also includes the Sea Grant Extension. He mentioned a few of the many Sea Grant programs: sustainable precious coral harvesting, aquaculture, the Northwest Hawaiian Research Program, the 10-year Pacific Program, marine natural products industry, marine education, the Blue Water Marine Laboratory, the Hanauma Bay Education Program, and uses of cold deep ocean water (ocean thermal energy conversion, air condition and industrial cooling production of fresh water, etc.).

The International Pacific Research Center (IPRC) 

Julian "Jay" McCreary, Director of the IPRC, presented the goals and objectives of the IPRC's 4 major science themes: Indo-Pacific ocean climate, regional-ocean influences, Asian-Australian monsoon system, and impacts of global environmental change. Dr. McCreary also reported on IPRC resources (funding, staff, computers, and facilities). In addition, he noted that the IPRC provides half support for two major international conferences each year. At the present time, the IPRC has no direct funding from NOAA, but such support is being sought to establish an Asia Pacific Data Research Center (APDRC). The APDRC will make data relevant to Asia-Pacific climate issues easily accessible for users, as well as carry out data-intensive research projects. They are partnering with PMEL to develop a distributed data server support system for the APDRC.

Presentations on the Issues and Science Efforts Related to Coral: Overview and Research Program

Mike Hamnet, Director of the Social Science Research Institute at the University of Hawaii, briefed the SAB on the Hawaii Coral Reef Initiative Research Program (HCRIRP). He described the program goals: (1) assessing threats to coral reef ecosystems, (2) building management capability, and (3) public awareness. He then presented some selected findings and accomplishments of the first 3 years of projects (FY 1998-2001). Some preliminary conclusions were also presented.

The SAB discussed the correlation between tourism and aquarium fish abundance. Tourism and marine recreation ("trampling") studies show that "trampling" is a serious problem.

A motion was entered by Dr. Hanna for the SAB to make the following recommendation regarding a social scientist on the coral reef research program advisory board. After SAB discussion of the seriousness of the recommendation, the motion was unanimously passed.

RECOMMENDATION: Whereas the objective of the coral reef research program is to improve management, the SAB strongly recommends that a social scientist be added to its advisory board.

There was discussion of the priorities of the program and the composition of the advisory board.

Presentations on the Issues and Science Efforts Related to Coral: Monitoring and Mapping Program
Mark Monaco, the Biogeography Program Manager for the NOS National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) briefed the SAB on NOS integrative mapping, monitoring, and assessment of U.S. coral reef ecosystems. Dr. Monaco presented the strategy for mapping and monitoring U.S. coral reef ecosystems, the suite of remote sensing technologies used for mapping and monitoring and the imaging and visualization tools used to assess the mapping and monitoring information. He explained that the purpose of the program is to integrate science and policy. Asked how this activity relates to the MPA Executive Order, he said that it helps in the defining biologically relevant MPA boundaries that it helps participants work closely with local communities addressing MPA issues. The discussion continued on the usefulness of monitoring and mapping vs. research into the causes of change. There was some agreement that mapping should be question-driven. Dr. Monaco said that portions of the NCCOS mapping program is addressing this issue by mapping habitat pre and post MPA closures.

Poster Session

After adjournment, a poster session highlighting NOAA-related research at UH was held. Principal investigator and graduate student presentations included:

Mike Bevis - "The World of the Pacific GPS"
Steven Businger and Ian Morrison - "Synoptic Structure and Evolution of a Kona Low
Kelie Feng - "Laboratory Investigation of the Effect of Beach Roughness on Wave Run-up"
James Foster - "GPS and the 1997-98 El Nino"
Gerald Fryer - "Local Tsunamis Generated by Storm Waves: The Fatu Hiva Landslide and Tsunami of 13 September 1999 and the 1 April 1946 Landslide in the Upper Forearc"
Todd Gregory - "Extremophile Sampling Sites and Systems"
David Itano - "Hawaii Tuna Tagging Project"
Mark Merrifield and Shaun Johnston - "Interannual Geostrophic Current Anomalies in the Near Equatorial Western Pacific" and "WOCE In Situ Sea Level: Fast Delivery Data Assembly Center"
Matt Parry - "The Trophic Ecology of Two Oceanic Squid Species in Hawaiian Waters"
Bo Qui - "Seasonal Eddy Field Modulation of the North Pacific Subtropical Countercurrent: TOPEX/POSEIDON Observation and Theory"
Michelle Teng - "Numerical Simulation of Coastal Flooding in Hawaii Due to Distant Tsunamis in The Pacific Basin"
Derek Wroe - "Inflow Layer Energetics of Hurricane Bonnie near Landfall"

Thursday, November 2, 2000 - DoubleTree Hotel

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, Vera Alexander, Peter Douglas, Susan Hanna, Art Maxwell, Len Pietrafesa, Soroosh Sorooshian, and Warren Washington.

Briefing on the Report of the Panel on Ocean Exploration

Peter Douglas briefed the SAB on the activities of the ocean exploration panel. He described the panel as having an outstanding Chair, active panelists, and excellent NOAA staff support. There were 3 SAB members on the panel: Vera Alexander, Peter Douglas, and Art Maxwell. At the September 29, 2000 meeting of the SAB, there were 6 SAB members present. At that meeting, the SAB accepted the Ocean Exploration Panel's report with recommendations. One recommendation was for the President to appoint an interim task force to guide the implementation of the report. Mr. Douglas provided a short synopsis of the recommendations. The SAB's 8 themes were woven into the report. The priority areas for ocean exploration include the EEZ, continental shelf, inland seas, and arctic. The report is still not complete. It is in draft and going through clearance. Mary Langlais explained a little about what has been happening with the report since the September 29 meeting. The size of the panel worked well because of the breadth of ideas and to keep a critical mass.

Mr. Douglas suggested a change to the issues that the SAB will include in their report to the next NOAA Administrator. He offered the following resolution to add another item (as #5) to the priority list accompanying the letter to the next Administrator. A short discussion centered around the listing of the priorities. Dr. Uhart said that it would be added as the fifth item on the list, but that it is an unprioritized list and each item will only be identified with a "bullet." The resolution passed unanimously.

RESOLUTION: The following statement will be added to the list of recommended priorities for the next NOAA administration.

Support and actively be engaged in the implementation of the National Ocean Exploration Strategy as recommended by the SAB and the President's Panel on Ocean Exploration entitled: "Discovering Earth's Final Frontier: A US Strategy for Ocean Exploration." – President Clinton, on June 12, 2000, directed the Secretary of Commerce to convene a national panel of experts to develop a national strategy for ocean exploration. The Panel's report recommended a multidisciplinary national ocean exploration initiative, global in scope but initially focused on US waters covering the four dimensions of space and time. Implementation of the ocean exploration strategy requires interagency cooperation and coordination with NOAA as a necessary principal partner. The ocean exploration program should become an integral component of NOAA's core mission.

Mr. Douglas entered a motion to adopt a resolution recommending that the Under Secretary take steps to secure Executive Branch and Congressional authorization and support for a national scientific undersea research program with NURP as a principal part of such a program. A short discussion ensued about NURP's role in a national program. Dr. Washington was concerned that the resolution endorses the NURP management structure. Mr. Douglas explained that NURP is not authorized [by legislation] and that the resolution only says that NURP be a "principal and integral part" of a national program. It was agreed to remove the word "principal" from the original resolution. Mary Langlais said that NOAA is trying to get NURP authorized. Dr. Alexander asked if this resolution would help NOAA get NURP authorization. Ms. Langlais suggested that it would. Dr. Maxwell offered an amendment to change the wording to reflect the stated concerns. The following resolution passed unanimously.

RESOLUTION:

Whereas, Undersea scientific research and exploration of the world's oceans and large seas is essential to understanding of the nature, content and dynamics of the marine environment and will result in new discoveries and increased knowledge; and

Whereas, The new discoveries, knowledge and understanding of the subsurface world of the marine environment will be of significant economic, environmental, and social benefit to current and future generations; and

Whereas, There currently exists no coordinated, integrated, or statutorily authorized interagency national underwater scientific research program; be it 
RESOLVED,That, consistent with the new national ocean exploration strategy called for in the NOAA Science Advisory Board and the President's Panel on Ocean Exploration's report "Discovering Earth's Final Frontier: A U.S. Strategy for Ocean Exploration," the NOAA Science Advisory Board recommends that the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere take steps to secure Executive Branch and congressional authorization and support for a NOAA scientific undersea research program with the National Undersea Research Program (NURP) as an integral component.

Status Report on Science Reviews

Michael Uhart reported on the status of the Office of Global Programs Working Group Review as reported to him by Otis Brown, Chair of the review panel and SAB member. The review by the Working Group was conducted in mid-September. There is a guidance document being finalized for the Office of Global Programs vis a via the review at the recent Working Group meeting. The guidelines should be finalized in the week following this SAB meeting. The meeting minutes are in the process of being completed but have not undergone review.

NESDIS Office of Applications and Research Working Group Review

Krishna Rao, Chief Scientist for NESDIS's Office of Satellite and Information Services, reported that Dr. Denise Stephenson-Hawk, a member of the SAB and panel chair, convened a panel to review the NESDIS Office of Applications and Research (ORA) a couple of months ago. Dr. Joanne Simpson was the other SAB member on the panel. Dr. Rao listed the panel members. The first day was spent listening to a briefing by the ORA Director and division chiefs. The reviewers then met in small groups. The second day the panel met with individual scientists, followed by a briefing of their preliminary findings to the Assistant and Deputy Assistant Administrators for NESDIS. There is a draft of the report, but it is not yet available.

ACTION: Dr. Stephenson-Hawk will provide the final draft of the panel's report to the SAB for consideration at a future meeting.

NESDIS Climate Monitoring Working Group

Dr. Beeton described what happened leading up to the formation of the working group, which is endorsed by the Under Secretary. Panelists were nominated. The current status of the membership is unknown. The panel will meet November 15-17, 2000 in Washington, D.C. Two SAB members, Drs. Washington and Sorooshian, are on the panel. Dr. Washington further described the purpose of the group. There is a need for better communication between the panel and the SAB. Status reports must be sent to the Executive Director of the SAB more frequently. They will be forwarded to the SAB. Dr. Pietrafesa was concerned that the satellite observations would be made in lieu of in-situ observations.

Presentation and Discussion of New SAB Motions and Recommendations

The SAB discussed the NOAA transition into the next administration, including the status of the NOAA's planning for the transition. The SAB then discussed how the SAB would provide their comments on the draft of the Department of Commerce Aquaculture Policy Guidelines provided to the SAB at this meeting. It was decided that each SAB member would provide their comments to Susan Hanna and Peter Douglas. The comments will be reported to the SAB at a future meeting at which time recommendations on the DOC guidelines to the Under Secretary will be discussed considered.

ACTION: With the assistance of the Executive Director, Dr. Hanna and Mr. Douglas will solicit comments from SAB members on the DOC Aquaculture Guidelines. With the comments and other documentation, including policies and guidelines from other federal agencies, they will report their findings to the SAB at a future meeting.

Report of the SAB Sub-Committee on Coastal Science and SAB Discussion

Peter Douglas, Chair of the Sub-Committee, led a discussion of SAB involvement in science reviews and how the results would be reported to the SAB. It was suggested that the SAB consider organizing meeting agenda around science themes and consider doing reviews based on themes. The Board members should make suggestions on topical themes for science reviews. Dr. Beeton suggested organizing SAB business around themes. Ecosystem science is such a theme. For example, Penny Dalton said that fisheries oceanography was not funded this year. Funding needs and recommendations could come out of an SAB meeting organized around a fisheries oceanography theme. Dr. Pietrafesa stated the need for an integrated set of observations that will meet operational needs as well as form the basis for hypotheses-driven research. The Subcommittee is also concerned with the lack of support for NOAA Coastal Science and the need for building partnerships for support. The linkages between the atmospheric sciences and physical oceanography could be covered by a future theme review. Science reviews could specifically address the extent of collaboration between the various NOAA line offices.

ACTION: SAB members will make suggestions to the Executive Director and Chair on topical themes for science reviews.

ACTION: The Subcommittee will present a set of questions about ocean and coastal monitoring to the Chair to be forwarded to NOAA.

Report of the SAB Sub-Committee on Data Issues

Soroosh Sorooshian, Chair of the Subcommittee, reported on the status of the "The Nation's Environmental Data: Treasures at Risk" report. The Subcommittee received a revised report in September and provided comments. The Subcommittee concludes that the report is well done and accurately describes NOAA data issues, but lacks detail in costs because it is a report to Congress. There was discussion about how much it will cost NOAA to mitigate the data problems described in the report. Dr. Sorooshian entered a motion recommending that the report be reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). After a short discussion about when the report is due to Congress, the motion passed unanimously.

RECOMMENDATIONS: The SAB recommends that (1) NOAA ask that the report, "The Nation's Environmental Data: Treasures at Risk," be reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences before it is sent to Congress and (2) that the Under Secretary take appropriate actions to implement the report.

ACTION: Amend the data management issue in the SAB's letter to the next NOAA Administrator with wording reflective of the SAB recommendations regarding the report, "The Nation's Environmental Data: Treasures at Risk."

Report of the SAB Sub-Committee on Synthesis

Susan Hanna reported for the Subcommittee. There has been no progress to convene a panel to examine NOAA social science research. The role of social science in NOAA was discussed and presented as a possible topic for a thematic SAB science review. Dr. Sorooshian entered a motion for a briefing of NOAA water cycle activities at a future SAB meeting. It was suggested that the briefing could be at the June 2001 SAB meeting. There was no further discussion and the motion passed unanimously.

ACTION: The SAB requests that NOAA provide a briefing on its water cycle activities at a future SAB meeting.

Report of the SAB Sub-Committee on Education

Al Beeton reported on behalf of the Subcommittee Chair, Denise Stephenson-Hawk. Dr. Beeton reported that NOAA has established a position to coordinate NOAA education activities in the NOAA Office of Public and Constituent Affairs. Joyce Gross will be the coordinator.

Report of the SAB NOAA/Universities Administrative Efficiencies Working Group

Al Beeton reported that, following the SAB's endorsement of the guidelines of the Federal Demonstration Project, the guidelines were approved by DOC. He reported that he had been contacted by Dr. Carolyn Thoroughgood, Director of the University of Delaware Sea Grant College Program, who expressed her concern for the timely distribution of grant funds. Dr. Beeton referred her concerns to Michael Nelson, Chief of the NOAA Grants Management Division. Mr. Nelson is reviewing the grant process in NOAA and will report his findings to Dr. Beeton.

The SAB discussion continued on the subject of thematic briefings and reviews. Dr. Sorooshian entered a motion requesting NOAA to brief the SAB on NOAA's roles and responsibilities in the new national global change plan. The SAB members asked about the availability of the new national global change plan.

ACTION: The SAB requests that NOAA provide a briefing on its roles and responsibilities in the national global change research program at a future meeting.

ACTION: The Executive Director will distribute copies of the "Our Changing Planet: FY 2001 U.S. Global Change Research Program" to the SAB when it is available.

NMFS Regional, Science-related Issues

Penny Dalton, Assistant Administrator (AA) for Fisheries, briefed the SAB on the critical challenges that face NMFS in the next few years and how science relates to those activities and challenges. She described the general condition of the fisheries in the western Pacific and noted that the lobster stocks have not responded to the latest closure of the lobster fishery. The lobster fishery will remain closed for two years while assessments are done.

The NOAA Fisheries AA highlighted the challenges facing NMFS in Hawaii. These challenges include: (1) efforts to modernize NMFS's capabilities while continuing to meet NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and other regulatory requirements; (2) efforts to continue the conservation and recovery of protected species (e.g., sea turtles); and (3) efforts designed to transition to ecosystem management (e.g., development of the coral reef ecosystem plan). Ongoing efforts continue toward (1) building better constituent relations, (2) addressing marine protected areas, (3) exploring the potential and pitfalls of expanding aquaculture, and (4) strengthening the science role (i.e., increasing the use of science in the decisions NMFS makes).

She explained the mission, organization, and geographic responsibility of the NMFS Honolulu Laboratory. The domestic fisheries research and activities of the lab include biological, ecological and economic fisheries research, stock assessments, guidance for four Fishery Management Plans (FMP), collecting fisheries statistics, and monitoring fish activities. She provided a short description of the Western Pacific Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries FMP, the Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries FMP, the Western Pacific Precious Corals FMP, the Western Pacific Crustacean FMP, and the Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP. She presented the laboratory's FY 2000 budget, staffing profile, organizational structure, and described its relationships with the University of Hawaii.

Public Input Session with SAB discussion

Public input was solicited by the Chair. None was forthcoming.

Final Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 12:01 p.m.

 

July 19-21, 2000 - Fairbanks, Alaska

APPROVED MINUTES
SIXTH NOAA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
JULY 19-21, 2000
FAIRBANKS, AK

Wednesday, July 19, 2000 

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.

Introduction of the NOAA SAB Board Members and Opening Statement of the Chair
Al Beeton, Chair, NOAA Science Advisory Board welcomed the members and NOAA officials to the sixth NOAA SAB meeting. He noted Dr. Baker's regrets at not being able to attend and relayed his thoughts on the April meeting and the Board's recommendations. Dr. Baker was pleased with the outcome of the April meeting. NOAA feedback regarding SAB involvement was presented along with the FY 2001 budget and some late information on the Senate passback. Dr. Baker supports another NOAA-Universities Partnership workshop and the process is underway to conduct a workshop. A status report on the action items and motions from the April 2000 SAB meeting was also presented. During the review of motions and action items discussion on the status of "Treasures at Risk" report ensued. 

Brief Overview of NOAA Offices, Facilities and Major Activities in the Alaskan and Northern Pacific Region

Michael Uhart, Executive Director, NOAA Science Advisory Board gave a brief overview of NOAA offices, facilities and major activities of the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and National Weather Service (NWS) in the Alaskan Region. 

Presentation on NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy

Dave Evans, Assistant Administrator for OAR, presented NOAA's draft policy with some background information. The Office of Science Technology and Policy (OSTP) decided to coordinate government wide, agency policies on scientific integrity. NOAA is drafting a document that will be consistent with the general principals outlined in the OSTP document. He invited comments and input. SAB discussion on the policy included some comments. Individual comments on the draft policy should be submitted to the Chair or the Assistant Administrator of OAR via the Executive Director of the Science Advisory Board.

ACTION: Board members are to provide individual comments on the draft NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy to OAR via the Chair or Executive Director. Individual comments will be distributed to the Board for discussion and consensus. 

Status Report on the Establishment if an Oceans Exploration Strategy Panel and the Development of its Report to the President

Dave Evans provided a status report on the establishment of an Oceans Exploration Strategy panel and the development of a Report to the President. On June 12, 2000 the President directed the Secretary of Commerce to convene a panel which would meet and offer up plans for how the country should proceed with developing a program in ocean exploration. A list of nominees was distributed to the Board. 

The role of the SAB was clarified. The Panel will be a working group of the SAB, with its members selected by the SAB. The Panel's report will be submitted to the SAB at an SAB meeting currently scheduled for September 29, 2000 in Washington, D.C. There was some SAB discussion on logistics and involvement of the public and other federal agencies. This included meeting location and format. The Board suggested that the panel set parameters, objectives and goals, including specific content areas of ocean exploration. The strategy should specifically include a clearing house for distribution of information and incorporation of international ocean exploration initiatives. Discussion of the inclusion of a satellite oceanographer on the list nominees ensued. 

West Coast and Polar Regions Undersea Research Center Programs

Barbara Moore provided a brief introduction to the National Undersea Research Program (NURP). Ray Highsmith, Director, West Coast and Polar Region Undersea Research Programs briefed the SAB on the West Coast and Polar Region Undersea Research Program, including a description of its mission, staff, programmatic themes, current activities and future directions. The SAB had some follow-up questions and discussion followed, including current and future funding and marine protected areas. A motion relating to the NURP budget would also be presented later in the meeting.

OAR Presentation of Proposal for Lab and Joint Institute Reviews

Dave Evans, Assistant Administrator of OAR, presented a background and details of OAR's proposal for SAB reviews of NOAA Research labs and joint institutes. There were some follow-up questions and requests for clarification by the SAB. Discussion followed regarding the inclusion of social science as part of the terms of reference. Suggested Change in the Terms of Reference were as follows: in item 9, ensure that a SAB member will review the draft report before the report is submitted to the Assistant Administrator or Lab Director; in item 10, the chair and panel must agree to the suggested changes; and in item 11, use the words "taking into account" or "for consideration." Dave concurred with suggested changes. The issue of incorporating social science into the review process was still open to discussion. Board members discussed methods of incorporating social science into the review process. The following motion was passed unanimously.

RECOMMENDATION: The Board recommends that a social science category be added to the categories of OAR Laboratory and Joint Institute reviewers. 

The Board reminded OAR that this endorsement is not an acceptance by the SAB to conduct all future reviews. This refers only to those reviews that the SAB agrees to participate in. After incorporating said changes and clarifying the role of the SAB in the review process the Board made unanimously passed a motion to accept the proposal.

RESOLUTION: The SAB accepts the OAR proposal for review of OAR research laboratories and joint institutes with minor changes.

Minor changes will be made by the SAB and then submitted to OAR via Dave Evans.

Sub-Committee and Working Group Reports
Sub-Committee on Coastal Science 

Peter Douglas, Chair, reported that the committee had no new information at this time, but will provide an update at the Hawaii meeting.

Sub-Committee on Data Issues 

Soroosh Sorooshian, Chair, reported that the Sub-Committee has been working with NOAA on the report "Nation's Treasures at Risk" and reiterated the need for the report. In a letter sent to Drs. Sorooshian and Beeton, NESDIS stated that the report is scheduled for July 14, 2000. Once the report is submitted, the Sub-Committee will develop recommendations for consideration by the SAB.

ACTION: NESDIS will provide a copy of the 7/14/00 draft of the "Nation's Treasures at Risk" to the Board when it is available.

Sub-Committee on Synthesis 

Pat Gober, Chair, is happy to announce Dr. Baker's support of the Synthesis Sub-Committee's April 2000 motion that NOAA convene a panel of experts to examine how NOAA can extend and improve its social science research. The Sub-Committee will be soliciting names for a panel of about 8 people.

Sub-Committee on Education 

Denise Stephenson-Hawk, chair, is reviewing the NOAA Education committee white paper on the status of NOAA's educational effort. The committee is working on a motion to adopt the NOAA committee as a working group of the SAB.

NOAA-Universities Administrative Efficiencies Working Group 

Al Beeton, chair presented background information on the predecessor of the Working Group, including activities related to the Fly America Act and the Federal Demonstration Partnership. The Working Group proposes that NOAA join the Federal Demonstration Partnership. The following motion was passed unanimously.

RECOMMENDATION: The SAB endorses the recommendation of the Working Group that NOAA and DOC consider joining the Federal Demonstration Partnership.

SAB Science Review Working Groups

Michael Uhart reported on the three science review panels that the Board oversees. The OAR/Global Change Program panel has been selected and is meeting in September. Panelists for the NESDIS Office of Research and Applications review have been selected, questions have been formulated, and there is a review set for September. Denise Stevenson-Hawk is working with NESDIS and is Chair of the review panel. NOS has developed a panel for the geodesy program. A volunteer is requested from the Board to help NOS develop a roster and review team.

ACTION: The Executive Director will ask the SAB members of their desire to be involved in the science review of the NOS geodesy program.

Presentation on NOAA Involvement in National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP) 

Dave Evans, Assistant Administrator, OAR briefed the SAB on NOAA's involvement in the NOPP. No written input was provided by Dr. Evans. There were some questions by the SAB. Clarifications were provided by OAR, SAB Members, and NOS. Clarifications of NOPP and the relationship to the recent Executive Order on marine protected areas were presented by Al Beeton.

Public Input Session 

Michael Uhart, Executive Director, NOAA Science Advisory Board, opened the public input session. Mike De Luca, Senior Associate Director for the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences at Rutgers University, presented information on NURP. No written input was provided. 

Based on the information presented, a resolution in support of NURP was presented as a motion.

RESOLUTION: The NOAA Science Advisory Board urges NOAA to take appropriate steps to ensure that the National Undersea Research Program becomes the primary undersea research program for the nation, and that it is given effective and adequate support to carry out its mission. Toward that end, NOAA should require completion of strategic planning for the NURP program and should ensure that in doing so and strengthening support for NURP, that the role of the regional centers is preserved.

After discussion, the motion was tabled until the November SAB meeting.

ACTION: OAR will provide a status report on the development of a NURP strategic plan for the November SAB meeting.

NMFS Presentation on Alaskan, Arctic, and Northern Pacific Science Issues 
Jim Coe, Acting Director, NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center, gave an overview of the Alaska Fisheries Science Center mission, science challenges, and NMFS statutory highlights and mission drivers.

Ocean Carrying Capacity Program 

Jack Helle, NMFS Auke Bay Laboratory, briefed the SAB on pacific salmon ocean carrying capacity. The three major areas of study are monitoring studies of trends in age and size at maturity, retrospective studies of salmon growth and abundance, and assessments of the distribution and growth of salmon and associated marine species. He included some selected research results and described the use of new monitoring technologies.

Stellar Seal Lion/Fisheries Interactions

Doug Demaster, Director, National Marine Mammal Laboratory, presented background and research challenges in studying Steller Sea Lion decline. Included in his briefing were population trends of eastern and western stocks, causes of the decline, designations of critical habitat, Steller Sea Lion protection zones, the preliminary 3-year research plan, and research challenges. The hypothesis is that the decline is caused by reduced prey availability caused by oceanographic changes or indirect effects of fisheries.

Socio-Economics Program

Dan Holland, Resource Ecology & Fisheries Management Division, briefed the Board on the Alaska Fisheries Science Center economic program. The objective of the program is to improve the economic information available for the management of fisheries in Alaska. It is not clear that we know the net value of Alaska's off-shore fisheries. The net value is affected quite a bit by the management actions we take. An estimate of the ex-vessel value is around one billion dollars. He described management issues, the mandates that drive the economic research and analyses, and the obstacles in doing the analyses. The obstacles are the inability to acquire the necessary economic data from producers, etc. and the resources to analyze the data if they had it. SAB questions and discussion about these topics ensued.

Thursday, July 20, 2000

Official Call to Order and Review of Meeting Format
Michael Uhart, Executive Director, NOAA Science Advisory Board reconvened the meeting. As the Science Advisory Board is a Federal Advisory Committee, Federal Advisory Committee Act rules and procedures for public input were presented.

Welcoming Remarks 

Paul Reichardt, Provost of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks (UAF), offered welcoming remarks. He welcomed the SAB to UAF and described the importance of the NOAA-UAF partnerships and the scientific and environmental contributions of the UAF to Alaska and the Nation.

Prof. Syun Ichi Akasofu, Director of International Arctic Research Counsel made a statement of welcome to the SAB from IARC. He described the tasks at IARC, its mission, some projects and programs.

Introduction to The Cooperative Institute for Arctic Research (CIFAR) and Brief Overview of Major NOAA Activities

Gunter Weller, Director, Cooperative Institute for Arctic Research, briefed the SAB on the CIFAR, its research themes, its components and its partners, arctic research priorities, the arctic research initiative, the CIFAR budget, and the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA). The components of CIFAR are the Geophysical Institute at UAF, the Institutes of Arctic Biology, the Alaska quaternary Center, the Center for Global Change and Arctic System Research, the Institute of Marine Sciences, the School of Agriculture and Land Resource Management, the Arctic Region Supercomputing Center and the Arctic System Science Land-Atmosphere-Ice Interaction Science Management Office. There are three NOAA programs at CIFAR designed to facilitate joint research between NOAA and UAF. Research Topics include fisheries oceanography, sea ice dynamics, tsunami research, and broad scale environmental prediction and assessment.

CIFAR Presentations: Arctic Climate Impacts

Dr. Weller described the current research on climate impacts within the Arctic region. He described the annual distribution of costs of the ACIA, ACIA membership and management structure. Assessments of arctic climate and UV radiation will revolve past and present indicators of changes, possible changes in the future, and the potential impacts due to those changes.

CIFAR Presentations: Arctic Oscillation

Andrey Proshutinsky, UAF Institute of Marine Science, briefed the SAB on arctic oscillations, including data sources and data reconstruction, climate states of the 20th century, the arctic atmosphere and ocean oscillations, and model simulation results. SAB discussion centered around questions of salinity.

CIFAR Presentations: Arctic Haze/Aerosols

Glenn Shaw, UAF Geophysical Institute, briefed the SAB on the arctic haze phenomenon and air pollution. The presentation centered around the extent of, the composition of, and possible sources of arctic haze and the annual distribution of atmospheric trace elements. He concluded that an increase in emissions in the high latitudes will cause an above normal increase in particles with large optical thickness and high residence times.

CIFAR Presentations: Gulf of Alaska/Bering Sea Ecosystem

Alan Springer, UAF Institute of Marine Science, briefed the SAB on ecosystem switches and inertia. Descriptions of switches and the outcomes of a switch in the eastern Bering Sea in the summers of 1997-1999 were also given. Included in his discussion was the abrupt step in the mean states of many variates in the mid 1970's and time series of populations and atmospheric and oceanic variables. Terry Whitledge provided some information on the biology of the Bering Sea.

NESDIS Presentation on Alaskan, Arctic, and Northern Pacific Science Issues

Greg Withee, Assistant Administrator, NESDIS, briefed the SAB on NESDIS activities in high latitude regions and NESDIS facilities in the Alaska region. He provided short descriptions of the many activities, including, but not limited to, the Alaska SAR (synthetic aperture radar) demo and its partners, SHEBA. He described NOAA's remote sensing services in the Alaska region and two NESDIS facilities in Alaska, the Fairbanks Command and Data Acquisition Station and the Alaskan SAR facility and their missions.

OAR Presentation on Alaskan, Arctic, and Northern Pacific Science Issues 

Dave Evans, Assistant Administrator, OAR, provided a brief overview of OAR activities. There is an increase in Alaska and arctic research in OAR including the establishment of a small Arctic research office at OAR headquarters.

Status Report on Oceans Exploration Strategy Working Group

The Board convened a private, non-FACA session to approve panel members of the Ocean Exploration Working Group. In an open session, Dr. Beeton presented the list of SAB selections to the Oceans Explorations Strategy Working Group. Two motions passed clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the Panel and the SAB. 

RESOLUTION: The SAB delegates authority to its Chair to select, in consultation with appropriate NOAA administrators, additional members to serve on the Ocean Exploration Panel in the event an insufficient number of SAB nominees agree to serve.

RESOLUTION: The SAB hereby delegates authority to the Chair and such of its members as are able to attend the next SAB meeting in Washington, D.C., on September 29 to take any action they deem appropriate relative to the adoption of the SAB report on a national agenda for Ocean Exploration called for by the President's June 12, 2000 memorandum to the Secretary of Commerce. The SAB's report shall, after its adoption, be transmitted to NOAA Administrator, Dr. James Baker.

Status Report on Marine Protected Areas Executive Order

Al Beeton, Chair of the NOAA SAB briefed the Board on the status of the implementation of Executive Order 13158, Marine Protected Areas. He read relevant sections of the Executive Order to the SAB. A web site has been established. NOAA is the lead agency coordinating efforts and options for developing a marine protected area center. The SAB discussed the need for independent evaluation of MPA objectives and "protection criteria."

NOS presentation on Ecological Forecasting

Don Scavia, NOS Senior Scientist, briefed the SAB on ecological forecasting, asking for advice from the SAB. An ecological forecast predicts the impact of physical, chemical and biological changes on ecosystems, ecosystem components and people. Ecological forecasting will provide mechanisms for extending NOAA's prediction and assessment mission to coastal ecosystems. He presented some examples of ecological forecasting and assessments and what NOS's plans are to undertake these forecasts. He is requesting SAB help with the establishment and development of ecological forecasting within NOAA. There was a general positive reaction to the proposal from the SAB members. There is a piece in the NOAA FY 2002 budget proposal. Many parts of NOAA, including the PREWICS (Predict and Reduce Watershed Impact of Coastal Storms), are labeled as partners for this project. 

ACTION: NOS will provide the Board with the name of a contact for sea level rise forecasts.

Friday, July 21, 2000

Official Call to Order and Review of Meeting Format

Michael Uhart, Executive Director, NOAA Science Advisory Board reconvened the meeting. As the Science Advisory Board is a Federal Advisory Committee, Federal Advisory Committee Act rules and procedures for public input were presented.

SAB Debriefing of NOAA Response to SAB Recommendations on Northwest Salmon

Jake Rice, NOAA Science Advisory Board member, feels that NOAA has acted on SAB recommendations concerning the Endangered Species Act related to salmon (July SAB meeting, Seattle, Washington). In general, NMFS is networking and there are nine research initiatives, but no NOAA money went into these initiatives. The Bonneville Power Authority provided funds. NMFS Seattle has no money for salmon rehabilitation work. However, the labs are being utilized to help devise science plans and evaluation. We got a budget breakdown a year ago, in the briefing book. Jake said that Congress earmarked the $167 million for their constituents and not for NMFS. The SAB should communicate with the advisory boards that are involved with the northwest salmon fisheries. The SAB discussed the availability of research vessels to the northwest lab. It's the agency itself who holds the accountability, but it's the partners who hld the resources to do the work. If the SAB is to make specific further recommendations, we would need more documentation. With the NMFS science plan, we could compare objectives to what has been funded. NMFS is being asked to support science done by partners who don't have the science capacity.

RESOLUTION: The SAB requests that NMFS provide the science plan for salmon recovery and an analysis of how funding and initiatives and projects support the plan.

ACTION: The Executive Director will investigate what SAB salmon recovery recommendations were communicated to the Northwest fisheries advisory board and report his findings to the Board.

Briefing on Gulf Ecosystem Monitoring (GEM) and Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Damage Assessment and Restoration 

Bruce Wright, NMFS Habitat Conservation Division, briefed the SAB on the damage assessment and restoration following the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989. His presentation included a description of the data bases that were required, a time line of the response actions, some of the prominent adverse effects, and a biomass mass balance model. The council has decided to set aside funds for a long term monitoring program, GEM. GEM's scientific goals are to detect, understand and predict annual and long-term changes in the marine ecosystem, from coastal watersheds to the central gulf. PICES AND GLOBEC were presented as partners. The North Pacific Research Board and Pew Oceans Commission were also discussed. SAB questions and clarifications centered around the assessment techniques and involvement of partners.

Phil Mundy, Science Coordinator of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, briefed on the Gulf Ecosystem Monitoring program. His presentation included the GEM mission statement, funding, an implementation plan (i.e., schedule), the geographical scope of the monitoring, the programmatic goals, and the roles that GEM will play. The SAB asked questions about the role of human activities in the monitoring and explanation of population changes.

NOS Presentations on Alaskan, Arctic, and Northern Pacific Science Issues Long-term Studies in Prince William Sound

Gary Shigenaka, NOS Office of Response and Restoration, described NOAA HAZMAT's Prince William Sound long-term intertidal monitoring, including background, approach and components, early findings, recent approaches, and current conditions and activities. He distributed four copies of a technical memorandum on parallelism ("Monitoring of Biological Recovery of Prince William Sound Intertidal Sites Impacted by the Exxon Valdez oil Spill," NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OR&R 1, February 1999).

Research Associated with the Kachemak Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve and the Kasitsna Bay Laboratory

Carl Schoch, NOS Kasitsna Bay Laboratory, described a research project on the spatial and temporal scales of variability for intertidal communities from the San Juan Islands to the outer coast of Washington in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. The overall objective of the monitoring of these near-shore communities is to improve our understanding of this linkage between the near-shore community structure and the biophysical processes of the ocean, and ultimately to identify and monitor the structural patterns of these communities and how they change over space and time. 

Report on Status of Draft Report to Next Administrator

Jake Rice, NOAA Science Advisory Board member, led the discussion on the current draft Report to the Next Administrator. There were some changes made to the draft Report. Pat Gober led the SAB discussion of the current list of the 10 issues facing NOAA. Some changes were made. A motion to adopt the Report was unanimously approved.

RESOLUTION: The Board adopts the report to the next Administrator as revised today, with appreciation to the writing committee, and authorizing the writing committee to make nonsubstantive changes to the document.

Alaska Sea Grant Program and SAB Discussion

Ron Dearborn, Director, Alaska Sea Grant, was unable to present.

Sub-Committee on Education Report

Denise Stevenson-Hawk, Chair of the Sub-Committee reported. The report is attached to the original of these minutes. This report highlights the white paper developed by the NOAA Education Committee. The Chair entered a motion to endorse, followed by a discussion of the 3 statements and how the document would be transmitted. The motion was unanimously approved.

RESOLUTION: The NOAA Science Advisory Board endorses the report of the SAB Sub-Committee on Education and adopts the NOAA Education Committee as a Working Group of the NOAA Science Advisory Board Education Sub-Committee.

ACTION: The Executive Director will distribute the Sub-Committee Report to the Board.

SAB Discussion of the 8 Themes

Al Beeton, Chair, NOAA Science Advisory Board, led the discussion on the 8 Themes. Incorporation of OAR comments were accepted. However, the Board would like to remove ancillary text not relevant to the themes. Some minor changes were made. A motion to adopt the 8 themes was unanimously approved.

RESOLUTION: The SAB adopts the 8 Themes as they are before us with the understanding that any proposed substantive revisions be submitted to the SAB at its November meeting.

ACTION: SAB members should send comments and nonsubstantive changes to the 8 Themes to the Chair.

Summary of new SAB Recommendations, Motions, and Action Items

Mike Uhart, Executive Director, NOAA Science Advisory Board, recalled all the motions and action items of the meeting. Discussion and clarification of those items ensued. The Board discussed the motion regarding the acceptance of the OAR proposal for a lab/joint institute review process. Reclarification of the Board's role in the review process lead to the following motion being passed.

RESOLUTION: The SAB wishes to add a line to item 3 of the OAR Lab/Joint Institute review process, reading "the SAB reserves the right to accept or decline the invitation." 

Final Adjournment

 

REPORT FROM THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD (SAB) SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 21 JULY 2000

The NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Subcommittee on Education met to discuss education and outreach plans, goals and objectives within NOAA. As part of the discussions, the Subcommittee received and reviewed the attached NOAA Education "White Paper" Draft dated July 10, 2000. This Paper, drafted by the Education Committee of NOAA, chaired by Joyce Gross, Office of Public Affairs, NOAA Headquarters, provides a background of and recommendations for education and outreach initiatives within the agency. The Education Committee of NOAA is comprised of individuals selected by the Assistant Administrators (AAs) of the NOAA line offices and by the Directors of program and staff offices within NOAA. [A list of members and their affiliations is attached.] This Committee, convened by Dr. Al Beeton, Chair of the SAB, at the direction of the Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, Dr. D. James Baker was charged with "researching NOAA's current education and outreach practices, assessing them, and making recommendations for improvement, with implementation options." The members of the SAB Subcommittee on Education commend the work of the Education Committee of NOAA and their commitment to education initiatives throughout the agency.

The SAB Subcommittee on Education has adopted the following working definition of education [and outreach] for NOAA: NOAA education is a proactive communication that imparts the knowledge and value of NOAA science, products and services to K-12, college, graduate and postgraduate students and to educators and citizens of the nation and world; promotes environmental stewardship and public safety; and fosters a sustainable economy." Education allows the agency to expand its constituent base by broadening knowledge of and familiarity with NOAA. Education-directed initiatives are essential to attract future scientists, researchers and managers, to inform a broad spectrum of policy and decision-makers and to ensure the existence of an informed public cognizant of the mission, goals, objectives, products, services and outcomes of the agency.
With these as guiding statements on NOAA education and outreach, the SAB Subcommittee on Education places before the SAB, for consideration, the following statements for endorsement and a motion regarding the acceptance of the Education Committee of NOAA as a Working Group of the SAB Subcommittee on Education.

Statements for Endorsement

NOAA-wide commitment to education and outreach should exist and be documented and communicated to the AAs of all line offices and to the Directors of program and staff offices. Commitment must be reinforced with accountability.

Include education and outreach in each of NOAA's seven interrelated strategic planning themes and in the strategic plan for each line office. Integrate the developed strategic plans into a NOAA Strategic Plan for Education that crosses the organizational, disciplinary and geographical boundaries that exist within the agency.

Establish a centralized education office within NOAA to serve as an interface with NOAA leadership, to add visibility to NOAA's education and outreach activities, and to allow interaction within and outside of the organization. This centralized office would ensure that the components of NOAA's current educational outreach activities are focused and coordinated, and it would ensure that educational and outreach facilities are utilized more fully.

Summary Minutes Approved by the SAB—Wednesday, April 5

SUMMARY MINUTES APPROVED BY THE NOAA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
NOAA Science Advisory Board Meeting
April 5-7, 2000
Washington, DC

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2000

Official Call to Order and Review of Meeting Format
(Michael Uhart - Executive Director, NOAA Science Advisory Board)

Dr. Uhart officially called the fifth meeting of the NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB) to order at 8:00 A.M. and explained the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) guidelines for the meeting.

Introduction of the NOAA SAB Chair and Board Members and Opening Statement of the Chair
(Alfred Beeton - Chair, NOAA Science Advisory Board)

Dr. Beeton welcomed the board members and opened the meeting. He described the meeting agenda for the next 3 days. FY 2002 budget presentations by the Strategic Planning teams will be on Thursday and Friday. He voiced concern over crosscutting issues.

Report on NOAA FY 2000 Budget and Introduction to NOAA FY 2002 Budget Process 
(Sue Fruchter - Director, Policy and Strategic Planning)

Ms. Fruchter explained the FY2002 budget cycle. She asked the SAB to make recommendations for the FY 2002 budget.

Questions and Discussion

Dr. Washington asked how NOAA works on the interagency issues. Ms. Fruchter replied that NOAA coordinates through the National Science and Technology Council, the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, and individually with agencies.

Dr. Len Pietrafesa asked if the plan is for a flat budget. Ms. Fruchter said that it looks as though it is actually rising. She responded that OMB gives NOAA a budget, including outyear profile. It is a flat budget, including the outyears. NOAA allows the teams a 10% growth above that. Inflation is usually included as part of negotiations. Adjustments to the base (amount) have primarily been responding to inflation. NOAA sees this as its highest priority. Guidance to the teams includes inflation numbers. Teams are also given an Operations Research and Facilities (ORF) limit (systems) and guidance for the systems accounts (satellites, computers, buildings, etc.).

In the past, Procurement Acquisitions Construction (PAC) Teams have been giving their recommendations. Now each team comes forward with a fixed number of initiatives and presents these to the constituents. Each team is limited to the number of initiatives. Each team gets a different number of initiatives. They are also limited in amount per initiative and in total. However, mega-initiatives, or out-of-the-box initiatives, are encouraged. This year NOAA identified the 5 areas of the mega initiatives: Watershed Impacts of Coastal Storms, Sustainable Fisheries, Ocean System for Improved Climate and Marine Services, Ocean Exploration and Research, and Infrastructure. This is $800M increase over the 2001 base. She said NOAA won't get it all but it is a healthy starting point. NOAA has had some success with what Congress would be receptive to. The teams have this flexibility.

NOAA has money added to the budget for an earmark. NOAA asks for most of the earmarks in the DOC (about half) of the total submissions. DOC takes out some and OMB takes out another half. During outyears the guidance is 5% each year. Inflation is above the guidance. Earmarks are especially a problem with the research budget. There are two NOS items. Adjustments to base (ATB) are about $75M, and considered a sort of tax on the programs. On the other hand, NWS has been successful in getting ATBs. Earmarks are problematic for NESDIS, too. PAC initiatives are also limited this year.

Ms. Fruchter moved on to explain ORF targets. Policy allows for the 10% growth this year on U.S. Weather Research Program (USWRP) and aquatic nuisance species, plus a few (the 5 mega-initiatives) which are above the 10%.

The Infrastructure Team has been asked to propose their initiatives. However, they must also, as oversight, to look at the other teams for an infrastructure needs. Rumors are that OMB will ask for a "limited services" budget (no new services). A new administration could add their own big initiatives (to highlight their priorities). Some initiatives may be terminated in the new budget.

The House markups usually tend to be flat (same as last year's appropriation). The Senate's mark is usually higher. The House assumes NOAA will be more efficient or drop lower priority work. Research is especially hard-hit with this type of process. NOAA's budget has increased in the past, yet there is a problem with research dollars. NOS and OAR are particularly vulnerable to this. They are even looking to a possible reduction in force. We do not have champions on the hill for NOAA's research. An initiative can be stopped in many places: the Hill, OMB, and DOC. NOAA is not successful in saying NOAA research is essential to its mission. Congressional members in the Commerce, State, and Justice Committees (CSJ) are not used to thinking about science and research. There are few external champions for most research. Large, highly visible, special programs like Sea Grant and NURP are exceptions.

There is, however, great support from Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). OSTP has provided some support by going to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the climate initiative also. The question is research vs. development. Using their definitions of research, OMB does not include basic research in the NOAA budget.

Questions and Discussion

Mr. Douglas and Dr. Maxwell agreed that there is a lack of political, constituent support. Ms. Fruchter concurs that there are few non-feds going to the hill to support the President's budget for NOAA.

Dr. Pietrafesa explained that a built-in partnership exists between with the labs and Joint Institutes. Sea Grant and NURP have university support. NOAA labs should also get this support from their Joint Institutes. Penny explained that much of the outside focus is on the operational parts of the NOAA Line Offices (especially NWS and NMFS) and not on their research. Three-quarters of the CSJ letters of support for programs are for NOAA. These, however, are not dealt with positively.

Dr. Beeton asked a series of questions. How do you view the importance of the input by the SAB? What are the interactions between the Line Offices and the teams? Changes in the planning process (improvements) relevant to the science and research monies will be helpful. She replied that the teams would report to NOAA Administration what they heard from the SAB and how they addressed it. Most Line Offices meet in the winter and give guidance to their team representatives. Teams usually decide on priorities through consensus.

Presentation and Discussion of Earmarks on National Marine Fisheries Research Program
(Penny Dalton - Assistant Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service)

Ms. Dalton explained that NMFS has a bottom-up budget process. NMFS starts with the present budget and works up. Congress does it opposite. Appropriations Committee sets a limit on the number of allocations. The members decide what they do from there. CSJ is very diverse, so there is a lot of competition. CSJ does not care much for coastal programs. Many of the budget requests (letters) that CSJ gets are outside the NMFS budget. The Hill sees this as good for NMFS, but it masks a number of problems. The base budget is stagnant or even eroding. This is causing more restrictions.

Earmarked amounts are almost one-half of the NMFS budget. Not all PPAs (programs, projects and accounts) and earmarks are bad, but they can only be used for the stated purpose. The new Magnuson Act has many new mandates, but earmarks sometimes were meant for only some parts of the country.

Ms. Dalton described pass-throughs of extra-mural funding. This type of funding begins to get identified as part of the budget. Sometimes it is easier for a university to ask for a specific earmark than for general support of a NOAA program (e.g., global change). The budget has actually stagnated in recent years. This is at a time when demands on the agency have grown. There were 913 regulatory actions by NMFS in 1998. Each of these actions has costs associated with analyses, assessments, and certifying requirements. External assessments also impact the budget.

Dr. Pietrafesa noted that overhead is not an insignificant amount. Ms. Frutcher explained that rent is part of overhead because it is paid centrally. Dr. Sissenwine explained that the fringe growth areas (e.g., salmon, right whales) are addressed pretty well, often times at the expense of research and assessment (e.g., maintaining 30-year stock assessment time series)

ACTION ITEM: At the request of Dr. Beeton and Mr. Douglas, NMFS will share the results of the independent budget review at a future meeting and will include any NMFS recommendations.

NOAA update to SAB recommendations concerning the establishment of three pilot SAB Working Groups to develop review processes that will be used to review various NOAA science efforts (from October 1999 meeting of the Board)

Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
(Louisa Koch - Deputy Assistant Administrator, OAR)

Ms. Koch explained that there are two working group efforts in progress in OAR. OGP currently exists within the SAB. The second activity is the development of a proposal for a Working Group to review the labs and Joint Institutes in OAR/NOAA. This is in progress.

ACTION ITEM: OAR will submit terms of reference (TOR), a list of potential nominees, and an outline of the OAR review process to the Board for review.

Final approval of appointments to the OEP panel will be made by Dr. Beeton .

Discussion and Questions

Dr. Beeton explains that the idea was to have the OGP panel under SAB purview. He has the existing vitae of current member. The next step is appointing 3 new members. Ms. Koch explained the SAB has the summary information and will have the rest of the vitae in a month.

Dr. Brown said the new list is very good. He has talked to the candidates and at least 3 are willing to serve. The Group is proceeding

OAR looked at the SAB's 8 themes and suggested changes. They propose changes to 4 of the themes: Timeliness and Scale, Capacity-Building, Social Science Integration, and Diversity. 
A general discussion concerning the themes occurred and the Board agreed on the following action:

ACTION ITEM: Drs. Hanna and Gober will work with Ms. Koch and OAR on the wording of the Eight Themes. The revised themes will be provided to the Board before the next meeting, where the changes will be considered.

National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service
(Mary Glackin - Deputy Assistant Administrator, NESDIS)

The proposed panel members were previously provided to the SAB as part of a letter sent to the Board. NESDIS accepted the themes; specifically in the areas they would like the SAB to look at. NESDIS has not given any formal invitations. A panel of six is ideal. NESDIS is looking for a review in September. Dr. Stephenson-Hawk has agreed to Chair the review. The Working Group will work with Dr. Stevenson-Hawk on the invitations. Ms. Glackin suggested having a non-environmentalist on the panel.

Questions and Discussion

Dr. Washington expressed his concern with the huge amounts of data. NESDIS should have somebody on there to cover this. Perhaps Almondson is the right person. Ms. Glackin said the NASA linkage is important.

Dr. Gober asked who would consider the social integration principle. A general discussion of the make-up of the proposed panel members ensued.

Dr. Brown stressed that the Board keep in mind the scope of the NESDIS review.

Dr. Beeton requested the vitae for the panel members and social science members. He explained that the Board needs a larger list to choose from. Dr. Maxwell made a motion.

MOTION: The SAB requests that a social scientist be added to the list of NESDIS review panel members.

Dr. Alexander seconded. Dr. Beeton asked for a discussion. There was no discussion. The motion passed with a unanimous vote

ACTION ITEM: NESDIS must present the Board with the vitae for the NESDIS science review panel members. The list should be longer than the current list and include a social scientist. 

National Ocean Service
(Capt. Ted Lillestolen - Deputy Assistant Administrator, NOS)

Capt. Lillestolen reiterated that an SAB member does not have to be on every panel. NOS can invite a member to participate and they may or may not volunteer. A broad discussion ensued on the level of effort by the SAB and its members.

Questions and Discussion

Dr. Gober said that many social scientists have technical expertise. They should be included.

Dr. Brown suggests that the SAB needs to do some scoping because we don't know how may of these reviews there will be. The SAB should design some sort of input function, a process. NOS should decide which reviews should involve SAB. Even if there is not an SAB member on the panel, it still comes through the full Board. However, he is worried that the SAB will become a bottleneck.

ACTION ITEM: Mr. Douglas and Drs. Alexander, Rice, and Washington will draft a set of options as to how the full Board and individual members can get involved in the formal evaluation of NOAA Science through review panels.

NOAA response to SAB request to establish an Ocean and Coastal Information Dissemination Service
(Margaret Davidson - Director, NOAA Coastal Services Center)

A work group should be charged with coming up with an implementation plan. This work group should consist of individuals in instructional design and technology that are aware of users needs. The work group should review outside reports. The group needs to build on existing systems and create a web-based infrastructure that will allow access for scientists, policy makers and the public. There are many domain names that have not yet been claimed that can lead to easy access. NOAA may come back to the Board with a pilot. However, the project needs to be sustainable. There must be a commitment of resources, not necessarily a new building, but a commitment to the idea.

Questions and Discussion

Mr. Douglas suggests that her recommendations are right on target. People outside of government or from non-science disciplines should help in the design of the system.

Dr. Pietrafesa explained that the university community has been remiss in posting their data sets. We need to take advantage of highly distributed digital libraries (capacity building).

Dr. Rice concurred and added that it needs to be marketable in the budge process.

Dr. Beeton spoke for the Board and expressed gratitude for Dr. Baker's quick response to the Board's motion to establish an Ocean and Coastal information dissemination service from the previous meeting.

Presentation and SAB discussion of the "Census of Marine Life"
(Liz Clark - NMFS)

After introductory remarks from Dr. Sissenwine, Ms. Clark explained that the Census is an international research program that will identify key questions and support studies over the next 5-10 years. It will stimulate technological progress. The use of this technology will lead to cost savings. The secretariat is located at CORE (Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education) and the steering committee was established in 1999. It is important for NOAA to be engaged because of the emerging technologies, and their operationalization. Several technologies offer an excellent opportunity to examine a range of habitats and animals. Noted that NOAA will have a new, quiet technology vessel. This is an opportunity for NOAA to invest in its future. There is an FY 2002 initiative that needs support. This is a description of the distribution and understanding of fisheries and marine life rather than a "count" or census of the number of fishes. It will be responding to scientific questions. The Sloan Foundation wanted to keep the word "census" in the title. Dr. Alexander stated that there is not a choice at this point. This "program" has been peer reviewed and involves NGOs.

Questions and Discussion

Dr. Hanna asked why the emphasis on the deep sea. Dr. Sissenwine explained that the emphasis from the steering committee still must emerge. It is not a substitute for the operational stock assessments that are already ongoing (in NMFS).

Mr. Douglas asked how this would help management decisions if you were only going to look at distribution and abundance. Will there be involvement of managers in formulating the science questions? Are there social scientists that will help formulate the questions that will help it sell? Dr. Sissenwine replied that there would be some collaboration once the science agenda becomes firm. There are many in his lab but he has not engaged them yet. The input is the indirect technological innovations that will come out of the program that will help NMFS. There will be direct input to international treaties and policy decisions.

Status of draft report to NOAA Administrator and Secretary of Commerce
(Al Beeton - Chair, NOAA Science Advisory Board)

The 4/4/00 draft was distributed to the board. Dr. Beeton suggested the Board look it over and it will be discussed at a later time during the meeting. The drafting committee may use all, or none, of the list of 10 issues submitted by the line offices.

SAB Sub-Committee and Issue Group Reports
Sub-Committee on Coastal Science (Peter Douglas - Chair)

ACTION ITEM: The Sub-Committee requests a report from NOAA on the status of the coastal monitoring program to include: who is doing what; what are the coastal science centers and do they overlap with existing labs or centers; and what is NOAA's role.

The Sub-Committee thanked Dr. Baker for taking action on the Board's request for a coastal and ocean information dissemination service and tasking Ms. Davidson to take an initial look at a dissemination system. Mr. Douglas enters the following motion:

MOTION: The Science Advisory Board thanks Dr. Baker for taking action on the Board's request to establish an ocean and coastal information dissemination service and asking Ms. Davidson to take an initial look at a dissemination system. The Sub-Committee recommends that the Board convene a cross-NOAA task force to design and implement a user-friendly data and products data center, pursuant to Ms. Davidson's suggestion and that NOAA provide the necessary resources to make it happen.

Dr. Alexander seconded the motion.

Discussion of the motion began with Dr. Maxwell asking if Ms. Davidson is far enough along for this motion. Mr. Douglas said that she has a start. The next step is for a task force to design and implement the system, and NOAA should direct all of the offices to participate. The motion was unanimously approved.

Mr. Douglas presented the idea of another partnership meeting, a NSULGC-NOAA workshop to discuss support for how NOAA science and research could be promoted, both in the science and general public communities. Mr. Douglas presented the motion

MOTION: The Subcommittee on Coastal Science suggests that another NSULGC-NOAA partnership workshop be convened to identify what other steps can be taken to improve scientific and public support, and eventually, political support, for NOAA research and science and to follow up on the efforts of the last workshop.

Dr. Maxwell seconded the motion. There was no discussion. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.

SAB Sub-Committee and Issue Group Reports
Sub-Committee on Data Issues (Soroosh Sorooshian - Chair/ Warren Washington Reported)

Dr. Washington made a motion.

MOTION: NESDIS provide the report "Treasures at Risk" to the SAB before it is sent out for review.

Mr. Douglas seconded this motion, amending it to say as soon as possible.

The motion was then opened for discussion. Ms. Glackin said that the report is the same as what the subcommittee has seen before. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.

ACTION ITEM: Ms. Glackin will send the Board a memo as to the disposition and schedule of the report, including a most recent draft.

Ocean Exploration and Research Initiative
(Barbara Moore - Director, NOAA Undersea Research Program)

Ms. Moore presented NOAA's Ocean Exploration and Research Initiative to the Board. Living and working under the sea refers to a follow-on to the Aquarius, possibly an "international inner space station." Four research strategies were presented: regional expeditions (e.g., arctic), collaborations (especially with platforms), exploring through time (undersea observatories in remote locations), and event-specific response (e.g., volcanic eruptions). Education and outreach is an important part of the initiative, 10% of the budget. The $50M budge is split between ocean frontiers, new resources, ocean acoustics, cultural heritage, education and outreach, and data management and involves all NOAA line offices except NWS.

Questions and Discussion

Dr. Washington asked if there would be an emphasis on EEZ or the deep ocean. Ms. Moore explained that we are talking about the deep ocean, but our coasts first. At this point there is not much collaboration with the Census of Marine Life. NOAA is the only agency sharing in the $50M, but we are leveraging partnerships with other agencies.

Dr. Stephenson-Hawk asked about existing programs in NOAA and other agencies. Is this over and above or duplication? Ms. Moore explained that NOAA would not be proposing this if there were. We will ask NSF to collaborate on the science plan. The science program would evolve from a series of workshops.

Dr. Washington asked about the balance with university partners. Ms. Moore explained that most of the science is by the university community. It would be a competitive program.

Dr. Rice expressed concern over a delay in the Census because of some desire to coordinate or combine with the Ocean Exploration Initiative.

Mr. Douglas stated that they should still be integrated, not to stop and go back to square one, but to share resources. Mr. Douglas then made the following motion.

MOTION: SAB supports the Census of Marine Life and urges NOAA support and participation in this long-term initiative. The SAB urges that NOAA support for this project not be at the expense of current or future fish stock assessments; but that it should include social scientists; that it create direct links with public outreach and education; and that data be collected and managed in ways that inform future ocean resource management decisions.

Dr. Pietrafesa seconded the motion.

The discussion of the motion began with Dr. Alexander proposing to strike research from stock assessment. There should be no reference to ocean exploration because it is new and embryonic. Let it develop by itself for a while. Dr. Hanna agreed.

Dr. Stephenson-Hawk asked what NOAA guidance was regarding the new initiatives. She added that there is a desire for integration and cooperation at the line office level.

Modifications were made to the original motion and the Board agreed to the changes. Dr. Pietrafesa seconded the modified motion. There was further discussion, with Dr. Rice suggesting that "governance structures" be deleted because it would cause big problems in the international arena. Mr. Douglas and Dr. Pietrafesa agreed to the changes.

After further discussion with no changes to the text, a unanimous vote was cast in favor of the motion.

SAB Sub-Committee and Issue Group Reports
Sub-Committee on Synthesis (Pat Gober - Chair)

The following "Observations and Recommendations of the Science Advisory Board's Sub-Committee on Scientific Synthesis" was distributed to the SAB.

Social science remains a subset of NOAA programs. Social science research in NOAA includes anything having to do with people. It lacks focus and direction. It is not cumulative, integrative, or collaborative like physical/biological science that NOAA conducts. There is little or no integration of results to answer social questions. There is a misunderstanding of what social science is (not just having to do with people). Social Science is not just a social benefit but more future looking, like perceptions of hazardous events to help with human response. None of the research presented is in support of NOAA goals.

The Sub-Committee recommends that NOAA convene a panel of experts to look into the integration of social science into the development of NOAA science programs and projects. It should consider a short-term social science agenda and answer 2 or 3 questions. It should also define a long-tem research agenda, say 3 to 5 years. Dr. Gober motioned for the SAB to accept the Sub-Committee's observations and recommendations. Dr. Rice seconded the motion. Discussion followed involving terminology and the organization of the panel. Recommendation C was deleted. The amended observations and recommendations passed with a unanimous vote.

MOTION
1. Based on the list of social science research projects submitted by NOAA the following observations about NOAA's funding of social science research were made.
A. NOAA's list of "social science projects" is an all encompassing lists of projects that are in any way to do with people, including fishery enforcement, personnel support, administration, education, public health advisories, planning and budgeting, and public relations. Much of this effort does not meet our standard for social science research - the process of describing, explaining, and predicting human behavior as practiced by individuals and groups. Moreover, the list contains several biologically oriented projects that contain only a tiny component. Although the list is quite long, the social science component is much smaller.

B. In the realms of fisheries, NOAA's commitment to social science research emphasizes the economics of fisheries, an area that is most easily measured and can be integrated directly with scientific research on stock assessment. Less attention has been focused on the social structures of fishing communities and how these structures support or constrain achievement of NOAA's larger mission of building sustainable fisheries.

C. Some of the social science on the list, particularly fisheries, is driven by the suite of laws, executive orders, and other regulatory requirements that NOAA is charged with implementing. For example, we note a cluster of recent "community profile" projects in NMFS to meet requirements of the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 which is concerned with community impacts of fisheries regulation.

D. With certain notable exceptions, NOAA's social science research lack focus and direction. It appears that NOAA's strategy has been to fund an extremely wide range of social science research projects so long as they broadly support one of NOAA's larger goals. Included are projects dealing with the economic profiles of party boats and their patrons, and economic development studies of fishing industries. A large percentage of the projects appear to be developing inventories or profiles of economic factors associated with specific fisheries, without follow-up plans for using the information once collected. A second area of inquiry in OGP relates to human use of long-term climate forecasting, but includes as extremely broad range of topics and methodologies. This scattershot approach spreads social science too thinly and dissipates its ability to home in on and successfully answer questions of pressing societal concern. 

2. Based on the above observations the Sub-Committee on Synthesis recommends that:
A. NOAA convene a panel of experts to:
* Conduct an in-depth examination of the types and level of social science research funded by NOAA, usingthe following definition of social science research - the process of describing, explaining, and predicting human behavior as practiced by individuals and groups;
* Demonstrate the necessity of process-oriented research in understanding the mechanics by which human decision interact with NOAA's larger goals of environmental assessment and stewardship;
* Recommend a short term social science research agenda that is focused on a manageable number of research questions that relate directly to NOAA's mission; and 
* Define a long-term research agenda that includes the social science research needed to address NOAA's mission, develop realistic funding estimates, and identify priority research programs.

B. This panel of experts should consist primarily of social scientists in the environmental field, including representatives from inside and outside of NOAA. The panel will be appointed by the Chair of the Science Advisory Board upon consultation with the Board. 

C. The panel should present its findings by January 1, 2002.

SAB Sub-Committee and Issue Group Reports
Issue Group on Education (Denise Stephenson-Hawk - Lead)

The extended list of NOAA education projects and programs was only received two weeks ago so no comments yet. Dr. Stephenson-Hawk would like to suggest changing the issue group to a subcommittee. Members are part of other committees so it is hard to meet. Dr. Beeton described his involvement with NOAA Education Committee. He too would also like to make the Issue Group a Sub-Committee. Dr. Stephenson-Hawk made a motion.

MOTION: Change the designation of the Education Issue Group to a Sub-Committee.

The motion was seconded by Dr. Beeton. There was no discussion and it passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned for the day.

Summary Minutes Approved by the SAB—Thursday, April 6

Summary Minutes Approved by the NOAA Science Advisory Board
NOAA Science Advisory Board Meeting
April 5-7, 2000
Washington, DC

THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2000

Official Call to Order and Review of Meeting Format
(Michael Uhart - Executive Director, NOAA Science Advisory Board)

Dr. Uhart officially called the fifth meeting of the NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB) to order at 8:00 A.M. and explained the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) guidelines for the meeting.

Welcoming remarks and review of purpose of the NOAA SAB and expectation of meeting with NOAA Strategic Planning Leads
(D. James Baker - Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and Administrator of NOAA)

Dr. Baker reviewed the purpose of the SAB and the importance of the role it plays in developing NOAA science policy and developing science programs. He suggested that the SAB should offer to meet with the transition team and brief new people. The FY 2002 budget will be the first one the new Administration will see.

Questions and Discussion

Mr. Douglas asked how the SAB's recommendations on the FY 2002 budget will be treated. Dr. Baker replied that he will ask for them to be written and formally presented to him, in a formal response process.

ACTION ITEM: The Chair of the SAB shall officially transmit the Boards recommendations and statements regarding the FY 2002 budget initiatives to Dr. Baker.

Dr. Maxwell asked if it is possible to put together a strategic plan just for research, like Sea Grant. Dr. Baker replied that NOAA has been successful in educating OMB in Sea Grant research and added that it is harder to get the money to manage, store and analyze data than it is to build the instruments and systems to collect the data.

A discussion ensued on how to best utilize NOAA partnerships and the SAB in the strategic planning process. Questions include funding research and linkages with other agencies.

Dr. Baker said that one way for NOAA to survive is to link with other agencies.

Dr. Rice stated that partnerships are fundamental to research surviving everywhere. NOAA could look at improving partnerships in the areas of mission-oriented research (fish stock assessment) and with monitoring and assessment of data. 
Dr. Stevenson-Hawk said that all kinds of research must be addressed in an integrated way.

NOAA's Climate Service's Initiative 
(Dave Evans - Director, OAR)

Dr. Evans outlined NOAA's Climate Services initiative as an introduction to presentations on NOAA's decadal to centennial change and seasonal and interannual climate forecast presentations of initiatives to follow. He explained the strategy from which the two initiatives were developed.

Presentations from NOAA Strategic Planning Teams: 
Environmental Assessment and Prediction Portfolio
Implement Seasonal to Interannual Climate Forecasts
 
(Bob Livezey - NCEP, NWS)

Dr. Livezey explained that the goal is an integrated NOAA Climate Services System Program. Services come out of the research, observations, and model predictions. The strategy through FY 2006 is fix what is broken, provide services and conduct research. About 1/3 of the FY 2002 SI budget initiative is for research, both basic and applied. Of the 5 recommendations from the 1999 constituent workshops, only climate/weather links and assessment of high-impact event risk has money in the President's FY 2001 budget. The 2000 workshops endorsed the FY 2001 COOP rescue initiative and the FY 2002 surface observing system modernization and supported increasing NOAA attention to climate services and stakeholders, but called for more structure. The 2000 workshops resulted in 4 recommendations: the need for intraseasonal forecast services, integrated regional assessments, institutionalizing mechanisms for technology transfer from lab to operations, and training/education to NWS field and private sector meteorologists and climatologists. He presented the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) Initiative and other initiatives including educational/outreach plans. He explained how climate services will be organized within the NWS reorganization and the formation of an OAR Climate Services Program Office.

Questions and Discussion

Dr. Washington asked if GOOS just a NOAA responsibility. Dr. Livezey said that GOOS is international, with responsibilities shared with other nations.

Dr. Hanna asked if NOAA is able to turn its customers into paying customers and recover costs. Dr. Livezey responded that policy and statute dictate that NOAA can only recover cost of reproduction, unless we have specific authority for fees, which we have in some areas.

Dr. Washington strongly supports NOAA's support of the international efforts in the oceans. It may be easier to sell climate services to OMB and Congress if we package them more towards the NWS side.

Dr. Evans said that OAR tried for climate services in the FY 2001 budget. The idea was not to parcel out but to build up a unified climate services program. Dr. Pietrafesa thinks what is broken is C-MAN (Coastal-Marine Automated Network), buoys, etc. There is a part of the ocean observing initiative, but not included in the seasonal to interannual initiative, and there is a coastal initiative that may address this.

Dr. Brown applauds an integrated view, NOAA should show that there is international leveraging of the NOAA part.

Dr. Hanna asked how to present the market value of these services.

Mr. Douglas asked the legislative authority to recover costs.

Ms. Fruchter explained that we are partnering with the private sector and, any fees we charge, they are for a narrow set of people that need the information.

Dr. Alexander asked how NOAA has incorporated some recent papers, such as the Malone Paper. Dr. Livezey replied that they are linked because they are the same people.

Dr. Brown about the US position on open access to data and information. Dr. Livezey explained that many foreign countries are charging for special products and that he supports NOAA and US position. There is a value. NOAA will have to learn to change the way they do business because of the impact.

Dr. Greenwood supports the open access to data.

Continuation of Presentations from NOAA Strategic Planning Teams 
Environmental Assessment and Prediction Portfolio
Predict and Assess Decadal to Centennial Change 
(Presenter: Dan Albritton - Director, Aeronomy Laboratory, OAR; Tom Karl - Director, National Climatic Data Center, NESDIS)

Dr. Albritton described the strategic planning team's current activities, FY 2001 augmentations, constituent input, FY 2002 plans and long term plans.

Questions and Discussion

Dr. Brown asked how the climate change, the Levitas article, and climate forcing agents fit together within their plan? Dr. Albritton explained that observing systems, the second part of the NOAA climate services initiative, will address this. Components in the ocean observing system initiative will specifically address the Levitas article.

Dr. Rice stated that the North American chemistry part of the initiative is not a new initiative but a new way of thinking of things. Dr. Albritton explained that there is no FY 2002 initiative in this area. We are not ready to describe a new national research agenda. Secondly, climate service deserves the emphasis.

Dr. Rice asked for examples of the end-to-end pilots. Dr. Albritton explained that NESDIS will be connected in real-time to state and national insurance facilities. Extreme events and information and interpretation of extreme events will be available

Dr. Sorooshian asked if the inclusion of water vapor is in response to the National Academy of Sciences report. Dr. Albritton explained the current trends in tropospheric water vapor.

Dr. Hanna asked if there was discipline integration in the international assessment and how it was shared with other components in NOAA. Dr. Albritton explained that there was a good national integration of disciplines. On the international level, it still must be improved; there was almost no social integration.

Dr. Pietrafesa if there is any attention to data management in the budget breakouts. Dr. Albritton explained that data management is in the NESDIS component for data recovery, digitizing nondigital files.

Presentation from NOAA Strategic Planning Teams 
Environmental Assessment and Prediction Portfolio
Advance Short-term Warning and Forecast Services 
(Louis Uccellini - Director, National Centers for Environmental Prediction, NWS)

Dr. Uccellini presented the FY 2002 initiatives for the advance short-term warning and forecast services team. Six strategies were used to formulate the FY 2002 to FY 2006 budget plan: sustain a modernized infrastructure, build upon the success of previous efforts, improve dissemination and use of weather information, accelerate technology infusion, operationalize space weather forecasts, and improve new service programs (e.g., aviation and marine). He presented the results of the FY 2000 constituent planning and priorities workshops.

Questions and Discussion

Dr. Stevenson-Hawk asked the relationship with the University of Maryland. Dr. Uccellini responded that there was a relationship with the meteorology department. She wanted a copy of the white paper. Dr. Uccellini said he would provide a copy in a couple of weeks.

ACTION ITEM: Louis Uccellini will provide a copy of the white paper to Denise Stevenson-Hawk.

The Board discussed the value of satellite radiances on predictability and how the lack of radiances of value over land is a hindrance.

In response to a question by Dr. Pietrafesa, NOAA would improve radar data through dual polarization and an open system architecture.

Dr. Sorooshian noted that there are still radar coverage holes in the west due to terrain.

Dr. Gober wondered about the relationship between science and application. How much is basic research and how much is applying research to operations? Are there any data on how successful it is in getting money for operations vs. research? Dr. Uccellini responded that NOAA gets about 1/10 of what NSF gets. There is now a new line in the budget. The NWS part of the budget is operations and OAR and NESDIS are research. But much of the NESDIS is support for operations.

Dr. Sorooshian extended his congratulations on the joint data center with NASA.

Dr. Alexander asked if there are any new initiatives on tsunami. Dr. Uccellini said that it is number two for OAR and lower for the other line offices. They have the buoys out there and now it is time for maintenance and outreach. The objective is to lower the false alarm rate.

Presentation from NOAA Strategic Planning Teams
Environmental Stewardship Portfolio 
Sustain Healthy Coasts 
(Margaret Davidson - Director, NOAA Coastal Services Center)

Ms. Davidson presented two initiatives. One is the out of the box initiative called Predict and Reduce Watershed Impact of Coastal Storms (PREWICS). It engages the interactions between the ocean, atmosphere, and humans. It will build an end-to-end capability, observer to user, capability. There will be three pilot projects: St. Johns River, Florida, and Southern California. Margaret provided breakouts of the budget based on different factors, e.g., line office, team, science, observations, and operations. There are talks with the NSF for social science research and programs because NSF gets money for social science but NOAA does not. USGS is building a linked initiative. For Sustain Healthy Coasts there are 4 initiatives: habitat for coastal life; sustainable coastal communities; creating new value from the sea; and coral reef watch. She reviewed the outcomes of the 2000 constituent policy and planning workshops.

Questions and Discussion

Dr. Stevenson-Hawk noted that the pilot programs are presented as taking over 5 years and asked if they will be completed in 5 years. Dr, Davidson replied that, if the concept is proved, then the framework can be taken to other regions. There will then be a national system.

Dr. Hanna asked if NOAA has thought of the research priority process. In response, Dr. Davidson will provide the 2-page table to the SAB.

Dr. Rice where the 6.5M goes on the decision support line. This could involve many disciplines. 
Dr. Pietrefesa stated that there is a loss of the marine buoy network. This is picked up in this initiative. It augments the existing network and, where there is a pilot, will add to it. The maintenance is taken care of only in the pilot areas. C-MAN buoys and ocean buoys are in the 2-page table.

Dr. Greenwood asked about the offshore movement of pollutants and how do you deal with invasive pollutants. Dr. Davidson explained that there could be atmospheric deposition. It is a challenge, but we must start to understand what is under our control and then look at those areas outside of our control. NOAA is a player at the able of EPA's smart growth initiative.

Dr. Rice asked if social scientists involved. Dr. Davidson replied that there was, though Sea Grant. She went on to explain that there is not a significant part of this initiative for social science because of the budget limit. The amount of resources available would determine the number of pilots. Marine biotechnology and aquaculture are included.

Dr. Rice said that forecasting plays an important role. There is a thin talent pool of those that can use the forecast products. Is NOAA doing anything structured to take the value of forecasting and make that knowledge and technology available to other areas that do not have the forecasting tools? Dr. Uccellini said that there is not a unified effort.

Mr. Douglas asked if there are efforts in habitat characterization and understanding. How do you know that it is at a scale useful to managers? Dr. Davidson replied that the programs are designed based on questions posed. They are question-driven. Little or none have been characterized. It is a part of the initiative to do an inventory of what has been done. Mr. Douglas asked if you can you use a pilot area that has a problem and demonstrate to the managers how characterization can help. Mr. Roger Griffis offered that it is being done with coral reefs. Dr. Rice stated that international efforts have been very slow in coming up with characterization schemes and developing ways to carry them out.

Dr. Beeton asked that, if we assume you will only get 10% of what you ask for, how do you distribute the funds? A question for all of team leads. Ms. Davidson hopes the board can help the teams determine this. Dr. Livsey stated that in the passbacks, the teams were asked for their priorities when the budget came back lower than requested. These are discussed within each team. He would be looking to the SAB for constructive statements. Dr. Albritton said that his team will prioritize, as they have done before. SAB comments could be useful in that perspective. Comments by the SAB for next year and beyond would be useful. Dr. Uccellini explains that it is frustrating; there is a lot of effort with relatively little funding payoff. 
Dr. Sorooshian said that experience and the Board's involvement in reviews will be the process that will help them determine what is best. Our intent is to determine how to improve the budget process.

Dr. Stevenson-Hawk asked how goals and performance measures are formulated. Dr. Uccellini explained that we are trying to identify the next level of skill. It is a realistic expectation, but not a guarantee.

Mr. Douglas stated that this Board does not want to do anything to set back the planning process up to this point. How can we focus on the charge that we have? He said that at the priorities and planning workshop for Sustain Healthy Coasts, characterization does not have a lot of support because coast owners think it is threatening.

Dr. Brown suggested there are old and new ways of approaching problems. ENSO just happened. Sustained efforts sometimes lead to revolutionary improvements. He has doubts on the scalability of characterization. Dr. Davidson agreed that has to be addressed.

Dr. Gober believes that innovation comes form integration and interdisciplinary research.

Dr. Rice said that research across disciplines is what is important. Is it too late for the SAB to actually do something about the FY 2002 budget? We can be helpful in advising on how NOAA can make some meaningful initiatives successful (funding). Can we improve the will to fund? Dr. Uccellini replied that the Board can help with advice on what the team responses will be to prioritize the DOC and OMB passbacks.

The SAB discussed the critical nature of climate services. The Board members would like talking points of NOAA high priority initiatives. A list of appropriators in both House and Senate would be useful.

ACTION ITEM: Provide the Board with a list of appropriators in the House and the Senate. 

The meeting adjourned for the day.

Summary Minutes Approved by the SAB—Friday, April 7

SUMMARY MINUTES APPROVED BY THE NOAA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
NOAA Science Advisory Board Meeting
April 5-7, 2000
Washington, DC

FRIDAY, APRIL 7, 2000

Official Call to Order and Review of Meeting Format
(Michael Uhart - Executive Director, NOAA Science Advisory Board)

Dr. Uhart officially called the fifth meeting of the NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB) to order at 8:00 A.M. and explained the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) guidelines for the meeting.

Continuation of Presentations from NOAA Strategic Planning Teams
Environmental Stewardship Portfolio
Build Sustainable Fisheries 
(Mark Holliday - Chief, Fishery Statistics and Economics Division, NMFS)

The vision of the BSF team was presented along with their 3 objectives: eliminate and prevent over-fishing and overcapacity; attain economic sustainability; and develop environmentally & economically sound aquaculture. The current situation in fisheries and public policy implementation were explained. There were 3 recommendations: improve the information basis for fisheries management; expand the scale and scope of the stewardship process; and focus on synthesis and prediction. Dr. Holliday described a fisheries management system that was described in a 1998 Report to Congress.

Questions and Discussion

Dr. Alexander asked the value of the buoy system. Dr. Holliday replied that it is a complementary approach to other forms of data collection, as has been successfully done in ocean observing systems.

Dr. Hanna complemented the very systemic and well-integrated plan. She supports the fisheries information system and commented that the funding effort includes a wide variety of state and local data, as well as a negotiation process prior to actual digitization. However, social science can be used to understand how the system works. Is there a way to include the message across that social science should be used in designing systems? Dr. Holliday replied that educational seminars for commissioners are affective for some councils.

Mr. Douglas asked to what extent do you utilize NRC studies and reports (e.g., ITQ study, the importance of regional research)? Dr. Holliday said that they are powerful tools that provide valuable ideas and as independent evaluation.

Mr. Douglas believes that NOAA should take the lead in regional research. Is NOAA doing anything? If so, in what way are you involved in ocean zoning? Dr. Holliday said that the FY2001 budget has something (in NOS) in sanctuaries.

Mr. Douglas wanted to know to what extent NOAA is looking to safeguard certain aquaculture projects, especially siting. NOAA is looking at several things. Anything proposed? Dr. Holliday said that NOAA is working with the Office of Sustainable Development for a set of guidelines.

Dr. Sorooshian asked the extent to which NMFS is cooperating with the Treasures at Risk? Dr. Holliday said the Treasures report is end-to-end and proposes standards. NMFS, and other offices are complying and contributing.

Dr. Rice noted that the initiative adds 33 FTES to the stock assessment community. What percentage is this? Is it big enough to make a difference? Dr. Holliday added that stock assessments are completed by 133 people at 5 fisheries labs. Dr. Pietrafesa asked if there is a list of NMFS labs around the country and their foci. There is a list in the back of the NOAA Annual Business Report, which has been distributed to the SAB.

Pat Gober congratulated Dr. Holliday on their use of social science and that it was integrated into the budget process; it will cost something to do it.

Dr. Maxwell added that the team worked closely with Sea Grant. Are you also involved with their research? Dr. Holliday responded that the marine advisory service serves as a conduit for research needs. NMFS, Sea Grant, and the Office of Sustainable Development are partnering in aquaculture.

Mr. Douglas asked if the team gets involved with reviewing Sea Grant proposals? Dr. Holliday responded that NMFS serves on panels and is asked by Sea Grant for themes for the requests for proposals.

Continuation of Presentations from NOAA Strategic Planning Teams
Environmental Stewardship portfolio 
Recover Protected Species 
(Phil Williams - National Marine Fisheries Service)

Dr. Williams presented the RPS(Recover Protected Species) initiatives for FY 2002, including the performance measures framework. RPS's FY 2000 resource distribution of $90.23M and 637 FTES is all in NMFS. He noted that education is not fundamental in what we do because there is not a job description of an educator. People do it but it is a duty with no specific education requirements. The initiatives include: pacific salmon recovery and conservation and recovery of other listed and at-risk species (e.g., right whales and monk seals); conservation through foreign policy; ocean exploration and research; life extension of the RV McArthur; upgrade NMFS Galveston lab.

Dr. Beeton asked for the total effort within NOAA. Is there a relationship between NOAA and other agencies? Sue Fruchter explained that there was $6M in FY 2000 and there will be $15M in the FY 2001 budget. Dr. Williams added that there are partnerships with other agencies but each agency has its own vision. Dr. Beeton asked if it is a partnership or competition. Dr. Williams responded that NMFS works with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which is similar organization to NMFS in NOAA. There are conflicting interests. It is difficult to work with all agencies; it takes changing organizational behavior.

Dr. Beeton stated that, within RPS, it is a big issue because working with other teams is integral. Real partnerships are needed. We need to start at the planning level. Ms. Dalton said that it needs to be integrated. Pacific salmon at FWS is very important. There are weekly meetings regionally. People work together to solve local issues. Different areas have long standing programs within the field. The disagreement is within Washington because of politics and philosophies. There is more competition for resources. The problem is statutory responsibility versus scientific data.

Dr. Hanna asked NMFS to provide details on how they intend to fix the conflict between RPS and Sustainable Fisheries. Ms. Dalton responded that NMFS is not sure if it is possible but it is a continuing concern. It is a priority.

Dr. Hanna asked that since you want to use Sea Grant extension, what knowledge does NMFS have about the activities of Sea Grant already in this area. There are already activities in Oregon. Dr. Williams answered that they do not have much information yet and that they are aware of the capabilities and their shortcomings.

Dr. Hanna suggested that RPS determine what Sea Grant extension programs are already doing.

Dr. Rice noted that there has been no mention of fresh water species. Is there a jurisdictional issue? Dr. Williams said that the Fish and Wildlife Service has the statutory responsibility.

Mr. Douglas asked if NMFS uses the carrying capacity concept. Is there any validity to using it for marine mammals, e.g. gray whales. Biologically the sustainable limit is lower than it was before. Ms Dalton replied that NOAA does not use carrying capacity, only loosely. It is used as a description of the lowest state of the ecosystem that is able to support that population.

Dr. Maxwell asked if there was a general statement about the causes of decline of salmon, such as commercial fishing, hydropower, fish hatcheries impacts, or loss of habitat. Fishing is what got us here for salmon. Whaling is what got us here with regard to whales. Dr. Rice added that, for salmon, the changes in reproduction regime are a big problem, consistent with the idea that commercial fishing is causing the decline.

Continuation of Presentations from NOAA Strategic Planning Teams
Environmental Assessment and Prediction Portfolio
Promote Safe Navigation 
(Capt. David MacFarland - Director, Office of Coast Survey, NOS

Capt. McFarland explained the Promote Safe Navigation (PSN) initiative. It includes the strategies for implementation, the different kinds of navigational responsibilities, and the strategies to help promote the use of information for non-navigation community, particularly the new ways to display information, of utilizing survey data, the primary areas of applied research and development, the creation of a strong partnership with USGS to help promote NGS-produced bathymetry and other survey technologies, including digitizing GIS models.

Discussion and Questions

Drs. Pietrafesa and Rice would like the package of technical reports from the Promote Safe Navigation (PSN) group sent to them.

ACTION ITEM: NOS will supply the package of technical reports from the Promote Safe Navigation (PSN) to Drs. Pietrafesa and Rice.

Mr. Douglas asked if they use commercial vessels to carry bathymetry equipment and to take observations in a cooperative manner. Capt. MacFarland said that they are looking into it.

Dr. Hanna asked about the completion schedule for the GIS. Capt. MacFarland said that it will be completed by FY 2006. If it is to be done faster, more money is needed.

Mr. Douglas suggested that you build in the needs of the water quality community, including water quality, debris, and oil recycling.

Dr. Pietrafesa asked if the data are available on-line. Capt. MacFarland responded that there are data on-line through their web page.

Dr. Hanna asked if there was some international standardization to under-keel clearance. Capt. MacFarland replied that the International Mariners Organization has many standards and there are many others. 

Presentation and SAB discussion of NOAA/Universities Administrative Efficiencies Subcommittee 
(Lead: Al Beeton - Chair, NOAA Science Advisory Board)

The original subcommittee came as a result of some of the problems universities were having with NOAA administrative matters. Dr. Beeton felt that the subcommittee worked well, but was limited under FACA rules because of he inability to come up with a consensus. He strongly encourages the Board to approve their request to become a subcommittee of the SAB. Dr. Alexander made a motion.

MOTION: The SAB adopts the NOAA/ University Administrative Efficiencies Subcommittee as a Sub-Committee of the SAB.

Dr. Pietrafesa seconded the motion.

Discussion of the motion began with Dr. Sorooshian asked for some examples of administrative inefficiencies. Mr. Nelson provided one, Fly America. Dr. Sorooshian asked if it would it relate only to NOAA. Mr. Nelson responded that it would, but the hope is that NOAA would join the Federal Demonstration Partnership.

The motion was unanimously approved.

In response to the action item: Mr. Douglas and Drs. Alexander, Rice, and Washington will draft a set of options as to how the full Board and individual members can get involved in the formal evaluation of NOAA Science through review panels made on Wednesday April 5, 2000, the following motion was submitted by Mr. Douglas.

MOTION: The Board's involvement in the formal evaluation of NOAA science through review panels will be in the following manner.

1. At the request of an assistant administrator, or the appropriate office chief with the approval of the assistant administrator, the SAB will determine if it will officially participate in its capacity as a FACA approved board in the formal review of NOAA science by a science review panel.
2. The SAB Chair and the Line Office Assistant Administrator or the appropriate division chief will make the selection of panelists, after consultation with the entire Board.
3. The Board will review and approve the frame of reference for use by each review panel.
4. SAB members will be given the opportunity to serve on each review panel. When a member agrees to serve, that member will have principal responsibility for leading the discussion of the review panel's conclusions when its report comes to the Board for review and approval. The appropriate administrator or office chief will be responsible for taking the lead in making the presentation of the report to the Board.
5. If no member of the Board participates in the work of the review panel, the chair of the SAB will select a member to take the lead in conducting the initial review of the panel's report and who will have principal responsibility for leading the discussion of the report when it comes to the full Board for review and approval. The appropriate administrator or office chief will again be responsible for taking the lead in making the presentation of the report to the Board.
6. The report of the science review panel will be brought to the full Board for review and approval.
7. The SAB will provide sufficient time, possibly as much as one half day, on its next agenda scheduled after the report is submitted to it, for public discussion by the Board.

Art seconded. Discussion regarding the text of the motion ensued and changes were made to the text. (The above motion has said changes). The vote was unanimous.

Further Discussion

Dr. Greenwood suggested that the Steering Committee should deal with SAB involvement in reviews. Mr. Douglas entered a motion.

MOTION: Authorize the Chair and the SAB Steering Committee to review and approve SAB involvement in reviews.

The motion was seconded by Dr. Greenwood. Discussion was called for but there was none. The motion was unanimously passed.

Presentation on Aquaculture and SAB discussion
(Roan Conrad - Director, Office of Sustainable Development and Intergovernmental Affairs)

Mr. Conrad briefed the SAB on DOC and NOAA efforts to develop aquaculture policies. There is a deadline that NOAA has promised DOC. A panel will develop a set of guidelines that will help to prioritize requests for funding. The question is how should the Secretary rank the policies. It would be useful to send the guidelines to the SAB for their comment.

Questions and Discussion

Mr. Douglas was interested in what is being put together, including the scientific questions and if a review by the SAB is appropriate. Dr. Hanna said that it is important for the SAB to be involved. However NOAA subsidies have been a political roadblock. There is a need to understand the relationship between the capture fisheries and culture fisheries in the market.

Mr. Douglas said that the SAB is not the right body to address the technical questions. There are technical and even peer-reviewed bodies for such reviews.

Dr. Hanna said that economics and social components are a part of scientific investigation and Mr. Douglas said it would be a good idea to look at the draft guidelines.

Dr. Greenwood made a motion.

MOTION: The SAB accepts the responsibility to review the appropriate sections of NOAA/DOC guidelines for all DOC aquaculture activities when they are available.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Douglas. The motion was opened for discussion. The discussion centered around the inclusion of socioeconomics in the aquaculture activities. A vote on the motion was taken. All voted yes, with Dr. Rice abstaining.

SAB Discussion of NOAA Strategic Planning Team Presentations

Dr. Beeton would like to be able to say what we thought of the process of team presentations. Does the SAB feel it is beneficial to Dr. Baker and the teams? Mr. Douglas said that the presentations were useful, a forcing agent. The teams addressed what the SAB wanted to hear. SAB requests for certain kinds of information were substantively incorporated. Value was added. Does non-consensus vs. consensus recommendations carry adequate weight?

Dr. Gober said that only BSF's presentation contained a good socioeconomic component. NOAA is not a social science agency, but it could be more integrated. Dr. Rice agreed with Pat Gober. The presentations were educational, but it could be earlier in the budget process because we were told that it is really too late already for SAB input to the FY 2002 budget. If we had provided this a month or 2 weeks earlier, then that would be more helpful.

Dr. Beeton said that the SAB could provide guidance on how the previous year's comments were addressed and then incorporated into the current year's presentation.

Dr. Maxwell suggested more consistent and concise presentations. We need to get some feedback from the teams on what they think about the SAB involvement.

SAB discussion on future meetings and site visits

The Board discussed an April 2001 meeting in Monterey after the election and an October meeting in Woods Hole. As it is an election year, the Board decided that a conference call in December, after the elections, is a good idea. The call will determine how/when to meet the transition team, find out when the Board can meet with them, and determine a list of priority topics to be addressed. This would be sometime between November and Jan 20. Dr. Beeton was given the authority to put together the group that would meet with the transition team.

Mr. Douglas moved to adjourn. Dr. Gober seconded. The motion to adjourn passed unanimously.

October 19-21, 1999 - Boulder, Colorado

 

July 7-9, 1999 - Seattle, Washington

NOAA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
JULY 7-9, 1999
SEATTLE, WA

SUMMARY MINUTES APPROVED BY THE SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD

July 7, 1999

Official Call to Order and Review of Meeting Format - Dr. Michael P. Crosby (Executive Director, NOAA Science Advisory Board)
Dr. Crosby officially called the third meeting of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) to order, explained the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) guidelines for the meeting, and turned the meeting over to Dr. Beeton.

Introduction of the NOAA SAB Chair and Board Members and Opening Statement of the Chair - Dr. Alfred Beeton (Chair of NOAA Science Advisory Board)
Dr. Beeton welcomed everyone. He asked all Board members present to introduce themselves (see SAB attendees list at the end of the minutes). Dr. Beeton said that the previous Board meetings have been opportunities for the Board to learn about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). He also stated that this meeting would provide further knowledge about NOAA and specific issues upon which the Board can provide advice.

Welcoming Remarks and Review of Purpose of the NOAA SAB - Dr. D. James Baker (Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, and Administrator of NOAA)
Dr. Baker welcomed the SAB members, thanked them for making time in their busy schedules to be at the meeting, then gave an overview of the purpose and importance of the SAB. NOAA's ability to carry out and continually improve its forecasting and stewardship missions depends on scientific and technological expertise that resides both within and outside the agency. NOAA must have the most advanced atmospheric and oceanographic research, and tap the best ideas for applying scientific breakthroughs to its mission. It must also be forward-looking, able to anticipate needs in coming years and ensure that the agency is performing and funding research and education that will answer those future requirements. In managing NOAA's research, decisions must be based on the most recent developments in the broad areas of rapidly changing science and technology that underlie the Agency's work. The NOAA SAB will be crucial to affecting NOAA's strategic plan goals for long- and short-term improvement in environmental forecasting and stewardship. The SAB will help ensure that prognoses and concerns of NOAA's partners are considered in the decision-making process.

Dr. Baker stated that NOAA's Science Advisory Board assists him in maintaining a complete and accurate understanding of scientific issues critical to the Agency's missions, from forecasting weather to stewardship of the nation's fisheries. SAB activities and advice will provide necessary input to ensure that NOAA's science programs are of the highest quality and provide optimal support to resource management. Dr. Baker emphasized that the SAB will provide him with specific advice and recommendations on ALL aspects of NOAA's science programs and activities, across the various Line Offices.

The principal foci for this third meeting of the Board are an overview and discussion of NOAA science as it is related to the Endangered Species Act; and presentation of options for, and a discussion of potential SAB participation/oversight in NOAA science program and panel reviews. The Board will also: hear an overview of NOAA-University of Washington/State of Washington partnership activities; be updated on the status of NOAA's FY2000 budget and summary of FY2001 strategic planning teams priorities; have a discussion on strategic planning related to science priorities; hear reports from the SAB sub-committees and issue group; and visit several key NOAA facilities in Seattle.

OVERVIEW OF NOAA-UNIVERSITY/STATE OF WASHINGTON PARTNERHIP ACTIVITIES

Washington Sea Grant Program - Mr. Louie S. Echols, Director 
Mr. Echols explained that the Washington Sea Grant Program receives $2.3 million annually in programmable funds from NOAA and matching non-federal funds. Nationally, NOAA supports 29 Sea Grant colleges that fund research at approximately 140 institutions. Sea Grant conducts research, education and outreach on marine resources and marine environmental problems. The outreach activity is one of the aspects that makes Sea Grant unique in the ocean sciences arena. Research ranges from basic to applied and all science is peer reviewed. Washington Sea Grant is known for development of fisheries acoustics, triploid oysters, high impact fisheries research and marine biotechnology. Sea Grant participates in cooperative activities with the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Ocean Service (NOS), and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Sea Grant works in partnership with state and local agencies and other institutions. Currently the University of Washington (UW) and five other institutions are involved with the Washington Sea Grant program.

SAB Discussion
The SAB asked who sets the Sea Grant research agenda and how it is set. Mr. Echols said this is done through a local steering committee that holds meetings with state and national managers to set priorities. There is continual strategic planning. Science gets supported based on how good it is. When asked if there was a rapid response component to the program, Mr. Echols responded affirmatively.

The Board then asked to what extent Sea Grant has responded to the pressing science questions at NOAA and what portion of the Washington Sea Grant budget is used for community and economic development versus technology development. Mr. Echols replied that there are extensive interactions with at least six joint programs with NOAA and that 20 percent and 40 percent respectively, of Washington Sea Grant budget is used for community and economic development versus technology development.

Mr. Echols also informed the SAB that in the area of environmental stewardship, there are extensive interactions with such agencies as the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team, the Department of Ecology, and with Oregon dealing with aquatic nuisance species. In addition, the Washington Sea Grant is closely related to Oregon and Alaska programs and has worked on some programs with California Sea Grant.

Sea Grant has been involved in individual transferable quotas (ITQ) and related issues, as well as restoration activities from both biological and political sides. Ultimately the funding decisions are based on the quality of the proposals.

Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecosystems Regional Study (PNCERS) - Dr. David A. Armstrong
Dr. Armstrong described the goals and objectives of the Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecosystems Regional Study (PNCERS) program. He indicated that PNCERS is a partnership effort with NOAA, Washington Sea Grant, and the Oregon Coastal Ocean Program. The study area is from northern Washington state to the California/Oregon border with particular emphasis on Coos Bay and Yaquina Bay, Oregon and Willapa and Grays Harbor, Washington as related to near shore environments. The objective of their studies is to describe and measure sources of interconnectivity in the coastal areas, including the human factor, and the productivity of the fishery resources. One PNCERS study of particular interest to the Board was examining the use of pesticides to control burrowing shrimp that are impacting oyster farms.

SAB Discussion
The SAB asked who initiated the PNCERS program. Dr. Armstrong replied that it was started approximately three years ago with the NOAA Coastal Ocean Program (COP) and scientists in the Pacific Northwest. Dr. Scavia of NOS added that it was initiated by the NOAA Coastal Ocean Program which issued a call for concept papers and asked for the identification of problem areas at the ecosystem level. The concept papers were submitted four years ago, the topics that needed to be focused on were determined, the COP compared them with NOAA priority areas, proposals were requested, and then the PNCERS project was selected based on a competitive, peer review process. Dr. Armstrong also mentioned that there has been a long relationship with resource managers and that more are getting involved with PNCERS. The Team is working hard to integrate biological and physical sciences with the socio-economic aspects of the program.

Mr. Gudes, NOAA Deputy Under Secretary, asked how long the pesticide spraying to control burrowing shrimp has been going on. Dr. Armstrong said the spraying has been taking place for 30 or more years, is outlawed in Oregon, but is still legal in Washington. More recent synergy of research programs has led to coupling objectives of PNCERS with a new initiative from the Western Regional Aquaculture Consortium. A four-year study will analyze the effects of bivalve aquaculture on juvenile salmonid habitat in the same estuaries studied by PNCERS.

Pacific Northwest Climate Impacts Group - Dr. Edward L. Miles
The spatial area of the Pacific Northwest Climate Impacts Group's work is the Columbia River Basin in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. This is an integrated assessment of the impacts of climate change and variability in this area. The focus is on 1) what drives climate variation with particular interest in the seasonal to interannual and decadal to interdecadal cycles and 2) on seeking to extend analysis to probable impacts of climate change. The approach is to understand climate variations by looking for threshold effects and measuring societal impacts. The program is required to have systematic relations with users and seeks to provide a two-way flow of information through partnerships. The program provides assistance to partners. Dr. Miles stated that integrated assessment is a broken chain because society does not organize its business according to natural systems. He said the single most sensitive indicator of climate change is hydrology and it isn't being managed well. Most human activities in the Pacific Northwest are water-dependent to varying extents. Human intervention swamps what climate does. He illustrated this by showing the expected population increases in the Columbia River Basin and by showing how stressed the system already is. He asked for funding for the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) project in the north Pacific to complete the study-El Niño Surface Oscillation (ENSO) is only half the story of ocean temperature oscillations.

SAB Discussion
The SAB questioned how this Columbia Basin hydrological information could be used. Dr. Miles said he did not know where more water for this system would come from as the system is very stressed now. The level of population growth will require major trade-offs in water use - between agricultural, hydroelectric, municipal and industrial uses. One of the main problems is that no one speaks for the region. The gap in regional planning is clear. There are 103 members charged with management of water resources and it is very difficult to deal with such a large and diverse group. He stated that education and capacity-building are critical.

The Board then asked if all the critical players were brought on board at an early stage. Dr. Miles replied that the most major players came on board first but there were difficulties in connecting with some groups such as the Native Americans. The El Niño changed that by raising awareness and now these groups have joined this effort.

Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve - Dr. Douglas Bulthuis
Dr. Bulthuis stated that the Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve has one of the most extensive eelgrass resources on the west coast. It is part of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS), which is a NOAA/state partnership effort provided for in the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Act. The Padilla Bay NERR is administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Funding for the Reserve comes from both NOAA and Washington State. Padilla Bay, like other National Estuarine Research Reserves, is set aside for long term research, monitoring, education and resource protection. Much of the research deals with eel grass systems which are important for the Dungeness crab and juvenile salmon. In cooperation with partners in various universities, the Reserve has studies on breakdown of hydrocarbons in the sediments and on pollutants from agriculture that run in to the Bay. Padilla Bay is also involved in a water quality monitoring project along with all of the other National Estuarine Research Reserves. The project monitors basic physical/chemical parameters and, along with data from all the Reserves in the nation, puts the daily averages on the web. The Reserve educates local planners, teachers, and students about estuaries and coastal zone management issues. Dr. Bulthuis stated that strengths of the NERRS include their long term protection as reserves, the diversity of estuaries represented in the system, the federal/state/coastal zone management partnerships, research partnerships with universities and other NOAA offices, the Graduate Research Fellowship program that places graduate students in the Reserves, and the system-wide monitoring program that collects comparable water quality data in estuaries around the nation.

SAB Discussion
The SAB asked to what extent the Reserve interacts with the Coastal Zone Management program in Washington and helps set research priorities. Dr. Bulthuis responded that interaction between state CZM offices and Reserves varies among states but that in Washington, Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve is within the Washington State CZM Program office and that some coastal zone staff are working on deciding the research assistantships that the Reserve awards. This helps the CZM Program get involved in the decision on what research is conducted. But generally he said the interaction with the Washington CZM Program was not what it should or could be.

Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean (JISAO) - Dr. David Battisti, Director
The Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean (JISAO) was established in 1977 to foster research collaboration between the University of Washington and NOAA. The main players have been the Department of Atmospheric Sciences, College of Oceans and Fisheries Science and the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL). There are five primary research areas: 1) Climate variability, 2) global environmental chemistry, 3)estuaries, 4) recruitment of fish stock, and 5) policy, impact and response strategies with climate variability. JISAO has approximately 30 fellows, a director, and an administrative board. JISAO sponsors a postdoctoral fellowship program. NOAA's cost to administer JISAO is $141K per year and there is a 26% overhead. JISAO's annual budget is approximately $7 million. Dr. Battisti stated his concern over reduction in base support.

JISAO has two main areas, "Task II" and "Task III." Task II covers the Collaborative Research Scientist Program between the University of Washington and PMEL. It handles all the research scientists they have to work on collaborative projects of mutual interest. Task III covers the grants and contracts that JISAO handles in their theme areas, most of them NOAA funded. The Hayes Center is an ongoing cooperative research project linking UW with PMEL. It deals with all aspects of climate and prediction, ranging from observation t climate impacts. Dr. Battisti cited examples of results from the JISAO/UW/NOAA collaboration: 1) the World Class Aerosol Research Program; 2) the Tropical Atmosphere and Ocean (TAO) array for ENSO forecasting; 3) the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and its relationship to salmon abundance in the Northeast Pacific Ocean; and 4) the Arctic Oscillation.

SAB Discussion
The SAB asked Dr. Evans, OAR Assistant Administrator, to explain the NOAA base funding. Dr. Evans explained that the base funding covers fundamental administrative costs and fellowships. There has been a decrease in funding across the board for all joint and cooperative institutes.

The Board then asked what other NOAA funds JISAO receives. The response was that grants are received under NOAA Task II. Dr. Bernard stated that no PMEL overhead is incurred as funds pass through PMEL from the NOAA Office of Global Programs.

Mr. Gudes asked how much of the $7 million in funding is competitively awarded. Dr. Battisti replied at least 50 percent. [After confering that afternoon with his staff] Dr. Battisti reported to the SAB that somewhere between 72 and 85 percent of the annual budget is funded through peer reviewed, competitive awards. To the question of whether JISAO receives National Science Foundation (NSF) funding Dr. Battisti replied that it does receive NSF funds on a competitive basis.

The Board felt that funding for the Joint Institutes, including overhead base levels of funding, research project funding and overall funding, may be a useful separate discussion topic for a future SAB meeting.

OVERVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF NOAA SCIENCE AS IT IS RELATED TO THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

Legal/Legislative Tutorial on ESA as it Pertains to NOAA - Ms. Monica Medina (NOAA General Counsel)
Ms. Medina stated that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was passed in 1973, at a time when many environmental laws were passed by the Congress. There have been significant amendments between then and now. The most significant provisions of the Act are found in sections 4, 7,9 and 10.

Section 4 of the ESA defines "endangered" and "threatened" species. The Commerce Department deals with marine species and the Interior Department deals with terrestrial and interior freshwater species. To qualify for listing status a species must be threatened with extinction by any of the following five factors: 1) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; 2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes; 3) disease or predation; 4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or 5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. In the listing process economic factors cannot be considered. The listing process is time consuming and labor intensive. In a dire situation the Secretary can bypass formal listing procedures and statutory time frames if an emergency presents a significant risk to the well-being of a species.

Once on the list, the agency develops regulations, usually including a prohibition on the "take" of a species. Looking at critical habitat is where economic analysis is supposed to come in but is rarely done because of concern that economics will spill over and affect the listing. "Critical habitat" is defined as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species on which are found physical or biological features essential to the conservation of a species and which may require special management considerations and protections (i.e., sites that provide food, water, shelter or breeding grounds).

The ESA requires that the Secretary develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. Recovery plans are often not conducted with the same urgency with which the listing is done. This is an area where Congress is considering changing the Act. There is a bill pending in the Senate that would change ESA critical habitat and recovery plans.

Section 7 of the ESA deals with the obligations of Federal agencies to conserve species. All Federal Agencies have a substantive duty to consult with the appropriate Secretary, to insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by the agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Informal and then possibly formal consultation occurs between the Action Agency and the Consulting Agency (NMFS at NOAA). The so-called "God Squad", composed of Cabinet Secretaries and Agency Administrators can grant an exemption from consultation requirements under Section 7.

Section 9 of the ESA defines prohibitions on taking of an endangered species. The Act defines a "take" as an attempt to harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect an endangered species.

Section 10 of the ESA addresses incidental take permits (ITP) and habitat conservation plans (HCP). Congress allowed for "incidental take" from non-federal entities. The purpose of the incidental take permit/habitat conservation plans program is to reduce conflicts between the government who wants to protect the listed species and private parties who want to pursue economic development. In order to issue an ITP, the Secretary must find that: the taking will be incidental (indirect); the applicant will minimize and mitigate impacts of taking; the applicant will ensure adequate funding for a conservation plan will be provided; and taking will not appreciably reduce likelihood of survival and recovery of species in the wild. The Clinton Administration put into effect the "no surprises policy" which allows the government to write a guarantee that if the person who applies for the habitat conservation permit is willing to commit resources and level of effort to protect a species over a long period of time (generally 50 years), the government will not ask them to do more, unless the situation is so bad that the government has done everything it can without getting results. At this point the government can revoke the permit as a last resort.

Overview of Current NOAA Policy Questions Related to ESA - Mr. William Stelle (NMFS Northwest Region Administrator) 
Mr. Stelle stated that the salmon endangered species program shares the conventional science issues common to management of other natural resources. These issues include: what are the risks to the resource, what is the acceptable level of risk to those resources, how many sources of risk might there be, what is the level of uncertainty associated with these risks and how do we try to cumulate risks to the resource across all the sources of risk? Finally, how are risk reduction strategies designed that are both effective and fair? Mr. Stelle identified five facets of the salmon program which distinguish it from other resource management programs: 1) salmon have a very complicated lifecycle; 2) broad scope of human activities and natural variation which affect salmon; 3) geographic scope of these salmon listings; 4) power of the ESA; and 5) culture of natural resource management in the Pacific Northwest. The institutional culture governing salmon in the Pacific Northwest has important implications. There is a culture of collaboration and the political system believes in consensus decision making. Hence a lot of time is put into working out consensus among interested parties.

Mr. Stelle also stated what he would like to see the SAB do: 1) help devise the science synergies and science capabilities that are waiting to be captured within NOAA and beyond to help solve this issue; 2) give strategic advice on the science program; and 3) share advice on science governance. He cautioned that the SAB must: 1) understand the complexity of this program before jumping in; 2) acknowledge the fact of fiefdoms in the science world; and 3) acknowledge and respect the limitations of science.

SAB Discussion
The SAB asked how the rigor and integrity of science could be protected in a context of consensus. The reply was through transparency and sharing. Successful salmon recovery may depend on non-federal lands where responsibility vests in states, tribes or counties. ESA limits regulations in these areas. Non-federal participation is necessary for success. Stimulation of local recovery initiatives should be a high priority. Some SAB members acknowledged these were important aspects of recovery initiatives. However, the answer did not address the issue of protecting quality of science in a setting of negotiation and compromise. Some SAB members also noted that such consensus approaches to decision-making may result in slow innovation and use of new science findings.

Pacific Salmon Research at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center - Dr. Usha Varanasi (NMFS Northwest Region Science Director)
The Fisheries Science Centers are housed in five coastal regions (Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, Southwest and Alaska). The Science Centers are responsible for providing scientific advice to make sure that NOAA responsibilities and legislative acts, such as the ESA, are implemented based on the best available science. The salmon situation presents the largest challenge due to its geographic scope (fresh water to the ocean), complex life history and physiological change the species goes through. In the Northwest Science Center much of the scientific capital goes into studying the biology and ecology of salmon. The Center, like any other scientific institution, makes sure the quality of science is high by doing active planning, publishing in primary literature and assuring that the scientists have the opportunity to present papers at scientific meetings and serve on editorial boards.

The big question in dealing with salmon is how to integrate all the information from various sources and clearly define what the particular problem is. The Cumulative Risk Initiative (CRI) was developed to plan, evaluate and integrate risks to salmon survival across all anthropogenic risk factors and throughout the entire life cycle. The Northwest Fisheries Science Center Cumulative Risk Approach includes: 1) problem definition; fresh water to the open ocean 2) risk assessment/jeopardy analysis; 3) risk management, alternatives/scenario analysis; 4) selection of management scenarios; 5) development of recovery plan(s); and 6) implementation of a work plan that includes research, monitoring and assessment. By understanding salmon biology well enough to effectively manage their recovery, it is important to take what is learned from this species with a complex life history, and apply that science to better management practices for a wide range of fish species.

Science and ESA Listing Determinations for Pacific Salmon - Dr. Robin Waples
Dr. Waples gave a brief history of ESA actions beginning with 1990. The key questions in listing are: 1) Is it a species as defined by the ESA? and 2) If so, is it threatened or endangered? The major challenges in extinction risk analysis are integrating quantitative and qualitative risk factors and integrating risk across populations to evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) level. Dr. Waples said hatcheries cannot substitute for natural fish and hatchery impacts are hard to quantify.

Freshwater Habitat and Salmon Recovery: Relating Land Use Actions to Fish Population Responses - Dr. Robert Bilby 
Dr. Bilby focused on assessment of the salmon habitat. Things to consider for habitat assessment are 1) association of habitat quality and quantity to population response; 2) appropriate spatial scales; 3) how to provide a basis for evaluation of actions; and 4) acknowledging temporal and spatial variability in productivity by species. He indicated that this is done now at the stream-reach level but should be done at the sub-watershed level. He suggested an approach that identifies highly productive locations, looks at underlying characteristics, and then repeats these actions for moderate and low production classes. He used the Snohomish River Basin as an example. The applications of habitat assessment products are: 1) identification of currently productive sites which lack fish data and potentially productive sites currently impaired; 2) directing future changes in land use that benefit salmon; 3) development of recovery strandards for freshwater habitat; 4) evaluation of growth management plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), etc.; 5) prioritization of locations for protection; and 6) prioritization of locations for restoration.

Cumulative Risk Assessment and Population Viability Modeling - Dr. Peter Kareiva
Dr. Kareiva explained that a useful and rigorous viability model must be standard; flexible; transparent and accessible; and readily updated with new data. Matrices are one way of looking at data. However, variability in time and space and stochastic factors must also be dealt with. The salmon situation is better than that of other endangered species (i.e., desert tortoises). We can actually get frequency distributions of survival variability for salmon. No basic research agency or paper has dealt successfully with multiple populations for long-term species variability. The problem is that all theory says is that as you increase the number of populations, the probability of total extinction declines. How much do you get in terms of reduction or extinction when you add that second or third population? No one has addressed this issue for salmon in the Pacific Northwest. What is learned here has implications beyond salmon and can be used for all conservation biology.

Monitoring and Evaluation for Salmon Recovery Planning and Implementation - Dr. Tracy Collier
Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of salmon recovery efforts are done in order to be specific as to the status of a population relative to recovery targets and to know when it is appropriate to delist a species. Four aspects of M&E are: 1) compliance monitoring - Was the project conducted as requested or required? Primarily a responsibility of regulatory arms, including enforcement; 2) project effectiveness - Does the project produce the desired outcome? Often will require research to determine appropriate outcomes to measure; 3) program effectiveness - Closely tied to recovery goals. May need to focus on specific locales; and 4) environmental monitoring - Decrease noise associated with project and program effectiveness monitoring. The need to maintain efforts even through improving environmental conditions. Challenges for M&E of salmon recovery include: affordability (i.e., can these programs be made cost effective); statistical power (take into account both sampling error and environmental variability); true indicators of recovery progress or failures; and timely results (is there sufficient lead time for adaptive management?). Opportunities under M&E of salmon include: 1) constituent participation and buy in; 2) coordination between a multitude of programs (i.e., data and synthesis sharing); and 3) increased understanding of salmonid production across landscape and time. The major challenge for monitoring and evaluation is to bring hypothesis testing explicitly into recovery planning and especially for project coordination.

SAB Questions and Discussion of ESA Presentations
The SAB asked Mr. Stelle what regulatory process governs prevention of habitat degradation. He replied that Federal permits and regulations directly spell out enforcement actions if development "takes" salmon. Indirectly, states can be exhorted to effect compliance. If consensus cannot be reached then litigation would likely be undertaken to force decisions. Dr. Rosenberg, NMFS Deputy Assistant Administrator, said in conservation efforts state land use policies can be an important factor in addressing ESA concerns. It is not just Section 7 consultation that have a role.

The Board was also interested in what happens if the return of salmon changes dramatically from year to year. Some SAB members felt that uncertainties could be reduced by looking for relationships between many variables and recruits produced per spawning adult, not just a single species or an ecosystem. Dr. Beeton asked Dr. Kareiva to respond to a recent Science article that questions the value of population viability analysis (PVA). Dr. Kareiva said he is dealing with the issue raised in the article and holding a series of workshops on the methods to bring the best minds to consider and resolve the issue.

The SAB then asked Mr. Stelle if he, as the Regional Administrator of NMFS, has the ability to direct its science resources to review specific projects that are high on manager's priority lists. Mr. Stelle said, yes, at the strategic level but not at the tactical level. Dr. Varanasi said she and the Science Center staff meet with NMFS Regional Managers in meetings and workshops to determine their needs, then the Center decides how to best meet those needs and science moves forward. Dr. Beeton queried Dr. Bilby on whether his approach incorporates the Oregon watershed model. He replied that his approach fits well with Washington and Oregon management and can use the approach with the data they now have.

Dr. Rice agreed that there is a great deal we don't know about salmon and wanted to know how well NMFS has been able to marshal the non-salmon community involvement with Center efforts. Dr. Varanasi said they were holding workshops every two-three months to inform and involve the non-salmon community on Science Center activities. People committed to salmon realize science must move faster to prevent extinctions. New people are asking questions and more people are coming and communicating, including specialized institutions, such as land grant tribal colleges.

Public Input Session with SAB Discussion
A complete written public input statement submitted by the Marine Conservation Biology Institute (MCBI) can be found at www.sab.noaa.gov/july0799mcbi.html. Dr. Elliott Norse, President of Marine Conservation Biology Institute stated that 18 years ago, at the US Agency for International Development/State Department Strategy Conference on Biological Diversity, he presented a paper noting that NOAA's efforts on endangered species went to marine mammals, seabirds and sea turtles, but not truly marine fishes, invertebrates or plants. He held a 1996 scientific workshop on Endangerment and Extinction in the Sea that resulted in a paper on "Historic extinctions in the sea" that will appear in the 1999 Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. The paper concludes that marine species, even those with planktonic larvae, are not "extinction-proof, that human-caused pressures have eliminated some and are likely to eliminate more. Today there are still no marine invertebrates listed under the Endangered Species Act, and only one marine plant and one truly marine fish. A comprehensive approach to research and management could identify potential threats (e.g., bottom trawling) that could cause large numbers of extinctions, and species that are especially vulnerable to extinction. Unfortunately, NOAA's in-house and extramural research efforts on endangerment seem almost nonexistent, and its management seems to ignore research results from scientists outside NOAA on the loss of marine biodiversity. Dr. Norse proposed a carefully focused and systematic research program to identify marine species in peril. He offered examples, including the barndoor skate and the white abalone, as species whose imperiled status was not detected by NOAA but by university scientists (in the case of the skate, using NOAA data). He concluded that NOAA's science efforts are geared towards producing meat (tonnage of fish and shellfish) rather than maintaining biodiversity. NOAA is two decades behind agencies such as the Agency for International Development, Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service in embracing biodiversity conservation as a primary goal. It is time for NOAA to catch up with universities, non-governmental organizations, state and federal agencies in protecting, restoring and sustainably using marine biodiversity. He said that, as the federal agency charged with protecting marine life, NOAA must fulfill its trust to the American people for conserving our nation's marine biodiversity.

SAB Discussion
The Board asked Dr. Norse if he was involved in science looking at marine protected areas. Dr. Norse answered that his organization is working to raise over $1 million to support postdoctoral research fellows in National Marine Sanctuaries to assess the value of marine protected areas, and he is lead editor of Marine Conservation Biology: The Science of Maintaining the Sea's Biodiversity (due from Island press in 2000), in which five chapters will focus on marine protected areas.

Dr. James O'Brien, Chair, Board on Oceans and Atmosphere, Florida State University, on behalf of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC), made a short presentation in which he stated how NOAA can fulfill its mandate. The complete written public statement submitted by NASULGC can be found at www.sab.noaa.gov/july0799nasulgc.html. Dr. O'Brien offered the following suggestions of how NOAA may better meet its environmental stewardship responsibility:
1) Strategic Planning - NOAA should be commended for conducting strategic planning workshops but more long-term strategic planning is needed.
2) Peer Review - All NOAA science should be subject to peer review at some point. In general the research in labs is of very high quality.
3) Computing Capability - NOAA is behind in high performance computing and NOAA should make computer upgrades one of its highest funding priorities.
4) Research Budget - Reinstituting the Office of the Chief Scientist would benefit NOAA's day-to-day operations and help promote the NOAA-University Partnership. NASULGC feels that OAR is underfunded in the FY2000 budget request.

Summary of Previous Discussions
Dr. Beeton said he appreciated the presentations addressing NOAA-University activities and said that true partnerships exist in Seattle. He praised the presentation on the ESA and the approaches NOAA might take on other species besides salmon.

Board members were impressed with how well thought out the science approach is directed towards critical management needs in the Pacific Northwest. The SAB asked if it was part of the NOAA science mission here to work with state science agencies to help them build their capacity to answer ESA issues questions. Dr. Rosenberg said that this is an issue nationally for ESA and other natural resource science. Interaction with state science agencies is occurring in all regions.

The Board also noted that there must be an already existing on-line database and wondered if this could be expanded. Discussion indicated that because of confidentiality agreements on commercial fisheries data, catch statistics are proprietary and could not be put on-line. However, it was mentioned that there is a NMFS and state initiative for cooperative statistics on the East Coast and that these data are available on CD-ROM.

The Board asked if there was a NOAA policy on turnaround times on data. Mr. Withee, NESDIS Assistant Administrator, said the general policy covers near real-time distribution of several NOAA observation systems (i.e., NEXRAD, GOES, etc.) but data taken from research or non operational platforms is accessible on a non-discriminatory basis after a year. In practice, most NOAA observations are available much sooner than one year.

July 8, 1999

Further SAB Discussion on NOAA Science Processes Related to ESA and Potentials for Future ESA-Oriented Science
Dr. Rice led the discussion and said he was pleased with the expertise and diversity of the team that NMFS/NOAA brought together to work on salmon issues; however, he would like to see two areas strengthened: 1) representation of concern about marine environment on populations and 2) clear effort to be sure managers both in state and international waters are working with them (NW Fisheries Science Center) so that people making decisions know and understand the science being done, not just receive results of the science process.

The Board was impressed with the PNCERS discussion but suggested increased involvement of the managers/planners making land use decisions at the state and local level. SAB members felt that there is a disconnect and a lack of coordinated communication between regulators and scientists. It appears that the science part of NOAA in general is not being used to inform managers effectively. It was the opinion of a few Board members that science based information useful to managers in North Carolina is simply not available from the federal government. Sea Grant has helped at the very local level to get science information to local managers.

Some Board members noted that managers are a broader group than just agency managers and are not tightly defined in the Northwest. This includes watershed managers that bring together citizens at the local level. Delivery of scientific information also varies with political cultures. Scientists are often not sensitive to the regional culture in which their information will be used-this is where social science can help in this process.

The SAB noted that ESA recovery plans should be designed to remove the species from the list. Science provides the knowledge of actions needed to achieve recovery and remove species from the list. On the concept of recovery plans, the SAB was interested in how the decision is made of what science will be needed in the future. There doesn't seem to be a structure to develop science information managers will need. Much of the information in the presentations was generic with no clearly delineated path to get to recovery. How you get to the point where you remove a species from the list should be fundamental.

The SAB felt that science has been actively discouraged from going into areas where there isn't a community consensus and that the Board should consider setting forth parameters and criteria for involving social science in order for NOAA to better understand socio-economic factors contributing to consensus development. However, it was noted that recovery planning is a difficult process because of the strict listing deadline but lack of a strict deadline for recovery. There isn't a particularly clear path scientifically for recovery, and the research plan not leveraged by all groups involved (i.e., need synergy between all agencies). The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) stipulates that there should be scoping of economic and social impacts of options in advance. While there is such a process in place, it doesn't seem to have sufficient resources.

SAB wondered how the Board could help advance getting other agencies to integrate their science with NOAA science. Perhaps this issue could be raised with the SAB counterparts of other agencies. The Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) is currently examining interagency efforts related to ESA. However, the CENR effort will likely be slower than NMFS needs to act. There may be synergies with NOAA and NSF to answer questions of at sea survival for the one year class of salmon. Questions regarding variance and at sea survival may be answered using information from, for example, Global Ocean Ecosystem Coupling (GLOBEC). Dr. Varanasi stated that information flow must be expedited. It is not necessary to spend time developing complex new research plans. Instead input is needed now for cumulative risk assessment (i.e., interactions between different variables).

The SAB discussion then focused on to what extent did NOAA science comply with the decision to have the "No Surprises" clause. Was the decision based on science? Ms. Medina responded that the policy was agreed to at the highest levels. The idea in general was given a lot of thought by scientists. There is ongoing monitoring and evaluation. Adaptive management is built in. NOAA science and the technical part in it advocates for the concept of "no surprises" to include a biological component. Enormous resources would be spent litigating and those resources would be coming from the same people who would otherwise be doing the conservation plans on the ground.

Ms. Medina stated that developing HCPs is very labor intensive. The real problem is that to implement them well a great deal of information is necessary and a great deal of work is required on both the agency and applicant's side. Doing recovery planning upfront is better than doing it lawsuit by lawsuit (i.e., with each timber sale). The Board queried if NOAA has input on who does the science for applicants. Ms. Medina responded no, but the analysis is done together between agency and permittee. It is a very integrated process.

Dr. Varanasi said that there is a need to develop a dynamic data processing system (as opposed to data warehousing which is static) so that the new information can be immediately translated into the decision making process. The focus should be on that rather than developing huge new strategic science plans within NOAA. It was also noted that there is a significant backlog of applicants for HCPs (about 20 or 30). Cumulative risk assessment to date has dealt with the first order problems but not the second order part which is the interactions.

The Board asked if in the process of doing status assessments on many species of fish, does NMFS look for connections with listing options. At what point does NMFS make the transition from "overfished" to "endangered"? Dr. Rosenberg responded that preventing overfishing is set at a much higher bar than extinction. Dr. Rosenberg believes that what Dr. Norse was talking about is that stocks that are not commercially important are not evaluated for overfishing. For the stocks that are actively managed by states or NMFS, the NOAA/NMFS Assistant Administrator has to determine whether they are overfished and, if so, develop a timeline to rebuild them. NMFS usually does an endangered species status review when petitioned.

Dr. Rice explained that the general protocol for new and expanding fisheries is carefully laid out. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has several publications of how it should be done. The protocols are proactive, the funding is reactive. You can only get funding after someone says there's a problem

The SAB then asked if there is an attempt by NOAA to inventory status and trends of species in the National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS) which are not targets of commercial fisheries. Dr. Rosenberg responded that the NMSs are involved in regular resources surveys that cover much of the coast (i.e., trawl survey, long line survey and acoustic survey). There are several federal surveys per year. As far as the Sanctuary Program doing specific evaluations, there isn't a regular assessment in NOAA sanctuaries. Part of the legislation requires that NMS do a survey of their resources. The sanctuaries have had a problem getting the fiscal resources to address inventory issues.

Update on Status of FY2000 Budget - Dr. D. James Baker
Dr. Baker gave an overview of the federal budget process and explained that NOAA is always concurrently working on three budgets (i.e., spending the 1999 budget, negotiating the 2000 budget in Congress and planning the 2001 budget). NOAA's structured budget process includes constituent workshops where ideas are presented of what NOAA's proposing for the next year's budget. Dr. Baker stated that he wanted to make sure that what is presented in the budget request has been vetted with NOAA's constituent groups, and that the SAB give input on how NOAA might improve its budget request.

Since the economy is doing so well, there may be opportunities for increased funding for NOAA priorities. This works well for NOAA because it's activities are broadly supported by both sides of the political aisle. The FY2000 Senate Mark for NOAA is an amount that is above the President's request. NOAA had some major new initiatives in 2000.

Dr. Baker gave an overview and breakdown of the amounts requested and Senate Marks for the following FY2000 initiatives: Lands Legacy, Year of the Ocean, Resource Protection, South Florida Everglades Restoration, Clean Water Initiative, Natural Disaster Reduction Initiative, Climate in the 21st Century and Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Where NOAA did poorly for the Senate Mark was the Coastal Zone Management Program (requested $32 million and received $2 million). NOAA also did not get the requested funds for coral reef restoration and coastal dredging. However, NOAA did well in the Senate for the Natural Disaster Reduction Initiative. NOAA has been pushing hard the last few years for better information about floods and weather research program. NOAA had a brand new initiative for FY2000 of working with historically black colleges and universities to build infrastructure so that they can build environmental programs. The request from NOAA was $4 million. The President requested $1 million and Congress put down $0. The bottom line on the FY2000 budget is that NOAA went in with a big increase, and came out with an increase.

Summary of FY2001 Strategic Planning Teams' Priorities - Dr. D. James Baker
NOAA works through strategic themes which allows the Agency to put it's planning together. Dr. O'Brien (NASULGC) yesterday suggested that NOAA re-examine it's strategic planning themes. It may be time to do that and the SAB may wish to provide recommendations. Some of the highlights of FY2001 are:

Advance Short Term Warnings and Forecasts: One of the problems with Hurricane Mitch going into Honduras is that it changed its course and the models did not predict it. Hurricane Mitch reminded us that not only high winds but flooding can be very damaging.

Climate Research Program: This program involves research on the earth's climate system; global carbon science and atmospheric chemistry; global water cycle; and the human dimensions and integrated regional assessments. It also includes observations for research such as the global ocean observing system (floats, altimetry, scatterometry, data assimilation; and trace gas) and monitoring (baseline observatories, global sampling network).

ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation) Prediction: Includes climate system model output database; climate/weather links: risk assessment of high impact weather events; ocean and atmospheric observations; recurrent patterns of climate variability; computational challenges in climate modeling; climate prediction initiative; and human dimension and global change.

Beyond ENSO: Northern extratropical variability (North Atlantic Oscillation, North Pacific Oscillation and Arctic Oscillation); global change; monsoons; and Atlantic tropical variability.

Climate Impacts on Ecosystems: Regional integrated assessments, climate/weather links; ocean observations and technical developments; ENSO, PDO and Atlantic variability; hydroclimatology and water resources; and human dimensions of global change.

Hurricanes: Climate/weather links; computational challenges in climate modeling; climate system model output database; ocean and atmospheric observations; Atlantic climate variability; causes of variability in CO2 sources and sinks; human dimensions of global change; and ENSO effects.

Water Resources: Regional integrated assessments; global water cycle; climate/weather links; recurrent patterns of climate variability; human dimensions of global change; and climate prediction initiative.

Carbon Cycle: The Northern Hemisphere Terrestrial sink; causes of variability in sources and sinks; global locations of sources and sinks; and future atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.

Ocean Observations: Integrated ocean observing system and contributing activities (altimetry and tide gauges; satellite derived vector winds)

Outcomes: Reduced societal costs of climate anomalies related to ENSO; identify effects of climate variability on water resources; define carbon sources and sinks across oceans, land, and atmosphere; and link Earth's major ecological systems to climate variability and change.

Promote Safe Navigation: Research in 2001 will focus on developing a Coastal Forecast System (CFS) to provide a national capability to measure, understand, analyze, and forecast coastal environmental phenomena that impact coastal economies, public safety, and environmental management. The research proposed will improve predictions and develop new products based on advancements in the coupled ocean/atmospheric system. In addition, the research proposed will develop new NWS and NOS operationally compatible information processing systems that can integrate coastal information and make it available in a timely fashion to decision makers.

Fisheries FY2001 Research Areas: Initiate and expand research on ocean climate change applied to fisheries resource assessment models; develop advanced fish sampling technologies to improve NOAA's stock assessment capabilities; implement a multi-year comprehensive social sciences program to assess and predict effects of management actions on impacted communities; research to determine the causes of decline of endangered marine mammals and turtles; and research to aid Federal, state and private landowners and resource users in promoting the recovery of endangered Atlantic and Pacific salmonids.

Sustain Healthy Coasts Research Areas: Map and characterize coastal habitats; identify the impacts of multiple stressors on coastal ecosystems (changing land use, nutrient pollution, invasive species, and climate change/atmospheric inputs to coral reefs); assess causes, consequences of changing ocean chemistry through increased remote sensing, in situ observations, and modeling; improve techniques for habitat restoration; characterize risks and model vulnerability to natural hazards; and explore and develop new byproducts from marine species.

Discussion on Strategic Planning Related to Science Priorities 
The Board wanted to know if the Disaster Relief requests were part of the social science research effort related to ESA. Dr. Rosenberg responded that the proposal is to have a social science research program that is much greater than the existing one. Disaster Relief is part of Communities in Transition, not part of research.

The SAB asked Dr. Baker to explain the timing needed for the Board to get their budget reviews to him. Dr. Baker responded that formal input from the SAB would be for the FY2002 budget by April 2000. He proposed that the NOAA Strategic Planning team leaders present proposals to the SAB based on what they have heard at the constituent workshops. Those team presentations in April would have dollar figures and be very specific. It would be a way for the Board to interact in a very substantive way before the budget is submitted by NOAA. The budget does not become administratively confidential until NOAA submits it to the Secretary.

***ACTION ITEM***
Dr. Baker proposed that there be a formal meeting of the SAB in early April 2000 where the Strategic Planning Teams would present the current status of the FY2002 budget proposals at the time of the meeting. Dr. Baker requested that, following the team presentations, the SAB send a letter back to him stating the strengths and weaknesses of the team proposals. Dr. Crosby will notify the NOAA Strategic Planning Teams and set a SAB meeting date in April 2000.

The SAB was curious as to what extent does NOAA submit a budget and then non-science administration policy really determine priorities. Dr. Baker responded that NOAA doesn't rank order its initiatives because lowest priority items may be cut without due consideration. However, NOAA does have some items that are ranked as highest priority. The top two program priorities are modernization of the Weather Service and revitalization of the Fisheries Service. Two areas that NOAA hasn't done well on are: 1) research - NOAA doesn't get the same increases as National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Health and 2) coastal areas - have to reorganize NOS to focus on coastal areas.

***ACTION ITEM***
The SAB requested examples of the justification material that was submitted with the FY00 NOAA budget request. The Board specifically requested that the NOAA "Clean Water Initiative" be one example and that an example of successful and failed initiatives also be included. Dr. Crosby will obtain and distribute the material to the SAB.

Dr. Beeton noted that several members of the SAB participated in the most recent NOAA strategic planning constituent workshops and asked if those members wished to provide comments. Mr. Douglas thought it was good to sit in on the process but many stakeholders pushed their own pet projects. Nevertheless, SAB should take advantage of such opportunities to influence the process. Dr. Sorooshian stated that the process of brainstorming resulted in decisions that may not have been made if people had more knowledge about NOAA programs. Dr. Gober commented that at the session she attended she heard the parochial interests of the stakeholders and felt as though she was there representing NOAA science. There wasn't sufficient representation from the science community which caused an imbalance between stakeholders and science. There was considerable support for social science inquiry in the group Dr. Gober participated in, but participation of more social scientists would have helped. Dr. Hanna expressed confusion on just what NOAA aims to achieve with these constituent meetings. Only selected groups seem to participate.

***ACTION ITEM***
In an effort to compare suggestions by constituent groups with what NOAA requested as a FY00 budget, the SAB requested a report from constituent groups that made recommendations for the budget. Dr. Crosby will obtain and distribute the material to the SAB.

Presentation of Options for Potential SAB Participation/Oversight in NOAA Science Program and Panel Reviews - Dr. David Evans (Assistant Administrator, OAR/NOAA)
Dr. Evans presented a proposed range of options for how the SAB could review science activities in NOAA. This was originally brought out at the SAB meeting in Miami with a request from the SAB that Dr. Evans work with Drs. Pietrafesa, Maxwell, Rice, Beeton and Crosby to develop an Options paper. Being engaged in NOAA review activities over a period of time would allow members of the SAB to see the stronger and weaker points in the various NOAA science programs and provide greater external credibility to the review process. It would be an avenue for the Board to provide advice on a regular basis. Dr. Evans requested that SAB accept as part of its role the oversight of OAR scientific reviews. The proposal is for the SAB to sanction standing working groups that would oversee OAR reviews. Sea Grant has an advisory review panel in place so the SAB would not be reviewing Sea Grant. The remainder of OAR has a scattered approach with laboratory reviews done by four or five individuals with significant science skills who provide individual reports. There is no consensus report due to FACA restrictions. This is also true for the Joint Institutes and for Office of Global Programs (OGP). Dr. Evans proposed that the SAB select working groups which would include at least one member of the SAB to conduct the reviews and report the results to the SAB. Dr. Crosby suggested that the working groups recommendations would go to the full SAB which would modify them, if necessary, and then provide the Board's recommendation to Dr. Baker.

Discussion on Potential SAB Participation/Oversight in NOAA Science Panel Reviews
The SAB wondered if their expertise would be adequate to cover all the topics in the laboratories. Dr. Evans replied that in his proposal the SAB would appoint a working group comprised of people with expertise in areas dealing with that topic, it would not be comprised of only Board members. The working groups would be organized by subject or organizational area. The issue of frequency of reviews was discussed and it was noted that the working group would meet on a schedule that fits its needs and those of the program it would be reviewing.

The Board then wanted to know what added value the SAB would provide to the various reports. Concerns were voiced about being sure that a Board member be on each panel before the SAB would put the reports forward with its approval. Questions of depth of involvement for SAB to impact the science in NOAA were discussed. Questions of quality control of the science were also raised. Dr. Evans would like to see the Board involved in the nuts and bolts of the Agency. Some Board members felt as though the Board would be derelect in its duty if it ignored the science review role at NOAA, and viewed the SAB's role as trying to add value to the mission of NOAA and science. It was proposed that if the Board can adopt some overarching themes that serve as filters against which they evaluate science done at NOAA, then participating in the manner Dr. Evans suggested would be appropriate. However, concern was also expressed that many members of the SAB are fully committed to doing other things.

Dr. Brown began a discussion of the makeup of the Office of Global Programs (OGP) Panel. A SAB working group for OGP could use most of the present group's expertise and could approve the charter and members for the OAR OGP Working Group.

A memo from NMFS Assistant Administrator Penny Dalton states that oversight of the NMFS review process would be most helpful. The SAB could do audits and periodic reviews of the process itself. Dr. Rosenberg did not believe that establishing a SAB review process for particular NMFS science programs would be needed, at this time, and would prefer a NMFS-wide review rather than by location (i.e., regional science centers).

Mr. Withee said that the data component already has aspects being reviewed by the Board, but the satellite side has not had an outside review in six years. He requested a FACA review team that would report through the SAB to Dr. Baker. NESDIS could use some advice in getting from research to operations; the quality of its products; the usefulness of its cooperative institutes; and the representativeness of the research community included in NESDIS programs.

Dr. Scavia requested a working group of SAB to advise on NOS science review process across the board, rather than particular program or center activities.

Mr. Jones, NWS Deputy Assistant Administrator, said that NWS headquarters is going through a reorganization, trying to establish an Office of Science and Technology. They've had NRC give them a roadmap of how to proceed once the modernization is done. He did not have a specific proposal at the time but thought there were areas where the SAB could provide recommendations.

Dr. Baker, having to depart early, thanked the Board for one of the best advisory committee discussions he has sat in on. He especially appreciated the discussion on the budget and the role of science advice, and looks forward to hearing the recommendations that will come from this meeting.

Concluding Discussion on Potential SAB Participation/Oversight in NOAA Science Panel Reviews
Dr. Brown motioned that the SAB implement a prototype process for working with Line Offices on science panel reviews. Dr. Alexander seconded the motion.

***ACTION ITEM***
Dr. Brown's motion is as follows: The SAB will institute a pilot review effort with NOAA Line Offices. These efforts should use a common set of principles in terms of structure of the review process. The goal is to monitor the quality of science in support of NOAA's mission. The SAB unanimously approved the motion.

SAB discussion included the need to set principles (guidelines) with which to work and that reviews should focus on generalities of process rather than detailed reviews; the desire to use the existing working group (i.e., OGP) to do the reviews; and using basic review principles now in place in agencies. One scenario was that SAB working groups should include at least one active SAB member. The SAB member involved in the review should draft the terms of reference of the review and then present them to the Board for comments. After the review the SAB member on the working group would bring the report to the full Board for discussion. The SAB would then make recommendations to Dr. Baker.

Dr. Crosby stated that the Board should not simply accept any existing team in order to satisfy Line Office desires to "FACA-certify" them, but the SAB needs to establish its own working groups. It would be appropriate however to fully consider existing review structures and protocols. Each SAB member would need to read the draft reports and the SAB itself would issue the final report to Dr. Baker.

Dr. Evans said that he specifically requested three actions: 1) establish an advisory panel of OGP in light of existing review panel and history of program; 2) constitute a working group of the SAB-a parallel entity to review the Joint Institutes and Environmental Research Labs; and 3) constitute a working group of the SAB-a parallel entity to review the National Undersea Research Program (NURP).

***ACTION ITEM***
The Board will establish a prototype review process. Dr. Beeton asked Mr. Douglas and Dr. Scavia to develop a draft plan for an NOS Science Review Working Group, Dr. Rice and Dr. Evans to develop a draft plan for an OAR Global Programs Science Review Working Group and Dr. Brown and Mr. Withee to develop a draft plan for an NESDIS Satellite Research Program Science Review Working Group. It was requested that each group work through Drs. Beeton and Crosby. The plans will be put on the agenda of the next meeting for approval.

***ACTION ITEM***
The SAB Steering Committee was given authority by the Board to approve members for the OAR Global Programs Science Review Working Group prior to the next full SAB meeting.

July 9, 1999

Discussion of Themes/Elements when Dealing with NOAA Science Reviews
Mr. Douglas led the discussion and suggested that the SAB think about and agree on a set of overarching themes that should be woven into all aspects of NOAA science and considered in SAB reviews of NOAA science. These themes include: 1) quality and credibility; 2) timeliness and scale; 3) science/policy connection; 4) capacity building component; 5) education element; 6) efficiency, coordination, synergy, and maximization of resources available within NOAA; and 7) social science integration. These themes should be espoused and supported by NOAA leadership and form the basis of any SAB review of NOAA science. They are not listed in order of priority.

· Quality and Credibility: NOAA science must be top quality. In general, NOAA is known for and should continue to strive for science that is acknowledged as being credible, reliable and respected. Therefore, NOAA science needs to be screened and evaluated through appropriate peer review as being of high quality and relevant in terms of informing policy decision-making. The SAB could help by reviewing and agreeing on some general standards of what should be included in all peer reviews. The Board should go on record as supporting the importance of NOAA science that the "outside" world sees as relevant, important and credible.

· Timeliness and Scale: NOAA science should be timely in the sense that it will be conducted and completed in a timeframe that is useful to decision-makers. It must also be at a scale that is useful.

· Science Connected to Policy: NOAA science should be directly linked to policy decision-making. NOAA science should be designed and conducted with the understanding it is intended to inform and improve decision-making relative to coastal and ocean stewardship responsibilities.

· Capacity-Building: NOAA has multiple environmental stewardship responsibilities. Among these is to assist its state and local government partners to build capacity to address scientific and technical questions related to coastal and ocean governance. There are many ways NOAA can promote this agenda. One is to ensure this question is asked relative to NOAA science (i.e., Will this project build capacity, and if not how can it be adjusted to include such a component?)

· Education: Protecting and restoring our environment for the benefit of current and future generations requires far-reaching public education initiatives, public support and public involvement. Collaborative stewardship is what is expected by the public and stakeholders and is a fiscal and political reality. NOAA also needs to train the environmental scientists and practitioners of the future. Therefore, an educational, public outreach and training component of NOAA science should be encouraged.

· Efficiency: NOAA must effectively coordinate and integrate its scientific and technical capabilities to maximize efficiency, minimize redundancy and counter-productive overlap. There needs to be a greater effort to share expertise and this drive for efficiency must be made known to Congress in order to maintain funding and programmatic support.

· Social Science Integration: Social science must be integrated into NOAA physical science work. But it is useless to simply include social science without an understanding of the role this involvement can play and what value is added to the inquiry. A set of criteria or a "checklist" of benefits that social science involvement will bring to the process could be developed by the Board. The SAB could ask for assistance from the social science community and provide NOAA a list of factors to be considered that would identify the value of including social science in a proposed physical-chemical-biological scientific inquiry.

Mr. Douglas motioned for the SAB to adopt these seven themes and Dr. Alexander seconded the motion.

The ensuing Board discussion noted that these are important questions to ask as they review NOAA science programs, but wondered if they were being proposed as necessary or just sufficient conditions for NOAA science projects and programs. The Board believes the intent of an SAB review is not to dis-approve a program that doesn't meet these criteria. The intent is to ask these questions relative to the review of NOAA science (i.e., have these factors been considered to a sufficient degree?).

There was strong SAB support for the belief that NOAA is a mission agency that has an obligation to provide good scientific information to the policy makers. It also has an obligation for operational implementation. As a mission agency, it should be asked: 1) Is NOAA moving toward better operational implementation of its science results? and 2) Is NOAA providing good science to inform policy?

The SAB discussion then moved to whether diversity within NOAA would be a part of education, policy or organizational issues. The SAB approved adding the category of "Diversity" to Mr. Douglas' proposed list of topics.

It was also proposed to add "Inclusive" to the list of themes, acknowledging the merit of considering traditional ecological knowledge and users knowledge in some areas of NOAA science activities. After some discussion "Inclusive" was not accepted.

A question was raised as to whether the "Social Science Integration" category might cause some political difficulty and cause a great deal of scrutiny. Board members felt that the SAB should use its best judgment on these matters. The credibility of the Board may be in question if the Board starts judging their actions by what politics dictate. The Board should not shy away from doing what, in its judgment, is right for fear of political backlash.

***ACTION ITEM***
Dr. Crosby repeated the wording of Mr. Douglas's motion as modified by the SAB discussion. The SAB recommends that the following themes should be woven into all NOAA science program efforts: 1) Quality, Creativity and Credibility; 2) Timeliness and Scale; 3) Science Connected to the Application and Operational Implementation of Policy; 4) Capacity Building; 5) Education; 6) Efficiency; 7) Social Science Integration; and 8) Diversity. The SAB voted unanimously to approve the modified motion.

The SAB will also establish three pilot SAB Working Groups to develop review processes that will incorporate the above themes and will be used to review various science efforts in NOS, OAR and NESDIS. At the October meeting the specific review procedures of the three pilot SAB Working Groups will be reviewed and approved if warranted by the Board.

Mr. Douglas stated that the Board should think of itself as an official (i.e., a legally created entity with credibility and standing) advocate of sound science in NOAA and of efforts to expand the science and technology capabilities of the Agency (i.e., support faster computers and biological surveys of national marine waters). The message from the SAB should be simple and clear: Good science is essential to environmental protection and NOAA, as a principal steward, must be given the fiscal and leadership support to maintain and improve its scientific expertise and capabilities.

Mr. Douglas made a motion focused on preparing for the transfer of power at NOAA in 2001 and Dr. Rice seconded the motion.

***ACTION ITEM***
The SAB should prepare a formal report that can be adopted and transmitted to the next NOAA Administrator that will carry forward the science-informed stewardship mission of NOAA. This report will highlight the science and science-related issues for NOAA to address in the next Administration. The motion was unanimously passed. Dr. Crosby was asked to collect ideas pertaining to this topic from all the members of the Board for the full SAB to review at the next meeting.

The Board then discussed, and a consensus was reached, that the SAB needs to look at organizational issues on a continuing basis to identify for the Administrator organizational or operational impediments to the achievement of maximum effectiveness and efficiency in the delivery and application of excellent science and technology to coastal, ocean and atmospheric environmental stewardship responsibilities. This means spotlighting unproductive turf wars and similar situations where they occur. If a problem of this sort is identified that involves the conduct and delivery of good science, the SAB should bring attention to it. However, the Board felt it needs to guard against becoming officious intermeddlers.

SAB SUB-COMMITTEE AND ISSUE GROUP REPORTS

Sub-Committee on Coastal Science - Mr. Peter Douglas, Chair
The Sub-Committee on Coastal Science discussed a number of issues but focused on collection of data related to biology and chemistry of the coastal ocean and the lack of this type of data in NOAA today. There are other issues appropriate to be looked into such as marine protected areas (MPAs) and restoration science, but these haven't been defined in terms of what the Sub-Committee recommends.

The Sub-Committee on Coastal Science had some specific thoughts on the following subjects:

1) Information Dissemination/Education/Capacity Building
· The considerable capabilities in NOAA in extension and communication are vastly underutilized by NOAA. NOAA should provide science based, hard copy information to decision makers at State/Local community levels, in understandable form. 
· NOAA should identify an easily accessible contact to redirect inquiries for information both within and outside of NOAA.

2) Activities in Support of NOAA Mission: Goals/Specific Plans/Outcomes/Assessment 
· Within each Line Office, goals must be articulated, time markers set, and criteria and performance measures must be put into place. Real assessment of progress towards meeting goals must occur.

3) Data 
· NOAA must ensure the present and future maintenance and availability of its archived data; in all of its forms. These data are seminal to NOAA's mission and the responsibility resides within NOAA. NOAA data are a form of "endangered species."

4) Efficiency/Effectiveness/Formal Processes 
· Within each Line Office, the processes of going from: either, (Research and Discovery - R&D) to (Operational Implementation - OI) must be culturally embraced and formal mechanisms for going from R&D to OI must be put into place, as appropriate, or (Scientific and Technology Advancement - STA) to (Improved Management Strategy - IMS) must be culturally embraced and formal mechanisms for going from STA to IMS must be put into place; as appropriate.

5) Strategic Plan/Budget 
· Budget Requests must be tied to the outcome of the Strategic Planning process.

6) Role of SAB 
SAB should ensure that all NOAA science
· is mission oriented 
· is of the highest quality and real peer reviewed 
· is directly linked to operational implementation, as appropriate
· is directly connected to policy, management, stewardship, as appropriate 
· provides useful, credible information for public dissemination
· is efficient and coordinated and avoids redundancy or overlap amongst LO's
· is timely and assessed against time markers
· is assessed for performance outcome
· is tied to strategic plans and the budget as much as possible

The Sub-Committee felt, with respect to the coastal ocean, there is a need for a nationally coordinated program of integrated, long-term, near real time reporting in the chemical and biological arena in addition to traditional physical measurements. There is a need for an integrated network of these measurements in the coastal United States. It's an appropriate time to be addressing this because there is a move to create an integrated ocean monitoring system.

Mr. Douglas made a motion that the Board endorse NOAA establishing and maintaining a coordinated coastal-ocean-estuarine monitoring program that includes physical-chemical-biological elements of measurement (i.e., temperature, salinity, nutrients, light and chloropyll). Dr. Pietrafesa seconded the motion. The Board discussed various aspects of this kind of monitoring program.

Dr. Gober made a motion for an amendment that coastal-ocean monitoring include "human behavior" to the parameters being measured. Dr. Rice seconded the motion. Several SAB members stated they would not support the amendment, stating that the motion was to support an ocean monitoring system and land based patterns of human use is a very different consideration. It was suggested that the human activities on the land-based side be brought forward at the next meeting.

***ACTION ITEM***
Dr. Beeton called for a vote and Dr. Crosby read the motion: As a recommendation from the Board to Dr. Baker, the SAB supports NOAA implementing the establishment and maintenance of a collaborative and coordinated coastal ocean and estuarine monitoring system that measures physical, biological, and chemical parameters of the marine environment taking into consideration the elements for review of NOAA science previously adopted by the SAB. The amendment to include "human behavior" did not pass (3-5 vote). Drs. Rice, Hanna and Gober voted in favor of the amendment. The motion, as originally phrased, was passed by 5-3 margin.

Sub-Committee on Data Issues - Dr. Denise Stephenson-Hawk
Dr. Stephenson-Hawk presented the Sub-Committee on Data Issues report on behalf of the Sub-Committee's Chair. [Dr. Sorooshian had to depart the meeting early]. The Sub-Committee reviewed the draft NESDIS report "The Nation's Environmental Data: Treasures at Risk" and also had the opportunity to meet with Dr. Zevin and Mr. Withee. The Sub-Committee is prepared to endorse the report contingent on reviewing the one section still being written on data holdings from NOS and NMFS.

***ACTION ITEM***
The Sub-Committee on Data Issues recommends that the entire SAB formally endorse the completed report at the next meeting and suggest that NOAA perform an audit on how it will move forward on implementing the recommendations in the report. Dr. Zevin will complete the final report and distribute it through Dr. Crosby to the SAB by the end of August.

Some areas are of particular concern identified by the Sub-Committee include: 1) NASA's contributions to, and expectations of NOAA's archives (with respect to Earth Observing System - EOS) still need to be clarified; and 2) NOAA's capacity to ingest the EOS data, and rationale for doing so must be stated clearly. The discussions of ESA and fisheries management issues, along with NOAA's growing focus on coastal issues would argue for a comprehensive approach to the long-term stewardship of its biological holdings. What is NOAA's integrated plan for these? Where will the resources come from? Is each Line Office "doing its own thing" on data? What are the plans for ensuring the accessibility to NOAA's spectrum of data holdings? The Sub-Committee suggested that NOAA take a fresh approach to its cost recovery program. Data charges continue to engender animosity within the research community; and more data are coming on-line. The SAB could help give some ideas for new approaches. The SAB is aware of some other US government initiatives in which NOAA may want to be active (e.g., NSF's Digital Environmental Network).

Sub-Committee on Synthesis - Dr. Patricia Gober, Chair
Dr. Gober reported that three of the four Sub-Committee on Synthesis members attended the strategic planning workshop and have prepared a report on social sciences based on observations at the workshop.

***ACTION ITEM***
The Sub-Committee on Synthesis would like to submit a report it prepared on social sciences based on observations at the strategic planning workshop. Dr. Crosby will distribute the report to NOAA Strategic Planning Teams once he receives it from Dr. Gober.

Other activities the Sub-Committee would like to engage in: 1) initiate a conversation with the Strategic Planning Teams to discuss issues raised in the report and around the table here; 2) start collecting data and developing a list of NOAA's research activities in the social sciences.

***ACTION ITEM***
The Sub-Committee on Synthesis would like to explore to what degree in the interest in social science within NOAA is actualized in resources and activities. The Sub-Committee would like information such as the percent of the NOAA budget that goes toward social science. The sub-committee would like to know the number of person hours, or dollars spent, to work in sociology, economics, psychology, etc. Dr. Gober will further define what the Sub-Committee would like and give that list to Dr. Crosby who will request the information from Line Office liaison staff.

Issue Group on Education - Dr. Denise Stephenson-Hawk, Lead
Dr. Stephenson-Hawk referred the SAB to the draft document in the briefing book "Towards a Strategic Plan for Education and Human Resource Development within NOAA" (October 1997). NOAA currently does not have an Education Office. Education is done by the various Line Offices and is contingent upon what they want to do. The Line Offices listed various types of community service efforts and the larger dollar figures were associated with colleges and universities receiving research dollars. It would be helpful to have information on what the Line Offices consider public education.

***ACTION ITEM***
The SAB Issue Group on Education would like an update on NOAA activities and funding related to the 1997 report "Towards a Strategic Plan for Education and Human Resource Development within NOAA." The Issue Group will revise the dollar amounts spent on different NOAA education programs and make a recommendation from the Issue Group. Dr. Crobsy will request information from Line Office liaisons, collate and provide it to the Issue Group on Education. Dr. Stephenson-Hawk and Dr. Alexander will revise the recommendations list (based on any new data provided by NOAA) and then present the revised list at the October SAB meeting.

Public Input Session with SAB Discussion
Dr. Jim O'Brien, Chair of Board of Oceans and Atmosphere, stated that the NASULGC Board of Oceans and Atmosphere supports the SAB. Dr. O'Brien made remarks on the Sub-Committee reports. On the Education Group report, Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) is a great example of K-12 education program. At his university they have an Office of Naval Research Center that supports undergraduate and graduate minorities. NOAA Web sites are outstanding. On the data problem, NOAA can't save everything and he doesn't believe in centralized data centers-they have been tried and they don't work. There are other models that can work, besides having just one big data center. On the Coastal Science report, there must be a reason for monitoring.

A final period of SAB discussion led to additional recommendations and action items as follows:

1) ESA Related to Salmon 
a) SAB is encouraged by, and supports strongly, the multi-disciplinary and integrative team approach that the Northwest Fisheries Science Center has developed to conducting science on salmon in the context of the ESA. Given the number and diversity of agencies and bodies with some science capacity for salmon biology in the Pacific Northwest, the current team is urged to continue, and to build and strengthen its connections with agencies and bodies outside the core NOAA-university based community of researchers.

b) NOAA should give an increased emphasis to the estuarine and oceanic portion of salmon life history, with attention to migratory pathways, response to oceanic conditions (especially temperatures, mixed layer depths, nutrient status and productivity), and effects of climate variability with the aim of coupling the output with ongoing and excellent NOAA freshwater habitat research to aid the recovery and assess the potential health of salmonid stocks.

c) NOAA Environmental Research Laboratories should be encouraged to utilize their significant atmospheric predicting and modeling capabilities to partner with NMFS efforts to develop and improve models to predict salmon population changes and associated uncertainties due to climate and habitat changes that include alterations of terrestrial habitat, "survival at sea" and other interacting oceanic variables.

d) SAB recommends that immediately following the NMFS cumulative risk analysis workshops planned for the coming months, a revised medium or long-term science plan be prepared. The plan should ensure that necessary science activities be undertaken to address key sources of uncertainty in the cumulative risk analysis, and to strengthen understanding of critical processes and parameters in the recovery of salmon in the Pacific Northwest.

e) SAB recommends that links to managers and management agencies be built explicitly into all stages of NOAA science initiatives related to salmon recovery. The reciprocal long-term goals of these linkages are to ensure the science products, now and in the future, are the most relevant and usable for managers, and to ensure managers understand the implications, importance and limitations of the science products.

2) The issue of developing SAB recommendations for improving the NOAA strategic planning process will be formally addressed at the next full SAB meeting in October. Dr. Stephenson-Hawk will compile major points made by SAB in Seattle, and provide them to Dr. Crosby who will distribute to the SAB for their review prior to the October SAB meeting.

3) The issue of marine biodiversity, and specifically Dr. Norse's suggestion that NOAA should, through the use of NOAA scientists and grants to outside (i.e., academic and NGO) entities, make a thorough examination of existing data to identify marine invertebrate and vertebrate species that are vulnerable to extinction, was tabled for discussion at a future meeting.

4) The issue of the Office of the Chief Scientist (OCS) and specifically the NASULGC recommendation that NOAA needs to maintain an active Office of the Chief Scientist for day-to-day management and oversight of its science enterprise, to serve as the principal advisor to the NOAA Administrator on core scientific issues, and be the chief coordinator of the NOAA-University Partnership; and that the OCS should be given a budget and other resources necessary to be effective in continuing to support the SAB and the NOAA-University Partnership, was tabled for discussion at a future meeting.

DISCUSSION OF FUTURE SAB MEETINGS
September 29, 1999 meeting with Board of Directors of the Estuarine Research Federation (ERF) at the Bi-Annual Conference in New Orleans. This will not be a formal full SAB meeting, but an information gathering opportunity for all Board members who can attend.

October 19-21, 1999 full SAB meeting in Boulder, Colorado.

February 20, 2000 AAAS meeting in Washington, DC. This will not be a formal, full meeting of the Board, but rather an information gathering session for whatever subset of the Board is able to attend.

Full SAB meeting sometime between March 27 - April 14, 2000 in Washington, DC/Silver Spring, MD.

Full SAB meeting sometime between July 16-29, 2000 in Hawaii, Monterey, Woods Hole, or other venue with a concentration of NOAA facilities.

***ACTION ITEM***
Dr. Crosby will provide logistic details for the September ERF meeting to the SAB via e-mail.

SAB members will send Dr. Crosby preferred dates for a full SAB meeting during the March 27-April 14, 2000 timeframe as well as preferred dates for a full SAB meeting during the July 16-29, 2000 timeframe.

JULY 7-9 SAB MEETING ATTENDEES
SAB Members 
Dr. Alfred M. Beeton, SAB Chair, NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory

Dr. Vera Alexander, Dean, School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska

Mr. Peter M. Douglas, Executive Director, California Coastal Commission

Dr. Otis Brown, Dean, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami

Dr. Patricia Gober, Professor, Department of Geography, Arizona State University

Dr. Susan S. Hanna (present 7/8 and 7/9), H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment

Dr. Leonard Pietrafesa, Head, Department of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, North Carolina State University

Dr. Denise M. Stephenson-Hawk, Professor of Physics, Clark-Atlanta University

Dr. Jake Rice, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat

Dr. Soroosh Sorooshian, Professor, Hydrology & Water Resources, University of Arizona

SAB Executive Director
Dr. Michael P. Crosby, Executive Director, NOAA Science Advisory Board

SAB Members Not Attending
Dr. M.R.C. Greenwood, Chancellor, University of California, Santa Cruz

Dr. Diane M. McKnight, Associate Professor, Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering Department, University of Colorado

Dr. Arthur E. Maxwell, Professor Emeritus, Institute for Geophysics, University of Texas

Dr. Joanne Simpson, Chief Scientist for Meteorology, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

Dr. Warren Washington, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Climate and Global Dynamics Division [Dr. Washington participated in a Data Sub-Committee discussion via telephone conference call].

SAB Meeting Public Attendees
Dr. David Armstrong, Director, School of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Dr. David Battisti, Director, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Dr. Kerry D. Bolognese, Federal Relations, National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, 1307 New York Avenue, Suite 400, Washington DC 20005

Dr. Edward Miles, School of Marine Affairs, Unversity of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Ms. Roxanne Nikolaus, Science Associate, Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education, 1755 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 800, Washington DC 20036

Dr. Elliott Norse, President, Marine Conservation Biology Institute, 15806 NE 47th Court, Redmond, WA 98052-5208.

Dr. Jim O'Brien, Chair, Board of Ocean and Atmosphere, National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2840.

Approximately 15 NOAA staff from various Line and Program Offices were also in the audience.

January 28, 1999 - Miami, Florida

 

July 23-24, 1998 - Washington, D.C.

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
July 23-24, 1998
Washington, DC

SUMMARY MINUTES APPROVED BY THE SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD

July 23, 1998
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Dr. Crosby (Executive Director) officially called the first meeting of the NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB) to order, welcomed the SAB, provided a brief overview of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requirements related to the SAB, and described the meeting agenda and protocol for conducting the meeting.

Dr. Beeton (SAB Chairman) provided a brief overview of the NOAA-University partnership effort over the last few years and the recommendations that led to the chartering of the SAB.

SAB Members introduced themselves (see SAB attendees list at the end of these minutes)

Dr. Baker (Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, and Administrator of NOAA) welcomed the SAB and discussed the purpose of the Board, which is to advise him on long- and short-range strategies for NOAA research, education and application of science to resource management. SAB activities and advice will provide necessary input to ensure that NOAA's science programs are of the highest quality and provide optimal support to resource management. The Under Secretary also provided a short presentation on global environmental and socio-economic trends. He then discussed the current NOAA organizational structure and strategic planning process, examples of NOAA's involvement with interagency cooperation such as the National Ocean Partnership program (NOPP) and the Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources (CENR), and trends over the last decade in annual research funding for the federal agencies in general, and specifically for NOAA.

SHORT PRESENTATIONS BY REPRESENTATIVES OF OMB AND NOAA LINE AND PROGRAM OFFICES
(These presentations were in addition to 1-page descriptions of Line and Program Office science programs and priorities that were provided to the SAB and available to interested parties at the meetings)

Louisa Koch (Commerce Branch Chief, Office of Management and Budget [OMB], Executive Office of the President):

A short overview of the federal budget process was presented. Congress is presently finalizing the FY1999 appropriations. There is a potential for a budget surplus. However, the FY2000 budget will most likely be balanced, with overall agency funding, on average, remaining level. While earmarks can be viewed as providing assistance to specific projects, they tend to make overall agency budget management difficult. In order for NOAA's research budget to increase, a strong case must be made to OMB as to the importance and relevance of both the new activities and for continuing current programs.

Dr. Robert Winokur, Assistant Administrator, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS):

NESDIS is responsible for NOAA's satellite remote sensing system. The system consists of 4 satellites (2 geostationary, 2 polar orbiting) . Some issues of interest include continuity, technology, partnerships, new applications, Geosynchronous Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) products, and data system capability. There were questions concerning new sensors and the condition of old paper records. In 2007 there will be a new satellite sensor. Degrading paper records are being transcribed from paper records to digital data (but there is a backlog).

Following the presentation, the SAB commented on the need for greater focus on forecasting sea level rise.

John Jones, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, National Weather Service (NWS):

NWS has Cooperative Institutes with 5 universities. Partnerships such as Cooperative Operational Meteorological Education and Training (COMET) and SEASTAR programs were briefly mentioned. Science priorities were discussed including quantification estimation, effect of topography on coastal weather regimes, and locally hazardous weather.

Following the presentation, the SAB discussed the ties to OAR and other line officeís research needs, connections between research and operations, and improvement of forecast algorithm.

Dr. Michael Hall, Director, Office of Global Programs (OGP):

OGP has university partnerships in which the universities share in more than half of the funding. OGP operates primarily through grants. Research needs include a better understanding of carbon cycling. Research efforts need to be more model based. The different time scales of climate variability make modeling difficult. We need to know how climate behaves from El Niño to inter-decadal time scales.

Upon completion of Dr. Hall's presentation, the SAB brought forward the following issues: Continuity of databases when university labs are becoming part of the NOAA infrastructure - can they maintain long term data sets for users? How can we better predict events (short term) that have cascading events?; The U.S. Global Change Program is not as coordinated as it should be. NOAA should take a leadership role; There is a need for fusion of disciplines, and universities can help; OGP needs to pay more attention to forecasting for sea-level rise.

Dr. W. Stanley Wilson, Deputy Chief Scientist, NOAA:

Overview of the Global Ocean Observing system (GOOS) was provided. We have the technical capability to implement such a global ocean observing system, but we do not have the in situ system that is needed. The availability of real-time data could be used to initialize models. The next logical array is the north Atlantic. The Global Ocean Data Assimilation Experiment (GODAE) will demonstrate the utility of gathering such data. We need to demonstrate that we can do it for an ocean basin. Such an array system development would cut across the line offices of NOAA and across other agencies with ocean-related responsibilities.

Following Dr. Wilson's presentation, the SAB brought forward discussion on the need for NOAA to optimize its existing assets with more cooperation within NOAA (between line offices). GOOS is primarily concerned with the physics and chemistry of the ocean - we have done little to increase our capacity to monitor globally the biological component.

Rolland Schmitten, Assistant Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS):

NMFS is a science-based organization. Science output is provided to 8 Fisheries Management Councils. NMFS currently operates 8 vessels, but this is being reduced to 6 due to increased contracting. There is an absence of adequate fisheries data, and research vessels need to be improved. Ecosystem approaches need to be looked at. There is an attempt to direct resources into social and economic aspects of fisheries science and management. Fishery scientists and their findings are being questioned by industry, environmental groups and some of the general public.

Following Mr. Schmitten's overview, the SAB engaged in discussion on the following topics: shellfish jurisdiction of NMFS - mostly state waters; Essential Fish Habitat - recognition of the importance; There needs to be a combination of habitat protection/enhancement and stricter regulations, but there is limited resources for enforcement; public education is important - people can not be helped if they don't want to abide by the regulations.

Dr. David Evans, Assistant Administrator, Office of Ocean and Atmospheric Research (OAR):

OAR is traditionally the focal point for NOAA research science. The SAB should consider where the focal point for science should be in NOAA - should it be OAR or should it be the Office of the Chief Scientist? There is a lack of visibility for NOAA basic science. NOAA scientists should be measured not only in traditional ways, but also how they support NOAA management-oriented responsibilities. Mission-oriented research is no longer "bad".

Following Dr. Evans presentation, the SAB questioned the extent that OAR research focuses on sea level rise and how it effects coastal managers. Some Board members said NOAA should be able to make predictions, other than weather.

CAPT William Turnbull, Director, High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC):

HPCC provides computational tools for weather forecasting. The Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) program provides environmental data that are collected by nearly 5,500 schools worldwide.

Following CAPT Turnbull's presentation, the Board asked if the data gathered from the schools was of any scientific value. CAPT Turnbull responded that the data collected has met the scrutiny of scientists. The Board also suggested that HPCC may also be looked to for support of other computationally intensive NOAA initiative, such as marine ecosystem modeling.

Dr. Nancy Foster, Assistant Administrator, National Ocean Service (NOS):

Under the reorganization of NOS, there are Science Centers for Coastal Ocean Science that have been established. Some of these Science Centers were former OAR, NMFS and Coastal Ocean Program (COP) programs and facilities. NOS looks to broaden the scopes of the lab research, and hopes to bring managers and scientists together. There is a need to provide translation of research results into formats understandable to user groups. There will be more research on non-point source pollution. NOS would like to build a predictive capability for harmful algal blooms. NOS will work with NMFS on habitat issues. The challenge is to balance long and short term research. NOS would like to see a subcommittee on coastal ocean resources formed.

Following Dr. Foster's presentation, discussion occurred on cooperation with other line organizations and other agencies. The Board made a point that NOS needed to avoid duplication of science programs. A point was made that the National Science Foundation (NSF) Land Margin Ecosystem Research program was being scaled back, to which Dr. Foster responded that discussions with NSF are underway on potential collaboration to fill gaps. The Board was also interested in any NOS efforts to develop better predictive environmental modeling, to which Dr. Foster responded that the Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) was beginning to examine this area. Regarding linkages to international organizations, the SAB was informed that an international agenda was being developed within NOS. When asked how identification of long and short-term goals was developed by NOS, the SAB was informed that input is received from the labs and academia. The Board noted that in the area of blue water research, some former COP programs (which are being transferred to NOS) such as Global Ocean Ecosystems Dynamics (GLOBEC) studies, and OAR's role in this area, are examples of two research organization models in NOAA which are confusing and apparently overlapping.

The Board asked for comments from Admiral James Watkins, USN (Retired), President, Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education (CORE):
[A recent editorial from the journal "SCIENCE" was also provide to the SAB]

ADM Watkins gave the following overview and perspective: CORE was established 3 years ago. CORE has 52 institutional members. It is a lobbying organization. Historically, the driving force for ocean research in the U.S. was the Soviet Union. Up to 40% of the research was for naval purposes. There is no longer a Soviet Union and ocean research funding has declined. Research and Development (R&D) are usually grouped together in budget processes. This tends to cloud a clear understanding of the relative proportion of budgets that are directed toward research, and has made it easier to shift emphasis from research to development. This has led to a decline in the amount of funding for research to the benefit of development. We need to break out research from development during the budget process. This is also true for ocean research. 7% of R&D was traditionally for research. Now it is 4%. We need to speak up. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reports are great, but poorly implemented. The international component of the National Ocean Partnership Program (NOPP) needs to be strengthened. Following Admiral Watkins' presentation, the SAB inquired about the role of CORE in ocean research. CORE does not set research priorities, but acts as a facilitator.

The Board asked for comments from Kerry Bolognese, Assistant Director-Federal Relations, National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC):

Mr. Bolognese informed the Board that NASULGC member universities provide to the nation a substantial part of its oceanic and atmospheric education, research and development, and service base, and also support and rely on NOAA in their endeavors. Accordingly, NASULGC had just released a report entitled "Recommendations for the future of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration", and provided each SAB member with copies. This report is built on the principle that an effective, efficient NOAA, working in close partnership with the nation's universities, is absolutely essential to the well being of our nation. The report is organized around a series of six imperative derived from that principle and proposes a set of 14 recommendations that flow from those imperatives. He encouraged the Board to review and discuss the report.

The Board thanked Mr. Bolognese for the report, but felt that they would need to have more time to read it before engaging in a discussion on it. A suggestions was made that the Board may be able to discuss this report at their next meeting.

PUBLIC COMMENT / INPUT

Dr. Elliott Norse, President, Marine Conservation Biology Institute (MCBI):
[Dr. Norse also provided a written overview of the importance of marine conservation biology and its relevance to NOAA]

Large scale distribution patterns of organisms are important and the concept of biological diversity has barely penetrated NOAA. MCBI strongly recommends that science programs in NOAA begin to place an emphasis at marine biological diversity. NOAA scientists and research programs need to adopt a new paradigm focused on multi-disciplinality. Marine scientists need to learn from the field of terrestrial conservation biology, but there are distinct differences and needs (which he has described in his book on marine biodiversity). A marine conservation biology initiative is critical to NOAA's future success in resource management and as an early warning of potential calamities. The nation is looking for leadership in NOAA that will promote marine conservation biology.

The SAB thanked Dr. Norse for his eloquent and passionate presentation, generally agreed with the importance of studying and conserving biodiversity, and asked him asked how he would translate his proposal into an initiative, given that a static level of overall research funding would mean that funds must be reallocated from existing NOAA programs. Dr. Norse suggested one avenue would be an evaluation of existing programs and elimination of "non-performers," but that he preferred additional funding to NOAA specifically for the marine conservation biology initiative.

Kerry Kehoe, Legislative Council for the Coastal States Organization (CSO):

Mr. Kehoe thanked Dr. Baker for appointing a coastal zone manager to the SAB. However, NOAA science information is not available to coastal managers to make decisions. States do not know the science capabilities of NOAA and do not know how to access the data or how to use them. Mr. Kehoe did acknowledge that the National Oceanographic Data Center of NESDIS had formed a committee (the Coastal Ocean Data, Information and Products [CODIP] committee which he was part of and for which Dr. Crosby was the former Chair) which was attempting to focus on these issues and needs. However, he felt that NOAA needed to make a more NOAA-wide effort towards providing data and value added data products available in a user friendly and accessible format.

Following Mr. Kehoe's presentation, the SAB asked questions and entered into discussion - The issues of the need for training of coastal managers was discussed (School of Marine Affairs at the University of Washington used as an example of a good source of training), as was the role of technical assistance to local governments to assure consistent standards and effective implementation of stewardship responsibilities.

Mike DeLuca, Associate Director, Institute of Marine and Coastal Science, Rutgers University:

Mr. DeLuca advocated the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) as an example of a NOAA partnership program with the states that focuses on the "science to management theme". NERRS sites serve as long-term natural laboratories, and are local networks with state and federal partnerships. If SAB establishes a subcommittee for coastal science issues, SAB should focus on the NERRS model.

Following Dr. Deluca's presentation, the SAB discussed the possibility of manipulative research in reserves and relationship to National Association of Marine Laboratories (NAML) - Manipulative research would be possible to varying degrees at different NERRS sites. There is some overlap and communication with the National Association of Marine Laboratories, with many NERRS sites closely associated with university and marine labs.

OPEN DISCUSSION BY SAB
The following is a summary, by general subject area. of the afternoon open discussion by the SAB. The subject areas are not in chronological order, nor in order of importance.

Basic vs. Applied Research
NOAA shouldn't necessarily be required to have an immediate application to all its research efforts. However, NOAA science needs to be "useable" in terms of NOAA assessment, prediction, and resource management responsibilities. Socio-economic science needs to be better integrated in NOAA science efforts.
Short- and long-term science should be balanced, but there is still a question as to what the appropriate proportion is. It may be advisable to have a certain percentage of research projects end every year in order to ensure that stagnation is avoided and that new projects have a chance in periods of level funding. However, it is not clear that NOAA has a system by which to evaluate the "value" of their science programs or specific research projects.

Education
There must be an education and outreach component or linkage to NOAA science. NOAA needs greater/better organized public outreach. There is currently a general disconnect between scientists and the public - education and outreach are needed to improve communication and understanding.

Funding
It appears that there is a general erosion of support for long-term research and monitoring. One problem is that "earmarks" are increasing, which results in further erosion of true ability to fund research. The budget outlook is very discouraging with NOAA R&D declining in terms of inflation corrected funds. The point was made by the Board that some federal science agencies (i.e., NSF, NIH) have budgets that are increasing, and that NOAA needs to as well. There is a need to demonstrate application of science to assessment/prediction/resource management responsibilities and to demonstrate the value of long-term research and assessment to public and Congress to improve NOAA science budget.

Communication
Externally, there needs to be a 2-way interaction between science and the user groups. Internally, NOAA still is not partnering as fully, or as effectively, as possible across Line and Program offices.
All of marine science gets tainted by the perception that the science community doesn't provide reliable advise (this perception has long term consequences). The public can't understand why NOAA can predict weather, tornadoes and hurricanes, but can't predict ecological productivity (i.e., sustainable fisheries) and disaster (i.e., harmful algal blooms).
The Board was very interested in developing and maintaining an ongoing dialog with key Hill staffers, Senators and Representatives.

Partnerships
If internal coordination of NOAA science programs and greater partnership with other agencies (i.e., NSF, NASA, ONR) meant more cost effective and efficient science programs, funds would be "freed up" to initiate new efforts. NOAA should build on existing success stories such as NOPP, the "new" Sea Grant program, and fisheries research between NMFS and the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL). There is a need for better partnerships within NOAA - especially for the cross-cutting and multi-discipline issues. NOAA also needs a much stronger presence and involvement with international science efforts.

Credibility of Science in NOAA
NOAA science is respected, and needs to remain so. Combination of NOAA science programs with regulatory and management programs needs to be examined closely in order to ensure that political opinion doesn't taint the science. There will always be uncertainty associated with research results, and we need to factor that into the decision making process. A NOAA scientist can have a distinguished career, and NOAA needs to maintain mechanisms for ensuring that there will be succeeding generations of new scientists.

Organization of NOAA
The SAB voiced concern over the apparent lack of coordination of science across NOAA Line and Program Offices, and felt the need for some overarching coordinating mechanism.

Structure of the SAB
The Board felt there may be value in having some sub-committees that focused on specific topics. Dr. Crosby summarized possible sub-committee that he noted during the days discussion, and which would focus on: coastal ocean, observational networks, data management and transfer, and cross-line office partnerships in NOAA.
July 24, 1998
[No members of the public requested time to address the SAB]

Dr. Crosby called the meeting to order.

Dr. Beeton posed a question to the SAB on behalf of Dr. Baker - "Is NOAA getting the right data and getting it to the user?"

OPEN DISCUSSION BY SAB
The following is a summary, by general subject area. of the morning open discussion by the SAB. The subject areas are not in chronological order, nor in order of importance.

General Data Concerns
There is a need for a comprehensive data management plan for NOAA. However, NOAA must first determine if the right questions are being asked and what data are needed, in order to answer priority questions. What do NOAA, and other entities that depend on NOAA data, need in order to make the decisions they needs to make? Once this is answered, shortfalls can be addressed.
Resource management and related science is still in a "reactive mode" which is more costly and much less effective than a pro-active approach.

Types of Data
It's more than just "data", it is research, design, and what you do with it. Important questions are "What kinds of data do we need? Who are the users? Are we getting the right data?" Determining what types of data will be needed in the future is a very important facet to data management. Decadal data sets are needed.
Need to look at NOAA's two mission statements to frame questions. Need to define the quality and place of social science data. Important data can be obtained from fishers, GLOBE, and other non-traditional sources.

Data Access
The kind of data one gets from fishers is important, but does not fit into traditional data set. Therefore, it is often not accessible. Links between data sets are needed. Some data are easy to access while other data are difficult to access. Intellectual property rights may further limit access to data. Many programs such as meteorology, physical oceanography, and conservation marine biology need to be open, international collaborations. The U.S. has always been in favor of open access to data.

Data Quality
There is a big investment in modernization of instruments such as that for the NWS, etc. to improve data quality. The quality of climate data is improving. Need more buoys in the North Pacific, but buoys are expensive and that is why they are limited. NOAA should look to other countries to ensure that "tools" being invented in NOAA haven't already been invented elsewhere.
One can give managers raw data which may not provide them with answers to their questions. It may be a case of good data answering the wrong questions. There are limited quality controls for data accessed from outside NOAA. Episodic events are very important to living resources. However, data structures are usually designed for chronic (continuous, long-term) signals in a few related variables, but not abrupt episodic events which ripple across many diverse types of data.

Data Delivery
Managers don't want "raw" data. The public is overloaded with information. What they need is "wisdom." The public expects "value-added" to data sets. However, quality control of value added products can sometimes be much harder than quality control of the data themselves, but no less important.

Data Storage
Resources in data centers are not adequate especially with the new large data sets being acquired from new satellites. EOS Data plan not going well - "How do we pay for the data archive?" is still a question.

The Strategic Plan
The overall plan is fine, but the resource allocations don't match up with stated priorities. NOAA needs to define how they implement the plan. The SAB should look at what science decisions need to be made relative to the goals of the Strategic Plan. Do the goals in the Strategic Plan do a good job of encompassing the range of questions which society will be seeking answers to in another decade, and of focusing well within that range? Science plans put together by discoverers of new knowledge may not be the science plans put together by those expecting to apply knowledge in another decade. The SAB could look at the Strategic Plan to see how it fits NOAA in the future. The role of the Chief Scientist Office in leading and coordinating science aspects of strategic planning process needs to be clearly stated.

The one-page science program and priorities provided by the LO's didn't seem to synchronize with Strategic Plan. There appears to be a disconnect between strategic planning teams and the science priorities of line offices. Strategic planning initiatives run up against the needs of the line office with the latter taking priority. Environmental Prediction is asking right questions and aiming for the right research. Because stewardship questions are often more difficult to frame, is not clear that the Environmental Stewardship portfolio is asking the right questions or aiming for the right research.

Cross-Cutting Research vs. Research within Line Offices
There needs to be more crosscutting through disciplines and across line offices. Crosscut research is not getting the visibility or support. It is important that not only are the different ecological and physico-chemical sciences considered, but that socio-economic sciences are included in the cross-cutting effort as well. Socio-economic approaches can tell us not only the political and economic consequences of environmental decisions but also the human context in which these decisions are made. Crosscutting is not new, but it hasn't worked well. It is working well in some isolated locations such as the NOAA facilities in Seattle. There needs to be an institutional culture that promotes the interdisciplinary process. The Office of the Chief Scientist's role should be to promote and coordinating crosscutting science issues across line offices. There has not been a permanent Chief Scientist for quite some time.

SAB Steering and Sub-Committees
Subcommittees should be formed around themes. Steering committees will consist of no less than 3, but no more than 5 members of the SAB appointed by the Chair in consultation with Dr. Baker. Subcommittees should not be aligned with any line offices. Staff can be made available to assist the SAB Executive Director in supporting the Steering and various Sub-Committees.

Future Meetings
Consensus was reached for the general time and venue for the next two SAB meetings:

January 1999: Miami
June 1999: Seattle

The sites were selected for the opportunity to see how NOAA labs, Line and Program Offices, and academia work together and apply science. The steering committees will work out the agenda and topics with the SAB Executive Director.
NOAA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD ATTENDEES
July 23-24 Meeting

CHAIR
Dr. Alfred M. Beeton, Adjunct Professor - School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Former Acting Chief Scientist - NOAA, Former Director - Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Dr. Michael P. Crosby, Office of the Chief Scientist, NOAA, Washington, DC

Dr. Vera Alexander, Dean, School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska

Mr. Peter M. Douglas, Executive Director, California Coastal Commission

Dr. Patricia Gober, Professor, Department of Geography, Arizona State University

Dr. Susan S. Hanna, The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, Washington, DC

Dr. Diane M. McKnight, Associate Professor, Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering Dept., University of Colorado

Dr. Arthur E. Maxwell, Professor Emeritus, Institute for Geophysics, University of Texas

Dr. Jake Rice, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat

Dr. Joanne Simpson, Chief Scientist for Meteorology, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

Dr. Denise M. Stephenson-Hawk, Professor of Physics, Clark-Atlanta University

Dr. Warren Washington, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Climate and Global Dynamics Division


SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS NOT ATTENDING
July 23-24, 1998 Meetings

Dr. Otis Brown, Dean, Meteorology & Physical Oceanography
University of Miami

Dr. Leonard J. Pietrafesa, Head, Department of Marine, Earth & Atmospheric Sciences 
North Carolina State University

Dr. Soroosh Sorooshian, Professor, Hydrology & Water Resources, University of Arizona

NOAA SAB PUBLIC ATTENDEES
7/23-24/98

Dr. Richard W. Spinrad, The Oceanography Society and Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education, 1755 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington, DC 200036-2102

Mark A. Burnham, UCAR, 1233 20th St., NW, Suite 610, Washington, DC 20036

Amy Mathews-Amos, Marine Conservation Biology Institute, 205 N. Edgewood St., Arlington, VA

Dr. Elliott Norse, President, Marine Conservation Biology Institute, 15806 NE 47th Court, Redmond, WA 98052-5208

Peter Folger, American Geophysical Union, 2000 Florida Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20009-1277

Tony MacDonald, Coastal States Organization, Washington, DC

Lee Stevens, Sea Grant Association, 2813 Lee Oaks #102, Falls Church, VA 22046

Mike DeLuca, Associate Director, Institute of Marine and Coastal Science, Rutgers University, 71 Dudley Rd., New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8521

Kerry Kehoe, Legislative Counsel, Coastal States Organization, Washington, DC

Randy Showstack, Reporter, EOS, American Geophysical Union, 2000 Florida Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20009-1277

Approximately 12 NOAA staff from various Line and Program Offices were also in the audience.