|
|
  |
NOAA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
MEETING Specific Recommendations to the Under Secretary Approved by the SAB 1) The SAB unanimously approved the following recommendations concerning the 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 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 SAB unanimously passed a motion that the SAB will institute a pilot review process with several NOAA Line Offices. The SAB will establish three pilot SAB Working Groups to develop review processes that will be used to review various science efforts in NOS, OAR, and NESDIS. 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. Dr. Beeton appointed an SAB member to work with each appropriate Line Office to develop draft plans to implement the intent of the motion. a) The NOS Science Review Working Group will focus its attention on developing an overarching review process for the NOS science programs. * Charge to Mr. Douglas and Dr. Scavia is to develop a draft plan for an NOS Science Review Working Group. b) The OAR Science Review Working Group will focus on developing a review process for the Global Programs and will utilize or modify, to the extent appropriate, any existing review panels and efforts. * Charge to Dr. Rice and Dr. Evans is to develop a draft plan for an OAR Global Programs Science Review Working Group. c) The NESDIS Science Review Panel will focus on reviewing the NESDIS Satellite Research programs. * Charge to Dr. Brown and Mr. Withee is to develop a draft plan for a NESDIS Satellite Research Program Science Review Working Group. Each group will work in coordination with Drs. Beeton and Crosby. At the October SAB meeting the specific review procedure of the three pilot working groups will be reviewed and approved, if warranted, by the Board. 3) The SAB passed a motion that they prepare a formal report that can be adopted and transmitted to the next NOAA Administration to carry forward the science-informed stewardship mission of NOAA. * Charge to Dr. Crosby is to collect ideas pertaining to this topic from all the members of the Board for the full SAB to review at the next meeting. 4) The Board passed a motion that they endorse NOAA implementing the establishment and maintenance of a collaborative 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. Summary of Action Items Approved by the SAB 1) The Board passed a motion that the following themes should be woven into all NOAA science program efforts and reviews: 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. 2) 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. 3) The Sub-Committee on Data Issues recommends that the whole Board formally endorse the report "The Nation's Environmental Data: Treasures at Risk" at the next meeting and suggest that NOAA perform an audit on how it will move forward on implementing the recommendations in the report. * Charge to Dr. Zevin is to complete the final report and distribute it through Dr. Crosby to the SAB by the end of August. 4) 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 budget that goes toward social science. The sub-committee wants to know the number of person hours, or dollars spent, to work in sociology, economics, psychology, etc. * Charge to Dr. Gober is to 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. 5) 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. * Charge to Dr. Crosby is to obtain and distribute the material to the SAB. 6) In an effort to compare suggestions by constituent groups with what NOAA requested as a FY00 budget, the SAB requested a NOAA report describing recommendations made by constituent groups for the FY00 budget. * Charge to Dr. Crosby is to obtain and distribute the material to the SAB. 7) The Sub-Committee on Synthesis would like to submit a report it prepared on social sciences based on observations at the strategic planning workshop. * Charge to Dr. Crosby is to distribute the report to NOAA strategic planning teams once he receives it from Dr. Gober. 8) 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 addressing education in NOAA. * Charge to Dr. Crosby is to request information from Line Office liaisons, collate and provide it to the Issue Group on Education. * Charge to Dr. Stephenson-Hawk and Dr. Alexander is to revise the recommendations list (based on any new data provided by NOAA) and then present the revised list at the October meeting. 9) Dr. Baker proposed that there be a formal meeting of the SAB in April 2000 where the NOAA strategic planning teams would present the current status of the FY02 NOAA budget proposals to the Board. Dr. Baker requested that, following the team presentations, the SAB send a letter to him stating the strengths and weaknesses of the team proposals. The Board accepted Dr. Baker's proposal. * Charge to Dr. Crosby is to notify the NOAA strategic planning teams and set a SAB meeting date in April 2000. 10) The September 29, 1999 meeting with the Board of Directors of the Estuarine Research Federation (ERF) at the Bi-Annual Conference in New Orleans will be an information gathering opportunity for all Board members who can attend. * Charge to Dr. Crosby is to provide logistic details for the September ERF meeting to the SAB via e-mail. 11) 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. Other Actions Taken 1) The issue of developing SAB recommendations concerning the NOAA strategic planning process will be formally addressed at the next full SAB meeting in October. Some of the major points/suggestions offered by the SAB included: a) NOAA should initiate a review the pertinence of its current strategic planning elements for guiding the agency in the 21st Century. b) NOAA Strategic Planning teams should develop 5 year budget and strategic plans to present to the Board in late March/early April 2000, and should be prepared to clearly present the science components of these plans across Line Offices. c) Constituent meetings in the NOAA Strategic Planning process should provide more background information on the various thematic teams at the start of the workshop session, and a greater effort should be made for better representation of science interests, especially social scientists in make-up of constituent groups (i.e., attempt to obtain a balance of stakeholders/end users and scientists). * Charge to Dr. Stephenson-Hawk is to compile major points made by SAB in Seattle concerning strategic planning, and provide them to Dr. Crosby who will distribute them to the SAB for their review prior to the October SAB meeting. 2) 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 by the SAB for discussion at a future Board meeting. 3) The issue of the Office of the Chief Scientist, 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 by the SAB for discussion at a future Board meeting. |