|
|
  |
8TH NOAA SCIENCE ADVISORY
BOARD MEETING 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. 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. 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. 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 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 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. 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)
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. Presentations on the Issues
and Science Efforts Related to Coral: Monitoring and Mapping
Program 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" 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. 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 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.
|