Summary Action

October 31-November 2, 2000 - Honolulu, Hawaii

NOAA Science Advisory Board Meeting
October 31 - November 2, 2000
Honolulu, Hawaii


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.

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.

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

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


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 both 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.


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.

Action Items

  1. Through the Executive Director, Don Scavia will distribute copies of the CENR invasive species science plan to the SAB members.
  2. The Executive Director will solicit the SAB members for their interest in participating in the CCEHBR science review.
  3. 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.
  4. The Executive Director will distribute 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.
  5. The Executive Director will distribute a copy of the National Research Council Aquaculture Report to Susan Hanna, Peter Douglas, and Jake Rice.
  6. 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. 
  7. Dr. Stephenson-Hawk will provide the final draft of the NESDIS/ORA review to the SAB for consideration at a future meeting.
  8. 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. 
  9. SAB members will make suggestions to the Executive Director and Chair on topical themes for science reviews. 
  10. The Coastal Science Subcommittee will present a set of questions about ocean and coastal monitoring to the Chair to be forwarded to NOAA. 
  11. OAR report to the Chair the status of the Ocean Exploration Report, including what substantive changes have been made since it was approved at the September 29, 2000 SAB meeting.
  12. The Executive Director will distribute copies of the following documents to the SAB, when available: the interagency water cycle report, "Our Changing Planet: FY 2001 U.S. Global Change Research Program," and "Discovering Earth's Final Frontier: A US Strategy for Ocean Exploration."


July 19-21, 2000 - Fairbanks, Alaska

JULY 19-21, 2000

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.

RECOMMENDATION: The Board recommends that a social science category be added to the categories of OAR Laboratory and Joint Institute reviewers. 
RESOLUTION: The SAB accepts the OAR proposal for review of OAR research laboratories and joint institutes with minor changes.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

April 5-7, 2000 - Washington, D.C.

NOAA Science Advisory Board Meeting
April 5-7, 2000
Washington, DC


ACTION ITEM (NMFS): 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.

ACTION ITEM (Pat Gober): 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.

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

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

ACTION ITEM (NESDIS): 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.

MOTION: The NOAA Science Advisory Board approves the NOS proposal for science reviews.

ACTION ITEM (Peter Douglas): 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.

ACTION ITEM (Margaret Davidson): The Sub-Committee on Coastal Science 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.

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.

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.

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

ACTION ITEM (Ms. Glakin): Send the Board a memo as to the disposition and schedule of the report, including a most recent draft.

MOTION: The SAB supports the Census of Marine Life and urges NOAA to support and participate 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.

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.


ACTION ITEM (Al Beeton): The Chair of the SAB shall officially transmit the Board's recommendations and statements regarding the FY 2002 budget initiatives to Dr. Baker no later than April 17, 2000.

ACTION ITEM (Louis Uccellini): Provide a copy of the white paper to Dr. Stevenson-Hawk.

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


ACTION ITEM (Capt. Dave MacFarland): Provide Drs. Pietrafesa and Rice the package of technical reports from the Promote Safe Navigation (PSN) group.

MOTION: The Science Advisory Board adopts the NOAA Universities Administrative Efficiencies Subcommittee as a Sub-Committee of the SAB.

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.

MOTION: The NOAA Science Advisory Board authorizes the Chair of the SAB and the SAB Steering Committee to review and approve SAB involvement in reviews.

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

October 19-21, 1999 - Boulder, Colorado


NOAA Science Advisory Board Meeting
October 19-21, 1999
Boulder, Colorado


OAR Climate and Global Change Working Group
To approve the Terms of Reference, as modified, and to authorize the SAB Chair, Alfred Beeton, to consult with David Evans to make the appointments of qualified experts to the pilot review panel giving strong consideration to the appointment of a person working for a foreign research institution. In making the appointments, Dr. Beeton should consider diversity, gender, geographic distribution, and constituency representation. The Board expects to see a history of appointees with brief bios and other information to give the SAB a good background understanding of the qualifications of each appointee. The Chair is not limited to appointment from the list of names submitted together with this item.

The modifications included: (1) AIn all its activities the working group will take into consideration" the eight themes set forth by the SAB ......., (2) "Working Group members will be appointed for four-year terms with the opportunity for one additional term" and 3) strike the last sentence "Initial appointments to the working group will be for a one-year term."

NESDIS Review Panel 
To ask NESDIS to revise its proposed review process and the list of recommended appointees consistent with SAB concerns (i.e., that SAB guiding principles be woven into the review) and to authorize the Chair and Steering Committee to approve the review process on behalf of the SAB. To authorize the Chair, Alfred Beeton, in consultation with the appropriate NOAA representative, to make the appointments to this review panel, taking into consideration diversity, geographic distribution, constituency involvement, gender, background and expertise. The SAB expects to receive a listing of appointees with their qualifications.

Report to the Next Secretary of Commerce and NOAA Administrator 
The Chair will appoint and work with a working group of SAB members to prepare a draft letter/report to next Secretary of Commerce and NOAA Administrator and schedule a review, discussion, and possible action by the SAB on this letter/report at its April 2000 meeting.

Establishment of an Ocean and Coastal Information Dissemination Service 
That the SAB ask Dr. Baker take appropriate action to establish, organize or otherwise make operational an effective, efficient, user friendly information dissemination process whereby ocean and coastal scientific, educational research and technical data and information and expertise (i.e., scientists, researchers, studies, reports, assessments) generated by NOAA are readily made accessible to coastal policy makers and/or implementers. The SAB urges that a system of local or regional partnerships with universities, cooperative institutes, marine laboratories, Sea Grant, and/or Coastal Service Centers be utilized to provide this service in a nationally consistent manner to better link science and policy, build capacity for stewardship, promote education and maximize efficient use of NOAA science to inform coastal and ocean stewardship and improve decision-making at the international, national, regional, state and local level.


MICHAEL UHART - Electronically distribute to the Board members the draft plan for the NOS review process.

BOARD MEMBERS - Provide written comments on the proposed NOS review process to the Executive Director by December 10, 1999. The comments will be collated by the Executive Director and forwarded to the NOS.

SUSAN ZEVIN - Provide the SAB with a copy of the draft report, "The Nation's Environmental Data: Treasures at Risk" in November and the final version to the Sub-Committee on Data Issues when completed.

SUSAN FRUCHTER - Provide Board members with FY 2000 budget data and information to be presented at the April Science Advisory Board meeting. These data and information should be provided as early as practicable. 

SUSAN FRUCHTER – Provide the SAB data and pie charts of how much research there is in each strategic goal vs. total spending in FY 2000.

SUSAN FRUCHTER - Provide the SAB the following information for the NOAA FY 2000 budget request: what NOAA requested and what got de-railed; what NOAA received and how it was distributed; and the differences with what the agency actually did with the money (amount of discretion with the allocation).

SUSAN FRUCHTER - Ensure that each Board member is invited to the February 2000 constituent workshops.

MICHAEL UHART - Send to the Assistant Administrators, through the most appropriate means, the text accompanying each of the Science Advisory Board's eight guiding principals for NOAA research.

MICHAEL UHART - Work with NOAA's Office of Legislative Affairs to provide members of the Board a list of the appropriate congressional staff that members of the Board can visit in April for the purpose of explaining the importance of monitoring to research and science.

MICHAEL UHART - Provide the Sub-Committee on Synthesis data and information not provided previously by the NOAA line offices. The kind of data and information requested will be coordinated with the Chair of the Sub-Committee on Synthesis. The information will be provided to the Sub-Committee by December 31, 1999.

SUB-COMMITTEE ON SYNTHESIS - Draft and submit to the full Board at the April 2000 meeting the Terms of Reference for a panel to review the extent of social science and economic research in NOAA.

MICHAEL UHART - Draft a memo from Dr. Baker to the laboratory directors, cc: the Assistant Administrators, asking for an update of the educational information. Ensure that the matrix of NOAA education activities previously provided the Issue Group on Education be completed by the line offices and forwarded to the Lead of the Issue Group.

SUSAN FRUCHTER - Provide the Executive Director with a list of the strategic planning teams and their leads, including the infrastructure team, for further distribution to the members of the Board.

BOARD MEMBERS - Provide the Executive Director with potential topics that they would like the laboratory directors and others to address at future NOAA facility visits. These topics will be considered by the Steering Committee in developing the agenda for the next meeting.

MICHAEL UHART- Ask the OAR laboratory directors for the trend in the number of research scientists and an analysis of the impact of operations on research, for further distribution to the Board members.

MICHAEL UHART - Draft a reply to Joy Bartholomew of the Estuarine Research Federation (ERF) thanking the ERF for their letter and addressing the ERF request to have one of their presidents appointed to the NOS working group to develop an NOS review process.

PENNY DALTON [As a follow-up to her statement to the Board] - Provide a statement to the SAB as to the adverse and/or positive effects that earmarks or line items have on NMFS research programs. It would be helpful to provide specific examples, options for fixing the problem, and suggestions for what the SAB could do about it.

LOUISA KOCH - Send to the Executive Director, for distribution to the Board members, the revised Terms of Reference for the Climate and Global Change Working Group.

DAVID EVANS – Send to the Executive Director, for distribution to the Board members, information on the current and nominated members of the Climate and Global Change Working Group. The Board would like this information in the form of a matrix with each candidate's name, scientific affiliation (i.e., physicist, biologist, etc.), university affiliation, academic discipline, diversity information (i.e., race, gender, geographic region), and international affiliation.

OAR - Draft a proposal and Terms of Reference for a process to review the OAR laboratories and joint institutes. Dr. Stephenson-Hawk volunteered to serve as the SAB member to work with the working group.

MICHAEL UHART – Distribute to the Board members the dates and sites for upcoming SAB meetings. Ask Board members for feedback on preferable dates for the November 2000 SAB meeting.

July 7-9, 1999 - Seattle, Washington

JULY 7-9, 1999

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.

January 28, 1999 - Miami, Florida

JANUARY 28, 1999


1) The Board would like to review the inventory of NOAA's education programs and activities that was prepared by NOAA when Dr. Beeton was the Chief Scientist.

Charge to Dr. Crosby is to try to find a copy of the inventory and provided it to each SAB member for review.

2) A subgroup focused on education is formed consisting of Dr. Denise Stephenson-Hawk, Dr. Vera Alexander, and Dr. Arthur Maxwell.

Charge to the subgroup is to work with the three existing subcommittees to incorporate education into their activities.

3) NOAA will assign a NOAA liaison specifically for each subcommittee who will work closely with the Executive Director to be sure the subcommittees receive any information they need to conduct their activities.

Charge to Dr. Crosby is to follow up with the Assistant Administrators to have NOAA staff appointed as liaisons.

4) A subgroup focused on the NOAA science peer review process is formed consisting of Dr. Jake Rice, Dr. Leonard Pietrafasa, and Dr. Arthur Maxwell.

Charge to the subgroup is to work with Dr. David Evans on producing a more detailed document describing how the SAB may be involved in the science review process and how the review process works now.

5) Members of the SAB would like to accept the invitation from the Estuarine Research Federation (ERF) to attend the next ERF conference in New Orleans in September and meet with the Federation's Governing Board.

Charge to Dr. Crosby is to respond to ERF on behalf of the Board, work with the Federation, and report back to the SAB. Dr. Beeton suggested he could attend on behalf of the SAB but would welcome participation by Board members. Mr. Douglas said that he and members of his Subcommittee would like very much to accept the ERF invitation if the dates fit with everyone's schedules.

Time and place of SAB meetings was discussed. The next meeting should be in Seattle, perhaps back-to-back with a meeting of Sea Grant Directors in Portland. The fourth meeting should be in Boulder, CO, in October 1999. It was decided that the SAB should meet February 2000 in Washington, DC in conjunction with AAAS

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

July 23-24, 1998
Washington, DC


1) Entire Board will review the existing NOAA Strategic Plan focusing on an examination of whether the current plan will address priority questions raised in the plan and whether research programs (existing and planned) are appropriate for answer priority questions.

· Charge to the Board is that they should come to next meeting with recommendations for improving the science-related areas of the NOAA Strategic Plan.

2) A Steering Committee will be established immediately and be composed of 3 to 5 Board members selected by the Chair, in consultation with Dr. Baker.

· Charge to the Steering Committee will be to recommend future meeting topics and agenda.

3) Sub-Committee on Coastal Science is formed consisting of Drs. Pietrafesa, McKnight, Alexander, Rice, and Mr. Douglas.

· Charge is to focus on examining whether priority questions are being asked as part of the Environmental Stewardship portfolio, and whether appropriate research is being conducted or planned to answer questions.

4) Sub-Committee on Data Issues is formed consisting of Drs. Washington, Stephenson-Hawk and Sorooshian.

· Charge is to determine priority data-related issues dealing with data management, availability, observations systems, and translation/transfer issues.

5) Sub-Committee on Science Synthesis and Application is formed consisting of Drs. Gober, Hanna, Rice and Brown.

· Charge is to focus on whether current Strategic Plan addresses priority science synthesis and application issues.