Update on External Ecosystem Task Team (eETT) Review 9 November, 2005 NOAA Science Advisory Board Public Health Warning! The information in this presentation is intended as a preliminary briefing to the NOAA Science Advisory Board from the External Ecosystem Task Team, and is subject to change, revision and updating. This information should not be distributed outside the SAB because in doing so it may portray an inaccurate picture of the final eETT findings and recommendations Terms of Reference / Membership Is the mix of science activities conducted / sponsored by NOAA appropriate to its mission needs, including legislative and regulatory requirements? How should NOAA organize its ecosystem research and science enterprise? N.B., Fundamental differences between missions of PSTT and eETT (e.g., science adequacy & location) eETT MembersiETT Members Dave Fluharty - chair Steve Murawski - chair Jake Rice - rapporteur Peter Ortner vice chair Mark AbbottGary Matlock - NOS Mike DonahueKristen Koch - OAR Russ DavisMark Holliday - NMFS Stephanie MadsenMel Gelman - NWS Jon SutinenMike Ford PPI Terry QuinnErik Cornellier PA&E Staff: Laura Bozzi, Kirsten Larsen eETT Approach Interview wide variety of external stakeholders (other agencies, OSB, Congress, OMB, Ocean Commission members) Interview numerous internal NOAA staffs, boards, Goal Team Leads, senior leadership, and other NOAA decision makers (senior staff meetings with NOS, NMFS already, OAR pending) Commission six white papers to elaborate on NOAAs capability needs for ecosystems in 2020 Engage PSTT on the degree to which common standards for location can apply Inventory NOAAs ecosystem portfolio geographically and organizationally Develop recommendations to optimize NOAAs ability to fulfill its ecosystem vision Activities Two face-to-face meetings (June, October), plus bi-weekly then weekly phone calls 30 NOAA staff authored six white papers on emerging management needs requiring integrated ecosystem science input: Management of Living Marine Resources in an Ecosystem Context Ecosystem Responses to Climate Variability Freshwater Issues Marine Zoning & Coastal Zone Management Near-Real Time Ecological Forecasting What are we managing Marine & Coastal Ecosystems For? Considerable outreach to groups responsible for various tasks and involved in NOAAs ecosystem programs Preliminary Findings - 1 NOAAs new emphasis on an ecosystem approach to its science & management activities is timely and appropriate; NOAA must be prepared for leadership and implementation in an open, inclusive and collaborative structure (both internally and with external partners); Programs w/i NOAAs ecosystem portfolio were originally designed to meet individual mandates and are expanding their scope to meet ecosystem management requirements; NOAA needs to spell out the steps and timing inherent in its incremental approach to the implementation of ecosystem approaches to its science & management activities. Preliminary Findings - 2 The most important unmet need is to coordinate ecosystem science and management activities of NOAA and partners regionally across LOs and with external partners Sector-specific expansions of scope will not produce integration of ecosystem-based science & management activities Integrated ecosystem assessments are an appropriate vehicle to convey information on the status of ecosystem health and to evaluate the impacts of current and proposed stressors Integrated ecosystem assessments- vehicle for identifying the long-term research needs and priorities Preliminary Findings - 3 Integrated Ecosystem Assessments and Integrated Management approaches are inherently spatially based and require identifying scales at which they will be conducted The eight regional ecosystems defined by NOAA appear suitable starting points for coordinating regional ecosystem science and assessments International activities also need coordination Need ability to scale down often, and up, sometimes Ecosystem Goal Teams Regional Ecosystem Boundaries (LMEs) 9 Preliminary Findings - 4 To conduct integrated assessments, the following three core capabilities must exist in each region: Monitoring: Biodiversity, Oceanography, Human activities (IOOS +) Analysis of Status & Trends in Space & Time: Population dynamics (e.g., stock assessment, population viability analyses, etc), Habitat, Social and economic benefits & satisfaction, Retrospective analysis of management actions. Integration & Forecasting: Among biological components, Biological-physical-chemical interactions, Human activity biological interactions & effects. Preliminary Findings - 5 NOAA needs the three core capabilities above in each region, but not necessarily: Delivered in the same way, or Housed in NOAA facilities & done by NOAA staff (e.g., physical labs, joint institutes, MOUs, etc.), but, All key science pieces must be available in a simple and reliable way for regional reporting & delivery Need to coordinate regional ecosystem science planning and product delivery both regionally and nationally : NOAA needs Regional Science Coordination Groups to integrate its science, coordinate with external science entities, and to dialog with management partners Planning OK Ecosystem Goal Team & PPBES Delivery needs more coordination among regional groups & for follow-up : Ecosystem coordinator in EGT, or Office answering to one of NOAAs Councils (e.g., Research Council) Preliminary Findings 6 Additional capabilities to serve regional needs can be clustered in centers of excellence: Building new tools (modeling, forecasting & measuring)* Process-based research on: Ocean physics & chemistry* Ecosystem structure & function* Technical analyses (contaminants, toxicology, etc.) Taxonomy and biodiversity methods Data archiving & integration* Valuation of ecosystem goods & services* Methodology for measuring public priorities* Ecosystem impacts of specific human activities* Human response to changing ecosystem components* * enabling technologies needing expanded support Location Issues w/i NOAA - 1 Ecosystem theme is fundamentally different than NOAAs physical science-advice responsibilities. Ecosystem advisors must supply information that is relevant to management communities and simultaneously credible in the scientific community Ecosystem science activities spin off applied science benefits over lifetime of the science activity and not just at the end. Thus, the eETT believes that time to fruition is NOT an appropriate criterion to determine location of a specific ecosystem science capability in NOAA. Location Issues w/i NOAA - 2 A number of science program areas have elements distributed among multiple LOs and Goals. Many of these program areas are complex and involve multiple mission duties that are the responsibilities of two or more line offices. The eETT is concerned that this poses at least risk of inefficiencies and difficulties of accessing expertise when needed, but, The eETT is unable to explore the benefits, and particularly the costs & consequences, of consolidating these programs, in time available, The eETT recommends an in-depth analysis of these and potentially other activities, by experts: habitat programs, toxics, HABs, seafood safety analysis, oceanography (operational, modeling), Biodiversity Measurement & Monitoring (e.g., taxonomy, invasive species, etc.), others? (work in progress). eETT Continuing Work Develop options for the form & function of regional ecosystem science coordination Gather additional input from internal and external sources on regional capabilities and national enabling technologies Provide informal briefings to key individuals & groups Complete Draft interim report: 12/05 After Public comment final report 3/06 Comments back to eETT from the SAB?