Download Additional Activities - Dawn Wright

Ocean
Studies
Board
Biennial Report
2006–2008
Board and Staff Rosters
Ocean Studies Board 2007–2008
Robert A. Holman
Shirley A. Pomponi, Chair
Oregon State University
Corvallis
Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute
Fort Pierce, Florida
Cynthia M. Jones Term ended 12/31/2007
Robert G. Bea
Old Dominion University
Norfolk, Virginia
University of California
Berkeley
Kiho Kim
Donald F. Boesch
American University
Washington, DC
University of Maryland Center for Environmental
Science
Cambridge, Maryland
Barbara A. Knuth
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
Jorge E. Corredor
William A. Kuperman Term ended 12/31/2007
University of Puerto Rico
Lajas
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
La Jolla, California
Keith R. Criddle
Robert A. Lawson
University of Alaska, Fairbanks
Juneau
Science Applications International Corporation
San Diego, California
Mary (Missy) H. Feeley
George I. Matsumoto
ExxonMobil Exploration Company
Houston, Texas
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
Moss Landing, California
Holly Greening Term ended 12/31/2007
Tampa Bay Estuary Program
St. Petersburg, Florida
Frank E. Muller-Karger Term ended
12/31/2007
Debra Hernandez
University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth
New Bedford
Hernandez and Company
Isle of Palms, South Carolina
Jay S. Pearlman
The Boeing Company (retired)
Port Angeles, Washington
S. George H. Philander Term ended 12/31/2007
Staff 2007–2008
Princeton University
New Jersey
Susan Roberts
Director
Andrew A. Rosenberg
Frank R. Hall
University of New Hampshire
Durham
Program Officer (until July 2008)
Claudia Mengelt
Program Officer
Daniel L. Rudnick
Susan Park
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
La Jolla, California
Program Officer
Jodi Bostrom
Associate Program Officer
Raymond W. Schmitt Term ended 12/31/2007
Deborah Glickson
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Massachusetts
Associate Program Officer
Pamela Lewis
Administrative Coordinator
Robert J. Serafin
Shubha Banskota
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Boulder, Colorado
Financial Associate
Nancy Caputo
Research Associate (until July 2007)
Anne M. Trehu
Heather Chiarello
Oregon State University
Corvallis
Senior Program Assistant
Jeremy Justice
Program Assistant
Peter L. Tyack
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Massachusetts
Address
Ocean Studies Board
The National Academies
500 Fifth Street, NW, MS 607
Washington, DC 20001
Dawn J. Wright
Oregon State University
Corvallis
Telephone:
Fax: Internet: (202) 334-2714
(202) 334-2885
http://www.dels.nas.edu/osb
Contents
Foreword 5
Mission Statement 6
Coastal Studies 7
Mitigating Shore Erosion along Sheltered Coasts
Review of the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Program
Review of the Tsunami Warning and Forecast System and Overview of the Nation’s Tsunami Preparedness
Development of a Coastal Impacts Factor to Assess Hurricane Intensity
Fisheries Science and Management 18
Best Practices for Shellfish Mariculture and the Effects of Commercial Activities in Drakes Estero, Point Reyes National
Seashore, California
Fisheries Subcommittee
Review of Sea Turtle Population Assessment Methods
Improving Models in Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management
Marine Environments and Resources 25
Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century
Assessment of the Department of Energy’s Methane Hydrate Research and Development Program: Evaluating Methane
Hydrates as a Future Energy Resource
Development of an Integrated Science Strategy for Ocean Acidification Monitoring, Research, and Impacts Assessment
Responding to Oil Spills in Ice
The Ocean Research Enterprise 33
Oceanography in 2025: Proceedings of a Workshop
A Review of the Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy
Evolution of the National Oceanographic Research Fleet
An Ocean Infrastructure Strategy for U.S. Ocean Research in 2030
Assessing Requirements for Sustained Ocean Color Research and Operations
International Activities 41
Increasing Capacity for Stewardship of Oceans and Coasts: A Priority for the 21st Century
Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research
Additional Activities 45
Ocean Science Series
Minorities Striving to Pursue Higher Degrees of Success in Earth Systems Science
Review of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s Education Program
Roger Revelle Lecture Series
Past Fellows and Interns
Ocean Studies Board Publications 53
Ocean Studies Board Meetings 55
Sponsors 56
Foreword
Over the past few years, there has been a flurry of activity on ocean policy at both the state and federal levels. The
role of the Ocean Studies Board (OSB) and its study committees is to assist these efforts by providing ocean policy advice
to policymakers at national, regional, and state levels. In 2006–2007, the OSB played a key part in the development of
a national ocean research plan, Charting the Course for Ocean Science for the United States for the Next Decade: An Ocean
Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy, by providing a review of the plan in draft form followed by an assessment of the final plan. The OSB report, A Review of the Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy, concluded that the research plan, overseen by the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (JSOST), represents
a significant step forward in drawing from the many diverse communities of ocean scientists, managers, and policymakers
to establish national research priorities.
Recently, the JSOST has engaged the OSB to develop a study on a strategy for addressing the nation’s ocean
research infrastructure needs in 2030, focusing on facilities and hardware. This topic has been at the top of the list of OSB
priorities for several years so the launch of this study has been especially gratifying. Some of the nearer-term infrastructure
needs of the ocean science community will be addressed in a study on the evolution of the oceanographic fleet and a study
to guide planning for acquisition of future ocean color radiance data to support U.S. research and operational needs.
Coastal states have also been engaged in ocean policy, through participation in national and regional efforts and
through development of plans for state coastal waters. One impetus for these activities is the increasing recognition of the
vulnerability of coastal areas to climate change. Sea level rise and climate-driven changes in storm intensity and frequency
could dramatically reshape the coastline, threatening coastal communities and critical infrastructure. The states of California, Oregon, and Washington have joined together to request a National Research Council (NRC) study on sea level rise,
a joint activity of the OSB and the Board on Earth Sciences and Resources. This study will provide advice to west coast
resource managers concerned with freshwater, agriculture, forestry, natural ecosystems, and biodiversity, as well as engineers concerned with transportation systems, energy facilities, water systems, and other infrastructure.
Such a proactive approach to addressing climate change impacts represents a real change in the national discourse
on climate. For example, past requests for NRC studies were focused on climate science and understanding how human
activities were likely to influence climate. The latest Congressional request for an NRC study on climate, America’s Climate
Choices, is designed to inform and guide responses to climate change. Change is a given; we no longer view the climate
system as beyond human influence and recognize that the clock cannot be turned back to reverse the effects of combustion
of fossil fuels. The emphasis has changed to mitigation—to limit the magnitude of change—and adaptation—to reduce the
impacts of change on human societies.
Another aspect of fossil fuel usage of seminal interest to the ocean community is the effect of higher concentrations
of dissolved carbon dioxide on ocean chemistry and biology, often referred to as ocean acidification. A new study by the
OSB, in response to a Congressional request, will examine the anticipated consequences of ocean acidification on fisheries,
protected species, coral reefs, and other natural resources in the United States and internationally. The committee will
recommend priorities for a national research, monitoring, and assessment plan.
Ocean acidification was the topic of the eighth annual Roger Revelle Commemorative Lecture, held in March
2007. Dr. Ken Caldeira from the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology delivered a dynamic presentation
on “What Corals are Dying to Tell Us about CO2 and Ocean Acidification,” during which he described what is known
about ocean acidification, the potential environmental consequences, and actions that could be taken to reduce the risk of
ecological catastrophe in our oceans. In 2008, Dr. Michael Freilich provided a panoramic view of ocean processes in his
lecture “Looking Down on the Seas: How Satellites are Revolutionizing Our Understanding of the Ocean.”
Clearly, climate change and ocean acidification are global concerns, but many ocean resource issues transcend
national boundaries as well. A recent OSB report, Increasing Capacity for Stewardship of Oceans and Coasts, assesses capacity building efforts to identify barriers to effective management of coastal and marine resources encountered in coastal
nations, particularly in the developing world. The OSB has an ongoing interest in supporting international capacity building efforts, especially through its role as the U.S. National Committee to the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research
(SCOR), a nongovernmental organization for the promotion and coordination of international oceanographic activities
under the International Council for Science. The OSB and SCOR organized a joint session on capacity building in conjunction with the 50th anniversary meeting of SCOR in Woods Hole, Massachusetts on October 23, 2008.
Through the activities described in this biennial report, the OSB remains committed to addressing issues and advising policymakers on ocean science and technology and their benefits to the nation with regard to quality of life, safety and
security, economic growth, environmental sustainability, and education
Susan Roberts
OSB Director
Mission Statement
Statement of Purpose
The Ocean Studies Board explores the science, policies, and infrastructure needed to understand, manage, and
conserve coastal and marine environments and resources. In addition to exercising leadership within the ocean community,
the Board undertakes studies at the request of federal agencies, Congress, or other sponsors, or upon its own initiative.
•
•
•
•
•
In recent years, the Board has conducted studies in the following areas:
Status of marine and coastal environments
Ocean’s role in the global climate system
Technology and infrastructure needs for ocean research
Ocean-related aspects of national security
•
•
•
•
•
Fisheries science, management, and policy
Living and non-living marine resources
Ocean education
Reviews of specific agency programs
Future of the discipline in the United States and abroad
Operating Principles
Board Responsibilities
The Board provides an open forum for those interested in ocean issues to bring technical and policy concerns for
discussion and possible action. A primary responsibility of the Board is to initiate studies and ensure that they are carried
out successfully. As appropriate, studies may be developed and overseen jointly with other National Research Council
boards. In selecting projects, the Board attempts to be responsive to the requests of sponsors while also engaging in proactive activities related to ocean sciences, engineering, and policy.
Board members are appointed for staggered three-year terms with the opportunity to be extended for an additional
three-year term. The wide-ranging expertise of the Board members reflects the broad agenda of the Ocean Studies Board.
Board Meetings
The Board meets two to three times a year. Activities at these meetings include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Sharing information about subjects of importance to the ocean community
Considering new studies for initiation
Presenting the results of recently completed studies
Reviewing the progress of studies underway
From time to time, the Board establishes informal subcommittees to focus on specific topics. At present, there is
an active subcommittee on Fisheries Science and Management. This subcommittee meets in conjunction with the Board
meetings and reports back to the full Board on its deliberations and new project ideas.
Conduct of Studies
Individual studies are carried out under the Board’s oversight within a definite time frame and budget as agreed with
the sponsor(s). Typically, a committee of 8–15 members, with a diverse range of expertise and perspectives, is convened to
address a particular question or set of questions. All committee members serve pro-bono and are screened to avoid potential conflicts of interest. Before the committee meets, one of the volunteer experts is appointed to serve as the committee
chair, and a member of the Ocean Studies Board staff is assigned as the study director. The chair and study director work
closely together to ensure a successful process and final product.
Each committee meets periodically to investigate the many facets of the problem described in its statement of task;
to hear from outside experts and other interested parties; to deliberate; and to develop a report of its findings, conclusions,
and recommendations based on the available evidence. A draft report is then subjected to intensive review by a group of
independent, anonymous experts. After the revisions are made by the committee, the report must be officially approved by
the National Research Council. The report is then transmitted to the agency or organization that sponsored the study and
released to the public. The goal of the National Research Council process is to produce advice that is authoritative, objective, and consensus-based.
Coastal Studies
Coastal regions provide the country with valuable natural resources, recreational
areas, and prime property for commercial, industrial, and residential development.
More than 50 percent of the U.S. population lives in coastal counties, and development pressures in coastal areas continue to increase. In addition, coastal environments are stressed by pollution from inland sources transported by rivers and
through atmospheric deposition. Coastal properties and critical estuarine habitats
face threats from sea level rise that may be exacerbated by erosion and shoreline
armoring in response to erosion. Motivated by concerns about sustaining economic
well-being, environmental quality, living and non-living resources, and life and
property, the Ocean Studies Board has a long history of activities that advise the
nation on coastal issues.
Coastal Studies
Mitigating Shore Erosion A long Sheltered Coasts (Completed Activity)
Sheltered coasts (e.g., bays, lagoons, estuaries, mud flats, deltaic coasts) have
been increasingly at risk over the last century due to both natural and anthropogenic
forces. These areas are sensitive environments that are influenced by a variety of physical and biological processes. Unless adequately protected, they are often susceptible to
inundation, flooding, and erosion. Coastal zone management strategies and techniques
now in use to protect sheltered coastlines are often unable to keep pace with changing variables, such as sea level rise and subsidence. In some instances, they have the
potential to cause negative impacts to adjacent or nearby coastal resources. Enabling
the most appropriate response to future scenarios requires a long-term planning and
management approach. There is therefore a need to investigate innovative solutions
that will be capable of protecting sheltered coastlines in an environmentally sustainable manner.
A variety of approaches are available to protect property and natural resources
along sheltered coasts. Landowners and managers, however, are increasingly likely to
take extreme actions to protect property against erosion and inundation due to an increase in extreme events, as well as
recognition that anthropogenic factors such as dredging and bulkhead construction are affecting erosion rates. Landowners and coastal zone managers have few guidelines available to help them make decisions on the most appropriate methods
to achieve the ends of protecting private and public property along with protecting the environment.
Mitigating Shore Erosion along Sheltered Coasts examines the impacts of shoreline management on sheltered coastal
environments and strategies to minimize potential negative impacts to adjacent or nearby coastal resources. Overcoming the obstacles associated with the existing management framework will require a number of societal and institutional
changes. The report recommends development of a new shoreline management framework to help decision makers evaluate
the spectrum of available approaches to shoreline erosion problems in the context of the environmental setting. The new
framework would include assessment of the physical and ecological properties of the shoreline and the potential cumulative
impacts.
This project was funded by the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
10
Committee
Jeff Benoit, Chair, J.R. Benoit Consulting, Arlington, Virginia
C. Scott Hardaway, Jr., Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point
Debra Hernandez, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Charleston
Robert Holman, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Evamaria Koch, University of Maryland, Cambridge
Neil McLellan, Shiner Moseley and Associates, Houston, Texas
Susan Peterson, Teal Partners, Rochester, Massachusetts
Denise Reed, University of New Orleans, Louisiana
Daniel Suman, University of Miami, Florida
Staff
Susan Roberts, Study Director
Sarah Capote, Senior Program Assistant
11
Coastal Studies
R eview of the Louisiana Coastal Protection R estoration Program
(Ongoing Activity – Joint With The Water Science And Technology Board)
The 2005 U.S. Gulf Coast hurricane season was one of the most active and destructive in the nation’s history.
Storms striking the Gulf Coast—Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and others—took more than 1,800 lives; destroyed
billions of dollars of residential, commercial, and public property; and had a range of marked environmental impacts. In
New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina’s storm surge resulted in the breaching and overtopping of canals and levees, extensive
flooding of much of the city, and destruction of coastal wetlands.
Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath in the New Orleans area placed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
and its 40-year effort to design and construct an effective hurricane protection system under tremendous scrutiny. In
October 2005, USACE established the Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force (IPET) to evaluate the performance of the New Orleans hurricane protection system during Hurricane Katrina. An important component of the IPET
studies has been its risk and reliability analyses, which are expected to produce estimates of future flooding across the New
Orleans region and are to be part of future studies of regional hurricane protection.
In early 2006, Congress directed the Secretary of the Army, through USACE, to conduct a comprehensive hurricane protection analysis and design to develop and present a full range of flood control, coastal protection, and hurricane
protection measures for South Louisiana. This legislation (P.L. 109-148) also provided that the Secretary “shall consider
providing protection from a storm surge equivalent to a Category 5 hurricane within the project area.” The Louisiana
Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) program was established to study the prospects and identify structural and
nonstructural options for improved hurricane and flood protection for the region.
This committee is reviewing the evaluations being conducted as part of the LACPR program, which began in early
2006 and has resulted in an interim report issued July 2006 and a final report issued March 2009. The committee is
reviewing all aspects of these latter two reports, including assessment of the hurricane risk reduction framework, alternatives for flood control, storm protection, coastal restoration, and risk analysis. This project is being funded by USACE.
Committee
Robert A. Darymple, Chair, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
John J. Boland, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
Raymond J. Burby, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
John T. Christian, Consulting Engineer, Waban, Massachusetts
Reginald DesRoches, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
Charles G. Groat, University of Texas, Austin
Philip Li-Fan Liu, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
12
Richard A. Luettich, Jr., University of North Carolina, Morehead City
Robert H. Meade, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado
James T. Morris, University of South Carolina, Columbia
Heidi Nepf, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
Joan Oltman-Shay, Northwest Research Associates, Inc., Bellevue, Washington
Asbury H. Sallenger, Jr., U.S. Geological Survey, St. Petersburg, Florida
Staff
Jeffrey Jacobs, Study
���������������������������������������������������
Director (Water Science and Technology Board)
Susan Roberts, Board Director
Deborah Glickson, Associate Program Officer
Michael Stoever, Senior Program Assistant (Water Science and Technology Board)
13
Coastal Studies
R eview of the Tsunami Warning and Forecast System and Overview of the
Nation’s Tsunami Preparedness (Ongoing Activity)
The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami spurred two Congressional acts intended to reduce losses of life and property from
future tsunamis. The first of these, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on
Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (P.L. 109-13), included $24 million to improve tsunami warnings by expanding tsunami
detection and earthquake monitoring capabilities. It was followed in 2006 by the Tsunami Warning and Education Act
(P.L. 109-424), which directs the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to strengthen the nation’s
tsunami warning system, work with federal and state partners toward the mitigation of tsunami hazards, establish and
maintain a tsunami research program, and assist with efforts to provide tsunami warnings and tsunami education overseas.
The Tsunami Warning and Education Act (P.L.109-424) in Section 4 (j) calls upon the National Academy of Sciences “to review the tsunami detection, forecast, and warning program established under this Act to assess further modernization and coverage needs, as well as long-term operational reliability issues.” In response, NOAA asked the National
Academy of Sciences to assess options to improve all aspects of the official warnings that NOAA issues during a known or
potential tsunami.
The committee, formed in the spring of 2008, is in the process of reviewing progress towards tsunami preparedness
in response to the Tsunami Warning and Education Act (P.L. 109-424, December 2006). The committee’s task is divided
into two parts as described below.
The committee began its review of the NOAA Tsunami Program by assessing progress and improvements made
since 2005 to strengthen the existing U.S. tsunami detection, forecast, and warning system. The committee is also examining the effectiveness of this system for both near- and far-source tsunamigenic events, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Modeling of tsunami generation, propagation, and inundation
Forecast accuracy, warning notification, and dissemination
Reliability of observing and monitoring networks
Strategies to ensure long-term operational reliability and sustainability
Data quality control, management, archiving, and dissemination
Data acquisition, processing, and assessment for warning generation
Further modernization and geographic coverage needs
Probabilistic assessments of tsunami hazard that include data on the sizes and recurrence intervals of submarine
earthquakes and landslides near U.S. shores
Level of coordination and integration with:
1. State and local level tsunami programs for facilitating mitigation
2. U.S. ocean and coastal observation systems, including the Integrated Ocean Observing System
14
•
3. Global observing systems, including the Global Earth Observing System of Systems
Priority areas of targeted research and development in the United States to improve performance and guide
modernization efforts
In addition, the committee will provide a general overview of national preparedness, based on existing compilations
and national assessments including topics such as the following:
•
•
•
•
Adequacy of federal coordination and integration with state and local level tsunami programs for facilitating
mitigation
Approaches to risk assessment that account for such things as levels and trends in human populations, economic
assets, and critical facilities within tsunami-inundation zones
Availability of evacuation maps, routes, and structures
Education and outreach for children, adults, and tourists
The committee is examining a few federal, state, and local mitigation and education activities, including the National
Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program and TsunamiReady Program, to include as specific examples in their overview of
the nation’s ability to reduce losses of life and property from future tsunamis. In its report, the committee will comment on
how to optimize instrumental warning with these other elements of tsunami preparedness to serve the needs of end-users.
The report will highlight opportunities to improve the nation’s tsunami preparedness in the future and identify novel,
promising approaches to risk assessment and instrumental warning systems. This project is being funded by the Cooperative
Institute for Arctic Research, NOAA, and the President’s Circle of the National Academies.
Committee
John A. Orcutt, Chair, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California
Martha R. Grabowski, Vice-Chair, Le Moyne College, Cazenovia, New York
Brian F. Atwater, U.S. Geological Survey, Seattle, Washington
Ann Bostrom, University of Washington, Seattle
George Crawford, Washington State Emergency Management Division (retired), Camp Murray, Washington
Richard K. Eisner, Fritz Institute, San Francisco, California
Jian Lin, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts
Douglas S. Luther, University of Hawaii, Honolulu
Hugh B. Milburn, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (retired), Lake Forest Park, Washington
Dennis S. Mileti, University of Colorado (retired), Rancho Mirage, California
Emile A. Okal, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Costas E. Synolakis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
Nathan J. Wood, U.S. Geological Survey, Vancouver, Washington
Harry Yeh, Oregon State University, Corvallis
15
Staff
Claudia Mengelt, Study Director
Susan Park, Study Director
Pam Lewis, Administrative Coordinator
Jeremy Justice, Program Assistant
16
Coastal Studies
Development of a Coastal Impacts Factor for Tropical Storms
(Planned Activity)
The costliest natural disasters in the United States have resulted from hurricanes. In 2005, the destruction caused
by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita along the Mississippi Gulf Coast received global attention because of the lost property,
lost lives, destruction of communities, and the displacement of close to 1 million households. With more than 50 percent
of the U.S. population living in close proximity to the coast, our ability to predict hurricane trajectories, the resultant
storm surge, and the damage that will be caused by these storms are important for emergency responders to adequately
assess risk in real time. Developing a more scientifically complete assessment of storm strength that includes ocean effects
will also assist federal agencies in developing risk- and cost-benefit-based structure design and emergency response plans.
The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale was developed in the late 1960s to estimate the severity of a storm and the
potential damage to property. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Hurricane Center
describes the scale as “a 1–5 rating based on the hurricane’s present intensity. This is used to give an estimate of the potential property damage and flooding expected along the coast from a hurricane landfall. Wind speed is the determining
factor in the scale, as storm surge values are highly dependent on the slope of the continental shelf and the shape of the
coastline in the landfall region.”
The Saffir-Simpson scale can be misleading for emergency managers and the general public because it does not
provide a reliable prediction of the potential impacts of storm surge and waves associated with severe storm events on
coastal communities. For example, Hurricane Katrina was downgraded from a category 5 to a category 3 event at landfall.
Although this was accurate in terms of wind speed, this rating underestimated the impact of the hurricane’s storm surge
(about 30 feet), eclipsing the 1969 Hurricane Camille storm surge (about 20 feet), which was a category 5 storm at landfall.
Hurricane Katrina graphically illustrated the need for a measure that accounts for storm surge and flood conditions, in
addition to wind speed, to assess the potential coastal impact.
17
Fisheries Science and Management
Marine fish populations are important components of coastal ecosystems and are
also the foundations of the culture and economy of many communities. Many
marine fisheries are either fully or over exploited or their status is unknown; this
has created a continuing demand for advances in fisheries science, data collection,
and management. Fisheries scientists and managers are now exploring ecosystembased approaches to understanding the dynamics of fish populations and impacts
of fisheries on the marine environment. To help address some of these challenging
topics, the Ocean Studies Board established a Fisheries Subcommittee in 1997 to
facilitate focused discussions on fisheries policy issues of concern to the National
Marine Fisheries Service in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
18
Fisheries Science and Management
Best Practices for Shellfish M ariculture and the Effects of Commercial
Activities in Drakes Estero, Point R eyes National Seashore, California
(Ongoing Activity)
Mariculture is the cultivation of marine organisms in their natural environment, and by definition, mariculture is
a specialized branch of aquaculture (i.e., the cultivation of organisms in fresh or marine waters). The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations reports that aquaculture is the fastest growing form of global food production,
accounting for about 25 percent of the total world fish production. Although aquaculture and mariculture operations may
expand the production of commercially valuable species, they still depend upon natural ecosystems. Recently, scientists
have questioned whether aquaculture supplements wild fish stocks or contributes to the depletion of world fisheries.
Although capture fisheries and aquaculture operations are studied, planned, and managed as if they were independent
entities, they both share common concerns about genetic diversity in hatchery-raised fish, feeds, and fish meal fisheries and
industries.
Drakes Estero lies within the Point Reyes National Seashore, a unit of the National Park System, and is slated to
become a national wilderness area by Congress after the Reservation of Use and Occupancy (RUO) held by the Drakes
Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) expires in 2012. DBOC operates an oyster and clam mariculture operation in the Estero
within lands and waters managed by the U.S. National Park Service (NPS). There is presently disagreement among
various parties regarding the nature of and degree to which the DBOC operation affects the natural ecosystem of Drakes
Estero. At the request of Senator Dianne Feinstein and NPS, the National Research Council conducted an evaluation
to establish what is known or can reasonably be surmised of the ecological effects of the DBOC operation on the Drakes
Estero ecosystem. Shellfish Mariculture in Drakes Estero, Point Reyes National Seashore, California, which focused specifically
on Drakes Estero, assessed the nature and degree to which commercial mariculture operations affect natural ecosystems.
After evaluating the limited scientific literature on Drakes Estero and the relevant research from other areas, the committee concluded that there is a lack of strong scientific evidence that shellfish farming has major adverse ecological effects
on Drakes Estero at current levels of production and under current operational practices. Additional research could help
address the areas of concern in Drakes Estero and for many other resource management issues. In particular, there is a
need for directed research (1) to assess the impacts of disturbance on seals, shorebirds, and waterbirds at the population
level; (2) to control the abundance and risk of spread of invasive tunicates; and (3) developing estimates of carrying capacity
through modeling and ecosystem monitoring to ensure that mariculture operations do not disrupt ecosystem integrity.
For the second report, the committee will look at the potential ecosystem effects of shellfish mariculture more
broadly and recommend best practices to maintain ecosystem integrity. To this end, the committee will examine how
ecological effects vary in magnitude with the scale of the mariculture operation and with its duration, what uncertainties
surround these ecological effects, and what are the most important subjects for future research to minimize environmental
impacts. This report will identify best management practices that could be employed to enhance the benefits of shellfish
mariculture and minimize any negative ecological effects. This project is being funded by NPS.
19
Committee
Charles (Pete) H. Peterson, Chair, University of North Carolina, Morehead City
Barry A. Costa-Pierce, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett
Brett R. Dumbauld, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Newport, Oregon
Carolyn Friedman, University of Washington, Seattle
Eileen E. Hofmann, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
Hauke Kite-Powell, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts
Donal T. Manahan, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
Francis O’Beirn, Marine Institute, Galway, Ireland
Robert T. Paine, University of Washington, Seattle
Paul Thompson, University of Aberdeen, Scotland
Robert Whitlatch, University of Connecticut, Groton
Staff
Susan Roberts, Study Director
Jodi Bostrom, Study Director
Heather Chiarello, Senior Program Assistant
Jeremy Justice, Program Assistant
20
Fisheries Science and Management
Fisheries Subcommittee (Ongoing Activity)
The Ocean Studies Board (OSB) has played a major role in fisheries science, management, and policy through a
series of fisheries-related studies, primarily requested by Congress and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service. The OSB Fisheries Subcommittee provides an open forum for those interested in fisheries science and policy to bring technical and policy concerns for discussion and possible action. A primary
responsibility of this subcommittee is to initiate fisheries-related studies and ensure that they are carried out successfully.
Individual studies are carried out by specially appointed committees under the Board’s oversight and within a definite time
frame and budget.
The Fisheries Subcommittee typically meets once each year in conjunction with Board meetings to:
•
•
•
Present the results of recently completed studies related to fisheries
Review the progress of studies underway
Discuss emerging concerns in fisheries science, management, and policy and set priorities for future activities
Participation in the fisheries subcommittee is open to any member of the OSB with an interest in fishery-related
topics. Agency scientists and managers, as well as local fishery experts, are invited to participate in meetings of the group.
This project is being funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Subcommittee*
Keith Criddle, Chair, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Juneau
Donald Boesch, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Sciences, Cambridge
Kiho Kim, American University, Washington, DC
Barbara Knuth, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
Andrew Rosenberg, University of New Hampshire, Durham
Staff
Susan Park, Study Director
Heather Chiarello, Senior Program Assistant
*Participation on the Fisheries Subcommittee is informal and open to all members of the Ocean Studies Board.
21
Fisheries Science and Management
R eview of Sea Turtle Population A ssessment Methods (Ongoing Activity)
Long life spans and wide-ranging migrations make sea turtles susceptible to many sources of mortality, including
direct and incidental takes from coastal and oceanic human activities worldwide. In the United States, all species of marine
turtles are listed as either endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, thereby prohibiting their direct
harvest. However, permits are available for certain activities (such as shrimp fishing, dredging, and sand replenishment)
that allow a specified number of incidental takes (i.e., a number of individuals that may be accidentally killed before the
activity must stop). Therefore, assessments of population are necessary to determine if implemented protections and/or
incidental takes are having a significant effect on specific populations.
Regulatory decisions, such as allowing incidental takes, require absolute population numbers, but the current data
and models used are insufficient to provide such results. Current assessment models are only able to give qualitative numbers, demonstrating population trends for limited segments of the population or making general predictions about the
effects of perturbations on survival rates. There are currently no workable stock assessment models for sea turtles such as
there are for fisheries. Creating useable models to conduct accurate stock assessments has been an impossible task, mainly
because so many of the needed variables are unknown (due to lack of money or effort) or are unknowable. Improvements to
current models could be attained through improved input stock parameters, such as age or size structure, genetic structure,
stock mixing, growth, life history, and habitat needs of different life history stages.
This study will review recent assessments on the status and trends of sea turtle populations which occur in U.S.
waters during all or a portion of their life cycle. The study will evaluate the state of the science and research in terms of
population assessment capabilities and data required to improve assessments. It will also review the utility of existing
research programs that provide information for assessing and managing sea turtle populations in the context of current
recovery plans. The report will include a discussion of current methods used to assess the status of sea turtle populations
and to estimate known mortality. Recommendations will focus on the research, monitoring, and data needed to improve
sea turtle population assessments in the short and long term, such as genetic analyses, telemetry, and mark-recapture studies, taking into account the effectiveness, cost, and timeliness of various data collection methods. The committee will also
recommend improvements to existing models, highlight limitations in current methods, identify potential new avenues
for modeling, and suggest methods for making sea turtle population data available for incorporation into a wide range of
models and meta-analytical studies. This project is being funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Committee
Karen A. Bjorndal, Chair, University of Florida, Gainesville
Brian W. Bowen, University of Hawaii, Kaneohe
Milani Chaloupka, Ecological Modelling Services Pty Ltd, Brisbane, Australia
22
Larry B. Crowder, Duke University, Beaufort, North Carolina
Selina S. Heppell, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Cynthia M. Jones, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
Molly E. Lutcavage, University of New Hampshire, Durham
Andrew R. Solow, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts
Blair E. Witherington, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Melbourne Beach
Staff
Susan Park, Study
��������������
Director
Jeremy Justice, Program Assistant
23
Fisheries Science and Management
Improving Models in Ecosystem-Based Fisheries M anagement
(Planned Activity)
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006, signed into law on
January 12, 2007, created a mandate for multispecies and ecosystem-based management of U.S. fisheries. While there
is broad conceptual support for this view, practical tools to meet this difficult challenge are largely lacking. More specifically, tools for objectively identifying meaningful functionally coupled ecological subsystems, management units, concrete
management strategies, and explicit performance measures have yet to be developed in any rigorous way. Although various
simple multispecies and ecosystem models have been developed, few have been verified in real time or used seriously as a
basis for specifying targets or reference points needed for management of individual species, much less species complexes
(target and non-target). Ecosystem-based management should also provide a framework for exploring a range of management actions, not only policies related to the conduct of fisheries but also such things as the approval and location of
mariculture and ocean ranching, monitoring and mitigating invasive species, assessment of likely impacts of coastal development, and prediction of and adaptation to the effects of climate change.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service faces both legal and
scientific challenges in any effort to upgrade modeling approaches. However, performance evaluation of existing management paradigms and a potential adjustment based on that feedback is essential at both single-species and ecosystem levels
in order to evaluate and improve policy. Increasingly, a multi-scale approach seems necessary, with modeling first at a fine
scale followed by aggregation methodologies. This implies the need for discrete subdivisions of populations of individual
species, a species assembly approach, and eventually some integration in ecosystem models.
The proposed study would review the efficacy and availability of models that guide ecosystem-based fisheries
assessments, including their value in providing support for management. The goal of the activity would be to assess the
performance of the range of current generation ecosystem-based models and current generation single- and multiplespecies models to determine which approaches perform well in practice. A model for this type of study is the 1998
National Research Council report Improving Fish Stock Assessments. This study would also review the research frontier
to recommend innovative new tools, methodologies, and avenues for continued research for improving ecosystem-based
fisheries models.
24
Marine Environments and Resources
Living and non-living marine resources constitute some of our nation’s most valuable assets for domestic use and export. However, the development and exploitation
of these resources often have secondary impacts that may threaten the integrity
and sustainability of marine ecosystems. To ensure that in the future the nation
will enjoy the broad range of benefits available from our coastal and territorial seas,
policymakers will need more comprehensive information and analysis of how to
respond to the human-induced and natural changes in the marine environment.
25
Marine Environments and Resources
Tackling M arine Debris in the 21st Century (Completed Activity)
Marine debris from ships and other ocean-based sources—including trash
and lost fishing gear—contributes to the spoiling of beaches, fouling of surface waters
and the seafloor, and harm to marine animals, among other effects. Marine debris
regulation falls largely under the International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) Annex V, which entered into force in 1988. This
Convention places restrictions on the disposal of garbage at sea; however, despite
these and other prohibitions, the problem of marine debris continues 20 years later
In 2006, Congress enacted the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and
Reduction Act. Within this Act, Congress requested that the National Research
Council undertake this study to assess the effectiveness of international and national
measures to prevent and reduce marine debris and its impacts. In accordance with
the charge from Congress, the committee’s report focuses on the debris discharged at
sea from commercial shipping, fishing, recreational boating, cruise ships, and other
sources. However, because a substantial amount of marine debris originates from
land-based sources, the report’s recommendations are framed in the context of the larger marine debris problem.
Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century states that despite measures to prevent and reduce marine debris, evidence
shows that the problem continues and will likely worsen. This indicates that current measures for preventing and reducing
marine debris are inadequate. The committee recommends that the United States and the international maritime community should adopt a goal of zero discharge of waste into the marine environment. Additional recommendations focus
on four themes: (1) marine debris management, leadership, and coordination; (2) information and metrics with which
to assess the effectiveness of current measure or efficiently direct future efforts; (3) port reception facilities for shoreside
disposal; and (4) distinct aspects of managing fishing gear as a source of marine debris. This project was funded by the U.S.
Coast Guard.
Committee
Keith R. Criddle, Chair, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
Anthony F. Amos, University of Texas, Port Aransas
Paula Carroll, U. S. Coast Guard (retired), Honolulu, Hawaii
James M. Coe, Alaska Fisheries Science Center (retired), Kirkland, Washington
Mary J. Donohue, University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program, Honolulu
Judith Hill Harris, Department of Ports and Transportation, City of Portland, Maine
26
Kiho Kim, American University, Washington, DC
Tony MacDonald, Monmouth University, West Long Branch, New Jersey
Kathy Metcalf, Chamber of Shipping of America, Washington, DC
Alison Rieser, University of Hawaii, Honolulu
Nina M. Young, Consortium for Ocean Leadership, Washington, DC
Staff
Susan Park, Study
��������������
Director
Jodi Bostrom, Research Associate
27
Marine Environments and Resources
A ssessment of the Department of Energy ’s Methane Hydrate R esearch and
Development Program: Evaluating Methane Hydrates as a Future Energy R esource (ongoing activity – Joint with the Board on Earth Science and R esources)
In two decades, methane hydrates could represent an important, unconventional source of natural gas as production
from domestic natural gas fields declines. At present, challenges exist with regard to the technical discovery and production of commercially viable methane hydrate resources and the understanding and management of possible environmental
impacts associated with methane hydrate extraction. In 2000, the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act
(H.R. 1753) promoted the research, identification, assessment, exploration, and development of methane hydrate resources.
In carrying out the program of methane hydrate research and development, the U.S. Department of Energy was given the
ability to award grants or contracts to, and enter into cooperative agreements with, other government agencies, institutions
of higher education, and industry to conduct basic and applied research to identify, explore, assess, and develop methane
hydrate as a source of energy; to conduct research and assist in developing technologies required for efficient and environmentally sound development of methane hydrate resources and the transport and storage of methane produced from
methane hydrates; to promote education and training in methane hydrate resource research and resource development;
to develop technologies to reduce the risks of drilling through methane hydrates; and to conduct exploratory drilling in
support of these activities.
Amendments to the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act were made under the Energy Policy Act of
2005. These revisions to the 2000 Act were in partial response to findings that the United States will require a diversified
energy portfolio to meet growing energy demands and to studies by the National Research Council and the National
Commission on Energy Policy. The Methane Hydrate Research and Development Program was revised under the 2005
Energy Policy Act with the program managed by of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fossil Energy Office and National
Energy Technology Laboratory. The basic and applied research conducted under this program through a variety of interagency partnerships and partnerships between the federal government and academic and private institutions is intended
to help establish whether or not methane hydrates may eventually become a commercially viable and environmentally
acceptable portion of the U.S. energy portfolio. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 calls for the National Research Council
to (1) conduct a study of the progress made under the methane hydrate research and development program and (2) make
recommendations for future methane hydrate research and development needs. This project is being funded by the U.S.
Department of Energy.
Committee
William S. Reeburgh, Chair, University of California, Irvine
Scott R. Dallimore, Geological Survey of Canada, Sidney, British Columbia
Gonzalo Enciso, Rose and Associates, Houston, Texas
Sidney J. Green, Schlumberger Data and Consulting Services and University of Utah, Salt Lake City
Carolyn Koh, Colorado School of Mines, Golden
28
Keith A. Kvenvolden, U.S. Geological Survey (retired), Palo Alto, CA
Charles J. Mankin, Oklahoma Geological Survey (retired), Norman
Charles Paull, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, California
Michael Riedel, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Staff
Elizabeth Eide, Study
�����������������������������������������������������
Director���������������������������������������
(Board
��������������������������������������
on Earth Science and Resources)
Deborah Glickson, Associate Program Officer
Nicholas Rogers, Research Associate (Board on Earth Science and Resources)
Courtney Gibbs, Program Associate (Board on Earth Science and Resources)
29
Marine Environments and Resources
Development of an Integrated Science Strategy for Ocean Acidification
Monitoring, R esearch, and Impacts A ssessment (Ongoing Activity)
A major challenge facing both the scientific and policy communities is how to mitigate and adapt to the impacts
of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). While much of the focus has been on the role of CO2 in global climate
change, greenhouse gases and global warming can also have important effects on the ocean. Among the potential effects of
greenhouse gas emissions and global warming is the uptake of CO2 by the oceans and the resultant decrease in seawater
pH, a process known as ocean acidification. Scientists are only beginning to investigate this process; however, the potential
effects of ocean acidification point to many policy ramifications that need to be addressed. Ocean acidification has the
potential for extensive environmental and socioeconomic consequences. One likely impact is the loss and degradation of
coral reefs, which support fisheries, tourism, and other industries. Reef ecosystems also provide other services, such as
coastal protection from storms. In addition, commercially important fisheries species may be impacted either directly (e.g.,
impact on calcification of shellfish, physiological stress of decreased pH) or indirectly (e.g., loss of coral reef habitat, shifts
in planktonic prey communities) by ocean acidification. These potential impacts, along with other effects of greenhouse
gas emissions and global warming, may influence decisions by federal and state agencies regarding fisheries management,
ecosystem restoration, coral reef protection, protected species management, and other living marine resource management.
However, we currently lack the monitoring, research, and impacts assessments on ocean acidification needed to inform
these decisions.
The study will examine the anticipated consequences of ocean acidification due to rising atmospheric CO2 levels on
fisheries, protected species, coral reefs, and other natural resources in the United States and internationally. The committee will recommend priorities for a national research, monitoring, and assessment plan to advance understanding of the
biogeochemistry of CO2 uptake in the ocean and the relationship to atmospheric levels of CO2 and to reduce uncertainties
in projections of increasing ocean acidification and the potential effects on living marine resources and ocean ecosystems.
The committee’s report will:
1. Review current knowledge of ocean acidification, covering past, present, and anticipated future effects on ocean
ecosystems
2. Identify critical uncertainties and key science questions regarding the progression and impacts of ocean acidification and the new information needed to facilitate research and decision making for potential mitigation and adaptation options
3. Recommend a strategy of research, monitoring, and assessment for federal agencies, the scientific community, and
other partners, including a strategy for developing a comprehensive, coordinated interagency program to address
the high-priority information needs
This project is being funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
30
Committee
François M. M. Morel, Chair, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey
David Archer, University of Chicago, Illinois
James P. Barry, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, California
Garry D. Brewer, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
Jorge E. Corredor, University of Puerto Rico, Lajas
Scott C. Doney, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts
Victoria J. Fabry, California State University, San Marcos
Gretchen E. Hofmann, University of California, Santa Barbara
Daniel S. Holland, Gulf of Maine Research Institute, Portland
Joan A. Kleypas, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
Frank J. Millero, University of Miami, Florida
Ulf Riebesell, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany
Staff
Susan Park, Study Director
Heather Chiarello, Senior Program Assistant
Cheryl Logan, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellow
31
Marine Environments and Resources
R esponding to Oil Spills in Ice (Planned Activity)
Oil spills in high-latitude waters pose significant challenges for response, recovery, and restoration to minimize
biological effects and reduce oil impacts on natural resources, including human activities such as fishing and tourism, due
to complications associated with an ice-covered environment and the difficulty of operations in remote regions. With
increasing shipping activity in the Arctic as the ice-cover retreats and as greater demand for oil drives exploration and
production, there is a higher risk of serious spills in that region. This has raised interest in the unique problems associated
with responding to oil spills in ice environments.
The Coastal Response Research Center at the University of New Hampshire held a workshop in March 2008 to
explore some of these concerns. The goal of the workshop was “to identify key strategies, action items, and research needs
that will improve the ability of Arctic nations and communities to prepare for, and respond to, marine incidents in the
Arctic.” During this workshop, several recommendations received broad support, including:
•
•
•
•
•
Increase emergency response assets, supplies, equipment, and planning in Arctic regions, especially in active
regions
Expand Arctic communications and vessel transit networks
Improve baseline and information data for Arctic regions for resources or activities that could be affected by
potential incidents (e.g., biological, cultural, subsistence, hydrographic, charting)
Increase investment in research and development for Arctic spill response
Develop environmental risk assessments and impact assessments for the Arctic seas, shipping routes, and ports
(i.e., a multi-layered approach)
The proposed National Research Council study would take an in-depth look at the issues associated with response
to oil spills under pack ice or in waters with broken ice. Specifically, an ad hoc committee of experts would be assembled to
produce a report covering the following topics:
•
•
•
•
Description of various oil spill scenarios that could occur in ice environments and assessment of the unique challenges of spill response operations in ice-covered relative to open waters.
Comparison of the effectiveness and drawbacks of current methodologies used in response to a spill in ice-covered
waters. This would include factors such as oil removal and recovery efficiency, operation under various weather
conditions, transportation of equipment to remote areas, ancillary effects on the environment and marine species,
and the spatial and temporal dimensions of the spill and the response.
Assessment of techniques for detecting, mapping, and tracking spills in ice.
Identification of promising new concepts and technologies for improving the response to oil spills in ice based on a
review of ongoing research and existing literature. The report would recommend strategies for advancing research
and addressing information gaps.
32
Ocean Research Enterprise
The Ocean Studies Board, working closely with federal agencies and the research
community, helps to identify new research opportunities, establish research priorities, and improve the quality of the research enterprise. Productivity in ocean
research supports the nation’s economy and national and homeland security.
Continued progress in ocean research to meet national needs will require a commitment to excellence in both human and physical resources as well as a robust
ocean research infrastructure to ensure that the United States is able to respond to
challenges as they arise.
33
Ocean Research Enterprise
Oceanography in 2025: Proceedings of a Workshop (Completed Activity)
Advances in scientific understanding of the ocean depend on new approaches
in research and technology. Progress in understanding ocean processes and properties will require both discipline-oriented research and interdisciplinary collaborations to investigate the complex connections within the ocean environment. The
future of oceanography will depend on the contributions of creative thinkers who
are well positioned to capitalize on new insights and forge ahead into new, and
often unforeseen, areas. Improved access to coastal and deep-water environments
comes from advances in infrastructure and technology such as advanced sensors for
satellites, unmanned vehicles, and buoys. The development of innovative tools will
facilitate novel experiments and permit the study of processes from very fine-scale
variation to global-scale phenomena and will be significantly expanded by leveraging the capabilities of other disciplines.
On January 8–9, 2009, the Ocean Studies Board hosted the “Oceanography
in 2025” workshop. The goal of the workshop was to bring together about 50 scientists, engineers, and technologists to explore future directions in oceanography, with an emphasis on physical processes.
The Office of Naval Research sought the viewpoints of a wide range of scientists to identify a broad spectrum of future
research possibilities. The focus of the workshop centered on research and technology needs, trends, and barriers that may
impact the field of oceanography over the next 16 years and highlighted specific areas of interest: submesoscale processes,
air-sea interactions, basic and applied research, instrumentation and vehicles, ocean infrastructure, and education. Individual white papers from the participants of the workshop were published in Oceanography in 2025: Proceedings of a Workshop.
This project was funded by the Office of Naval Research.
Committee
Daniel L. Rudnick, Chair, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California
Robert A. Holman, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Jay S. Pearlman, The Boeing Company (retired), Port Angeles, Washington
Mary Jane Perry, University of Maine, Walpole
Staff
Deborah Glickson, Study Director
Heather Chiarello, Senior Program Assistant
34
Ocean Research Enterprise
A R eview of the Ocean R esearch Priorities Plan and Implementation
Strategy (Completed Activity)
In the Oceans Act of 2000, Congress called for the establishment of a presidential
commission to undertake a comprehensive review of U.S. ocean policy. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy issued their report, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century,
in 2004 and included over 200 recommendations directed to the President, Congress,
and federal agencies. As required under the Oceans Act, the Bush Administration
responded to the Commission’s report in its U.S. Ocean Action Plan.
The U.S. Ocean Action Plan directed the newly formed Joint Subcommittee on
Ocean Science and Technology (JSOST) to develop an ocean research priorities plan
and implementation strategy to “seek enhanced collaboration, coordination, cooperation, and synergies and…identify gaps and deficiencies along with related infrastructure
needs.” JSOST requested a National Research Council review of both the draft and the
final Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy.
In reviewing the draft plan, the committee’s report (A Review of the Draft Ocean Research Priorities Plan: Charting the
Course for Ocean Science in the United States) states that the draft plan succeeded in a number of important ways, such as
providing a clear and well-articulated link between the ocean and society with its six societal themes and including research
priorities in the social sciences, a necessary component for improving ocean stewardship. The committee provides several
recommendations to improve the plan. They feel that the plan lacked a bold and compelling vision for ocean research
in the next decade so the report recommended that JSOST provide this vision and a series of challenges for science
and society under each theme. They recommend that JSOST provide a more comprehensive description of the needs
and opportunities for multidisciplinary research, as well as research partnerships (multiagency and agency–academia–
industry–international) for each societal theme. The report also recommends that the implementation strategy include
a schedule by which the research priorities could reasonably be addressed, a set of benchmarks by which progress can be
assessed, and a strategy for maintaining new capabilities (made possible by advances in knowledge of processes, modeling,
and technology) through the transfer from research to operational programs.
In the evaluation of the final research plan, the committee’s final report (A Review of the Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy) notes that there were significant positive changes in the final document that were
related directly to comments on the draft document. In particular, a clear and coherent vision statement was included
that provides a compelling rationale for the importance of ocean science and articulates the evolution of thinking in the
ocean science community. The committee did make several recommendations to JSOST on how to move forward with
the implementation of the plan. The report suggests three types of external review committees that should be created to
35
provide independent advice to the JSOST on the development and implementation of the plan and to ensure continued
stakeholder input. The report also recommends the establishment of a program office and a transparent budget process
that would ensure coordination, collaboration, and integration of projects. In addition, the committee recommends that
JSOST continue and expand its efforts to reach out regularly to the ocean community concerning the activities, progress,
and planning of the Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy. This project was funded by the National Science Foundation.
Committee
Robert Duce, Co-Chair, Texas A&M University, College Station
Nancy Targett, Co-Chair, University of Delaware, Lewes
Denise Breitburg, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland
David Conover, State University of New York, Stony Brook
Cortis Cooper, Chevron Energy Technology Company, San Ramon, California
Catherine Cunningham Ballard, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Lansing
Gerry Galloway, University of Maryland, College Park
Robert Knox, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California
William Kuperman, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California
Roger Lukas, University of Hawaii, Honolulu
James Sanchirico, University of California, Davis
Andrew Solow, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts
Denise Stephenson Hawk, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
Staff
Susan Roberts, Study Director
Frank R. Hall, Program Officer
Susan Park, Program Officer
Toni Mizerek, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellow
Jeffrey Watters, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellow
Jodi Bostrom, Research Associate
Nancy Caputo, Research Associate
Sarah Capote, Senior Program Assistant
36
Ocean Research Enterprise
Evolution of the National Oceanographic R esearch Fleet
(Ongoing Activity)
Oceanographic research vessels are a critical component of ocean research infrastructure, but the nation’s fleet suffers from insufficient capacity, as well as old and outdated vessels. Ship demand for research needs is expected to increase
in the future. Availability of ship time may be affected by planned ocean observing systems, including cabled observatories,
and the need to support remotely operated and autonomous underwater vehicles. Similarly, advances in technologies for
the study of the oceans may require specialized vessel design and increased costs for ship operations. Advances in communication, data processing, and other fields are rapidly altering the ways in which ocean research is performed and future
advances must be considered in fleet renewal plans.
The University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) is a consortium of 61 academic institutions
and national laboratories involved in oceanographic research that coordinate the scheduling and operation of 22 academic
research vessels owned by federal agencies or research institutions. Many of the vessels within the fleet are nearing the end
of their service lives or are in need of refitting and upgrades. In 2001, the interagency Federal Oceanographic Facilities
Committee issued a plan that “addresses renewals, retirements, and technology upgrades for those vessels within the fleet
that are over 40 m long.” Despite broad support for the plan, there has been little progress on implementation and funding.
The Office of Naval Research is currently in the early design process for the first of two new Ocean Class ships and
expects a need to respond to questions concerning how the rapid advances in ocean observing technology and the impacts
of rising costs will affect the future fleet relative to U.S. Navy needs.
The committee is reviewing the scientific and technological issues that may affect the evolution of UNOLS academic
fleet over the next 25 years and is investigating how technological advances in ocean research will affect the demand for
UNOLS vessels with various capabilities, the most important factors in oceanographic research vessel design, the impact
of evolving modeling and remote sensing technologies on the balance of research operations, and how the increasing cost
of ship time will affect the type of science done aboard ships. The committee is also evaluating the usefulness of partnering
mechanisms, such as UNOLS to support national oceanographic research objectives. This project is being funded by the
Office of Naval Research.
Committee
Ronald K. Kiss, Co-Chair, Webb Institute of Naval Architecture (retired), Rockville, Maryland
Richard F. Pittenger, Co-Chair, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (retired), Massachusetts
Francisco Chavez, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, California
Margo Edwards, University of Hawaii, Honolulo
Rana A. Fine, University of Miami, Florida
Nancy N. Rabalais, Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, Chauvin
37
Eric Saltzman, University of California, Irvine
James H. Swift, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California
William Wilcock, University of Washington, Seattle
Dana R. Yoerger, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts
Staff
Deborah Glickson, Study Director
Jeremy Justice, Program Assistant
38
Ocean Research Enterprise
A n Ocean Infrastructure Strategy for U.S. Ocean R esearch in 2030
(Ongoing Activity)
The nation’s research infrastructure forms the backbone of scientific enterprise and is essential for the application of
scientific knowledge to societal needs. However, significant components of the U.S. ocean infrastructure are aged or obsolete, and in some areas, the capacity was insufficient to meet the needs of the ocean community. There has been concern
that the growing technology gap in facilities will lead to the decline of the nation’s leadership in marine technology development. This could result in increasing reliance on foreign facilities, potentially reducing the access of domestic researchers to
new technology and observational data.
The Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (JSOST) is coordinating the United States’ ocean
research enterprise among the federal agencies and in 2007 produced an ocean research priorities plan and implementation
strategy for the next decade. In planning for ocean science beyond the next decade, JSOST is evaluating the current status
and future needs of the nation’s research infrastructure. Because of the long lead time it takes to plan, design, fund, and
build major infrastructure assets, such as ships, satellites, and observing systems, the federal agencies must try to anticipate
the directions ocean research will take over the next 25 years. Also, some of these assets will be in service for 20–30 years
and therefore should be on the cutting edge of technology to ensure that the infrastructure investments provide value
throughout their lifetime. JSOST has requested that the National Research Council provide advice on a strategy for
addressing the nation’s ocean research infrastructure needs in 2030, focusing on facilities and hardware.
The committee will identify major research questions anticipated to be at the forefront of ocean science in 2030
based on national and international assessments, input from the worldwide scientific community, and ongoing research
planning activities. The committee will also define categories of infrastructure that should be included in planning for
the nation’s ocean research infrastructure of 2030 and that will be required to answer the major research questions of the
future. This project is being funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science
Foundation, the Minerals Management Service, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Marine Mammal Commission, and
the U.S. Arctic Research Commission.
Staff
Deborah Glickson, Study Director
Heather Chiarello, Senior Program Assistant
39
Ocean Research Enterprise
A ssessing R equirements for Sustained Ocean Color R esearch and
Operations (Planned Activity)
Two recent National Research Council reports—Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives
for the Next Decade and Beyond and the subsequent report on Ensuring the Climate Reord from the NPOESS and GEOS-R
Spacecraft: Elements of a Strategy to Recover Measurement Capabilities Lost in Program Restructuring—were conducted under
the premise that the Visible/Infrared Imager/Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) sensor on both the National Polar-Orbiting
Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) and the NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP) would deliver
ocean color data of the quality similar to those provided by the Sea-Viewing Wide Field-of-View Sensor (SeaWiFS).
However, at present, it is unclear whether some of the surfaced design issues with the VIIRS sensor on NPP will meet the
requirements of the ocean color community for operational and research use. Consequently, the ocean color research community needs to develop a strategy to mitigate the data gap that is likely to arise between the time the Moderate Resolution
Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) ceases to provide data and the subsequent sensor on NPOESS is launched, assuming the sensor on that platform will meet the required design specifications.
Conversations with program managers at various agencies have resulted in the consensus that a study by
the National Research Council would greatly assist in developing mitigation strategies. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Office of Naval Research, and
the National Science Foundation have agreed to partner in a study to consider the temporal, radiometric, spectral, and
geometric performance of future observing systems in the context of the full range of research needs and operational- and
application-user needs. This study aims to identify the ocean color data needs for a broad range of end users, develop a
consensus for the requirements, and outline options to meet these needs on a sustained basis.
As currently envisioned, a committee would assess lessons learned in global ocean color remote sensing from the
SeaWiFS/MODIS era to guide planning for acquisition of future ocean color radiance data to support U.S. research and
operational needs. In particular, a committee would assess the sensor and system requirements necessary to produce highquality ocean color climate data records that are consistent with those from SeaWiFS/MODIS. Additionally, a committee
would review the operational and research objectives, such as described in the Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy, for the next generation of ocean color satellite sensors and provide guidance on how to ensure both
operational and research goals of the oceanographic community are met.
The study would also evaluate the research requirements in the context of relevant missions outlined in previous
National Research Council reports, would build on the Advance Plan developed by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration’s Ocean Biology and Biogeochemistry Program, and would comment on future ocean color remote sensing
support of oceanographic research goals that have evolved since the publication of that report. Also included in the review
would be an evaluation of ongoing work related to ocean color measurements from geostationary platforms.
40
International Activities
International ocean research and science policy are important aspects of ocean science activities in the United States. The Ocean Studies Board represents the United
States in international settings through representation on the Scientific Committee
on Oceanic Research and undertakes studies on international ocean science, technology, and management.
41
International Activities
Increasing Capacity for Stewardship of Oceans and Coasts: A Priority for
the 21st Century (Completed Activity)
Many countries, especially developing nations, have struggled to develop
and implement effective strategies for the protection and sustainable use of ocean
and coastal resources. Strengthening skills in the areas of science, environmental
economics, regulation, compliance, monitoring, and evaluation are important components for sustaining effective programs for managing marine resources.
Most capacity building activities have been initiated to address particular
issues, such as coral reef degradation, or they target a particular region or country
facing threats to their marine resources. Unfortunately, the committee found that
there is little coordination among efforts with similar goals or overlapping geographic
coverage—resulting in programs that are less effective due to their isolation in time
and space. This fragmentation inhibits the sharing of information and experience
and makes it more difficult to design and implement management approaches at
appropriate scales. Additional barriers that have limited the effectiveness of capacity
building programs include:
•
•
•
•
•
Lack of an adequate needs assessment prior to program design and implementation
Exclusion of targeted populations in decision-making efforts
Poor management structures that lead to mismanagement, corruption, or both
Incomplete or inappropriate evaluation procedures
The paucity of long-term, programmatic monetary support and a coordinated and strategic approach among
donors
Increasing Capacity for Stewardship of Oceans and Coasts: A Priority for the 21st Century assesses past and current
capacity building efforts to identify barriers to effective management of coastal and marine resources encountered in
coastal nations, particularly in the developing world. It also recommends ways that governments and organizations can
help strengthen marine and coastal protection and management capacity, including periodic program assessments, sustained funding, and the development of leadership and political will.
The committee concluded that improving ocean stewardship and ending the fragmentation of current capacity
building programs will require a new, broadly adopted framework that emphasizes cooperation, sustainability, knowledge
transfer within and among communities, education and training opportunities, and establishment of effective governance
structures. The report identifies the following specific features that would increase the effectiveness and efficiency of future
capacity building programs:
42
•
•
•
•
Program assessments
Sustained and diverse funding
Development of leadership and political will
Networking and regional cooperation
This project was funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the President’s Circle of the National Academies, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National
Science Foundation, the Marisla Foundation, and the Curtis and Edith Munson Foundation.
Committee
Mary (Missy) H. Feeley, Co-Chair, ExxonMobil Exploration Company, Houston, Texas
Silvio C. Pantoja, Co-Chair, University of Concepción, Chile
Tundi Agardy, Sound Seas, Bethesda, Maryland
Juan Carlos Castilla, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago
Stephen C. Farber, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Indumathie V. Hewawasam, The World Bank, Washington, DC
Joanna Ibrahim, University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad
Jane Lubchenco, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Nyawira Muthiga, Wildlife Conservation Society, Mombasa, Kenya
Stephen B. Olsen, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett
Shubha Sathyendranath, Partnership for Observation of the Global Oceans, Dartmouth, Canada
Michael P. Sissenwine, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (retired), Baltimore, Maryland
Daniel O. Suman, University of Miami, Florida
Giselle Tamayo, University of Costa Rica, Heredia (resigned May 2007)
Staff
Susan Roberts, Study Director
Frank R. Hall, Program Officer
Jodi Bostrom, Research Associate
43
International Activities
Scientific Committee on Oceanic R esearch (Ongoing Activity)
The Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR) is a component of the International Council of Scientific
Unions and is intended to further international scientific activities in all branches of ocean research. The National Science
Foundation funds the Ocean Studies Board (OSB) to serve as the U.S. National Committee to SCOR, and OSB members
serve as the U.S. representatives to SCOR. These representatives attend annual SCOR meetings, report on SCOR activities at OSB meetings, provide input to SCOR on behalf of the U.S. ocean science community, and submit non-binding
reviews of working group proposals to the SCOR Executive Committee. OSB receives regular updates on SCOR activities,
discusses proposed SCOR projects, and encourages participation of the U.S. ocean research community in SCOR meetings and associated international research.
SCOR is funded through dues contributed by member nations. In addition, funds are received from national agencies; international organizations; and private foundations for specific science activities, such as planning and implementation of large-scale ocean research projects, working groups on various topics, and activities related to ocean carbon research
and observations. Dues are used to fund annual meetings and the SCOR Secretariat and to support working groups.
Working group proposals are solicited and national SCOR committees are asked for comments and suggestions regarding
those proposals. The SCOR Executive Committee oversees SCOR activities and acts on behalf of national SCOR committees between annual SCOR meetings.
General duties of a SCOR representative include annual review of working group proposals, reporting on SCOR
activities to OSB at the meetings, selecting and soliciting a SCOR activity for presentation at OSB meetings, and attending annual SCOR meetings.
Current OSB/U.S. Representatives to SCOR
Mary (Missy) H. Feeley, ExxonMobil Exploration Company, Houston, Texas
Jorge E. Corredor, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez
Jay S. Pearlman, The Boeing Company (retired), Port Angeles, Washington
Staff
Claudia Mengelt, Study Director
Heather Chiarello, Senior Program Assistant
44
Additional Activities
To support the Ocean Studies Board mission, the staff and board members participate in many education and outreach activities, a few of which are highlighted here.
They include internship and fellowship programs through The National Academies
and participation in ocean science and policy meetings, such as Capitol Hill Oceans
Week.
45
Additional Activities
Ocean Science Series (Completed Activity)
In one way or another, every landform and creature on Earth reflects the presence of the oceans. Understanding
the Earth’s oceans is essential to our understanding of human history, the origin of life, weather and climate, medicines,
the health of the environment, energy sources, and much more. Reports from the National Academies provide in-depth
analysis and useful advice for policymakers and the general public on topics ranging from exploring the ocean’s incredible
biodiversity and resources to reducing threats to human safety from toxic algal blooms, contaminants, and coastal storms.
The Ocean Science Series is intended to help readers learn about the state of our oceans and better understand the role of
ocean science based on the body of studies conducted by the Ocean Studies Board.
Booklets in this series include:
•
•
•
•
•
Oceans and Human Health
Coastal Hazards
Pollution in the Ocean
Marine Ecosystems and Fisheries
Ocean Exploration
46
Additional Activities
Minorities Striving to Pursue Higher Degrees of Success in Earth
Systems Science (Ongoing Activity)
During its March 2006 meeting, the Ocean Studies Board (OSB) hosted students from the Minorities Striving to
Pursue Higher Degrees of Success in Earth Systems Science (MS PHD’S). Directed by Dr. Ashanti J. Pyrtle, an assistant
professor at the University of South Florida, the MS PHD’S initiative provides upper-level undergraduate and graduate
minority students with information regarding funding, educational and career opportunities, and programs for the development of professional skills. MS PHD’S emphasizes networking with and collaboration among peers, junior- and seniorlevel researchers, and educators.
OSB became a partner early in the history of the program, hosting the MS PHD’S students during the final U.S.
Joint Global Ocean Flux Study meeting held at the National Academies in 2003. OSB members and staff serve as mentors
to students at professional society meetings and are available for informal advice throughout the year.
OSB sponsored three MS PHD’S students to attend and present their research at the student poster session for the
SCOR 50th Anniversary Symposium in Woods Hole, MA on October 19-21, 2008. Jeremie Strickland from Iowa State
University, Alexandra Bowman from Queens College, CUNY, and Warren Carmichael from Florida A&M University
were excited to participate in this international ocean science meeting.
Dr. Shirley A. Pomponi, Chair of the Ocean Studies Board, speaking with Alexandra
Bowman, an MS PHD’S student, during the poster session at the SCOR symposium.
47
Additional Activities
R eview of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric A dministration’s
Education Program (Ongoing Activity – Joint with the Board on Science
Education)
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has long been a global leader in understanding
and communicating how the Earth’s dynamic air and water systems influence our lives and how we influence these systems.
NOAA’s education programs range from earth system science to environmental education. In the past five years, NOAA’s
role in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education has expanded due to increased attention to education from both within the agency and externally. In 2003, NOAA established the Office of Education and the Education Council as part of the agency’s commitment to environmental literacy as a cross-cutting priority. In August, 2007,
the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act
(COMPETES) provided NOAA broad education authority and mandated that NOAA build upon its existing educational programs and activities to enhance public awareness and understanding of the ocean, Great Lakes, and atmospheric
science. The America COMPETES Act also calls for NOAA to develop a 20-year science education plan to be reevaluated
and updated every five years.
This committee is reviewing and assessing the agency’s 20-year plan for K–12, post-secondary, graduate, and
informal education; addressing the role of NOAA in education; and evaluating its program goals and objectives, program
impact, portfolio balance and priorities, and evaluation strategy. This project is being funded by NOAA.
Committee
John W. Farrington, Chair, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Massachusetts
James M. Coleman, Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, Baton Rouge
Janet Hustler, Partnership for Student Success in Science Synopsys, Inc., Mountain View, California
Kim A. Kastens, Columbia University, Palisades, New York
Gordon Kingsley, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
Kevin Kloesel, Oklahoma University, Norman
Frances Lawrenz, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
George I. Matsumoto, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, Moss Landing, California
Brett D. Moulding, Utah Partnership for Effective Science Teaching and Learning, Salt Lake City
Frank E. Muller-Karger, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth
Laura Murray, University of Maryland, Cambridge
Rajul Pandya, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
Craig Strang, University of California, Berkeley
Clarice M. Yentsch, Nova Southeastern University, Dania Beach, Florida
48
Staff
Michael Feder, Study Director (Board on Science Education)
Claudia Mengelt, Program Officer
Patricia Harvey, Senior Program Assistant (Board on Science Education)
49
Additional Activities
The Roger R evelle Commemorative Lecture Series (Ongoing Activity)
In 1999, the Ocean Studies Board (OSB) launched the Roger Revelle
Commemorative Lecture to highlight the important links between ocean
sciences and public policy. The series was named in honor of the late Roger
Revelle, a leader in the field of oceanography for over 50 years who spearheaded
efforts to investigate the mechanisms and consequences of climate change. The
lecture is held annually in conjunction with the OSB meeting in Washington,
DC and is sponsored by the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval
Research, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
In recognition of the critical importance of education in linking science
and public policy, the OSB has partnered with the National Science Resources
Center to bring the Revelle Lecture to a broader audience. As part of this
effort, the OSB developed a “meet the scientist” event in conjunction with the
Revelle Lecture held at the Marian Koshland Science Museum of the National Dr. Roger Revelle (1909–1991)
Photo courtesy of SFO
Academy of Sciences. The Revelle lecturer meets with a group of District of
Columbia high school students to talk about careers in science and the lecture topic. The students are encouraged to attend
the Revelle Lecture later that evening. This has proved to be a popular event for students and their teachers.
The eighth annual Revelle Lecture was held on March 5, 2007 at the Baird Auditorium
in the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History in Washington, DC and featured
Dr. Ken Caldeira, a senior member of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology.
Dr. Caldeira’s lecture, “What Corals are Dying to Tell Us about CO2 and Ocean Acidification,”
discussed what is known about ocean acidification, the associated environmental consequences,
and actions that could be taken to avoid the risk of environmental catastrophe in our oceans.
The ninth annual Revelle Lecture was held on February 25,
2008 at the Baird Auditorium in the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History
in Washington, DC and featured Dr. Michael H. Freilich, Director of the Earth Science
Division at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Dr. Freilich’s lecture,
“Looking Down on the Seas: How Satellites are Revolutionizing Our Understanding of the
Ocean,” provided insights on satellite measurement techniques and recent scientific findings
that have advanced our knowledge of the role of the oceans in the Earth’s climate system.
50
Additional Activities
R ecent Fellows and Interns at the Ocean Studies Board
C h r i s t i n e M i r z a y a n S c i e n c e a n d Te c h n o l o g y Po l i c y F e l l o w s
The National Academies’ Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellowship Program is designed
to engage graduate science, engineering, medical, veterinary, business, and law students in the analysis and creation of science and
technology policy and to familiarize them with the interactions of science, technology, and government.
Winter 2009
Cheryl Logan is currently completing her Ph.D. in marine biology at Stanford University. She holds a B.A. from
the University of California, Berkeley where she double majored in integrative biology and molecular and cell biology. Her
doctoral research examines how marine fish and invertebrates cope with changes in environmental temperature. Her career
goals include finding ways to integrate species-specific physiological coping strategies into modeling the effects of climate
change in marine ecosystems. During her Mirzayan fellowship, Cheryl worked primarily with the Committee on the
Development of an Integrated Science Strategy for Ocean Acidification Monitoring, Research, and Impacts Assessment.
Fall 2006
Jeff Watters completed an M.S. in limnology and marine science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His
graduate research focused on the interactions between commercial pelagic longline fishermen and endangered sea turtles
in the Hawaiian Pacific. Jeff’s undergraduate studies were also completed at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, with a
B.S. in zoology and anthropology. During Jeff’s fellowship with the Ocean Studies Board, he worked on a range of studies, including the Review of the JSOST Research Priorities Plan and development of the Review of Sea Turtle Population
Assessment Methods study. After completing the fellowship at the National Academies, Jeff participated as a Knauss
Fellow for Marine Policy in the office of Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington State. He continues to work for Senator
Cantwell as a legislative assistant.
Summer 2006
Toni Mizerek earned her M.S. at San Diego State University in the Quantitative Conservation Ecology lab. She
worked on a population modeling project to assess the combined effects of both harvesting and habitat fragmentation on
blue crab populations in Chesapeake Bay. Toni worked on the Review of the JSOST Research Priorities Plan during her
time with the Ocean Studies Board. After the Mirzayan fellowship, she was a Sea Grant fellow with the California Natural Resources Agency and is now a natural resources specialist at the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest
focusing on marine policy.
51
Anderson-Commonweal Internship Program
The Anderson-Commonweal Internship Program is a 10-week paid summer internship at The National Academies.
Graduates of the Benjamin Banneker Academic High School (Washington, DC) and the Albert Einstein High School (Kensington, MD) are selected for the program based on their academic records and plans to pursue careers in science and technology fields.
Summer 2008
Kamillah Matthews is a 2008 Benjamin Banneker Academic High School graduate. During her first year as an Anderson Intern, Kamillah worked with the Ocean Studies Board. In the fall of 2008, she began her freshman year at Trinity University in Washington, DC, majoring in chemistry. Kamillah aspires to be a surgeon.
Dr. Susan Roberts, Director of the Ocean Studies Board, with past fellows and interns. (L
to R: Susan Roberts, Maya Jumper, Toni Mizerek, Claudia Mengelt, Douglas George, and
Susan Park)
52
OSB Publication s 1998 –20 08
Coastal Studies
Drawing Louisiana’s New Map: Addressing Land Loss in Coastal Louisiana, 2006
Mitigating Shore Erosion along Sheltered Coasts, 2006
River Basins and Coastal Systems Planning Within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004
A Geospatial Framework for the Coastal Zone: National Needs for Coastal Mapping and Charting, 2004
A Review of the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study, 2002
Clean Coastal Waters: Understanding and Reducing the Effects of Nutrient Pollution, 2000
Fisheries Science and Management
Shellfish Mariculture in Drakes Estero, Point Reyes National Seashore, California, 2009
Dynamic Changes in Marine Ecosystems: Fishing, Food Webs, and Future Options, 2006
Review of Recreational Fisheries Survey Methods, 2006
Final Comments on the Science Plan for the North Pacific Research Board, 2004
Improving the Use of the “Best Scientific Information Available” Standard in Fisheries Management, 2004
Atlantic Salmon in Maine, 2004
Cooperative Research in the National Marine Fisheries Service, 2004
Genetic Status of Atlantic Salmon in Maine: Interim Report, 2002
Non-Native Oysters in the Chesapeake Bay, 2004
Effects of Trawling and Dredging on Seafloor Habitat, 2002
Science and Its Role in the National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002
Improving the Collection, Management, and Use of Marine Fisheries Data, 2000
Recruiting Fishery Scientists: Workshop on Stock Assessment and Social Science Careers, 2000
The Community Development Quota Program in Alaska, 1999
Sharing the Fish: Toward a National Policy on Individual Fishing Quotas, 1999
Sustaining Marine Fisheries, 1999
Improving Fish Stock Assessments, 1998
Review of Northeast Fishery Stock Assessments, 1998
Global Change and the Ocean
Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises, 2001
International Activities
Increasing Capacity for Stewardship of Oceans and Coasts: A Priority for the 21st Century, 2007
Exploration of the Seas: Voyage into the Unknown, 2003
Exploration of the Seas: Interim Report, 2003
Building Ocean Science Partnerships: The United States and Mexico Working Together, 2000
Marine Environments and Resources
Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century, 2008
53
Evaluation of the Sea Grant Program Review Process, 2006
Oil Spill Dispersants: Efficacy and Effects, 2005
Marine Mammal Populations and Ocean Noise: Determining When Noise Causes Biologically Significant Effects, 2004
Charting the Future of Methane Hydrate Research in the United States, 2004
Decline of the Steller Sea Lion in Alaskan Waters: Untangling Food Webs and Fishing Nets, 2003
Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals, 2003
Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects, 2003
The Oil Spill Recovery Institute: Past, Present, and Future Directions, 2003
Marine Biotechnology in the Twenty-First Century: Problems, Promise, and Products, 2002
Marine Protected Areas: Tools for Sustaining Ocean Ecosystems, 2001
A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects, 2001
Spills of Emulsified Fuels: Risks and Response, 2001
Marine Mammals and Low-Frequency Sound: Progress Since 1994, 2000
National Security
Environmental Information for Naval Warfare, 2003
Transforming Remote Sensing Data into Information and Applications, 2001
Oceanography and Mine Warfare, 2000
The Ocean Research Enterprise
Oceanography in 2025: Proceedings of a Workshop, 2009
A Review of the Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy, 2007
Evaluation of the Sea Grant Program Review Process, 2006
A Review of the Draft Ocean Research Priorities Plan: Charting the Course for Ocean Science in the United States, 2006
Elements of a Science Plan for the North Pacific Research Board, 2004
Future Needs in Deep Submergence Science: Occupied and Unoccupied Vehicles in Basic Ocean Research, 2004
Enabling Ocean Research in the Twenty-First Century: Implementation of a Network of Ocean Observatories, 2003
Chemical Reference Materials: Setting the Standards for Ocean Science, 2002
Bridging Boundaries Through Regional Marine Research, 2000
Fifty Years of Ocean Discovery: National Science Foundation, 1950-2000, 2000
Illuminating the Hidden Planet: The Future of Seafloor Observatory Science, 2000
Review of NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise Research Strategy for 2000-2010, 2000
Global Ocean Science: Toward an Integrated Approach, 1999
Science for Decisionmaking: Coastal and Marine Geology at the U.S. Geological Survey, 1999
Opportunities in Ocean Sciences: Challenges on the Horizon, 1998
Additional information on all of these reports can be found on the Ocean Studies Board Reports page. Most reports are
available online from the National Academies Press or by calling (888) 624-8373. Others are available in limited quantities by contacting the Ocean Studies Board at (202) 334-2714.
54
OSB Board Meetings 20 06 –20 08
Ocean Studies Board, Sixtieth Meeting
Ocean Studies Board, Sixty-First Meeting
Ocean Studies Board, Sixty-Second Meeting
Ocean Studies Board, Sixty-Third Meeting
Ocean Studies Board, Sixty-Fourth Meeting
Ocean Studies Board, Sixty-Fifth Meeting
July 25–27, 2006
J. Erik Jonsson Woods Hole Center of the National Academy of Sciences
Woods Hole, MA
November 1–3, 2006
Sheraton Old San Juan
San Juan, Puerto Rico
March 5–7, 2007
The National Academies Keck Center
Washington, DC
October 24–26, 2007
Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center
Irvine, CA
February 25–27, 2008
The National Academies Keck Center
Washington, DC
October 22–24, 2008
J. Erik Jonsson Woods Hole Center of the National Academy of Sciences
Woods Hole, MA
55
OSB Spon so rs 20 06 –20 08
The Ocean Studies Board is grateful to the many government and private agencies that sponsor our work. The following institutions have supported the activities of the Board or sponsored specific studies described in this report:
Ocean Studies Board Sponsors
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Science Foundation
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Ocean Service
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
U.S. Department of the Interior
Minerals Management Service
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Navy
Office of Naval Research
Study Sponsors
Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology
Curtis and Edith Munson Foundation
David and Lucile Packard Foundation
Environmental Protection Agency
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Marine Mammal Commission
Marisla Foundation
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Science Foundation
President’s Circle of the National Academies
U.S. Arctic Research Commission
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Coastal Services Center
56
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
Cooperative Institute for Arctic Research
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Ocean Service
National Weather Service
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
U.S. Department of the Interior
Minerals Management Service
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Navy
Office of Naval Research
We deeply appreciate the many hours of pro bono service provided by our board members, the participants on our
study committees, and those who review our reports. Without their commitment to public service, our work would not be
possible.
57