OCEAN STUDIES BOARDBIENNIAL REPORT 2011–2012

SUSAN ROBERTSDirector

KIM WADDELLSenior Program Officer

CLAUDIA MENGELTSenior Program Officer

DEBORAH GLICKSONSenior Program Officer

LAUREN HARDING (until 10/2012)Senior Program Assistant

PAMELA LEWISAdministrative Coordinator

GRAIG MANSFIELD (until 7/2012)Financial Associate

SHUBHA BANSKOTAFinancial Associate

SHERRIE FORRESTAssociate Program Officer

HEATHER CHIARELLOSenior Program Assistant

STAFF 2011–2012

DONALD F. BOESCH, Chair (until 7/2012)University of Maryland Center for Environmental

Science, Cambridge

ROBERT A. DUCE, Chair (effective 8/2012)Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas

EDWARD A. BOYLE Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

RITA R. COLWELL University of Maryland, College Park

SARAH W. COOKSEY Delaware Coastal Programs, Dover

CORTIS K. COOPER Chevron Corporation, San Ramon, California

JORGE E. CORREDOR University of Puerto Rico, Lajas

KEITH R. CRIDDLE University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Juneau

JODY W. DEMING University of Washington, Seattle

ROBERT HALLBERG NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

Princeton University, New Jersey

DEBRA HERNANDEZ Hernandez and Company, Isle of Palms, South Carolina

ROBERT A. HOLMAN Oregon State University, Corvallis

KIHO KIM American University, Washington, D.C.

BARBARA A. KNUTH Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

ROBERT A. LAWSON Science Applications International Corporation, San Diego, California

GEORGE I. MATSUMOTO Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, Moss Landing, California

JOHN A. ORCUTT Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California

JAY S. PEARLMAN The Boeing Company (retired), Port Angeles, Washington

STEVEN E. RAMBERG National Defense University, Washington, D.C.

ANDREW A. ROSENBERG Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, Massachusetts

DANIEL L. RUDNICK Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California

ANNE M. TRÉHU Oregon State University, Corvallis

PETER L. TYACK University of Saint Andrews, United Kingdom

DON WALSH International Maritime Incorporated, Myrtle Point, Oregon

DAWN J. WRIGHT Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, California

JAMES A. YODER Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts

OCEAN STUDIES BOARD 2011–2012

Cover photo credits (clockwise from top left): Walter A. Lüthi via Wikipedia; NOAA National Ocean Service; Luke McKay, University of Georgia; ENS Gavin Chensue, NOAA Corps; NOAA National Ocean Service

CONTENTS

FOREWORD    2

MISSION STATEMENT    4

COASTAL STUDIES    5Scientific Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Drakes Bay Oyster Company

Special Use Permit 6Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and

Future 7

FISHERIES SCIENCE & MANAGEMENT    9A Review of the Use of Science and Adaptive Management in California’s Draft Bay Delta

Conservation Plan 10Evaluating the Effectiveness of Stock Rebuilding Plans of the 2006 Fishery Conservation and

Management Reauthorization Act 12Fisheries Subcommittee 14

MARINE ENVIRONMENTS & RESOURCES    15Approaches for Ecosystem Services Valuation for the Gulf of Mexico After the Deepwater Horizon

Oil Spill: Interim Report 16Responding to Oil Spills in Arctic Marine Environments 17

OCEAN RESEARCH ENTERPRISE    19Scientific Ocean Drilling: Accomplishments and Challenges 20Assessing Requirements for Sustained Ocean Color Research and Operations 22Critical Infrastructure for Ocean Research and Societal Needs in 2030 24

INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES    26Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research 26

ONGOING ACTIVITIES    27Minorities Striving to Pursue Higher Degrees of Success in Earth Systems Science 27The Roger Revelle Commemorative Lecture Series 28

ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES    29Recent Fellows and Interns at the Ocean Studies Board 29

OCEAN STUDIES BOARD PUBLICATIONS 2002–2012    31

OCEAN STUDIES BOARD MEETINGS 2011–2012    33

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS    34

2

FOREWORD

In the spirit of “better late than never” the 2011–2012 Biennial Report for the Ocean Studies Board (OSB) is now available to provide an overview of the board’s activities during that time period. The OSB is the focal point within the National Research Council for ocean-related science, engineering, and policy issues. The board exercises leadership within the ocean community by helping identify and communicate the needs of the field, responding to specific requests from government agencies, Congress, and others, and overseeing a variety of study projects related to ocean science and engineering and their impacts on policy.

The Board continues to be involved in activities arising from the Gulf oil spill. On April 20, 2010, an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico killed 11 workers and led to the largest oil spill in U.S. history. An estimated 205 million gallons of oil were released from the wellhead before it was successfully capped 87 days after the start of the spill. In addition to the massive volume, this spill was also notable because of the great depth at which the oil was released – about 1,600 meters. The depth of the spill has had far reaching implications, including challenges in capping the well, estimating the volume of the spill, and understanding the impacts on the surrounding marine environment. The ocean science community mobilized in the face of these challenges and the Ocean Studies Board responded to a request from Congress for a study on the effect of the spill on ecosystem services. In 2011, an interim report was published, Approaches for Ecosystem Services Valuation for the Gulf of Mexico after the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, with the final report due out in 2013.

Approximately a year after the Gulf spill, on March 11, 2011, a massive undersea earthquake, magnitude 9.0, struck offshore from Japan’s Tōhoku region on the island of Honshu. The quake generated a major tsunami that arrived with breathtaking speed, over-topped coastal defenses, devastated coastal towns and cities, and caused a major failure with subsequent radiation releases at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Again the ocean sciences community jumped into action, first in predicting the far-field tsunamis generated by the earthquake, and later in tracking radiation and marine debris from the effects of the tsunami on the Japanese coast.

Over the years, the OSB has overseen a body of work relevant to these two events, including the report Oil in the Sea: Inputs, Fates, and Effects, which anticipated that a deep water release would result in the formation of a plume of oil in the water column. Another OSB report, Oil Spill Dispersants, provided a scientifically-balanced view of this spill response approach and was highlighted in one of the congressional hearings held after the Deepwater Horizon spill.

In 2010, the Board published Tsunami Warning and Preparedness: An Assessment of the U.S. Tsunami Program and the Nation’s Preparedness Efforts. This report concluded that understanding the nation’s tsunami risk is the first step towards building a compre-hensive tsunami preparedness program. Risk assessments include evaluation of the hazards posed by tsunamis, the populations and societal assets threatened, and the readiness of individuals and communities to evacuate. This is a message that is ever more urgent with the recognition that the Pacific Northwest faces risk of a tsunami from an earthquake on the Cascadia fault that is not unlike the fault that triggered the 2011 tsunami in Japan.

Through the Roger Revelle Commemorative Lecture, the OSB brought greater focus to the role of science in policy for these two disastrous events. In 2011, our Revelle speaker was Nancy Rabalais, former chair of the OSB and director of the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, who spoke on “Troubled Waters of the Gulf of Mexico.” In her presentation, Nancy showed how recovery of the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill will be a function of the effects of multiple stresses on the health of the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem, including hypoxia and chronic loss of coastal marshland. Eddie Bernard, scientist emeritus at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory was the featured speaker in 2012. His talk, “Tsunamis: Are We Underestimating the Risk?” made a strong case for the value of scientific research in developing warnings and building community preparedness in tsunami hazard areas to reduce casualties.

As described in this biennial report, the OSB produced several reports on ocean research infrastructure in 2011–2012, including studies on the ocean drilling program, requirements for sustained ocean color research and operations, and critical infrastructure for ocean research in 2030. These reports were followed by a request from NSF’s Ocean Science Division for a decadal survey of

3

FOREWORD

ocean science to help guide NSF’s ocean research investments, including investments in major infrastructure assets. After many in-depth discussions to develop the statement of task and work plan, the decadal survey is underway in 2013 with the report expected to be completed in the spring of 2015.

We thank you for your interest in the OSB and look forward to working together to advance ocean science and technology and applications to important societal issues. Through the ongoing and planned activities described in this biennial report, the OSB remains committed to addressing issues in ocean science and technology and enhancing their benefits to the nation with regard to quality of life, safety and security, economic growth, environmental sustainability, and education.

OSB Director

4

MISSION STATEMENT

STATEMENT OF PURPOSEThe 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   Program reviews   Future of the discipline in the United

States and abroad

OPERATING PRINCIPLESBoard ResponsibilitiesThe Board provides an open forum for those interested in ocean issues to bring technical and policy concerns for discus-sion and possible action. A primary responsibility of the Board is to initiate studies and ensure that they are carried out successfully. In some cases, the Board develops and oversees studies jointly with other National Research Council boards. In selecting projects, the Board strives 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 MeetingsThe Board meets two to three times a year. Activities at these meetings include:

1. Sharing information about subjects of importance to the ocean community

2. Considering new studies for initiation3. Presenting the results of recently completed

studies4. Reviewing the progress of studies underway

From time to time, the Board establishes informal subcom-mittees 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 StudiesIndividual studies are carried out under the Board’s oversight within a definite time frame and budget that has been nego-tiated 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 ques-tions. 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 recom-mendations based on the available evidence. A draft report is then subjected to intensive review by a group of independent, anonymous experts. After the committee makes revisions in response to the reviewer comments, the report is reviewed by the National Research Council to ensure quality and confor-mance with Academies’ policies. 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.

5

COASTAL STUDIES

Coastal regions provide the country with valuable natural resources, recreational areas, and prime real estate for commer-cial, 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 atmospheric deposition. Coastal properties and critical estuarine habitats face threats from sea level rise that may be aggravated by shoreline armoring. Coastal regions are also exposed to natural hazards such as severe storms, hurricanes, and tsunamis. To address concerns about sustaining economic well-being, environmental quality, living and non-living resources, and life and property, the Ocean Studies Board has undertaken many activities that advise the nation on coastal issues.

Credit: NOAA National Ocean Service

6

COASTAL STUDIES

Scientific Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement:   Drakes Bay Oyster Company Special Use Permit 

(completed activity)

This report provides a scientific review of a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from the National Park Service (NPS) that compares the effects of extending a permit to operate the Drakes Bay Oyster Company shellfish farm in Drakes Estero for the next 10 years, or denying the permit and converting the site from potential wilderness to

full wilderness status. The report looks at the Park Service’s evaluation of the following resource categories: wetlands, eelgrass, wildlife and wildlife habitat, special-status species, coastal flood zones, soundscapes, water quality, and socioeco-nomic resources. The report finds that, because of a limited amount of information on effects of oyster farming in Drakes Estero, the EIS conclusions regarding the impacts projected for seven of the eight categories are associated with moderate to high levels of uncertainty, and, for many of those categories, an equally reasonable alternate conclusion of a lower impact intensity could be reached.

The report offered several suggestions for revising the draft Environmental Impact Statement. For example, in several cases, NPS defined impact intensity levels in a way that does not clearly correspond to different magnitudes of ecological impact for that resource category. Also, NPS could improve the draft by using additional available information to evaluate impacts for some categories, especially soundscapes and water quality. The report suggested NPS consider additional mitiga-tion options, for example, the discontinuation of the culture of Manila clams to address concerns about the establishment of this nonnative species.

COMMITTEE

Thomas C. Malone, Chair, University of Maryland, Cambridge

Joao Ferreira, New University of Lisbon, Portugal

W. Michael Hanemann, Arizona State University, Tempe

Evamaria Koch, University of Maryland, Cambridge

Jennifer Miksis-Olds, Penn State University, State College

Bryan Pijanowski, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Jennifer Ruesink, University of Washington, Seattle

Charles Simenstad, University of Washington, Seattle

Lucinda Low Swartz, Esq., Environmental Consultant, Washington, DC

Paul Thompson, University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom

STAFF

Claudia Mengelt, Senior Program Officer

Heather Chiarello, Senior Program Assistant

Lauren Harding, Senior Program Assistant

Report available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13461

7

Tide gages show that global sea level has risen about 7 inches during the 20th century, and recent satellite data shows that the rate of sea-level rise is accelerating. As Earth warms, sea levels are rising mainly because: (1)  ocean water expands as it warms; and (2) water from melting glaciers and ice sheets is flowing into the

ocean. Sea-level rise poses enormous risks to the valuable infra-structure, development, and wetlands that line much of the 1,600 mile shoreline of California, Oregon, and Washington. As those states seek to incorporate projections of sea-level rise into coastal planning, they asked the National Research Council to make independent projections of sea-level rise along their coasts for the years 2030, 2050, and 2100, taking into account regional factors that affect sea level.

Sea level along the U.S. west coast is affected by a number of factors, including climate patterns such as the El Niño, effects from the melting of modern and ancient ice sheets, and geologic processes, such as plate tectonics. Regional projections for California, Oregon, and Washington show a sharp distinction at Cape Mendocino in northern California. South of that point, sea-level rise is expected to be very close to global projections. However, projections are lower north of Cape Mendocino because the land is being pushed upward as the ocean plate moves under the continental plate along the Cascadia Subduction Zone. In the case of an earthquake magnitude 8 or larger, which occurs in the region every few hundred to 1,000 years, the land would drop and sea level would suddenly rise.

Key Messages   Melting of land ice is now the largest component of global sea-level rise (about 65%), largely because ice loss rates are increasing.

  Global sea level is projected to rise 8–23 cm (3–9 in) by 2030, relative to 2000 levels, 18–48 cm (7–19 in) by 2050, and 50–140 cm (20–55 in) by 2100.

  Vertical land motions caused by plate tectonics and the ongoing response of the Earth to the disappearance of North American ice sheets have a significant impact on sea-level rise along the Washington, Oregon, and California coasts.

  Sea level along the California coast south of Cape Mendocino is projected to rise 4–30 cm (2–12 in) by 2030, relative to 2000 levels, 12–61 cm (5–24 in) by 2050, and 42–167 cm (17–66 in) by 2100. These projec-tions are close to global sea-level rise projections.

  For the Washington, Oregon, and California coasts north of Cape Mendocino, sea level is projected to change between ‒4 cm (‒2 in) (sea-level fall) and +23 cm (9 in) by 2030, ‒3 cm (‒1 in) and +48 cm (19 in) by 2050, and 10–143 cm (4–56 in) by 2100. These values are lower than projections further north.

  An earthquake magnitude 8 or greater along the Cascadia Subduction Zone would suddenly raise sea level along parts of the coast by an additional 1–2 meters (3–7 feet) over projected levels north of Cape Mendocino.

  Uncertainties grow as the projection period lengthens. Confidence in the projections is high for 2030 and perhaps 2050. By 2100, we are confident only that the value will fall within the uncertainty bounds.

  Most coastal damage is caused by the confluence of large waves, storm surges, and high astronomical tides during a strong El Niño.

  Some models predict a northward shift in North Pacific storm tracks, and some observational studies report that largest waves are getting higher and winds are getting stronger. Observational records are not long enough to confirm whether these are long-term trends.

Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington:  Past, Present, and Future 

(completed activity – joint with Board on earth ScienceS and reSourceS)

(continued)

COASTAL STUDIES

8

  Even if storminess does not increase in the future, sea-level rise will magnify the adverse impact of storm surges and high waves on the coast.

  Storms and sea-level rise are causing coastal cliffs, beaches, and dunes to retreat at rates from a few cm/yr to several m/yr. Cliffs could retreat more than 30 m (about 100 feet) by 2100.

  Wetlands are likely to keep pace with sea level until 2050. Their survival until 2100 depends on maintaining elevation through high sedimentation, room to move inland, or uplift.

COMMITTEE

Robert A. Dalrymple, Chair, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

Laurence C. Breaker, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, California

Benjamin A. Brooks, University of Hawaii, Manoa

Daniel R. Cayan, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, San Diego, California

Gary B. Griggs, University of California, Santa Cruz

Weiqing Han, University of Colorado, Boulder

Benjamin P. Horton, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

Christina L. Hulbe, Portland State University, Oregon

James C. McWilliams, University of California, Los Angeles

Philip W. Mote, Oregon State University, Corvallis

William Tad Pfeffer, University of Colorado, Boulder

Denise J. Reed, University of New Orleans, Louisiana

C.K. Shum, Ohio State University, Columbus

Ocean Studies Board Liaison

Robert A. Holman, Oregon State University, Corvallis

STAFF

Anne M. Linn, Study Director, Board on Earth Sciences and Resources

Martha McConnell, Program Officer, Ocean Studies Board (through September 2011)

Courtney R. Gibbs, Program Associate, Board on Earth Sciences and Resources

Jason R. Ortego, Research Associate, Board on Earth Sciences and Resources

Report available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13389

Report in Brief: http://dels.nas.edu/Materials/Report-In-Brief/4295-Sea-Level-Rise?bname=osb

COASTAL STUDIES

9

Marine fish populations are important components of coastal ecosystems and are frequently the foundations of the culture and economy of coastal 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 ecosystem-based approaches to understanding the dynamics of fish popula-tions 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.

FISHERIES SCIENCE & MANAGEMENT

Credit: NOAA/West Coast Groundfish Observer Program

10

FISHERIES SCIENCE & MANAGEMENT

A Review of the Use of Science and Adaptive Management in California’s Draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan 

(completed activity — joint with water Science and technology Board)

California’s draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan—a draft plan to conserve habitat for endangered and threatened species, while continuing to divert water to agriculture and domestic water users in central and southern California—is incomplete and contains critical scientific gaps. The Bay Delta is a large, complex ecosystem that supplies water from the state’s wetter northern regions to the

drier southern regions, and also serves as habitat for many species, including threatened and endangered fish species. The Bay Delta Conservation Plan describes a proposal to construct a tunnel or canal to divert water from the northern Delta to the south, thus reducing the need to convey water through the Delta. This report reviews the use of science and adaptive management in the draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan and identifies opportunities to develop a more successful plan.

Key Messages   The Bay Delta Conservation Plan states that an effects analysis—defined as a systematic, scientific look at the potential impacts of a proposed project on endangered and threatened species, and how those species would benefit from various conservation actions—is an impor-tant component of a habitat conservation plan. However, the effects analysis for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan is still in preparation and was not included in the draft plan reviewed in this report, resulting in a critical gap in the science. Without the effects analysis, it is difficult to evaluate alternative mitigation and conservation actions.

  The purpose of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan is not clear, making it difficult to properly understand, interpret, and review the science that underlies the

plan. Although the plan states it is an application for the incidental take of listed species as a result of the proposed water diversion project, it also sets out the goals of providing a more reliable water supply for the state of California and protecting the Delta ecosystem. Because different processes would be used to fulfill these different purposes, the panel concluded that it would be difficult to evaluate the Bay Delta Conservation Plan without clarification of the plan’s goals.

  Many scientific studies have sought to understand the hydrologic, geologic, and ecological interactions in the Delta, efforts that constitute the scientific foundation of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. However, it is not clear how the authors of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan synthesized this material and incorporated it into the draft plan.

  Adaptive management programs cannot be fully described in advance, because the program must evolve as it is implemented. However, some aspects of the program could be laid out more clearly than they were in the draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan, the panel concluded. The plan developers would benefit from experience with adaptive management efforts in other large-scale ecosystem restoration projects, such as the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program.

  The management of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan reflects the differing perspectives of the many stakeholder groups involved. Unless the management structure is made more coherent and unified, the final product may continue to suffer from a lack of integra-tion, and in an attempt to satisfy all discrete interests, it may fail to achieve its goals. The panel suggests the agencies responsible for implementing the plan review other examples of large scale restoration programs that have been developed and implemented.

11

FISHERIES SCIENCE & MANAGEMENT

COMMITTEE

Henry J. Vaux, Jr., Chair, Professor Emeritus, University of California

Michael E. Campana, Oregon State University, Corvallis

Jerome B. Gilbert, Consultant, Orinda, California

Albert E. Giorgi, BioAnalysts, Inc., Redmond, Washington

Robert J. Huggett, Professor Emeritus, College of William and Mary, Seaford, Virginia

Christine A. Klein, University of Florida College of Law, Gainesville, Florida

Samuel N. Luoma, U.S. Geological Survey, Emeritus, Menlo Park, California

Thomas Miller, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Solomons

Stephen G. Monismith, Stanford University, California

Jayantha Obeysekera, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach

Hans W. Paerl, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Max J. Pfeffer, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

Desiree D. Tullos, Oregon State University, Corvallis

STAFF

Susan Roberts, Director, Ocean Studies Board

Stephen D. Parker, Director, Water Science and Technology Board

David Policansky, Scholar

Laura J. Helsabeck, Staff Officer

Ellen DeGuzman, Research Associate

Sarah Brennan, Senior Program Assistant

Report available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13148

Report in Brief: http://dels.nas.edu/Materials/Report-In-Brief/4325-Bay-Delta?bname=osb

12

FISHERIES SCIENCE & MANAGEMENT

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Stock Rebuilding Plans of the 2006 Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act 

(ongoing activity )

The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, now known as the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), was the first major legislation to regulate federal fisheries in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Although the MSA contained language to “prevent overfishing” in the U.S. fisheries, the emphasis was on supporting the development of the domestic industry. Since

that time, several important fish stocks declined to critical levels. Congress amended the MSA in 1996 and reauthorized it in 2006. Under the new provisions of the Act, rebuilding plans for overfished stocks should take no more than 10 years except when certain exceptions apply. It is this facet of the law, the timeline for rebuilding overfished stocks, which has become controversial. The fishing industry and other stakeholders are concerned about the effects of the rebuilding mandate on their livelihoods, which has led to a letter request from Senator Snowe of Maine and Representative Frank of Massachusetts to NOAA/NMFS for a National Research Council Study.

An Ad hoc committee will undertake an analysis of the effects of the 2006 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act mandate to rebuild overfished stocks, including an evaluation of success in stock rebuilding, and the identification of changes made to fisheries management plans in order to establish rebuilding schedules. They will:

  Evaluate methods and criteria used (1) to set target fishing mortality and biomass levels for rebuilding overfished stocks, and (2) to determine the probability that a particular stock will rebuild by a certain date. Consider the quantity and quality of information avail-able for defining MSY-based reference points. Compare

these methods and criteria to those used in major fishery management settings outside the U.S.

  Assess the effects of uncertainty in current stock abundance, population dynamics, and variability in recruitment in setting rebuilding targets. Identify crite-ria for adjusting rebuilding targets and schedules based on new information and updated stock assessments.

  Provide an overview of the success of rebuilding plans under the MSA and compare to success of approaches used outside the U.S. Using a few representative rebuild-ing plans, identify factors (such as fishing mortality rate, life histories, uncertainty in stock assessments, and others) that affect the timeframe over which a stock is rebuilt.

  Consider the effects of climate and environmental conditions, habitat loss and degradation, ecological effects of fishing on the food chain, and ecological interactions among multiple species, and identify ways to adjust rebuilding plans to take these factors into account.

  Assess the types of information needed and current understanding of the economic and social impacts of rebuilding programs, particularly on fishing commu-nities. Identify the economic, social, and ecological tradeoffs of rebuilding a fishery associated with shorter or longer rebuilding times. Evaluate available methods for integrating these social, economic and ecological factors when designing and evaluating rebuilding plans.

  Summarize how the social, economic and ecological impacts of rebuilding plans are affected by the structure of fisheries management measures, e.g., limited entry, catch shares systems, and closed areas.

  Identify the biological, ecological, social and economic knowledge gaps that impede the implementation and effectiveness of rebuilding programs, and determine what additional data and analyses are needed to address those gaps.

13

FISHERIES SCIENCE & MANAGEMENT

COMMITTEE:

Ana M. Parma, Co-Chair, Centro Nacional Patagonico, Chubut, Argentina

Patrick J. Sullivan, Co-Chair, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

Jeremy Collie, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett

Troy W. Hartley, College of William & Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia

William Heyman, Texas A&M University, College Station

Robert Johnston, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts

André E. Punt, University of Washington, Seattle

Kenneth A. Rose, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge

James Sanchirico, University of California, Davis

Michael P. Sissenwine, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts

George Sugihara, University of California, San Diego

STAFF

Kim Waddell, Senior Program Officer

Sherrie Forrest, Associate Program Officer

Lauren Harding, Senior Program Assistant (until October, 2012)

Heather Chiarello, Senior Program Assistant ( from October 2012)

14

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 responsi-bility 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, manage-ment, 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 Marine Fisheries Service.

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

Kim Waddell, Senior Program Officer

Heather Chiarello, Senior Program Assistant

*Participation on the Fisheries Subcommittee is informal and open to all members of the Ocean Studies Board.

FISHERIES SCIENCE & MANAGEMENT

15

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 avail-

able 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.

MARINE ENVIRONMENTS & RESOURCES

Credit: Luke McKay, University of Georgia

16

MARINE ENVIRONMENTS & RESOURCES

Approaches for Ecosystem Services Valuation for the Gulf of Mexico After the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill:  Interim Report

(ongoing activity)

On April 20, 2010, the Deep-water Horizon (DWH) platform drilling the Macondo well in Mississippi Canyon Block 252 exploded, killing 11 workers and injuring another 17. The DWH oil spill resulted in nearly 5 million barrels (approximately 200 million gallons of crude oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico (GoM). The full impacts of the spill on the GoM and the people

who live and work there are unknown but expected to be considerable, and will be expressed over years to decades. In the short term, up to 80,000 square miles of U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) were closed to fishing, resulting in loss of food, jobs, and recreation.

The DWH oil spill immediately triggered a process under the U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) to determine the extent and severity of the “injury” (defined as an observable or measurable adverse change in a natural resource or impairment of a natural resource service) to the public trust, known as the Natural Resources Damage Assessment (NRDA). The assess-ment, undertaken by the trustees (designated technical experts who act on behalf of the public and who are tasked with assessing the nature and extent of site-related contamination and impacts), requires: (1) quantifying the extent of damage; (2) developing, implementing, and monitoring restoration plans; and (3) seeking compensation for the costs of assessment and restoration from those deemed responsible for the injury.

The unprecedented magnitude of the DWH oil spill presents significant challenges for oil spill responders and those tasked with assessing the impacts of the spill. Evaluating changes to ecosystem services—the benefits people receive from natural resources and processes—caused by the oil spill could expand the potential to capture and value the full breadth of impacts to the ecosystem and the public. This interim report assesses the methods and metrics that could help scientists effectively eval-uate ecosystem services. A final report will be released in 2013.

COMMITTEE

Larry A. Mayer, Chair, University of New Hampshire, Durham

Michel C. Boufadel, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Jorge Brenner, The Nature Conservancy, Corpus Christi, Texas

Robert S. Carney, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge

Cortis K. Cooper, Chevron Energy Technology Company, San Ramon, California

Jody W. Deming (NAS), University of Washington, Seattle

David J. Die, University of Miami, Florida

Josh Eagle, University of South Carolina, Columbia

Joseph R. Geraci, University of Maryland, College Park

Barbara A. Knuth, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

Kenneth Lee, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia

James T. Morris, University of South Carolina, Columbia

Stephen Polasky (NAS), University of Minnesota, St. Paul

Nancy N. Rabalais, Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, Chauvin

Ralph G. Stahl, Jr., DuPont Company, Wilmington, Delaware

David W. Yoskowitz, Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi

STAFF

Kim Waddell, Study Director

Sherrie Forrest, Associate Program Officer

Lauren Harding, Program Assistant

Report available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13141

Report in Brief: http://dels.nas.edu/Materials/Report-In-Brief/4310-Ecosystem-Services-Deepwater?bname=osb

17

MARINE ENVIRONMENTS & RESOURCES

Responding to Oil Spills in Arctic Marine Environments (new Study – joint with polar reSearch Board and marine Board)

spills, season, and geographic location, including proxim-ity to local communities and highly valued fish, bird, and marine mammal habitats.

2. Preparedness. Describe the anticipated operating condi-tions, such as ice conditions, currents, prevailing winds, weather, amount of daylight, sea state, and distance/acces-sibility from responders and resources. This will include an evaluation of the state of hydrographic and charting data for higher risk areas.

3. Response and Clean Up. Evaluate the effectiveness and drawbacks of current methodologies used in response to a spill in Arctic conditions.

4. Strategies for Establishing Environmental Baselines. Characterize the types of baseline information needed prior to a possible oil spill event and identify resources at risk for priority consideration in developing protection strategies. Identify sampling and monitoring priorities for establishing baseline conditions and evaluating post-spill impacts.

COMMITTEE:

Martha R. Grabowski, Chair, Le Moyne College/Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Cazenovia, New York

Thomas Coolbaugh, ExxonMobil Research and Engineering, Fairfax, Virginia

David F. Dickins, DF Dickins and Associates, LLC, La Jolla, California

Richard Glenn, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, Barrow, Alaska

Kenneth Lee, Australian Resources Research Centre, Kensington

William (Lee) Majors, Alaska Clean Seas, Prudhoe Bay

Mark D. Myers, University of Alaska, Fairbanks

Brenda L. Norcross, University of Alaska, Fairbanks

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 compli-cations 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.

In the proposed study, the National Research Council will assess the current state of the science regarding oil spill response and environmental assessment in the Arctic region, with emphasis on potential impacts in U.S. waters. As part of its report, the committee will further develop existing decision tools and approaches that utilize a variety of spill response technologies under the types of conditions and spill scenarios encountered at high latitudes. The report will also review new and ongoing research activities (in both the public and private sectors), identify opportunities and constraints for advancing oil spill research, describe promising new concepts and technologies for improving the response, including containment approaches to reduce spill volume and/or spatial extent, and recommend strategies to advance research and address information gaps. The committee will also assess the types of baselines needed in the near-term for monitoring the impacts of an oil spill and for developing plans for recovery and restoration following an oil spill in U.S. waters. For assessing the state of the science, the committee will address the following topics:

1. Scenarios. Identify potential “hot spots” in U.S. or adjacent waters through mapping of activities that could generate an oil spill (marine transportation routes, cruise ships, fishing, pipeline locations, fuel storage facilities, oil and gas exploration and production) and preventative steps that could be taken to avoid a spill. The scenarios would include descriptions of oil type (including biofuels and diesel fuel) and possible volume and trajectories of (continued)

18

COMMITTEE (continued)

Mark Reed, SINTEF, Trondheim, Norway

Brian Salerno, BIMCO, Silver Spring, Maryland

Robert Suydam, North Slope Borough, Barrow, Alaska

James M. Tiedje (NAS), Michigan State University, East Lansing

Mary-Louise Timmermans, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut

Peter Wadhams, Cambridge University, United Kingdom

STAFF

Deborah Glickson, Senior Program Officer, Ocean Studies Board

Lauren Brown, Research Associate, Polar Research Board

Heather Chiarello, Senior Program Assistant, Ocean Studies Board

MARINE ENVIRONMENTS & RESOURCES

19

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. Robust, productive ocean research supports the economy, national security, and natural resource stewardship. Continued progress in using oceano-

graphic research to meet national needs will require a commitment of both physical resources (i.e., research infrastructure) and human resources (i.e., workforce, training) to ensure that the United States is able to respond to challenges as they arise

OCEAN RESEARCH ENTERPRISE

Credit: John Beck

20

Scientific Ocean Drilling:  Accomplishments and Challenges (completed activity)

Through direct exploration of the subseafloor, U.S.-supported scientific ocean drilling programs have significantly contributed to a broad range of scientific accomplishments in Earth science disciplines, shaping understanding of Earth systems and enabling new fields of inquiry. The programs’ tech-nological innovations have

played a strong role in these accomplishments. The science plan for the proposed 2013–2023 program presents a strong case for the continuation of scientific ocean drilling. Each of the plan’s four themes identifies compelling challenges with potential for transformative science that could only be addressed through scientific ocean drilling, although some challenges appear to have greater potential than others. Prioritizing science plan challenges and integrating multiple objectives into single expeditions would help use resources more effectively, while encouraging technological innovations would continue to increase the potential for groundbreaking science.

Key Messages   U.S.-supported scientific ocean drilling programs have been very successful, contributing significantly to a broad range of scientific accomplishments in a number of earth science disciplines. Amongst other accomplishments, scientific ocean drilling has advanced understanding of solid Earth cycles, revealed the flow of fluid and microbe ecosystems within the seafloor, and gathered extensive information on Earth’s climate history.

  The scientific ocean drilling community should establish a mechanism to prioritize the challenges outlined in the science plan in a manner that complements the exist-ing peer-review process. The plan sets out four research themes—climate and ocean change, biosphere frontiers,

Earth connections, and Earth in motion—and presents 14 scientific challenges within these themes, but there was little guidance as to which of the 14 challenges are most important.

  Each of the four themes within the science plan identifies compelling challenges with potential for transformative science that can only be addressed by scientific ocean drilling. Some challenges within these themes appear to have greater potential for transformative science than others. In particular, studies of the subseafloor biosphere present opportunities to identify microbes that could be useful to humans, and continuing studies of past climate could provide insight into the global and regional climate change predicted for the future.

  Using legacy data and samples to their maximum capa-bilities will continue to increase the scientific value of the scientific ocean drilling programs. Expanded use of legacy materials could help, for example, with prioriti-zation of drilling objectives in the next phase of ocean drilling.

  From the earliest stages of proposal development and evaluation, possibilities for increasing program effi-ciency through integration of multiple objectives into single expeditions should be considered by proponents and panels. Although several natural points of synergy between challenges and themes are well described, the science plan would have been strengthened by a more detailed examination of the areas where natural integration could occur between and among the science challenges, which could help use resources more effectively.

  Pathways for innovations in technology should be encouraged. Setting aside a small portion of scientific ocean drilling resources specifically to promote techno-logical research and development could greatly increase the potential for groundbreaking science. Technology has helped play a vital role in achieving many scientific advances in previous scientific ocean drilling programs.

OCEAN RESEARCH ENTERPRISE

21

  Formal evaluation of education, outreach, and capacity building activities should be implemented to demon-strate the broader impacts of scientific ocean drilling. Since its earliest days, scientific ocean drilling has actively engaged in education and outreach, including primary, secondary, undergraduate, and graduate educa-tion, and non-research-related activities.

COMMITTEE

Robert A. Duce, Co-Chair, Texas A&M University, College Station

Arthur Goldstein, Co-Chair, Bridgewater State University, Bridgewater, Massachusetts

Subir K. Banerjee, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis

William B. Curry, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts

Magnus Friberg, Swedish Research Council, Stockholm

Julie Huber, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Massachusetts

Michael E. Jackson, UNAVCO Inc., Boulder, Colorado

Keith K. Millheim (NAE), Strategic Worldwide, LLC, The Woodlands, Texas

Samuel Mukasa, University of New Hampshire, Durham

Timothy Naish, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

Paul E. Olsen (NAS), Columbia University, Palisades, New York

Lori L. Summa, ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company, Houston, Texas

Anne M. Tréhu, Oregon State University, Corvallis

STAFF

Deborah Glickson, Senior Program Officer

Elizabeth Eide, Senior Program Officer (BESR)

Jeremy Justice, Senior Program Assistant

Report available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13232

Report in Brief: http://dels.nas.edu/Materials/Report-In-Brief/4313-Scientific-Ocean-Drilling?bname=osb

OCEAN RESEARCH ENTERPRISE

22

OCEAN RESEARCH ENTERPRISE

Assessing Requirements for Sustained Ocean Color Research  and Operations

(completed activity)

improvements are made. Suggested actions include implementing a monthly lunar view, supporting a MOBY-like vicarious calibration approach, and build-ing the capability to process and reprocess ocean color data at NOAA.

  To implement the suggested improvements to the VIIRS sensor, NOAA would need to build capacity, particu-larly in the areas of processing and calibrating ocean color data. Because NASA is already an internationally recognized leader in producing well-calibrated ocean color data products, the committee recommends that the two agencies could work in partnership to produce, archive, and distribute data of shared interest.

  If steps to resolve issues with VIIRS are not imple-mented, the U.S. will lose its capability to sustain the current time-series of high quality ocean color measure-ments. Non-U.S. sensors could augment data for U.S. users if data-exchange agreements were immediately pursued.

  Based on its review of previous ocean color missions, the committee recommends a data-centric planning effort that involves multiple agencies and input from the academic research community would help support ocean color sensing; in particular, by ensuring conti-nuity in satellite missions, that lessons learned are incorporated into future missions, and that capabilities for processing U.S. and non-U.S. data are maintained.

  The data requirements for ocean color applications are so diverse that a single satellite sensor or space agency cannot meet all ocean color needs. An international collaborative effort combining the many sensors planned for the future—for example, from Japan, South Korea, and India, and by the European Space Agency—could help meet the many diverse demands of the ocean color community.

  In order to ensure continuous funding for the ocean color research that extends beyond the lifetime of any particular satellite mission and provide long-range

Satellite measurements of ocean color provide a unique global perspective on the health of the ocean by allowing scien-tists to track changes in the abundance and productivity of phytoplankton, microscopic organisms that live in the ocean’s surface waters and form the base of the marine food chain. Monitoring phytoplankton

abundance can provide information on the ocean’s essential functions and resources, which can be used to assess long-term climate changes, evaluate support of fisheries production, and detect harmful algal blooms, among other uses. However, the nation is at risk of losing access to ocean color data because existing satellite sensors are aging, and planned new satellite missions might not be able to acquire data at the accuracy levels needed for climate research. This report reviews the minimum requirements to sustain global ocean color measurements for research and operational use and identifies options to mini-mize the risk of an ocean color data gap.

Key Messages   Satellite ocean color sensors measure the radiance from sunlight backscattered from the ocean and atmosphere. Deriving the ocean component of the total radiance is a complex, multi-step process, but lessons learned from the Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS) and Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) sensors provide insights that could improve current and future capabilities.

  All current sensors are beyond their design life. The launch of a new satellite, Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS), is planned for fall 2011, but the committee concluded that VIIRS will only produce high-quality ocean color data if a series of

23

planning, the committee suggested forming a National Ocean Color body with representatives from federal agencies, academic institutions and the private sector. This group could supply external advice to individual missions, interact with foreign partners and develop consensus views on data needs and sensor requirements.

OCEAN RESEARCH ENTERPRISE

COMMITTEE

James A. Yoder, Chair, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts

David Antoine, Marine Optics and Remote Sensing Lab/ IOCCG ; Laboratoire d’Océanographie de Villefranche, Villafranche-Sur-Mer, France

Carlos E. Del Castillo, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, Maryland

Robert H. Evans, University of Miami, Florida

Curtis Mobley, Sequoia Scientific, Inc., Bellevue, Washington

Jorge L. Sarmiento, Princeton University, New Jersey

Shubha Sathyendranath, Dalhousie University, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada

Carl F. Schueler, Orbital Sciences Corporation, Santa Barbara, California

David A. Siegel, University of California, Santa Barbara

Cara Wilson, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Pacific Grove, California

STAFF

Claudia Mengelt, Senior Program Officer

Jeremy Justice, Senior Program Assistant

Report available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13127

Report in Brief: http://dels.nas.edu/Materials/Report-In-Brief/4319-Ocean-Color?bname=osb

24

OCEAN RESEARCH ENTERPRISE

Critical Infrastructure for Ocean Research and  Societal Needs in 2030

(completed activity)

U.S. ocean research depends on a broad range of ocean infra-structure assets—the national inventory of ships and other platforms, sensors and samplers, computational and data systems, supporting facilities, and trained personnel. In order to ensure that essential infrastructure is available for both fundamental research and issues of social

importance in 2030, a coordinated national plan for making future strategic investments is necessary. A growing suite of infrastructure will be needed to address urgent societal issues in coming years, such as climate change, offshore energy production, tsunami detection, and sustainable fisheries. This report identifies major ocean science questions anticipated to be significant in 2030, defines the categories of infrastructure needed to support such research over the next two decades, identifies criteria that could help prioritize infrastructure development or replacement, and suggests ways to maximize investments in ocean infrastructure.

Key Messages   Establishing and maintaining a coordinated national strategic plan for shared ocean infrastructure investment and maintenance is essential to build the comprehen-sive range of ocean infrastructure that will be needed in coming years. Such a plan would focus on trends in scientific needs and advances in technology, while taking into account factors such as costs, efficient use, and the capacity to cope with unforeseen events.

  Using input from the worldwide scientific community, a range of recent government plans, task force docu-ments, research planning assessments, and a review of primary literature, the committee identified compelling research questions anticipated to be at the forefront of ocean science in 2030. These research questions

fall under four themes: enabling stewardship of the environment, protecting life and property, promoting economic vitality, and increasing fundamental scientific understanding.

  Based on trends in the use of ocean infrastructure over the last two or more decades and on the major research questions forecast for 2030, the commit-tee identified overarching infrastructure needs. For example, the committee anticipates research vessels that allow scientists to go to sea will continue to be the most essential piece of ocean infrastructure; and that expand-ing the current network of 3,000 Argo floats will allow further study of the ocean’s physical, biological, and chemical processes.

  Continued developments in ocean infrastructure increasingly depend on innovations in other fields, including engineering and computer science. This is in part due to decreases in funding for high risk, high reward research and development of novel ocean research technologies. To foster innovation and technological advancements in the ocean sciences, federal agencies will need to encourage a risk-taking environment for the development of new infrastruc-ture, which is difficult under the current systems of research funding.

  The committee devised criteria that could help agencies prioritize investments, taking account of issues such as whether the infrastructure can help address more than one research question, the quality of the data collected using the infrastructure, and future technology trends. The committee concluded that the development, mainte-nance, and replacement of ocean research infrastructure should be prioritized in such a way to maximize the benefits from the infrastructure. This type of economic optimization includes consideration of factors such as: (1) Usefulness of the infrastructure for addressing important science questions; (2) Affordability, efficiency, and longevity of the infrastructure; and (3) Ability to contribute to other missions or applications.

25

OCEAN RESEARCH ENTERPRISE

  Federal agencies can maximize the value of ocean infrastructure by following a number of best practices, including efficiently managing resources, providing broad access to data and facilities, fostering collabora-tion at many levels, and enabling the transition from research to broader use. Conducting formal reviews of ocean infrastructure assets approximately every 5–10 years would help ensure the infrastructure remains useful across the full range of ocean science research needs.

COMMITTEE

Eric J. Barron, Chair, Florida State University, Tallahassee

Rana A. Fine, Vice Chair, University of Miami, Florida

James G. Bellingham, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, California

Emmanuel S. Boss, University of Maine, Orono

Edward A. Boyle (NAS), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

Margo Edwards, University of Hawaii, Manoa

Kenneth S. Johnson, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, California

Deborah S. Kelley, University of Washington, Seattle

Hauke Kite-Powell, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts

Steven Ramberg, National Defense University, Washington DC; Penn State University, State College

Daniel L. Rudnick, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, San Diego, California

Oscar M.E. Schofield, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey

Mario N. Tamburri, University of Maryland, Cambridge

Peter H. Wiebe, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts

Dawn J. Wright, Oregon State University, Corvallis

STAFF

Deborah Glickson, Senior Program Officer

Heather Chiarello, Senior Program Assistant (until October 2010)

Jeremy Justice, Senior Program Assistant ( from May 2011)

Emily Oliver, Program Assistant ( from October 2010 to May 2011)

Will Tyburczy, Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellow (Fall 2010)

Report is available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13081

Report in Brief: http://dels.nas.edu/Materials/Report-In-Brief/4330-Ocean-Infrastructure?bname=osb

26

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.

The Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR) is a component of the International Council of Scientific Unions. The National Science Foundation funds the Ocean Studies Board to serve as the U.S. National Committee to SCOR, and OSB members, Mary (Missy) Feeley, Jorge Corredor, Jay Pearlman, and Dawn Wright serve as the U.S. Representatives to SCOR. These representatives attend annual SCOR meet-ings, 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. The 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 asso-ciated international research.

SCOR work is generally conducted via working groups, but for longer-term, complex activities, SCOR establishes scientific committees. SCOR is also the home for the GLOBEC and JGOFS scientific steering committees

Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (ongoing activity)

2011–2012 OSB REPRESENTATIVES TO SCOR“NOMINATED MEMBERS”

Mary (Missy) H. Feeley, ExxonMobil Exploration Company

Jorge Corredor, University of Puerto Rico

Jay Pearlman, IEEE, Committee on Earth Observation, The Boeing Company (retired)

Dawn Wright, ESRI, Redlands, California

STAFF

Claudia Mengelt, Senior Program Officer

INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES

27

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.

During its March 2011 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) program. 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 senior-level 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 profes-sional society meetings and are available for informal advice throughout the year.

Minorities Striving to Pursue Higher Degrees of Success in  Earth Systems Science

(ongoing activity)

ONGOING ACTIVITIES

28

In 1999, the Ocean Studies Board (OSB) launched the Roger Revelle Com-memorative Lecture to highlight the important links between ocean sci-ences 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 con-

sequences 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.

The twelfth annual Revelle Lecture was held on March 29, 2011 at the Baird Auditorium in the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History in Washington, DC and featured

Dr. Nancy N. Rabalais, Execu-tive Director and Professor at the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium. Dr. Rabalais’ lecture, “Troubled Waters of the Gulf of Mexico,” discussed the challenges of developing and implementing large-scale restoration plans for the Gulf Coast ecosystem.

The Roger Revelle Commemorative Lecture Series (ongoing activity)

The thirteenth annual Revelle Lecture was held on March 20, 2012 at the Baird Auditorium in the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History in Washington, DC and featured Dr. Eddie Bernard, Scien-tist Emeritus, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. Dr. Bernard’s lecture, “Tsunami: Are We Underestimating the risk?” discussed the horrific December 26, 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, which killed over 230,000 people and displaced 1.7 million across 14 countries. Major questions remain: are we still underestimating the threat to the United States and how best can we prepare our coastal communities in case of a devastating tsunami?

More information on the Roger Revelle Commemorative Lecture Series is available at: http://nas-sites.org/revellelecture/

Dr. Roger Revelle, 1909–1991

ONGOING ACTIVITIES

29

September 2012 – September 2013Constance “Stacee” Karras joined the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in September 2012. She received her B.A. in Marine Affairs and Policy with concentrations in Biology and Political Science from the University of Miami in 2007. The following year she received an M.A. in Marine Affairs and Policy from the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science. Most recently, she earned her J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law. Ms. Karras is now serving as a Post-Graduate Fellow with the Ocean Studies Board in the Division of Earth and Life Sciences at the National Academies.

Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy FellowsThe 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 tech-nology policy and to familiarize them with the interactions of science, technology, and government.

Winter 2012Jessica Dutton joined the U.S. National Academy of Sciences as a Mirzayan Fellow in January 2012, and continued as a Research Associate with the Ocean Studies Board in the Division on Earth and Life Studies. She received her B.A. in Biological Sciences from Mount Holyoke College in 2000, and a Ph.D. in Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology from the University of California, Santa Barbara in 2009. After completing her degrees, Ms. Dutton served as a Knauss Fellow with the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service in their Office of Policy. Today, she holds a position as a Postdoctoral Research Associate with the University of Southern California’s Wrigley Institute for Environmental Studies in Los Angeles, California.

Winter 2011Peter Thompson has completed his PhD in behavior, ecology, evolution, and systematics at the University of Maryland. Pete’s dissertation research used population genetics to study the natural history, dispersal, and deep evolutionary history of a single-celled parasite that is interfering with efforts to restore oyster populations in the Chesapeake Bay. Prior to enrolling in graduate school, Pete was a research technician for ten years with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration where he studied virus-cell inter-actions and the development of novel hepatitis vaccines. His ongoing interest in marine and estuarine habitats led him to apply the molecular biology skills acquired during his time at the FDA to a problem associated with ecosystem restoration along the Atlantic coast of the United States. He is excited to have this opportunity to contribute to ongoing policy discussions regarding ecosystems impacted by the recent Gulf of Mexico oil spill as he considers a transition from bench scientist to public policy.

Summer 2011Chris Prosser received his PhD from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), College of William and Mary in marine science. His dissertation focused on the multi-stressor interactions between toxicants and bacterial pathogens in the zebrafish. While at VIMS he served as co-President of the VIMS graduate student association and as a graduate student representative for the school of marine science to the W&M graduate student association. Prior to his dissertation work, Chris received his masters in environmental management from Duke University, Nicholas School of the Environment. Chris received his bachelor’s degree in biology and marine science from Coastal Carolina University. He has volunteered at the Bimini Biological Field Station, (Bimini

Recent Fellows and Interns at the Ocean Studies Board

ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES

30

Bahamas) working primarily to assist in a lemon shark tagging program. Additionally he had the opportunity to work as a produc-tion assistant with National Geographic. Chris hopes to gain a better understanding of how science help shape policy while using his interdisciplinary background to assist in making knowledgeable decisions. In his spare time Chris enjoys sports, outdoor activi-ties, travel and home-brewing beer.

Anderson-Commonweal Internship ProgramThe 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), the Albert Einstein High School (Kensington, MD) and The School Without Walls (Washington, DC) are selected for the program based on their academic records and plans to pursue careers in science and technology fields.

Summer 2012Vincent Omekam is a 2009 graduate from The School Without Walls High School. During his fourth year as an Anderson Intern, Vincent worked with the Ocean Studies Board. In the fall of 2009, he began his freshman year at Hampton University in Virginia majoring in pharmacy school.

Summer 2011Charles Ajaegbu is a 2009 Benjamin Banneker Academic High School graduate. During his third year as an Anderson Intern, Charles worked with the Ocean Studies Board. In the fall of 2009, he began his freshman year at Oklahoma State University majoring in chemical/biomedical engineering.

ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES

31

COASTAL STUDIESSea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future, 2012

Review of the Tsunami Warning and Forecast System and Overview of the Nation’s Tsunami Preparedness, 2010

Final Report from the NRC Committee on the Review of the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Program, 2009

First Report from the NRC Committee on the Review of the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Program, 2008

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

FISHERIES SCIENCE AND MANAGEMENTSustainable Water and Environmental Management in the California Bay-Delta, 2012

Assessment of Sea-Turtle Status and Trends: Integrating Demography and Abundance, 2010

A Scientific Assessment of Alternatives for Reducing Water Management Effects on Threatened and Endangered Fishes in California’s Bay Delta, 2010

Ecosystem Concepts for Sustainable Bivalve Mariculture, 2010

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

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

GLOBAL CHANGE AND THE OCEANOcean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean, 2010

INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIESIncreasing 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

MARINE ENVIRONMENTS AND RESOURCESScientific Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Drakes Bay Oyster Company Special Use Permit, 2012

Approaches for Ecosystem Services Valuation for the Gulf of Mexico After the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Interim Report, 2011

Realizing the Energy Potential of Methane Hydrate for the United States, 2010

Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century, 2009

Increasing Capacity for Stewardship of Oceans and Coasts: A Priority for the 21st Century, 2008

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

OCEAN STUDIES BOARD PUBLICATIONS 2002–2012

32

NATIONAL SECURITYEnvironmental Information for Naval Warfare, 2003

THE OCEAN RESEARCH ENTERPRISEScientific Ocean Drilling: Accomplishments and Challenges, 2011

Assessing Requirements for Sustained Ocean Color Research and Operations, 2011

Critical Infrastructure for Ocean Research and Societal Needs in 2030, 2011

Science at Sea: Meeting Future Oceanographic Goals with a Robust Academic Research Fleet, 2009

Oceanography in 2025: Proceedings of a Workshop, 2009

Review of the Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy, 2007Evaluation of the Sea Grant Program Review Process, 2006A Review of the Draft Ocean Research Priorities Plan: Charting the Course for Ocean Science in the United States, 2006Elements of a Science Plan for the North Pacific Research Board, 2004Future Needs in Deep Submergence Science: Occupied and Unoccupied Vehicles in Basic Ocean Research, 2004Enabling Ocean Research in the Twenty-First Century: Implementation of a Network of Ocean Observatories, 2003Chemical Reference Materials: Setting the Standards for Ocean Science, 2002

Additional information on all of these reports can be found on the Ocean Studies Board Reports page. Most reports are avail-able online from the National Academies Press or by calling (888) 624-8373. Others are available in limited quantities by writing to the Ocean Studies Board: The National Academies; Ocean Studies Board; 500 Fifth Street, NW, MS  607; Washington, DC, 20001.

OCEAN STUDIES BOARD PUBLICATIONS 2002–2012

33

OCEAN STUDIES BOARD MEETINGS 2011–2012

Ocean Studies Board, Seventy-Second MeetingMarch 28–30, 2011The National Academies BuildingWashington, DC

Ocean Studies Board, Seventy-Third MeetingJuly 6–8, 2011Arnold and Mabel Beckman CenterIrvine, California

Ocean Studies Board, Seventy-Fourth MeetingOctober 17–18, 201120 F Street Conference CenterWashington, DC

Ocean Studies Board, Seventy-Fifth MeetingMarch 20–22, 2012The National Academies Keck CenterWashington, DC

Ocean Studies Board, Seventy-Sixth MeetingJuly 24–26, 2012J. Erik Jonsson Woods Hole Center of the National Academy of SciencesWoods Hole, Massachusetts

Ocean Studies Board, Seventy-Seventh MeetingNovember 8–9, 2012Hyatt Regency New OrleansNew Orleans, Louisiana

34

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Ocean Studies Board is grateful to the many government and private agencies that sponsor our work. The following institu-tions have supported the activities of the Board or sponsored specific studies described in this report:

Ocean Studies Board and Revelle Lecture Sponsors

Environmental Protection AgencyMarine Mammal CommissionNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science FoundationPresident’s Circle of The National AcademiesU.S. Arctic Research CommissionU.S. Coast GuardU.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNational Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information ServiceNational Marine Fisheries Service

National Weather ServiceOceanic and Atmospheric Research

U.S. Department of EnergyU.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Food and Drug AdministrationNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceMinerals Management Service (now Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement)U.S. Geological SurveyU.S. National Park Service

U.S. Department of the NavyOffice of Naval Research

We deeply appreciate the many hours of pro bono service provided by our board members, the participants on our study commit-tees, and those who review our reports. Without their commitment to public service, our work would not be possible.

Study Sponsors

Gordon and Betty Moore FoundationNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science FoundationSmithsonian InstitutionU.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNational Marine Fisheries ServiceNational Ocean ServiceOceanic and Atmospheric Research

U.S. Department of the InteriorBureau of Ocean Energy Management U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Department of the NavyOffice of Naval Research

Ocean Studies BoardThe National Academies

500 Fifth Street, NW, MS 607 Washington, DC 20001Telephone: (202) 334-2714 / Fax: (202) 334-2885

http://www.dels.nas.edu/osb