Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
Executive Summary
I n 1979, the U.S. government filed a complaint with the U.S. Supreme
Court against the State of Alaska regarding ownership of submerged
lands along Alaska's North Slope. Royalties from oil and gas sales of
these submerged lands were held in escrow during the ensuing court
proceedings. Nearly 20 years later, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of
the U.S. government, signing over the lands and nearly $1.6 billion in
proceeds. Congress later created the Environmental Improvement and
Restoration Fund and the North Pacific Research Board (NPRB) with the
settlement money. Each year, 20 percent of the interest from the account
is given to the NPRB for funding marine research activities in the Arctic
Ocean, the Bering Sea, and the North Pacific Ocean.
The NPRB began operating in 1997, and it approved funding for about
$2.2 million in 2002 and $7 million in 2003 (Appendix B). The NPRB also
began developing an administrative structure and advisory mechanisms
similar to other research programs. Concurrently, the NPRB recognized
the need to develop a high-caliber, long-range science plan that provides
a comprehensive understanding of the North Pacific, Bering Sea, and
Arctic Ocean ecosystems and their fisheries. To ensure that its Science
Plan is of the highest quality, the NPRB asked the National Academies to
provide advice on the components of a sound science plan (Box ES-1).
The National Academies established the Committee on a Science Plan for
the North Pacific Research Board for this purpose (Appendix C). To
gather information for this report, the committee held three committee
meetings and a science workshop (conducted in Anchorage). The work-
shop agenda and list of participants can be found in Appendix E. In addi-
1
OCR for page 2
2 ELEMENTS OF A SCIENCE PLAN FOR THE NPRB
BOX ES-1
Statement of Task
The NRC study committee will assist the NPRB in developing a science
plan that (1) is comprehensive and long range (10-20 years), (2) identifies
major research themes, with emphasis on marine resource management
issues, (3) is flexible, dynamic, and able to adapt to new research and
monitoring findings, (4) is responsive to the vision, mission and goals of the
NPRB and addresses the elements of a science plan identified as important
by the NPRB, (5) builds on past and ongoing research programs of the
Federal government, the State of Alaska, universities, and other relevant
entities, (6) has a high probability of furthering the goals and objectives of
the NPRB and maintaining awareness of the need to sustain a variety of
marine resources and (7) is consistent with NPRB enabling legislation.
In addition, the committee should consider questions such as the appro-
priate balance between process studies and time-series studies, the role of
modeling, the availability and usefulness of proxy and historical data,
coordination with other activities (including international activities), and
any other issues related to assuring the program has a strong strategic vision
and sound management and oversight.
To guide the NPRB as it develops its science plan, the committee will:
· Identify broad research themes in the North Pacific, Bering Sea, and
Arctic Ocean region, through discussions and a workshop.
· Conduct a series of site visits in Alaska to gather further input on the
research themes.
· Provide supporting information and recommendations for achieving
the desired attributes of the plan.
· Prepare an interim report that outlines the components of a success-
ful long-term science plan and provides guidance to NPRB as it develops
its plan, drawing on insights gained from past reviews of similar science
plans to help the NPRB avoid known difficulties and pitfalls.
· Subsequently review the science plan drafted by the NPRB in light of
the identified research themes and overall guidance provided in the interim
report, making any necessary suggestions for improvement.
tion, members of the committee made site visits to various communities
in Alaska (Kodiak, Barrow, Fairbanks, Juneau, Kotzebue, Dillingham,
Anchorage, and Bethel) and in the State of Washington (Seattle) to receive
input on the marine research needs of each community. This input is
summarized in Appendix D. Information received from the workshop and
site visits was considered in the committee's deliberations.
OCR for page 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
This interim report presents the National Research Council's (NRC's)
initial advice for the development of the NPRB Science Plan. The report is
the first step in an advice-giving process that will continue through 2004.
It is not meant to be an extensive literature review of work done in the
NPRB region; instead, the goal of this report is to summarize broad
research themes and the key components of a successful science plan.
These themes are based mainly on the experience and expertise of the
NRC committee, input from the science workshop, site visits, and discus-
sions with stakeholders. The report is meant to guide the NPRB in devel-
oping a science plan that meets the objectives of the enabling legislation
and is consistent with the NPRB's mission and goals (Box ES-2). Since the
NRC was not charged with writing the NPRB Science Plan, recommenda-
tions for specific research topics have not been made. The NRC will
review the final draft of the NPRB Science Plan once it has been devel-
oped, taking into consideration the broad research themes and guidance
provided by this report.
Chapter 1 provides background information and Chapter 2 discusses
criteria necessary for a successful NPRB Science Plan. Chapters 3-4 dis-
BOX ES-2
NPRB Mission and Goals
The NPRB's overall mission is to develop a comprehensive, high-caliber
science program that provides better understanding of the North Pacific,
Bering Sea, and Arctic Ocean ecosystems and their fisheries. Its work will
be conducted through science planning, prioritization of pressing fishery
management and ecosystem information needs, coordination and coopera-
tion among research programs, competitive selection of research projects,
enhanced information availability, and public involvement.
To carry out this mission, the NPRB will emphasize coordination and
cooperation in supporting high-quality research projects with the goal of
improving:
· the understanding of the dynamics of the North Pacific marine eco-
system and use of the resources;
· the ability to manage and protect the healthy, sustainable fish and
wildlife populations that comprise the ecologically diverse marine eco-
systems of the North Pacific and provide long-term, sustained benefits to
local communities and the nation; and
· the ability to forecast and respond to effects of changes, through
integration of various research activities, including long-term monitoring.
OCR for page 4
4 ELEMENTS OF A SCIENCE PLAN FOR THE NPRB
cuss specific elements of the plan in more detail. Chapter 5 provides the
committee's findings and recommendations. Below are brief descriptions
of the major sections of the report followed by key recommendations. For
a more complete discussion of a specific section or a listing of all recom-
mendations, please refer to the respective chapter or to the findings and
recommendations in Chapter 5.
CRITERIA FOR A SCIENCE PLAN
The NPRB Science Plan will be the underpinning of the entire science
program and will determine the legacy of the NPRB. Many studies have
examined the elements that contribute to making a successful science plan
(Weisberg et al., 2000; NRC, 2002, 2003a); in general, it operates under the
aegis of an overriding goal or conceptual foundation that provides ratio-
nale for the program and a signature that will identify the program. It
also contains clearly defined scientific goals and program management
policies; has a clearly defined geographic focus; has an effective data
management and dissemination strategy; coordinates actively with other
funding programs; develops applications that are useful to decision
makers and stakeholders; and recognizes the importance of public inter-
action and community involvement. In order to be successful the follow-
ing elements should be included in the NPRB Science Plan.
· In developing a science plan, the NPRB must include policies and
procedures that provide for the development and articulation of the over-
riding goal or conceptual foundation.
· Since emerging issues cannot be predicted, the NPRB has to include
mechanisms that will allow the conceptual foundation to evolve over time
through periodic review.
· The Science Plan should limit studies in the North Pacific and
Arctic Ocean to geographically prescribed areas where comprehensive
studies can be undertaken. For example, the Arctic could be limited to the
East Siberian, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, and the North Pacific to its
subarctic gyre, except for studies that naturally extend outside these
boundaries. These regions, together with the Bering Sea, comprise an
interacting series of ecosystems that may be studied comprehensively
through research funded by the NPRB.
· During periods of funding constraints, all long-term monitoring
should be protected and short-term process studies should focus on core
scientific questions. If necessary financially, it would be better to support
research in a limited geographic area than to scatter research over a larger
area.
OCR for page 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
RESEARCH THEMES
Populations of marine organisms are managed based on a solid under-
standing of the entire ecosystem to which they belong (NRC, 1999a). This
demands a comprehensive understanding of the mean state and variabil-
ity of key habitats and their inhabitants on all relevant scales.
Ecosystem States and Variability
Research teams addressing interdisciplinary issues are an excellent
strategy for advancing understanding of the marine ecosystems in the
region. This approach will allow the NPRB to fulfill its primary mission to
address marine ecosystem and fishery management information needs,
while developing a predictive capability for the region.
Process studies should be well integrated with modeling studies and
should be designed to provide data for model testing. To encourage strong
linkages between biological and physical studies, and between empirical
and modeling studies, interdisciplinary approaches should be encouraged
through priority funding. Research is needed that will elucidate commu-
nity compositions; the structure, functioning, and transfer efficiencies of
food webs; and predator as well as non-predator interactions such as com-
petition among species and symbiotic association. Research integrating
biological data within the framework of the physics and chemistry of the
ecosystem is also needed.
The development of ocean models is essential because they provide a
means of interpolation among scattered and scarce data sources, thereby
providing a more complete physical setting for the region. They are also
essential for identifying the basic processes that determine the region's
ocean circulation, sea-ice formation and decay, and biogeochemistry.
Long time-series measurements are imperative for understanding
natural processes that exhibit slow or irregular change and rapid event-
driven variations that cannot be documented from a single field expedition.
The unique funding structure of the NPRB provides a rare opportunity
for establishment and maintenance of long-term continuous monitoring
sites. Because of the long-term funding commitment, monitoring sites
must be carefully considered.
Oceanography and marine biology have often been limited by tech-
nology more than by intellectual vision, and they have progressed rapidly
with the advent of each new technological development. Nowhere is this
more evident than at high latitudes where the harsh environment presents
unique challenges to scientific investigation. The NPRB may find that
progress is blocked by the lack of appropriate technology, and funding
for the adaptation of existing technologies, along with the development of
OCR for page 6
6 ELEMENTS OF A SCIENCE PLAN FOR THE NPRB
new technologies, could be a valuable NPRB contribution if such tech-
nology is necessary to answer an important scientific question.
Additionally, the NPRB is working in a region with many stake-
holders, and it must develop an ongoing mechanism to facilitate commu-
nication between scientists and stakeholders. In particular, the incorpora-
tion of traditional knowledge into the NPRB program provides a special
challenge. A great deal of marine ecosystem knowledge lies in the domain
of those who are dependent upon it to survive. Yet the integration of this
knowledge with information produced by modern scientific methods has
seldom been done well. In order to better understand ecosystem mean
states and variability, the NPRB should consider the following elements
in its Science Plan:
· The NPRB should support fundamental science to study the struc-
ture and function of ecosystems in order to understand the populations
they support.
· The NPRB should encourage formation of interdisciplinary research
teams by priority funding of well-integrated research groups.
· NPRB funding should support a well-integrated mix of long-term,
process, and modeling studies, accompanied by the development of
appropriate technology if that technology is necessary to answer an
important scientific question.
· The NPRB should fund a balanced mixture of regional and large-
scale investigations. Those regional and large-scale studies should be well
integrated.
· The NPRB should encourage proposals that include data on the
roles and trends of important noncommercial species, such as potential
prey species, indicator species, keystone species, and others. Although
there are data for commercial species, information regarding noncommercial
species is particularly lacking.
· Long-term monitoring sites should be established and observations
should be continued uninterrupted. Once a long-term monitoring plan is
established, it should be changed only for compelling reasons and only in
such a way that the continuity of the long-term record is preserved.
· The NPRB should facilitate communication between scientists and
stakeholders in its study area. Several groups, such as the Alaska Native
Science Commission, have expertise in this process, and the NPRB should
work with appropriate stakeholder representatives to develop strategies
for accomplishing scientist-stakeholder interaction.
· The NPRB should consider funding the collection of traditional
knowledge relevant to its goals and encourage the incorporation of tradi-
tional knowledge into research planning and hypothesis development.
OCR for page 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7
Human-Induced Impacts
Human activities, such as fishing, hunting, coastal and shelf develop-
ment, shipping, contamination, and to a lesser extent invasive species and
tourism, all impact the marine environment. Effects of fishing may be
direct (e.g., removal of targeted and nontargeted species) or indirect (e.g.,
a trophic cascade). Large gaps exist in our understanding of the indirect
effects of fishing, as well as the effects of development, shipping, and
introduction of contaminants from all sources. Although the NPRB
program should focus on integrated ecosystem-based research, it should
include research related to the effects of human activities. Therefore, the
following is recommended:
· The NPRB should fund studies that have a high potential to deter-
mine whether specific human activities have an effect on marine eco-
systems, what the scales of such impacts are likely to be, and what kinds
of mitigation are possible. Such studies could include impacts of proposed
or actual industrial or municipal development, fishing and hunting, ship-
ping, and contamination.
Economic, Social, and Management Research
All important commercial fisheries in the Northeast Pacific are now
regulated and much research has been devoted to supporting manage-
ment of these fisheries. There is a need for economic and social research to
assess how well existing management regimes are functioning, how they
could be improved, and what regimes would be appropriate for the
fisheries when the management regime is at a formative stage. These
data should be recognized as a long-term data set, subject to the same
procedures for establishing objectives, and so forth, as the ecological data.
The subsistence economy poses special challenges. Many pressures,
including decreasing resources and increasing populations, challenge the
long-term viability of this way of life. The subsistence economy also is
increasingly dependent on vehicles, fuel, and gear that are bought with
cash. The following are recommended:
· Economic and social data should be gathered on an ongoing basis
to evaluate the changes that new management regimes have brought or
are likely to bring.
· Economic and social research is needed to ascertain the long-term
viability of the subsistence economy and the social changes spurred by
decreasing resources and increasing populations. Researchers should be
encouraged to work with rural communities and tribes and with tribal or
native organizations on these types of research projects.
OCR for page 8
8 ELEMENTS OF A SCIENCE PLAN FOR THE NPRB
Forecasting and Responding to Change
For northern regions, large-scale ecological models are even less
developed than physical models. Most of the progress to date has been in
simulating the dynamics of phytoplankton and, to a lesser extent, zoo-
plankton. More complex trophic couplings are not known well enough to
simulate statistically or numerically. Interdisciplinary process studies are
required to fill in the current data gaps so that these systems can be
described more fully and their response to environmental change can be
predicted better:
· The NPRB should fund research that leads to the improvement of
predictive models. This research includes the acquisition of long-term
data records and the undertaking of short-term process studies that reveal
underlying processes.
MANAGEMENT ISSUES
NPRB Members, Staff, and Panels
The purpose of the NPRB management structure is to facilitate its
science activities, ensuring that they advance the NPRB's mission, goals,
and themes. Currently, the NPRB management consists of NPRB mem-
bers, an executive director, the Science Panel, and an Advisory Panel.
NPRB members include individuals knowledgeable by education, train-
ing, or experience in fisheries or marine ecosystems in the North Pacific
Ocean, Bering Sea, or Arctic Ocean. The NPRB enabling legislation
dictates that some NPRB members are representatives or designees from
various state and federal agencies. The executive director is the chief
NPRB administrator and has overall responsibility for all aspects of its
operation, which is a large task that requires administrative support. The
executive director and the NPRB are advised by the Science Panel, which
ensures that research of the highest possible quality is conducted under
NPRB support. An Advisory Panel, with representatives from user
groups and other interested parties from the various regions within the
NPRB's purview, advises the board to ensure the relevance of the science
to the mission and goals of the NPRB. After requesting research pro-
posals, the Science Panel sends recommendations to the NPRB members,
who select proposals for funding. Finally, research funding decisions of
the NPRB must be approved by the secretary of commerce, who currently
is also a member of the NPRB, or an appointed representative.
One of the next tasks for the NPRB is to write a science plan. In
general, science plans should be written by scientists with knowledge
OCR for page 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9
relevant to the agency mission. The science plan should include mecha-
nisms for both internal and external review. The following recommenda-
tions will help to ensure that the management structure is suited to
meeting the NPRB's mission:
· The NPRB should provide adequate administrative staff to support
its executive director, although care must be taken to minimize the level
of funding going to administration.
· The NPRB Science Panel or other scientists with appropriate exper-
tise in regional scientific issues, who can place the regional science within
the larger framework, should write the NPRB Science Plan.
The Proposal Process
The process by which proposals are considered, evaluated, selected,
and funded has to be clearly specified in the science plan. As the NPRB
matures and begins organized implementation of its science plan, it will
have to develop and adhere to sound peer review policies. Two guiding
principles of proposal review are peer review by qualified, unbiased
reviewers and reviewer anonymity. Any potential for conflict of interest,
real or perceived, should be eliminated. All proposal reviewers should be
respected scientists with expertise in the areas designated in that year's
research funding proposals. Reviewers should not be members of the
NPRB, nor should they have proposals pending that year or receive any
potential or perceived financial gain from the proposal selection process.
Although it is important for the NPRB to identify a geographic focus
for research, grant proposals must be evaluated on their merit and not on
the geographic location of the proposer. This is necessary not only to
ensure that the best proposals are funded, but also to allow for intellectual
input from outside the region.
The current NPRB management structure could lead to real or per-
ceived conflict of interest in reviewing and awarding research grants. For
example, when proposals are considered for funding, any members hav-
ing vested interests should recuse themselves when proposals from their
agency, industry, or university are considered--something that the NPRB
currently does not require. The final recommendations will assist the
NPRB in developing an adequate proposal process:
· Final approval of funding decisions should be made directly by the
U.S. secretary of commerce or by a representative who is remote from the
consequences of funding decisions. The secretary of commerce's repre-
sentative on the NPRB should not be the same individual who approves
funding recommendations on behalf of the secretary.
OCR for page 10
10 ELEMENTS OF A SCIENCE PLAN FOR THE NPRB
· NPRB members should recuse themselves, in accordance with
standard practice, when proposals from their agency or university are
considered for funding.
· The NPRB should establish and publish fair procedures for award-
ing grants and then follow those procedures without exception. The
criteria established by the National Science Foundation are especially
respected within the scientific community and might serve as a model.
· The Science Panel should appoint a Proposal Selection Committee
to rank research proposals and advise the executive director of its
decisions.
· The Advisory Panel and the Science Panel should not be involved
in proposal funding decisions because of potential conflicts of interest.
· Since the Proposal Selection Committee will be a panel of experts,
the NPRB and the secretary of commerce (or a representative) should
respect their proposal rankings. NPRB funding decisions should be docu-
mented in writing, including an explanation of any deviations from the
rankings of the Proposal Selection Committee.
External Review
During the life of the NPRB program, technology will change, scien-
tific knowledge will accumulate, and public perceptions will shift. All
long-lived programs benefit from periodic external reviews because those
who can view a program from a distance often provide insight that can-
not come from within. The NPRB will benefit from a regular pattern of
reviews in which a panel of outside reviewers is invited to evaluate its
Science Plan, long-term programs, and the policies and procedures that
govern proposal evaluation and grant administration. Therefore, the
following recommendation will provide adequate external review:
· The NPRB should conduct periodic internal and external reviews
of the science plan, policies, and long-term programs at five-year inter-
vals. The caution, however, is that the long-term monitoring components
of NPRB programs should be protected to the extent financially possible.
Outreach and Education
The NPRB should recognize the importance of public interaction. The
science plan must seek public input and respond to this, but it must also
acknowledge that the specific problems likely to be identified by the
public will probably find their solutions not in direct problem solving,
but in a basic understanding of the ecosystem. The NPRB must recognize
the need for a broad range of outreach and educational approaches that
OCR for page 11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11
reflect the rich diversity of the region's communities. The following
recommendations will help the NPRB to maintain strong community
links:
· The NPRB should encourage outreach and education activity com-
ponents either by principal investigators as part of their proposals or as
independently funded activities. These components should address all
levels of education, making sure to include remote communities.
· The NPRB should facilitate communication between scientists and
stakeholders in its study area. The board should consider continuing site
visits throughout the Northwest United States and Alaska to foster under-
standing of its efforts and to receive public input on future research
directions.
Data Policy and Management
The NPRB's goals require an integrated understanding of ecosystems,
which necessitates that user-friendly mechanisms for data storage and
sharing be developed and implemented; the NPRB's current management
structure does not provide adequate staff for data management. Those
conducting NPRB research have an obligation to share the data and
metadata they collect with the general community at large. For these
reasons, there must to be an explicit NPRB data policy and a centralized
data management office. For efficiency, the NPRB should cooperate with
an existing archiving program for tissue samples and organisms. Such
collections are essential for documenting and understanding biodiversity.
Therefore, the following key elements are recommended for the Science
Plan:
· The NPRB Science Plan should instruct principal investigators to
place all data in the public domain after no more than two years. Within
interdisciplinary programs, data should be shared as soon as possible.
This will serve to maximize dissemination of knowledge even prior to
archival publication.
· The NPRB should establish an administrative staff position respon-
sible for data management and dissemination. This person should create
and maintain a web-based archive of data that is easily navigated. Recent
successful examples for the NPRB to follow include the Long Term Eco-
logical Research Network, the Ridge Inter-Disciplinary Global Experi-
ment, and the Joint Global Ocean Flux Study.
· The NPRB should join a sample archiving program that provides
safe storage and allows for easy retrieval.
OCR for page 12
12 ELEMENTS OF A SCIENCE PLAN FOR THE NPRB
Coordination with Other Projects and Programs
The NPRB's mission is ambitious, and it likely cannot fund alone all
the empirical and modeling studies that are needed to achieve its goals.
However, many other programs are funding research projects in the same
geographic area, and many of these have research objectives complemen-
tary to those of the NPRB. In addition, many of the projects funded by
the NPRB should be related, and the NPRB would be wise to facilitate
interactions between principal investigators to further maximize their
funds. The NPRB should implement the following recommendations:
· The NPRB should appoint one or more individuals to act as liaisons
with other state and federal agencies, universities, environmental groups,
industry, and tribes and tribal or native organizations whose missions
relate to those of the NPRB. Wherever possible, partnerships should be
formed with these other groups to leverage maximum benefit from avail-
able funds.
· The NPRB should conduct an annual principal investigator work-
shop in conjunction with the annual Joint Science Symposium to foster
project collaborations and share data.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
north pacific
