Overview

The third official meeting of the U.S. National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST) took place November 16-17 at the National Science Foundation in Arlington, Virginia. The meeting was chaired by Jerry Melillo and Tony Janetos.

One new member of the NAST participated in the meeting: Katharine Jacobs of the Arizona Department of Water Resources. In total, nine of thirteen members of the Synthesis Team participated in all or part of the meeting. There were also twenty-one additional participants, including representatives of the sector teams, and leaders representing the Interregional Forum, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Assessment Working Group and the National Assessment Coordination Office. At the beginning of the second day, Dr. Neal Lane, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy briefly joined the meeting to discuss his perspective and recommendations about next steps.

Attendance

The following members of the Synthesis Team participated in the meeting:

• Eric Barron, Pennsylvania State University
• Virginia Burkett, U.S. Geological Survey
• Katharine Jacobs, Arizona Department of Water Resources
• Tony Janetos, NASA Headquarters
• Linda Joyce, USDA Forest Service
• Tom Karl, NOAA Climatic Data Center
• Jerry Melillo, Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory
• M. Granger Morgan, Carnegie-Mellon University
• Edward Parson, Harvard/Kennedy School of Government

The following additional participants were at all or part of the meeting:

• Richard Ball, U.S. Department of Energy
• Lynne Carter, National Assessment Coordination Office
• Robert Cherry, National Assessment Coordination Office
• Robert Corell, National Science Foundation (Chair, Subcommittee on Global Change Research)
• Dave Easterling, NOAA National Climatic Data Center
• Jerry Elwood, U.S. Department of Energy
• Benjamin Felzer, National Center for Atmospheric Research
• Janet Gamble, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• Mary Gant, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
• Ann Kinzig, Office of Science and Technology Policy
• Neal Lane, Office of Science and Technology Policy (Director)
• Michael MacCracken, National Assessment Coordination Office
• LaShaunda Malone, National Assessment Coordination Office
• Curt Mason, NOAA Coastal Programs (coastal sector)
• Don Scavia, NOAA Coastal Programs (coastal sector co-chair)
• Lowell Smith, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• Tom Spence, National Science Foundation
• Melissa Taylor, National Assessment Coordination Office
• Justin Wettstein, National Assessment Coordination Office
• Tom Wilbanks, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Chair, Interregional Forum)

Welcome and Objectives

The Co-Chairs outlined the objectives for the meeting:

• To revise the outline for the Synthesis Report based on comments received;
• To assign NAST members with liaison (with regions and sectors) and writing (for first draft of Synthesis Report) responsibilities;
• To revise the timetable for the Synthesis Report.

Synthesis Team Outline

The Synthesis Team Outline provided the framework for the meeting. Following the Woods Hole meeting in August, the outline was distributed broadly to National Assessment participants. Comments were then collated and redistributed to the Synthesis Team. These comments provided the basis for revising and further developing the outline. The following lists highlights of the comments, points made in discussion at the meeting, and general decisions taken about direction:

1. General Comments:
   • The outline seemed heavy on background information and light on sections providing findings. As one solution, participants agreed that most process information should be put in an appendix, rather than featured in the main body of the report.
   • It is very important to place climate variability and change in the larger context of global environmental change; also, it is important to first place it in a longer time-scale, then focus on scientific evidence and remove value-laden terms. It was recommended to start with the strongest evidence to build credibility for the findings that would follow.
   • The outline should emphasize opportunities as well as vulnerabilities: it is important to make sure that the outline, the issues raised, the examples selected, and the overall tenor of the discussion have an appropriate balance.
   • Other documents have been effective in combining a Q&A framework with the standard outline approach. Proposed primer sections could either respond to common misperceptions, or could be used to summarize basic information.
   • In addition to thinking about what will go into the document, it was important to talk about how the regional and sectoral information will be synthesized and how these interactions would function. High importance was placed on developing the strategy for interacting with the regions and sectors.

2. Section I (Introduction): The group reviewed comments received on this section, decided tentatively on historical case studies which would correspond with the bullets in the final integrative section (see Section V "Summing Up" of the August outline), and gave writing assignments. It was decided to add a third bullet to Section IA on opportunities and vulnerabilities. [See Annex].

   Proposed Historical Examples: Drought of the 1930s Mississippi River hydrological extremes Hantavirus New England ice storm(s) Coastal Louisiana U.S./Mexico water issues

3. Section II (Scenarios): Two sub-groups on the first day of the meeting discussed climate data and socioeconomic data, respectively. The climate sub-group developed a workplan for making further progress in developing key inputs for the Synthesis Report. In particular, they focused on operationalizing the list of "Important Climate Information" currently in a box in Section II. The socio-economic sub-group decided to make some revisions to the socio-economic guidance document and then to redistribute this to the regional and sectoral teams. Finally, the full group decided on writing assignments and deadlines. [See Annex].

4. Section III (Around the Nation): Significant thought was given to interactions with the regional teams. It was concluded that a NAST member should serve as liaison with each of the 6 "mega-regions" identified in the Synthesis Report. [Note that approximately 20 regional teams are conducting analyses, while the Synthesis Report aggregates these into 6 mega-regions.] This liaison would work with the various regional teams in developing the sections over the next few months to ensure that each was cohesive and fairly represented the issues and major impacts for the regions. These liaisons would be responsible for drafting these sections, hopefully with submissions from the various regions. Liaisons were appointed for each of the 6 regions and a timeline was established. However, it was decided that the NOAA/NCDC group would provide the first draft of the historical climate information write-up for each of the 6 regions, and that the VEMAP group would provide information for each on VEMAP. The deadline for these submissions by the NAST Regional Liaisons is February 15 [See Annex].

   NAST Regional Liaisons: Northeast: Eric Barron Southeast/Caribbean: Virginia Burkett Heartland/Great Lakes: Tom Karl Great Plains/Rocky Mountains: Linda Joyce Northwest/Alaska: Ted Parson Southwest/California: Richard Richels

5. Section IV (Cross-Cutting Issues): Significant thought was also given to interactions with the five sectors. In addition, because the Native Peoples/Native Homelands assessment seemed more cross-cutting, it was placed in this section rather than Section III. A similar liaison scheme was developed for interacting with the sectors, although on a delayed timeframe relative to Section III. Again, it is the NAST Liaisons who are ultimately responsible for drafting these sections, presumably with substantial inputs from the sector teams. The deadline for the initial submissions by the NAST Liaisons is February 28 although there are interim deadlines for issues and outlines. [See Annex].

   NAST Cross-Cutting Issue Liaisons: Water Resources: Kathy Jacobs Human Health: Tony Janetos Agriculture: Jerry Melillo Forests: Linda Joyce Coastal Areas: Virginia Burkett Native Homelands: NACO (Mike MacCracken)

6. Section V (Summing Up): A sub-group met the first day of the meeting in parallel with the scenario sub-groups to discuss possible "big messages" coming out of the effort. A draft write-up from the Woods Hole meeting was used as the basis of discussions. The sub-group provided comments and reactions to the messages and revised the document. This will be revisited continuously in preparation for drafting an Executive Summary. Regions and sectors will be closely involved in the development of this element.

OSTP Participation

On Tuesday morning, Dr. Neal Lane, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy joined the meeting to thank the team and share his perspectives. He expressed OSTP's enthusiasm for the process, pointed out that the world is watching, and indicated that this could provide a model for other nations.

Dr. Lane also noted that President's Council on Science and Technology (PCAST) would be meeting later in the week to discuss the Review Panel to oversee the development of the Synthesis Report. The Review Panel will be appointed shortly as a subcommittee of PCAST.

Dr. Lane announced that Tom Karl will soon become the federal co-chair of the NAST as Tony Janetos is moving outside of government to the World Resouces Institute. However, Tony's continued involvement in the NAST is assured.

Process and Communications

Significant discussion was placed on communications between the Synthesis Team, the regions and sectors, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. In terms of general guidance to the regions and sectors, NAST members emphasized that what was needed was a dialogue, not top-down direction. Finally, participants discussed the need to begin discussions with publishers.

The following actions resulted:

• The Synthesis Team will publish a progress report every two months to inform regions, sectors, agencies and OSTP about their progress.
• The National Assessment leadership will begin discussions with a report designer on the layout and publication of the report.

Timetable

The Synthesis Team discussed additions and revisions to their timetable. The next meeting is scheduled for April 12-14 in Annapolis, MD. [Note that there is a more detailed timeline for NAST members with specific assignments]:

Certification

I certify that these Minutes accurately reflect discussions at this Meeting:

Melissa J. Taylor, Rapporteur