Overview

The seventh official meeting of the U. S. National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST) took place August 10-20 at the Jonsson Center in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. The meeting was chaired by Tony Janetos, Tom Karl, and Jerry Melillo, the Co-Chairs of the NAST.

Eleven of the thirteen members of the NAST participated in all or part of the meeting. There were also about 20 additional attendees.

Attendance

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

• Eric Barron, Pennsylvania State University
• Virginia Burkett, U. S. Geological Survey
• Thomas Cecich, Glaxo-Wellcome, Inc.
• Katharine Jacobs, Arizona Department of Water Resources
• Tony Janetos, World Resources Institute (Co-Chair)
• Linda Joyce, USDA Forest Service
• Tom Karl, NOAA National Climatic Data Center (Co-Chair)
• Jerry Melillo, Marine Biology Laboratory, Woods Hole (Co-Chair)
• Barbara Miller, Rankin International/World Bank
• Edward Parson, Harvard,/Kennedy School of Government
• Richard Richels, EPRI

Other attendees included:

• Rosina Bierbaum, Office of Science and Technology Policy
• Lynne Carter, National Assessment Coordination Office
• Robert Corell, National Science Foundation
• Kris Ebi, EPRI
• Robert Feeler, U. S. Geological Survey
• Benjamin Felzer, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
• John Field, NOAA
• John H. Gibbons, ex officio, attended, representing the ad hoc review panel of the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology,
• Paul Grabhorn, Grabhorn Associates
• Susan Hassol, Aspen Global Change Institute
• Debbie Hutchinson, U S. Geological Survey
• Michael MacCracken, National Assessment Coordination Office
• LaShaunda Malone, National Assessment Coordination Office
• John Reilly, MIT
• Cynthia Rosenzweig, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
• Joel Smith, Stratus Consulting
• Melissa Taylor, National Assessment Coordination Office
• Justin Wettstein, National Assessment Coordination Office
• Tom Wilbanks, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Welcome and Objectives

The meeting convened at 10 AM on August 10. Co-Chairs of the Synthesis Team outlined the objective for the meeting as being to review existing draft materials and to draft additional materials in an effort to prepare the first full draft of the Synthesis Team report for technical review. The meeting was to be primarily a time for reviewing comments from the initial meeting of the ad hoc PCAST review panel, drafting and editing of text for the Synthesis Team report, developing ideas for figures, and starting to consider ideas for the overall messages of the Synthesis Team report. In addition, the leaders of the sectoral studies would be available to help with the relevant sections of the report. Plans would also be made about next steps in the drafting and review process and the proposed schedule.

Summary of Discussions

Review of first draft of Overview Report: The ad hoc PCAST review panel had reviewed the initial draft of the proposed Overview document and offered a number of comments during the briefing. They generally liked the proposed format, the overall tone, and the clarity of presentation. High priority issues raised by the reviewers included explaining the differences between the two sets of models being used, the need for strong chapters in the Foundation report with extensive references, and the need to work on ensuring consistency between the regional and sectoral reports and the Overview and Foundation reports. Additional recommendations were to make the document more quantitative, place the results of the two climate models being recommended in the context of a fuller set of possible models, provide recommendations for research needs, work to more fully to relate impacts to possible adaptation options, consider framing issue in terms used in risk management, include more consideration of the issue of biodiversity, develop umbrella messages, treat international couplings where relevant, and consider impacts on the quality of life. Considerable discussion ensued with the intent being to develop ideas for how best to address these issues in the Overview and Foundation chapters.

Umbrella Messages: Discussion concerned how to present key messages (text, diagrams), number of messages, a suggested taxonomy of possible messages (e.g., irreversible consequences, consequences that were costly to deal with, manageable consequences, etc. and whether consequences were near-term or long-term), and possible content. The NAST liaisons for each region and sector were asked to suggest key messages to the NAST Co-Chairs.

Reviews of Foundation draft chapters: Extensive discussion took place of each of the draft chapters for the Foundation report. Types of topics discussed included scope of chapter, key issues identified, potential coping options mentioned, key stories and illustrations, etc.

Graphics: Extensive discussion took place of possible graphics. Suggestions were made of possible graphics for consideration by the particular NAST member working on each chapter.

Plenary Discussion on Research Priorities: The NAST considered a draft chapter on research priorities prepared by Tom Wilbanks, chair of the Interregional Council. Discussion covered issues about the emphasis in the draft on research needs versus organizational aspects, research needs versus monitoring needs, issues of cascading uncertainties, coupling to stakeholder needs, the need to point out key limitations, how specific versus how visionary to be, the connection of research and impacts, etc.

Review Process: The NAST discussed plans for the review process. The first stage would be a technical review (much like the IPCC conducts). The second phase would be an expert review of the whole report (much like the National Research Council conducts) that would be handled by the ad hoc review panel. The third phase would be the CENR/NSTC level review.

Schedule: It was proposed that suggested revisions to the draft documents be submitted by September 24, that the full set of revised documents would be distributed to the NAST for comment about October 18, and that the technical review would begin about November 1 and conclude about November 30. It was suggested that the next NAST meeting would be in mid- December to consider the comments. With this schedule, a revised draft would be available to circulate for expert review in late January and the next revision would be submitted to the NSTC review process about March 1, with review and revisions to be completed by about April 1 and printing by about May 1.

Presentations:

• Robert Feeler of the US Geological Survey was invited to make a presentation to the NAST on the status of research efforts to predict changes in coastlines. He described a USGS study of the Long Island NY area and the issue of beach erosion. He also reported USGS findings that barrier islands that have been stable for several thousands of years are now starting to change, suggesting some threshold is being exceeded and the islands are becoming more susceptible to washover.
• John Reilly reported on the progress and plans of the Agriculture sector team, indicating that they had commissioned a number of papers and modeling studies were going to be done on crop productivity, etc. He indicated that the Agriculture team got started quite late and so that its results would be coming in relatively late in the process.

Assignments

The following table was prepared to clarify who has lead responsibility for drafting each section. EC: Executive Committee and generally means Susan Hassol synthesizing inputs of the NAST. An asterisk (*) means that the same document will be used for both Overview and Foundation documents. This table also shows all of the major sections and summaries that will be in the report, with the exception of acknowledgements in the back, the listing of NAST members and other lead authors in the front, and the White House letter.

Estimated Timing of Interim Submissions

(OD: Overview; FD: Foundation; *indicates same text/graphic will be used for both OD and FD)

• Executive Summary - by end Woods Hole*
• About this Report - by end Woods Hole*
• Impacts Map - by end Woods Hole*
• Ecological - OD by end Woods Hole; FD by week Sept. 13
• Socioeconomic - both by week of September 6
• Climate - OD by week August 30; FD by week September 20
• Sector Map - by week August 30*
• Region Map - by week August 30*
• Conclusions - by week August 30*
• Research Needs - both by week September 20th

• Alaska - both by week September 20th
• Great Plains - OD by Woods Hole; FD by week September 6
• Islands - OD by Woods Hole; FD by week September 6
• Midwest - both by week Sept. 13 or 20
• NE - OD by Woods Hole; FD by September 6
• SE - both by week August 30
• PNW - both by week September 13
• West - both by week September 6
• Native - OD by week September 6; FD by week September 13

• Coasts - OD by week Sept. 6; FD by week Sept. 13?
• Water - both by week Sept. 13, pending final check of AWRA papers
• Agriculture - both by week September 20
• Forests - OD by Woods Hole; FD by week September 13
• Health - both by week September 13

Proposed Timetable

A timetable was developed based on three review stages: technical review, integrated review, and agency review (NSTC). NAST members felt that the timetable was likely very ambitious and was likely to slip. In addition, if the identified review stages change (e.g., needing to include a full public comment period), the timetable would also need to be adjusted. Thus, the timetable was viewed as tentative (particularly dates after the technical review), to be updated as work progressed and at the December 1999 meeting.

By September 24: NAST authors submit revised text

October 18: Assembled set of documents will be sent back to the NAST for proofing

November 1: Drafts to be sent out for Technical Review

• This review will involve both Overview and Foundation chapters -- reviewers will receive the full Overview and Foundation chapters relevant to their expertise
• It is proposed that this technical review involve 100-150 reviewers (to be determined), plus key agency people

November 30: Comments are due back from reviewers

December 1-January 15, 2000: NAST authors respond to comments and submit revised sections

• NAST Meeting to take place December 15-16

January 17: Proposed date for documents to be sent out for Integrated Review

• This will involve approximately 12 experts nominated by the ad hoc PCAST panel
• They will receive drafts of the Overview Document (laid out), and Foundation Document (line numbered), also with color graphics

February 1: Comments are due

February 1-18: NAST authors respond to Integrated Review comments and submit revised sections

March 1: NSTC Review

March 15: Optimistic estimate of when comments will be back from NSTC

March 17-April 1: NAST will fold in final comments

April 1: Final draft goes to publisher

End April: Documents are ready to be mailed

Materials for or at the Meeting

Materials distributed for consideration at or at the meeting:

• July/August draft of the Overview Report
• Drafts of several chapters of the Foundation Report (including first draft of research chapter)

Certification

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

______________________________________________
Jerry M. Melillo, NAST Co-Chair