Overview

The ninth official meeting of the U. S. National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST) took place May 31-June 1, 2000 at the Renaissance Hotel in Washington DC. 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 over 25 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.
• Robert Corell, American Meteorological Society
• Katharine Jacobs, Arizona Department of Water Resources
• Tony Janetos, World Resources Institute (Co-Chair)-May 31 only
• Linda Joyce, USDA Forest Service
• Tom Karl, NOAA National Climatic Data Center (Co-Chair)
• Jerry Melillo, Marine Biology Laboratory, Woods Hole (Co-Chair)
• Granger Morgan, Carnegie Mellon University
• Richard Richels, EPRI
• David Schimel, National Center for Atmospheric Research-May 31 only

Other attendees for all or part of the meeting included:

• Wendy Adams, Office of Science and Technology Policy
• Peter Backlund, Office of Science and Technology Office
• Mitchell Baer, Department of Energy
• Ann Carlson, NASA
• Lynne Carter, National Assessment Coordination Office
• Nakia Dawkins, National Assessment Coordination Office
• Andy Dessler, Office of Science and Technology Policy
• David Easterling, NOAA National Climate Data Center
• Howard Feldman, American Petroleum Institute
• Janet Gamble, Environmental Protection Agency
• Paul Grabhorn, Grabhorn Associates
• Susan Hassol, Aspen Global Change Institute
• John Houghton, Department of Energy
• Will Jackson, AA Temps
• Russell Jones, American Petroleum Institute
• Michael MacCracken, National Assessment Coordination Office
• LaShaunda Malone, National Assessment Coordination Office
• Chris Miller, NOAA
• Susie Moser, Union of Concerned Scientists
• Edward Parson, Harvard/Kennedy School of Government
• Lloyd Ritter, Union of Concerned Scientists
• S. Fred Singer, The Science and Environmental Policy Project
• Joel Smith, Stratus Consulting
• Al Solomon, Office of Science and Technology Policy
• Richard Somerville, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
• Tom Spence, National Science Foundation
• Robert Worrest, Global Change Research Information Office

Welcome and Objectives

The meeting convened at 8:30 AM. Chair Melillo explained the procedures for the meeting, indicating that the time for public comment would be later on the first day for the meeting and that discussions at other times were to be limited to those who were serving as authors of the report. Following introductions, the Co-Chairs of the Synthesis Team provided an overview of where the report stands and plans for the meeting. Basically, the preview version of the public comment draft (dated May 2000 on the cover) has been distributed to the NAST. This meeting is intended to go over any remaining points on the draft overview and foundation chapters and to agree on changes that need to be made for them to be released for public comment.

Summary of Discussions during First Day

In plenary, the NAST members were invited to indicate the key matters that they thought needed to be resolved before the current draft could be released. It was agreed that editorial comments and suggested rewordings would be handed in to the editor and taken care of and that only substantive issues should be raised. They would be consolidated overnight and considered in the morning session on the second day. Issues that required more work than could be rapidly accomplished would be identified and worked on during the public comment period. Each of the NAST members provided suggestions. All felt that the draft was much improved from the last version. Issues raised concerned both style and substance. Stylistic questions concerned issues such as readability, the differing lengths of the various regional sections, on how the trend maps are explained, the incongruity of the poem in the Overview, and many suggested changes to clarify the language. Content issues focused on such matters as differing tones in different parts of the report (e.g., on agriculture in the regional vs. sector sections of the draft, the water and health chapters being more a discussion of issues than tied to the need to make clear that the scenarios assume no mitigation, that future assessments need to address consequences of stabilizing emissions, that there was a need to improve presentation of timing of consequences, on the need to tighten the key message, on the ecosystems section only covering land ecosystems, the limitations in the research chapter in terms of recommendations, the phrasing of the impact on alpine tundra, on the reliance on scenarios versus other indicators of climate change, on issues of the lexicon and word choice, on the need to study the potential for regeneration, and a number of more specific ones.

For most of the first day, the NAST subdivided into three groups, each of which discussed the status of six of the eighteen chapters (actually seventeen chapters and the research appendix) in the foundation document. Each of these groups was open to members of the public to attend. In addition to points about editing and minor fixes, the discussion covered the following chapters:

1. Group A was chaired by Tom Karl and also included NAST member Kathy Jacobs along with contributing authors Joel Smith, Dave Easterling, Lynne Carter, and Mike MacCracken. Points raised about the climate chapter included the need to make clear how the temperature range for the US compared to the global value, how the value in the 21st century will compare to the 20th, and the new findings from NOAA/NCDC indicating that increased precipitation is indeed associated with increased flooding. Discussion about the Midwest chapter focused on giving a quantitative estimate of the range of changes in level of the Great Lakes, how the findings on lake-effect snows in the chapter compares with the NE chapter, and the need to mention that increased water flows could create discharges that affect water treatment capacity. Discussion on the Native chapter focused on the need to make clear that Native Peoples could respond to fluctuations but would likely have a problem with significant change, and that the poem fit in better in the Native chapter in that the chapter was authored mainly by those closer to Native philosophies. Discussion of the Water chapter focused on the issue of the new NOAA findings relating increases in precipitation and runoff; the issue was thoroughly reviewed and the basis for the new findings was carefully explained. Only minor points were raised about the revised Islands chapter. Regarding the West chapter, the key recommendation was to go over it closely using the new definitions for the lexicon.

2. Group B was chaired by Tony Janetos and also included NAST members Granger Morgan, Tom Cecich, Bob Corell, Eric Barron, and Rich Richels and also included former NAST member Ted Parson. There was extensive discussion of the socioeconomic chapter, mainly focused on conforming it better with the Overview in terms of content and readability, as well as being a bit clearer on how the socioeconomic projections were used and their significance. For the Northeast chapter, a number of points were raised concerning the discussion on sea level, air pollution, and forests. For the Health chapter, a number of issues were considered, including air pollution impacts, the effects of extreme events, the lack of quantitative new studies, the possible extent of adaptation, and health infrastructure. For the Pacific Northwest, a few minor issues were mentioned and some clarifications were suggested. For Alaska, the comparison to the Exxon Valdez needs to be better developed or dropped and a number of points of clarification were suggested. The research chapter drew extensive discussion and a number of changes were suggested that might better generalize it; the key issue was how much detail to include (trying to be complete) versus how to summarize the materials.

3. Group C was chaired by Jerry Melillo and included NAST members Linda Joyce, Virginia Burkett, and Dave Schimel, and sector liaison LaShaunda Malone. The title of the Ecosystems chapter was changed to "Future Vegetation and Biogeochemical Dynamics: Scenarios for the Conterminous United States." Some reviewers had asked why the chapter did not focus on animal species. It was explained that it was never intended that the chapter would cover animal species although this is recognized as an area of importance that may be addressed in future assessments. A paragraph was added to explain the methodology used in this chapter. It was stressed that consistency was needed, especially between this chapter and the Forest chapter. Discussion of the Southeast chapter focused on checking the lexicon of the chapter as well as what role hardwoods would play as a source of timber in the future. Overall, it was agreed that through all of the chapters, consistency was needed in the discussions of El Nino. The Great Plains chapter had only minor editing changes. Discussion of the Forest chapter, highlighted that the summary and chapter order and level of detail needed to be made more even. The "Crucial Unknowns" sections also needed to be re-ordered and clarified. For the Coastal chapter, a few minor issues were mentioned. The need to make sure that there was consistency on coral issues was discussed. The chapter also needed clarification of a few lexicon points. Discussion of the Agriculture chapter focused on the importance of clarifying the methodology used for that chapter and how that methodology differed from other chapters. In addition, it was discussed that the text would make several references to text in other sections of the draft to clarify issues within the chapter. The Agriculture and Forest chapters need to use consistent names for the models that they both used.

Following the Public Comment Period (see below), the chairs reported on their early afternoon meeting with the director of OSTP and with the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. At the SGCR meeting, most agencies were present and there was keen interest in the report. Suggestions that were made concerned some changes to the research section and more clearly indicating in the Overview the role of USGCRP in making the assessment possible. The agencies agreed that, with the final set of changes, the report was ready to be released for public comment. It was noted that the ad hoc PCAST panel had examined the changes and did not have any further suggestions to make prior to the report being released for the public comment period.

Summary of Public Comment Period

At 4:30 PM, as indicated on the agenda, members of the public attending the meeting were invited to comment. Russell Jones of API made three points: (1) It would be important to have the regional and sectoral reports available during the review process if they provide substance to the NAST report; (2) While he applauded the general effort to use the lexicon, he questioned whether it was possible to be so specific about percentages (e.g., telling the difference between 33% and 34%); he indicated that he wished the lexicon definitions had less sharp edges; (3) In that the IPCC suggests that regional predictions are uncertain, regional analyses are premature and should not be pushed as far as was being done and that appropriate caveats should be included up front. Responses from NAST members indicated that these were plausible scenarios and not predictions, that some regional features were indeed regional (snow cover in the West, etc.), and that these issues were discussed more in the present Overview and Foundation documents than had previously been the case. Paul Grabhorn of Grabhorn Associates addressed the NAST and indicated that he felt honored to be working with this team on this report. Susie Moser of UCS addressed the NAST and indicated how impressed she was by how hard the NAST is working on this report.

Summary of Discussions during Second Day

The meeting was called to order at 8:40 AM. The Chair reminded NAST members that it was essential for authors to provide citations to their figures. The discussion then moved to resolving a number of points raised about the draft Overview document:

1. The amount of projected change in Great Lake levels would be added. Assignment to David Easterling or Tom Karl.
2. Questions raised about the projection of significant impacts on corals and how this could be reconciled with the existence of corals during the Cretaceous needed to be investigated. Mike MacCracken was asked to solicit a response from Bob Buddemeier of the Coastal team and to circulate the response to the NAST chairs.
3. Questions about the potential influence of methane clathrate releases will be followed up with USGS.
4. The poem in the Native section of the Overview will be removed; it will remain in the chapter.
5. Several graphics do not come up to the present. Authors were asked to try and get relevant data.
6. On reconciling the vegetation responses shown in the ecosystems section and in the forest section, Jerry Melillo will add some text.
7. On the graphic of changes in forest amount prior to the 19th century, the lines will be dashed if time to redo the figure permits.
8. Regarding adding a point about the resiliency of the US economy, revised text will be drafted and circulated for comment, and then be included. Assignment to Granger Morgan and Rich Richels.
9. On the need to provide a diagram that would provide context on emission scenarios in this version if there was time; if not in the next draft.
10. On better indicating the time dimension on impacts, it was suggested that a long-term task needed to be to develop a graphic of impacts coming over time.
11. On the issue of different tones in the summary and the conclusions, perhaps as a result of the ordering of the text, it was proposed that some rewriting be done.
12. On the need to more explicitly mention international linkages, it was suggested that text be added to indicate that effects on the US will depend on how the rest of the world can or cannot adapt.
13. The issue of changes to the research section were deferred to later in the meeting in that new draft text was being prepared.

Attendees at the various group meetings then summarized the results of the first day's discussions.

• Group A reported that all chapters had minor changes and would quickly be ready to be made public, except that the Water chapter team needed to resolve how best to present the new findings on precipitation and streamflow. The matter was referred to Kathy Jacobs and Tom Karl.
• Group B reported that the socioeconomic and research chapters both needed significant attention, while the rest were in good shape.
• Group C indicated that most changes needed were minor.

It was agreed that the chapters could be revised quickly, and the goal for them to be submitted was Tuesday, June 6. With that, it was agreed that the Foundation document would be ready to go for public review, with the chapters being made available as "pdf" files. Authors were reminded to make sure they had figure captions and figures in to Paul Grabhorn.

The NAST then discussed the coming schedule. The 60-day public comment period would be scheduled for June 12 to August 11, during which the report would be held fixed, although authors could continue to gather material for later editing in during revisions. A one-day meeting was scheduled for August 24 in the Washington DC area (possibly at USGS) for the NAST to review key issues raised during the public comment period. After completing a quick update, the revised version would be submitted through the USGCRP agencies to the NSTC for a formal review and signoff. Publication and submission to Congress would follow. As a final version is developed, a CD-ROM presentation kit and other materials will be developed for use by the NAST. More detailed discussions of the planned release indicated that this report will be the NAST's to present, and it is expected that the agencies will have little to say during the comment period in that this is a draft report. A key point, not apparently recognized by those already commenting on the report, is the extensive revision that has gone on since the first draft.

The status of the revisions to the research section were then considered. For the public comment draft, the specific recommendations that had been criticized would be dropped. A subgroup of NAST would be asked to work on more extensive revisions over the next month.

To close the meeting, the Chairs reiterated that revised chapters are due in by June 6. It was then agreed unanimously that, as moved by Granger Morgan and seconded by Virginia Burkett, the Overview and the Chapters are ready for release for the public comment period.

The meeting adjourned at 1:55 PM.

Materials Made Available for or at the Meeting

Materials distributed for consideration at or at the meeting (and provided for inspection by the public at the meeting):

• March 2000 Expert Review draft of the Overview Report
• March 2000 Expert Review drafts of foundation chapters
• April 17, 2000 Expert Review Comments Collation
• May 2000, Pre-Public Review draft of the Overview Report
• May 2000, Pre-Public Review drafts of the foundation chapters
• Draft of subset of review response memos to April 17, 2000 Expert Review Comments Collation

Certification

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

______________________________________________
Jerry M. Melillo, NAST Co-Chair