**Summary Response to NOAA's Science Advisory Board Review**

**National Ocean Service, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science**

**Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research**

**November 2002**

At the request of NOAA's National Ocean Service (NOS), the Science
Advisory Board (SAB) sponsored a review of the Center for Coastal
Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research (CCEHBR), part of NOS'
National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS).

NOS posed three key questions with regard to the review of CCEHBR:

(1) What is the quality of the science being conducted?

(2) How well is CCEHBR connected to its clients?

(3) How well does CCEHBR function as an integrated research laboratory,
    rather than as a series of separate research units?

In summary, the panel found that CCEHBR science is "*relevant and good,
with much of it being excellent*". In addition, the report stated that a
"*diverse community of local, regional, national and even international
clients are uniformly satisfied with the CCEHBR products they receive*".
Finally, the panel found that "*the 6 research branches at CCEHBR may
have room for greater synergy, generally complement each other well and
there is strong integration with the larger research community in the
Charleston area*". Thus, the consensus of the review panel was that
CCEHBR's science was generally excellent, well connected to its clients
and well integrated.

The report identified the following five **bold font** cross cutting
recommendations to which we have added CCEHBR's responses.

**1. Funding level for and funding formula within NOS must be augmented
significantly for CCEHBR to resolve its personnel recruitment and
retention crisis.**

-   *CCEHBR Response:* Funding for CCEHBR is generally set by
    congressional mandates, but may be augmented by additional
    allocation of funds by NCCOS headquarters. For example, NCCOS has
    set in place specific inter-center research team planning for
    several key research areas including Harmful Algal Bloom and Coral
    Reef research, which has resulted in more directed funding from
    NCCOS. The issue of retention of junior research staff, many of whom
    are contract staff, is generally limited by the current FTE ceilings
    imposed on NOS, NCCOS and CCEHBR not by funding to CCEHBR. The added
    cost of contractors is 25% greater than FTEs salary and benefits
    costs. This additional labor cost limits the ability of CCEHBR to
    most effectively use it financial resources.

> The resolution of contractor/staff retention issue may require several
> potential innovative solutions. One simple solution would be to allow
> the use of Term/Temporary Appointments, which would not count against
> FTE ceiling, as it does now. This option allows for contract employees
> to accrue government time of service as well as use of full government
> benefits. In addition, there would be substantial cost savings to the
> government.

2\. Problems with infrastructure and insufficient laboratory facilities
must be resolved

-   *CCEHBR Response:* This is a critical problem which has been abated
    *in part* by new research space (6000 sq.ft.) and equipment
    (currently \$2.7 million among all 5 research partners) in the
    Hollings Marine Laboratory. Procedures have been implemented at HML
    through its Science Advisory Board to ensure adequate review of
    equipment and space needs of the partners, and its consensus
    building process is effective in making procurements and space
    allocations. These operations are helping to resolve infrastructure
    issues facing CCEHBR's Chemistry and Biomolecular research programs
    that have moved to HML.

> However, CCEHBR's operating budget (excluding salaries and basic
> facilities operations) is insufficient to meet the need for [equipment
> replacement]{.underline} within the CCEHBR facility. To address this
> problem, NCCOS has proposed setting aside a certain percentage of
> annual operating funds (excluding salaries and basic facilities
> operations) for new equipment upgrades, including both IT and research
> equipment. This policy will, in part, address some of CCEHBR's long
> term equipment needs, but not in *toto.* To bring CCEHBR up to a full
> 7 year depreciation schedule for scheduled replacement of equipment
> would require \$1million dollars/year in funding beyond our current
> budget. Further, [upgrading the facility]{.underline} would require
> roughly \$2.25 million. This renovation of CCEHBR would require
> re-negotiation of our current lease with SC Department of Natural
> Resources.

3\. The SAB Review Panel encourages the development of an explicit
policy on priority of staff time and the ability of CCEHBR staff to
react quickly to coastal environmental crisis as they occur*.*

-   *CCEHBR Response:* CCEHBR emphasizes that partnered and external
    funding obligations have never prevented CCEHBR from fully
    responding to an emergency or priority *ad hoc* request. Our
    scientists react promptly and effectively to a variety of coastal
    issues and requests by other federal/state agencies and academic
    institutions on issues of mutual interest. All externally funded
    projects must be focused on research priorities established by NOAA,
    NOS and NCCOS in their respective strategic plans and provide
    synergy and additional resources to move science forward in these
    research areas. Our policy requires CCEHBR scientists to provide
    justification for approval of all externally funded projects at both
    the CCEHBR and NCCOS level. CCEHBR has a defined mechanism for
    initiation of other research collaborations which begins with the
    initiating scientists, who get clearance at the Center Level,
    followed by notifications to the Director of NCCOS and incorporation
    of project plans under the agency's strategic plans. In FY02, CCEHBR
    had only 7 projects (16%) out of its total of 44 research projects
    which were supported only in part by external research funds. CCEHBR
    feels that this level of external funding is not disproportionate
    and indicates that both NCCOS and CCEHBR provide effective oversight
    and management of research activities at CCEHBR. Our experience has
    been that externally funded and partnered projects provide greater
    exposure for and technology transfer of CCEHBR science to a greater
    scientific audience, providing NOAA with greater opportunity to
    serve the public.

4\. If CCEHBR is to remain in NOS, a stronger commitment in actions and
funding must be made to support science for discovering new knowledge as
well as applying existing knowledge to the problems of coastal
ecosystems and coastal communities.

CCEHBR Response: NCCOS understands and supports research discovery as a
vital component of its mission to provide Coastal Managers with
scientific understanding and tools needed to balance NOAA\'s
environmental, social, and economic goals. CCEHBR maintains an extensive
service component and an outstanding record of applying its scientific
knowledge to coastal issues. Most coastal issues are complex and
multi-dimensional, thus requiring significant efforts to educate and
involve the public in the decision making process. We agree with the
Review Panel's comment that the service component of CCEHBR's Science,
fostered as well by NOS/NCCOS, is essential in providing the most
effective mechanism for addressing coastal issues. Separating scientific
research from public outreach is ineffective in addressing coastal
issues, particularly when many solutions to coastal problems rest with
managing behaviors and activities of the public. Conversely, integrating
scientific research with service/public outreach is critical in
developing effective ways to manage and protect the coasts.

5\. Priority must be given to forcing greater collaborative links to
social scientists in academic and government centers in the region.

-   *CCEHBR Response:* Since the review by the Panel, CCEHBR scientists
    have developed two new links directly involving social scientists in
    research. First, University of Charleston and CCEHBR scientists
    collaborated to synthesize scientific research findings into "lay
    public" information products, including brochures, power point
    presentations and an eventual short film on coastal urbanization
    issues, such as chemical contaminants, bacterial pollution sources,
    and impervious surface/landscape modifications. Second, the Cape
    Romain Characterization Project includes an interview-based public
    outreach project with various population segments to understand
    historical and expected future landscape and waterscape uses unique
    and important to social culture of this region. CCEHBR scientists
    involved in the LUCES project are also working with Sea Grant and
    scientists from other institutions in developing plans to further
    integrate research science into social policy. CCEHBR remains
    committed to developing more links with the social science
    community.