Revisiting the COSA Questionnaire November 14, 2018 Stacee Karras The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

Meeting Topics since December 2015 March 2017 Introduction to BOEM ESP BOEM Strategic Framework COSA Feedback on Strategic Framework April 2016 Mapping of Strategic Framework to Risk Assessment Refinement of Strategic Framework Criteria Approaches for Developing Research Priorities Mapping of Previous SDP Study Profiles to Priority Topics Discussed Geophysical & Geological Permitting for the Gulf of Mexico Region Evaluation of Pilot Profiles July 2016 June 2017 Identification of High-Level Goals and Priorities Presentation of Profiles BOEM’s Strategic Framework   Measuring Progress toward Strategic Priorities and Research Goals April 2018 Peer-review Process Science Informed Decision-making/Structured Decision-making Arctic Sea-Ice Modeling and Forecasting Needs and Advances Improving ESP Process November 2016 Case Studies on Feedback Loop Risk Assessment (with Case Study of Marine Mammals and Sound) High Quality and Best Available Science June 2018 Discussion of COSA Questionnaire Role of COSA in Studies Development Plan Relationship between the PICOC approach (and SDP profiles), Strategic Framework, and white paper

Questionnaire Results and COSA Progress The following slides are adapted from a presentation by former COSA Chair, Gary Griggs (November 2016 COSA meeting). Green text indicates an issue/topic that has been the subject of discussion at a prior COSA meeting. Grey text indicates an issue/topic that is likely to be outside of the purview of COSA

Top Research Priorities and Challenges Cumulative impacts & risks Assessing impacts to entire ecosystems Differentiating effects on marine life from climate change vs. human activities Noise - cumulative impacts on marine mammals, understanding proven impacts of individual BOEM actions Oil spills - Advancing current state of knowledge of oil spill risk analysis and cumulative effects of spills on marine life Quality control on contracted research Competition in the contracting process, developing and cultivating in-house capabilities

Top Research Priorities and Challenges Tracking or monitoring recommendations in study reports Communicating ESP results Long-term ecological monitoring Climate change - cumulative impacts, understanding/ incorporating climate change into NEPA assessments Better communication/interaction between regions and headquarters Effects of decommissioning structures Sub-lethal effects Air quality Lack of a BOEM overarching management goal

Top Constraints Leadership: agency does not appear to want to address controversial topics; managerial influence on exciting science vs baseline studies; focus on mission science vs “science for science’s sake” Collaboration: internal collaboration to develop priorities; coordination with BOEM headquarters Funding: Inadequate funding/limited budgets to accomplish agency mission Image: Agency doesn’t have culture of transparency; problems with popularity or public perception Personnel: inadequate science staff, even with outside agencies, to accomplish agency mission: plan approvals, studies, regulation rewrites, GAO requests, NEPA writing; BSEE should study and evaluate mitigation effectiveness and compliance through BOEM rather than contracting out

Top Constraints Management/time/conference attendance support for scientists to raise their stature Increasing number of large, long-term projects that reduces new project starts; same groups conducting science leads to agenda-driven results Inadequate support for tracking recommendations in study reports Internal BOEM IT barriers to data sharing; need more internal collaboration and communication among BOEM scientists; need to learn new technologies Strategic Plan/Priorities: Lack of overarching focus for scientific/research goals; No clear high-level priorities; inconsistencies between BOEM mission and study objectives; an actual strategic plan would assist in resource allocation across disciplines within regions; develop strategic plan that leads to more program type of research rather than single limited scope studies

Measuring Progress Toward Research Questions Don’t know or unaware of metrics to measure progress Completion of studies and availability and accessibility of studies and inclusion in NEPA documents If it is done, doesn't go from headquarters to regions Success probably measured in federal court and court of public opinion Goals not set so progress can’t be measured; no overarching management goals so no way to measure progress; BOEM needs a use-inspired overarching question and management goal to be efficient and effective Monitoring success of mitigation in place Not measured-most important questions and disciplines constantly fighting over funding

Measuring Progress Toward Research Questions Relationships with other entities are strongest measure of progress Making reports/data available to public Could analyze NEPA documents to see if we answer questions, then see if these lead to refined mitigation and monitoring Don’t understand how top research is selected, but believe it is based on politics, publicity considerations, or anything but science or relevance Do products support NEPA analysis and decision-making; does research answer questions, inform analyses, and result in improved OCS resource use and reduced impacts?

Steps BOEM uses to Ensure Best Science for Decision-Making Peer review - Most common response (40% of respondents); through external panel of experts (agencies, NAS committee, editorial boards, journal articles, conferences) - view is that all would help improve quality of BOEM studies Address lack of creativity in identifying and addressing problems facing agency; encourage staff to actually do science, rather than read and listen to others; create culture where creativity and productivity are rewarded Strategic planning - develop plan based on important topics and information gaps; need to track study results and incorporation into environmental risk assessments, and identifying and filling study gaps

Steps BOEM uses to Ensure Best Science for Decision-Making Better communication and application of results to mitigation and environmental documents ESP needs to be more transparent on how projects selected; not clear if management actually read study reports or technical summaries; Fully integrate ESP into mission needs Increase budget and scientific staff to expand expertise

How Can COSA Help? COSA needs to get more familiar with BOEM mission and science program; understand processes, time limits, resource issues Planning: Assist BOEM management on better strategic planning; identify studies that would help BOEM mission Prioritize studies regardless of regional priorities Peer review - large number of respondents request a scientific review group/panel to assist in decision making, provide feedback, priority setting, structured review, analyzing data needs Too much effort spent on trying to educate COSA on what BOEM does, rather than concentrating on science Draft study profiles, methodology, necessary results; review study profile, methodology and results

How Can COSA Help? Use creativity to help BOEM channel theirs to work within their constraints Follow up on most doable and relevant suggestions from the questionnaire Independently review and rank study profiles (rather than having this happen at regions and/or headquarters) - strongly encourage COSA to provide peer review of ESP Get management to agree on actionable change, hold them to timeline and then check to make sure progress is being made towards goals