National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science Human Dimensions Strategic Plan, 58812-58817 [07-5111]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58812-58817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5111]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[FY2009-FY2014]


National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science Human Dimensions 
Strategic Plan

AGENCY: National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS), National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce 
(DOC).

ACTION: Notice of availability of the NCCOS Human Dimensions Strategic 
Plan (FY2009-FY2014) and responses to public comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NOAA publishes this notice to announce the availability of the 
NCCOS Human Dimensions Strategic Plan (FY2009-FY2014) and provide 
responses to public comments requested through a Federal Register 
Notice (Notice of availability and solicitation of public comments on 
the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science Draft Human Dimensions 
Strategic Plan (FY2008-FY2013), 72 FR 7418-7419 (Feb. 15, 2007)).

DATES: The NCCOS Human Dimensions Strategic Plan is effective FY2009-
FY2014.

ADDRESSES: The NCCOS Human Dimensions Strategic Plan (FY2009-FY2014) is 
available electronically at https://coastalscience.noaa.gov/human/
strategy/NCCOSHDPlan.pdf. Hard copies of the plan may be obtained by 
sending a request to nccos.hd@noaa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marybeth Bauer, PhD, by e-mail at 
nccos.hd@noaa.gov (preferred) or mail at NOAA National Ocean Service, 
National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, 1305 East-West Highway, NOS 
HQTR Route N/SCI, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The mission of NCCOS is to provide coastal 
managers and other decisionmakers with scientific information and tools 
needed to balance society's environmental, social, and economic goals 
in mitigating and adapting to ecosystem stressors such as climate 
change, extreme natural events, pollution, invasive species, and 
resource use. Humans are integral to ecosystems, and the human 
dimensions of ecosystems are an integral focus of the science needed to 
achieve this mission. Understanding the impact of humans on the ocean, 
the impacts of the ocean on humans, and the human aspects of ocean 
governance provides the scientific basis for ensuring ocean health and 
quality of life for this and future generations.
    Marine science and policy institutions in the United States and 
worldwide recognize that a deeper understanding of the human dimensions 
of ecosystems--human causes, consequences, and responses to ecosystem 
stress--is needed to foster improved support for coastal and ocean 
decisionmaking. Examples include the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean 
Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Integrated Management of Ocean 
Resources, United States Commission on Ocean Policy, Pew Oceans 
Commission, and NOAA's External Ecosystem Task Team.
    The NCCOS Human Dimensions Strategic Plan (FY2009-FY2014) 
establishes goals and objectives for fostering improved support of 
coastal and ocean decisionmaking by integrating human dimensions into 
the NCCOS's science program. It provides the basis for subsequent 
development of an implementation plan specifying programmatic elements 
such as strategies, outcomes, partnerships, and fiscal and human 
resources needs.
    Comments and Responses: On February 15, 2007, NCCOS published a 
notice of availability and solicitation of public comments on a Draft 
Human Dimensions Strategic Plan (Notice of availability and 
solicitation of public comments on the National Centers for Coastal 
Ocean Science Draft Human Dimensions Strategic Plan (FY2008-FY2013), 72 
FR 7418-7419 (Feb. 15, 2007)). During the 30-day public comment period, 
NCCOS received the following comments from the City of Craig, Alaska; 
Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education; Island Resources 
Foundation; New Jersey Marine Science Consortium; NOAA's National 
Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Science and Technology; NOAA's 
National Ocean Service, Coastal and Ocean Resource Economics Program; 
NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, Office of Weather 
and Air Quality and Climate Program Office; NOAA's Research Council; 
and University of Massachusetts-Amherst Human Dimensions of Marine and 
Coastal Ecosystems Program. In response to comments received, NCCOS 
revised the Draft Human Dimensions Strategic Plan as follows.

General Comments

    Comment 1: Several commenters commended NCCOS on taking this first 
step toward integrating the human element into coastal management and 
the required supporting scientific efforts.
    Response: NCCOS appreciates this encouragement and advocacy from 
its coastal science and management partners, and looks forward to 
working with them to implement human dimensions research priorities.
    Comment 2: Several commenters stated that the document is too long 
and recommended eliminating redundancy.
    Response: NCCOS considerably reduced the length of the document and 
eliminated redundancy. To accommodate diverse levels of interest, NCCOS 
formatted the plan to describe each strategic objective at four levels 
of detail: A title, summary statement, concise rationale, and 
discussion. The discussion sections provide justification and 
explanation of strategic objectives at a level of detail that NCCOS 
believes is critical to cultivate a workforce that understands, 
appreciates, and facilitates the mission value of human dimensions 
research.
    Comment 3: Several commenters stated that the document includes 
excessive social science jargon.
    Response: NCCOS minimized social science jargon. However, NCCOS 
included and defined key technical terms such as socioeconomic driver, 
ecosystem service, mitigation, non-market value, and resilience. In 
doing so, NCCOS is responsive to the finding of the Social Science 
Review Panel to NOAA's Science Advisory Board that developing social 
science capacity in NOAA is challenged by ``a lack of formal 
understanding of what social science is and what its contributions can 
be, leading to an organizational culture that is not conducive to 
social science research.'' By including and defining key technical 
terms, NCCOS aims to foster the human dimensions literacy and common 
language needed to develop an integral human dimensions focus within 
its science program.
    Comment 5: Several commenters stated that the plan should include 
programmatic elements such as projects, timelines, fiscal and human 
resource needs, and deliverables.
    Response: As explained in the ``Future Directions'' section of the 
``Overview,'' NCCOS wishes to clarify that this plan provides the basis 
for a

[[Page 58813]]

follow-up implementation plan specifying programmatic elements such as 
those recommended.
    Comment 6: Several commenters recommended discussing specific 
programs, projects, or partnerships.
    Response: NCCOS affirms that this level of detail is beyond the 
scope of this plan, which is intended to establish broad human 
dimensions research priorities critical to achieve NCCOS' mission.
    Comment 7: Several commenters stated that the scope of work 
outlined in the plan is overly ambitious for its time frame and 
unrealistic given NOAA budgets.
    Response: NCCOS wishes to clarify that this plan does not outline a 
scope of work. It is intended to provide high-level strategic guidance 
as a basis for programmatic development responsive to changing fiscal 
conditions, legislative requirements, and other constraints and 
opportunities.
    Comment 8: One commenter recommended clarifying how this plan will 
change human behaviors.
    Response: NCCOS revised Objective 1.2, ``Human Causes and 
Socioeconomic Drivers of Ecosystem Stress,'' to emphasize that 
``reducing stress on coastal systems generally requires accommodating 
or encouraging change in human behavioral patterns such as exurban 
development, agricultural practices, and resource use. Developing 
effective intervention strategies requires understanding behavioral 
patterns requiring remediation and their complex natural and 
socioeconomic drivers.'' In addition, understanding the human impacts 
of changes in ecosystem services (as discussed in Objectives 1.3, 
``Societal Consequences of Policy and Management Options,'' and 2.1, 
``Integrative Ecosystem Models and Decision Support Tools'') provides 
the impetus for behavioral change.
    Comment 9: One commenter recommended clarifying how the plan 
captures the role of climate change in ecosystems.
    Response: NCCOS emphasizes that the goals and objectives 
established in this plan cut across multiple stressors such as climate 
change, extreme natural events, pollution, invasive species, and 
resource use. The document discusses specific stressors in so far as 
needed to illustrate cross-cutting research needs.
    Comment 10: One commenter recommended explaining the process used 
to develop the plan and including an appendix that lists contributors 
and their contact information. This commenter stated that the National 
Ocean Service Social Science Team should have been involved in 
development of the plan.
    Response: NCCOS has amended the ``Message from the Director'' to 
explain that the plan was developed through an internal NCCOS process 
including content analysis of significant coastal and ocean science and 
management documents, vetted throughout NOAA, and substantively revised 
in response to public review and comments solicited through a Federal 
Register Notice. NCCOS relied upon the NOS Social Science Plan and 
subsequently requested comments from the National Ocean Service Social 
Science Team before finalizing the document. NCCOS has provided contact 
information for comments on the plan.
    Comment 11: One commenter expressed concern that the objectives are 
loosely defined and thus allow flexibility in interpretation of what 
will be accomplished.
    Response: NCCOS intentionally framed its human dimensions research 
goals and objectives in broad terms to enable flexibility in 
implementation as NCCOS priorities and capabilities change.
    Comment 12: One commenter recommended that the document put greater 
emphasis on the need to evaluate tradeoffs inherent to ecosystem 
management.
    Response: In the discussion of the ``Human Dimensions of 
Ecosystems,'' which has been moved from an appendix to the 
``Overview,'' NCCOS emphasizes that evaluating tradeoffs is fundamental 
to coastal management. In addition, NCCOS reconceptualized Objective 
1.1, retitled ``Coastal Decisionmaking,'' from (in the draft) the need 
for stakeholder assessment to (in the final document) the need for 
decision support tools guiding stakeholder participation in 
decisionmaking confronting challenges such as tradeoffs.
    Comment 13: One commenter noted that the document does not aim to 
facilitate improved methods for cost-benefit analysis such as new tools 
to identify, describe, and quantify benefits; improvements on cost 
assessments; and non-economic analyses that can enhance traditional 
approaches.
    Response: NCCOS revised Objective 1.3, ``Societal Consequences of 
Policy and Management Option,'' to recommend economic impact analysis 
as an approach to help decisionmakers anticipate the cononomic 
consequences of alternative courses of action. As revised, this 
objective states that methods for putting a dollar figure on the costs 
and benefits of alternative management actions require improvement, 
e.g., accounting for the true costs and benefits of alternative actions 
for non-market values.
    Comment 14: One commenter noted that a systems approach is implicit 
in the document and recommended making it more explicit.
    Response: NCCOS is responsive to criticism that the plan is overly 
theoretical. In an effort to balance simultaneous recommendations for 
elaboration and elimination of theoretical discussion, NCCOS responded 
to this recommendation by adding the following text and associated 
references to the ``Purpose'' section of the ``Overview'': ``Expanding 
human dimensions research will enhance NCCOS' ecosystem science and 
foster improved support for coastal and ocean decisionmaking. As early 
as 1935, ecologists cautioned that limiting analysis to environmental 
systems is neither scientifically sound nor practically useful 
(Tansley, 1935). As with any system, understanding an ecosystem 
requires understanding complex interactions among system components. An 
ecosystem is defined by interactions between human and environmental 
systems (elaborated below). Recognizing these interactions, ecology is 
increasingly adopting a systems approach focusing on coupled social-
ecological systems (also called human-environmental systems) (e.g., 
Collins et al., 2007; Colding et al., 2000; Berkes et al., 1998). 
Expanding NCCOS' scientific focus from interactions within 
environmental systems to interactions between couple social-ecological 
systems will foster holistic ecosystem understanding.''
    Comment 15: One commenter stated that as this plan moves to other 
areas of NOAA (particularly related to fisheries and habitat 
management), NCCOS needs to ensure that its implementation is properly 
vetted to ensure fair and balanced use in the regulatory process.
    Response: NCCOS addressed this comment in Objective 1.1, ``Coastal 
Decisionmaking.'' This objective seeks to inform and facilitate 
decision processes that combine scientific analysis and broad-based 
stakeholder deliberation to elicit diverse societal values, establish 
clear objectives linking values to resource outcomes, develop 
measurable indicators, and examine tradeoffs. In addition, NCCOS notes 
that this plan has been vetted by public review through a Federal 
Register Notice (72 FR 7418-7419). Finally, NCCOS is part of NOAA and 
produces science that is used by other parts of NOAA in the context of 
managing multiple uses of coastal and ocean resources. In producing 
scientific

[[Page 58814]]

information and facilitating its use, NCCOS makes every effort to 
ensure validity, fairness, and regulatory compliance.

Comments on the Summary

    Comment 16: Several commenters recommended rewriting the 
``Summary.'' Specifically, commenters recommended eliminating the list 
of NCCOS and NOAA strategic definitions/missions and summary of goals/
objectives established in the plan, and including a statement of 
purpose in the beginning.
    Response: NCCOS created an ``Overview'' section that begins with a 
statement of purpose, specifies future directions, summarizes key 
drivers, provides background on the human dimensions of ecosystems, 
defines human dimensions research, and lists the goals and objectives 
put forth in the plan. NCCOS believes that the list of goals and 
objectives is critical to provide an at-a-glance summary of the plan, 
and has incorporated this list into a considerably shortened 
``Summary'' section. NCCOS moved the list of NCCOS and NOAA strategic 
definitions/missions to Appendix 2.
    Comment 17: One commenter recommended including National Ocean 
Service strategic elements in the list of strategic definitions/
missions.
    Response: NCCOS added the National Ocean Service mission to this 
list, which was moved to Appendix 2.

Comments on the Overview

    Comment 18: One commenter recommended including a comparative 
discussion of the terms ``human dimensions'' and ``social science.''
    Response: NCCOS added the following text to the ``Human Dimensions 
Research'' section of the ``Overview'': The distinction between the 
terms `human dimensions' and `social science' often generates 
confusion. `Human dimensions' refers conceptually to the roles of 
humans in ecosystems and resource management. `Social science' denotes 
a subset of the disciplines useful for describing, explaining, and 
predicting these role.''
    Comment 19: One commenter suggested giving greater emphasis to 
NCCOS's role in providing feedback to the greater scientific community 
on the information needs of coastal managers.
    Response: NCCOS expanded its list of customers in the ``National 
Centers for Coastal and Ocean Science'' section to include the greater 
coastal and ocean scientific community.
    Comment 20: One commenter stated that the discussion of NCCOS's 
fundamental strategy, the Integrated Assessment, ``sounds like 
puffery'' without empirical evidence of its value.
    Response: NCCOS added a reference to an example Integrated 
Assessment, Integrated Assessment of Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of 
Mexico (Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, 2000) to the 
``Integrated Assessments'' section of the ``Overview.''
    Comment 21: One commenter questioned the use of a fifteen-year-old 
National Research Council framework for understanding the human 
dimensions of ecosystems.
    Response: NCCOS believes that its adaptation of the National 
Research Council framework to conceptualize human dimensions of 
ecosystems (in terms of human causes, consequences, and responses to 
ecosystem stress) is round and useful. This model resonates with NCCOS 
scientists because of its simplicity and focus on stressors (an 
organizing feature of NCCOS' science program). NCCOS will continue to 
evaluate and develop its approach to conceptualizing the human 
dimensions of ecosystems and socio-ecological systems.
    Comment 22: One commenter recommended a more targeted definition of 
human dimensions research.
    Response: NCCOS believes that the plan itself embodies a targeted 
definition by providing numerous examples of human dimensions research 
topics and methods.
    Comment 23: One commenter suggested mentioning that discussions 
with decisionmakers will influence NCCOS' delivery of services.
    Response: NCCOS revised the ``Future Directions'' section of the 
``Overview'' to emphasize that NCCOS' research agenda will be 
established through customer-informed strategies that identify 
complementary human dimensions and environmental research priorities. 
In addition, in the ``National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science'' 
section, NCCOS added a statement that ``NOAA created NCCOS in 1999 to 
strengthen and integrate its coastal programs in ways that encourage 
strong external partnerships, increase and protect their integrity, and 
ensure they focus on NOAA's coastal ocean missions.''
    Comment 24: One commenter recommended mentioning that this plan 
updates NCCOS' contribution to the (2005) National Ocean Service Social 
Science Plan.
    Response: NCCOS amended the ``Human Dimensions Research Drivers'' 
section of the ``Overview'' to state that this plan represents the 
development of NCCOS' human dimensions vision since its contribution to 
the (2005) National Ocean Service Social Science Plan.
    Comment 25: One commenter recommended providing an update on 
specific NCCOS projects proposed in the National Ocean Service Social 
Science Plan. This commenter also recommended discussing how this plan 
will be integrated into the National Ocean Service Social Science Plan, 
the NOAA Research Plan, and NOAA's Planning, Programming, Budgeting, 
and Execution System.
    Response: NCCOS affirms that this level of detail is beyond the 
scope of the plan.
    Comment 26: One commenter stated that the figure representing the 
diversity of disciplines integral to human dimensions research is 
misleading because it treats these diciplines as ``equally impacting.''
    Response: NCCOS believes that the figure clearly represents the 
diversity of disciplines integral to human dimensions research without 
making a statement regarding their relative importance.
    Comment 27: One commenter stated that the discussion of NCCOS human 
dimensions accomplishments is defensive in tone. This commenter 
questioned the apparent historical emphasis on economics and 
recommended eliminating discussion of ongoing projects and other 
highlights.
    Response: NCCOS wishes to acknowledge its accomplishments in 
providing human dimensions information critical to supporting coastal 
and ocean management. These include new capacities, key publications, 
ongoing projects, and other highlights. NCCOS does not agree that this 
section should be eliminated. In addition, NCCOS believes that this 
plan corrects any historical overemphasis on economics by establishing 
goals and objectives that draw on a wide diversity of mission-critical 
human dimensions disciplines.
    Comment 28: Several commenters recommended including NCCOS' work on 
the development of a human use/socioeconomic indicator for 
eutrophication in the discussion of NCCOS human dimensions 
accomplishments.
    Response: NCCOS regrets the omission of this important work from 
the draft plan, and has added the requested information in the ``NCCOS 
Human Dimensions Research'' section of the ``Overview.''
    Comment 29: One commenter recommended including NCCOS' 
socioeconomic monitoring work in southeast Florida in the discussion of

[[Page 58815]]

NCCOS human dimensions accomplishments.
    Response: NCCOS regrets the omission of this important work from 
the draft plan, and has added the requested information in the ``NCCOS 
Human Dimensions Research'' section of the ``Overview.''
    Comment 30: Several commenters recommended eliminating a reference 
(to Bergen and Carr, 2003), stating that the article does not provide a 
balanced description of the Channel Islands marine reserves network 
planning process.
    Response: NCCOS does not support the commenters' judgment that the 
article cited is not balanced. However, in the course of responding to 
Comment 12, NCCOS eliminated this reference.
    Comment 31: One commenter expressed concern that the plan contains 
``historical overtones of a need to understand an environment being 
destroyed by humans (e.g., stressors).'' This commenter stated that 
such an approach downplays the management opportunities provided by 
human dimensions understanding.
    Response: NCCOS believes that the plan provides many examples of 
management opportunities facilitated by human dimensions understanding. 
To ensure that these opportunities are sufficiently emphasized, NCCOS 
added the following text to the ``Purpose'' section of the 
``Overview'': ``* * * Human dimensions understanding enhances coastal 
decisionmaking and its scientific support. The plan provides many 
examples. It begins by highlighting the effectiveness of coastal 
decisionmaking that integrates ecosystem understanding with meaningful 
stakeholder engagement. Social science offers techniques and 
approaches, based on an understanding of human and organizational 
behavior, that help decisionmakers work with diverse stakeholders to 
define and achieve management priorities in the face of challenges such 
as conflicting and changing societal values, multi-agency authorities, 
and scientific uncertainty.'' NCCOS disagrees that the concept of 
stressors is inappropriate.

Comments on Objective 1.1

    Comment 32: One commenter recommended including economic value as a 
distinct type of value.
    Response: NCCOS eliminated the referenced discussion of values to 
preserve space in the process of revising Objective 1.1, re-titled 
``Coastal Decisionmaking,'' as described in Comment 12. Instead, the 
document defines values by providing examples in the ``Human Dimensions 
of Ecosystems'' section of the ``Overview'', e.g., security from 
natural disasters, health, good social relations, and freedom to pursue 
personal and cultural interests (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 
2005).
    Comment 33: One commenter recommended acknowledging that 
stakeholder values change over time.
    Response: NCCOS revised Objective 1.1, re-title ``Coastal 
Decisionmaking,'' to acknowledge that decisionmakers are challenged by 
conflicting and changing societal values.
    Comment 34: One commenter noted the need to assess preferences for 
specific management options in addition to values.
    Response: NCCOS revised Objective 1.1, re-titled ``Coastal 
Decisionmaking,'' to acknowledge the importance of assessing 
stakeholders' preferences for specific management options.
    Comment 35: One commenter recommended discussing the relationships 
among values, norms, user expectations, satisfaction, intentions to 
behave, management preferences, and attitudes.
    Response: NCCOS amended the ``Human Dimensions of Ecosystems'' 
section of the ``Introduction'' to state that ``stakeholders' values 
influence their attitudes, intentions, management preferences, 
satisfaction levels, and norms for behavior. Values differ among 
individuals, but can be studied at the group level. For example, groups 
engaging in similar activities at similar locations and rates of 
participation, and using similar equipment can be expected to share 
values. Stakeholder values is an important topic of human dimensions 
research, enabling understanding of: (1) How coastal resource 
conditions and management decisions are likely to be perceived by 
different groups; (2) how differing value systems interact to affect 
coastal resource management planning and effectiveness; and (3) 
interactions among changing value systems, management decision 
processes and outcomes, and resource conditions (e.g., Dietz et al., 
2005).''

Comments on Objective 1.2

    Comment 36: One commenter stated that discussion of Objective 1.2 
is vague.
    Response: NCCOS agrees that this objective is vague and partly 
redundant with other objectives established in the plan. For these 
reasons, NCCOS eliminated the objective and incorporated references 
cited into other objectives as appropriate.
    Comment 37: One commenter recommended eliminating mention of the 
National Ocean Economics Program, stating that the program ``does not 
represent good social science'' and will ``seriously compromise the 
integrity'' of the plan.
    Response: NCCOS eliminated this objective for reasons explained in 
the response to Comment 36.

Comments on Objective 1.4

    Comment 38: One commenter stated that Objective 1.4 recommends 
specific research projects whereas the other objectives are more 
general.
    Response: NCCOS does not agree that Objective 1.4 recommends 
specific research projects. This objective recommends building on 
NCCOS' success documenting and utilizing traditional and local 
ecological knowledge to enhance coastal and ocean science.

Comments on Objective 1.5

    Comment 39: Several commenters noted that Objective 1.5 is unclear.
    Response: NCCOS substantively revised this objective (now reordered 
as Objective 1.7) to enhance clarity and reduce length. As revised, a 
large portion of the objective is incorporated into the ``Overview'' 
(in ``Human Dimensions of Ecosystems'') and Objective 1.1 (``Coastal 
Decisionmaking''). The second section, ``Ethical Questions Raised by 
the Implementation and Use of Science,'' has been considerably 
shortened.
    Comment 40: One commenter noted that there is already a wealth of 
social science research regarding best practices for promoting 
community development in the context of environmental restoration. This 
commenter questioned whether social scientists participated in the 
Coastal Response Research Center workshop discussing this topic.
    Response: In an effort to reduce the length of this objective, 
NCCOS eliminated discussion of specific conclusions from this workshop. 
However, NCCOS notes that social scientists were present at the 
workshop. These participants were aware of the wealth of social science 
research related to community development, and played an important role 
in introducing restoration practitioners to the topic.

Comments on Objective 1.6

    Comment 41: One commenter stated that the distinction between 
organizations and institutions (quoted from the International Human 
Dimensions Program) is ``conceptually thin,'' and that the examples 
provided in the definition are ``less than eye-opening.'' Another 
commenter stated that Objective 1.6 is not understandable to a non-
social scientist.

[[Page 58816]]

    Response: NCCOS addressed these comments by replacing this quote 
with a less technical definition of institutions and referring the 
reader to additional sources for a more sophisticated discussion. NCCOS 
notes that this objective has been reordered to Objective 1.5.
    Comment 42: Several commenters recommended mentioning the need for 
institutionalized social science data collection and sharing.
    Response: NCCOS revised this objective to state that the 
institutionalization of social science data collection, storage, 
management, and mining is a fundamental problem for incorporating human 
dimensions consideration into coastal decisionmaking.

Comments on Objective 2.2

    Comment 43: One commenter questioned the emphasis on economics 
reflected in NOAA's External Ecosystem Task Team's summary of core 
social science capabilities needed to integrate human dimensions 
information into Integrated Ecosystem Assessments.
    Response: NCCOS eliminated this summary to reduce the length of the 
document. NCCOS notes that the External Ecosystem Task Team's summary 
stands on its own (i.e., independently of NCCOS' views) as a 
description of the Team's vision.
    Comment 44: One commenter raised the question whether Integrated 
Ecosystem Assessments are to be revisited to determine their success in 
predicting consequences of alternative management actions.
    Response: NCCOS revised this objective to clarify that ``Integrated 
Ecosystem Assessments are iteratively developed and revisited. 
Subsequent assessments evaluate past success in predicting the 
consequences of alternative management strategies as well as 
implementing previously identified research needs.''

Comments on Objective 3.1

    Comment 45: One commenter stated that Goal 3 should focus on 
resilience to ecosystem stressors (rather than hazards) because the 
focus on hazards excludes ecosystem stressors.
    Response: NCCOS wishes to clarify that a focus on hazards does not 
exclude ecosystem stressors. Rather, the potential for any ecosystem 
stressor is a hazard. However, NCCOS agrees that the objective is too 
narrowly focused on the impacts of disasters. It also does not 
adequately emphasize the need to help coastal decisionmakers anticipate 
the consequences of ecosystem stress in relation to alternative 
intervention strategies. In response to these deficiencies, this 
objective has been reconceptualized to develop Objective 1.3, 
``Societal Consequences of Policy and Management Options.''
    Comment 46: One commenter stated that Objective 3.1 ignores over 
fifty years of research on disasters and espouses myths such as the 
notion that disasters result in social disruption and conflict. Another 
commenter stated that Objective 3.1 should mention spouse battery (an 
example of social disruption and conflict) as a consequence of 
disasters.
    Response: NCCOS notes that these comments are contradictory. One 
highlights social disruption caused by coastal disasters, while another 
denies it. In responding to Comment 45, NCCOS eliminated this 
discussion and captured key points in Objective 1.3, ``Societal 
Consequences of Policy and Management Options.''
    Comment 47: One commenter requested that NCCOS specify key factors 
considered in risk and vulnerability assessments and whether NCCOS will 
consider environmental or human impacts or both.
    Response: NCCOS notes that the draft provides a list of key 
components of risk and vulnerability assessments. NCCOS revised the 
text to clarify that environmental and human impacts will both be 
considered.
    Comment 48: One commenter stressed the importance of noting the 
unique requirements of small islands regarding vulnerability and 
resilience.
    Response: NCCOS amended the discussion of Goal 3, ``Promote 
Ecosystem Resilience,'' to state that the vulnerability of small island 
communities is heightened by factors such as the infeasibility of 
migrating out of danger zones and extreme land values.

Comments on Objective 3.2

    Comment 49: One commenter noted that Objective 3.2 ignores changes 
that occurred to the risk communication process as a result of cell 
phones, the internet, and cable television.
    Response: NCCOS amended this objective to explain that development 
of communication messages and strategies should take into consideration 
changes to the risk communication process as result of modern 
technology such as cell phones and the internet.
    Comment 50: One commenter stated that the relationship between an 
audience's belief in risk information and its level of trust in the 
communicating agency is ``old hat.''
    Response: NCCOS is committed to developing the capacity of its 
workforce to understand, appreciate, and facilitate the mission value 
of human dimensions research. NCCOS believes that this commitment 
requires fostering an understanding of key concepts and methods that 
are familiar to social scientists, but new to many natural scientists. 
This commitment is responsive to the finding of the Social Science 
Review Panel to NOAA's Science Advisory Board that developing social 
science capacity in NOAA is challenged by ``a lack of formal 
understanding of what social science is and what its contributions can 
be, leading to an organizational culture that is not conducive to 
social science research.''

Comments on Objective 3.3

    Comment 51: One commenter noted that local, regional, and national 
agencies rarely have the finances for risk communication research and 
typically lack the understanding that they need it.
    Response: Through this plan, NCCOS aims to foster understanding of 
the need for risk communication research to develop scientific products 
and tools that foster public understanding of risks, trust in the 
communicating agency, and risk-protective behavior. As explained in 
this objective, NCCOS will work with coastal managers and other 
customers to develop and test products, and facilitate their use in 
decisionmaking, to achieve these ends.
    Comment 52: One commenter raised the question of how effective 
communication is defined.
    Response: NCCOS points out that the existing text defines effective 
risk communication as communication that fosters public understanding 
and trust, and prompts at-risk populations to respond appropriately to 
mitigate and adapt to undesirable environmental, sociocultural, and 
economic consequences of ecosystem stress.

Comments on Objective 4.1

    Comment 53: One commenter recommended clarifying the role of NCCOS' 
cooperative research institutes in implementing this plan.
    Response: NCCOS revised this objective to state that ``providing 
human dimensions understanding critical to support coastal 
decisionmaking will require retooling of many activities across NCCOS' 
component research centers, laboratories, and partnerships with 
cooperating institutions such as NCCOS' coral reef research 
institutes.'' NCCOS similarly amended the ``Future Directions'' section 
of the ``Overview'' to specify that a follow-up implementation plan 
will specify program- and project-level actions and

[[Page 58817]]

other programmatic elements ``to develop an integral human dimensions 
research focus in NCCOS--including its component research centers, 
laboratories, and partnerships with cooperating institutions such as 
NCCOS' coral reef research institutes.''
    Comment 54: One commenter noted that the workforce needed to 
support ecosystem science must be interdisciplinary.
    Response: NCCOS agrees with this comment. This objective focuses on 
development of human dimensions capabilities that complement NCCOS' 
existing technical workforce, which is predominantly comprised of 
biological, physical, and ecological scientists.

Comments on Appendix 1

    Comment 55: One commenter stated that the 2006 National Research 
Council report, Facing Hazards and Disasters, does not (as described in 
the draft) recommend ``that future social science research treat 
hazards and disaster research interchangeably and view the five core 
topics of hazards and disaster research within a single overarching 
framework.''
    Response: NCCOS points out that this is a direct quote from an 
Executive Summary of Facing Hazards and Disasters provided by the 
National Research Council Committee on Disaster Research in the Social 
Sciences: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11671.html. However, NCCOS 
eliminated this quote in the process of reducing the length of the 
document.
    Comment 56: One commenter recommended expanding the discussion of 
``Balancing Societal Objectives'' and moving it to the front material 
of the document.
    Response: As recommended, NCCOS moved a substantive part of this 
section to a discussion of the ``Human Dimensions of Ecosystems'' in 
the ``Overview.''

Comments on Appendix 2

    Comment 57: One commenter noted that the entry for the 2006 
National Research Council report, Facing Hazards and Disasters, 
mistakenly includes information related to a 2005 National Science and 
Technology Council report, Grand Challenges for Disaster Reduction.
    Response: NCCOS regrets this mistake and eliminated the misplaced 
information from the entry for the 2006 National Research Council 
report, Facing Hazards and Disasters.
    Comment 58: One commenter recommended duplicating the entry for the 
Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act in the table 
of drivers related to pollution (in addition to harmful algal blooms).
    Response: As recommended, NCCOS included the Harmful Algal Bloom 
and Hypoxia Research and Control Act in the table of drivers related to 
pollution.

Comments on Appendix 3

    Comment 59: Several commenters requested inclusion of specific 
additional references.
    Response: NCCOS included suggested references where appropriate. 
NCCOS notes that this document is not intended to provide an exhaustive 
literature review.

Gary C. Matlock,
Director, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science.
[FR Doc. 07-5111 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-JE-M