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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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?

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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