Social scientists constitute one subcommittee of the agency’s Scientific Committee. Physical oceanographers and biologists comprise the others. In the closing session of the conference, two members of the social science subcommittee (Lee Huskey of the University of Alaska and Joanna Endter-Wada of Utah State University) offered their observations on the MMS socioeconomic studies effort and the conference proceedings. Having served on the committee since the early nineties, they noted that higher-level agency support for socioeconomic research had increased considerably during the decade. They also commended the socioeconomic studies effort for its responsiveness to fluid circumstances and external counsel, including changes in the oil and gas industry, shifting political scenes in the regions, the 1992 recommendations of the National Research Council and the Scientific Committee’s own recommendations. Their observations are as follows. (Some points raised by other participants in response to their observations are also included.)

1. It is important that the regions take stock of the results of research already completed and the information expected from research currently underway.
   
   Given the number of studies conducted and the time that often elapses between contracting and completing many studies, careful stock taking would help the regions see how studies are linked in an overall research agenda and help ensure that new studies contribute to that agenda and do not duplicate previous work. Conducting such an exercise would also create a formal institutional memory extremely valuable to new agency personnel. (Some participants suggested that there was also a need to disseminate the results of current studies more effectively within the agency. Larry Roberts noted, in that regard, that the agency’s spread sheet for tracking studies was accessible on line and that difficulties with the system of on-line access to reports were being addressed. Rodney Cluck stated his intention of using the web site created for the conference to publicize the results of new studies and Jim Lima advised agency staff to remember to check the web sites of the regional programs.)
   
   
2. The distinction between baseline and impact studies may be a false one.
   
   The long history and extensive cumulative effects of oil development in the regions make it difficult to distinguish between baseline conditions and the effects of single projects or to disentangle the effects of single projects from the effects of the larger trajectory of oil development. NEPA requires analysis of projects in terms of baselines and impacts. It may be more important however, to understand how oil development as a whole has infused the regions and how this changes over time.
   
   
3. Efforts to increase efficiency in socioeconomic studies by coordinating research should be tempered by recognition of differences among the regions.
   
   The regions do deal with some common methodological questions and common issues. Their distinctiveness, however, must be taken into account. Differences among the regions lie not only in differences among local contexts, but in the phases and levels of oil industry development. There is already a great deal of informal inter-regional cooperation in research planning and design, which is commendable. But efforts to expand collaboration and coordination should not lose sight of the diversity that results from the articulation of oil development in its various phases with widely varying social contexts.
   
   
4. The changing nature of the oil industry is a very important issue.
   
   Such industry changes as corporate mergers are among the causes of movement into deep-water operations and decommissioning of older installations. Changes in the industry are affecting its operations in all the regions as well as internationally.
   
   
5. The agency should give more attention to mitigation strategies.
   
   Resource owners and resource agencies have created a vast array of inventive, new ways to deal with problems stirred by resource development. There was little discussion of mitigation at the conference, but it is an issue that deserves attention. Infrastructure improvements, revenue sharing and local community impact assistance are among the dimensions of mitigation requiring consideration. (One participant cautioned that in discussing mitigation it was too easy to neglect the beneficial effects of oil development. It might be better, it was suggested, to think in terms of optimizing the effects of oil development, that is, enhancing the benefits and minimizing the negative effects. It was also pointed out that mitigation issues may vary considerably from place to place because of differences in what is required by state law and differences in state or local institutional and political cultures.)
   
   
6. The agency needs to think about research that will help it prepare to deal with the opening of areas currently under moratoria.
   
   In all three regions, some areas have been closed to lease sales. While the agency cannot predict when or if Congress and the President may end particular moratoria, it should make some preparation. Both the Policy Committee and the full Scientific Committee have expressed concern with this question.
   
   
7. The studies program should give more attention to research on the question of monitoring.
   
   (Huskey and Endter-Wada did not elaborate on this point. The discussion of “Monitoring Key Indicators” in the Alaska Region that took place on the second day of the conference, however, gives an indication of the range and complexity of the research issues involved.)
   
   
8. There should be more methodological and conceptual sharing, not only between the regions but also with other Federal agencies and in larger professional arenas.
   
   People outside the agency and outside the Federal government are grappling with many of the same issues with which the MMS contends. It may be useful, for example, for MMS personnel to attend the meetings of such organizations as the International Association for Impact Assessment. Similarly, in a discussion on tourism in the Pacific Region, it came to light that Nevada has sponsored extensive research on the effects on tourism of a high-level nuclear waste repository. The Pacific Region staff intend to pursue this lead, but it would be useful to seek such connections and resources more systematically. Participants noted the importance of learning from professional colleagues outside the U.S. and suggested the need to cultivate international networks more systematically. Industry restructuring, for example, is an issue of international interest. Greater participation in both international professional meetings and oil industry conferences was recommended.
   
   
9. The agency should be careful not to become captive to its research tools.
   
   Both old, familiar tools, such as input-output analysis or the IMPLAN model, and new tools and approaches, such as GIS and the study and use of traditional knowledge, are attractive and useful. But they should not lead the research agenda. The issues themselves and basic questions of good research design should be the primary considerations.
   
   
10. A means of continuing dialog between and among the socioeconomic studies staff and the Scientific Committee would be useful.
    
    The conference itself has been very useful, and it will stir much additional thinking that should be shared. The exchange of ideas, references and information about conferences on a regular basis would help enhance the value of events like this conference.