U.S. GOOS Steering Committee
Report of Meeting V
1-3 August 2001
Seattle, Washington
University of Washington, Applied Physics Laboratory

This report is available as a Word or PDF document also.

1.0      Introduction

The fifth meeting of the U.S. GOOS Steering Committee (U.S. GSC) was called to order at 0830 hr on 1 August 2001 by Committee co-chair Worth Nowlin. Following welcoming remarks and introductions by all present, Nowlin gave a brief review of U.S. GSC activities to date for the benefit of guests and observers.

The first two meetings of the Committee focused on reviews of draft reports prepared by NOPP in response to a request by Congressmen Weldon and Saxton for a plan for a sustained, integrated U.S. ocean observing system. At its second meeting, the Committee also formulated a draft strategy for assessing current observing capabilities and promoting coherence between such elements of a coastal GOOS on a regional basis within the U.S. In accordance with that strategy, the third meeting was focused on observations and needs in the Southern California Bight. The meeting, organized by Steve Weisberg at California Coastal Water Research Project Authority, brought together representatives of key government, private industry, and NGOs in the region. It was highly successful in developing a series of products needed (and often being produced) by users in the region. A first attempt was made to assign priorities among observations/products.

Highlights of the fourth meeting of the U.S. GSC, hosted by the NOAA Coastal Services Center in Charleston, S. C., were reviewed as was the draft report from that meeting. Highlights included:

• NOPP's new Ocean.US Office was described; potential relationships between U.S. GSC, that Office, and other NOPP elements were explored.
• Reports were presented by nine representatives of Southeast Atlantic government agencies, academic/research institutions, and NGOs. This lead to the identification of products needed by SE Atlantic users, and to comparison and combination of such with needs from S. California Bight users.
• Reviews were presented regarding the following nascent components of a U.S. coastal ocean observing system: the Northern Gulf Littoral Initiative (NGLI), the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System (GoMOOS), the Gulf of Alaska Environmental Monitoring Program (GEM), and NOPP's National Virtual Ocean Data System initiative.
  Discussion lead to agreement that the U.S. GSC would work toward a comprehensive design plan for the U.S. coastal ocean observing system. An initial review of existing operational components in each region was scheduled as a basis for the U.S. GSC-V.
• Intersessional activities agreed included:
• An intersessional working group, lead by Steve Weisberg, was appointed and charged with developing prioritized lists of users and products (or observations) based in information collected at Committee meetings III and IV and on contacts by the working group.
• David Martin, Director of Ocean.US Office, agreed to explore possible linkages between the U.S. GSC and elements of NOPP.
• The co-chairs, Nowlin and Tom Malone, took responsibility for arranging regional presentations of U.S. GSC-V.

Following this review, the Committee approved the report of U.S. GSC-IV.

Co-chair Nowlin then presented his views as to the objectives of U.S. GSC-V.

The primary foci of this meeting are two:

1. To obtain an overview of status and plans for regional U.S. coastal ocean observing systems. We will devote most of day two to that purpose. We will begin those discussions with a report of our intersessional group that has been working to identify high priority products for the initial federation of regional observing systems.
2. To consider strategy to best carry forward the implementation of this federation. We will devote the morning of day three to that purpose in executive session to which federal agency representatives are invited.

As necessary background for these discussions most of day one will be devoted to progress reports on national GOOS activities and selected related programs. This background and discussions are not confined to consideration of coastal GOOS. We will also be considering the GOOS climate and marine services module.

I consider that an important outcome of the U.S. GSC meetings is sharing of information between key players concerned with the development of GOOS. Though a number of the individuals present are regular attendees, we have tried to include a diverse group of new attendees at each meeting.

I wish to underscore the need for continuing intersessional activities if we are to reach our objective of a sustained, integrated U.S. ocean observing system.

The provisional agenda was discussed and adopted with minor changes. It is given in Appendix 1.

The list of meeting attendees is given in Appendix 2.

2.0      Progress on National GOOS activities and related programs

2.1      International Coastal GOOS

Tom Malone, co-chair of the U.S. GSC presented an overview of the status of international planning for the coastal GOOS component. He began with a review of the needs for a coastal GOOS and emphasized "sustained" and "integrated" as concepts that must underpin the observing system. The phenomena of interest in the coastal GOOS are marine services and public policy, public health, status of coastal marine ecosystems, and status of living marine resources. Malone made a strong case for a global system of coastal ocean observing systems. He noted that processes and many requirements are globally ubiquitous and that regional activities have local effects. He concluded by laying out a conceptual approach to building the coastal module of GOOS.

2.2      NOAA 10-year Implementation Plan for building a sustained ocean observing system for climate

Mike Johnson, with NOAA's Office of Global Programs, presented this plan which had been prepared by coordination among NOAA components in OAR, NESDIS, and NWS. He began by clarifying where this initiative fits within the national program He then outlined components in a strategy for building the climate module of GOOS, including identification of needs, setting time lines, definition of the initial system, and working with partners to complete implementation. Johnson opined that NOAA will provide about 50% of the global requirements. He identified four components to a program of climate services: observations and data management, assessments, modeling and prediction, and enabling research.

Then, Johnson reviewed the NOAA/OAR Climate Observation System itself, covering the following points.

• This is an international system.
• It responds to customers through operational centers, international assessments, and research programs.
• The drivers are the earth climate system, carbon cycle, and water cycle.
• It has common infrastructure.
• It fosters system approach—integration.
• It is designed to produce deliverables.
• The system requirements have been defined.
• There is a time-phased budget plan to achieve NOAA's component.

Johnson requested that the U.S. GSC review the plan for compatibility and consistency with existing plans and activities. The Committee agreed to appoint an ad hoc review team for this purpose. Chaired by a Committee member, Ed Harrison, the review team will consist of technical experts, including representatives of the Ocean Observations Panel for Climate, CLIVAR, PIRATA, the team preparing the Carbon Theme for IGOS-P, WOCE, the team reviewing the ENSO Observing System, and the U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office.

2.3       The National Virtual Ocean Data System project

Nowlin reviewed the status of the NOPP-sponsored project entitled "National Virtual Ocean Data System", which is a three-year initial effort to populate servers with ocean data easily accessible via the Distributed Ocean Data System data transfer protocol. The project has held five regional/ topical and one national workshop during its initial planning year. Workshop reports and other information are available at http://nvods.org.

2.4       NOAA's priorities for a U.S. Coastal GOOS

Margaret Davidson, Assistant Director for NOS/NOAA, reviewed NOAA's priorities for coastal GOOS by discussing the various initiatives underway. These include:

• A committee within NOAA is considering a plan for Coastal Observations and Fisheries.
• To be established is a portal to NOS data and a portal to Southern California Water Research Project data.
• Support for LabNet.
• A portal to NCDDC data
• Data standards and protocols are under consideration.
• Sought is better coordination/integration of activities between NOS and USGS, USCG, NCEP, NDBC, and NSF.
• Initiatives to improve NOS infrastructure.
• An initiative to better understand the effects of storms.
• An initiative for harmful algal bloom forecasting.

2.5       Ocean.US Office priorities and plans

David Martin, Director of the Ocean.US Office, updated the Committee on near-term plans for Ocean.US. He first reported that the Office has moved to its new quarters at 2330 Clarendon Blvd, Suite 1350, Arlington, VA, conveniently located near the Courthouse metro stop.

Ocean.US intends to produce an Integrated Requirements and Capabilities Document describing the U.S. contribution to GOOS. This will deal with products, observations, and techniques needed to meet the system subgoals. This document will be prepared in concert with the U.S. GSC relying on a series of workshops to be held between now and spring 2002.

Development of the Iridium Communications System is entering phase 2 of SBRI. It is expected that test communication sets (transceivers) will be provided to a wide variety of potential users for testing. The U.S. GSC may be asked to suggest users. (That was done following the meeting.)

The U.S. Senate has called for a plan for an integrated ocean observing system to be submitted with the President's FY 2003 budget request. That will be based on the Integrated Requirements and Capabilities Document.

2.6       NSF's Ocean Observatories Initiative

As part of NSF's budget request there is an initiative for considerable new infrastructure in the form of ocean observatories. Larry Clark, NSF Ocean Sciences Section, described that initiative. The discussion focused on the potential synergism of integrating ocean observatories with the ocean observing system. The decision was made to hold a small "summit" meeting between representatives of U.S. GSC, Ocean.US, and the Ocean Observatories Initiative for the purpose of considering a white paper that would enunciate the advantages of closer cooperation and integration of these research observatories into the ocean observing system.

Bruce Howe, with the University of Washington, gave a brief describing NEPTUNE, one such observatory.

2.7       Status of pending legislation

Philip Bogden (GoMOOS), Penny Dalton (CORE), and Steve Weisberg (SCCWRP) reviewed the status of pending legislation regarding the ocean observing system as well as certain plans for provision of backup information to Congress.

3.0       Products and benefits of regional ocean observing systems

3.1       Economic benefits of regional ocean observing systems

Charles Colgan (University of Southern Maine) was invited to present the results of a study by he and Hauke Kite-Powell assessing economic benefits anticipated as a result of implementing the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System (GoMOOS). He gave an interesting, convincing presentation of results based on methodology different from that commonly employed to assess GOOS benefits. Envisioned is a feedback loop in which the system produces data, which yields information, which leads to changes in behavior, that changes economic values; then, in turn, the changed economic value leads to behavioral changes requiring additional data requiring additional/different data. The manuscript, entitled "Assessing Economic Benefits of Coastal Ocean Observing Systems: the Gulf of Maine", may be viewed at http://ocean.tamu.edu/GOOS/GSC5/colgan.pdf.

3.2       Users and backbone products

At U.S. GSC-IV an intersessional working group was appointed consisting of the following members: Robert Cohen, Fred Grassle, Ed Harrison, Tom Malone, Dave Martin, Phil Mundy, Evan Richert, Abby Sallinger, Ken Schaudt, Linda Sheehan, and Steve Weisberg (chair). The working group was given the following charge:

1. "To determine a set of core needs and associated variables for the U.S. coastal GOOS

   Background: GOOS documents (e.g., coastal GOOS reports) and results of U.S. GSC-III and IV.

2. To assess the degree to which they are attainable with existing infrastructure and costs.

   Background: Knowledge of ongoing observing system elements.

3. To determine missing elements and estimate costs.

In undertaking this task, it seemed appropriate to realize there likely will be three classes of products:

• Products part of a national federation of regional observing systems,
• Products as part of only regional systems, and
• Products not part of GOOS.

It was realized that the results presented by this working group at U.S. GSC-V would be interim, because the terms of reference were so broad."

Steve Weisberg reported on the considerable progress of the working group carried on via email. They proceeded with the objectives of: identifying the major users, identifying the needed products; and identify the observations needed for the products. The working group developed a list of possible clients (Table 1) and possible products (Table 2). They then used a matrix of products versus clients  to determine the highest rated products and clients. Those are given in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. He noted several factors that should have been considered more fully, but could not be in view of time constraints, including: the technical feasibility of the measurements, the number of beneficiaries for each product, and the financial interest and capacity of beneficiaries to assist in production of products.

Table 1.     Possible Clients.

Considerable discussion ensued following this thoughtful presentation. There is the acknowledged need to settle on an initial suite of measurements that would constitute the highest priority for a national backbone for the U.S. coastal ocean observing system. The committee agreed that order of development of the U.S. integrated ocean observing system is:

1. Implementation of a national backbone of measurements; existing operational elements would be supplemented with federal support.
2. State and local governmental support for enhancements needed regionally.
3. Private sector use of data to produce value added products for economic benefit.

This order of priority would help define the roles of federal, state, regional, local, and private funding of coastal GOOS.

Table 2.     Possible Products.

Table 3.     Highest rated products.

Table 4.     Highest rated clients.

It was suggested that several additional beneficiaries (users) might be added to the priority list:

Fishing and aquaculture
Public health agencies
Recreational users
Emergency management agencies
Insurance and reinsurance industry
Researchers and educators

At the end of this discussion, Weisberg agreed to summarize the discussion, present on the final meeting day, and suggest a way forward.

4.0       Regional Observing Systems

Nowlin reviewed the charge conveyed to speakers invited to review the status of U.S. regional ocean observing systems.

"The U.S. GSC believes it is time to make an initial assessment of the existing components that might be integrated to constitute the basis of the regional U.S. Coastal Ocean Observing System.

We are inviting representatives from different U.S. coastal regions to attend that meeting and describe to the best of their knowledge the extant operational or pilot components in their regions. We believe that regional representatives should have the knowledge and contacts necessary to assemble a reasonable first assessment.

I will be representing the Gulf of Mexico. In preparation, I will/have contact the web sites of all sustained observing system elements or research observatories in this area. I will attempt to summarize their current operations (data and products), their sponsors, their costs (as feasible to obtain), and their plans. I have found that web searches uncover a great deal of information regarding such elements sponsored by state governments, the private sector, and others. The operators generally are helpful.

On behalf of the US GSC, Malone and I invite you to attend our next meeting in Seattle and make a presentation on existing components of a coastal ocean observing system within the your region."

Following is a listing of the presenters and topics. The presentations were much too detailed for inclusion in this report. Most of the material presented is available as PowerPoint presentations or pdf files which are linked by presenter.

4.1     GoMOOS — Philip Bogden

4.2     Northeast U.S. Observing System — Fred Grassle

4.3     Southeast U.S. Observing System — Jim Nelson

Nelson made the additional points that (1) fora should be established in which to share information and technology and (2) workshops between workers implementing the regional systems should be an important aspect of coastal GOOS.

• Operational Near-Real Time Systems for Coastal Ocean Observations in the SE US
• Other SE US Programs with coastal ocean/estuarine monitoring components

4.4     Harmful Algal Blooms Observing System (HABSOS) — Tom Malone

4.5     Gulf of Mexico Observing System — Worth Nowlin

4.6     Southwestern U.S. Observing System — Steve Weisberg and Jeff Paduan

They used as criteria: monitoring for period 1994-1997, ongoing for 5 years, or expected to continue for 10 years.

4.7     Northwest U.S. Observing System — Hal Batchelder

4.8     Gulf of Alaska Environmental Monitoring System (GEM) — Phillip Mundy

He noted that the National Research Council should have comments on the initial GEM plan (submitted in 2000) by December 2001. An overview of the GEM program was submitted to the chair and co-chair.

4.9     Great Lakes Observations — Steve Lozano

5.0     SURA and the SCOOP initiative

Jerry Draayer (SURA) gave a brief history and purpose of the Southeast University Research Association (SURA). Then Don Wright (VIMS) described the Southeastern Coastal Ocean Observing Program (SCOOP) initiative of SURA. Basically, SCOOP has three subgoals:

• Study interactions during storms of coastal ocean and atmosphere on synoptic scales in southeastern U.S.;
• Study how ocean, on linked water and airsheds, function as a interconnected system; and
• Determine the role of river discharge on the coastal waters of the southeastern U.S.

6.0     Executive Session

An executive session of the U.S. GSC and federal agency representatives was held on the last morning of the meeting.

6.1     U.S. GSC vis-à-vis NOPP

David Martin reported on findings regarding the best working relationships between the U.S. GSC and elements of the NOPP. The best relationship seems to be one of an informal working relationship between the U.S. GSC and the Ocean.US Office. It is expected that approval of U.S. GSC membership changes and coordination of funding for the Committee would be through the Ocean.US Office.

6.2     Review team for NOAA Climate Plan

Agreement was reached on a slate of potential members for this review team. They will be contacted by Ed Harrison, team chair, to determine their willingness to serve.

6.3     Discussion of intersessional groups

It was agreed that the U.S. GSC should carry on its work intersessionally through selected subcommittees.

6.3.1   Users and Measurements Subcommittee

Steve Weisberg summarized the discussions held under agenda item 3.2

• The U.S. GSC agreed that the highest rated users (clients) are seen to be:

  Shipping industry
  Water quality and public health agencies
  U.S Coast Guard
  Fisheries and fisheries management
  Oil and gas industry
  Emergency management agencies
  Recreational users
  Researchers and educators

• The U.S. GSC agreed with the list given in Table 3 (check reference) of highest rated products that might constitute a national background for a coastal ocean observing system.
• Potential federal roles in the U.S. coastal ocean observing system might be expected to be as follows:
1. Coordinate design of the system
   This would include design of the national backbone of observations and the setting of standards and data protocols.
2. Provide part of the required funding.
   This would include completion of the national backbone of observations and partial (matching perhaps) funding for regional start up and enhancements.

3. Manager data
   This would include provision of infrastructure for data communication, archive, and redistribution.
4. Development of specific products
5. International coordination

Steve Weisberg agreed to draft a review of these potential understandings. He would then distribute to his subcommittee and then to the U.S. GSC.

The perception of the U.S. GSC is that firmer estimates of potential economic impacts of the U.S. coastal GOOS are needed. Linda Sheehan, Margaret Davidson, and David Martin agreed to draft a brief document enunciating this need on behalf of the NOS/NOAA and Ocean.US.

Muriel Cole agreed to arrange for telephone discussions between David Martin and several economists with the intent of better understanding what assistance might be provided.

When the needs were clearer, so that a charge to a subcommittee could be formulated, Linda Sheehan, Ed Harrison, and Robert Cohen agreed to serve on the subcommittee from the U.S. GSC. Potential candidates experienced with economic benefit studies that were identified included Charles Colgan, James Mjelde, Mary Altalo, and Nic Flemming.

Consideration was given to the formation of a Communications Subcommittee of the U.S. GSC. Margaret Davidson enunciated well a number of roles such a subcommittee might be charged with, including:

• Identification of key people who should better understand GOOS, if it is to succeed; these range from members of key client (user) community to state and regional levels to the federal legislative level.
• Translation and packaging of U.S. GSC materials including plans for intended audiences.
• Preparation of simple explanations of what GOOS is, what coastal GOOS is, and how they are related.

Potential subcommittee members are Phil Mundy, Evan Richert, Linda Sheehan, Margaret Davidson, and Worth Nowlin. Nowlin agreed to work with Davidson to draft a charge to this committee for consideration at U.S. GSC VI.

6.4     Upcoming workshops

Discussed further were potential workshops sponsored by Ocean.US with the objective of reaching agreement on a strategic design for the federally supported part of U.S. GOOS. Also considered further was a meeting between representatives of the NSF Observatories initiative and U.S. GSC.

6.5     Membership

Jim Mjelde and Robert Molinari will rotate off the Committee after the fifth meeting. Other potential members were considered. Suggested were Mark Luther, Charles Colgan, Joseph Myer, and a coastal geologist. Malone and Nowlin were to pursue further, determining willingness to serve and submitting candidates to the NOPP Executive Committee via David Martin at Ocean.US.

6.6     Next Meeting

A tentative decision was made to hold the sixth meeting of the U.S. GSC at the Ocean.US Office in Arlington, VA on 17-19 April 2002.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately noon on 3 August 2001.

Appendix 1

U.S. GOOS Steering Committee Meeting V

Seattle, Washington
University of Washington, Applied Physics Laboratory

AGENDA

Wednesday, 1 August 2001

Thursday, 2 August 2001

Friday, 3 August 2001

Appendix 2

Attendees at U.S. GOOS Steering Committee V

Contact: Susan R. Martin (srmartin@tamu.edu)
Updated: 26 September, 2006
URL: http://ocean.tamu.edu/GOOS/GSC5/GSC5.html