Meeting Report including all 12 appendices available for download. [PDF, 992 KB; 22 March 2004]
The ninth meeting of the U.S. GOOS Steering Committee (U.S. GSC) was called to order at 0830 hr on 12 November 2003 by Worth Nowlin, Committee Chair. Albert Hine, Associate Dean of Research in the College of Marine Science, welcomed Committee members and guests to the University of South Florida at St. Petersburg. All present introduced themselves. Appendix 1 gives the meeting attendees with affiliations. U.S. GSC members Margaret Davidson, Evan Richert, Jeff Reutter, and Don Wright were unable to attend the meeting.
Mark Luther stated the major objectives of the meeting:
Luther presented the provisional agenda which was adopted without modification. The agenda is given in Appendix 2.
Nowlin reviewed the action items from U.S. GSC-VIII ( Appendix 3). It was noted that of 11 items, two (nos. 8 and 9) had not been done and will remain as action items from this meeting. One other (no. 10) is an action for this meeting. The final (no. 11) is a standing action item for the Committee.
Thomas Malone, Director of Ocean.US Office, made this presentation. (This and other links shown in this report are to PowerPoints presented by the speakers.) He reviewed Parts I and II of the Implementation Plan. It is hoped to have Ocean.US Executive Committee (ExComm) approval of Parts I and II in time to present to NORLC in January 2004. He expects to have a draft of Part III completed in December 2003.
Malone reviewed the functions of Ocean.US. He reviewed the Ocean.US Office staff. He noted that the ExComm membership is missing representatives of several NOPP agencies, notably EPA, Homeland Security, and State. This leads to a disconnect between Ocean.US activities and activities of the NOPP Interagency Working Group and NORLC.
He gave some details of Part II, discussing the criteria for selection of existing federal elements of IOOS and the associated budget numbers. The Committee was concerned with the proposed presentation of agency budgets. In particular, it appeared that (1) NOAA has identified many activities that can not legitimately be considered as part of the U.S. IOOS; (2) satellite costs are not accurately reflected in the budgets, but should be; (3) some NSF expenditures might be included under the "Education" heading; and (4) the status of regional coastal ocean observing system elements should be included. The committee realized that until Regional Associations are formed and active this latter items will be incomplete, but felt that some effort should be made to reflect current non-federal contributions.
Nowlin was tasked to send to the ExComm a letter expressing the Committee's concern with the staffing of the Ocean.US Office. It is inadequate to the tasks assigned to the office, and, in view of the fact that it is not an operational office, it may be preferable if program managers still acting on behalf of their parent agency are not assigned to the Office.
Paul Moersdorf, who is temporarily assigned in Washington, D.C. to assist with planning for the Earth Observing System, gave this report. The Summit declared support for a global network of earth observations, established the Group on Earth Observations to help advance implementation, and launched development of a 10-year implementation plan. The presentation is a comprehensive review of activities to date and future plans.
Mike Johnson, Director, Office of Climate Observations (OCO), gave this brief. He reviewed the mission of the OCO, a division of the Office of Global Programs, stressing the central role of partnerships. The goals and products of the ocean component of the climate observation program were given and it was stated that the initial global observations network is still evolving and is now 40% complete. Then the principal tasks of the OCO were stated and details given on how they will be carried out:
Under Task 4, considerable attention was given to the WMO-IOC Joint Technical Commission for Oceanography and Marine Meteorology (JCOMM) and to its Observations Program Area, for which Johnson is the coordinator.
3.1.1 Status of Data Management and Communication Implementation Plan
Worth Nowlin presented a handout prepared by Rosalind Cohen (Ocean.US Office) that briefly describes the status of the DMAC Implementation Plan, which was in final open review and is expected to be completed in early 2004. The Steering Committee guiding this process will meet 2-3 December 2003 to: address public comments regarding the Plan, prepare transition to a permanent DMAC Standing Committee, and initiate the IOOS/DMAC Standards Development Process. The handout and the highest priority tasks in FY 2004-2005 for DMAC development are given in Appendix 4.
3.1.2 Report on 2003 national NVODS workshop
Nowlin reported on the second national workshop on the National Virtual Ocean Data System held during October 2003. The workshop objectives, agenda, and speakers are given as Appendix 5.
3.1.3 Plans for private sector IOOS meeting in March 2004
Nowlin presented plans for an Industry-IOOS workshop scheduled for 2-4 March 2004 in Houston, Texas. The goal and objectives of the workshop as well as the membership of the workshop steering committee are given in Appendix 6. Also given is the provisional agenda. This will be the first major meeting involving major sectors of industry dealing with the marine environment. Its purpose is to described the IOOS to industry, discuss their interested and concerns, and develop plans for future cooperative work in IOOS development. The Committee suggested that the agenda include a briefing on cost-benefit studies of the IOOS. Nowlin asked the Committee to help identify trade organizations, societies, and others that represent private sectors with potential interests in IOOS. They will be prioritized for future contacts. Nowlin asked the Committee for suggested invitees to this Industry-IOOS workshop.
3.1.4 Ocean.US Workshops and other planning activities
Malone summarized planned meetings regarding (1) further IOOS planning, (2) development of Regional Associations, (3) community outreach, and (4) international developments related to development of the coastal module of the GOOS.
3.2.1 Second program announcement by CSC/NOAA for development of Regional Associations
In Margaret Davidson's absence, Mark Luther reported on the numbers of proposals received in response to a second program announcement from the NOAA Coastal Services Center offering support for the development of Regional Associations and for regional pilot projects. Received were: three proposals for development of new Regional Associations, five requests for additional support in ongoing developments, and 19 proposals for pilot projects.
3.2.2 Southeast Regional Association for Coastal Ocean Observing System (SERA-COOS): Building a framework for the coastal ocean observing system of the southeastern U.S.
Rick DeVoe (South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium) gave a presentation on plans to develop this Regional Association. He was recently funded to do so by the CSC/NOAA. The association will build on a series of ongoing regional observing system elements. A three-year development plan was laid out.
3.2.3 Status of the Gulf of Mexico Coastal Ocean Observing System (GCOOS)
Robert (Buzz) Martin began this presentation by noting that several meetings between Gulf of Mexico data and product producers and users have occurred over the past 3 years. In January 2003 a resolution was prepared offering signatories the opportunity to assist in developing a GCOOS beginning with the sharing of non-commercial data and products. Many groups have signed this resolution. Since the meeting, a website (http://www.gcoos.org) has been implemented and a first order inventory of observing system elements, models, and products has been compiled. W. Nowlin prepared a proposal to CSC/NOAA to develop a Regional Association for GCOOS which was recently funded. The next steps were laid out. Already most elements in the Gulf producing non-commercial real time data have been integrated into the national data network via the National Data Buoy Center.
3.2.4 California Ocean Current Initiative
Paul Siri and Burr Heneman, of the California Coastal Conservancy, gave a presentation on the California Coastal Ocean Currents Monitoring Program (COCMP), initially funded by $21M in bond funding (Appendix 7). They reviewed expected results, governance, and present plans. Interest was expressed in integration of this initiative with the IOOS.
It seemed imperative to the Committee that the California COCMP be coordinated with other California/west coast projects, and particularly the developing Regional Association. [See next section for other recommendations.]
3.2.5 Ocean.US Surface Current Initiative (SCI)
Jeff Paduan described this initiative to cover the U.S. coastal waters with long-range HF radars for measurement of surface currents. He provided a PowerPoint and a handout (Appendix 8). Planning for this project is directed by the Ocean.US Office. Plans are to combine these measurements with other in situ and remote observations for a variety of products. Surface currents have consistently been identified as of high priority in the IOOS. This initiative is envisioned as a part of the national backbone of IOOS observations. Installation costs are estimated at $15-44M; annual operating costs are estimated at $5-15M.
It was very clear to the committee that the California COCMP should be integrated with the Ocean.US SCI. Much work already has been done by the latter that could benefit the former. And, the systems might either be complementary or jointly operated on the California coast. A letter to the California Coastal Conservancy was drafted during later discussion and is to be sent to the director of that Conservancy by Nowlin.
3.2.6 Reports on PICES and GEM
Phil Mundy made these reports. The PICES (North Pacific Marine Science Organization) Monitor Task Team is a coordination group that shares information on monitoring and holds an annual workshop. They are interested in developing a N. Pacific GOOS. This may be a topic of the PICES-XII meeting October 15-23, 2004 in Honolulu.
The Gulf of Alaska Environmental Monitoring Program (GEM) has officially begun with approval of its governing body. Plans are to introduce the "Ferrybox" system on selected crossings of the Gulf of Alaska. This concept, now widely used by EuroGOOS, relies on autonomous monitoring equipment aboard ferries regularly repeating track lines.
3.2.7 Status of pending legislation related to GOOS
Evan Richert prepared a status report on the proposed national IOOS legislation (Appendix 9). In brief, it has passed the Senate as Bill S1400. In the House it is being considered by four separate committees, lead by the House Resources Committee. This authorization bill is sorely needed to begin the process of garnering new federal resources for IOOS development.
Malone led a discussion on this topic. It is important that the IOOS Implementation Plan be approved prior to the release. It was agreed that an op ed piece should be prepared for distribution to major newspapers after the release of the Commission's report. This should describe Ocean.US efforts relative to the recommendations in the report regarding an ocean observing system. Further distribution to local newspapers should be arranged by local/regional activities.
It is important that all State Governors are aware of the report and have their staff prepared to conduct rapid reviews.
Laura Nowlin described to the Committee in some detail the generic elements of a communication plan. She included the purposes/advantages of an IOOS Communication Plan and how it will be developed by early 2004.
It was noted that different audiences have different views of the IOOS. L. Nowlin stated that Ocean.US must analyze the IOOS audiences. Analysis of those audiences and crafting the messages for them which best help meet the objectives in the IOOS Strategic and Action Plans is the job of those most familiar with the system and its elements. To that purpose a small meeting between L. Nowlin, B. Cohen, L. Sheehan, S. Weisberg, E. Harrison, and W. Nowlin will be held in San Francisco in early January 2004.
Considerable discussion resulted during the consideration of draft communication pieces in progress. Emphasis needs to be given on coasts and shorelines as well as oceans. Charlie Colgan expressed the opinion that there are three messages: What is IOOS going to do? Why are we doing it? Who is going to do it? These messages are of different degrees of interest to the two classes of audience-insiders and outsiders. Admiral West noted the importance of maintaining focus on the cross-cutting areas of research and education. W. Nowlin suggested that a representative from the Digital Library for Environmental Science Education be invited to U.S. GSC-X, and he agreed to send to Committee members a talk on DLESE given at the national NVODS meeting in October 2003.
W. Nowlin was tasked to contact the staff of the Commission on Ocean Policy and inquire how they intend to frame the IOOS in their report. In this manner, the Ocean.US enterprise can be prepared to support their recommendations as well as to take advantage of them.
Following U.S. GSC-VIII, a letter from the Committee was sent to Ron Baird, Director of the National Sea Grant Office, suggesting ways that Sea Grant might use its experience and expertise to assist in the development and operation of IOOS, while strengthening its own position. Baird was quite positive in his initial response. Jeffrey Reutter, who could not attend the meeting, sent a written status report on Sea Grant involvement in IOOS (Appendix 10).
Rick DeVoe (South Carolina Sea Grant) gave information regarding the recent formation by the Sea Grant Association of a working group to assist with the development of IOOS Regional Associations. Details of the terms of reference for that working group are not clear; Nowlin was tasked to discover them.
DeVoe offered to contact Jennifer Greenamoyer in the National Sea Grant Office and request a list of associations and societies representing private sectors with potential interest in IOOS and with offices in Washington, D.C.
Following U.S. GSC-VIII, the Committee sent to the Ocean.US Office draft Strategic and Action Plans for IOOS. Malone indicated that the Strategic Plan is finalized and the Action Plan revised. He promised to send copies to the Committee.
As background to this subject, Malone handed out an excerpt from the draft "Implementation of the Initial U.S. IOOS. Part II. Building the Initial IOOS" (using existing assets). This excerpt described the process for selection of initial IOOS building blocks given the inventory of candidate programs provided by participating agencies. It is given as Appendix 11.
Larry Atkinson described the Ocean Observations Initiative (OOI) as the construction and implementation phase of the broader Ocean Research Interactive Observatory Network (ORION). The latter includes elements for operations and maintenance, science funding, instrumentation, mobile platforms, and educational activities. He described current activities off the west coasts of Canada and U.S. The expected OOI funding profile was shown; it was clear that Canadian scientists are well along with a similar effort. The U.S. funding distribution between regional cabled systems, coastal, global, and management was shown. The ORION Program Office was described. Finally classes of OOI instrumentation were described briefly.
Mark Luther described this NOAA-supported activity which is a partnership among research institutions, resource managers, and private sector interested in development and application of sensor technologies for monitoring coastal environments. He noted its organization and partners. ACT can play a vital role in the migration of technologies from research and development to operational status; it presently is resource limited.
Luther described the sensor evaluation process adopted by ACT. He noted completed evaluations and the roles ACT is playing to promote information exchange via workshops and their website. Eight meetings or workshops currently are planned for 2004, beginning with one to be held in Puerto Rico during January at the ORION workshop with focus on a Caribbean alliance.
This discussion moderated by Ed Harrison began with a very thorough briefing of background issues concerning transition to sustained observing status prepared by Harrison. He suggested three transition models. "Pull" mode development at the request of operations, "Push" mode developed by researchers and sold to operators, and "Continue" mode consisting of activities the research community has developed and proven and wants to sustain. He suggested core features of transition to sustained status. Then, the special challenges for creating accurate, long-term records were explored-a very important issue for climate studies. This was followed by a lengthy review of issues that should/must be discussed among all communities involved before deciding on transition mechanisms and how they are to be enforced.
These include:
Finally, Harrison made his recommendations on how to proceed with developing this process.
The Committee sincerely thanked Harrison for this careful analysis of issues and requirements to be considered before any transition mechanism is set in place. It agreed entirely that the recommendations made were excellent and should be implemented. The discussion then focused on how best to implement them.
A very important issue regarding NOAA was raised in discussion. First, it seems almost certain that the development of the IOOS depends in largest measure on NOAA as the lead federal agency. NOAA must be convinced to assume the responsibility for key operational components of the IOOS, if it is to succeed. There is no firm evidence to date that this is the case.
It might be possible to use the development of transition mechanisms to help convince NOAA to assume that responsibility.
It was suggested that someone in a position of authority for IOOS is needed to commission a study to answer the questions raised by Harrison's brief and to recommend transition mechanisms. This study and recommendation should be done by a neutral group. The group would then return their results to the commissioner for approval.
It was strongly suggested that a task team consisting of Harrison, Nowlin, Colgan, and Moersdorf redraft Harrison's remarks into a proposal for a study group activity. This should then be taken via Richard Spinrad to VADM Lautenbacher with the request that he commission this study activity.
This proposal might also be given to the staff of the Commission on Ocean Policy as evidence that thought is being given to the requirements of all communities as IOOS development proceeds.
Charlie Colgan gave a status report on the results to date of the NOPP-supported study directed by he and Kite-Powell. This study involves in its first stage the estimation of economic benefits of IOOS to all U.S. coastal regions for a selected suite of sectors (e.g., coastal hazards, commercial fishing, search and rescue, cruise lines). These regional studies are to be based on procedures used in the GoMOOS cost benefits studies published by Kite-Powell and Colgan. This initial stage is scheduled to be drafted by January 2004.
The Committee had severe reservations regarding the credibility of results to date. It appeared that the procedures used by the various individuals carrying out these regional estimations were not uniform or well defined. Potentially, this could lead to a setback for IOOS development.
A letter was drafted in executive session to be sent to the NOPP sponsor (Melbourne Briscoe) of the study alerting him to this problem. The letter urges the provision of resources necessary to allow a face-to-face meeting of all study principals for the purpose of resolving such differences. It suggests that some IOOS knowledgeable outsiders (perhaps U.S. GSC members) be included at that meeting to act as a sounding board.
Margaret Davison provided a brief statement (Appendix 12) on SAIC efforts. The statement cited two earlier reports completed by Mary Altalo in 2000 and 2002. It also outlined Altalo's ongoing studies dealing with regional market and policy imperatives as drivers for the U.S. coastal global ocean observing system design.
Steve Weisberg was moderator for this discussion. Malone began with a brief presentation highlighting the needs for a National Federation of Regional Associations to
Malone also presented for consideration by the Committee a draft document on guidance for the establishment of Regional Associations. Finally, Evan Richert had prepared a white paper on options for governing regional coastal ocean observing systems, based in large measure on considerations/experience of the GoMOOS. This paper discussed the implications of five optional governance structures: three private and two public.
There was considerable discussion of the Ocean.US draft document giving guidance for establishing Regional Associations. It was agreed that guidance is needed for those establishing Regional Associations regarding: how to establish formal organizations; roles of the user community; and how to insure liability. The governance plan and the business plan for Associations should be separate. The Governance plan must make clear how the Association has and will consider the roles of federal agencies, state agencies, academic researchers, users, contractors/private sector, and NGOs in establishing the plan and in future governance.
It was agreed that detailed comments would be sent to Malone immediately following the meeting. The Committee applauded Richert for his models of governing systems and recommended that they be attached to the final guidance documents.
[Note: Some items discussed during this session have been mentioned earlier in this report.]
9.1.1 Satellites in the IOOS
As expressed during agenda item 2.0, the Committee had concerns that satellite observations and products were not receiving adequate focus in IOOS development. The Committee invited Frank Muller-Karger to express his views on satellite remote sensing in IOOS. He has some grave concerns; many of which were shared by the committee.
It was agreed that Nowlin should contact the GOOS Program Office and Eric Lindstrom to determine the status of the IGOS Ocean Theme Rolling Review Process for satellite missions needed in support of the GOOS. Input regarding needed satellite remote sensing of coastal environments should be included.
Muller-Karger agreed to provide to the Committee a recent comprehensive report dealing with satellite remote sensing of coastal environments. He also agreed to provide a white paper giving the issues as he sees them.
The Committee agreed that a short report is needed to highlight the satellite requirements for the IOOS.
9.1.2 The definition of Operational
Prompted by the preliminary definition of "operational" given in section 2.2 of "The IOOS Implementation Plan, Part I", the Committee discussed the meaning of operational as used, or should be used, in the IOOS. The Committee agreed that the stated definition does not cover activities meant to be operational within the IOOS. It might be wise to include activities that are in the "continue" mode as discussed under agenda item 6.3. Operational might also mean that the data are used in a product and have undergone quality control. This issue is to be discussed via email following the meeting.
The Committee prepared a list of potential new members to be reviewed at future meetings.
The next two meetings of the U.S. GSC are scheduled to be held 19-21 May 2004 at the Ocean.US Office in Arlington, VA and 3-5 November 2004 either in Monterey or San Francisco, CA. Potential agenda items for U.S. GSC-X include:
Nowlin to circulate immediately following the meeting a list of action items.
The meeting was adjourned at noon on 14 November 2003.
| GSC-I | GSC-II | GSC-III | GSC-IV |
| GSC-V | GSC-VI | GSC-VII | GSC-VIII |
| GSC-IX | GSC-X | GSC-XI | GSC-XII |
| GSC-XIII |
Contact: Susan R. Martin (srmartin@tamu.edu)
Updated: 26 September, 2006
URL: http://ocean.tamu.edu/GOOS/GSC9/GSC9.html