Mary Altalo, Director of the Ocean.US Office, welcomed the committee to their conference facilities. She noted that the Office was transitioning from planning to implementation and finding the difference to be large. All attendees introduced themselves. (A list with affiliations is given in Appendix 1.) Worth Nowlin summarized logistics for the meeting and then gave his view of key meeting objectives, to wit:

• Discussion of status of designs for elements of an initial IOOS
• The future of the U.S. GSC
• Review of the status of global GOOS, federal IOOS development, and development of Regional Associations.

Mike Johnson summarized these issues. He noted that an implementation plan is in place and that six observational steering teams exist and are working together to implement the in situ part of the component. However, funding needed to complete this part of the system is increasing very slowly, and it is only ~56% complete now. With the present rate of funding increase, completion will take decades.

He reported on new NSF support for the Ocean Research Interactive Observing Networks of which there are three of global scale with support of $46 million for infrastructure through 2012 and estimated $15M/year for 20 years for operations and maintenance. These dovetail well with global GOOS needs. Johnson was optimistic regarding improvements to PIRATA, the DART network for tsunamis, the tide gauge network, expansion of tropical buoy array in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, and a boundary current monitoring pilot in the California Current. He expressed strong support for an operational center for global GOOS that would maintain current knowledge of all system components and have resources and authority to shift/deploy observing system elements to bring about more effective and efficient operations. It was agreed that this be suggested at the next meeting of the JCOMM Management Committee in October 2006.

Finally, Johnson reviewed the capability of the new Observing System Monitoring Center developed by his office and due to be demonstrated at the upcoming JCOMM Management Committee meeting in October 2006. The capabilities of the system were judged by the U.S. GSC to be so useful that a brief on this was recommended at the November 2006 IOOS Workshop in Chicago.

Ed Harrison made a presentation on the development of a web site for ocean climate indices for the Ocean Observations Panel for Climate (OOPC). A series of indicators of status of the ocean has been developed and is being displayed on the OOPC web site with the idea that they will prove useful to those needing knowledge of ocean changes, much as economic indicators are useful. However, most ocean climate researchers have shown limited interest in making indicators/indices useful to broader audiences or in attaching error bars. In discussion the following questions were raised: Who are the audiences for ocean indices? How can their use be explained? Where should they regularly appear—perhaps in selected trade journals? The committee agreed that further research should be encouraged to investigate these issues. Nowlin agreed to approach the Oil and Gas Producers group that regularly meets in Houston to inquire as to their interest in such indicators.

GODAE is a pilot project that is coming to an end in 2007/8. Scott Harper summarized three of the GODAE initiatives funded by the National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP): HYCOM, ECCO, and CODAE.

HYCOM is a model development effort focused on short-term predictions. Transitions to operational status are planned by Navy (1/12° resolution by FY 08 and 1/24° resolution by FY 11) and by NOAA (Atlantic in FY06 and Pacific regions in FY 08).

ECCO is model development focused on estimation of circulation and climate of the ocean using a dynamically correct model with sophisticated data assimilation. Two groups focus on state estimation and diagnostics. ECCO-2 is a follow on planned for 2007/8 - 2012 to enhance ECCO resolution globally using NASA computational capability.

CODAE has three funded projects taking HYCOM model output as outer boundary conditions and modeling at finer scale for limited regions: West Florida Shelf, Oregon Shelf, and off Northern California. The focus is on evaluation of the resulting regional model results.

Altalo reiterated her wish to form a North American GRA between the USA, Mexico, and Canada. To do so at national levels would be impractical or impossible. One option discussed was to attempt to establish a GRA consisting of RAs or the NFRA in the USA and entities representing a desire to establish GOOS components within Mexico (e.g., GOOS Mexico) and Canada (there seems to be organizations on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts). The flaw with this approach is that governmental agencies would not be represented and the private sector might also be missed in Mexico and Canada, though not in the USA because of its involvement in RAs. An alternative approach would be to configure the GRA from governmental agencies. This would likely require considerably more bureaucracy and would not represent the private, academic, and local sectors. Further exploration with potential partners and consideration is necessary. Altalo's brief gives more information, including the facts that a development committee has been formed and will next meet in late October in time to brief the third Forum of GRAs in early November 2006. An initial North American GRA meeting could be held in early 2007.

Altalo reported on a letter from the Executive Secretary of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) to IOC Member States asking of them three actions in preparation for the eighth meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee for GOOS (I-GOOS) in 2007:

1. Redesignate national representatives to I-GOOS;
2. Prepare inventories of sustained ocean observations undertaken from 2000-2005, and planned for 2006-2010, as contributions to GOOS, using a template to be available from the IOC website in January 2007; and
3. Come to the eighth I-GOOS meeting prepared to pledge substantial support to GOOS international coordination efforts during 2008-2012.

The letter is given as Appendix 3. The Ocean.US Office will be responsible for preparing the inventories called for in action 2. This will require a major effort and cooperation between U.S. agencies and RAs.

Phil Mundy briefed the committee on PICES efforts to better define its relation to I-GOOS and its roles in implementation and maintenance of ocean observing systems in the North Pacific. The PICES MONITOR Committee has been assigned to make recommendations on the nature of this relation and roles for consideration of the governing body. For the purposes of discussion, Mundy presented a draft report containing the recommendation that PICES facilitate the formation of a GOOS Regional Alliance that would encompass all of the existing GOOS organizations in the North Pacific. That draft report was modified following U.S. GSC-XIII and is included as Appendix 4.

The U.S. GSC recognizes that PICES can play important roles in facilitating the development of both the global and coastal modules of GOOS. The consensus of the U.S. GSC is that PICES may establish a formal relation with GOOS, but that it is not necessary to form a North Pacific GOOS Regional Alliance (GRA) in order for PICES to fulfill effectively the central coordination role among North Pacific regional observing systems. As examples, PICES could establish a PICES-GOOS entity within its own organizational structure that would communicate with the GOOS Scientific Steering Committee, facilitate coordination among the components of existing observing systems, facilitate development of inter-GRA projects such as the Continuous Plankton Recorder, provide foundations for scientifically sound observing systems, or foster the use of common information exchange methods such as the Global Telecommunications System.

Dave Zilkoski briefed the committee on the formal structure overseeing ocean policy, science, and resource management now in place within the Executive Branch and the place of IWGOO within this structure. IWGOO charter, membership, and draft minutes from its initial meeting were distributed. IWGOO will replace the Ocean.US Executive Committee. Zilkoski's presentation also reviewed the current structure for IOOS within NOAA.

Zilkoski gave the committee a preliminary view of evolving Ocean.US Office into a joint program office (JPO). Because of the preliminary nature of plans, no presentation can be made available. However, the general concept is that the JPO be hosted in commercial (neutral) space. The move must be prior to July 2007 when the present lease in Arlington will be terminated. The new office should be based on "form follows function", and the initial JPO should be a 2-year proof of concept project to demonstrate interagency cooperation to deliver a U.S. IOOS.

Altalo described the shift in emphasis of the proposed certification criteria for Regional Associations. Consultation with NOAA attorneys revealed that the agency cannot certify organizations. However, NOAA can certify systems. Therefore, the proposed certification criteria are being revised to set requirements for the RCOOSs to be certified rather than the governing RAs. Final certification criteria must be approved by agency council as well as the IWGOO.

Mary Altalo spoke briefly about the systems engineering studies completed for NOAA by Lockheed-Martin and Raytheon. The reports were not publicly available yet, but will be released together with some analyses in the near future.

Altalo and Mike Johnson spoke of plans to transition the Ocean.US Office to a "Joint Project Office". Plans are to fold in Johnson's Office of Climate Observation. The transition will be one of evolution taking place over several years. The hope is that the office will eventually have a measure of budgetary authority. Ideas are still in the early stages.

Mary Altalo briefed the committee on an approach she is taking to map all observing system elements onto socioeconomic goals of IOOS to which they contribute. This is best understood by considering the example shown in the PowerPoint.

Molly McCammon presented the status of draft legislation and legislation pending in Congress. As in the previous year, legislation is stalled in the House. There seems little likelihood that Congress will pass a bill containing authorization of a U.S. IOOS in the present session.

Eric Lindstrom briefed the committee on requirements and challenges for remote sensing in support of the global (climate) component of GOOS. He first reviewed the requirements as given in the Implementation Plan for the Global Climate Observing System (version 2) as prepared for the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCC). The Convention has requested that the Committee on Earth Observing Satellites (CEOS, consisting of representatives of the major satellite agencies globally) respond to these requirements. He presented key points from a paper, prepared by U.S. experts, laying out for CEOS the requirements and challenges (potential gaps, etc.). CEOS was expected to respond within a month. The picture is decidedly gloomy, with unfunded future missions for microwave, synthetic aperture radar, and altimetry as well as likely data gaps in polar orbiting and precision altimeters and the unknown future performance of NPOESS. Lindstrom set the following challenges for U.S. GOOS:

1. Refresh the "GCOS" requirements;
2. Work toward better integration of in situ and remote sensing in JCOMM, GCOS, and CEOS—setting priorities; and
3. Emphasize planning "end-to-end" systems research and demonstration, operations, products and services, and technology infusion.

Paul DiGiacomo briefed the committee on requirements and challenges for remote sensing in support of the coastal component of GOOS. He introduced the IGOS Coastal Theme as background. The theme was established in June 2003 by the Integrated Global Observing System (IGOS) Partners and a Team was selected. Focusing on cross-boundary, user-driven issues, the team distilled a suite of coastal observing requirements. These, along with an assessment of existing capabilities, gaps, challenges, and priorities were published in January 2006 in the IGOS Coastal Theme Report. DiGiacomo then reviewed the requirements, status of capabilities, and challenges and priorities. He noted that the upcoming IOOS Remote Sensing workshop in November 2006 will provide an important opportunity for the IOOS community to consider exactly what data/product suites and quality, are needed, how and to whom are these data products to be delivered, and how will they be sustained. As did Lindstrom, he issued as challenges:

• How to "refresh" coastal satellite requirements and transmit accordingly?
• How to make satellite a fully integrated part of the coastal IOOS?
• How to realize a truly "end-to-end" system for coastal user needs?

Following these informative presentations the committee agreed that a key problem in sustaining satellite observations is communication. Most committee members were shocked to learn of a lack of future commitments and likely gaps in coverage of many requirement missions. It seems likely that most users, particularly private sector users, are unaware of these problems and simply assume that satellite missions will "be there". The U.S. GSC, Ocean.US, NFRA and others involved in U.S. IOOS must be proactive in advocating a truly integrated system of in situ and remotely-sensed data and derived products. To that end, several actions were agreed which appear in the Action Item list following this report.

This discussion focused on the NFRA, RA needs, upcoming workshops, and needs for better communications.

Josie Quintrell led with a presentation that reviewed what the NFRA is and gave brief updates of governance structure and membership of member RAs. She gave examples of IOOS products from RAs followed by a discussion of the May 2006 Needs Assessment of RAs by Chris Ellis of NOAA Coastal Services Center. For each area of need identified by the RAs in this assessment some details were presented.

Then Quintrell discussed the upcoming Coastal Remote Sensing Workshop on October 3-5, 2006 at University of New Hampshire and the IOOS Regional Coordination Workshop, November 7-8 in Chicago. In summary she stated, "User interest in ocean and coastal observations is great, but running out of time and good will — need to deliver products soon."

A general discussion of regional IOOS development followed. One general realization was that those developing IOOS do not have an effective mechanism by which to determine the status of a specific area of activity within IOOS development. For example, where can one go to learn what activities are being undertaken to improve human health? resiliency to inundation? safe and efficient maritime transport? etc. Consideration was given to forming subject area teams, creating sub web sites for tropical areas, and other mechanisms.

One very concrete suggestion agreed on was that an online Journal of Ocean Observing could deliver real benefits. This journal would be published quarterly and seek to advance the GOOS through communications among the ocean observing community regarding science, organization, implementation, and users of observing systems—focused principally on the U.S. More details of this recommended journal are given in Appendix 5.

This brief was given by Kurt Schnebele who pointed out that it has been four years since the DMAC Steering Committee was formed, almost two years since the DMAC plan was published in the Federal Register, and 18 months since the new DMAC Steering Team was formed. After three meetings the Steering Team has approved the formation of 9 sub-groups and there is an Interagency Observing Working Group. A "standards process" has been adopted but not set up as a public process and not coordinated with processes of other groups, e.g., OOI or GEOSS. A guide for IOOS Data Procedures was issued which identifies 24 standards/best practices and 11 priorities for developmental work. Expected to be public by November 2006 is a transport laboratory to serve as testbed for "standards and protocols". A "community information repository," at NOAA Coastal Services Center, was mentioned which is intended to provide to IOOS participants information on DMAC and related efforts.

Schnebele's brief also included some information on the Raytheon and Lockheed-Martin conceptual designs for IOOS and the likely next steps in their review and follow-on activity.

Tom Malone provided the committee with draft terms of reference for an IOOS Modeling and Analysis Steering Team and a list of potential team members. Malone's brief pointed out that Ocean.US had formed an Ocean.US Modeling Task Team which has prepared a preliminary "prospectus for IOOS community modeling" and formed the Modeling and Analysis Steering Team. This Ocean.US team will initiate plans for a National Workshop on IOOS Community Modeling.

Committee members expressed grave skepticism regarding the described approach to developing the IOOS modeling and analysis effort. First the initial emphasis should be on an assessment of needed products (by agencies first and then regions) followed by an assessment of whether existing products meet needs or should be improved, but it was not. Second, the Steering Team participants appear to be modelers who will likely focus on model improvements rather than stakeholder needs.

It finally was agreed that individual committee members should send to Malone their suggestions for improvements to this approach.

During its twelfth meeting (in January 2006), the U.S. GOOS Steering Committee (U.S. GSC) considered a design for an initial coastal U.S. GOOS to be essential. The committee agreed to begin work on developing designs for three key components of the broader overall design—components related to: (1) human health as related to beach and coastal water quality, (2) improved safety and efficiency of maritime transportation; and (3) enhanced resiliency to inundation. Steve Weisberg, Mark Luther, and Margaret Davidson agreed to lead these respective efforts. Progress reports were given at U.S. GSC XIII on 13-14 September 2006.

Weisberg had convened a working group of six in Denver, CO, for 1 1/2 days to consider component (1). They made excellent progress in setting an overall framework for design and identifying classes of users and of products. They decided it would be too ambitious to prepare a design for the entire U.S. coastal zone; instead they opted to prepare two pilot designs: one for beach quality in southern California and one for detection and tracking of harmful algal blooms in the Gulf of Mexico. These pilots are for an optimal system without regards to costs. They do not specify which observing system elements are in place already or what the total costs would be. In addition, these pilot designs should be examined by additional specialists. However, in spite of these shortcomings, the work should be considered an excellent prototype for use by groups designing other IOOS components as well as for Regional Associations designing components for human health as related to beach and water quality for their coastal observing system. Weisberg's presentation is attached.

At U.S. GSC XIII it was agreed that the committee should pursue further an initial design of these components and that an attempt should be made to engage Regional Associations in working toward a more comprehensive design of an initial U.S. IOOS.

It was agreed that the initial designs prepared by the committee would be limited to specific regions, as was Weisberg's, and that no attempt would be made to estimate costs or identify existing observational elements. Thus, these designs should be considered as road maps for future more comprehensive designs.

Weisberg agreed to refine the design for a pilot for southern California.

Mark Luther had not yet convened a working group to consider a design for safe and efficient marine transportation. He agreed to do so not later than November 2006 and will limit the pilot design to the Gulf of Mexico.

Although Margaret Davidson also had not convened a design working group for enhanced resilience to coastal inundation, she and coworkers have been active in preparing draft position papers on this subject for OMB, OSTP, and CEQ. Based on that material and the results of several workshops dealing with inundation, it is anticipated that a pilot design for this component will be prepared in 2006. Ed Harrison and Tom Malone have offered to assist Davidson in this effort; the NOAA Coastal Services Center has employees versed in requirements and products.

The Committee suggested to Josie Quintrell, chair of the steering committee for the November 2006 IOOS Workshop in Chicago, IL, that a presentation on results of Weisberg's working group be made at that workshop. This might follow a presentation by Mary Altalo, Director of the Ocean.US Office, that gives more general guidance for the preparation of a design for U.S. IOOS. The Committee was quite impressed with the overall framework/hierarchy presented by Mary Altalo in a "family tree style." The model developed by Weisberg's group could easily fit into this hierarchy. The Regional Associations might be encouraged to develop designs for IOOS components for their respective regions based on the general concept presented by Altalo and using the template developed by Weisberg's group for specific components.

This discussion led by Steven Weisberg considered four options: (1) continue in current mode, (2) request to become a sub-panel of the NOPP.Ocean Research and Resources Advisory Panel, (3) request to become a subcommittee of the Ocean Sciences Board of the National Research Council, or (4) disband. The committee focused on options (1) and (2). The Ocean.US Office management and NFRA executive express favor for option 1. This will require concurrence of the IWGOO, which Nowlin will discuss with Rick Spinrad.

Carrie McDougall gave a thorough presentation on these topics. She emphasized the interactions between the various efforts, with some detail focus on the NOAA Office of Education.

Most of the Regional Associations either have designated someone for Education and Outreach focus or have formed an Education and Outreach Council. It seems reasonable to have a National Education and Outreach Council. The Ocean.US Office is not prepared to take on this effort. Therefore, the NFRA was asked to do so. The NFRA agreed to discuss the formation of an Education and Outreach Caucus at its November meeting. Should ORION participation be sought? Jeff Reutter suggested outside participation is needed in such a caucus to bring experience in grant getting, partnering with agencies, approaches to foundations, and other talents that might not be available from the new RAs.

The committee first reviewed and discussed the action items resulting from U.S. GSC-XIII. That list is attached to this report.

The committee voted Mark Luther as its new chair with Steve Weisberg continuing as vice-chair. Nowlin will pursue action items from this meeting and prepare, with Susan Martin's assistance, the meeting report. The committee then discussed new members/replacements and reviewed the process for replacement, as given in the action items. Finally the committee scheduled its next meeting for 21-23 February 2007 in Washington, DC area.

The meeting was adjourned about 11:00 am EDT on 15 September 2006.