Report of the U.S. GOOS Steering Committee Meeting VI
Arlington, Virginia
17-19 April 2002
Ocean.US Office

This report is also available as a Word or pdf document. Appendices to the report are available in pdf format only.

1.    Introduction

The sixth meeting of the U.S. GOOS Steering Committee (U.S. GSC) was called to order at 0830 hr on 17 April 2002 by committee co-chair Worth Nowlin, Welcoming remarks by Capt. David Martin, Director of the Ocean.US Office, were followed by introductions by all present. Committee members were reminded of the kind invitation from NOAA to attend a reception hosted by CA Representative Bob Filner in the Rayburn House Office Building on the evening of April 17 in honor of the OAR Climate Observations Program "Teacher of the Year", Dana Tomlinson. (AI 1)

The meeting report from the U.S GSC-V was discussed and adopted with correction to the name Gulf of Alaska Ecosystem Monitoring Program.

Nowlin presented the chair's view of objectives for this sixth meeting organized into four categories.

• Business from U.S. GSC-V, including
  • Report from Users and Products Subcommittee
  • Review of NOAA Climate Observing System Implementation Plan
  • DEOS-GOOS draft white paper
• Background and status reports
  • Reports from ongoing regional observing systems
  • Reports of Federal agency GOOS-related initiatives
  • Report from Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education
  • Status of pending federal legislation
  • Report on Joint Technical Commission on Oceanography and Marine Meteorology
• Highlighted discussions
  • Review of Ocean.US Workshop and follow-on plans
  • Review of selected U.S. ocean data managements activities
• New business
  • Establishment of a Communications Subcommittee
  • Establishment of an Economic Benefits Subcommittee
  • U.S. GSC report to U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
  • Status of U.S. GODAE
  • A federation of regional coastal ocean observing systems

The provisional agenda (Appendix 1) was adopted with inclusions of the last three items of the previous paragraph included under new business.

A list of meeting attendees is given in Appendix 2. (AI 2)

2.0  Progress on national GOOS activities and related programs

2.1  Update on WMO-IOC Joint Technical Commission for Oceanography and Marine Meteorology (JCOMM)

Nowlin introduced JCOMM by reviewing the purpose and structure. He summarized some of the activities since the organizational meeting of the Commission in June 2001, including the first meeting of the JCOMM Management Committee and plans for joint meetings of both JCOMM and GOOS Capacity Building Panels. Discussion focused on what intergovernmental organization will have oversight of the implementation of non-physical variables required by GOOS. It was unclear to what extent this oversight could be assumed by the JCOMM, which presently deals with data, products, and services based on physical and limited chemical variables. However, the JCOMM has a rapporteur, Tony Knap, assigned to inform its task group regarding developing needs in this regard. Some regional GOOS systems have suggested consideration of the possibility of forming a "federation of regional GOOS alliances" to provide oversight of implementation of the coastal module of GOOS. Monitoring of developments in this area will continue and be reported to the committee.

2.2  Review of NOAA Climate Observing System Implementation Plan

Ed Harrison reported on the review of the NOAA Climate Observing System Implementation Plan by an ad hoc review group selected by the U.S. GSC and chaired by Harrison (terms of reference included in Appendix 3). The review group, representing a broad spectrum of climate-related research and operational entities, was very supportive of the plan. However, they did find some deficiencies, and their review contained many useful suggestions for improvement. They also suggested actions that might be taken by the U.S. GSC, the Administrator of NOAA, and the Ocean.US Office. Their review and recommendations are included in Appendix 3.

On receipt of this material, Nowlin circulated to the U.S. GSC for further recommendations (included in Appendix 3). All of this material then was transmitted with covering letter (Appendix 3) to Adm. Lautenbacher, Administrator of NOAA, and Capt. David Martin, Director of Ocean.US Office. Nowlin received positive verbal feedback.

The U.S. GSC was very supportive of this implementation plan and had agreed with suggestions for improvements and actions. The committee advised that requests for implementation of this plan should be made within the overall context of a U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS). It was noted that the plan and budget had been tabled and vetted at the Ocean.US Workshop to plan the U.S. IOOS.

The committee recommended that the co-chairs contact the NOAA Administrator, following Admiral Lautenbacher's review of the organization, to determine what actions at the Administrator's level have been taken or are planned in support of this component of the observing system. It was further suggested that Jim Mahoney, Greg Withee, and Dave Evans also be contacted and given copies of this review. (AI 3)

Finally, the U.S. GSC believed that this plan and review should be conveyed to CORE, and that CORE support for this plan should be sought. (AI 4)

2.3  DEOS-GOOS draft White Paper

A small group co-chaired by Ken Johnson and Tom Malone had prepared a draft white paper entitled "Sea Changes in Ocean Observing for the Ocean Planet: Towards Implementation of an Integrated and Sustained Ocean Observing System". That draft had been sent to committee members prior to the meeting. The initial intention was to briefly describe and differentiate between research observatories and the sustained observing system. Then, on that basis, the clear mutual benefits between research observatories and the U.S. IOOS were to be enunciated. It was felt that such a statement would assist the scientific community and government in seeing the potential synergy between the two.

Tom Malone lead a discussion of the draft paper. It was generally agreed that the present draft did not meet the intended need. It had become a document broadly linking research and GOOS, but with the research side rather narrowly focused on an observatory network for basic research (DEOS). The committee did not wish to endorse the draft and, in fact, strongly recommended that it not be made public. It was suggested that CORE may to prepare a brief statement giving the reasons why many positive outcomes are to be expected as a result of synergy between research observatories and the U.S. IOOS.

After consideration of this draft, the U.S. GSC suggested strongly that a clear statement of the multifaceted relationship between research and GOOS is needed. Fred Grassle suggested that the sequential development of GOOS elements (R and D to Pilot Projects to Pre-Operational Status to Operational Status) might provide a framework in which to describe the many interactions between research and GOOS. It was tentatively agreed that Grassle, Nowlin and Malone would prepare an initial draft. This would be critiqued by research representatives selected by CORE and then offered for publication as an op-ed piece. (AI 5)

2.4  Ocean.US Workshop and Subsequent Actions

David Martin described the March 2002 national workshop organized by the Ocean.US Office for the purpose of gathering information and consensus as to the initial strategic design of the IOOS and a way forward to implementation. He then reviewed its output. His stated goals were to have a short (~15 pages) document describing the workshop finding to the National Oceanographic Research Leadership Council (NORLC) before their meeting on 23 May 2002 and to transmit an approved version to OSTP as soon thereafter as feasible. A complete report of workshop findings would be prepared by mid summer.

Prior to U.S. GSC-VI, committee members had received a copy of the draft 15-page report. Martin asked the U.S. GSC members to comment on the draft, to identify areas of development of the IOOS that should receive highest priority, and to suggest budget allocations for those priority areas during the first year of ramp-up toward a full system, but not later than FY04. A considerable portion of the meeting was devoted to this activity; insightful comments and suggestions were offered. At the end of this discussion, Martin invited committee members to send any additional comments or suggestions regarding the short document to Martin and Malone as soon after the meeting as possible. (AI 6)

2.5  Status of Pending Federal Legislation Relative to GOOS

Evan Richert reviewed draft and pending Congressional legislation related to the development of a U.S. IOOS. He offered a written comparison between working of four potential pieces of legislation (Appendix 4). Discussion lead to consideration of areas where actions are needed to assist in the development of a U.S. IOOS.

It was noted that, although NOPP has achieved much toward the development of a U.S. ocean observing system, funding requests submitted to OMB for IOOS elements are not coordinated. The committee suggested that the Ocean.US office should press for coordination among NOPP agencies in their funding requests related to IOOS development.

It was agreed that efforts would be directed toward participation of U.S. GSC members in meetings with the Ocean Caucus in the Congress.

2.6  Reports on Federal Agency Initiatives Related to GOOS

Briefs were given by the agency attendees.

• Theresa Paluszkiewicz discussed the MRE initiative (including observations of the NSF). It was suggested that Dr. Yoder might contribute to a revised DEOS-GOOS white paper.
• Margaret Davidson reported on GOOS-related activities/plans of the National Ocean Service of NOAA. They recently assessed their capabilities and developed a plan for measurements and services. In addition to plus ups, NOAA received new monies for the support of Ocean.US activities. Plans were for further economic benefit studies and of interviews with CEOS of companies in the recreation and tourism (and perhaps financial) sectors that might be potential users of the ocean observing system. She indicated that NOS plans a region-by-region assessment of products needed from the coastal ocean observing system, and the committee agreed this effort should be tracked. (AI 7)
• Mike Johnson from OGP/NOAA reported on the status of the NOAA climate initiative. He indicated that NOAA intends to support 50% of the global Argo requirements.
• Paul Moersdorf reported on expanded and new initiatives of the National Data Buoy Center, which is undergoing a transformation to respond to observing system requirements.
• Paul Pan of the EPA introduced the most recent multiagency National Coastal Condition Report. He suggested that the EPA Assistant Administrator for ORD be briefed on U.S. GOOS activities. (AI 8)
• Eric Lindstrom, NASA, gave a comprehensive review of plans for global ocean satellite missions.

2.7  CORE

Carolyn Thoroughgood, Acting Director of the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education (CORE), reviewed for the committee the purposes and activities of the Consortium. Possible interactions between CORE, the Ocean.US Office, and the U.S. GSC were considered. It was agreed that, following selection of the new Director for CORE, joint discussions should be arranged.

3.0  Regional Observing Systems

3.1  GEM

Phillip Mundy reported on the status of the Gulf of Alaska Ecosystem Monitoring and Research Program (new name, same acronym). It was agreed to obtain a brief at U.S. GSC-VII on the National Research Council review of the GEM plan.

3.2  North Pacific Research Board

In the absence of Clarence Pautzke, Executive Director of the Board, Phillip Mundy briefed the committee on the North Pacific Research Board (Appendix 5). The Board is supported by interest earned on the Environmental Improvement and Restoration Fund. Its activities are closely related to those of PICES and could be very supportive of GEM. The Committee should develop a better relationship with the Board. (AI 9)

Mundy tabled a draft Memorandum of Agreement among the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, the North Pacific Research Board, the Northern Fund of the Pacific Salmon Commission, and the University of Alaska. The purpose of that Memorandum will be to facilitate coordination and cooperation needed to more effectively monitor and manage the oceans and watersheds and the fish and wildlife resources for which they provide habitat so as to assure long-term health and sustainability.

3.3  GoMOOS

Evan Richert reported on the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System. He noted that GoMOOS representative membership is very advantageous but also leads to healthy debate as to system requirements. He briefed the committee on a study of the increase in added value as data are processed.

4.0  Special Review of Ocean Data Management Activities

4.1  LabNet

David Remsen, MBL, briefed on the purpose and status of LabNet. He reviewed plans for the coming year to install DODS-enabled servers.

4.2  OBIS

Fred Grassle reported on the Census of Marine Life and focused on its biological information system, OBIS.

4.3  NCDDC/NODC/NOAA

Joe Stinus (Director) and Susan Starke presented a brief on the capabilities and plans for the National Coastal Data Development Center. A new branch of the National Oceanographic Data Center, NCDDC has considerable potential to enhance the sharing and use of coastal data as part of the U.S. GOOS.

4.4  DoD METOC Data Standards

Tom Nabors from the Command Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command presented a brief on the development and current status of the Department of Defense's Meteorological and Oceanographic data standards. This made clear that that the DoD had prepared a rather complete glossary for ocean XML, which should be seriously considered for adoption by the ocean community for use in GOOS.

4.5  NVODS

Peter Cornillon gave a thorough review of the NOPP-sponsored project National Virtual Data Ocean System, which supports the development of the Distributed Oceanographic Data System (DODS) for use in GOOS. More information can be found at http://www.nvods.org/.

4.6  Recommendations from Ocean.US Workshop for Data System

Worth Nowlin reviewed the recommendations from the March Ocean.US Workshop leading to the development of a plan for improved data communication and management for the United States (Appendix 6). This is recognized as a key requirement for U.S. GOOS and currently as a major deficiency.

4.7  Discussion

The committee endorsed the planning process for design of an improved ocean data and communication system. The need for a distributed system was emphasized.

5.0  Subcommittee Reports

The U.S. GSC has one standing subcommittee dealing with Users and Products chaired by Steve Weisberg. It was agreed at U.S. GSC V that two additional subcommittees are needed; one would deal with economic impacts and the other with communication issues.

5.1  Economic Impacts Subcommittee

Charles Colgan had agreed to chair this subcommittee. He presented general background against which the committee's terms of reference and membership might be viewed. These included the GoMOOS benefits study (reported at U.S. GSC-V), the recognition by the Ocean.US Workshop of the need for further such studies in other U.S. coastal regions, and the NOPP Broad Agency Announcement calling for such studies in other regions.

Colgan spoke to the broad spread of interests that economic impact studies might embrace, including weather implications for land use and climate implications for land use, ocean change affecting biosystem, and coastal zone changes. For consideration should be on economic impacts that GOOS would make that are of interest to the public as well as to government and the private sector.

General discussion suggested specific actions that the Economic Impacts Subcommittee should undertake, including:

• Development of scenarios of economic interest and impact on GOOS development,
• Maintain a bibliography of key studies,
• Maintain awareness of ongoing pertinent studies, and
• Recommend additional needed studies/activities.

It was agreed that this subcommittee would provide information via the U.S. GSC to the Ocean.US Office, the NOPP Office, and CORE.

Ed Harrison, Robert Cohen, and Mark Luther agreed to serve on the subcommittee. Mary Altalo also will be invited to serve.

Charlie Colgan agreed to prepare terms of reference and suggested intersessional action items, to discuss with subcommittee members, and to present at U.S. GSC-VII. (AI 10) Muriel Cole agreed to provide copies of a bibliography of economic studies prepared by NOAA.

5.2  Users and Products Subcommittee

Steve Weisberg, subcommittee chair, reports on intersessional activities. This subcommittee is proceeding from two basic tenets:

• The U.S. GOOS will be an end-to-end, user-driven system.
  • This leads to the basic question "What are the highest priority products and clients?"
• U.S. Coastal GOOS will consist of a National Federation of Regional Systems.
  • This leads to:
    • The need for shared governance and responsibility, and
    • The question "What is the Federal role?"

The subcommittee had refined the highest priority products with clients as follow:

• Physical measurements
  • Shipping industry (in broad sense)
  • Coast Guard
  • Water quality agencies
• Pathogens/HABs
  • Public health agencies
  • The public
• Fish and Fishermen abundance and location
  • Fishery management agencies
  • Fishermen
  • NGOs

The subcommittee suggested the following Federal roles in the U.S. ocean observing system:

• Coordinate system design
• Provide funding for:
  • Large part of start up costs
  • Some portion of ongoing operations and management
• Coordinate data management
• Coordinate product development (not to restrict)
• Provide international coordination
• Provide research support for
  • Sensor development
  • Data telemetry
  • Pilot projects
  • Model development

In discussion the committee recommended that the document from the Users and Products Subcommittee might be improved by (1) identification of criteria for selection of products, (2) differentiation between periodic (bathymetric or beach surveys) and ongoing (weather) data needs, (3) consideration of additional priority measurements (including zooplankton and water column chemicals), and (4) specifying target audience for this document.

The Committee proceeded to suggest some criteria that might be used in the selection of needed measurements/products:

• Economic return;
• Number of beneficiaries;
• Opportunity for shared development; and
• Technical feasibility.
• In some cases there will be needs for national standards. (Now in many cases, e.g., indicators of beach health, there are differing state or local standards.)

Steve Weisberg agreed to complete revisions to the Users and Products paper intersessionally, taking inputs from the U.S. GC and past regional meetings; the paper would then be placed on the GOOS Products and Services Bulletin and submitted to NOAA Coastal Services Center Magazine and Mariners Weather Log for possible publication. (AI 11)

5.3  Communications Subcommittee

It is clear that both within the ocean/coastal science community as well as beyond there is a lack of clear understanding of what a sustained and Integrated Ocean Observing System for the United States can accomplish, who would benefit, and how those interests can be identified and cultivated.

It was agreed that the terms of reference for this subcommittee would be:

• Provide additions to the Ocean.US online bibliography of published reports and documents that describe the needs and requirements for coastal and ocean observation systems, assess the costs and benefits of such systems, and/or identify private and public sector interests and requirements.
• Develop a communications plan, to include:
  1. a cogent and lucid explanation of the opportunities, challenges, and benefits associated with establishing GOOS;
  2. clear identification of audience segments;
  3. a calendar of presentation/education opportunities; and
  4. the elements of a marketing strategy.
• Develop a draft brochure and a short (2 page) fact sheet that describe the opportunities, challenges, and benefits.
• Constitute a resource committee for developing regional systems planning communications.

Suggested members were Phillip Mundy (Chair), Evan Richert, Linda Sheehan, Margaret Davidson, and Jerry Schubel. The first three were present and agreed to serve.

It was realized that the work of this subcommittee would require funds not now available. Contacts will be made regarding possible sources of support prior to funding the subcommittee. (AI 12)

6.0  Executive Session Discussions

6.1  Ocean Policy Commission

It was agreed that the Ocean Commission should hear from representatives of industry segments supportive of a U.S. coastal observing system. They have heard, and will hear, from those in academic and government working to develop GOOS, but expressions of private need and backing should be offered. Tom Malone has once contacted the Commission staff requesting time to so address the Commission and will follow up. (AI 13)

6.2  Development of Regional Coastal Observing Systems

During its executive session, as well as throughout the meeting, U.S. GSC discussion was devoted to ways by which further assistance might be provided to supporters and implementers of regional observing systems. Most represent nascent observing system elements in pilot projects or pre-operational mode, though some already are truly operational.

It was agreed that one beneficial approach will be to form an open consortium of those interested in developing the coastal component of an Integrated Ocean Observing System for the United States. Objectives likely will include regular communication between members, consideration of possible governance mechanisms for regional systems, and working toward common requirements for a federation of regional systems. The first step will be to draft a memorandum of understanding setting out the need for such a group and the potential benefits. Through this MOU, we would attempt to entrain a broad range of people supporting nascent observing systems, having needs for such systems, and are willing to help develop such systems and form a national federation. (AI 14)

6.3  Global Ocean Data Assimilation Experiment (GODAE)

Nowlin set out his view that there are opportunities to develop U.S. coastal GOOS provided by GODAE that may be missed if new actions are not taken.

As background, GODAE consists of two streams: (1) large scale, long time scale stream associated with the ocean's role in climate; and (2) mesoscale, approximately daily stream associated with ocean boundary conditions for regional nowcasts/forecasts.

Prior to 2003 is the organizational and preparatory phase for GODAE. During the 2003-2005 phase, near-weekly state estimations of the global ocean will be made, assimilating whatever data are available. The plan is that during 2005-2007, the U.S. will focus on evaluation of GODAE products. The vision is to employ global ocean model output as boundary conditions for models of the U.S. coastal regions, extending from estuaries across our EEZ. Such model development and testing is sorely needed for the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System.

Two potential roadblocks to a satisfactory outcome exist.

1. Most modelers in the United States coastal GOOS are likely unaware of GODAE, which has no national focus except a U.S. GODAE Steering Team.
2. There is no formal U.S. GODAE program. Without this national environment, funds and attention likely will be lacking.

GODAE could be of enormous help to the development of the coastal integrated observing system in the United States and the global GOOS module, but what will be the U.S. contribution? NOPP should be encouraged to provide a focus, support, and a program for U.S. GODAE.

The committee was supportive of this suggestion.

6.4  Membership

No current member is scheduled to retire in 2002. Fred Grassle has been present at most U.S. GSC meetings by invitation because of his various GOOS-related activities, and he has demonstrated both interest and assistance in the development of the observing system. He will be nominated for official membership via the Ocean.US Office.

6.5  Time and Venue for U.S. GSC VII

It was agreed that the committee should hold its seventh meeting near the Great Lakes. A principal focus will be on potential users and products of a Great Lakes regional observing system. The director of the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratories in Ann Arbor, Michigan, will be asked to host the meeting, probably to be scheduled during the week of 7-11 October 2002. (AI 15)

The meeting was adjourned at noon on 19 April 2002.

Action Items from U.S. GSC-VI

1. Thank organizers of reception on 17 April in Rayburn Office building for inviting the Committee. (Nowlin) [Done] return
2. Thank invited speakers, committee members, and federal sponsor agency representatives attending US GSC-VI. (Nowlin) [Done] return
3. Regarding the NOAA Climate Observing System Implementation Plan, follow-up with second message/discussion with ADM Lautenbacher following NOAA' current self study. Be sure that Mahoney, Evans, and Withee receive copies of the review; follow-on discussions with them would be desirable. [Nowlin sent letters with copies of all review materials to Mahoney, Withee, and Koch (Evans' interim replacement)] return
4. The NOAA Climate Observing System Implementation Plan and its review should be transmitted to CORE. CORE support for this plan should be sought. [Malone and D. Martin discussed with RAdm. West; Malone sent copies of all review materials to the CORE Office.] return
5. Prepare a clear, short statement of the multifaceted relationship between Research and the GOOS. Ask CORE to suggest names of researchers who would be willing to critique this document. Approve document at US GSC VII and offer for publication as an op-ed piece. [Malone and Nowlin drafted and posted to web site for US GSC-VII.] return
6. Any committee member who attended US GSC-VI who has additional comments regarding the short (10-page) report from the Ocean.US Workshop at Airlie should transmit them to Malone and Martin immediately. [The report has been redrafted, approved by the NORLC of NOPP, and transmitted to OSTP.] return
7. Davidson indicated that NOS has funding for a region-by-region assessment of what products are needed for a coastal observing system. Mundy agreed to track progress of this effort. Coordination with NODC/NCDDC should be maintained. [Davidson provided Nowlin a copy of the proposal from SAIC for this effort. Copies of the proposal were posted to web site for US GSC-VII.] return
8. Brief the EPA Assistant Administrator for ORD on U.S. GOOS activities and solicit their requirements which might be met by the observing system. Tom Malone, with support from Dave Martin, would make this presentation. [Malone to meet with Assistant Administrator in early September.] return
9. Prepare letter to North Pacific Research Board. Their proposed science program is very comprehensive. What are the ties to PICES? [Mundy is monitoring the activities of the NPRB and PICES as they relate to the observing system.] return
10. Regarding the Economic Impacts Subcommittee. Charlie Colgan is to prepare terms of reference and intersessional action items, based on committee discussions. [Colgan prepared background materials for US GSC-VII.] return
11. Complete revisions to the Users and Products paper prepared by that subcommittee with inputs from regional meetings and the US GSC. [A final draft has been sent to the Committee for review. It was posted to web site for US GSC-VII.]
    1. Place resulting paper on GOOS Products and Services Bulletin. (Nowlin)
    2. Submit to NOAA Coastal Services Center Magazine. (Davidson)
    3. Submit to Mariners' Weather Log (Moersdorf) return
12. The Terms of Reference for the Communications Subcommittee were agreed with some modifications. Members of the committee to serve on the subcommittee were identified; other potential members were suggested. It was realized that the work of this committee will require funds not now available. Margaret Davidson will be contacted regarding possible sources of support, as well as whether she wishes to serve on the subcommittee. [Davidson has agreed to serve on this subcommittee. Davidson indicated that funds for some activities will be available from NOS in FY2003.] return
13. Again contact the Ocean Commission staff and request time to present the case for the U.S. GOOS, including testimony of leaders in key private sector areas that would benefit from the observing system. [Malone] return
14. Form an open consortium of supporters and implementers of regional coastal ocean observing systems. Objectives likely will include regular communication between members, consideration of possible governance mechanisms for regional systems, and working toward common requirements for a federation of regional systems. The first step will be to draft a memorandum of understanding setting our the need for such a group and potential benefits. A draft will be prepared. [Luther and Sheehan prepared a draft which was commented on by other committee members. A slightly revised draft was posted to meeting web site and will be discussed at US GSC-VII] return
15. The next meeting of the US GSC will be on the Great Lakes with one focus on the potential users and products of a regional GOOS. Contact Steve Brandt for suggestions as to location and invitees. Likely date will be 9-11 October 2002. [The meeting has been scheduled to be held at the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratories in Ann Arbor, MI.] return

Contact: Susan R. Martin (srmartin@tamu.edu)
Updated: 26 September, 2006
URL: http://ocean.tamu.edu/GOOS/GSC6/GSC6.html