1.1 Welcome and Introductions
The eleventh meeting of the U.S. GOOS Steering Committee (U.S. GSC) began at 0830 on 3 November 2004. Worth Nowlin, committee chair, welcomed members and guests to Dallas, his former home town. All present introduced themselves. Appendix 1 gives the meeting attendees with affiliations.
1.2 Key issues for consideration
Key items for consideration during the meeting were reviewed by Nowlin with inputs from other committee members. Those identified were:
There is a clear need within the Ocean.US enterprise for a clearinghouse for information, including recommended actions with priorities. This function might be served by a full-time person within the Ocean.US Office. This individual would be the contact point for persons seeking information regarding U.S. IOOS and would focus the activities of the IOOS Communications Specialist. This should help ensure a coordinated response from IOOS to external factors.
Also recognized as a critical need was the identification of members and staffers on Capitol Hill willing to be champions for IOOS. That need could be met by an individual advocate for IOOS working over the next year.
1.3 Action Items from U.S. GSC-X
Nowlin circulated a list of action items from the tenth committee meeting, which included the current status. That document is included as Appendix 2.
1.4 Adoption of Agenda
Mark Luther presented the provisional agenda which was accepted without change but with the understanding that the order and timing might be modified to accommodate participants and in response to the length of discussions. Appendix 3 gives the final agenda.
Paul Kelly, member of the Commission on Ocean Policy, gave the Committee his view of the presentation of the COP Report at the White House and on Capitol Hill. He was very positive in his assessment of the Administration's response. Following the White House meeting, the Commissioners went to the Hill for talks. The next day a full presentation of the Report was made to Congress.
The Commission is in the process of completing one remaining appendix, accepting comments (until December 19, 2004), and closing its office. The Administration is required to respond to the Report by December 20, 2004.
2.1 The COP Report and the U.S. IOOS
Tom Malone, Ocean.US Office Director, prepared a paper (Appendix 4) summarizing recommendations in the Report of the Commission on Ocean Policy related to the Ocean.US enterprise and IOOS development. Following the recommendations in each chapter of the report, Malone commented on connections between those recommendations and current Ocean.US activities and IOOS development. The committee received and reviewed that paper with thanks to Malone.
2.2 Possible consequent actions by Ocean.US and U.S. GSC
Jeff Reutter suggested with a PowerPoint presentation possible actions. As with other presentations for which PowerPoint versions are available, Reutter's presentation may be viewed at the meeting website. Such presentations are indicated by [ppt].
Following a lengthy discussion of possible actions by the U.S. GSC, it was agreed to focus on the key actions which are believed to be of highest priority in achieving the goal of implementing the U.S. IOOS.
The two key actions are perceived to be (1) passage of legislation authorizing the IOOS as expressed in HR 5001 and S1400 of the 108th Congress and (2) vesting the Ocean.US Office with the authority and budget commensurate with its responsibilities.
It was decided to prepare a statement commending the Commission for its recommendations regarding the Integrated Ocean Observing System and clearly stating the U.S. GSC view regarding these two needed actions. Evan Richert and Charles Colgan drafted a statement which was discussed and accepted. It was to be sent by Nowlin on behalf of the U.S. GSC with appropriate copies. The final statement is given as Appendix 5.
Another action agreed to by the committee was to examine the Ocean.US Action Plan in light of the Commission's recommendations and make revisions as appropriate. Ed Harrison, Mark Luther, and Worth Nowlin agreed to undertake this task.
3.1. Status of the IOOS Communication Plan
Mike Hemsley, Deputy Director for Coastal Operations in the Ocean.US Office, gave a status report on the communication activities planned by that office. The IOOS Communication Plan has been received by Ocean.US and the position of communication specialist for the office has been advertised. Three people were interviewed. The top candidate has agreed to accept the job and will be on board before the end of November. The Action Plan will be used by the communications specialist and other Ocean.US staff to help prioritize the recommendations of the Communication Plan.
To assist the communications specialist in establishing contacts within the IOOS community, the U.S. GSC agreed to prepare a list of communication networks, with contacts, that should be useful as contacts for the new communication specialist in the Ocean.US Office. Such networks include: broadcast meteorologists, Sea Grant, oceanographic research institutes, and NERRs. Paul Scholz, Jeff Reuter, Bob Cohen, and Marcia McNutt agreed to provide to Nowlin inputs for this list.
Also, it was agreed that a list of federal agency contacts be established and maintained as useful contacts for the communication specialist and others in Ocean.US Office, as well as others working to implement actions of the IOS Communication Plan. Jeff Payne, NOAA's Coastal Services Center, agreed to work on such a list.
Clearly, the new communicator will require a considerable training period in which he can get up to speed on the activities of Ocean.US and other IOOS developments.
3.2. Contacts with trade associations
At U.S. GSC-X a list of trade associations that might be contacted by Ocean.US or U.S. GSC members was begun and committee volunteers to contact those organizations were sought. Additional organizations and priorities for contacts were sought following that meeting. Although at least one organization had been contacted between meetings, it was recognized that a more systematic approach is needed. Steve Weisberg suggested an approach which was discussed by the committee, after which Weisberg prepared a summary [ppt].
A working group was formed to provide guidance to the Ocean.US on the following topics:
This trade association working group consists of Steve Weisberg (chair), Mark Luther, Fred Grassle, Bob Cohen, Jeff Reutter, and Evan Richert. At U.S. GSC-XI they agreed on the approach to take for each of these topics. Weisberg will set the schedule for working group activities. Mike Hemsley agreed to draft a generic letter expressing support for IOOS which the visiting team to a trade association might ask the association to sign. Of course such letters would be tailored to specific groups.
3.3 IOOS presentations at industry/scientific meetings
During U.S. GSC-X the committee decided to maintain a calendar of upcoming meetings at which presentations on IOSO might be made. This listing is maintained on the U.S. GOOS website by Susan Martin. Members were encouraged to alert Mrs. Martin of additional meetings to be added to the calendar.
Committee members are encouraged to arrange presentations at these meetings. Since U.S. GSC-X, four successful presentations have been arranged. Discussions centered on key upcoming meetings.
The committee was informed that Andrew Clark, Harris Corporation, is soon to be working part-time as an IPA for the Ocean.US Office. There he will serve as the private sector representative and liaison. Nowlin, who already had offered a presentation at OTC 2005, was instructed to coordinate with Clark who also is in contact with OTC 2005 organizers. Nowlin also was instructed to contact the Gulf of Mexico Foundation (Quenton Dokken, Executive Director) for information regarding a large symposium they reportedly are organizing in Fall 2005.
As part of the Ocean.US communication strategy, consideration should be given to the needs for IOOS presentations at industry and scientific meetings.
Committee members who had reviewed the generic IOOS PowerPoint prepared by Tom Malone expressed the belief that it is too D.C.-centric and contains too many logos and too much jargon. Nowlin offered to send to the attendees his version of a generic IOOS PowerPoint, which he believed was less focused on federal agencies.
3.4 Private sector meetings on east and west coasts
Nowlin has offered to assist in the organization of private sector meetings on the east and west coasts modeled on the Gulf Coast meeting held in Houston during March 2004. Margaret Davidson, Director of the NOAA Coastal Services Center, offered to provide some support for the organization of said meetings and suggested that Marcia McNutt and Ken Tenore take the lead in organization. McNutt and Tenore have agreed in principle.
McNutt suggested additional private sectors in addition to those represented in Houston; software and computer providers were suggested specifically. Nowlin suggested that the meeting venues be at private facilities if willing companies can be found. Holding such meetings in a facility of an industry participant was found to be a very positive factor in attracting participants in the case of the Houston meeting held at Marathon Oil.
It was noted that Richard Spinrad, AA for NOA/NOAA, is holding a series of sector-specific industry meetings to information regarding IOOS and solicit participation and support in its development. This did not seem in conflict with regional meetings. Concern was raised that organizers of sector-specific meetings have in-depth knowledge of IOOS development.
Charlie Colgan presented a summary of the study of economic benefits by region and sector just being completed with NOPP support under the direction of Colgan and Kite-Powell. The executive summary of the study report has been reviewed previously by the committee and was available on the meeting website as a background document. Colgan reviewed the methodology used in the study which for each U.S. region examined social surplus versus economic impacts for key assessment areas (e.g., cruise lines, oil and gas production, recreational boating, and commercial fishing). He then gave the resulting order of magnitude estimates of potential economic benefits resulting from the IOOS which in aggregate seemed likely to exceed one billion dollars annually. It was noted that this study did not specifically include benefits to (1) better informed citizenry, (2) education, or (3) research. These will be great but are difficult to estimate quantitatively.
Colgan then reviewed the next steps of his team in this effort. The intention is to publish the results of the study. Follow-on efforts will refine estimates of benefits at regional levels; they hope to work with Regional Associations to assist in the measurement of user benefits. Finally they will undertake improvements in methodology and data.
Colgan gave some excellent advice to those approaching different potential IOOS user sectors. He noted that unsophisticated potential users (e.g., recreational boaters or fishers) probably understand the system and its potential far less well than the sophisticated (e.g., oil and gas industry). On the other hand, many of the major areas of potential benefit will be to the unsophisticated users because of their large numbers.
Mary Altalo gave a brief review of year 1 results and an in-depth report of year 2 results of her ongoing three-year study supported by the NOAA Coastal Services Center [ppt]. Year one seemed focused on regional market and policy imperatives as drivers for U.S. IOOS design. The focus now seems on specific industry sectors with emphasis on specific companies. Altalo's presentation highlighted needs by the reinsurance and energy sectors for environmental information. The most important need for industry is to "link information to decision support tools; analyze and inform". She has devised a twelve-step short course for teaching corporate officers.
The committee recommended that a brief document be prepared to clarify for the non-economist the relationships between these studies by Colgan and Altalo. If IOOS developers are to use the results, a synthesis—or bridging—document is required.
The committee also expressed the strong opinion that Regional Associations will need professional help in making reasonable estimates of potential economic benefits on regional bases. Follow-ons to the reported studies carried out in concert with developers/managers of Regional Associations are recommended.
5.1 Status of planning, suppport, and funding
Luther reviewed the status of the IOOS Development Plan and results of the First Annual Implementation Conference for the IOOS, August 31–September 2, 2004, held in Arlington, VA [ppt]. There was consensus among the conferees to a small set of recommendations. On the third day of the conference, the NOPP agencies supporting Ocean.US prepared a statement of support for the conferees' recommendations.
5.2 Status of the IOOS Development Plan and the National Federation of Regional Associations
Mike Hemsley reviewed the schedule for final comment and approval of the Initial IOOS Development Plan (previously called the IOOS Implementation Plan):
Hemsley also presented the status of the developing National Federation of Regional Associations (NFRA). David Martin, chair of the committee organizing the NFRA, was present at the meeting. The timeline for development of the NFRA calls for draft terms of reference, charter, and by-laws to be provided for review by the regional groups and the NOPP agencies by 15 November 2004. A sub-committee was formed 29 October 2004 to draft these documents. By 31 January 2005, these documents should be revised based on comments received.
The committee recommended that resources be provided now to the National Federation of Regional Associations so that it can begin representation of the nascent Regional Associations. We should not wait until the Regional Associations are formed before providing such support. Of course, it will be necessary for the regions to provide non-federal funds to the NFRA for its advocacy role.
5.3 Integrating subcomponents of the Regional Coastal Ocean Observing Systems (RCOOSs)
Prior to the meeting, Evan Richert had volunteered to lead a discussion of strategies that RCOOSs might consider in order to integrate components within the regions into initial systems. He suggested actions that can be carried out in advance of receiving formal status as Regional Associations or monies for enhancements [ppt].
During committee discussion, other activities were added and the suggestion made that examples be given of such activities already underway by specific nascent RCOOSs. Richert, Luther, and Nowlin agreed to prepare a recommendation to the developing RCOOSs based on Richert's presentation and committee discussion. That draft recommendation is given as Appendix 6.
The committee suggests that the final recommendation be posted to U.S. GOOS, NFRA, IOOS/Ocean.US websites. It was further suggested that when the recommendation is completed, Mike Hemsley distribute to all organizers of RCOOSs.
The background for this discussion is given in the meeting agenda (Appendix 3). Payne, Harrison, and Mundy prepared a [ppt] to advance the discussion. This presentation contains the process used by the National Weather Service in developing requirements and advancing them to operational status.
After extended discussion, the committee agreed that the earlier transition model which included three modes of transition based on who recommended transition (push, pull, and continue) should be dropped from further consideration. There was a consensus that "transition decisions must be based first on user requirements for data, products, or services". Of course, transitions may also be affected by practical considerations of funding, technical feasibility, etc. User requests must dictate system requirements. (It was noted that the user requirements expressed in an Appendix to the Data Management and Communication Implementation Plan should not be forgotten in this process of developing requirements and transitioning elements.)
Based on the committee discussions and consensus agreements, Payne, Harrison, and Mundy prepared a discussion paper defining criteria to be applied when making decisions regarding transition from one stage to the next in the IOOS. That statement as endorsed by the committee appears as Appendix 7. It will be transmitted to Dr. Richard Spinrad and to the Ocean.US Office.
Colgan cautioned that potential uses of the system not be foreclosed by too tightly controlling or specifying that all system elements be driven by currently perceived user requirements. It is not possible to envision all of the potential uses of a system such as the IOOS.
At U.S. GSC-X, draft terms of reference were suggested for Regional Education and Regional Stakeholders Councils as well as for a national Council for each area. The draft terms of reference for the regional councils were circulated by Mike Hemsley to developers of Regional Associations and comments were solicited. Initial comments were quite negative—likely because the creation of such councils were viewed as yet another activiity imposed by Ocean.US. When Nowlin explained to the RA developers that these were merely suggestions; more constructive comments were received. A compilation of all comments is given in Appendix 8.
David Martin volunteered to correspond with the nascent RAs regarding the importance of Regional Stakeholder and Education Councils. He should be able to convey the reasons for forming such bodies. Still unclear is whether there will be equivalent national councils.
In that regard, however, the committee recommends that a National Stakeholder Council be formed very soon comprised principally of private sector entities. This will ensure advice from the private sector and encourage their participation and advocacy. It will be very useful in approaching the private sectors through trade associations and industry meetings by providing industry contacts for IOOS developers and offering a seat at the table for private sector advocates.
8.1 Status of Implementation
Hemsley presented a [ppt] prepared by Steve Hankin, Lee Dantzler, and Roz Cohen that describes the status of and plans for DMAC development. DMAC developments are being supported by a variety of sources, in the U.S. and abroad. Open coordination of activities is needed. The committee requests that Ocean.US develop a web-accessible file which describes the elements of the recommended initial DMAC activity, identifies which ones are funded (and by what agency), the PI for each funded element, and the date(s) of delivery of the identified capability. The file is to be updated as new elements are funded and/or the DMAC elements evolve, and gap analysis performed semi-annually or annually. An annual presentation on status is requested by the U.S. GSC and suggested for the Annual IOOS Implementation Conference.
8.2 Broader interests in DMAC implementation
The DMAC plan has been shared widely. Its goals are widely embraced. Discussions have recently occurred between representatives of the OOI and IOOS data system efforts; it has been agreed that development of the needed data systems will be coordinated. Discussions also have recently occurred between GOOS/GCOS and the SCOR ocean research programs (IAnZone, Census of Marine Life, CLIVAR, GLOBEC, GEOHAB, GEOTRACES, IMAGES, IMBER, InterRidge, LOICZ, SOLAS); it has been agreed that the programs should seek to benefit from data system progress by others and that program data system representatives should meet regularly.
On the morning of day three, the committee reviewed materials prepared by sessional groups related to key recommendations. Those recommendations are incorporated into this report. For convenience, the Action Items with status from U.S. GSC-XI are listed in Appendix 9.
The committee agreed to hold U.S. GSC-XII on 1-3 June 2005 at the Ocean.US Office in Arlington, VA.
Hemsley reviewed future Ocean.US workshops and meetings:
The committee membership is smaller by 3-4 members than optimal. Additional new members were discussed. It was agreed that members knowledgeable of satellite observations, education, and coastal management should be sought. Also a representative of at least one NGO, preferably based in Washington, D.C., should be included. All committee members were encouraged to submit suggestions to Nowlin at their earliest convenience.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 1130 hrs on 5 November 2004.
| 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/GSCX/GSCXI.html