Margaret A. Davidson, Director of the Coastal Services Center, welcomed the Committee and guests to the Center and to Charleston, where "the Ashley and Cooper rivers meet to form the Atlantic Ocean".
All present introduced themselves with brief statements of their relationships with the Global Ocean Observing System (GCOOS). Attendees with affiliations are given in Appendix 1. U.S. GOOS Steering Committee (US GSC) members Marcia McNutt and Steve Weisberg were unable to attend. Member Brian Dorsch was in Charleston, but was ill during the first parts of the meeting.
The key meeting objectives were reviewed by Worth Nowlin: (1) to review progress with development of U.S. GOOS (aka the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS)) since the previous US GSC meeting; (2) to review progress made with east and gulf coast Regional Associations (RAs) governing regional coastal ocean observing systems as well as the National Federation of Regional Associations; (3) to review the draft plan for the National Water Quality Monitoring Network; (4) to review past US GSC activities and decide on major foci for the future; and (5) to consider options for future reporting/funding. As reflected by the agenda, item four was to receive major attention.
Nowlin reviewed key action items from US GSC-XI. A complete list is given on the US GSC web site under meetings, US. GSC-XI. Those reviewed by Nowlin are given in Appendix 2.
It was moved and seconded without objection that the provisional agenda for US GSC XII be adopted with the understanding that it would be modified during the meeting. The final agenda, as modified during the meeting, is given as Appendix 3.
Evan Richert gave a presentation on activities and plans for transforming the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System (GoMOOS) into NERA. [Links are given in this report are to Power Point presentations made at the meeting.] They have an Ocean Data Partnership whose focus is on data integration for added value to both "end users" and "superusers". The NASA Global CHange Master Directory is being used as the registry for metadata associated with the observing system elements.
Dave Chapman briefed on the status of MACOORA. The focus of the discussion was on developing an organizational structure for the governing RA which has been incorporated as a not-for-profit corporation 501(c)(3). The representation for MACOORA governance is drawn from five subregions containing major estuaries of the region: Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound, Delaware Bay, New York Bight, and Massachusetts and Rhode Island Bays and Shelf.
Rick DeVoe reviewed the status of SECOORA development. This observing system has had multiple-year support for continuation and integration of a number of observing system elements known collectively as SEACOOS. They are working to link SEACOOS with other existing observing assets. He gave a time table for future RA development and reviewed pilot projects.
DeVoe raised a number of key questions/issues of likely concern to all RAs, including: What is the national backbone of the IOOS and will the RAs have inputs to its enhancements? What will be the RA certification criteria? Who is in charge of the IOOS? When can RAs expect significant funding for integration and enhancements? How can we match expectations to reality?
Finally, it was noted that the outlook for continued earmarks in FY06 to sustain SECOORA observing elements looks bleak.
Nowlin reviewed progress and plans for the developing GCOOS and its RA. The developmental foci are on: working with stakeholder sectors to determine priority measurements and products as well as pilot projects; identification and integration of existing observing system elements; building a governance and planning structure that is inclusive of all sectors; and discouraging earmarks as feasible.
Josie Quintrell described the NFRA as "providing regional teamwork to develop the IOOS." Founded in February 2005, NFRA is a non-profit association of all 11 RAs dedicated to: representing the needs of the RAs to IOOS partners and others; developing one voice for the regional perspective; and education through communication of lessons learned and success stories.
Quintrell reviewed recent and upcoming NFRA activities, organizational issues, and the results of a recent NFRA communication survey of its members. As did DeVoe, she included a list of major issues such as sustained funding, national backbone issues, and managing user expectations.
During this discussion the suggestion was made that the RAs should collectively enunciate two or three significant, initial outcomes/benefits that IOOS can offer/promise if funded. This concept was pursued and developed throughout the remainder of the meeting.
Glen Mandigo gave the committee an update on federal funding for the IOOS. Progress to date has been disappointing in spite of the strong recommendations of the U.S. Ocean Policy Commission Report and activities of representatives of regional associations. No federal agency has a significant identified line item for IOOS in its budget request. Authorization legislation for the IOOS still has not cleared the House. FY2006 budget marks appear lower than for FY2005.
Mandigo remained upbeat and suggested four key factors for congressional funding: stimulate Appropriations Committee members' interest in ocean observing; show unit among regional systems in support of a single IOOS budget line versus earmarks; agency support for long-term funding through outyear budget requests for ocean observing; and reduce competing budget priorities and budget caps. Glen showed a one-pager for use in Congress and elsewhere describing the IOOS and presenting a FY2007 budget request for $238M (Appendix 4).
Mary Altalo, new Director of Ocean.US Office, gave this presentation originally slated to be given by Andy Clark, industry liaison to Ocean.US. Following a very brief overview of industry's participation in the IOOS, Altalo gave a thorough brief on the Request for Quotation (RFQ) released by the NOAA National Ocean Service on January 4, 2006. The products and services to be procured include: (1) a conceptual design of IOOS based on existing documentation and planning, (2) an estimate of the cost to produce the system based on that conceptual design, and (3) a narrative explanation of the viability of the design. Two procurements of $1 M each are contemplated. The period of performance begins March 1, 2006 and ends August 31, 2006. Reference documents, guiding principles, and deliverables were reviewed. Altalo presented her views of the significance to industry of this RFQ including likelihood that IOOS is to happen, will be built to specs, has a budget associated with details that industry can understand, and includes a role for industry. Ocean.US will have a large role in this process by providing background, clarification, and contacts. It will incorporate the design and recommendations into IOOS planning.
A number of concerns were raised in discussion regarding this RFQ process: The projected costs may be so large that the concept will be dead-on-arrival at Congress. The design may overlook needs of the RAs and/or the global component of GOOS. How will the design be able to truly reflect stakeholder needs in view of the fact that such requirements are still early in their development?
Mary Altalo gave this brief. She began with a careful description of the Ocean.US Office's charter, activities, reports, and directed activities. Then the activities and goals for 2006 were reviewed. She presented her vision of the end-to-end observing system process with both societal and technology performance metrics used to guide a feedback loop.
Then Altalo described the draft (8 Feb 2006) "Concept document for the certification process of RAs...", given as Appendix 5. This document describes the purpose of certification, the decertification process, and the four proposed levels of certification. The Ocean.US Office will evaluate RAs for certification and provide their evaluation to the IWGOO (Interagency Working Group for Ocean Observations) scheduled to replace the Ocean.US Executive Committee. There will be a 45-day comment period on this draft.
There was considerable committee discussion of the draft certification document with Altalo present. It was agreed that US GSC members having additional comments should convey them to the Chair by February 15. The Chair will provide a draft critique of the draft certification document for Committee review after which a critique will be conveyed to Ocean.US.
Mike Johnson, Director of the NOAA Office of Climate Observations and JCOMM (Joint Technical Commission for Oceanography and Marine Meteorology) Observations Program Area Coordinator, gave a report on implementation of the global component of GOOS. He offered as background a report entitled "Progress with the initial ocean climate observing system" prepared by the Secretariat of the GOOS in cooperation with the Global Climate Observing System (Appendix 6).
Johnson described the requirements for implementation of the global component of GOOS, the function of the NOOA Office of Climate Observation and the JCOMM. The status of the subsystems was reviewed and the approach for performance monitoring was described. Efforts to integrate the global GOOS component with the tsunami warning systems were described.
In summary, Johnson noted that the international plan and implementation mechanism for the initial GOOS global component are in place. It is achievable. However, funding is insufficient to meet implementation targets. In particular, funding for the U.S. component is well below target. Discussion revealed that NOAA has not clearly identified in budgets their funding for the global GOOS component; such funding should have an identified line in the NOAA budget.
Ed Harrison made an interesting presentation regarding his personal perspective on the global ocean climate observing system. He began with some scientific climate results of regional to global impact of which few scientists, much less lay public, are aware. He then asked who is responsible for communicating such results. Without effective communication of results how can we build support for the global climate observing system?
He then reviewed the current situation for international GOOS global component, cited activities planned for 2006, and gave his perspective on the way forward. Harrison ended his presentation with a series of suggestions for improving the U.S. participation in (support of) the GOOS global component. These suggestions were discussed by the Committee during the course of the meeting.
A brief summary of Harrison's personal perspectives on the international situation regarding the GOOS global component is given in Appendix 7 .
It was agreed that federal agencies should clearly identify IOOS lines in their budgets. At present it is difficult to impossible to identify IOOS support in budget requests. The "report card" issued by the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative on the federal governments' response to the recommendations of the Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy suggests that the identification of IOOS support in budgets. It was agreed that a letter be sent to Richard Spinrad, Assistant Administrator for OAR/NOAA, strongly suggesting clear identification of IOOS support in future budget submissions. This letter should state the reasons and also should note that the US GSC opposes earmarking and believes one way to suppress this practice for IOOS is to provide competitive sources of funds.
The Ocean.US Office has decided to hold an IOOS Implementation Conference every other year rather than annually. The Committee concurred with this change. However, it is suggested that an annual summary of activities be prepared. This should include progress by Ocean.US, RAs, NFRA, and the NOAA Office of Climate Observation. It need not be comprehensive or elegant. However, an annual report provides a metric on overall progress in IOOS development.
At this time we have no initial national design for the coastal IOOS, though we do have a clear design for the global component complete with metrics on progress toward its development. We must have an initial national design that includes buy in from the RAs, Sea Grant, and Coastal Zone programs. It will signal unity of purpose and will raise the visibility of the coastal IOOS.
This initial design framework must have limited foci—two or three at most. Suggested is a design focused on public health, transportation and commerce, and disaster resilience (economic, infrastructure, and ecosystem resilience). The committee agreed to devise a plan to develop this initial design later during the meeting.
Jawed Hameedi, NOAA, gave a thorough review of the draft plan for NWQMN. The U.S. Ocean Policy Commission's report recommends a national monitoring network and the President's reponse in the form of the U.S. Ocean Action Plan (17 December 2004) called for the creation of a NWQMN. In December 2004, the Council on Environment Quality and the National Science and Technology Council asked for a design to be prepared through the National Water Quality Monitoring Council. The draft was prepared under the oversight of a steering committee of 57 participants with four technical workgroups on design, inventory, methods and data comparability, and data management and access. The monitoring design encompasses flow and fluxes from rivers, atmosphere, groundwater, and coastal waterbeds. The latter include estuaries, Great Lakes, nearshore, offshore and EEZ, and coastal beaches.
The US GSC was amazed by the overlap of the NWQMN plan and plans for the U.S. IOOS. There was unanimous agreement that the NWQMN be designed in close coordination with IOOS, if not be designated as a part of IOOS. The impacts from the terrestrial sphere that the NWQMN will monitor are required by IOOS; the estuarine and coastal monitoring will be duplicative unless combined. The NWQMN should employ IOOS Data Management and Communication practices. Redundant systems must be avoided.
The Committee agreed to provide a written critique of the draft NWQMN plan to the chair of the NOPP Ocean Research and Resources Panel and to Gail Mallard, USGS, who had arranged for the overview by Hameedi.
Tom Malone gave an overview of the IOOS Public Health Workshop held 23-25 January 2006 in St. Petersburg, FL. This workshop was attended by representatives of local, state, and federal agencies, marine scientists, and representatives of NGOs. The purposes were to: (1) review decision-making processes and identify information gaps; (2) identify observing system requirements for more accurate and timely decisions; and (3) engage public health officials in IOOS development. The workshop findings were grouped as related to observations, modeling, education and training, and outreach. Next steps were identified.
The Committee believed the results of this workshop will be quite useful in designing the public health focus for an initial national design for the coastal IOOS.
Mark Luther gave a presentation prepared by he and Nowlin reviewing the origin, activities, and advantages of the US GSC.
Discussion began with consideration of what is meant by the "national backbone" of IOOS, an issue raised by several earlier presenters on behalf of RAs. Tom Malone gave a cogent presentation beginning with the background for the national backbone and answering the questions: What is it? How will it be specified? How will it be implemented? How will it be funded? He showed an example demonstrating the difference between the national backbone and RA observations in the Gulf of Maine region. Malone ended his presentation with a proposed funding model for IOOS.
Following many questions and considerable discussion, the Committee generally agreed that Malone's description answered most of the questions raised by the community. The Committee believes that a clear statement defining the IOOS national backbone is needed. Malone agreed to draft this statement.
Further discussion lead to the conclusion that heads of many federal agencies (as well as their subordinates) may be unaware of the concept of the IOOS national backbone. It was agreed that the Committee Chair will send to the head of each agency involved in the Ocean.US a letter explaining the national backbone, with Malone's statement as an enclosure. This letter will request that requirements of RAs be sought and considered when planning enhancements to the backbone. Each Ocean.US Ex Com members will be notified in advance of the letter and asked to whom in their agency the letter should be copied.
In general, the US GSC should take a continuing role in promoting awareness of the IOOS (global and coastal components) within federal agencies, commieess of the Executive, and Congress. Individually, members should be advocates for implementation based on information needed to meet societal goals.
Mike Spranger, Florida Sea Grant/University of Florida, showed a Power Point designed to stimulate thought and discussion regarding this question. He began with rationale for the importance of education and outreach as IOOS components and then reviewed the goals, principles, key issues, and suggested common functions from the IOOS-COOS Workshop, "Promoting life long ocean education..." held in March 2004. As concrete examples of the activities and plans of RAs, Spranger reviewed education and outreach activities of he Southeast Atlantic Coastal Ocean Observing System (SEACOOS) and the Gulf of MExico Coastal Ocean Observing System (GCOOS) in both of which he is actively involved. SEACOOS has made considerable progress over the past two years, having received relatively good financial support. GCOOS is in active planning mode.
Blanche Meeson reviewed the highest priority actions resulting from the 2004 IOOS-COOS Education Workshop and their status.
Discussion by the Committee resulted in several suggested actions, including:
Following US GSC-XI, the Committee sent to the NFRA suggested Terms of Reference (originally drafted by Blanche Meeson) for Regional and National Education and Outreach Council. NFRA was asked to distribute that material to the nascent RAs for consideration. They did so. Some developing RAs expressed concerns that they had other priorities, were not supported to establish a regional council, or did not wish terms of reference dictated to them. Suggestion (2) above is a slightly different approach by the Committee.
GOOS has ten or more Regional Alliances, including EuroGOOS, GOOS-Africa, MedGOOS, and NEAR-GOOS. These alliances are to form an international GOOS Fourm (or other structure) through which information can be shared; this forum also might play a role in implementation of the coastal GOOS component globally.
It has been suggested that a North American Regional Alliance be formed representing GOOS activities in Canada, USA, and Mexico. Mary Altalo and Worth Nowlin suggested that the Committee might play a significant role in developing this Alliance. It should be noted that most of the GOOS Regional Alliances (GRA) are not formal agreements between nations but rather are agreements between governmental agencies and/or other organizations within the countries represented. Therefore, alternative avenues to creating a North American GRA should be considered.
One avenue might be through NAFTA. Charles Colgan and Evan Richert will investigate this avenue through the NAFTA Environmental Commission in Montreal, Canada.
Another avenue is agreement among key organizations in the three nations. The Ocean.US Office can represent the USA in this approach, although several of the IOOS RAs have made contacts with Mexican or Canadian groups. Several brief reports were made. Phil Mundy reported that PICES has established a study group to develop a strategy for GOOS that will involve U.S. and Canadian members. Nowlin report on GOOS activities in Mexico and the Caribbean RA (Appendix 8).
Regarding the formation of a North American GOOS Regional Alliance, the US GSC suggested the following actions:
COMMITTEE MEMBERS: I need your help with these actions. Are they correct? Complete?
The Committee noted that over the past two to three years implementation of the U.S. part of the global component of GOOS has received very little attention by Ocean.US. As an example, it was hardly mentioned at the first two annual IOOS Implementation Conferences. U.S. funding for this component is not increasing as needed. This component has been carefully planned and specifieid, and it has received international and intergovernmental vetting. This GOOS component provides information for safe and efficient navigation of the open ocean and for knowledge of climate change and variability, including effects such as temperature and sea level changes. It deserves full support.
The Committee agreed to a series of short and long-term actions in support of the IOOS, with appropriate emphasis on the GLOS global component. These actions are largely designed to enhance communications regarding IOOS within the Federal government.
Obtaining prioritized requirements for measurements and products from specific stakeholder sectors is only the first step in developing user requirements for information. The process must be interative between information provider and user. A white paper might be prepared to better define this process. The process then could be promoted to RAs via the NFRA.
Perhaps a study could be undertaken to assess the process used by the NWS or others to define best practices for determining what information to produce. Charlie Colgan agreed to suggest a person for such a study and to interface with Margaret Davidson.
The Committee identified four foci for future activities:
With regard to this last focus, the Committee agree to support an initiative to prepare an initial design for the U.S. Coastal IOOS. It would have three foci: (1) a national framework for water and beach quality monitoring to enhance public health, (2) a national framework to enhance disaster resilience, and (3) information for safe and efficient commercial marine operations.
Terms of reference and time table for this initiative were drafted at the end of the meeting. They are included as Appendix 9 .
Nowlin will invite as guests to US GSC-XIII.
US GSC-XIII will be held at the Ocean.US Office in Arlington, VA on September 13-15, 2006.
The meeting was adjourned at noon on February 10, 2006.
Appendix 1: Attendees with Affiliations
| Name | Affiliation |
| Dave Chapman | MACOORA |
| Bob Cohen | Weathernews |
| Charlie Colgan | University of Southern Maine |
| Mary Culver | NOAA CSC |
| Margaret Davidson | NOAA Coastal Services Center |
| Rick DeVoe | SECOORA-South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium |
| Brian Dorsch | Retired, Chevron |
| Fred Grassle | Rutgers University |
| Jawed Hameedi | NOAA |
| Ed Harrison | NOAA |
| Mike Johnson | NOAA OCO, JCOMM |
| Mark Luther | University of South Florida |
| Tom Malone | Ocean.US |
| Glen Mandigo | Ocean Observing Coalition |
| Blanche Meeson | Ocean.US |
| Phil Mundy | NOAA/NMFS/AFSC |
| Worth Nowlin | Texas A&M University |
| Geno Olmi | NOAA CSC |
| Josie Quintrell | NFRA |
| Jeff Reutter | Sea Grant - Ohio State University |
| Evan Richert | GoMOOS |
| Susannah Sheldon | SECOORA |
| Mike Spranger | Florida Sea Grant |
| Dave Zilkoski | NOAA |
Appendix 2: Action Items from US GSC-XI
Status as of 1/18/04
The Committee prepared a letter to Admiral Watkins in response to the final Report from the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. It endorsed the reports recommendations regarding the development of the IOOS. The letter gives special emphasis to the need for legislature authorizing the IOOS (as stated in pending bills HR 5001 and S 1400 and to the need for authority and funding for the Ocean.US Office as recommended in the Commission's report. [Letter sent 12 November with copies to appropriate Congressmen and Senators.]
The committee endorsed a discussion paper defining criteria to be applied when making decisions regarding transition for one stage of the IOOS to the next. When refined, that statement will be transmitted to Dr. Richard Spinrad and the Ocean.US Office. [Nowlin sent the version produced at the meeting to Rick Spinrad on 21 December.]
The Committee developed a document giving a list of suggested generic activities that could be carried out by developing regional observing systems prior to their having a certified RA, business plan and substantive funds for expansion. That document included examples of such activities already being undertaken by developing systems. That document should be posted to the Ocean.US, NFRA, and U.S. GOOS web sites. [On 17 December 2004, the document was sent to Malone, Hemsley, David Martin, and Susan Martin with the request that the document be posted.]
Nowlin is to request of Margaret Davidson and Rick Spinrad that they ask Charles Colgan and Mary Altalo to prepare a brief synthesis of their separate studies on economic benefits of the IOOS. An understanding of how these studies are related should be of use in preparing presentations to private sector elements. [Nowlin made this request on 8 Nov. 2004. On 20 December 2004, Davidson indicated that she would follow up on this action.]
Committee will prepare a list of communication networks, with contacts, that should be useful as contacts for the new communication specialist in the Ocean.US Office. These networks include: broadcast meteorologists, sea grant, oceanographic research institutes, and NERRs. Paul Scholz, Jeff Reuter, Bob Cohen, and Marcia McNutt will develop this list. [List sent to Malone on 18 Jan. 2005.]
It was suggested by Bob Cohen that a list of private sector representatives who have attended major IOOS meetings (e.g., Airlie House in 2002 or the Industry-IOOS workshop in 2004) and or U.S. GSC meetings might be provide the Ocean.US Office with a list of knowledgeable individuals when private sector contacts are needed. [Susan Martin prepared a list which was forwarded to Malone and Hemsley on 5 January 2005.]
Committee recommends 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 was asked to work on such a list. [Payne provided an excellent list which was then circulated by Nowlin to committee members for further suggestions. The list was passed to the new Ocean.US communication specialist, Gregg Schmidt, via Tom Malone on 17 December 2004.]
Nowlin to approach Andrew Clark regarding plans for IOOS presentation at Offshore Technology Conference. [Done 11 Nov. 2004.]
Nowlin to approach Quenton Dokken, Executive Director of the Gulf of Mexico Foundation to discover plans of that foundation for a Gulf symposium in November 2005 and to arrange for IOOS to be highlighted at that event. [Message sent to Dokken on 11 Nov. 2004. Nowlin invited to attend, but not to present regarding IOOS.]
List of trade journals and newsletters to which articles on IOOS development might be addressed will be sent to attendees at US GSC-XI with a request to suggest additions. [Susan Martin did this on 11 Nov. 2004.]
Committee requests that Ocean.US develop a web-accessible file that describes the elements of the recommended initial DMAC activity, identifies which ones are funded (and by what agency) and who is 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 (annually?). An annual presentation on status is requested by the US GOOS SC and suggested for the Annual IOOS Implementation Conference. [Request forwarded to Ocean.US on 11 Nov. 2004.]
The committee recommends 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. [Recommended to Ocean.US.]
The committee recommended that Regional Associations will need professional help in preparing reasonable estimates of potential system benefits on regional bases. Follow-ons to the ongoing economic benefits studies carried out in concert with the developers/managers of regional Associations are recommended.
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. [Recommended to Ocean.US.]
David Martin agreed to correspond with the organizers of nascent Regional Associations regarding the importance of Regional Education and Stakeholder Councils
Appendix 3: Meeting Agenda
| 0830 | Coffee, juice, and pastries |
| 0900 | Opening Welcome & Introductions (Margaret Davidson & Worth Nowlin) Key meeting objectives (Nowlin & Mark Luther) Action Items from U.S. GSC-XI (Nowlin) Adoption of Agenda (Steve Weisberg) |
| 0945 | Update on Northeastern Regional Association (NERA) (Evan Richert) |
| 1015 | Update on MidAtlantic Coastal Ocean Observing Regional Association (Dave Chapman) |
| 1045 | COFFEE BREAK |
| 1100 | Update on Southeast Coastal Ocean Observations Regional Association (SECOORA) (Rick DeVoe) |
| 1130 | Update on Gulf of Mexico Coastal Ocean Observing System Regional Association (GCOOS-RA) (Nowlin) |
| 1200 | LUNCH (brought in) A discussion on the National Federation of Regional Associations (Josie Quintrell) |
| 1300 | Federal legislation related to IOOS - Where are we now? (Glen Mandigo) |
| 1330 | Is the private sector committed to the U.S. IOOS? (Mary Altalo) |
| 1400 | How is Ocean.US helping GOOS/IOOS move toward realization? (Mary Altalo) |
| 1430 | Discussion on what remains to be done to help move IOOS forward |
| 1530 | COFFEE BREAK |
| 1545 | Progress toward implementation of Global Module (Mike Johnson) |
| 1615 | Progress on OOPC (Ed Harrison) |
| 1645 | Discussion of how the U.S. GSC can assist toward implementation of the global module of GOOS |
| 1700 | ADJOURN FOR THE DAY |
| 0800 | Coffee, juice, pastries |
| 0830 | Continue discussion of how the U.S. GSC can assist toward implementation of the global module of GOOS and revisit any issues as needed |
| 0930 | Overview and discussion of draft plan for National Water Quality Monitoring Network for U.S. Coastal Waters and Their Tributaries (Jawed Hameedi) |
| 1000 | COFFEE BREAK |
| 1030 | Report on IOOS Public Health Workshop, January 2006 (Tom Malone) |
| 1050 | Discussion of future of U.S. GOOS Steering Committee
|
| 1200 | LUNCH (brought in) |
| 1300 | Continue discussion of future |
| 1500 | COFFEE BREAK |
| 1520 | Continue discussion of future |
| 1700 | ADJOURN FOR DAY |
| 0830 | Coffee, rolls, and juice |
| 0900 | Executive Session |
| 1200 | ADJOURN MEETING |
Appendix 4: IOOS one-page description
Appendix 5: A Concept Document for the Certification Process of Regional Associations as the Executing Body for the Regional Enhancements to the IOOS, The U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System
Appendix 6: Progress with the initial ocean climate observing system
Appendix 7: OOPC (GCOS/GOOS/WCRP) for US
GOOS SC XII
A personal perspective on the international situation
As the extent of decadal variability in the basin scale ocean becomes clearer the need to sustain many ocean observations for multi-decadal periods has grown. The assessment, science and predictaiblity of decadal variability depend upon research quality observations collected over periods much longer than has been research community practice. Unhelpful statements have been made about changes in the state of the ocean because they have been based on inappropriately short records. A paradigm shift in scientific planning, funding, and support is needed to address decadal variability.
1. Plans and Endorsements:
1.A. GCOS Implementation Plan, UNFCCC, G8 and GEO
2005 saw continued engagement by the WCRP/GOOS/GCOS sustained and research ocean observations communitieis with the UN Framework Convention on Climate change and GEO. Recall that the UNFCCC accepted the GCOS Second Report on the Adequacy of the Global Observing System for Climate (2AR) in December 200 and requested that an implementation plan be prepared with specific recommendations for phased implementation over 5 years and 10 years. This GCOS Implementation Plan was prepared and then reviewed in a manner simmilar to that used with the 2AR; the research and sustained ocean observation communities were essential participants. The Implementation Plan (GCOS-92) was accepted by the GEO 10-year implementation plan for its "climate" benefit area and by the UNFCCC at COP-10 in Dec 2004. The UNFCCC also called for the Parties to the convention to implement the plan.
The Executive Summary of GCOS-92 is suggested reading for an overview of the strategy and specific actions that have been recommended.
GCOS-92 provides recommendations for actions to be taken in the atmospheric, oceanic, and terrestrial domains. Although there are a number of issues that cut across all three domains (particularly involving data access, data systems, data collection following the "GCOS climate observing principles" and enhanced sustained analysis and reanalysis products useful to policy makers and non-specialists) the ocean domain situation is substantially different in important respects.
Arguable chief among these is the extent to which the present observing system is the work of the research oceanography community, the degree to which it is financed with support from national ocean research entities and that the path forward over the next 5 to 10 years appears to depend upon sustaining and enhancing these activities, relationships and sponsorships.
1.B. Integration and Interdependence of Ocean System Elements
The extent to which the ocean system is integrated and interdependent on its elements needs also to be emphasized. An example is the extent to which the ships of opportunity that provide the repeat XBT surveys also deploy surface drifting buoys and Argo floats and are the primary source of underway observations of high resolution air-sea flux information (which need to be referenced against the OceanSites observations) and underway 'wet' observations like pCO2 and surface salinity (and increasingly other variables). Another is the extent to which interpretation of global sea level data depends upon thermostearic information inferred from Argo floats, which depend upon the high accuracy CTD observations of the repeat hydrography surveys for calibration, as well as upon reference tide gauge data. The list is easily extended; in our dramatically undersampled global ocean we depend upon best use of every available observing asset. The ocean system needs all its elements to deliver information for science and society.
1.C. National Planning and Reporting
There is no international governance of the global ocean system comparable to that of the atmospheric system—there is no "World Ocean Watch" structure akin to the "World Weather Watch" structure. The international ocean observing and analysis effort is the sum of national contributions carried out to address particular national objectives. Coordination is offered via JCOMM groups and global research programs. Typically there is no national focal point for planning or oversight of national ocean efforts. Coordination at present is heavily dependent upon research principal investigators participating in international programs. The UNFCCC has called for national reporting on progress toward implementing the global ocean system, in hope that this will raise governmental awareness of national efforts and will promote national planning, and that these will foster enhanced regional and international planning and activities.
1.D. Intergovernmental Bodies
There is new leadership at the WCRP, JCOMM, GOOS, GCOS, and GEO. Their Secretariats all have new directors and there are changes in the leadership of most of the senior advisory bodies of these groups. It is hoped that the consensus developed under previous leadership will continue.
2. Linkages between Global and Coastal Oceans
Gathering examples of observed and/or hypothesized linkages between the global and coastal oceans deserves increased effort, if a unified advocacy effort is to be developed. It is not clear that coastal ocean (including ecosystems) historical data records have been sufficiently examined for linkages.
3. Ocean Information Products
Development of such products needs additional attention. Efforts to develop ocean climate indices are underway but are not progressing quickly. Much of this is the result of the limited historical data base; this is an unfamiliar type of activity. Oceanographers are not used to working either in near-real time or via simplified measures of oceanic conditions.
4. System Status 2005
See Mike Johnson's PowerPoint for details.
Progress toward implementation of the initial global ocean system was modest but non-trivial in 2003 (45%), 2004 (48%), and 2005 (55%); its rate of increase is projected to slow so that the 2006 implementation is estimated to be only 57%. At the present level of progress, it will be more than 20 years before the initial system can be completed.
Overall metrics of system completion obscure the progress that was made by the Argo community and the surface drifting buoy community. As this is written Argo has about 2200 reporting floats, against its initial goal of 3000, and the surface drifting buoy program has about 1300 drifters reporting, against its goal of 1250 (although improved global distribution remains to be accomplished for both Argo and surface drifters).
On the other hand particular challenges are easily identified. The Volunteer Observing Ship fleet faces reduced support from national weather services and the VOSClim element of the observing system is not progressing as had been planned. The underway high resolution air-sea observation program also has not progressed as desired. And the rapidly evolving patterns of surface marine commerce continue to challenge the goal of global repeat XBT coverage. Support for the global repeat carbon inventory survey also remains incomplete. Scheduling of ocean satellite missions also suggests increased advocacy is needed promptly to assure mission continuity and compatibility with the historical record of surface height variability, microwave SST, sea ice and rainfall, ocean color and surface vector winds. Other examples of concern are that the decade long German observing efforts in key ocean transport sites are scheduled for termination as research efforts and the US sustained ocean observing budget has been reduced and faces uncertain prospects.
But other good news is that the JCOMM Observations Coordination Group is fostering an increasing systems approach to deployment and observing system element cross-communication. Progress in development of a unified ship cruise data base is welcomed. Argo and the ocean data community are steadily improving real time metadata transmission and near-real-time quality control. A renewed GCOS/WCRP SST/Sea Ice working group will elucidate sea ice analysis uncertainties. GODAE efforts continue to progress in a number of nations, bringing awareness of the societal utility of enhanced real time ocean observations. Interaction with the SCOR, IGBP and IHDP communities is increasing steadily as awareness of opportunities for mutual benefit has grown (sponsorship by the Sloan Foundation for coordination has been very helpful) and these groups increasingly explicitly support the sustained observing system plan. Enthusiasm to sustain and enhance existing efforts by PIs within the research community remains strong and awareness of the advantages of real-time data transmission is growing.
5. 2006
2006 is a year of great opportunity for the sustained global ocean observing system. Relationships between the research and sustained observations community are good and are strengthening; national implementation has been called for by the UNFCCC and GEO (and by the G8 Gleneagles summit); technology continues to improve and the 'observing system community' is exploiting opportunities better and better. To have this degree of high level endorsement of our community plans is unprecedented. The satellite community also is engaged—CEOS have agreed to work with GCOS to prepare a CEOS implementation plan to respond to the GCOS IP, and also the IGOS-P Ocean Theme report is under review and will be revised in 2006.
The JCOMM Observations Coordination Group is functioning well in its coordination role.
Resources provide the primary constraint on implementation of the agreed initial global system. Under existing national institutional and budgetary frameworks, progress will depend in most nations very heavily upon successful advocacy by the research community for sustained (and enhanced) support in order to address science issues. It appears timely to consider how best this support can be organized.
Another opportunity is posed by the 2006 GEO work plan request to GEO partner nations to:
CL-06-04: Identify lead international entities and national focal points for ocean observation efforts that can articulate national goals for their ocean observing sector and coordinate national activities with other designated national entities in order to evolve toward a truly global system of ocean observations.
How will the US respond to this? Does US GOOS SC have suggestions?
6. Suggestions for discussion by US GOOS SC
Will be presented.
Appendix 8 : GOOS in Mexico and the Caribbean
Caribbean Regional Association (CaRA)
Funded; hired adm. personnel and res. assistant to assist principals with RA development
Meetings being arranged with government agencies, NGOs, and private sector
Proposal was endorsed by IOCARIBE Secretary (Dr. Cesar Toro). Collaboration
between IOCARIBE's scientific program, its Large Ecosystem Project, its land-based
sources project, and CaRA. No mention of IOCARIBE-GOOS. (?)
Contacts: Julio M. Morell, j_morell@cima.uprm.edu
Jorge E. Corredor, J_corredor@cima.uprm.edu
Roy A. Watlington, rwatlin@uui.edu
Js. Jaqueline Rodriguez, CaRA Administrative Assistant, carioos@cima.uprm.edu
GOOS Mexico (GOOSMX)
An association of some nine academic/research institutions have agreed to work together and established a web site. No progress during first three years in so far as federal funding for joint projects is concerned.
Individual projects going forward include:
Contacts: Dr. Amparo Martinez-Arroyo, marroyo@servidor.unam.mx
Dr. Jorge Zavala, jzavala@troposfera.atmosfcu.unam.mx
University of Tabasco
This University (College of Sciences) is organizing an Ecosystem Symposium on 28-30 June 2006 in Villahermosa, Tabasco, Mexico. Focus is on development of marine observing system. Invitations will be broad, including other Caribbean countries. Support seems to be from Pemex. Alfredo Prelat and Nowlin are invited to present on GCOOS and IOOS.
The University has been invited to become a signatory to the MoA for the GCOOS-RA.
Pemex (Mexican National Oil Company)
Alfredo Prelat and Nowlin visited their headquarters in Mexico City in early 2005. They gave presentations of GOOS and IOOS, GCOOS, and DMAC. These were well received by 8 managers. Subsequently Pemex was asked to consider release of their real time environmental data.
In June Prelat and Nowlin will make presentations to Pemex Exploration and Production Divisions in Villahermosa. We will invite them to sign the GCOOS-RA MoA.
Appendix 9 : Developing an Initial Investment Plan for Maximizing the Benefits of the Coastal Integrated Ocean Observing Systems
The quest to establish an operational integrated ocean observing system (IOOS) for the U.S. coastal ocean has been underway for several years, but despite evidence of the clear benefits of such a system to a wide array of national and regional constituencies, policy and budget commitments to developing and operating such a system remains elusive at the federal level. Policy makers in both the executive and legislative branches need to know three things to convince them to make the necessary investments in such a system.
Through the work of Ocean.US with the federal agencies and the evolving regional associations of observing systems, efforts are underway to address the third of these questions. The second of the questions has been addressed in a general way, in terms of the subsystems that comprise the system (data acquisition, modeling and analysis, and data management), but there is no blueprint as to the essential components of each of these subsystems. The answer to the first question has not yet been effectively articulated. A clear and cogent statement that would provide answers to these first two questions would be of great assistance in moving action on a coastal IOOS forward within the Federal government.
Under the oversight of the U.S. GOOS Steering Committee, a group of knowledgeable volunteers is being asked to prepare the initial draft of such a statement. The draft will provide the basis for further elaboration and refinement by stakeholders in the observing system community and the federal government prior to its transmittal to federal policy makers.
The design for the initial components of a coastal IOOS must be related directly to national priority needs. To that end, three groups of experts are asked to prepare statements of requirements and estimated costs for national coastal ocean observing systems that would address three principal areas:
The following assumptions should govern development of a statement of requirements and budgets in each of these areas:
Suggested Outline of Requested Reports
Plan Development Process
Team for Human Health
Team leader: Steve Weisberg
Other potential members: Sandifer, Bart Bibler, HABs expert
Meeting location:
Team for Commercial Maritime Operations
Team leader: Mark Luther
Other potential members: Bob Cohen, Cort Cooper or Ralph Rayner, Geraldine Katz, Ed Kelly (NY/NJ Harbor Operations Committee)
Meeting location: University of South Florida
Team for Disaster Resilience
Team leader and members: to be chosen by Margaret Davidson
Meeting location: CSC in Charleston, SC
| 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: 12 October, 2006
URL: http://ocean.tamu.edu/GOOS/GSCXII/gsc12.html