SEPTEMBER 11, 2006
Prepared by: Chris Simoniello and Parker Lumpkin
SEACOOS Fall workshop, September 11, 2006
Summary Report
Executive Summary: The SEACOOS fall workshop was held in Jacksonville, Florida on 11 September 2006. The purpose was to plan the SEACOOS Year-Five Program Documentation Task and identify potential contributions by SEACOOS to SECOORA. The format of the workshop was to begin with a plenary session with limited presentations and constructive discussion. All power point presentations are available on the www.seacoos.org website. A detailed workshop summary follows this Executive Summary, however, a selection of major issues follow:
Funding is a major unknown. For Year-Five, $1.5M dollars are available. A portion of this will support the documentation effort.
The idea of regional programs is endorsed by a number of reports including the Ocean Commission Report and Ocean Action Plan, and the IOOS development plan.
There is a critical issue of personnel turnover ranging from administrative, technical and graduate student support that can cripple an RCOOS.
Earmark funding is a double-edged sword. While providing support for systems development and short-term demonstrations and evaluation, it is not a funding mechanism appropriate for operating an Ocean Observing System. Adequate, sustained funding is required for a successful program.
Sustained operations require an adequate inventory of spare system components and backup systems.
Long time series are required for characterizing the environment.
Test-beds, critical to transfer technology from R&D to operational, are an important function for the RCOOS.
The RCOOS must maintain a dynamic inventory of assets.
The SEACOOS ability to sustain a suite of quasi-operational 3-D regional numerical models linked to other large scale programs (NAVO, GODAE) is a significant contribution to IOOS
It is felt that marine meteorologists have not been sufficiently engaged in SEACOOS or in COOS programs in general.
The Data Management Working Group was successful in implementing standards, common protocols, and a data dictionary. SEACOOS can play a leading role in extending these practices and service oriented products nationally.
Extension and Education projects requires close liaison with scientist and Data managers from the beginning of product development to reviews. A longer time frame is needed to develop products which should be tested before being introduced to extension/education stakeholders.
Having a fiscal arrangement (master plan) in place prior to the flow of funds simplifies later distribution.
The RCOOS must have a full time project manager and administrative assistant.
Communications beyond the Executive Committee must be better defined and monitored.
All working groups must be more interactive. Modeling and observations go hand-in-hand, but overall data management would benefit from distributed resources, and education and outreach would benefit from closer interactions with the scientists.
The initial Strategic and Implementation Plans for SEACOOS were sound and still apply today. Nevertheless these must be regularly assessed and updated, and measurements of success (metrics) requires more planning and refinement.
The present system has single points of failure across data collection, analysis and storage. Redundancy and archival must be implemented.
SEACOOS does not have to give up its identity to SECOORA, rather it should be maintained as an element of the regional association.
Summary of key contributions:
SEACOOS developed experience and demonstrated proficiency across many different platforms, sensors, models, deliverables, and education audiences. Many tools were created and lessons learned.
SEACOOS developed program elements that can contribute to future RCOOS
SEACOOS demonstrated the considerable leveraging that academic institutions can bring to an RCOOS
SEACOOS developed frameworks, standards and practices for data handling, management, and distribution
SEACOOS developed a valuable body of experience applicable to many aspects of RCOOS operations
SEACOOS demonstrated a vision for what an RCOOS can be
Bottom line: SEACOOS provides significant lessons learned applicable to RCOOS development.
Pre-agenda topics discussed: Harvey Seim
Idea of regional programs endorsed in a number of reports, e.g. RA reports, Commission on Ocean Policy Report, Ocean Action Plan, IOOS Development Plan. However, little progress has been made identifying the science and technology needed to move forward. SEACOOS can make a major contribution by putting forth solid recommendations on roles and responsibilities for the regions and federal agencies.
Funding is a major unknown at this time. Despite good funding between 2002 and 2004, $1.5 million is the total program budget in Year 5. How do we go forward and support key elements of the program? There is no Year 6 funding prospect in the House or Senate. IOOS has approximately $150 million appropriated. It is presently unknown what NOAA will receive or how it will be allocated. At the Federal level, there is a focus on deliverables for decision makers.
The conceptual designs for a national IOOS plan put forward by Lockheed-Martin and Raytheon are short-term contracts; only 6 months. It is not clear what will happen next.
Overview
The agenda for the SEACOOS Fall Workshop was as follows:
An internal assessment with presenters from each Working Group: Jim Nelson for Observing; Cisco Werner for Modeling; Madilyn Fletcher for Data Management and Lundie Spence for Education and Extension. Each gave brief summaries that included successes, lessons learned and contributions to SECOORA. Each was followed by frank and open discussion about how things worked and what should happen next.
Harvey Seim presented on Governance, specifically, accomplishments of SEACOOS in operating a pilot RCOOS.
Madilyn Fletcher led discussion on SEACOOS contributions to IOOS.
Harvey Seim led Year 5 Documentation discussion
Jim Sanders led discussion on SEACOOS contributions to IOOS and identification of possible ‘next steps.’
The meeting concluded with Working Group panel summaries focused on how SEACOOS activities can fit into SECOORA.
(Bob Weisberg for Observing; Chris Mooers for Modeling, Harvey Seim for Data Management, Lundie Spence for Education and Extension)
Nick Shay facilitated this session. Parker Lumpkin was the rapporteur.
OBSERVATIONAL WORKING GROUP presented by Dr. Nelson
PROGRESS
The Observational Work Group added a wide array of assets to the existing regional inventories and the national backbone components of the NDBC and NOS. While significant spatial and temporal data gaps exist and for individual sites suffer failures for a variety of reasons, success has been demonstrated across a range of core variables. Following are examples of demonstrated progress:
Various ocean and atmosphere instruments systems have been maintained, including moored ADCPs and CTDs for water column currents and T/S, a limited set of optical packages, near-shore directional wave and sea level systems, and full surface meteorological sensor suites for surface heat flux determinations. The quantity of moored measurements, particularly in-water measurements, and the scope of observables added greatly to the extant national backbone.
HF radar (both WERA and CODAR) have been established and are operating in diverse environments in the SE coastal ocean.
A pilot effort was conducted in satellite remote sensing, using imagery obtained from SE regional sources to generate, along with native grid products, a set of uniformly gridded, daily, "cloud-free" OI SST and color products and incorporating this information into the regional data aggregation system. Additionally, satellite SSH were used to construct geostrophic surface currents maps and surface drifter trajectory simulations based on these satellite SSH surface geostrohic currents. Prodcts ar regulary produced for the entire SEACOOS domain and for the Caribbean.
The Explorer of the Seas cruise ship provided a platform for a wide array of instrumentation, but limitations were encountered associated with the commercial operation and analyses of the volume of data collected. Valuable experience relevant to working with Volunteer Observing Ships was obtained.
Research and Development includes work with in situ profiling systems either tethered such as SWAMP of freely drifting such as BSOP (under separate funding), and initial operation of a Webb glider. SABSOON’s underwater video system is also emerged beyond “gee whiz” to become a useful tool.
There is a critical issue of personnel turnover—graduate students and technicians! They are essential infrastructure and program expertise is divided among a very small number of people. How do we replace them? This needs to be addressed in the documentation effort. Following are other lessons learned by the group:
Documentation is a significant time commitment. It can be a challenge to ensure that it is done.
Sustained operations need adequate inventory of spare parts. Can they be institutionally shared?
Long time series are essential for characterizing the environment and for defining climatologies and anomalies. Better internal T/S structure is needed to study circulation because response to forcing depends on the degree of stratification. For wider shelf areas, need to logically deploy assets to adequately cover different dynamic regimes. We’ve considered the importance of rivers and ground water for ecological variability, but haven’t really touched on atmospheric deposition
Transportation requirements include both routine servicing and rapid response operations for unscheduled maintenance. This is a key cost driver for maintaining offshore systems, often a logistically challenging, and can be a significant safety concern. Vessels of adequate size and capabilities are needed.
Communication and Data Streams -- there is presently limited redundancy and some bandwidth issues. Critical components rely on university systems, and are thus subject to university emergency response policies (e.g., shutdowns for hurricane threats), and university IT personnel. Failures often occur when no one is around.
There are challenges in expanding from individual in situ observing programs to a regional perspective, possibly related to multi-program origins and PI project focus.
The most relevant evaluation comments concerned the SEACOOS experience as one model of a pilot RCOOS. The main response has been to discuss how to best document and share operational lessons. The SEACOOS contributions that should be highlighted include:
Demonstrated ability to sustain measurements for a range of variables;
Experience with a range of platforms, power sources, and communications options;
Successful initial test-bed activities, including HF radar, NDBC ADCP buoy evaluation, regional SRS products, and the SEACOOS directional wave experiment (in the South Florida);
A range of partnerships were established with federal, state and local entities;
Demonstrated roles for academic institutions in the RCOOS-researchers and science advisors as well as a means to leverage investments and personnel
Discussion was primarily focused on the “people” component of SEACOOS. Infrastructure; experienced personnel are essential to the program. Following are topics of importance that were discussed:
The RCOOS could provide a graduate student training bed for present and future workforce. Adequate, sustained funding for students is required. For the technical and engineering personnel, salaries must also be sufficient to retain the expertise in SEACOOS.
Opinions vary on the role of academic institutions will play in running an operational observing system long-term. On one hand, it was felt that universities should not be responsible for an operational system. Rather, it was felt that the academic community should be involved with identifying the major contributions the RCOOS can make and testing new technologies. On the other hand, the sentiment was expressed that ‘if we are not engaged, not much is going to happen.’ However, it is agreed that a key role will be played in technology development and evaluation. . This led to discussion on the need to encourage collaborations with other entities.
Test beds were identified as a critical area of focus for SEACOOS. This will foster the development of the RCOOS and will also provide a means to coordinate efforts among the present partners and other groups within the SE domain.
For ‘rapid response’ activities, the ability to share resources with NOAA and others is needed. Aircraft surveys in response to events was posed as an example.
It is important to maintain a dynamic inventory of assets (instruments, system analysis). SECOORA is funding Dr. Seim’s group's continued efforts in this area (the "sensor inventory").
The deployment and maintenance of observing systems is difficult and costly. Over ½ of the funding for SEACOOS went to the Observations Working Group.
MODELING WORK GROUP presented by Cisco Werner
PROGRESS
The modeling group was charged with taking three existing regional models in the SEACOOS domain and integrating them to develop, implement and evaluate numerical modeling systems for the region. Significant progress was made, including the following:
More than ten peer-reviewed publications demonstrating progress using a suite of models were published;
There have been website postings of selected results of the models;
Many(how many) students have graduated and are gainfully employed at excellent institutions;
Funding of proposals with non-SEACOOS collaborators (e.g. ECOFORE, CODAE, SCOOP);
Links have been established with interdisciplinary groups (e.g. fisheries, HAZMAT, SAROP) and also with NCOM, HYCOM, GODAE, and CODAE, resulting in improved boundary conditions for the regional models.
While much remains to be done steady progress was achieved in linking regional scale models across the SEACOOS domain, as well as linking regional with larger scale models through collaborative interactions with other programs (e.g., GODAE, CODAE, NRL). Some initial steps at data assimilation and the calculation of metrics for model assessments (e.g. comparison with ADCP, WERA, CODAR) were also taken. Other strategies; for example, ensemble solutions, would have been beneficial. Logical “within reach” next steps include sediment transport, waves, Lagrangian models, NPZ & red tide models and adopting common policies and strategies on model output postings. Other lessons learned include:
Personnel issues were echoed here -- sustained funding for personnel is critical. And detailed documentation is especially important when there is personnel turnover. The need to avoid single point dependency was emphasized.
There is a need to understand the differences between academic and operational missions. In SEACOOS, scientific efforts were “sacrificed” to be able to meet quasi-operational demands. The regional modeling effort is a big job and economies of scale are necessary.
All work groups require overlap and interactions must be developed and maintained, particularly with Data Management and Observational Working Groups.
File formats change, thus automation is difficult.
Despite the challenges, the ability to sustain a suite of quasi-operational 3D model solutions and integration with other large-scale programs (e.g. NRL and GODAE) is a great contribution to IOOS.
The Modeling WG felt that the external review comments were too general. A single full regional prognostic circulation model of three separate regions was desired. Successful links with NCOM and HYCOM were made. Participation in CODAE will require resources, but this and other programs are now on the IOOS agenda and in the ORION design.
GROUP COMMENTS: MODELING WG
Following (in no particular order) are comments and concerns voiced during the Modeling WG comment period:
There were barriers to getting baroclinic products out. The SEACOOS web site did not display the simulations; one had to go to individual websites to see the model results. Gulf Stream forecasts were not accomplished due to the level of complexity of this problem.
Surface wind patterns/marine meteorology are critical to get wind-driven currents and waves right. This is a major boundary condition issue and one that is not presently being considered adequately by NOAA. NCEP/NAM model has a very crude boundary layer and limited coastal ocean data assimilation. Until wind field forcing improves, the forecasting capabilities of coastal ocean models will be constrained. Our own SEACOOS fix was to merge NCEP/NAM analyses with in-situ data to improve our hindcast simulations. It was felt that not engaging marine meteorologists in SEACOOS early on was likely a mistake.
The emphasis on creating integrated products may have been another mistake because it slowed our ability to demonstrate progress. We should reconsider providing links to other data streams -- wind fields, in particular.
We use climatologies that are not very progressive. There is no validation for heat flux in weather prediction. Unclear who should be doing this. Researchers? The RCOOS? Operational agencies are not doing it, therefore, if academics don’t engage it likely won’t get done.
Transformation problems need to be addressed in the documentation effort. Need to ID issues in defining and applying metrics. For example, the Navy doesn’t put out products on the same grid as HYCOM. They have their own grid for products and the Data and Analysis grids differ. The Data grid is locked unless you pay; the analysis grid is free. The degree of agreement will likely change when you have a full range of information. Determining how to take a point and transform it into a grid is a major issue.
Perhaps we should consider joint exercises to develop metrics.
DATA MANAGEMENT WORK GROUP presented by Madilyn Fletcher
Progress is broken down into three categories: Technical, Standards Development and Documentation progress. Examples of each follow:
Technical Progress: The Data Management WG developed much of what is on the website. Contributions were made in the areas of: Information retrieval, aggregation and visualizations; data scout to retrieve data on specified schedule; retrieve agency data; MapServer GIS for integrated data discovery & display; mechanisms for dealing with different reporting times & spatial scales; technology developed for merging of observational data & model output
Standards Development progress: data dictionary; common data language format developed & documented; Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) metadata generated; Meta-Door implementation; Protocols for QA/QC implementation developed, based on two-tier flagging system. This provides a framework for assessing valid vs possibly erroneous data
Documentation progress: There has been wide dissemination of technical developments, primarily on the web. Two white papers (1. data sharing; 2. QA/QC) sponsored by SECOORA are near completion. A major accomplishment was the web portal for wide access to SEACOOS data & info products. Steps were taken to establish data base and process redundancy. SEACOOS products and advances have been transferred to broader communities, for example, OpenIOOS (national aggregation of information-now based at Coastal Services Center) and Carolinas Coast.
LESSONS LEARNED
Most pragmatic progress has been in developing an understanding of problems-not in developing full solutions. Problems that have been addressed include:
Developing an effective communications structure. The networked problem solving team must interface with the data providers and key institutional personnel
Sound practices in relation to standards, common protocols and documentation are needed
Data Management must be done in sync with IOOS Development
Sufficient redundancy and backup are needed
There is value in trying multiple, new technologies while working towards a subset of accepted community standards.
Multiple lines of access to data and derived products need to be created
Learned to have an appreciation of the difficulty in developing a highly functional web site-mainly due to the need to serve a variety of users
The need to craft products to meet different user needs is being addressed by the PIC process
Efforts continue to focus on the development and documentation of data standards to ensured interactions with other standards initiatives, e.g. QARTODS, MMI
Caution is being used when considering potential information products in possible conflict with private sector interests
There is enhanced versatility in access to data through re-design of data base structure (Xenia) which will be incrementally implemented in SEACOOS
Map-based products continue to be developed
Limited progress with archival issues has been made, but this needs considerable attention
Overall, the DATA MANAGEMENT WG received many compliments on their achievements. Comments made by individuals and supported by most include:
Unsure how DATA MANAGEMENT fits into the national scheme
For data aggregation, service-oriented products, SEACOOS is possibly in the best shape in the U.S. We have nice aggregated data displays of other programs that have links to data.
It appears that we don’t have as much information available beyond the aggregated products, but we do. We should link to other data to let people know we provide access to data bases-even if products aren’t presently aggregated. This is the strength of SEACOOS- how well things are put together, how data sets are defined, and standards
We presently lack agility to get products that have been created added to the website. This is partially due to limited resources.
A lesson learned was that when it came to interoperable exercises, the agility is there, but some products are not well put together. Should the onus be transferred to Open IOOS/CSC since it is in their mandate? We should take advantage of their commitment to this to get funded for our future role in DATA MANAGEMENT
PROGRESS
A user characterization study established the initial set of extension stakeholders, which should be expanded and reviewed. Subsequent efforts focused on promotion of SEACOOS and identifying some preliminary products for targeted users, in reach training SEACOOS extension workshops and both extension and education products including:
Professional development programs for educators: TPOCO/SEPORTS/Gulf of Mexico COSEE Teachers Workshop, short workshops to test development of data application in classroom lessons;
SEACOOS topical awareness Education posters and companion web-based resources and lessons in a friendly format;
Development and distribution of two educational DVDs on SEACOOS and technology for Florida and Southeast.
Workshops for data transfer for O& E applications;
Public awareness kiosks & presentations at science & science education meetings;
Collaborations with non-SEACOOS programs (e.g. CORMP, Caro-COOPS, NWS Wilmington WFO and the Carolinas Coast project);
E&E website restructuring;
Participation on IOOS and international GOOS committees.
External communication -- web support is critical; one size doesn’t fit all. Extension and Education require different web formats, strategies and resources
Extension was engaged too soon. The E&E group needs an initial product before it can be user-driven. The transfer from R&D (other working groups) is difficult. It is hard to promote SEACOOS or sell a product that is not yet available. Funding for extension implementation should have come after products were developed and ready to be tested with users. Education engagement can follow science and technology with appropriate interaction. WHEN to engage is important.
E&E should have worked more closely with DATA MANAGEMENT (and other groups) from the beginning to know more about what SEACOOS information was becoming available.
Most extension products have local use-there is a need for sub-regional products that can be expanded to region-wide products.
Super users typically deal directly with data/data providers not E&E members. They help produce information.
Many of the recommendations are being considered by SECOORA.
GROUP COMMENTS OUTREACH AND EDUCATION
Professional and/or technical staff are needed for product development.
COSEE is involved ~1/5 time with COOS compared to about ~1/10 for national COSEE programs. This time is provided as in-kind from COSEE FL, GoM and SE staff.
In-reach efforts for Sea Grant and other extension program to understand RCOOS potential products need to be stronger.
Educational and extension materials and products should have scientific review for accuracy and let the E&E develop the appropriate product.
E&E products/service support R&D findings once they are ready for promotion and development. So this supports the stronger communication from other groups as to what topics, information, events are becoming available and then the E&E group can to turn this communication into services/products.
OPERATING A PILOT RCOOS presented by Harvey Seim
Having a fiscal arrangement in place prior to the flow of SEACOOS funds showed great foresight. There was a master agreement on how funds would be allocated and an understanding of what the accountability to the funding agency would be. Accomplishments related to operating a pilot RCOOS include:
An organizational structure (working groups, executive committee) was defined
A governance board was established year 2
Proposals were developed and funded for five years via earmarks
Successfully advocated for funding
Having minimal oversight from ONR seemed to be a double-edged sword. While we got to define our own course, we weren’t very coordinated with their agency
Early on it was stated by the ONR program manager that SEACOOS is not about publications, but from the research/academic perspective, this is always a concern. Science needs to go into the design of the operational system
Internal communication has been a major challenge since the start of the program. The Observational WG appears to interact the least across subregions. In part, this may be related to the demands of the local systems and the fact that these can be operated somewhat independently The Data Management group has 3 lead PIs who are on the EXCOM, so communication here is better, however communication in the DMCC was primarily among the technical personnel and not PI-driven. Different methods to facilitate communication have been met with limited success. Constant oversight is needed, but SEACOOS has had difficulty retaining administrative help in the Project Office.
We seriously underestimated the time commitment for the website. Although it does allow distributed content input, this feature goes largely unused. It was suggested that website development staff should be housed locally at each partner institution
A full time project manager and administrative helper are needed.
There were peaks & valleys in fiscal management -- we stayed on target first 2-3 y, but the rate of spending slowed as the project matured.
Work statements were too ambitious, therefore, few were able to meet yearly goals completely. It is a major change in business to plan yearly activities this way.
The main level of board engagement was with the distribution of funds and governance. Initially funds were allocated by institution, but based on Board input. As SEACOOS matured, direct Board involvement decreased.
It was a shared sentiment that programs like SEACOOS could only work if you have an altruistic group. Despite disagreements, this RCOOS excels because we all get along
The mechanisms for obtaining IOOS funds are evolving. It is likely that the SE program will have to compete for resources with other regions. The appropriate strategy for this remains to be defined.
Even if competitive funding comes in 2007, it will not be enough to support the present SE COOS programs. Transitioning to the RCOOS in a way that optimizes program strengths and that is in synch with funding is a challenge.
All Working Groups need to be more interactive, particularly modeling and observations. Some further distribution of Data Management working group assets would also help to facilitate cross-cutting efforts and the transition of products to the web. There is a similar need for increased distribution of E&O resources.
While there was regular communication among the EXCOM, much of this did not reach the other PIs and technical support personnel. Russ Lea suggested that, in part, communication between core groups was limited by the level of funding.
The documentation process is critical
Modeling coastal inundation is very important. We need critical experiments so we can provide guidance to nation
We are seeing the end of the earmark game. The rules for COOS development are changing and we will have to compete among other regions for resources. A challenge is how the SEACOOS partners can keep the network together so we can be competitive. This will require an evolution from SEACOOS to SECOORA, in which lessons learned are applied and the best aspects of the program are moved forward.
SEACOOS contributions feed into the concept of interoperability -- successes that build linkages that enable integration, interfacing, aggregation of information, application of information, and those developments that break new ground in enabling interoperability.
Two kinds of contributions that cut across working groups are: Technical and/or scientific developments that enable increasing levels of integration/aggregation, and actual demonstrations of integration/aggregation through new approaches and coordination among SEACOOS team & possibly outside groups. The latter requires proactive attempts to reach out and connect with outside programs. Examples of SEACOOS contributions to IOOS include:
A substantial increase in SE coastal ocean observations that are made broadly available through the direct transfer of data to NDBC, the SEACOOS web portal, and the individual SEACOOS institutional web sites.
Assessment of HF radar technologies at various locations and under various ambient conditions
The South Florida wave experiment at the WERA test-bed;
Technologies developed for retrieval, aggregation and visualization of distributed information (e.g. data scout, map based programming, normalization, methodologies, merging of observations and model output);
Standards development (e.g. data dictionary);
Ability to sustain quasi-operational 3D regional numerical models;
Model-observational quality control/validation with different observing platforms;
The generation of surface wind field analyses combining NCEP/NAM with in-situ data;
The generation of various satellite data analysis products, e.g., IO SST and color, SSH, surface geostrophic currents, and simulated surface drifter trajectories;
Initial stages in the assistance of experimental designs through CODAE;
Integration of various storm surge circulation modeling;
Interfacing with outside groups that demonstrate interoperability (e.g. incorporation of SEACOOS observations by NDBC, NWLON; integration with NAVO, GODAE, downscaled to regional level);
Communication and collaboration with diverse groups (e.g. NWS; MAST activities through Community Modeling Networks (CMNs));
Standards/protocols developed by SEACOOS feed directly into IOOS-scale activities e.g. OpenIOOS;
Sharing progress among larger community is ongoing via participation in national workshops and frequent email traffic;
Endeavor to be connected to DMAC activity, but difficult to be entrained;
SECOORA-sponsored Spring 2005 workshop for the national Data Management community.
The discussion concluded with comments about ways we could increase our contributions. It was suggested we could do more work integrating information. For example, we could focus on the synoptic view and less on individual instruments and variables. This is possibly an area where we need to bring in the private sector to work on issues of interoperability.
The vision presented in the initial SEACOOS Strategic Plan still applies. However, Working Group priorities were never fleshed out to the extent that the Implementation Plan can be considered completed. A good start on Working Group technical documentation resulted from the preparations for the External Evaluation. These provide a good foundation, describing what various working groups objectives and how well these have been accomplished. However, there are a variety of ways to measure success. What metrics are we using?
Russ Lea commented that the outside review was not on the RCOOS-like elements of SEACOOS. Rather it focused more on what a system of systems should look like. Given our scope of funding, the external evaluators treated us like the RA rather than the RCOOS. Mary Altalo said we need different metrics to measure success and that those should include cost/benefit analyses. Other comments and topics of discussion include:
If SEACOOS has made a difference in the day-to-day operations of users of the information system, we need to document it.
An important contribution SEACOOS can make to IOOS is to define a concept of operations. There are many areas where the SEACOOS experience is relevant to further development of the regional and national systems. A mechanism for ensuring additional input under SECOORA to the national planning needs to be identified.
RCOOS documents (Strategic Plan; Implementation Plan; WG technical documentation; and RCOOS Design document) need to reflect what exists, as well as a vision of what can be achieved in the future.
It is unknown at this time if any RAs have been closely aligned with RCOOS and have similar documentation (possibly GoMOOS & SC COOS). If so, are documents being shared? Mark Luther says all have concentrated on Business Plans to this point.
There remains the question of the target audience for these SEACOOS documents. Multiple versions tailored for specific audiences may be required.
An initial list of specific activities that should be included in the SEACOOS documentation effort includes the following:
A comprehensive list of contributions to scientific understanding- manuscripts, theses, dissertations
Practical findings about system design, operation, and performance. For example, robustness of modeling systems, frequency operational platforms were functional. This gives a starting point for measuring success.
Because performance measures differ for deploying new types of technology (e.g. glider) of non-experimental equipment (e.g. smoothing problems comparing models), it is important to document different types of evaluations.
R&D has high expenditure effort-we don’t want it to look like universities can’t operate equipment. For example, the HF Radar testbed has different metrics for start-up vs. sustained operations.
It is essential to emphasize the need for funding to support spare parts.
The documentation needs to be organized and we have to be selective in what we do. We tend to be over-ambitious at workshops! A format for specific topics should be decided before handing off to each Working Group.
We need to demonstrate how we’ve interfaced with the national backbone (e.g. merging data streams is fundamental to RAs).
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING APPROACH
It is still unclear system engineering means to RCOOS. We were cautioned to be careful using this approach as it drives the entire process and you can often have legitimate designer/process methodologies that don’t get you closer to a solution. NCEP wind products were used as an example-it is important to know if adding in situ data adds value or saturates the market. Design definition determines if we have dozens vs. hundreds of sensors. We must first know the level of ocean wind desired before we can find the best solution. Dr. Brown cautioned that we are mixing system architecture (system design) with systems engineering (discipline trying to apply to architecture). Systems engineering doesn’t give us the vision! The system architecture is what we need to consider by identifying options and how we might get there. We need a vision before we can crank out a design!
Some practical findings regarding system design that should be included in the documentation effort are:
Comparison of HF Radar technologies;
Evaluation of how sensors worked on different platforms;
Tie into DATA MANAGEMENT-metrics for QA/QC
Identifying requirements for spare/replacement parts for various system components;
Defining personnel requirements -- the expertise that is required to operate what we have now and the personnel time has been put towards this effort in the past 5 years. This has been well beyond the personnel support levels funded by SEACOOS.
Recognition that SEACOOS offers training/workforce for future (NOPP has a 3 y project looking at workforce requirements to support IOOS)
We need to document
Leveraged assets, both people and equipment, must be included in order to justify the resources needed to go operational. Demonstrated synergism is important for good science and to better use limited resources.
Emphasize that steady funding to sustain operations comes from state/federal side; new ideas come out of the academic community. Interaction between research and operational groups promotes continual improvement and understanding
The documentation discussion concluded with comments about our need to be able to share resources with our partners. Co-locating makes this easier. For example, NDBC uses Coast Guard vessels to support work. This is more feasible in some locations (e.g. Jacksonville) than others. The USCG 1000 watt transmitter station was also mentioned as an asset that can help support our radar program.
The main points of discussion were: how do we move on to the next stage in RCOOS/RA development and how to keep the SEACOOS partners effectively engaged in this process?
SEACOOS can provide the charge and leading questions to SECOORA, but we need a mechanism to insure that SECOORA listens to the experience and expertise we provide. Staying involved and participating in SECOORA working groups is an obvious way to make sure that what we want to transfer will be received. This will require further commitment from the SEACOOS partners. On the flip side, Rick DeVoe thinks the challenge is for SECOORA to keep us engaged -- we have capitol and knowledge, so they need us.
The main contribution SECOORA can offer SEACOOS is engagement of the user community at the regional level. Other than super-users, we are not set up for this.
We were told we need to be user-driven, yet it’s not our role, nor is assuming an operational role. Our energy is better spent working with others. For example, combining resources and talents with FMRI has resulted in a model/obs-driven tracking tool for red tide. These types of successes need to be included in the documentation effort, and both local/sub-system and regional successes should be provided.
There is some uncertainty about how our work to date aligns with SECOORA goals. We need more clarity on what we should do. Are we to be the operators of the RCOOS? Should we work with the operators? Is our main role going to be to help frame the R&D element? How will we compete for funds? For five years, SEACOOS has been responsible for everything from governance and research to operating the system. A defined scope of duties will be needed for SEACOOS to move forward in the RA-context.
Within the context of a larger regional program (the RA), it was felt that academics should remain involved in operations for the short term. We know more than most about what should be in the water, what works, and what we can realistically expect to do in the next decade. We also know about sample design and can optimize equipment spacing. Academics should be at the RCOOS table among the architects for the RCOOS; providing scientific input is part of doing our job. In the short-term, the RCOOS is evolving toward an operational system. In the long term, most do not see the academic institutions playing a primary operational role. A fundamental role with be to pursue R&D opportunities. Test beds are seen as a avenue for linking research to operations. The NOAA Climate Programs and GODAE proceed in this fashion. It is a practical way to put things together -- if we create products and demonstrate use, multiple groups will be involved in system development. The example of the National Severe Storms Lab in Oklahoma was noted, where the latest generation Doppler radar was developed through a test bed program prior to transitioning to operational on the national level.
A big difference between SEACOOS and SECOORA is that the latter has stakeholders who will want high level analysis products; not being concerned with the nuts and bolts of the information system -- just the final products. As a group, SEACOOS can and should continue. Further research will be needed to address problems associated with user community needs. We will need to find common ground. The real test will be to see if the evolution through SECOORA continues when dues start being collected. If our impact on the user community will be through problem solving, then we need to build a tool box of what we can do to handle certain issues of the day. This is where we will have instant attraction. A mark of our success will be when folks talk about ocean-related topics on a daily basis. To do this, we need to cultivate users and have mechanisms to increase awareness of the general public.
SEACOOS does not have to give up its identity to SECOORA -- it can be maintained as an element of the RA. As written, the money is competitive to STATE observing programs. This would be a huge step backwards. It is presently unknown if this pits state against state intentionally vs. state matching funds? The wording is not specific.
To summarize, as SECOORA grows, the region will need test beds and models to build on. These can provide an avenue for transition of SEACOOS to an active role in the RA. But this process will not be immediate -- growth is likely going to be slow due to funding constraints. Since the test beds will contribute to operational efforts, universities will remain a the foundation for the RCOOS over the short term.
As resources become available, maintenance may be contracted. The way things are done may not change much, but a broader group will be at the table.
Harvey Seim hopes for consensus among the SEACOOS PIs to choose to function in SECOORA. It would be wise for us to contribute to various committees -- especially those focused on observing and R&D. From the SEACOOS perspective, it will be great to have others engaged in working with user communities. This will allow us to concentrate on the COOS aspect. There is consensus that we can not address all seven societal goals in the initial phase of SEACOORA and that it is important to have a near-term focus for the region to move forward.
Summary of key contributions that SEACOOS can make to SECOORA:
Experience with many different platforms, sensors, models, deliverables, and education audiences. Many tools created and lessons learned
Creativity and motivation to move forward and in different directions is a strong element to future R&D
Academic institutions provide considerable leverage
Frameworks, standards and practices for data handling, management, and distribution have been developed
We have experts with appropriate experience in all aspects of the RCOOS-both the upper level decision makers and the general technical labor force (which will also be trained by the academic partners)
We have vision for what the RCOOS can be.
OBSERVATIONAL AND MODELING WORK GROUPS presented by Bob Weisberg
Despite flaws, there have been successful and have accomplished what we set out to do. It has been very positive.
Each sub-region has supported the national backbone;
Many papers have been published about new science and technical progress;
Cross-cutting connections have been made between modeling & observations;
SEACOOS has served a role in CODAE, even in the absence of CODAE funding, playing an informal role through OSSE (operational system simulation experiments) efforts. [JRN: Bob check this]
Many products have been developed -- some captured on the website, others not.
An area that needs improvement is bringing products to the public. The Observational WG had closest interaction with the modeling group (primarily because Bob Weisberg serves on both). We need to improve interaction with other WGs. There is a lag with the Data Management WG because it takes time to develop products. The same can be said for interactions with the O&E WG. Archival storage space was brought up as a concern. Good data will have to be discarded along with the bad due to lack of archival storage. It was suggested that the role of NOAA in IOOS could be more complementary than competitive, and that we should engage them now rather than later. A need for simple, but engaging reports was seen for getting action in state capitals. It was felt that SEACOOS should not downplay what has been accomplished, and that there is a need to document where the program benefited others and augmented the national backbone.
DATA MANAGEMENT presented by Harvey Seim
A few key points were made regarding the Data Management Working Group
Two missing links were identified in our present plan: 1) rapid response capability; and 2) marine meteorology;
Except for the O&E group, EXCOM Chairs were not rotated; not doing so made it insular
We need to include more products on the website;
SEACOOS Teams can be used to promote interactions with federal groups...they allow the RCOOS/RA relationship to be used as incubators for collaborations among people who traditionally don’t interact
Extension and Education presented by Lundie Spence E&E needed to be more in the science loop and have a better idea of what could be delivered to stakeholders. Despite flaws, the E&E group feel there were still successes and developed many prototype products that have worked. Two major E&E contributions have been (1) increased awareness of SEACOOS regionally, nationally and internationally by communicating through refereed papers, presenting at conferences and creating media products (DVDs, posters, brochures) promoting public and audience awareness; (2) prototype activities for teachers applying COOS information. . The Carolinas Coast from Caro-COOPS and incorporating SEACOOS information is a good example of an extension product. It engages multiple COOS programs in the RA as well as state and federal agencies. There are many levels of stakeholders -- some E&E deals with directly and others who interact directly with researchers. The three objectives from E&E provided a strategic plan for the first 3 years. It would have been beneficial so that all Working Groups had a common goal -- reaching consensus on where to allocate resources was challenging. Leveraging resources with the COSEE programs and using regional SEA Grant Educators made development of formal education products feasible.
Rich Styles
Communication has been an ongoing problem -- as a PI, he feels he doesn’t know much about the program. He raised a question about the amount of lobbying required -- Harvey Seim replied that this was considerable, and had to be conducted with approval of host institutions, but it is a very difficult way to secure funding. Funding climate changed largely due to the lack of ability to deliver on the promise of getting earmarks.
Individual campus priorities change with time and some did not put support of the program on the priority list for their legislative agendas.
Dwayne Porter
Restated that we have been selling ourselves short with regard to success stories – there are many examples of our involvement in contributing to the national backbone. Three other RAs have looked at successes within our group, making it the focus of their RAs and using it as guidance. We need to document these examples.
George Sedberry
The SC DNR component has targeted connecting fish abundance and linking fisheries with physical oceanography. This is being done not just for managed species but for ecosystem applications. SC DNR internal funding is poor so there is a need to rethink how to get long-term funding. He recognizes the challenges to the program resulting from a loss of earmark dollars and hopes it is something SECOORA can address.
Paul Work
Thinks we need to emphasize publications and the R&D aspects of the program, and feels that the successes to date likely would not have occurred under a different management scenario.