Summary Report

Download this document as:

Adobe PDF • Open Document • Microsoft Word

Contents

1. Overview
2. Introduction
3. Lessons Learned
   1. Program Management
   2. Extension and Education
   3. Observations
   4. Information Management
   5. Modeling
4. Program Review
5. RCOOS Design
6. Federal Agency Updates
   1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
   2. National Data Buoy Center
   3. Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services
   4. Discussion
7. Breakout Sessions
8. Breakout Reports
   1. Information Management Report
   2. Information Management Discussion
   3. Linking R&D to Applications Report
   4. Linking R&D to Applications Discussion
   5. Concept of Operations Report
   6. Concept of Operations Discussion
9. Wrap-Up
   1. Russ Lea - SEACOOS
   2. Sandy Vargo - Florida Institute of Oceanography
   3. Judy Gray - NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory
   4. Paul Moersdorf - NOAA National Data Buoy Center
   5. Josie Quintrell - National Federation of Regional Associations
   6. Mel Briscoe - Office of Naval Research

Overview

The 10th and final SEACOOS workshop was organized at the request of Linwood Vincent (Office of Naval Research, Program Officer for SEACOOS). The intent was to provide an opportunity for open dialogue about the SEACOOS program. To increase participation by representatives of federal agencies and other regional COOS programs, the SEACOOS workshop was scheduled immediately prior to a meeting of the National Federation of Regional Associations (NFRA), held at the same venue.

The overall workshop objective was to review and discuss the SEACOOS program, focusing on "lessons learned" that could contribute to future RCOOS development in the SE and other regions. The discussion of the SEACOOS program was intended to be forward-looking, providing lead-in to some of the topics that would be addressed in the following NFRA meeting.

Documenting the SEACOOS program experience was among the recommendations from the External Evaluation of the SEACOOS program, conducted in January, 2005. In the External Evaluation report, it was emphasized that SEACOOS has been a pilot RCOOS effort, and that the results of this experience, good and bad, should be recorded to help inform further RCOOS development. Thus, a focus for SEACOOS efforts in 2007 has been to generate a set of documents for the program.

A document writing team (Madilyn Fletcher, Chris Mooers, Jim Nelson, Harvey Seim, Nick Shay, Chris Simoniello, Lundie Spence, Jack Thigpen, George Voulgaris, Robert Weisberg, and Francisco Werner) produced a set of eight draft documents with input and review from other SEACOOS participants. The draft documents were posted in advance of the workshop. The documents included the following topics: SEACOOS program management; reviews of activities and lessons learned from the four Working Groups (Extension and Education, Information Management, Modeling, and Observing); a review of the High Frequency Radar (HF-radar) test beds operated during the program; a summary of the SEACOOS waves initiative; and, a proposed "RCOOS Design" for the SE, building on the SEACOOS experience. The program documents describe the starting point and subsequent history for each of these component areas, including key challenges, and summarized "lessons learned" that can be relevant to future RCOOS development. The final program documents will be posted on the SEACOOS web site. In addition, these documents are intended to provide the basis for a set of papers to be submitted for peer-reviewed publications. The "RCOOS design" document has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Marine Systems (Seim et al., in press).

Introduction – Workshop Expectations

There were 74 participants in the workshop, 31 of whom had been associated with SEACOOS. To start the workshop, Harvey Seim, SEACOOS Chief Operating Officer, welcomed the participants and provided an introduction to the workshop objectives. Seim followed the introduction with an overview of the program documentation process. This presentation provided information on SEACOOS program history (initial conditions, subsequent development), key challenges/obstacles faced by various program elements, and lessons learned.

The review of SEACOOS documentation is summarized in the following section, starting with Program Management, and then proceeding through summaries from the Working Groups: Extension and Education; Observing (including briefings on the HF-Radar and Surface Wave efforts); Information Management; and Modeling. Seim's review of the SEACOOS program documentation was followed by discussion led by a panel composed of members of the SEACOOS Documentation Team and SECOORA representatives, who addressed comments and questions from workshop participants.

Key Lessons Learned from the SEACOOS Experience

Program Management

Draft document (Harvey Seim).

Organizational structure: Funds for SEACOOS came through the Office of Naval Research as a "plus-up." The higher level management approach adopted by ONR provided oversight, but did not impose an organizational or internal management structure on the program (see comments by Mel Briscoe below, under the final Wrap-Up session). The basic organizational structure adopted by SEACOOS when the consortium was formed in 2002 was consistent with that outlined in prior IOOS and GOOS planning documents, and centered around Working Group coordination of activities associated with observations, modeling, information management, and outreach/education. With guidance from Russ Lea of the University of North Carolina Office of the President, Articles of Collaboration were drafted that established functional components of the program. A key component was the Master Agreement that defined a streamlined means for flow of funds from the coordinating entity (UNC Office of the President) to the partner institutions and established mechanisms for fiscal oversight. A similar organizational structure is being adopted by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Association (MACOORA) for the Mid-Atlantic states RCOOS.

Defining the SEACOOS Mission: A fundamental programmatic challenge for SEACOOS was linking its organizational structure to the major thematic areas defined for IOOS (i.e., the seven major "societal goals"). Given the available resources for developing a regional program, it was recognized that trying to address all of the societal goals for IOOS was not a workable approach, and priorities would have to be defined. For example, in discussing national IOOS information needs, the Airlie House Meeting in March, 2002, had defined a list of some 50 priority coastal ocean variables relevant to the IOOS thematic areas (Building Consensus: Toward an Integrated and Sustained Ocean Observing System, Ocean.US Report No. 1).

Strategic and Implementation Plans: The SEACOOS program put considerable effort into developing planning documents, notably an initial "Strategic Plan" and a phased "Implementation Plan." These were intended to define the SEACOOS mission in terms of regional priorities and to outline the approach for system development in a 5-10 year time frame. Focus on three "process components" was adopted to link the organizational and thematic structures: 1) the physical state of the SE coastal ocean; 2) biogeochemical and ecosystem processes; and 3) socio-economic issues. Priorities for the phased implementation plan would be based on the maturity of components of the pilot system. Thus in Phase I of the implementation (a time frame of 5 years), the program proposed to focus on two broad application areas that would be served by improved information and predictive capabilities for the physical state of the coastal ocean:

1. search and rescue (SAR), spill response, and harmful algae blooms;
2. living marine resources/fisheries.

An initial effort to coordinate regional surface wave measurements and modeling was also undertaken. Phase II of the Implementation Plan (time frame of 5-10 years) was to add capabilities for applications in storm surge/inundation, rip currents and sediment transport/coastal erosion, as well as enhance system capabilities for applications addressed in Phase I.

Funding profile and budget planning: The five-year funding profile for the SEACOOS program was summarized in terms of yearly totals and the proportions directed toward Observations, Modeling, Information Management, Extension & Education, and Program Management. Significant investments in observing system equipment and logistic support were made in Years 1-3. Overall, personnel costs represented the largest budget category across the working groups. The fact that funding for the program came through year-to-year earmarks made for uncertainty in budget planning. Working group and institutional budgets were often drafted before knowing the actual funds available, and adjusted once the program funding level for the year was established. The funding priorities and final budgets were then presented to the SEACOOS Board for review and approval. The constraints of this year-to-year budget process made it difficult to match annual work plans to longer term program goals.

Communications: Workshops and Reporting Structure: SEACOOS held two workshops per year. The spring workshop was open to the coastal ocean observing community and typically addressed information needs, applications and regional coordination with federal and state agencies. Representatives of federal agencies were active participants in the workshops throughout the program. These organizations included NDBC, AOML, CO-OPS, NWS and USACE. To some extent, the SEACOOS spring workshops provided the opportunity for federal agencies concerned with the SE coastal ocean to meet face-to-face on at least an annual basis. The fall workshops were dedicated to internal discussions, including review of working group tasks from the prior year and discussing tasks and budget requirements for the following year. For program reports, internal semi-annual reports by partner institutions and organized by working groups provided task updates which were consolidated into a more formal annual report sent to ONR.

Lessons learned-Program Management:

• Communications across the regional program were difficult to maintain. The central program office was understaffed and staff turnover occurred several times during the program. Many of the program needs had to be served by what amounted to a "partially volunteer army."
• Maintaining a balance between institutional representation and programmatic goals was challenging and was never completely separated in the annual task and budget planning process.
• The planning process, including the development of the Strategic and Implementation Plans, needed to be more solidly based in regional science plans.

Extension and Education (E&E)

Draft document (Robert Bacon, Chris Simoniello, Lundie Spence, Jack Thigpen).

Coordination: Extension/outreach activities to target audiences were led by the Sea Grant programs in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida, with the University of Georgia Marine Extension Service assuming the lead for Georgia E&E in Year 3. Educational activities were led by three of the newly formed NSF Centers for Ocean Sciences Education Excellence (COSEE SE, COSEE Gulf of Mexico and COSEE FL).

User Characterization Study: A needs assessment conducted in Year 2 identified eleven major categories of users of coastal ocean observing system information. The study identified a "super-user" group that clearly desired the information, and had the technical capabilities to receive and utilize this for their application areas. Information on waves, currents and wind were identified as the highest priority needs for "super-users." This assessment set the stage for subsequent focus on cross-working group thematic areas and Phase I applications of the SEACOOS Implementation Plan (notably Search and Rescue, Marine Forecasting, spill response and management of living marine resources).

E&E framework and role in SEACOOS: One of the primary roles for E&E in SEACOOS was to facilitate interactions, e.g., between sectors, between end users and information providers, and between researchers and formal and informal education systems. Another role was to promote awareness of COOS science and its societal benefits. Engagement in internal program development was also seen as an important part of the E&E effort. Through association with established E&E partners, SEACOOS was able to increase the extent of public awareness and educational impact beyond what was directly supported by the program. The E&E partners were able to significantly leverage resources for the E&E program, including support for personnel involved in the E&E effort and contribution of resources.

Outcomes: Public awareness and educational uses of COOS information were promoted through more than 80 workshops, exhibits, educational posters, public events, and presentations at local, national and international meetings. E&E lessons learned from SEACOOS have been exported to other regions (e.g., GoMOOS and GLOS). Plans are in process to expand upon a number of the SEACOOS E&E programs in the transition to SECOORA.

Lessons Learned – Extension and Education:

• Effective E&E requires the commitment to "relationship building" efforts, both for interfacing with stakeholders or users and for internal training and communications ("in-reach").
• Early integration of E&E activities with those of other working groups is essential.
• Key challenges are prioritization of information needs once these are identified, and managing the expectations of users.

Observations

Draft document (Jim Nelson, Robert Weisberg, Nick Shay, George Voulgaris).

Approach: The Observing Working Group (OWG) recognized that SEACOOS resources would not be sufficient to fill all major observational gaps in the SE coastal ocean. Therefore, the basic development strategy was to build out from existing infrastructure, measure a core set of variables (mostly physical), test a range of observing technologies in sustained operation, and create opportunities to leverage SEACOOS resources to further enhance the system in terms of spatial coverage and variables measured.

In situ observing assets supported: A diverse range of observing activities were conducted under the umbrella of the OWG, with the OWG receiving the largest portion of the SEACOOS program funding. Near real-time, fixed in situ observing platforms utilized in SEACOOS included several types of buoy systems, offshore Navy towers, coastal stations and pier deployments. Overall, the number of fixed observing platforms operated by SEACOOS were about equivalent to that operated by federal agencies in the SE, and in many locations, an expanded range of variables were measured. Real-time observations were supplemented by internally recording instruments at a number of locations to obtain important time series information. The in situ observing program included technology development and evaluation activities (e.g., trial deployments of an autonomous glider; development and trials for a fixed position profiler; maintenance of an UW video system for fisheries applications; evaluation of ADCP configurations on NDBC shelf buoys). SEACOOS also contributed to a voluntary observing ship (VOS) program that utilized a large cruise liner (the Royal Caribbean Explorer of the Seas) and engaged in a number of opportunistic observing activities (including ship surveys, and obtaining surface drifter data).

Satellite remote sensing: A pilot program in regional satellite remote sensing (strongly leveraged from existing download and processing resources at USF IMaRS) delivered a range of near real-time satellite products to the SEACOOS web portal (including SST and ocean color products). The USF Ocean Circulation Group provided "cloud-free" (optimally interpolated, or OI) SST and ocean color products. Satellite products were also acquired from sources outside the SEACOOS partners (including QuikSCAT winds from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory) and delivered to the SEACOOS portal.

HF-Radar: SEACOOS operated four HF-radar test-beds. These sites included both broad and narrow shelf settings, and zones of very strong horizontal shear in surface currents. Two commercial systems, CODAR and WERA, were operated and evaluated. Long-range CODAR systems were deployed in West Florida and in NC near Cape Hatteras. Noise/interference issues were noted for the NC deployment as were inconsistent results for the Gulf Stream area. WERA uses a phased array for receive antennas, and thus requires a longer footprint on the beach. The number of cables and antennas also makes installation and maintenance more challenging. The WERA technology offers the potential for broad-field directional wave height estimates. A field validation trial of the WERA-wave product was organized by SEACOOS partners (the "mini waves experiment") who deployed a number of in situ wave measurement systems in the measurement field of the SE FL system. The initial results of this experiment indicate that the WERA system can provide valuable wave information. The HF-radar summary document prepared by Shay et al. reviews technical aspects and performance criteria for the systems deployed by SEACOOS .

Surface Wave Initiative: A pilot program in surface directional wave measurement was initiated to build toward applications in several areas (including rip-current forecasting, sediment transport and coastal erosion), and with the vision of future coordinated wave forecasting activities with federal agencies. (For a summary of the pilot program, see the Voulgaris draft document). Real-time wave measurement systems were deployed at several near-shore sites utilizing both cabled bottom-mounted ADCPs and a tethered wave buoy with on-board telemetry. Among the accomplishments of this effort were: the development of wave climatologies for several near-shore locations; demonstration of good agreement between ADCP- and buoy derived wave parameters; establishing interactions with NOAA NWS regarding wave products and forecasting; and multi-sensor validation of WERA derived wave height estimates in the South Florida "mini waves experiment" conducted by SEACOOS partners (noted above).

Leveraging OWG activities: As was the case across the SEACOOS program, leveraging of existing infrastructure, institutional resources and personnel time played an important role in developing and supporting the observing effort. Few of the personnel engaged in the observing effort were fully supported through SEACOOS, and most were thus multi-tasking throughout the program. Shop, engineering and transportation (ship and smaller vessel) resources were also often strongly leveraged, as were activities such as the "mini waves experiment" and opportunistic ship surveys (e.g., hydrographic surveys conducted during the 2003 upwelling event in the SAB). Beyond a science advisory and R&D role, one of the positive aspects of involvement of academic institutions in the observing system is the existence of such opportunities to leverage resources.

Lessons Learned – Observations: During the SEACOOS program, considerable experience was obtained in the sustained operation of a range of observing assets. Among the general operational lessons learned were:

• Personnel are essential "infrastructure" for the observing system. Personnel resources were not sufficient to build true "operations groups" for various OWG activities during the program. Regional operations groups could help support a number of activities (e.g., buoy maintenance, HF-radar, regular glider missions).
• Regular preventive maintenance for deployed systems is essential and is a key cost-driver for the observing effort.
• Transportation is often a limiting factor for deploying and maintaining offshore systems, both in terms of cost and availability, and is a primary concern for personnel safety.
• Minimizing downtime requires a sufficient inventory of spares (instruments and components of power, communications and mechanical systems). These must be appropriately staged to be available where and when they are needed.
• Bandwidth for communications remains a limitation at various points (e.g., for offshore buoys). Leveraging University system IT infrastructure for communications saves program resources, but can result in a lack of control over the data stream.

Information Management

Draft document (Madilyn Fletcher, Jesse Cleary, Jeremy Cothran, Dwayne Porter).

Approach: Overall, the IM group was exemplary in building a strong regional partnership within the SEACOOS program through the Data Management Coordinating Committee (DMCC). A key factor in SEACOOS IM development was the ability of the DMCC to coordinate regional expertise and resources early in the program. Basic principles which guided the IM activities were: 1) accommodation of distributed observations and applications; 2) new infrastructure would be based on existing resources and practices to conserve resources and ensure rapid initial progress; 3) the system would be developed to optimize accessibility; there would be no embargoes on data and proprietary tools would be avoided unless critical to optimum functionality. The IM development process involved an identification of standards, census of providers and data types, and defining target audiences and appropriate formats for delivery.

Along with data transport, aggregation, normalization and display/access functions, the SEACOOS DMCC emphasized development of data standards and initiated QA/QC approaches. A "data dictionary" established a common vocabulary (naming, reference conventions) and a file format standard (SEACOOS NetCDF Common Data Language) were developed. For relational database organization, a "by-variable" approach was adopted using open source software.

Contributions to IOOS: Data standards and data formats tested and adopted by SEACOOS IM, and the documentation of these efforts, have been a recognized contribution to IOOS DMAC development. The SEACOOS IM program also applied and tested Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) tools, and played a lead role in "Interoperability Exercises" that were undertaken to show the potential for regional and national aggregation of real-time data from disparate sources with output to interactive map displays.

Challenges: QA/QC is a complex issue, with different requirements for different users. Further work toward QA/QC test implementation and communication alongside observations data is needed. A major challenge for SEACOOS IM was that of providing a data dissemination system that serves a very diverse set of user communities. For an expanding and evolving system, planning for required capacity is needed, in terms of both the number of data providers and users and their capabilities, and in terms of processing, communications and storage requirements.

Lessons Learned – Information Management:

• Effective communications and a problem-solving network among IM personnel are necessary to build and maintain a solid regional IM infrastructure.
• Information Management must be recognized as a core function and sufficient resources must be allocated.
• Close attention must be paid to the standards issue.
• A robust system incorporates redundancy and system back-ups.
• Archived, as well as real time data, should be accommodated in the regional IM infrastructure.
• A priority should be to identify and develop region-specific applications, and identify dissemination needs for users (e.g., information content, formats, frequency).
• Plans must incorporate flexibility for adjustments as technologies and priorities change.

Modeling

Draft Document (Cisco Werner, Chris Mooers, Robert Weisberg).

The basic charge for the modeling working group was to develop, implement and evaluate state-of-the-art numerical modeling systems for the SE coastal ocean for research and operational forecasting applications.

Approach: As was the case for other WG activities, the modeling effort built on existing infrastructure and experience. The starting point for SEACOOS circulation modeling was a set of sub-regional models that had been developed at UNC, UM and USF. Although in part the three-model approach reflected the prior developments, it was also recognized that the sub-regional domains (the Carolina-Georgia Bight, the East Florida Shelf, and the West Florida Shelf) are characterized by significantly different geometries, tidal regimes and boundary current forcing, and thus required focused attention. Further, given that these sub-regions are as large as some other COOS regions, the computational requirements for modeling the entire domain at sufficient resolution in a quasi-operational mode was a significant consideration.

Applications: Ecosystem/biological applications of SEACOOS model output have included studies of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs), larval dispersal and evaluation of alternate boundaries for proposed Marine Protected Areas. For example, COMPS, in partnership with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, created a fully automated nested circulation model running in a daily nowcast/forecast mode. EFSIS coupled physical and biological data to study larval dispersion patterns during mass coral spawning events. Using a combination of the regional East Florida Shelf-Princeton Ocean Model (EFS-POM) on a curvilinear grid for the Straits of Florida/EFS region and a high-resolution nested model for the Upper Florida Keys, dispersion patterns were shown to be strongly affected by different physical forcing mechanisms (e.g. wind, tides and the Florida Current front). Work at UNC included modeling dispersion kernels for larvae originating at the Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary under different seasonal regimes.

Challenges: A key technical issue for circulation models in general for the SEACOOS domain is the specification of the outer boundary conditions. The presence of the Loop Current-Florida Current- Gulf Stream boundary current along the shelf margin of most of the SE coastal ocean makes the outer boundary condition problem particularly challenging. And for baroclinic forecasting models, a critical issue is the specification of initial conditions (especially the internal temperature and salinity fields) and accurate representations of river discharge and surface heat fluxes. Given the sub-regional differences, linking the three sub-domain models dynamically is not straightforward. Accurately representing dynamics on narrow shelves (Cape Hatteras, East Florida Shelf, Straits of Florida) is another issue to be addressed in the SE region.

Lessons Learned - Modeling:

• A more robust method for acquiring atmospheric forcing fields is needed; this might include running a mesoscale atmospheric prediction model for the SE coastal ocean domain.
• Computational requirements for various modeling strategies need to be assessed, particularly for operating baroclinic models.
• More rigorous methods for skill assessment are needed and these will need to be re-examined on the basis of changes in the available observations.
• Further R&D is needed in a number of areas with regard to basic technical issues for circulation models (e.g., specification of outer boundary conditions and initial conditions; nesting schemes; testing and evaluating data assimilation and validation schemes that utilize the real-time observing assets in the region; generating ensemble forecasts).
• Further engagement with users will be required for application-specific model products, with the requirements differing greatly for various user groups (e.g., search and rescue versus fisheries/ecosystem applications).
• Strategies for posting or delivering model output need to be assessed in coordination with information management personnel.

Panel/Open Forum Discussion – SEACOOS program review

Workshop participants had the opportunity to address content of the program documents and the appropriateness of conclusions and recommendations in a panel discussion moderated by Mark Luther (USF). The panel included members of the SEACOOS document team (Bob Bacon, Chris Mooers, Jim Nelson, Nick Shay, Chris Simoniello, Lundie Spence, George Voulgaris, Bob Weisberg, Cisco Werner) and SECOORA representatives (Rick DeVoe, Parker Lumpkin). Mel Briscoe opened the session by raising the question: What SEACOOS would have done differently?

Highlights of the discussion that followed are summarized below.

• It was felt that SEACOOS should have pushed forward to establish a science plan that addresses issues that need to be resolved to advance the RCOOS mission under SECOORA; targeted R&D to support the evolution of operations.
• The development of products for the SEACOOS website was an area that some participants felt could have benefited from a broader distribution of information management resources in the initial program development.
• Training technical personnel is important, but challenging. Personnel resources were limited at the partner institutions, and most personnel were multi-tasking throughout the program (few were supported solely by SEACOOS). A regional network of technical support that offers economies of scale, and allows sharing of personnel and technical resources across institutions will be needed for future RCOOS development. The system elements also need to be well-documented to better accommodate turnover of key personnel. In hindsight, it was felt that a number of aspects of SEACOOS operations relied too much on graduate students and post-docs. Thus, a number of personnel who played important roles in developing and maintaining operational systems also had to fulfill academic requirements.
• The question was raised concerning the merit in bringing program participants together into a regional program. It was noted that at its origin, SEACOOS was largely based on a consortium of individual R&D programs. It was felt that the program did allow resources to be pooled, and problems of a regional scope to be addressed. The extent of regional interactions varied among working groups. In the case of the Observing Working Group, much of the focus throughout the program was on the local issues associated with deploying and maintaining in situ systems and shore-based HF-radar. It was felt that regional interactions among the technical support personnel could have been better developed. On the other hand, the needs for regional interoperability lead to frequent communication and effective interactions among the technical personnel of the Data Management Working Group.
• It was emphasized that SEACOOS remained largely in an R&D mode, and was not at the point of providing a fully operational system for the SE RCOOS. While many aspects of the current systems work reasonably well, the program was still in the process of adopting and evaluating technologies. Given the end of the SEACOOS program and the uncertainty in resources available for IOOS, there is concern that personnel, expertise and infrastructure will be lost.
• It was felt that SECOORA can expand on what SEACOOS has done via a stakeholder’s council that will define/prioritize user needs. For example, it is clear that the required time frame for delivery of information to stakeholders can vary significantly (e.g., for USCG search and rescue operations versus Education). Along with further gap analyses, consideration of stakeholder priorities will need to determine what can be achieved within the constraints of a given budget. It was suggested that formal product development and dissemination mechanisms are needed (a topic discussed further in one of the Monday afternoon sessions).
• In terms of implementing a regional COOS program, it was suggested that there are not clear boundaries between R&D and operations. It was felt that while operational attributes are required early on in RCOOS development, R&D will remain an important, and ongoing part of the program. The concept of a ‘service level agreement’ was proposed as one that can accommodate a range of observing capabilities in a regional network, including both R&D and operational elements.
• The SEACOOS program initiated interactions across "cultures"; for example building links between researchers and state and federal agencies. It was recognized that promoting such interactions will be essential for effective RCOOS development.
• In terms of internal program organization, the effectiveness of the working group structure was questioned. It was suggested that, as an alternative, the program missions should be identified thematically and then requirements to address these (data, models, information management, and outreach/education) be determined in a cross-cutting approach.
• Private sector engagement will need to be pursued. This evolved during the SEACOOS program, from limited engagement initially (and a somewhat adversarial stance in some cases) to more direct partnerships. Data sharing with Horizon Marine and Roffer's Fish Forecasting System are examples of the types of interactions that developed.
• The role of satellite remote sensing in the RCOOS will need further consideration. The value of regional download capabilities and the ability to merge with in situ data was demonstrated in SEACOOS (e.g., many satellite products were made available with less lag time via the SEACOOS web site than through national delivery systems). However, this was conducted as a pilot program, and was accomplished through significant leveraging of resources (notably download and processing facilities at USF). In addition to the issue of support for the effort, there were questions from the satellite data providers concerning the extent to which the satellite information was being broadly used within the program. And the development of web products for satellite data was an area that proved to be vulnerable to personnel turnover.
• It was expressed that RCOOS development will require audiences/stakeholders who are willing to go to Congress to advocate for the regional information system. It was felt that the SEACOOS E&E had demonstrated strong support from the PORTS community, commercial and recreational fishing industries, marine industries, and the National Weather Service (via the Carolinas Coast project). It was noted that many people notice when established information streams are lost, but will not necessarily comment when these are operating.
• While certainly in keeping with the idea of operating a pilot RCOOS, it was felt that opportunities to collect important time-series information with internally recording instruments were not fully exploited during SEACOOS, and that a better understanding of the coastal ocean system will come from the time-series information, whether collected in real-time or non-real-time. Further, it was felt that the need for dedicated support for analysis of RCOOS information must be recognized as an explicit component of the RCOOS effort.

RCOOS Design

Harvey Seim presented an overview of RCOOS design documents developed by SEACOOS P.I.s. As part of the SEACOOS external evaluation in January, 2005, Mary Altalo (who chaired the review) asked whether a solid initial cost for the RCOOS could be estimated. This led to the development of an "RCOOS Design" document, initially as input for the SECOORA development process. This was later elaborated as a contribution to an international workshop on Coastal Observatories (held at the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, UK in October, 2006), and will be published in the Journal of Marine Systems as part of the workshop proceedings (Seim et al., in press). This paper is intended to propose baseline criteria for RCOOS requirements, and provide a basis for further discussion of the RCOOS development process. The document focuses on an initial five-year implementation and emphasizes processes on the continental shelf, driven by physical characteristics of the region. A number of critical assumptions regarding roles and responsibilities of the various groups involved in RCOOS development are discussed, which points to the need for a clear statement of a Concept of Operations (CONOPS) for the RCOOS. (CONOPS was the topic of one of the Monday afternoon break-out sessions – summarized below.)

Comments from the Question/Answer session that followed the RCOOS Design presentation:

• For the SE, the observing system design needs to reflect the different coastal ocean regimes in the region (e.g., wide versus narrow shelves; varying influence of river input to the coastal zone).
• Observing system simulation experiments (OSSEs) need to be incorporated into the design and evaluation process.
• A regional hub for information management is proposed, with distributed expertise, backup and redundancy, archival capabilities, and robust links to satellite imagery. Further standards development will also be required as the range of variables measured expands.
• For COOS development to occur, it was felt that funding on the order of 2-3 times that stated in the Airlie House report (March, 2002) is needed. Given the range of potential funding scenarios, a key issue will be the prioritization of activities.
• In the near-term, the SECOORA leadership supports maintaining existing resources and expertise. The RA is not in the position to expand the system, and will be operating at some 20-25% of prior peak funding for the SE coastal ocean observing efforts. Expectations for the SE RCOOS program in the near-term will have to be adjusted accordingly.
• There was some discussion regarding what were felt to be missed opportunities to demonstrate the value of coastal ocean observing to legislators, with fisheries applications being an example.

Updates from Federal Agency Programs

During the pre-workshop planning for the workshop agenda, Bob Jensen (USACE) proposed that he could provide an update on the federal-level planning for a surface wave observation program. The workshop planning group felt this would be valuable and also solicited briefings from Paul Moersdorf of the NOAA National Data Buoy Center (NDBC), and Robert Basset of the NOAA Center for Operational Ocean Products and Services (CO-OPS) on IOOS-related activities of their organizations.

U.S. Army Core of Engineers (USACE)

Presentation (Bob Jensen).

Bob Jensen reported on the IOOS operational wave observation plan recently developed (September, 2007) through a collaboration between the USACE and the NOAA National Data Buoy Center (NDBC). Highpoints of the national plan, include:

• A consistent national design is proposed (i.e., the plan is not ad-hoc), with the "backbone" being developed from four "subnets" (offshore, outer shelf, inner shelf, coastal).
• The system is operational and includes sensor testing and evaluation.
• The accuracy of directional wave information is being tested, with the system intended to have "first 5 capabilities" (i.e., resolving the first 5 coefficients of Fourier series and thus higher order moments in directional spectrum that are important in coastal areas).
• The USACE role focuses on the coastal subnet. The coastal data information program (CDIP) collaboration with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) is being expanded, with 30 existing sites, all with directional wave measurement (Waverider) capabilities. The present CDIP web system serves multiple users with >200,000 hits/day. An established suite of end-user defined wave products is considered to be a key to the success of this wave information portal.

Jensen noted a number of collaborations between the USACE and IOOS entities. In the SECOORA domain, a number of directional wave measurement sites have been established (King's Bay, Cape Canaveral, Ft. Pierce and Tampa-St. Petersburg), the USACE's Field Research Station (FRF) at Cape Hatteras is coordinating with MACOORA, and a new initiative with CORMP (UNCW) is being pursued.

National Data Buoy Center (NDBC)

Presentation (Paul Moersdorf).

In introduction to Paul Moersdorf's presentation, appreciation was expressed for the role NDBC has played in incorporating and processing data from other sources. The NOAA NDBC has engaged in a range of partnerships, including deployment of NDBC buoys in areas of high research interest and making use of existing NDBC platforms to mount sensors. NDBC platforms have grown in number from some 120 in 2000 (more than half buoys, the rest C-MAN stations) to some 240 platforms in 2007 (including the additions of DART tsunami network buoys and TAO tropical ocean/atmosphere buoys). As a result of both NDBC mission growth and real-time data assembly activities associated with IOOS the total number of real-time platforms processed by NDBC has grown sharply in the last few years, to some 600 total platforms in 2007 (i.e., more than half from other sources). Some highlights from the presentation:

• Presently, in addition to its C-MAN and buoy stations, the NDBC operates about 39 tsunami arrays (DART), and a network of 55 buoys in the tropical Pacific (TAO arrays). (See PowerPoint presentation for projected growth/number of arrays).
• The NDBC is responsible for verifying the quality of all data used by the NWS; their own data and data from other sources.
• In the SE, the NDBC has been adding assets to the region. Real-time meteorological and water quality data from seven NERRS stations is now reported and five new hurricane buoys have been deployed (four in the Atlantic, one in the Caribbean). A 1.8 m buoy (42080) is being redeployed in the Straits of Florida, and deployment of another 1.8 m buoy is planned near Lake Worth Florida (SE coast) to complement an existing C-MAN station.
• SE partners reporting through the NDBC Data Assembly Center has included 32 additional stations (including 13 buoys and 4 offshore towers), 6 C-MAN stations in the Florida Keys have been upgraded by the FIO SeaKeys program, and 21 NOS stations (in FL, GA, SC, NC).

Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (CO-OPS)

Presentation (Robert Bassett).

Rob Bassett described NOAA CO-OPS as being "intensely user driven," especially with regard to the needs of marine navigation, with active stakeholder support playing an important role in their program development. CO-OPS is working with the RAs to provide guidance for regional water level and elevation data. Summarized below are activities currently underway:

• Six new PORTS systems are being installed in the Gulf of Mexico. Wave sensors will be added to these and existing PORTS systems.
• An economic benefits study is nearly complete-demonstrating the return on investment for PORTS is on the order of $10-20 M in benefits/avoided groundings for $1 M invested.
• A recently completed gap analysis study identified where 30 new stations are needed in the Gulf of Mexico and another 40 along the east coast of the U.S.
• 24 NWLON stations have been upgraded to transmit in real-time and meteorological sensors added. There is growing plug-and-play ability on the platforms. Plans exist to update tidal current tables-out of date in many areas.
• CO-OPS is expanding partnerships with diverse data users and getting involved in studies on the ecological effects of sea level rise (e.g. NERRS program, Pamlico Sound)
• Experiments transmitting data via AIS (Automated Identification System) are underway so that information can be transmitted directly to vessels (used by the USCG).
• CO-OPS is establishing regional requirements for water level, tide and current measurements

Discussion: How Best to Foster Coordinated Implementation of Regional Systems?

Discussion following the three short presentations focused on how best to coordinate the federal and regional efforts and how to optimize interactions among the many players in COOS (federal, state, academic, private sector) to further develop the RCOOS.

• In response to a question, Bob Jensen stated that incorporation of modeling data is not part of the existing USACE planning.
• Interest was expressed in the level of integration of infrastructure among agencies. There are important examples of such interactions. Between NDBC and CO-OPS, these include addition of water level measurement capabilities at C-MAN stations, sharing meteorological data, relocation of water level stations in close proximity to NDBC and other data sources. Another example is the USACE funding for directional wave sensors on NDBC buoys.
• With regard to observations in the adjacent Caribbean region, there have been recent additions through supplemental funding of hurricane buoys/platforms.
• It was suggested that HF radar is presently underutilized by federal partners. In addition to environmental conditions, this information has potential application for vessel tracking outside of channels/ports, and could be combined with Automatic Identification System (AIS) for national security applications.
• NDBC has been engaged with the regions and other agencies in terms of planning further asset development. Information has been solicited from regional COOS programs and other agencies, concerning existing assets, and priority measurements and locations for new assets.
• Coordinating efforts requires two-way interaction. Paul Morsdoerf noted that NDBC is open to working with other entities regarding their assets, and there are examples of recent partnership (e.g., the Alaska OOS provided current meters for buoys, and NDBC partnered with CORMP for a buoy off North Carolina).
• Cost-sharing with other organizations will be a key factor for agency interactions in the RCOOS development process. In this regard, Bob Jensen stated that the USACE did not solicit broad input from the community in the recent planning for wave measurements because they lacked funds to support recommendations. While a gap analysis was conducted before formulating the USACE plan, it was felt that engaging broad community input could raise expectations beyond what is feasible.
• In terms of data quality control efforts, it was noted that NDBC only does delayed mode QA/QC on data from internal and partner sources. Data pulled in from other sources (e.g. CO-OPS and USACE delayed mode data) are not fed into the NDBC QA/QC system. However, Paul Moersdorf stated that quality controlled data, even if in delayed mode, can be incorporated into the NDBC data base.

Expectations for Monday Afternoon Breakout Sessions

The goal of the breakout sessions was to build on the SEACOOS experience. Participants were instructed to be forward looking in order to inform SECOORA/NFRA/IOOS planning and build interaction with elements of the national backbone. Sessions, moderators and reporters are listed below:

1. Information Management, Moderator Sam Walker (SECOORA); Reporters Jesse Cleary (UNC) and Jeremy Cothran (USC)
2. Concept of Operations, Moderator Paul Moersdorf (NDBC); Reporter Jim Nelson (SkIO)
3. Linking Coastal Ocean Research to Applications & Supporting Applications and Analyses, Moderator Judy Gray (NOAA AOML); Reporter Chris Simoniello (FL Sea Grant) Note: this session was originally planned as two separate sessions. These were combined due to overlapping interests.

*******************

Tuesday AM

Reports from Break-out sessions

Chris Mooers (UM RSMAS) was the session moderator and Jim Nelson and Chris Simoniello were the reporters. PowerPoint slides summarizing the reports from each break-out group are posted on the workshop web site. Furthermore, more detailed notes for the CONOPS and combined Linking Coastal Ocean Research to Applications and Supporting Applications/Analysis break-out sessions are available on the workshop web site.

Break-out Session Summary – Information Management

Sam Walker (SECOORA) moderated the Monday afternoon session on Information Management and provided the Tuesday morning summary. Jesse Cleary (UNC) and Jeremy Cothran (USC) were reporters. (Session summary slides.)

The focus question for the session was:

What can, and should, be migrated to SECOORA from the SEACOOS Information Management (IM) program?

Sam Walker listed the IM system elements as described in the Fletcher et al. draft report. He added that another key element was the personnel who have been involved in the DMCC and IM activities. Key Lessons learned from the SEACOOS experience in the IM area were summarized in Harvey Seim's presentation from Monday morning.

IM developments and lessons learned in SEACOOS have contributed to the SECOORA Business Plan and initial IM implementation for SECOORA. A summary of discussion in the session follows, emphasizing what elements of the SEACOOS IM can be "migrated" to SECOORA, and what are considered to be near-term DM/IM priorities for SECOORA.

What aspects of SEACOOS IM should and should not be emulated/ moved to SECOORA?
It was felt that a number of the existing operational elements provide a set of functional and proven IM tools that are being migrated to SECOORA. These include: dynamic and fixed mapping applications; the Common Data Language (CDL) and Data Dictionary which describe conventions adopted by SEACOOS to promote sharing and exchange of data from disparate ocean observing and remote-sensing data sources, and the "data scout" which polls data providers for new in situ and model data. The "Xenia" database schema was developed by Jeremy Cothran (USC) as an improved mechanism for rapid aggregation of data for online applications and is being used as part of the "Carolinas Coast" application. (The original SEACOOS database/web display could bog down if accessed by too many simultaneous users). The "Plone-powered" SEACOOS web site is also being migrated to SECOORA. Plone is an open source content management system that was applied in SEACOOS for several reasons: it is a free and open-source system; content can be readily contributed and edited by organization members through the web site; the site can be easily "branded" in terms of the organization identity and look of the site; the system provides navigation and searches for content, and a means to apply security and track workflow and content versions.

In terms of what should not be pursued, the IM group felt the existing core PostgreSQL (open source) database schema is functioning and that an extensive rework would involve too much work and be too costly. Focusing on other core elements would be more productive.

What has been used elsewhere? Interoperability?
It was felt that several components of the SEACOOS IM could be usefully reproduced elsewhere, including open source solutions (e.g., SEACOOS implementations of OGC tools) and the Xenia database schema. In terms of the interoperability of SEACOO IM components, the CDL and open source solutions are easily transferred. Extra-regional collaborations have been conducted (e.g., with the OpenIOOS project, OOSTETHYS project).

Areas for IM improvement; further focus and development
Within SEACOOS, while there has been considerable, and productive, between-institution exchange among the DMCC personnel, interactions between the IM and other working groups has been noted as an issue (e.g., in relation to allocation of resources and requirements for the development of additional web products).

In terms of IM focus, it was felt that while SEACOOS activities focused on real-time data, other relevant data also need to be considered for SECOORA. For example, mechanisms to include non-real time data and archiving data collected by other programs (e.g., monitoring work) are needed. An approach for centralized archiving of aggregated data is needed with the exception of model output which should be archived at source institutions.

QA/QC concerns have been addressed to some extent in SEACOOS, but it was felt that this needs to be a priority for the next IM steps in SECOORA. Cross-working group communications and establishing working group liaisons will also need to be addressed. Similarly, closer connections between the DMCC and stakeholders would provide for more direct feedback from end users than has been established to date. To address this, establishing opportunities for feedback is needed. If a web-based system is used, where to locate this for best effect will need to be assessed. The Great Lakes and other RAs have feedback mechanisms on their sites. However, someone has to manage the site and deal with and respond to feedback.

Resolutions/recommendations from the Information Management session

• A system to monitor web site metrics and solicit user feedback is being implemented by Chris Calloway (UNC).
• The IM group sees the need for a full-time web developer for SECOORA.
• It was suggested that regular status reports could be initiated to inform DMCC and others within the program of IM-related developments.
• It was felt that mechanisms need to be developed to deal with "time-sensitive" products; an example being mapping products focused on "events" (e.g., storms, harmful algal blooms). The ability to react will better serve the user community.
• Ongoing efforts should maintain both dynamic and static map applications.
• A plan for redundancy should be implemented. Presently, while there are applications running at different locations, there is not a truly redundant system in place. It was noted that hardware and personnel requirements for full redundancy are significant.
• Mechanisms to accommodate both data providers and users who have limited capabilities should be developed by SECOORA.
• QA/QC should be a major focus area.
• Options for users to join on-line list serves should be established (as well as means to remove one's name from the list if desired).
• Archival needs must be assessed.
• Further documentation of information and processes is needed, including "how-to" documents for various levels of providers/users. Issues of the "fluid" nature of documentation in the open source community will need to be addressed.

Discussion following SEACOOS Information Management Summary

Connections between SEACOOS DM with other working groups
Bob Weisberg (USF) felt that in the SEACOOS program, there had not been sufficient connection between the IM activities, particularly with regard to the web products. He felt that there were groups at partner institutions who were generating or potentially generating products, and that there could have been better support for these efforts from the central DM group.

Evolving standards
Phil Bogden (GoMOOS) noted that the area of OGC (Open Geospatial Consortium) standards is one that is potentially complex. He mentioned two ongoing OGC projects that deal with interoperability issues: 1) Galleon – a Unidata effort focused on gridded data; and 2) the Oceans Interoperability experiment. He asked to what extent SEACOOS IM has been engaged with these activities.

Jeremy Cothran (USC, SEACOOS DMCC) responded that the involvement of SEACOOS/SECOORA IM personnel (and Brian Blanton in particular) in the Oceans Interoperability experiment was primarily in terms of testing the efficiency of protocols. Jeremy noted that such engagement, and exploring efficiencies and the potential for such newly developed applications, involves significant resource commitments; thus choices need to be made regarding what can be addressed. SEACOOS/SECOORA personnel have explored paths to make available data accessible via OGC services, but Jeremy noted that there are other architecture approaches as well (e.g., GoogleEarth, Microsoft).

Matt Howard (TAMU) added that the essential point of the discussion is that the "landscape for interoperability" is changing rapidly and that RCOOS efforts will have to keep pace.

"Super-users"
Chris Mooers (UM) asked about "servicing the super-users": How well is this is being done? And was there any explicit discussion of interactions with such groups?

The IM group felt that the importance of the "super-users" is recognized. Jesse Cleary (UNC-CH) mentioned that there had been a recent shift in priorities away from a heavy focus on full-featured Map Applications (i.e., the SEACOOS Interactive Map) to more focus on distribution of data, and distribution in different formats that suit the needs of particular data users. This is the type of service that is perhaps more important to the "super-users."

Quality Assurance (QA)
Rob Bassett (NOOA CO-OPS) asked for an opinion on QARTOD (Quality Assurance for Real-Time Ocean Data, see www.qartod.org) and other Quality Assurance (QA) efforts.

Sam Walker (SECOORA) responded that resources are limited to address this topic, but there is recognition of the need for development of automated QA tools, essential to avoid bottle-necking the flow of information. This is among the IM functions that are migrating from SEACOOS to SECOORA. Harvey Seim (UNC-CH) noted that SECOORA has sponsored some QA efforts that built on what was initiated in QARTOD. Results of this effort are partially worked up at present. It was felt that this type of QA effort could serve as a template for other regions, and the intent is to bring in input from others outside SECOORA.

Response to the needs of varied users
Lundie Spence (SE COSEE) asked: Who is listening to stakeholders in terms of varied user group requirements for data access? Who is responsible for creating different ways to access data? Educators are one example of where data access could benefit from access systems tailored to the user needs. Sam Walker replied that the IM group desires feedback, and will need to work out how best to incorporate input from various end users into the planning process.

Break-out Session Summary – Linking R&D to Applications and Supporting Applications

Judy Gray (NOAA AOML) moderated and reported on the Monday afternoon break-out session. Chris Simoniello was the reporter. (Session summary slides.) (Detailed session notes.)

To initiate the session, Judy Gray posed questions regarding the link between R&D and Applications in the SEACOOS program: What was missing? What lessons can the RA learn from this?

Results of discussion: Targeting applications development
In terms of the development towards applications, SEACOOS was seen as primarily an R&D program. Judy noted that the transitional step from research/pilot to operational has in National Weather Service circles been referred to as going through "the valley of death."

It was suggested that the RA needs to develop a well-articulated process for developing applications, such as surface wave and inundation models. This would involve a process for collective evaluation; defining what is needed to answer the most important questions for these applications. Since both data and models are estimations of "truth", processes for evaluation, validation, and verification would be needed. "Third party" evaluations might be appropriate. This could be provided by "forecast, applications and analysis centers" associated with the RA, and discussed in the "RCOOS design" paper of Seim et al. (in press). It was also suggested that the Alliance for Coastal Technologies (ACT) could have a third-party role in this process. Overall, it was seen that the RA should play an active role in bridging between R&D and operations. Liability concerns associated with some applications were noted and must also be addressed.

Models and forecast applications
In terms of forecasting models, it was felt that there is no one "right" model, nor should there be an "official" model for the RCOOS. Rather it was seen that there is the need for ensemble solutions. However, it is important that the RCOOS should not be duplicating modeling efforts conducted by agencies. And, in terms of the division of labor for forecasting applications, it was felt that staffing should be sufficient that there can be forecasters dedicated to looking at the observations and model output, and not spending significant amount of their time concerned with operational maintenance of the system (i.e., keeping instruments working, data flowing, etc.).

Roles for the RA
Defining the role for the RA in applications development will require consideration of how to break down the problem. Instead of trying to be all things to everyone, an alternative is to use the established capacity to solve focused problems and then export solutions. Given the wide range of users and breadth of information needs that has been evident in various "needs assessments", a strategic position for the RA to consider would be as a "filter" for user needs in the region; one that does not conflict with agency missions and private industry, but is focused to solve problems.

With regard to needs assessments, Judy Gray's experience in NOAA is that there have been many attempts to ask stakeholders for their needs/priorities. In fact there is an "assessment of assessments" underway in NOAA in an attempt to avoid repeating the process. Thus as opposed to conducting further needs assessments, it was thought that the RAs might be more productively engaged if the focus was instead on applying the resources of the region to address specific priority issues. The RA could also function to identify gaps in information, articulate consensus, and assess how available resources can be allocated in a coordinated fashion to address priorities among various applications (e.g., SAR, Hazmat, fisheries, ecosystem-based management), and helping the transitions from pilot projects to operations.

Some buffer capacity in terms of funding was seen as necessary for the RA. In the SEACOOS program, the fluctuations in funding (ramping up in Years 1 to 3, sharply declining in Years 4 and 5) had a large impact on what could be accomplished. It was felt that future RA contractors will need to have some buffers built in to their budgets to ensure that key personnel/expertise is not lost due to year-to-year changes in funding. Also, it was felt that it is important to ensure that there are sufficient funds allocated in R&D budgets to ensure what is being developed can be used. This is essential, but difficult to accomplish (e.g., software products are developed that are not in formats or accessible to the platforms of users). In Judy's experience, she has seen this transitional step done primarily on a case-by-case basis. It was felt that there is a need to include the users in the R&D process.

Internal and External Communications
It is felt that more effective communications are needed for the RA to function as a cohesive unit. Effective "in-reach" is needed for a better appreciation of capabilities by all involved, and to better capitalize on opportunities. It was felt that in the SEACOOS experience there were potential "high profile" outreach and application opportunities (e.g., the summer 2003 "cold water" event in the SAB as a high profile fisheries-related event) where more focus of resources may have better addressed applications and might have provided avenues for further support.

Some ideas for improving "in-reach" within a distributed program were discussed, including: a newsletter; featured science and scientists; "blogs"; rotating meetings among institutions to get more familiarity with people and capabilities; meetings focused on thematic areas or specific "product lines."

Summary – SECOORA roles in fostering applications of RCOOS information
SECOORA will need to further develop mechanisms to coordinate regional capabilities and bring assets to bear on important issues in the region. An important role for the RCOOS will be to provide observations and model estimates of important variables (with associated error estimates) along with interpretation of these data; that is, science-based answers. The challenge is that a broad perspective is needed for applications development. SECOORA will have to engage a range of communities and set priorities. Ensuring support for key system components and personnel through uncertain budget periods is needed and alternative approaches to sustaining operations will need to be considered.

Discussion following Linking R&D to Applications and Supporting Applications Summary

"Events"
Bill Arnold (FL FWC): With respect to "events", the lesson is be ready for the next one-ensure the ability to take advantage of opportunities as they arise. Another suggestion (Rick Luettich) was to consider hiring out-of-work fishermen to assist with servicing buoys. The consensus is that universities are supportive of building capacity for the private sector.

The transition from research/pilot projects to operations
Chris Mooers (UM) took exception to the characterization of SEACOOS as having a research focus; rather he would consider it to have been a developmental effort, which focused on getting quasi-operational in a short time. He feels that there are a number of issues associated with how the coastal part of IOOS has tried to go straight to operations, as opposed to spending the time to conduct adequate R&D.

Mel Briscoe commented that the original budget line for SEACOOS in ONR was in the area of applied research and not in either basic research or long-term sustained operations. In ONR, this category has 10% taken out, along with 10% at the level of Office of Oceanographer. These funds are then explicitly targeted to support efforts that engage operational people with pilot projects or vice-versa; what Briscoe termed as "mandated hand-holding" through the “valley of death” (the NWS term noted above). In Briscoe's estimation this has been money well-spent; in his opinion there is not enough funding for this type of project. He suggested that this type of set aside for applications side development would be appropriate for RCOOS programs.

Break-out Session Summary - Concept of Operations (CONOPS)

Paul Moersdorf (NDBC) reported on the discussions from the CONOPS Break-out Group. Jim Nelson (SkIO) was the reporter. (Session summary slides.) (Detailed session notes.)

CONOPS definition
The CONOPS for a particular task is relatively straight-forward, providing a definition of roles and responsibilities. However, there are issues and often problems in coming up with such rather simple documents. Thus, it is important to recognize that there are different levels of CONOPS. With respect to the RCOOS, it is critical that roles and responsibilities are also defined at levels above the RCOOS. In this sense, the "National Backbone" can be considered as a CONOPS for the federal level. For the RCOOS, the CONOPS needs a time horizon of some 10 years; enough time to allow for a pipeline from research/pilot to operational stages.

The CONOPS is also seen as a means to frame expectations; to pose requirements in a less strict sense than in a formal task order. For the RCOOS, value to users will be a "driver" in the definition of required functions, but recognizing that "value" is not defined equally by each user. Given the many components in an RCOOS, there must be an umbrella of CONOPS; from IOOS, to NFRA, to each RA, to each associated RCOOS, and to RCOOS constituent pieces; with each lower level becoming more specific in its definition of roles and responsibilities. The nested CONOPS should be defined such that each level knows what those above and below it are doing.

Costs and analyses of economic benefits
There have been a good number of economic analyses of potential benefits of IOOS; however these have for the most part emphasized "cost-avoidance" as opposed to "value-creation." In defining value and associated topics (serving users, etc.), it must be considered how the Congress takes the message. That is, if value is shown from the existing system, the reply is likely to be "thank you" (i.e., the existing resources are doing the job). If the message is seen that more resources are required, the response is likely to be "we will take it under advisement." Fear of ongoing ramp-up for IOOS was seen as a legitimate concern in the Congress. Thus, the RCOOS development cannot be posed in terms of continuous ramp-up, but rather must be showing transitions in the operations and the maturity of the system.

The relationship of the RCOOS to the federal system
It was felt that the regions have been waiting for the national CONOPS, including the definition of the National Backbone, to "bubble-down" from the federal level. Basically, the National Backbone is the federal entity around which other groups (like the RAs and associated RCOOSs) can build; augmenting it and doing more. It was suggested that perhaps the regions need to tell the federal level what the National Backbone is; to define the initial conditions.

To date, it was felt that the federal agencies have not come to the regions as an active partner in IOOS/RCOOS development. There are mechanisms in place that should work for this interaction, but, to date, these have not been serving the regional efforts well. There have been federal representatives at various meetings, but at the higher levels, it was felt that there has not been guidance and direction for IOOS and RCOOS development. A certain "DC mentality" is seen in the interagency coordinating activities for IOOS (IWGOO, Ocean.US). With NOAA emerging as the lead agency for IOOS, at least there will not be the problem of multiple entities in charge (i.e., as is the case when the lead for IOOS is an interagency working group).

Promoting the RCOOS CONOPS – how to do this?
It is essential to define overlapping interests between the regions and the federal system and to show how these efforts are complementary. Not addressing these points will raise questions regarding redundancy of effort. It was also thought that establishing pieces of the system without having it all operational is not a bad thing; the key is being able to show value to constituents in the interim. Bringing in the science, applying it and showing constituents what the interim system can provide is seen as an important role for the academic sector.

The commercial sector also needs to be acknowledged and accommodated. The commercial sector is clearly looking toward the end of the process where it can profit from the value of information from IOOS; looking to see what is mature enough for further value-added activities (potential profit). It was seen that sustaining this interest through ongoing development is important and could help with applications development.

Impediments to progress
"Cultural distance" is an important consideration. Moersdorf gave the National Weather Service as an example where there are substantial culture differences between research and operational branches, even within the same organization. It needs to be recognized that people are not using the same tools, but at the same time acknowledging the strengths of such diversity in outlook/approach. While not a panacea, part of the role of the CONOPS is to provide this recognition and show how the links can be made.

Other issues identified during the discussion included:

• defining missions, how to link from top to bottom in the system;
• how RCOOS efforts fit into academic roles, institutional cultures;
• technical training, preparation for personnel, an example being the need for "enablers" who do the transitioning steps from research/pilot to applications; people who understand both the science and the constituent needs;
• defining the federal and RA roles in the transition to operational status;
• showing the value of the system; how to go from small successes to showing the value of the system as a whole.

One of the key needs for developing the CONOPS for the RCOOS was seen as a federal plan to which the regions can refer. Part of this would be a higher level CONOPS that defines who is doing what (again, the "responsibilities and roles") at the federal level. More clearly defined coordinated roles for the regions could then emerge.

Recommendations
Three actions were proposed as follow-up to the workshop:

1. Development of an interim "roles and responsibilities" document; one that is at a generic level and can provide a template for other regions in terms of engagement of the regions with the National Backbone.
2. Develop a short white paper that presents alternative RCOOS designs where, for example, the focus is on different components (observing system requirements, information management, modeling) versus integrated efforts. This would be intended as a document that could be presented to federal partners and help define what needs to be addressed in terms of coordinating regional and federal efforts.
3. Revisit the recommendations of the Airlie House report. This was seen as a good example of how similar needs can be identified through discussions among a diverse/disparate group. These recommendations could provide an overarching framework for the CONOPS effort and it was suggested that a summary of the Airlie House recommendations could be presented to the appropriate interagency group, most likely the Ocean Research Advisory Panel (ORAP).

Discussion following CONOPS Summary

Interactions between regions and federal agencies, communications
Bob Weisberg (USF) commented that the regional efforts need a better definition of who they should be interacting with at the federal level. Paul Moersdorf agreed that good lines of communications are needed. Josie Quintrell (NFRA) noted that the regions have been hoping for leadership, guidance from the national level. Given that this has not been adequately provided, she suggested that the regions need to offer to the federal level a definition of what needs to be discussed and addressed.

Chris Mooers felt that there has yet to be demonstrated a buy-in to the idea of a sustained RCOOS at the national level, and how to fund this effort. In response, Paul Moersdorf asked what kind of a response is desired or expected? In terms of a higher level CONOPS that defines roles, responsibilities, Paul felt that this could be constructed independent of a budget, recognizing that it is not being written to never again be changed. This would not be the annual operating plan, but a guide for near-term planning that could be redone with respect to the reality of the funding situation at various levels.

CONOPS and Applications
Bill Arnold (FL FWC) noted that he had been originally invited to participate in SEACOOS workshops and activities in terms of the fisheries applications area. Based on this experience, he sees the need for integration of applications focus at the beginning of the development process; seeing the need to focus for the sake of user groups. He felt that there had been a problem of lack of cross-fertilization in break-out groups; an oversight in SEACOOS program planning.

In response, Chris Mooers felt that the fisheries application area was to a large extent an example of a "super-user"; that is a user group able to make use of the information without the development of tailored products, etc. Paul Moersdorf felt that the need to consider how to better serve interests, such as fisheries management, at the regional level will define the focus for the program and how to better make informed decisions, suggesting that "responsibilities and roles" (as opposed to "roles and responsibilities") should be the operative term.

Geoff Morrison (International SeaKeepers) asked whether the approach should not be more along the lines of going to users with products, as opposed to asking them what they want and then trying to develop/deliver those applications. Moersdorf felt that to some extent, making users aware of the information that is or can be available can then help set the discussion for priorities. Bob Weisberg felt that if the RCOOS can "do the State of the Coastal Ocean" well enough (i.e., provide an improved understanding of basic coastal ocean processes), then the same tools will serve multiple applications; as opposed to focusing on a limited number of applications. He felt that the CONOPS needs to be broad enough to allow development for multiple users; tools with multi-application uses that serve diverse information needs, ranging from SAROPS to Fisheries. Mike Arendt (SC DNR) made the argument that if the more complex applications are addressed first, with resources set around the science questions (such as those relevant to the fisheries area), the means to address other applications will be developed.

In terms of the "intricacies of a mature CONOPS", Paul Moersdorf agreed that an improved understanding of the "State of the Coastal Ocean" will be "the preamble that floats a lot of boats.” However, he had some notes of caution regarding use of the term "super-user" (in that there are multi-level definitions), and the need to consider how priorities vary across regions (e.g., SAROPS versus other information needs). The definition of priorities will also have to consider differing capabilities. It was also noted that who and what pushes the priorities in different regions needs to be considered; for example, is it mass users (such as the number of hits on wave observation sites by surfers) or the requirements for more complex applications? In this sense, the opinion was voiced that there needs to be a distinction between applications and products.

Bill Arnold concluded the discussion with a comment that the CONOPS should provide a design for core RCOOS functions, with mechanisms in place where those with specific information needs can supplement the system. In this way, not only can specific applications be served, but additional resources can be brought in to contribute to the RCOOS development.

Final Wrap-up for the Workshop – Perspectives & Comments

Comments for the final wrap-up session were solicited from workshop participants who could provide a range of perspectives on the SEACOOS program.

Russ Lea (U. So. Alabama; formerly coordinated fiscal and program management for SEACOOS with the Office of the President, UNC):

From the position of program coordination (UNC Office of the President), Russ saw the growth of SEACOOS as a University-centered project, to one that is now contributing to the formation of SECOORA, as well as furthering understanding of the coastal ocean. He sees SEACOOS as a project initiated to develop understanding of what it takes to operate a coastal ocean observing system. In this sense, it has been something of an exercise in "translational science", doing some of the "clinical trials" for RCOOS development. There have been faults, criticisms, but overall he sees SEACOOS as having been a "rich translational experiment." Given the available resources, there was a narrowing down of what could be focused on during the program. But overall, he saw a program evolution toward a broadening participation, including engaging a range of users, federal agencies, etc.

Part of the SEACOOS experience was the evolution of governance. This provided functional mechanisms to deal with budgets, and provided a structure that kept much of the program going cooperatively, even through significant budget reductions. Although funded on a year-to-year basis, Russ saw the SEACOOS organization as being one that built toward longer term commitments; trying to move forward on applications. The program included a number of technology trials. Some were failures, but it is recognized that failures are an important part of the process.

Going forward, Russ sees the Regional Association as needing a strong research component to test the system, and analyze the adequacy of its components. This process is one where people need to be willing to come together, but also "break apart" as circumstances evolve. Finally, in terms of the value of the program, Russ thought it important to recognize the extent of training and experience provided to young people in SEACOOS; one in which the experience was not that of a single research cruise, but rather the participation in a broad effort.

Sandy Vargo (Florida Institute of Oceanography):

Sandy emphasized the perspective of trying to sell programs at the level of the state. She felt that a major problem for SEACOOS was expressing its relevance in terms that could be understood by non-technical people. At the state level, she feels it is not a good assumption that people will care about the tool (e.g., a coastal ocean observing system) as opposed to what it provides that is relevant to their lives. Needed is the "translational piece" that conveys the relevance in terms that can be broadly understood.

Judy Gray (NOAA, AOML):

To follow-up on the discussion of connecting research and applications, Judy showed a short Power Point presentation from C. Gordon Little (“On Building Bridges”) based on Little's experiences in NOAA. The take-home lessons are that the varying perspectives (cultural differences) will strongly influence both approach and outcomes (with potential for building bridges to nowhere); however, with sufficient resources and consideration of the cultural differences the gaps between research to operations can be bridged.

Paul Moersdorf (NOAA, NDBC):

As a "fed", what Paul has taken away from interactions with SEACOOS, and with other observing efforts in the SE region in general, were positive ("good news") stories. Examples included coordinating with FIO on upgrades of the systems in the Florida Keys; the groundwork laid by Harvey Seim (SEACOOS) and Dave Gilhousen (NDBC) with SABSOON data that provided the model for data ingest from regional providers to NDBC (e.g., subsequently established with COMPS); collaborations on buoy deployments (e.g., with CORMP); and evaluation of the ADCP performance on the NDBC shelf buoys (with UNC) that lead to improvements in the ADCP configurations.

In another example, Paul sees the QARTOD meetings as having shown "grass roots involvement" for development of QA/QC for real-time data, with resulting progress in that area. There has also been progress in other areas for data uses and interactions between NDBC and regional observing groups. For example, a new NDBC national HF-radar site will be consolidating information from various providers.

In retrospect, he sees a number of successes; including more contacts between NDBC and regional data providers and users, more uses of the data, and more opportunities for coordination.

Comment: Harvey Seim noted that NDBC has been the most receptive of the federal agencies in terms of engagement with SEACOOS, with active participation in SEACOOS workshops from the beginning.

Josie Quintrell (National Federation of Regional Associations):

Josie commented that although much of the spirit of the workshop had been somewhat introspective in terms of looking back at the SEACOOS program, she noted that other regions have benefited from the SEACOOS experience. Examples include the development of connections between regional data providers and NDBC, and DMAC-related work (e.g., common data language, formats). The NFRA meeting that was to follow the SEACOOS workshop would include discussion of the conceptual RCOOS design document developed in SEACOOS; a contribution to building toward a national system. From the regional perspective, Josie sees the relationships built and overcoming cultural bridges as some of the positive results. While to others, the SE funding level often made it seem rather resource-rich, from the discussions it was clear how much was being leveraged during the SEACOOS program, further evidence of the relationships built in the region.

Josie reviewed the present status of NFRA organization (all 11 RAs are represented) and the status of funding initiatives for the regional programs at a time of transition from ear marks. The continuing resolution status of funding for NOAA has been a significant issue. Josie has seen NOAA as being receptive to feedback on the RA process, but notes that there is considerable lag time for response in the NOAA system. NFRA is monitoring the status of appropriations bills in the House and Senate, the latter being more favorable for IOOS funding at present. She noted that IOOS was in the President's budget for the first time last year. In working toward IOOS legislation, a key point is liability. Both the House and Senate bills address this, with COOS information being an "arm" of the federal government. There are also provisions which should allow federal partners to participate in the governance of the RAs. This year, the House passed a version of these provisions as part of the energy bill. A vote from the Senate is pending.

Mel Briscoe (Office of Naval Research):

Mel noted that when the SEACOOS vision was originally presented to ONR by Harvey Seim, it was not what DOD or ONR cared about. (Rather in the case of the U.S. Navy, it is more that they cared about everyone else's coast). The funding for SEACOOS arrived to ONR as a plus-up. The program management strategy adopted by ONR for SEACOOS was to try to ensure that the program was doing the right thing, providing input, but trying not to get in the way. Given the scale of the SEACOOS effort (the number of states, institutions and length of the coast line), he feels that the funding was really not all that much. Looking back, it is evident the extent of leveraging and the level of effort put in by participants in SEACOOS.