Final Wrap-up for the Workshop – Perspectives & Comments

Download this document as:

Adobe PDF • Open Document • Microsoft Word

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 care 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.