Minutes of the U.S. GLOBEC Scientific Steering Committee Meeting

Washington, DC --- October 6-7, 1994

CHAIR'S REPORT

Second, subsets of the U.S. GLOBEC and CoOP (Coastal Ocean Processes) leaderships met for two days in San Francisco to develop a Memorandum of Understanding which describes the mutual and complementary interests of the two programs in their respective planned studies off the west coast of the U.S. A draft of the GLOBEC-CoOP MOU was available in the briefing book for the meeting and would be discussed later (see below).

Powell also reported on his work with the GLOBEC Organizing Committee to develop a GLOBEC International Science Plan. A draft of this plan has been submitted to the officers of the IGBP, in preparation for formal application by GLOBEC International to become a core program of IGBP later this year.

Finally, Powell proposed that the committee reduce the number of steering committee meetings to two per year. He argued that the U.S. GLOBEC program is beginning to mature; the Georges Bank Study is well underway, planning for the California Current study and Southern Ocean study are progressing well, and two meetings per year should be sufficient.

AGENCY REPORTS

Peterson also updated the committee on the status of the internal NOAA MOU that was requested following Powell's meeting with Cathy Sullivan (see above). Peterson and Sissenwine were tasked with developing the MOU. They have discussed the document, and will meet within the next two weeks to complete the MOU. It will then be distributed to Sullivan and other appropriate NOAA personnel. Peterson reiterated Powell's statement that the intent of the new MOU was to enhance U.S. GLOBEC's status within NOAA. Several alternatives were presented by Peterson. The committee felt that it was important that the MOU stress that U.S. GLOBEC has a "Climate Change and Ecosystems Dynamics" focus--not just a fisheries or environment focus. Hollowed noted that moving from a "Global Change" program to an "Environment" program might cause loss of the programs identity. Powell argued that we cannot afford to lose our climate change focus, but that, in fact, climate change is the "environment", but acting over a long time scale. One possibility mentioned by Peterson was to combine all "environmental" programs (e.g., U.S. GLOBEC, CCAMLR, NURP, others) into a separate budget item within the NOAA budget. Arguments for and against this proposal were made, but no consensus was developed. Peterson noted that the new NSF-NOAA MOU will contain details of the collaboration between the two agencies, and also specify where responsibility for U.S. GLOBEC lies within NOAA. It is hoped that the MOU will be signed at high levels, i.e., by Corell (NSF) and Baker (NOAA).

It was mentioned that U.S. GLOBEC needs to develop stronger ties/interactions with the GOOS program. Both Peterson and Eakin noted that NOAA is strongly committed to supporting GOOS, with a single ocean observing system centered in the National Ocean Service (NOS). Itsweire commented that the Living Marine Resource (LMR) module of GOOS was developing more slowly than some of the other modules. This is a concern because it is the module most closely allied to U.S. GLOBEC. Peterson agreed to look into getting the LMR module moving forward within NOAA. Peterson also agreed to contact Mel Briscoe to explore developing better liaison between GOOS and U.S. GLOBEC. Powell will contact someone from the NRC committee on GOOS (perhaps Bob Knox or Bill Merrill) to ask for a presentation on GOOS at our next meeting.

Taylor discussed U.S. GLOBEC's budget from NSF for FY95. A request has been made for $7M. Although the final numbers are not available, it is likely that U.S. GLOBEC will receive a $1M increase from NSF for science in FY95. That $1M increase will be used to fund initial California Current activities. Taylor noted that all of the NSF money being spent in the Arabian Sea is JGOFS--none is GLOBEC. Strub asked whether a proposal being viewed as "GLOBEC related research" could be submitted and funded by core NSF funds, if U.S. GLOBEC does not receive funds this year to support an AO for GLOBEC work in the California Current. Taylor did acknowledge that such proposals to NSF in the past have received poor mail reviews because reviewers felt that the funding should not come from core funds. Conversely, Taylor also said that the best science would be funded. Taylor also cautioned that the recent funding difficulties at ONR will likely increase the total number of proposals to physical and biological core programs at NSF, causing more competition for scarce funding dollars.

STATUS OF REPORTS

Batchelder reported that a draft version of the Open Ocean Report had been received from Larry Madin and Mike Landry (co-chairs of the workshop). It was noted that the report was still incomplete, lacking references and other supporting materials, but that it would be made available to those present who wished to look at it. Lindstrom asked to be sent a copy.

We also discussed a white paper on Retrospective Data Analysis produced by John Hunter and co-authors. The document proposes a U.S. GLOBEC initiative directed toward retrospective data analysis separate from site-specific field studies. Some committee members felt that the document had served its intended function--to highlight retrospective analysis in both U.S. GLOBEC and GLOBEC International planning activities. Ideas from the document are discussed extensively in the California Current Science Plan and somewhat in the Long Range Plan. The ideas will also undoubtedly be prevalent in the GLOBEC International report of the SPACC (Small Pelagics and Climate Change) meeting. It was suggested that perhaps the white paper should be revised and expanded (esp. to regions beyond the U.S. West coast) and published as the first of a U.S. GLOBEC Special Contribution Series. After discussing this, we decided to ask John Hunter if this (revision and expansion) was an activity that he wanted to undertake. deYoung noted that the ICES Cod and Climate Change working group has planned a "Backward Facing Workshop" in March 1995 in Halifax, NS to attempt to reconstruct specific oceanographic/fisheries events using retrospective data analysis. Strub mentioned two other meetings that discussed retrospective data issues: 1) a workshop chaired by Tim Baumgartner on paleoceanographic data along the west coast of the Americas, which will produce a workshop report, and 2) a recent CEOS workshop in Monterey directed towards retrospective analysis in eastern boundary currents, which should result in a series of papers.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Hofmann discussed a proposal under development (to be submitted to ONR) to support a biological model repository. The approach for accessing models is through a world wide web server and perhaps via CD ROM (in the future). The primary objectives of the first several years will be to obtain the models, validate them using several standard tests and data sets, and to get the repository operational using MOSAIC software access. Community outreach and education will be an important part of the effort. We discussed whether the repository should support third party software (e.g., MATLAB, etc.) specific models or should support only fairly generic (least-common denominator) models (e.g., FORTRAN, C, etc.). It was voiced strongly by several present that to support specific third party models would be a mistake. de Young suggested that perhaps there should be two types of models available in the repository: 1) supported (fully tested) models with training and user assistance, and 2) unsupported (untested), but perhaps cutting edge models with a lower level of support. It was also suggested that the repository should maintain a database of other (unsupported, perhaps software specific) models so that potential modelers could contact the investigators directly for assistance and to learn of potential pitfalls.

THURSDAY SCIENCE TALK

Discussion after the presentation centered on the issue of large- scale modeling and the coupling of large-scale (ocean basin) models to regional models. It was noted that several community large-scale modeling efforts of the North Atlantic have not yet been successful. Moreover, some of those large scale models don't include the Nordic Seas. Skjoldal commented that two types of models were being explored within the Mare Cognitum program. It was noted that programs like Mare Cognitum or U.S. GLOBEC's Georges Bank program, which focus on shelf ecosystems, require nesting of higher resolution regional models within coarser resolution basin models.

NW ATLANTIC/GEORGES BANK PROGRAM

Wiebe also reported on progress in implementing a data management system for the Georges Bank program. Bob Groman has been hired as a data manager for the program. His background is in computer science and data management. The JGOFS database will be used, with access provided by the WWW-Mosaic client. A preliminary system is operational at MIT, and a system should shortly go on line at WHOI.

Wiebe also provided a cruise schedule plan that has been developed for the 1995 cruises. All except for 31 days have a ship and have been funded. Negotiations/discussions about research vessel and funding for the remaining 31 days are ongoing. Preference of the principal investigators is for the R/V Seward Johnson.

Mountain led a discussion of future NW Atlantic Research Directions (1996 and beyond). Already funded for 1996 and beyond are the broad-scale surveys, moorings, and analysis of 1995 data. In 1997 the focus of the Georges Bank program is the source, retention, and loss of organisms and water. Input from the modeling, retrospective and completed field studies of 1992-95 will be important in providing direction for the 1997 studies. Mountain noted that in some ways the 1-year delay (from 1994 to 1995) in the first field studies was fortuitous--it provided the time needed to prepare a complete, coordinated field effort for 1995. Planning for a coordinated field effort in 1997 will require similar forethought--he suggested that U.S. GLOBEC release by late spring 1995 an AO for the 1997 studies. Following such an announcement there could be an open meeting (similar to the one held in Woods Hole in 1992) to discuss putting together a coordinated program for submission in September 1995, so that funds would be available ca. 1 Jan 1996. Mountain stated that the science team needs to be chosen by early 1996 to be effective in the field in 1997.

CANADA GLOBEC

CALIFORNIA CURRENT PROGRAM

Gaines provided an example, using benthic invertebrates, of the kind of studies that might be appropriate for process-oriented and/or broad scale monitoring within the context of the California Current ecosystem. Benthic invertebrates have small larvae, often with a well-defined planktonic period varying from a few minutes to several months, and with fairly well- defined spawning periods, depending on species. Also, many exist as adult populations only along the coast, providing a clearly defined line source of the larvae, and providing a requirement (for successful recruitment) that the competent larvae return (or remain near) to the coast. Previous findings in benthic invertebrates show substantial interannual and intra- annual variability in recruitment, sometimes correlated to upwelling. It is also known that there are clear latitudinal gradients in the mean level and variability of recruitment. In the Pacific Northwest (Region I of the Science Plan) there is high mean recruitment and low interannual variability. Conversely, in Region II (Central and Northern California), mean recruitment is low, but interannual variability is very large. An important issue is to discriminate differences in recruitment caused by differences in transport effects vs. differences in mortality effects operating through production and starvation and/or predation. A careful monitoring program, including intensive, high-frequency shore-based sampling of recruitment, lower frequency offshore sampling of recruitment from moorings, and infrequent ship-board plankton surveys should be the first step in eliminating some of the many hypotheses that have been advanced for the patterns, magnitudes, and variabilities in recruitment that have been observed. Gaines argued that benthic invertebrates provide several advantages as a selected group for monitoring: 1) you can simultaneously sample settlement of multiple species; 2) settlement monitoring is relatively inexpensive since much of it can be done from shore or in very shallow water; and 3) the extensive variation in life history characteristics (e.g., planktotrophic vs. lecithotrophic development, varying larval duration, varying seasonality of adult spawning in different species, and existence of pulsed vs. continuous breeders) will provide a range of potential responses to existing variation in ocean and climatic conditions.

Peterson summarized the discussions that took place at the Small Pelagics and Climate Change (SPACC) meeting held in La Paz, MX in June 1994. Many different countries were represented. A principal goal of the SPACC program is to understand the sardine-anchovy interactions in upwelling systems from around the world. Another key interest is to understand the very different total fish production (per unit area) that occurs in different regions. The approach that SPACC will follow involves retrospective studies and process studies. Key elements of the process studies will be measuring the somatic growth of fish, measuring zooplankton production and dynamics, and measuring ocean circulation. Modeling studies will be an important component of SPACC also.

We discussed extensively the draft version of the memorandum of understanding between the U.S. GLOBEC and CoOP programs that was in the meeting briefing book. The principal topic of discussion was how extensively U.S. GLOBEC's interests in the CCS should be presented in the MOU. The joint work that will be done with CoOP will focus primarily on Regions I and II. Some within the SSC felt that if the upcoming AO for modeling, retrospective and monitoring work in the California Current were to direct the reader to the MOU (as well as the science plan), then it would be advisable to indicate within the MOU that the joint work with CoOP will not be the only work that U.S. GLOBEC will do in the California Current (and moreover provide an indication of possible other work). Others on the steering committee felt that the MOU should discuss only U.S. GLOBEC's shared interests with CoOP which will eventually be done collaboratively. One option we discussed was to have the first AO for California Current research direct the reader first and foremost to the U.S. GLOBEC Science Plan, and secondarily to the GLOBEC/CoOP MOU. The former for the broad scale of U.S. GLOBEC's interests, the latter for an indication of ONE (but not the only) possible future field direction. Taylor suggested that perhaps a way to deal with this issue is to use a letter of intent submission to pre-screen potential proposals. Pre-screening would provide a mechanism for evaluating programmatic themes and developing integration without a lot of wasted effort on the part of unsuccessful proposers. Finally, it was moved, seconded and passed that the final part of the MOU-the part dealing with specific future field activities--be deleted from the document. October 21 was set as the deadline for getting comments on the GLOBEC/CoOP MOU to Batchelder. After that, the comments will be addressed by Batchelder, and the document forwarded to Mike Roman (CoOP Chair).

PICES

SOUTHERN OCEAN

Hofmann distributed a draft of an AO that is being developed requesting proposals to advance modeling of the Southern Ocean. The AO is joint between U.S. GLOBEC and U.S. JGOFS, so deals with more than just climate change and population processes, but also includes biogeochemical processes. Hofmann expressed her hope that the AO would be released shortly and would have a proposal deadline in the first half of 1995.

Dennis Peacock and Polly Penhale (both of Office of Polar Programs) both commented that they were pleased to see GLOBEC's southern ocean planning progressing. Peacock noted that funds were available to support the modeling AO that was discussed. He was less optimistic about there being sufficient funds available to carry out a large scale survey and process program as developed in Bremerhaven and described earlier by Huntley.

FRIDAY SCIENCE TALK

COMMITTEE REVIEW/MEMBERSHIP

Hollowed asked that a new ad hoc working group, called the North Pacific Committee, be formed. A motion was made, seconded and passed to approve the formation of such committee. Hollowed will chair the committee. Other members of the SSC selected for that committee include Strub and Costa. Other scientists were nominated and will be contacted by Hollowed to determine their interest in participating. A first duty of this committee will be to act as, or select, a small group to organize a large community meeting to discuss the science issues that U.S. scientists might pursue under an international project, jointly sponsored by PICES and GLOBEC-International, to investigate the carrying capacity of the North Pacific and its potential relation to climate. Complete terms-of-reference will be drawn up by Hollowed, in consultation with the other committee members.

MEMBERSHIP NOMINATIONS

OTHER BUSINESS

ADJOURNED AT 1613

referring to criticism of the CCS plan, "I didn't take those criticisms personally, but my mother did..." -Strub