Powell reviewed the agenda and noted that the major agenda items were a description and discussion of the Northeast Pacific Program (NEP) of U.S. GLOBEC, Harris' presentation on International GLOBEC, and the discussion of committee members and the selection of a new chair. Powell will be stepping down as chair effective 1 January 1998.
Four modeling projects were funded. Loo Botsford and coinvestigators will be examining physical influences on salmon and crab populations in the CCS using individual based models and population and metapopulation models. IBMs will eventually be linked to realistic high resolution 3D circulation models. Mark Huntley and coworkers will develop a zooplankton population dynamics model using biomass spectrum theory. Dale Haidvogel, Al Hermann and coworkers will develop a coupled NPZ-salmon IBM-3D transport model of the CGOA to examine physical influences on juvenile salmon growth and distribution. Frank Schwing and coinvestigators will develop an ca. one degree resolution diagnostic physical model to examine monthly mean conditions and longer term variability in the physics for the North Pacific basin. Schwing's project also has a retrospective component that will be identifying patterns of decadal change in oceanic fields and processes in the NEP, and processes occurring at other temporal/spatial scales.
There were seven other retrospective projects funded. Steve Berkeley and coinvestigators will conduct an otolith analysis of sablefish, which occur in both the CCS and GOA and which have a juvenile phase (6-9 mos) that overlap spatially and temporally with salmon juveniles. Archived otoliths will be used to develop growth rate patterns extending back ca. 70 years, which will be correlated with patterns in environmental indices. Rick Brodeur and coworkers will examine composition, distribution, and abundance shifts that have occurred in the ichthyoplankton assemblage of the western GOA using data collected by US and USSR vessels between 1981-96. Bruce Finney will reconstruct salmon abundance (returns to freshwater spawning habitat) using stable N isotope data from stratified lake sediments in WA and AK. Richard Merrick and coworkers will evaluate trophic positions, productivity and growth of seabirds and marine mammals (e.g., top predators) in the GOA for 1960-75 and 1975-90, using N isotopes in archived materials (bones, feathers, teeth, otoliths, etc.). Mark Ohman and coinvestigators will examine long-term changes in the zooplankton (species composition; gelatinous forms, etc.) of the CCS using CalCOFI samples for the last ca. 45 years. Trophic analysis using N isotopes will be done for a few species also. Suzanne Strom will examine the microzooplankton link between primary production and higher trophic levels using archived samples collected from Line P in the subarctic Pacific between 1987 and present. Ted Strub and coinvestigators will use satellite remote sensing data (color, altimetry, AVHRR, SAR) to examine variability in the NEP at basin scale and mesoscale. Included in this will be examination of the linkages (covariability) between the CCS and CGOA.
GLOBEC funded two initial pilot monitoring projects. Bob Smith and coinvestigators will sample transects extending offshore from Newport and Coos Bay, OR ca. 5-6 times per year for physics, currents, nutrients, chlorophyll and net zooplankton, with a goal of providing a then (previously sampled in 1961-71) and now (during GLOBEC project) comparison of the forcing and ecosystem response. Tom Weingartner and coinvestigators will sample ca. 6 times per year the Gulf of Alaska (GAK) line extending seaward from Seward, AK. Observations will be obtained on the same parameters as the Oregon line, but in addition there will be acoustic sampling for zooplankton and fish, and in the summer and fall cruises, trawling for fish from a chartered vessel. This line has an extensive 27 year time series (for physics only) with which future data can be compared.
Powell noted that the first NEP coordination meeting was held on 18-19 August in Seattle. At least one funded PI from each of the NEP projects attended the meeting. At that workshop, three breakout groups (modeling, retrospective and monitoring) met individually to discuss and assess the funded projects--i.e., to evaluate the strengths of the NEP program and to identify potential weaknesses, including gaps in the program with respect to the implementation plan.
Botsford summarized the discussions of the modeling group. First, he noted that there were four modeling projects funded specifically by U.S. GLOBEC, but in addition there were a number of other funded model efforts in the NEP. He summarized the efforts with a map showing the locations of the model efforts (both GLOBEC and others). Some of the non-US GLOBEC efforts are 1) Foreman's effort in Canada GLOBEC on the western continental margin of Vancouver Island; 2) John Allen is funded by CoOP to develop a coupled bio-physical model of central and southern Oregon; 3) Powell, Haidvogel and Batchelder are funded by NSF to develop a coupled biophysical model for northern California, with a focus on holozooplankton population dynamics; 4) John Kindle and Paul Bissett (NRL) and McWilliams (EPA) are independently developing coupled models for the domain ranging from Vancouver Island to Baja California. He noted some spatial and/or disciplinary gaps in coverage by the NEP modeling efforts: 1) there is no specific effort to produce a high resolution physical model for the Washington shelf, which because of it potential importance to salmon emigrating from and returning to the Columbia River could be important; 2) there is no population or metapopulation model of salmon in the Gulf of Alaska; and, 3) there is no model of zooplankton size structure in the Gulf of Alaska. An emphasis of the model working group discussion was a strong desire to structure the models so that their results could be compared--i.e., to ensure that any differences that arise from the diverse modeling efforts are true differences, caused perhaps by regional differences in forcing or in biological responses, rather than artifacts created by inherent differences in the formulation of the models. Botsford noted a need for physical models at appropriate spatial and temporal scales, i.e., capable of resolving biologically important circulation features--especially for regions where process-oriented field studies are likely. Finally, there was recognition that there is a need to identify features of importance with regard to salmon productivity--i.e., basic information about the detailed spatial dynamics of the early life stages, what they eat, and which physical features are important in transport and productivity.
The NEP model working group will meet again in early December in Seattle to more fully explore these topics. Botsford suggested that several salmon specialists be invited to the meeting. deYoung noted that it would probably be useful to have one or more of the funded modelers from the Canadian GLOBEC program at the meeting in December. Likewise it was suggested that Kindle and McWilliams be invited. Hollowed wondered how we will ground truth the model results with observations to evaluate model "predictions". Haidvogel noted that it will be difficult to develop "predictively correct", as opposed to "statistically correct", physical models, but it should remain the program's goal. "Statistically" correct models, for example, might have the right number of eddies, but they might not be in the correct place and time to match specific field observations--i.e., the models produce statistically correct dynamics, but not necessarily predictively correct results. deYoung suggested that a "backward facing workshop" to explore large signal events could bring together modelers and observationists. This approach has been used successfully in the ICES program to look at specific strong signal events in the Atlantic. Strub noted that TOPEX/ERS scatterometers might allow visualization of eddies of 100 km size, which could be used to place constraints on eddy locations and statistics.
Strub reported on the discussions that occurred in the retrospective working group. He noted that most of the projects spanned the last 20-50 years, with one paleo study in lakes extending to much earlier periods. There are a number of allied, non-GLOBEC investigations underway that examine datasets retrospectively. Some of these are 1) Bill Peterson's data archeology effort on zooplankton data from the Newport, OR line; 2) Tim Baumgartner's examination of paleosediments in Southern California and off Vancouver Island; 3) CalCOFI projects other than the Ohman and Checkley GLOBEC study; 4) studies being done by PNCERS and FOCI; 5) investigations of PFEL, ORSTOM, IAI in other eastern boundary currents; and, 6) the historical fish habitat mapping that is being conducted by NMFS. The retrospective working group provided several specific recommendations: 1) a need to develop a database soon (the nature of this database is still under discussion, perhaps being a metadatabase, data archive, or a data management office); 2) need to standardize data formats, esp. for biological data, and to make physical forcing data sets more available to the research community; 3) need to establish strong links between researchers doing retrospective analysis and modeling, esp. to stress the need for the structure of the models to be flexible (this linkage may enable modelers to direct what data sets/analyses are needed early from the retrospective researchers); and 4) identified some possible data gaps (Monterey and SE Alaska regionally; zooplankton spatial/temporal coverage besides CalCOFI; fish scale analysis). Francis noted that he is involved in a project that is examining growth and chemical properties of salmon scales from ca. 1910 in Alaska and ca. 1940 in British Columbia. Beardsley wondered if there were long-lived benthic species in the NEP, the shells of which could be used to infer past NEP bottom water temperatures (from isotopic analysis). It was unclear whether there were suitable archival materials available to permit this.
Pearcy emphasized the sparse monitoring of the NEP that has been funded by U.S. GLOBEC. He summarized the observations that will be collected and the methods used by the two funded monitoring projects, which for the most part are identical. The CGOA sampling to be done along the Gulf of Alaska (GAK) line extending offshore from Seward, AK, will sample zooplankton and fish using acoustics and midwater trawl for fish--neither of which is currently funded for the Oregon monitoring program. Pearcy showed a map with allied monitoring efforts in the NEP. Some of these are 1) MacArthur cruises to marine sanctuaries along the west coast; 2) Bill Peterson's fortnightly cruises extending ca. 20 km offshore along the Newport line; 3) PNCERS has deployed a mooring off Willapa Bay, WA; 4) Bonneville Power Authority may develop an ocean sampling/monitoring program for salmon in the plume of the Columbia River; 5) Canadian GLOBEC transect lines along the west coast of Vancouver Island and some additional midwater trawling for salmon; 6) JGOFS sampling of physics and lower trophic levels along Line P; 7) the Ocean Carrying Capacity juvenile salmon sampling being conducted by the Auke Bay lab (May-July in inside waters); 7) the Exxon Valdez Ocean Spill (EVOS) SEA program in Prince William Sound, which is winding down, and the EVOS APIS program on seabirds; 8) the FOCI Shelikof Strait program; 9) a Small Grants for Exploratory Research (SGER) project which will sample the CODE site and off Crescent City in Northern California to document effects of ENSO in 1997-98; and, 10) the CalCOFI program. The monitoring working group identified the following needs: 1) improved coordination among all of the programs involved in NEP research; 2) development of standard procedures for sampling; 3) specification and release of an AO by U.S. GLOBEC to address salmon sampling and acoustic measurements off Oregon; and, 4) more specifically, the RV Wecoma is not available for the spring/summer 1998 cruise scheduled for Oregon (it was suggested that shiptime be requested on the MacArthur, since it will be in the region during that time). Dagg expressed concern that the 70 cm bongos with 0.5mm mesh will not sample euphausiids quantitatively. Torres suggested that a 2 meter Tucker trawl with 1-2 mm mesh would be better for sampling large euphausiids. Huntley commented that the 153 kHz ADCP was a pretty selective sampler for large zooplankton, especially euphausiids, in his studies from Norwegian fjords, and that perhaps ADCP acoustics could be used to map the spatial patchiness of euphausiids in the NEP program. Harris asked whether there would be future Continuous Plankton Recorder surveys from AK to California (Chris Reid did one CPR line earlier as a test). Taylor responded that he thought that line was a one-time effort, and that there were no funds available to support a CPR monitoring effort in the NEP. Fogarty expressed concern that if the monitoring is not designed statistically appropriate "up-front", then it would be difficult to do a comparison between the CCS and CGOA regions--a fundamental goal of the NEP program.
Mountain provided a brief overview of the similarities and differences of the Georges Bank (GB)and Northeast Pacific GLOBEC programs. He found many significant differences, related to 1) the differing geographic scales of the two study regions, 2) two areas being studied in the NEP, causing issues related to the compatibility between the areas in models and monitoring, 3) the distribution of principal investigators (nearby neighbors in GB; widely dispersed in NEP), and 4) that the process work in the NEP program is not yet well defined or funded. Mountain also noted two important similarities between the programs in their need for 1) the early establishment of a data management office and 2) local leadership (a hero) and coordination (an ExCo). Everyone agreed that management and coordination of the NEP would be far more daunting task than it is for the GB program for several reasons. First, many of the investigators involved in the GB program had previously worked together and/or were co-located at the same institution. The funded PIs in the NEP program have, with few exceptions, never previously worked together, and they are located at widely distributed institutions from Alaska to Southern California. Secondly, the scientific problem on Georges Bank was more manageable and well defined than is the problem in the NEP. All agreed that a strong leadership is needed in the NEP program now, and that it was unrealistic to expect that leader to "emerge" from the currently funded groups at this point. It was decided to name an interim (term to be one year) NEP ExCo, mostly consisting of National U.S. GLOBEC SSC members, but including also the team leaders from each of the monitoring projects. At the end of the first year, it is expected that the future NEP ExCo will self-organize and be made up primarily of funded PIs, with some representation by others. Powell, who is stepping down as chair of the national committee agreed to chair the NEP ExCo for the first year. Other members of the interim committee are Strub, Hollowed, Grant, Huntley, Haidvogel, Botsford, Pearcy, Weingartner, and Smith. In addition, this committee will select three additional members from the funded PIs--one each to represent modeling, monitoring and retrospective analysis.
Huntley summarized the charges to this committee for the short term: 1) integrate the recommendations from the retrospective, modeling and monitoring working groups; 2) identify critical complementary interdependent aspects of the funded projects; 3) identify gaps in the funded program with respect to the implementation plan, and organize to meet those gaps as feasible--considering that there are no additional funds available; 4) investigate prospects for meeting needs for long-term monitoring in Northern California, perhaps a site of future CoOP process studies (Note: the ENSO SGER funds in hand only support monitoring of the CODE site for 1997-98--not beyond); 5) define the process studies, and produce for release an AO requesting proposals for process-oriented work to start in FY2000; and, 6) outreach, at both the PI and allied complimentary program and political constituency levels. Ortner emphasized that it is critical to formalize relationships with other potential partners in the NEP (EVOS, PNCERS, CoOP, COP). Following some discussion about the probable loss of NDBC buoys along the west coast, Powell agreed to draft a letter to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) expressing the value of the data derived from the buoys for the U.S. GLOBEC NEP program. Gray and Johnson agreed to assist in drafting the letter.
Francis spoke about a potential opportunity for U.S. GLOBEC to collaborate with the Northwest Power Planning Council (to which Francis has been appointed). In September 1996 an amendment was added to the NW Power Act which provided that the council should consider ocean conditions on salmon in evaluating research projects funded by the council. The council's interest in the ocean stems from understanding how operation of the river (runoff) might affect estuarine related salmon survival, how accurate forecasting of climate change can improve power management, and evaluating how to utilize diverse ocean conditions to enhance diversity of salmonids. Francis opined that he believed that the ocean studies must lead to direct positive management of salmon survival, and that there might be a strong focus of any ocean studies on the Columbia River plume. He thought the council could be convinced to "go out and sample salmon in the ocean". Botsford noted that knowledge of the ocean conditions (information that U.S. GLOBEC will be generating) will aid in interpreting the effects of "dam" and "environment" on salmon population fluctuations.
Harris noted several challenges that GI faces, including 1) rebuilding communication with regional/national programs; 2) expanding GLOBEC into nations in the southern hemisphere; 3) building linkages with other IGBP programs like JGOFS and LOICZ; 4) building capacity and improving training; and, 5) establishing a data management structure/policy. For any of these to occur however, will first require the establishment of an International Project Office (IPO) in Plymouth, UK. The Plymouth Marine Lab is providing bridging funding of the IPO at the moment, and it is hoped that NERC will fund the IPO beginning in March 1998.
During the summer, Powell informed the SSC members that he would be stepping down as chair of the SSC at the end of 1997. Two members of the SSC (Hollowed and Fogarty) expressed interest in succeeding Powell as chair of the committee. Each of them made presentations to the SSC about their vision for GLOBEC, their scientific and management philosophy, and the major tasks they foresee for the program in the next few years. After discussion, the SSC elected Mike Fogarty to be the new chairman of the U.S. GLOBEC SSC. The GLOBEC coordination office will be transferred to the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory of the University of Maryland, Solomons, MD sometime shortly after 1 January 1998. The details and timing of the office transition remain to be worked out between Powell and Fogarty.
The meeting adjourned at 1515.
Quote of the Meeting (QOTM):
"Gulf of Mexico participation could be a plus for U.S. GLOBEC--the best way to delay retirement [of the program] is to make yourself indispensable." -- Brad deYoung
