3
GOOS IN THE UNITED STATES

The Global Ocean Observing System's (GOOS) contributions are intended to be encouraged and coordinated by international mechanisms, but implementation must stem from contributions of national agencies and companies. As a major potential contributor, U.S. plans and actions for GOOS are of great interest and importance to other countries. The United States, because of its strong ocean science legacy, is in a unique position to shape International GOOS structure and implementation.

U.S. GOOS INFRASTRUCTURE

As discussed in Chapter 1, most U.S. efforts to develop and implement GOOS involve unilateral agency decisions to fund specific monitoring efforts or joint activities organized through the U.S. GOOS Interagency ad hoc Working Group (U.S. GOOS IWG). Although the U.S. GOOS Interagency Project Office is intended to provide a formal mechanism to implement U.S. GOOS IWG initiatives, discussions with the director of the project office suggest that financial support for the office is provided by a very small subset of agencies participating in the U.S. GOOS IWG (oral communication, E. Lindstrom, 1996).

U.S. GOOS Interagency ad Hoc Working Group

The U.S. GOOS contribution is (still) being coordinated by an ad hoc working group (i.e., U.S. GOOS IWG). Membership may not include all potential agency contributors (e.g., U.S. National Park Service or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).

Annual reports of U.S. GOOS IWG provide summaries of U.S. contributions and activities (U.S. GOOS IWG, 1993; U.S. GOOS Interagency Project Office, 1995, 1996). Based on these reports, U.S. GOOS IWG is more reactive than proactive. Consequently, there is no specific set of priority activities agreed on by U.S. GOOS IWG. Considering the potential magnitude and impact of GOOS, it is not clear that representatives on U.S. GOOS IWG are sufficiently well positioned within their agencies to represent agency opinion or plans. A strong



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 29
The Global Ocean Observing System: Users, Benefits, and Priorities 3 GOOS IN THE UNITED STATES The Global Ocean Observing System's (GOOS) contributions are intended to be encouraged and coordinated by international mechanisms, but implementation must stem from contributions of national agencies and companies. As a major potential contributor, U.S. plans and actions for GOOS are of great interest and importance to other countries. The United States, because of its strong ocean science legacy, is in a unique position to shape International GOOS structure and implementation. U.S. GOOS INFRASTRUCTURE As discussed in Chapter 1, most U.S. efforts to develop and implement GOOS involve unilateral agency decisions to fund specific monitoring efforts or joint activities organized through the U.S. GOOS Interagency ad hoc Working Group (U.S. GOOS IWG). Although the U.S. GOOS Interagency Project Office is intended to provide a formal mechanism to implement U.S. GOOS IWG initiatives, discussions with the director of the project office suggest that financial support for the office is provided by a very small subset of agencies participating in the U.S. GOOS IWG (oral communication, E. Lindstrom, 1996). U.S. GOOS Interagency ad Hoc Working Group The U.S. GOOS contribution is (still) being coordinated by an ad hoc working group (i.e., U.S. GOOS IWG). Membership may not include all potential agency contributors (e.g., U.S. National Park Service or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Annual reports of U.S. GOOS IWG provide summaries of U.S. contributions and activities (U.S. GOOS IWG, 1993; U.S. GOOS Interagency Project Office, 1995, 1996). Based on these reports, U.S. GOOS IWG is more reactive than proactive. Consequently, there is no specific set of priority activities agreed on by U.S. GOOS IWG. Considering the potential magnitude and impact of GOOS, it is not clear that representatives on U.S. GOOS IWG are sufficiently well positioned within their agencies to represent agency opinion or plans. A strong

OCR for page 29
The Global Ocean Observing System: Users, Benefits, and Priorities connection between U.S. GOOS IWG and the research community is required to ensure that scientific input is incorporated into GOOS planning and implementation. As stated in Review of U.S. Planning for the Global Ocean Observing System, Research and development efforts must be coupled and interactive. Instrument requirements will be driven by scientific and technical communities. The interaction must be systematic, not occasional.... It is clear, therefore, that the next stages of development of U.S. GOOS will require ... a clear overall strategy document and specific plans for implementing specific aspects of GOOS, a coordinated budget process for the cooperating agencies, and a strong reporting mechanism into the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Process. In recognition of these and other factors, the NRC report, Review of U.S. Planning for the Global Ocean Observing System, included a range of recommendations intended to strengthen U.S. capabilities to support, plan, and implement GOOS in the United States and abroad. Although many of the recommendations were implemented, many others were not. To fully realize the benefits of GOOS, participating U.S. agencies should reexamine and strengthen some aspects of the U.S. GOOS administrative infrastructure to reflect a concerted commitment to the agreements made during the Earth Summit held in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro (UNCED, 1992). As a first step, U.S. GOOS IWG should be made permanent and its status raised. This includes raising the level of agency representatives to assure that they reflect agency views to the maximum feasible extent. Membership should be reviewed to include relevant agencies. U.S. GOOS IWG should develop and adopt procedures for (1) regularly reviewing international GOOS priorities, (2) ensuring that potential contributions from the United States are relevant to GOOS, and (3) setting priorities for future U.S. contributions. The U.S. GOOS IWG should work with agencies to select a small number (say a half dozen) of major contributions of the highest priority for implementation. U.S. GOOS Interagency Project Office A GOOS Interagency Project Office has been established within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to provide support for U.S. GOOS IWG and for other activities to effect GOOS development as directed by U.S. GOOS IWG. As stated in the 1994 NRC report, Review of U.S. Planning for the Global Ocean Observing System, the GOOS Interagency Project Office must be organized and staffed adequately to allow multiagency interests to

OCR for page 29
The Global Ocean Observing System: Users, Benefits, and Priorities be met and programs coordinated. The NRC report recommended that all U.S. agencies involved in GOOS should share in providing financial and staff support for the U.S. GOOS Interagency Project Office so that the office represents a coordinated interagency view. Furthermore, the U.S. GOOS Interagency Project Office should help support international planning for GOOS, in particular to expedite the development of interim designs for the GOOS modules. Relationship to the Integrated Global Observing Strategy The recently proposed Integrated Global Observing Strategy (IGOS) has the function of coordinating U.S. activities related to GOOS, the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS), and the Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS), at the executive level in the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) structure. There does not appear to be a formal connection between U.S. GOOS IWG and IGOS. Again, as recommended in the NRC report, Review of U.S. Planning for the Global Ocean Observing System, U.S. GOOS IWG should report to the highest appropriate level in the NSTC structure. Furthermore, a formal connection to IGOS should be established to ensure that GOOS needs are adequately reflected in IGOS planning. A draft IGOS document (CENR, 1996) is being considered by the Task Force on Observations and Data Management. The discussion of physical mechanisms in that draft document is primarily focused on the upper ocean. While the ocean's immediate influence on the atmosphere is transmitted principally through sea surface temperature (SST), many other oceanic fields affect climate over longer times. Mixed-layer salinity and temperature profiles control the heat storage available to the atmosphere. The deeper density structure and advection by ocean gyres and zonal current systems are known to change over years-to-centuries. Thus, mechanisms in the interior ocean are of importance to global climate and its variability. Consideration in the IGOS draft document of the observational needs for GOOS modules other than climate (e.g., HOTO or LMR) are even more limited than are those for the climate module. The plans for IGOS should adequately reflect the scope of GOOS. Relationship to International GOOS As stated in Review of U.S. Planning for the Global Ocean Observing System, functional relationships between U.S. GOOS IWG and international bodies planning GOOS [e.g., the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS), the IOC-WOCE-UNEP Committee for GOOS (I-GOOS), and the Joint Scientific and Technical Committee for GOOS (J-GOOS)] need to be either clarified or established.

OCR for page 29
The Global Ocean Observing System: Users, Benefits, and Priorities Review and Advice Review of U.S. Planning for the Global Ocean Observing System pointed out that although implementation of GOOS will require a significant research and development effort, many activities already under way through single-agency or multiagency activities need only modest expansion to begin to realize their potential benefits. Cooperation among academic, government, and commercial entities may provide the impetus and resources needed to make these activities operational components of GOOS. Furthermore, the potential benefits of GOOS should be distributed across many sectors of our society. For this to take place, academic and commercial sectors, and state and local agencies, should be given an opportunity to provide advice and support on an ongoing basis. As stated in Review of U.S. Planning for the Global Ocean Observing System, the U.S. GOOS IWG does not have a formal mechanism for obtaining such advice from the academic or commercial sectors or from state and local governments. The need for an ongoing and independent advisory body to U.S. GOOS IWG has not changed. The U.S. GOOS IWG should form a committee (U.S. GOOS Committee) (1) to provide independent oversight of U.S. COOS efforts; (2) to provide scientific and technical/commercial real-time advice; (3) to act on its behalf in relationships with the U.S. and international scientific community and others; and (4) to function as an information exchange medium as needed, including the preparation of reports and other documents. The U.S. GOOS Committee should be funded through the U.S. GOOS Interagency Project Office. Furthermore, in an effort to increase and formalize its interactions with the private sector, the U.S. GOOS Committee should include representation from industry and commercial business. U.S. PLANS FOR IMPLEMENTATION U.S. GOOS IWG proposes to initially implement the U.S. contributions to GOOS in three modules: climate, LMR, and coastal. Three themes are proposed for the coastal module: Sustain Healthy Coasts, Coastal Hazards, and Safe Marine Navigation (Figure 3). NOAA's National Ocean Service (NOS) has prepared and offered to the U.S. GOOS community a draft plan for the coastal module as the basis for a U.S. implementation for that module. A U.S. Coastal GOOS technical workshop was held December 10-12, 1996, in Bethesda, Maryland. The 43 invited participants included senior scientists from universities, managers from state government agencies, and representatives of federal agencies. Recommendations were made regarding parameters to be

OCR for page 29
The Global Ocean Observing System: Users, Benefits, and Priorities FIGURE 3 - Chart summarizing relationships among International and U.S. GOOS initiatives (from U.S. GOOS Project Office).

OCR for page 29
The Global Ocean Observing System: Users, Benefits, and Priorities FIGURE 4 - Conceptual relationships among the Coastal GOOS themes emphasizing the overlapping nature of each themes mission (provided by the U.S. GOOS Interagency Project Office). measured to address priority problems facing coastal areas. The discussion focused on the United States, but the conclusions were intended to be applicable to international deliberations as well. A presentation of the results of the workshop will be given at an international Coastal GOOS workshop being held in Miami, February 24-28, 1997. NOS is to be commended for taking the initiative in this matter. However, the committee has a few concerns regarding the extent of interaction between the coastal module and other GOOS modules and among the proposed coastal themes as described by NOS (Figure 3) including: The international HOTO module includes monitoring the health of, and adverse effects on, marine flora and fauna (e.g., seagrass wasting; coral diseases and bleaching; fish, seabird, and sea mammal mortality) as well as society. Such activities should he included in the Sustain Healthy

OCR for page 29
The Global Ocean Observing System: Users, Benefits, and Priorities Coasts theme of the U.S. coastal module and thus should be coordinated with the HOTO module. The joint NOAA/Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Coastal Monitoring Task Force did a rational job of making preliminary site selections for the Sustain Healthy Coasts theme. However, all of the potential sites selected represent estuaries, bays, or other largely sheltered water bodies. Although these may be reasonable initial choices, some problems (such as along-shore transport of toxic algal blooms) may well require measurements in ''open'' coastal waters. Future planning exercises, while dealing with the most important perceived areas, should not be constrained to deal only with sheltered waters. Figure 3 appears to imply that the prediction of toxic algal blooms will be addressed only under the theme of Coastal Hazards. The prediction of toxic algal blooms is properly a part of the Sustain Healthy Coasts theme as well. Efforts should be made to encourage coordination across these two areas as depicted in Figure 4. The committee noted that open-ocean products (from the marine services module) are now included under the Safe Marine Navigation theme of the U.S. coastal module. These include marine surface conditions, currents, and prediction of iceberg and ice conditions. Care should be taken that activities taken under the Safe Marine Navigation theme of the coastal module complement and are coordinated to the greatest extent possible with activities taken under the marine services module. The Safe Marine Navigation theme of the U.S. coastal module includes observations/products needed in response to oil and hazardous material spills. This will require monitoring/modeling of offshore currents, especially in areas where lightering takes place. Care should be taken that activities taken under the Safe Marine Navigation theme of the coastal module compliment, and are coordinated to the greatest extent possible with, activities taken under the marine services module. EDUCATION As discussed in Review of U.S. Planning for the Global Ocean Observing System, GOOS is a new type of system. It is global in nature and combines

OCR for page 29
The Global Ocean Observing System: Users, Benefits, and Priorities substantial scientific and engineering content but is intended as being driven by user needs. Perhaps the closest analog is the World Weather Watch. It is likely that implementation of GOOS, in the United States and internationally, will require a variety of educational activities. The primary needs at this time are to inform the public and policymakers about the importance of GOOS and to impart relevant needs and skills to U.S. and foreign scientists, engineers, and technicians. U.S. GOOS efforts should include public education and information activities designed to promote understanding of the GOOS concept and its purpose, including publication of information brochures and presentations at relevant regional, national, and international events. U.S. GOOS should include an attempt to improve communication among federal agencies, state and local governments, academic scientists, commercial interests, and the public. This effort should employ traditional means such as newsletters as well as newer methods such as electronic bulletin boards and open file servers. Similar efforts in other science fields can serve as instructive models in this area (e.g., work by the National Weather Service to provide educational Internet-based meteorological observations to schools). Agencies responsible for GOOS in the United States should consider expanding present postdoctoral programs to offer training in federal agencies or the private sector in support of the development of GOOS to a larger number of qualified applicants. As stated in Review of U.S. Planning for the Global Ocean Observing System, U.S. GOOS efforts should include a provision for the mining of foreign scientists and engineers in U.S. laboratories for future implementation of GOOS in their countries. Provision should be made for U.S. scientists and engineers to offer training and assistance in foreign countries.