U.S. GLOBEC NEP EXCO Meeting Minutes from 24 August 1999

This first meeting of the NEP EXCO occurred at the Marriott Hotel in Seattle, WA. The meeting began at 1015. Present from the EXCO were: Thomas Powell (chair), Anne Hollowed, Mark Huntley, Bill Pearcy, Ted Strub, Bill Peterson, Bob Smith and Tom Weingartner. EXCO members unable to attend were Frank Schwing, Loo Botsford, Dale Haidvogel and Mark Ohman. Other attendees were Hal Batchelder (NEP Office), Beth Turner (COP), Kenric Osgood (COP), Kendra Daly (NSF), Steve Bollens (CoOP), Jack Barth (CoOP), and Clare Reimers (CoOP and CIMRS).

Powell briefly reviewed the agenda and requested updates/additions. Only one was offered. Batchelder requested some time at the end to update the committee on the EVOS Gulf Ecosystem Monitoring (GEM) planning process.

Powell led a discussion of how the NEP Executive Committe (NEPEXCO) committee could evolve from its present membership (mostly National SSC members) to one consisting primarily of funded NEP PIs. As background, Batchelder distributed copies of several emails from Bob Groman (WHOI) that indicated the procedure used by Georges Bank PIs to elect a new Executive Committee (EXCO) and chair. Basically, after each new group of PIs has been identified (funded), a list of all the PIs is compiled and distributed to the group. From that list, scientists are nominated to stand for election to the Executive Committee. Later, a list of those who agreed to stand for election is distributed to each funded scientific investigator, who votes for some number of them (generally 6-8). The eight with the most votes are elected to the Executive Committee. If there is an uneven distribution of disciplines (e.g., no modelers elected), the elected members may request PI approval to add another PI to fill the need on the Executive Committee. The chair of the Executive Committee is selected by vote of the EXCO members. Bollens, a former member of the Georges Bank EXCO, explained that the election procedure and EXCO committee had, in his opinion, worked very well for the Georges Bank program. He also felt that the approximately monthly meetings of that body, although it seemed excessive at first, were important to the overall success of the Georges Bank EXCO and the program more generally. Face to face meetings were important. Powell and others pointed out the greater logistical difficulties in getting all (or most) of a NEPEXCO together on a monthly basis. We discussed other options, such as conducting business via email or teleconferencing. Eventually, we decided that the NEP regional planning office should request funds to support travel of NEPEXCO members to frequent (every 1-3 months) meetings during the first crucial field year. In following years, it might be possible to reduce the frequency of NEPEXCO meetings, but it was nearly unanimously agreed that frequent meetings during the first 12-18 months would be essential to achieve the goals of the program. Bollens stated the importance of having extensive, detailed minutes of the EXCO meetings. Turner noted that it was very important for the COP office to have these minutes because it was not possible for them to attend every meeting. Peterson stated that we had Dian Gifford and David Mountain to thank for the accuracy and completeness of the Georges Bank EXCO minutes. Batchelder stated that he would endeavor to take and distribute accurate and detailed minutes of the NEPEXCO meetings (beginning with this document). We agreed to follow the election procedure instituted by the GB EXCO in selecting a new EXCO for the NEP program. Turner indicated that all of the funded NEP CCS PIs will be identified and notified by mid-October. As will be noted below in the discussion on PI meetings, Batchelder will compile a list of PIs eligible for the NEPEXCO in early December 1999. Those wishing to stand for election will be determined by 21 December. Election of new NEPEXCO members from those agreeing to stand will be concluded by 14 January 2000. The 8-10 candidates with the most votes will be elected to the NEPEXCO. The NEP program will be identifying an additional group of PIs next year for the CGOA effort. A second election will be held then to select 4 additional EXCO members from those newly funded CGOA PIs.

Because regional partnerships are key to accomplishing GLOBEC NEP's objectives, Powell suggested that we might want to add ex-officio EXCO members from other programs in the region (CoOP, EVOS, etc.) to the NEPEXCO. Some participants in those other programs may also be GLOBEC funded scientists, so it might not be necessary to add ex-officio members if those programs are already represented on the NEPEXCO. Rather than specify those ex-officio slots at this time, the committee decided to leave the option open to add such ex-officio members if desired.

Powell agreed to describe the NEPEXCO transition/reorganization procedure to the national SSC at their meeting in early November.

Powell opened the discussion by stating that the current location of the NEP Coordination Office (UC Berkeley) is not an appropriate location for an intensive sea-going research program. He suggested that the office be located at Oregon State University in Corvallis, OR because 1) much of the field activity will occur off the Oregon coast, and 2) much of the ship activities/logistics will be conducted through OSU, or staged from Newport, OR. There was discussion of having the office in Newport, OR, but the funding agencies felt more comfortable with Corvallis as the location. Seattle, WA was discussed, but Seattle is not near either the focus of the CCS or the CGOA research efforts, and was subsequently rejected. Batchelder agreed that if the committee and funding agencies desired he would be willing to relocate to Corvallis and continue in his capacity as the Executive Director of the NEP Coordinating Office. This was contingent on the creation of a suitable research position within the College of Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences (COAS) at OSU. Strub and others from OSU at the meeting indicated that they thought this would be possible. Several specific needs of a NEP Coordinating Office were discussed briefly. It was noted that there needed to be a 0.5 FTE PhD Executive Scientist (presumably Batchelder), 0.5 FTE Data Manager, and 0.5 FTE Administrative Assistant. Some equipment (computers, etc.) will need to be requested to support the administrative and data serving needs of the office. Due to the geographical scope of the NEP program, it was suggested that the NEP Office request some funding to support travel to NEPEXCO meetings, particularly by representatives of other major research programs in the region (OCC, CoOP, EVOS, Canada GLOBEC). This discussion and the previous discussion on the NEPEXCO concluded with a reminder that the Chair of the NEPEXCO need not necessarily be located at the location of the coordinating office. Powell will update the national SSC on the status of the NEPEXCO and the coordinating office at their meeting in early November.

Clare Reimers, incoming director of CIMRS, spoke briefly about the function of CIMRS. CIMRS is a NOAA-Oregon State collaboration that will 1) support research and development activities of mutual interest to NOAA and OSU, 2) support graduate and undergraduate education, and 3) disseminate knowledge generated by these collaborations to end-users (fisherman and other groups). She anticipates that there will be new projects funded by the program. An office for the program is being established in Newport, and she suggested that it might be useful to share some resources between a future GLOBEC NEP Office in Corvallis and the CIMRS office. It was unclear how this could be done given the Newport CIMRS office and the projected Corvallis NEP office.

A new group of NEP PIs will be funded this fall. Turner believed that PIs would be receiving notification prior to 1 October 1999. However, it was unclear exactly when funds would be dispersed to the successful PIs. Uncertainty over the Dept. of Commerce budget, particularly the conduct of the year 2000 Census, may delay passage of their budget and delay NOAA awards. Nevertheless, there was a consensus that, with a new group of PI's funded, there should be a meeting at the earliest possible time to begin to coordinate the scientific effort and logistics of the 2000 field program in the California Current System. We debated several meeting date and venue alternatives, but decided that a two part meeting might best-one in December and one in late January. The first NEP PI meeting will occur on Saturday-Sunday, 11-12 December. It will occur in San Francisco, on the weekend immediately preceding the AGU meeting there. The principal focus of this meeting will be to bring together all of the funded NEP investigators for short (< 10 min) presentations about their funded projects, including types of activities, ship requirements if needed, ancillary data needed, etc. A short time will be devoted to explaining the NEPEXCO duties and responsibilities, the procedure for electing a new NEPEXCO, and compiling a list of all NEP PIs. Following the meeting, a list of those who agree to stand for election will be voted upon by the PIs. The new EXCO will be in place for the second PI meeting, which will occur 29-30 January 2000 in San Antonio, TX. This is the Saturday-Sunday following the AGU Ocean Sciences Meeting. At this meeting, coordination of 2000 field activities, collaboration with other programs (esp. CoOP), data management, and chief scientist and PI responsibilities will be agenda items. PI participation at both of these meetings (11-12 December 1999 and 29-30 January 2000) will be mandatory. These dates were selected to 1) begin the coordination as soon as feasible and 2) to minimize overall travel costs for the PI's. Many of the PIs attend one or both of these scientific meetings. For those not planning to attend, holding the meeting on the weekend provides a Saturday night stay, which should reduce airfare costs. In preparation for these PI meetings, Turner agreed to provide project abstracts, ship requests, and other logistical details to Batchelder, who will make them available via the US GLOBEC NEP web site and emails to the NEP PIs.

The Coastal Ocean Processes Initiative of NSF selected two projects for funding in their West Coast Wind-Driven Shelf program. The first is a project, composed primarily of OSU investigators, coordinated by Jack Barth. The second is a multi-institutional project, involving UCSD (Scripps), SFSU, and UC Davis, coordinated by John Largier. Barth represented the former at the meeting, while Bollens, a PI of the latter, spoke about the second project.

The OSU project is focused on a region of the central Oregon coast that extends from about Lincoln City, OR, to just south of Heceta Bank. Centered in this region is Newport, OR. The project has moorings, SeaSoar surveys, satellite remote sensing, aircraft surveys/AXBTs, CODAR, in situ station process studies and modeling that is focussed on the upwelling (June 2001, August 2001) and downwelling (February 2003) periods of the year. An emphasis is on identifying the dominant mechanisms of cross-shelf transport, particularly the offshore deflection of alongshore transport by bathymetry (Heceta Bank). It was noted that these cruises are currently scheduled for different years than GLOBEC's NEP cruises (2000 and 2002), and that this might be complementary in providing information about additional years. Huntley noted that there were space and time differences between the GLOBEC and CoOP cruises, with CoOP occurring further north, as well as in different years (and months within the year), so that it might be difficult to consider them replicates in different years. These are logistics that need to be considered at the January 2000 meeting.

The Scripps/SFSU/UCDavis group is funded to examine the sensitivity of nutrients-phytoplankton-zooplankton to wind strength and temporal variability. Their study area extends from the location of the CODE line (on the North) to just south of Pt. Reyes. The primary study region is between Pt. Arena and Pt. Reyes. Cruises are tentatively planned for May 2000 (a pilot study with mapping, drifters, and a short term mooring), May and November 2001, and May and November 2002. Subcomponents of the project are: 1) wind forcing/heating, 2) moorings, drifters, and CODAR, 3) shipboard physics, 4) phytoplankton studies, 5) zooplankton studies, 6) satellite and bioptical studies, and 7) analytical and numerical modeling. Bob Smith pointed out that his LTOP project had sampled the CODE line during the ENSO97/98, and that the sampling along the CODE line that this CoOP project proposed would be very complementary to that earlier work. No future sampling of the CODE line was proposed to GLOBEC.

Turner and Daly spoke very briefly about ship resources. Last year, NOAA had a shortfall in ship support for GLOBEC. Hopefully, that shortfall may be made up this year, but will require a conference in Congress to accomplish. It is too early to know what will happen with regard to NOAA money for ships in 2000. Barth (and Daly and Turner) noted that requests for Wecoma time are on the schedule to conduct SeaSoar, LTOP and process studies in 2000. It was also noted that the New Horizon and Sproul may have available time in 2000. There is no time available for GLOBEC cruises aboard NOAA vessels in the Pacific; those ships are completely booked with mandated responsibilities. Ship scheduling will become a little clearer after a UNOLS ship meeting to be held in September 1999.

Powell reviewed his discussions with several journal editors regarding a special issue devoted to GLOBEC NEP studies. Topical Studies in Oceanography (TSO) was approached, but they have such a backlog of special issues, that they could not guarantee publication within 18 months of first submission. Other options explored were Continental Shelf Research and Progress in Oceanography. Bob Smith is an editor of the latter, and he indicated that Progress in Oceanography would be happy to publish an issue devoted to GLOBEC NEP. Because of Smith's conflict (editor and contributor), Martin Angel would handle this particular publication, with guest editors actually doing most of the logistical work. The committee agreed to proceed with a special issue of Progress in Oceanography. Powell noted that he had firm committments for ca. 14 papers to be submitted to him by 30 October for this issue.

We spent a few minutes listing upcoming meetings. The dates are approximately correct, but have not been confirmed with the meeting organisers.

1999

14-16 September, NOPP Modeling Meeting, Berkeley, CA

5-8 October, EPOC, So. Lake Tahoe, CA

11-15 October, PICES, Vladivostock, Russia

26-28 October, CalCOFI, venue?

4-6 November, U.S. GLOBEC EXCO and SSC, San Diego, CA

7-9 December, El Nino Meeting, venue?

11-12 December, GLOBEC NEP PI Meeting I, San Francisco, CA

13-17 December, AGU Meeting, San Francisco, CA

2000

13 January?, Mixed-layer modeling meeting, Berkeley, CA

24-28 January, AGU/ASLO Ocean Sciences Meeting, San Antonio, TX

29-30 January, GLOBEC NEP PI Meeting II, San Antonio, TX

23-26 March, PICES Beyond El Nino, venue?

17-19 April?, ICES/PICES Meeting, Hawaii

5-9 June, ASLO2000, Copenhagen, Denmark

And there are undoubtedly others that do not appear on this list.

Related to the meeting discussion, there is a special session (OS14) at the AGU/ASLO Ocean Sciences Meeting in San Antonio in January appropriate for presentations (oral, poster) of GLOBEC sponsored research. The abstract is included below. Deadline for electronic submission of abstracts is 30 September.

OS14 Integrating Biology and Physics in Ecosystem Studies of Planktonic

Populations Studies of the coupling between physics and biology of zooplankton and ichthyoplankton are being conducted in the North Atlantic, North Pacific, and Southern Oceans. These carefully designed studies of "target species" are leading to new insights into the coupled physical and biological processes that control animal distribution and abundance. This session is designed to enable researchers working in these areas to present papers that cover the following topics: (1) modeling and observations (distribution, abundance, and rate processes) of the planktonic populations; (2) modeling and observations of physical processes (e.g., cross-frontal exchange, tidal mixing fronts, wind-driven flow, turbulent mixing) which influence the physical environment and may effect biological processes; (3) population dynamics and its relation to physical processes; (4) links between regional physical and biological phenomena to larger scales; (5) regime shift studies of plankton populations including linkages to climate change or climate variability; and (6) connections to fish recruitment. Of particular interest are modeling and observational studies that integrate biological and physical processes.

Also, there is a special session at the ASLO2000 meeting in Copenhagen (June 2000) that deals with coupled physics and biology on continental shelves and slopes. GLOBEC abstracts are welcome for that session, which is being chaired by Bill Peterson and Hal Batchelder.

Batchelder will post information about both of these sessions on the GLOBEC NEP web page and email the information out to relevant mailing lists.

EVOS-GEM - The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) Trustees are developing a program to conduct long-term (order 100 years) monitoring of the nearshore and shelf Gulf of Alaska ecosystem. The Gulf Ecosystem Monitoring (GEM) program is currently being developed. There is a GEM advisory group that is helping the EVOS principals in this endeavour. The group (ca. 10) consists of federal, State of Alaska, and academic scientists. Hal Batchelder is a member. There have been two planning meetings: the first in May 1999, and a second in early August 1999. Batchelder reported that progress is being made in putting together a long-term plan that has a balance of large vs. small science, basin scale vs. local control, nearshore vs. offshore components and addresses all levels of the ecosystem from climate forcing and physical control to higher trophic levels. The plan is currently being revised, and may be available by late October for wider distribution and comment. GEM will undergo NRC review as well as public comment. First funding under GEM is anticipated in FY2003.

As part of the GEM planning process, EVOS undertook a web-based search of all other relevant research that is currently ongoing or planned for the Gulf of Alaska. A synopsis of the findings was distributed at the meeting. Eventually, EVOS may incorporate the database it is developing on these projects onto a web server.

The EXCO meeting adjourned at 1640.