U.S. GLOBEC Scientific Steering Committee Minutes

Miami, FL --- 18-19 Feb 93

Summary of Day One.

The U.S. GLOBEC SSC meeting was preceeded by a one-half day joint session meeting of the SSC's from the U.S. GLOBEC and U.S. JGOFS programs in the Auditorium at RSMAS. Following introductions and welcoming remarks by Otis Brown (JGOFS Chair) and Tom Powell (GLOBEC Chair), the joint session proceeded with several presentations (of science issues rather than logistics of joint interest to JGOFS and GLOBEC) followed by question and answer periods. The speakers and topics are listed below:

James Murray (JGOFS) -- US JGOFS EqPac Process Studies

Sharon Smith (JGOFS) and Charlie Miller (GLOBEC) -- Arabian Sea Process Study

Hugh Livingston (JGOFS) and William Peterson (GLOBEC) -- Discussion of data collected by the Russains (esp. from Arabian Sea) and plans for U.S-Russian collaboration of a workshop in Sevastopol

Roger Anderson (JGOFS) and Eileen Hofmann (GLOBEC/JGOFS) -- Southern Ocean Process Study

Hugh Ducklow (JGOFS) and Mark Huntley (GLOBEC) -- North Atlantic JGOFS/GLOBEC Overlap

Ted Strub (GLOBEC) -- US GLOBEC activities in the California Current

Otis Brown (JGOFS), Glenn Flierl (JGOFS) and Leonard Walstad (GLOBEC) -- Coordination of JGOFS and GLOBEC Data Management

Jorge Sarmiento (JGOFS), Eileen Hofmann (GLOBEC/JGOFS) and Alan Robinson (GLOBEC) -- Common modelling needs between JGOFS and GLOBEC

Peter Ortner (GLOBEC) -- Acoustical studies of zooplankton

Dave Karl (JGOFS) -- Zooplankton studies at HOTS and BATS

Tommy Dickey (JGOFS and GLOBEC) -- Common technology, e.g., acoustics and optics to JGOFS and GLOBEC

The joint session provided direct communication between the two major biological oceanography programs in the U.S. science community, which should lead to better integration, coordination and collaboration between the two programs. Collaboration will be especially valuable in (1) Arabian Sea studies, (2) data management, (3) modelling, and (4) common technology development.


The U.S. GLOBEC SSC meeting on the afternoon of 18 February 1993 was called to order at 1350 by Tom Powell, Chair. Attending from the SSC were Dickey, Eckman, Hedgecock, Hofmann, Hunter, Huntley, Mountain, Olson, Ortner, Powell, Robinson, Paul Smith, Sharon Smith, Steele and Walstad. Rothschild was present as representative from GLOBEC.INT and U.S. GLOBEC (Ex Officio). Federal agency representatives attending were Linda Duguay (NSF), Eric Itsweire (NSF), Polly Penhale (NSF-DPP), William Peterson (NOAA/NSF Interagency Program Coordinating Office), Neil Swanberg (NSF-DPP), Michael Reeve (NSF) and Philip Taylor (NSF). Also attending were Hal Batchelder (U.S. GLOBEC SSC Coordinating Office), Van Holliday (Tracor), Sharon Lynch (U.S. GLOBEC SSC Coordinating Office), Charles Miller (Oregon State University) and Ted Strub (Oregon State University). The agenda was reviewed and no significant changes were made.


Phil Taylor and Bill Peterson reported on the U.S. GLOBEC funding situation for FY93. On the NSF side, the request for FY93 was $7.1M. However, only $3.8M was allocated to US GLOBEC. Of that amount $1.1M goes to facilities (ships, etc.), leaving $2.7M available for science. Ca. $1.0M of the $2.7M has already been committed to ongoing projects, leaving ca. $1.7M available for new starts in FY93. When questioned about the FY94 budget, Taylor responded that the FY94 request for NSF support of U.S. GLOBEC was not yet known. On the NOAA side, the FY93 funds for U.S. GLOBEC are not yet known, although $2.7M were requested. Already, $0.7M are committed to ongoing studies; therefore if the full request of $2.7M is received, ca. $2.0M will be available for new starts in FY93. Peterson thought that the actual amount available might be known within ca. one month.



1. U.S. GLOBEC SSC meetings. The next SSC meeting was scheduled for 2-3 June 1993 at the St. James Hotel in Washington, DC. The fall 1993 SSC meeting was scheduled to be held on the 7-8 October 1993 in Woods Hole, MA (at WHOI).

2. Other Meetings/Conferences.

a. Hofmann and Powell outlined the goals of the 23-25 February 1993 meeting on Secondary Production Modelling in Savannah, GA. A goal of the workshop is to provide the attendees hands-on experience using well-formulated biological models of different types (stage and size-structured populations). Attendees will be provided with source code for the models so that they may modify them as desired. We discussed whether or not the workshop should result in a recommendation that U.S. GLOBEC support in some way a "community biological model".

b. Eckman provided an overview of the U.S. GLOBEC modelling meeting that is to be held 9-10 March 1993 in La Jolla, CA. All funded U.S. GLOBEC modelling groups will be participating and will provide manuscripts to Eckman at the meeting. Topical Studies in Oceanography has agreed to publish the papers. Approximate time for publication of the issue, assuming no problems arise, is Jan-Feb 1994. The US GLOBEC office in Davis may publish the papers more quickly as a "white paper--not to be cited" document. How U.S. GLOBEC will proceed with future modelling efforts will be discussed at the La Jolla meeting as well.

c. International meetings were discussed extensively. An abbreviated list of meetings that were discussed includes (this list is not meant to be comprehensive):

Secondary Production Modelling      23-25 Feb 93    Savannah,GA
U.S. GLOBEC Modelling(Eckman)       9-10 March 93   La Jolla, CA
ICES Study Grp Zoopl. Production    March 93        Tenerife
GLOBEC.INT SOS (Dickey)             early April 93  Paris, France
Time Series Workshop (Gamble)       May 93          Plymouth, UK
Subtropical EBC(Baumgartner)        10-12 May 93    La Paz, Bolivia?
GLOBEC.INT ICES Cod and Climate     7-11 June 93    Lowestoft, UK
         working group
GLOBEC.INT Southern Oc. (Stromberg) 14-18 June 93   Norfolk, VA
Modelling Meeting(Gurney)           14-18 June 93   Glasgow, Scotland
Seabird Workshop (Fraser)           14-18 July 93   St. Paul, MN
CoOP/EBC Planning (Brink)           14-16 July 93   Portland, OR
GLOBEC.INT Modelling WG(Robinson)   11-13 July 93   Villefranche
ICES Cod and Climate                23-27 Aug 93    Reykjavik, Iceland
ICES West Coast                     wk4 Oct 93      ???
CalCOFI Population Genetics         1-3 Nov 93      Lake Arrowhead, CA
d. Gordon Research Conference on Coastal Ocean Circulation on 14-18 June 1993. (Malcolm Bowman is contact). Very little biology represented in the program.

e. Gordon Research Conference on Predictive Theory in Biological Oceanography and its Evaluation scheduled for 16-20 August 1993. (Pete Jumars is contact). Several of the sessions are relevant to GLOBEC.

3. General Discussion on Requesting U.S. GLOBEC funding for meetings. We discussed a procedure for requesting funds for U.S. GLOBEC meetings. For future meetings and/or U.S. GLOBEC participation of U.S. scientists at GLOBEC.INT meetings, Powell would like to have a small proposal submitted to the U.S. GLOBEC office in Davis which describes the tentative agenda and budget for the proposed meeting. The proposal must also include a list of expected participants and provide the context of how the proposed meeting contributes or conflicts with other programs and/or meetings, at both the national and international levels. The proposal should be received by the US GLOBEC office in Davis at least four months prior to the proposed date of the meeting.


At the September 1992 meeting it was decided to solicit nominations from the community for two new SSC members. After reviewing the nominations the SSC approved the addition of three new SSC members: Ann Durbin (Univ. Rhode Island; zooplankton and fish ecology), Daniel Costa (ONR; cetacean and seabird ecology and physiology), and Steven Gaines (Brown Univ.; benthic ecology). Powell informed the SSC that Brian Rothschild was departing the ExCOMM of U.S. GLOBEC and that Sharon Smith would be joining the ExCOMM. Powell also informed the SSC that he had asked Huntley and Olson to act as U.S. GLOBEC "delegates" to GLOBEC.INT. They both agreed to accept the responsibility and will coordinate and communicate with Rothschild (GLOBEC.INT Chair).


Batchelder presented an outline of themes, target submission dates, and target publication dates for the next four issues of the U.S. GLOBEC newsletter. Preliminary themes for the next four issues are (1) NW Atlantic/Georges Bank, (2) Modelling, (3) Southern Ocean, and (4) Eastern Boundary/California Current. Batchelder also requested suggestions for newsletter articles. Some were offered immediately: (1) Brander article on Cod and Climate Change, (2) Brown and Powell "thoughtful" report of JGOFS/GLOBEC joint session, (3) regular GLOBEC.INT column by Rothschild, and (4) a regular Interagency Program Coordinating Office column by Peterson. Olson mentioned that there were several newsletter items that were "lost in limbo" during the change in chairmanship from Peterson to Powell. Powell and Batchelder agreed to look again in the transition boxes for the lost items. Olson agreed to send his item to the Davis GLOBEC office again. Dickey suggested that he prepare an instrumentation paper for EOS, as well as for Sea Technology. Huntley suggested that all article submissions on U.S. GLOBEC should be circulated through Batchelder at the U.S. GLOBEC office in Davis.



The report of the Ravello meeting of GLOBEC International (hereafter, GI) has been published and was included in the briefing book. Powell reported that he had received comments on the Ravello draft from many of the US GLOBEC SSC members. After compiling the comments he wrote a draft memo of the US GLOBEC SSC response to the Ravello Report which was circulated to the SSC members who had made comments. He then mailed the review to Brian Rothschild (GI - Chair).

Rothschild then reviewed the purpose of the Ravello document—which is to provide a structure for inquiry into the factors and mechanisms controlling animal abundance in the sea. The document intends to provide the foundation for establishing the direction and research strategy for launching a major global ocean ecosystem dynamics research program (which complements other global programs like JGOFS) during the next decade. Rothschild stated that the carbon question, i.e., the role of zooplankton in global carbon issues, needs more research and he hopes that GI can foster the exchange of ideas between JGOFS and GLOBEC on the carbon question. Rothschild emphasized repeatedly that GI wants interaction with U.S. GLOBEC SSC and is certainly willing to listen to U.S. GLOBEC suggestions. Robinson suggested that someone (possibly Bob Dickson) should be asked (and funded?) to scout out archived data for PRUDENCE. Olson commented that reanalysis, i.e., the use of old data sets with new models, was particularly valuable. Hunter commented that data mining and archiving must go on concurrently with field process studies. Hunter observed that there was no EBC (or U.S. West Coast Plan) yet formulated by GI. He suggested that a GLOBEC.INT PRUDENCE analysis and PICES coordinated plan could provide the basis for an Upwelling Region GI plan. Steele expressed the opinion that we do not need to create new organizations, but rather we should use existing regional organizations (like SCAR, PICES, ICES, etc.), to implement international programs.


Huntley and Peterson reported on the discussions that took place at the GI FizzyPop meeting that was organized by David Cushing and held in Plymouth, UK. It was an international meeting attended by approximately 25 scientists. There was one and one-half days of invited presentations followed by working group discussions and report writing. Discussions were perhaps a little more focused on grazing and less on fish population dynamics than would be liked by U.S. GLOBEC, but overall, as reported by Huntley and Peterson to the SSC, the intent of the population dynamics and physical variability working group of GI is similar in concept and intent to U.S. GLOBEC's goals and should result in an excellent report.


Charlie Miller presented an overview of the implementation plan for an Arabian Sea U.S. GLOBEC project. The implementation plan (mailed to the SSC members before the meeting) resulted from discussions initiated at a U.S. GLOBEC sponsored workshop held in Denver in June 1992. Subsequently, Charlie Miller, Hal Batchelder, Sharon Smith and Don Olson collaborated to develop a plan for U.S. GLOBEC scientific research in the Arabian Sea. It was clear from the discussions at the Denver workshop that the scientifically most interesting question involved the reportedly large stocks of myctophids in the northern Arabian Sea. How are such massive biomasses of an upper trophic level consumer supported by the monsoonal-driven production cycles? What are the trophic linkages between the primary production and the fish production? Two levels of research plan were formulated for U.S. GLOBEC Arabian Sea research. The first is a modest-scale add-on program that utilizes ship and logistics resources already present in the Arabian Sea for JGOFS, WOCE and NOAA investigations during 1994-1996. The focus of studies for this plan is improved understanding of the population dynamics and general ecology of zooplankton, especially the copepods, euphausiids and salps that are potential food resources for myctophid fishes; and studies of the larval and adult biology, ecology, and distribution of the myctophid fishes. The extraordinary temporal and spatial physical forcing (monsoonal reversals, several upwelling regions) should have effects on the pelagic ecosystem, including the zooplankton and fish. The add-on program proposes study of these effects. It was unclear how much ship-time could be allocated to the add-on study. Ortner noted that a NOAA vessel would be in the Arabian Sea in 1995 and that U.S. GLOBEC like studies could potentially be done from that vessel as well as from the UNOLS vessels. The second level plan outlined a potential full-scale study that focuses on the myctophid fishes specifically. This plan was provided as an incentive for a future larger-scale U.S. GLOBEC or international effort in studying the ecology of the Northern Arabian Sea.

After discussion, a motion was passed to adopt the implementation plan, specifically to proceed with the add-on plan study of the Arabian Sea if sufficient funds were available and if such funding did not seriously impact other U.S. GLOBEC projects (i.e., Georges Bank). The only significant comment mentioned during the discussion of the IP related to the reliability of the 100 million mTon biomass of Benthosema pterotum published by Gjosaeter. Justification of the Arabian Sea plan is highly determined by the enormous stock size of this midwater fish—if that number is inflated by a factor of 10X (which was suggested by some present at the meeting (Hunter, Holliday) then the Arabian Sea science plan is much less compelling. Powell suggested that SSC members who wanted to provide written comments on the Arabian Sea plan, send them to Hal Batchelder in the GLOBEC office before 19 March. After the comment period, a final version of the Arabian Sea workshop report and implementation plan would be sent to the printer.

Summary of Day Two.


Batchelder presented the optics report recommendations from the workshop held in Savannah, GA in February 1992. Those recommendations called for (1) better integration of acoustical, optical and physical sensors so that they sample the same parcel of water at similar spatial and temporal scales; (2) development of improved modes of deployment and of less-invasive optical instruments; (3) development of techniques or sampling systems that provide for the interrelation of measurements or rate processes and physical structures among different spatial and temporal scales; and (4) development of image analysis techniques that provide near-real time identification of organisms from video images. Following Batchelder's summary, we discussed the appropriateness of including the detailed information on specific instruments in the appendices. Several members of the SSC felt that the inclusion of the appendices provided an unfair "endorsement" of specific technologies should an RFP result from the workshop report. Other SSC members felt that the appendices provided examples of technologies in place or under development, and that the material would provide useful background material for future instrument development proposers. Eventually, it was moved and passed (by 7-to-5 vote) that the appendices be removed from the optics workshop report and that the report be published by U.S. GLOBEC.


Huntley showed a graph projecting the estimated funds required to support U.S. GLOBEC research activities in the next eight years (approximately). The message was clear—U.S. GLOBEC will not be able to accomplish all its goals unless it is able to stimulate funding. Huntley argued that U.S. GLOBEC needs to better show its importance in terms of fisheries, global change, etc., so that there is greater awareness in the federal agencies and general public of what U.S. GLOBEC is doing and why it is important to the average citizen. The funds to sustain U.S. GLOBEC are derived from taxpayers and are mandated by congress. Thus, he suggests that agencies, taxpayers and congress need to be better apprised of the goals of GLOBEC and urged to support those goals. He recommends that the GLOBEC office in Davis, with assistance from a core group of the SSC, develop a suite of public relations materials, including slides, overheads, glossy brochures. We should educate the taxpaying public through the media (press releases, articles in popular press). Other avenues for gaining support include existing entities like the Ocean Studies Board, Polar Research Board, Council on Ocean Affairs, and the Joint Oceanographic Institutions. Dickey mentioned that he will follow through with his Sea Technology and EOS articles on technology. There was mention that U.S. GLOBEC funded modelling studies have already produced some nice results—possibly some of that could be written up as an article for EOS or other outlet. Paul Smith suggested that the U.S. GLOBEC outreach effort must describe the problem from the average citizen perspective, not just from the educated scientist perspective. He suggested including figures in presentation materials showing the time-series of increasing human population, how this has impacted the coastal marine environment, and how U.S. GLOBEC fits in. Huntley mentioned that U.S. GLOBEC should have someone representing their interests at the March 1993 Council on Ocean Affairs Fourth Annual Congressional Oceans Forum. Powell agreed, and asked Huntley to attend.


Huntley spoke about plans for the development of an international Southern Ocean GLOBEC program. Southern Ocean planning began at a May 1991 implementation meeting held in La Jolla. Representatives from ca. ten countries were present during the five day meeting. Due to the unique nature of the Southern Ocean, and immense interest of many nations in a Southern Ocean GLOBEC study, the implementation plan is going to be written following an international meeting in Norfolk, VA in June 1993. U.S. GLOBEC investigations will probably focus on the Bellinghausen Sea/Antarctic Peninsula and possibly also a region in the Indian Ocean sector of the Southern Ocean. The probable structure of a Southern Ocean study was provided by Huntley. It likely will target krill, copepods, salps, birds and mammals. Studies are anticipated to begin in 1997 and continue for two years (hopefully). The focus will be on the interaction between the physical circulation of the Bellinghausen Sea and the population dynamics of the target species. The goal is to resolve at least one complete (preferably two) annual cycles, hopefully through the use of multiple platforms provided by the participating countries. Countries expressing interest in GLOBEC studies of the Southern Ocean include the U.S., Germany, UK, France, Scandinavian countries, Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and several South American countries. Eckman and Penhale expressed concerns that benthos issues were underrepresented in the international plans for the Southern Ocean. Olson and Penhale expressed concern that physicists and modellers were underrepresented in the preliminary list of invitees to the Norfolk planning meeting. At the request of Olson, Hofmann agreed to contact Jarl Stromberg (Organizer of the Norfolk meeting) and suggest that a Southern Ocean physical oceanographer be invited to the Norfolk meeting. Powell suggested that the U.S. GLOBEC SSC might want to invite an international scientist to the June 1993 SSC meeting to present a science talk. The suggestion was made to invite Stromberg.


Powell felt that the implementation review ("relevancy review") panel of the proposals received in response to the NWAtl/Georges Bank GLOBEC RFP was useful. Peterson and Taylor on the other hand felt that that particular procedure of the proposal review process was not particularly useful in providing them with rationales for funding vs. not funding specific proposals. We discussed how the RFP and proposal review process could be improved. Overall, it was agreed that the RFP for the NW Atlantic was too specific. Furthermore, the wording of the RFP apparently encouraged collaboration of investigators to "split the science pie", resulting in the submission of a few very expensive, multi-investigator proposals, rather than many smaller competing proposals. It also made evaluation of the proposals difficult because it was not clear which PI was doing each science component in the large proposals. Ortner commented that there was a wide-divergence of opinion about relevancy within the review panel chaired by Powell. Ortner suggested that the relevance review would be improved by having both the implementation plan and "blind" abstracts of the proposals. It was mentioned that Sharon Smith has been tasked by JGOFS to produce a document describing a procedure for "scientific relevancy and prioritization" of JGOFS Arabian Sea proposals. Sharon was asked to communicate her recommendations to U.S. GLOBEC as well. It was commented that JGOFS has a similar problem evaluating relevancy; that in fact no two of their major programs have used the same procedure because they have not found one that works very well. Walstad commented that the quality of the proposed science should be of paramount importance, not peoples perceptions of "insider information". Taylor and Peterson felt that there would be a post-mortem analysis which might result in a second NWAtl/Georges Bank RFP to fill science gaps caused by missing or poor quality proposals.

Taylor and Peterson reviewed the current status of the NW Atlantic proposals. Thirty-seven proposals were received requesting ca. $13M for year one. Some have been declined outright, leaving 25-26 proposals remaining for a total request of ca. $11M in year one. Peterson said that letters will be mailed within the next two weeks to the remaining proposers informing them of their funding status.

Rothschild updated the SSC on the activities of the Cod and Climate Change (CCC) program. Keith Brander is the chair of the ICES working group and is planning a meeting in Lowestoft, UK in June 1993. Rothschild suggested that U.S. GLOBEC encourage U.S. scientists to start a dialog now so that those who attend the June meeting have well formulated ideas about U.S. scientific interests (in connection with CCC) in the North Atlantic. Steele recommended that the U.S. should be represented at the meeting by 3-4 scientists. Peterson suggested that some member of the Atlantic Climate Change Program (ACCP; a NOAA program) should attend the CCC meeting in June. Olson noted that U.S. GLOBEC might want to consider sending a representative to the ACCP steering committee meeting to be held in March 1993. It was decided that Rothschild and Powell will endeavor to get "some" of the funded NW Atlantic PI's to attend the CCC meeting.


Ted Strub reported on the results of the California Current implementation planning group workshop, attended by ca. 18 scientists, that was held in San Francisco in January 1993. Most of the participants were biologists or physicists, but there were modellers and atmospheric scientists present as well. Also attending were three members of the CoOP steering committee. Two major research themes emerged from the workshop. The first was a latitudinal study of mesoscale physical and biological processes. Ideally, comprehensive studies of mesoscale processes in two (or three) different locations along the west coast of North America, specifically to evaluate how the spatial and temporal variability of mesoscale physical dynamics impacts the abundances, species composition, growth, transport, recruitment, etc., of holo-, mero-, and ichthyoplankton. The second major theme to emerge from the meeting was evaluation of the existence and nature of "regime" shifts in the California Current ecosystem. Hunter felt that the name "regime shift" was a poor choice of title, that perhaps Southern California Bight Science or Time- Series Analysis were better (and more encompassing) titles. Strub and Powell then provided a timeline for future California Current planning activities. First, the SSC should review the report of the San Francisco meeting and comment back to Strub by 19 March 1993. After review, the report will be communicated to the CoOP steering committee. U.S. GLOBEC will designate scientists to attend the CoOP planning meeting, scheduled for 14-16 July 1993, and they will make a presentation to that group about U.S. GLOBEC's plans at some point late in the discussion (this is to prevent undue persuasion of that group and to allow them to formulate their plans almost independently of U.S. GLOBEC). Following the CoOP meeting, and assuming that scientific and political overlap still exists between the two programs, a coordinated implementation committee will be formed to develop a California Current implementation plan.


Huntley and Peterson lead a discussion involving several general issues related to zooplankton biomass and rate estimation. First, they described an ICES recommendation that there be an "at-sea workshop" for intercomparison of methods for estimating zooplankton biomass and an "in the lab workshop" for intercalibration of zooplankton vital rate measurements. They wanted to know if the U.S. GLOBEC SSC would be interested in supporting and contributing funds towards such workshops. Second, they reported that there are plans within ICES to produce an updated manual on "standard zooplankton methods for biomass and rate estimation." Huntley felt that this endeavor is worthy of U.S. GLOBEC support and could provide the foundation for participation of third-world countries in an International GLOBEC effort. The GLOBEC contribution of some countries could be measurements of condition factor, fecundity indices, etc.,—i.e., fairly low-tech, mundane laboratory measurements. Holliday commented that the Fisheries Acoustics Science Technology (FAST) Working Group of ICES is documenting the accepted practice in fisheries acoustics. We requested that Huntley, Peterson, Ortner, Olson and possibly others produce a report on this issue for discussion at the next SSC meeting.


Robinson presented an outline of the long-range plan for U.S. GLOBEC that has been developed in the last six months. Discussions and planning were mostly done at a meeting in Boston attended by Peterson, Powell, Robinson and Rothschild. Much of the details of the plan still need to be produced, however the framework provided by the plan included an activities chart and a timeline. The LRP report will be fleshed out within the next several months and circulated first to the LRP committee and then the full SSC for comments.


John Steele summarized activities of the blue-water committee. First, he opined that U.S. GLOBEC, which a priori hypothesizes that the physical environment will strongly affect the dynamics of marine animal populations, cannot reasonably not expect to find such effects since U.S. GLOBEC has specifically chosen to study "physically dynamic" regions, like the NW Atlantic, Southern Ocean and Arabian Sea. He believes that U.S. GLOBEC should also be studying deep-water open-ocean environments, where perhaps the physics are less dominant and biological interactions are more important in structuring the ecosystem dynamics. That said, he notes that the JGOFS HOTS and BATS sites would like to expand their studies of zooplankton populations. He also noted that Sarmiento found that his model was particulary sensitive to the zooplankton component and that better data on zooplankton abundance and dynamics are needed. Finally, he proposed to the SSC that there be a relatively small workshop (8-10 participants), cochaired by Larry Madin and Dave Karl, during summer 1993 to produce a document on blue-water studies that U.S. GLOBEC should pursue. Hunter commented that if tuna were included in the workshop, then NOAA would perhaps be more interested in blue-water science. Hunter suggested including George Boehlert (NOAA-Hawaii) in the list of invitees to the workshop. Powell agreed to write a letter to Karl and Madin asking them to submit a proposal for this workshop. Proposal to include a budget, list of invitees, agenda, and relevance to U.S. GLOBEC programmatic goals. Included on the agenda should be discussion of the JGOFS time-series sites, but also generic blue-water needs of U.S. GLOBEC and how a blue-water program is related to climate change.


Dickey led a discussion on technology development. Issues discussed included (1) the need for a testbed for ocean technology (this might be a mooring facility that could be visited regularly and often); (2) the need for methods of specific identification of zooplankton taxa; (3) the need to link broad temporal and spatial scales of observation; (4) the need to determine the relative merits of many inexpensive instruments versus fewer, more expensive, but possibly better instruments; and (5) the need for real-time evaluation of remote data using telemetry. Dickey felt that the technology issue of U.S. GLOBEC (and JGOFS, as well) offered good opportunities for increased funding because it linked high technology and the environment, which are two themes in favor with the current administration. The mooring testbed facility would be of interest to multiple agencies and/or programs (ONR, JGOFS, GLOBEC, NASA). We decided to form a joint JGOFS/GLOBEC committee (including Dickey, Mel Briscoe, Sharon Smith and others) to draft a statement on the community wide need for such a mooring testbed facility. Dickey, Powell and Otis Brown agreed to approach NSF to determine interest. Reeve responded that yes NSF is "keenly interested"—what next?

Dickey discussed progress on the optics and acoustics technology RFP. Dickey suggested that any action on a technology RFP should be delayed until after the GLOBEC International Sampling and Observation Systems (SOS) meeting in April.

Motion to adjourn the meeting at 1530 passed.


      you're not brain-dead yet, you haven't been there [in Washington, DC] 
long enough.

			         ---  Sharon Smith to Bill Peterson

homepage minutes contents next