About OAII
Steering Committee
Address Directory
Research Opportunities
Meetings & Workshops
Related Links
Projects
Publications
Data Policy
Contact OAII
HOME
|
About OAII |
Minutes of the OAII Science Steering Committee Executive Session
1 May 1996; Snowbird, UT
OAII SSC EXECUTIVE SESSION AGENDA
Invitees: SSC members (Aagaard, Battisti, Clark, Codispoti, Grebmeier, Lubin, Perovich, Ramsay, Semtner, Weingartner, Whitledge), Ledbetter, McGinnis, Moritz, Petersen, Pyle
Wednesday, 1 May
J. Grebmeier started the meeting and introducing the attendees. She then thanked the group for the effort they put into the response letter to the most recent draft of the SHEBA Plan. Grebmeier stated that the update to Plan for Integration was not sent out to the group because it is in the ARCSS All-Hands Workshop Notebook, but the changes previously submitted to Jackie have been incorporated. That is the draft that will reviewed over for the next few months before it becomes a reality.
T. Pyle, chair of the Arctic Sciences Section, discussed the new organization of the Office of Polar Programs. Michael Ledbetter is the ARCSS Program Manager. There will be an ARCSS Associate Program Manager, who is expected to be Doug Siegel-Causey, but the final determination has not yet been made. Noel Broadbent is the Social Sciences Program Manager but he may take a two year sabbatical. If this is the case, they hope Carol Syforth will replace Broadbent for those two years. Odile de la Beaujardiere is the Natural Sciences Program Manager and Charles Myers heads the Interagency Arctic Staff.
The FY96 budget was originally proposed to increase by over 20% but only a 3% increase was granted. This 3% increase raised the Arctic total operating budget to $26.36 million, of that the ARCSS budget is approximately $13 million. The logistics budget is up 128%, from $750 K to $1.713 million. The FY97 budget has a proposed increase of 10.47% but the increase will probably not be that large. There is an attempt for nominal parody between the Arctic and Antarctic budgets, the basic budgets are approximately equal, but that does not include the separate Antarctic logistics budget of $160 million. The Arctic logistics costs are taken from the total operating budget. For ARCSS, approximately 20 - 25% of the budget goes to logistics. Everyone agrees that Arctic logistics need to be improved, the question is how to improve it. There is a difference between the ideas of the social scientist and the natural scientist about how this should be done. Do we want to centralize? The Arctic Logistics Meeting on Saturday is the second meeting to identify how we want to improve logistics. Since other agencies are having their budgets cut, there is more pressure on us to improve.
Grebmeier asked if the costs for the Healy icebreaker will be taken from the total budget. Pyle said they would. Pyle also stated that it looks like we will be working with the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard icebreaker has just started construction on their so-called research icebreaker and once it is out of the shipyard there will be money available to make the necessary changes to the vessel to improve it for Arctic research. The Director of NSF says we will work with that group despite the fact they say they won't/can't change the design. The Coast Guard has their own problems and we will have to live with that. Pyle stated that the ARV is dead.
Codispoti asked if the Coast Guard crew on the Healy is still going to be fairly large? Pyle stated that they are talking about reducing it. The Commandant of the Coast Guard has asked for further options on how to reduce the Coast Guard crew to put more scientists on board. NSF has asked what the Coast Guard actions have been so that NSF could help in the process. The Coast Guard stated they have asked scientists, but the problem is that they are asking one group of scientists one day and another the next. The Coast Guard is saying that they are receiving conflicting input. Grebmeier commented that this will hopefully be discussed at the Arctic Logistics Meeting on Saturday, 4 May 1996. She said it is a concern because of the ship trials going on in the Chukchi and the Slope. There are a number of people who have been using the Polar Sea and Star that didn't know about this. When will the community be told that the opportunity exists? Pyle said that they are trying to get the community involved. The Coast Guard has agreed to a formation act for them to support a UNOLS committee. That is a big change for them and if they really use that as a vehicle to connect with the science community it would improve things.
Moritz asked if there was any additional ARCSS money in OCE that is not included in the total budget? Ledbetter said there is $1.5 million in OCE, managed by L. Clark, that is on top of the ARCSS Budget. Approximately 30% or more of this has been spend on OAII projects.
Ledbetter again mentioned the $1.5 million ARCSS managed by Clark in OCE. Most of this is used for ocean and ice partnerships. ARCSS has a good partnership with ONR. M. Van Woert is interested in joint funding. SHEBA is the model that we are working on now, ONR is a major cash partner in that project. They are also interested in the Shelf-Basin Initiative.
The tasks Ledbetter and Clark see for the OAII SSC are to continue developing initiatives, prioritize projects, identify research platforms needed, and integrate other projects with OAII. There is a concern that the initiatives being created are large-scale. It would be beneficial to have smaller, $1 million, 2 year projects in the queue, an example of this would be WAM. For example, when SHEBA was delayed another smaller OAII project could have moved up to fill the gap. This way OAII money would continue to be spent on OAII projects. Ledbetter stated that the prioritization of projects is extremely helpful. The advice given to Clark and Ledbetter at the last meeting helped prioritize the projects and aided in how the NOW project was treated. Also, the group needs to identify the platforms they expect to use or want NSF to start working on getting available for use. For example, SHEBA is considering leasing an icebreaker and freezing it in for a year. A. Heiberg is getting the costs on an icebreaker versus an ice camp for comparison. For the Shelf-Basin Initiative off of the Russian Shelf, what vessels are available? What do you want to use? The Coast Guard Healy when it comes on-line? Other platforms? We hear stories that the Canadians are laying off icebreakers for budget reasons, this may be an opportunity to work with the Canadians.
Codispoti asked if there were any talks about what the cost of the Healy will be and if the Coast Guard will kick in anything? Pyle stated that he keeps raising that issue. What he heard from N. Sullivan is that they are going to charge much less then we expected, the cost will be in the $10,000/day range rather than $20,000/day. Moritz said that was the number presented to the Ocean Studies Board Committee. There was a percentage deal on the fuel, but it was still low cost.
Regarding integration, it is important to integrate with HARC and other projects. The SSC has started this by adding one person to the committee who has interests in resonance with HARC. Ledbetter said that there has been mention of a second person being added to the SSC and he encourages the group to do exactly that. There will be a lot of new opportunities if things happen the way they are planned. But they will probably happen in the HARC arena.
Perovich stated that the SHEBA SWG has been working on revising the Science Plan and thanked the SSC for their timely effort and response with helpful suggestions and encouraging words. Based on the review of the SSC back in November, the SWG started revising the plan by email and then held a meeting in Seattle, WA, 25 - 26 January 1996. Due to a number of strong contributions at the meeting and by email the focus has become more clear and improved integration in the plan. Currently, the SSC review has been passed onto the other members of the SWG and the SWG has been talking about how to make revisions in light of the SSC suggestions. The SWG is now waiting for the Blue Ribbon II Panel to submit their final reviews.
A. Heiberg is exploring the options for the field camp and the ship option is looking better and better cost-wise. Also, an ad-hoc committee has been formed to see if there is any scientific downside to the ship. They are looking into the problems of waste water, pollution from the stack, etc. This will also be discussed at the SHEBA meeting on Friday, 3 May.
Bringing in other elements to use the SHEBA platform was discussed. There will be 30 berths available and during the peak summer season there will be 20 - 25 SHEBA scientists. There will be space for additional research and there are a number of options. It was suggested that a smaller part of the large SBI initiative could be started. Ledbetter stated that it is an NSF issue to decide if other groups will use the SHEBA platform for other research. There has been an interest in using the extra berths for international partnerships in SHEBA.
Battisti commented on the plan to finish the review process for SHEBA. What is the next path? He suggested a model that worked extremely well in the past as a possible model for reviewing the plan in an integrated sense. When there is an independent panel with people from different disciplines focusing on making the science in their discipline better, many flaws are pointed out without looking at the whole plan in an integrated sense. Battisti proposed that once the Blue Ribbon II panel reviews come in, the OAII SSC re-examine their evaluation of the plan in light of these reviews and send comments to Ledbetter. In this way, they can focus on the larger object and what really needs to be done.
Semnter commented that a panel is needed at some point, but when and how often? He stated that in the Land Climate Change experiment, a panel such as this considered a number of experiments, large-scale observations, and modeling all in one and they came up with an extremely good, ``balanced'' program. But Semtner thought this would be better at the end of the process, a panel to refine the announcement would be premature. Semnter that the NSF anonymous review system for proposals works well.
Ledbetter state a model such as the one Battisti mentioned has been used in the SHEBA process. But the problem now is time, if Summer '97 is the date for the field camp the PIs need the money to prepare months in advance. Van Woert, Clark, and Ledbetter met and decided that the AO needs to be put out soon to meet that deadline. There is not enough time to send the science plan back to the SWG and SSC and then send it out for review again. So Ledbetter, Clark, and Van Woert took the advice from the most recent review by the SSC and see SHEBA as an important enough to proceed. SHEBA may not achieve all the goals as originally perceived, but SHEBA will do the integrated science that will provide a better understanding of the surface heat budget. The AO cannot be delayed any longer by more reviews of the science plan. The AO will reflect the advice the SSC has given about what SHEBA ought to be and that can be done with the advice they have in hand.
Battisti asked if the OAII SSC would play a role in helping craft the AO. Ledbetter said that he had not thought of that.
Codispoti was concerned about the appropriateness of the SSC being involved in the review process. When the OAII was started, they looked at other projects that were criticized for becoming too much of an ``old boys network.'' At that time the philosophy was that the role of the SSC was to come up with science activities that they recommended to NSF and suggest NSF come out with an AO. Individual reviews of proposals by SSC members is fine but to have the SSC directly involved would not. Codispoti said he understands the concern about individual reviews of a large, multi-disciplinary project and agreed that a panel should review such a proposal but that is NSF's job and not that of the OAII SSC.
Battisti agreed that the SSC shouldn't be involved in the review process for individual proposals submitted to the AO, but once the proposals are ranked and approved gaps in the overall science need to be identified and filled if possible. And gaps in the overall science cannot be identified by the individual review process.
Perovich stated that this issue came up in this and the earlier reviews, you have to make sure that nothing falls through the cracks. The reviews that have come in so far have been very helpful in identifying areas, throughout SHEBA, we need to be concerned about. A prime example of this is will this work tie into GCMs. It tells us that the people in the project are going to have to work hard to make those connections.
Codispoti agreed that the SSC would be well within its rights to point out if any science gaps found in the project.
Aagaard asked if the most recent reviews are saying that SHEBA is not good enough to proceed. Ledbetter said that the reviews have converged but not exactly on a full acceptance of the current plan. There are doubts as to the contribution to further develop GCMs. That is a stated goal of SHEBA and that is how the project was sold. Ledbetter is willing to believe that the reason for these doubts has to do with the GCM modelers don't care to be convinced. It is now on ARCSS and specifically SHEBA to convinced the modelers that they need the results of SHEBA. Battisti said it is important in Phase III of SHEBA that some guidance comes from the SSC that forces modelers to use the data gathered through SHEBA.
Moritz stated that it needs to be very clear who has the oversight of SHEBA to see that the goals of the plan are being addressed.
Grebmeier suggested tabling this SHEBA issue for now, discussing it over email and at the next meeting.
The Shelf-Basin Initiative is primarily a biological initiative while looking at the shelf-basin interactions and some of the physical and chemical processes. There was a broad-based community workshop on the SBI held in March 1995. Based on the recently published workshop report Grebmeier and Whitledge are submitting a proposal for a planning meeting to focus the results of the workshop so it could be developed into an RFP. The meeting is envisioned to occur in Fall '96. The questions of platforms, etc., will be focused on at the time of the planning session. Before that, generalities about such topics could be given, but nothing specific until the planning process has begun. Whitledge will report back as the Fall meeting occurs.
Aagaard asked if there was any possibility that smaller work for the SBI could be ready to work on the SHEBA platform. Grebmeier said that maybe a synopsis of the interface with SHEBA could be ready and a small component of ramping up might be possible, but there is a time crunch and the Fall meeting would have to accelerate to get the AO out by February. Maybe a small addition could be made to the SHEBA AO. Whitledge said 1 - 3 individuals may be able to get together to work on the SHEBA platform on projects that pertain to the SBI. The proposed site for SHEBA is not that remote from areas that have been discussed for SBI.
The Terms of Reference has been distributed to the group and any changes can be sent via email to Grebmeier. The changes made by Moritz were based on the minutes of the previous OAII SSC meeting. Ledbetter requested that he and Clark receive the final draft of the Terms of Reference before it is published.
Moritz will draft the OAII section for the draft Modeling Working Group section. The draft Plan for Integration is in the workshop notebook. Comments for the Plan for Integration should sent to Grebmeier. There will be a few iterations of the Plan for Integration before it is sent to the printers by the end of the summer.
NSIDC has reorganized their data holdings to be subject-oriented format rather than by component. But they also realize that there are logical reasons why certain data should stay together. In the beginning it may not be instantly clear where the data is located but there will be good documentation and ways to work around that. There is a new homepage which will improve access to the information needed. So far, NSIDC only had 5 data sets from OAII ocean side, 4 from NEW, and 1 from SHEBA Phase I. NSIDC would like more oceanographic data. Cross will mention this at the OAII Open Meeting on 2 May 1996.
In all fairness, one of the reasons for this is that many issues haven't surfaced until now and that is why it is behind. Cross stated that the AOS data is moving along. WAM is done and the data needs to be put out but that is behind. Approximately 2/3rds of the NEW PIs have been contacted and an analog of holdings is available. The Western Oceanographic data has been provided by J. Swift and NSIDC will coordinate with Swift to get that data out. But NSIDC won't release data until it is well documented. NSIDC would like more of the SHEBA Phase I datasets, as of now the only data set available is from M. Serreze.
NSIDC would like the OAII SSC's input on the data protocol. NSIDC wants to make sure that everyone's needs are heard and they want to try and accommodate exceptions. Grebmeier commented that this was an action item from the last meeting.
Semtner asked what NSIDC does with the data from model output? This is normally archived at NCAR which is a well supported facility and they are building a 1,000 terrabyte system. He suggested exploring the idea of having the modeling output archived there and cross-linked to NSIDC. Cross stated that they work very closely with NCAR and other data archiving facilities. NSIDC realizes that it may be more appropriate to archive certain data at other facilities that have more expertise with particular data.
Battisti asked if NSIDC archives publications and if so links to other publication sites at other Universities would be beneficial. Cross stated that NSIDC does have a publications list available on their webpage.
Codispoti stated that the proposal to move the ARCSS OAII SMO from the University of Washington to Old Dominion University should be finished this week. The process to move the SMO has begun with the transfer of mailing lists, etc. Codispoti requested feedback on having one newsletter per year instead of biannually since the advent of the homepage makes information more readily available.
There is a PI meeting planned for 1997 but the details of this are not yet available. Grebmeier stated that a PI meeting would force the PIs to present their work and get their datasets turned in to NSIDC. Also, the meeting would be valuable to promote integration among the projects.
Codispoti hopes to have the SMO fully operational by 1 July 1996 which may be too early to receive funding from NSF.
Grebmeier asked for a review of the agenda for the 2 May 1996 OAII Open Session. She asked if an update on the SBI should be added. It was agreed that an update on the SBI should be added to the agenda. It was requested that the OAII SSC attend the open session to field any questions.
The annual fall meeting of the OAII SSC is being planned. Grebmeier requested that members send her dates when they cannot attend the meeting
Grebmeier is gathering information on other potential SSC members so that nominations can be prioritized. She will send that information via email as soon as it is available.
SSC members should begin reviewing the Plan for Integration and forward comments to Grebmeier.
The Canadian Basin is still planned for 1998 and they are thinking about using the Louis. Swift will contact Grebmeier when the project begins moving forward.
NOW was not funded but there is still interest in the group. This will be a project that comes up again. Is it still a priority?
There was interest regarding the SBI expressed at the Arctic Ocean Sciences Meeting. When the project is mature enough to propose, there will be more interaction with potential international sponsors.
Action Items