About OAII Steering Committee Address Directory Research Opportunities Meetings & Workshops Related Links Projects Publications Data Policy Contact OAII HOME

Minutes of the ARCSS OAII Science Steering Committee Meeting
Sakamania Lodge, Stevenson WA, 19-20 October 1998

Monday, October 19, 1998

Jackie Grebmeier welcomed the participants and opened the meeting at 0820.   Science Steering Committee members in attendance were  L. Codispoti, D. Darby, K. Falkner, J. Grebmeier, D. Lubin, D. Perovich,  A. Weaver, J. Weatherly and T. Weingartner.  Others in attendance were S. Gaurin (rapporteur, Old Dominion University), M. Ledbetter (ARCSS Program Manager, NSF) and  B. Zak (Scandia National Labs). B. Semtner was delayed due to weather; M. Ramsey could not attend due to illness; R. Caulfield could not attend due to a schedule conflict. Later arrivals included J. Morison , representing the Study of Arctic Change (SEARCH) and  S.D. Rajan of Scientific Solutions, Inc.

Meeting discussion opened with a presentation by Mike Ledbetter summarizing pertinent recent developments at the National Science Foundation. He noted that: 1) Tom Pyle has been named the permanent Arctic Section Head; 2) Linda Duguay and Jane Dionne are co-managing the Arctic Natural Sciences program; and 3) OPP is trying to find an Arctic Research Support and Logistics Program Director. Mike noted that the position of associate director for ARCSS remains unfilled, due to unanticipated family needs associated with the person who was going to rotate into that position. Mike s discussion continued with an exposition of the FY 1999 budget for Arctic Sciences.  The news was good.   Relative to the FY 98 budget of $32 million for OPP/Arctic, there is a ~$25 million increase for FY 99.  This includes a $4 million one-time appropriation from the NSF Director s office for the study of Arctic pollution.  Announcements of Opportunities will be sent out for ideas and proposals for 1) environmental observatories to generate long-term data bases; 2) automated instruments; 3) ship-time and equipment.   Additional opportunities are embedded in various planning efforts, such as the joint Ocean Sciences/OAII Marine Science in the Arctic Plan, ARCUS Opportunities in the Arctic Plan, the Barrow Science Plan, the AOSB Plan for SBI, paleo science in the ESH Plan, SCICEX in a new mode,  the HARC prospective, etc.

Lou Codispoti and Jackie Grebmeier reported on the progress of the OAII Revised Science Plan draft.  Comments by Mike Ledbetter and a discussion by the group on what the   Science Plan should incorporate resulted in a consensus that it needed a complete re-write. The consensus was that the current draft was too  "project oriented"  and should be organized around phenomena rather than scientific disciplines, that it needed updating such as mentioning recent ideas about the   "Arctic Oscillation",  that it was not keyed in sufficiently to the major ARCSS themes, etc.  There was a consensus that the revised Plan should be more visionary. It should emphasize (and be organized around?) major Arctic phenomena, and it should discuss past accomplishments and future needs in strong relationships with the major ARCSS/OAII themes and priorities that are (for example) mentioned in the latest ARCSS Science Plan (Toward Prediction of the Arctic System). Instead of summarizing the group discussions at the ARCSS/OAII All Hands Meeting & Planning Workshop,  it was agreed that the revised draft need only refer to the  workshop report   (ARCSS/OAII Report No. 6). Codispoti emphasized the need for input from the SSC because the new vision for this Plan required relating ongoing science activities and recent results to the ARCSS themes, etc., and he is not an expert on all OAII research areas.  Several SSC members volunteered to help with the re-write.  For example, Don Perovich agreed to help with integrating SHEBA results and future activities into the revised Plan.  While a major revision will extend the time frame for producing the revised Science Plan, the consensus was that this would be time well spent. Codispoti agreed to distribute an outline of the revised Plan to the SSC within ~ two weeks and to solicit comments on this outline as well as necessary contributions from SSC members at that time.

Don Perovich gave an update on SHEBA Phase II's results. He noted that perhaps the most difficult task and important accomplishment was converting a collection of individual projects into a truly inter-disciplinary effort with a broad view, which he feels was accomplished. He felt that the efforts to encourage communication between disciplines during the fieldwork were a great success.  These included making conscious efforts to mix and match disciplines during mealtimes, etc. He is confident that the SHEBA   time-series measurements will improve models for the Arctic, the ultimate goal.

Following a morning break, Tom Weingartner summarized the deliberations of the subcommittee  (T. Weingartner, D. Lubin and M. Ramsay) that was asked to investigate the rationale and siting of an LTER in the Arctic. The committee proposed two sites: 1) the Northern Bering-Chukchi Shelf for its historical data, NSF and other federally-sponsored efforts, relevance and accessibility; and 2) the MacKenzie-Beaufort Shelf also for its historical data, accessibility and relevance to the Arctic. Tom's summary included the rationale for establishing Arctic Marine LTERs (Environmental Observatories) including factors such as the enhanced signals of climate change that might be expected in the Arctic, a possible increase in the pace of economic development, etc.    Mike Ledbetter suggested that we eschew the use of the term LTER and refer to these potential sites as Environmental Observatories because this would broaden the possible base of support. A decision on the site(s) would be made later and ultimately be based on an NSFAO for Environmental Observatories and the review process. More details are available in the hard copy report that Tom Weingartner distributed to the SSC.

After lunch, Jamie Morison of the Applied Physics Lab at the University of Washington summarized the Arctic Change Initiative. He reviewed the deliberations of the Arctic Change Workshop that was held at the Applied Physics Laboratory and which has resulted in the publication of OAII Report No. 8.  More and more data including the SHEBA results suggest that the recent warming of the Arctic is continuing and is quite significant, and Jamie presented the results of some recent studies that suggested possible relationships between the warming and the North Atlantic and Arctic Oscillations. Jamie also pointed out that his comparisons with historical oceanographic data suggest that the recently observed changes exceed those in the existing record which goes back for a few decades. Jamie suggested that the way NOAA's TOGA study was organized might be an appropriate starting point for designing the organization of a Study of Arctic Change.  The consensus of the SSC was that Jamie should be encouraged to proceed, and he was asked to form a SEARCH SSC that would provide broad representation from the arctic science community and be capable of coming up with a strong science plan.  He was also encouraged to seek support for a planning workshop. There was a consensus that the acronym SAC was not very enticing, and Dennis Darby suggested a new acronym for this project, SEARCH, A Study of Environmental Arctic Change.  The initial reaction to this new acronym was favorable.   Mike Ledbetter noted that a major goal of the SEARCH program should be to identify the driver(s) of the observed changes.

Discussion of the Canada Basin Initiative ensued.  Ledbetter questioned if it applies to OAII , as it is not interdisciplinary and not global change oriented and would be more appropriate under Arctic Natural Science. Several members of the SSC agreed with this view, and it was pointed out that not much has happened with respect to this project since the last SSC meeting. It was agreed that a letter be sent to Jim Swift stating that the CBI does not fall under ARCSS, and that he be invited to come to the next SSC meeting to show how it does fit into OAII if he disagrees.

Mark Johnson s CAT (Canadian Archipelago Throughflow) project was also discussed. Mark is planning to submit a disciplinary proposal to Arctic Natural Sciences for a subset of this project. The overall goals fit in with the goals of SEARCH and would require international co-operation for a comprehensive treatment.  In addition, no one in the community has emerged who would like to lead a major CAT oriented project. The consensus was that a letter be sent to Johnson wishing him well with the individual proposal that he has submitted and suggesting that, in the future, he might want to meld his work into the SEARCH effort.

Kelly Falkner gave a progress report on the USCGC Healy on behalf of the AICC (Arctic Icebreaker Coordinating Committee); Falkner and Lubin are members of both AICC and OAII SSC). The work of the AICC has led to significant changes in the Healy 's layout, etc.   The aim of the AICC is to apply UNOLS standards to the extent possible regarding advice it generates for the Coast Guard on science spaces, equipment and vessel operation. After its somewhat delayed delivery to the Coast Guard, the vessel will undergo testing and ice trials.  The trials will include multiple phase testing of science systems (winter/spring 1999); the Healy should be available to the science community in late summer of 2000. Kelly confirmed that the Coast Guard refers to the Healy as a polar research vessel, not an Arctic Research Vessel, which caused the SSC some concern about possible scheduling issues for programs such as SBI.  There was also discussion about how the Healy would be staffed, particularly with respect to marine technician support. SSC members expressed concern about these matters and about the trial schedule becoming extended, and, in general, felt that we should not put all of our  eggs  in the Healy basket for upcoming programs such as SBI.  The need to have a  science equipment sea-trial was discussed, and Kelly noted that this was indeed in the works.   Jackie Grebmeier led a discussion on  an appropriate science equipment list for the Healy;  the OAII-SSC discussed the need for 24 hour operation of the Healy and supported the AICC in its negotiation with the USCG for these type of operations.   Also,  it was noted that Terry Whitledge has been invited to become an AICC member and has agreed to represent OAII and SBI at the upcoming AICC meeting. Kelly Falkner noted that there is a Healy webpage (http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-a/healy) on which the science systems list was due to appear shortly.  She shared a draft copy of this list with committee members but noted that additions to the list would be forthcoming via the web.

Dennis Darby reported on his survey of the community's opinion on the need for sites to archive Arctic geological materials (i.e. core samples, etc.). His survey was Emailed to a large mailing list and 12% responded.  In general, there was an agreement that a need existed for improved computerized archive sites. Apparently only about 24% of geologists archive their arctic samples in a computerized repository. Repositories exist now at Oregon State, Lamont-Doherty, WHOI, Ohio State and INSTAAR, etc., but some of these may disappear when key personnel retire, etc.  There was a consensus that NSF should be strongly urged to consider supporting one or more computerized sites.  Mike Ledbetter requested some advice on an AO that might address the issue of archiving arctic geological samples.    Jackie Grebmeier called attention to the next OAII PI meeting.   It was agreed that the meeting be held one of the last 2 weeks of October 1999 from Tuesday through Friday, in Virginia Beach or Baltimore.  The format would   include plenary science talks, poster sessions and working groups.

The meeting adjourned at 1700.

Tuesday, October 20, 1998

The meeting was called to order by J. Grebmeier at 0830, with the same attendees except for B. Zak and Rajan who left on Monday. The first agenda item discussed was the OAII/SSC rotation.  Grebmeier has been on the OAII SSC since November 1993, took over the Chair in November l995, and rotates off in the spring or fall of 1999.  Questions posed were could/should the SSC Chair and SMO Director positions be combined and should the SMO rotate or have term limits. There was a previous Email consensus that Codispoti should continue to Direct the SMO, and he is also willing to serve one term as the SSC Chair.  Codispoti informed the SSC that there was a good possibility that he would be moving to the Horn Point Lab of the University of Md. There would be several financial and administrative advantages to this move if it occurs, and he felt that this move would probably be beneficial for his OAII activities. J. Grebmeier said that SSC members who might want to make confidential comments on these issues should contact her via Email within the next week. Regarding attendance at SSC meetings, which is deemed critical, D. Darby made a motion that any SSC member's absence from two consecutive meetings would be tantamount to submitting a resignation, subject to vote by the SSC and an evaluation of extenuating circumstances; there was unanimous agreement on this motion.   This statement will be added to the OAII SSC terms of reference as Amendment I.

Next, Jackie Grebmeier led a discussion on how to rationalize rotation for the SSC as a whole. Current make-up of the SSC is 11 people serving 3 and 2-year terms which may be renewed once.  This allows for only ~2 new people each year, if everyone renews.   In addition, there is the historical problem that the termination dates for SSC members are not evenly distributed over a three year period, so there is a potential continuity problem in years when several terms end.  For this reason, Jackie suggested that some of the renewals of present members in their first term be for only 2 years instead of the normal 3 year terms.  Weingartner and Semtner agreed to renewal terms of 2 years. Jackie also asked if anyone had conflicts that would require them to rotate off the SSC in the near future, but no present SSC member was in such a bind. A discussion ensued on the next round of replacements, and it was agreed that an additional committee spot should be created for an atmospheric chemist. Jackie asked for nominations for this position and for replacement positions on the SCC such as the one that she will vacate; many were suggested and she will contact each by Email for CV material and for indications that they might be willing to serve. Ledbetter suggested the need for candidates from other major Arctic institutions, e.g. Colorado and UW.

J. Grebmeier led a follow-up discussion on the SEARCH initiative. The SSC recommends that an advisory group be formed quickly to decide how to continue and to define a strategy for moving forward.  Many comments were offered: the program should be broadened to include other disciplines; emphasis on cross-ARCSS features; the need for a champion of  big-picture change. OAII/SSC will create a steering committee with J. Morison as chair. Morison sees smaller efforts than SHEBA but more of them, continuing over a period of years and over broader areas.  Codispoti suggested 2 steps: an observational program that would continue the chain of current observations, and development of a 5-year program.  Ledbetter stated that there are existing mechanisms to put in proposals to NSF before a full-blown science plan emerges. A final decision on a name for this proposal is SEARCH Study of environmental Arctic Change. The discussion continued after a break on  step 2,  development of a plan and the need to develop: strategies for a workshop, a set of hypotheses, scenarios and priorities. Morison expressed the need for a steering group meeting ASAP, the earliest being Spring 1999.   Codispoti suggested attendees include the Arctic change steering committee plus other experts. M. Johnson s CAT project would fit here; he will be invited to the planning meeting. Ledbetter stated that funding would be available for these meetings, and suggested that Arctic Environmental Observatories could fit under the SEARCH aegis.   There was some discussion on how many disciplines should be included in SEARCH, but the consensus seemed to be that it should be a truly interdisciplinary effort that could potentially cross-cut  much of the ARCSS program.

Lou Codispoti re-introduced discussion of the OAII Science Plan. There was a consensus that more attention should be paid to the five goals stated in Toward Prediction .... And that the major purposes of the Science Plan are to advertise the need for ARCSS/OAII research and to give people who want to get into Arctic research current information.   Codispoti would need input from SSC members to show how SHEBA, SBI and SAC relate to the 5 themes of ARCSS. He will write a new outline for the Plan,  prioritize the themes in terms of relevance to OAII, show what OAII has done, what OAII will do and how new investigators can participate in Arctic OAII research. The rewrite of the Plan should have a section relating to OAII accomplishments as well as future research needs.

D. Perovich volunteered to help integrate SHEBA activities into the revised Plan.

T. Weingartner volunteered to do the same for SBI.

K. Falkner volunteered to help revise the description of other past OAII accomplishments to be redrafted by L. Codispoti.

J. Morison agreed to help write the SEARCH portions of the revised Plan.

There was a consensus that the future of OAII for the next few years has already been formulated by decisions made at this and other meetings.  SHEBA III, SBI, SEARCH and Environmental Observatories seem to be where the program is headed for the next ~five years.

J. Grebmeier noted that Jim Barry has rotated off as the alternate non-OAII person to represent OAII at ARCSS meetings. There was a consensus that this position should not be filled, since the other ARCSS programs sometimes have a problem with OAII sending three persons to ARCSS meetings, and most them send only two since they do not have an alternate for the position in question.  Thus, the SSC agreed to harmonize our staffing with the majority of ARCSS programs.

 Executive session was held after lunch.  Action items included:

1) Science Plan, already discussed;

2) LTER/EO sites: both sites would be ideal but may have to choose one.     It is important to include Canadians, especially at Tuktoyatuk (MacKenzie River); T. Weingartner will draft a letter to Canadians.  L. Codispoti asked how an EO differs from an LTER.  Ledbetter  said that EO s have a broader scope approach. An AO on these sites will not be out for a few months; SSC should   send a letter to M. Ledbetter stating OAII supports both sites at Bering-Chukchi and MacKenzie-Beaufort Shelf ;

3) SAC/SEARCH: write a letter summarizing this meeting's discussions and inviting J. Morison to proceed with all reasonable speed. Send a copy to M.Ledbetter;

4) CBI: write letter to Jim Swift telling him he probably has to sell this project to ANS;

5) CAT: write letter to Mark Johnson stating that if this project stays in OAII, it will be part of SEARCH;

6) Healy meeting Nov. 18 or 20: OAII/SBI to provide list of equipment needs and concerns about underway water system.  J. Grebmeier will write a letter to T. Whitledge;

7) Archive site: write letter to M. Ledbetter recommending a repository but not a specific facility;

8) 1999 PI meeting: already decided to be October 1999 on the East Coast. Codispoti will nail down a hotel and dates while J. Grebmeier is at sea;

9) SSC and Chair changes:  Grebmeier will compile a list of potential candidates and send it to SSC; to further stagger rotation of SSC members, Ramsay was assigned a renewal term of 3 years and Caulfield a renewal term of two years.

With no new issues being raised the meeting was adjourned at 1425.