€¦ · web viewthis document responds to recommendations within the national ocean policy...

BIOLOGICAL AND ECOSYSTEM OBSERVATIONS WITHIN U.S. WATERS I:

A TWO-PART SURVEY OF FEDERAL AGENCIES

PRODUCT OF THE

National Science and Technology Council

July 2015

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCILWASHINGTON, D.C. 20502

July 9, 2015

Dear Colleagues:

I am pleased to transmit to you Biological and Ecosystem Observations within U.S. Waters I: A Two-part Survey of Federal Agencies, a summary report on a survey conducted by the Interagency Ocean Observation Committee’s (IOOC) Biological Integration and Observation (BIO) Task Team (BIO-TT). This document should be considered a precursor to the companion document: Biological and Ecosystem Observations within U.S. Waters II: A Workshop Report to Inform Priorities for the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System®.

This document responds to recommendations within the National Ocean Policy concerning the development of ocean biological variables. Specifically, the National Ocean Policy (NOP) Implementation Plan calls for the extension of current biological data standards to allow for increased interoperability with other biological, physical, and social data systems. This document also responds to recommendations developed by the ocean observing community during the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) 2012 Summit. Specifically, the IOOS Summit participants identified biological variables and data standards as needing additional efforts in order to effectively integrate biological and ecosystem observations into ocean and coastal information systems.

Sincerely,

John P. HoldrenAssistant to the President for Science and TechnologyDirector Office of Science and Technology Policy

iii

About the National Science and Technology Council

The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) is the principal means by which the Executive Branch coordinates science and technology policy across the diverse entities that make up the Federal research and development (R&D) enterprise. One of the NSTC’s primary objectives is establishing clear national goals for Federal science and technology investments. NSTC prepares R&D packages aimed at accomplishing multiple national goals. The NSTC’s work is organized under five committees: Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability; Homeland and National Security; Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education; Science; and Technology. Each of these committees oversees subcommittees and working groups that are focused on different aspects of science and technology. More information is available at www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/nstc.

About the Office of Science and Technology Policy

The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was established by the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976. OSTP’s responsibilities include advising the President in policy formulation and budget development on questions in which science and technology are important elements; articulating the President’s science and technology policy and programs; and fostering strong partnerships among Federal, state, and local governments, and the scientific communities in industry and academia. The Director of OSTP also serves as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and manages the NSTC. More information is available at www.whitehouse.gov/ostp.

About the Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology

The purpose of the Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (SOST) is to advise and assist on national issues of ocean science and technology. The SOST contributes to the goals for Federal ocean science and technology, including developing coordinated interagency strategies, and fosters national ocean science and technology priorities, including implementation of the National Ocean Policy.

About the Interagency Ocean Observation Committee (IOOC)

The IOOC’s mission is to enhance the efficiency of and motivation for multiple-agency contributions to the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS®), for the purposes of societal applications, education, stewardship, and scientific understanding. The Interagency Ocean Observation Committee (IOOC) was created when Congress enacted the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System (ICOOS) Act of 2009 to coordinate federal activities associated with U.S. IOOS. The IOOC is charted by the White House Subcommittee on Ocean Science & Technology (SOST), which expands its mission to encompass regional, national, and global ocean observing priorities, while addressing priorities set by the U.S. President and Congress.

About the IOOC Biological Integration and Observation (BIO) Task Team (BIO-TT)

The IOOC BIO-TT was chartered by the IOOC in March 2013. The primary goals of the team were: A) to improve the availability of observations on the five currently identified IOOS core biological variables, and B) to identify and prioritize additional cross-cutting federal agency biological and ecosystem observation needs. To meet these goals, the IOOC BIO-TT collaborated with the IOOS Program Office, the Regional Associations and other federal interagency working groups as necessary.

iv

About this Document

This document was developed by Interagency Ocean Observation Committee (IOOC) Biological Integration and Observation (BIO) Task Team. The document was published by OSTP.

Acknowledgements

A special thanks to:

Samantha Simmons Marine Mammal Commission (MMC)Bauke H. Houtman National Science Foundation (NSF)Rebecca Shuford National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)Raphe Kudela University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC)James Price Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)Mark Fornwall United States Geological Survey (USGS)Michael Weise Navy, Office of Naval Research (ONR)Sarah J. Miller U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Engineer Research and Development Center Hassan Moustahfid National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)Kandace S. Binkley National Science Foundation (NSF)Jay Pearlman University of ColoradoEileen Hofmann Center for Coastal Physical Oceanography, Old Dominion University (CCPO ODU)Nicholas Rome Consortium for Ocean Leadership (COL)Hannah Dean Consortium for Ocean Leadership (COL)

Copyright Information

This document is a work of the United States Government and is in the public domain (see 17 U.S.C. §105). Subject to the stipulations below, it may be distributed and copied with acknowledgement to OSTP. Copyrights to graphics included in this document are reserved by the original copyright holders or their assignees and are used here under the government’s license and by permission. Requests to use any images must be made to the provider identified in the image credits or to OSTP if no provider is identified.

Printed in the United States of America, July 9, 2015.

v

National Science and Technology Council

Chair StaffJohn P. Holdren Jayne B. MorrowAssistant to the President for Science Executive Directorand Technology and Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy

Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability

Co-Chairs StaffTamara Dickinson Lisa MatthewsPrincipal Assistant Director for Environment and Executive SecretaryEnergy Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Science and Technology Policy

Glenn Paulson Science Advisor Environmental Protection Agency

Kathryn SullivanActing Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere;Administrator of the National Oceanic andAtmospheric AdministrationDepartment of Commerce

Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology

Co-Chairs StaffFabien Laurier Hilary GoodwinOffice of Science and Technology Policy National Oceanic and Atmospheric

AdministrationRichard Merrick National Oceanic and Atmospheric Roxanne Nikolaus Administration National Science Foundation

Richard MurrayNational Science Foundation

Interagency Ocean Observation Committee (IOOC) Co-ChairsEric LindstromNational Aeronautics and Space Administration

David Legler

vi

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Bob HoutmanNational Science Foundation

MembersGuillermo AuadBureau of Ocean Energy Management

Jonathan GarberEnvironmental Protection Agency

Brian MelzianEnvironmental Protection Agency

Samantha SimmonsMarine Mammal Commission

Paula BontempiNational Aeronautics and Space Administration

John HainesUnited States Geological Survey

Carl GouldmanNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Paul DiGiacomoNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Michael WeiseOffice of Naval Research

Linda LillycropU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Jon BerksonUnited States Coast Guard

IOOC Biological Integration and Observation (BIO) Task Team

MembersSamantha Simmons (Chair)Marine Mammal Commission

Bauke H. HoutmanNational Science Foundation

Rebecca ShufordNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

James PriceBureau of Ocean Energy Management

Mark FornwallUnited States Geological Survey

Michael WeiseOffice of Naval Research

Sarah J. MillerU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Hassan MoustahfidNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Kandace S. BinkleyNational Science Foundation

vii

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary.....................................................................................................................................1

Background..............................................................................................................................................2

Survey Objectives........................................................................................................................................3

Survey Methodology...................................................................................................................................3

Survey Participation and Response Rates....................................................................................................3

Survey Results.............................................................................................................................................4

Section One: Existing Data Sources for Current IOOS Biological Core Variables......................................4

Metadata.............................................................................................................................................6

Biological Data Management...............................................................................................................8

Section Two: Biological Needs Assessment and Analysis Process..........................................................11

Results by Question...........................................................................................................................12

Summary...................................................................................................................................................17

Appendix I..................................................................................................................................................22

Text of Survey Questions...........................................................................................................................22

Appendix II.................................................................................................................................................24

Question 21 responses...............................................................................................................................24

Appendix III................................................................................................................................................26

Public access to existing federal agency data on the core biological variables..........................................26

Appendix IV...............................................................................................................................................28

Detailed agency comments.......................................................................................................................28

References.................................................................................................................................................33

Abbreviations............................................................................................................................................34

viii

Executive Summary

To further the mission of the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS®), and in response to a call from the community at the 2012 IOOS Summit1 for wider inclusion of biological variables into IOOS, the IOOC Biological Integration and Observation Task Team (BIO-TT) was formed in 2013. The primary goals of the BIO-TT were A) to improve the availability of observations on the existing IOOS core biological variables2 and B) to identify and prioritize additional cross-cutting biological and ecosystem observational needs. The approach to address these objectives was:

• Conduct a two-part survey of federal agencies for existing core variable datasets and identify prioritized needs for biological and ecosystem observations (this report);

• Based on identified needs, prioritize cross-cutting biological and ecosystem variables that should be considered for addition to the list of IOOS core biological variables;

• Conduct an expert workshop to analyze the survey findings, explore best available science of biological and ecosystem observing, and determine implementation strategies for biological and ecosystem observation needs identified from the survey ( see companion report: “Biological and Ecosystem Observations within U.S. Waters: A Workshop Report to Inform Priorities for the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System”).

Summary: From the first half of the survey it appears that many of the federal agencies are not aware of, or are not using, existing metadata and biological data standards. Thus, there may be an opportunity for the IOOS enterprise to move the community forward and ultimately facilitate the integration of more biological data into IOOS by engaging in efforts to increase awareness about data standards through outreach and education efforts targeted at the agencies, perhaps through the IOOC. As priorities for incorporating more biological data into IOOS are set, the agency responses to survey questions 11-23 can be queried to identify tiers of data or ‘low hanging’ datasets that can be more readily incorporated into IOOS (for example those already using recognized metadata and IOOS biological data standards). As well as identifying datasets which require more discussion or effort to be integrated into IOOS.

The results from the second half of the survey were used to generate several lists of variables that would meet the biological and ecosystem observational needs of the responding federal agencies. Based on response count frequency, benthic species and abundance were the most frequently occurring need identified across all questions. Other frequently identified needs (that are not currently IOOS core variables) included marine mammal abundance and species, sound, sea bird abundance, phytoplankton abundance, primary production, and invertebrate species and abundance. These lists of variables were used as the basis for discussions at an expert workshop.

The survey results will be made available to the Program Office and the IOOC in a query-able format so that the effort expended in collecting this information can be harnessed as a starting point for any follow up activities, or similar efforts or questions in the future.

1 IOOC. U.S. IOOS Summit Report: A New Decade for the Integrated Ocean Observing System. August 2013, available at http://www.iooc.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/U.S.-IOOS-Summit-Report.pdf.

2 Defined by BIO-TT as phytoplankton species, zooplankton species & abundance, fish species & abundance.

1

BackgroundAs articulated in the “U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (U.S. IOOS) Report to Congress” (submitted to Congress in 2013),3 the core IOOS mission is to lead the integration of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes observing capabilities, in collaboration with Federal and non-Federal partners, to maximize access to data and generation of information products, inform decision making, and promote economic, environmental, and social benefits to our Nation and the world. To further this mission, and in response to a call from the community at the 2012 IOOS Summit for wider inclusion of biological variables into IOOS, the IOOC Biological Integration and Observation Task Team (BIO-TT) was formed in 2013. The IOOC BIO-TT collaborated with the IOOS Program Office, the Regional Associations (RAs) and other federal interagency working groups as necessary.

The primary goals of the BIO-TT were A) to improve the availability of observations on the existing IOOS core biological variables and B) to identify and prioritize additional cross-cutting federal agency biological and ecosystem observational needs. The approach to address these objectives was:

• Conduct a survey of federal agencies for existing core variable datasets and identify prioritized needs for biological and ecosystem observations;

• Based on identified needs, prioritize cross-cutting biological and ecosystem variables that should be considered for addition to the list of IOOS core biological variables;

• Conduct an expert workshop to analyze the survey findings, explore best available science of biological and ecosystem observing, and determine implementation strategies for biological and ecosystem observation needs identified from the survey.

This report focuses on the execution of, and results from the survey of federal agencies. Workshop discussions, analyses and outcomes, and recommendations for new and enhanced biological variables as part of IOOS can be found in the companion report for the BIO-TT Workshop.4

In order to inventory existing sources of IOOS core biological variable data and observations, as well as data management schemes in use, the BIO-TT designed and executed a survey to be taken by federal agency experts. Participants were identified by BIO-TT members with input from the IOOC. The following volume provides summary, qualitative analysis of the survey responses. There was a 39% response rate from a total of 219 recipients of the survey. Since the list of participants was not exhaustive, but a representative sample across all agencies, results should not be taken as indicative of entire agency practices, as the survey respondent pool captures only a subset of agency interactions with biological data.

Survey Objectives

There were two major objectives of the survey. The first was to gather information on existing data sources for current IOOS biological core variables, including about their use within agencies, the data and metadata formats used, and the agency relationship with those variables (e.g. whether the agency collected data on a particular core variable, used data collected by their agency or from another agency or outside source in order to meet agency missions). The second major objective was to ascertain from federal agencies their current biological information needs, future needs, and recommended additional biological variables to define as

3 U.S. IOOS. 2013 Report to Congress. U.S. IOOS Program. March 2013, available at http://www.ioos.noaa.gov/about/governance/ioos_report_congress2013.pdf.4 Biological and Ecosystem Observations within U.S. Waters II: A Workshop Report to Inform Priorities for the U.S. Integrated Ocean

Observing System®.

“core” variables in the IOOS enterprise. The list of needs generated under the second objective served as a starting point for the expert workshop convened by the BIO-TT in November 2014.

Survey Methodology

The survey was conducted over a little more than one month, starting March 7, 2014, and closing in mid April 2014. The survey was designed and issued using SurveyMonkey, but instructions and links to the survey were distributed via email to the survey participants. A full list of survey questions can be found in Appendix I.

Survey recipients were identified by the BIO-TT with additional input from the IOOC members. The BIO-TT attempted to target the survey at recipients that have appropriate expertise and experience with biological and/or ecosystem observations and data as well as with data management. As part of the survey, participants were asked to suggest additional people within their agency that could provide valuable input through the survey; these individuals were then added to the participant list.

Survey Participation and Response Rates

Survey respondents (86 of 219 initial recipients) were from 14 different federal departments or agencies (Figure 1). Invitation and participation varied by agency and participants were not required to answer every question as they went through the survey. Therefore most of the survey results will not be presented by individual agency. Rather this report considers analysis of survey outcomes to reasonably represent a cross-agency perspective on biological and/or ecosystem observations, data, capabilities, and information needs. Additionally, the report does not provide summary analysis of ALL survey questions. It focuses on a select set of representative questions that most effectively articulate the state of biological and ecosystem observations and data within federal agencies, of greatest interest to IOOS.

3

13%1%

6%

2%

9%

29%

7%1%

6%

1%

1%

12%

5%7%

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Department of Energy (DOE)

Environmental Protection Agency

Marine Mammal Commission

National Aeronautics and Space Administration


National Park Service

National Science Foundation

Navy

Office of Naval Research

Smithsonian Institution

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Geological Survey

Figure 1. Response rates (% of overall response) of 14 agencies the survey was distributed to.

Survey Results

Section One: Existing Data Sources for Current IOOS Biological Core Variables

Questions 4 through 7 (see Appendix I for a full list of survey questions) asked survey participants to provide information on whether their group within their agency collects, provides, or uses data (Q4 and 5) and also as an individual, how they interact with the data (Q6 and 7). Figures 2 and 3 indicate gross numbers for how survey participants interact with core biological variables for questions 4-5 and 6-7 respectively:

4

phytoplan

kton sp

ecies

phytoplan

kton ab

undance

zooplankto

n speci

es

zooplankto

n abundan

ce

fish sp

ecies

fish ab

undance

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

CollectProvideUseOther

Figure 2. Collector, provider, user, and other response rates by variable for groups within agencies (Questions 4-5).

phytoplan

kton sp

ecies

phytoplan

kton ab

undance

zooplankto

n speci

es

zooplankto

n abundan

ce

fish sp

ecies

fish ab

undance

0

10

20

30

40

50

CollectorProviderUserManagerOther

Figure 3. Collector, provider, user, data manager, and other response rates by variable for individual survey respondents (Questions 6-7).

5

For these questions, respondents were able to select more than one option (thus a collector of data could also be a user). Figures 2 and 3 indicate that across all variables while many agencies, and to a lesser extent the individuals surveyed, collect and provide data, many more of the respondents consider themselves users of the data, followed by managers of the data. The results might also suggest that while a group within an agency may collect data, there are more individuals within that group that use the data collected. This is not entirely surprising as data collected can be accessed by multiple users. It might further imply the importance and value of those data that are collected for more broad use, especially in situations of limited observations. This also aligns with the suggestion from the data in section 2 of the survey that the greatest challenge faced by federal agencies is limited availability of needed observations.

Metadata

Questions 8 and 9 (see Appendix I for a full list of survey questions) asked survey participants to indicate how metadata are documented for each core biological variable that their agency collects, provides, or uses.

The IOOS Biological Observations Data Project (IOOS DBP) addresses the Data Management and Communications (DMAC) requirements that pertain to biological observations standards and interoperability applicable to U.S. IOOS and to various observing systems. IOOS BDP standards are based upon guidelines for standardized data access services, data formats, metadata, controlled vocabularies, and other conventions.

The following are brief descriptions of the metadata schema that survey participants were asked to consider:

● ISO 19115-1:2014 is a metadata schema used for describing geographic information and services. The schema provides information on the identification, extent, quality, spatial and temporal reference and aspects, the distribution, and other geographic content.5

● Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Standards aim to develop common terminology and definitions for geographic Data, including biological data, through the creation of metadata schema and documentation.6 FGDC was tasked by Executive Order 13286, amending 12906, to develop and coordinate a National Spatial Data Infrastructure and Framework for data acquisition.7

● NASA’S Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) holds Earth science data sets with appropriate keyword vocabularies that are used both to facilitate discoverability and to map data sets to the use in other applications used by the broader community. This standardization effort emerged as part of the National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC) efforts to promote the exchange of data sets via Catalog Interoperability (CI) efforts.8 GCMD defines metadata as: "Descriptive information that characterizes a set of quantitative and/or qualitative measurements and distinguishes that set from other similar measurement sets. Controlled keywords are essential within the metadata to provide a normalized

5 ISO. ISO 19115-1:3014, Geographic Information -- Metadata -- Part 1: Fundamentals, available at http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=53798..6 FGDC. Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata Part 1: Biological Data Profile, Biological Data Working Group, Federal Geographic Data Committee and USGS Biological Resources Division. October 1999, FGDC-STD-001.1-1999, available at https://www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/FGDC-standards-projects/metadata/biometadata/biodatap.pdf.7 E.O. Exec. Order No. 13286, 3 C.F.R. 2003, available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2003-03-05/pdf/03-5343.pdf (last visited 9/2/2014); See also, Executive Order, FGDC Website, at https://www.fgdc.gov/policyandplanning/executive_order.8 NASA. GCMD About Website, NASA, at http://gcmd.nasa.gov/learn/index.html.

6

discovery for data through 10 sets of controlled keywords, data-related services, climate diagnostics, etc. and are required within the GCMD." Specific elements of the required metadata for the GCMD can be found in the Directory Interchange Format (DIF) Writer’s Guide.9

● Ecological Metadata Language (EML) is a metadata scheme developed for ecology disciplines. It is based on work by the Ecological Society of America and is implemented as XML modules that are designed to describe subsets of ecological datasets.10

Overall the survey responses demonstrate that most federal agency respondents are FGDC compliant, some are ISO 19115 compliant, and to a much lesser degree GCMD and EML compliant (Figure 4). A number of respondents stated they did not know which standards (if any) were applied to any of the variables, which may indicate that further outreach on the role and function of metadata in the context of biological data may be needed. While this has been one primary focus for the IOOS Program Office, this could indicate that there may be a role for the IOOC to play in terms of education and outreach among IOOS agencies. The agency respondents that responded “I don’t know,” will provide a good starting point for the IOOS Program Office as well as the IOOC to develop further outreach efforts.

ISO 19115 FGDC GCMD EML Other I Don't Know

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

phytoplankton speciesphytoplankton abundancezooplankton specieszooplankton abundancefish speciesfish abundance

Figure 4. Frequency counts for each method of metadata storage by variable (Question 8).

9 NASA. Directory Interchange Format (DIF) Writer’s Guide. GCMD, NASA, at http://gcmd.nasa.gov/add/difguide/index.html.10 KNB. Morpho User Guide, available at https://knb.ecoinformatics.org/#tools/eml.

7

Biological Data Management

Question 10 asked respondents to indicate whether they were aware of IOOS biological standards, or not. Responses included Yes, No, Not Applicable, In Progress, and some respondents did not provide an answer (No Response) (Figure 5). Given that some agency arrows point to both yes and no answers (see for example the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) in Figure 5), this indicates that agency knowledge of IOOS standards is mixed. The high frequency of “No” responses, as well as the number of non-responses, and the fact that only NOAA included any “in progress” responses, indicate that IOOS could derive some benefit by improving/increasing their outreach and education efforts to federal agencies with regard to IOOS biological data standards. A similar interpretation can be applied to the responses about agency compliance with IOOS biological standards.

Many open ended comments provided by agencies to Question 10 indicated that agencies are aware of IOOS standards, but need help updating their data to meet those standards or, alternatively, were not aware of the standards but would be interested in complying with those standards if provided some help to do so given limited resources. Some answers indicated that the respondent was aware of IOOS standards but worked for an agency that had not yet required data managers to comply with IOOS standards and therefore had not pursued any compliance measures.

Figure 5. Network diagram indicating responses to question 10 about awareness of IOOS Biological Data Standards. Colored arrows represent different agencies identified by acronym. The thickness of the arrows pointing to each response indicates the frequency of responses (thicker lines and arrows = more frequent response).

Questions 11-23 asked survey respondents a series of questions about their internal database practices and data management practices both within and beyond their agencies. The BIO-TT worked with the IOOS Program Office and these survey responses to identify some general conclusions and suggest some next steps

8

to identify which datasets on existing core biological variables might be targeted for incorporation into IOOS in the near future11:

Based on survey questions that asked respondents to provide information on access and data formats, the following general observations can be made:

1. Many agency members surveyed currently use internal databases and are not inclined to use shared portals or databases if those tools are not currently part of established processes.

2. Some agencies do not use data portals or databases because the data they utilize is contained in reports and documents produced by non-federal sources, indicating that there may be an opportunity to craft contract terms which would more clearly require that data be integrated into existing and cross-agency data storage tools.

a. The IOOS Program Office indicated that they would be willing to assist in crafting general contract terms, which could then be provided to either target agencies or could be an IOOS Program Office product that could be socialized among all federal agencies via the IOOC or other cross-agency communication measures.

Based on detailed responses to survey questions concerning data access, the following observation can be made:

1. Some agencies currently maintain some biological data in a restricted access location. A follow up question for the IOOS Program Office will be to identify those agencies that are required to maintain certain types of data under restricted access so that efforts to integrate data can be prioritized and perhaps focus initially on agencies and datasets that can be shared more readily.

Based on responses to questions concerning quality control of data and tracking data versions, many agency respondents utilize a mechanism for updating the data and replacing flagged data. However, there were also respondents that did not know and some respondents simply stated that there was no mechanism. This is an aspect of data management that could benefit from the development or socialization of existing IOOS methods. Currently, the IOOS Program Office works to provide online information and webinar series about specific QA/QC issues, so increasing awareness of these methods may be an opportunity for the IOOS Program Office to work closely with both the IOOC and the IOOS Advisory Committee to increase awareness of the tools already in place.

11 OSTP. Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies: Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research. February 22, 2013, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf. As more agencies respond to Exec. Order No.13642, C.F.R. (2013), available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/09/executive-order-making-open-and-machine-readable-new-default-government- as well as the Office of Science and Technology Policy memo of February 22nd 2013 on “Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research” some of the next steps suggested here should innately be addressed.

9

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/09/executive-order-making-open-and-machine-readable-new-default-government-

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/09/executive-order-making-open-and-machine-readable-new-default-government-

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf

phytoplan

kton sp

ecies

phytoplan

kton ab

undance

zooplankto

n speci

es

zooplankto

n abundan

ce

fish sp

ecies

fish ab

undance

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

NODCNGDCNCDCOther

Figure 6. Number of respondents by variable that indicated their data was maintained in a major national data center.

Results to question 20 indicate that with regard to phytoplankton and zooplankton data, agencies either maintain that data at the National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC – since the survey was conducted NODC has become a part of the National Centers for Environmental Information, NCEI) or maintain it in another data center (Figure 6). Fish data are also stored at NODC and other data centers, but one respondent also noted they maintain their data at NGDC. Following this question, respondents were given the opportunity to identify other data centers that they use (See Appendix II for a summary table of these responses). Beyond a national data center the survey participants were asked if their biological data were stored in a public repository/were accessible to the public. These responses indicate that while phytoplankton and zooplankton data are generally accessible to the public, fish species and fish abundance are less available to the public. They provided a URL or description of how the data could be accessed (Appendix III).

The IOOS Program Office will be able to review the information in Appendices II and III to determine if there are databases the Office was previously unaware of and if additional steps or outreach is needed to make biological data for the existing core variables more available. Appendix IV provides additional information to the IOOS Program Office in their continuing efforts to make more biological data available. Appendix IV provides detailed comments, by agency, with regard to their willingness to (or interest in) becoming compliant with IOOS biological data standards, help define new standards, and help to develop plans for integration of biological data into IOOS. In addition, Appendix IV indicates, whether survey respondents were aware of the IOOS biological data standards prior to taking the survey.

10

Section Two: Biological Needs Assessment and Analysis Process

The Task Team realized that it would not be possible to anticipate all possible federal agency needs and use pre-defined terms or bins to collect information in the second part of the survey. So for all but Question 29 an open text field/narrative option for responses was used.

Although the team felt this necessary, it did create a challenge in regard to how to group or bin responses to be able to compare results across questions. A range of responses were received, from something generic like “fish” or “corals” to more complex responses such as: “Stable long term funding to allow us to continue collecting data on phytoplankton and zooplankton species abundance in the northern California Current.” To meet this challenge the team ultimately decided on a double-binning approach where the bins would be consistent across all questions and so, by looking at the frequency of responses that fall into particular bins, comparisons could be made across questions.

In the first round of binning each response was taken as literally as possible with the goal here being not to interpret the responses but simply categorize. In almost all cases this binning process effectively “lumped at the character string level” (i.e. If the words “protected species" appeared in the response, the response was placed in the protected species category, not recorded under individual organism categories such as marine mammals which could also include protected species). Complex responses were separated into different categories where appropriate. (i.e., if a response was marine mammal species and abundance, that response was recorded as both marine mammal species and marine mammal abundance). This first round of binning resulted in several major and sub-categories (Table 1).

Table 1. Open response tagging system by major categories (Applied to Questions 24-28, 30, 31, 32, 33).

Category Subcategory

Organism BenthosBirdsCoralsESA ListedFishMarine Mammals

InvertebratesPhytoplanktonProtected SpeciesSea TurtlesZooplankton

Non-Organism GeographyChemistry

PhysicalOceanography

Ecosystem Habitat Population Characteristics

Anthropogenic Anthropogenic Human Impacts

11

Box 1: Example of the second binning process.

Generic responses like “fish” or “corals” were counted under the category “taxonomic no qualifier”

While “Stable long term funding to allow us to continue collecting data on phytoplankton and zooplankton species abundance in the northern California Current” was captured as “Resources, phytoplankton species, zooplankton species, phytoplankton abundance, zooplankton abundance,

Human Uses

Other DataOptical

Sound

While the initial binning analysis was constructive much of the richness in the responses was still not being captured and this impacted the value in comparisons between questions. Further, it is difficult to derive variables that might be measured or used to inform the workshop, from most of the categories in Table 1.

Therefore the team undertook a second binning process. They revisited the original responses, now grouped by the categories in Table 1, and derived some additional categories that best represented the richness in the responses as well as more specific variables that could be measured to meet the need described in the response (See Box 1).

The second binning process resulted in these categories: Species, Abundance, Life History, Productivity/Production, Diet, Sound, Derived Variables, Health/Condition, Habitat, Behavior, Anthropogenic, Taxonomic grouping (without a qualifier), Techniques, Beyond our Scope, and Other Qualifiers.

Results by Question

For the purposes of this report we provide a few, detailed examples of the types of information that can be derived from the survey results, and what was fed into the workshop. Beyond the BIO-TT effort the survey results will remain on hand in a query-able format for the IOOC, IOOC agencies, or IOOS Program Office to use as a resource to recall specific agency needs, evaluate gaps or overlapping needs and perhaps prioritize next steps to address these.

Questions 24-28: “Please indicate the top 5 biological or ecosystem observational needs, excluding the current IOOS core biological variables, which are CURRENTLY NOT BEING MET in YOUR GROUP WITHIN YOUR AGENCY.”

Species and abundance was the mostly commonly identified need in response to this question (Figure 7). Beyond the existing IOOS core variables, invertebrate and benthic, species and abundance were the most frequently identified needs that are not currently being met (Figure 8).

12

Speci

es

Abundance

Life hist

ory

Productivit

y/Pro

ductionDiet

Sound

Derive

d varia

bles

Health/Condition

Habita

t

Behavi

or

Anthropoge

nic

Taxon no quali

fier

Techniques

Beyond our s

cope

Other consid

erations

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Figure 7. Frequency histogram of the binning exercise results for Questions 24-28 (Appendix I).

13

Figure 8. Frequency pie charts illustrating the detailed responses in the categories "species" and "abundance." The highest frequency corresponds to the first item in the legend and then progresses down the legend and around the pie in a clockwise direction.

In Question 29 survey respondents were asked to identify why the needs identified in Questions 24-28 were not being met. Responses were selected from a list of drop down options and the team grouped the responses into problem areas (Table 2). A lack of observations was the most commonly cited reason for the needs not currently being met.

Table 2. Results for why needs were not currently being met for biological and ecosystem observations, grouped my major problem area (Question 29).

Problem Areas Specific Survey Choices Responses

Too Few Observations

Geographic areas of interest contain too few 104Too few observations in general 88Repeated observations over time 80

Resources Funding Limitations 87Infrastructure Limitations (e.g. ships, aircraft etc.) 61

Data Timely data availability is inadequate 45Data quality 39Data precision 32Lack of data documentation 28Available in a limited format 15

14

5

4

433

2

2

11 1

1

Species phytoplankton species

invertebrate species

benthic species

fish species

zooplankton species

seabird species

marine mammal species

protected/listed species

microbial species

coral species

macroalgae species

5

4

4

43

3

2

2

11

11 1 1

Abundance zooplankton abundance

invertebrate abundance

phytoplankton abundance

benthic abundance

sea bird abundance

marine mammal abundance

fish abundance

protected/listed species abundance

predator abundance

prey abundance

mid-water species abundance

submerged aquatic vagetation abundance

coral abundance

macroalgae abundance

There were some similarities in the categories of variables that respondents identified as needs (questions 24-28) and those that they said should be considered for inclusion in IOOS (Figure 9). However, looking at the specific responses in these categories revealed quite a bit of variation in the specific variables (Figure 10).

Speci

es

Abundance

Life histo

ry

Productivit

y/Pro

ductionDiet

Sound

Derive

d varia

bles

Health/Condition

Habita

t

Behav

ior

Anthropoge

nic

Taxon no quali

fier

Techniques

Beyond our s

cope

Other consid

erations

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Qu 24-28 Qu 30 QU 31 Qu 33

Freq

uenc

y Co

unt

Figure 9. Frequency histogram for all variable categories across all questions about biological and ecosystem needs as well as Question 33 (“Which variables should be considered for inclusion into IOOS next?”). The similarities in frequency counts between Questions 24-28 and Question 33 within categories, imply that many respondents identified needs in the same categories as they suggested be included next into IOOS.

15

5

4

43

3

2

2

1 1 1 1

Qu 24-28 Speciesphytoplankton species

invertebrate species

benthic species

fish species

zooplankton species

seabird species

marine mammal species

protected/listed species

microbial species

coral species

macroalgae species

15

4

3

21 1

Qu 33 Species

benthic speciesfish speciesmarine mammal speciesinvasive speciesseabird speciescoral species

Figure 10. Frequency pie charts for specific responses in the category “species” for Questions 24-28 and Question 33. This breakdown illustrates how different the responses were between the needs identified by the agencies and the variables they suggested be considered for inclusion in IOOS.

Thus, while the broader categories identified were useful for comparing across question responses at a high level, the team quickly realized that drilling into the details revealed a different picture (Figure 10) and decided that the detailed responses across all questions should be collated and considered together to inform the workshop discussions. Although the double binning process retained the richness in the responses from the survey, it resulted in over 165 separate binned variables. Therefore, upon further review of all responses the team grouped them into:

“primary variables” – ones that represent key biological variables or that would form the “core” of a biological observing system (Table 3)

“secondary variables” – those that are important but require further discussion to identify key components necessary to monitor in order to deliver those variables as part of an observing system (Table4)

“taxonomic information only”– where the survey response contained only a taxonomic grouping (Table 5), and

“other topics of consideration” – this grouping contained responses that were considered to be techniques (as opposed to variables), beyond our scope (physical or chemical variables for example), or other qualifiers in relation to a variable (such as timing, geographic location, or resources necessary) (Table 6).

The cumulative frequency counts of responses (across all questions in section two of the survey) are provided in the tables (Tables 3-6) and give some indication of the relative importance of the variables based on the survey results. For example benthic species and benthic abundance were the most frequently occurring need

16

identified across all questions (Table 3). Other frequently identified needs (that are not currently IOOS core variables) included marine mammal abundance and species, sound, sea bird abundance, phytoplankton abundance, primary production, and invertebrate species and abundance.

Summary

From the first half of the survey it is apparent that many of the agencies are not aware of, or are not using, existing metadata and biological data standards. Thus, there is an opportunity for the IOOS enterprise to move the community forward and ultimately facilitate the integration of more biological data into IOOS by engaging in efforts to increase awareness about data standards through outreach and education efforts targeted at the agencies, perhaps through the IOOC. The responses to Questions 11-23 also provide a valuable resource to the IOOS Program Office and the IOOC when moving forward with integrating more data on the existing core variables into IOOS. As priorities for incorporating more biological data into IOOS are set, the agency responses can be queried to identify tiers of data or ‘low hanging’ datasets that can be more readily incorporated into IOOS (for example those already using recognized metadata and IOOS biological data standards). As well as identifying datasets which require more discussion or effort to be integrated into IOOS, for example can anything be shared from datasets that currently reside in a restricted access site?

The results from the second half of the survey were used to generate several lists of variables that would meet the biological and ecosystem observational needs of the responding federal agencies. Based on response count frequency benthic species and abundance were the most frequently occurring need identified across all questions (Table 3). Other frequently identified needs (that are not currently IOOS core variables) included marine mammal abundance and species, sound, sea bird abundance, phytoplankton abundance, primary production, and invertebrate species and abundance. These lists of variables were used as the basis for discussions at an expert workshop (see Volume II of this report).

The survey results will be made available to the Program Office and the IOOC in a query-able format so that the effort expended in collecting this information can be harnessed as a starting point for any follow up activities, or similar efforts or questions in the future.

17

Table 3. Proposed Primary Variables with Qualifiers from the Survey (with Response Count).

Primary VariablesSpecies Abundance Life history Productivity/

ProductionDiet Sound

Benthic species

25

Benthic abundance 21

Fish ages 3 Phytoplankton 10

Fish diet 3 Ambient/passive acoustic measurements

12

Fish species 20

Marine mammal abundance

16

Fish length 3 Primary 9 Diet and food chain/trophic linkages

3 Bioacoustics 9

Phytoplankton species

8 Fish abundance 14

Fish weight 3 CPUE 7 Diet 2 Soundscape 3

Marine mammal species

7 Zooplankton abundance

13

Fish maturity 2 Zooplankton 5 Marine mammal acoustics

2

Zooplankton species

6 Sea bird abundance 7 Marine mammal

1 Grazing rates 3 Impacts of 2

Invertebrate species

4 Phytoplankton abundance

5 Marine mammal movements

1 Recruitment 1 Anthropogenic 2

Seabird species

4 Invertebrate abundance

4 Fish sex 1 Sea bird 1 Vocalizations 1

Invasive species

2 Protected/listed species abundance

4 Fish migration 1 Productivity rates 1 Fish acoustics 1

Protected/listed species

2 Coral abundance 2 Species migration

1 Surface 1

Coral species 2 Sea turtle abundance

1 Ecosystem 1

Microbial species

1 Microbe abundance 1 Coral spawning 1

Macroalgae species

1 Predator abundance 1 Coral recruitment 1

Prey abundance 1

18

Mid-water species abundance

1

Submerged aquatic vegetation abundance

1

Macroalgae abundance

1

Table 4. Proposed Secondary Variables with Qualifiers from the Survey (with Response Count).

Secondary VariablesDerived variables Health/Condition Habitat Behavior Anthropog

enicFish distribution 4 Ecosystem 6 Habitat 9 Marine mammal

behavior3 Human use 2

1Protected/listed species distributions

4 Marine mammal mortality events

5 Benthic habitat 8 Invertebrate life stage behavior

1 Human impacts

8

Marine mammal distribution 4 Pathogens 3 Wetland spatial extent

3 Fish life stage behavior 1

Marine mammal density 4 Benthos 3 Seafloor mapping 1Sea bird distribution 3 Marine mammal 3 Seabird habitat

use1

Phytoplankton distribution 3 Contaminants 2 Fish habitat 1Protected/listed species density 3 Health/condition

monitoring2 Seagrasses 1

Coral distribution 2 Habitat 1 Habitat use 1Invertebrate distribution 2 Population 1 Fragmentation 1Submerged aquatic vegetation distribution

2 Watershed 1 Migration corridors

1

Plankton diversity index 1 Wetland 1Turtle density 1 Recovery 1Zooplankton distribution 1 Health (human) 1Fish demographics 1

19

Benthic trends 1Invertebrate trends 1Prey distribution 1

20

Table 5. Survey Responses with Taxonomic Information Only.

21

Taxon (no qualifier)

Response Count Taxon (no qualifier) Response

Count

Phytoplankton 18 Benthic bivalves 2

Marine mammal 13 Benthic 2

Fish 13 Benthic epifauna 1

Sea birds 5 Benthic meiofauna 1

Coral 4 Non-plankton invertebrates 1

Protected/listed species 3 Zooplankton 1

Gelatinous zooplankton 3 Epibenthic invertebrates 1

Microbes 3 Benthic vertebrates 1

Benthic infauna 2 Ichthyoplankon 1

Sea turtles 2 Meroplankon 1

Seagrasses 2 Microzooplankton 1

Invertebrates 2 Macrozooplankton 1

Table 6. Other Topics of Consideration from Survey Results (with Response Count).

Other considerationsTechniques Beyond our scope Other qualifiersOptics 13 Hydrodynamic modelling

/currents/hydrography17 Timing 27

Genomics 3 Nutrient concentrations 10 Geography 24Marine mammal passive acoustic detection

2 pH 6 Resources 8

Marine mammal passive acoustic classification

2 Temperature 5

ADCP 2 Carbon stocks (DOC, POC, pCO2) 4VPR 2 Carbon fluxes 4Fish finders/sonar 2 DO 4AUVs 1 CDOM 3Process studies 1 Salinity 3HPLC 1 Turbidity 3Marine mammal tracking 1 Ocean acidification 3

Marine sediment chemistry 2Water quality 2Total particles 1Coastal erosion 1Water chemistry 1Carbon species 1Sea ice 1Air quality 1Sand quality 1Wave height 1Subsurface data 1Economic and societal impacts to human communities

1

Appendix IText of Survey Questions

1. Contact Information22

2. Please check off all Departments/Agencies/Bureaus with which you are affiliated.3. Please specify the office or offices within your Agencies that you are affiliated with.

Please try to be explicit and type the full name of the offices. For Example, if you selected NOAA above, you might list "National Marine Fisheries

Service" in line 1 and "Office of Protected Resources" in line 2.SECTION ONE:4. For each core biological variable, does YOUR GROUP WITHIN YOUR AGENCY collect,

provide or use data? 5. If you answered "Other" for any of the core biological variables in the question above,

please provide additional information.6. For each core biological variable, please indicate how YOU interact with the data.7. If you answered "Other" for any of the core biological variables in the question above,

please provide additional information.8. For each of the core biological variables that your agency collects, provides or uses,

indicate how the metadata are documented. 9. If you are using another format for your metadata not listed above, please describe that

format, including information about where to access details and/or a description of the format.

10. After reviewing information provided on IOOS biological data standards respondents were asked the following questions:

Were you aware, prior to this survey, of these IOOS biological data standards? Are your data consistent with these IOOS biological data standards? If you answered "No" to the second question, please describe the data standards

you use (if any), or please use this space to provide any additional comments:11. For each of the core biological variables that your agency collects or provides are the data

stored on an internal system/database?12. How do you access the data?13. What format are the data available in?14. If “Other” provide the data format(s).15. If your database is accessible only internally what measures are used to restrict/allow

access? (Please insert N/A below if this is not applicable).16. Is there a mechanism for updating the data/replacing flagged data? 17. Do you track data versions? 18. For each of the core biological variables that your agency collects or provides are the data

stored in a public repository/accessible to the public?19. If you answered “Yes” above please provide a url or link to the data or a description of how

the data can be accessed.20. For each of the core biological variables that your agency collects or provides please

indicate if the data are archived at a National Data Center21. If “Other” please provide the name and a link to the National Data Center where the data

are archived.22. Are revisions to the data made internally also updated in the archived record?23. Would you be interested in participating with IOOS and other partners in:

Making your data compatible with IOOS Standards? Helping define, refine, and enhance standards for biological data (to enable

interoperability and integration with other like biological data and complementary physical / chemical ocean observational data)?

Helping develop plans for integration of biological data into IOOS and IOOS standards?

23

Comments:SECTION TWO:In questions 24 through 28, please indicate the top 5 biological or ecosystem observational needs, excluding the current IOOS core biological variables, which are CURRENTLY NOT BEING MET in YOUR GROUP WITHIN YOUR AGENCY.24. Need 125. Need 226. Need 327. Need 428. Need 529. For each of the needs you just identified as not being met please indicate where the

problem(s) lies. Check all that applies and please give a brief elaboration of the problem(s).

geographic areas of interest contain too few observations too few observations in general data quality data precision timely data availability is inadequate repeated observations over time needed but unavailable funding limitations infrastructure limitations (e.g. not enough boats, aircraft, etc.) lack of data documentation data available in limited format

Please elaborate on problems or describe additional problem(s) here: 30. For YOUR GROUP WITHIN YOUR AGENCY, excluding the current IOOS core biological

variables, what are the top 5 biological or ecosystem observational needs to meet your mission that ARE MET by data collected WITHIN YOUR AGENCY? (i.e. needs that you meet internally).

31. For YOUR GROUP WITHIN YOUR AGENCY, excluding the current IOOS core biological variables, what are the top 5 biological or ecosystem observational needs that MAY NOT BE MET in the FUTURE?

32. If time and money was no obstacle what changes would you make in the data acquisition operations of your bureau? For example:

Would you conduct repeated surveys in a particular geographic area with particular spatial and temporal sampling over an indefinite period of time?

If you would conduct repeat surveys, how would these observations be conducted?33. In your opinion, other than the current IOOS core biological variables, which biological

variables should IOOS consider next for inclusion as a core variable? Please list up to five biological variables and include your reasoning for why they should be considered.

34. Would you recommend others in your agency who might be interested in completing this survey or who might be interested in improving integration of biological data into US IOOS

24

Appendix II

Question 21 responses

“Other” places agencies are archiving their data on the existing core biological variables.

Answer Options DatabaseCount

ALL core variables NODC 3

phytoplankton species

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Ocean Biology Processing Group (OBPG) 1


NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Ocean Biology Processing Group (OBPG) 1

zooplankton species

zooplankton abundance

fish species NMFS 1

fish abundance NMFS 1

DatabaseCount Database Count

ALL core variables NGDC 1 BODC 1

phytoplankton species http://seabass.gsfc.nasa.gov/seabasscgi/news.cgi 1

phytoplankton abundance http://seabass.gsfc.nasa.gov/seabasscgi/news.cgi 1 SeaWIFS 1

zooplankton species


fish species https://irma.nps.gov/App/Portal/Home 3 OBIS-USA 1

fish abundance https://irma.nps.gov/App/Portal/Home 3 OBIS-USA 1

Database Count Database Count

25

ALL core variables http://www.epa.gov/storet/about.html 2 EMAP 1


phytoplankton abundance MODIS (http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov) 1

zooplankton species


fish species

fish abundance

Database Count Database Count

ALL core variables National Coastal Assessments (NCA) 1National Aquatic Resource Surveys 1



zooplankton species


fish species

fish abundance

26

http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Appendix III

Public access to existing federal agency data on the core biological variables

Database # Database #ALL core variables http://seabass.gsfc.nasa.gov/

http://www.epa.gov/storet/web_services.html 1

phytoplankton species http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/plankton 1 http://seabass.gsfc.nasa.gov 1

phytoplankton abundance http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/plankton 1 http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov 1

zooplankton species http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/plankton 1 http://www.sahfos.ac.uk/cpr-data.aspx 1

zooplankton abundance http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/plankton 1 http://www.sahfos.ac.uk/cpr-data.aspx 1

fish specieshttp://www.lovelab.id.ucsb.edu/

platform_databse.html 1

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/recreational-fisheries/access-data/data-

downloads/index 1

fish abundance

http://www.lovelab.id.ucsb.edu/platform_databse.html 1

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/recreational-fisheries/access-data/data-

downloads/index 1

Database # Database #

ALL core variables NODC 4

http://www.usgs.gov/obis-usa/index.html;

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis; http://alaska.usgs.gov/;https://www.pwrc

.usgs.gov/; http://fl.biology.usgs.gov/; http://nas.er.usgs.gov/ 1

phytoplankton species http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov 1

http://oceandatacenter.ucsc.edu/SCOOP/download.html 1

phytoplankton abundance http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov 2 http://seabass.gsfc.nasa.gov 1

zooplankton species

ftp://ftp.nefsc.noaa.gov/pub/dropoff/jhare/EcoMon_Data/ 1

http://s3.nprb.org/datasets/e4e739aa-d9d0-4bd1-bf9a-e5845b2f9362/

NPRB.2006.30.xml#idm3238880 1


ftp://ftp.nefsc.noaa.gov/pub/dropoff/jhare/EcoMon_Data/ 1


NPRB.2006.30.xml#idm3238880 1

fish species

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/recreational-fisheries/access-data/run-a-data-query/

queries/index 1 http://www.coris.noaa.gov/ 1

fish abundance

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/recreational-fisheries/access-data/run-a-data-query/

queries/index 1 http://www.coris.noaa.gov/ 1

Database # Database #ALL core variables Smithsonian Archive 1 http://www.usap-data.org 1

phytoplankton species http://www.sahfos.ac.uk/cpr-data.aspx 1

phytoplankton abundance http://www.sahfos.ac.uk/cpr-data.aspx 1

http://oceandatacenter.ucsc.edu/SCOOP/download.html 1

27

zooplankton species


fish species

https://irma.nps.gov/App/Reference/DownloadDigitalFile?

code=468824&file=PACN_benthic_fish_metadata_20140225.zip 2


NPRB.2006.30.xml#idm3238880 1

fish abundance

https://irma.nps.gov/App/Reference/DownloadDigitalFile?

code=468824&file=PACN_benthic_fish_metadata_20140225.zip 2


NPRB.2006.30.xml#idm3238880 1

Database # Database #ALL core variables https://metacat.lternet.edu/das/lter/index.jsp 1 BODC 1




NPRB.2006.30.xml#idm3238880 1http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/sfp/

data/ship_obs.php 1zooplankton

specieszooplankton abundance

fish speciesfish

abundance

Database # Database #ALL core variables Pangea 1 WODselect 1


phytoplankton abundance NODC 1

zooplankton species


fish speciesfish

abundance

28

Appendix IV

Detailed agency comments

Agency comments on their willingness to, or interest in, becoming compliant with IOOS biological data standards, help define new standards, and help to develop plans for integration of biological data into IOOS. Also, whether they were aware of the IOOS biological data standards before this survey.

Agency1 Agency2 Comments Aware of IOOS Standards?

Department of Commerce (DOC)


No

Department of the Interior (DOI)


No





No



Yes



Although I said "no" that was in regards to me personally. BOEM has other staff that would be more appropriate to participate in that (and are participating to my knowledge).

Yes



No



Yes



Our in situ data could potentially be made compatible with IOOS Standards. However, our data sets may not be appropriate to help with the last two questions.

No



This area of work is not a component of what I do. I simply use the data to compare against models.

Not Applicable



No



No

Department of Defense (DOD)

Navy Navy monitoring data is centered on marine mammal data, not items listed in this IOOS survey

Yes



Yes



Yes



No

29


National Park Service No




National Park Service Yes



No



We would be interested in how IOOS could be made compatible with existing standards. We do not have funding to convert to IOOS format at this time. We are only funded to format data to NASA SeaBASS standards (ASCII) on the NASA Ocean Color website.

No



Ongoing efforts between IOOS and NODC Yes



Our office is involved in these activities now. Yes


U.S. Geological Survey No



No



Our lab is involved in nation-wide assessments of ecological condition of coastal waters (estuaries to coastal ocean shelf waters) using multiple biological and abiotic environmental indicators, with a particular focus on the benthos. I would encourage IOOS to begin incorporating such benthic indicators into its suite of biological variables. Presently the focus is solely on the water column!

No


Navy No



Yes



please contact: Mike Langeslay, [email protected], chief of fish passage section Blaine Ebberts, [email protected], program manager-columbia river fish mitigation program Paul Cedfelft [email protected], chief of GIS section

No

U.S. Fishnd Wildlife Service

No



No



No



No



we only use data provided by others, in the formats they are provided in, except for some in-house data we collect on restored oyster reefs where we assess population demographics.

No

30





US. Army Corps at the District Level are data users only, we typically do not provide or collect data.

No



Depends on the cost to make data compatibile with IOOS Standards

No



My office does not generate/collect any relevant data. No


U.S. Geological Survey No



Yes



Yes



see management Yes







Yes


U.S. Geological Survey We try to be compliant with metadata requirements and make our data available to those who would like to access it. Usually we hand project-specific completed datasets over to the client (North Pacific Research Board, National Park Service, etc.). We are now working on a project (Gulf Watch Alaska) that is partnering with NCEAS DataOne and Axiom Consulting (AOOS), and we are working towards a greater capability for sharing data.

No





The only way USACE Districts will comply with this is if it is mandated by the resource and regulatory agencies (NMFS, FWS, EPA, + state agencies). Policy is that we spend the least amount of money to get permits and issue permits. It would also be helpful if the survey writer became familiar with what USACE and its sister agencies do regarding the questions in this survey.

No



I am interested in helping, but dependent on supervisor approval

Yes



In Progress



Yes



No



I am interested in this but not sure I have the expertise or appropriate data access. I am an end user (ecosystem modeler).

No

Department of National Oceanic and

31

Commerce (DOC)

Atmospheric Administration









Yes







This seemed like a rather vague "Survey Monkey". We have a massive amount of data on zooplankton species composition and abundance from more than 2000 samples; to convert this to IOOS standards will take time and of course staff time which will require funding from someone.

No






Navy No


Navy Yes


Navy It could be possible to make this a requirement on our grants/contracts similar to what NSF does now.

Yes


National Park Service Yes


National Park Service We participated in the IOOS Biological Data Project and submitted data that we had available at the time. We'd be happy to contribute additional data as it is available.

Yes



No



No



Yes, to each of the above, IF the currently inadequate listing of core variables are expanded. One of the regional centers submitted an expanded and much improved list of variables at the recent IOOS summit, though it does not seem suggestions like these were addressed (despite multiple comments about in particular, incorporation of passive acoustic measurements into a core set of observation system measurments, but also variables related to the a realm of higher predators that are missed with the currently limited set of core variables.)

Yes



No

32



Making data compatible with standards is important, but our programs are in jeopardy for continuing collections. I think IOOS should emphasize continuing long-term survey programs; making compatible with standards should be secondary

Yes


Office of Naval Research Yes



HOW CAN YOU ASSUME THAT THE IOOS STANDARDS ARE INDEED THE BEST STANDARDS TO BE USED? PERHAPS THE IOOS STANDARDS SHOULD BE CONFORMING TO OTHER NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS USE BY THE U.S. FEDERAL AGENCIES?

No


U.S. Geological Survey Yes





Yes





Some of the answers I did not know. I have only recently been involved directly with data issues and am still getting up to speed. Apologies for skipping questions and some perhaps not-quite-right answers.



How are you going to address the issue that multiple copies (and versions) of these data exist in multiple locations (NODC, COPEPOD, BODC, IOOS, OBIS-US, iOBIS, ICES, etc.) *and* that each has its own "standard" that they want one to adopt?











33

References

E.O. Exec. Order No. 13286, 3 C.F.R. 2003, available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2003-03-05/pdf/03-5343.pdf (last visited 9/2/2014); See also, Executive Order, FGDC Website, at https://www.fgdc.gov/policyandplanning/executive_order.

E.O. Exec. Order No.13642, 3 C.F.R. 2013, available at, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-2014-title3-vol1/CFR-2014-title3-vol1-eo13642.

FGDC. Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata Part 1: Biological Data Profile, Biological Data Working Group, Federal Geographic Data Committee and USGS Biological Resources Division. October 1999, FGDC-STD-001.1-1999, available at https://www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/FGDC-standards-projects/metadata/biometadata/biodatap.pdf.

IOOC. U.S. IOOS Summit Report: A New Decade for the Integrated Ocean Observing System. August 2013, available at http://www.iooc.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/U.S.-IOOS-Summit-Report.pdf.

ISO 19115-1:3014, Geographic Information -- Metadata -- Part 1: Fundamentals, available at http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=53798.

KNB. Morpho User Guide, available at https://knb.ecoinformatics.org/#tools/eml.

MMI. Ecological Metadata Language. Marine Metadata Interoperability, at https://marinemetadata.org/references/eml.

NASA. Directory Interchange Format (DIF) Writer’s Guide. GCMD, NASA, at http://gcmd.nasa.gov/add/difguide/index.html.

NASA. GCMD About Website, NASA, at http://gcmd.nasa.gov/learn/index.html (last visited 9/3/2014).

OSTP. Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies: Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research. Office of Science and Technology, February 22, 2013, available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf.

U.S. IOOS. 2013 Report to Congress. U.S. IOOS Program. March 2013, available at http://www.ioos.noaa.gov/about/governance/ioos_report_congress2013.pdf.

34

https://knb.ecoinformatics.org/#tools/eml

Abbreviations

AC Advisory CommitteeADCP Acoustic Doppler Current ProfilerBIO TT IOOC Biological Integration and Observation Task Team BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy ManagementBON Biodiversity Observation NetworkBVR Biological Vital RatesCDOM Colored Dissolved Organic MatterCI Catalog Interoperability CPUE Catch Per Unit EffortDIC Dissolved Inorganic CarbonDMAC Data Management and CommunicationsDMAC-ST Data Management and Communications Steering TeamDO Dissolved OxygenDOC Dissolved Organic CarbonDOC Department of CommerceDOD Department of DefenseDOE Department of EnergyDOI Department of InteriorDOM Dissolved Organic MatterEML Ecological Metadata LanguageEOV Essential Ocean VariablesEPA Environmental Protection AgencyESA Endangered Species ActFAC Federal Advisory CommitteeFEMA Federal Emergency Management AgencyFGDC Federal Geographic Data CommitteeFOO Framework for Ocean ObservingGCMD Global Change Master DirectoryGCOS Global Climate Observing SystemGEO Group on Earth ObservationsGEOS Global Earth Observation SystemGEOSS Global Earth Observation System of SystemsGIS Geographic Information SystemGOOS Global Ocean Observing SystemGSFC Goddard Space Flight CenterHAB Harmful Algal BloomHPLC High Pressure Liquid ChromatographyICOOS Act Integrated Coastal Ocean Observing System ActIEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics EngineersIFA Impact and Feasibility AnalysisIGOS Integrated Global Observing StrategyIOC Intergovernmental Oceanographic CommissionIOOC Interagency Ocean Observing CommitteeIOOS Integrated Ocean Observing SystemIOOS DBP IOOS Biological Observations Data ProjectISO International Organization for StandardizationMMC Marine Mammal CommissionMMI Marine Metadata InteroperabilityMMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act MOU Memorandum of Understanding

35

MPA Marine Protected AreaMSP Marine Spatial PlanningNASA National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNB National BackboneNCDC National Climate Data CenterNCA National Coastal AssessmentsNCEI National Centers for Environmental InformationNDBC National Data Buoy CenterNGDC NOAA's National Geophysical Data Center NGO Nongovernmental OrganizationsNMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NMML National Marine Mammal LaboratoryNOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNOP National Ocean PolicyNODC National Ocean Data CenterNOPP National Oceanographic Partnership ProgramNOS National Ocean ServiceNSF National Science FoundationNSSDC National Space Science Data CenterNSTC National Science and Technology CouncilOBIS Ocean Biogeographic Information SystemOBPG Ocean Biology Processing GroupOM Organic MatterONR Office of Naval ResearchOOI Ocean Observatories InitiativeOOS Ocean Observing SystemsOPeNDAP Open Source Project for a Network Data Access ProtocolOSTP Office of Science and Technology PolicyOTN Ocean Tracking NetworkPIC Particulate Inorganic CarbonPOC Particulate Organic CarbonPOM Princeton Ocean ModelPON Particulate Organic NitrogenR&D research and developmentSAV Submerged Aquatic VegetationSOOS Southern Ocean Observing SystemSOST Subcommittee on Ocean Science and TechnologySTEM Science, Technology, Engineering, and MathematicsUNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural OrganizationUSACE United States Army Corps of EngineersUSCG United States Coast GuardUSDOT United States Department of TransportationUSFWS United States Fish and Wildlife ServiceUSGS United States Geological SurveyVPR Video Plankton RecorderWMO World Meteorological OrganizationWMS Web Map ServicesWOC World Ocean Council

36

€¦ · web viewthis document responds to recommendations within the national ocean policy...

Documents