@article {RN67,
	title = {Better Regional Ocean Observing Through Cross-National Cooperation: A Case Study From the Northeast Pacific},
	journal = {Frontiers in Marine Science},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2019},
	pages = {93},
	type = {Journal Article},
	abstract = {The ocean knows no political borders. Ocean processes, like summertime wind-driven upwelling, stretch thousands of kilometers along the Northeast Pacific (NEP) coast. This upwelling drives marine ecosystem productivity and is modulated by weather systems and seasonal to interdecadal ocean-atmosphere variability. Major ocean currents in the NEP transport water properties such as heat, fresh water, nutrients, dissolved oxygen, pCO2, and pH close to the shore. The eastward North Pacific Current bifurcates offshore in the NEP, delivering open-ocean signals south into the California Current and north into the Gulf of Alaska. There is a large and growing number of NEP ocean observing elements operated by government agencies, Native American Tribes, First Nations groups, not-for-profit organizations, and private entities. Observing elements include moored and mobile platforms, shipboard repeat cruises, as well as land-based and estuarine stations. A wide range of multidisciplinary ocean sensors are deployed to track, for example, upwelling, downwelling, ocean productivity, harmful algal blooms, ocean acidification and hypoxia, seismic activity and tsunami wave propagation. Data delivery to shore and observatory controls are done through satellite and cell phone communication, and via seafloor cables. Remote sensing from satellites and land-based coastal radar provide broader spatial coverage, while numerical circulation and biogeochemical modeling complement ocean observing efforts. Models span from the deep ocean into the inland Salish Sea and estuaries. NEP ocean observing systems are used to understand regional processes and, together with numerical models, provide ocean forecasts. By sharing data, experiences and lessons learned, the regional ocean observatory is better than the sum of its parts.

},
	keywords = {coastal oceanography, data delivery, marine eco system, ocean model and observations comparison, Ocean observation},
	issn = {2296-7745},
	doi = {10.3389/fmars.2019.00093},
	url = {https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmars.2019.00093},
	author = {Barth, John A. and Allen, Susan E. and Dever, Edward P. and Dewey, Richard K. and Evans, Wiley and Feely, Richard A. and Fisher, Jennifer L. and Fram, Jonathan P. and Hales, Burke and Ianson, Debby and Jackson, Jennifer and Juniper, Kim and Kawka, Orest and Kelley, Deborah and Klymak, Jody M. and Konovsky, John and Kosro, P. Michael and Kurapov, Alexander and Mayorga, Emilio and MacCready, Parker and Newton, Jan and Perry, R. Ian and Risien, Craig M. and Robert, Marie and Ross, Tetjana and Shearman, R. Kipp and Schumacker, Joe and Siedlecki, Samantha and Trainer, Vera L. and Waterman, Stephanie and Wingard, Christopher E.}
}
@article {RN76,
	title = {Lessons Learned From the United States Ocean Observatories Initiative},
	journal = {Frontiers in Marine Science},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2019},
	pages = {494},
	type = {Journal Article},
	abstract = {The Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI) is a United States National Science Foundation-funded major research facility that provides continuous observations of the ocean and seafloor from coastal and open ocean locations in the Atlantic and Pacific. Multiple cycles of OOI infrastructure deployment, recovery, and refurbishment have occurred since operations began in 2014. This heterogeneous ocean observing infrastructure with multidisciplinary sampling in important but challenging locations has provided new scientific and engineering insights into the operation of a sustained ocean observing system. This paper summarizes the challenges, successes, and failures experienced to date and shares recommendations on best practices that will be of benefit to the global ocean observing community.},
	keywords = {best practices, equipment testing, lessons learned, ocean observing, technology development},
	issn = {2296-7745},
	doi = {10.3389/fmars.2018.00494},
	url = {https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmars.2018.00494},
	author = {Smith, Leslie M. and Yarincik, Kristen and Vaccari, Liana and Kaplan, Maxwell B. and Barth, John A. and Cram, Geoffrey S. and Fram, Jonathan P. and Harrington, Michael and Kawka, Orest E. and Kelley, Deborah S. and Matthias, Paul and Newhall, Kristopher and Palanza, Matthew and Plueddemann, Albert J. and Vardaro, Michael F. and White, Sheri N. and Weller, Robert Andrew}
}
