Transcript NANOOS

Towards a NANOOS System
Design
The Way Forward…
GOAL: To identify and prioritize user-driven data products and design the
observational system that can be responsive to these needs.
To do this, and using the initial priorities for the NANOOS observing systems
developed at the second NANOOS Workshop, we will explore the following
three related questions:
* What are the specific, prioritized data products and who are the users who
need these? (Breakout #1, Mon afternoon)
* Based on these prioritized products, what variables are needed?
(Breakout #2, Tues morning)
* Given the priority variables identified, what are the system design priorities
(location, measurement capabilities, phasing, etc.) for various technologies?
(Breakout #3, Tues afternoon)
The Way Forward…
We will use this approach to:
1. Develop an initial, admittedly incomplete, prioritized set of userdriven data products and identification of an observational system
to support them.
2. Develop and agree to a process for continually refining data
product sets based on expanded user involvement and vetting by
the NANOOS membership.
1. Data Product/User ID and
Prioritization
28 February 2005
1300-1330
PNW User Groups:
NOAA/NANOOS ID
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Marine shipping and oil transport/spill remediation
Search and rescue
Shellfish fishery and aquaculture
Marine recreation
Natural resource/environmental management
National and homeland security
Finfish aquaculture
Research institutions
Education
Commercial groundfishing
Crab fishery
User Needs: Wkshp #2
results
• HABs: water transport and ecosystem models
• Shipping: weather forecasting, wave prediction for 6-8 hrs prior
• Crabbing: micro-forecast demands up & down coast for winds &
swells; need for mid-range buoys; info on crab spatial distribution
and movement paths; need temp info
• Environ. Mgmt.: ocean conditions relevant to inland water quality
• Emergency Mgmt.: info for storm damage predictions
• Beach erosion and hazards: active monitoring program such as
lidar; also need models of shoreline changes
• Climate research: need consistent data, atmospheric data, and
models
Data Product/User ID:
Workshop 3 Charge
What are the specific, prioritized data
products and who are the users who need
these? (Wkshp 3 results for this element will be posted separately)
• ID data products (e.g., access to data, maps,
forecasts, etc.)
• Define time/space scale of need
• Link to user groups
• Prioritize
2. System Variables
1 March 2005
1300-1330
System Variables:
Workshop 3 Charge
Based on these prioritized products,
what variables are needed?
(Wkshp 3 results for this element will be posted separately)
3. System Design
1 March 2005
1300-1330
System Design:
Workshop 3 Charge
Given the priority variables identified,
what are the system design priorities
(location, measurement capabilities,
phasing, etc.) for various
technologies?
Possible NANOOS ingredients
involving federal agencies
From: NOAA Coastal Services Center
http://www.csc.noaa.gov/coos/northwest.html
Possible NANOOS ingredients involving
Tribal, State, local governments,
Academia, etc.
JEMS
Joint Effort to Monitor the Strait
Critical to document
water properties of
waters entering Puget
Sound from Pacific
100
Bakun Upwelling Index
50
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
-50
-100
Monthly boat surveys
-150
-200
-250
Important for assessing:
water quality,
resource limitation,
invasive species vectors
1998
1999
2000
-300
Interannual variation in
upwelling intensity off coast
truly joint: KC-DNR - funding
Ecology - coordination
NOAA - boat
UW PRISM - analyses
UW FHL - staging, gas
Puget Sound, WA
CORIE: Columbia River Estuary
South Slough Estuary, OR
Data assimilating ocean circulation model
Nested regional circulation
models
Long-Term Hydrographic
Sections
Long-Term Shelf Moorings
HF Radar Array
System Design:
Wkshp 2 response to Ocean.US
In May 2004, following the direct input solicited
and gained at the 2nd NANOOS Workshop,
NANOOS submitted priorities to Ocean.US
for national backbone and regional system
components and functionality
System Design: 5/2004
Response to Ocean.US
NANOOS top priorities for the National Backbone:
(These are presented numerically, but the consensus prioritization was for the asterisks to indicate
the top 5, in no relative order, and for the rest to be important but of a lesser immediate
priority.)
1.* Buoys: more (double coverage, esp, fill in WA coast, nearshore, offshore, sanctuaries) and better
(salinity, oxygen, depth-resolved currents, temperature, chlorophyll, nitrate, other biological
variables, PAR, visibility, full frequency/directional wave spectrum, incoming solar radiation, and
a standard interface), co-located with radar and fisheries transects, and the ships to maintain
them.
2.* Long range HF radar installation through WA, including short-range in the Strait of Juan de Fuca,
with maintenance for entire PNW array
3.* Coastal/Nearshore Bathymetry and shoreline topography (access to existing data e.g. U.S. Army
Corps Eng. Surveys, USGS LIDAR data, hyperspectral; and increased frequency and coverage of
such collections)
4.* Better access to satellite data & products, delivery and distribution
5.* Models (circulation, waves, data assimilation, micro and meso-scale atmospheric) and computer
infrastructure to run those
6. Enhance fisheries and ecosystem information (surveys, zooplankton, benthic habitat)
7. Increase stream gauges, include water quality and sediment supply, and make real-time
8. Increase number of sea level sites
9. HAB identification
System Design: 5/2004
Response to Ocean.US
NANOOS top priorities for the RCOOS:
(These are presented numerically, but the consensus prioritization was for the asterisks to indicate
the top 5, in no relative order, and for the rest to be important but of a lesser immediate
priority.)
1.* Integrate, enhance, and sustain existing estuarine and shoreline monitoring, to include, but not be
limited to, adding real-time capabilities and X-band radar at critical areas/bar crossings e.g., for
navigation and river mouth monitoring
2.* Cross-shelf, depth-resolved (profiling) moorings and gliders with real-time telemetry along coast
with physical, chemical, and biological sensors, surface wave and meteorological measurement
capability
3.* HF at high-resolution
4.* Regional models (estuaries, shelf, nearshore, e.g., Puget Sound, Columbia River estuary) for
physical (incl. waves and data assimilation), chemical, and biological variables, from watershed to
offshore
5.* Regionalize DMAC capability (incl. web-site with portals, identify data sets/meta data, education
and outreach, etc)
6. Access to regional fisheries statistics and ancillary data
7. Further develop gliders and AUVs as useful technologies for coastal and offshore monitoring
8. Species monitoring, including invasive, HAB, and nuisance species
9. Toxic pathways in food-webs
System Design:
NDBC enhancement
Currently being asked for priorities for NDBC
enhancement:
“I request that you provide prioritized lists of buoys and CMAN
stations in your region to which you would like to have
ADCP/salinity measurements added, as well as similar lists for
directional wave measurements. Any rationale you can
provide for these choices would also be welcome. As always, I
and my regional IOOS liaison staff would like to hear any
other observation priorities you have.” -NDBC Director
NDBC
in
PNW
The prioritization shown
here reflects 1 March 2005
input from the NANOOS
Workshop 3 attendees.
Draft Prioritization for ADCP & Salinity:
1. 46029 Columbia River navigation
2. 46087 Strait of Juan de Fuca navigation,
HAB intrusions
3. 46050 Model & l-t timeseries tie-in
4. 46015 Coastal modeling
5. 46088 Puget Sound navigation
6. 46041 Coastal modeling
NDBC
in
PNW
The prioritization shown
here reflects 1 March 2005
input from the NANOOS
Workshop 3 attendees.
Draft Prioritization for directional wave
0. 46029 has it already
1. 46050 Model & l-t timeseries tie-in
2. 46015 Coastal modeling
3. 46041 Coastal modeling
4. 46087 Strait of Juan de Fuca navigation
5. 46088 Puget Sound navigation
NOTE: All buoys should
have directional wave
measurement capability
System Design:
Charge
Given the priority variables identified, what are the
system design priorities (location, measurement
capabilities, phasing, etc.) for various technologies?
WRT: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Buoys
HF
Satellite infrastructure
Surveys
Other platforms (e.g. AUV, drifters, gliders, etc.)
Models
Data output
1. Wkshp 3 input re Buoys:
Real-time on all
Buoys in major basins
Currents/wind on WA shelf
Buoys at major/minor ports
and bars
Cross-shelf line of physicalbiological moorings on WA
shelf and OR shelf, depthresolved. Use the
PaCOOS and McArthur
lines as priority for location
(N.B. a new PaCOOS line
out of Humboldt)
Double the NOAA buoy
network
Locations of interest:
Mid-shelf buoy S. of Heceta
Bank
Measurements pertinent to
boundaries of nested
models, shelf circulation
models, and other models
Juan de Fuca eddy, Strait of
Juan de Fuca and
Boundary Pass
Astoria Canyon
N. of Cape Blanco
Mid-shelf
Yaquina Bay, Coos Bay, and
other OR estuaries
Puget Sound, esp. for local
wave models
2. Wkshp 3 input re HF:
–
Our note to Ocean.US said:
“Long range HF radar
installation through WA,
including short-range in the
Strait of Juan de Fuca, with
maintenance for entire PNW
array”
–
Extend long-range HF along
WA coast
–
Have short-range in the SJF
–
Have additional short-range
HF at critical areas e.g. bars,
Columbia R, Grays Hbr, Coos
Bay, Brookings, La Push,
Umpqua R., and the crossshelf transect locations
–
Investigate USCG co-siting of
radars
–
Investigate off-shore
transmitters e.g., extra long
range at Heceta Bank
3. Wkshp 3 input on Satellite infrastructure:
• Rebroadcast products that are specific to
NANOOS region
• Provide Coast-Watch with specific
products/manipulations NANOOS needs/wants
– Need for HAB detection/prediction capability and
remote sensing can contribute
– Frontal probabilities
– SAR
• NANOOS should investigate need for archival
– NOAA?
– On-site?
4. Wkshp 3 input on Surveys:
•
•
•
•
Terrestrial Lidar via aircraft
Investigate cost/utility of airborne laser bathymetry
Airborne photogrametry/visual for biota/beaches
Ship surveys: PaCOOS, McArthur, and beyond
– Plankton, fish, mar mam, birds, trophics, hydrography
– Toxics, nutrients, and non-sensor measured variables
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Vessel of opportunity flow-through systems
Hyperspectral imaging of nearshore (this includes estuaries)
Bathymetry surveys
Sea-floor mapping/characterization (substrate, habitat, etc)
Beach WQ monitoring
Database of regional research projects
Invasive species surveys
Coastal change
Investigative ground-based Lidar
• User surveys (sensu: is NANOOS delivering?)
• User surveys (sensu: collect stats on water users)
5. Wkshp 3 input on Other platforms (e.g. AUV,
drifters, gliders, etc.):
• Link watershedestuarynearshorecontinental shelf
using appropriate platform
• Chokepoint cross-channel monitoring, e.g. across straits
• Cabled observatory across, e.g. SJF, to measure water
transport
• Glider or other depth-varying platform to get at fluxes
• Automated HAB sensing platform test-bed
• Platforms capable of taking benthic biological samples
• Platforms capable of biological profiling and sensing
6. Wkshp 3 input on Models:
• Nested models
– Follow “Link” across environments, as in previous slide…include to
open ocean (remote forcing)
• Does NANOOS develop models, run models, tune models,
how does ‘accept’ models?
–
–
–
–
–
Collect data, run model, distribute data/output
NANOOS, academics, NOAA, private sector roles
Research vs operational models
Depends on type of model and usage…
Investigate user-level defined output
• Liability is huge issue here…or not…
• Possible types: 4-D circulation, tide-resolving, waves,
atmospheric, shoreline change, water quality,
biogeochemical, trophic, benthic/sediment
• Hindcast and forecast models
7. Wkshp 3 input on Data output:
• Web portal
– Address different user levels (e.g. public, USCG,
state,..) for access and products
• Publish and subscribe approach; available feeds
and the standards for those feeds
• Investigate NDBC approach for NANOOS buoys
and utilize so its seamless
• Outreach important
• Survey the “hits” to assess usage
7. Wkshp 3 input on Data mgmt:
• NANOOS will follow IOOS DMAC ‘guidelines’
– BUT, there needs to be further clarification and
specification, on a national level, of the details,
esp for biological and other variables
– NERRs can serve as test-case, but there are many
projects doing this now…and not coordinated
• Standards and protocols for data collection,
transmission, and archive (recommendations)
• Data schema, open standards/architecture