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)

We will use this approach to: 1. Develop an initial, admittedly incomplete, prioritized set of user- driven 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. The Way Forward…

1. Data Product/User ID and Prioritization 28 February

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

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

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

Possible NANOOS ingredients involving Tribal, State, local governments, Academia, etc.

CORIE: Columbia River Estuary South Slough Estuary, OR Puget Sound, WA

Data assimilating ocean circulation model Nested regional circulation models

HF Radar Array Long-Term Shelf Moorings Long-Term Hydrographic Sections

System Design: Wkshp 2 response to Ocean.US In May 2004, following the direct input solicited and gained at the 2 nd 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 10. Pilots for sensors/technologies that may become backbone

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: 5/2004 Response to Ocean.US

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 Draft Prioritization for ADCP & Salinity: Columbia River navigation Strait of Juan de Fuca navigation, HAB intrusions Model & l-t timeseries tie-in Coastal modeling Puget Sound navigation Coastal modeling The prioritization shown here reflects 1 March 2005 input from the NANOOS Workshop 3 attendees.

NDBC in PNW Draft Prioritization for directional wave has it already Model & l-t timeseries tie-in Coastal modeling Coastal modeling Strait of Juan de Fuca navigation Puget Sound navigation NOTE: All buoys should have directional wave measurement capability The prioritization shown here reflects 1 March 2005 input from the NANOOS Workshop 3 attendees.

Given the priority variables identified, what are the system design priorities (location, measurement capabilities, phasing, etc.) for various technologies? WRT: 1. Buoys 2. HF 3. Satellite infrastructure 4. Surveys 5. Other platforms (e.g. AUV, drifters, gliders, etc.) 6. Models 7. Data output System Design: Charge

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 physical- biological moorings on WA shelf and OR shelf, depth- resolved. 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 cross- shelf 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