coastal conceptual network design for orion’s ocean

DRAFT

CoastalConceptual Network Design

for ORION’s Ocean Observatories Initiative

(OOI)

Issued by the ORION Program Office

March 15, 2006 [revised March 18, 2006]

ORION Science and Technical Advisory Committee

Doug Luther, Chair, STAC* (U Hawaii)Antonio Baptista, CSO (OHSU)Keir Becker, RCO (U Miami)Claudia Benitez-Nelson GSO (U So. Carolina)Kevin Brown, Co-Chair, RCO (SIO)John Collins, Co-Chair, GSO (WHOI)Tommy Dickey, GSO (UCSB)Jim Edson, CSO & GSO (U Connecticut)John Horne, RCO (U Washington)Deb Kelley, Co-Chair, RCO (U Washington) Wade McGillis, CSO (LDEO)Mark Moline*, CSO (CalPoly)Charlie Paull, RCO (MBARI)Collin Roesler, Co-Chair, CSO (Bigelow)Uwe Send, Co-Chair, GSO (SIO)Tim Short, CSO (U South Florida)John Trowbridge, Co-Chair, CSO (WHOI)Francisco Werner, CSO (UNC)William Wilcock, RCO (U Washington)

This draft Coastal Conceptual Network Design was constructed by the efforts of members of the following ORION committees

and the ORION Program Office

ORION Sensor/Technology CommitteeScott Gallager, Chair (WHOI)Jim Ammerman (Rutgers)Brian Bornhold (NEPTUNE Canada)Mike DeGrandpre (U Montana)Ann Gargett (ODU)Ken Johnson (MBARI)Larry Langebrake (U South Florida)Marlon Lewis (WETSAT)George Luther (U Delaware)Mario Tamburri (CBL)Robert Weller (WHOI)

ORION Engineering CommitteeKeith Raybould, Chair* (MBARI)Andrew Barnard (Wet Labs)Alan Chave (WHOI)Dan Frye (WHOI)Jason Gobat (U Washington/APL)Gary Harkins (U Washington)Bruce Howe (U Washington/APL)Bill Kirkwood (MBARI)Kate Moran (URI)Frank Vernon (SIO)Gary Wieboldt (Oceaneering)Mark Zumberge (SIO)

Draft Coastal Conceptual Network Design15 March 2006

Key to Sub-Committees:CSO: Coastal Scale Observatory

RCO: Regional Cabled ObservatoryGSO: Global Scale Observatory

*D&I Workshop Organizing Committee

Observatory Steering CommitteeRobert Detrick, Chair* (WHOI)Jim Yoder (WHOI)Mary Jane Perry (U Maine)John Barth (OSU)John Delaney (UW)Rick Jahnke* (SkIO)Kim Juniper (UMontreal)George Luther (UDelaware)Gene Massion (MBARI)Blanche Meeson (OCEAN.US)Peter Mikhalevsky (SAIC)John Orcutt (SIO)Oscar Schofield (Rutgers)Robert Weller (WHOI)

ORION Program OfficeKendra Daly, Program Director* (USF)Stu Williams, OOI Project DirectorPeter Milne, Director, Ocean Observing

ORION Cyberinfrastructure CommitteeLarry Mayer, Chair* (UNH)Ilkay Altintas (UCSD)Matthew Arrott (LOOKING)Suzanne Carbotte (LDEO)Yi Chao (JPL)Wu-chi Feng (Portland State U)John Graybeal (MBARI)Matt Howard (TAMU)Jason Leigh (UI-Chicago)Andy Maffei (WHOI)Benoit Pirenne (U Victoria - NEPTUNE Canada)John Orcutt (SIO)

ORION Education and Public Awareness Committee

George Matsumoto, Chair* (MBARI)Julie Bursek (NOAA/CIMS)Roman Czujko (American Institute of Physics)Annette deCharon (Bigelow)Sharon Franks (SIO)Sharon Gilman (CCU)Amy Holt-Cline (UNH)Darryl Keith (EPA)David Malmquist (VIMS)Janice McDonnell (Rutgers)Carrie McDougall (NOAA)Mike Wright (DLESE)Karen Young (Freelance writer)

Coastal Conceptual Network Design

Table of Contents1. Introduction 1

2. Coastal Science Drivers 2

3. Coastal RFA Responses 3 3.1 A Hawaii Coastal Observatory 3 3.2 Dynamics and Ecosystem Response in the Northeast Pacific 4 3.3 Gulf of Maine Observatory 5 3.4 Shelfbreak Coastal Observatory in the Mid Atlantic Bight 7 3.5 Controls on the Carbon Cycle in the Mid Atlantic Bight 7 3.6 Observatory on the South Atlantic Bight Shelf and Slope 8

4. Program Synthesis and Modification 9 4.1 Coordination of Hawaii Responses 10 4.2 Coordination of West Coast Responses 10 4.3 Coordination of Northeast Responses 11 4.4 Coordination of Southeast Responses 11 5. Summary of Cost Estimates and Infrastructure 12

6. Conclusions 12

7. References 12

Coastal Conceptual Network Design

FiguresFigure 1. Kilo Nalu Observatory on Oahu 3Figure 2. Proposed Northwest Observatory Elements 4Figure 3. Newport Endurance Lines 5Figure 4. Washington Coastal Endurance Line and Pioneer Array 5Figure 5. Gulf of Maine Endurance Array 6Figure 6. Mid Atlantic Bight Shelfbreak Mooring Array 6Figure 7. Mid Atlantic Bight Shelfbreak Array Concept 7Figure 8. Mid Atlantic Bight Carbon Control Infrastructure 8Figure 9. South Atlantic Bight Endurance Observing System 9Figure 10. Synthesized Gulf of Maine/MAB Observing System 10Figure 11. Reduced South Atlantic Bight Array 12

TablesTable 1. Coastal RFA Responses 2Table 2. Reduced and Synthesized Coastal CND 13Table 3. Instrumentation for Reduced/Synthesized Coastal CND 14

1

Draft Coastal CND 3/18/06

1. IntroductionThis document describes the draft Conceptual Network Design (CND) for the Coastal Component of the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI). It is as-sumed that the reader has already read the accom-panying document “Overview: Conceptual Network Design for ORION’s Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI).” This draft coastal CND was prepared by the Coastal Sub-committee of the ORION Science and Technology Advisory Committee (STAC), with assistance provided by the ORION Engineering and Sensors-Technology Committees.

This draft CND contains a far narrower implemen-tation of infrastructure than the possible broad variety of infrastructure contained in the coastal submissions to the ORION RFA process. Even so, this CND is over-designed (i.e., too expensive), in order to permit the oceanographic community to participate in the difficult prioritization process that funding constraints demand. Our working assump-tion has been that MREFC funds available for the coastal component of the OOI total $40M for fixed platforms, moveable platforms, core instrumenta-tion, development, and installation. Costs for ad-ditional essential activities, such as management, environmental impact statements, surveys, permit-ting and contingencies, will be covered using other OOI funds. (N.B., MREFC funds cannot be used for operations and maintenance.) The latest schedule for disbursement of the coastal MREFC funds is $0, $14M, $17M, $0, $0 and $9M, respectively, for fiscal years 2007 through 2012. It is likely that this disbursement schedule will change.

Of particular importance in the coastal CND is the concept of “pioneer” and “endurance” elements, which are designed to serve studies with durations of years and decades, respectively. This concept emerged from ORION meetings and workshops that preceded the RFA process (e.g., Jahnke et al., 2002; Jahnke et al., 2003; Glenn and Dickey, 2003; Rudnick and Perry, 2003; Schofield and Tivey, 2004), and it is reflected in the RFA responses. The ORION project office has informed the Coastal Sub-committee that the exact locations of the endurance elements and the initial locations of the pioneer elements must be determined before the Conceptual Design Review, which will occur during the summer of 2006.

The remainder of the document contains a brief

summary of science drivers and considerations (Sec-tion 2) and summary of the coastal RFA responses (Section 3), a description of the process by which the Coastal Subcommittee synthesized and reduced the programs represented in the RFA responses (Sec-tion 4), and a summary of the “menu” available for discussion at the D&I Workshop (Section 5).

2. Coastal Science DriversAs the boundary between the terrestrial and ma-rine realms and the interface at which most human - ocean interactions occur, there is a critical need to advance understanding of coastal systems. More than 50% of the human population resides along the coasts which are also susceptible to hazards such as inundation due to hurricanes or tsuna-mis. Greater than 90% of the world’s fish catch is harvested from coastal waters that also support major recreation and maritime industries. Transport across the coastal ocean exerts a dominant control on major global chemical cycles determining, for example, material exchange between the terrestrial and oceanic realms. Thus, coastal systems play disproportionately important roles in the ecology and biogeochemistry of the oceans and are the focus of human - ocean interactions.

The Ocean Observatories Initiative Science Plan and previous workshop planning documents iden-tify and discuss numerous coastal science ques-tions. In general these can be organized into a relatively few research themes such as: Climate Change and Biogeochemical Cycling; Ecosystem Dynamics, Turbulent Mixing and Biophysical Inter-actions; and Fluids and Life in Continental Mar-gin Sediments. Example questions within these themes that were highlighted in the OOI Science Plan are:

What processes determine the transport of carbon, nutrients, planktonic organisms, and other materials within the coastal ecosystem?

What conditions trigger the occurrence of harmful algal blooms and regime changes in the species composition of coastal ecosystems?

How will climate change and human activities alter coastal ecosystems, habitats and living marine resources?

2


For many of these questions, there will not be a single answer. The mix of controlling processes within coastal systems vary with the relative magni-tudes of local forces and with bottom morphology. Important factors to consider include wind forcing, buoyancy inputs, tidal energy, and oceanic bound-ary current interactions. In addition, local morphol-ogy and bottom sediment characteristics impact process interactions by influencing bottom friction, directing bottom currents, providing habitat and substrate for organisms and mediating a variety of biogeochemical processes. Interactions between the fluid water column and the sediments that are transported primarily by energetic, short-term events offer one example of the challenging tempo-ral variability of coastal systems.

Table 1. Coastal RFA ResponsesLead PI Short Title

Able Flux of Macrofauna in Estuarine and Coastal Ocean of MAB

Anderson Harmful Algal bloom Dynamics in the Gulf of Maine

Barth Dynamics and Ecosystem Response in NE Pacific

Beardsley Air-Sea Interaction, Cyclogenesis & Ocean Response

Brooks A Hawaii Coastal Observatory

Chang Santa Barbara Channel and Basin Observatory

Coakley Barrow Coastal Observatory

Dever California Current Ecosystem Observing System

Elgar Nearshore Sediment Transport Array

Gawarkiewicz Shelfbreak Coastal Observatory in the MAB

Geyer Transformation and Exchange between Estuaries & Shelf

Greene Bioacosutic Ocean Observatories

Horne Fluxes of Pelagic Nekton

Jumars Gulf of Maine Coastal Observatory

Klinck Estuarine/Shelf/Ocean Exchange in the MAB

Lohrenz Gulf of Mexico Plume Transformations Observatory

McGillis Controls on Carbon Cycle in MAB

Pawlak A Hawaii Coastal Observatory

Rothschild GME/GB Ecosystem Observation and Prediction System

Seim Observatory on the SAB Shelf and Slope

Trowbridge Dynamics of Heat, Salt, Nutrients and Plankton

Zika Straits of Florida Coral Reef Observing Network

Previous research programs, such as the Coastal Ocean Processes Program, recognized the need to study diverse coastal systems to examine fun-damental processes. Building on this, the Coastal Observatory Research Array workshop report identified a widely distributed array of potential observatory sites to capture the broad spectrum of these interactions and conditions (Jahnke et al., 2003). The RFA process and subsequent discus-sions of the ORION advisory committees have been employed to focus this effort. The challenge in the coastal zone, then, is to identify the minimum number of locations that permit the study of as many of these fundamental processes and interac-tions as possible and which when combined with measurements from other OOI components provide

3


the integrated observations needed to significantly advance understanding of coastal and ocean sys-tems.

3. Coastal RFA ResponsesThere were twenty-two coastal responses to ORION’s RFA (Table 1), which were divided by the ORION review panel into three tiers, prioritized by scientific justification and suitability for defining the OOI infrastructure, with tiers one and three repre-senting highest and lowest priority, respectively. The review panel did not rank the RFA responses within each tier. Each coastal RFA response, and its associated reviews and panel summary, were read by at least two members of the Coastal Sub-committee, who prepared written summaries of the tier-one and tier-two responses in a standard STAC

format. Following is a brief summary of the tier-one RFA responses, which illustrates the diversity and scope of the ideas that were presented.

3.1 A Hawaii Coastal ObservatoryThe RFA response for a Hawaii Coastal Observa-tory (hereafter the Oahu RFA response) proposes an expansion of the existing Kilo Nalu Nearshore Reef Observatory (Figure 1), an endurance array located on the south coast of Oahu, Hawaii, a site which is unique within the RFA responses because of its subtropical coral reef environment, seafloor sediment composition and exposure to forcing by processes characteristic of the deep ocean. The high subtropical volcanic islands of Hawaii also re-spond to oceanic and climatic forcing in a variety of

Figure 1. South Oahu bathymetry (top) with 15 km coastal radar coverage shown in gray. Kilo Nalu observational array (bottom), including 10-m node with lateral sandy and reef bed sites, 20-m node with lateral subnodes, 30-m node, 40-m subnode, and 100-m node, with geochemistry sites (yellow boxes), thermistor chains (T), autonomous profiler (star), and ADCPs (red symbols). Ap-proximate boundaries of AUV and UAV surveys are shown by thin gray lines. The OOI would fund the 100-m node, the autonomous profiler, an unmanned aerial ve-hicle (AUV), and HF radars. Figure reproduced from the Oahu RFA response.

4


ways that affect riverine and groundwater nutrient transport and reactivity, and hence production and biodiversity in coastal waters. The scientific objec-tives include (1) understanding benthic exchange processes across a range of bottom conditions in the presence of a highly permeable and biogeo-chemically active seafloor, (2) studying interactions and links between offshore and nearshore geo-chemistry under variable physical forcing driven by internal tides and mesoscale eddies, (3) exploring processes under a wide range of atmospheric and surface wave conditions combined with the ability to forecast the arrival of significant surface wave events, (4) examining the transformation between offshore baroclinic tidal energy and nearshore cur-rents, (5) observing the biochemical response in the water column to physically driven sediment fluxes of nutrients, and (6) determining the dynamics of the carbonate system in the surface water and the consequent effects of ocean acidification on coral reef ecosystems. The proposed array (Figure 1) capitalizes on existing infrastructure and includes, in addition to a cabled system, autonomous verti-cal profilers, a high-resolution near-bed turbulence profiler, and shipboard, AUV and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) surveys.

3.2 Dynamics and Ecosystem Response in

Figure 2: Proposed Pacific Northwest ocean observatory elements, reproduced from the PNW RFA response: Endurance Lines (solid white E-W lines near coast at 44.6° and 46.5° N); Pioneer Arrays (magenta rectangles); glider lines (dotted white); acoustic ray paths from transceivers (light white lines and yellow bullets). A dashed white line connects elements of NEPTUNE Canada forming a northern “E-W” line.

the Northeast PacificThe RFA response addressing Dynamics and Ecosystem Response in the NE Pacific (PNW RFA) describes a program with both endurance and pioneer elements on the shelf and slope off the Pacific Northwest, a region characterized by a nar-row shelf, an energetic eastern boundary current, persistent wind-driven upwelling, a large buoyancy source (the Columbia River), interannual variability originating in the tropical Pacific, and variations in large-scale North Pacific circulation. The scientific plan addresses (1) large-scale transport of water and biogeochemical properties, (2) large-scale along-coast gradients in productivity and com-munity structure, (3) ecosystem response in two contrasting regions (flow/topography-influenced off Oregon and freshwater-influenced off Washington), (4) hypoxia, (5) harmful algal blooms, (6) carbon dynamics and cross-margin flux, (7) tidally gener-ated internal bores and nonlinear internal wave packets, and (8) flow interaction with hydrate ridge methane sources. The endurance element (Figure 2) includes a cabled line of nodes and moorings spanning the shelf and slope off Newport, Oregon (Figure 3), a corresponding uncabled line off Wash-ington (Figure 4), an HF radar system, four glider lines, and an acoustic tomography array. The

5


pioneer element, proposed to be used sequentially off Oregon (Figure 3) and Washington (Figure 4), consists of a profiling mooring array. The PNW RFA response details development of advanced sen-sors, including CO2 sensors, automated plankton detection, and genome-based sensors.

3.3 Gulf of Maine ObservatoryThe RFA response for the Gulf of Maine Observa-tory (hereafter the GME RFA response) proposes an endurance array in the Gulf of Maine, a highly productive, semi-enclosed basin characterized by a persistent buoyancy-driven equatorward coastal current driven by a distributed river system, a combination of deep basins and a shallow shelf, heterogeneous bottom type, and exchanges with the ocean through well defined channels. The RFA response addresses a broad question: How does climate variability effect change in primary pro-ductivity and benthic-pelagic coupling in the Gulf of Maine? Specific issues include dependence of phytoplankton community composition as a func-tion of water column stability and nutrient ratios, phytoplankton productivity in relation to storms and episodic events, carbon fluxes as a function of phytoplankton composition, nonlinear response of functional groups to environmental forcing, benthic-pelagic coupling via vertical migration (e.g., my-sids), bioturbation events in the seabed, near-bed aggregation and disaggregation events, deposition-al history, coastal frontal structure as affected by river discharge, interannual variability of the bifur-cation of the coastal current, and the “reef effect” of benthic observatories. The primary endurance

Figure 4: Locations of the Washington coastal Endurance Line and Pioneer Ar-ray with symbols as for the Oregon map (Figure 3). The Pioneer Array is approximately 20 km on a side, leav-ing 10 km between moorings. Repro-duced from the PNW RFA response.

Figure 3 above: The Newport Endurance Line with mooring locations (blue) and Pioneer Array moorings over Heceta Bank (magenta). Filled circles indicate upper-ocean verti-cal profilers and filled triangles indicate hybrid upper- and deepocean profilers. All shelf locations (depth < 200 m) are also occupied with bottom boundary layer packages and water-column moorings with surface buoys. Existing Partern-ership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans (PISCO) nearshore moorings (squares) and National Data Buoy Cen-ter (NDBC) buoy (asterisk). Gray-shaded area is coverage of standard-range, landbased HF radar (sites indicated by red bullets) and thick, dashed line along 126W indicates cover-age for long-range HF radar. Reproduced from the PNW RFA response.

6


Figure 6: Plan view of the MAB Shelf-break mooring array and representa-tive AUV sections shown to scale. The central cross-shelf line spans 40 km with instrumented moorings at 10 km spacing. Along-shelf moorings are at 10 km spacing at each end of the central line and at 10-20 km spacing along the center. Four AUVs, with mission parameters that can be programmed via two-way satellite telemetry, will be used to extend the footprint of the array. The two primary sampling schemes will be cross-shelf , with four 40 km lines 10 km apart, and along-shelf, with 70 km of combined transect distance at each end of the central line. Horizontal resolution of the AUV transects will be 1-2 km. Repro-duced from the MAB Shelfbreak RFA response.

Figure 5: Endurance array proposed in the GME RFA response, including proposed cables (orange lines) and existing Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System (GoMOOS) moorings (red circles). The red and blue lines indicate cur-rents at depths less than and greater than 75 m, respectively. Adapted from the GME RFA response.

7


element (Figure 5) is a pair of cables extending from shore and meeting at the 200-m isobath in Jordan Basin. Each cable has junction boxes at the 20-, 50- and 120-m isobaths, and there is a junction box at the cable terminus on the 200-m isobath. Each junction box will have cables to support a dedi-cated mooring in addition to supporting boundary layer instrumentation on bottom tripods. Dedi-cated gliders will fly along the cable routes. The program builds substantially on the existing Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System (GoMOOS) which consists of an array of seven highly instrumented moorings, five on the shelf, one in a deep basin and one in the major inlet channel to the Gulf, and is designed to be relevant to historical and modern fisheries. The plan emphasizes cutting-edge acous-tical and optical instrumentation, particularly in the realm of benthic ecology, benthic-pelagic coupling, and boundary layer dynamics.

3.4 Shelfbreak Coastal Observatory in the Mid Atlantic BightThe RFA response on the Shelfbreak Coastal Observatory in the MAB (hereafter the MAB Shelf-break RFA response) proposes a pioneer array lo-cated at the shelf break in the Middle Atlantic Bight (MAB), a region characterized by a relatively broad shelf, a persistent equatorward current originat-ing well north of the United States, a well defined shelf-slope front, variable wind forcing, distrib-

uted buoyancy inputs by a number of rivers, and offshore forcing by a rings shed by an energetic western boundary current (the Gulf Stream). The study focuses on transport processes across the shelf-slope front. The scientific questions are: (1) What are the processes that lead to heat, salt, nutri-ent and carbon fluxes across the shelf-break front? (2) What is the relationship between variability in the shelf-break frontal jet and the along-front structure in phytoplankton distributions? (3) What aspects of interannual variability (stratification, ring fre-quency, etc.) are the most important for modulating shelf/slope exchange? The proposed array spans approximately 50 km and 40 km in the along- and cross-front directions, respectively, and consists of profiling moorings, adaptive sampling by autono-mous underwater vehicles with underwater dock-ing stations, and glider surveys to characterize the slope water (Figures 6 and 7). Non-conventional sensors include flow cytometers, moored water samplers for radionuclides, and moored and AUV-mounted nitrate sensors.

3.5 Controls on the Carbon Cycle in the Mid Atlantic BightThe overall objective of the RFA response on Con-trols on the Carbon Cycle in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (hereafter the MAB Carbon RFA response) is to understand the biological and physical controls on the overall carbon balance of coastal waters in the

Figure 7. Schematic drawing of the MAB Shelfbreak array concept (not to scale), reproduced from the MAB Shelfbreak RFA response. Surface/subsurface mooring pairs will be deployed at the four corners of the central array and at the center of the cross-shelf line. The surface moor-ings will be dedicated to providing power and data transfer for the high power, high bandwidth instruments (AUVs, flow cytobots). The subsurface moorings will be self-contained, communicating with adjacent surface moorings within the acoustic LAN (Figure 4). Multiple AUVs will make transects within and outside of the moored array region (Figure 4); a closed “box” around the central array is depicted here for simplicity. Note that the actual horizontal resolution of the AUV transects will be 1/5 to 1/10 of the dis-tance between moorings; the number of cycles has been reduced in the drawing for clarity.

8


Middle Atlantic Bight (MAB). Specific tasks include (1) continuous measurements of the vertical distri-butions of CO2, O2, N2, CDOM, pH, chlorophyll and bubble concentration; (2) cross-shelf surveys with gliders equipped with various sensors (CO2, O2, N2, pH) and discrete transects to collect samples for conventional measurements of DIC, DOC, POC, d13C, DON, PON, chlorophyll, and phosphorous; (3) measurement of the spatial and temporal variability of near-surface ocean turbulence and waves and direct measurements of the gas transfer velocity us-ing the direct covariance technique; and (4) calcula-tion of the net ecosystem production (NEP) using a whole-system approach based on diel changes in CO2 and O2, a tracer approach using N2/O2 ratios, a mass balance based on carbon using gradients in DOC and DIC, and the traditional light/dark bottle approach. The proposed infrastructure (Figure 8) includes water-column and air-sea flux measure-ments on the air-sea interaction tower at the exist-ing Martha’s Vineyard Coastal Observatory (MVCO), water-column measurements at the existing cabled Longterm Environmental Observatory (LEO), high-power node/moorings with surface buoys at the 60-m isobath off LEO and MVCO, low-power moorings with surface buoys at the shelf break (ap-proximately 100 m depth) off the MVCO and LEO, cross-shelf glider transects off MVCO and LEO, and moored measurements near the MVCO. Certain of the measurements were meant to be made in the endurance mode for long-term monitoring, while some were in the pioneer mode to develop param-

eterizations that can then be implemented with the long-term measurements.

3.6 Observatory on the South Atlantic Bight Shelf and SlopeThe RFA response for an Observatory on the South Atlantic Bight Shelf and Slope (hereafter the SAB RFA response) proposes an endurance array in the South Atlantic Bight (SAB), a region characterized by a broad, shallow continental shelf that maxi-mizes sea floor - water column interactions, direct forcing by a strong western boundary current (Gulf Stream) and frequent, high-energy atmospheric events such as hurricanes. The overall question is: What is the nature of the physical and biogeochem-ical processes on the SAB shelf and slope, which are driven by a combination of Gulf Stream variabil-ity, terrestrial inputs, and benthic, water column and atmospheric interactions? Selected specific ques-tions include: (1) How does Gulf Stream variability influence regional shelf-ocean exchanges and air-sea interactions, and how does atmospheric forcing feed back on oceanic circulation in the SAB? (2) What role do episodic events ranging from hur-ricanes to microbursts play in oceanic circulation, sediment transport, and delivery of nutrients and pollutants derived from continental sources? (3) Is the SAB net heterotrophic or autotrophic, i.e., what processes control primary production versus respi-ration as well as the transport, fate, and transforma-tions of carbon in the SAB water column and sedi-

Figure 8. Proposed infrastructure for the carbon study in the Middle Atlantic Bight, reproduced from the MAB Car-bon RFA response.

9


ments? (4) To what extent do sea floor exchange and sedimentary biogeochemical transformations, such as denitrification and iron solublization, control the SAB ecosystem? (5) How do the interactions of the above processes vary on timescales ranging from event-scale to climatic? The proposal capi-talizes on infrastructure maintained by the South Atlantic Bight Synoptic Offshore Observational Network (SABSOON), which includes, in particular, an array of surface-piercing towers that provide stable platforms for air-sea flux and water-column measurements. The proposed observational array (Figure 9) includes four cables (one through the tower array), which extend from shore across the shelf and down the slope under the Gulf Stream, a set of moorings, and shore-based HF radar.

4. Program Synthesis and ModificationTo place the RFA responses in context with the available funding, the STAC Coastal Subcommit-tee worked with the ORION Engineering Committee to develop rough cost estimates for the tier-one RFA responses. The Sensor Committee provided spreadsheets describing the requested suite of sensors (size, power/data requirements, etc.) and cost estimates. The results, including fixed plat-forms, moveable platforms, core instrumentation

and installation, are $40M, $29M, $20M, $13M, $3M and $50M, respectively, for the PNW, MAB Shelfbreak, GME, MAB Carbon, Oahu and SAB RFA responses. The total of these figures is ap-proximately $155M, or about four times the funding available for the coastal component of the OOI.

To sharpen the program’s scientific focus, broaden its applicability, and reduce its cost toward a fund-able level, the STAC Coastal Subcommittee worked with the lead principal investigators (PIs) on the tier-one proposals in order to identify the most compel-ling science that would be enabled by OOI infra-structure and to define the minimum observational arrays that would be required to accomplish this science. The goal of this step was to not only bring the budget to within reach but to synthesize those aspects of each RFA that (1) are fully and solely dependent upon OOI infrastructure, (2) will yield the most exciting scientific results not obtainable with-out the OOI infrastructure, (3) will provide the base-line infrastructure upon which future enhancements and improvements can be built, thereby engaging more of the scientific questions outlined in the origi-nal RFA responses. In addition, the STAC Coastal Subcommittee asked the lead PIs on the tier-one RFA responses to communicate with selected lead PIs on tier-two and tier-three RFA response about

Figure 9. Diagram of the SAB endurance observing system, reproduced from the SAB RFA response. The four endur-ance cabled lines are shown in red. The shading indicates the mean Gulf Stream position. The largest circles indicate the SABSOON tower array. Circles with black centers indicate moorings. Small black circles indicate Current and Pressure Recording Inverted Echo Sounders (CPIES), which are bottom-mounted sensor packages that determine characteristics of the Gulf Stream remotely from beneath. The red triangles indicate HF radar installations and the shading indicates radar coverage.

10


possible complementary uses and modest modi-fications of their array designs to engage more scientific potential. This procedure led to modified program designs which are described below.

4.1 Coordination of Hawaii ResponsesThe minimum cost of the Oahu endurance array has been reduced from $3M to approximately $2M because of refined estimates and capitalization on recent NSF funding for the Kilo Nalu array. Com-munications with lead PIs on other RFA responses indicate that the Oahu array will be useful for elements of the Bioacoustic Ocean Observatory response (Table 1).

4.2 Coordination of West Coast ResponsesThe cost of the PNW endurance array (Figures 2 through 4) was reduced from $40M to approximate-ly $15M by eliminating the cable on the Newport line, reducing the number of elements from 7 to 5 on each endurance line, and eliminating acoustic tomography. Note that the Newport endurance line infrastructure is being coordinated with plans for the Regional Cabled Observatory off the PNW. Conversations with PIs on other RFA responses

indicate that the PNW endurance array could be used for elements of the response addressing the California Current System (Table 1), particularly if leveraged with ongoing measurements associated with the Monterey Bay Research Aquarium Institute (MBARI), Monterey Accelerated Research System (MARS), and Southern California Coastal Ocean Observing System (SCCOOS), and with pending implementation of state-supported HF radar sys-tems in California. The Air-Sea Interaction model-ing response (Table 1) could capitalize on mea-surements obtained by the modified array, and the Pelagic Flux response (Table 1) could capitalize on the infrastructure.

The PNW/West Coast pioneer array remains un-changed (Figures 3 and 4). Conversations with lead PIs on other RFA responses indicate that the PNW/West Coast pioneer array, if moved to other locations on the west coast after its initial appli-cation, could be used for elements of the Santa Barbara Channel response, the California Current System response, and the Estuary-Shelf Exchange response (Table 1). The site of the pioneer array after the initial application will be determined by peer-reviewed proposals in an open competition by

Figure 10. Schematic diagram of the reduced and synthesized North-east observing system, including the modified GME endurance array in the Gulf of Maine and the modified MAB/East Coast pioneer array in the Middle Atlantic Bight. The modified GME endurance array consists of a single cable to the 120-m isobath with three nodes, each node serv-ing a profiling mooring, and glider circuits along two paths. This array capitalizes on existing GoMOOS assets and five new buoys that help to constrain exchanges. The modi-fied MAB/East Coast pioneer array consists of a shelf-edge pioneer array equipped with moorings, AUVs and docking stations (similar to that shown in Figures 6 and 7), an AUV transect to characterize the shelf water, and an offshore glider line to characterize the slope water. This array capitalizes on the existing Mar-tha’s Vineyard Coastal Observatory (MVCO), the Long-term Ecological Observatory (LEO) and the ongoing cross-shelf glider transect operating from LEO by Rutgers University (not shown).

11


a procedure to be developed by the ORION Advi-sory Committees, Project Office and NSF.

4.3 Coordination of Northeast ResponsesBy leveraging existing infrastructure at LEO and MVCO, reducing the number of moorings, and modifying the plans for the AUVs, the MAB Shelf-break and MAB Carbon Controls arrays, originally costing out at $42M, have been combined into a single project, hereafter termed the MAB/East Coast pioneer array at a cost of approximately $16M. The array design, shown in schematic form in Figure 10, remains similar in detail to Figures 6 and 7. An AUV from the MVCO to the shelf break will characterize the shelf water and provide an up-stream boundary condition for the Carbon Controls volume analysis, and the ongoing cross-shelf glider surveys at LEO will provide a downstream boundary condition. As in the original MAB Shelfbreak plan, gliders will characterize the slope water. Conversa-tions with lead PIs on other RFA responses indicate that the modified Shelfbreak/Carbon Controls array in its shelf-break location will provide essential elements for the regional-scale study described in the Dynamics of Heat, Salt, Nutrients and Plankton response and the modeling program described in the Air-Sea Interaction Modelling RFA response (Table 1). If moved to other locations, the Shelf-break/Carbon Controls array will enable elements of the research proposed in the Estuary/Shelf/Ocean

Transformation and Exchange responses, Gulf of Mexico response, and GME/GB Ecosystem Obser-vation response (Table 1).

The minimum cost of the GME endurance array has been reduced from $20M to approximately $10M by modifying the cable from the original design, in which two cables in a “vee” array extend to the 200-m isobath with a total of seven nodes (Fig-ure 5), to a reduced array in which a single nearly straight cable extends to the 120-m isobath with a total of three nodes, the other functions of the “vee” being replaced by a pair of glider circuits (Figure 10). Each node would serve a profiling mooring. Other reduced cable arrangements produce costs between $8M and $16M. Conversations with lead PIs on other RFA responses indicate that the modi-fied Gulf of Maine array will be useful for elements of the Harmful Algal Bloom response, the modeling program in the Air-Sea Interaction response and the Dynamics of Heat, Salt, Nutrients and Plankton response. (Table 1).

4.4 Coordination of Southeast ResponsesThe minimum cost of the SAB endurance array has been changed from $50M to approximately $20M by reducing the number of cables from four to two (a southern line through the SABSOON tower array and a northern line serving a mooring array), re-ducing the water depth at the offshore ends of the cables to 60 m, reducing the number of moorings,

Figure 11. Diagram of the reduced SAB array. Two endurance cabled lines are shown in red. The shading indi-cates the mean Gulf Stream position. The largest circles indicate the SABSOON tower array. Circles with black centers indicate moorings. Small black circles indicate Current and Pressure Recording Inverted Echo Sounders (CPIES). A southern cable serves five SABSOON towers, and a northern cable serves a surface mooring (at the center of the mooring array) and four subsurface moorings (around the surface mooring).

12


and capitalizing on the SABSOON towers to reduce the necessity for bottom nodes on the south cable line (Figure 11). This modification requires that the CPIES used to monitor the Gulf Stream (Figures 9 and 11) be powered and logged autonomously. Communications with lead PIs on other RFA re-sponses indicates that the modified South Atlantic Bight array will be useful for elements of the pro-grams proposed in the Air-Sea Interaction, Fluxes of Pelagic Nekton, and Controls on the Carbon Cycle responses (Table 1).

5. Summary of Cost Estimates and Infra-structureThe reduced and synthesized program described above is summarized in Tables 2 and 3. The cost estimates include costs of fixed platforms, move-able platforms, core instrumentation (level 1; see Table 3) and installation.

In the cost estimates for instrumentation, the defini-tion of core versus non-core instrumentation is somewhat different than that used by the Engineer-ing and Sensors Committees. The target definition used here is that core sensors (1) are fully opera-tional, off the shelf and commercially available; (2) have community-established calibration and inter-pretation protocols; (3) have records of successful deployment on moored or mobile platforms; (4) have established protocols for mitigating biofoul-ing or identifying biofouling-impacted data; and (5) provide a baseline observation critical to the major disciplines (atmospheric, biology, chemistry, geol-ogy, physics) represented by the coastal oceano-graphic community. While it is recognized that no single sensor can fulfill all of these requirements, the selected core sensors do fulfill the majority of the requirements and/or are critical enough to obvi-ate the weakness in the remaining requirements.

6. ConclusionsThe modified coastal arrays provide a range of choices of endurance and pioneer elements in diverse environments characterized by a wide variety of dynamics, at a total minimum cost of ap-proximately $76M (Tables 2 and 3). Clearly, difficult choices remain. Of the five relatively expensive ar-rays, at most three can be chosen, given the maxi-mum budget total of $40M. Possible modifications to the program, including cost reductions of the various elements, will be developed by the Coastal

Subcommittee before the D&I workshop. The rela-tive merits of the various sites and of endurance versus pioneer arrays will have to be debated at the D&I Workshop in Salt Lake City. The good news is that the science enabled by the carefully planned arrays summarized in Tables 2 and 3 is excellent, so that the coastal oceanographic community cannot go wrong by choosing from this menu.

7. ReferencesDetrick, R., D. Frye, J. Collins, J. Gobat, M. Grosen-baugh, R. Petit, A. Pleuddeman, K. von der Haydt, and E. Horton. 2000. DEOS Moored Buoy Ocean Observatory Design Study, http://obslab.whoi.edu/buoy.html

Glenn, S.M. and T.D. Dickey. 2003. SCOTS: Scientific Cabled Observatories for Time Series. NSF Ocean Ob-servatories Initiative Workshop Report, Portsmouth, VA, 80 pp.

Jahnke, R., L. Atkinson, J. Barth, F. Chavez, K. Daly, J. Edson, P. Franks, J. O’Donnell, and O. Schofield. 2002. Coastal Ocean Processes and Observatories: Advanc-ing Coastal Research, Report on the CoOP Observatory Science Workshop, May 7-9, 2002, Savannah, Georgia, Coastal Ocean Processes (CoOP) Report Number 8, November, 2002. Skidaway Institute of Oceanography technical Report TR-02-01. http://www.skio.usg.edu/coop/materials/COS_report.pdf

Jahnke, R., J. Bane, A. Barnard, J. Barth, F. Chavez, H. Dam, E. Dever, P DiGiacomo, J. Edson, R. Geyer, S. Glenn, K. Johnson, M. Moline, J. O’Donnell, J. Olt-man-Shay, O. Persson, O. Schofield, H. Sosik, and E. Terrill. 2003. Coastal Observatory Research Arrays: A framework for implemenation planning. Coastal Ocean Processes (CoOP) Skidaway Institute of Oceanography technical Report TR-03-01. http://www.skio.usg.edu/re-search/coop/cora.php

Rudnick, D. L. and M. J. Perry, eds. 2003. ALPS: Auton-omous and Lagrangian Platforms and Sensors. Work-shop Report, 64 pp., http://www.geo-prose.com/ALPS

Schofield, O. and M. K. Tivey. 2004. ORION – Ocean Research Interactive Observatory Networks: A Report of the Workshop Held January 4-8, 2004, San Juan, Puerto Rico. http://orionprogram.org/PDFs/workshop_report.pdf

13


Array Location & Type

OOI Elements Compelling Science

Innovative Technology and Leverage

Other RFAs Enabled

cost*

Oahu cabled endurance array

Cable extension to 100-m node, AUV, UAV, profiler, HF radars

Permeable & biogechemically active seafloor, mesoscale forcing

AUVs, UAVs, leveraged Kilo Nalu array

Hawaii Coastal Observatory, Bioacoustic Observatories

$2M

PNW uncabled endurance array

5-element mooring lines at WA & OR,4 glider lines,HF radars

Coastal response to climate change and long-term Pacific forcing

Profiling moorings, novel sensors, leveraged STC and PISCO moorings

Air-Sea Interaction, California Current Ecosystem, Fluxes of Pelagic Nekton, Ocean Dynamics and Ecosystem Response1, Northeast Pacific Hydrate Observatory1

$15M

PNW/West Coast pioneer array

6 hybrid upper & deep profilers, 12 shelf mooring sets

Shelf response to buoyancy & topo, mesoscale variability

Profiling moorings, novel sensors, leveraged MARS/MBARI and SCCOOS moorings

Air-Sea Interaction, California Current Ecosystem, Santa Barbara Channel, Estuarine/Shelf Transformation and Exchange

$15M

GME cabled endurance array

1 cable to 120 m with 3 nodes, 3 profiling moorings, 2 glider lines

Response of primary production & benthic-pelagic coupling to climate change

Cable, advanced acoustical & optical instrumentation, leveraged GoMOOS

Harmful Algal Blooms, Air-Sea Interaction, Dynamics of Heat, Salt, Nutrients and Plankton

$10M

MAB/East Coast pioneer array

5 surface moorings, 10 subsfc profilers, 6 repeater moorings, 3 AUVs, 2 docking sta, 1 glider line

Shelf-ocean exchange, carbon budget

Profiling moorings, advanced AUVs & docking stations, new sensors, leveraged LEO/MVCO

Air-Sea Interaction, Estuarine/Shelf Transformation and Exchange, Estuarine/Ocean/Shelf Exchange in MAB, Gulf of Mexico Plume Transformations, GME/GB Ecosystem Observation/Prediction, Dynamics of Heat, Salt, Nutrients and Plankton

$16M

SAB cabled endurance array

1 cable to 5 towers, 1 cable to 1 sfc and 4 subsfc moorings, CPIES

Impact of western boundary current on shelf dynamics & ecosystem

Cables, leveraged SABSOON tower array

Air-Sea Interaction, Fluxes of Pelagic Nekton, Controls on Carbon in the MAB

$20M

1. Regional Cabled Observatory RFA responses* estimated minimum cost

Table 2. Reduced and Synthesized Coastal Conceptual Network Design

14


RFA Response/Location and Array

Type

Core level 1(essential)

Core level 2(not at

expense of infrastructure)

Core level 3(level 1 when

available)

Non-core(helps define

system requirements)

Hawaii Coastal Observatory;cabled endurance array

On selected platforms: met, CTD, ADCP, Fchl, bbp Es(λ), Lu(λ),, fast O2, ADV, DO, pCO2, NO3.

LISST, BCDV, scanning sonars, optrode array

Pacific Northwest; uncabled endurance and pioneer arrays

One per mooring: met, CTD, ADCP, bottom turbulence, bottom pressure, Fchl, bbp Es(λ), Lu(λ), DO, pCO2, NO3. One per glider: CTD, ADCP, Fchl/obs

1 per mooring: FCDOM, a(λ), c(λ) , passive hydrophones.

1 per mooring: Fe, pH, PO4.

1 per mooring: Ed(λ), bioacoustics, plankton imaging, cytometry

Gulf of Maine; cabled endurance array

One per mooring: met, CTD, ADCP, bottom turbulence, bottom pressure, Fchl, bbp Es(λ), Lu(λ), DO, pCO2, nitrate. One per glider: CTD, ADCP, Fchl/bbp/FPE

1 per mooring: FCDOM, a(λ), c(λ), passive hydrophones.

FRRF, TAPs, scanning sonars, bubble scanner, holography/PIV, cytometry, methane, LISST

MAB shelfbreak coastal observatory and carbon cycle;pioneer array

On selected moorings: met, CTD, ADCP, ADV, Fchl, bbp Es(λ), Lu(λ),, DO, pCO2, nitrate, bottom turbulence. On selected vehicles: CTD, ADCP, Fchl, FCDOM, bbp, NO3, DO

FCDOM, a(λ), c(λ), passive hydrophones.

Flow cytometry, imaging cytometry, radionuclides

South Atlantic Bight;cabled endurance array

On selected platforms: met, CTD, ADCP, Fchl, bbp Es(λ), Lu(λ), DO, pCO2, NO3, bottom turbulence, CPIES

Flowcam, zoocam (VPR), hydrophones, TAPS, radon/O2 profiler

Table 3: Instrumentation for Reduced and Synthesized Coastal Conceptual Network Design

ADCP - acoustic doppler current profilerADV - acoustic doppler velocimetera(λ) - spectral absorption meterbbp - calibrated particle backscatteringBCDV - bistatic coherent Doppler velocimeterc(λ) - spectral beam attenuation meterCPIES - current meter/pressure sensor/inverted echo soundersCTD - conductivity, temperature, depthDO - dissolved oxygenEs(λ) - incident spectral irradiance Ed(λ) - inwater downwelling spectral irradiance

FCDOM - colored dissolved organic matter fluorometerFchl - Chlorophyll fluorometerFe - iron sensorFPE - Phycoerithrin fluorometerFRRF - Fast repetition rate fluorometerLISST - Laser In Situ Scattering and TransmissometerLu(λ) - upwelling surface spectral radianceNO3 - nitrate sensorobs - optical backscattering (relative units)PO4 - phosphate sensorpCO2 - partial pressure carbon dioxideTAPS - Tracor Acoustic Profiling System

*Sensor Acronym Key

coastal conceptual network design for orion’s ocean

Documents