1. science
2. weather

OOI RFA Cover Sheet
LOI
Full
Addendum
Above For Office Use Only
Please fill out requested information in all gray boxes
A California Current Ecosystem Ocean Observing System
Title:
Proponent(s): Edward Dever (OSU), Francisco Chavez (MBARI), Uwe Send (SIO)
Keywords: California Current, ecosystem, ocean observatories
(5 or less)
Area:
NE Pacific
Contact Information:
Contact Person:
Department:
Organization:
Address
Tel.:
E-mail:
Edward Dever
College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences
Oregon State University
104 COAS Admin Bldg.
(541) 737-2749
[email protected]
Fax:
(541) 737-2064
Permission to post abstract on ORION Web site:
Abstract: (400 words or less)
X Yes
No
We propose a large-scale coastal observing system that will extend from the Southern California Bight to
Washington and from the coast to several hundred km offshore. The objective of the system is to provide highly
resolved observations of the California Current System (CCS) defined here to include physical and ecosystem
components. The system will consist of 7 mooring lines, each with a shelf, slope and two deep locations. Gliders
and AUVs will be used to resolve mesoscale structure and estimate property distributions and transports in the
California Current system. Measurements at each fixed site will resolve the benthic boundary, the mid-water
column structure, and the euphotic zone. Meteorological and oceanographic models will be used to synthesize
data, refine observations, and formulate and test research questions. Geophysical measurements will also be made
at and below the seafloor.
Mooring line locations will be based on the recommendations of recent community reports (PaCOOS, CORA,
Neptune and Orion Workshop). Large-scale arrays envisioned in the CORA report will populate three regions: the
southern California Bight, central California, and the Pacific Northwest. The proposed system will take advantage
of existing and planned regional cable observatories for oceanographic and geophysical sampling. Data collected
by this system will be synthesized in conjunction with data from existing (CalCOFI, MBARI and Newport Lines)
and planned (PaCOOS) ship-based observational programs to achieve synergy between these two types of
observational strategies.
Many oceanographic processes occurring along the Pacific coast are poorly resolved by existing observational
systems which are either focused on one point in space or are sparse in time. Aside from a few buoys maintained
on the continental margin, no high-frequency, long-term, in-situ measurements exist for properties including
subsurface temperature, velocity, salinity, nutrients, and biooptical properties. As a result, neither the regional
response to large-scale forcing events nor the extent and the mechanisms linking the different regions are well
understood. Elucidating processes forcing phytoplankton and zooplankton biomass or community structure also
require simultaneous, temporally and spatially resolved observations. These observations are also needed to
improve processes parameterized in models (e.g. wind or bottom stress and mixing) or properties sensed remotely
(phytoplankton through ocean color or acoustic sensing of zooplankton). Only a major infrastructure
implementation and operation effort like ORION can provide the sustained, linked and integrated,
multidisciplinary timeseries sampling needed for these studies.
The proposed system would:
- characterize the physical, chemical and ecological response of the CCS to physical forcing on scales ranging
from the episodic to the interdecadal
- allow analysis of the processes, and detection of changes and events, in the coupled physical-ecosystem regime
- provide continuous high-frequency measurements to improve parameterizations used by satellite observations
and numerical models
- describe the along-coast continuity of the California Current system, poleward undercurrent, and inshore
Davidson Current.
Please describe below key non-standard measurement technology needed to achieve the proposed
scientific objectives: (250 words or less)
To understand the physical and ecosystem aspects of the California Current system, we need to be able to carry out
multidisciplinary observations everywhere in the water column, near the surface and deep, with many, sometimes
large, sensors. A profiling capability in the mixed-layer and euphotic zone all the way to the surface, as well as in
the deep ocean, has many advantages, amoung them cost savings since the number of sensors can be reduced. Some
parts of the profiling technologies are still under development. Data telemetry from all sensors will be required, e.g.
for adaptive sampling with gliders and AUVs, and in some cases bi-directional sensor control would have benefits.
For higher datarate systems, especially in the profiling platforms, this is not currently implemented. Easy
integration of new sensors into the data stream (plug-and-play) would be desirable. Linking up moored systems
with cable nodes will be useful in 2 locations. Some sensors also need continued development (e.g. for some carbon
parameters) along with general improvements on moored sensors (e.g. biofouling control). The ability to carry out
operational moored iron timeseries measurements also needs to become available.
Proposed Sites:
Site Name
Monterey Bay, CA
San Diego, CA
Newport, Oregon
Centr. Washington
Pt. Conception, CA
Crescent City, CA
Pt. Arena, CA
Position
Water
Depth
(m)
Start
Date
Proposed Duration
Revisits
Deploy
during
(months)
deployment
100,
Jan 2007
350,
Jan 2007
1000+ Jan 2007
3000+ Jan 2008
for all Jan 2008
transect Jan 2009
s
Jan 2009
60
60
60
48
48
36
36
Site-specific Comments
twice per
year
for all
List of Project Participants
SIO/Southwest Fisheries Center: Russ Davis, Dave Demer, Ralf Goericke, Greg Mitchell, Mark Ohman, Dan
Rudnick, Uwe Send, Arthur Miller, Bruce Cornuelle, Peter Franks, Eric Terrill
UCSB: Grace Chang, Tommy Dickey
Cal Poly: Mark Moline
MBARI: James Bellingham, Francisco Chavez, Ken Johnson, John Ryan
Moss Landing Marine Labs: Kenneth Cole
Naval Postgraduate School: Curt Collins
UCSC: Raphael Kudela
OSU: Jack Barth, Ed Dever, Burke Hales, Mike Kosro, Ricardo Letelier, Bill Peterson, Pete Strutton, Pat Wheeler
UW: Charlie Eriksen, Barbara Hickey, Parker MacCready
Suggested Reviewers
William Crawford (Institute of Ocean Sciences, DFO, Canada)
Kenneth Denman (Institute of Ocean Sciences, DFO, Canada)
Brad deYoung (Memorial University of Newfoundland)
David Griffin (CSIRO, Hobart)
John Huthnance (Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory)
Keith Thompson (Dalhousie University)
Richard Thomson (Institute of Ocean Sciences, DFO, Canada)
2
ORION Project Summary
A California Current Ecosystem Ocean Observing System
We propose a large-scale coastal observing system that will extend from the Southern
California Bight to Washington and from the coast to several hundred km offshore. The
objective of the system is to provide highly resolved observations of the California Current
System (CCS) defined here to include physical and ecosystem components. The system will
consist of 7 mooring lines, each with a shelf, slope and two deep locations. Gliders and AUVs
will be used to resolve mesoscale structure and estimate property distributions and transports in
the California Current system. Measurements at each fixed site will resolve the benthic
boundary, the mid-water column structure, and the euphotic zone. Meteorological and
oceanographic models will be used to synthesize data, refine observations, and formulate and test
research questions. Geophysical measurements will also be made at and below the seafloor.
Mooring line locations will be based on the recommendations of recent community reports
(PaCOOS, CORA, Neptune and Orion Workshop). Large-scale arrays envisioned in the CORA
report will populate three regions: the southern California Bight, central California, and the
Pacific Northwest. The proposed system will take advantage of existing and planned regional
cable observatories for oceanographic and geophysical sampling. Data collected by this system
will be synthesized in conjunction with data from existing (CalCOFI, MBARI and Newport
Lines) and planned (PaCOOS) ship-based observational programs to achieve synergy between
these two types of observational strategies.
Many oceanographic processes occurring along the Pacific coast are poorly resolved by
existing observational systems which are either focused on one point in space or are sparse in
time. Aside from a few buoys maintained on the continental margin, no high-frequency, longterm, in-situ measurements exist for properties including subsurface temperature, velocity,
salinity, nutrients, and biooptical properties. As a result, neither the regional response to largescale forcing events nor the extent and the mechanisms linking the different regions are well
understood.
Elucidating processes forcing phytoplankton and zooplankton biomass or
community structure also require simultaneous, temporally and spatially resolved observations.
These observations are also needed to improve processes parameterized in models (e.g. wind or
bottom stress and mixing) or properties sensed remotely (phytoplankton through ocean color or
acoustic sensing of zooplankton). Only a major infrastructure implementation and operation
effort like ORION can provide the sustained, linked and integrated, multidisciplinary timeseries
sampling needed for these studies.
The proposed system would:
•
characterize the physical, chemical and ecological response of the CCS to physical
forcing on scales ranging from the episodic to the interdecadal
•
allow analysis of the processes, and detection of changes and events, in the coupled
physical-ecosystem regime
•
provide continuous high-frequency measurements to improve parameterizations used by
satellite observations and numerical models
•
describe the along-coast continuity of the California Current system, poleward
undercurrent, and inshore Davidson Current.
3
1. Program Rationale and Key Scientific Questions
1.1 The northeast Pacific system
The observation system described in this proposal lies within the California Current System
(CCS). The CCS is generally considered to extend from Baja California, Mexico to Vancouver
Island, Canada and from the coast to several hundred km offshore (Mackas, 2005).
Oceanographically, the region is linked by large-scale transports of heat, salt, nutrients and
organisms. Alongshore transport occurs offshore in the southward California Current, over the
continental slope in the poleward undercurrent, and over the shelf in the coastal waveguide and
seasonal Davidson Current. Significant cross-shore and vertical transport also occurs throughout
the system. Seasonal upwelling occurs along much of the coast with offshore transport by
surface Ekman layers and by upwelling jets at prominent capes and compensating subsurface
onshore transport.
Remotely sensed estimates of altimetry, temperature and chlorophyll (Strub and James, 2000;
Strub et al., 1990, Kahru and Mitchell, 2001) as well as in-situ data (Mantyla et al., 1995; Bray et
al., 1999) show there is a strong seasonal cycle in the CCS. Strub and James (2000) use satellite
altimetry and historical data to describe this cycle (Figure 1). In winter, the equatorward CC jet is
farthest offshore and weakening, with an inshore countercurrent (some combination of the
poleward undercurrent and the Davidson Current). In spring, as upwelling favorable winds
develop, the CC jet reappears close to the coast and begins migrating offshore. As it migrates
offshore and meanders, cyclonic eddies and dipole eddy pairs develop inshore of cyclonic
meanders and anticyclonic eddies develop offshore between cyclonic meanders.
These eddies are estimated to have wavelengths of about 300 km and periods of 100-150
days. As upwelling favorable winds persist in summer and fall the CC jet continues to move
offshore with increasingly strong eddy variability. The jet and eddy variability weaken in step
with the seasonal cycle of wind forcing (Halliwell and Allen, 1987).
The mean structure and the seasonal cycle of the CC decisively influence regional
ecosystems. Chlorophyll patterns show a strong seasonal cycle and latitudinal dependence (Strub
et al., 1990, Kahru and Mitchell, 2001). The highest chlorophyll values are found within 10-20
km of the coast and are tied to local upwelling events. Further offshore there is a spring
maximum in the northern CCS and a weak maximum in the southern CCS. Higher
phytoplankton biomass in the northern CCS may be at least partially compensated by higher
specific growth rates and irradiance further south (Mackas, 2005).
System-wide descriptions of phytoplankton communities are rare. In the southern CCS
phytoplankton communities have been tied to water mass type (Hayward and Venrick, 1998);
distinct communities exist in the northern coastal, southern coastal, and offshore regimes of the
southern California Bight. High biomass locations (shelves, offshore jets) and events
(upwelling) are dominated by diatoms and large dinoflagellates in the nearshore zones, while
smaller phytoplankton dominate offshore areas, characterized by low biomass (Mackas, 2005).
The physical structure of the CCS also affects zooplankton community composition. Changes
in zooplankton composition are associated with the shelfbreak and with the seaward margin of
coastal upwelling. The structure of the zooplankton community in the Southern California Bight
is significantly affected by changes in ocean climate on scales ranging from interannual to
interdecadal (Lavaniegos et al., 1999, 2003). Unlike phytoplankton, zooplankton biomass and
reproduction can be transported well offshore and southwards (Mackas, 2005). Retention and
4
onshore transport of zooplankton, especially meroplankton, in the face of active coastal
upwelling remains a major research question with particular importance being ascribed to wind
relaxation events (Wing et al., 1998) and interannual variability in upwelling wind strength
(Botsford et al., 1994).
Figure 1. Regional circulation of the
California Current System (Strub and
James, 2000)
The northeast Pacific has long been recognized as having a coherent response to processes
such as climate variability (McGowan et al., 1998), the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)
(Mantua and Hare, 2002), and the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) (Chavez et al., 2002). It
has been the subject of one the most successful long term oceanographic observational programs,
the California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations (CalCOFI). The CalCOFI time
series have been critical in identifying seasonal and interannual variability. CalCOFI
observations have also been combined with longer shore-based time series to gain insights into
climate variability and ecosystem change. These insights have given rise to a new suite of
research questions that require new types of measurements, greater temporal and spatial
resolution, real time access to data, and a coordinated modeling effort. These requirements were
recently identified by a large community of oceanographers (Miller et al., 1999) as critical to
advancing our understanding of the California Current System. The research needs outlined
below are not meant to be inclusive, but to give a sampling of those requiring a large scale
Pacific coast observatory system.
5
1.2 Limits of the present expeditionary approach
1.2.1 The difficulty and importance of long term time series
While scientists continue to debate if observed changes in climate and ecosystems are
human-induced or part of the natural environment, all agree that long-term records are required
to accurately characterize and eventually understand year-to-year changes. And all agree that
such records are severely lacking for the ocean. So why are these long time series so rare? It
takes many years before a time series pays off by accumulating a long enough record so that
signal can be extracted from noise. During those years before pay-off, substantial effort and
investment must nevertheless be maintained, sometimes for decades. Such long-term
commitment is difficult to sustain, both for scientists and funding agencies. Despite these
obstacles several pioneering ocean time series continue to provide records of the ocean’s
changing physical, chemical, and biological character. The California Cooperative Oceanic
Fisheries Investigations (CalCOFI) program has provided observations of the California Current
Ecosystem (CCE) since 1949 (Ohman and Venrick, 2003), supported for a long time by the State
of California and more recently by NOAA. The CalCOFI time series have been critical in
identifying seasonal and interannual variability of the CCE. CalCOFI observations have also
been combined with longer shore-based time series to gain insights into climate variability and
ecosystem change. Two others, the Hawaiian Ocean Time-Series (HOT) and the Bermuda
Atlantic Time-Series Study (BATS) (Dickey et al., 1997), are supported by the National Science
Foundation and focus on blue-water oceanography. A fourth time series, privately funded at
MBARI by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, has been documenting daily-to-seasonalto-decadal variability for more than 16 years and focuses on the green, coastal ocean off central
California.
An important goal of these time-series programs has been to understand phytoplankton
primary production in coastal upwelling and open-ocean oligotrophic systems in relation to
changing ocean climate. Phytoplankton occupy a central role in oceanic ecosystems, as their
nutrient uptake, growth, and sinking mediate the biogeochemical fluxes of carbon and other
elements between the atmosphere, surface ocean, and deep ocean. Because the atmosphere and
oceans are physically coupled, climate exerts strong effects on the marine biogeochemistry and
food web mediated by phytoplankton.
A secondary but equally important goal of the time-series efforts is to provide a basic
physical, chemical, and biological context for a number of other studies conducted adjunct to the
time series. These cover such diverse topics as response of the ecosystem to low frequency
climate change, energy flow in midwater and benthic food webs, microbial recycling of
nutrients, the formation of thin biological layers, natural iron fertilization of the ocean, and the
development of harmful algal blooms. All these studies use the time-series data as the starting
point for understanding the environmental background for experiments and observations.
The data sets collected to date, augmented with information from satellites, now span many
time and space scales and permit construction of climatologies against which change can be
measured. In the early years, the seasonal and spatial pattern of the physics, nutrient chemistry,
and primary production where the major focus. In the 1990s the time series documented the
impacts of El Niño and La Niña, leading to the realization that global climate fluctuations cause
dramatic changes in local ecosystems. And finally, following the 1997-98 El Niño, time series
data indicate that the Pacific had cooled—only slightly—but still enough to significantly affect
local ecosystem dynamics. This cooling may have been linked to longer term cycles associated
6
with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Recent studies, however, question either that
patterns subsumed under PDO describe current patterns in the North Pacific (Bond et al., 2003)
or question the existence of persistent patterns such as the PDO (Rudnick and Davis, 2003).
These questions further point out the need for long-term ocean observing systems in the North
Pacific.
The proposed system of multidisciplinary fixed long-term observatories for improved
stewardship of the coastal ocean is providing new challenges. First, it will be necessary to bring
together the massive volumes of data produced by the different observing methods so that
scientists can see the relationships between, for example, anomalous oceanographic conditions
and simultaneous increases in toxic algae. Probably the only way do this is by development of
data assimilation and modeling systems for visualization, interpretation and prediction of
processes in real time. These challenges extend beyond sensor or platform development and will
require significant improvements in our scientific concepts and more than likely the development
of a new generation of Earth scientists.
As described above one of the most pressing issues facing society today is the extent to
which global change will influence local ocean climate and the oceanic ecosystem. The effects of
global change include the acidification of the ocean resulting from absorption of anthropogenic
CO2, eutrophication from coastal agricultural runoff, the excessive exploitation of natural
resources, and large-scale climate changes driven by increasing atmospheric heat retention. The
effects are already seen on local, regional and global scales. Predicting the effects of global
climate change on oceanic systems is extremely difficult due to the many possible interactions
between forcing functions and subcomponents of the system. Given these important social issues
it is paramount that long-term observatories throughout the global ocean are established and that
these observing stations include strong representation in biologically productive and thus
economically important areas such as the CCS.
1.2.2 time series measurements of biogeochemical properties are needed for the CCS
Existing synoptic and higher frequency time series are confined almost entirely to physical
oceanographic measurements. The longest time series include coastal sea level and temperature.
More recently long term velocity and subsurface temperature measurements have been made.
Chemical and biological time series exist for a very limited number of sites. While there have
been successful attempts to relate physical time series to ecosystem variability (e.g., Roemmich
and McGowan, 1995), many research questions cannot be answered because the relevant time
series are not acquired with sufficient frequency or duration. High-frequency simultaneous in
situ time series of physical, chemical and biological properties are needed to better relate
standing stocks of chlorophyll (estimated from satellite observations) to primary production over
the shelf, slope and basin and to understand the relative roles of physical advection and
biological variability in determining patterns of production and chlorophyll distribution (Abbott
and Letelier, 1998). Macronutrient (nitrate, silicate, and phosphate) as well as iron time series are
needed to distinguish micronutrient and macronutrient limitation in the system (Bruland et al.,
2001). Bio-optical and bio-acoustic time series of phytoplankton, zooplankton, and sentinel fish
species are needed to understand ecosystem community structure and its response to forcing at
all time scales. These linked observations at high sampling rate over long time are only
achievable with an observatory infrastructure as described and proposed here. We note that these
types of measurements are likely to require larger data transmission rates and power
consumption than available on current mooring designs.
7
1.2.3 Existing time series have insufficient temporal and spatial resolution.
One of the most dramatic sources of interannual variability within the CCS is ENSO. Lowfrequency forcing due to ENSO strongly affects coastal ecosystems from Baja California to the
Gulf of Alaska (e.g., Lavaniegos et al., 2002; Chavez et al., 2002; Whitney and Welch, 2002),
but the manifestation of this forcing is often on relatively short time and length scales. A key
question are the mechanisms responsible for changes in the physical and biological system
associated with ENSO events. First, there is the possibility of atmospheric teleconnections; that
is, ENSO is related to atmospheric anomalies of basin to global scale that themselves affect local
coasts. The two mechanisms of wave propagation and advection are also at work. ENSO causes
coastally trapped waves that propagate northward away from the equator. However, these waves
seem not to propagate past the Gulf of California, so their effect further north remains
questionable. Certain manifestations of ENSO (changes in water properties, arrival of different
planktonic organisms) are likely to be caused by advection as ENSO modulates the boundary
current systems.
Given the environmental changes caused by ENSO, a number of biogeochemical questions arise.
• What are the mechanisms driving observed changes in community structure and
function (distribution and abundance of various taxa from all trophic levels)?
• How does ENSO affect timing, magnitude, and spatial extent of spring blooms?
• How does ENSO affect biogeochemical fluxes?
The large-scale changes brought about by ENSO likely modulates effects on smaller scales,
raising such questions as:
• How does ENSO modulate the mesoscale (fronts, upwelling/downwelling, eddies)?
• How does ENSO modulate storms (precipitation, wind, mixing, surface waves)?
Even for physical time series, available measurements are hard pressed to distinguish between
climate variability, the ENSO response and the PDO (Smith et al., 2001; Rudnick and Davis,
2003), let alone be used to study how these responses interact with one another. A distributed,
integrated observing network composed of a variety of mobile and fixed platforms is the only
way to resolve the wide range of relevant time and length scales. The challenge is to have in
place, before the arrival of ENSO, an observational system covering the entire west coast that
can resolve the requisite fine spatial and temporal scales. Such a system would pay scientific
dividends as soon as the next ENSO occurs, as the data set would be unprecedented in coverage
and resolution.
Documenting and understanding the effects of ENSO on the CCS provides one clear rationale
for a CCS observing system but there are many others:
Existing ship-based surveys cover large spatial scales but have at best only seasonal
resolution and miss episodic and synoptic variability. Thus such surveys must be completed by
high-frequency observations. For example, variability in the timing and duration of the spring
phytoplankton bloom is not characterized by quarterly sampling programs (Fig. 2). Other
evidence indicates the timing of the spring transition to upwelling is coherent over the CCS but
interannual variations in the timing of the spring transition are not resolved. The lack of high
frequency continuous time series means that the relative importance of episodic versus periodic
forcing is largely unknown as is the ecosystem response to interannual and interdecadal oceanatmospheric variability.
8
Existing time series also do not resolve the cross-shelf scales needed to characterize
processes such as surface heat and momentum fluxes. In situ measurements (Dever and Lentz,
1994; Beardsley et al., 1998) show surface fluxes over the shelf differ greatly from ship based
climatologies (e.g., Nelson and Husby, 1983) in the CCS. Even modern satellite-based wind
stress estimates do not resolve scales evident in modeled coastal wind stress fields (Kora in et
al., 2004). Within the ocean, the offshore transport of nutrients and carbon by eddies within the
CCS is also unknown. Although models indicate eddies within the CCS are a major cross-shelf
transport mechanism (Moisan et al., 1996), this transport cannot be resolved with present
measurements.
12
10
Chl a (µ g/L)
8
6
4
2
0
Aug-96 Aug-97 Aug-98 Aug-99 Aug-00 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-03 Aug-04
Fig. 2. Remotely sensed Chl a in the
surface layer of the Santa Barbara Basin
derived from monthly ocean color
composites for the time period Aug. 1996
to January 2005 (M. Kahru & G.
Mitchell, pers. comm.). Monthly averages
are plotted against time (blue line).
Random subsamples of the time series
corresponding to quarterly sampling are
indicted with black squares.
This
subsampling of the time series illustrates
potential bias as the subsampled time
series no longer shows that the duration
of the spring phytoplankton bloom in the
SBB has been significantly longer in
recent years, which has implications for
the biogeochemistry of the basin.
1.2.4 Real time access to data is almost non existent.
Although the 1997-1998 ENSO event was detected along the equator and predicted to have
strong effects along the North American Pacific coast, there was little time to plan and carry out
expeditionary type observations in time to capture the ENSO signal there (but see Hayward,
2000). As a result, the 1997-1998 ENSO, for the most part, could only be identified and studied
in retrospect from existing long term observations and previously planned expeditions (Chavez et
al., 2002). More recently, the 2002-2003 north Pacific salinity anomaly (Freeland et al., 2003)
was identified using repeated survey lines and Argo float data. It was studied and understood
largely in retrospect. More real time data would have been able to identify its timing and
geographical extent and allowed better study of the ecosystem response. On smaller scales
productive blooms of benign and harmful species exist, settling events happen, coastal river
input of freshwater nutrients and sediments change, etc. This knowledge could be used to modify
planned studies and respond rapidly with adaptive sampling. In particular, we plan to guide
gliders and deploy AUV based on features and events detected in real-time in the mooring (plus
remote sensing) data.
1.2.5 Measurements need to be coordinated with modeling efforts
The need for coordinated modeling and measurements was recently identified as critical to
advancing our understanding of the CCS by a large community of observational and modeling
oceanographers (Miller et al., 1999). Modeling is needed to synthesize disparate data types. This
synthesis will in turn necessitate quantitative tests of the model dynamics, resolution and sub9
grid scale parameterizations. One of the major data and model challenges is to track eddies in
time between surveys and altimeter overflights and in space between fixed time series: can we
track an eddy from the "cradle", where it is created by instability processes off of northern
California, to the "grave" as it moves offshore and dissipates or changes its depth structure.
Models indicate both surface (Moisan et al., 1996) and undercurrent eddies (Cornuelle et al.,
2000) are important to the offshore transport of nutrients and new production from the upwelling
region into the California Current System. Testing these model predictions will require a
coordinated observing system and modeling effort.
Models can also refine forcing fields by requiring them to be consistent with model dynamics
and by combining multiple data types together. An important example of this from the
meteorological field is the merging of different estimates of wind stress. Offshore remotely
sensed (scatterometer) wind stress fields need to be combined with coastal point wind stress
estimates from moorings to achieve a realistic forcing field for ocean models of the California
Current System.
Advanced modeling efforts also make possible optimum deployments of controllable assets,
such as choosing trajectories for gliders and AUV’s and profiling protocols for moored
instruments.
Models can quantify the along-shore connectivity of the CCS. They can be used to track (and
forecast) fast-moving waves propagating up the coast, and identify their structure in the water
and their mode of propagation. Several important questions regarding wave propagation remain
including: How closely are these waves trapped to the coast and where and how does wave
scattering near coastal bathymetry changes occur?
Models will also be needed to help infer sub-surface nutrient distributions by comparing the
effects of upwelling (which should be calculable from windstress and flow fields) to the
observations (of both nutrients and productivity). Not all upwelling will bring nutrients to the
photic zone, and the distribution of the nutrients varies at very short scales, due to the chaotic
advection and stretching and straining of nutrient-rich water. The immediate upwelling zones
may be relatively simple, but satellite pictures reveal the filamentary nature of the temperature
and chlorophyll, which is a huge challenge to observe or model. It has recently been
demonstrated that models can be used to infer, based on in-situ and altimetry data, the
ageostrophic and thus divergent flow field, leading to otherwise unobservable vertical velocities.
1.2.6 Regional scientific issues
The above scientific needs pertain to the California Current System as a whole. Within the
CCS, there are distinct sub-regions subject to quite different forcing and response at the synoptic
level (Figure 3). Each region also has specific scientific questions that cannot be answered with
existing observations. We propose observations for the Southern California Bight (region III),
the southern California Current (region II), and the northern California Current and the terminus
of the west wind drift (region I). Discussion of site specific science questions is deferred until
section 3.
10
Figure 3. Reproduced from Mackas (2005) and adapted from GLOBEC (1994).
1.3 Key scientific questions to be tested with the proposed system
The observing system will allow us to address the following scientific questions:
1. What are the physical links between parts of the CCS, and what are their characteristic time
and space scales? For example do phenomena that originate in one part of the CCS propagate
to others and by what mechanisms?
2. What are the relative roles of mesoscale versus basin-scale dynamics in forcing ecosystem
variability and biogeochemical cycling?
3. By which processes does physical forcing regulate ecosystem dynamics and biogeochemical
cycling at seasonal, interannual and multidecadal time-scales?
4. By which processes does physical forcing regulate ecosystem structure and bio-diversity?
5. How do ecosystem structure and biogeochemical cycling relate and does this coupling
change on seasonal, interannual and multidecadal time scales?
6. How important is subtle multidecadal physical variability in regulating ecosystem structure
and how is the physical dynamics transferred to ecosystems and biogeochemical cycling?
7. What is the quantitative impact of anthropogenic CO2 uptake by the oceans on ecosystems
and biogeochemical cycling?
8. What additional human impacts on ecosystems and biogeochemical cycling are observable?
2. Scientific Objectives
The proposed observing system would:
characterize the physical, biogeochemical, and ecosystem response to large scale forcing
events
11
allow analysis of the processes, and detection of changes and events, in the coupled
physical-ecosystem regime
provide continuous high-frequency measurements to improve parameterizations used by
satellite observations and numerical models
describe the along-coast continuity of the California Current system, poleward
undercurrent, and inshore Davidson Current, and its influence on ecosystem conditions.
3. Experimental Design and Observing Requirements
The basic design of the experiment is the deployment and maintenance of 7 cross-shelf
transects (figure 4) of observations using moorings, cabled observatories, gliders and
autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV’s).
These transects are based largely on the
recommended “Endurance” lines envisioned in the recent CORA report (Jahnke et al., 2003).
Transects would span the continental shelf to the California Current. Fixed site measurements
would span the entire water column in depth with at least twice daily data acquisition. They
would incorporate meteorological, physical, bio-optical and bio-acoustic, and chemical data.
The fixed time series would be supplemented with glider lines linking moorings and by AUV’s
at shelf mooring sites.
The
system
would
exploit
developing technologies for sensors
and hardware. Mooring improvements
include high bandwidth reporting by
satellite communications systems,
telemetry of subsurface information by
acoustic and inductive modems, and
profiling systems. New or developing
instrumentation includes acoustic
anemometers, in-situ chemistry sensors
(CO2 and macronutrients), flow
cytometers,
multi-spectral
and
counting bio-optical instruments, and
bio-acoustic and turbulence sensors.
The spatial scales covered by the
proposed observing system are
designed to complement regional
observing systems such as the
Northeast Pacific Continental Margin
System proposed by Barth and Hickey,
the Santa Barbara Channel system
proposed by Chang et al, and global
observing systems such as the global
water column proposal of Send et al.
Figure 4. A map of the North American continental
margin with proposed observatory lines.
12
3.1 Siting
The siting is based on recommendations of the CORA (and earlier) workshop for Endurance
lines along the west coast of the United States. These workshops recommended long term
transects across continental shelves and slopes of all United States coasts.
3.1.1 time series locations relative to the coast
Fixed time series transects will range from the continental shelf and slope to the edge of the
California Current. They will attempt to resolve crude cross-shelf scales of wind forcing and
circulation and cover the different cross-shelf regimes. Outside the Southern California Bight, we
regard one shelf, one slope, an inner California Current location, and an outer California Current
location as minimal requirements for a CCS observing system. Within the Southern California
Bight the offshore location of the California Current and the extremely narrow shelf suggest
moving the slope mooring offshore for more even coverage.
Shelf measurements are critical to addressing scientific questions regarding upwelling and
associated new production, wind stress curl generated near coastal headlands, coastal inputs of
sediments, pollution and freshwater, blooms (including harmful algal blooms), settlement of
meroplankton, transport via the coastally trapped wave guide, seasonal transport in the Davidson
Current (seasonal poleward transport), and the oceanic ENSO teleconnection (poleward
propagation of Kelvin waves and advection). Here we propose one shelf time series at 100 m
depth for all transects.
Slope measurements are critical to addressing scientific questions including the continuity of
the poleward California Undercurrent and generation of associated eddies and the export of
upwelled production from the shelf in upwelling jets and filaments. Slope measurements are
also expected to be affected by the oceanic ENSO teleconnection. We propose a slope
measurement at 350 m for all transects except the Pt. Conception (CalCOFI line 80) and San
Diego (CalCOFI line 90) as described below.
Time series over the inner edge of the California Current are necessary to understand
biological variation as seasonal upwelling jets join the California Current, the seasonal evolution
of California Current structure, and eddy propagation and evolution. The location of the inner
California Current varies as a function of latitude, becoming further offshore to the south and the
proposed time series locations (described below) reflect that.
Outer California Current time series are necessary to understand the interaction of biology
and physics as nutrients upwelled near the coast become drawn down, the importance of
southward transport of subarctic waters for physics and biology, and the atmospheric ENSO
teleconnection (the role of changed stormtracks in forcing regional oceanic variability). The
location of the outer California Current also varies as a function of latitude, as reflected in the
proposed time series locations.
3.1.2 transect locations
Proposed transects sample regions I, II, and III of the California Current system (Figure 3).
The San Diego and Pt. Conception transects would be in the southern California Bight (region
III), the Monterey Bay, Pt. Arena, and Crescent City transects are off central and northern
California (region II) and the Newport and Juan de Fuca transects would be off central Oregon
and central Washington respectively (region I). Transects would be spaced approximately 300
km apart. The proposed transects are discussed in light of regional scientific issues below.
13
Southern California Bight and Pt. Conception
Locally weak wind forcing, a narrow shelf, and local recirculation within the southern
California Bight (Fig. 5) distinguish it from other regions of the CCS. The southern California
Bight is also a distinct biogeographic province (Californian), separated from the Oregonian by
Point Conception (Dailey et al., 1993). Within the southern California Bight several distinct
scientific questions exist:
•
How important is local coastal upwelling relative to other mechanisms for nutrient delivery
and what are these other mechanisms? Because regional wind-driven coastal upwelling is
weak, other nutrient delivery mechanisms must be important since areas of high
productivity are often observed in the offshore areas (Mantyla et al., 1995). Possible
alternate mechanisms include onshore transport of nutrient rich water by internal tides,
poleward transport of water from region IV (where stronger upwelling is present) by
coastally trapped waves, topographic upwelling, open ocean upwelling driving by the curl in
the wind stress and, near Pt. Conception, advection of recently upwelled water from further
north.
•
Is macronutrient or micronutrient limitation more important in the southern California
Bight? Because local upwelling is weak, macronutrients are usually low in the southern
California Bight. However, the shelf is also quite narrow in most of the Bight. The narrow
shelf implies that iron limitation may also be important, an implication corroborated by
recent iron-enrichment experiments (Barbour, pers. comm.).
•
What is the magnitude of recirculation in the southern California Bight and how does it
influence the coastal ocean? Recirculation of waters from the offshore CCS has been
inferred from seasonal climatologies of hydrographic properties. But direct evidence (e.g.,
drifter trajectories) for recirculation is lacking and the magnitudes of the recirculation as
well as its synoptic and seasonal variability are unknown.
•
How does the southern California Bight communicate with other areas of the CCS?
Coastally trapped waves are one mechanism, but surface and subsurface poleward flow at
Pt. Conception is another. For example flow at Point Conception after the 1997-1998 El
Niño has been shown to affect plankton and juvenile fish populations in the Santa Barbara
Channel (Nishimoto and Washburn, 2002). How does seasonal and interannual variability
impact poleward transport at Pt. Conception? Is the southern California Bight a significant
source population for phytoplankton and zooplankton and vice versa?
•
What is the Southern California Bight scale wind stress curl and does it affect poleward
transport throughout the CCS? Model evidence suggests the positive wind stress curl due to
cross-shore variation in wind stress magnitude in the southern California Bight is an
important forcing mechanism for poleward transport along the coast.
San Diego line
Measurements at the San Diego line will help determine recirculation within the bight, the
cross-shore structure of wind forcing, and the importance of different nutrient delivery
mechanisms to the shelf. The San Diego line will be along CalCOFI line 90, the line that has the
best historical coverage in the CalCOFI data set. It will extend west from near San Diego to
CalCOFI station 110 (620 km offshore). The inshore site of this line will be near the Pt. La Jolla
SCCOOS pilot mooring funded by NOAA, and HF radar coverage exists over the nearshore
region. To more evenly cover the offshore extent of the California Current in the southern
14
California Bight, the slope location is moved offshore to north of Cortes Bank. This will better
allow wind stress and recirculation within the southern California Bight to be studied. This
mooring line is accessible from Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Generally benign weather
conditions and the close proximity of shelf and slope locations to SIO are expected to facilitate
operations, especially during development.
Figure 5. Transect
locations
in
the
Southern
California
Bight.
Proposed
observatories
are
marked by triangles.
The transects coincide
with CalCOFI lines 80
and 90.
Pt. Conception line
Measurements at the Pt. Conception line will help determine the cross-shore structure of
wind forcing, the importance of different nutrient delivery mechanisms to the shelf, and the
communication of the southern California Bight with other areas of the CCS. The Pt. Conception
line will be along CalCOFI line 80 extending southwest from Pt. Conception to CalCOFI station
80 (220 km offshore). The Point Conception line will span the boundary between the Oregonian
and Californian biogeographic provinces. It will cover the area where strong wind forcing
separates from the coast and the California Current moves even further offshore. The inshore site
of the Pt. Conception line is near the Santa Barbara Channel SCCOOS NOAA pilot mooring and
the proposed Santa Barbara Channel Orion site. HF radar coverage exists over the nearshore
region. This mooring line is accessible from University of California Santa Barbara. The close
proximity of shelf and slope locations to UCSB are expected to facilitate operations, especially
during development. Here we have moved the slope location offshore due to the extreme
narrowness of the shelf at Pt. Conception and a desire to better describe offshore variability of
the wind field, circulation, and biogeochemistry.
Central and northern California
Persistent upwelling favorable winds, major coastal promontories, strong advection and an
offshore California Current distinguish the central and northern California coasts (Fig. 6) from
other regions of the CCS. The central California coast extends south to the boundary of the
Oregonian and Californian biological provinces. Off the coast of central and northern California
several distinct scientific questions exist:
15
•
How important is micronutrient limitation relative to macronutrient limitation on new
production? Strong upwelling leads to elevated levels of macronutrients along the coast
here. Yet chlorophyll levels estimated from ocean color suggest productivity is higher
further to the north. The narrow shelves along the California coast coupled with the
relatively minor river input may lead to micronutrient limitation in this region.
•
How does communication with more southern areas of the CCS occur? Large changes in
water properties, chlorophyll levels and zooplankton composition show poleward transport
is important during ENSO events. Do less severe but qualitatively similar changes happen
in other years?
•
How does wind forcing affect primary production over the shelf and export of
phytoplankton and zooplankton to the California Current? Wind-driven upwelling brings
nutrients crucial to primary production into the euphotic zone. However upwelling also
exports this production from the shelf with the potential for upwelled waters to be exported
before blooms occur. What levels of wind forcing maximize production over the shelf?
•
How important are different mechanisms of cross-shore transport? Transport mechanisms
include offshore wind-driven Ekman transport, offshore movement of upwelling jets at
coastal promontories, eddies generated within the California Current and California
undercurrent eddies.
The quantitative transport and relative importance of these
mechanisms is not well described.
Monterey Bay line
Measurements at the Monterey Bay
line will help determine advection of
communities from the Californian
province to the Oregonian province and
the
roles
of
micronutrient
and
macronutrient limitation. The contrast
between the relatively large, sheltered
Monterey Bay area and more open
coastlines further north will provide
insight into the question of wind-driven
export and shelf productivity.
The
formation and offshore movement of
California Current eddies as well as
undercurrent eddies can also be studied
here. The Monterey Bay line will extend
west from Monterey Bay to 126W along
CalCOFI line 67. The inshore sites of the
Monterey Bay line will use the MARS
observatory. HF radar coverage exists
over the nearshore region. This mooring
line is accessible from The Monterey Bay
Aquarium Institute.
Figure 6:
Transect and observatory locations in Central/ Northern California.
16
Pt. Arena and Crescent City lines
Measurements at the Pt. Arena line will also help determine the roles of micronutrient and
macronutrient limitation. The contrast between the open coastline and extremely strong
upwelling favorable winds here with Monterey Bay will provide insight into the question of
wind-driven export and shelf productivity. The formation and offshore movement of California
Current eddies as well as undercurrent eddies can also be studied here. Both of these lines are
areas where upwelling jets form offshore filaments that extend into the California Current. The
Pt. Arena line will extend west from Pt. Arena, California to 126.5 W, and the Crescent City line
will extend west from Crescent City, California to 127 W. Despite being the focus of several
large field efforts, the Point Arena and Crescent City lines are historically undersampled area due
to weather conditions and the lack of local logistical support. HF radar coverage exists over the
nearshore region near Bodega Marine Laboratory and some logistical support for shelf and slope
lines may be possible from BML. At the Crescent City line, HF radar coverage extends from the
nearshore region offshore into the California Current.
Oregon and Washington
Moderate and reversing winds, significant river input, proximity to the bifurcation of the west
wind drift, and a nascent California Current distinguish the Oregon and Washington coasts (Fig.
7) from other regions of the CCS. The local coastline is relatively linear, but offshore banks can
strongly influence shelf circulation. These conditions strongly frame regional scientific
questions:
•
How does the delivery of micronutrients by rivers influence local production? Gradients in
satellite based chlorophyll estimates show an increase with latitude. Chlorophyll levels on
the Oregon coast are often higher than those off California and levels off Washington are
higher still. This occurs despite weaker upwelling winds in northern locations. This in
combination with enhanced river output further north suggests that micronutrients from
river sources enhance productivity. Can higher micronutrient levels over the Oregon and
Washington coasts lead to higher productivity?
•
How does the bifurcation of the west wind drift affect the region? The Oregon and
Washington coasts are near the latitude of the bifurcation of the west wind drift. Recently
variability in this bifurcation was associated with regional water mass changes. Higher
nutrient levels may have lead to the hypoxia recently observed along the coast. How much
does the bifurcation of the west wind drift vary? Can its dynamics be described and its
influence on coastal ecosystems predicted?
•
What conditions lead to Harmful Algal Blooms? Recently harmful algal blooms (HAB’s)
have shut down several fisheries on the Washington and Oregon coasts. What conditions
lead to these blooms?
•
How do mesoscale features affect regional ecosystems? Relative to the California coast
further south, relatively few mesoscale features exist. However, two large persistent
mesoscale features occur, the Juan de Fuca eddy off northern Washington and over Heceta
Bank off central Oregon. Both of these features have the potential to modify local nutrient
supply, productivity and retention.
17
Newport line
Measurements at the Newport line
can be contrasted with the Juan de Fuca
line to the north and with stronger wind
forcing regions to the south to help
determine the role of river input of
micronutrients
in
shelf
primary
production.
The Newport line, in
combination with other proposed
regional measurements will be used to
examine the importance of Heceta Bank
to local ecosystems. The Newport line
will extend west along 46.5 N from
Newport, Oregon to 126W.
The
Newport line will include the region
where the southern bifurcation of the
west wind drift in combination with
wind driven upwelling jets combine to
form the nascent California Current
along the coast. The Newport line
includes a strong historical data base of
CTD transects. HF radar coverage exists
over the nearshore region, and long
range HF radar coverage extends
offshore. Measurements along this line
are also proposed for the northeast
Pacific continental margin.
Figure 7. Transect and observatory locations off Oregon
and Washington.
Juan de Fuca line
The Juan de Fuca line, in combination with other proposed regional measurements will be
used to examine the importance of the Juan de Fuca eddy to local ecosystems. The Juan de Fuca
line will include the area south of the bifurcation of the West wind drift. It will be heavily
influenced by the outflow of the Fraser River through the Straits of Juan de Fuca and the
Columbia River to the south. The Juan de Fuca line will extend southwest from the straits of
Juan de Fuca to 127 W. A line in this region is also proposed for the northeast Pacific
continental margin. The Juan de Fuca line proposed here will be coordinated with the cabled
observatory proposed under Orion and with the Canadian VENUS effort.
3.2 Measurement platforms and instrumentation
Fixed position time series will consist of near bottom, subsurface profiling and near surface
time series. It is anticipated that the near bottom and subsurface profiling elements will be
coordinated with proposed or existing cabled observatories where practical. Where proposed
cabled observatories do not exist, deep sea or coastal buoy systems would be used. Gliders and
AUV’s will also be used to resolve spatial scales not resolved by fixed measurements.
18
3.2.1 surface measurements
Surface buoys with atmospheric and near surface measurements of oceanographic parameters
are proposed for a subset of the locations, but at least two per line. In locations where
atmospheric measurements can be sacrificed, profiling systems (see below) that only
occasionally reach the surface may be preferable. These measurements are especially important
for a number of reasons. Surface fluxes of light, heat, momentum and even nutrients (e.g.,
Bishop et al., 2002) are paramount to ocean processes. Near surface measurements of
oceanographic parameters are needed to understand physical processes in the oceanographic
surface boundary layer and biological variability in the euphotic zone. The in situ measurements
acquired would be used to validate remote sensing algorithms for surface fluxes, and ocean
color. The buoys will transmit near surface data in near real time. They will also act as
receiving stations for subsurface instruments where necessary (i.e., where cabled systems are
unavailable) or as a backup where cabled systems are available. Surface buoys have the potential
(via solar panels) to provide some power for near surface instruments. We anticipate at least 6
month deployment times for surface buoys. Two way communications with buoys will be needed
to allow adaptive sampling of instruments limited by power requirements, on board reagents etc.
Core near surface measurements will include: meteorological measurements to determine
momentum and heat fluxes, physical oceanographic measurements to describe oceanic surface
boundary layer variability, measurements of nutrients and other parameters that support primary
production, bio-optical measurements needed to estimate primary production, CO2
measurements to estimate carbon fluxes, and bio-acoustic measurements to estimate zooplankton
biomass.
Supplemental measurements could include items such as aerosols (Sholkovitz et al., 1998),
camera imaging of phytoplankton, cytometers, micronutrient time series, and moored
zooplankton samplers.
Meteorological measurements needed to estimate surface fluxes include wind speed and
direction, air temperature and relative humidity, air pressure, incident shortwave and longwave
radiation. Photosynthetically available radiation (PAR) would also be measured. Sensor
packages designed to measure these parameters have been deployed globally and in the coastal
ocean.
Proposed near-surface physical oceanographic measurements include sea surface
temperature, surface gravity wave parameters, sea surface salinity and near surface velocity.
Subsurface temperature measurements will also be made along with some subsurface
measurements of other variables as practical. These measurements are also fairly standard and
can be made using commercially-available instruments.
High frequency oxygen time series using in situ sensors on moorings can be used to
determine: (a) gross daily biological oxygen production via diurnal changes and (b) net annual
biological oxygen production via the flux to the atmosphere and seasonal build up below the
mixed layer. Evaluating the flux across the air-water interface requires determinations of the
surface ocean concentrations and factors that influence gas exchange rates (wind speed, wave
height, surface roughness). Modern oxygen sensors have been improved recently and are
commercially available for deployment on moorings.
Nitrate is an essential nutrient element that is required to support new primary production in
the ocean. Measurement of nitrate would provide understanding of a key parameter that limits
rates of primary production. It is now possible to measure nitrate concentrations directly in
19
seawater by measuring the UV absorption spectra, which contains a band due to light absorption
by nitrate (Johnson and Coletti, 2002). ISUS (In Situ Ultraviolet Spectrophotometers) nitrate
sensors have been deployed on surface moorings for year-long time periods in the euphotic zone
with only modest drift due to biofouling.
Quantifying integrated water column primary productivity requires knowledge of
phytoplankton biomass, physiological condition (growth rate), and light-dependent changes in
production with depth. These three central parameters have distinct bio-optical signatures. Core
measurements of beam attenuation, fluorescence and backscatter on moorings will enable the
characterization of phytoplankton biomass, growth rates, and vertical light attenuation. This will
facilitate the routine monitoring of variability in integrated water column productivity to an
accuracy not possible using satellite-based data and models. These types of measurements are
commercially available, but sensitive to biofouling. Some refinement of biofouling techniques
(e.g., copper shutters, and pumped systems with antifouling sleeves) is necessary for long term
routine deployments in coastal regions.
Interpretation of primary production measurements as well as an improved understanding of
the carbon cycle in the CCS requires measurements of surface ocean and atmospheric pCO2.
These measurements can now routinely be made on moored platforms. Systems for moored
platforms rely on a new low-power detector from (Li-Cor 820) and an in situ equilibrator system
developed by G. Friederich (MBARI). The systems are calibrated with WMO traceable CO2
standards so their measurements are compatible with the global atmospheric CO2 monitoring
network. Buoy systems have been shown to be accurate to ±2 ppm based on laboratory studies
and in situ comparisons with shipboard systems. Systems currently deployed in the TOGA/TAO
array are programmed to run every three hours and transmit a summary file each day. With the
ORION moorings, a much more ambitious and flexible schedule can easily be developed. With
two way communications, a system could be designed to recognize when pCO2 values are
changing rapidly and adapt the sampling schedule to properly capture the temporal signal.
The coastal pelagic species (CPS) component of the California Current ecosystem includes a
broad range of species that share most of the following characteristics: relatively short-lived,
high reproductive potential, responsive to climatic change, schooling or swarming behavior,
inhabit the upper mixed layer and are considered prey for a wide range of vertebrate predators
(piscivorous fish, marine mammals, seabirds, and turtles). CPS include a broad range of
taxonomic groups, such as clupeoid fishes, small scombrid fishes, small squid, and large
euphausiids, which collectively form a critical component in the natural economy of the
California Current ecosystem.
Multi-frequency, single-beam scientific echosounder systems will be used to monitor the
temporal and spatial variations in CPS fish and euphausiids. 38 and 200 kHz transducers will be
mounted at 50 m depth and transmit upwards towards the sea surface to measure the temporal
variabilities of fish and zooplankton abundances in the upper mixed layer. Observations at these
two frequencies will provide sufficient information to accurately apportion the volume
backscattering to these two taxa for echo-integration estimation of their abundances versus time.
The simplicity of these systems will allow for three installations (shelf, transition, and deep water
zones) on each of the seven observation lines (21 systems). On the upper-ocean profiling
systems, Laser Optical Plankton Counters (LOPC) will supplement the acoustic bulk
zooplankton estimates.
20
3.2.2 profiling measurements
We propose to use profiling moorings at all fixed time series sites. Profiling moorings have
the advantage of producing high vertical-resolution measurements using just one sensor suite
package as opposed to multiple copies in the vertical of sometime expensive instruments.
Profilers can also “hide” on the ocean floor to help minimize bio-fouling which is greatest in the
upper-ocean euphotic zone and to help avoid damage from fishing and other maritime activity.
Much of our ecosystem research is concentrated in the euphotic zone, and thus requires an
upper-ocean profiler. There are also scientific objectives only addressable with the ability to
profile over greater depths over the continental slope and adjacent deep ocean. For this purpose,
we require a deep-ocean profiler operating on a fixed mooring line and capable of profiling
from (local) full-ocean depth (~3000 m) to within 100 m of the surface at which depth a stable
platform will be provided for mounting other sensor packages, including an upper-ocean profiler
The upper-ocean profiler will consist of: a completely self-contained, modularly-integrated
sensor float, instrument controller, winch, power and telemetry system; a biofouling-resistant and
hydrodynamic profiling platform; sensors to sample the physical (pressure, temperature, salinity,
currents), biological (chlorophyll fluorescence), chemical (dissolved oxygen and nitrate
concentrations), and optical (spectral downwelling irradiance, beam attenuation, backscattering)
properties over the upper 150-200m of the water column. The design specifications of this
system include: 6-12 month duration when operated autonomously; am ability to resolve diurnal
variations; and a vertical resolution of less than 0.25 m. In addition, the built-in telemetry will
allow for near real-time transmission (via radio, cell phone or Iridium phone) of the data to
shoreside computers and remote programming/control of system operations. When hooked to a
seafloor cable, data transmission and power will be supplied directly from the seafloor junction
box.
An estimated power budget for the upper-ocean profiling system, assuming a 180-day
deployment, profiling 8 times per day in a 100-m water column, is as follows. All instruments
and controllers are powered during the profiler’s ascent at 0.5 m/s to sample the undisturbed
water column. The light sensor is only turned on during the daylight hours (4 profiles per day).
For this estimate, the nitrate sensor (Satlantic ISUS) is only powered on for 2 profiles per day
due to its large current draw (~1 A). It would be desirable to have the ISUS powered on for all
profiles. One way to achieve this would be to have the ISUS sample at discrete depths. When the
profiler reaches the surface, all instruments with the exception of the pressure sensor will be
powered off. The profiler will then either maintain its position at the surface or begin its descent
depending on surface wave conditions and remote telemetry scheduling. We assume that data
will be telemetered from the profiler four times per day, with data telemetry lasting
approximately 5 minutes. When data transmissions have been completed, the telemetry system
will be powered off, and the package will descend at 1 m/s. With the above assumptions, the
profiler travels about 408 km during the 180-d deployment. When hooked to a cable, the
required power for the sensor suite is ~40W at 12VDC and for the winch is ~70W at 48VDC. So
a total power requirement with some head room and to allow for voltage step down would be
about 150W. For the proposed duty cycle (8 profiles per day) on an autonomous profiler, the
12V sensor power system requires 190 Amp-hours for a 180-d deployment, while the 48V winch
power system requires 130 Amp-hours.
On the off-shelf moorings we propose to use deep-ocean profilers. If available, they can be
attached to a cabled observatory node, thereby removing power as the major constraining factor.
21
A profiler docking station with an inductive coupler will transfer power from the cabled node to
a McLane moored profiler (MMP). This will permit near-continuous profiling (>95 % duty
cycle), at 0.25 m s-1. Further, inductive communications will be used to offload profiler data at
modest rates in real-time; this will enable true adaptive sampling capability. With sensors on the
profiler and at dual sensors at fixed points top and bottom on the mooring, cross-calibration and
overall robustness will be improved. The subsurface float has a secondary junction box on it and
provision for ROV servicing of arbitrary instrument packages; for instance, on the subsurface
float, acoustic instrumentation (e.g., an ADCP) can remotely sense the ocean to the surface, as
well as a winched profiling system (the upper-ocean profiler described above) to carry in-situ
point sensors through the mixed layer to the surface. A secondary junction box is also at the base
of the mooring for additional sensors, again serviced with an ROV. These secondary junction
boxes will provide nominally several hundred watts and 100 Mb/s Ethernet. For use in the cabled
portion of the regional observatory, the following additional developments over the next ~5 years
will be necessary: high-rate inductive communications at every docking; make all active
components ROV serviceable, especially the profiler (replaceable); increase speed to 0.4 m s-1;
increase the profiler payload capacity (weight, volume, power, communications); modify profiler
so it can dock top and bottom, to provide more flexibility and robustness, or multiple ones on a
mooring; interface shallow winch systems to sit on the subsurface float; develop energy storage
capability on mooring/seafloor to accommodate high peak loads (or autonomous operation);
interface many sensors, including: acoustic (hydrophones, ADCPs, acoustic lens, modems, etc),
physical, bio-optic, chemical, biological, video, etc.; deal with biofouling issues; conduct
extensive testing to improve survivability and reliability, while reducing cost; and work on more
energy efficient profiler.
3.2.3 bottom measurements
It is important that measurements be made near the ocean bottom for much of the research
proposed here, i.e. within a few meters and without the observations being disturbed by the
measurement platform. Near-bottom instrumentation should include an upward-looking acoustic
Doppler current profiler to obtain high-resolution velocity profiles and sensors to measure nearbottom pressure, temperature, conductivity, chlorophyll concentration, dissolved oxygen and
suspended particle load. Bottom-boundary layer measurements should be made on a stable
platform hooked to a seafloor cable or powered autonomously with data communicated to the
upper-ocean profiler (acoustically and/or inductively) for telemetry to shore.
3.2.4 glider and powered AUV measurements
Recently gliders have been demonstrated to be an important tool for resolving the mesoscale
structure of oceanographic properties (Eriksen et al., 2001; Davis et al., 2002). Several types of
gliders have been developed: the Seaglider at University of Washington, the Spray at Scripps
Institution of Oceanography, and the Slocum at Webb Research. All have endurances up to
several months and several thousand km with dive depths of 1000 m or more. Standard sensors
include conductivity temperature and depth, fluorescence, optical backscatter and acoustic
Doppler velocity.
Glider paths are proposed along transects and linking transects. Two gliders are proposed for
each mooring line. Glider measurements will be critical for estimating mass, heat, salt and
chlorophyll transports by mesoscale features across the open boundaries of the California
Current system and in linking moorings on a given transect.
22
Powered AUV’s provide an additional capability for remote survey measurements.
Compared to gliders, they have greater payload options, are faster and offer more control in
higher current speeds. Currently available AUV’s have the capability to make measurements at
3.6 knots over a distance of 400 km for a deployment time of 60 hrs. Recharge time is 18 hrs.
Maximum operating depths are 600 m. Two way subsurface acoustic communications are
supported as are surface communications through Iridium. Here we propose to use AUV’s in
shelf areas for adaptive sampling. They will be docked at the bottom where cabled systems
exist. Where cabled systems do not exist, they will be stored onshore for rapid responses to
events and for planned process studies.
3.3 Modelling
An extensive modeling effort will be launched to interpret the observations. We will use the
Regional Ocean Modeling System (ROMS), which has been used successfully in modeling
variations of the California Current from monthly through decadal timescales. ROMS is a
primitive equation model with a free surface, constructed in generalized sigma coordinates,
which allow steeply sloping topography. It also includes an ecosystem component that can be
very simple or complicated. The domain will extend from British Columbia to Baja California
and from the coast to roughly 1500km offshore to cover the observing network. The resolution
will be roughly 10km horizontally and 20 sigma layers vertically. It will be forced by observed
wind stresses, surface heat fluxes and fresh-water fluxes as estimated from in situ products
(COADS), atmospheric analyses (NCEP reanalysis) and satellite observations (QuickScat). A
sample product of this model run coupled to an NPZD ecosystem model is shown in figure 8.
Targeted numerical experiments will test the key scientific issues discussed earlier. One type
of experiment will involve running the model through a chosen time interval of observations in
order to interpret the dynamics of the observed response. First, the model will be run without
data assimilation to determine how
well the model can reproduce the
observations. This run will be
diagnosed to understand how local
forcing, coastal trapped waves,
radiated baroclinic Rossby waves and
current advection control the physical
variability.
Next,
ROMS
data
assimilation tools (4D variational
assimilation in a strong constraints
formulation) will be used to adjust the
forcing,
initial
conditions
and
boundary conditions to bring the
model run closer to the observations.
This run will then be diagnosed and
compared to the unconstrained run to
determine if the dynamical controls are
consistent for the two runs. This type
of procedure will be used during key
time intervals, typically extending for
Fig 8: Chlorophyll-a surface concentration from a model
6 months up to 3 years, such as those
run with ROMS coupled to an NPZD ecosystem model.
associated with El Nino events, El
23
Nino to La Nina transitions, or PDO transitions. By this means we will be able to understand the
local versus remote dynamics of climate forcing as it affects the coastal system. In the same way,
the biological model will be run and diagnosed to determine the processes that control the largescale features of the observed ecosystem.
A second type of numerical experiment will involve predictability issues. How well can we
initialize a forecast model and predict subsequent ocean conditions, given the resolution and
extent of the ORION array? Since much of the variability seen in the network will be dominated
by mesoscale eddies, we expect that predictability timescales will range from weeks to months.
The model will be fit to the observations over a one-month period of time using the 4Dvar strong
constraints framework. Then the model will be used to run the dynamics forward in time into the
time interval of independent data to determine if there is any forecast skill at leads of one week,
one month, two month, etc., using the observed fields in ORION as validation. This process will
be repeated for many time periods to build up the statistical reliability of predictions. By this
means, models and observations will be used together to establish intrinsic predictive timescales
in this coastal ocean domain. Likewise, nowcasts and forecasts of the ecosystem will be executed
to determine if any forecast skill can be identified in the biological system.
4. Program Management Considerations
4.1 Scientific Management and Oversight
Our consortium plans to exploit the bandwidth and two-way capabilities of the new
observatories. Variability and episodic events will be analyzed and responded to via a link
between the data management team and the science operators. Data users such as particiants in
ongoing process studies, and those involved in the development, validation, and verification of
models and remote sensing methods, will be supplied data in near real time.
A science panel will be formed that includes all PIs for the consortium work and is open to
colleagues who later propose additional studies using the CCS array. The panel will work with
the array operators (those funded by ORION to build and deploy the elements of the west coast
array) to organize the deployment of the sensors on moorings. It will maintain a dialog with
their peer groups from the regional ORION and SCCOOS, CeNCOOS, NaNOOS consortia
planning to propose projects using the CCS array infrastructure and will liaise with the ORION
Project Office, the ORION Management structure, national science programs, to coordinate
submission of collaborative proposals and selection and scheduling of sites to be occupied. The
science panel will encourage the communication between investigators and the ORION project
to ensure sensors and instruments will plug into the hardware and software provided by
the ORION project.
Some of the PI’s institutions have their own mooring design, fabrication, and deployment
capacities; and it is anticipated that these resources would be offered, either in the form of a
proposal to build and operate elements of the CCS array or as subcontractors to the CCS array
operator(s).
The science panel will coordinate the integration of the many sensors and technologies by
bringing together technical staff from among the investigators. It is planned that through crosstraining and interaction, we can evolve a shared group of trained technical expertise that
minimizes people committed to each cruise, spreads the work load, and makes the operation and
maintenance of a global array practical and efficient. In the same way we would train a core
group to monitor the telemetered data streams as part of the data management team and alert
24
specific investigators as issues arise; this will eliminate duplication of effort and make good use
of the collection and distribution service to be provided by the DAC and the ORION project.
The science panel will host an annual meeting of the water column investigators. This
meeting will be a forum for program management and also provide both an opportunity for
individual science progress reports and the growth of collaborative partnerships to further pursue
science objectives. To minimize travel costs, these meetings should take place in conjunction
with national scientific or ORION meetings where possible. In addition, we propose that one
member from the CCS group serve on the ORION executive committee.
4.2 Time and work schedule
The initial performance period for the proposed system is 5 years. Initial deployments,
development, modeling and other research will begin in January 2007.
If there is a regional cabled observatory funded for the Northeast Pacific continental margin,
the Newport and Juan de Fuca lines would be added at when cabled infrastructure is finished.
Regardless of cabled infrastructure, the Newport and San Diego lines, and the offshore part of
the Monterey Bay line, would also be started in 2007.
Surface buoys and standalone subsurface moorings/profilers can be deployed using existing
technologies and hardware. We would start with San Diego, Monterey Bay, and Newport lines
for logistical reasons. This would also give coverage in areas I, II and III identified in Figure 3.
In 2008 we would add Pt. Conception and Juan de Fuca lines next. The Pt. Arena and Crescent
City lines would be installed after the system is up and running for the other areas, i.e. in 2009.
While glider lines can be acquired independent of moored/cabled time series measurements,
the capacity to build and operate enough gliders needs to be ramped up over time. Thus a
simultaneous implementation with the mooring lines seems reasonable. This means that in year 1
the first three lines would be started. Glider lines along CalCOFI lines 80 and 90 are already
scheduled to begin in the near future under the recently funded California Current Ecosystem
LTER.
For powered AUV’s, development is necessary for real time reporting and powering systems
that would communicate with subsurface nodes.
Meteorological and oceanographic modeling work should start immediately. Adapting
existing regional physical and ecosystem models and assimilation schemes to the CCS domain
and to the ORION sampling is a priority.
4.3 Relationships to other programs
4.3.1 Other Orion RFA Responses
The measurements and modeling proposed here have direct links to several other Orion RFA
proposals. These links include overlaps in science questions, proposed measurements, and
infrastructure locations. Strong, regionally linked science issues exist with the Northeast pacific
margin proposal (Barth and Hickey) and the Santa Barbara Channel proposal (Chang et al).
Links based on processes exist with the global water column (Send et al) and air-sea flux
proposals (Weller et al). Logistical links exist with the Cascadia proposal (Trehu et al).
4.3.2 PaCOOS
The area encompassed by this observing system directly overlaps the Pacific Coast Ocean
Observing System (PaCOOS). While covering similar geographic areas, the aims of PaCOOS
and the present proposal are complementary but not identical. The goal of PaCOOS is to provide
25
the ocean information needed for the sustained use of fishery resources and protection of marine
species and their ecosystem under a changing climate (PaCOOS, 2004). That is, PaCOOS goals
are oriented towards management of fisheries while the present proposal is oriented towards
understanding physical and ecosystem dynamics on a more basic level. The measurements and
modeling proposed here would directly contribute to several of the ecosystem-climate
requirements identified by PaCOOS including statistically standardized environmental and
ecological time series and assimilation of physical and ecological variables into numerical
models.
4.3.3 Relationships with the CalCOFI and CCE LTER Programs
The CalCOFI and CCE LTER programs sample six lines off Southern California on a
quarterly basis (Fig. 8), work that is projected to continue for at least 12 years but likely decades.
The proposed 2 mooring lines from the present proposal in the Southern California Bight will
coincide with CalCOFI lines. Starting late this year, two of these lines (CalCOFI lines 80 and
90) will be sampled continuously using gliders. The objectives of the programs are to observe
the physical, chemical and ecological system in order to better manage and understand
populations of living resources in the CCS, in particular the effects of long-term climate change
on these. Data collected by the two programs will be integrated into a bio-physical model of the
region and the model will be used to test hypotheses on the mechanisms that drive the system. It
is anticipated that both programs, the mooring program and the CalCOFI/LTER program, will
greatly benefit from each other. The CalCOFI/LTER program will perform quarterly
measurements in the vicinity of the moorings; these will be used to validate mooring
measurement. This work will be of
particular importance in the case of
biooptical measurements, which
are just proxies of the desired
variables, that are measured from
the ships. The CalCOFI/LTER
modeling project will assimilate
the mooring data to better constrain
times
when
ship-based
measurements are not available.
Simply put, the two projects will
complement each other perfectly,
the ship-based project will provide
broad spatial-scale observation of
the whole Southern California
Bight and the mooring program
will provide high-resolution time
series at a few points in the Bight.
Figure 9. The CalCOFI/LTER station plan indicating the LTER
Together these two programs will
control volume stations, existing CalCOFI stations, NDBC buoys,
greatly contribute to the further
the S.B. kelp forest LTER moorings, the SIO pier time series
understanding of the Southern
location, and the Ocean Institute sampling location near Dana
California Bight ecosystem.
Point. Dashed lines indicate glider lines.
26
5. Data Management Considerations
The prime paradigm for the data management and dissemination efforts is that all observatory
data are publicly available without restrictions, both in real-time and in delayed-mode. Our data
management plan will follow the broad outlines of the Data Management and Communications
(DMAC) plan of the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS; Hankin et al., 2005,
http://dmac.ocean.us/dacsc/imp_plan.jsp). We will operate as a consortium of investigators
making watercolumn timeseries observations from the California Current System array. Our
goal, consistent with that of the overall IOOS, will be to acquire data from the CCS array, create
a secure and accessible archive, and deliver real-time and delayed-mode observations to a
variety of users (e.g., researchers, educators, students, modeling centers). Descriptive
information about the data (metadata) will be integrated into the data stream and will stay with
the data during archiving and distribution. The data management plan will make data and
derived data products readily accessible via a web interface and provide tools, or be compliant
with available tools, for locating and retrieving data and metadata. We will, wherever possible,
follow the conventions and use the data management infrastructure of the international
OceanSITES (http://www.OceanSITES.org) program (see below), which shares data from time
series stations around the global ocean. This will allow users to complement ORION CCS
Observatory data sets with time series from other long-term sites. The OceanSITES data sharing
element is lead by Sylvie Pouliquen of IFREMER/CORIOLIS. OceanSITES is an action group
of the JCOMM (WMO/IOC Joint Commission for Oceanography and Marine Meteorology)
DBCP (Data Buoy Cooperation Panel), and our partnering with OceanSITES data management
will ensure full international exposure to diverse users.
5.1 Data Streams
Real-time
There will be two types of data flow from the CCS Array: Real-time and delayed mode. Realtime data will include complete data from some sources (e.g. slowly sampling chemical
sensors) and partial or averaged data from other sources (acoustic or optical imaging data). These
data will come directly to shore from surface or surfacing buoys, using satellite telemetry. Realtime data will be immediately archived and made available on a web site in its raw form, and
simultaneously forwarded to a national or global timeseries data center (see below). Obviously,
the appeal of the real-time data will be the short delay (~1hr), and we will ensure that these data
are made available to regional observing centers, modeling centers, or any other groups that may
be interested in derived products that depend on data from our array. The drawback of real-time
data for the non-expert user will be the lack of quality control or value-added processing. As a
result, these data are likely to be of the most interest to project researchers and technicians who
are monitoring instrument performance, developing integrated data products, or
implementing adaptive sampling strategies, or to operational modelling and forecasting centers
which are aware of the data quality and the limitiations of automated real-time quality control.
Delayed-mode
Delayed-mode data will encompass a broad range of data that either could not be exported
in real time due to bandwidth or to the need for analysis or processing. This means that
instruments need to be recovered first and/or data (or samples) analyzed and quality controlled
on land. Generally, the newer measurement methods used for the non-physical variables will
require greater scrutiny, post-processing, and quality control to produce data products for sharing
and archiving. Delayed-mode quality control can take 6-12 months.
27
Bi-directionality
Two-way communication will allow a response to events, adaptive sampling, and triggering
other sensors depending on events detected. For ease of incorporation of sensors into such sensor
networks, a recent ORION workshop organized by A. Chave for moored buoy use scenarios and
technological requirements, recommended to equip each sensor with an internet IP protocol
interface for standardized addressing. There are also emerging efforts for advancing the
standardization to a plug-and-play level. The exact infrastructure and logic behind such plans
still needs to be developed within ORION.
5.2 Metadata
In the case of both the physical and non-physical variables, an important aspect of the
data management will be the desire to carry forward to the user the supporting data sets,
metadata, and technical information that establishes the credibility of the CCS Array time
series. In particular, we will collect the shipboard observations made at the times of
deployments and recovery and the laboratory and field pre- and post-deployment calibration
information that as a body establish the accuracy of the observatory data. This is a critical
component of the total effort, and in-situ comparisons of shipboard and moored sensors need to
be documented. We will provide metadata descriptions for our observatory components and their
data products. We expect that the format, content, and vocabulary of such descriptions will be
specified for each entire observatory, to assure consistency across all participants, and that it will
follow established conventions in the US and international community.
5.3 Data Format
A format for timeseries data has been drafted by the international OceanSites program (see
above). It is in Netcdf format, and was built by adapting to mooring data the format developed
for Argo and Gosud (Global Ocean Surface Underway data), and including elements of the US
DMAC plan. The format is now being adopted by some of the global timeseries operators. Here
is a quote from the chairman of the US DMAC program about the OceanSITES data format:
“The OceanSITES standard is a very sensible standard to support. While it is not possible to
make a strict promise that OceanSITES will be the last time series standard that you will ever be
asked to address, I can say that it looks like the best prospect for a stable standard that is
available today. Neither IOOS nor Orion/OOI are mature enough to have provided concrete
guidance (though both have helped to raise awareness of how severely hampered the community
is today by inadequate data standards). The lack of agreed-upon, modern standards for the data
interchange is particularly acute for time series data. Time series have fallen through the cracks
as standards have been developing in the GIS world and the modeling world alike. The new
OceanSITES standard has the virtue that it is nearly a proper subset of the emerging 4d standards
for model data (the netCDF "CF" conventions). As a result there is high promise that
compatibility with both IOOS and Orion will come "for free" (assuming that you install freely
available OPeNDAP data servers for your OceanSITES netCDF files and that one of the multiple
concurrent efforts to harmonize CF and GIS bear fruit). In other words, if you have to choose a
single time series standard to support, OceanSITES is the most promising choice today.”
5.4 Data Centers
When some sites in the OceanSITES network have started to provide data in the new format, the
the next step is to set up two international timeseries Global data centres (GDACs) as entry
portals: CORIOLIS in France, COADS in USA. The GDACs will provide a unique access to the
data from the OceanSites data providers. These institutions will put their data in the defined
28
format and either transfer them to one of the two GDACs or, where available, link to them in
distributed manner using OPeNDAP technology. The GDACs will synchronize periodically to be
sure to provide to users access to
the same datasets. For the time
being most of the OceanSites
data are handled by individual
PI'
s. It would be probably better
if at a national level data
assembly centres (DACs) were
set up, similar to ARGO, to
handle a large part of the data
management task necessary
within the OceanSites network.
The consortium of the current
proposal,
through
ORION,
would work toward setting up a
US DAC. The adjacent figure
sketches
a
possible
organizational structure.
5.5 Data Distribution
Data distribution methods will be developed to meet the needs of data users. The DAC will
liaise with the user community (e.g., model, satellite, oceanography) and climate programs (e.g.,
CLIVAR, GOOS, GODAE) to determine which products are needed by each community. User
needs are anticipated to differ among the research and operational communities and we plan to
adjust our distribution systems accordingly. In addition, we will actively pursue new
users.
Distribution of the quality-assured meteorological data will primarily be achieved through
on-line technology. The shortest possible delay from receipt of the data to release of a
quality assured version will be developed. Data will also be made available on digital media
(e.g., CD, DVD, exabyte tape) upon request from users. The DAC will work to expand user
access through collaboration with ongoing national/international data infrastructures (e.g.,
Distributed Oceanographic Data System [DODS], Live Access Server [LAS]) and by feeding the
global OceanSITES data centers. The DAC will also actively participate in the Ocean.US
Integrated Ocean Observing System - Data Management and Communications System
(IOOS-DMAC) initiatives.
5.6 Quality control
Quality control is the most important process that can be applied to collected data. With good
quality control, the data will be considerably more useful to other scientists. It is fairly well
agreed that good quality control requires a visual review by a domain expert, so the emphasis of
the data management effort is to support the domain experts needs. The typical observatory
quality control scheme, to be run on every data stream or data set, in real-time and delayed-mode
will include:
- data existence, validity, and operational consistency checks (check for gross malfunction)
- tailored bounds, spike, and variation checks
- summary statistics and plots delivered to domain expert for review
29
-
all points of concern are appropriately flagged, not removed (QC histories remain tied to
data set)
Common QC procedures both in real time and delayed mode at least for the core parameters
will be developed, building on and being coherent with what has been/is being defined by other
groups when the parameters are the same (i.e., with Argo for subsurface temperature and salinity
measurements). Automated QC will be applied on the real-time data stream, while delayed-mode
procedure usually need months to be applied and validated by experts or the PIs.
5.7. Merging and Integration
In its simplest form, we need to be able to take data from a particular area and time, and
merge it with other data from that area that has the exact same time base. At a slightly more
complicated level, we must be prepared to interpolate some data so that a single result can be
created with a common time base. There are many issues and challenges in this kind of merging,
and the intent of this task is to focus on what is possible in the short term. While we can
implement these features as one-off solutions, the results will not have the community support
that is desired and beneficial, and we encourage an approach that will build on the tools and
expertise of existing data centers. In particular the global GDACs have experience at this, and
the QC procedures, formats, and metadata that will be implemented for OceanSITES will
facilitate this since they are consistent with the same for many other in-situ oceanographic data
that already exist at such centers.
Future efforts will expand the types of data integration supported, in particular using
distributed data systems and other elements of the US IOOS
.
6. Education and Public Outreach
In parallel to conceptualization of ocean science research experiments using the OOI, efforts
are underway to design infrastructure to maximize the education and public outreach (EPO)
potential of coastal, regional and global-scale observatories. The Education Working Group at
the January 2004 ORION Workshop made six major recommendations regarding the
infrastructural requirements of the ORION education program (ORION Workshop Report,
Chapter 5), three of which were included in the ORION science plan as constituting the core
goals of the ORION Education and Public Awareness Plan.
•
Form an education and communications coordination office.
•
Establish a data management and content translation facility.
•
Establish a community of educator leaders who coordinate, sustain, and support local
education leadership in their science education improvement initiatives.
The science plan asserts, “Educational programs designed for the OOI infrastructure will be
ground-breaking in the way they… integrate the huge volume of real-time and near-real-time
data and imagery, the diverse types of data and information products, and an ever-growing
reservoir of archived data”. The key infrastructural component necessary to realize this vision is
a data management and content translation facility focused on the educational applications of
ORION data products.
Such a facility is essential, for while the institutional infrastructure and personnel (in the form
of established labs and data management facilities associated with large projects) exist to support
scientific data management, no such entities or teams of personnel exist to create effective
30
mechanisms for using observatory data in an educational context. Recent articles in the ORION
Newsletter have emphasized the value of scientist-educator collaboration, called for the
development of mechanisms to identify and share “effective practices” concerning ocean
observing system EPO (McDonnell, 2005), and discussed the design of educational portals to
observatory data based on educators’ needs (Matsumoto and Bell, 2005).
The data management and content translation facility will provide the essential infrastructural
underpinnings for all E&O activities associated with OOI/OION. Without focused needsassessment, piloting and evaluation of how we can best use OOI data – the educational tools and
products we generate will fall short of the transformation in ocean science education that we
envision for this large project. This facility will have several key functions: 1) It will serve as
the critical link between those coordinating scientific data management and the critically
important education user groups; 2) It will provide the requisite guidance for the appropriate use
of OOI data in a wide variety of contexts, including school curricula, undergraduate education,
exhibits and programs created at science centers, museums and aquariums, educator professional
development programs (K-16), multi media productions and public communications, including
communicating with policy makers; 3) It will provide tools and services to support the other two
core elements of the Education and Public Awareness Plan (i.e. the coordination office and the
community of educator-leaders). The facility will truly serve as the keystone in the bridge
between the research and education communities for ORION. We propose to contribute to such a
facility with staff and infrastructure.
APPENDICES:
- References
- Budget Information
- CV’s of prononents
31
References
Abbott, M.R. and R.M. Letelier, Decorrelation scales of chlorophyll as observed from bio-optical
drifters in the California Current, Deep-Sea Res. II, 45, 1639-1667, 1998.
Beardsley, R. C., E. P. Dever, S. J. Lentz, and J. P. Dean, Surface heat flux variability over the
northern California shelf, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 21553-21586, 1998.
Bograd, S.J. and R.L. Lynn, Anomalous subarctic influence in the southern California Current
during 2002, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(15), 8020, doi: 10.1029/2003GL017446, 2003.
Barth, J.A., S.D. Pierce, and R.L. Smith, A separating coastal upwelling jet at Cape Blanco,
Oregon and its connection to the California Current System, Deep-Sea Res. II, 47, 783-810,
2000.
Bishop, J.K.B., R.E. Davis and J.T. Sherman, Robotic observations of dust storm enhancement
of carbon biomass in the North Pacific, Science, 298, 817-821, 2002.
Bond, N. A., J. E. Overland, M. Spillane, and P. Stabeno, Recent shifts in the state of the North
Pacific, Geophys. Res. Let., 2183, doi:10.1029/2003GL018597, 2003.
Botsford, L.W., C.L. Moloney, A. Hastings, J.L. Largier, T.M. Powell, K. Higgins, and J.F.
Quinn, The influence of spatially and temporally varying oceanographic conditions on
meroplanktonic metapopulations, Deep-Sea Res. II, 41, 107-145, 1994.
Bray, N. A., A. Keyes, W. M. L. Morawitz, The California Current system in the Southern
California Bight and the Santa Barbara Channel, J. Geophys. Res., 104(C4), 7695-7714,
10.1029/1998JC900038, 1999.
Bruland, K.W., E.L. Rue, and G.J. Smith, Iron and macronutrients in California coastal
upwelling regimes: Implications for diatom blooms, Limnol. Oceanogr., 46(7), 1661-1674,
2001.
Chavez, F. P., P. G. Strutton, G. E. Friederich, R. A. Feely, G. C. Feldman, D. G. Foley and M.
J. McPhaden, Biological and chemical response of the equatorial Pacific to the 1997-98 El
Niño, Science, 286, 2126-2131, 1999.
Chavez, F. P., C.A. Collins, A. Huyer, and D.L. Mackas, El Niño along the west coast of North
America, Prog. Ocean., 54, 1-6, 2002.
Cornuelle, B.D., T.K. Chereskin, P.P. Niiler, M.Y. Morris, and D.L. Musgrave, Observations and
Modeling of a California Undercurrent Eddy, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 1227-1243, 2000.
Dailey, M.D., D.J. Reish, and J.W. Anderson editors, Ecology of the Southern California Bight,
Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkeley, 1993.
Davis, R.E., C.E. Eriksen and C.P. Jones, Autonomous buoyancy-driven underwater gliders. pp
37-58 in The Technology and Applications of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles., G.
Griffiths, ed., Taylor and Francis, London. 324 pp., 2002.
Dickey T. D., D. Frye, H. W. Jannasch., E. Boyle. and A. H. Knap, Bermuda sensor system
testbed, Sea Technology, 81, 1997.
Eriksen, C.C., T.J. Osse, R.D. Light, T. Wen, T.W. Lehman, P.L. Sabin, J.W. Ballard, and A.M.
Chiodi, Seaglider: a long-range autonomous underwater vehicle for oceanographic research,
32
IEEE J. Ocean. Eng., 80, 424-436, 2001.
Freeland, H.J., G. Gatien, A. Huyer, and R.L. Smith, Cold halocline in the northern California
Current: An invasion of subarctic water, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(3), 1141, doi:
10.1029/2002GL016663, 2003.
Hayward, T.L. and E.L. Venrick, Nearsurface pattern in the California Current: coupling
between physical and biological structure, Deep-Sea Res. II, 45, 1617-1638, 1998.
Jaffe, J.S., M.D. Ohman, and A. De Robertis, OASIS in the sea:measurement of the acoustic
reflectivity of zooplankton with concurrent optical imaging, Deep-Sea Res. II, 45(7), 1998.
Jahnke, R., et al., Coastal observatory research arrays: a framework for implementation planning,
Skidaway Inst. Ocean. Tech. Rep. TR-03-01, 78 pp., 2003.
Halliwell, G.R., Jr., and J.S. Allen, The large-scale coastal wind field along the west coast of
North America, 1981-1982, J. Geophys. Res., 92(C2), 1861-1884, 1987.
Hayward, T. L. El Niño 1997-98 in the coastal waters of southern California: a timeline of
events. Calif. Coop. Oceanic Fish. Invest. Rep. 41, 55 – 76, 2000.
Kahru, M., and B.G. Mitchell, Seasonal and non-seasonal variability of satellite-derived
chlorophyll and CDOM concentration in the California Current, J. Geophys. Res., 106 (C2),
2517-2529, 2001.
Kora in, D., C.E. Dorman, and E.P. Dever, Coastal perturbations of marine layer winds, wind
stress, and wind stress curl along California and Baja California in June 1999. J. Phys.
Ocean., 34, 1152-1173, 2004.
Lavaniegos, B.E., and M.D. Ohman, Hyperiid amphipods as indicators of climate change in the
Callifornia Current, in Crustaceans and the Biodiversity Crisis. Proceedings of the 4th
International Crustacean Congress, Amersterdam, The Netherlands, July 20-24, Vol. I. Brill,
Leiden, edited by F.R. Schram, and J.C. von Vaupel Klein, 1999.
Lavaniegos, B.E., and M.D. Ohman, Long term changes in pelagic tunicates of the California
Current, Deep-Sea Research II, 50, 2493-2518, 2003.
Lavaniegos, B.E., L.C. Jiménez-Pérez, and G. Caxiola-Castro, Plankton response to El Niño
1997-1998 and La Niña 1999 in the southern region of the California Current, Prog. Ocean.,
54, 33-58, 2002.
Mackas D.L., Interdisciplinary oceanography of the western North American continental margin,
Chapter 14, ,The Sea, vol. 12, K.H. Brink and A.R. Robinson editors, Harvard University
Press, in press, 2005.
Mantua, N.J. and S.R. Hare, The Pacific Decadal Oscillation, J. Ocean., 58(1), 35-44., 2002.
Mantyla, A.W., E.L. Venrick, and T.L. Hayward, Primary production and chlorophyll
relationships, derived from ten years of CalCOFI measurements, CalCOFI Reports, 36, 159166, 1995.
McGowan, J.A., D.R. Cayan, and L.M. Dorman, Climate-ocean variability and ecosystem
response in the northeast Pacific, Science, 281, 210-217, 1998.
Miller, A.J., J.C McWilliams, N. Schneider, J.S. Allen, J.A. Barth, R.C. Beardsley, F.P. Chavez,
T.K. Chereskin, C.A. Edwards, R.L. Haney, K.A. Kelly, J.C. Kindle, L.N. Ly, J.R. Moisan,
33
M.A. Noble, P.P Niiler, L.Y. Oey, F.B. Schwing, R.K. Shearman, and M.S. Swenson,
Observing and modeling the California Current System, Eos, Transactions Am. Geophys.
Union, 80, 533-539, 1999.
Moisan, J.R., E.E. Hofmann, and D.B. Haidvogel, Modeling nutrient and plankton processes in
the California Coastal Transition Zone 2. A three-dimensional physical-bio-optical model, J.
Geophys. Res., 101, 22,677–22,691, 1996.
Nelson, C.S. and D.M. Husby, Climatology of surface heat fluxes over the California Current
region, NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS SSRF, 763, 155pp., 1983.
Nishimoto, M.M., and L. Washburn, Patterns of coastal eddy circulation and abundance of
pelagic juvenile fish in the Santa Barbara Channel, California, USA, Mar. Ecol-Prog Ser.,
241, 183-199, 2002.
Ohman, M.D., and E.L. Venrick, CalCOFI in a changing ocean, Oceanography, 16, 76-85, 2003.
PaCOOS Board of Governors, Pacific Coast Ocean Observing System (PaCOOS) science plan.
SWFSC Admin. Rep. LJ-0406, 50pp, revised December 15, 2004, 2004.
Pierce, S.D., R.L. Smith, P.M. Kosro, J.A. Barth, and C.D. Wilson, Continuity of the poleward
undercurrent along the eastern boundary of the mid-latitude north Pacific, Deep-Sea Res. II,
47, 811-829, 2000.
Roemmich D. and J.A. McGowan, Climatic warming and the decline of zooplankton in the
California Current, Science, 267, 1324, 1995.
Rudnick, D.L. and R.E. Davis, Red noise and regime shifts, Deep-Sea Res. I, 50, 691-699, 2003.
Schofield, O. and M.K. Tivey co-chairs, Ocean research interactive observatory networks: a
report of the workshop held January 4-8, 2004, San Juan Puerto Rico, 143 pp, 2005.
Sholkovitz, E., G. Allsup, R. Arthur and D. Hosom, Aerosol Sampling from Ocean Buoys Shows
Promise, EOS, Transactions, Am. Geophys. Union, 79(3), 1998.
Smith, R.L., A. Huyer, and J. Fleischbein, The coastal ocean off Oregon from 1961-2000: is
there evidence of climate change or only of Los Niños?, Prog. Ocean., 49, 63-94, 2001.
Strub, P.T., C. James, A.C. Thomas, and M.R. Abbott, Seasonal and non-seasonal variability of
satellite-derived pigment in the California Current, J. Geophys. Res., 95, 11,501-11,530,
1990.
Strub, P.T. and C. James, Altimeter-derived variability of surface velocities in the California
Current System: 2. Seasonal circulation and eddy statistics, Deep-Sea Res. II, 47, 831-870,
2000.
Wheeler, P.A., A. Huyer, and J. Fleischbein, Cold halocline, increased nutrients and higher
chlorophyll off Oregon in 2002, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(15), 8021, doi:
10.1029/2003GL017395, 2003.
Whitney, F. A. and D.W. Welch, Impact of the 1997-1998 El Niño and 1999 La Niña on nutrient
supply in the Gulf of Alaska, Prog. Ocean., 54, 405-421, 2002.
Wing, S. R., L. W. Botsford, S. V. Ralston, and J. L. Largier, Meroplanktonic distribution and
circulation in a coastal retention zone of the northern California uowelling system, Limnol.
Oceanogr., 43, 1710-1721, 1998.
34
Instrument
number
per site
Unit
cost
size
Weight
(water)
Power
1
5
1
2
2
$45K
$10K
$10K
$5K
$10K
1
1
2
2
2
1
$8K
$8K
$25K
$20K
under
$40K
7x15cm
7x15cm
60x15cm
60x20cm
development
49x25x10cm
0.5kg
0.5kg
1kg
4kg
40mA
40mA
0.5A, 12V
400mA, 12V
6kg
2
$50K
50x35cm
1
$60K
6’x22 "
5
1
$6K
$70K
internal
n.a.
1
$130K
1
$45K
Under
development
130x50cm
Data volume
rate
Service
interval
SENSORS
ADCP longranger
CTD sensor
Acoustic current meter
Dissolved oxygen sensor
Fluorometer/backscatter/
attenuation “puck”
Multi-spectral radiance
Multi-spectral irradiance
Nitrate sensor
pCO2 sensor
pH sensor
Laser optical plankton
counter (LOPC)
Dual frequency zoo-plankton
/fish echosounder
Trace metal water sampler
100x40cm
55kg
50x15cm
3kg
Included…. …..in….
30x7cm
1kg
25x7cm
0.1kg
1.5W, 20-60VDC
50kB/day
50mA, 7-16V
20kB/day
……..deep……………. ….profiler….
60mW, 7-14V
1kb/day
24mAh/day, 7-15VDC
2kb/day
2y
2y
2y
1y
1y
Tbd
1kb/day
1kb/day
<1kb/day
<1kb/day
1kb/day
Tbd
1y
1y
1y
15kg
35W
12MB/day
1y
0kg
50Wh per sample
n.a. (sample
collection)
1y
n.a.
10mA, 9V
n.a.
9600 baud
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Tbd
n.a.
1y
0 kg.
200 mA, 8-11V
(when profiling)
1 MB/day
1y
1y
OTHER
Inductive modems
Underwater gliders /AUV
PLATFORM/VEHICLE
Upper ocean profiler (e.g.
winch)
Deep profiler (e.g. MMP)
Only platform, no sensors
Table A-1 : Instrument specifications
35
Table A-2 Instrumentation Costs (Note: costs inflated at 3%/yr for yrs 2-5)
Instrument
Year 1 (2007)
Year 2 (2008)
Year 3 (2009)
Year 4 (2010)
Year 5 (2011)
New transects
3
2
2
0
0
Deep/shelf sites
9/3
6/2
6/2
Actual Total Deep/Shelf sites
9/3
15/5
21/7
21/7
21/7
New Swapouts/spares Deep/shelf
0
3/1
2/1
2/1
0
Total Deep/Shelf System available
9/3
18/6
26/9
28/10
28/10
Surface buoy, unit cost
Meteorological sensors
$20K
Bio-optical sensors
$27K
Biochemical sensors
$50K
Bio-acoustic sensors
$50K
Temp/sal/velocity sensors
$55K
Total unit cost
$202K
$208K
$214K
$221K
Units purchased
12
12
10
2
Upper ocean profiler
Profiling package w/core
$256K
$264K
$272K
$280K
subsurface sensors
Units purchased
12
12
10
2
Deep profiler
Profiling package w/core
$150K
$155K
$159K
$164K
subsurface sensors
Units purchased
9
9
8
2
Bottom package
Bottom package w/core
$75K
$77K
$80K
$82K
subsurface sensors
Units purchased
12
12
10
2
Glider
$70K
$72K
$74K
Units purchased
9
5
6
0
AUV
$643K
$662K
$682
Units purchased
3
2
2
0
Yearly Total Sensor cost
$10,305K
$9,667K
$8,660K
$1,494
0
Deep Sites highlighted in bold require both upper ocean and deep profilers per site. Shelf sites require an AUV. All sites require a surface buoy and bottom
package and all transects require 3 gliders. Year total refers to sensor costs for all sensors acquired in that year. Bio-optical sensors include an irradiance meter,
fluorometer, Scattering, and transmissometer plus integration costs. Biochemical sensors include UV nitrate, pCO2, O2, Bio-acoustic sensors consists of a dualfrequency (38/200 kHz) single-beam autonomous echosounder system. Core subsurface sensors are as on the surface buoy excluding meteorological, pCO2, and
bio-acoustics packages.
36
Budget Item
Table A-3 Budget Summary Table, observing system only (personnel costs inflated 5% per year for years 2-5)
Approximate Person-Months
Year 1 (2007)
Year 2 (2008)
Year 3 (2009)
Year 4 (2010)
Personnel (person-month)
Sr. Scientist
Sr. Engineer
Jr Scientist
Grad student/tuition
Data manager
Outreach
Technician (lab)
Technician (sea)
Est. Total Salaries and
Benefits
Equipment (see Table A-2)
Computing
Expendable Supplies
Batteries, antifouling, etc
lab and cruise supplies
Travel science
Cruises
Communication
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs (54.5%equipment/tuition)
Total
Ship time (da)
(on site; transits not
included)
ROV time (da)
(on site; transits not
included)
Year 5 (2011)
36 @ 14.3K
60 @ 11.2 K
72 @ 7.8K
120 @ 3.6K
12 @ 8.2K
12 @ 7.3K
60 @ 6.7K
24 @ 6.7K
$2,929,200
48
60
96
180
18
12
90
36
$3,949,600
60
60
120
216
24
12
120
42
$4,894,400
72
60
144
216
24
12
120
42
$5,433,300
72
60
144
216
24
12
120
42
$5,596,300
$10,305K
$200K
$9,667K
$200K
$8,660K
$200K
$1,494
$200K
0
$200K
$120K
$90K
$90K
$42K
$246K
$14,022,200
$1,805,700
$200K
$130K
$90K
$70K
$406K
$14,712,600
$2,474,100
$280K
$170K
$90K
$98K
$566K
$14,958,400
$3,123,500
$280K
$170K
$90K
$98K
$566K
$8,331,300
$3,417,200
$280K
$170K
$90K
$98K
$566K
$7,000,300
$3,506,000
$18,081,900
$11,748,500
$10,506,300
$15,827,900
$17,186,700
24 da
40 da
56 da
56 da
56 da
2 da
6 da
6 da
6 da
6 da
37
Budget explanation :
Salaries and instrument costs assume an appreciation of 3% per year. Indirect costs are assumed
to be 54.5% of all items except equipment and student tuition.
Salaries :
We will be working in 6 regional and thematic teams representing the local expertises and
local contributions to implementing and maintaining the proposed array:
(1) Southern California mooring team, (2) Central and Northern California mooring team, (3)
Oregon and Washington mooring team, (4) glider observations, (5) AUV observations, (6)
modelling and assimilation. These teams are not necessarily located at a single institution - in
general several consortium members will contribute to one such team and share the
work/collaborate.
Each team is multidisciplinary and multi-institutional and will thus require on average 1.0
FTE of senior researchers/PI’s for project and science supervision, 2.0 FTE of junior scientists
(1/3 postdoc, 1/3 assistant, 1/3 associate level) for scientific analysis work. The 5 observational
teams further each need on average 2.0 FTE for technical work on instrumentation, 1.0 FTE of
senior development engineers for sensor adaptation into the observatory and telemetry. In
addition, technical staff is needed for at-sea work during the deployment/service cruises: each
year each of the 7 sections needs to be visited twice with an average cruise length of 2 weeks and
5 technicians need to participate (plus overtime), which gives approximately 0.5 FTE per section.
Graduate students should be supported as 3 per team.
Salaries are futher requested for development and maintenance of the data management effort
described (2 FTE), including the contribution to a national timeseries DAC, and for outreach
activities as proposed above (1 FTE EPO contributing the facility).
Computing:
This covers workstations, desktop PCs, and software (databases, visualization, analysis) for
the data management ($50K per year), the education and outreach facility ($100K per year), and
for the scientific analysis work ($50K per year).
Expendable Supplies:
Each site carries approximately 20 different sensors, plus the profiling systems. The supplies
needed for servicing these, including batteries, antifouling systems, spare parts, are estimated at
$10K per site on average. Lab supplies are estimated at $5K per team per year, cruise supplies at
$10K per cruise.
38
Travel:
ORION meetings domestic:
3 per team/year @ $2K = $36K/year.
Scientific meetings and conferences:
domestic 3 per team/year @ $2K = $36K/year ,
international 1 per team per year @ $3K = $18K/year.
Field work (cruises, domestic) 14 per section/year (2 trips for 5 technical and 2 scientists)
@ $1K = $14K/year /section
Communication:
This mainly includes satellite telemetry (e.g. Iridium) costs of $20K per site/year, plus $1K
per team for telephone etc.
39
FOR ORION USE ONLY
SUMMARY PROPOSAL BUDGET
Year 1
ORGANIZATION
_____
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION (MONTHS)
Proposed
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT DIRECTOR
Granted
AWARD NO.
_____
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PIs, Faculty and Other Senior Associates
Funded
List each separately with name and title. (A.7. Show number in brackets)
Funds
Person-months
CAL ACAD SUMR
1. Sr. Scientist
__
2. Sr. Engineer
__
3. Jr. Scientist
__
4. _____
__
5. _____
__
6. (___) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET EXPLANATION PAGE)
__
7. (___) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1-6)
__
B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)
1. (___) POSTDOCTORAL ASSOCIATES
__
2. (___) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.)
__
3. (___) GRADUATE STUDENTS
4. (___) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
5. (___) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY)
6. (___) OTHER
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B)
C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS)
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C)
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
Granted
Proposer
(If Different)
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
$ 514,800
$ 672,000
$ 561,600
_____
_____
_____
_____
__
__
__
__
_____
$ 748,800
$ 432,000
_____
_____
_____
$ 2,929,200
_____
$ 2,929,200
_____
_____
_____
Funds
Requested By
$_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
E. TRAVEL
1. DOMESTIC (INCL. CANADA, MEXICO AND U.S. POSSESSIONS)
2. FOREIGN
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT
1. STIPENDS
$ _____
2. TRAVEL
_____
3. SUBSISTENCE
_____
4. OTHER
_____
$ 10,505,000
$ 72,000
$ 60,000
_____
_____
_____
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS (_____)
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
2. PUBLICATION/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
5. SUBAWARDS
_____
_____
$ 210,000
_____
_____
_____
_____
$ 246,000
$ 456,000
$ 14,022,220
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
$ 1,805,700
$ 15,827,900
_____
$ 15,827,900
_____
_____
_____
TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
6. OTHER (Communication)
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G)
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A) (SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
_____
_____
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + I)
K. RESIDUAL FUNDS (IF FOR FURTHER SUPPORT OF CURRENT PROJECT SEE GPG II.D.7.j.)
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K)
M. COST SHARING: PROPOSED LEVEL $_____
PI/PD TYPED NAME AND SIGNATURE*
AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT: $_____
FOR ORION USE ONLY
DATE
_____
_____
$_____
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
Date Checked Date of Rate Sheet
Initials-ORG
ORG. REP. TYPED NAME & SIGNATURE*
DATE
OOI Form 1030 (10/99) Supersedes All Previous Editions
*SIGNATURES REQUIRED ONLY FOR REVISED BUDGET (GPG III.C)
_____
_____
40
FOR ORION USE ONLY
SUMMARY PROPOSAL BUDGET
Year 2
ORGANIZATION
_____
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION (MONTHS)
Proposed
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT DIRECTOR
Granted
AWARD NO.
_____
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PIs, Faculty and Other Senior Associates
Funded
List each separately with name and title. (A.7. Show number in brackets)
Funds
Person-months
CAL ACAD SUMR
1. Sr. Scientist
__
2. Sr. Engineer
__
3. Jr. Scientist
__
4. _____
__
5. _____
__
6. (___) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET EXPLANATION PAGE)
__
7. (___) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1-6)
__
B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)
1. (___) POSTDOCTORAL ASSOCIATES
__
2. (___) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.)
__
3. (___) GRADUATE STUDENTS
4. (___) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
5. (___) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY)
6. (___) OTHER
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B)
C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS)
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C)
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
$ 707,000
$ 692,160
$ 771,270
_____
_____
_____
_____
$_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
__
__
__
__
_____
$ 1,111,730
$ 667,440
_____
_____
_____
$ 3,949,600
_____
$ 3,949,600
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
_____
_____
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + I)
K. RESIDUAL FUNDS (IF FOR FURTHER SUPPORT OF CURRENT PROJECT SEE GPG II.D.7.j.)
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K)
M. COST SHARING: PROPOSED LEVEL $_____
PI/PD TYPED NAME AND SIGNATURE*
(If Different)
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
E. TRAVEL
1. DOMESTIC (INCL. CANADA, MEXICO AND U.S. POSSESSIONS)
2. FOREIGN
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT
1. STIPENDS
$ _____
2. TRAVEL
_____
3. SUBSISTENCE
_____
4. OTHER
_____
6. OTHER (Communication)
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G)
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A) (SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
Granted
Proposer
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
_____
_____
_____
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS (_____)
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
2. PUBLICATION/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
5. SUBAWARDS
$ 9,867,000
$ 72,000
$ 88,000
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
$ 330,000
_____
_____
_____
_____
$ 406,000
$ 736,000
$ 14,712,600
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
$ 2,474,100
$ 17,186,700
_____
$ 17,186,700
_____
_____
_____
AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT: $_____
FOR ORION USE ONLY
DATE
_____
_____
Funds
Requested By
$_____
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
Date Checked Date of Rate Sheet
Initials-ORG
ORG. REP. TYPED NAME & SIGNATURE*
DATE
OOI Form 1030 (10/99) Supersedes All Previous Editions
*SIGNATURES REQUIRED ONLY FOR REVISED BUDGET (GPG III.C)
_____
_____
41
FOR ORION USE ONLY
SUMMARY PROPOSAL BUDGET
Year 3
ORGANIZATION
_____
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION (MONTHS)
Proposed
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT DIRECTOR
Granted
AWARD NO.
_____
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PIs, Faculty and Other Senior Associates
Funded
List each separately with name and title. (A.7. Show number in brackets)
Funds
Person-months
CAL ACAD SUMR
1. Sr. Scientist
__
2. Sr. Engineer
__
3. Jr. Scientist
__
4. _____
__
5. _____
__
6. (___) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET EXPLANATION PAGE)
__
7. (___) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1-6)
__
B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)
1. (___) POSTDOCTORAL ASSOCIATES
__
2. (___) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.)
__
3. (___) GRADUATE STUDENTS
4. (___) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
5. (___) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY)
6. (___) OTHER
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B)
C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS)
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C)
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
$ 910,260
$ 712,930
$ 993,010
_____
_____
_____
_____
__
__
__
__
_____
$ 1,453,240
$ 824,960
_____
_____
_____
$ 4,894,400
_____
$ 4,894,400
TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
6. OTHER (Communication)
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G)
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A) (SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
_____
_____
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + I)
K. RESIDUAL FUNDS (IF FOR FURTHER SUPPORT OF CURRENT PROJECT SEE GPG II.D.7.j.)
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K)
M. COST SHARING: PROPOSED LEVEL $_____
PI/PD TYPED NAME AND SIGNATURE*
(If Different)
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
E. TRAVEL
1. DOMESTIC (INCL. CANADA, MEXICO AND U.S. POSSESSIONS)
2. FOREIGN
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT
1. STIPENDS
$ _____
2. TRAVEL
_____
3. SUBSISTENCE
_____
4. OTHER
_____
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS (_____)
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
2. PUBLICATION/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
5. SUBAWARDS
Granted
Proposer
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
_____
_____
_____
_____
$_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
$ 8.860,000
$ 72,000
$ 116,000
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
$ 450,000
_____
_____
_____
_____
$ 566,000
$ 1,016,000
$ 14,958,400
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
$ 3,123,500
$ 18,081,900
_____
$ 18,081,900
_____
_____
_____
AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT: $_____
FOR ORION USE ONLY
DATE
_____
Funds
Requested By
$_____
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
Date Checked Date of Rate Sheet
Initials-ORG
ORG. REP. TYPED NAME & SIGNATURE*
DATE
OOI Form 1030 (10/99) Supersedes All Previous Editions
*SIGNATURES REQUIRED ONLY FOR REVISED BUDGET (GPG III.C)
_____
_____
42
FOR ORION USE ONLY
SUMMARY PROPOSAL BUDGET
Year 4
ORGANIZATION
_____
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION (MONTHS)
Proposed
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT DIRECTOR
Granted
AWARD NO.
_____
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PIs, Faculty and Other Senior Associates
Funded
List each separately with name and title. (A.7. Show number in brackets)
Funds
Person-months
CAL ACAD SUMR
1. Sr. Scientist
__
2. Sr. Engineer
__
3. Jr. Scientist
__
4. _____
__
5. _____
__
6. (___) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET EXPLANATION PAGE)
__
7. (___) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1-6)
__
B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)
1. (___) POSTDOCTORAL ASSOCIATES
__
2. (___) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.)
__
3. (___) GRADUATE STUDENTS
4. (___) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
5. (___) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY)
6. (___) OTHER
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B)
C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS)
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C)
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
$ 1,125,080
$ 734,320
$ 1,227,360
_____
_____
_____
_____
$_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
__
__
__
__
_____
$ 1,496,830
$ 849,710
_____
_____
_____
$ 5,433,300
_____
$ 5,433,300
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
_____
_____
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + I)
K. RESIDUAL FUNDS (IF FOR FURTHER SUPPORT OF CURRENT PROJECT SEE GPG II.D.7.j.)
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K)
M. COST SHARING: PROPOSED LEVEL $_____
PI/PD TYPED NAME AND SIGNATURE*
(If Different)
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
E. TRAVEL
1. DOMESTIC (INCL. CANADA, MEXICO AND U.S. POSSESSIONS)
2. FOREIGN
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT
1. STIPENDS
$ _____
2. TRAVEL
_____
3. SUBSISTENCE
_____
4. OTHER
_____
6. OTHER (Communication)
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G)
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A) (SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
Granted
Proposer
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
_____
_____
_____
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS (_____)
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
2. PUBLICATION/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
5. SUBAWARDS
$ 1,694,000
$ 72,000
$ 116,000
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
$ 450,000
_____
_____
_____
_____
$ 566,000
$ 1,016,000
$ 8,331,300
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
$ 3,417,200
$ 11,748,500
_____
$ 11,748,500
_____
_____
_____
AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT: $_____
FOR ORION USE ONLY
DATE
_____
_____
Funds
Requested By
$_____
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
Date Checked Date of Rate Sheet
Initials-ORG
ORG. REP. TYPED NAME & SIGNATURE*
DATE
OOI Form 1030 (10/99) Supersedes All Previous Editions
*SIGNATURES REQUIRED ONLY FOR REVISED BUDGET (GPG III.C)
_____
_____
43
FOR ORION USE ONLY
SUMMARY PROPOSAL BUDGET
Year 5
ORGANIZATION
_____
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION (MONTHS)
Proposed
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT DIRECTOR
Granted
AWARD NO.
_____
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PIs, Faculty and Other Senior Associates
Funded
List each separately with name and title. (A.7. Show number in brackets)
Funds
Person-months
CAL ACAD SUMR
1. Sr. Scientist
__
2. Sr. Engineer
__
3. Jr. Scientist
__
4. _____
__
5. _____
__
6. (___) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET EXPLANATION PAGE)
__
7. (___) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1-6)
__
B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)
1. (___) POSTDOCTORAL ASSOCIATES
__
2. (___) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.)
__
3. (___) GRADUATE STUDENTS
4. (___) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
5. (___) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY)
6. (___) OTHER
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B)
C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS)
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C)
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
$ 1,158,830
$ 756,350
$ 1,264,180
_____
_____
_____
_____
$_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
__
__
__
__
_____
$ 1,541,740
$ 875,200
_____
_____
_____
$ 5,596,300
_____
$ 5,596,300
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
_____
_____
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + I)
K. RESIDUAL FUNDS (IF FOR FURTHER SUPPORT OF CURRENT PROJECT SEE GPG II.D.7.j.)
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K)
M. COST SHARING: PROPOSED LEVEL $_____
PI/PD TYPED NAME AND SIGNATURE*
(If Different)
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
E. TRAVEL
1. DOMESTIC (INCL. CANADA, MEXICO AND U.S. POSSESSIONS)
2. FOREIGN
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT
1. STIPENDS
$ _____
2. TRAVEL
_____
3. SUBSISTENCE
_____
4. OTHER
_____
6. OTHER (Communication)
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G)
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A) (SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
Granted
Proposer
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
_____
_____
_____
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS (_____)
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
2. PUBLICATION/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
5. SUBAWARDS
$ 200,000
$ 72,000
$ 116,000
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
$ 450,000
_____
_____
_____
_____
$ 566,000
$ 1,016,000
$ 7,000,300
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
$ 3,506,000
$ 10,506,300
_____
$ 10,506,300
_____
_____
_____
AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT: $_____
FOR ORION USE ONLY
DATE
_____
_____
Funds
Requested By
$_____
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
Date Checked Date of Rate Sheet
Initials-ORG
ORG. REP. TYPED NAME & SIGNATURE*
DATE
OOI Form 1030 (10/99) Supersedes All Previous Editions
*SIGNATURES REQUIRED ONLY FOR REVISED BUDGET (GPG III.C)
_____
_____
44
FOR ORION USE ONLY
CUMULATIVE PROPOSAL BUDGET
ORGANIZATION
PROPOSAL NO.
_____
DURATION (MONTHS)
Proposed
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT DIRECTOR
Granted
AWARD NO.
_____
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PIs, Faculty and Other Senior Associates
Funded
List each separately with name and title. (A.7. Show number in brackets)
Funds
Person-months
CAL ACAD SUMR
1. Sr. Scientist
__
2. Sr. Engineer
__
3. Jr. Scientist
__
4. _____
__
5. _____
__
6. (___) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET EXPLANATION PAGE)
__
7. (___) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1-6)
__
B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)
1. (___) POSTDOCTORAL ASSOCIATES
__
2. (___) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.)
__
3. (___) GRADUATE STUDENTS
4. (___) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
5. (___) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY)
6. (___) OTHER
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B)
C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS)
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C)
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
Funds
Requested By
Granted
Proposer
(If Different)
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
$ 4,415,970
$ 3,567,760
$ 4,817,420
_____
_____
_____
_____
$_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
__
__
__
__
_____
$ 6,352,340
$ 3,649,310
_____
_____
_____
$ 22,802,800
_____
$ 22,802,800
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
E. TRAVEL
1. DOMESTIC (INCL. CANADA, MEXICO AND U.S. POSSESSIONS)
2. FOREIGN
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT
1. STIPENDS
$ _____
2. TRAVEL
_____
3. SUBSISTENCE
_____
4. OTHER
_____
$ 31,126,000
$ 360,000
$ 496,000
_____
_____
_____
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS (_____)
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
2. PUBLICATION/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
5. SUBAWARDS
_____
_____
$ 1,890,000
_____
_____
_____
_____
$ 2,350,000
$ 4,240,000
$ 59,024,820
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
$ 14,326,500
$ 73,351,300
_____
$ 73,351,300
_____
_____
_____
TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
6. OTHER (Communication)
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G)
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A) (SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
_____
_____
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + I)
K. RESIDUAL FUNDS (IF FOR FURTHER SUPPORT OF CURRENT PROJECT SEE GPG II.D.7.j.)
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K)
M. COST SHARING: PROPOSED LEVEL $_____
PI/PD TYPED NAME AND SIGNATURE*
AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT: $_____
FOR ORION USE ONLY
DATE
_____
_____
$_____
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
Date Checked Date of Rate Sheet
Initials-ORG
ORG. REP. TYPED NAME & SIGNATURE*
DATE
OOI Form 1030 (10/99) Supersedes All Previous Editions
*SIGNATURES REQUIRED ONLY FOR REVISED BUDGET (GPG III.C)
_____
_____
45
Edward P. Dever
Associate Professor
College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences
Oregon State University
104 COAS Admin Bldg
Corvallis, OR 97331-5503
telephone: (541) 737-2749
fax: (541) 737-2064
internet: [email protected]
Professional Preparation
B.S., physics, cum laude, Texas A&M University, 1987
M.S., oceanography, Texas A&M University, 1989
Ph.D., oceanography, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 1995
Post Graduate Researcher, oceanography, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 1995-98
Appointments
Associate Professor, 2005, Oregon State University
Associate Research Oceanographer, 2002-2005, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Assistant Research Oceanographer, 1998-2002, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Post Graduate Researcher, 1995-98, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Visiting Investigator, 1995, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Graduate Research Assistant, 1990-95, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Graduate Research Assistant, 1989-90, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Regents'Graduate Fellow, 1987-89, Texas A&M University
Recent Related Publications
Beardsley, R. C., E. P. Dever, S. J. Lentz, and J. P. Dean, 1998. Surface heat fluxes over the northern
California shelf. J. Geophys. Res., 103(C10), pp. 21553-21586.
Winant, C. D., D. J. Alden, E. P. Dever, K. A. Edwards, and M. C. Hendershott, 1999. Near-surface
trajectories off central and southern California. J. Geophys. Res., 104(C7), pp. 15713-15726.
Pawlowicz, R., B. Beardsley, S. Lentz, E. Dever, and A. Anis, 2001. Software simplifies air-sea data estimates.
Eos, Trans. AGU., 82(1), p. 2.
Dever, E. P., and C. D. Winant, 2002. The evolution and depth structure of shelf and slope temperatures and
velocities during the 1997-1998 El Niño near Point Conception, California, Prog. Ocean., in press.
Dever, E.P., 2004. Objective maps of near-surface flow states near Pt. Conception, California. J. Phys.
Ocean., 34, pp. 444-461.
Synergistic Activities
Dever has shared responsibility with C.D. Winant (SIO) for maintaining and updating the Scripps Data Zoo
since 1999. The Data Zoo is a web site of coastal oceanographic experiments stored in a common format and
made available to academics and the public free of charge. Data from this site has been used in recent research
theses by students at Oregon State Univ., Univ. California Santa Barbara, and Univ. California, San Diego.
Dever recently (2000-2001) sat on a science panel convened by NOAA as part of a process to create a new
Marine Reserve in the Channel Islands region of California. The science panel provided advice and feedback
on reserve boundaries to a marine reserves working group consisting of stakeholders. He contributed his
knowledge of the regional circulation and its likely effects on the transport of plankton, larvae and pollution.
46
Synergistic Activities (continued)
Dever wrote and tested the radiative flux routines in the air-sea toolbox, a widely distributed set of Matlab
programs for the estimation of surface heat fluxes (see Pawlowicz et al. 2001 above).
Dever has reviewed numerous proposals to NSF and other agencies. He has also reviewed manuscripts
submitted for publication to a number of journals and received the 2001 Editor’s Citation for Excellence in
Refereeing from Journal of Geophysical Research, Oceans. He recently started serving as an associate editor
(2005) for Journal of Geophysical Research, Oceans.
Recent Scientific Collaborators
A.Anis, Texas A&M University
A. Baptista, Oregon Graduate Institute
R.C. Beardsley, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
S. Bollens, San Francisco State University
L.W. Botsford, University of California, Davis
K. Bruland, University of California, Santa Cruz
C. E. Dorman, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
R. Dugdale, San Francisco State University
N. Garfield, San Francisco State University
A. Hastings, University of California, Davis
M. C. Hendershott, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
B. Hickey, University of Washington
D. Jay, Oregon Graduate Institute
N. Kachel, University of Washington
D. Koracin, University of Nevada
P.M. Kosro, Oregon State University
R. Kudela, University of California, Santa Cruz
J. L. Largier, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
C. Lawrence, University of California, Davis
S.J. Lentz, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
E. Lessard, University of Washington
P. MacReady, University of Washington
J. Moum, Oregon State University
J. Nash, University of Washington
L-Y. Oey, Princeton University
W. Peterson, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
R. Pawlowicz, University of British Columbia
D-P. Wang, State University of New York
F. Wilkerson, San Francisco State University
C. D. Winant, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Graduate and Post Doctoral Advisors
S. J. Lentz, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
C. D. Winant, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
47
CURRICULUM VITAE: Francisco P. Chavez
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI)
7700 Sandholdt Road, Moss Landing, CA 95039-9644
Voice: 831-775-1709, FAX: 831-775-1620, Email: [email protected]
Education:
PhD Duke University
BS
Humboldt State University
Botany
Oceanography
1987
1977
Professional Background:
2000-present
Senior Scientist, MBARI
2000-present
Faculty (courtesy), Stanford University
1996-2000
Associate Scientist (III), MBARI
1992-1996
Associate Scientist (II), MBARI
1990-present
Research Associate, University of California, Santa Cruz
1987-1992
Assistant Scientist, MBARI
Selected Professional Activities
Member JGOFS time series oversight committee
Reviewer, Chilean Oceanographic Program, Peruvian Fisheries and Oceanography Program
NSF Alan Waterman award committee (2003-2005)
NSF Advisory Committee for the Geoscience Directorate (2003-2005)
Board of Directors, Center for Integrated Marine Technologies (2002- )
Board of Govenors, Pacific Coastal Ocean Observing System
Science Team for Global Eulerian Observations (2002- )
Current Research Interests:
Biology and chemistry of the ocean in relation to natural climate variability and global change.
Global carbon cycle. Instrumentation and systems for long-term ocean observing. Satellite
remote sensing.
Graduate Advisor:
Richard T. Barber
Graduate Students:
Rafael A. Olivieri (UCSC), M. Celia Villac (Texas A&M), Jonathan Phinney (UCSC), Elena
Mauri (MLML).
Post-Doctoral Advisor for:
Chris Scholin, Raphael Kudela, Peter Strutton, Russell Hopcroft, John Ryan, Carmen Castro,
Brad Penta, Victor Kuwahara, Kevin Mahoney
Collaborators:
Fei Chai (University of Maine), Niki Gruber (UCLA), Richard Dugdale (SFSU), Don Croll (UC
Santa Cruz), Adina Paytan (Stanford), Dennis Hansell (University of Miami), Curt Collins
(NPS), Ken Johnson (MBARI).
48
Synergistic Activities:
Served on a number of ORION/OOI and IOOS committees
Moved MBARI development to moorings of the TAO array
5 Most Relevant Publications
Chavez, F.P. and J.R. Toggweiler (1995). Physical estimates of global new production: the
upwelling contribution, In Upwelling in the Ocean: Modern Processes and Ancient Records.
Summerhayes, C.P., Emeis, K.C., Angel, M.V., Smith, R.L., and Zeitzschel, B., (eds.), J.
Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Olivieri, R.O. and F.P. Chavez (2000) A model of plankton dynamics for the coastal upwelling
system of Monterey Bay, California. Deep-Sea Research II, 47, 1077-1105.
Friederich, G., P. Walz, M. Burczynski and F.P. Chavez (2002) Inorganic Carbon in the Central
California Upwelling System During the 1997-1999 El Niño -La Nina Event. Progress in
Oceanography, 54, 185-204.
Chavez, F.P., J.T. Pennington, C.G. Castro, J.P. Ryan, R.M. Michisaki, B. Schlining, P. Walz,
K.R. Buck, A. McFayden and C.A. Collins (2002) Biological and chemical consequences of
the 1997-98 El Niño in central California waters. Progress in Oceanography, 54, 205-232.
Collins, C.A. J.T. Pennington, C.G. Castro, T.A. Rago and F.P. Chavez (2003) The California
Current system off Monterey, California: Physical and biological coupling. Deep-Sea
Research II. doi:10.1016/S0967-0645(03)00134-6
5 Additional Publications
Pilskaln, C.H., J.B. Paduan, F.P. Chavez, R.Y. Anderson, and W.M. Berelson (1996) Carbon
export and regeneration in the coastal upwelling system of Monterey Bay, central California.
Journal of Marine Research 54,1-31.
Johnson, K.S., F.P. Chavez and G.E. Friederich (1999) Continental shelf sediment as a primary
source of iron for coastal phytoplankton. Nature 398, 697-700.
Pennington, J.T. and F.P. Chavez (2000) Seasonal fluctuations of temperature, salinity, nitrate,
chlorophyll and primary production at station H3/M1 over 1989-1996 in Monterey Bay,
California. Deep-Sea Research II, 47, 947-973.
Johnson, K.S., C.K. Paull, J.P. Barry and F.P. Chavez (2001) A decadal record of underflows
from a coastal river into the deep sea. Geology, 29, 1019-1022.
Chavez, F.P., J.P. Ryan, S. Lluch-Cota and M. Ñiquen C. (2003) From anchovies to sardines and
back-Multidecadal change in the Pacific Ocean. Science 299, 217-221.
49
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
NAME
Uwe Send
CONTACT
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Mail Code 0230
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, CA 92093-0213
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 858-822-6710
PROFESSIONAL
PREPARATION
University of Sussex, Astronomy, M.Sc., 1980
University of Southampton, Oceanography, M.Sc., 1982
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UCSD, Oceanography, Ph.D., 1988
Universitaet Kiel, Institut fuer Meereskunde, Habilitation (German
qualification for full professorship), 1995
APPOINTMENTS
2003Professor
Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
University of California, San Diego
1998-2003
Professor (tenured C3)
Institut fuer Meereskunde
Universitaet Kiel
1995-1998
Associate Professor (C2)
Institut fuer Meereskunde
Universitaet Kiel
1989-1995
Assistant Professor (C1)
Institut fuer Meereskunde
Universitaet Kiel
FIVE RELATED PUBLICATIONS
Send, U., F. Schott, F. Gaillard and Y. Desaubies, 1995: Oberservation of a deep convection
regime with acoustic tomography. J. Geophys. Res. , 100 (C4), 6927-6941.
Send, U., C. Eden, and F. Schott, 2002: Atlantic Equatorial Deep Jets: Space/Time Structure and
Cross-Equatorial Fluxes. J. Phys. Oc. 32 (3), 891-902.
Send, U., T. Kanzow, W. Zenk and M. Rhein, 2002: Monitoring the Atlantic Meridional
Overturning Circulation at 16°N. Exchanges, 7 (3/4), 31-33.
Send, U, P. F. Worcester, B. D. Cornuelle, C. O. Tiemann, and B. Baschek, 2002: Integral
measurements of mass transport and heat content in straits from acoustic transmissions.
Deep-Sea Res., 49 (19), 4069-4096.
50
Macrander, A., R.H. Kaese, U. Send, H. Valdimarsson, and S. Jonsson, 2005: Dynamic
Relations in the Denmark Strait Overflow verified by velocity and hydrographic
observations. Geophys. Res. Letters (in print)
FIVE OTHER PUBLICATIONS
Send, U. and J. Marshall, 1995: Integral effects of deep convection. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 25 (5),
855-872.
Send, U., G. Krahmann, D. Mauuary, Y. Desaubies, F. Gaillard, T. Terre, J. Papadakis, M.
Taroudakis, E. Skarsoulis, and C. Millot, 1997: Acoustic observations of heat content across
the Mediterranean Sea. Nature, 385, 615-617.
Send, U., and R. Kaese, 1998: Parameterization of Processes in Deep Convection Regimes. In
E.Chassignet and J.Verron (eds.): Ocean Modelling and Parameterization. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, p.191-214.
Send, U., and B. Baschek, 2001: Intensive ship-board observations of the flow through the Strait
of Gibraltar. J. Geophys. Res., 106 (C12), 31,018-31,032.
Schmidt, S., and U. Send, 2005: Timing, Origin and Composition of Seasonal Labrador Sea
Freshwater., J. Phys. Oceanogr., in print.
SYNERGISTIC ACTIVITIES
- Session Convenor at various EGS assemblies and American Acoustical Society Conference
- Member, ARGO International Science Team and ARGO Data Management Team
- Member, Clivar Global Synthesis and Observations Panel
- Co-Chair, OceanSITES Steering Team
- Development of a data telemetry system for moorings
- Initiation of a European collaboration and initiative for establishing multidisciplinary
deep-ocean timeseries observatories
COLLABORATORS WITHIN THE LAST 48 MONTHS (other than those above)
W.Zenk, M.Rhein, M.Visbeck, A.Chave, R.Lampitt, D.Wallace, A.Clarke, J.Lilly
ADVISORS
M.Sc. advisor: I.Robinson ( Southampton)
Ph.D. advisor: C.Winant (SIO), R.Beardsley (WHOI)
GRADUATE STUDENTS ADVISED
Diploma students:
Michael Reich (2001), Daniela Weber (2001), Lutz Helmbrecht (2002), Lars Boehme (2003),
Hauke Schmidt (current), Jochen Koenig (current), Christian Begler (current)
Ph.D. students:
Torsten Kanzow (2004), Andreas Macrander (2004), Tom Avsic (current), Matthias Lankhorst
(current), Sunke Schmidt (current)
51