Darcy Dugan Alaska Ocean Observing System April 16, 2014

Darcy Dugan
Alaska Ocean Observing System
April 16, 2014
5/6/14 Mission of STAMP: Develop data integration & visualization tools
that could be used for future decision-making
relating to potential commercial fisheries in the
Arctic as well as other issues.
Project Partners: —  Alaska Ocean Observing System
—  Axiom Consulting & Design
—  The Nature Conservancy
—  UAF’s Center for Climate Assessment & Policy
—  UAA’s Institute of Social & Economic Research
NOAA awards funds to
Alaska partners to
develop a suite of
visualization tools for
long-term collaborative
planning in Alaska. Project Objec+ves —  Scope user needs
—  Identify synergy with other projects
—  Examine other tools
—  Incorporate new priorities into AOOS system
—  Assess how we did
Ge/ng Advice 9 member advisory committee
— 
— 
— 
— 
— 
— 
— 
— 
— 
North Pacific Fisheries Management Council: Steve MacLean
North Slope Borough: Leandra de Sousa
Northwest Arctic Borough: Tom Okleasik/Zach Stevenson
Kawerak: Rose Fosdick
NOAA NMFS: John Olson
Audubon: Melanie Smith
Fishing CDQ - NSEDC: Charlie Lean
AK Dept. of Fish & Game: Katie Howard
US Coast Guard: Paul Gill/Paul Webb
Further Advice User Needs Assessment —  Interviews
Jessica Speed TNC —  Online Survey
SurveyMonkey What we asked —  What primary processes do you use to make decisions?
—  What kind of decision support or mapping tools do you use now?
—  What spatial data do you currently use?
—  What data do you wish you had, and what prevents you from using it?
—  What kind of functional capabilities would your ideal data tool have?
—  What are the most pressing management issues you currently face?
—  What management issues do you expect to face in the future?
Who Provided Input Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium At Sea Processors Association Audubon Bering Sea Fishermen's Association Bering Straits Native Corporation Bering Sea Sub Network Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Kawerak Kotzebue resident Local Resource Subsistence Users National Marine Fisheries Service North Pacific Fisheries Mngmt Council North Slope Borough Northwest Arctic Borough North Slope Science Initiative Norton Sound Economic Dev. Council Oceana Ocean Conservancy PEW Environment Group Private consultant United Fishermen's Association U.S. Coast Guard U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program World Wildlife Fund What we heard Currently, marine resource management decisions are
§  Primarily a human based process
§  Often made through processes not based explicitly on resource data
Weaknesses in current processes
—  Lengthy and complex processes tend toreduce public participation
—  Low availability of data and information
Types of geospa:al/mapping data currently being used Data Needs Q: What additional data would you like to have?
—  Year round and real-time data
—  Oceanographic, physical and biological data in a central repository
Q: What prevents you from getting or using this data?
—  The data do not exist
—  Existing data are difficult to access
Q: How can your decision making best be supported by a data tool? —  Visual representation and access to the latest data are the most
important functional capabilities in a tool.
—  Tool should include:
§ 
A central clearinghouse making many types of data
easily accessible
§ 
Ability to quickly add and visualize data layers
§ 
Provide scenario-building tools
Recommenda+ons from Advisory CommiEee —  Provide access to as many types of data as is feasible
while also being simple to use.
—  Include as much fish data as possible, even if it is patchy.
—  Have a clear way describe the limitations of the data.
—  Be easy to update with the latest data.
—  Allow users to draw a shape on a map and generate a
report summarizing the data within the shape.
—  Allow users to easily change the legend, scaling, and
display and download data in different projections.
—  Connect people to experts and non-spatial contextual
information related to the data.
—  Include special capabilities that provide “decision support”
attributes in addition to its primary function of data access
Looking at other data tools outside Alaska Report completed by The Nature Conservancy
•  AOOS data portal
•  Arctic Environmental Response Management
Application (ERMA)
•  Multipurpose Marine Cadastre
•  MARCO Marine Planner
•  Northeast Ocean Data
•  SeaSketch
•  Washington Marine Planner
Other Alaska data tools —  Arctic ERMA
—  Geospatial Information Network of Alaska (GINA)
—  NSSI Science Catalog
—  ShoreZone Alaska
—  Marine Cadastre
How is STAMP different from other data synthesis projects in Alaska? —  Integrates different data types (historical, real-time, models,
project-level data)
—  Designed to serve multiple types of users
—  Captures changes over time and water column data
—  Includes climate change projections, social/econ data
—  Interactive/web-accessible
Current features of the STAMP Tool —  Data catalog
—  Multiple types of data
—  Backend software to retrieve latest data
—  Add remove layers in the legend
—  Multiple base map options
—  Virtual sensors
—  Data download
—  Almost 350 layers currently in tool
Fish Data Currently limited
Coming online later:
—  BASIS surveys
—  BOEM historical fisheries data
—  Arctic EIS
—  Nearshore Fish Atlas
Some examples — 
— 
— 
— 
— 
— 
— 
— 
— 
High res sea ice coverage (Shell)
Sea Ice Forecast (NWS)
Sea Surface Temperature (NASA)
Essential Fish Habitat (NOAA)
Arctic Marine Synthesis (Audubon)
ShoreZone characteristics
Oil and gas wells, lease areas, and basins
Locations of research instruments
Historic vessel traffic (Marine Exchange)
Ques+ons on background or process? How did we do? Looking back at user needs Q: How can your decision making best be supported by a data tool —  Visual representation and access to the latest data are the most
important functional capabilities in a tool.
—  Tool should include:
§ 
A central clearinghouse making many types of data easily
accessible
§ 
Ability to quickly add and visualize data layers
§ 
Provide scenario-building tools
Advisory CommiEee Recommenda+ons The tool should:
—  Provide access to as many types of data as is feasible
while also being simple to use.
—  Include as much fish data as possible, even if it is patchy.
—  Have a clear way describe the limitations of the data.
—  Be easy to update with the latest data.
—  Allow users to draw a shape on a map and generate a
report summarizing the data within the shape.
—  Allow users to easily change the legend, scaling, and
display and download data in different projections.
—  Connect people to experts and non-spatial contextual
information related to the data.
—  Include special capabilities that provide “decision support”
attributes in addition to its primary function of data access
There is more data out there —  Arctic Synthesis (North Pacific Research Board)
—  Deep draft Arctic Port Study (US Army Corps)
—  Distributed Biological Observatory (Pacific Arctic Group)
—  Joint Industry Environmental Studies data (Shell, Conoco Philips, Statoil)
—  Marine life studies and subsistence areas (North Slope Borough)
—  OCSEAP historical data
—  Salmon, subsistence, and marine mammal data (ADFG)
—  State of Alaska Agency (other DOT, DEC, DNR data…)
—  Stock assessments, endangered species, habitat, subsistence (NOAA)
—  Regulatory areas (NOAA)
—  Subsistence mapping
—  Synthesis of Arctic Data (NSF)
—  Vessel Observer surveys