In Situ Observations and Satellite Remote Sensing in SEACOOS

PAPER
In Situ Observations and Satellite Remote
Sensing in SEACOOS: Program Development
and Lessons Learned
AUTHORS
James R. Nelson
Skidaway Institute of Oceanography
Robert H. Weisberg
University of South Florida
Introduction
T
he primary charge for the SEACOOS
Observing Working Group (OWG) was
to provide in situ and remote observations
to support state variable estimations for
the southeast U.S. coastal ocean and atmosphere. SEACOOS made a significant
investment in observations, notably in the
first three years of the program when equipment and deployment costs represented a
large portion of the SEACOOS budget (see
Seim et al., this volume). Although gaps
in spatial coverage remained, SEACOOS
significantly augmented the federal realtime observing assets in the region; both
in terms of the number of locations and in
the variables measured. In situ observations
included sub-surface, as well as surface
temperature and salinity, current profiles
through the water column, directional
waves, and bio-optical properties. A pilot
program incorporating satellite remote
sensing was initiated in the second year of
the program and delivered near-real time
satellite products to the SEACOOS data
portal (see Fletcher et al. this volume).
Enhancing capabilities for data assimilative modeling and prediction is among
the objectives for a future regional coastal
ocean observing system (RCOOS) for the
southeast U.S. Developing the observational network to support this will require
experience with a broad mix of sensors,
deployment platforms and communica-
ABSTRACT
In situ observing and satellite remote sensing components of the Southeast Atlantic
Coastal Ocean Observing System (SEACOOS) implemented from 2002 through 2006 are
reviewed and “lessons learned” from the operation of these systems are summarized. The
in situ observing program built upon several efforts initiated at academic institutions in the
southeast U.S. prior to 2002. The partnership and observing capacity were expanded as the
SEACOOS program developed. Sustained near real-time in situ observations were obtained
from buoys, offshore towers, pier and shore stations, and mobile platforms (ships, gliders,
drifters) using several communications options. The SEACOOS observing program also
included several test-bed studies, and a pilot program in regional satellite remote sensing
utilized established capabilities at partner institutions to deliver satellite products in near
real-time to SEACOOS. Many of the SEACOOS observing activities leveraged personnel and
infrastructure resources at partner institutions and support from complementary research
projects. The SEACOOS experience provides a number of pragmatic (operational) “lessons
learned” that are relevant to the future operation of a Regional Coastal Ocean Observing
System (RCOOS). Adequate support of experienced personnel is critical to the efficient,
sustained operation of a real-time observing network. Also required are sufficient inventories
of spare components, appropriate transportation options to accommodate both routine and
unscheduled maintenance, robust communications with sufficient bandwidth and back-up
options, and data logging on deployment platforms to minimize gaps in the time-series. RCOOS
planning should include mechanisms to ensure effective communications on operational
matters among technical personnel within and across regions.
tions options, and consideration of how
to optimally deploy the observing assets
that can be supported with the available
resources. Thus, along with the scientific
rationale for what is needed and where
(see Seim et al., 2008; Weisberg et al.,
submitted), the RCOOS design will require
credible estimates of operational requirements for the deployed assets (including
personnel, equipment inventories and
transportation).
At the start of the SEACOOS program
(Fall 2001), experience with sustained
(operational) in situ ocean observing as
envisioned for the U.S. component of
the Integrated Ocean Observing System
(IOOS) was limited. (See Ocean.US
[2002] for the status of the IOOS concept
at that time, and Briscoe et al. [this volume]
and Seim and Mooers [this volume] for
further historical context for the IOOS
and SEACOOS, respectively). The NOAA
National Data Buoy Center (NDBC) operated a network of buoys and fixed platforms
which focused on surface ocean conditions,
particularly as relevant to marine weather
observations and forecasts (surface meteorological data, sea surface temperature,
non-directional waves). The Center for
Operational Oceanographic Products and
Services (CO-OPS) in NOAA’s National
Ocean Service (NOS) managed the National Water Level Observation Network
(NWLON). NWLON focused on coastal
water level observations to provide reference stations for tidal predictions, track
local storm surge in real-time, and accumulate time-series data for evaluating longer
Fall 2008 Volume 42, Number 3
41
term trends in coastal sea level. In 2001,
several local to sub-regional pilot efforts
in real-time coastal ocean observing were
underway in the southeast U.S., including
projects involving some of the initial SEACOOS partners (described below). These
sought to fill gaps in the existing NDBC/
NWLON real-time network, enhance the
range of variables observed, provide near
real-time data for forecasting models, and
acquire distributed time-series information
for coastal ocean research.
During the SEACOOS program, a
range of in situ systems were deployed and
evaluated in sustained operations. Test-bed
activities examined observing technologies
and validated products. Although operating at a pilot level, the observing assets
deployed by SEACOOS also benefited
research programs within the region, providing important time-series data and
observing infrastructure for process studies,
and an expanded set of observations used
to force and validate coastal ocean circulation models.
The synergy between observing system
activities and coastal ocean research was
evident in the substantial leveraging of
SEACOOS resources by partners in the
program. While SEACOOS benefited
from the contributions of experienced
personnel at the partner institutions, few of
the engineering and technical support personnel responsible for the design, deployment and maintenance of the observing
system components were supported solely
by SEACOOS. Key personnel were also
supported in part through complementary
research projects and through support
by the partner institutions. The partner
institutions also provided significant infrastructure and facilities support for the
SEACOOS observing program, including
engineering services, fabrication of system
components, vessel operations, satellite
remote sensing capabilities, information
technology and communications. The
significant opportunities for leveraging
RCOOS investments with the resources
available at academic institutions should
be recognized in IOOS and RCOOS
development plans.
42
Marine Technology Society Journal
This review of the SEACOOS observing program documents: 1) the origins
and implementation strategy for the SEACOOS observing program; 2) the in situ
observing assets deployed and operated by
SEACOOS partners; 3) a pilot program incorporating satellite remote sensing into the
regional observing network; 4) a number
of pragmatic (operational) “lessons learned”
from the SEACOOS observing program;
and 5) several programmatic issues that
are relevant to RCOOS development and
operation.
Origins and Development
of the SEACOOS
Observing Program
Implementation Strategy
The distribution of real-time observations in the southeast U.S. coastal ocean
at the start of the SEACOOS program
is shown in Figure 1. This was a sparse
network, with most of the offshore observations coming from NOAA NDBC
buoys and C-MAN stations measuring
meteorological variables and a limited set
of surface ocean properties. It was recognized that SEACOOS resources would not
be sufficient to fill all significant gaps in
spatial coverage for in situ observations in
the region. Thus, as a prototype RCOOS,
the implementation strategy for the SEACOOS observing program was a phased
build-out from existing assets, engaging
a number of experienced groups in the
region and enhancing test-bed capabilities
for various platforms. (Seim et al. [this
volume] reviews the development of the
SEACOOS Implementation Plan.) Additional real-time observing capabilities for
the southeast coastal ocean were also being
deployed by other sub-regional programs
at this time. Notably, the Carolina Coastal
Ocean Observing and Prediction System
(Caro-COOPS; www.carocoops.org) and
Coastal Ocean Research and Monitoring
Program (CORMP; www.cormp.org)
deployed inshore and mid-shelf buoys in
Long Bay, South Carolina and Onslow Bay,
North Carolina and established a number
of shore stations in the Carolinas, and the
NOAA Coastal Storms Program supported
deployment of an enhanced NDBC buoy
Figure 1
Distribution of coastal and offshore real-time in situ observing stations in the SE coastal ocean in the fall of
2001. Not included here are many onshore meteorological stations and the USGS river gauge network.
(41012) on the continental shelf off St.
Augustine, Florida.
Given the funding history of the SEACOOS program, the approach that was
adopted for development of the in situ
observing system appears to have been
appropriate. While there was considerable expansion of observing assets in Years
1-3, budget reductions in Years 4 and 5
(to about 84% and 27% of Year 3 levels,
respectively; Seim et al., this volume) constrained capabilities to service what had
been deployed and to retain key technical
personnel. Adjusting to the budget reductions would have been a greater challenge
for a more dispersed network with more
partners and a larger personnel pool.
SEACOOS Partners in the Observing
Program
The initial SEACOOS in situ observations were based on sub-regional observing
projects that had been initiated through
funding from several sources. Additional
partners and observing capabilities were
added as the SEACOOS program grew.
These additions considered the capabilities that the new partners could bring to
the program, in terms of implementing
specific observing technologies (e.g., HF
radar and regional satellite remote sensing)
and contributions to targeted applications
(e.g., near-shore directional waves).
The most advanced sub-regional observing effort at the start of SEACOOS
was the Coastal Ocean Monitoring and
Prediction System (COMPS; http://comps.
marine.usf.edu/), an integrated observing/modeling network operated by the
University of South Florida (USF) on the
West Florida Shelf1. COMPS was formally
initiated in 1995 in response to coastal
flooding events in West Florida that resulted
from tropical and extra-tropical storms,
building on experience with pilot moorings on the shelf (Cole et al., 2003). The
coastal ocean system is complemented by a
Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System
(PORTS) monitoring system for Tampa
Bay that was initiated in 1990 (http://ompl.
marine.usf.edu/PORTS). The observing
assets deployed at the start of SEACOOS
included three buoys with surface telemetry
(real-time), two internally recording bottom-mounted packages (delayed mode reporting) and six shore stations. Applications
of COMPS observations and models have
included analysis and forecasts of coastal
ocean circulation and harmful algal blooms
on the West Florida Shelf (Weisberg et al.,
2005; Weisberg et al., submitted).
Several observing activities at the
University of Miami (Rosenstiel School
of Marine and Atmospheric Science, UM
RSMAS) were incorporated into SEACOOS.2 High frequency radar (HF radar)
measurement of surface currents (Shay et
al., this volume) was an area of focused effort, with an initial test deployment within
the COMPS domain for inter-comparison
of HF radar and acoustic Doppler current
profiler (ADCP) current measurements
(Shay et al., 2007). SEACOOS also supported developmental work on an ADCP/
CTD (conductivity-temperature-depth)
profiling package, and partnered with the
Explorer of the Seas project (http://www.
rsmas.miami.edu/rccl/), in which a cruise
liner was equipped with meteorological and
oceanographic instrumentation.
Off Georgia, the South Atlantic Bight
Synoptic Offshore Observational Network3 (SABSOON; http://www.skio.usg.
edu/research/sabsoon/), coordinated by
the Skidaway Institute of Oceanography
(SkIO), was initiated in 1998. Through
the cooperation of the managers of a U.S.
Navy flight training range (operated from
the Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort,
South Carolina), SkIO and partners were
provided access to several Navy towers
located on the middle and outer Georgia
continental shelf. The initial meteorological
and oceanographic sensors and associated
power, communications and mechanical
systems are described in Seim (2000).
Partners at the South Carolina Department
of Natural Resources (SC DNR) deployed
an underwater video system at an artificial
reef near one of the towers to evaluate use of
video records for fisheries research (Barans
et al., 2005; and see http://oceanica.cofc.
edu/FishWatch). This project was continued within SEACOOS.
Additions to the initial SEACOOS
observing network included offshore packages, pier and shore stations, shore-based
HF radar mapping of surface currents,
and satellite remote sensing capabilities.
In situ observing activities at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
(UNC-CH) included a buoy deployment
near Cape Lookout, instrumentation of a
tower in the SABSOON range, establishing a pier station and test deployments of
an autonomous profiling glider (http://
nccoos.org/platforms/platforms)4. The
initiation of a pilot program in near-shore
surface waves observations (Voulgaris et
al., this volume) included installation of
ADCP instruments with directional wave
capabilities cabled to two piers on the
South Carolina coast5, and deployment
of a directional wave buoy, reporting in
near real-time, off Tybee Island, GA (near
the Savannah River entrance)6. HF radar
capabilities (Shay et al., this volume) were
expanded, with additional deployments by
UM in SE Florida (Year 2), USF on the
West Florida Shelf (Years 2-3), UNC near
Cape Hatteras, North Carolina (Year 2-3)
and SkIO/USC on barrier islands along the
Georgia and South Carolina coast (Years
3-4). As a focused test-bed activity, surface
directional wave products from WERA HF
radar were evaluated in a field experiment
supported by SEACOOS in the spring of
2005 (see Voulgaris et al., this volume).
Starting in Year 2, satellite remote sensing
groups at USF (Institute for Marine Remote Sensing, IMaRS) and UM RSMAS
were engaged in a pilot regional satellite
remote sensing effort.
Observing Assets Operated
by SEACOOS Partners
Given the substantial observing needs of
an RCOOS, use of multiple observing platforms and a range of communications and
power system options will be required. The
SEACOOS observing program conducted
from 2002 through 2006 included:
■ Real-time in situ measurements from
buoys, offshore towers, and coastal
stations;
Fall 2008 Volume 42, Number 3
43
Remote measurement of surface currents
(and surface waves) using shore-based
HF radar;
■ A regional pilot program in satellite
remote sensing, with data acquired
both through direct download at partner
institutions and from national sources,
and products delivered to the SEA COOS data portal in near real-time;
■ Experience in a COOS context with
a large cruise liner as an observing
platform;
■ Observing technology development
and field trials, including glider deploy ments, underwater video for monitoring
fish, evaluation of surface wave para meters derived from in situ and WERA
HF radar measurements, and assess ment of currents from surface buoy mounted ADCP instruments;
■ Opportunistic observing activities,
including acquisition of near real-time
surface drifter data, and ship surveys
in response to regional oceanographic
events;
■ Development and sustained deploy ments of supporting infrastructure for
the observing network, including
various power, telemetry, and mech anical systems.
Detailed description of the in situ
deployment packages utilized in SEACOOS is beyond the scope of the present
document (i.e., the specific instruments
and associated data acquisition, power,
communications and mechanical systems).
The emphasis here will be to describe the
in situ deployment platforms utilized, key
challenges encountered, and operational
“lessons learned” during the SEACOOS
program. The pilot satellite remote sensing
program in SEACOOS, several test-bed activities, and examples of ship-based surveys
conducted in response to specific events are
also summarized.
■
Fixed Position In Situ Assets
The distribution of fixed position
real-time observing assets deployed in
the southeast U.S. coastal ocean between
2001-2006 is shown in Figure 2, including
federally supported systems and those oper-
44
Marine Technology Society Journal
ated by SEACOOS and other sub-regional
observing programs. The different classes
of in situ observing platforms utilized by
SEACOOS are described in the following
sections.
Buoys
The evolution of the buoy systems
deployed by USF is described in Cole et
al. (2003). These are single point moorings,
modeled after the 3 m discus buoy design
employed by NOAA’s NDBC. Buoy locations in the COMPS array were selected
to span dynamically distinctive regimes
on the West Florida Shelf, and to improve
spatial coverage for the surface wind field
used to force coastal ocean circulation
models (e.g., Weisberg et al., 2005). The
most advanced buoys in the COMPS array (Figure 3) are configured to measure
air-sea interactions, with meteorological
sensor packages based on the IMET or
ASIMET design (developed by the Upper Ocean Processes Group, Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute), supplemented to
include long- and short-wave radiometers
and precipitation, surface and sub-surface
temperature and conductivity sensors and
a buoy-mounted (downward directed)
ADCP. Data are logged locally (ensuring
uninterrupted time-series information in
the event of communications failure) and
transmitted hourly via GOES satellite. The
basic COMPS buoy design has proven to
be mechanically robust. Although meteorological sensors were damaged, one buoy
(C17) survived near-passes by Hurricanes
Katrina, Rita and Wilma in 2005.
UNC-CH began exploring buoy options in 2003 when it became clear that
access to Navy towers off North Carolina
was not likely to be granted (discussed
below). Initially purchase of an NDBC
buoy was explored, but at the time the
NDBC configuration did not support both
directional wave and ADCP observations,
and the estimated cost was deemed to be
high (less so in retrospect). Subsequently,
Figure 2
Distribution of real-time in situ observations operated in the SE coastal ocean from 2002-2007 (the time frame
of the SEACOOS program) and nominal coverage for surface currents from shore-based HF radar stations.
Note that these sites were not all operating simultaneously. There were various time frames for deployments
of individual assets, and, for most sites, there were temporary gaps in coverage because of equipment failures
or communications issues. A number of inshore water level stations, onshore meteorological stations and
USGS river gauge sites are not included.
Figure 3
Figure 4
One of the buoys employed in the COMPS buoy array
for surface meteorological and in-water measurements of velocity, temperature and salinity.
A photograph and schematic of the UNC-CH/IMS
buoy deployed off Cape Lookout. Acoustic modems
were used for communication between the surface
buoy and a bottom-tripod with ADCP and CTD
instruments. This required a two-point mooring to
restrict the buoy watch circle.
UNC-CH partnered with the UNC Institute of Marine Sciences (UNC-IMS,
Moorehead City, NC) for a buoy deployment off Cape Lookout (Figure 4) using a
buoy hull purchased from the University
of Maine/Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing
System (GoMOOS; Wallinga et al., 2003;
Pettigrew et al., this volume). Several realtime telemetry options for the buoy-shore
link were tested: cell phone (out of range
of the available coastal coverage, which can
be limited in some of the less populated
areas of the southeast U.S. coast); freewave
radio (requires a shore relay tower) and
Iridium (performed well in terms of baud
rate, but there were issues with the link
through a single board computer used for
data acquisition and communications).
Operational challenges included storms
(the buoy deployed in spring 2005 was
damaged during Hurricane Isabelle in late
summer 2005) and protection of electronics
packages and instruments in the near-water
environment (requiring some modifications
of the initial design). Also, while the vessel
available at UNC-IMS (18.3 m length)
was adequate for in-field servicing the buoy
under calm conditions, deployment and
retrieval operations pushed its capabilities
to their limits.
A third class of buoy utilized in SEACOOS was a commercial package for
Triaxys buoy is a low profile, spherical body,
without a mast or radar reflector (which
would bias the buoy response to wave
motions). Although positioned out of the
shipping channel and presumably out of
areas of smaller boat traffic, during the 33
month cumulative deployment time, the
buoy was apparently hit by boats on two
and probably three occasions. The shallow-water mooring hardware for the buoy
(including a heavy rubber damper section)
is rated for a six-month service life. The
buoy broke free on three occasions when
the deployment period extended beyond
this. A programmed cell phone notification
when the updated position left a defined
watch circle allowed a rapid small vessel
response to tether the buoy until it could
be recovered with a larger vessel on two occasions. However, on another, communications were inoperative until after the buoy
had been blown across the shelf by strong
offshore winds and entrained in the Gulf
Stream. Intermittent communications via
Immarsat-D+ provided position fixes over
the following 9 months as the buoy drifted
along the northern flank of the Gulf Stream
into the mid-North Atlantic.
Offshore Navy Towers
making directional wave measurements.
A Triaxys directional wave buoy was
deployed by the Georgia Institute of
Technology, Savannah partner near Tybee
Island, Georgia, as part of the SEACOOS
near-shore wave initiative (Voulgaris et al.
this volume). This was operated between
July, 2004 and April, 2007. The Triaxys
buoy is solar-powered, with a transparent
Plexiglas dome covering solar panels. Communications used cell phone and Iridium,
and Immarsat-D+ for backup. A separate
internally recording ADCP package (RDI
with wave module) was deployed near the
Triaxys buoy for three months in 2005.
Wave parameters derived from these two
different approaches compared well overall
(Work, 2008). On the operational side, the
The Navy towers off Georgia provided
established infrastructure on middle and
outer continental shelf with substantial
on-site power generation, established highbandwidth, two-way communications (a
microwave system links the three central
platforms and shore), boat landings, and
helicopter landing decks (Figure 5). The
observing program at the towers was conducted on a “not-to-interfere” basis with
regard to Navy operations. In practice, a
good working relationship was established
with the range operators, and SABSOON
servicing operations were often coordinated
with those of the Navy contractor (e.g.,
helicopter flight plans and other logistics).
The tower locations on the middle-to-outer
portions of the broad continental shelf off
Georgia are complemented by real-time
observations further inshore; an NDBC
buoy (41008) in NOAA’s Gray’s Reef
National Marine Sanctuary (GRNMS)
Fall 2008 Volume 42, Number 3
45
at 16 m depth and an estuarine station
established by the Sapelo Island National
Estuarine Research Reserve (SINERR) in
cooperation with the United States Geological Survey (USGS).
SkIO installed and maintained meteorological and in situ oceanographic
instruments on three towers, in an oblique
cross-shelf orientation between the 27 and
44 m isobaths (see Figure 2). Power and
communications bandwidth from the existing Navy systems were allocated to SkIO
on two larger (“master”) platforms. On
a smaller platform (NE “remote” tower),
the Navy systems were more limited, and
SkIO installed separate power (solar panels,
wind turbine, batteries, controller) and
communications (microwave link to the
nearest “master” tower). Data were logged
on tower computers and retrieved hourly
Figure 5
The R2 tower on the Georgia continental shelf, one
of the U.S. Navy platforms instrumented as part of
the SABSOON project (SkIO). On-site power generation includes a solar panel array (opposite side in
this photo), two wind turbines and a diesel backup
generator. A microwave system provides the communications link to shore. Instrument systems included:
a meteorological/radiometer package, near-surface
and near-bottom CTD/optical packages; a fixed depth
pressure sensor (for non-directional surface waves
and water level); a bottom-mounted (upward-looking) cabled ADCP (about 200 m from the platform);
a cabled multi-camera video system mounted on an
artificial reef structure about 200 m from the platform
for monitoring reef fish populations.
via the Navy microwave link to shore and
T1 land-line from a shore relay tower to
SkIO. UNC-CH partners also designed a
self-contained instrument package that was
deployed on the SE “remote” platform on
the Georgia shelf (45 m depth). This location extended the offshore meteorological
observations into the northern portion of
the marine forecast zone for the National
Weather Service (NWS), Jacksonville,
Florida office. The SABSOON towers to
the north are in the marine forecast zone
for the NWS Charleston, South Carolina
office. The instrumented towers were designated NDBC Coastal-Marine Automated
Network (C-MAN) stations, with meteorological and surface ocean data formatted
and delivered to NOAA NDBC.7
The use of Navy platforms came with
some constraints. A major structural refurbishment of the towers in 2003-2004
(including sandblasting and painting) required removal and reinstallation of much
of the above-water equipment on the three
instrumented towers. Transportation was a
major cost consideration for the tower operations. While the helicopter option was
initially cost-effective compared to research
vessel charges (and attractive for the greatly
reduced transit times), helicopter charges
increased significantly over the course of
the SEACOOS program. This became a
serious consideration when budgets were
reduced in Years 4 and 5. Vessels operated
by the NOAA Gray’s Reef National Marine
Sanctuary (a partner in the SABSOON
program) were also utilized when scheduling permitted. In retrospect, acquiring
an appropriate vessel at the beginning of
the program may have provided the most
cost-effective and flexible transportation
option. Other operational challenges
included lightning, which damaged electronics and resulted in significant data gaps
at two towers, and fishing activities. The
offshore structures attract fish and thus
fishermen, and underwater cables were
damaged on several occasions by fish hooks
or, in the case of cabled ADCP units, by
boat anchors.
Other Offshore Towers in the Southeast
U.S. Coastal Ocean
The Georgia towers are not the only
offshore structures maintained by the
Department of Defense (DOD) in the
SEACOOS domain; other Navy ranges are
located off Key West, Florida and off North
Carolina. The UNC package deployed
on the SE Georgia tower was originally
intended as test package for deployment on
Navy towers off North Carolina; however,
access to the North Carolina range was
never granted. Access to the Navy platforms off Georgia was primarily a result
of the interest and support of the Beaufort
Range Manager and not because of a more
general DOD policy to support coastal
Figure 6
Schematic of the Springmaid pier station operated by USC as part of the SEACOOS near-shore wave initiative.
An armored cable provided power and communications from the pier to a bottom-mounted (upward-looking) ADCP. The ADCP system estimates directional wave parameters from near-surface orbital velocities and
measures near-shore currents through the water column.
46
Marine Technology Society Journal
ocean observations. Finally, the primary
function of the offshore Navy towers has
been to provide ground-based tracking and
communications for military flight training. A new flight training system is being
implemented that will eliminate the need
for the offshore tower-based tracking and
communications. As a result, the offshore
towers are being decommissioned and may
be demolished (despite the recent structural
refurbishment) unless another entity assumes responsibility for them.
Shore Stations and Pier Installations
As part of the COMPS network in
West Florida, USF operated eleven realtime coastal/shore stations, several in
partnership with other groups.8 Sensors
include meteorological packages, water
level, water temperature and salinity
and bio-optical sensors at some sites (see
http://comps.marine.usf.edu/). In South
Carolina, USC deployed ADCP units
measuring near-shore currents and directional waves 400-500 m off Springmaid
Pier (just south of Myrtle Beach, SC) and
Folly Island Pier (south of Charleston, SC)
cabled to the pier for power and real-time
communications (Figure 6). The Springmaid Pier installation was coordinated
with NOAA NOS, which operates a meteorological and water level station. The
Folly Island installation was coordinated
with NOAA NDBC, which maintains
a C-MAN station on the pier. In North
Carolina, a collaborative effort deployed
a meteorological package and web cam
(for surf conditions) at Jennette’s Pier,
Nags Head, North Carolina,9 and a kiosk
display at the North Carolina Aquarium
(Roanoke Island) as part of a public outreach effort.
are significant, they provide a very cost-effective alternative to research vessel surveys.
This potential comes with its own set of
challenges, some common to fixed position in situ systems (e.g., communications,
power management, bio-fouling), others
unique to the particular mobile platform
(e.g., the level of monitoring required during missions).
Through SEACOOS, UNC-CH purchased a Webb Electric Slocum glider, delivered in early 2005. A series of unrelated
hardware failures caused early termination
of the initial set of test deployments; these
included failures of attitude and altitude
sensors, GPS, and Iridium antenna and
a bladder failure that resulted in a leak.
This experience does not appear to be
typical. For example, the UNC-CH group
helped train UNC-Wilmington personnel
to operate a Webb glider that was used
in a number of successful month-long
missions without any of the failures listed
above. The UNC-CH glider was suc-
cessfully operated for about 1 month in
late summer 2006 on the outer shelf off
Georgia, then was directed to a rendezvous
point for pick-up by ship (Figure 7). The
quality of Iridium communications and
support from the company were judged
to be quite good. Beyond the hardware
failures (apparently unit-specific in this
case), the greatest challenge with the glider
is programming. While it employs a highly
flexible programming environment, its use
requires considerable expertise that must
be gained through training and experience.
Developing training programs for glider
operations is an area where collaborations
across regional associations could be very
beneficial to the U.S. IOOS program. It
is also important to note that when deployed on a mission, the UNC-CH glider
required nearly round-the-clock support.
A spontaneous reset of the glider control
program (yet to be resolved) must be
promptly corrected or mission failure (and
possible loss of control) can result.
Figure 7
Example of repeated CTD profiles (temperature versus depth illustrated here) obtained with the Webb Slocum
glider deployed by UNC-CH near the R4 Navy tower off Georgia in 2006. The semi-diurnal fluctuation in the
thermocline depth that is resolved by the relatively high frequency profiles is associated with the internal tide.
A cooling event evident from between Days 228-233 occurred when a tropical storm was developing in the
deployment area. The warm waters at about Day 238-240 appear to have been associated with a meanderdriven intrusion of Gulf Stream water.
Autonomous Profilers
Autonomous underwater vehicles
(AUVs) will likely become core components of coastal ocean observing systems,
offering the potential for obtaining highresolution information in the vertical,
routine transects/sections, and targeted
sampling of specific features (e.g., Schofield
et al., 2007). Although unit costs for AUVs
Fall 2008 Volume 42, Number 3
47
Surface Drifter Data
An exploratory effort obtained near-real
time data from satellite-tracked drifters
deployed by private industry (Figure 8).
Through a cooperative agreement with Horizon Marine Inc., SEACOOS was provided
access to drifter information once these
had crossed east of about 86˚W longitude.
(The drifters are part of Horizon Marine’s
“Eddy Watch” monitoring and forecasting
program in the Gulf of Mexico). In return,
Horizon Marine was provided with support
for mapping and visualization schemes developed for SEACOOS applications. This
type of cooperative agreement may provide
one approach to engage private industry in
a future RCOOS observing program, and
acquire valuable data at little cost for the
RCOOS. Drifter data from the NOAA
Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological
Laboratory (AOML) Global Drifter Program was also collected by SEACOOS, and
USF obtained additional drifter informa-
tion for units deployed on the West Florida
Shelf as part of a separately funded project.
Overall, while the potential for incorporating drifter data into the regional program
was demonstrated, to date this has been a
somewhat untapped resource. The SEACOOS effort was primarily at the level of
establishing a model for cooperative agreements with private industry and NOAA
drifter data suppliers. Further analyses are
needed to better exploit its potential for
RCOOS applications.
Ship Surveys
Figure 9
An example of opportunistic ship survey data obtained during the summer 2003 upwelling event in
the SAB. A series of cross-shelf surveys conducted
from spring through summer 2003 documented
the evolution of the event on the Georgia shelf. This
cross-shelf section from late August 2003 shows
the strong thermocline that had developed across
the middle-to-outer shelf following more than two
months of persistent upwelling favorable winds.
Near-bottom temperatures seaward of about the 30 m
isobath were some 5-7˚C cooler than the climatological values, and T-S properties were characteristic of
water typically found at depths of some 200 or more
in the Gulf Stream (Aretxabaleta et al., 2006).
Resources were not sufficient for SEACOOS to support routine ship surveys as
part of its observing program. However,
the value of having access to ship survey
capabilities as part of a regional COOS
program was demonstrated. Two examples
are noted here. (1) In the summer of 2003,
a major upwelling event occurred on the
South Atlantic Bight shelf (Aretxabaleta
Figure 8
Examples of surface drifter data provided to SEACOOS by Horizon Marine, Inc. over about one month in the
spring of 2007. The GPS-equipped drifters are deployed in the western Gulf of Mexico, and data are made
available once the drifters move east of about 86˚W. On average, almost 7 Horizon Marine drifter tracks per
month were available for the SEACOOS domain in 2007. These data suggest the important information on
modes of regional connectivity that could be provided through coordination of regional, federal agency and
private industry drifter programs.
et al., 2006; 2007). A series of cross-shelf
hydrographic surveys, supported in part
with SEACOOS-funded ship time (SkIO
installation/servicing cruises to Navy towers), were an important component of the
documentation of this event (Figure 9).
(2) In the summer of 2004, satellite ocean
color products generated by the USF
IMaRS group showed a distinct plumelike feature extending from the Mississippi
River delta into the Straits of Florida and
along the inner margin of the Gulf Stream
off Georgia. Opportunistic sampling conducted off the Florida Keys (using a NOAA
vessel) and in the Gulf Stream off Georgia
(during a SkIO cruise) confirmed that the
ocean color feature was indeed low salinity
water, consistent with a Mississippi River
origin (Hu et al., 2005).
Volunteer Observing Ship—
An Instrumented Cruise Liner
Prior to the beginning of the SEACOOS program, the University of Miami
had partnered with the Royal Caribbean
Cruise Line to install and maintain atmosphere and ocean sensors, along with data
acquisition and communications systems
48
Marine Technology Society Journal
on the Explorer of the Seas.10 The Office
of Naval Research funding package that
included the first year of SEACOOS also
included support for the Explorer program, and this was incorporated into the
SEACOOS program in Years 2-4. The set
of atmospheric and oceanographic instruments installed on the Explorer (see, http://
www.rsmas.miami.edu/rccl/facilities.html)
was well beyond that typically found on
voluntary observing ships (VOS). While
such observations can certainly augment
those of a regional observing system, the
Explorer program also showed that utilization of a large commercial vessel brings its
own set of challenges, as illustrated by the
ADCP data records.
Initially the Explorer alternated on
a weekly basis between West and East
Caribbean cruise tracks, providing the
opportunity for repeated measurements
of Florida Current transport from alongtrack ADCP measurements across the
Florida Straits. However, issues with data
quality and maintaining continuity of the
time-series were encountered. The Explorer
ADCP current records required a considerable post-cruise processing (Beal et al.,
2008). Two major sources of error in the
current records were inaccurate heading
information and bubble contamination of
the acoustic data. The bubble effects are
exacerbated by the flat-bottom design of
the vessel and relatively high cruising speed
(44.5 km per hr, or 24 knots). In 2005,
the May-October cruises were shifted to
a New Jersey-Bahamas track, thus breaking the continuity of year-round coverage
across the Florida Straits. One of the lessons
from the Explorer experience is that timely
processing and adequate quality control
for the data obtained by the VOS requires
dedicated technical support.
real-time to the SEACOOS data portal.
Funding for the satellite remote sensing
effort was modest and progress in this
area very much depended on leveraging
existing infrastructure and expertise in
the region, notably the satellite download,
processing and archiving capabilities and
experienced personnel at USF IMaRS and
UM RSMAS.
Satellite remote sensing products have
generally been envisioned to be core elements of the IOOS “national backbone”
observations. However, strategies for
incorporating remote sensing activities
into regional COOS efforts were not welldefined in IOOS planning documents
when the SEACOOS effort was initiated
(for recent discussion see Ocean.US, 2006).
The pilot program demonstrated regional
capabilities for near real-time delivery of
high-quality satellite data and derived
products and integration with in situ data
streams. Variables estimated from various
satellite sensors and the sources for these
data are listed in Table 1. Accomplishments
from this effort included:
Raw high-resolution data from lowearth, polar orbiting satellites was
downloaded at USF IMaRS and
UM RSMAS and provided to
SEACOOS within 30 minutes;
■ Satellite data products generated
using existing algorithms (e.g., SST,
surface chlorophyll concentration)
were delivered in near real-time to
the SEACOOS web portal (see Fletcher
et al., this volume);
■ "Cloud-free" optimal interpolation
(OI) products for SST and ocean color
developed by the Ocean Circulation
Group (OCG) at USF (He et al., 2003)
were incorporated into the satellite data
stream (Figure 10);
■ Access for SEACOOS to satellite
data collected and processed outside the
southeast U.S. was established, includ ing QuikSCAT for winds from the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and
NOAA AOML and Topex for sea
surface topography from the JPL;
■ Data standards for the satellite remote
sensing data were adapted to ensure
■
Figure 10
Example from the SEACOOS web portal of the “cloud-free” Optimally Interpolated (OI) SST product from the
USF Ocean Circulation Group (He et al., 2003). Here near-contemporaneous regional wind measurements
(1600 GMT) are layered on an OI SST (1730 GMT) from 20 May 2007.
Satellite Remote Sensing in
SEACOOS
During the second year of the SEACOOS program (mid-2003), satellite
observations were incorporated into the
SEACOOS data stream11. Synoptic satellite observations over the SEACOOS
geographic domain were delivered in near
Fall 2008 Volume 42, Number 3
49
interoperability with the SEACOOS
data management system (using the
SEACOOS netCDF format) and to
optimize throughput for image data-sets,
and visualization schemes for merged
display of mapped imagery with in situ
data were developed (Fletcher et al., this
volume). Close coordination with
personnel of the SEACOOS Information Management group was essential
to progress in this area.
Evaluation of Observing Technologies and Test-Bed Activities
Ongoing evaluation of in situ observing
technologies will be one of the roles of an
RCOOS. This will include performance
assessments of new sensors and new configurations of sensors (e.g., multiple sensor
systems with integrated anti-biofouling),
deployment platforms, and the associated
data acquisition, power, communications
and mechanical systems. SEACOOS-supported field work provides several case
studies in this area.
Focused test-bed activities included the
SEACOOS-sponsored field experiment to
validate surface directional wave estimates
from the WERA HF radar system in SE
Florida (see Shay et al., this volume and
Voulgaris et al., this volume). A comparison of wave parameters estimated from a
wave buoy and a bottom-mounted ADCP
(upward looking) was also conducted in the
near-shore off Savannah, Georgia (Work,
2008). At two near-shore sites off West
Florida, USF tested sub-surface wave sensors linked by acoustic modems to surface
transmitters on a buoy and on a tower.
Performance of surface buoy-mounted
ADCPs for current profile measurements
were evaluated in two studies. For the
COMPS buoys, Mayer et al. (2007) found
no substantive differences for currents
measured from the buoys and bottommounted instruments except in the upper
few meters of the water column. However,
from inter-comparison of current measurements obtained with a bottom-mounted
ADCP and an ADCP mounted on a shallow-water NDBC buoy off Georgia (Buoy
41008, ~16 m depth), Seim and Edwards
50
Marine Technology Society Journal
Table 1
Summary of remote sensing data provided to SEACOOS.
Variable
Sensor12 Data Access
Sea Surface Temperature (SST)
from infrared wave bands
AVHRR, MODIS Aqua, Terra
USF (IMaRS)
Ocean color (chlorophyll)
MODIS Aqua
USF, U. Miami
OI products (SST, ocean color)
AVHRR, MODIS Aqua, Terra
USF OCG
Marine Winds
QuikSCAT
JPL, AOML
Sea Surface Height
Topex
JPL
(2007) concluded that the instrument
configuration on the NDBC buoy strongly
biased the current estimates throughout
the water column, likely due to surface
wave contamination. The configuration
was subsequently modified, and the data
quality from the NDBC buoy is improved,
although a thorough re-examination has
not yet been conducted.
Not all test-bed activities were fully
successful, as is the nature of trial instrument deployments in the coastal ocean.
At the SABSOON Navy towers on the
Georgia shelf, anti-biofouling measures
attempted for instruments with exposed
optical surfaces (beam transmissometer,
an older CDOM fluorometer design) were
not effective. Better results were obtained
with flow-through fluorometers, although
these still required servicing at a minimum
of 4-6 week intervals in warmer months to
prevent fouling. More recently introduced
bio-optical instruments with integral antibiofouling (copper end plate, copper shutter for optical window) appear to extend the
required servicing interval to 3 months or
more on the Georgia shelf. In other test-bed
work, the somewhat mixed results from the
UNC-CH test missions of a commercial
glider were described previously. And in
trial deployments of a bottom-mounted
ADCP/CTD profiling package developed
at UM-RSMAS, it was found that the
winch controls were not adequate to operate the system in areas of strong current (as
found along the East Florida Shelf ).
Along with test-bed activities, basic
operational procedures and servicing strategies evolved. Many of the in situ packages
deployed by SEACOOS partners were
significantly modified and improved during
the program as further experience in sustained deployments was acquired. Similarly, procedures for equipment deployments
and field servicing were refined. While the
details of such incremental improvements
cannot be included here, the following section lists some general operational “lessons
learned” that may be pertinent to future
RCOOS observing efforts.
Operational and Pragmatic
Lessons Learned –
Observing Working Group
To some extent, the range of in situ
observing assets and deployment platforms
utilized in SEACOOS reflects the origins of
an observing program which incorporated
several existing sub-regional observing efforts. As a result, uniformity in the in situ
packages was not emphasized. However,
in terms of a prototype RCOOS, this
approach provided considerable experience in sustained operation of a range of
instrument packages deployed on buoys,
offshore towers, piers and shore stations,
deployment and servicing strategies for
these packages, and use of a number of
real-time communications options. A
number of general “lessons learned” from
the in situ observing and satellite remote
sensing efforts supported by SEACOOS
are listed here.
Deployment and Maintenance
of In Situ Systems
Personnel are essential "infrastructure"
for a coastal ocean observing system.
Personnel resources were often a
limiting factor for the design, installation and maintenance of in situ systems.
■
Given the patchwork funding for support, SEACOOS OWG personnel were
often multitasking at their institutions,
as opposed to being organized into
full-time, task-specific groups across
SEACOOS. Thus, limited availability
of personnel was often a deciding factor
in scheduling deployment and servicing
operations, and at times resulted in
extended down-time following component failures.
■ Efficient, sustained operations are
vulnerable to personnel turnover.
The collective experience in systems
design, development and operations
often resided in a small set of key
personnel at partner institutions.
Thus, systems documentation is critical,
particularly for the type of sustained,
collaborative operations envisaged
for IOOS. The significant time commit ment for this is often underestimated in
project planning. Essential documen tation includes mechanical drawings,
circuit diagrams for electrical and elec tronic systems, and maintenance/
servicing records that are part of pack age meta-data.
■ As a result of the combination of
corrosion, electrolysis and bio-fouling,
regular preventive maintenance for all
components of the deployed packages
is required for sustained operations
in the marine environment. While this
is perhaps obvious, ongoing mainte nance must be recognized as a key cost driver for the in situ observing program,
representing an increasingly significant
portion of personnel time and trans portation resources as more packages
and a greater variety of instruments are
deployed. This point is particularly
relevant to the effort by SEACOOS to
deploy sub-surface, real-time instru mentation and packages that included
bio-optical as well as physical sensors.
■ Minimizing downtime requires an
adequate inventory of spare instruments
and components for the supporting
infrastructure (e.g., power, communi cations, data acquisition systems).
These must be appropriately staged
(readily available when and where
needed) such that the limited time at
deployment sites can be optimally
utilized. This point cannot be overemphasized. The southeast U.S. is
exposed to a spectrum of natural stresses.
Most field systems sustained some
form of storm damage over the course
of prolonged deployments, and resulting
down-time. For example, the UNC-CH/
UNC-IMS buoy off Cape Lookout,
North Carolina was damaged during
Hurricane Isabel in 2003, the UM HF
radar installation was severely impacted
by Hurricane Wilma in 2005, and
storm-related shoreline erosion forced
UNC-CH to move a HF radar installation near Cape Hatteras. Lightning
also caused significant equipment
damage at offshore towers, pier stations
and HF radar installations during the
SEACOOS program.
■ An adequate instrument inventory is
also necessary to ensure that instruments
can be rotated out of the field for regular
servicing and calibration. Presently
calibration and servicing is primarily
performed by instrument manufacturers.
Turnaround times are often on the
order of a month or more and calibra tion costs can be a significant recurring
expense. Regional facilities for calibra tion of key sensors could be an impor tant contribution from the "national
backbone" of IOOS.
■ Continuous glider missions require
full-time oversight and capabilities for
rapid response in the event of glider
failures and for deployments in response
to specific events. Sustained glider
missions will likely require establishing
a regional glider operations group for
the RCOOS. Coordination with glider
groups in other regions for training and
operations support should be pursued.
Transportation
Adequate maintenance of offshore
assets requires both routine (scheduled)
and rapid response (unscheduled)
access to appropriate transportation
■
options. What is appropriate depends
on the deployment platform, local
conditions, and the available modes
of transportation (e.g., ship, smaller
vessel, and helicopter in the case of the
Navy towers). Scheduling issues and
trade-offs in cost and transit times are
associated with each option.
■ Transportation is a major factor in
logistics and budget planning, repre senting a key cost-driver for sustained
offshore observations and often a limiting
factor for scheduling maintenance of
offshore systems.
■ Transportation is a primary consid eration for personnel safety. Vessels
must be reliable and sufficiently sea worthy to operate under the range of
sea states likely to be encountered during
deployment and servicing operations,
and equipped such that required loads
can be handled safely.
Communications and Data Streams
General lessons regarding communications include:
■ Systems for near real-time commun ications often utilized a combination
of SEACOOS, commercial vendor
(e.g., satellite, phone and T1 land lines) and university system compo nents (plus a military microwave system
for the SABSOON tower-to-shore
link). Thus, troubleshooting communi cations problems and effecting repairs
was not always straight-forward.
■ Bandwidth was a key limitation at various
points in the communications stream.
A notable example was the limited
bandwidth of Argos satellite commun ications for buoys.
■ There was limited redundancy in
communications for the in situ systems
deployed by SEACOOS. Backups for
critical system components are needed
for a robust real-time network.
■ Data logging at the deployment platform
(independent of real-time communica tions to shore) is typically needed to
ensure robust time-series records. While
real-time data have been emphasized in
most IOOS/COOS planning docuFall 2008 Volume 42, Number 3
51
ments, non-real time, time-series
observations (delayed mode reporting)
also contribute important information
regarding coastal ocean processes. The
value of non-real-time data should be
recognized in IOOS/RCOOS planning.
This is an area where there may be
significant opportunities to leverage
resources, for example through collaboration with other research and monitoring programs that may accommodate
deployment/recovery of recording
instruments as part of regular sampling.
■ Reliance on the information technology
(IT) and communications infrastructure
of academic institutions for at least
portions of the communications
network had both positive and negative
aspects. While institution IT infra structure often represented a significant
resource for SEACOOS, the observing
system requirements were not neces sarily a high priority for university IT
groups. For example, emergency
response preparations for hurricane
threats resulted in system shutdowns
and limited access to institution
facilities at times when supporting
marine weather forecasters and emer gency managers with real-time data and
products was of particular concern.
Satellite Remote Sensing in
SEACOOS
The costs associated with the hardware
required to collect, process and distribute
large-volume satellite data (including
receiving stations, processing computers,
data storage and network bandwidth) and
the personnel necessary to coordinate these
activities were well beyond what could
be supported through SEACOOS alone.
Leveraging existing resources supported
by other agencies and programs (NASA,
NOAA, ONR) was the only practical way
to include satellite remote sensing in SEACOOS. Some lessons learned are:
■ For many satellite products, the latency
(delay time) between image acquisition
and when the imagery could be deliv ered to the regional data portal was
considerably reduced through use of the
52
Marine Technology Society Journal
regional download and processing
capabilities.
■ Redundancy in download, processing
and delivery is needed to ensure un interrupted delivery of satellite data
(e.g., hurricanes shut down one or both
of the USF and UM facilities).
■ While the SEACOOS effort was able
to demonstrate near-real delivery of
satellite data and derived products, a
fully developed program (e.g., including
field validation for regional products)
would require significant investment.
Again, effective partnering with
regional and national programs is likely
to be essential for infrastructure and
personnel support.
■ Effective incorporation of satellite
remote sensing into the regional observing
network will require close coordination
between satellite data providers, infor mation management personnel, and
modelers, and mechanisms for inter facing with end users for applications
development.
Programmatic Lessons
Learned
The SEACOOS Strategic Plan and
Implementation Plan (www.seacoos.
org/documents/) were framed with the
expectation of national progress toward a
sustained IOOS program. However, since
the SEACOOS program was funded on
a year-to-year basis, the time horizon for
OWG planning and the development of
a truly regional program was necessarily
constrained. Still, the OWG effort indicates
what can be achieved through academic
institution participation in an RCOOS.
While there were certainly a number of
positive accomplishments, in terms of
programmatic “lessons learned”, it is also
important to note a number of issues regarding OWG functions and activities in
SEACOOS.
■ There largely remained a sub-regional
focus among the OWG activities of
the partners. Build-out from existing
in situ assets was emphasized as opposed
to new region-wide activities, primarily
due to infrastructure limitations for
broader expansion and the associated
resources for personnel and transportation. As noted above, most personnel
involved in the observing program were
not supported full-time by SEACOOS.
■ Personnel resources were not sufficient
to develop formal operations groups
for the in situ observing activities on a
SEACOOS-wide basis. Efforts to
deploy and maintain various classes of
instrument packages, deployment plat forms and supporting power and com munications infrastructure would
benefit from further collaborations with
operators of similar systems within and
across regions.
■ Developing tailored regional satellite
products requires coordinated cross working group effort with data manage ment, modeling and outreach/
education groups, and likely requires a
field validation program. Engagement
with private sector satellite data product
providers is also needed to minimize
potential conflicts.
■ Focused OWG support of targeted
applications areas was limited, and
while discussed at workshops, follow-up
activities in these areas proved to be
difficult to move forward. The issue of
applications development for the
observing system program is discussed
further in Seim et al. (this volume) and
Nelson and Simoniello (this volume).
The multi-program origins of most
of the in situ and remote sensing efforts
in SEACOOS may have contributed to
these programmatic shortcomings. Certainly the prior experience of many of the
partners was largely in the “PI culture” of
individual project funding, which tends
to emphasize focus on institutional efforts
or specific components of the observing
system. On the other hand, the research
background of many participants contributed to the considerable leveraging
of SEACOOS assets that was achieved
through linking the SEACOOS activities
to complementary research programs.
Maintaining effective communications
in the OWG between institutions was
an issue. While there were regular communications at the Executive Committee
level, other PIs often felt less engaged in
the program direction and planning. And
while the fall workshops (see Seim et al.,
this volume) provided some opportunities for interactions on technical issues at
the engineering/technical support level,
cross-institution interactions in technical
and operational areas was limited. The fact
that the support personnel were spread
thin and often multi-tasking was certainly
a factor is this; they typically had more
than enough to do in terms of keeping
up with local issues associated with the
deployment, operation and maintenance
of the observing system components.
However, it is clear that further RCOOS
development will benefit from regular
interactions among experienced technical
personnel on regional and national levels.
Communications mechanisms and the resources to support this should be included
in IOOS/RCOOS planning.
Conclusions
A RCOOS that significantly augments the “national backbone” to serve
regional information needs will require
a broad mix of sensors and deployment
platforms. The design of the observing
network will not be static. There must be
provisions to reposition or further augment observing assets based on analyses
of the data sets acquired and the practical
experience gained from operating these
systems. Multiple real-time communications options will be needed along with
data logging at deployment platforms to
ensure robust time-series. The configuration of individual platforms will need to be
flexible and accommodate new observing
technologies as these become available.
These requirements point to the need
for a robust research and development
program as part of the RCOOS and for
within- and cross-region collaboration
among the personnel responsible for
operations. SEACOOS and other pilot
RCOOS efforts have acquired considerable experience in sustained operation of
a range of observing system technologies.
It is hoped that the “lessons learned” from
this experience can contribute to further
development of the U.S. IOOS.
Acknowledgments
A number of SEACOOS Principal Investigators associated with the SEACOOS
observing program are listed in the “Notes”.
The design, deployment and maintenance
of the observing system components was a
result of the efforts of numerous individuals among engineering and technical support staffs, vessel crews, and IT personnel
at the SEACOOS partner institutions. The
program would not have been possible
without their contributions. A number
of graduate students and undergraduate
interns also participated in the field programs and data analyses. The review of the
satellite remote sensing program in SEACOOS is based on a document prepared
by Ed Kearns (presently with the National
Park Service) and Frank Müller-Karger
(presently U. Mass. Dartmouth). Lisa Beal
(UM-RSMAS) is thanked for providing
information on the ADCP analyses from
the Explorer of the Seas data records. Harvey Seim (UNC-CH), George Voulgaris
(USC), Paul Work (GIT, Savannah), and
Travis McKissack (SkIO) provided input
on specific observing elements and operational considerations. Jesse Cleary (UNCCH) generated graphics for a number of
the figures. Valuable comments on earlier
drafts were provided by Nick Shay (UMRSMAS), Christina Simoniello (U. So.
Mississippi), and an anonymous reviewer.
SEACOOS was a collaborative, regional
program sponsored by the Office of Naval
Research under award N00014-02-1-0972
and managed by the University of North
Carolina, Office of the President. We thank
Russ Lea and Sarah Smith (UNC, Office
of the President) for their essential contributions to SEACOOS program management that made possible a multi-state,
multi-institution program, and Harvey
Seim for overall program leadership and
coordination across institutions and program elements.
References
Aretxabaleta, A., B.O. Blanton, H.E. Seim,
F.E. Werner, J.R. Nelson and E.P. Chassignet.
2007. Cold event in the South Atlantic Bight
during summer of 2003: Model simulations
and implications. J Geophys Res Oceans. 112:
C05022, doi:10.1029/2006JC003903.
Aretxabaleta, A., J.R. Nelson, J.O. Blanton,
H.E. Seim, F.E. Werner, R.H. Weisberg
and B.O. Blanton. 2006. Cold event in the
South Atlantic Bight during summer of 2003:
Anomalous hydrographic and atmospheric
conditions. J Geophys Res Oceans. 111:
C06007, doi: 10.1029/2005JC003105.
Barans, C.A., M.D. Arendt, T. Moore and
D. Schmidt. 2005. Remote video revisited:
a visual technique for conducting long-term
monitoring of reef fishes on the continental
shelf. Mar Technol Soc J. 39(2):110-118.
Beal, L.M., J.M. Hummon, E. Williams,
O.B. Brown, W. Baringer, and E. Kearns.
2008. Five years of Florida Current structure
and transport from the Royal Caribbean
Cruise Ship “Explorer of the Seas”. J Geophys
Res Oceans (in press).
Briscoe, M.G., D.L. Martin, and T.C.
Malone. 2008. Evolution of regional efforts
in international GOOS and U.S. IOOS. Mar
Technol Soc J., this issue.
Cole, R., R. Weisberg, J. Donovan, C. Merz,
R. Russell, V. Subramaniam and M. Luther.
2003. The Evolution of a Coastal Mooring
System. Sea Tech. Feb 2003:24-31.
Fletcher, M. J. Cleary, J. Cothran, and D. Porter. 2008. Southeast Atlantic Coastal Ocean
Observing System (SEACOOS) Information
Management: Evolution of a distributed community system. Mar Technol Soc J., this issue.
He, R., R.H. Weisberg, H. Zhang, F.E.
Müller-Karger and R.W. Helber. 2003. A
cloud-free, satellite-derived, sea surface temperature analysis for the West Florida Shelf.
Geophys Res Lett. 30(15):1811, doi:10.1029/
2003GL017673.
Hu, C., J.R. Nelson, E. Johns, Z. Chen,
R.H. Weisberg and F.E. Müller-Karger. 2005.
Mississippi River water in the Florida Straits
and in the Gulf Stream off Georgia in summer 2004. Geophys Res Lett, 32, L14606,
doi:10.1029/2005GL022942.
Fall 2008 Volume 42, Number 3
53
Mayer, D.A., J.I. Virmani and R.H. Weisberg.
2007. Velocity comparisons from upward and
downward acoustic Doppler current profilers
on the West Florida Shelf. J Atmos Ocean
Tech. 24:1950-1960.
Nelson, J.R. and C. Simoniello. 2008.
Building on the SEACOOS experience:
Recommendations from the final SEACOOS
workshop. Mar Technol Soc J., this issue.
Ocean.US. 2006. Workshop on Regional
Needs for coastal Remote Sensing, Workshop
Report. New England Center, University of
New Hampshire, October 3-5, 2006. Ocean.
US Publication No. 16.
Ocean.US. 2002. Building consensus: Toward
an integrated and sustained ocean observing
system. Workshop Proceedings, Airlie House,
Warrenton, Virginia, March 10-15, 2002.
Ocean.US Publication No. 1.
Pettigrew, N.R., H. Xue, J.D. Irish, W.
Perrie, C.S. Roesler, A.C. Thomas and D.W.
Townsend. 2008. The Gulf of Maine Ocean
Observing System: Generic Lessons Learned
in the first seven years of operation (20012008). Mar Technol Soc J., this issue.
Schofield, O., J. Kohut, D. Aragon, L.
Creed, J. Graver, C. Haldeman, J. Kerfoot, H.
Roarty, C. Jones, D. Webb, S. Glenn. 2007.
SLOCUM gliders: Robust and ready. J Field
Robotics. 24(6): 474-485.
Seim, H.E., 2000. Implementation of the
South Atlantic Bight Synoptic Offshore Observational Network. Oceanogr. 13:18-23.
Seim, H.E. and C.R. Edwards. 2007. Comparison of buoy-mounted and bottom-moored
acoustic doppler current profiler performance
at Gray’s Reef. J Atmos Ocean Tech. 24:270-284.
Seim, H.E. and C.N.K. Mooers. 2008. Prologue
to SEACOOS. Mar Technol Soc J., this issue.
Seim, H.E., C.N.K. Mooers, J.R. Nelson,
R.H. Weisberg and M. Fletcher. 2008.
Towards a regional coastal ocean observing
system: An initial design for the Southeast
Coastal Ocean Observing Regional Association. J Mar Syst. (in press).
Siem, H.E., M. Fletcher, C.N.K. Mooers,
J.R. Nelson, L. Spence, R.H. Weisberg. F.E.
Werner, S. Smith. 2008. SEACOOS Program
Management. Mar Technol Soc J., this issue.
Shay, L.K., H. Seim, D. Savidge, R. Styles
and R.H. Weisberg. 2008. High Frequency
Radar Observing Systems in SEACOOS. Mar
Technol Soc J., this issue.
54
Marine Technology Society Journal
Shay, L.K., J. Martinez-Pedraja, T.M. Cook
and B.K. Haus. 2007. High-frequency radar
mapping of surface currents using WERA. J
Atmos Ocean Tech. 24:484-503.
4. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and UNC
Institute of Marine Sciences in situ observing activities were coordinated by Harvey Seim (buoy, glider
deployments), Rick Luettich (Cape Lookout buoy),
and Mike Muglia (Jennette’s Pier installation).
Voulgaris, G., B.K. Haus, P. Work, L.K. Shay,
H. Seim, R.H. Weisberg, and J.R. Nelson.
2008. Waves Initiative within SEACOOS.
Mar Technol Soc J., this issue.
5. Near-shore wave measurements in South
Carolina were conducted by George Voulgaris
and colleagues from the Coastal Processes and
Sediment Dynamics Laboratory at the University
of South Carolina.
Wallinga, J.P., N.R. Pettigrew and J.D. Irish.
2003. The GoMOOS moored buoy design.
IEEE OCEANS 2003 Proc. 5:2596-2599.
Weisberg, R.H., R. He, Y. Liu and J.I. Virmani.
2005. West Florida shelf circulation on synoptic,
seasonal, and inter-annual time scales. In: Circulation in the Gulf of Mexico. (eds.) W. Sturges
and A. Lugo-Fernandez, pp. 325-347, AGU
monograph series, Geophysical Monograph 161.
Weisberg, R.H., A. Barth, A. Alvera-Azcárate and
L. Zheng, L. submitted. A coordinated coastal
ocean observing and modeling system for the
West Florida continental shelf. Harm Algae.
Work, P. 2008. Nearshore directional wave
measurements by surface-following buoy and
acoustic Doppler current profiler. Ocean Eng.
35:727-737.
Endnotes
1. COMPS is directed by Robert Weisberg and
Mark Luther, University of South Florida, College of
Marine Science. Initial support came from federal
agencies (MMS, ONR) and the State of Florida. In
addition to SEACOOS, support has included the
NOAA ECOHAB program, Pasco County (Florida),
the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission and the
NOAA COTS program.
2. SEACOOS Principal Investigators (PIs) for University of Miami RSMAS observing activities were
Nick Shay (HF radar), Bill Johns (profiling ADCP
development), and initially Ed Kearns and later Rod
Zika (Explorer of the Seas).
3. SABSOON was initiated with funding from the
National Oceanographic Partnership Program
(NOPP) as a partnership between the U.S. Navy,
SkIO, South Carolina DNR, University of Georgia
and U.S. EPA. The lead PI for SABSOON was
Harvey Seim. Jim Nelson coordinated at SkIO after
Seim moved to the University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill. Charlie Barans (South Carolina DNR)
was PI for the “Fishwatch” project, with George
Sedberry and Mike Arendt coordinating after
Barans’ retirement in 2005. The Navy tower range
is operated by the Naval Surface Warfare Center,
Corona, MCAS Beaufort Detachment, Beaufort,
South Carolina.
6. Directional wave buoy measurements near Tybee
Island, Georgia were coordinated by Paul Work of
Georgia Institute of Technology, Savannah.
7. David Gilhousen of NOAA’s NDBC, working with
Pat Welsh (then the Science Officer at the National
Weather Service Forecasting Office in Jacksonville,
FL; presently University of North Florida) and Harvey
Seim (UNC-CH) was instrumental in establishing
the protocols for C-MAN station designations for
the instrumented Navy towers that facilitated data
transfer to the NDBC network. This was subsequently extended to many other locations, including
a number of the COMPS systems on the West
Florida Shelf.
8. Partners with COMPS for various shore stations
were: NOAA’s NOS; the Florida Institute of Oceanography; Pasco County, Florida; and the Tarpon
Springs Fire Department.
9. SEACOOS provided partial support for the Jennette’s Pier deployment through UNC-CH. Other
partners were UNC Coastal Studies Institute, the
North Carolina Aquarium Society, the Outer Banks
Boarding Company, SurfChex, and North Carolina
Sea Grant.
10. Support for the Explorer of the Seas program
was provided by the University of Miami, NOAA
AOML, the National Science Foundation and the
Office of Naval Research (SEACOOS).
11. The SEACOOS Remote Sensing Coordinating
Committee (RSCC) was: Ed Kearns (UM); Frank
Müller-Karger (USF); Chuamin Hu (USF); Bob Helber
(USF); Dwayne Porter (USC); Charlton Purvis (USC);
Jim Nelson (SkIO). (Affiliations at the time of the
RSCC formation.)
12. Satellite sensors: AVHRR (Advanced Very High
Resolution Radiometer) instruments on NOAA
Polar Orbiting Environmental Satellites (POES)
use infrared (IR) measurements to estimate
sea surface temperature (SST). IR SST is also
measured by NASA’s MODIS (Moderate resolution
Imaging Spectroradiometer) satellites, Aqua and
Terra, along with multiple visible channels used for
estimating various ocean color products. QuikSCAT
provides estimates of marine surface winds based
on microwave scatter from the sea surface. Topex
measures sea surface topography relative to the
earth’s geoid from the combination of satellite
radar altimetry and ground-based laser ranging (for
precise orbit determination).