APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF RESULTS FROM GCIP/LSA-E DETAILED DESIGN WORKSHOP The GCIP/LSA-E Detailed Design Workshop was held in Huntsville, Alabama on 20 - 22 October, 1996 at the Holiday Inn - Research Park. The primary purpose of this workshop was to provide inputs to the design of the overall experiment for the LSA-E during the water years 1998-1999. The Workshop made use of the document entitled "GCIP Studies in the LSA-E - A Discussion Paper" compiled by Dale Quattrochi as a starting point in developing recommended research activities. This Appendix contains a preliminary summary of the results from the Workshop. A more complete summary is in preparation.
The characteristics of the major river basins in the LSA-E are:
Global Hydrology and Climate Center
R. Greenwood described the Global Hydrology and Climate Center (GHCC) which was established by NASA's Office of Mission to Planet Earth and is a partnership comprised of organizational elements from NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), the Space Science and Technology Alliance (SSTA) of the State of Alabama and the Universities Space Research Association (USRA). NASA's main focus is on research, education, flight programs, information systems, and advanced studies. SSTA's main focus is education, research, regional studies, and information systems. USRA's main focus is in research, education programs, and visiting scientist programs.
GHCC's charter is to build a nationally-recognized program in global hydrology. The primary focus of the research center is to understand the Earth's global water cycle, the distribution and variability of atmospheric water, and the impact of human activity as it relates to global climate change. The main research areas of GHCC are climate studies, hydrology, passive microwave measurements, atmospheric electricity, and aerosol/doppler measurements.
Alabama A&M University's Center for Hydrology, Soil Climatology, and Remote Sensing (HSCaRS)
T. Tsegaye described the activities of HSCaRS which was established by NASA's Equal Opportunity Office to conduct research activities that are pertinent to NASA's mission goals and strategic enterprises. The mission of HSCaRS is to develop a comprehensive research program involving hydrologic processes with emphasis on remote sensing measurements and modeling, and to develop an educational curriculum that will increase the productivity of under-represented minorities with advanced degrees in NASA-related fields. This Center is expected to be a source of trained scientists to address research topics of interest to GCIP.
The initial focus of the Center's research is on soil moisture remote sensing and hydrologic modeling, with particular emphasis on the use of remotely-sensed soil moisture data in hydrologic models. An initial experiment in soil moisture was conducted in July 1996 in Huntsville, AL, with passive and active microwave remote sensing instruments deployed from boom-trucks.
USDA/ARS Hydrologic Activities in the Ohio and Tennessee River Basins and Neighboring Areas
C. Alonso informed the participants that the USDA/ARS has three experimental watersheds in the vicinity of the LSA-E: (1) Goodwin Creek watershed,MS; (2) North Appalachian Experimental watershed near Coshocton, OH; and, (3) East Mahantango Creek, PA. Only the North Appalachian Experimental watershed is contained within the boundaries of the LSA-E. Because of the small size of these watersheds with respect to the LSA-E, it is thought that these sites would represent points in a larger-scale data set and could serve as calibration sites. He summarized the physiography of the sites, their climatology and the variables that are measured on a regular basis. Of notable importance, NOAA's Air Resources Laboratory is operating a SURFRAD station in the Goodwin Creek watershed to collect comprehensive surface radiation budget data.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Research and Facilities
R. Ritschard described the Tennessee River, which drains about 106,000 sq. km, as a heavily managed river system. It is managed by the Tennessee Valley Authority, which contains portions of seven states. TVA's function is two-fold: electric power and stewardship. Stewardship takes place through regional economic development, natural resource conservation, and environmental research.
TVA has over 60 years of operational experience, compiled data bases of long records, has developed and applied models and analytical methods, retains scientists and engineers with expertise in hydrology, water and air pollution, and land cover characterization. TVA runs two different watershed hydrology models, a modified Sacramento model and a statistical watershed model. It operates three different water quality models, two fish habitat and response models, a systems water temperature and water quality model, a reservoir systems model, and a decision support modeling system. TVA collects data from 292 rain gages, 75 streamflow gages shared among various agencies, hourly reservoir data on headwater and tailwater elevation, turbine and total discharge, and meteorological data from three stations. TVA also has a repository of aerial photography, and GIS data from specific projects.
Walker Branch Experimental Watershed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
P. Hanson described the research activities in the Walker Branch Experimental Watershed which is a small (97 ha.) tributary to the Clinch river just north of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN. The site is covered with deciduous hardwood forest and contains two perennial streams. The watershed is currently the site of a throughfall displacement experiment, carbon flux, watershed evapotranspiration and saturated throughflow research. A 44 m walk-up tower with meteorological instruments is located at the site in conjunction with the carbon flux research. A National Acid Deposition program site is located on the periphery of the watershed.
NWS Ohio River Forecast Center, Wilmington, OH
T. Adams described the operational river forecast activities within the Office of Hydrology in the National Weather Services of NOAA. The NWS River Forecast Center (RFC) system is an operational system that offers interactive capability to monitor river forecast simulations. Embodied within the RFC system is a calibration system and an extended streamflow prediction system. The RFC system offers the capability for flash flood guidance within the Ohio River and Lower Mississippi River RFC areas. Current operation of the Ohio River Forecast Center (ORFC) is 17 hours per day, 7 days a week. The ORFC offers one daily forecast with updates provided as needed. The ORFC produces daily quantitative precipitation forecasts (QPF), lumped modeling, flash flood guidance calculations and routine verification of river stage forecasts. There is no current use of WSR-88D radar in QPF's. The ORFC breaks the Ohio River basin into 29 forecast groups for modeling analysis. Adams noted there are significant challenges in hydrological forecasting. These are related to data availability, poor resolution of data, incomplete or missing data, and quality control. Additionally, the complexity of the overall Ohio River basin hydrology causes problems in river forecasting. The problems here relate to snow melt prediction, river ice (location and extent) and freezing of gages in winter. He provided some idea on where the RFC is going in the future by moving more towards distributed hydrologic modeling, better snow estimations and updating in the Eastern U.S., integrating GIS procedures into forecast modeling, developing an advanced hydrologic prediction system and incorporating problemlistic forecasting, deriving more automated data input - especially from remote sensing.
Incorporating Probablistic QPF into Streamflow Predictions
J.Schaake presented some projections on how streamflow predictions in the future will be
handled. There are several fundamental questions driving how probabilistic QPF's will be
incorporated into streamflow predictions in the future: 1) What do users want ? 2) What do users
need? And, 3) What can we do? Basically, users want us to tell them what can happen and want
to know how sure we are that it will happen. He showed a number of illustrations that diagram
the hydrologic forecasting scenario. Schaake also illustrated the overall relationship of Ensemble
Streamflow Prediction (ESP) in response to observed streamflow through time. He noted that
ESP methods are needed to predict future river stages, flows, etc, and that these predictions
depend on upstream precipitation patterns over time and space. Schaake identified four
approaches that may be used in creating ensembles: 1) Climatology only; 2) Modify climatology
using forecasts; 3) Generate short-term forecasts using QPF's and space-time correlation; and 4)
Use of an atmospheric ensemble. He stated there are currently two areas that are being used as
NWS forecast demonstration projects: The Des Moines and the Monongahela River basins. The
Des Moines river basin study will begin in March, 1997 during the spring flood season. Forty-one
subbasins within the Des Moines river basin will be used in the study for user definition of flood
forecast products. The Monongahela River basin study will begin in the fall of 1997. Here, three
headwater basins will be used for modeling in conjunction with 24 hour probabilistic QPF models.
The driving factor in this demonstration study is to define alternative strategies to get streamflow
and river stage probabilities correctly modeled. Schaake closed with several science questions
that must be addressed in QPF probablistic modeling: 1) What are the relationships between
modeled and real values?; 2) How can these modeled values be quantified?; 3) How do the
values change as the models change?; and 4) What is the role of the forecaster in QPF
probabilistic modeling?
GCIP research addresses activities on two scales in each Large Scale Area (LSA).
Intermediate-scale area (ISA) activities at spatial scales on the order of 1,000 to 10,000 sq km are
phased in with those for each LSAs. Small-scale area (SSA) activities at a spatial scale on the
order of 100 sq km typically involve efforts requiring intensive observing periods over a
concentrated region to study focused issues. The Work Sessions were asked to identify candidate
ISA and SSA activities in the LSA-E.
The Work Session was also asked to identify the types of data needed for hydrological and
atmospheric modeling research; to identify where such data are available in the LSA-E; and to
recommend enhancements to assure sufficient data are available for the Water Years 1998 and
1999.
The coupled hydrologic-atmospheric modeling Work Session recommended research tasks in
four areas and summarized in the remainder of this section.
The three regional models producing output for GCIP are archived on a 40 km resolution grid
using a Lambert Conformal Map projection true at 100W longitude. However, the "native" grid
system resolution varies among the three models. These variations provide an opportunity to
investigate the extent to which each of the three regional model grid and coordinate systems are
adequate to model the effect of orography on precipitation and the effect of heterogeneous
vegetation in the LSA-E.
However, these evaluations should include comparisons with higher resolution grids. The Eta
model produced model output at 10 km resolution over a portion of the LSA-E during the period
of the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, GA. A model output data set such as this is well suited for
comparative evaluation on the effects of grid resolution in capturing orographic effects on
precipitation and the effect of heterogeneous vegetation.
It was suggested that a coupling between the Land Data Assimilation System (LDAS) and
hydrological models and applied in the Ohio and Tennessee river basins could be a test bed for
some of these sensitivity studies.
The Work Session was focused on energy and water budgets and their variations on
seasonal to interannual time scales. The primary questions it addressed were:
As in all GCIP study areas, precipitation was identified as the most critical variable. It
was recommended that the current GCIP mosaic precipitation data set be checked to insure that it
was obtaining all of the precipitation networks within the LSA-E. Given the complex terrain and
potentially large amounts of data it was suggested that the WSR-88D estimated rainfall would be
most useful in conjunction with SSA and ISA study areas.
2) For the Tennessee River system, TVA operations and planning models such as
PRYSM define a clear modeling framework and corresponding boundary
conditions/forcings which could be provided by GCIP products. Essentially this
information includes future reservoir inflows over a wide range of future time
scales, ranging from a few days to months and seasons. Also, temperature
forecasts would be important to the operation of the energy systems.
3) Opportunities to support water management in the Ohio River appear to include
navigation interests on the main stem and a variety of reservoir operations on some
of the tributaries. These opportunities need to be explored in more detail.
Benefits to navigation of improved forecast information appear to exist for
forecast periods up to about two weeks.
NWS is developing an ensemble precipitation forecasting capability. This will use
ensemble forecasts from regional and global numerical prediction models, but it will include a
range of statistical approaches to processing model output information, for simulating fine scale
space-time characteristics of precipitation not represented in model output, and for accounting for
short-term forecast uncertainty that may not be included in NWP ensemble products. This also
includes development of a precipitation snalysis system to be used at RFCs that will include
various statistical tools for combining all of the information from different sources and for
producing the final precipitation ensembles for the hydrologic models.
The PRSYM model was implemented by a research group, and is not currently used
operationally by TVA. The ESP approach is not used operationally at present in LSA-E, either by
the NWS River Forecast Centers, or by TVA. There is a potential TVA interest in ESP-type
forecasts over a range of time scales from several days (for power operations purposes) through
seasonal (for power planning).
The NWS scheme(s) for producing QPF are evolving. For short lead times (out to about
two days), forecasts will be produced from Eta model output. Because the source of forecast
uncertainty is not entirely clear at short lead times (probably a combination of uncertainty in
model initialization, parameter error, and residual error due to subgrid effects) it will be necessary
to develop schemes to represent, possibly via rescaling, forecast error probability density
functions. At longer time scales (up to two weeks), ensemble forecasts will be produced using the
NCEP's global model. At these lead times, ensemble predictions are expected to represent more
realistically the range of likely forecast errors. Finally, at seasonal time scales, ensemble forecasts
will be developed from NCEP's coupled ocean-atmosphere model.
b) For the Ohio River System, forecast points should be selected to match
those used by NWS/OHRFC;
c) The system should have the capability of using off-line (e.g., observational)
forcings, as well as forecast products produced by the NCEP models.
d) Hydrologic developments should be undertaken as a cooperative effort
with the two NWS River Forecast Centers, as well as the key operating
agencies (TVA in the case of the Tennessee-Cumberland system; USACE
in the case of the Ohio);
3) Opportunities for diagnosis of NWP models' soil moisture should be exploited
using the parallel simulations produced using observed forcings. The potential for
updating for NWP model soil moisture using streamflow prediction errors should
be evaluated as well.
4) Consideration should be given to broadening the scope of the proposed
GCIP/Tennessee River workshop to include some aspects of the Ohio River as
well, especially synergisms in the operation of these two systems with respect to
effects on the Lower Mississippi River.
5) Attention should be given to the role of biases in both meteorological forecasts
(forcings to hydrologic forecast models) and in the hydrologic models themselves.
Every hydrologic model includes at least some seasonal bias in the statistical
properties (e.g., means and variances) of model outputs when the models are
operated in a simulation mode using historical observations. Some method of
correcting for these biases is essential for water resource applications of the
forecasts. The required corrections usually must be accomplished through post
processing of model outputs. Experiments are needed to demonstrate that the
climatology of hydrologic forecasts agree with the climatology of historical
streamflow events. In addition, useful methods to measure the skill in these
forecasts need to be demonstrated to develop the appropriate level of confidence
among water resource managers.
2) A large question for coupled modeling within the LSA -E is how can models be
applied to such things as areal averaging across the region.
3) The LSA-E has high temporal variability in precipitation as well as the highest
precipitation within the GCIP region as a whole. Additionally, the LSA-E has
systemic wet and dry periods that have a pronounced effect on hydrometeorology.
4) Surface energy balance/radiation data are sparse across the LSA-E, but could be
very useful for coupled modeling if the existing sites are augmented.
It was recommended that GCIP/DACOM include the following sites in their inventory of
data available in the LSA-E.
The group recommended the following actions for GCIP in preparation for research
activities in the LSA-E:
B.2 Work Sessions
Work Sessions were held in two phases. The first phase addressed three specialized topics
while developing an approach to the major research questions on the annual hydrometeorology
and water resources that are significant to the success of GCIP. The three topics were:
1. Coupled Hydrologic/Atmospheric Modeling
The second phase then further developed the specific research and data issues defined during
these initial Work Sessions.
2. Diagnostic Studies/Energy and Water Budgets
3. Hydrometeorological Prediction and Water Resources Management
B.3 Coupled Hydrologic/Atmospheric Modeling Work Session
The development and validation of coupled hydrological-atmospheric models is a major
scientific objective for GCIP that includes improving the representation of land surface
components in models. This Work Session was asked to consider how GCIP can make use of the
unique features, infrastructure and data available in the LSA-E to develop and evaluate regional
coupled hydrologic/atmospheric models for weather and climate prediction. In particular, it
addressed
questions such as what coupled modeling issues can be addressed in the LSA-E?; what processes
pertaining to characteristics inherent to the LSA-E need to be emphasized?; how can we evaluate
the capability of coupled models to simulate the causal mechanisms for interseasonal and
interannual variability over the LSA-E?; and what is needed to estimate model parameter values
over the annual hydrologic cycle?
B.3.1 Model Grids and Coordinate Systems
The current status of the three regional models being used by GCIP to provide model output
data for budget studies and other applications was reviewed with emphasis on the capability to
produce the model output needed during the Water Years 1998 and 1999.
B.3.2 Model Initiation
The Work Session considered there is little data available in LSA-E for coupled
hydrologic/atmospheric modeling in both the operational and the research mode. It was
recommended that sensitivity studies be conducted on the effects of improved initiation of
coupled mesoscale models in very complex regions (such as the LSA-E) with special attention to
orography, vegetation, groundwater, and heavily managed runoff.
B.3.3 Modeling Clouds
The Work Session recognized that all aspects of cloud parameterization in atmospheric models
could be improved. However, it was recommended that some emphasis should be placed on the
problem of representing low-level cumulus clouds. The feedback on the surface energy balance
needs to be included in coupled mesoscale models and the parameterization of such clouds
evaluated using detailed, satellite based estimates of cloud cover.
B.3.4 Compatibility of Regional and Global Models
It was considered that the relative value of output from regional and global models is largely an
open question in the case of LSA-E, and that this may have seasonal characteristics. The Work
Session recommended that some priority be given to the evaluation of global model output using
regional data sets from the LSA-E. In this regard, it was recommended that GCIP give
consideration to the following questions.
(a) Should global model output products be a formal part of the GCIP data base?
(b) Should the model physics be consistent between the regional and global models used at
NCEP to produce operational output products?
(c) Is the soil moisture initiation in regional and global models adequate?
What types of energy and water budgets are required over the LSA-East?
The Working Group was asked to make specific recommendations with respect to:
What are the data requirements to support these studies?
How can existing facilities contribute to meet these data requirements?
(i) Candidate list of small-scale area basins(SSAs)within the LSA-East,
The Group in the Work Session noted that given the overall complexity and
heterogeneity of the LSA-E it would be exceedingly difficult to design an observational program
that could sample data representative of each micro-climate and ecosystem niche. Thus the
group suggested that it would be prudent to suggest the minimum number of SSAs that would
sample two major ecosystem types, forests versus cultivated land areas, and regions with
distinctive climates, northern versus a southern areas. A survey of existing instrumented sites
resulted in recommending that the following sites be considered as candidates for SSA sites:
(ii) Candidate intermediate scale area basins(ISAs) within the LSA-East,
(iii) Identification of existing sources to meet data requirements in the LSA-East, and
(iv) Data collection enhancements to existing facilities for the 1998 and 1999 Water
Years.
(1) Goodwin Creek Watershed; Oxford, MS USDA/ARS/NSL
The Working Group recommended augmenting or changing locations for the current
MOLTS array produced by the coupled mesoscale models to include the candidate SSA sites
listed above.
(2) Walker Branch Experimental Watershed; Oak Ridge, TN
(3) North Appalachian Experimental Watershed;Coshocton, OH USDA/ARS
(4) Alabama A&M Experiment Station and Remote Sensing Center; Huntsville, AL/
(5) Redstone Arsenal; Huntsville, AL U.S. Army
(6) Panola experimental watershed near Atlanta, GA USGS and NOAA/ERL
B.5 Hydrometeorological Prediction and Water Resources Management
The water resources working group focused on how GCIP LSA-E activities could
contribute to GCIP's evolving goals with respect to water resources. The group started by
identifying some of the most important characteristics of LSA-E with respect to water resources:
1) For water resources purposes, LSA-E consists of the Tennessee-Cumberland and
Ohio River systems. The two systems have hydroclimatological similarities, but
from a water resource systems standpoint they are much different. The Tennessee
River system is highly regulated, via the TVA reservoir system, whereas the Ohio
system is largely unregulated. From an institutional standpoint, TVA is a focal
point for Tennessee (and, to some extent, Cumberland) system operations and
planning issues. For the Ohio River, no one agency has comparable responsibility,
although the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) does have system-wide
responsibility primarily as a result of its ownership of navigation works.
B.5.1 Relationship to Ongoing NWS Activities
Present operational hydrologic forecast models in use at the two NWS RFCs in LSA-E
and by water management agencies do not include new representations of vegetation that have
been developed by the land surface community, do not model the surface energy budget, and
generally make limited use of available soils, land use and remote sensing information. On the
other hand the land surface models are beginning to include hydrologic components that account
for infiltration, surface runoff, and subsurface runoff and water storage. As GCIP begins to focus
on the LSA-E, subsurface storage and runoff processes will need to be represented well in the
land surface models. This will be required for these models to represent the surface moisture
conditions that actually exist in the LSA-E and that are important for surface forcing of the
atmosphere in climate models as well as weather prediction models. On the other hand,
operational hydrologic prediction models would be significantly improved if they included better
and more physically based representations being developed by GCIP for application in
atmospheric models and for use in LDAS to provide initial soil moisture and temperature
information for NWP models.
B.5.2 Relevance of GCIP Plans to Water Resources Operations in LSA-E
TVA has an interest in streamflow forecasts with two lead times: a) for operational
purposes (up to about a week); and b) for planning purposes (months to seasonal). At present,
TVA uses probabilistic (10, 50, 90 percentile) forecasts derived from NCEP products; these are
used as forcings in the Lettenmaier/Grygier/Stedinger model streamflows (Sacramento model for
five index catchments disaggregated stochastically to 42 inflow nodes). For planning purposes, an
analogue approach is used, wherein historical observed streamflows for selected years are routed
through a reservoir system model. In addition to inflows to the reservoir system, TVA has an
interest in forecasts of surface air temperature, which affect both water temperature, which is a
key operating constraint, and power demand.
B.5.3 Recommendations
Improvements in short and long-range weather forecasting represent the strongest tie
between the GCIP research community and water resources operations, both generally and for
LSA-E in particular. As a means to direct the LSA-E water resources activity in this direction,
the feasibility of developing an experimental water resources forecast capability for part or all of
LSA-E was recommended, as follows:
1) GCIP should develop an experimental streamflow forecast capability for the two
major river systems within LSA-E: The Tennessee-Cumberland, and the Ohio
River systems. It is important that this activity be implemented with parallel
research and operational pathways, the latter of which would incorporate the
involvement of the two RFCs that operate in LSA-E. This capability may well
encompass multiple modeling systems, but should have the following general
attributes:
a) For the Tennessee-Cumberland River systems, produce streamflow at
inflow points to existing TVA reservoir systems models, such as the
PRSYM system developed collaboratively between TVA, USGS, and other
cooperators;
2) An ensemble approach to hydrologic forecasting is needed for several reasons.
First, PRYSM-type water resources systems models are designed to process
ensembles of events to evaluate the implications of alternative operating decisions
when the future reservoir inflows are not known exactly. In other words,
PRYSM-type models need ensemble forecasts of reservoir inflows. In addition,
ensemble prediction methods allow uncertainty in future precipitation patterns
throughout a river basin to be analyzed in a way that is statistically consistent for
all forecast points in the basin. The TVA system could provide an excellent test
site for evaluation of ensemble hydrologic forecasts derived from coupled
land-atmosphere models. In this context, analysis of precipitation climatologies should
be undertaken to support verification and testing of precipitation forecasts,
including ensemble precipitation forecasts. In addition, hydrologically relevant
verification methods are needed to assess precipitation forecasts. This includes
techniques to assure that the climatology of precipitation forecasts (including
ensemble forecasts) matches climatology (i.e. the forecasts are statistically
unbiased). Also, hydrologically relevant approaches are needed to measure the
skill in these forecasts over a range of space and time scales.
B.6 Research Issues Work Session
This Work Session used the results from the first set of Work Sessions to develop an
overall listing of the research topics which GCIP should concentrate on during the period of 1997
and 1998 for focused studies on cold season/region hydrometeorology in the LSA-NC. It was
agreed that:
1) LSA-E has a wide array of precipitation regimes influenced by orography, soil
moisture, and land use.
The following items were recommended:
One other aspect that needs to be undertaken is to evaluate and improve GOES and polar
orbiting data for surface radiation budgets, radiative flux estimates, and to develop data sets for
flux profiling of surface fluxes. It was suggested there be development of the LDAS concept,
both for operational and research uses, and, to develop a strategy to validate with streamflow
gauging with emphasis on focus study areas.
1. Walker Branch Watershed at Oak Ridge
Additionally, land-grant universities within the LSA-E (i.e., agricultural schools) should be
contacted to find out if they monitor any flux tower sites and instrumented watersheds within the
LSA-E. Potential schools are: University of Tennessee, Knoxville; University of Kentucky;
University of Georgia; Auburn University; Mississippi State University; Ohio State University;
West Virginia University; Virginia Tech as well as possibly others.
2. Bondville, IL SURFRAD site/Reifsteck farm in situ site
3. USDA-ARS Hydrologic Experiment Station at Coshocton, OH
4. Alabama A&M University research farm and U.S. Army Redstone Arsenal
Meteorological station, Huntsville, AL
5. Panola experimental watershed near Atlanta, GA
6. Giles County, TN -- TVA Land Between the Lakes site
7. Coweta Experimental Watershed, Otto, NC
B.7 Data Issues Work Session
This Work Session used the results from the first set of Work Sessions to develop a
consolidated list of data requirements for the LSA-E. The Work Session started with the
strawman"list of data requirements which had been developed prior to the workshop. Several
possible additions of data from states within and just outside the LSA-E were discussed. This
included the Georgia Forestry Commission (28 meteorological stations), the Alabama Weather
Observing Network (several automatic meteorological stations) and Alabama Redstone (18
meteorological stations), the North Carolina State Network (14 meteorological stations). Possible
additions to upper-air data include profiler data from Redstone Arsenal, University of
Alabama-Huntsville (UAH) and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The consolidated list which resulted from a
discussion in a Plenary Session at the Workshop was given in Section 12 of this report.
The group raised a number of questions pertaining to the availability and use of satellite
remote sensing data in the LSA-E.
What is the future of the satellite data source module as part of the Data Management and
Service System?
The Session was informed that the MSFC/DAAC as the current satellite remote sensing data
source module Work is developing a detailed survey of data availability through remote
sensing satellites affecting the LSA-E.
What happens to data availability after the MSFC DAAC closes?
What are the satellite data requirements for GCIP researchers?
What is the quantity of data available? (How accessible are these data and at what cost?)
Is there a need for a satellite data source module and what role should it play in LSA-E
research? (e.g., as a provider/pointer?)