Verhamme - Great Lakes Commission

Physical Observations in Southern Lake Michigan: Preliminary Data and Lessons Learned
Ed Verhamme
LimnoTech
Ann Arbor, MI
Lake Michigan Monitoring Coordinating Council
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Project Summary
Objective: Understand physical (and biological) conditions offshore of the Cook Nuclear Power Plant and compare to present cooling water intake conditions
Study Details:
2008 – 2009: Data collection focused on bottom temperature and CTD casts
2010: Expanded data collection included more temperature loggers, current profilers, and sediment traps
2011: Expanded to include a real‐time buoy and various biological measurements
Study Area – Southeastern Lake Michigan
St. Joseph, MI
Grand Mere State Park
DC Cook Nuclear Power Plant
Warren Dunes State Park
New Buffalo, MI
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Generating Station
Unit 1 & 2 = 2,110 MW
Field Data Collection
• Temperate Loggers
– ~60 loggers @ 8 Stations out to 3.5 miles from shore
• Sediment Traps
– 4 locations, 3 sets per location (24 total)
– Relative deposition differences
• Current Profilers
– 2 profilers (1 up and 1 down)
• Real Time Buoy
Temperature
Real Time Buoy
Sediment Traps & ADCP
ID
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Dist. (mi) Depth (ft)
Lat
Lon
0.35
20
41.9756 ‐86.5753
1
48
41.9784 ‐86.5872
1.5
60
41.9805 ‐86.5965
2
64
41.9827 ‐86.6058
2.5
68
41.9848 ‐86.6150
3
70
41.9870 ‐86.6243
3.5
75
41.9891 ‐86.6336
4
79
41.9913 ‐86.6429
Surface Temperature (NOAA Buoy 45007)
Average July Bottom Temperature
85
2010
80
2009
Temperature (°F)
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
20 ft
25 ft
48 ft 60 ft 64 ft
68 ft
70 ft
75 ft 79 ft
Intake
0.35
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Sediment Trap Results
Deployment Period – May to June, 2011
Biological Observations
Video of Bottom
Real Time Monitoring Buoy
• Designed by Univ of Mich, built by S2 Yachts, paid for by AEP, deployed by LimnoTech • Deployed in 2.5 miles from shore in 70 ft of water
• Parameters
– Air Temp, RH, wind speed & dir, solar rad
– Water Temperature (9 depths)
– Wave heights, period, dir
– Water speed & Dir (1 m increm)
• Reports every 10 min (compared with hourly for NDBC buoys)
Data Management and Communications (DMAC)
• Goal #1 – Data access for AEP – University of Michigan OEL www.uglos.engin.umich.edu
• Goal #2 – Share data with other users
– National Data Buoy Center www.ndbc.noaa.gov
– University of Michigan OEL – Great Lakes Observing System www.glos.us
• Goal #3 – Provide quality data to all users
– Hard coded QA/QC checks – Manual QA/QC checks
– “Community” QA/QC checks (users email/call when they see a problem)
Wave Height
Water Temperature
Water Velocity
Site‐specific sensing application
User: Lake Michigan Power Plant
Sensor: Lake Michigan Buoy
User needs met: 316(b) monitoring requirements
Networked sensing application
User: Lake Michigan Power Plant
DMAC data storage and archiving
User needs met: 316(b) monitoring requirements, safety, forecasting of lake conditions for operations, intake water quality forecasting
User: US Coast Guard
User needs met: GLRI accountability, long‐
term ecosystem trending
User: NOAA GLERL lake modeler
Sensor: Lake Michigan Buoy
User needs met: Data search and rescue
User: USEPA GLNPO GLRI User needs met: Data supporting model predictions
GLOS Portal
User: Recreational Swimmer
User: Lake Michigan Fisherman
User: Municipal Intake manager
User: Lake Michigan Recreational Boater
User: NWS Rip current forecaster
User needs met: Water temperature and wind
User needs met: safety, fishing conditions
User needs met: intake water quality forecasting data
User needs met: Safe conditions forecasting
User needs met: Improved current forecasting
Lessons Learned
• If you build it…they will come
– NOAA (NWS, NDBC, GLERL)
– Boaters & Fishermen (forums, word of mouth)
– Others (surfers, shoreline property owners, TV, Radio, etc..)
• Local real time observations trump all other sources of information
– NDBC mid lake buoys (hourly and less reliable)
– NWS Forecasts (cover large areas over long time)
– Wind and Wave Models (hard to find/interpret)
• Capital costs and O & M costs are reasonable
– Capital cost ~$45,000 (w/o ADCP)
– O & M cost ~$32,000 per year (less with local support)
• GLOS can provide a link between local, regional, and federal data managers
Other LimnoTech Projects
• GLOS Enterprise Architecture – Funded by GLRI via NOAA. Led by LimnoTech with support from ASA, Clarkson Univ, & MTRI
– Develop a guidance document that lays the framework for an integrated Great Lakes Observing System
• GLOS Data Management and Communications
– Funded by GLOS. Led by LimnoTech with support from ASA, GLC, and MTRI. – Maintain and improve GLOS DMAC
• Feasibility Study for Operational Regional Coastal Ecosystem Management Models
– NOAA CSCOR & EPA CREM
– Access need for operational models around country (Great Lakes, Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf Coast) and develop guidance documents
Questions?
Contact
Ed Verhamme
everhamme@limno.com
734 332 1200
Quotes from Users
• Ryan Gerard, Third Coast Surf Shop, St. Joseph, MI: Nice to have a local buoy with real‐time data. It will definitely come in handy when we are planning where to surf.
• Lou Beisel, Fisherman, St. Joseph, MI: Kudo's to your Buoy U‐Glos Station 45026!!!!! I will be watching the info almost every day this season. Love the historical data. I am passing the site on to all my fishing friends. Thanks to everyone involved.
• John Taylor, NOAA NWS Northern Indiana: This data will be very useful to us both for our nearshore marine forecast and our project to improve our SRF/rip current forecasts in the Great Lakes
• Joyce Dunkin, Project Manager, LimnoTech: Words cannot express how much we appreciate having that buoy for the coring project. It plays a major role in our weather monitoring for health and safety efforts ‐ thanks a bunch!!!