Eos,Vol. 86, No. 12, 22 March 2005
Puerto Rico-Virgin Islands Margin in response to the oblique subduction of high-standing ridges, in Active Tectonics and Seismic Hazards of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Offshore Areas, edited by P Mann, Spec. Pap. Geol. Soc.Am., 385, 31–60. . Lander, J. F and P Lockridge (1989), United States ., .A. tsunamis, Publ. 41-2, U.S. Dep. of Commer.,Washington, D. C. Mann, P C. S. Prentice, G. Burr, L. R. Peña, and F ., .W. Taylor (1998) Tectonic geomorphology and paleoseismology of the Septentrional fault system, Dominican Republic, in Active Strike-slip and Collisional Tectonics of the Northern Caribbean Plate Boundary Zone, edited by J. F Dolan and P Mann, . . Spec. Pap. Geol. Soc.Am., 326, 63–123. Mann, P E. Calais, J. C. Ruegg, C. DeMets,T. Dixon, P ., . Jansma, and G. Mattioli (2002), Oblique collision in the northeastern Caribbean from GPS measurements and geological observations, Tectonics, 21(6), 1057, doi:10.1029/2001TC001304. O’Loughlin, K. F and J. F Lander (2003), Caribbean ., . Tsunamis: A 500-Year History from 1498–1998, 263 pp., Springer, New York. Schwab,W. C.,W.W. Danforth, K. M. Scanlon, and D. G. Masson (1991),A giant submarine slope failure along the northern insular slope of Puerto Rico, Mar. Geol., 96, 237–246. Synolakis, C., et al. (2001),The slump origin of the 1998 Papua New Guinea Tsunami, Proc. R. Soc. Lond.A 457, 1–27. Ward, S., and S. Day (2001), Cumbre Vieja volcano: Potential collapse and tsunami at La Palma, Canary Islands, Geophys. Res. Lett., 28(17), 3397–3400.
Author Information
Nancy R. Grindlay and Meghan Hearne, Center for Marine Science, University of North Carolina, Wilmington; and Paul Mann, Institute for Geophysics, Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin
Fig. 3. (a) EW9605 Hydrosweep bathymetry (200-m grid interval, 100-m contour interval) of the Mona Rift region with structural interpretation based on HAWAII MR1 sidescan sonar imagery and single-channel seismic data.The epicenter of the 1918 magnitude 7.3 event is shown by the black star.The location of the seismic profile in Figure 3c is shown by solid white line. ESFZ indicates East Septentrional Fault Zone. Mapped mass-wasting slumps are outlined by dashed white lines. (b) HMR1 sidescan imagery (17-m grid interval) clearly showing large crescentic cracks in carbonate platform. (c) Single-channel seismic profile across the Mona Rift and one of the multiple landslide deposits mapped.The 1918 tsunami could have been triggered by seafloor rupture along the Mona Canyon Fault and an associated submarine landslide. Reclamation Central Valley Operations, and the Sacramento District of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. Other agencies and regional stakeholders are contributing through active participation in project workshops and, indirectly, through comments and suggestions conveyed to the INFORM Oversight and Implementation Committee.The committee provides an independent review of the development and demonstration activities, and facilitates implementation of the integrated system components in a near-operational environment.
Integrating Climate-Hydrology Forecasts and Multi-Objective Reservoir Management for Northern California
PAGES 122, 127
The Integrated Forecast and Reservoir Management (INFORM) Project was conceived to demonstrate increased water-use efficiency in Northern California water resources operations through (1) the innovative application of climate, hydrologic, and decision science, and (2) reciprocal technology transfer activities between the INFORM scientists and the staff of federal and state agencies with an operational forecast and management mandate in Northern California. Toward achieving this goal, INFORM objectives include implementing a prototype inteBY K. P GEORGAKAKOS, N. E. GRAHAM,T. M. . CARPENTER,A. P GEORGAKAKOS, AND H.YAO . grated forecast-management system for primary Northern California reservoirs, for individual reservoirs as well as system-wise. Project objectives also include demonstrating the utility of climate and hydrologic forecasts through near-real-time tests of the integrated system with actual data and management input. Economic and other benefits of the integrated system will be compared with those accruing from current management practices. INFORM project foci include the Folsom, Oroville, Shasta, and Trinity reservoirs and their associated water resources (Figure 1). Key operational agencies for the implementation of the demonstration project are the U.S. National Weather Service California-Nevada River Forecast Center, the California Department of Water Resources, the U.S. Bureau of
Current Use of Forecasts for Reservoir Management
Managed water resources affect regional economies and the environment. In turn, they are influenced by climate variability and trends, increasing demands, and changing water markets.As pressures to provide reliable water supplies at low cost increase, the need to optimize water-use efficiency becomes imperative. Although considerable investments have been made to improve the quality and applicability of synoptic- and climate-scale forecast information, and water resources systems can clearly benefit from such information [e.g.,
Eos,Vol. 86, No. 12, 22 March 2005
National Research Council, 2001, 2004], no focused program exists that aims to quantify and demonstrate these benefits. There are two main reasons for this lack of a focused program. First, synoptic and climate forecasts include substantial uncertainty, and their effective use in management requires procedures that explicitly account for that uncertainty both in forecast and decision models/processes. Second, existing reservoir management procedures depend on presently available information and operate under set institutional constraints, so that nontrivial technical and institutional changes are required to use information of a different type (i.e., improved synoptic or climate timescale forecasts). As a result, few reservoir managers are able to commit the considerable effort required to utilize new approaches and realize the benefits of improved climate information. The fundamental premise of the INFORM project is that the use of short- and long-term operational forecasts in water resources management can only be achieved through the establishment of demonstration and assessment sites at which the following conditions have been met: (1) a quantitative numerical system has been developed that translates climate information into reliable forecasts of system response under time-varying and adaptive operational decision policies; (2) modelers, forecasters, and managers have established a set of mutually agreed upon performance criteria to measure the effectiveness of decision policies; (3) a baseline quantitative system version has been developed that reflects present management practice and operational models, together with an alternate system version that includes climate and hydrology forecasts in an integrated forecast-decision framework; (4) rigorous intercomparison of quantitative and other benefits is performed by implementing management decisions for the alternate systems using retrospective analysis of historical data and forecasts, or in real time; and (5) there is continuing participation of management staff in the demonstration activities and in user/modeler workshops for the mutual benefit of modelers, forecasters, and managers. To fully realize the forecast benefits within a management process of multiple decision makers, objectives, and spatio-temporal scales, a hierarchy of interlinked decision models is necessary to address long-range, middle-range, and short-range objectives [Georgakakos,2004].
Fig. 1.The study area in Northern California and the major reservoirs used to manage water resources for conservation, energy production, and flood damage mitigation.
Fig. 2.A reliability diagram of the unconditional (ESP) and conditional (ECHAM3-5) prediction frequencies of the event: Folsom Lake inflow is in the lower tercile of its distribution. Vertical bars indicate 95% bounds due to sampling uncertainty.The period of record is 1970–1992, with ensemble forecasts issued every five days. INFORM is designed to motivate and establish the beginnings of researcher-forecasteruser institutional cooperatives for integrated and sustainable water resources management. The benefits to the scientific community stem from the interaction with users and from the establishment of scientific interdisciplinary research goals motivated by the needs of the integrated system (rather than individual system components).
Fig. 3.The Values of Folsom Lake multiple objectives for various forecast scenarios and using the decision model of the integrated forecast-control system. Results for ECHAM3-5 are similar to those for ECHAM3-10. studies of the Folsom reservoir (part of the INFORM system). The studies involved the application of a numerical, integrated forecastdecision system that was designed to accommodate the considerable uncertainty of the climate information within the INFORM multiobjective decision process [Carpenter and Georgakakos, 2001;Yao and Georgakakos, 2001]. This integrated system (used first in the Des Moines River study of Georgakakos et al. [1998]) includes components for (1) adjusting global climate model (GCM) simulations and forecasts to account for known regional biases, and for biases and random errors arising from the difference
INFORM Relevance
The INFORM reservoir system (including Folsom, Shasta, Oroville, and Trinity) regulates the water resources in the California BayDelta region, and supports California’s trilliondollar economy. The system provides two thirds of the state’s drinking water, irrigates seven million acres of the world’s most productive farmland, and provides habitat for hundreds of species of fish, birds, and plants. In addition, the system provides critical flood protection and contributes significantly to the production of hydroelectric energy.
Feasibility Studies
Feasibility of the successful use of the integrated system for operational reservoir management was established through retrospective
Eos,Vol. 86, No. 12, 22 March 2005
between the spatial and temporal scales of the GCM and that of the reservoir catchment; (2) generating hydrologic forecasts and forecast uncertainty estimates through ensemble forecasting, either independent of or conditional on adjusted GCM information; (3) generating dynamic decision policies that explicitly utilize forecast information; (4) quantifying operational, risk-based tradeoffs among competing water uses, including flood protection,water supply,energy generation, and low-flow augmentation; (5) interacting with stakeholder agencies to select a shared vision trade-off position and policy option; and (6) simulating system response to quantify the benefits and risks associated with the decisions made. The retrospective studies focused on intercomparing (1) a system approximating current operational practices,(2) a system utilizing an ensemble streamflow prediction (ESP) approach using historical observations only, (3) a system utilizing the full integrated forecast-decision system using GCM monthly estimates of precipitation and temperature from two climate models and for both GCM simulations and forecasts, and (4) a system utilizing the observed flow as the perfect inflow forecast (perfect foresight scenario). The study used one climate simulation of the Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis coupled GCM (CGCM-1), an ensemble of ten climate simulations of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology ECHAM3 GCM (ECHAM3-10), and an ensemble of five climate forecasts of the ECHAM-3 GCM (ECHAM3-5). The historical study extended from 1 October 1964 through 31 December 1992 for GCM simulations and from 1 October 1970 through 31 December 1992 for GCM forecasts. Reservoir inflow forecasts and management decisions were generated every five days. An adaptation of the National Weather Service operational hydrologic forecast model was used, calibrated with historical data for the basin of interest. In all cases, the same number of forecast traces was generated. Forecast and decision horizons were 60 days long with daily resolution. Performance with respect to both forecast and economic indices was evaluated, and the assessment is outlined in the following. It is noted at the outset that the performance assessment comments are basin and reservoir system specific. Several indices were used to quantify the performance of the ensemble inflow forecasts, including reliability diagrams and a reliability score based on each decile of the forecast ensemble distribution. The reliability score compounds the results for all probability decile ranges to provide a scalar skill score. Zero reliability score indicates perfect performance (as in the perfect foresight scenario), while higher scores reflect decreasing forecast skill. Events of particular interest to reservoir management are events associated with reservoir inflow volumes (e.g., over the forthcoming two months) being in the upper (flood) or lower (drought) terciles of their distribution.
On the basis of the reliability score,Table 1 shows that using GCM ensemble information in real time significantly improves the reliability score of ensemble inflow forecasts as compared with using the ESP inflow forecasts that depend on climatology. This is especially so for the low tercile volumes associated with drought conditions. The reliability diagram of Figure 2 indicates that the performance of the ECHAM35 ensemble flow forecasts is superior to that of the ESP forecasts for low tercile inflows mainly at the higher deciles of forecast frequency. Reservoir management performance depends not only on forecast performance but also on the way ensemble forecast information is used by the decision model and process. This is the compelling reason for integrating the forecasts with the reservoir management procedures. Reservoir management performance was measured by annual spillage, annual and maximum flood damage, annual hydroelectric energy value, and risk of falling below minimum instream flows.Approximate dependence of costs and benefits on the reservoir levels and releases was specified for the decision model, and decision preferences were set based on discussions with Folsom Lake Operations Staff. The decisions pertain to reservoir releases, power generation (turbine loads and operation hours), and spillage volumes, and are updated adaptively as new inflow forecasts or other information on the condition of the system becomes available. A comparison of simulated results using current management practices versus the integrated forecast-decision system showed that, by using the latter, increases up to 15–18% in annual average energy and decreases of up to 50% in unnecessary spillage are possible without increasing flood damage and with
increased water supply made available for agricultural,municipal,and environmental uses. Results of an intercomparison of the various forecast procedures using the same decision model as the integrated system are shown in Figure 3. The current operational procedure and the perfect-forecast scenario produce single forecast time series, while the rest produce ensemble inflow forecast time series. Figure 3 shows that benefits are associated with the use of ensemble forecasts for all Folsom management objectives. Furthermore, these forecasts yield management benefits comparable to those obtained from the perfect-forecast scenario. It is also shown that, for this case study, the ESP and GCM-conditioned ensemble inflow forecasts produce comparable results. Additional results [Yao and Georgakakos, 2001] indicate that full management benefits can only be realized by the use of reliable ensemble forecast schemes combined with adaptive decision rules. Namely, using GCMconditioned forecasts in association with static management rules or neglecting to incorporate forecast uncertainty in the decision process are not expected to improve reservoir management. On the contrary, such practices may increase the risk of costly failures.
Acknowledgments
Funding for INFORM is provided by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Global Programs, the California Energy Commission, and the California Bay-Delta Authority (CALFED). Additional funding for the feasibility studies was provided by the California Applications Project of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. The
Eos,Vol. 86, No. 12, 22 March 2005
ideas and opinions presented herein need not necessarily reflect those of the funding agencies.
Planning and Managing Water Systems,Venice, Italy, Sep. 29 B Oct. 1, Elsevier, New York. Georgakakos, K. P P Georgakakos, and N. E. Gra.,A. . ham (1998),Assessment of benefits of climate forecasts for reservoir management in the GCIP region, GEWEX News, 8(3), 5–7. National Research Council (2001), Climate change science: An analysis of some key questions, 29 pp., Natl.Acad. Press,Washington, D. C. National Research Council (2004), Confronting the Nation’s Water Problems:The Role of Research, 310 pp., Natl.Acad. Press,Washington, D. C. Yao, H., and A. P Georgakakos (2001),Assessment of . Folsom Lake response to historical and potential future climate scenarios: 2. Reservoir management, J. Hydrol., 249, 176–196.
Author Information
K. P Georgakakos, N. E. Graham, and T. M. Carpen. ter (forecast team), Hydrologic Research Center, San Diego, Calif., and Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; and A. P . Georgakakos, and H.Yao (decision team), Georgia Water Resources Institute and School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology,Atlanta For additional information,contact K.P.Georgakakos; E-mail: KGeorgakakos@hrc-lab.org.
References
Carpenter,T. M., and K. P Georgakakos (2001),Assess. ment of Folsom Lake response to historical and potential future climate scenarios: 1. Forecasting, J. Hydrol., 249, 148–175. Georgakakos,A. P (2004), Decision support systems . for integrated water resources management with an application to the Nile Basin, in Proceedings, International Federation for Automatic Control Workshop on Modeling and Control for Participatory
MEETINGS
Broader Impact: Guidance for Scientists about Education and Public Outreach
PAGES 121, 129
Most Earth and space scientists devote so much of their energy to research, publication, staying funded, and in some cases teaching and supervising students, that it is hardly surprising many feel they have little time to address funding agencies’ requirements to articulate how their proposed research will have an impact beyond academia. Even so, many in the research community acknowledge that it is in their own best interests, and that of the global environment, to communicate not just with their peers, but also with educators, students, the media, resource managers, and policy makers. So the challenge is: How can researchers reach out to these audiences while staying focused on their primary responsibilities? The good news is that the obligation to demonstrate the “broader impacts” of publicly funded research, if properly addressed, can actually expand scientists’ opportunities. Resourceful investigators can now play an important role in improving science literacy in the United States, to cite just one potential focus, while simultaneously bolstering the competitiveness of their grant proposals. Scientists need not feel they are on their own in pursuing broader impact; there are now resources—organizations and individuals— that can be of assistance. During the 2004 AGU Fall Meeting, 13–17 December in San Francisco, California, an Ocean Sciences session was convened to provide inspiration and practical guidance to scientists who are interested in or perplexed by the U.S. National Science Foundation’s second merit review criterion concerning the broader impacts of proposed activities (http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/nsf04_23/ 3.jsp#IIIA2). Entitled “Broader impact: What busy scientists need to know,” the AGU session included presentations by more than 40 scientists, institutional leaders, education and outreach specialists, as well as representatives from professional societies, scientific consortia, informal science education (ISE) organizations (e.g., science centers, aquariums), and funding agencies.Abstracts can be found at http:// www.agu.org/meetings/fm04/. This report highlights kernels of the presenters’ collective wisdom.
Advice for Scientists
For scientists electing to pursue some type of EPO activity, the following recommendations emerged during the session: 1. Get real. In formulating your EPO goals, consider your research interests,time constraints, budget limitations, and desired outcomes. Striving to serve all the needs of all audiences is usually impractical. It is wise to set realistic goals and to seek the advice of an EPO specialist to help you set those goals. However modest or ambitious, your audience choice and your desired outcomes will guide the methods you choose to accomplish your goals. 2. Link up. Partnerships are key to EPO success. Just as you might employ analytical specialists, engineers, or computer programmers to assist with technical facets of your research program, you would do well to consult educators, communications specialists, and other professionals in EPO undertakings. And you should do so early on, preferably as your proposal takes shape. Among the best places to find EPO specialists are the so-called informal science education (ISE) organizations: science centers, natural history museums, aquariums and zoos. Such institutions are poised to inspire, engage, entertain, and educate the public about the marine, terrestrial, and extraterrestrial environments. They are trusted sources of information for the public, and they reach a lot of people. Last year, one in three Americans visited an aquarium, zoo, or museum, and 85,000 teachers received professional development from aquariums and zoos.Although we might imagine that most learning occurs in formal school settings, children spend less than 20% of their waking hours in school. ISE organizations excel in creating opportunities for lifelong learning for a broad range of audiences including home-schooled students, senior citizens, community groups, service organizations, and families, to name just a few. Professional societies, including those of scientists (e.g.,AGU,American Society of Limnology and Oceanography,American Association for the Advancement of Science) and educators (e.g., National Science Teachers Association, National Marine Educators Association), and scientific consortia (e.g., Joint Oceanographic Institutions, Ocean.US, Ridge 2000, MARGINS) provide community-wide access to an array of EPO opportunities. Most universities have
Broader Impact Matters in Proposal Review
Mounting anecdotal evidence from scientists, particularly those who have served on recent NSF panels, suggests that with all other factors being equal, proposals that include rigorous plans to achieve broader impact have a competitive edge over those that lack such plans. Broader impact encompasses a diverse set of activities, anticipated outcomes, and levels of investment, in terms of both funding and scientists’ time.Technology transfer, interactions with the media, and environmental advocacy, to give just a few examples, can be considered broader impact, as each has potential to extend the value of research beyond the conventional academic arena. Involvement in education and public outreach (EPO) is another increasingly popular and potentially efficient route for many scientists to address broader impact requirements.That EPO is an attractive option is hardly surprising, since all scientists were once students, many teach, and lots are parents or grandparents. Moreover, education figures prominently in the mission statements of the major oceanographic research institutions, and the integration of research and education is a high priority at NSF and other funding agencies. Whatever the focus of one’s broader impact efforts, it is wise to consult your funding agency and program officer for guidance, as expectations regarding broader impact differ among and within agencies.