Requirements Baseline Document

Transcription

1 ESA DUE Permafrost Requirements Baseline Document Vienna University of Technology Institute of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Gamma Remote Sensing and Consulting Department of Geography and Environmental Management Faculty of Environment University of Waterloo Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena Institute of Geography Department of Remote Sensing Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research September 23

2 This document was compiled for the DUE Permafrost project (ES- RIN Contract No /09/I-OL), a project of the Data User Element initiative of the European Space Agency. TU Wien project number: D General Contact Information: Institute of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (I.P.F.) Remote Sensing Group (Prof. Wagner) Vienna University of Technology Gusshausstrasse 27-29/E Vienna, Austria microwave@ipf.tuwien.ac.at Status: Issue 1.0 Authors: AWI (Birgit Heim, Thomas Opel), TUWien (Annett Bartsch) Circulation: TUWien, Gamma, UW, FSU, AWI, ESA Amendments: Issue Date Details Editor Issue Sep 23 Final Document BH, AB If further corrections are required please contact Annett Bartsch. (ab@ipf.tuwien.ac.at). i

3 Abstract This document contains the description of required products and services for the DUE Permafrost Project. The User requirements are based on the ITT, the project proposal and a comprehensive User survey. ii

4 Contents Abstract...ii Contents...iii 1 Introduction User Groups Core User Group Draft of User Requirements User-Feedback Requirements per product Models Requirements GCOS requirements Reference documents Permafrost in the Implementation Plan Recent progress with respect to permafrost monitoring GCOS/WCRP Observation requirements in the WMO/CEOS Database Contribution of the DUE Permafrost to GCOS WMO/CEOS requirements and DUE Permafrost products Identification of required EO Products and Services Standardisation of user requirements Required EO products and services Appendices DUE Permafrost Questionnaire Forms DUE Permafrost Questionnaire Forms Earth Observation Requirements listed in the ITT iii

5 1 Introduction In this documentation, we describe the updated and summarized User requirements for the DUE Permafrost project. The complexity of the phenomenon Permafrost requires the close cooperation with the scientific community working in this field. Permafrost scientists comprise experts in e.g. geomorphology, hydrology, climatology, and botany. This range in involved subjects needs also to be reflected in the multitude of EO products which will be assessed in the DUE Permafrost Project. The product palette will cover the relief parameters, physical and biophysical surface properties. Therefore, a considerable number of different experts are involved in order to define a service which meets the needs of the User community and complies with the latest available technology from both EO and ground based investigations. A bottom-up, and data driven approach is chosen for the requirement engineering. The requirements elicitation via questionnaires is categorized into the product types: digital elevation model (DEM), subsidence, land surface temperature (LST), surface soil moisture (SSM) including freeze/thaw, land cover (LC), water bodies, trace and greenhouse gases. The questionnaires are appended in Annex I. The contributing Users of the ongoing consultation process are described in Chapter 2. Their technical profiles are supplied in Annex II. The Users feed-back is captured in Chapter 3 per product category. The requirements could be grouped into general, product-specific and model requirements. The GCOS requirements are discussed in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 summarizes the standardized user requirements, the identified User case study regions and the identified required remote sensing products and services. 1

6 Acronyms ACCO-Net Arctic Circumpolar Coastal Observatory Network CALM Circumpolar Active Layer Monitoring CAVM Circum Arctic Vegetation Map DEM Digital Elevation Model DUE Data User Element EO Earth Observation ESA European Space Agency GCOS Global Climate Observing System GTNP Global Terrestrial Network for Permafrost IPA International Permafrost Association LAI Leaf Area Index [m 2 /m 2 ] LC Land Cover LST Land Surface Temperature NIR Near Infrared SSM Surface Soil Moisture TSP Thermal State of Permafrost 2

7 1 User Groups The DUE Permafrost User group covers experts from various disciplines, with expertise from permafrost monitoring in the field to permafrost modelling. The core group is formed by the official Users ( 1.2) that have expressed their interest in participation as a scientific or operational User by a signed commitment letter to ESA and/or the consortium. A considerable part of the core User group is members of the International Permafrost Association IPA, and circum-arctic networks such as ACCO-Net that serve as important communication platforms. Also, a considerable part of the core User group is contributing to the Global Terrestrial Network for Permafrost (GTNP) that is currently collecting ground data through the Circumpolar Active Layer Monitoring (CALM) and the Thermal State of Permafrost (TSP) programs. Additional members of these programs and circumarctic networks have also been involved in the consulting process for the requirements engineering. We gratefully acknowledge consultation and participation in the user survey by: the Arctic Circumpolar Coastal Observatory Network (ACCO- Net) Group. Net.91+M ab0.0.html the Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI), Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring of Russian Federation (Roshydromet), St. Petersburg, Russia. the Otto-Schmidt Laboratory for Polar and Marine Research, St. Petersburg, Russia. the University of Vienna, Department of Chemical Ecology & Ecosystem Research, Vienna, Austria. the Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum, Weimar, Germany. 3

8 the University of Hamburg, Institute of Soil Science, KlimaCampus, Hamburg, Germany. the Helmholtz Centre Potsdam GFZ, German Research Center of Geosciences, Potsdam, Germany. Future participants of interest who will be involved in the consultation process: Dr Jerry Brown, former president (up to 2008) of the International Permafrost Association IPA, USA & Consortium Thermal State of Permafrost TSP University Centre in Svalbard, UNIS, 4

9 1.1 Core User Group Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research Potsdam, Germany Geological Survey of Canada Natural Resources Canada, Earth Sciences Sector Canada Geophysical Institute: Permafrost Laboratory University of Alaska Fairbanks Fairbanks, USA International Arctic Research Center University of Alaska Fairbanks Fairbanks, USA Faculty of Geography Lomonossov Moscow State University Moscow, Russian Federation Melnikov Permafrost Institute Siberian Branch Academy of Sciences Yakutsk, Russian Federation Hokkaido University - Graduate School of Environmental Science, Hokkaido, Japan State Hydrological Institute St. Petersburg St. Petersburg, Russian Federation Biogeochemical Model Data Integration Group Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry Jena, Germany 5

10 2 Draft of User Requirements 2.1 User-Feedback High spatial and temporal resolution required for permafrost monitoring The high spatial and temporal resolution requirements for permafrost monitoring -as stated in the ITT- conflict with the current operational space missions limitations. High spatial resolution of geomorphologic information is explicitly claimed by a wide range of Users and by the International Permafrost Association IPA as a must for Permafrost Observations. Remotely sensed data shall provide information on relief, and vertical and horizontal change detection where the disturbances are mainly due to subsidence and erosion processes. The rate of subsidence phenomena in permafrost regions is on the order of centimetres per year (or less) and can exhibit a great deal of spatial variability. Therefore high vertical and horizontal accuracy and resolution is required. According to the users, numerous types of permafrost landscapes are covered by small to medium-sized water bodies: ponds and lakes. The area percentage of water bodies in the coarser-scale remote sensing pixel needs to be known to understand the physical and bio-physical properties of products. High-spatial resolution data will be needed for the upscaling and evaluation/validation processes Metadata required for Land Surface Temperature pixels LST is related to all components of the energy balance and is therefore the crucial parameter for permafrost monitoring and modelling. Users discussed the temporal resolution of potential LST products. Users are interested in temporal averages (weekly, monthly, annually) if the information on involved measurements, time of acquisition, dominance day/night, cloud coverage, and as most important parameter the water body ratio will be available as metadata information. As input parameter for permafrost models, LST accuracy information would be essential for quality assement. 6

11 2.1.3 Important: the hydrological regime Surface waters, moisture content, snow cover duration, snow water equivalent, flooding, limnicity, lake change, vitality of vegetation are important components of permafrost monitoring. For regional annually water products, Users state that it is important to gain more than one fixed-state product (preliminary case scenario: late summer state). Users state that only a minimum of 3 stages assesses the high dynamics of surface waters being specific for permafrost regions: the early high-level state, the summer state (preferably 2 stages: early and late summer) and before freezing up (end of September) Higher Land Cover differentiation required for tundra and moisture regimes The User feed-back for the land cover classes summarizes that it would be an improvement to get a spatially higher resolution of the Circum Polar Arctic Vegetation Map CAVM (Walker et al. 2005) LC classes especially for tundra sites. Users are interested in the information of the area percentage of vegetation physiognomy / bare soil or rock/ disturbances within the 300 x 300 m LC pixel. Routine disturbance regimes in biomes are fire, cutting, storm. Users request periglacial morphodynamic disturbance regimes that are specific for permafrost regions: (thermo)erosion, thermokarst. The DUE Permafrost preliminary service case scenario proposing CAVM LC classes upgraded with GlobCover inclusive the new LC class peatland is not always considered as fully adequate. Users are interested in a differentiation of black spruce versus white spruce, and the differentiation between moisture regimes: i.e., green grassland versus dry grassland, grassland versus moss and moss-sedge, green moss versus dry moss is stated to be important. Users state that the dryness of vegetation classes can potentially be an indicator for soil moisture conditions and ability of vegetation and organic layer to thermally insulate permafrost and potentially be used for flux calculations of green house and trace gases. Users state that seasonal information on the vegetation development and biomass is important Radiometric parameters are of interest The radiometric parameters albedo, insolation, PAR and fa- PAR are frequently stated to be of interest for permafrost monitoring and modelling Products will be used in synergy A multitude of the interdisciplinary User community state that they will use the remote sensing products LST, land cover, soil moisture, water bodies, snow coverage, DEM in synergy. 7

12 2.1.7 From ITT to RBD In the ITT, all Preliminary User requirements that do not require high spatial resolution on pan-arctic scale (e.g., EO products snow cover extent, snow cover equivalent, vegetation) can be attributed to modelling applications, similar results for modelling requirements have been collected in the RBD. Users involved in permafrost monitoring are in fact interested in high spatial and temporal resolution of physical parameters such as LST and SSM. Those users who have been informed about the technical possibilities of current space missions are now discussing possibilities of reduced spatial scales and using temporal averages. However, for geomorphological monitoring there is still the need for the highest spatial resolution available Product formats, projections Operational product requirements are grid ascii, grid binary, raster, and vector formats, occasionally, user ask for geotiff. Users who process the data themselves by use of commercial image processing software and GIS software packages even ask for the lowest georeferenced level available (for high-spatial resolution products). The final products should meet the requirement to be easily convertible into other projections by the user (and there is a manual ). Rectangular Lat-Long is stated as the required projection for modelling purposes. Also, for pan-arctic data the polar-stereographic projection can be used. Mostly, equal-area projections are requested by the multitude of users on local level: Lambert-conical (for larger regions), UTM and/or Gauss Krueger, on WGS84 and/or NAD83. 8

13 2.2 Requirements per product DEM Table 1: Summarized requirements DEM technically feasible remote sensing product requested vertical accuracies (cm) from different users requested spatial resolution (m) from different users relative elevation higher level products: absolute elevation, slope, aspect, feature and change detection, variability within the grid cell 1 to 5 cm 10 cm 50 cm < 700 cm < 1 m < 1m < 3 m 2 to 5 m 5 to 10 m 9

14 2.2.2 Subsidence Table 2: Summarized requirements Subsidence technically feasible remote sensing product relief change detection product causes of subsidence permafrost degradation, thermokarst, thermoerosion, thermoabrasion, water transport, thaw settlement, natural subsidence of delta (isostatic adjustment etc.), potential hydrocarbon extraction, shape of deformation classes of diameter of subsiding area (km) classes of deformation rates (cm/y) Requested deformation accuracy (cm/y) from different users Requested spatial resolution (m) from different users Depends on component of subsidence, geology, surface characteristics etc generally: strong vertical and horizontal gradients thermokarst deformation affects irregularly shaped regions underlain by spatially variable amounts of ground ice erosion, thermoerosion, thermoabrasion leads to horizontal deformation along coastal cliffs 0.05 km 0.5 km to 10 km 30 to 90 km 1 to 2 cm/y vertical 5 to 10 cm/y vertical +700 cm/y horizontal 1 to 20 cm/y vertical 1 cm/y 2 to 5 cm/y <50 cm/y vertical cm/y horizontal < 1m < 3m 2 to 10 m 10

15 2.2.3 Land Surface Temperature Table 3: Summarized requirements LST technically feasible remote sensing product substitute for requested parameter accuracy from different users requested temporal parameters from different users requested spatial resolution (m) from different users brightness surface temperature corrected towards Skin Surface temperature between soil/air soil temperature (depths) air temperature 0.1 C around freezing point, 1 C when far from freezing point 0.1 C C 1 C mean air temp. in July weekly averages monthly averages annually average range of amplitude < 100 m 100 m < 1 km as high as possible, but 1 km good as starting point 11

16 2.2.4 Surface Soil Moisture including refreeze/ thaw Table 4: Summarized requirements SSM technically feasible remote sensing products substitutes for requested parameter accuracy from different users requested spatial resolution (m) from different users skin soil moisture thaw/freeze degree-days moisture content (m 3 /m 3 ) in different depths solid/liquid ratio active layer depth 5% of volumetric water content 5 to 10% of volumetric water content 10% of volumetric water content day of maximum active layer days of complete freezing 1 m < 100 m 100 m as high as possible, but 1 km good as starting point 12

17 2.2.5 Land Cover Table 5: Summarized requirements Land Cover Land Cover products proposed in the preliminary service case scenario additional Land Cover products proposed by Users required phenological information requested spatial resolution from different users CAVM (Walker et al. 2005) upgraded using GlobCover + peatland change detection product tree line disturbance regimes fire, cutting higher spatial and higher class resolution for tundra regions moisture classes: very wet, wet, open water, overgrown water, moist, dry moisture indicators: mosses dry vs mosses green grass dry vs grass green change detection products moisture regime, greenness morphodynamic disturbance regimes: (thermo)erosion, thermokarst LAI albedo red and nir albedo as criteria for no snow coverage < 10 m 10 m 30 m 100 m 250 m < 1 km 10 km 13

18 2.2.6 Water Bodies Table 6: Summarized requirements water bodies object and parameter classes of interest body distribution parameterization of interest requested spatial resolution (m) frim different users required seasonal information (permafrost) lakes, polygonal ponds, water filled ice wedge systems fluvial systems turbidity, transparency shallow/ deep areas, bathymetry lake level lake terraces flooding subsidence below lakes cliff erosion, landslides into lakes ice coverage density, density/mean area ratio of water bodies -> limnicity area variance -> change detection mean size of water bodies form parameters (length / width) shape of lake shape of shallow areas and lake slopes derived from bathymetric information 1 m 2.5 m 5 m 10 m < 30 m < 100 m minimum 3 stages: early high-level state summer, better: early and late summer autumn before freezing-up date of last ice melting on the lakes important 14

19 Which of the object classes are detectable using a resolution of 150 and 300 meters, which probably not? medium to large lakes and fluvial systems large lake terraces coastal waters spring flooding fluvial dynamics not usable for : the majority of ponds and lakes of permafrost landscapes Trace and Greenhouse Gases Table 7: Summarized requirements Trace and Greenhouse gases technically feasible remote sensing product substitute for required parameter accuracy requested temporal resolution (m) from different users required spatial resolution (m) Methane content in atmospheric column Methane concentration near surface surface-atmosphere fluxes of green house gases best possible accuracy bi-weekly high resolution during snow melt monthly or better best possible accuracy 15

20 2.3 Models Requirements The involved models: Geophysical Institute Permafrost Lab Model GIPL (Fairbanks, USA) Lund-Potsdam-Jena Dynamic Global Vegetation Model LPJ (Jena, Germany) Minimal Advanced Treatments of Surface Interaction and Runoff Model MATSIRO (Fairbanks, USA) Temperature at the Top Of Permafrost Model TTOP (GSC, CA) require near-surface air temperature that is the forcing parameter in all models. Partly, a very high temporal resolution is needed. E.g., to calculate the land only case, MATSIRO needs hourly data. But, of course, pseudo intra-monthly variations can be calculated. For atmosphere-coupled calculations monthly averages are required. The required parameter accuracy of the temperature product is high around the freezing point: ~0,1 C, and 1 C when far from the freezing point. Soil moisture, the snow water equivalent, and optionally the water body ratio within a grid point are used for initialization and validation. Since soil moisture is a prognostic value in the model, moisture related values are important in terms of model performance validations. Parameter accuracy for soil moisture should be 5 to 10 % of the volumetric water content. Land Cover, LAI (or an equivalent measure for biovolumina or height of vegetation cover), topography and snow coverage provide the boundary conditions. Therefore, MATSIRO, GIPL and LPJ model users suggest to provide phenological information in the product: LAI or similar volumetric index of total vegetation or height of vegetation cover, Fa- PAR, Albedo. The DUE Permafrost preliminary service case scenario using Glob- Cover for upgrading of CAVM classes is accepted as adequate with its wide range of land cover classes. e.g., required Land Cover for MAT- SIRO are the Revised Simple Biosphere SiB2 Model classes (ice, mixed coniferous & deciduous forest, coniferous forest, high-latitude deciduous forest, wooded C4 grassland, shrub & bare ground, tundra, cultivated, bare ground). The LPJ uses the International Geosphere Biosphere Program IGBP LC classes that provide seasonal land cover and phenological information (onset, peak, and seasonal duration of greenness). Here, the user needs more details on Arctic and boreal vegetation such as mosses, lichens etc. 16

21 Table 8: Model requirements spatial coverage classes of required spatial resolution required driving forces largest possible coverage: < 1 km information for upscaling 10 km 25 km 0.1 required, highest priority: near-surface air temperature seasonal range of air temperature variations (amplitude) monthly near-surface air temperature mean annual air temperature required for initialisation and validation: soil moisture moisture content at different depths freeze/thaw-degree days solid-liquid ratio and snow water equivalent, snow coverage classes of boundary parameters [fixed] land cover: vegetation physiognomy / bare soils / water body/ sand / peatland / moss / area percentage of water body area percentage of vegetation physiognomy area percentage of bare soil [fixed] elevation and topography (variance and aspect) [variable] albedo (i.e. no snow, no leaf condition) [variable, e.g. monthly] leaf area index LAI or another volumetric index of total vegetation or an index of height of vegetation cover 17

22 3 GCOS requirements 3.1 Reference documents [RD-1] Implementation Plan for the Global Observing System for Climate in support of the UNFCCC, GCOS-92, October 2004 (WMO/TD No.1219) [RD-2] Progress Report on the Implementation of the Global Observing System for Climate in Support of the UNFCCC , GCOS-129, August 2009 (WMO-TD/No. 1489) [RD-3] GCOS/WCRP Observation Requirements in the WMO/CEOS Database (Last updated: July 2007) 3.2 Permafrost in the Implementation Plan Permafrost has been addressed as one of the Essential Climate Variables (ECV s) of the terrestrial domain in the GCOS implementation plan 2004 for the global observing system for climate in support of the UNFCCC (RD-1). Its global implementation has thus been identified as feasible within the 10 year baseline and as having a high impact on UNFCCC requirements. Associated parameters include permafrost extent, temperature profiles and active layer thickness. Although that key actions focus on extension of the Global Terrestrial Network of Permafrost, the demand for filling gaps requires the use of satellite data. Within the implementation plan, land surface temperature and soil moisture have been identified as relevant satellite products (RD-1, page 87). A complete lack of operational products has been originally identified for those variables. Soil moisture has been identified as an emerging Essential Climate Variable and the development of a satellite product including its validation has been listed as part of the terrestrial domain scientific and technological challenges (Action T37). The ECV snow cover has been identified as a parameter affecting the permafrost thermal state. 18

23 Related to the parameter Permafrost, Action T17 calls for implementation of operational mapping of seasonal soil/freeze thaw (ref, page 97). 3.3 Recent progress with respect to permafrost monitoring Within the progress report which covers the first 5 years (August 2009, RD-2) advances are reported for satellite based snow cover mapping and terrestrial permafrost observations. Low progress has been made on the development of regular soil surface freeze and thaw monitoring. Satellite based monitoring on regional to global scale is encouraged. It is stated that especially product combinations with land surface temperature and snow depth may provide input for the simulation of the soil thermal regime. Good progress has been made regarding the associated product soil moisture within Action T37. The most significant operational development is the availability of a global soil moisture product derived from ASCAT data at EUMETSAT. (RD-2, page 81). Although not listed as an associated parameter in the GCOS implementation plan, the availability and recent moderate to good progress in the development of regular land cover products (Action T26), vegetation parameters (T28) and disturbances (fires, T33) is important for permafrost monitoring. 3.4 GCOS/WCRP Observation requirements in the WMO/CEOS Database Observation requirements regarding satellite data have been addressed for the variable permafrost by WMO/CEOS. o Optima requirement is permafrost extent with 0.25km horizontal resolution on daily intervals. Accuracy is 5% o Intermediate: 0.85km, 1.5 days, 7% accuracy o Minimum requirement: 10km, 5 days, 10 % accuracy 3.5 Contribution of the DUE Permafrost to GCOS The ESA DUE Permafrost project both benefits from recent advances in several fields of Earth Observation (snow and soil moisture, land cover, vegetation parameters and disturbances) and contributes to those which still require further development. This applies to especially 19

24 Action T17 (Freeze/thaw) for which insufficient progress has been reported so far. The project makes full use of the first available operationally available soil moisture dataset (Action T37) and aims at its further development and validation as requested within the GCOS implementation plan and progress review report. There is a clear demand for the use of satellite data in order to fill the gaps of the permafrost ground observation networks. This is addressed by the multi-scale service setup within the DUE permafrost project. Synergistic use of associated products is needed as permafrost cannot be directly measured with satellite data. The DUE Permafrost project focuses on such an approach and the utilization of EO data within suitable permafrost models. The unequal level of maturity of some satellite products is addressed in order to setup an operational monitoring scheme for the ECV permafrost. 3.6 WMO/CEOS requirements and DUE Permafrost products The actual specifications of a resulting permafrost product depend to some extent on the capabilities of the permafrost models. 'Brake through' level regarding spatial resolution and minimum temporal requirements as defined in RD-3 could be reached on regional scale under the current preliminary service case scenario. The spatial and temporal resolutions of the circum-polar satellite products which will be made available as model input vary considerably between the different parameters and do currently not meet the minimum requirements for permafrost extent. However, the requirements for model input parameters listed in RD-3 differ considerably from those for permafrost. Minimum horizontal resolution specifications are met for the single parameter requirements within the DUE Permafrost project (soil moisture, surface temperature, snow cover and land cover). In order to achieve the requested specifications for a permafrost extent product, the WMO/CEOS requirements for the associated parameters should be revised. 20

25 4 Identification of required EO Products and Services 4.1 Standardisation of user requirements Pan-boreal / -arctic scale The unite standardisation of User requirements on panboreal / - arctic scale is based on the ITT, the project proposal, consultation with the core User group and other permafrost experts and the clarifications. In the current stage, the User survey provided detailed updated information (Table 9). The Users on pan-arctic scale need LST as the main driving factor for modeling. Soil moisture and snow coverage and snow water equivalent are required for initialisation and validation. Remote sensing products of Vegetation parameters (also biovolumetric (e.g., LAI) and phenological information) and water body ratio are needed as boundary conditions. 1

26 Table 9: Standardised requirements on panboreal / -arctic scale Pan boreal / arctic scale EO Product User application/interest requirements temporal resolution requirements spatial resolution Land Surface Temperature LST near-surface air temperature soil temperature optima: hourly optima 1km for upscaling seasonal range of air temperature variations monthly near-surface air temperature mean annual air temperature medium weekly to bi-weekly monthly range of amplitude medium 10 km minimum 25 km, 0.1 minimum annually mean air temp. in July Surface Soil Moisture SSM (incl. refreeze/thaw) soil moisture moisture content at different depths freeze/thaw-degree days solid-liquid ratio weekly information optima 1km for upscaling medium 10 km minimum 25 km, 0.1 Land Cover LC Land Cover annually: Optimal CAVM area percentage of water body phenological products Medium upgraded using area percentage of vegetation physiognomy -> does this mean minimum GlobCover area percentage of bare soil seasonal phenology? + peatland incl. disturbance disturbances fire storm insects cutting (thermo)erosion thermokarst albedo in red and NIR further clarification required incl. phenology leaf area index LAI or another volumetric index of total vegetation or an index of height of vegetation cover Water bodies water bodies annually: water/body ratio all lentic and lotic systems summer state water body ratio July to August Digital Elevation Model DEM Global ASTER DEM elevation topography (variance and aspect) optimal < 300 m medium < 1 km Minimum 25 km, 0.1,fine data for variance & northsouth aspect. 22

27 4.1.2 Regional scale The unite standardisation of User requirements on panboreal / - arctic scale is based on the ITT, the project proposal, consultation with the core User group and other permafrost experts and the clarifications. In the current stage, the User survey provided detailed updated information (table 10). Dynamical permafrost monitoring is the task on regional scale, Users are mainly investigating the energy budget and need reliable LST averages. Dynamical remote sensing products of Vegetation parameters and water body ratio are needed and can be used in synthesis and for upscaling. However, Users state that the majority of ponds and lakes of permafrost landscapes will not be detectable using a 150 m resolution product. Users require the stages spring high-level, summer and the autumn stage before freezing-up for water products. The last date of last ice melting on the lakes is stated to be important by Users investigating the methane fluxes in permafrost landscapes. Requirements for vegetation are a higher class resolution for tundra regions, moisture indicators (e.g., mosses dry vs mosses green, grass dry vs grass green), and change detection products tree line, moisture regime greenness. 23

28 Table 10: Standardised requirements on regional scale regional scale EO Product User application/interest requirements temporal resolution requirements spatial resolution DUE Permafrost Land Surface Temperature LST near-surface air temperature soil temperature seasonal range of air temperature variations optima: daily or weekly with metadata on quality medium optima: < 1 km medium: 1 km minimum: 1 km monthly near-surface air temperature mean annual air temperature weekly to monthly with metadata on quality minimum monthly with metadata on quality DUE Permafrost Surface Soil Moisture SSM (incl. refreeze/thaw) soil moisture moisture content at different depths freeze/thaw-degree days solid-liquid ratio weekly day of maximum active layer days of complete freezing optima: < 1 km medium: 1 km minimum: 1 km DUE-Permafrost DEM complements global Aster DEM elevation relative and absolute elevation, topography: slope, aspect, feature and change detection, variability within the grid cell optima: orders of m medium: 30 m minimum: 100 m 300 m DUE Permafrost Land Cover LC CAVM upgraded using GlobCover + peatland Land Cover higher spatial and higher class resolution for tundra regions moisture classes: very wet, wet, open water, overgrown water, moist, dry moisture indicators: mosses dry vs mosses green annually: phenological products -> does this mean phenological information monthly? further clarification required 100 to 250 m grass dry vs grass green change detection products tree line moisture regime greenness DUE Permafrost Water bodies lentic and lotic systems large lake terraces coastal waters spring flooding optima: 4 stages: spring, early summer, late summer, before freeze-up medium: 3 stages: spring, summer, before freeze-up optima: < 150 m minimum: 100 to 250 m fluvial dynamics minimum: summer state limnicity ice cover 24

29 4.1.3 Local scale The unite standardisation of User requirements on panboreal / - arctic scale is based on the ITT, the project proposal, consultation with the core User group and other permafrost experts and the clarifications. In the current stage, the User survey provided detailed updated information (Table 11). Morphodynamical permafrost monitoring is the main task on local scale, Users are investigating geomorphology, morphodynamics (e.g. subsidence). On local scale, permafrost landscapes are highly heterogeneous. Indirect surface indicators of permafrost conditions below are the vegetation cover and development of water bodies. The unique richness and spatial indicators of water-bodies (e.g., of thermokarst lakes, ponds) inherent to permafrost landscape types is yet rarely explored. Therefore, The User Feed back has been especially strong for the products DEM, subsidence, water bodies, land cover and change detection products. Causes of subsidence are permafrost degradation, thermokarst, thermoerosion, thermoabrasion, and water transport. Generally, strong vertical and horizontal gradients are occurring. Thermokarst deformation affects irregularly shaped regions underlain by spatially variable amounts of ground ice. High vertical accuracy will be required. The underlying processes are complex: Thermokarst, thermo-erosion, fluvial erosion, possible active layer increase, seasonal active layer changes, wind deflation; long-term and seasonal frost heave are important too. Local land cover will highly depend on data availability. This is an example of land cover classes used by Users: Barren soil, Bedrock, Moss tundra, Moss-sedge tundra, Grass tundra, Shrub tundra, Deciduous forest, Black spruce, White spruce. 25

30 Table 11: Standardized requirements on local scale local scale EO Product User application/interest requirements temporal resolution requirements spatial resolution Land Surface Temperature LST near-surface air temperature soil temperature optima: high temporal resolution optima: orders of m medium: 10 m seasonal range of air temperature variations monthly near-surface air temperature minimum: comparison with ground data, upscaling minimum: 100 m mean annual air temperature Surface Soil Moisture SSM (incl. refreeze & scaling) soil moisture moisture content at different depths freeze/thaw-degree days optima: high temporal resolution minimum: optima: orders of m medium: 10 m minimum: 100 m solid-liquid ratio comparison with ground data, upscaling local ALOS DEM elevation optima: 1 m relative and absolute elevation, topography: slope, aspect, feature and change detection medium: orders of meters minimum: 5 to 10 m Land Cover LC Land Cover optima: optima: orders of meters incl. disturbance incl. change detection higher spatial and class resolution for tundra moisture classes: wet, open water, overgrown water, moist, dry moisture indicators: mosses dry vs mosses green, grass dry vs grass green change detection products. tree line moisture regime greenness high temporal resolution minimum: comparison with ground data, upscaling change detection medium: 10 m minimum: 30 m operational classification for tundra classes water bodies water bodies optima: optima: orders of meters area variance density, density/mean area ratio of water bodies mean size of water bodies form parameters (length / width) (permafrost) lakes, polygonal ponds, fluvial systems; coastal waters, filled ice wedges turbidity, transparency shallow/ deep areas, bathymetry lake level; lake terraces limnicity flooding subsidence below lakes high temporal resolution minimum: comparison with ground data, upscaling change detection medium: 10 m minimum: 30 m shape of lake cliff erosion, landslides into lakes ice coverage 26

31 Identified core regions have been identified who provide numerous ground truth data, rare ground truth data types, clusters of Users, focus of Arctic networks. Within the local service regions there are logistically determined hot spots of ground truth data availability, ongoing multidisciplinary projects, active boreholes. Table 12: Geographic main regions with identified core regions and localities of interest. Geographic Permafrost regions North-American Permafrost region Regional User interest for Beaufort Sea Region Alaskan Arctic Canadian Arctic Archipelago Quebec-Labrador Local User interest for Upper Mackenzie River and Delta Yukon Coastal Plain Alaskan North Slope Boreholes along the Alaska highway Seward Peninsula Axel Heiberg Island Bathurst Island Southern Hudson Bay Region Kola Peninsula Kara Sea Region Laptev and East Siberian Sea Region Yamal Region with Ob river and estuary Lena River Delta and Ice Complex coast Yana-Indirka Lowland Kolyma Lowland Atlantic Permafrost regions Central Yakutia Greenland Taymir Peninsula Yakutsk Region Svalbard NW-Svalbard Region Central Spitsbergen 27

32 4.2 Required EO products and services For creating the required information services, a target area approach with specified case study regions is used. The pan-boreal / arctic case study region is the required base for models. The regional and local case study regions shall represent multi-disciplinary user activities and be suitable for the parameter studies involved. The selection of regional and local case study sites will be finalized on the DUE Permafrost Review of User Requirements1rst Workshop ( ) at AWI Potsdam (Germany) based on the user requirement evaluation of WP1. Preliminary, we propose regional North-American service case regions (Beaufort Sea Region, Arctic Alaska, Arctic Canadian Archipelago, Quebec-Labrador), Siberian service case regions (Laptev and Eastern Siberian Sea Region, Central Yakutia, Western Siberia) and Atlantic Service case regions (Svalbard). Not all parts of the case study region may be monitored with the available observing resolutions and used space missions. Table 13: Identified EO products and services EO Product required product & services Land Surface Temperature LST key parameter local: for upscaling at key sites (e.g. Lena River Delta, RU) 100 m can be used regional coverage: weekly to monthly averages with quality meta data information on water body ratio, cloud coverage, etc., 1 km can be used coverage: monthly averages with quality meta data information on water body ratio, cloud coverage, etc., mean temperature in July annual average 25 km can be used 28

33 EO Product Surface Soil Moisture SSM (incl. refreeze & scaling) required product & services key parameter regional coverage: weekly to monthly SSM averages thaw-freeze degree days 1 km can be used coverage: temporal resolution of SSM product more information required from users day of maximum active layer days of complete freezing models need solid / liquid ratio 25 km can be used relief DEM & subsidence key parameter for local permafrost monitoring highest spatial resolution required (orders of m) high vertical accuracy required (<0.5 m) DEM: baseline data sets & change detection subsidence monitoring: high user interest various reasons for and forms of subsidence and associated velocity ranges (but orders of cm/y), shapes, etc intensive ground investigations are ongoing study sites identified for subsidence: Mackenzie Delta (CA), North slope sites along Dalton Highway (USA), Yaktusk Region (RU) regional coverage: quality of global ASTER DEM product seems to be poor in areas of high cloud coverage: e.g. no adequate DEM information available for the Lena River Delta (RU) coverage: optima: freely available 30 m freely available 30 m also improvement for regions with national elevation data sets (e.g. Alaska: 100 m resolution DEM) 29

34 EO Product required product & services for models required resolution optima: 300 m; medium: 1 km, with metadata on higher-spatial information (variability, north-south aspect) Land Cover LC key parameter for modelling incl. disturbance incl. change detection regional & local for permafrost monitoring local: high spatial resolution required (orders of m) high vegetation differentiation for tundra regions transferable for tundra sites for fluxes of greenhouse gases: moisture classes: very wet, wet, open water, overgrown water, moist, dry for permafrost monitoring: moisture indicators: mosses dry vs mosses green, grass dry vs grass green, disturbance regimes regional coverage: vegetation physiognomy CAVM+GlobCover+peatland yearly products for baseline & change detection change detection products tree line moisture regime greenness for fluxes of greenhouse gases: moisture classes: very wet, wet, open water, overgrown water, moist, dry & phenological information for permafrost monitoring: moisture indicators: mosses dry vs mosses green, grass dry vs grass green, disturbance regimes 150 m can be used coverage: fixed product vegetation physiognomy CAVM+GlobCover+peatland & phenological information area percentages of LC disturbances fire storm insects cutting (thermo)erosion thermokarst leaf area index LAI or another volumetric index of total vegetation or an index of height of vegetation cover 300 m is optimal 30

35 EO Product water bodies required product & services key parameter regional & local for permafrost monitoring area variance density, density/mean area ratio of water bodies mean size of water bodies form parameters (length / width) shape of lake baseline data sets & change detection required for upscaling local: high spatial resolution required (orders of m) majority of ponds & lakes of permafrost landscapes are no more detectable in the 150 m product regional coverage: annually product shall capture the high surface water dynamics of permafrost regions spring, early summer, late summer, before freezing for fluxes of greenhouse gases: ice on the lake coverage: fixed product: summer state 300 m is optimal water body ratio useful for 1 km and 25 km EO products 31

36 Figure 1: Panarctic permafrost map with preliminary identified service case regions 32

37 5 Appendices 5.1 DUE Permafrost Questionnaire Forms Table 14 GENERAL User Requirements Specification Area(s) of interest (site name, country, region, geographic corner coordinates) /? Can you describe your site(s)? General topography (flat/ almost flat/ gently rolling hills, hilly, mountains) Landcover (taiga/ tundra/ dense vegetation/ wetland/ barren soils or rock/ lakes) can you provide GCPs/ topographic maps to support a correct georeferencing? Which information is requested (land cover, Digital Elevation Model DEM, surface temperature, )? What format do you need? (raster data, digital maps, vector data ) 33

38 Table 15 DIGITAL ELEVATION MODEL (DEM) DUE Permafrost preliminary service case scenario regional: DUE-Permafrost DEM complements the upcoming Aster DEM, 30 m resolution, vert. accuracy 700 cm local-30 m: depending on data availability! depending on snow-free acquisitions, 30 m resolution, local ALOS DEM: depending on data availability! Depending on snow-free and cloud-free acquisitions: ~ 3 to 5 m resolution DEM, regional & local Specification Your application/ parameter of interest? (absolute / relative elevation, slope / aspect, geomorphological information, feature detection, change detection, ) Available complementary elevation information (levelling, GPS, topographic map, DEM, ) parameter & time span map / DEM Required vertical accuracy (cm) Required resolution (pixel spacing in m) Required projection(s) 34

39 What format do you need? (raster data, digital maps, vector data ) Do you have more comments? 35

40 TABLE.16 SUBSIDENCE DUE Permafrost preliminary service case scenario local: depending on data availability, 30 m resolution, ) inter-annual subsidence due to thaw settlement 2) at the beginning and end of summer for as many as possible years in order to put an upper and lower limit to normal magnitude. Subsidence Specification Diameter of subsiding area Cause of subsidence Deformation rates (typical values, max values, cm/year) Shape of deformation (are there strong gradients?) Direction of deformation (vertical, horizontal, other) Available complementary subsidence information even if not for time period of interest (levelling, GPS, ) span parameter & time 36

41 Availability of a DEM (resolution, corner coordinates) Available reference deformation data (type, accuracy) (cm/y) Required deformation accuracy Required resolution (pixel spacing in m) Required projection(s) What format do you need? (raster data, digital maps, vector data ) Do you have more comments? 37

42 TABLE.17 LAND SURFACE TEMPERATURE (LST) DUE Permafrost preliminary service case scenario : monthly average (from multi-daily data), 25 km resolution, regional: weekly averages (from multi-daily data), 1 km resolution, 2002 local: depending on data availability, 100 m resolution, technical limitations cannot offer 10 m local spatial resolution Land Surface Temperature Specification Your application/ parameter of interest (air temperature, soil temperature (depths), brightness surface temperature) Which synergistic products do you need (e.g., soil moisture, water bodies, land cover, )? Available complementary ground truth information parameter & time span Required parameter accuracy ( C) 38

43 Required resolution (pixel spacing in m) Required projection(s) What format do you need? (raster data, digital maps, vector data ) Do you have more comments? 39

44 TABLE.18 SOIL MOISTURE INCLUDING REFREEZE/ THAW DUE Permafrost preliminary service case scenario : sensor specific, 25 km resolution, regional: weekly averages, 1 km resolution, local: depending on data availability, 150 m resolution, technical limitations cannot offer 10 m local spatial resolution Soil Moisture incl. Refreeze/ Thaw Specification Your application, parameter of interest (moisture content (depths ), thawing degree days, ) How do you need the re-freeze/freeze-up/final freeze, with respect to the transient freeze-thaw period preceding the final freeze (e.g. sum of parameters) Which synergistic products do you need (e.g., LST, land cover, ) Available complementary ground truth information parameter & time span 40

45 Required parameter accuracy Required resolution (pixel spacing in m) Required projection(s) What format do you need? (raster data, digital maps, vector data ) Do you have more comments? 41

46 TABLE.19 LANDCOVER (LC) DUE Permafrost preliminary service case scenario vegetation / land cover /phenology local: depending on data availability, vegetation structure at 1-5 m resolution, The class description will be adapted as appropriate to the user needs and suggestions taking into account the definition needs based on the bioclimatic zones of the respective local test sites. regional & : fixed product, Land Cover, 300 m resolution The baseline data set of the Circum Polar Arctic Vegetation Map CAVM (Walker et al. 2005) will be upgraded using GLOBCOVER products and the SAR-product 'peatlands'. (Examples of GLOBCOVER products are: needleleaved evergreen forest, Mosaics forest / shrubland / grassland, Closed to open shrubland, Closed to open herbaceous vegetation (grassland/ lichens & mosses), Bare areas,...). change detection products, e.g. treeline Landcover Specification LC, local scale Which are the vegetation- and landcover classes that you use in your local scale research (and for which you need a larger coverage in your region based on 1-5 m Earth Observation (EO) data)? 42

47 Available complementary ground truth information Please also include a detailed description for these classes and explain if you can provide training plots for each class for the regionalization parameter & time span LC, regional & scale What type of the LC classes do you require? Are LC classes according to the preliminary case scenario (information box) appropriate for your application? Do you need the area percentage of vegetation physiognomy / bare soil/ disturbances within the (300 x 300 m) LC pixel? Which phenological information shall be available from a product? What disturbance regime do you use (e.g. fire)? 43

48 Available complementary ground truth information parameter & time span Required resolution (pixel spacing in m) Required projection(s) What format do you need? (raster data, digital maps, vector data ) Do you have more comments? 44

49 TABLE.20 WATER BODIES DUE Permafrost preliminary service case scenario : fixed product, 300 m resolution regional: annually (stable late summer state), 150 m resolution, 2003 local: depending on data availability, 1-5 m resolution, change detection from the 60s on Water Bodies Specification Water bodies, local scale Which water body types do you investigate? (permafrost lakes, polygonal ponds, perennial, lentic/lotic systems, )? what kind of water body distribution parameterization is of interest for your research (e.g., density, area variance, density/mean area ratio of water bodies, )? Available complementary ground truth information (e.g. lake level, photographs, ) parameter & time span Water bodies, regional & scale 45