1 GCOOS and GOMA Collaborations. 2 Nutrient and Water Quality Team telecons and meetings Coastal Resiliency meetings Education and Outreach Development.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Gulf of Mexico Coastal Storms Program Tracie Sempier Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Image: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Advertisements

Jim Jones Acting Assistant Administrator Office of Chemical Safety & Pollution Prevention 1.
Briefing to the Caribbean Fisheries Management Council April 23, 2014.
Presented By: Gareth Leonard (DEP) Presented To: Florida Oceans and Coastal Council Date: October 30, 2012 DRAFT.
What the heck is that?. U.S. Mainland coastline = 4,983 mi U.S. Gulf of Mexico coastline = 1,621 mi = 33%
Sustaining your Community Strategies & Structures Fran Butterfoss Coalitions Work Tim LaPier CDC’s Healthy Communities Program.
Building the GCOOS Nutrients and Nutrient Impacts: Priorities for Productive Marine Resources Ann Jochens.
Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies David W. Yoskowitz Carlota Santos Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies Texas A&M University.
CELC Kiosk Project Overview GCOOS Education and Outreach Council Meeting June 15-16, 2011 Chris Simoniello, Sharon Walker, and Ann Jochens.
Cooperative Efforts with Gulf of Mexico Alliance New Web Site – me.html First Annual Monitoring Forum Priority.
Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Monitoring Implementation Plan Alan Lewitus NOAA/NOS/NCCOS Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research modified by N. Rabalais for.
Governors’ Action Plan for Healthy and Resilient Coasts U.S. Ocean Action Plan Gulf of Mexico Regional Partnership GCOOS Update August 24, 2006 U.S. Ocean.
GCOOS Status and Plans An Update Ann E. Jochens GCOOS Regional Coordinator Texas A&M University College Station, Texas GCOOS Parties and Board Meeting.
Building the GCOOS Priority Interactions/Collaborations with the Gulf of Mexico Alliance (GOMA) Mike SprangerNancy Rabalais Sharon WalkerAnn Jochens GCOOS-RA.
Status and Plans for the Gulf of Mexico Coastal Ocean Observing System (GCOOS) Ann E. Jochens GCOOS Regional Coordinator Texas A&M University College Station,
Harmful Algal Blooms Integrated Observing System HABIOS Vision Statement To establish a sustained observing system as part of the U.S. IOOS (Integrated.
Water Quality for Healthy Beaches and Shellfish Beds Long-term Alliance Partnership Goal Provide critical water quality information to Gulf of Mexico resource.
Rick Koelsch University of Nebraska – Lincoln Bob Broz University of Missouri - Columbia.
Gulf of Mexico Coastal Ocean Observing System E ducation and Outreach Council GCOOS Board of Directors Meeting Houston, TX September 5-6, 2007 Dr. Jessica.
Building the GCOOS Environmental Education Sharon Walker.
Marine Strategy Framework Directive Consultation on Good Environmental Status Descriptor 7 – Hydrographical Conditions Dr Alejandro Gallego Marine Scotland.
Update on NOAA Implementation of Regional Integrated Ocean Observing Systems Mary Culver NOAA Coastal Services Center February 27, 2008 GCOOS Annual Meeting.
Think globally, act regionally: the southeast florida regional climate change compact Jason Liechty AAA workshop august 28, 2014.
EPA NOAA DoI ACOE DHHS NASA DoE DOD NSF DoS -FEDERAL PARTNERSHIP RESPONSE – (Priority Area Coordination) CEQ USDA DoT Near-TermProjectConcepts(Proposed)
Great Lakes Regional Research Information Network Lake Michigan Coordination Team Brian K. Miller – Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant Anders Andren – Wisconsin.
National Aquatic Resource Surveys National Coastal Condition Assessment – 2010 Sarah Lehmann.
Live Healthy Napa County Creating and Sustaining a Common Agenda.
Oregon Toxics Reduction Strategy: Tools and Initiatives June 25, NW NAHMMA Conference Kevin Masterson, Oregon DEQ Agency Toxics Coordinator
Whistler 2020 Monitoring Program CSIN February16, 2006.
Community Assessment Process WHY?? To identify and document the opportunities, challenges, strengths, and needs of a specific geographic community and.
Clean Beaches Initiative Proposition 50 Draft Guidelines.
Gulf of Mexico Alliance SIMOR Briefing June 9, 2009.
Gulf of Mexico Alliance Nutrients Priority Issue Team National Water Quality Monitoring Council Pensacola, FL February 1, 2011 Kim Caviness MS Dept of.
Activities of the National Water Quality Monitoring Council Gail Mallard, USGS NWQMC Meeting Phoenix, AZ, December 10, 2002.
The Gulf of Mexico Regional Research Plan Steve Sempier Sea Grant Gulf of Mexico Regional Research Planning Coordinator.
Regional Grant Funding Coordination for Implementation of Watershed Management Plans Project Clean Water Summit July 15, 2004 David W. Gibson SDRWQCB
Module 2 Stakeholder analysis. What’s in Module 2  Why do stakeholder analysis ?  Identifying the stakeholders  Assessing stakeholders importance and.
MESH UK Workshop 19 October 2006 Introduction Dr Paul Gilliland Marine Policy Adviser and MESH Partner Lead Natural England.
1 Survey of the Nation’s Lakes Presentation at NALMS’ 25 th Annual International Symposium Nov. 10, 2005.
TIDE & Natura 2000: A partnership for sustainable tidal river development? Antwerp, 18 February 2010 François Kremer European Commission DG Environment,
EPA and Ecosystem-Based Management: Success of the Watershed Approach Michael H. Shapiro Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, US EPA Capitol Hill.
Objectives: 1.Enhance the data archive for these estuaries with remotely sensed and time-series information 2.Exploit detailed knowledge of ecosystem structure.
Ready or Not? assessing and implementing change Stephanie Jones Erica Ruck, Ovens and King Community Health Service.
Joint Canada-Mexico-USA (North American*) Carbon Program Planning Meeting January 25–26, 2007 *By North America we mean the North American land, adjacent.
1 A Sample of NCDDC's GCOOS-Related Data Management Activities Julie Bosch NOAA/ National Coastal Data Development Center GCOOS DMAC Committee Meeting.
FGDC Coordination Group Meeting 11 May 2010 Roger L. Parsons, IWG-OCM Co-chair (NOAA) Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act Congressional Reports Update.
A Pivotal Moment for Leaders Across the Gulf Coast States and Connected Communities Throughout the Country.
1 NOAA Priorities for an Ecosystem Approach to Management A Presentation to the NOAA Science Advisory Board John H. Dunnigan NOAA Ecosystem Goal Team Lead.
Columbia River Basin Monitoring, Evaluation, Research, and Reporting (MERR) Plan DRAFT Nancy Leonard Fish, Wildlife, Ecosystem Monitoring and Evaluation.
Slide: 1 CEOS SIT Technical Workshop |Caltech, Pasadena, California, USA| September 2013 CEOS Work Plan Section 6.1 G Dyke CEOS ad hoc Working Group.
International Speedway Boulevard Stakeholders Task Force (STF) Meeting 1 Wednesday, May 19, 2010.
OWEB Effectiveness Monitoring Program Key Components  Effectiveness Monitoring Workshop  Development of definitions  Effectiveness Monitoring of: 
Data Management Council Face-to-Face Meeting February 4 – 5, 2010 St. Petersburg, FL WELCOME.
NATIONAL ACTION PLAN: Priorities for Managing Freshwater Resources in a Changing Climate June
Stream Health Outcome Biennial Workplan Neely L. Law, PhD Center for Watershed Protection Chesapeake Bay Program Sediment & Stream Coordinator Habitat.
Ocean Acidification Programmatic and cross agency.
AUDRA LUSCHER-AISSAOUI NOAA CO-OPS RESILIENCE PROGRAM MANAGER HSRP APRIL 9, 2015 Coastal Resilience.
Protecting Alabama’s Water Resources “It’s A Data Driven Process” Presented by: Chris Johnson Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) 2006.
Puget Sound Partnership Action Agenda: Roadmap to Completion.
DRAFT USEPA Office of Compliance Update: 90 CWA Action Plan, State Review Framework, & OECA National Priority Selection Presentation to NACAA Chris Knopes.
Watershed Monitoring *Background Watershed Stewardship Plan-2004 Gap Projects IRWMP-Dec Policies SFEI study-2007 Joint TC/WC meeting-June 2010 *Proposed.
Science Translation, Conservation Adoption and Delivery: Revised process for needs and projects related to science translation and adoption Steve Fuller.
Climate Mission Outcome A predictive understanding of the global climate system on time scales of weeks to decades with quantified uncertainties sufficient.
Products & Services Committee
SOUTH ATLANTIC ALLIANCE “PRIMER” FOR TRAIN-THE-TRAINER
Expert Panel on Diversion Planning and Implementation: Meeting #3
Coherent geographic scales and aggregation rules in assessment and monitoring of Good Environmental Status Theo Prins, Myra van der Meulen, Arjen Boon.
Mike Spranger Nancy Rabalais Sharon Walker Ann Jochens
Program Design in Population, Health and Environment
Resilient New Smyrna Beach
Presentation transcript:

1 GCOOS and GOMA Collaborations

2 Nutrient and Water Quality Team telecons and meetings Coastal Resiliency meetings Education and Outreach Development of HABIOS NWQMN Proposal & Follow-on

3 GCOOS/GOMA HABIOS Joint Workshop on plan development GOMA WQ Team Proposal to NOAA: Award October 2008 Workshop 1 - Endpoints to Model Design Workshop 2 - Implementation Priorities GCOOS support offered CDC OOS Workshop

4 Potential study sites identified in NWQMC proposal

5 GOMA Nutrient Source, Fate, and Transport Study Design Workshop February 2008 Galveston, TX

6 Workshop Goals Steve Wolfe, FL DEP

7 Workshop Goals Background: Background: Nutrient criteria must be developed for the estuaries and coastal waters of all Gulf Alliance states.

8 Workshop Goals Background: Background: Gulf Alliance states feel that nutrient criteria should protect ecosystems by preventing undesirable ecosystem changes. These criteria are preferably based on cause- effect relationships.

9 Workshop Goals Background: Background: GOMA states are working together to devise methods that can be used by the individual states to establish these criteria.

10 Project Goals & Objectives Examine the links between nutrients and potential key indicators of community health Examine the links between nutrients and potential key indicators of community health Identifying the locations in the systems where the potential indicators first exhibit effects Identifying the locations in the systems where the potential indicators first exhibit effects Compare different methods to measure and assess the potential indicators Compare different methods to measure and assess the potential indicators Compare the utility of the indicators as tools for use in differing systems Compare the utility of the indicators as tools for use in differing systems Develop hydrodynamic (circulation) models and water quality models to help us understand nutrient fate and transport

11Strategy 1) Design core study protocol* 1) Design core study protocol* *Note: This is not for GOMA coastal monitoring effort 2) Conduct studies using the core design in 3-5 very different Gulf systems. 2) Conduct studies using the core design in 3-5 very different Gulf systems. 3) Identify a ‘new’ simpler core study useable anywhere in Gulf. 3) Identify a ‘new’ simpler core study useable anywhere in Gulf. 4) Use ‘new’ core study to set criteria for priority areas and to develop simpler methods for specific types of areas or habitats. 4) Use ‘new’ core study to set criteria for priority areas and to develop simpler methods for specific types of areas or habitats.

12 Strategy 1) Design core study protocol: 1) Design core study protocol: A) sufficient to allow criteria to be established at the site being studied B) broad enough to be transportable between sites that are very different and provide comparable results.* *GOMA Round Robin *GOMA Round Robin

13Strategy 2) Conduct studies using the core design in 3-5 very different systems around the Gulf of Mexico 2) Conduct studies using the core design in 3-5 very different systems around the Gulf of Mexico A) Studies must be sufficient to establish nutrient criteria for the area being studied. B) Determine how reduced the study could have been and still result in the same nutrient criteria.

14 Strategy 3) Identify a ‘new’ simpler core study useable anywhere in Gulf of Mexico. 3) Identify a ‘new’ simpler core study useable anywhere in Gulf of Mexico. Compare the 3-5 ‘minimum’ studies and combine into a new core study design, one which would have given same results at all sites studied.

15 Strategy 4) Use ‘new’ core study to develop criteria for high-priority areas and to develop simpler methods for specific types of estuaries/coastal areas and habitats. 4) Use ‘new’ core study to develop criteria for high-priority areas and to develop simpler methods for specific types of estuaries/coastal areas and habitats. Following same approach, use “new” core design to conduct studies that establish nutrient criteria at 3-5 “different” sites sharing certain similar characteristics. Identify further-reduced minimum study design to establish nutrient criteria for sites of this type.

16 Advantages of approach: 1) It provides recommended nutrient criteria for all the study sites. 1) It provides recommended nutrient criteria for all the study sites. 2) It provides immediately useable and continually-improving (e.g., less expensive) methods for establishing nutrient criteria. 2) It provides immediately useable and continually-improving (e.g., less expensive) methods for establishing nutrient criteria.

17 Advantages of approach: 3) Studies do not need to be carried out simultaneously to be comparable. 3) Studies do not need to be carried out simultaneously to be comparable. 4) As long as core study is unaltered, the study design can be expanded/modified to suit site- specific conditions and goals of funding sources. 4) As long as core study is unaltered, the study design can be expanded/modified to suit site- specific conditions and goals of funding sources.

18 Advantages of approach: 5) Studies spin off tools (such as hydrodynamic models) and information that will help resource managers and are also needed for TMDL efforts. 5) Studies spin off tools (such as hydrodynamic models) and information that will help resource managers and are also needed for TMDL efforts. 6) Methods provide results that are comparable. 6) Methods provide results that are comparable.

19 Advantages of approach: 7) Nutrient criteria can be developed as soon as costs match priority of estuaries/coastal areas. 7) Nutrient criteria can be developed as soon as costs match priority of estuaries/coastal areas.

20 Disadvantages of approach: 1) Initial studies must be comprehensive (= expensive) to provide objective means to identify a minimum study design. 1) Initial studies must be comprehensive (= expensive) to provide objective means to identify a minimum study design. 2) Simpler, less-expensive methods will not be quickly available. 2) Simpler, less-expensive methods will not be quickly available.

21 Next Step: Draft Design by late April; Four Working Groups 1) nutrient pathways 1) nutrient pathways 2) biological indicators 2) biological indicators 3) physical/chemical monitoring 3) physical/chemical monitoring 4) monitoring needed to support model development 4) monitoring needed to support model development