U.S./European Partnerships in Coastal Atlases and Coastal/Ocean Informatics Coastal Zone 2007 – Portland, Oregon National Coastal Zone Management Community Observations Tony LaVoi NOAA Coastal Services Center

Mission: linking people, information, and technology in the coastal zone Customers: organizations impacting coastal communities Role: bring new skills, data, and information End result: decision makers have the tools they need

Primary Areas of Expertise Geographic information systems Data and information Training Remote sensing Social science Decision support tools

Topics for Today GIS and Remote Sensing Use in State CZM Programs Status of CZM Coastal Atlases Path Forward

OMB-approved triennial survey 375 responses (including CZM, NERRS, NMS, NEP, Sea Grant, DEQ) Results include: -Geospatial capacity -Coastal management priorities -Data requirements and applications Coastal Resource Management Survey

Awareness, Use, and Usefulness of GIS and Remote Sensing Source: NOAA Coastal Services Center Coastal Resource Management Survey – 2006 Awareness, Use, and Usefulness GIS Remote Sensing Aware of ___ Office uses Usefulness = Medium Usefulness = High

Trends in Geospatial Technology Use Percent reporting that their office uses GIS or Remote Sensing... GIS Remote Sensing 1996 survey 74% 35% 1999 survey 91% 42% 2002 survey 89% 78% 2006 survey 92% 74%

High Priority Management Issues Source: NOAA Coastal Services Center Coastal Resource Management Survey – 2006 Coastal Management Issue% Land use planning/growth management 59.3 Habitat restoration and monitoring 54.7 Watershed planning 50.5 Public access 46.2 Water quality monitoring 46.0 Nonpoint source pollution 45.8 Flooding/inundation/storm surge 44.5 Erosion 42.9 Shoreline change management 42.7 Protected area management 41.1

Constraints to Using GIS and Remote Sensing Source: NOAA Coastal Services Center Coastal Resource Management Survey – 2006 Constraints to using as often as you would like? GIS Remote Sensing Lack organizational policy / process supporting use Inadequate equipment / facilities / technology Lack relevant / necessary data Lack required knowledge / skills Lack applicability / interest Conflicting demands on time Not enough staff No constraints

Unscientific Survey of State CZM Coastal Mapping Sites Method - NOAA OCRM Web site plus Google searches Results 34 states/territories with CZM programs 21 have some type of Atlas product (IMS or static) Various levels products and technology No map or geospatial products Download data only Static maps only IMS only Comprehensive Atlas / IMS products Also, wide range of analysis tools and other widgets No comprehensive, authoritative National Coastal Atlas

Ohio Coastal Atlas New York State Coastal Atlas Oregon Coastal Atlas

New Jersey Rhode Island

Other Observations Mapping products are usually developed with partners which leads to a mix of coastal and non-coastal data Many mapping sites and atlases use thematic organizational structures Some of the more popular datasets: land use, water use, shoreline change / erosion, natural resource

What direction will the CZM community take in the future? Option Status Quo Option Integrated U.S. Coastal Atlas

What would these options look like? Status Quo Individual solutions; disparate technologies; limited interoperability; limited common datasets/views No comprehensive view of coastal data Integrated U.S. Coastal Atlas  ‘Google Coast’ Commitment to interoperability and standards; similar technologies; common datasets/views; comprehensive metadata and ontologies Integrated National view of coastal data

Potential Benefits of Integrated National Coastal Atlas National base map for the coastal zone Foundation for National assessments Lessen boundaries for cross-state and regional partnerships Increase state and regional coastal management effectiveness Enhance capabilities for regional-scale spatial analysis Increase ease of use for customers

Considerations for Integrated Atlas Standards and Interoperability Partnerships and Governance Technology

Interoperability and Standards Commitment to interoperability via accepted geospatial community standards is a must for an integrated Atlas Enable integration of diverse technologies Provide common definition of GIS service capabilities Critical components may include: Data Transport and Services – Open Geospatial Consortium and W3C Metadata – Federal Geographic Data Committee and ISO Data Layers – Agreement among states on standard base layers and data views

Partnerships and Governance Multiple potential partnership opportunities exist that could be utilized to develop a National Coastal Atlas Federal Federal Geographic Data Committee – Marine and Coastal Spatial Data Subcommittee Geospatial One-Stop – Oceans and Coast Community Interagency Working Group on Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) NOAA Office of Ocean & Coastal Resource Mgmt. (OCRM) and Coastal Services Center (CSC) State National States Geographic Information Council (Coastal Caucus) Coastal States Organization

Technology Tremendous growth in options for Internet mapping Pros – more options, lower cost to enter market, larger developer community as a resource, many technologies are easier for end users Cons – keeping up with technology changes, no longer ‘one’ solution, increases importance of using accepted standards Current Technologies include: Server – ArcIMS, MapServer, ArcServer Thick Client - Google Earth, NASA World Wind Mashup - Google Maps, Yahoo Maps, Virtual Earth Hosting – ArcWeb Services

What Does the Future Look Like? or Integrated Coastal Atlas Individual State Atlases

Tony LaVoi NOAA Coastal Services Center