1. Management of the Hypoxic Zone – the Driver Making the Connection Between Management Issues and Monitoring Design Summit on Long-Term Monitoring of the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxic Zone January 30-31, 2007 Robert Magnien Director, Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Ocean Service

2. Overview of Presentation Brief Summary of GOM hypoxia management Making the connection between management issues and monitoring design - lessons from the Chesapeake Google Title: Monitoring for Management Actions Also see: eyesonthebay.net

3. Mississippi River Basin with Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Zone

4.  Boesch & Rabalais begin monitoring (1985)  NOAA-funded study crystallized issue (1990-95) Public Policy Development Public interest raised (1993-1995)  NGOs petitioned EPA & LA for action (1995)  EPA convened Federal Principals (1996)  CENR initiates scientific assessment (1997)  HABHRCA Bill signed into Law (1998)  Integrated Assessment completed (2000)  Action Plan delivered to Congress (2001) Adapted from D. Scavia Presentation to EPA SAB, 2006  HABHRCA Bill signed into Law (1998)  Integrated Assessment completed (2000)  Action Plan delivered to Congress (2001)  Reassessment initiated (2005)  HABHRCA Bill signed into Law (1998)  Integrated Assessment completed (2000)  Action Plan delivered to Congress (2001)

5. Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force States: Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Ohio Tribes: Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians Prairie Island Indian Community Feds: EPA, USDA, NOAA, DOI, Army Corps, DOJ, OSTP, CEQ

6. Integrated Assessment was based on the 6 peer reviewed reports and public comments; Plus 16 additional sets of comments on the draft IA. http://www.nos.noaa.gov/Products/pubs_hypox.html Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force

7. Action Plan was based on Integrated Assessment, Public Comments on IA, and Public Meetings Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force

8.  Coastal: By 2015, reduce 5-year running average hypoxic zone to less than 5,000 km 2  Basin: Restore and protect waters of the 31 states and Tribal lands within the Basin  Communities. Improve communities and economic conditions in the Basin, in particular agriculture, fisheries and recreation sectors Action Plan Goals

9. 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 102030405060 Percent N Load Reduction Area (km 2 ) Ensemble Forecast Recent modeling suggests need for a greater reduction Model projections at time of 2001 Action Plan Models Project Load Reduction Needed to Reach Hypoxic Zone Goal

10. By December 2005, and every five years thereafter, the Task Force will assess the nutrient load reductions achieved and the response of the hypoxic zone, water quality throughout the Basin, and economic and social effects. Based on this assessment, the Task Force will determine appropriate actions to continue to implement this strategy or, if necessary, revise the strategy. Action #11 of Action Plan

11. Task Force Reassessment Reassessment is in full swing: Symposium on Gulf Science in N.O. in April, 2006 including latest monitoring results Expert panel convened under EPA/SAB will be examining latest monitoring along with modeling and research Revision to Action Plan already underway with adoption of “Themes” earlier this month Action Plan revision is expected before end of 2007 Update on latest monitoring a “standard” presentation to open Task Force meetings.

12. Lessons from the Chesapeake Part II - Monitoring for Management Actions, 1987

13. Lessons from the Chesapeake “Past experiences indicate that the probability of success in satisfying this program's objective will be enhanced because the following elements were considered during the initial program design: A clear statement of the relevant management issues to be addressed The development of specific management questions that define the information needed for management actions The design of a technically sound and practical sampling program A timely analysis, interpretation and presentation of results, and The development of management policies and actions.” - Monitoring for Management Actions, 1987

14. Lessons from the Chesapeake Translation of Management Issue => Management Questions => Objectives Example: Hypoxia Management Questions: “Where are the major areas of low dissolved oxygen waters in the Chesapeake Bay System? Is the areal extent of low dissolved oxygen water expanding over time? Which pollutant inputs are most responsible for the low oxygen conditions?” Objectives: “Examination of the … major management questions revealed that they could be separated into 3 major categories: Questions about the spatial and temporal characterization of each problem Questions about observed trends in time Questions about processes and causes relating to the major management issues” - Monitoring for Management Actions, 1987

15. Lessons from the Chesapeake Statement of Primacy of Management Issues and Questions: “The design of the present monitoring program is predicated upon the management issues and questions discussed above. The program will only be successful to the degree that it can ultimately respond with sound answers to the management questions being posed. Thus, in assembling the program details, the attainment of these answers was always the foremost consideration.” - Monitoring for Management Actions, 1987

16. Lessons from the Chesapeake Additional Highlighted Considerations for Monitoring Design: Utilize ecosystem knowledge to select appropriate space and time scales for sampling as well as the choice of measured variables Establish data analysis and reporting strategy, including statistical tests, levels of confidence and integration with other program elements in advance High level of technical rigor Effective data management Strong quality assurance Logistically and economically practical Robust partnerships - Monitoring for Management Actions, 1987

17. Lessons from the Chesapeake Concluding Words… “In the end, however, it is the monitoring program that will provide the verdict on the success of individual or collective management decisions. These evaluations will either lead to a strengthening of our original management positions or to a reformulation of strategies to provide more effective measures aimed at restoring the Bay's health.” - Monitoring for Management Actions, 1987