M. J. Hameedi

1
Workshop to link water quality observations and
monitoring with elements of the Integrated Ocean
Observing System Delaware Watershed, Bay and
the coastal ocean Rutgers University, New
Brunswick, NJ 19-21 September 2005
Background and Introduction

• M. J. Hameedi
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• Silver Spring, Maryland

2

• I. Background
• Issues
• U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
• U.S. Ocean Action Plan
• IOOS Regional Associations
• II. Why NOAA?
• III. Why Delaware Bay?
• IV. This Workshop

3

• I. Background

4
Coastal Areas Human Population Centers and Hubs
of Commerce and Industry
2003 Population 2008 Projection
U.S. Total 290 million
U.S. Coastal 153 (53)
Delaware - T 0.817 0.857
Delaware - C 0.817 0.857
New Jersey - T 8.638 8.916
New Jersey - C 8.529 8.802
Coastal County At least 15 of the total land
area is located within the Nations watershed, or
a portion (or the entire county) accounts for at
least 15 of a coastal cataloging unit (Crossett,
et al., 2004)
5
Coastal Areas Unique

• Inputs of energy (storm, tides) and materials
  (water, sediment, nutrients, toxics, pathogens),
  and human activities converge in these areas

6
Coastal Areas Environmental Issues

• There are indications that coastal environments
  are experiencing rapid changes, largely as a
  consequence of human activities
• Habitat loss or adverse modifications
• Coastal erosion and shoreline armoring
• Harmful algal blooms
• Shellfish bed closures and fish consumption
  advisories
• Oxygen depletion
• Toxic contaminants
• Loss of biodiversity

7
Coastal Areas Agency Missions

• There are more overlapping missions and mandates
  of federal and state agencies in the coastal
  areas than anywhere else
• There is more environmental monitoring in these
  areas than anywhere else
• Yet
• We seem to not have a comprehensive
  understanding and predictive capability on how
  people are changing the environment and how these
  changes are affecting the people
• (Congressional testimony, NOAA Administrator,
  2000)

8
Coastal Environmental Monitoring What to do

• Step 1 Coordinate and integrate existing
  observing / monitoring efforts to collect, manage
  and analyze data to minimize redundancy, maximize
  access to diverse data from disparate sources,
  and produce timely analyses (and reports) that
  meet the user needs
• Step 2 Enhance and supplement these efforts to
  achieve a more comprehensive and useful view of
  changes and their impacts.

9
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy

• Chapter 15
• Creating a National Monitoring Network

10
Chapter 15 Recommendations for Creating a
National Monitoring Network

• 15-1 Develop a national monitoring network that
  coordinates and expands existing efforts,
  including monitoring of atmospheric deposition.
• 15-2 Ensure that the national monitoring network
  includes adequate coverage in both coastal areas
  and the upland areas that affect them, and
  linked to the IOOS.
• 15-3 Ensure that the monitoring network has
  clear goals, specific core variables and an
  apporpriate sampling framework.

11
The Administrations Response

• Created a Committee on Ocean Policy (December 17,
  2004)
• Coordinate the activities of executive
  departments and agencies
• Facilitate coordination and consultation among
  Federal, State, tribal, local governments, the
  private sector, foreign governments and
  international organizations
• Issued the U.S. Ocean Action Plan (December 17,
  2004)

12

• Six Chapters
• 39 action items
• Advancing Our Understanding of the Oceans,
  Coasts, and Great Lakes
• Create a National Water Quality Monitoring Network

13
IOOS Coastal
National Backbone

• Federally-funded
• Core variables
• Required by regions
• Networks
• Sentinel stations
• Reference stations
• Index Sites
• Standards/Protocols
• QA/QC, DMAC
• Products

Regional Associations

• Guiding principles
• User needs
• Science-based
• Shared data
• Cost efficiencies
• Links with IOOS
• Involve user groups
• Design
• Product development
• Evaluation
• Based on user needs
• Incorporate subregional
• systems, elements and
• new technologies
• ? Resolution ? Variables

14

• II. Why NOAA?

15
Hurricanes making landfall during a 6-week period
in 2004Slide Courtesy NESDIS/NOAA
16
Percent impervious surface area black (0-1),
white (1-10), green (11-20), blue (21-40), and
red (greater than 40). Adverse effects begin once
ISA exceeds 10 percent.Slide Courtesy
NESDIS/NOAA
17

• Forecasting areas of temperature- salinity
  preferences of the sea nettle (Chrysaora
  quinquecirrha) in Chesapeake Bay
• Collaborative effort (UMCES, VIMS, NOAA)

Slide courtesy NESDIS/NOAA
18
(No Transcript)
19
Indian River Lagoon
20
San Diego Bay, CA (1993) This region had
widespread toxicity. Some areas of the bay near
the Naval Station, near downtown San Diego,
within boat basins and marinas, and with
adjoining creeks and stormwater channels, were
severely toxic. (Red severe, yellow
moderate, green slight, blue non-toxic)
21
(No Transcript)
22
NOAAs Observing System Responsibilities and
Assets

• More than 15 statutes and Executive Orders
  authorize NOAA to
• conduct a continuing program of research to
  evaluate possible long-range effects of pollution
• monitor to assess the condition of the marine
  environment and contaminant levels in biota,
  sediment disease in fish and shellfish
• develop assessment techniques to define
  environmental degradation indicators
• NOAAs Observing System Architecture (NOSA)
  includes 99 NOAA-owned, -operated, or funded
  systems, measuring 225 different environmental
  parameters
• http///www.nosc.noaa.gov/docs/products/strategic
  .pdf

23

• III. Why Delaware?

24
Delaware Estuary and Watershed

• Multi-state shoreline and watershed
• Widely different land-use activities affecting
  water quality
• Petrochemical and automotive industries
• Agriculture, including AFOs
• Large seaport infrastructure
• Increasing tourism
• All major forest types of the Eastern U.S. are
  represented within the basin and its watershed
• Sustainable freshwater availability and use

25
CENR-recommended Mid-Atlantic Integrated
Assessment Pilot (1996)

• U.S. EPA led project with several federal and
  State partners
• Purpose was to assess current conditions and to
  establish a data system that will support
  continuing assessments
• Gather data from many sources in the U.S.
  mid-Atlantic coastal region (landscapes, streams
  and estuaries)
• NOAAs participation Delaware Bay and Chesapeake
  Bay characterizations (1997-2002)

26
CENR National Environmental Monitoring and
Research Workshop(Smithsonian Institution, 1997)

• A regional pilot be established in the
  Mid-Atlantic Region focusing on Delaware Bay
  and then expand from there
• Demonstrate relationship between a national
  report card and usefulness of monitoring in
  local / regional decision-making
• Issues / constraints
• Jurisdictions and scales
• Integration with science
• Skepticism no mechanism in place to mitigate
  against the same old way of doing things!

27
Potential Benefits

• Opportunity for a more cost-effective,
  scientifically sound and comprehensive
  environmental monitoring than was currently
  available
• Increased utility of federal monitoring and
  research programs to the needs of local and state
  planners through coordination and data exchange
• Industrys support of science based regulations
  and rigorous monitoring no moving goal posts
• Means to evaluate effectiveness of management
  actions to protect natural resources
• A unified approach and an improved information
  base for making resource management decisions
  Congress would listen!

28

• IV. This Workshop

29
My proposal to NOAAs Ecosystem Observations
Program (EOP) Support a Workshop to Link
Elements of IOOS with the planned National Water
Quality Monitoring Network.

• Objective Identify water quality-related issues
  and develop a monitoring framework -- having
  links with IOOS -- and recommend monitoring
  networks or programs that would constitute the
  federally-funded backbone in support of regional
  needs.

30

• Regional Focus for the Workshop
• Since the relative significant of coastal water
  quality and resource use issues differ widely
  among regions (e.g., freshwater delivery, toxic
  contaminants, nutrient-over enrichment, land and
  resource use patterns, etc.), the workshop must
  focus on a particular coastal region.
• NOAA Response
• Sounds like a good idea, here is some money to
  cover the workshop expenses
• Make sure the workshop considers application of
  new and emerging observing systems and
  technologies, and include a broad spectrum of
  producers and users of data

31
Workshop PurposeDevelop a regional framework
for monitoring in the Delaware region that
addresses water quality and habitat related
issues and supports decision-making.The
framework will consider appropriate sampling
design including spatial/temporal coverage, data
comparability and transfer value to assess the
condition of coastal, estuarine and upstream
waters.
32

• Workshop will also identify
• Important resource management issues and
  questions relating to water quality
• Desired links with IOOS output data and products
  and the role of MACOORA (the Mid-Atlantic Coastal
  Ocean Observing Regional Association) in
  facilitating those links
• Networks or programs that would constitute the
  federally-funded backbone in support of
  regional monitoring
• The means (i.e., interpretive reports, technology
  transfer and education materials) and mechanisms
  (i.e., MACOORA, National Sea Grant College
  Program, NERRS) to improve public awareness and
  participation in the stewardship of the coastal
  environment and resources.

33
Workshop BlueprintFocus on Management Issues
and Questions

• Fish consumption advisories
• Shellfish bed closure
• Toxic chemicals
• Hypoxic conditions
• What is the spatial extent? (What fraction?
  Continuous? Patchy?)
• What is the temporal trend? (Seasonal, Yearly,
  Decadal)
• What factors are responsible for low oxygen
  conditions? (bulk organics/BOD, retarded mixing,
  altered circulation)
• Beach closures
• Etc.

34
Objective Outcomes Action Items
Approach(adapted from PNAMP)

• Objective 1 Coordinate and enhance the utility
  of existing monitoring programs
• Outcome A. Identify the key questions
• Outcome B. Identify agency-specific national and
  regional monitoring efforts
• Action Item (i) Inventory of existing monitoring
  activities and networks
• Action Item (ii) Recommended metrics for WQ
  monitoring data
• Action Item (iii) GIS-based mapping of key
  parameters
• Action Item (iv) High level indicators common
  to all sub-regions and amenable to integration
  across scales
• Outcome C. Identify the means to assure data
  QA/QC and comparability across programs
• Objective 2

35
Workshop Products

• Workshop proceedings
• WQ Management Issues
• Current Monitoring Networks and Scientific
  Understanding
• Recommendations
• NWQMN / CEQ
• IOOS/MACOORA
• Framework for a Regional Pilot

36
Its Your Workshop!

• A paradigm shift is underway, whereby the
  federal government may be seen as a facilitator
  and a partner of coastal states or recognized
  regional entities in assuring quality-controlled
  data, technology transfer and training, and
  increasing the publics awareness and
  participation in stewardship of the watershed and
  coastal resources.

Work can be fun too!!
37
Thank you!

• The scientific observation of Nature keeps us in
  close contact with the behavior of Reality, and
  thus sharpens our inner perception for a deeper
  vision of it.
• Allama Muhammad Iqbal
• (1877-1938)

38
MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ACCORDING TO PUBLIC
OPINION (Source Gallup Poll News Service, 2000)

• Air Pollution
• Water Pollution
• Pollution of Rivers, Lakes and Reservoirs (85)
• Contamination of Soil and Water by Toxic Wastes
  (84)
• Ocean and Beach Pollution (75)
• Destroying Rain Forests/Trees
• Global Warming
• Ozone Layer
• Overpopulation

• Waste/Garbage
• Nuclear Waste
• Nothing
• Automobiles
• Oil/Oil Spills
• Acid Rain
• ____
• indicates percentage of people who worry a
  great deal or a fair amount about the issue.
  A comparable figure for global warming is 33.

39

• Environmental monitoring results make strong
  and lasting impression both perceptibly and
  metrologically

40
(No Transcript)
41
From AMAP (2004)
42
(No Transcript)