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

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

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 Coastal County: At least 15% of the total land area is located within the Nation’s 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 Administration’s 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 (Chrysaoraquinquecirrha) in Chesapeake Bay • Collaborative effort (UMCES, VIMS, NOAA) Slide courtesy: NESDIS/NOAA

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)

22. NOAA’s 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] • NOAA’s 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) • NOAA’s 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 • Industry’s 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 NOAA’s 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 Purpose:Develop 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 Blueprint:Focus 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. It’s 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 public’s 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. 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%. MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ACCORDING TO PUBLIC OPINION (Source: Gallup Poll News Service, 2000)

39. Environmental monitoring results make strong and lasting impression – both perceptibly and metrologically

41. From AMAP (2004)