Report of Proceedings

Harmful Algal Bloom Observing System Plan
for the Gulf of Mexico
Workshop
November 14-16, 2007
The Iberville Suites, 901 Iberville Street
New Orleans, LA

 

Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

Appendix A

Workshop Objectives

• Agreement on a HABOS Plan for the Gulf of Mexico;
• Complete inventories of pertinent observations/products currently being made in U.S. Gulf states;
• Gain participants ideas regarding the order in which the various observing system elements should be implemented (based on need, likelihood of obtaining required suport and feasibility); and
• Volunteers to provide cost estimates for the various system components within a given time frame.

List of Attendees is attached as Appendix A.

DAY ONE: November 14, 2007
 

Welcome and Opening Remarks, Introductions

Bart Bibler, Florida Department of Health, and Chair of the GCOOS Task Team on Public Health, opened the meeting and welcomed everyone. He pointed out that the attendees were a diverse assemblage, coming from all five Gulf States, federal and state agencies, academic institutions, with a wide variety of expertise. He expressed his gratitude and appreciation for their attendance and participation. He noted that much talent was involved in this planning effort. The size of the workshop had been limited to ensure manageable meeting, but many others were invited to review the draft plans. The Plan is still a work in progress, but it is hoped that it will be finalized in the first quarter of 2008. He noted that there will be yet another full iteration for comments following this workshop.

Following Mr. Bibler's comments, Worth Nowlin, Chair, Board of Directors, Gulf of Mexico Coastal Ocean Observing System (GCOOS) Regional Association, welcomed everyone and asked participants to introduce themselves. Dr. Nowlin explained that the Workshop was sponsored by the Gulf of Mexico Alliance (GOMA), GCOOS, and the Alliance for Coastal Technology (ACT). He noted that there are plans for an operational system as a part of the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) and not a research program. In view of this, he also noted that the IOOS Data Management and Communication (DMAC) standards and protocols should ultimately be used.

The workshop steering committee consisted of Dr. Nowlin; Mr. Bibler; and Steve Wolfe-FL Dept. of Environmental Protection. Steve is also the Lead for the Gulf of Mexico Alliance Team addressing HABS and cosponsor of the workshop. Other commitments prevented Mr. Wolfe from attending the workshop

The meeting was turned over to the Facilitator, Janice M. Fleischer, J.D., FLASH Resolutions.

Agenda Review/Meeting Guidelines/Announcements

Ms. Fleischer reviewed the Workshop Agenda (Exhibit A), Discussion Guidelines (Exhibit B), Consensus Rules (Exhibit C), and Roles of the Facilitator (Exhibit D).

A copy of this meeting Report and exhibits can be found at www.gcoos.org.

Overview of IOOS and GCOOS

Worth Nowlin delivered a presentation on the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) and the Gulf of Mexico Coastal Ocean Observing System (GCOOS) (Exhibit E). Dr. Nowlin explained that this presentation was just a broad brush background. The presentation was in three parts, dealing with:

1. The Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) and development of the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) as part of GOOS;
2. The newly established NOAA IOOS Program Office and its planned activities; and
3. The status and plans of the Gulf of Mexico Coastal Ocean Observing System and its governing Regional Association. Further information can be found at the GCOOS website located at www.gcoos.org.

Comments from participants on Ocean Observing:

1. NOAA trying to move away from the use of the term "national backbone"; it implies something well defined and it is not–it will be more of a distributed system
2. We should use the term "federal contribution" instead of "national backbone"
3. The term "national backbone" refers not just to federal assets, it is also regional assets that contribute to the national backbone. This helps fill in the regional areas where gaps exist.
4. However, mostly the federal government is paying for all this.

Comments from participants on part two of the talk:

1. Regarding the seven (7) societal goals of the IOOS Plan: is there any activity at the departmental level to get funds to do these?
   a. There is some activity; there are some partnerships in place.
2. What opportunities do you see for Health and Human Services to get more involved?
3. There is a line item in the President's budget for IOOS this year; this is a first.

Comments from participants on the status and plans for GCOOS:

1. GCOOS is not only for the American government; Mexico and other countries are welcome to join.
• Worth et al. will follow up with workshop participants regarding who to contact in Mexico to bring them in formally.
2. Each federal agency has its own nuances regarding wording in the GCOOS Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).
3. Is there a timetable for the fisheries workshop?
   • It was recommended that we not hold a workshop, but rather get a list of priorities from them.
   • Fisheries is a very important stakeholder group.
4. It is very important to work together with Mexico; GCOOS has offered various Mexican entities the opportunity to join GCOOS and we are hoping some will soon sign the MOA. Mexico has some observing systems in place now.
5. NOAA Health initiative is developing a port, will you be working with them?

The group took a short break at this time.

Overview and Foundation HABIOS Plan

Bart Bibler spoke to the participants on the events leading to this Workshop and the development of the HABIOS (Harmful Algal Blooms Integrated Observing System) Plan. Mr. Bibler covered the following items:

• Reviewed the 2004 HABs Workshop held in St. Petersburg (could refer to GCOOS Web site for information thereon)
• An ad hoc group under auspices of the U.S. GOOS Steering Committee met in California to examine needs for public health and beach quality in southern California and to estimate costs for an observing system there. That resulted in decision to prepare a HABs observing system plan for the Gulf of Mexico.
• HABs in the Gulf is one of the NOAA IOOS priorities.
• GoMA partnership has taken up water quality as one of their five foci—HABs is one of three priority sub-areas.
• In 2006 there was an IOOS Public Health Workshop in Florida.
• GoMA had a follow-up workshop in Rookery Bay.
• Federal acts and reports should be referenced in the report.

Mr. Bibler explained that there had been an HAB symposium. He asked several of the participants who attended that event to give a few comments on it. He explained that there has been a significant amount of testing to see the effect on humans by red tide. Florida, in particular, has a very high incidence of red tide. The southwest of Florida has expended much effort to enhance ocean observing for HABs. In addition, the Alliance for Coastal Technologies is working on HABs. http://ocean.tamu.edu/GCOOS/Office/documents/HABs/ACT_WR02-01_HAB.pdf

In the future, freshwater, marine and research and development reports will be forthcoming sometime in late 2008. The Florida Department of Health is currently developing response plans to red tide predictions and events.

Comments from participants:

1. NOAA and the National Science Foundation (NSF) have centers in oceans and human health; however, they only do some outreach.
2. Do you want to maintain the HAB related website into the future? Is it of value and if so, then a small group needs to be formed to keep the website up to date.
3. There is a clearinghouse type of website in Woods Hole, maybe we should use that, put a small group together to look into our regional website and theirs to see if there is a possibility for combination.
4. Check out the Woods Hole website; it is primarily for distribution of blooms and species, may not have the additional information that we need.
5. We should also get the Mexico information if we keep our website.
6. Regional website very important to keep; the national website will not have the information we need on it.
7. If you tell Mexico how to do, they will provide their data for inclusion.

Volunteer Plankton Observing Network

Allison Sill, Program Coordinator of the Volunteer Phytoplankton Monitoring Network (PMN) delivered this presentation (Exhibit F). Although it is volunteer, it is incentive based. Participants who regularly assist are provided a microscope worth $800.00 for their use as long as they remain in the program. The volunteers are trained by the PMN staff; this allows groups to be more comfortable with sampling, identification and data submission procedures.

Ms. Sill explained there were currently 103 sample sites in SC, NC, GA, FL, TX, AL, HI, MA, CA and the Virgin Islands. The network would like to expand to MS, LA and more regions of FL. The PMN is also interested in expanding into Mexico and other territories. She explained that they recently split their data sheets into two groups: Gulf and Atlantic. This was done because they were finding very different things so it was thought best to separate the two coasts.

Participants Comments:

1. What kind of quality assurance plan do you have?
• Volunteer groups must send water samples in with data sheet so they can be verified (this is not done with all groups). Volunteers also send in pictures so that species can be confirmed by NOAA scientists.
2. Does Florida have a volunteer group as well?
• Only sampling not identification
• Florida uses different subsets of volunteers; difficulty with off shore sites
• The PMN is interested in having more groups involved in FL.
3. Do you use plankton nets?
• Yes, and we provide them at no cost to each volunteer group (nets cost $120.00 each).
4. This is a tremendous program in terms of outreach; it is somewhat limited in scope but really a good program.
5. Are the samples life or fixed?
• Both, Lugol's is used to preserve specimens and they are overnighted to our labs via FedEx.
6. They are planning to expand to freshwater in the Great Lakes area.

HABSOS (Harmful Algal Blooms Observing System)

Rost Parsons spoke regarding the Harmful Algal Blooms Observing System (HABSOS) (Exhibit G). Dr. Parsons noted that the information on the system is now available in Spanish as well as English. It is not an analysis or forecasting tool; it is mainly a data information tool. Their new website is http://habsos.noaa.gov.

Currently the information on the system only goes back 30 days, some folks have indicated a desire to have it go backer further (120 days, years, etc.). The data will be archived; this is very important.

Participant Comments:

1. How is the EPA involved?
1. They have been directly involved since the very beginning in doing a case study; as it has evolved they are there to help it along.
2. EPA has played a role for many years and we do not take it lightly.
3. They don’t DO the work, they provide the money.
2. ECOHAB (Ecology and Oceanography of harmful Algal Blooms) , is a joint program with NOAA and EPA.
3. Are you involved at all in the census of marine life (OBIS) Ocean Biological Information Systems.
1. Archiving data and metadata
4. Is the primary audience the research community? Or is it open to the general public and how would they know how to use it?
1. Data entry is not open to the public; parts of the data description is open.
2. Because it is very complex it is really aimed at the research community.
5. Is there any plan to synthesize the data for other users?
1. We have started discussing how to get some of the synthesis information into HABSOS. For example, we are going to a shapefile (GIS) based HAB field, that could be added to HABSOS, as well as the manipulated output.
6. The HABSOS data entry tool; is it a "push" or "pull" entry tool?
1. At this point more "push" (take data offered), but we have been asked to make it more of a "pull" (actively go out and ask for data).
7. The website is a public website with aggregate values since the public would not know how to interpret the distinct values.
8. As you develop push/pull techniques, you should talk to University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

State Reports
 

Florida

Cindy Heil, FWC

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) is the state agency that monitors red tide in collaboration with other state entities; Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) has the HAB group; FWRI is the research arm of FWC.

Sampling in-shore is not a problem; sampling off-shore is more of a problem. Volunteers are used quite a lot. The primary samplers in some counties are the local Departments of Health. FWRI works closely with FDACS, (Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services). There is an issue of response sampling rather than regular sampling.

Bottom Sampling Ocean Profilers =BSOPs

David Heil, FDACS

FDACS is a public health regulatory agency whereas other agencies are not. FDACs does not issue warnings, they issue closings. FDACs monitors shellfish areas for marine biotoxins, only in estuaries and there can be as many as 10 stations in an area to as little as 3 stations in an area. FDACS monitors a total of 38 shelflish harvesting areas. The monitoring is of the water not the shellfish because public health agencies don't wait for the shellfish to become toxic.

It can take 2-4 weeks until the shellfish are clear of the toxin after the event is over (cessl no longer present in the water). The objective is to know about the event before it is inshore and affecting people and shellfish. Florida is not making the rules on shellfish control; that comes from National Shellfish Sanitation Program. Therefore, all US Gulf of Mexico States conduct the same type of public health monitoring. There are clear cut standards on when an area is safe and when it is not safe; we address molluscan shellfish (oysters, clams, and musssels) public health.

Participant Comments:

1. Aside from red tide, what other species do you monitor for?
1. Paralytic Shellfish Poisioning (PSP) organism Pyrodinum bahamense.
2. Do you see many Pseudo-nitzschia blooms?
1. We have a lot of Pseudo-nitzschia blooms but we have not seen it be toxic; it does not manifest itself here like it does in California and other locations.
2. Toxicity of Pseudo-nitzschia is increasing in Louisiana.

Barbara Kirkpatrick, Senior Scientist, Mote Marine Laboratory delivered a presentation on Beach Condition Reporting Systems (Exhibit H).

Dr. Kirkpatrick pointed out that people with asthma are very sensitive to the toxins of Karenia so it is very important that the public be notified when it is in an area. Additionally, the general public wants to know what beaches to visit that won't have dead fish, airborne toxins, etc.

Manatee and Sarasota Counties have public beaches staffed by professional lifeguards; the lifeguards file real time beach conditions reports using a Blackberry. The data is seamlessly transferred to a website; these are subjective reports but still are valuable for public health purposes. Currently, Mote Marine monitors (15) fifteen beaches. Red tide (Karenia brevis) respiratory irritation is very noticeable and causes a temporary irritation to asthmatics and non asthmatics alike. Recent research has shown that asthmatics are impacted for days after a 1 hour beach exposure.

BreveBuster-based Karenia detection and tracking network in southwest Florida presentation (Exhibit I) given by Gary Kirkpatrick.

Gary Kirkpatrick presented a brief review of the Karenia detection and tracking network that he has been involved with along the southwest coast of Florida for the past four years. The detection technology, known as the BreveBuster™, is based upon determination of the correlation between a 'standard' Karenia light absorption spectrum and the light absorption spectrum of the particles in the sample. It is an automated instrument capable of sampling on a preset interval ranging in length from approximately three minutes to weeks. The BreveBuster has been configured for installation on fixed platforms (pilings, piers, channel markers and buoys) as well as on autonomous underwater vehicles (Slocum glider, REMUS and BSOP). Results are transmitted through a variety of means from cell phone to VHF radio to satellite phone. Endurance is determined primarily by the bio-fouling rate and typically range from one month in an estuary to three months on an offshore buoy.

Sponsors of the twenty-two instruments either assembled or in assembly include NSF, NOAA, FWCC and EPA. The majority of units in this inventory are deployed in or destined for the coastal region from Tampa to Marco Island, Florida. A notable exception includes three units destine for deployment in the waters of the Mexican State of Veracruz.

In conclusion four observations about this work were listed: 1) Daily operations require continuous attention to details such as quality of data, personnel, weather conditions and forecasts, and maintenance needs; 2) To achieve long-term operation there must be a continuous engineering effort focused on improvements; 3) For safe operation there must be continuous emphasis on safety consciousness and provision of safety equipment and supplies; 4) For all of this effort to be worthwhile it is critical that it be continuously evaluated in regards to the utility of the products.

Participant Comments:

1. What are the safety concerns on a buoy?
1. Deploying the equipment off boats
2. Devices that are hazards to boats
3. Just need to pay attention whenever you put something in the water that could be an obstacle

Lunch
 

Alabama

Hugh MacIntyre, Senior Marine Scientist, Dauphin Island Sea Lab

Alabama has about 100 miles of coast line along the Gulf of Mexico and in Mobile Bay and Mississippi Sound. In past years there have been blooms of numerous HAB species (see appendix) including Karenia brevis, that have been responsible for fish-kills and hypoxia. There are sharp gradients from very turbid, nutrient-rich, to very clear, nutrient-poor waters. Consequently, optically based monitoring is very difficult. The high diversity within the microalgae makes chlorophyll an unreliable proxy for HAB abundance.

There are 4 tiers of monitoring:

1st tier:
State and federal agencies, coordinated through Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH).
These monitor of Gulf beaches and oyster-growing areas in Mobile Bay, with further adaptive sampling during blooms. ADPH has regulatory authority over oyster harvesting. Routine monitoring is weekly, bi-weekly or quarterly, depending on site and season. Data include cell counts and (usually) temperature and salinity.

2nd tier:
Dauphin Island Sea Lab (DISL), in collaboration with ADPH. Grant-based (i.e., finite duration) research efforts in bays and offshore. (Prior funding has come from NOAA, EPA directly or in state- or university-administered funding.) DISL is developing Alabama-centric website on HABs, eutrophication and hypoxia. Sampling is typically monthly. Data include cell counts, physical hydrography, bio-optical descriptors, HPLC pigments, nutrients etc.

3rd tier:
Volunteer network (initiated by NOAA PMN with reporting to PMN database), in collaboration with DISL in inshore waters not routinely sampled by ADPH. Methodology and level of training reduce reliability as monitoring tool but excellent outreach and outreach opportunity. Sampling is biweekly. Data include relative abundance of net plankton, physical hydrography, chlorophyll a, nutrients etc.

4th tier:
Instrument arrays are maintained by NDBC (1 site on Dauphin Island), DISL/Mobile Bay NEP (3 sites in Mobile Bay, 1 in Perdido Bay is pending), USGS/ADCNR (1 site in Wolf Creek) and the Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (4 sites in Weeks Bay). Data vary by site but include hourly meteorology and hydrography (temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen). High fouling rate in Mobile Bay and Weeks Bay limits potential application of optical sensors because of the need for daily or near-daily cleaning.

Comments:

1. What agencies are providing funding?
1. NOAA, EPA, Congressional set aside money for the state or University of Alabama.
2. Upkeep on moorings is done but sensors really need to be cleaned daily and that is not realistic.
3. They collect grab samples on monthly basis

Mississippi

Henry Folmar, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)

Mississippi has officially had only one documented HABs incident, a Karenia brevis bloom which occurred in 1996. Undoubtedly there have been other cases, and there is ample anecdotal evidence of other occurrences. However, this low incidence is largely a function of limited HABs monitoring and reporting systems.

In March 2007, the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (MDMR) initiated a Marine Biotoxin Contingency Plan for all marine and estuarine shellfish growing areas. Under this plan, discrete samples are collected and sent to the Alabama Department of Public Health for identification of potentially harmful phytoplankton species. Additionally MDMR conducts routine monitoring of water and shellfish meats according to National Shellfish Sanitation Program Guidelines.

MDEQ, in collaboration with Dr. Cyndi Moncrief, participated in an EPA funded Pfiesteria/HABs monitoring project in 2003 which included phytoplankton sampling at 20 nearshore etuarine sites, MDEQ also conducts ambient water quality monitoring of its coastal waters and routine bacteria and nutrient monitoring of its swimming beaches. These programs provide useful water quality data and accomplish federal mandates, and the data can be used to supplement a HABs monitoring program.

In addition to these routine monitoring programs, a number of Mississippi researchers are involved in HABs related work.

A description of the Mississippi research efforts is provided on the GCOOS website at http://ocean.tamu.edu/GCOOS/Office/documents/HABs/MS_HAB_efforts.pdf.

Louisiana

Thomas M. Soniat, Department of Biological Sciences, Nicholls State University

Karenia brevis blooms in Louisiana are rare. In 1996 a red tide developed east of the Mississippi River; no such events have re-occurred. In Louisiana other HABs are of greater concern. Pseudo-nitzschia is an emerging threat, and blooms of the cyanobacteria Anabaena, Microcystis and Cylindospermopsis are relatively common in the low-salinity waters of Lake Pontchartrain and the upper Barataria Basin. Louisiana's HAB challenges are thus more similar to those of Alabama and Mississippi that to those of Florida and Texas.

HAB capabilities in Louisiana are found in state agencies and universities. They include the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (LDHH), the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), Louisiana State University (LSU), Nicholls State University (NSU), and the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium (LUMCON).

The LDHH is the lead State agency for monitoring HABs and assuring the microbiological safety of shellfish-growing waters. Anthony Roussell directs the Molluscan Shellfish Program which monitors K. brevis according to Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference guidelines. Sampling occurs in all major estuaries, with a particular emphasis on sampling in areas east of the Mississippi River. The agency has a laboratory for the identification and enumeration of K. brevis only. The LDHH also conducts a beach monitoring program.

The LDWF manages the oyster fishery. It conducts extensive fisheries-independent sampling and alerts the LDDH to HAB events.

Sibel Bargu, a phytoplankton ecologist at LSU, monitors Pseudo-nitzschia and other HAB species in coastal waters, and conducts experimental studies on nutrient variation and its impact on Pseudo-nitzschia and cyanobacterial toxicity. The LSU Coastal Studies Institute maintains five coastal monitoring stations.

Tom Soniat at NSU and Sammy Ray of Texas A&M University at Galveston direct Oyster Sentinel (www.oystersentinel.org). Oyster Sentinel is a gulf-wide program which uses the eastern oyster as a monitor of estuarine health.

Phytoplankton studies have been conducted by Quay Dortch and Nancy Rabalais since 1989. LUMCON scientists sample phytoplankton from the Mississippi River to Texas, from near shore up to 100 km offshore. Monthly samples are taken off Terrebonne Bay, within the Barataria Basin, and within Lake Pontchartrain. Bimonthly samples are collected off Atchafalaya Bay, summer sampling occurs across the shelf, and selected samples are taken from the Mississippi River at Baton Rouge. The Phytoplankton Group has a taxonomic expertise in all HAB species and provides taxonomic assistance to the LDHH. LUMCON scientists are completing a taxonomic compendium of phytoplankton with Gulf of Mexico Program funding. LUMCON has capabilities in pigment analysis using HPLC, including pigments specific to toxic cyanobacteria. LUMCON deploys two to three sondes in the upper Barataria Basin and, in conjunction with LSU, maintains two instrumented real-time stations offshore from Terrebonne Bay and Caminada Pass. The Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium serves as a focal point for inter-agency and inter-university cooperation concerning HABs in Louisiana.

Participant Comments:

1. Funding is from research grants; there is no long term commitment for funding
2. What do you measure with your sentinel site? (Note: measurements would be environmental and the sites are oyster sites)
1. Salinity
2. Water temperature

Texas

Meridith Byrd, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Karenia brevis is the major concern in Texas; there are other blooms but none cause as much problem as K. brevis. Monitoring is done for fishery impacts, health concerns, such as the opening/closing of shellfish beds, as well as to give the public an idea of which areas of the coast are being affected and which are free of red tide. During blooms TPWD conducts daily conference calls with other agencies and universities to coordinate monitoring in order to avoid duplication of efforts, i.e.- if another agency is collecting water samples in one area, TPWD will collect samples elsewhere. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) works closely with the Texas Department of State Health Services as well as Texas Cooperative Extension, the University of Texas and Texas A&M University. There is an interagency HAB working group that is very active and effective; their goals include facilitating research, response, early detection, and outreach.

Participant Comments:

1. Aerial overflight, the aircraft is owned by the Law Enforcement division of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, we also work with Coast Guard Auxiliary when our Law Enforcement planes are not available.
2. Overflights allow us to get visuals of the bloom along the shore; ver limited
3. Where are your blooms coming from?
1. AL, LA, MI all said theirs are coming from the east. It is likely that Texas blooms come from the east as well.

Lisa Campbell, Professor, Department of Oceanography Texas A&M University delivered a presentation (Exhibit K).

Dr. Campbell is testing an imaging and automated classification system to provide continuous monitoring for HAB detection and enumeration. This instrument, the Imaging FlowCytobot, is designed to look at individual cells, mainly phytoplankton, in the size range 10 to 100 µm. A red diode laser is used to measure the light scattering and chlorophyll fluorescence of each particle that passes through a flow cell, and to trigger a flashlamp and a CCD camera to record the image of each particle. Currently, the instrument is deployed on the pier at the University of Texas- Marine Science Institute in Port Aransas, TX. This work is funded by a research grant from the Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology (CICEET).

Participants Comments:

1. The system is triggered by chlorophyll signals, so that only live phytoplankton are counted.
2. Currently it requires cabled power; we are working to reduce the amount of power needed so it can be operated autonomously on a buoy.

Dr. Norman Guinasso talked about a Texas Automated Buoy System (Exhibit L). The work is done for the State of Texas General Land Office. Their principal mandate is to obtain surface currents for use in oil spill mitigation.

Participant Comments:

1. The ability to forecast trajectories of the blooms is being done in some states; this should be commonly done.
2. Are you still making photos of K or other HABs? (Question from Mexico)
1. Yes, this is being done by the new equipment that Lisa Campbell talked about in her presentation.

Public Health Perspectives

Lora Fleming, Ph.D., University of Miami, delivered a presentation on the public health community's perspectives on this HAB effort and what the public health community felt was important to include in the Plan. (Exhibit M)

Participant Comments:

1. There is no "traditional" approach to IOOS
2. This is within the 7 societal goasl we have
3. We just need initially to use the physical data available
4. We need the public health folks to write this part of the Plan
5. Ultimate goal of IOOS is to produce something that is useful to non-science users
6. Red tide may have more permanent type damange than just temporary discomfort
7. Asthmatics are significantly impacted
8. Let's not use track of environmental health

At this point in the meeting, the group took a short break.

NOAA HABs Forecasting System

Rick Stumpf, NOAA, delivered a presentation on NOAA's HABs Forecasting System. (Exhibit N)

Dr. Stumpf explained that the key goal of the system is forecasting. It is institutionally supported, produced regularly, very highly organized, reliable and held to strict standards of accountability.

Participant comments:

1. From a manager's standpoint the analysis part is really important. The graphics and visual portion of the system serve to inform the next level up (the manager's bosses).
2. Can you try something like FLH (Fluorescent Line Height) rather than using chlorophyll indicators?
1. The Forecasts are evaluated for skill (accuracy), however the skill is dependent on the resolution of the forecasts/models and the validation data. Currently the low resolution (county level) leads to high accuracy. HABs other than Karenia will require a variety of data to identify, which depends on which state.
   1. The entire Florida coast
3. It's good to have a clustering of models for prediction (like what is used for hurricanes). Ensemble of HAB field uncertainties and different models and model uncertainties.
4. Are there available opportunities to catch airborne capabilities?
1. We need airborne for the resolution. Satellite cannot currently resolve within 1 mile of the shore, we have to infer conditions. Bays are problematic because of the optical complexity and size. "Optical complexity" means many components influence water color, so that more bands must be measured.

Introduction to the Draft Observing System Plan

Worth Nowlin reported on the events that led up to this Workshop. He explained the process used to develop the current iteration of the Plan. Versions one and two focused only on mission statement, terms of reference for the plan and goals and objectives because it was thought very important to get those correct before proceeding. Version three then added a tentative outline of the document to solicit comments on the overall structure of the plan before filling in that structure. He noted that reviewers comments had been very helpful in improving the draft document and mentioned the special assistance received from Geoff Scott and co-workers, Rost Parsons, Tom Malone, and Rick Stumpf.

Tom Malone noted that the rankings given during the evaluation of the third version indicate that the document actually has a great deal of acceptance. However, each new iteration adds details which may change the acceptance level. He directed participants to their packets which contained a full copy of the 4th iteration.

Participants were asked to read the 4th iteration overnight and be prepared to rank the document the next day.

Adjourn for the Day

The meeting was adjourned for the day.

---

Harmful Algal Bloom Integrated Observing System for the Gulf of Mexico
Background Information	Workshop Proceedings	Next Steps	Documents/White Papers	Web Links