A Harmful Algal Bloom Integrated Observing System for the Gulf of Mexico

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

 

DAY TWO: November 15, 2007
 

Review Agenda/Announcements

Ms. Fleischer, Facilitator, reviewed the Agenda for the next two days which had been slightly revised overnight. (Exhibit O) The revision was made to adjust the work of the workshop in response to participants' comments during the previous day. It became apparent during the previous days' discussion that it would be premature to attempt to prioritize elements of the Plan at this stage. Thus the prioritization of the original workshop objectives was eliminated from the new Agenda. The conveners felt that additional time spent on gaining comments from the stakeholders on the Plan to add language and concepts from their specific focus was more important at this time.

Ranking of Document, Breakout Group Designations/Plenary Discussion

The Facilitator explained the next exercise. Participants would rank each portion of the 4th Version of the Plan with no discussion. If any participants ranked a portion a "1" or a "2", their names would be recorded and at the conclusion of the ranking exercise, the Facilitator would go back to those sections in which there were "1s" or "2s" and take their comments on what concerns they had.

When the rankings were complete and prior to beginning the discussion on individual sections of the Plan for which consensus had not been achieved, a member of the group asked for clarification as to the purpose of the Plan. It was asked whether the Plan would be focused on harmful algal blooms in general or specifically to Karenia brevis (red tide). The questioner explained that the answer to this question might influence how the participants would revise and improve the current draft.

The following concept was suggested and tested for consensus:

The document is HAB general with specific examples for Karenia brevis (K) as well as other species that might be relevant, acknowledging that K is the most prevalent HAB and there will be an emphasis on K for that reason. Be clear when you are talking about specifics and when we are making a more general case regarding HABs.

5 4 3 2 1
18 11 3 0 0
Consensus achieved

Steve Lohrenz and Rick Stumpf will write the portion of the Plan regarding the specifics vs. the general.

What follows is the result of the ranking of the document and the commentary that followed:

Ranking of Overall document:
5 4 3 2 1
3 17 6 4 0

2s: Lorraine Backer, Lora Fleming, Lisa Campbell, Cindy Heil

  1. Lorraine:
    1. Very environmental centric; needs a human health data needs component
    2. Say we need human risk assessmen and separate category for animal health
  2. Lora:
    1. Agree with Lorraine
    2. How do you communicate to end user
    3. How to evaluate if end product is useful
  3. Lisa:
    1. Is this HAB general or K specific? DECISION
    2. Very different from version 3; text not as understandable
  4. Cindy:
    1. HAB in general or K NEED DECISION
    2. Each state needs to be tapped into to acknowledge state specific problems
    3. That is another resource
    4. Concern about technology; acknowledge the variety of technologies
      1. May have different management needs
    5. Setting up volunteer network; two systems
      1. How it is done; there are two strategies; different sampling area, different efforts
      2. Can we use new techniques; discussion of two sampling strategies
Vision Statement
5 4 3 2 1
18 12 2 2 0

2s: Jeanne Allen, Mark Fisher

  1. Jeanne:
    1. As we develop plan don't forget Mexican colleagues; try to include them as much as possible
    2. Extend plan into the southern Gulf of Mexico
  2. Mark Fisher:
    1. Line 17, page 2, line 37
      1. Why it stands out mitigation of socio impact; it should be mitigation of all impacts
Terms of Reference
5 4 3 2 1
9 22 2 0 0
Consensus achieved
 
G and O introductory paragraph
5 4 3 2 1
7 17 8 2 0

2s: Lora Fleming, Lorraine Backer

  1. Lora:
    1. Nothing about communication to end user
  2. Lorraine:
    1. Same concern as Lora
    2. Page 3, Line 79, no mention of improving human health data or enhancing human health data
  3. Cindy:
    1. How would we address critical gaps?
Objective 1
5 4 3 2 1
10 19 2 2 0

2s: Lisa Campbell, Cindy Heil

  1. Lisa:
    1. Terminology "HAB" hotspots; we may not really know that
  2. Cindy:
    1. Agree with Lisa on hotspots
    2. What are the unknown HABs not just the known HABs; unknown HAB issue
  3. Sibel:
    1. Initiation locations may not match with the places that are mentioned in the document
    2. We need to think of "initiation" in hotspots
Objective 2
5 4 3 2 1
13 13 4 3 0

2s: Mark Fisher, Lisa Campbell, Rebecca Love

  1. Mark:
    1. Concern on term "relevant" could strike it
  2. Lisa:
    1. Need to have human health separate not "lumped" in with all others
  3. Rebecca:
    1. How do we determine critical gaps; user assessment, relevant data
Objective 3
5 4 3 2 1
14 10 7 2 0

2s: Lorraine Backer, Alan Lewitus

  1. Alan Lewitus:
    1. What does data include specifically; specify what that means ("all data" in document).
    2. Pathologies, which ones are measured
  2. Lorraine:
    1. In truth general access to human health data is not going to happen, but provide for timely exchange with systems collecting human health information
Objective 4
5 4 3 2 1
12 14 4 2 0

2s: Lisa Campbell, Cindy Heil

  1. Cindy and Lisa:
    1. Clarify whether it is toxicity or toxins itself and use correct term consistently in the final document
    2. Whether human illness and animal pathologies can be measured in real time; may be as simple as tracking mortalities
    3. Real time may be the real issue in the whole statement.
Objective 5
5 4 3 2 1
26 6 1 0 0
Consensus achieved
 
Objective 6
5 4 3 2 1
17 14 2 0 0
Consensus achieved
 
Objective 7
5 4 3 2 1
3 14 10 7 1

2s: Lorraine Backer, Barbara Kirkpatrick, Meridith Byrd, Leigh Zimmerman, David Heil, John Paul, Rebecca Love

  1. Lorraine, Barb, Meridith, Leigh, Lora (was a "1"), Rebecca
    1. Break into 3 components
      1. ID human health risks from HAB events
      2. ID animal health risks from HAB events
      3. ID environmental condition epistudies would take into account as possible risk factors for exposure/development of disease
  2. John Paul
    1. Linking changes in environment HAB events vs epidemiology, linkage to environmental changes that might be influencing HAB events
  3. David
    1. Lorraine's 3rd point above

1s: Lora, captured above

Objective 8
5 4 3 2 1
15 14 3 2 0

2s: Lisa Campbell, Cindy Heil

  1. Lisa
    1. The document reads very much as a Karenia brevis specific focus; I believe the intent is it should focus on HABs in general
  2. Cindy
    1. Need phrasing "identify areas of research", identify which areas as well as who is running the system.
O1 Activities
5 4 3 2 1
9 16 10 0 0
Consensus achieved
 
O2 Activities
5 4 3 2 1
9 19 7 0 0
Consensus achieved
 
O3 Activities
5 4 3 2 1
14 14 3 3 0

2s: Lorraine Backer, Rost Parsons, Gary Kirkpatrick

  1. Lorraine:
    1. Human health data limited access but there wont be storage; need communication across the system we need to acknowledge
    2. Need to build a system that takes into account the privacy issues (human health)
  2. Rost:
    1. Page 5, line 163, 166, separate "access" and "archive"; plan should not get into archive, focus on access
  3. Gary
    1. Problem with issue of restricted data (public health crowd)
    2. IOOS is a publicly funded observing system; then is there a conflict with IOOS collecting priviledged information?
      1. Answer:
        1. May depend on level of detail, if you don't identify individual the data can be used
        2. IOOS is a movement; not a system itself; IOOS itself will not create an archive; it will just record what is there
        3. The DMAC system calls for some data that is secure
        4. Are we only dealing with non-restrictive human data
          1. We may need to tier it
O4 Activities
5 4 3 2 1
6 16 10 0 0
Consensus achieved
 
O5 Activities
5 4 3 2 1
10 11 5 5 0

2s: Lorraine Backer, Leigh Zimmerman, Mark Fisher, Barbara Kirkpatrick, Lora Fleming

  1. Leigh
    1. #2 bullet, developing outreach material, "use" of the product, what is important that public know how to "use" the products
  2. Lorraine
    1. Develop outreach materials; archive for educational and outreach materials
  3. Mark
    1. On the first bullet "IOOS DMAC" look at page 6, line 185 needs to be reconciled with page 17, line 605 (6.1 bring this into this item) what is DMAC that will control the consistency standard
    2. Provide specificity on the information line 184
  4. Lora, Barbara
    1. Nothing to add.
O6 Activities
5 4 3 2 1
10 17 4 3 0

2s: Lisa Campbell, Cindy Heil, Mark Fisher

  1. Cindy, Lisa
    1. #2 what does "monitored by users" mean
    2. Statements need to be more specific on identifying user groups
  2. Mark
    1. "measure" performance metrics not "implement"
O7 Activities
5 4 3 2 1
2 17 8 6 2

2s: Rebecca Love, Meridith Byrd, Barbara Kirkpatrick, Lisa Campbell, Cindy Heil, Leigh Zimmerman

  1. Rebecca, Meridith, Barbara, Lisa, Cindy, Leigh
    1. Take out #1, confusing add ID human and animal health data systems and support HAB related surveillance systems

1s: Lorraine Backer, Lora Fleming

  1. Lorraine
    1. Long list of items for small group discussion
  2. Lora
    1. HAB related "disease" surveillance systems
O7 Activities Commentary
5 4 3 2 1
         
No ranking done
 
O8 Activities
5 4 3 2 1
9 19 7 0 0
Consensus achieved
 
Section 5 Intro
5 4 3 2 1
6 14 11 1 0

2s: Norman Guinasso

  1. Norman
    1. Introduction too terse and you hate sentences that start with "It".
5.1.1.1
5 4 3 2 1
3 12 12 5 0

2s: Mark Fisher, Rick Stumpf, Lisa Campbell, Cindy Heil, Ivonne Vomend

  1. Mark
    1. Line 250, re. human health may not be true for Texas, flat this
  2. Rick
    1. Items 1 and 2 say "agree on" we need provisions to say "how" this agreement will happen
  3. Lisa
    1. Nothing.
  4. Cindy
    1. Agree with Rick
    2. true monitoring vs. event response; which is really being done; not addressed in this document and needs to be considered
    3. statistical basis for the monitoring needs to be considered
  5. Ivonne
    1. line 248 can be modified from "coastal states of the US and Mexico"
    2. We have 5 states in part of Mexico, in 4 of those states we have red tide events that are registered
5.1.1.2
5 4 3 2 1
6 14 11 1 0

2s: Lora Fleming, Lorraine Backer, Barbara Kirkpatrick, Lisa Campbell, Cindy Heil, Alan Lewitus, John Paul, Hugh MacIntyre

  1. Lora
    1. Lack of mention of collection of other types of networks for volunteer networks for collection of human and animal data such as beach conditiona report and marine mammal strandings.
  2. Lorraine
    1. Each state may not make regular observations of illnesses
    2. Change to an objective now only a list
  3. Barbara
    1. Combination of background information; need to change to ojectives
  4. Lisa
    1. Not a statement of implementation; no QA/QC
  5. Cindy
    1. Different types of volunteer networks; what are regulatory circumstancs; in what do we use them
  6. Alan, John
    1. States have different volunteer networks; some more hands on than others; great outreach tool and emphasize that this will not be a quantitative tool unless there is significant devotion of professionals in hands on to the volunteers
  7. Hugh
    1. Methods don't give you quantitative counts, volunteers not sufficiently trained
    2. Keeping this going on a long-term basis you need other than volunteer
    3. Excellent outreach tool, but not long-term quantitative tool
Table 5.1.1.2-1
5 4 3 2 1
         
Not complete; Not ranking (Tom Malone has comment)
  1. Tom Malone
    1. We are not a phytoplankton monitoring system, so take it out of that table
    2. Maybe what we want is a table of volunteer monitoring systems (take out "planton" in the title)
5.1.1.3
5 4 3 2 1
1 16 9 8 0

2s: Meridith Byrd, Rebecca Love, Lora Fleming, Barbara Kirkpatrick, Norman Guinasso, Hugh MacIntyre, Lorraine Backer, Alan Lewitus

  1. Meridith
    1. Collect data that is "useful to state monitoring"
  2. Rebecca, Lora, Barbara, Norman, Hugh
    1. Nice to have standard protocols but could be very confining; maybe remove this section
    2. Why were private research entities taken out of this
    3. HAB IOOS could come up with other language
    4. This section is redundant
  3. Lorraine
    1. Set up standards and require that folks who get federal grants include that they be required to provide the data.
  4. Alan
    1. Agreed with shaded comment that we should have a list
    2. If most of these are grant cycle driven they are too ephemeral for long-term planning
5.1.2 Intro
5 4 3 2 1
10 18 5 0 0
Consensus achieved
 
5.1.2.1
5 4 3 2 1
6 14 10 3 0

2s: Rick Stumpf, Cindy Heil, Alan Lewitus

  1. Rick, Cindy
    1. Line 343 that paragraph is not about what can be measured it is about what research can happen, need to be moved to a research objective
    2. Detect concentrations of HAB species
    3. Line 339, in addition being deployed not just tested
  2. Alan
    1. Under environmental parameters add (get a list from Alan Lewitus)
5.1.2.2
5 4 3 2 1
0 21 8 4 0

2s: Lisa Campbell, Cindy Heil, Mark Fisher, Norman Guinasso

  1. Lisa
    1. K and Florida centric
  2. Cindy
    1. Need validity in site selection
  3. Mark, Norman
    1. Why were first two sentences added? why cost prohibited in there?
  4. Norman
    1. Identify resources that exist and that can be augmented to identify HAB events
      1. Instrumentation, example
5.1.2.3
5 4 3 2 1
2 14 9 9 0

2s: Gary Kirkpatrick, Norman Guinasso, Rick Stumpf, Jeanne Allen, Ivonne Vomend, Cindy Heil, Lisa Campbell, Leslie Hartman, Hugh MacIntyre

  1. Gary
    1. This section was very Mote-centric; we need to expand this
    2. Should be based on who is using the data and done in concert
  2. Norman
    1. Agree with Gary, too specific to FL, get other states to add
    2. Add sensors to platforms in estuaries and off shore
  3. Rick
    1. Some statement of how plan will be done
    2. Line 380 "answer" to question needs to be done by those who use the data
  4. Jeanne, Ivonne
    1. Agree with Norman about different states including the Mexican states, they are just beginning to expand
  5. Lisa, Cindy
    1. There is more to the Gulf of Mexico than the coast of Florida
  6. Leslie
    1. From a manager's point of view, add a table to say state name, what equipment on a wish list, with estimated cost of equipment.
5.1.2.4
5 4 3 2 1
2 13 13 5 1

2s: Norman Guinasso, Lisa Campbell, Cindy Heil, Steve Lohrenz, Alan Lewitus

  1. Norman
    1. Needs to be beyond Florida; other states and add other equipment and how used
  2. Lisa, Cindy
    1. What about the rest of the Gulf areas?
    2. Equipment in various states of platform readiness, need to mention them and the stage they are in, when might be ready
  3. Steve. Alan
    1. Agree with other comments
    2. Stations will not all be measuring the same thing; this needs to be specified

1s: Gary Kirkpatrick

  1. Gary
    1. I wrote this and was very Mote centric, change it to be more inclusive; avoid picking a specific technology or a specific name; state what you want done not which item does it.
5.1.2.5
5 4 3 2 1
2 19 8 4 0

2s: Gary Kirkpatrick, Norman Guinasso, Steve Lohrenz, Lorraine Backer

  1. Gary, Norman
    1. Not complete, need expansion
  2. Steve
    1. Too vague and cryptic
  3. Lorraine
    1. Need to recognize the customer needs to be involved at the beginning of the process
5.1.2.6
5 4 3 2 1
3 10 12 6 0

2s: Lora Fleming, Cindy Heil, Gary Kirkpatrick, Steve Lohrenz, Norman Guinasso, Lisa Campbell

  1. Lora, Cindy, Gary, Steve, Norman
    1. Put this section as a good example, i.e., don't lose the specifics in this section, but don't have the specifics to appear in the section
    2. Use as a case study
    3. Keep the item in the Plan
  2. Lisa
    1. Nothing further
5.2
5 4 3 2 1
5 16 5 4 0

2s: Rick Stumpf, Steve Lohrenz, Rost Parsons, Mark Fisher

  1. Rick
    1. Needs to be re-written
    2. Some points need to be added; standards
    3. Needs discussion of aircraft; format, standards, quality control standards
  2. Steve
    1. Agree with Rick
    2. This only refers to Ocean color, the list is incomplete, more detail in a small group work
  3. Rost
    1. Tom's note on background paper; add in some of those items as requirements
  4. Mark
    1. Line 22, version 3; why was it omitted, specifically line 28 of that paragraph, it is an archive product; seamlessly combine with other geographic data, going for the GIS component
    2. It was an important tool and should not be eliminated

Do Not Know: 2

5.3
5 4 3 2 1
8 18 7 2 0

2s: Lora Fleming, Cindy Heil

  1. Lora
    1. Does adaptive observation refer to remote sensing; it should go to human, etc. look at numbering system
  2. Cindy
    1. Comments tied in with the table
    2. #1 is too general, forecast of bloom likely to occur, why does public need that? Maybe managers do need that
    3. What is realisitically possible?
Table 2
5 4 3 2 1
4 19 7 4 0

2s: Lora Fleming, Lorraine Backer, Lisa Campbell, Cindy Heil

  1. Lora
    1. A trigger can be human or animal based not only in the environment
  2. All: we should work on this in small group
5.4.1
5 4 3 2 1
14 15 3 2 0

2s: Mark Fisher, Eduardo Garcia

  1. Mark
    1. Mexican and other partners need to be integrated
  2. Eduardo
    1. All states in Mexico have red tide detection
    2. If positive test, they have responses in place now that include human health and sanitary and public health; societal impacts
    3. Mexico has multi layers in their response system
5.4.2
5 4 3 2 1
16 14 4 0 0
Consensus achieved
 
5.4.2.1
5 4 3 2 1
13 17 1 0 0
Consensus achieved
 
5.4.2.2
5 4 3 2 1
5 18 2 5 3

2s: Meredith Byrd, Rebecca Love, Lisa Campbell, Cindy Heil, Leigh Zimmerman

  1. Meredith, Rebecca, Lisa, Cindy, Leigh
    1. Confused whether "user" requirement or data provider requirement; the two sentences should be separated into separate bullets

1s: Lora Fleming, Barbara Kirkpatrick, Lorraine Backer

  1. Lora, Barbara, Lorraine
    1. Inventory observational requirements for human and animal health; some parallel requirements needed
5.4.2.3
5 4 3 2 1
9 18 6 0 0
Consensus achieved
 
5.4.2.4
5 4 3 2 1
9 15 3 4 1

2s: Rebecca Love, Meridith Byrd, Lora Fleming, Barbara Kirkpatrick

  1. All four: needs reworking in small groups
  2. I would be surprised if there is a model out there for data assimilation for human health
    1. But some models not currently used for this can be modified or new types of models

1s: Lorraine Backer

5.4.2.5
5 4 3 2 1
12 17 3 2 0

2s: Gary Kirkpatrick, Lisa Campbell

  1. Lisa
    1. Produce "reliable" predictions? Do we want to produce "unreliable" predictions, what are you really saying here?
  2. Gary
    1. Do we want to be system specific in this section?
5.4.2.6
5 4 3 2 1
12 18 4 0 0
Consensus achieved
 
5.4.2.7
5 4 3 2 1
12 17 1 0 0
Consensus achieved
 
5.4.2.8
5 4 3 2 1
6 19 6 2 0

2s: Norman Guinasso, Rick Stumpf

  1. Norman
    1. Acronyms need to be spelled out; like observing systems simulation experiment (OSSE) and a description of what it is
  2. Rick
    1. I don't think this belongs here; should be in 5.1.1.1 and 5.1.2.3 about developing sampling plans

Do Not Know: 1

5.5.1
5 4 3 2 1
9 19 5 0 0
Consensus achieved
 
5.5.2.1
5 4 3 2 1
8 17 4 3 0

2s: Lorraine Backer, Mark Fischer, Lora Fleming

  1. Lorraine
    1. Health data incorporation issue
  2. Mark
    1. Scaling issues, be consistent: Line 569, line 551
  3. Steve
    1. Km/day is not a rate, not a resolution; this needs to be fixed or explained
5.5.2.2
5 4 3 2 1
7 16 7 3 0

2s: Cindy Heil, Barbara Kirkpatrick, Lora Fleming

  1. Cindy
    1. Shellfish toxin levels, done by tissue samples
    2. What does this mean? It needs to be more clear.
    3. I wouldn't want the public knowing about mouse statistics.
  2. Barbara
    1. Add or expand human health data add ER data, clinic data for a later time, good validation tool
5.5.2.3
5 4 3 2 1
6 12 12 1 1

2s: Mark Fisher

  1. Mark
    1. Line 597, bloom indication models? Don't have requirements for research but rather have priorities

1s: Rick Stumpf

  1. Rick
    1. Add public health models into this section
    2. Line 596 should include Mexico
6.1
5 4 3 2 1
4 24 3 1 0

2s: Lorraine Backer

  1. Lorraine
    1. What is the GCOOS DMAC effort?
      1. Needs to be defined throughout the document
      2. DMAC = Data Management and Communications
      3. DMAC doesn't currently work on human health data
      4. Could be done in the future
6.2
5 4 3 2 1
         
Discuss as a whole without ranking; combo of objectives & questions
 
6.3
5 4 3 2 1
4 21 7 0 0
Consensus achieved

Do Not Know: 1

7.0
5 4 3 2 1
3 17 5 5 2

2s: Rebecca Love, Sibel Bargu Ates, Barbara Kirkpatrick, Cindy Heil, Leigh Zimmerman

1s: Lora Fleming, Lorraine Backer

  1. All of these individuals will work on re-writing this section

Do Not Know: 1

8.1
5 4 3 2 1
7 16 4 1 1

2s: Steve Lohrenz

  1. Steve
    1. Address the remote sensing adding additional measurements; currently incomplete

1s: Rick Stumpf

  1. Rick
    1. Missing other measurements and platforms

Do Not Know: 3

8.2
5 4 3 2 1
16 12 5 1 0

2s: Lorraine Backer

  1. Lorraine
    1. Needs inventory of what is currently available
    2. Field methods for rapid detection of toxins in biological samples
8.3
5 4 3 2 1
3 18 10 3 0

2s: Rick Stumpf, Cindy Heil, Hugh MacIntyre

  1. Rick, Cindy
    1. Desperately needs prioritization in this section
    2. Things that won't make any difference; others will make a huge difference
    3. We need a strategy for how to prioritize
    4. There are a variety of funded projects that already address these
  2. Hugh
    1. Concern is this a K model or a general HAB model
    2. If you use species model then you are ok if only HAB; some of the techniques would not work if a general HAB document
9.0
5 4 3 2 1
3 14 9 5 3

2s: Rebecca Love, Rick Stumpf, Gary Kirkpatrick, Leigh Zimmerman, Norman Guinasso

  1. Rebecca, Rick, Gary, Leigh, Norman
    1. Different ways needed to reach out to users than just the one example
    2. This example is just a case study
    3. Include general public in user groups
    4. How do numbered items related to the Roman numberal items? Organization needs clarifying (line 780)

1s: Lora Fleming, Barbara Kirkpatrick, Lorraine Backer

  1. Lora, Barbara, Lorraine
    1. See above, case study only
    2. One activity could be "identify users"
Appendices
5 4 3 2 1
         
No ranking
 

Small Group Exercise

Following the ranking and discussion, the participants broke into four (4) small groups to discuss the current iteration of the Plan from a specific focus area.  The four areas were:

  • Modeling
  • Information delivery
  • Health—public and animal
  • Monitoring

Each small group was given a computer with the current Plan and instructed to make changes to the document using "track changes" so the Conveners could follow the changes in order to incorporate them as much as possible into the next iteration of the Plan which will be forthcoming subsequent to this Workshop.

The work of the four groups is attached to this document as:

Groups worked together until the end of the day and were told to be ready to make a short report on the progress of their work the following morning.

Adjourn 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