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 THREE: November 16, 2007
Overview of Progress Made
Worth Nowlin introduced Dr. Bryon Griffith, Director of the EPA Gulf of Mexico Program, who had joined the meeting that morning. Dr. Nowlin went through a description of the last two days' process and progress. The Facilitator explained the ranking process and discussion to Dr. Griffith.
Breakout Group Reports and Plenary Discussion
Each small group reported on their work from the previous day and the members of the workshop who were not in that group were encouraged to make comments.
Health Group
Lora Fleming was the Reporter for the group. Dr. Fleming explained that their comments incorporated public health and living marine resources into the document. Some of the items they suggested were terminology, data bases, and other suggestions. Assignments for appendix materials were made within the group and those individuals will be submitting them. For the specifics, see Exhibit S.
Participant comments
- Did you have anything on exchange of information on health?
- Yes, each state may have an infectious disease database, we want to identify those databases to be included as an identified group.
- Mexico: the reports are more global but will try to get the information to this effort.
- If we assigned people to do stuff do we wait for the next iteration?
- No, go ahead and start.
- All the reviewers will be sent all this information (not at this workshop); so everyone will see it and may provide information.
Modeling
This group had the following members: Charles Kovach, Rick Stumpf, Steve Lohrenz, Gary Kirkpatrick, Mark Fisher, Kris Pintado, Lisa Campbell, Sherryl Gilbert.
Lisa Campbell reported for the group. Dr. Campbell explained that they revised the text throughout. Section 8.3, in their view, did not present a very thorough approach; they changed it to something more appropriate. In Section 5.1.2.5, modeling in all cases should coordinate with the monitoring scheme. In Section 5.4, they reorganized it to a more logical order. They also added a new section to include validated models. They suggested the re-evaluation and assessment of models on a regular basis. The group felt that Section 8 was just a laundry list and it needs to be either eliminated or revised; maybe make into an appendix. Details of this group can be found in Exhibit P.
Rick Stumpf will be re-writing the document to incorporate this group's suggestions.
Section 8 revision was then discussed and consensus sought on the decision. The questions asked included: How to prioritize if we do have a list? Do we just reference research activities by other entities? Do we just do an appendix and eliminate Section 8?
Participant Discussion
- Maybe add a section in the beginning that identifies the data gaps and research reports.
- Annual identification and valication of research models is being suggested in our version.
- For health those lists may exist; for modeling it is only a wish list; not until we have done things for a year or so should we be evaluating.
- In public health you may be head of the other sections (modeling, monitoring, etc.).
- We should not be setting up wish lists in this document.
- In the sections where appropriate, priorities could be suggested
if application in specific areas
- Monitoring
- Modeling
- Health
- Data management (information delivery)
- HARRNESS (Harmful Algal Research and Response, National Environmental Science Strategy) does this.
- Annual review of capabilities should feedback to the other groups as well.
- There may be difficulty in each section in determining the research needs if you don't use a wish list.
- Use a "case study" that uses a model that has both human health and other items in it.
- Feedback loop is very important to identify new and refined priorities; we should have a continual refinement of the document.
- This will be a living document; maybe annual review for priorities
- One suggestion is that each section be limited in the number of priorities they can name each year.
- We need to be specific about time frames; look at least a 5 year list.
Decision regarding overall document next iteration:
Within each section the essential research endeavors
that can be done now should be identified, there should be no "wish list"
in the document. But in the document there should be a list of ranked priorities
from other groups.
| 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 8 | 14 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
Information Delivery
Barbara Kirkpatrick reported for the group. There is a critical gap of identification of stakeholders and users in the document. The key to end users is knowing what they need from the system and in what format. Each community of end users may need to determine how they get the information. Contained in the document they revised, Exhibit R is an information delivery flow diagram. Information data exchange is the first stage of information; we need to find out what each component already has to determine what else we need from each other.
There were no additional comments from the participants.
Monitoring
Nancy Rabalais reported for the group. She indicated there were many notes that were inserted into the document (details in Exhibit Q). There is a need for introductory paragraph. The section on monitoring was revised by the group and divided into tools, in situ observation and monitoring design as a better flow. The revisions they made reflected the idea that the document is HAB generic rather than K specific and they tried to incorporate the Mexican states as well. Furthermore, the group felt that the monitoring design was the least developed portion of the document. Some general ideas they suggest:
- Define what is a HAB?
- In the appendix, include a matrix of HABs throughout Gulf of what has been reported.
- Need to include upper estuaries and other waters than just the lower estuaries which seem to be the current focus of the document.
- Training workshops would be important.
- Put price tags on some of the items in the document.
- Remote sensing from remotely access platforms but also satellite.
- Include volunteer networks pros and cons.
Participant comments
- In human health group we identified training needs too.
- Did you make a recommendation on who would provide the matrix in
the appendix (put it together)
- Karen Steidinger
- Include Mexican states
- Cindy Heil will provide first cut to Worth
- In monitoring we talked about the need for specific instrumentation
- Adaptive observation was not covered by this group; there is a small group that would work on this; already incorporated into the health section.
- Re: monitoring, we talked about what the instruments detect; HAB specific and identifying the gaps and how to bridge the gap if they are only K specific.
- Some in the groups are not experts in that group; so when you assign re-writing be careful to get the appropriate folks to do that.
- Who is the first audience for this document?
- Those who will use and provide the information.
- If that is true, then make sure you don't lose the appendices, put case studies in little boxes; design piece can be important.
At the conclusion of the small group reports and discussion, Dr. Brian Griffith, EPA, addressed the group. Dr. Griffith is one of the Federal co-chairs of the Gulf States Governor's Alliance. He noted that the Alliance may be this efforts most important audience to move your ideas forward. The Plan the Alliance initiated for itself was a 36 month plan; this runs out very fast so a new Plan is being developed. The Alliance draft second generation Plan is due in June/July 2008. It currently has the consensus adoption of the 5 Gulf Governors, it has extraordinary support right now. The next Alliance Plan will have a 5 year term. There will be much interest to gain the attention of limited money for this effort.
Dr. Griffith stated: "Here is the message: Five years out why would it be important to the five Gulf Governor's to look at HABs, what purpose, why do it, and how does it translate into something that resonates for them. You need to get down to a list of priorities that you would take to a funding institution for federal, state, local levels."
Dr. Griffith told participants that they need to pitch to the Alliance; they are this group's most important audience. Dr. Griffith said he needs a different type of document package and he needs it soon. This endeavor has a level of excitement and draw that is going to help every sector in this room. The level of attention that has been given to the writing of this document will need an annual re-prioritization in order to make an RFP process possible.
Participant Comments
- Existing plan has 12 specifics on HABs; what is the timeline to get
this second generation Plan information from us.
- The current Plan goes to March 2009.
- Optimum would be an expression of what should go into a 5-year Plan by this Spring, 2008.
- Want to hand this into the new administratin that would be coming in in 2009.
- In terms of creating the business message, should we include specifics
of each agency?
- You want to get to the end where you want to reach in 5 years; look at the whole, not the specific entities
- You need to be looking collaboratively.
- There are a ton of research plans and research priorities out there and they are not communicating; there is a commitment on the part of the Alliance to do a list of regional research priorities.
Obtain Volunteers for Cost Estimates and for any additional re-writing
Dr. Nowlin announced that volunteers were needed to help re-write the next iteration of the Plan. Lorraine Backer, Teri Rowles, NOAA Marine Mammal Strandings, and Porter Hoagland, Woods Hole were suggested.
Dr. Nowlin then proposed timelines for Next Steps:
November 21, 2007 – Notes from Workshop circulated to participants (Fleischer will supply and get corrections/comments from all presentors/reporters).
November 27, 2007 – Comments from workshop participants on Workshop notes are due. [Send to Fleischer at janice@flashresolutions.com]
December 2, 2007 – Assignments and comments on the draft Plan agreed to by participants at the workshop are due. [Send to Susan Martin srmartin@tamu.edu]
December 8, 2007 – A final version of Workshop notes will be distributed. [Post to gcoos.org and alert GCOOS listserve, send to draft Plan reviewers, to EPA Gulf of Mexico Program, to Gulf of Mexico Alliance, and to Mexican colleagues.]
January 4, 2008 – Version 5 of HABIOS Plan completed; formatted version sent to all plan reviewers.
January 20, 2008 – Reviewers' comments on version 5 are due. [Send to Susan Martin srmartin@tamu.edu]
February 2008 – Gulf of Mexico HABIOS Plan I released and distributed broadly. [Post to gcoos.org and alert GCOOS listserve, send to the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, the EPA Gulf of Mexico Program, and to Mexican colleagues, send to the NFRA for distribution to other RAs, send to Ocean.US, to NOAA's IOOS Office, and to GCOOS listserve]
March 2008 – Formation of continuing oversight group for the Gulf HABIOS. Possible decisions on membership and governance.
March/April 2008 – Decisions made regarding special versions of the Plan that will be needed. [For outreach, for advocacy, in Spanish, other] Outreach for serveral audiences.
April 2008 – First cost estimates completed.
Dr. Nowlin led a discussion on writing assignments and other follow up responsibilities:
- Representatives from U.S. states to update what is currently done. Worth made note of all state reps who will update their state reports.
- Florida: Cindy Heil or David Heil
- Should we prepare a template? Who would develop a template?
- Alan Lewitus and Lorraine Backer will contribute the human and animal health information to put together a template.
- Steve Lohrenz and Rick Stumpf will work on writing for monitoring and modeling.
- Lorraine Backer will be leader to go back to the human health group if more re-writing is necessary.
- Barbara Kirkpatrick will be the lead for Information Delivery (include education and outreach).
- Nancy Rabalais and Alan Lewitus will work on getting additional input.
- Gary Kirkpatrick and Lisa Campbell will assist and wnat to see it before attached to Report of Proceedings.
- Volunteers to look at the remote sensing part of the plan – Steve Lohrenz and Rick Stumpf.
- Section 5.3 Adaptive Sampling: Gary Kirkpatrick and Cindy Heil
Participant Comments
- Be careful in your cost estimates; avoid sticker shock; break it down into projects that get done and show the breakout of how to spend over the next 5 years.
- Break it down into component parts and assign the approximate funds needed for that
- Do you cost by specific site or some other method?
- Example: platform/buoy sites - do we price this one at a time?
- Need to think about leveraging costs.
- The group should be in consensus about what needs to go first, second, etc. That should get this group funds much quicker.
- Should we get back together to prioritize after the cost estimates
are in?
- You need a marketing plan too to appeal to the funding players.
- Break into digestible pieces.
- If we look at 5 year timeline we need to look at priorities from
a scientific point of view as well as operational priorities.
- I think the users should decide the priorities
Evaluation Form/Adjourn
The Facilitator asked participants to complete their survey form and the meeting was adjourned.
| Harmful Algal Bloom Integrated Observing System for the Gulf of Mexico | ||||
| Background Information | Workshop Proceedings | Next Steps | Documents/White Papers | Web Links |