Coastal Scientists and Managers in a Three-legged Race to Set Nutrient Criteria

William Nuttle, Organizer for CERF 2011 Synthesis Sessions
wnuttle@eco-hydrology.com

In the ideal partnership between coastal science and management, the job of scientists is to discover underlying causes and describe possible solutions to a problem, and the managers’ job is to implement the solution. This requires scientists and managers coordinate their actions, much like teammates in a three-legged race. So, if one partner makes a change in direction, then it’s bound affect the other’s game.

The US EPA is the lead management agency in the effort to combat the growing “dead zone” the northern Gulf of Mexico. Nutrients from farm fields in Midwestern states, carried into the Gulf by the Mississippi River, feed an annual algal bloom in near shore shelf waters. The death and decay of bloom organisms depletes oxygen in the stratified bottom waters over a very large area of the coast.

The solution to this all too familiar problem of coastal eutrophication is to reduce the amount of nutrients carried to the Gulf by the Mississippi. Managers rely on scientists to provide data and analyses needed to establish defensible nutrient concentration thresholds and loading rates that protect against the negative effects of eutrophication. The key to success is to be able to link the problems caused by excess nutrients in coastal waters directly to the various processes that introduce nutrients into the river up in the watershed.

Scientists and managers have already run this three-legged race in the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. At the end of last year, December 29, 2010, EPA established a “pollution diet” for the District of Columbia, and large sections of Delaware, Maryland, New York and Pennsylvania. These limits were established across the entire watershed of the bay, all at once, based on state-of-the-art modeling tools, extensive monitoring data, and peer-reviewed science.

However, EPA is taking a different direction in addressing the problem of coastal eutrophication in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Last month, July 2011, EPA reiterated its intent to follow a proposed Framework for State Nutrient Reductions in setting numeric nutrient criteria for the Mississippi River watershed. The proposed framework lays out a states-based approach, instead of the watershed-based approach used for the Chesapeake Bay. The first step is to establish, separately for each of the 31 states in Mississippi-Atchafalaya River Basin, priorities for nutrient reductions among hydrologic basins within the state.

What does the decision by EPA mean for the scientists who will be called on to provide the essential information needed to establish these criteria? How can water managers in Missouri factor in the impacts of eutrophication in coastal Louisiana when setting water quality criteria for rivers and streams in their state? What data will be required and what approach can be taken to perform such an analysis. Will water managers in Kansas use the same approach or a different one that they might prefer? Who can say?

These questions relate to Topic 3: Management applications and Topic 6: Management problems to be discussed during the Synthesis Sessions at CERF 2011.


Figure credit: http://www.georgekrevskygallery.com/dynamic/artwork_detail.asp?ArtworkID=651

PCAST Recommends National Ecosystem Assessments, Better Science

William Nuttle, Organizer for CERF 2011 Synthesis Sessions
wnuttle@eco-hydrology.com

In July, advisors to the President called for the US to begin tracking the state of its ecosystems and evaluating the economic benefits they provide. This report by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology recommends a quadrennial, across the board assessment of the state of US ecosystems and the services they provide.

Right now, the US federal government spends about $10 Billion per year on ecosystem restoration and preservation. This figure does not include investments made by state and local governments and by private groups. One of the concerns raised by the report is that data from government-supported environmental monitoring programs are not available to assess the efficacy of these investments, or indeed whether more work is needed

“The Nation has an urgent need for more complete monitoring systems in order to inform policy, as a basis for development of predictive capabilities, and to address issues of compliance, assessment, and management.” The committee recommends that the federal government conduct a comprehensive assessment of the nation’s ecosystems every four years, the Quadrennial EcoSystems Trends (QuEST) Assessment.

Managing the data in such an effort would be challenging, and this requires attention to data accessibility and the innovative use of information technologies. Other challenges relate to the science underlying ecosystem monitoring and analysis. Questions that must be addressed include:

1. “Are current modeling methods adequate to predict the consequences of human-ecosystem dynamics for biodiversity preservation, for ecosystem services, and for biosecurity? 
2. “What is the scope for using socio-economic data in modeling anthropogenic environmental change? 
3. “How can existing monitoring systems be augmented to include such data?” 

The recommendations lack the force of regulation or policy. But they do indicate recognition at high levels of need for regular reporting on the nation’s ecological health and, implicitly, for the science underlying ecological monitoring and assessment. Details remain, but implementation must keep in sight that national ecological assets are not simply numbers in a ledger; they are where people live and the resources we depend on.

The information in this post relates to Topics 1 and 5 of the CERF 2011 synthesis sessions.

Figure credit: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/background.html

Science in the R.I. Special Area Management Plan

William Nuttle, Organizer for CERF 2011 Synthesis Sessions
wnuttle@eco-hydrology.com

Last week NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco joined a host of political leaders to announce Rhode Island’s Ocean Special Area Management Plan (Ocean SAMP). This is a big deal because NOAA touts Ocean SAMP as the template for implementing coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP) in the US. CMSP is defined as a comprehensive, adaptive, integrated, ecosystem-based, and transparent spatial planning process, based on sound science. The push to adopt CMSP is international in scope.

In practical terms, CMSP provides a process for analyzing current and anticipated uses of estuaries and coastal waters to determine how to realize commercial, recreational and environmental goals. The motivation behind Ocean SAMP was to get out in front of issues related to installing a couple hundred wind turbines to generate electric power off the Rhode Island coast. The plan encompasses an area of approximately 1,467 square miles, including portions of Block Island Sound, Rhode Island Sound, and the Atlantic Ocean.

If this marks the beginning of the future for coastal planning and management, then widespread implementation of CMSP will affect how coastal and estuarine research is supported and organized in coming years. So, what insights does the Ocean SAMP report provide into what may be the future of our science?

Plan Based on Best Available Information
The Ocean SAMP uses the “best available science” to build a comprehensive understanding of the area’s ecosystems. Through the multi-year process of developing the plan, a Science Advisory Task Force provided expertise and input on issues of science and research. New research was commissioned, and the results of this research are reported in the plan document and in a series of appendices to the main report. A chapter in the main body of the report titled “Ecology of the Ocean SAMP” describes the regional ecosystem.  However, authors opted for using a more traditional, natural history framework;  topics proceed hierarchically from geology and meteorology through physical oceanography, chemical oceanography, and on to biological oceanography.

Coastal and Estuarine Science Moving Forward
Part of the vision for CMSP is the implementation of ecosystem based management of estuarine and coastal areas, thus the attention to thoroughly documenting the ecosystem of the Ocean SAMP at its outset. Ecosystem based management also means committing to conduct ecosystem research, monitoring and analysis on a continual basis as an integral part of management activities in the region. Objectives for the (future?) Ocean SAMP Science Research Agenda are to:

1. Continue to learn about Rhode Island’s offshore natural resources and human activities; 
2. Better understand the potential effects of future development and other human impacts; and 
3. Increase Rhode Island’s understanding of the projected impacts of global climate change. 

Future plans are to convene an advisory group with scientists from partner federal and state agencies, environmental organizations, and users of the Ocean SAMP area. Presumably, it will be up to this group to articulate critical details of the research agenda by identifying data gaps, short- and long-term research priorities, potential partners, and potential funding sources.

The information in this post relates to Topic 6: Management applications of the CERF 2011 synthesis sessions.  I'd like to hear more from anyone who has been directly involved in the development of the Ocean SAMP.

Case Studies of Coastal Science and Management at Regional Scale

William Nuttle, Organizer for CERF 2011 Synthesis Sessions
wnuttle@eco-hydrology.com

The movement toward coordinated management of coastal and estuarine resources at the regional scale will require greater investment in large-scale ecosystem research capable of providing information needed by managers.  On May 18-19, 2009, NOAA’s Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research convened a workshop to examine existing regional-scale ecosystem research and identify practices that lead to research results with direct management relevance and impact.  This workshop assembled over fifty experts on coastal ecosystem science, management and policy representing all coastal regions of the US, including the Great Lakes, and the republic of Palau.  

Location of 8 regional applied ecosystem research case studies

The eight case studies compiled for discussion at the workshop represent a wide variety of physical and ecological contexts; these include the Great Lakes (8 - Lake Erie), a river-dominated coast (4 - northern Gulf of Mexico), tropical lagoon systems (6 - Micronesia and 3 - South Florida), and coastal ocean systems (5 - California coast, 7 - Bering Sea, 2 - Gulf of Maine, and the 1 - Northwest Atlantic). Case studies were chosen to examine a variety of issues, funding, and participation involved in regional ecosystem research. Each case study provided a unique perspective on planning and implementation of regional ecosystem research from the point-of-view of both scientists and managers.

In all cases, the success of the applied ecosystem research depends on the following essential program support elements:

Overarching goals for management of the regional ecosystem articulated by the cooperating agencies and stakeholders and informed by a shared vision of the ecosystem based in science;

Regional coordination among cooperating management agencies and between managers and research scientists;

Clear project objectives that connect results of research and monitoring to the specific programs and mandates of the cooperating management agencies;

An open process for sharing information between agencies and communicating results of research to managers and stakeholders; and

Regular reporting of progress made toward the over arching ecosystem goals based on quantitative indicators based on ecosystem research and monitoring.

The information in this post relates to Topic 3: Management applications of the CERF 2011 synthesis sessions.  Go here for more information about these case studies from the IAN Program of the University of Maryland.

Topics Set for Synthesis Sessions at CERF 2011

William Nuttle, Organizer for CERF 2011 Synthesis Sessions

wnuttle@eco-hydrology.com

Q: How far can you wander into a jungle?

A: Half way.

This riddle came to mind during the June meeting of the Program Committee.  For three days, in Daytona Beach, the committee labored to find our way through the thicket of topics submitted for presentation at the CERF 2011conference in November.  On more than one occasion I found myself wandering off course, distracted reading an abstract that seemed ripe for immediate consumption.  Such were the hazards of this work, but the committee valiantly soldiered on. By the end of day two we finally penetrated to the heart of the jungle and started on the journey back out.  

Initial draft of CERF 2011 program - at the heart of the jungle

We have made good progress since then.  The conference program is now final.  Presenters soon will learn their assigned time and location; possibly these emails have already gone out.  And, we have set some markers - the topics for discussion during the synthesis sessions - intended to aid those who will follow us into this jungle during the CERF 2011 meeting in November.

Synthesis at CERF 2011

The synthesis sessions planned for CERF 2011 will examine how integrated ecosystem assessment (IEA) can be used to help societies, estuaries and coasts adapt to change.  Integrated ecosystem assessment is a tool that scientists and managers can use to gather and synthesize the scientific information needed to support an ecosystem-based approach to management. 

Topics identified for discussion will capture the latest findings, to be presented at the conference, and knit together ideas developed separately in concurrent sessions. The synthesis sessions will address six topics altogether.  Three will be discussed during the session scheduled for Tuesday afternoon and three on Thursday afternoon, at the end of the conference.  Each synthesis topic relates to topics covered by presentations during the regular sessions earlier on the conference schedule.  

Tuesday Afternoon - Present State-of-the-art

The synthesis session on Tuesday afternoon, the second day of the conference, will discuss current approaches to IEA applied to estuarine and coastal ecosystems and lessons learned in the application of estuarine and coastal science to management.

Topic 1: IEA defined -  What is integrated ecosystem assessment and how is it being used in coastal and estuarine ecosystems?

Topic 2: Human dimensions -  How can we include humans and the effects of their activities on the coastal and estuarine environment in integrated ecosystem assessments.

Topic 3: Management applications – What have we learned from past experience of applying science in the management of coastal and estuarine ecosystems.

Thursday Afternoon - Emerging Challenges

The synthesis session on Thursday afternoon, at the end of the conference, will discuss some of the challenges emerging for both managers and scientists and whether and how IEA can be used to respond to them.

Topic 4: Baseline change – How can we account for the effects of uncontrollable change to drivers, e.g. climate change and rising sea level, in ecosystem assessments and in setting management goals?

Topic 5: Dynamic ecosystems - How can we detect, analyze and forecast change in coastal and estuarine ecosystems?

Topic 6: Management challenges - How do the problems that face managers in implementing ecosystem management of coasts and estuaries the regional scale affect the way that science is done?

A Chance to Step Back

Most importantly, the synthesis sessions are meant to give meeting attendees a break in their own wanderings through the CERF 2011 jungle.  They are a chance to step back from the thicket of the regular sessions, take stock of what has been accomplished in coastal and estuarine science, and reconnoitre the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.

Check back here for newer posts related to the synthesis sessions.

Science for Community Leaders Poster Session Update!

Be there or B²

Show-off Your Research to Community Leaders at CERF 2011

Holly Greening, CERF 2011 Conference Co-Chair

hgreening@tbep.org

Bob Chamberlain, CERF Conference Communications Chair

rchamber@sjrwmd.com

You are cordially invited to attend

Science for Community Leaders Special Poster Session

CERF 2011

Daytona Beach, Florida, USA

Tuesday evening, 8 November 2011

New at CERF 2011, Science for Community Leaders (SCL) will provide a venue to encourage interaction between our conference attendees, the Daytona Beach Museum of Arts and Sciences membership, and other community leaders. Community leaders will be invited to talk with our conference attendees in an informal social setting, which will be contained within the main poster hall. Invitations will also be sent to other local and regional leaders (nearby National Estuarine Research Reserve directors, National Seashore director, Florida Water Management officials, college presidents, etc).

Be there! (whether presenting an SCL poster or not)

While the invitees would be initially welcomed at the special poster area, they would also be encouraged to view posters throughout the poster hall and talk to all of the presenters available that evening. So, even if you are not participating directly in the special poster session, we encourage you to show-off your research when the community leaders tour the poster hall.

Community Leaders in Daytona Beach have spoken…

Topics of interest identified by local community leaders and the CERF conference team include:

• Invasive species and how to control them
• Macro (drift) algae: nuisance, important habitat, and control
• Coastal erosion and methods for control
• Possibility of a tsunami
• Diminishing seafood
• Is seafood safe?
• Hurricanes
• Urbanizing coastlines
• Conflicting uses for freshwater (public supply and environment)
• Climate change effects
• Impacts to human resources from sea level rise (global, regional, and examples of local response planning)
• Sea level rise effects on wetlands and shallow submerged resources
• Impacts of the BP oil spill
• Monitoring programs to determine impacts from BP and future oil spills
• Water quality regulations (what has been their benefit…why and where do we need more)
• Making links between nutrient loading and potential impacts
• Existing assessment programs, and proposed solutions for nutrient reduction
• State and federal programs for financial and planning assistance to address: sea level rise, nutrient reduction, and other estuarine resource protection efforts

Don’t miss this opportunity to reach out to community leaders and share the cutting-edge of coastal and estuarine science, found only at CERF 2011.

Integrated Ecosystem Assessment – Change, Change and More Change

William Nuttle, Organizer for CERF 2011 Synthesis Sessions

wnuttle@eco-hydrology.com

As I write this I am tracking the progress of three flood events. Two of them are real, and one virtual. Along with residents of coastal Louisiana I am keenly watching the progress of the great Mississippi River flood of 2011, which is cresting today near Helena, Arkansas, heading for New Orleans. I also join my colleagues on the program committee for CERF 2011 as we watch the flood of abstracts pouring in just before tonight’s deadline for submissions. These real floods are life-changing events.

Adaptively managing the Mississippi River
 in 2011 to protect New Orleans from flooding

So too is the virtual flood of change currently washing through coastal and estuarine management programs. This flood has been building around the globe over the past ten years or so, with rising acceptance of ecosystem based management applied at a regional scale. Implementation of a new national ocean policy in the coastal waters of the US marks its most recent high water event. Add to this the confluence of climate change, rising sea level and growing human populations in coastal communities, and it is clear that this flood has not yet reached its crest.

How will the flood of change in coastal management affect coastal and estuarine scientists? Integrated ecosystem assessment lies at the interface between management and science. Integrated ecosystem assessment provides a mechanism used by both scientists and managers to gather and synthesize scientific information required to support an ecosystem-based approach to management. Therefore, we can trace the effects of change in coastal management, back through the elements of integrated ecosystem assessment, to their impact on coastal and estuarine science.

Integrated – Changes in coastal management drive coastal and estuarine scientists to work at larger and longer scales. For example, what will be the impacts of the Mississippi River flood on the ecosystem in it deltaic region and the coupled coastal marine waters? And how far will they extend into the future - years, decades, longer? The need to respond to questions like these drive coastal managers to look for ways to integrate science more directly with management.

Ecosystem – Coastal ecosystems include people! Protecting ecosystems has been an explicit goal of environmental management ever since the early days of the environmental movement, forty years ago. However, for most of this period, managers have pursued the strategy of erecting barriers around our activities, both real and through regulation, to protect the natural environment from human disturbance, and vice versa. Implicit in this strategy is the view that people are separate from nature, not an integral part of ecosystems. The movement to adopt ecosystem-based management is motivated in large degree by failures of this separatist strategy. Dikes built to control flooding along the Mississippi also starve coastal wetlands from inputs of river sediment needed to sustain them. Both managers and scientists need to rethink the relationship between people and the coastal environment.

Assessment – We need to move beyond simply assessing risks on to solving the knotty problems facing coastal managers. Can integrated ecosystem assessment be used to design diversions from the Mississippi River that both protect human communities from floods, when we need it, and restore and sustain wetlands, when they need it? What are we trying to protect, and therefore to assess – sustainability, biodiversity, ecosystem services, economic opportunity? What is it about large-scale, regional coastal and estuarine ecosystems that people care about? And can these attributes be evaluated using the objective tools of scientific analysis?

Are we, coastal and estuarine scientists, prepared to deal with the flood of change already pooling at our feet? No doubt the deluge of abstracts just now cresting on the CERF 2011 meeting website carries the answer to this question. Like you, I am looking forward to hearing these talks and viewing these posters at the meeting in Daytona Beach.

Societies, Estuaries & Coasts: Adapting to Change

But why wait? Between now and the CERF 2011 meeting in November, this blog will host a series of posts on the sink or swim issues outlined above. The discussion begun here sets the stage for the synthesis sessions planned as part of the conference program.

Join the discussion! Read, comment, and offer your own views on what changes lie ahead and what changes might already be taking place.

Photo credit: New Orleans Times-Picayune.