cmecs implementation group rebecca allee (noaa) giancarlo cicchetti (epa) mark finkbeiner (noaa)
DESCRIPTION
Report to FGDC Standards Working Group: Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard (CMECS). CMECS Implementation Group Rebecca Allee (NOAA) Giancarlo Cicchetti (EPA) Mark Finkbeiner (NOAA) Kathleen Goodin (NatureServe) Lawrence Handley (USGS) Christopher Madden (NatureServe) - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Report to FGDC Standards Working Group: Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard (CMECS)
CMECS Implementation GroupRebecca Allee (NOAA)
Giancarlo Cicchetti (EPA)Mark Finkbeiner (NOAA)
Kathleen Goodin (NatureServe)Lawrence Handley (USGS)
Christopher Madden (NatureServe)Garry Mayer (NOAA)
March 20, 2012
AgendaBackground• Timeline• Purpose • Structure• Relation to other
standards• Standard
Development• Who• How
Public review• Comments received• Revisions• Resulting document• Subsequent steps
Summary
2
Timeline1998: Development initiated1998-2007: Creation of preliminary versions of standard February 2008: CMECS proposal sponsored by Marine
and Spatial Data SubcommitteeApril 2010: CMECS working draft (version 3.1) submitted
for reviewJuly 2010: CMECS working draft approved for public
reviewAugust-December 2010: 120-day public comment period2011-2012: Standard revised; responses generated January 2012: Revised standard (CMECS version 4.0)
submitted to FGDC for endorsement review3
Objectives• Assure consistent names and
descriptions of ecological features• Accommodate biological, geological,
chemical, and physical data in single structure
• Articulate with FGDC standards and other accepted approaches
• Be sensor- and scale-neutral• Be suitable for multiple applications
4
Why Needed? • Enhanced interest in place-based management• Greater need to track changing ecosystems• More and better mapping • “Map once, use many times” -- Increased data
sharing and use of information for multiple purposes
No national standard for classifying coastal and marine habitats
5
What is CMECS?CMECS is a catalog of terms• Provides means for classifying ecological units in
simple, standard format using common terminology• Tool for organizing observational information
CMECS is not: • Mapping guidance• Analytical approach for comparing ecosystem units
Ecological units classified using CMECS can be mapped, compared, or otherwise analyzed with existing, available methods
6
ScopeAll waters, substrates, and organismsof the marine realm extending:• Landward to tidal splash zone of coasts, intertidal euhaline
and brackish wetlands, and waters of Great Lakes• Up river/estuary to head of tide, where tide > 0.2 ft
(0.06 m) for at least part of month• Seaward to deep ocean, including all
continental and oceanic waters and Bottom areas
7
8Aquatic Setting
Biog
eogr
aphi
c Setti
ng
Settings andComponents
Water Column Component
(WC)
BioticComponent
(BC)
SubstrateComponent
(SC)
Geoform Component(GC)
Components
9
Geomorphic and structural character of coast or
seafloor
Water Column Component
(WC)
BioticComponent
(BC)
SubstrateComponent
(SC)
Geoform Component
(GC)
Structure and features of
water column
Assemblages of benthic and
suspended/floating organisms
Character and composition of surface and near-surface
substrates
Users
10
• Observational, experimental, and analytical scientists from all marine disciplines—e.g., biologists, geologists, chemists, oceanographers, modelers, mappers and GIS specialists
• Governmental agencies at all levels, NGOs, academicians, and industry
• Coastal and marine planners; resource managers; economists; engineers and developers; military, enforcement, and homeland security personnel
Sample Applications
11
• Ocean exploration and mapping (including IOCM)
• Climate change assessment, prediction and planning
• Coastal and offshore facility placement
• Natural resource management• Coastal and ocean conservation• Environmental monitoring• Coastal hazard and spill response
12
Development Approach•Reach out widely to user communities andpotential stakeholders
• Involve the experts• Include not impose
•Pilot and demonstrate •Revise in response•Publicize results
Cooperators
13
• Federal agencies: NOAA, EPA, USGS, FWS, NPS, BOEM, COE, USDA/NRCS, NASA
• State agencies: MA Division of Marine Fisheries, OR Coastal Management Program, SC Department of Natural Resources, TX Parks and Wildlife, CA State Coastal Conservancy
• Academia: URI, WHOI, VIMS, U. Miami, U. San Francisco, U. So. Mississippi, FIU, U. Aukland
• NGOs: NatureServe, TNC• International: Australia, Canada, Germany,
OAS
Leadership and Expertise
14
Implementation Group• 8 scientists and managers
“Turned the crank” Dealt with operations and day-to-day issues
Working Group• Standing panel of 35-40 users and technical experts
Responsible for technical content Chosen for discipline expertise, geographic diversity, and
stakeholder affiliation
Issue Teams• Ad hoc groups of selected discipline experts (4-20 people)
WG members + invited outside experts Resolved specific issues
Relationship to Other Standards
15
Articulates with relevant FGDC standards• FGDC 1996 -- Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States • FGDC 2001 -- Metadata Profile for Shoreline Data • FGDC 2008 -- National Vegetation Classification Standard• FGDC 1997 -- Soil Geographic Data Standard
Articulates with other approaches• Wherever possible, built on accepted approaches
• Crosswalks and comparisons• Pilot applications: 12 projects completed;
10 projects underway
Public Comments and Peer Reviews
• August 16 - December 13, 2010• Strong response: ~800 comments
from >31 organizations/individuals• Sources: on-line form, hard-copy,
email, separate write-ups, and edited digital documents
16
Issues Raised
17
Major themes included:• Structure/hierarchy• Content• Definitions• Scale • Mixes/unit thresholds• Implementation
Process for Comment Response• Comments numbered to allow tracking• Comments characterized as general, editorial, or
technical• Characterized comments organized by document
section, CMECS component, agency, topic area, and keywords
• Comments parsed out to experts and chapter leads• Master spreadsheet employed to track and compile
responses• Original comment documents preserved for context• Follow-up briefings arranged for agencies that
provided important input
Interactive Response Generation
19
For technical issues, we rarely just returned to our desks to develop replies
• Reached out to non-CMECS experts• Vetted responses with WG members and
other professional colleagues• Occasionally conferred with commenters
if issues complex or unclear• In a few cases, convened Issue Teams
Quality Control
20
• Extramural editor employed to check writing, formatting, and mechanics of document
• Multiple internal rounds of revision and review
• January 2012 post-New Year’s 4-day session • Final document grooming • Refining replies on responses
CMECS 4.0 much-improved document
Major Revisions • Significantly refined settings and
components • Expanded modifiers section• Added biotopes chapter• Augmented review of spatio-temporal
framework • Upgraded discussion of data collection
and mapping• Improved crosswalking guidance
SettingsVersion 3.1 Version 4.0
Aquatic settingPrimarily unchanged
Biogeographic settingNewHierarchical
Realms Provinces Ecoregions
ComponentsVersion 3.1 Version 4.0
Water Column Water Column Reorganized Benthic Biotic BioticSurface Geology Substrat
eGeoForm Geoform Reorganized
Sub-BenthicRenamed and
expanded
Removed
Renamed and expanded
Settings and Components
24
25
Biotopes
Water Column Component
(WC)
BioticComponent
(BC)
SubstrateComponent
(SC)
BIOTOPE
A biotope is defined as the combination of abiotic features and associated species (Connor et al., 2003). Using CMECS, biotopes can be derived by identifying repeating BC biotic communities that are consistently associated with combinations of environmental units ….
[CMECS ver. 4.0]
CMECS 4.0--Measuring Up
• Responsive to reviews and suggestions
• More straightforward • Easier to understand and apply• More comprehensive
• Geographically• Ecologically
• Enhanced guidance and explanations • Dynamic standard
Significant product
Next Steps
27
• Assembling infrastructure to maintain and enhance CMECS over time
• Engaging North American constituents to widen awareness about and use of CMECS
• Developing specializedimplementation guidance
• Establishing dynamicstandard provisions
• Reaching out internationally
CMECS Is a Vital Tool for Marine and Coastal Science and Management
• Continuity from “uplands to sea floor” • Built on existing classification approaches• Common terminology for data from different
sources• Across methods• Across scales• Across geographic regions
• Easily customizable • Responsive but stable
28
29
Thank you!Questions?Comments?
Biotic Component• Describes composition of biota
• Benthos• Water column
• Hierarchical• Classes and subclasses emulate FGDC Wetland
Standard• Vegetated assemblage names from FGDC National
Vegetation Classification Standard
Substrate Component
• Characteristics of substrate • Particle size and composition• To extent of penetration by multicellular biota
• Substrates: Geologic, biogenic, anthropogenic • Particle sizes: Wentworth (1922), mixes: Folk (1954)• Hierarchical
Substrate origin: GeologicSubstrate Class: Unconsolidated Substrate
Substrate Subclass: Fine Unconsolidated SubstrateSubstrate Group : Sandy Mud
Substrate Subgroup: Sandy Clay
Geoform Component• Major geomorphic or structural characteristics• From Greene et al. (2007) with modifications• Geologic, biogenic, anthropogenic features• Spatially hierarchical, three subcomponents
• Tectonic Setting: Global tectonic features, scale: >1000 km2 (e.g., abyssal plain)
• Physiographic Setting: Landscape level geomorphological features, scale: ~100’s km2 (e.g., fjord, submarine canyon)
• Geoform: Coastal and seafloor structures, scale: <100 km2 (e.g., terminal moraine)
Water Column Component• Water column structure and
• features• Four elements; non-hierarchical
• Vertical layers• Temperature and salinity• Hydroforms--e.g., gyres,
named water masses• Biogeochemical features--e.g.,
oxygen minimum, chlorophyllmaximum layers
Biogeographic Setting• Reflects composition and characteristics of biological
communities • Estuarine and marine coastal and shelf environments
Marine Ecoregions of the World, Spalding et al. (2007) • Marine oceanic
Global Open Oceans and Deep Seabed Biogeographic Classification, UNESCO (2009)
• Both hierarchical• Realms • Provinces• Ecoregions
35
Modifiers• Consistent set of variables to further describe
standard units• Allows users to customize applications
Examples: Energy level Percent cover Bottom slope Turbidity
36
Seagrass Bed Classification
37
System, Subsystem, Tidal Zone Marine Nearshore SubtidalBiotic Component (BC)Class: Aquatic Vegetation Bed Subclass: Saltwater Aquatic Rooted VegetationBiotic Group: Seagrass BedBiotope: Thalassia testudinum Herbaceous VegetationModifier: DenseSubstrate Component (SC)Class: Unconsolidated SubstrateSubclass: Fine Unconsolidated Substrate Group: SandGeoform Component (GC) Physiographic Setting: Coast Geoform: Lagoon
Water Column Component (WC): Not usedEcoregional Component (EC): Not used
Image: C. Moses
Sediments and Soils
38
• FGDC Soil Geographic Data Standard originally included as part of CMECS 3.1
• Significant consternation voiced by public• Switched to more commonly used marine sediment
classifications--particle sizes: Wentworth (1922); mixes: Folk (1954)
• Text referencing soil standard developed by soils scientists working in coastal settings
Added Soils Text
39
CMECS adopted Folk (1954) due to the clear present-day preferences for it among public and invited reviewers of CMECS, its long-standing historical use in marine work, and its straight-forward approach to classification. In addition to Folk (1954), however, two existing FGDC classifications for substrate mixtures were considered for applications in CMECS. Of these, the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the United States, FGDC-STD-004 (FGDC 1996b) addresses mostly aquatic substrate as sediment, and provides a fairly coarse method of classification into six major geology-based units. In contrast, the Soil Geographic Data Standard, FGDC-STD-006 (FGDC 1997) and Keys to Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff 2010) together provide more detailed classification options for classifying soils with many hundreds of descriptors that have been used in soil science for decades. A soils approach specifically recognizes and describes the biological, physical, and chemical processes that form (and alter) the substrate as part of classification. Through the National Cooperative Soil Survey, soil maps are available for all intertidal and supratidal areas of the United States. Users should consider these sources and approaches when classifying substrate in these areas.
Although soils approaches have in the past been used mostly for terrestrial work, some coastal scientists (and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service) are now applying soil taxonomies to shallow subtidal environments with good results (see Demas et al 1996; Bradley and Stolt 2006; Stolt et al. 2011). Practitioners interested in soils approaches to classifying shallow subtidal (Estuarine Coastal Subsystem) substrate should consult Keys to Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff 2010), and Schoeneberger et al. (2002). It is recommended that a soils approach be used if a more detailed classification is needed for interpreting use and management of shallow water substrate.