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 Se

tting

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 Biotic

Surface Geology Substrate

GeoForm Geoform Reorganized

Sub-Benthic

Renamed 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 environmentsMarine Ecoregions of the World, Spalding et al. (2007)

• Marine oceanicGlobal 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.