1 / 13

Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard CMECS

Issues. . . Currently over 100 systems used for classifying benthic habitats * Few systems used by more than one party/advocate Most systems tied to a particular technology Ultimate purpose of most systems not well defined Most coastal/marine mapping done on a local or state level No e

merton
Download Presentation

Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard CMECS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard (CMECS) Version III

    6. Benthic Cover (BCC) – Describes the geomorphologic, physico-chemical, and biological composition of the coastal and marine substrate Water Column (WCC) – Describes the structure, patterns, processes, and biology of the overlying water column Geoform (GFC) – Describes the major geomorphic or structural characteristics of the coast and seafloor at various scales Sub-benthic (SBC) – New addition to describe the sediments and biology within the benthic substrate Modifiers – Additional attributes that further describe units in the major components NWI and NVC are strong contributors to the BCC The European JNCC has some WCC material that might be used for WCC MapCoast will provide the SBCNWI and NVC are strong contributors to the BCC The European JNCC has some WCC material that might be used for WCC MapCoast will provide the SBC

    7. CMECS Components Originally CMECS had a flat organizational structure that turned out to be unfeasible and was the source of early unmappable criticisms. Now it has 4 separate components that allow data developers to contribute more easily and then a user will be able to query across all the components to answer specific questions at the species level. Originally CMECS had a flat organizational structure that turned out to be unfeasible and was the source of early unmappable criticisms. Now it has 4 separate components that allow data developers to contribute more easily and then a user will be able to query across all the components to answer specific questions at the species level.

    10. Slide overview the process of development from CMECS up to the present Workshops were convened with experts in the field to identify classification parameters and begin discussions for development of the standard. A report came out of the Marathon Workshop to outline the first proposed system, the 2003 workshop was a review of this report by additional experts. Workshop outputs along with additional research and development resulted in CMECS Version I. NOAA Coastal Services Center and NOAA Fisheries contracted out to NatureServe for development of the classification with Version I completed late in 2004. NOAA team members were involved in review and refinement of the standard. In addition, NOAA funded a field test of Version I by University of Idaho in the Columbia River Estuary. More details for this pilot application will be discussed in upcoming slides. Version II was developed by NatureServe late in 2005 after review by experts. The team will meet again in June 2006 to discuss final recommendations towards an operational version of CMECS for additional field testing and refinement by external partners. Glossary – critical piece of classification to ensure consistent terminology is used across the board; several groups took time to contribute to the glossary; international peer review is the next stepSlide overview the process of development from CMECS up to the present Workshops were convened with experts in the field to identify classification parameters and begin discussions for development of the standard. A report came out of the Marathon Workshop to outline the first proposed system, the 2003 workshop was a review of this report by additional experts. Workshop outputs along with additional research and development resulted in CMECS Version I. NOAA Coastal Services Center and NOAA Fisheries contracted out to NatureServe for development of the classification with Version I completed late in 2004. NOAA team members were involved in review and refinement of the standard. In addition, NOAA funded a field test of Version I by University of Idaho in the Columbia River Estuary. More details for this pilot application will be discussed in upcoming slides. Version II was developed by NatureServe late in 2005 after review by experts. The team will meet again in June 2006 to discuss final recommendations towards an operational version of CMECS for additional field testing and refinement by external partners. Glossary – critical piece of classification to ensure consistent terminology is used across the board; several groups took time to contribute to the glossary; international peer review is the next step

    14. CMECS is more than a classification system and includes all the elements necessary to facilitate implementation nationally. Most effort being dedicated to developing the FGDC standard currently. Modifiers allow descriptive information The June 2007 workshop revealed the need for implementation guidance. A document on what the guidance criteria are has been produced and will be used to develop guidance for each technology. These will not be standards but rather, living documents.CMECS is more than a classification system and includes all the elements necessary to facilitate implementation nationally. Most effort being dedicated to developing the FGDC standard currently. Modifiers allow descriptive information The June 2007 workshop revealed the need for implementation guidance. A document on what the guidance criteria are has been produced and will be used to develop guidance for each technology. These will not be standards but rather, living documents.

More Related