**Needs Assessment for the**

**NOAA Gulf Coast Services Center**

**Final Draft**

**National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal
Services Center**

**November 27, 2007**

**Executive Summary**

In 2005, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
delivered a report to Congress on the potential establishment of a Gulf
Coast Services Center. This report called for a thorough evaluation of
needs of the diverse audiences that use NOAA information, products, and
services in the Gulf of Mexico region.

In 2006, the NOAA Coastal Services Center established a small Gulf Coast
Services Center and initiated a formal needs assessment. This report
summarizes information gathered during the eight-month assessment
process, which also considered the "Governors' Action Plan for Healthy
and Resilient Coasts" and other ongoing regional efforts. The assessment
examined impacts and lessons learned from hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and
Wilma, highlighting planning, preparation, and recovery needs, and
identified high-priority regional needs and specific issues and
processes where the services and expertise of NOAA and the Coastal
Services Center could be particularly useful.

The needs assessment will guide the strategic planning of the newly
formed Gulf Coast Services Center and shape future products, services,
and regional partnerships of the Charleston-based NOAA Coastal Services
Center. The assessment also will be shared with partners across NOAA so
that the information gathered can be used by the many programs providing
assistance in the Gulf of Mexico region. Finally, NOAA will work with
external organizations, especially those that can help address priority
needs, directly and by leveraging resources and partnerships across the
region.

**Goal and Methodology**

The goal of the needs assessment was to gather information about
audiences concerned with coastal management issues in the Gulf of Mexico
to inform the design of products and services that support regional
ecosystem management and foster community resilience.

The needs assessment process consisted of seven basic steps:

> 1\. Establish a cross-NOAA steering committee
>
> 2\. Identify target audiences
>
> 3\. Conduct a literature review
>
> 4\. Analyze results of the 2006 NOAA Coastal Services Center Customer
> Survey
>
> 5\. Convene focus groups of key audiences
>
> 6\. Conduct interviews (over 70)
>
> 7\. Analyze and assemble data

The draft report was reviewed by the steering committee and by the new
NOAA Gulf of Mexico Regional Team.

**Findings: Needs in the Gulf of Mexico Region**

While Gulf constituents expressed many issue-specific program and
project needs, they repeatedly raised two crosscutting topics:

> 1\. Communication and coordination. Regional customers need help
> keeping track of the myriad of entities, projects, and resources and
> facilitating better coordination across local, state, regional, and
> federal parties.
>
> 2\. Product delivery. Delivery of products and services is as
> important as their development. Simply providing more data and more
> technical tools is not the answer---there is a need for more outreach,
> training, and technical assistance to ensure that NOAA\'s information
> and tools are truly useful to constituents and other users.

The assessment's findings fall into four general areas of need:

> 1\. Needs for supporting and fostering an ecosystem-based approach to
> the management of coastal resources
>
> 2\. Needs for increasing community resilience to coastal hazards
>
> 3\. Data and technology needs
>
> 4\. Communication and coordination needs

The needs in each of these categories are outlined below.

*Supporting and Fostering an Ecosystem-based Approach to Management*

-   This concept needs to be defined in concrete action steps. There is
    widespread support for the idea of an ecosystem-based approach, but
    both resource managers and local decision-makers need a better
    understanding of how it can be implemented.

-   One of the most challenging aspects of implementing an
    ecosystem-based approach to management is successfully involving the
    myriad of players who represent the multiple issues and
    jurisdictions involved.

-   Growth and development is the number one issue facing coastal areas
    of the Gulf of Mexico region. This issue has many associated needs.

-   Resource managers need socioeconomic tools and data, as well as
    natural science information and tools.

-   Within the topic of awareness and education, participants stressed
    the need for education on the connections among elements of
    ecosystems and between human activity and ecosystem impacts.

-   Integrity and diversity of habitat is a key concern in the region.
    Participants expressed the need for basic identification and
    mapping, as well as efforts to protect and restore high-priority
    habitats.

-   An ecosystem-based approach requires significant resources, and
    participants often stressed the need for additional staff members.

*Increasing Community Resilience to Coastal Hazards*

-   As with an ecosystem-based approach, participants said this concept
    needs to be defined in concrete action steps.

-   Many significant recovery needs related to hurricanes Katrina and
    Rita still exist.

-   Participants expressed a need for dialogue about appropriate or
    realistic levels of resilience for different areas. Some
    participants felt NOAA could act as a neutral party to begin
    discussions of alternatives, priorities, and capabilities.

-   While there is a need for better risk and vulnerability assessment,
    effectively communicating risk and vulnerability is equally
    important.

-   Risk should be driving decision-making about development and
    redevelopment, but it is not.

-   Participants need ways to measure resilience, but measurement alone
    is not sufficient. Participants also need incentives and dialogue
    about the economic and social aspects needed to foster improvements.

-   Within the overall need for dialogue and raising awareness,
    participants stressed the need to provide economic information and
    to show the connections between habitat and mitigation.

-   Participants emphasized a need for more effective and extensive
    outreach on surge and sea level rise.

-   Planning must take place before disaster strikes.

-   Professionals from many fields need to collaborate to understand and
    enhance resilience. Specifically, the coastal management, emergency
    management, and land use planning communities must work together.

*Data and Technology Needs*

-   Data, maps, and technical tools are needed to support both an
    ecosystem-based approach to management and improved community
    resilience. Participants emphasized a need for tools to analyze and
    apply raw data.

-   Delivery is as important as development. While Gulf of Mexico
    resource managers use and value existing NOAA data, tools, and
    training, the region needs more outreach, training, and technical
    assistance to ensure that tools are accessed and applied on the
    ground.

-   While many resource managers and partners now have geographic
    information system (GIS) capacity, they need ongoing training on
    this technology.

-   As the region collects more and more data, resource managers and
    partners have an ongoing need for improved data management, access,
    sharing, and standards.

-   NOAA should consult state and local entities when it develops
    regional or national databases. These entities have data to
    contribute, and NOAA could enhance the utility of such databases at
    the local level with early involvement.

-   Because not everyone can access and use technical tools and
    "e-products," NOAA should not abandon traditional mechanisms such as
    hard copy maps.

*Coordination and Communication*

-   In this topic, participants mentioned most frequently that NOAA must
    better coordinate outreach for its products and services. Customers
    are not aware of the myriad of products and services available to
    them through NOAA programs.

-   A central challenge for customers and partners is simply keeping
    track of everything that is going on, and all the resources
    available, in the Gulf region.

-   Participants emphasized the need for education and outreach across
    issue areas, with an emphasis on science translation.

-   Regional customers said NOAA should be doing outreach to local
    officials and planners, as well as to more traditional audiences
    such as resource managers and K-12 educators.

-   The assessment confirmed that different individuals prefer different
    communication mechanisms. It also demonstrated that customers desire
    face-to-face exchange.

-   Many existing and potential partners in the region can contribute to
    communication and coordination efforts. NOAA should capitalize on
    the communication mechanisms, networks, and facilities these
    entities have to offer.

-   The Gulf of Mexico Alliance has a lot of potential and has
    encouraged valuable coordination across federal agencies. Regional
    partners are pleased that the fiscal year 2008 NOAA budget request
    includes funding for the alliance to support further progress.

-   Although the alliance is a step in the right direction, federal
    agencies must work to better coordinate their activities.

-   The Gulf Coast Services Center should work with traditional partners
    such as Coastal Zone Management Programs and National Estuarine
    Research Reserves, as well as with less traditional partners such as
    National Estuary Programs and emergency management entities.

-   Participants said that NOAA's Coastal Services Center and the Gulf
    Coast Services Center are uniquely positioned to help connect
    emergency managers to technology resources.

-   Participants also see NOAA as uniquely positioned to help coordinate
    regional coastal and marine mapping efforts.

**Next Steps: Using the Needs Assessment Results**

The needs assessment provides a wealth of information about specific
needs related to resource issues and management activities. It provides
a snapshot of current activities and capacity in the region and
highlights common constraints across all sectors.

The assessment will be invaluable for guiding the efforts of the new
NOAA Gulf Coast Services Center, and the findings are already shaping
strategic planning efforts. An additional value is the host of key
contacts that staff members have made or renewed during the process.

The NOAA Coastal Services Center in Charleston, South Carolina, will
also use the information to shape its future activities and will share
the assessment results with all line offices. Feedback on existing
efforts and newly identified needs point to ways in which the broad NOAA
family can continue to bring value to the region.

The newly established NOAA Regional Collaboration Team for the Gulf is
composed of representatives from all of NOAA's offices and programs. The
NOAA Coastal Services Center has shared this needs assessment with the
team to promote outreach and communication of NOAA's products and
services in a highly integrated way, and the assessment has helped shape
development of collaboration goals and projects for the first year.

.

**Acknowledgments**

The needs assessment team would like to thank the members of its
cross-NOAA Steering Committee for providing thoughtful input and
valuable contacts during the needs assessment process. We also wish to
thank those organizations and individuals who allowed us to conduct
focus groups at their meetings and conferences. Finally, we would like
to thank the many individuals who participated in focus groups and
interviews. The suggestions and perspectives they provided will help
guide the NOAA Gulf Coast Services Center's development and operation,
and we look forward to continuing the dialogue.

**Introduction**

**Background: Congressional Request for Scoping of a Gulf Coast Services
Center, State and Federal Support for Regional Efforts**

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal
Services Center's primary initiatives involve those issues considered
most important to coastal managers--- hazards, habitats, resilient
communities, land and water use, and data and information access and
usability. Recognizing the value of the Coastal Services Center model,
Congress requested that NOAA prepare a report describing the potential
establishment of a Gulf Coast Services Center that would serve the Gulf
of Mexico region.

While the report was being prepared, the governors of Florida, Alabama,
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas formed the Gulf of Mexico Alliance
(GOMA), a regional effort to protect the Gulf of Mexico. The president's
"U.S. Ocean Action Plan" recognized the leadership of this regional
effort and committed administration officials to meeting with Gulf of
Mexico representatives to explore partnership opportunities. NOAA
drafted the "NOAA Gulf Coast Services Report" (2005b) to take into
consideration these developments. In the spring of 2006, GOMA released
the "Governors' Action Plan for Healthy and Resilient Coasts." Thirteen
federal agencies, including NOAA, have committed to supporting state
priorities identified in this plan.

Delivered to Congress in September of 2005, the "NOAA Gulf Coast
Services Report" included a call for a thorough evaluation of needs in
the Gulf of Mexico region. The report included an overview of management
issues and information and capacity gaps based on several existing
reports and input from regional representatives, but the need for a more
thorough assessment was recognized, particularly in light of the impacts
of the devastating hurricanes of 2005. Assessing the needs of the
diverse audiences that use NOAA information, products, and services is
essential to determine how a Gulf Center should function, and to
identify and prioritize efforts that will add value for customers and
partners across the Gulf region.

**The Needs Assessment**

In the summer of 2006, the Coastal Services Center initiated a formal
needs assessment. This report summarizes the information gathered during
the eight-month process. The assessment considered the "Governors'
Action Plan for Healthy and Resilient Coasts" and other regional
efforts, as well as the effects of hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma
and the recovery needs of the region. It confirms high-priority Gulf of
Mexico regional needs previously identified, identifies specific issues
and processes where the services and expertise available from NOAA and
the Coastal Services Center can be particularly useful, and suggests
ways in which communication and coordination can be enhanced.

The assessment will guide the strategic planning of the newly formed
NOAA Gulf Coast Services Center, which is headquartered at the Stennis
Space Center in Mississippi. It will also shape future products,
services, and regional partnership efforts of the Charleston-based
Coastal Services Center. The assessment also will be shared with
partners across NOAA so the information gathered can be used by the many
programs providing assistance in the Gulf of Mexico region. Finally,
external organizations can use the assessment to help address priority
needs directly and to leverage resources and partnerships across the
region.

*Goal and Objectives*

The following goal and objectives guided the needs assessment process.

> Goal: Gather information about audiences concerned with coastal
> management issues in the Gulf of Mexico to inform the design of
> products and services that support regional ecosystem management and
> foster community resilience.
>
> Objectives:

-   Identify the gap between existing and necessary information and
    capabilities supporting an ecosystem approach to management.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Identify coastal-related information and tools that can enhance and
    promote community resilience.

-   Identify needs and drivers that contribute to interest in and access
    to information, training, and technical assistance by the Gulf of
    Mexico coastal community.

-   Solicit opinions about format and distribution of information,
    products, and services to maximize their utility for the Gulf of
    Mexico coastal community.

*Methodology*

Below is an overview of the steps in the needs assessment process.

1.  *Cross-NOAA steering committee established*: A steering committee
    was formed in July 2006 and included representatives from NOAA
    programs that are positioned to assist with solutions to the needs
    identified in the assessment. The committee includes representatives
    from the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, the
    National Sea Grant Office, the National Data Buoy Center, the
    National Marine Fisheries Service, the National Coastal Data
    Development Center, and the Office of Response and Restoration. The
    first meeting of the steering committee took place on September
    26, 2006. See Appendix A for a list of steering committee members,
    and Coastal Services Center staff members working on the needs
    assessment.

2.  *Target audiences identified*: Appendix B provides a list of primary
    and secondary target audiences. Primary audiences are customers and
    partners who use, or have the potential to use, NOAA information,
    products, and services. Secondary audiences include internal NOAA
    partners and the public. NOAA partners may be both customers of and
    contributors to Gulf Coast Services Center efforts, and members of
    the public are "end users" who may access NOAA information,
    products, and services directly, or through partners. Identifying
    these audiences helped determine groups and individuals to include
    in focus groups and interviews, and informed the selection of
    references for the literature review.

3.  *Literature review conducted*: A foundation piece for the
    assessment, the literature review summarized existing information
    about audience needs. The assessment team researched documents that
    concerned issues, activities, and needs of the identified target
    audiences, and sought out references in three topic areas thought to
    be of major concern in the coastal Gulf of Mexico:

    -   Habitat, which includes habitat characterization, mapping, and
        restoration

    -   Coastal watersheds, which includes the Integrated Ocean
        Observing System, water quality, nutrient reduction, and Coastal
        Services Center models and management tools

    -   Hazards and community resilience, which includes topics that
        relate to planning for, mitigating, and responding to coastal
        hazards

> The literature review was completed in the fall of 2006, and results
> of that review are presented in this report.

4.  *Results of the 2006 NOAA Coastal Services Center Customer Survey
    analyzed*: The Coastal Services Center conducts a periodic customer
    survey to better understand the issues and needs of the nation's
    coastal management community, including state regulatory and natural
    resource management agencies, coastal and marine protected areas,
    emergency management agencies, and others concerned with the
    management of coastal resources. Results from the most recent survey
    were analyzed as part of the needs assessment. Of the more than 400
    respondents, 79 were from the Gulf region, and these respondents
    represented a wide variety of organizations and position types,
    providing a good cross-section of target audiences. Survey results
    for the Gulf respondents are summarized in Appendix C and
    highlighted within the report.

5.  *Focus groups held with key audiences*: Focus groups were held at
    regional conferences and meetings to gather information from key
    target audiences. These focus groups also promoted sharing of ideas
    among NOAA staff, academia, nongovernmental organizations, and
    local, state and federal partners. Discussion areas included 1)
    strategies to strengthen an ecosystem approach to management in the
    Gulf, 2) strategies to enhance community resilience, 3) management
    needs for coastal-related information and tools that NOAA could
    provide, and 4) communications and information sharing between NOAA
    and needs assessment audiences. Appendix D identifies focus group
    locations and participants.

6.  *Interviews conducted:* Over 70 one-on-one interviews were conducted
    to augment the information gathered in the literature review and
    focus groups. Some interviews were conducted by phone, while others
    were conducted at regional constituent meetings, workshops, and
    conferences. Appendix E provides a list of individuals interviewed.
    Needs identified during both the focus groups and interviews are
    presented in this report following the literature review results.

7.  *Data analyzed and assembled, steering committee asked to review*:
    Information collected was analyzed and synthesized for inclusion in
    this report, and a draft was circulated to the steering committee
    for review. Literature review findings, ideas raised during focus
    groups, information gathered in one-on-one interviews and at
    meetings, and steering committee input all contributed to this final
    report.

**Literature Review**

The primary purpose of this review was to provide a foundation from the
literature to effectively direct the efforts of a NOAA Gulf Coast
Services Center in the Gulf of Mexico region. As outlined above, the
literature review was one of several methods used to obtain specific
information on the Gulf of Mexico's coastal management needs that the
Coastal Services Center and other NOAA offices might address.

A substantial volume of information has been published about the coastal
management needs and issues of the Gulf Coast. Such reports and
publications have been produced by various sources, including
governments (federal, state, local), regional governance groups,
private-sector organizations, and academic institutions. Care was taken
to select publications for review that concern, or directly affect,
coastal communities and the people of the Gulf of Mexico. While this
literature review is not a comprehensive synthesis of all literature
within the scope of the study, the references selected are
representative of issues and groups directly involved in working toward
common solutions for the greater coastal management community. (A list
of references reviewed appears at the end of this needs assessment
report.)

The literature review is categorized by the issues and needs related to
two broad topical areas: ecosystem-based management and coastal hazards
resilience. A final section identifies cross-cutting needs related to
these issues.

The review demonstrated that, although specific needs vary across the
five Gulf states, there are a number of common issues of concern across
the Gulf of Mexico region. Coastal growth and development, wetland
assessment/mapping and conservation, and hazard mitigation and
evacuation infrastructure were mentioned in documents from all five
states. Recent documents about the Gulf Coast storms of 2005, notably
hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, further display the critical need
for effective management of coastal ecosystems, reduction in the
severity of coastal-related hazard impacts, and increased resilience of
coastal communities. The impacts of these events emphasize the
connections between natural ecosystem processes and human impacts and
responses.

Table 1 presents priority issue areas repeatedly raised in the
literature. Not all reviewed documents and identified issues are
referenced in this document, but the issue areas identified are
highlighted because of the high frequency of documentation and the broad
geographic coverage within the Gulf of Mexico region. The issues in
Table 1 represent a broad spectrum of specific management activities and
needs, and the subsequent sections of the document delve into these
issues in more detail.

**Table 1. Priority Issue Areas Identified in Literature Review**

+---------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| Literature Cited                      | >  | >  | >  | >  | >  | >  |
|                                       | Wa | Li | Pu |  H |  H | In |
|                                       | te | vi | bl | ab | um | fr |
|                                       | r/ | ng | ic | it | an | as |
|                                       | se | >  | >  | at | >  | tr |
|                                       | di |  r |  e |    |  u | uc |
|                                       | me | es | du |    | se | tu |
|                                       | nt | ou | ca |    |    | re |
|                                       | >  | rc | ti |    |    |    |
|                                       |  q | es | on |    |    |    |
|                                       | ua |    | >  |    |    |    |
|                                       | li |    |  a |    |    |    |
|                                       | ty |    | nd |    |    |    |
|                                       |    |    | >  |    |    |    |
|                                       |    |    | ou |    |    |    |
|                                       |    |    | tr |    |    |    |
|                                       |    |    | ea |    |    |    |
|                                       |    |    | ch |    |    |    |
+---------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| *Apalachicola National Estuarine      | x  | x  | x  | x  |    |    |
| Research Reserve Management Plan*     |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+---------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| *Charlotte Harbor Comprehensive       | x  |    |    | x  |    |    |
| Conservation and Management Plan*     |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+---------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| *Charting the Course: The             | x  | x  |    | x  |    |    |
| Comprehensive Conservation and        |    |    |    |    |    |    |
| Management Plan for Tampa Bay*        |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+---------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| *Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable     |    | x  |    | x  |    | X  |
| Coastal Louisiana*                    |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+---------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| *Coastal Bend Bays Plan*              | x  | x  | x  | x  | x  |    |
+---------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| *Coastal Texas 2020 Needs Assessment* | x  |    |    | x  | x  |    |
+---------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| *Comprehensive Conservation and       | x  | x  | x  | x  | x  |    |
| Management Plan, A Call to Action*    |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+---------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| *The Conservation and Management Plan | x  |    |    | x  |    |    |
| for Sarasota Bay*                     |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+---------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| *Critical Scientific Research Needs   | x  |    |    | x  | x  | x  |
| Assessment for the \[Environmental    |    |    |    |    |    |    |
| Protection Agency\] Gulf of Mexico    |    |    |    |    |    |    |
| Program*                              |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+---------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| *Ecosystem Fisheries Management: A    | x  |    |    | x  | x  |    |
| Summary of Workshops Conducted along  |    |    |    |    |    |    |
| the Gulf Coast*                       |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+---------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| *Emergency Preparedness. Future of    | x  |    | x  | x  | x  | X  |
| the Region -- Tampa Bay Strategic     |    |    |    |    |    |    |
| Regional Policy Plan*                 |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+---------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| *The Estuary Compact* *of the         | x  | x  |    | x  |    |    |
| Barataria--Terrebonne National        |    |    |    |    |    |    |
| Estuary Program*                      |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+---------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| *Florida Sea Grant College Program    |    |    |    | x  | x  | x  |
| Strategic Plan, 2006 through 2009*    |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+---------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| *The Galveston Bay Plan*              | x  |    |    | x  |    |    |
+---------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| *Gulf of Mexico Alliance Governor's   | x  |    | x  | x  |    |    |
| Action Plan for Healthy and Resilient |    |    |    |    |    |    |
| Coasts, March 2006--2009*             |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+---------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| *Gulf of Mexico Essential Fish        |    |    |    | x  |    |    |
| Habitat Requirements*                 |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+---------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| *Hurricane Case Study: Opal in the    |    |    | x  |    |    | x  |
| Florida Panhandle. Planning for       |    |    |    |    |    |    |
| Post-Disaster Recovery and            |    |    |    |    |    |    |
| Reconstruction*                       |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+---------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| *Louisiana Sea Grant Strategic Plan,  | x  |    | x  | x  | x  |    |
| 2002--2006*                           |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+---------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| *Marine Protected Areas Needs         |    | x  |    | x  |    | x  |
| Assessment*                           |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+---------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| *Mississippi--Alabama 2006--2010      |    | x  | x  | x  | x  | x  |
| Strategic Plan*                       |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+---------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| *South Louisiana Recovery Survey,     |    |    | x  | x  |    | X  |
| 2006*                                 |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+---------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| *A User Assessment of Coastal Ocean   | x  | x  |    | x  | x  |    |
| Observation Systems in the Gulf of    |    |    |    |    |    |    |
| Mexico. Prepared for Texas Sea Grant  |    |    |    |    |    |    |
| Program and Texas A&M University      |    |    |    |    |    |    |
| System*                               |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+---------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+

**Ecosystem-Based Management**

Ecosystem-based management is a strategy that incorporates the wise
management of water, terrestrial, and biological resources to foster
ecological sustainability. The overwhelming majority of the documents
reviewed here consider impacts across such varied ecological boundaries
and identify needs that require an ecosystem-based approach to
management.

*Water Quality and Nutrient Reduction*

By far, the most documented ecological component within the literature
is water quality, along with its related contributors and subsequent
effects on the greater natural system. Both point and nonpoint source
pollution are issues of concern along the Gulf of Mexico (Galveston Bay
NEP, 1995; Barataria-Terrebonne NEP, 1996; Louisiana DNR, 1998; EPA,
2003; Jepson, 2005; Gulf of Mexico Alliance, 2006a). The scientific
community often has difficulty displaying causality in waterborne
pollutants, which leads to a lack of source identification. There are
often deficiencies in the quality control and consistency of monitoring
efforts, lack of regulation enforcement, and poor communications across
management jurisdictions. There is an ever-increasing demand for
freshwater resources (Galveston Bay NEP, 1995; Louisiana DNR, 1998;
Jepson, 2005; Heinz Center, 2006). Freshwater diversion and flow
reduction have been identified as primary challenges to the integrity of
the resource (Texas NRCC, 1998; Charlotte Harbor NEP, 2000; Jepson
2005).

There is a need to improve Gulf of Mexico water quality to reduce public
health risk, elevate ecosystem productivity, and enhance waterborne
recreation and tourism. For many years, nitrogen yield and load have
been delivered in high volume to Gulf waters (Tampa Bay Estuary Program,
2006). A 2002 study revealed that a 30 percent reduction in nitrogen
load would be required to cause a decrease in the size of the Gulf of
Mexico hypoxic zone (Rabelais, 2002). Other natural and anthropogenic
materials of concern found in the Gulf include organic carbon, mercury,
and fecal coliforms, and there are problems associated with saltwater
intrusion into aquifers (Galveston Bay NEP, 1995; Sarasota Bay NEP,
1995; EPA, 2003; Louisiana Sea Grant, 2002; Jepson, 2005; Heinz Center,
2006; Tampa Bay Estuary Program, 2006).

*Coastal Conservation and Restoration*

Throughout the literature, coastal conservation and restoration is
another issue of primary concern (Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council,
1995; Louisiana DNR, 1998; Louisiana Sea Grant, 2002; Congressional
Research Service, 2006; Working Group for Post-Hurricane Planning for
the Louisiana Coast, 2006). The loss or degradation of various aquatic
habitats directly impacts regional economies because of issues ranging
from reduced fish and shellfish harvest yields to increased
vulnerability to storm events and flooding (Governor's Commission on
Recovery, Rebuilding, and Renewal, 2005b). Habitat loss and major
changes in the balance of freshwater and saltwater within the Gulf of
Mexico ecosystem has led to a reduction of fish stocks sensitive to this
balance, which in turn has led to difficulties within the commercial
seafood industry (Sarasota Bay NEP, 1995).

Various coastal features are in need of restoration efforts, including
wetlands, marshes, barrier islands, beaches and dunes, and nesting
habitat. There are many uncertainties associated with restoration
projects. To bring greater effectiveness to coastal restoration
projects, efforts are needed in the areas of research, monitoring,
assessment of ecosystem processes and responses, and improvement of
analytical tools (USACE, 2004; Louisiana Sea Grant, 2002). In addition,
there are marked advantages to communicating stories of success within
the community (EPA, 2003). Investments of both financial and human
resources are needed to implement needed restoration projects identified
in all five Gulf states. These efforts can help to enhance biodiversity,
reduce waterborne pollutants, increase commercial and recreational
opportunities for coastal resources, and mitigate the impacts of storms.

*Environmental Education*

Environmental education is a means to improve the public's awareness and
understanding of natural phenomena to foster support and positive
change. The literature suggests that the Gulf Coast is an area where
people need to gain a greater understanding of how their individual and
collective actions affect the environment. There is a need for the
greater Gulf community to acquire the skills needed to understand the
consequences of actions taken on coastal resources, and become better
equipped to make informed, balanced decisions. Improving public
understanding of coastal ecosystem changes and impacts is identified as
a top need to acquire a balance among environmental, economic, and
social systems (Working Group for Post-Hurricane Planning for the
Louisiana Coast, 2006).

There is a gap in public knowledge of coastal ecology and the processes
to support sound management policies. While there is a common
understanding that ocean and coastal areas are in trouble, awareness of
ocean processes and ecology is low (Steel and others, 2005). Documented
public awareness levels regarding the human impacts on ocean and coastal
areas are also low. Research has also displayed a correlation between
knowing about and supporting ecosystem protection and restoration (Gulf
of Mexico Alliance, 2006a). It is of critical importance to demonstrate
the societal value of natural resources and ecosystems to the public to
nurture a greater sense of caring (Working Group for Post-Hurricane
Planning for the Louisiana Coast, 2006).

Aside from informing the public, it is imperative that public
administrators and coastal managers have a firm understanding of the
impacts associated with ecosystem change (Lindell, Sanderson, and Hwang,
2002). It is essential for NOAA to contribute efforts toward a highly
trained work force that is aware of the dynamic nature of environmental
science, technology, and coastal research (Louisiana Sea Grant, 2002).
With a well-informed citizenry in place, the likelihood of prudent
coastal zone management decisions is enhanced.

*Identification and Characterization of Gulf Habitat*

Many habitat identification and characterization issues possess
relevance to NOAA activities. Habitat characterization, modeling, and
mapping are repeatedly referenced within the regional literature, as are
ecosystem linkages among habitat, fisheries, and other living marine
resources (Gulf of Mexico Alliance, 2006a; Louisiana Recovery Authority
Support Foundation, 2006; Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council,
1998; Heinz Center, 2006). High-priority needs include better definition
of critical habitat boundaries, the development of tools to monitor
longitudinal change, and enhanced understanding of different habitat
functions within the greater ecosystem (Gulf of Mexico Alliance, 2006b).
It is also important to understand the effects of habitat alterations to
quantify habitat response to both natural and anthropogenic alterations.
Aside from habitat restoration in itself, there is a documented need to
understand the success and functionality of such restoration projects
(Morton and others, 2005). Research is needed to improve current
methods, and to develop and evaluate new restoration techniques (Thayer
and others, 1996). Additional data (satellite imagery, sea-surface
circulation models, etc.) and additional physical measurements, such as
elevation profiles, would also provide additional benefit to habitat
assessment and research (Lehr and Scholz, 2002).

**Coastal Hazards Resilience**

As might be anticipated, many documents published since the 2005 storm
season discuss the need for greater community resilience to coastal
hazards. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita had significant negative impacts on
the built environment, on economies, on ecological systems, and on the
individuals and social networks of Gulf communities. As these
communities struggle to recover, many voices in both the public and
private sectors are calling for greater awareness of risks, for enhanced
mitigation and response planning, and for research into what makes
communities resilient to coastal hazards.

In the Gulf of Mexico, there is a continually identified need for new
and innovative ways to display and communicate information to coastal
communities about vulnerability to coastal hazards and appropriate
responses. Effective communication of true risk can increase the
resilience of both individuals and regions, and there has been
substantial investment in learning how to convey such information (NOAA
Coastal Services Center, 2005; Working Group for Post-Hurricane Planning
for the Louisiana Coast, 2006). Developing tools that help identify key
coastal areas and infrastructure at risk, using information from
historical storms to communicate risk and vulnerability, and conducting
environmental assessments are a few examples of current means to
communicate the risk of coastal hazards (Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council, 1995; NOAA Coastal Services Center, 2002; NSTC JSOST, 2006).
Despite the occurrence of numerous coastal events (storms, hurricanes,
etc.) and much relevant social science knowledge of associated impacts,
awareness of and preparation for hazards in coastal communities has been
surprisingly limited. This is evident in the aftermath of major storm
events such as hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The following sections
discuss issues and needs related to coastal hazard impacts on the built
environment, on economies, on ecological systems, and on human welfare.

*Built Environment Impacts*

The built environment, or infrastructure, primarily refers to industry
and community property, such as homes, buildings, factories, bridges,
roadways, levees, and other similar features (Working Group for
Post-Hurricane Planning for the Louisiana Coast, 2006; Louisiana
Recovery Authority Support Foundation, 2006). It is a common
misperception that state and local building codes have provided adequate
protection from storms. However, a primary constraint associated with
the built environment is the failure for building and construction
habits and practices to be sufficiently modified (Gulf of Mexico
Alliance, 2006a). Both residential and commercial developers
predominantly adhere to building codes and requirements; however, it is
suggested that current regulations are not as effective as they could be
concerning human safety and the ability of structures to withstand
significant storm events. As a result, many county and local
governments, such as those in Southern Mississippi, have been advised to
adopt more stringent building codes and requirements to protect citizens
and reduce the extent of destruction from future hurricanes and other
natural disasters (Governor's Commission on Recovery, Rebuilding, and
Renewal, 2005a). Additionally, federal and state agencies could offer
guidance in drafting new guidelines for rebuilding standards and
practices. Informed decisions and choices positively affect the
rebuilding process and lead to safer, more sustainable communities.

*Economic Impacts*

Financial loss can be extremely high from a major storm event. Financial
downturn can also come from a decline in fish stocks or reduction in
water quality. Proper planning and anticipation of such events leads to
a state of increased economic resilience. Significant economic loss was
experienced during the 2005 hurricane season along the Gulf of Mexico.
Outcomes could have possibly been more favorable if greater planning had
been incorporated before, during, and after the events. In a
post-Katrina survey, 2,500 Louisianans were asked what their primary
needs were for recovery. Two of the top four responses were money and
jobs (Louisiana Recovery Authority Support Foundation, 2006). It is also
important to balance the environmental and economic sustainability of
solutions with financial constraints (Working Group for Post-Hurricane
Planning for the Louisiana Coast, 2006). The literature calls for the
development of economic models of consequence, resilience, and
resistance (NSTC JSOST, 2006). Such data modeling efforts have the
capacity to address cost-benefit issues, and market and non-market
resource valuations. Industry could greatly benefit from more accurate
models that predict storm track and impact (Thurlow, Kruse, and
Bierling, 2004). Connecting such models to economic and social data to
do "impact forecasting" could inform everything from search and rescue
following a disaster to business continuity planning to prioritizing
small business and housing assistance during recovery. For example, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency's Hazards U.S. Multi-Hazard tool
(HAZUS-MH) is one effort to allow predictions of physical damage,
economic loss, and social impacts
([www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/hazus/](http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/hazus/)).
Because of the economic revenue that results from industries such as
recreation and tourism, ports, and fisheries, it is imperative that
coastal communities adopt more risk-conscious behavior to minimize
hazard-related costs (U.S. House of Representatives Science Committee,
2005; Louisiana Recovery Authority Support Foundation, 2006).

*Ecological Impacts*

Ecological impacts of coastal hazards along the Gulf of Mexico are of
particular concern. Wetland-dominated landscapes that surround human
population centers are diminishing because of continual development.
Such landscapes are not only important as buffers from hurricanes, but
also are of great value to the larger natural system (Working Group for
Post Hurricane Planning for the Louisiana Coast, 2006). There is a lack
of understanding of the connection between protection and restoration of
natural areas and reduced hurricane damage (Gulf of Mexico Alliance,
2006a). Steel and others (2005) speak about the need for an overall
increase in the level of public understanding, referred to as the "ocean
knowledge gap." The scientific and technical complexity of many public
policy matters, such as environmental issues of coastal areas and the
oceans, pose serious challenges for the effective participation of
citizens in the democratic process. There is a critical gap in the
public's policy-relevant knowledge. Additional identified needs are for
greater-detailed maps of Gulf states to be used in selecting wetlands
restoration projects, and for additional research that better defines
the relationship between the hurricane flooding impacts on coastal
communities and proposed restoration projects (National Academy of
Sciences, 2006; Congressional Research Service, 2006).

*Human Impacts*

Additional measures are necessary to improve the ability to preserve
human life in the wake of coastal hazards. Many of the topics previously
discussed within this document affect the quality of human life.
However, personal needs must be addressed. Major values and themes that
emerge are safety, prosperity, cultural integrity, and inclusion and
fairness of assistance during times of crisis (Louisiana Recovery
Authority Support Foundation, 2006). Two human service priorities
identified by the Louisiana Recovery Authority Support Foundation (2006)
include mental health services and elder care services. These services
were, and are, in great demand following hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
When asked who was most effective in responding to these needs,
recipients overwhelmingly answered local citizens, churches, nonprofit
organizations, and community groups. Communicating how and where to
access such services during times of need is important, and often a lack
of knowledge limits public action in times of emergency. Unfortunately,
enhancing the resilience of coastal communities cannot completely
eliminate human pain, suffering, and loss of life, but the ability
exists to reduce such impacts through careful planning that considers
ecological, social, and economic factors (Smith and Deyle, 1998; Mobile
Bay, 2002; Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium, 2006).

**Cross-Cutting Issues**

There are two major cross-cutting themes that emerge from the literature
on ecosystem management and hazard resilience. These are coordination
and communication of information and the application and use of data,
models, and decision-support tools. These issues go beyond the purely
administrative decision-making processes to address core human values
that are directly tied to safety, quality of life, and environmental
health.

*Coordination and Communication*

Greater coordination among scientists, policy makers, resource managers,
and emergency managers is needed for increased effectiveness of Gulf of
Mexico coastal management. Too often such disciplines work in a vacuum
with little consideration for issues outside of their immediate
responsibilities. While intentions are good, too often organizational
efforts are fragmented, duplicative, and possess limited coordination.
Considerable amounts of research never reach managers, and agencies
often have volumes of unanalyzed data. A wide range of expertise is
available within the broad marine management and academic communities,
and sharing knowledge and experiences could be tremendously valuable.
Site managers know local contacts and resources, and have hands-on
experience with different enforcement approaches, while regional and
national managers may have more media experience and technical and
mapping capacities.

Mechanisms are needed to identify and coordinate natural resource
information, data, and technical assistance to facilitate their use. One
such mechanism is the "clearinghouse" concept. The marine protected area
(MPA) needs assessment calls for clearinghouses of MPA-related
scientific data, as well as of researchers and experts, funding
opportunities, and outreach and educational materials (NOAA Coastal
Services Center, 2002). The increasing use of the Internet means that
electronic clearinghouses can be very effective. However, it is
important to keep in mind that different individuals prefer to access
information in different ways, meaning multiple mediums must be used to
communicate the existence of clearinghouses themselves and, where
feasible, clearinghouse information should be available in multiple
formats.

Through greater communication with regional stakeholder groups, better
use of public funds and greater public good can be achieved. Once
appropriate and useful public information and messages have been decided
upon, it is necessary to determine how the data can be presented in a
way that makes people take notice and that promotes positive action or
behavioral changes. Having possession of a perfect storm-surge model
does not guarantee that citizens will evacuate a hazardous area in time
of crisis. Similarly, a perfect nonpoint-pollution model will not
necessarily translate to Gulf residents reducing the improper disposal
of motor oil from their cars. To foster ecosystem sustainability and
community resilience, information needs to be packaged in an easily
digestible form and presented to recipients in a way that makes them
care about the issue and relate it to their own lives.

*Application and Use of Data, Models, and Tools*

A commonly cited limitation within the Gulf of Mexico coastal management
community is the lack of accessibility to and compatibility of technical
data (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 1998; Texas NRCC, 1998;
NOAA Coastal Services Center, 2002). The primary needs for data include
access to, knowledge of, and training for application. As an example,
the need for access to and training in how to apply geographic
information system data and tools is reflected in several documents
(Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 1998; NOAA Coastal Services
Center, 2002; Council on Environmental Quality, 2004). The greater Gulf
coastal management community would likely benefit from the sharing of
best data and modeling practices. Additionally, sharing information,
identifying data sources, compiling data inventories, and integrating
data sets when possible would be highly productive activities.
Cooperation and partnerships for data-related activities among the
federal government, state and local governments, and private
organizations are needed.

Second, modeling and decision-support tools are a documented,
cross-cutting need (Thayer and others, 1996; Working Group for
Post-Hurricane Planning for the Louisiana Coast, 2006; USACE, 2004; EPA,
2003; NSTC JSOST, 2006; NOAA Coastal Services Center, 2002). The results
of a 2002 survey conducted by the Coastal Services Center recommend the
development of a number of coupled meteorological and hydrodynamic
models to provide improved forecasts for wind, precipitation, currents,
wave fields, inland storm surge and flooding, and biogeochemical events
(NOAA Coastal Services Center, 2002). The need for further improvement
of the range, prediction, and accuracy of storm forecasting, primarily
related to hurricanes, is further emphasized by the American Geophysical
Union (2006). Specific atmospheric recommendations include increases and
improvements in aircraft observations, satellite remote sensing,
evaporation and heat-exchange levels in high-wind environments, and the
effects of ocean waves on the transfer of heat. Development of
simulation models to evaluate fishery and habitat responses, and
development of simulation models to predict habitat development
trajectories for restoration were also documented as important needs
(Thayer and others, 1996; EPA, 2003; Congressional Research Service,
2006; USACE, 2004; Working Group for Post-Hurricane Planning for the
Louisiana Coast, 2006). Finally, the development of economic and social
models of consequence, resistance, resilience, and integration are
specific human modeling needs (NSTC JSOST, 2006). As the Gulf Coast
populations continue to grow, such models should be built into
decision-support tools for emergency and development planning.

**Summary**

As detailed above, the literature review component of the needs
assessment revealed a variety of specific needs and issues of concern in
the Gulf region. This information also helped guide subsequent
components of the needs assessment, providing context for focus group
discussions and targeted interviews.

**Introduction to Focus Group and Interview Results**

The results of the literature review helped identify areas of inquiry
for both the focus groups and interviews. Participants were asked to
provide input in five general areas:

-   Needs to support and foster an ecosystem-based approach to the
    management of coastal resources,

-   Needs to increase community resilience to coastal hazards,

-   Data and technology needs, with a focus on geographic information
    system (GIS), remote sensing, and decision-support tool needs,

-   Communication needs, and

-   Coordination needs.

For the final two topics, input was sought on how NOAA and the Gulf
Coast Services Center might best communicate and coordinate, as well as
how they might foster productive coordination and communication amongst
the many groups involved in coastal resource management in the Gulf.

From providing information about current conditions and efforts to
identifying key constraints and needs, the individuals who participated
in focus groups and interviews provided a wealth of ideas. The following
sections summarize this information, highlighting those needs that were
raised repeatedly by customers and partners across the Gulf states.
Findings from the 2006 NOAA Coastal Services Center Customer Survey are
interwoven as well. The reader will note that there are significant
interconnections across the topics discussed, and some needs are
mentioned more than once because of their relevance to multiple topics.
Lists of the individuals who participated in the focus groups and
interviews can be found in Appendices D and E, and a summary of survey
findings for Gulf respondents can be found in Appendix C.

**[Needs to Support and Foster an Ecosystem-Based Approach to
Management]{.smallcaps}**

> "Everyone agrees we need to take an ecosystem-based approach, but how
> do we *do* it?"
>
> "At the end of the day, growth and development is the number one issue
> for the Gulf."
>
> \- Gulf Interviewees

**An Ecosystem-Based Approach is Needed, but Challenging to Implement**

While there is widespread agreement on the need for and benefits of an
ecosystem-based approach to management, Gulf resource managers and other
decision-makers need help figuring out how this can be implemented.
Needs assessment participants talked about the need to look at issues
holistically, but said that all too frequently the coastal community is
still treating issues individually. Participants said connections need
to be better understood and emphasized the need to understand how land
use impacts coastal and marine resources. While there is a widely
recognized need to treat issues in aggregate, from the uppermost part of
estuaries out to nearshore and offshore areas, this type of
watershed-based approach has proved difficult to achieve. Interviewees
did mention several local-level efforts that are striving to take an
ecosystem-based approach, and suggested that NOAA might support these
efforts.

*Specific Actions Need to Be Identified*

Participants said an ecosystem-based approach needs to be defined in
terms of actions that can be taken. Managers want to know how such an
approach can be *implemented*. It is hard to understand what
ecosystem-based management means on the ground for day-to-day actions;
managers need to know how they can operationalize the concept and what
specific steps they should take. To this end, training, written
guidance, and pilot or demonstration projects were all suggested as ways
to help. Specific training topics identified included the complexities
of systems such as estuaries, a review of existing relevant modeling
efforts, ways to identify signs of decline, and ways to be more
proactive. Several people suggested pilot projects spelling out specific
activities or "steps." Participants said that identifying these specific
actions could also have added value in that it would demonstrate to
local decision-makers that change can be gradual and incremental. There
is a need to identify steps that can lead to incremental change and to
focus on individual decisions that people relate to in their everyday
lives.

*Many People Need to Be at the Table*

Taking an ecosystem-based approach to management involves many issues,
many disciplines and professions, and many jurisdictions. Hence, there
are many players who need to be at the table. Participants emphasized
that bringing all the right groups together is a central challenge of
trying to manage holistically.

**More Resource Management Staff Members Are Needed**

While the need for funding was raised throughout the assessment,
resource managers tended to highlight the need for staff members. Indeed
some upper-level managers indicated they do not want additional funding
without more people because they have insufficient staff members to
manage the projects and funding they have now. This issue was identified
as a key constraint to achieving an ecosystem-based approach; just as
habitats become fragmented, over-extended resource managers end up
taking a fragmented approach to management. While management entities
might like to consider parts of the ecosystem beyond their
jurisdictional boundaries, these entities rarely have the staff members
or other resources to do this. As much as managers would like to take an
ecosystem-based approach, too often they are "going from fire to fire."

**Data, Maps, Tools, and Models Are Needed to Manage Holistically**

A key constraint discussed here, and in subsequent sections of the
report, is having adequate information. Participants emphasized that
there are tremendous data and modeling needs to undertake a true
ecosystem-based approach to management. Whether one is thinking about a
particular estuary or watershed, or about the entire Gulf of Mexico,
many types of data are needed. (Several individuals pointed out that
data from other nations are needed to address the Gulf as an ecosystem.)
Data are needed across political boundaries and jurisdictions, and tools
are needed to interpret and apply the information. In particular there
is a need for basic research on the nexus between human activities and
impacts on nearshore marine resources, considering both land-side and
on-the-water uses.

The data and technology needs section of the report provides additional
information on this topic, including a list of the many types of
biophysical data needed. Because socioeconomic and human use information
needs were identified so frequently during discussions about an
ecosystem-based approach, these needs are highlighted in this section.
Some specific analysis tools are also discussed because of their
particular relevance.

*Socioeconomic Data*

Many participants emphasized the need for socioeconomic information to
inform management. Economic data were the most frequently requested type
of social science information. Data are needed on the economic value of
coastal and marine resources, and on the economic impact of various
activities that impact these resources. From data on the recreational
benefits of offshore oil and gas platforms to the fisheries values of
wetlands, participants said there is a particular need for economic
valuation information.

Along with economic value and impact data, there is a need for basic
information on human use. Managers need information on how many people
are using different types of coastal resources for various purposes, and
they would like to have this information in a spatial context. While
data tend to be more available for commercial uses, the need for better
and more recreational data---from boating to beach use to fishing---was
raised by many.

*Maps, Tools, and Models*

Raw data are a necessary but insufficient ingredient for an
ecosystem-based approach. Maps, tools, and models are needed to analyze,
interpret, and apply this information to management. Mapping of
habitats, jurisdictions, and watershed boundaries were all identified as
critical to an ecosystem approach. (Habitat mapping is discussed further
below.) Some talked about the real power of mapping as the ability to
monitor change, and in being able to "layer" other information on top to
inform decision-making.

This desire to be able to make more informed decisions also drives
people's interest in analysis tools and models. Participants said there
is a significant need for tools that show the connections between
different components of an ecosystem, and specifically that demonstrate
the impacts of different anthropogenic and natural activities on coastal
waters and habitats. Tools that show these connections and that allow
trend analysis, forecasting, and comparison of possible future scenarios
are in high demand. In many cases this demand is tied to concern about
the impacts of future growth and development, an issue discussed further
below.

Many participants also called for more and better models. Specific needs
identified ranged from a Gulf-wide circulation model that includes bays
and estuaries to models showing seasonal freshwater inputs, to models
showing the performance of different shoreline types under different
environmental conditions. As with the decision-support tools identified,
participants' interest in models was frequently tied to a desire to
understand how future growth and development would impact ecosystems.

**Habitat Monitoring, Mapping, Conservation, and Restoration Needs**

So many participants mentioned habitat-related needs that it bears
special mention. In the 2006 NOAA Coastal Services Center Customer
Survey, 56% of Gulf respondents identified habitat restoration and
monitoring as high-priority issues, making it clear that many are
working in this arena. During the focus groups and interviews,
participants emphasized that monitoring and GIS mapping of habitats
needs to be done at a higher resolution, more comprehensively, and more
frequently to allow trend analysis. Common habitat classification across
management entities and geographic areas is needed, and several
participants expressed support for ongoing work in this area by NOAA,
the State of Florida, and others.

Beyond mapping, participants said they need tools to assess habitat
condition and then tools to combine assessments and identify priority
areas for conservation, protection, or restoration. Once priorities are
identified, managers need the ability to preserve or restore various
habitat types in an effort to protect a complete suite of biodiversity.
More funding is needed to achieve thorough biodiversity representation.

Turning to habitat restoration, a key need is for more monitoring and
research on the functionality of restored habitats. Several participants
identified a lack of information about the performance of restored
wetlands and said there is a need for training in this area. Since
restoration projects are often done as mitigation, monitoring of
functionality is essential to determine whether such mitigation is
"working." On a related note, there is a need for easily accessible
information on restoration projects completed or underway in the Gulf
region to enable the sharing of lessons learned, including information
about the long-term performance of projects.

Habitat conservation and restoration also arose during discussions of
hazard resilience, so habitat-related needs are also discussed in that
section of the report.

**Growth and Development: An Over-arching Issue with Many Associated
Needs**

In the 2006 NOAA Coastal Services Center Customer Survey, 61% of Gulf
respondents identified growth management or land use planning as a
high-priority issue, and growth and development came up repeatedly
during focus groups and interviews. A number of people said this is the
number one issue in the Gulf of Mexico region, and numerous participants
identified it as contributing to specific resource impacts and
management challenges. Individuals in each of the Gulf states emphasized
development pressures and voiced concern about impacts from both coastal
and upstream development. Many said there is a pressing need to better
understand and demonstrate the connections between growth and coastal
resource quality and quantity. Specifically, connections between upland
activities and coastal impacts, as well as cumulative and secondary
impacts of development, must be documented and communicated. Several
participants suggested that NOAA and the Gulf Coast Services Center
might help facilitate dialogue about growth and development issues in
the Gulf coastal region. The following sub-sections provide information
about specific growth- and development-related issues identified by
participants:

*Water Quality, Impervious Surface, and Nutrients*

Given that both water quality and nutrients were identified as priority
issues by the Gulf of Mexico Alliance's "Governors' Action Plan for
Healthy and Resilient Coasts," it was not surprising that many talked
about these issues during the needs assessment. The 2006 NOAA Coastal
Services Center Customer Survey had also identified water quality
monitoring as a high-priority issue for over half of Gulf respondents.
Concerns about water quality and nutrients were raised at multiple
scales, from small estuaries and bays to the entire Mississippi River
basin, once again emphasizing the need for ecosystem-based approaches.
Within the general topic, many individuals talked about the issue of
ever-increasing impervious surface area. There is a need to understand
how impervious surface area impacts water quality, and to find ways to
limit impacts. Several participants commented that tools for analyzing
this issue, such as the Impervious Surface Analysis Tool (ISAT) and the
Nonpoint Source Pollution and Erosion Comparison Tool (N-SPECT), are
needed and useful. These tools help show why understanding the location
and magnitude of impervious surface area impacts is important, and they
help prioritize monitoring and management efforts.

Turning to nutrient issues, limited sewer capacity in rural areas that
are now facing development pressures was identified as a key threat to
water quality. Managers said they need help monitoring, anticipating,
and planning for these pressures. Many researchers and managers are
working on hypoxia issues in the Gulf, and there has been talk about a
"nutrient budget" for the Gulf to help take an ecosystem-based approach.
Finally, participants mentioned a need for continued research on the
impacts of nutrients, and specifically for research into connections
with harmful algal blooms. (A multiagency federal working group has been
working on the issues of hypoxia and harmful algal blooms for several
years now. Reports specific to the Gulf of Mexico region can be accessed
at
[www.cop.noaa.gov/stressors/extremeevents/hab/habhrca/](http://www.cop.noaa.gov/stressors/extremeevents/hab/habhrca/).)

*Fresh Water Demand, Impacts of Use*

Another development-related concern is freshwater supply and use.
Planners are worried about whether there will be adequate, clean water
to support development, and resource managers are concerned about how
ever-increasing freshwater use may impact ecosystems. Freshwater inflow
changes have the potential to change the habitat and species composition
of estuaries, which in turn can have big impacts on recreational and
commercial harvests. There is a need for planning tools to predict and
plan for water use that does not compromise ecosystems. And research is
needed to feed these tools, exploring connections between groundwater
and surface water, and exploring how changes in salinity from decreased
freshwater inflows or increased saltwater intrusion may impact both
natural resources and water supplies.

*Planning for the Conversion of Working Lands, Priority Areas in Florida
and Texas*

As growth pressures increase in the Gulf region, areas that have been
working lands, used for timber and ranching for decades, are now
converting to development. Rural communities are unprepared for these
changes and need help planning. Along the Texas coast, for example,
large ranches are being sold off, and in many cases these undeveloped
tracks are in unincorporated, locally unregulated parts of counties.
Similarly, in Florida, large timber operations are selling off large
tracts for development. In Louisiana and Mississippi, major population
shifts and migration to undeveloped areas is occurring because of
Hurricane Katrina impacts. Participants emphasized both the need for
planning in these areas and the need for basic land acquisition of
high-priority areas with high habitat and functional values.

Because of their historically low levels of development, both the Texas
coast and the Florida Big Bend and Panhandle areas were identified as
key places to pursue an ecosystem-based approach, and to carefully guide
development. Several participants said the Florida Big Bend and
Panhandle are areas where management can still be proactive and said
these areas should be priorities for mapping and monitoring and for
community engagement. Similarly, participants said the large Texas
coastal ranches that are sold should be priorities for planning.

*Maintaining Traditional Water-Dependent Uses*

A related issue of particular concern in high-growth portions of the
Gulf coast is maintaining traditional water-dependent uses. Some
traditional working waterfronts have already been lost, converted to
residential and tourism development, and there is a desire to preserve
those that remain. To address this issue, there is an *a priori* need to
analyze where water-dependent uses occur, and some groups have already
started to study this. Long-established fishing and seafood businesses
need water access to survive but have difficulty holding on to or
competing for waterfront real-estate as property values rise. Recent
hurricanes have greatly impacted these businesses and compounded this
trend. Planning and regulatory tools are needed, such as special zoning
districts and differential tax rates. In addition, these traditional
industries must increase their resilience against storms to survive
long-term.

*Shoreline Hardening*

As more pieces of coastline develop, both along the Gulf and up into
estuaries, more areas are being hardened or armored. Managers are
worried about both ecological and erosion issues associated with
artificial shoreline hardening and want to promote "living shorelines,"
encouraging techniques such as dune restoration, oyster restoration,
vegetated buffers, and stream restoration over man-made armoring
solutions. Unfortunately, there is not enough information about and
access to these alternatives. In some cases, property owners want to
pursue ecologically minded approaches but find a dearth of information
and capacity amongst local engineers and contractors. Best management
practices need to be developed for these techniques that are supported
by research and informed by the experience of resource managers across
the country. (These specific needs identified by Gulf participants are
reinforced by the 2006 National Academy of Sciences study, *Mitigating
Shore Erosion along Sheltered Coasts*.) There are opportunities for
achieving multiple benefits with living shoreline projects; for example,
an oyster restoration project might stabilize a shoreline, enhance water
quality, and provide a few oysters for harvest.

*Small Communities Need Planning Assistance*

Just as inadequate staff size was raised as an issue on the resource
management side, participants said that small communities often do not
have the technical staff they need to address planning issues. Because
these communities do not have large budgets, state or federal entities
could help by providing more services to these areas. Regional planning
councils, state planning agencies, and state coastal management entities
were all suggested as entities that could help.

**Human Use Issues**

In the 2006 NOAA Coastal Services Center Customer Survey, 52% of Gulf
respondents identified public access as a high-priority issue. Somewhat
surprisingly given this data, public access issues were not mentioned
much during the focus groups and interviews. However, a couple of
individuals did talk about the need to balance access with resource
protection. As mentioned above, there is a need for more data on
recreational use. Boating patterns are changing in parts of the Gulf,
which means there may be a need for new boating policies in some areas.

**Harmful Algal Blooms: Research and Communication Needs**

Interestingly, harmful algal blooms (HABs) came up during discussions of
both an ecosystem-based approach and resilience to coastal hazards.
Recent HAB events in the Gulf have had dramatic ecological impacts,
which in turn have led to large economic impacts on the fishing and
tourism industries. Managers are worried about the ability of the
natural system, and specifically offshore habitats, to be resilient to
repeated events.

There are both research and communication needs related to this issue.
Although significant research is underway on HABs, managers cited a need
for more peer-reviewed research on the relationship with watershed
management, and specifically on the role of nutrients. Managers also
emphasized that there must be good communication between scientists and
the public, environmental groups, and commercial and industrial
interests on this issue. In Florida, some mistrust has developed
surrounding this issue, and this is actively being addressed by all
interested parties. Participants mentioned that NOAA's HAB Bulletins are
a valuable tool.

**Invasive Species**

The spread of invasive species is an issue of concern around the Gulf.
Resource managers said there is a need for better tracking of invasive
species, and ideally they would like to be able to model the spread of
different species to predict when a species might be moving from one
area to another. Several managers cited the need to develop remote
sensing techniques that will allow more comprehensive mapping of
invasive species. For example, managers in Florida would love to be able
to distinguish mangrove from Brazilian pepper using remote sensing.
Although many managers in the Gulf are now familiar with management
techniques for terrestrial exotics, managers cited a need for training
on ballast water technologies to address marine invasive species.
Finally, managers talked about the need for coordination, suggesting
that it would be good to have one group tracking this issue Gulf-wide.

**Regional Coordination is Needed on Restoration and Sediment
Management**

Habitat restoration and sediment management were also issues that many
participants said could benefit from regional coordination. Having
Gulf-wide information about restoration and sediment management projects
and regular exchange among the professionals working on these projects
would be valuable. Coordination can also be an issue within individual
states, with some participants citing the need for better coordination
between neighboring restoration projects involving different agencies.
One specific issue mentioned was the need to monitor the impacts of
channel dredging. Several participants also mentioned the importance of
considering geologic processes in the restoration of barrier islands.

Sediment management is also a topic where local governments are looking
for support. Participants said many local governments would like
information and assistance on doing beach nourishment and sediment
management in the most environmentally friendly manner possible.

**Education is Needed on Ecosystem Connections and Values of Ecosystem
Services**

Cutting across all of the specific issues identified above, participants
emphasized the importance of education as a critical component of any
attempt to implement an ecosystem-based approach. There is a lack of
understanding about both the interconnectedness of ecosystem components
and issues, and the multiple values provided by ecosystem services.

Participants said that the Gulf management community needs help
communicating the benefits of ecosystem approaches to management. For
example, there is a need for more and better education on the multiple
benefits of restoration. On the other side, there is also a need for
more education on the ecosystem impacts of development and other human
activities. On the specific topic of fisheries, there is a need to
provide education on the importance of nearshore habitat to offshore
species. (The communication section of the report provides additional
information on specific education-related needs.)

**Human Dimensions Tools and Assistance Are Needed**

The need for socioeconomic and human-use data was discussed above, but
the assessment also revealed needs for human dimensions tools and
technical assistance.

"Human dimensions involves the beliefs, attitudes, values, behaviors,
and

socioeconomic, demographic, and organizational characteristics of the
stakeholders

involved . . . ." (Jacobson and McDuff, 1998)

While awareness of human dimensions issues and social science data and
tools is growing, individuals said coastal and marine managers still
often are not aware of what is possible in this realm. Tools such as
social assessment are generating considerable interest among managers
that are applying them, but the use of these tools needs to spread.
Managers also need help integrating social science data into projects
and decision-making. Assistance with participatory processes and social
science tools were two specific needs identified.

*Need for Good Processes and, Hence, Process Training*

As mentioned above, extensive, effective participation of multiple
stakeholders is seen as a key component of an ecosystem-based approach
to management. In the 2006 NOAA Coastal Services Center Customer Survey,
when asked about use of human dimensions tools, meeting facilitation and
stakeholder engagement processes were some of the most frequently used.
Sixty-four percent of Gulf respondents report that they or their offices
use meeting facilitation, and 61% reported use of stakeholder engagement
processes. Focus groups and interviews confirmed that many organizations
are conducting participatory processes, and training and technical
assistance is desired. Participants said they would like training on and
tools for meeting facilitation, dealing with hostile audiences,
stakeholder identification, and overall participatory process design. It
was also suggested that, in some situations, it would be appropriate and
helpful if NOAA facilitated discussions between local officials and
resource managers.

*Social Science Tools*

In the 2006 NOAA Coastal Services Center Customer Survey, 61% of Gulf
respondents reported that they or their offices use surveys. However,
only 21% said that they or their offices use social assessments.
Similarly, 35% reported that they or their offices use cost-benefit
analysis, while only 9% reported that they or their offices use
non-market valuation. These data demonstrate that while some social
science tools are now being used regularly, others may be underutilized.
The need for economic tools was mentioned frequently during the
assessment, with managers saying they need help applying economic tools
both to understand the value of certain resources and to understand the
benefit-cost ratios of different resource uses, management actions, and
future development scenarios.

**[Needs to Increase Community Resilience to Coastal
Hazards]{.smallcaps}**

"So unprepared it's hard to describe."

"We need everything, I don't know where to start."

> -- Gulf Interviewee

**Need to Define, and Identify, Specific Actions to Enhance Resilience**

The two quotes above are telling. They are the first responses given by
interviewees when asked about needs to increase community resilience to
coastal hazards. Coastal hazards resilience is clearly a large,
high-priority issue for the Gulf region, but people are not sure how it
can be tackled.

Many participants said there is a need to define resilience and, more
specifically, to identify what communities can *do* to become more
resilient. As with an ecosystem-based approach to management, everyone
seems to agree with the concept of enhancing community resilience, but
people are unsure about how to implement or operationalize the concept.
Decision makers in the Gulf coast region---county commissioners, local
planners, coastal managers, emergency managers, private business owner,
etc.---need to know what specific actions they can and should be taking.
Participants suggested developing a suite of options for helping
communities become more resilient, and developing a "roadmap" with
specific actions for local-level decision makers.

Although there is uncertainty about how to proceed, the 2006 NOAA
Coastal Services Center Customer Survey demonstrated that there is a
strong desire to learn about hazards management topics. Hurricanes and
flooding/inundation/storm surge were both identified as high-priority
issues by over 50% of Gulf respondents, and even higher percentages
expressed a need for more knowledge about specific hazards topics:

-   Long-term recovery: 78%

-   Risk and vulnerability assessment: 77%

-   Hazards mitigation: 72%

-   Response immediately after a disaster: 69%

-   Risk communication: 65%

-   Forecasts and warnings: 51%

Asked to rank the relative priority of these hazards management topics,
"risk and vulnerability" rose to the top, with 30% of Gulf respondents
listing this as the number one priority. "Long term recovery" came in
second with 19% ranking this as their top priority.

**NOAA Can Provide a Forum for Dialogue**

Participants said there is a need for dialogue about resilience and
specifically about making the connections between growth and development
and resilience. The need for this dialogue is particularly pressing in
regions heavily impacted by hurricanes Katrina and Rita, where decisions
about redevelopment are being made every day. Because of the many
stakeholders involved, and the diverse values they bring to the table,
and because of the uncertainty about what to do, there has not been
enough public discourse about this topic. Participants suggested that
NOAA and the Coastal Services Center might be able to start the
conversation, providing a forum for community/public discussions about
resilience. There is a need for dialogue about appropriate or realistic
levels of resilience for different areas, and some felt that NOAA could
act as a neutral party to begin discussions of alternatives, priorities,
and capabilities. In parts of the Gulf less recently or dramatically
impacted, managers report that both the public and local officials are
reluctant to discuss hazards and suggested that outreach on the
connections between growth, mitigation, long-term planning, and
resilience may be needed before dialogue can take place.

**Better Risk and Vulnerability Assessments Are Needed**

There is insufficient information about the vulnerability of communities
and resources around the Gulf, as well as about the risks faced by
different areas from various hazards. Many participants cited a need for
more and better risk and vulnerability assessments, and said tools are
needed to help communities and resource managers make and interpret
these assessments. Some talked about the need to combine specific layers
of information, for example overlaying maps of infrastructure and
hazardous waste sites with information about coastal resources and
demographics. Others talked about the need for decision-support tools
such as the Coastal Services Center's Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
Tool (RVAT.) Several people said there is a specific need for spatial
information on vulnerable individuals and groups such as the elderly and
handicapped. The need for tools is discussed further below, but the
assessment revealed a particular interest in standardized risk and
vulnerability tools that could be widely applied to existing processes
such as local mitigation planning and comprehensive planning.

**Communication of Risk Is Equally Important**

Participants emphasized that better risk assessment alone is not a
solution. Communication of risk is equally---or perhaps even
more---important. Not only do managers and planners need to understand
true risk, but this understanding must also be communicated to all the
citizens who are at risk, and in particular to the local-level
officials. The individuals who participated in the focus groups and
interviews said that lack of awareness of risk is a key constraint to
enhancing resilience, and said outreach and education is needed across
the Gulf region. The following sections detail some specific ideas about
how to address these communication needs.

*Raising Awareness of Existing Plans and Planning Processes*

While local mitigation plans, coastal management plans, evacuation
plans, and comprehensive plans incorporating risk information exist in
many areas of the Gulf, there is a lack of awareness of these plans.
Participants said these plans should be advertised to the public and to
local groups (e.g., chambers of commerce, homeowner associations, League
of Women Voters). Education on plans and planning processes and
promoting coastal zone management at the local level were identified as
strategies that could help raise awareness.

*Consistent Terminology*

While plans can raise awareness, inconsistent terminology across plans
and maps is one source of confusion for both the public and local
officials. The need for consistent terminology is also discussed below
under the topic of storm surge.

*Explain Warnings, How to Respond*

Along with being confused by varying terminology, many Gulf citizens do
not fully understand the various warnings that are used and are unsure
how to respond. For example, participants said the Safford-Simpson scale
in not well understood by the public, and too many people in the Gulf
remain unfamiliar with evacuation procedures. There is a need for basic
public education on both warnings and appropriate response actions. As
has been pointed out before, false alarms can be harmful to public
perception and subsequent response.

*Visualizations*

Many participants suggested using visualizations to communicate risk and
vulnerability. People interviewed find visualizations to be powerful
tools when doing outreach and education on a variety of topics, and said
more such tools need to be developed for hazards issues. From simple
signs showing predicted surge levels to complex simulations showing how
different building designs hold up in storm scenarios, visualizations
are needed both to show real or potential impacts and to demonstrate how
different management and development activities will mitigate or
exacerbate risk.

*Use Multiple Methods of Communication, and Identify Best Practices*

While visualization was a technique people felt would definitely have
value, participants emphasized that multiple methods should be pursued,
and said that communication of risk to the public needs to be flexible
and adaptable. It is important to remember that some of the people most
at risk may not have access to "high tech" methods. Paper, face-to-face,
and electronic communication are all needed. One suggestion was for NOAA
to help develop a portfolio of public service announcements on coastal
hazards management. Several individuals said that primary and secondary
education is the key to cultural change for preparedness and mitigation,
and suggested that training teachers is essential to have a long-term
impact. As multiple methods are tested, there is a need to evaluate
effectiveness and to compile best practices for hazards communication.

**Risk Needs to Drive Decision-Making, but Is Not Currently**

While there is certainly a need for more and better understanding of
true risk, and communication of that risk, participants pointed out the
basic failure to apply existing knowledge, and to consistently do so.
Specifically, what is already known about risk should be driving
decision-making about development, redevelopment, and mitigation, but is
not. There are multiple reasons why risk does not play a stronger role,
with the economics of coastal development being cited by many as the key
driver that overwhelms considerations of risk. Another reason mentioned
by several is that flood insurance policies, the expectation of federal
disaster assistance, and many other subsidies currently encourage
development in hazardous areas and create unhealthy dependencies.
Individuals said that while the federal Coastal Zone Management Act and
some state laws about growth and hazards have the *potential* to foster
more risk-based planning and development, the political will to apply
these tools is missing. A final interesting reason why risk may not play
a stronger role is that local governments often lack plans or authority
to protect public safety in areas that will be lost to coastal erosion
or that will become more exposed to the risks of storm hazards. (This
was one of the most frequently raised issues during the January 2005
Louisiana Sea Grant Presidents' Forum on Meeting Coastal Challenges.)
Despite these realities, participants said there are steps that can be
taken to encourage more risk-based decision-making, and these are
described in the following sections.

**Build Local Capacity, Help Communities Enforce Existing Regulations,
and Provide Incentives**

Because most decisions about development are made at the local level,
there is a need to build local capacity to understand risk, to apply
assessment and mitigation tools, and to adopt risk-based planning and
policies. As was mentioned repeatedly throughout the needs assessment,
there is a need not only to provide decision-making tools, but also to
provide training and technical assistance at the local level in applying
those tools.

In some cases, local governments have already adopted regulations
designed to minimize and mitigate risk, but the regulations are not
followed, with exemptions or variances being granted regularly. It was
suggested that both oversight and support can play a role in fostering
enforcement. When state-level entities provide oversight to make sure
existing plans or regulations are followed, it is undeniable that such
oversight will not always be welcome. But in some cases local decision
makers may appreciate being able to share the responsibility for tough
decisions. In addition to oversight, support can be provided to local
governments in the form of technical assistance such as helping to hold
public meetings, helping to review development proposals, and helping to
design mitigation measures. Finally, state or federal entities can also
provide support by publicly praising communities that are doing a good
job.

Finally, economic incentives were identified as important tools for
influencing decision-making at the local level. Just as the National
Flood Insurance Program's Community Rating System and some of Florida's
wind insurance rate reductions provide economic incentives for
communities and individuals to take mitigation measures, other economic
incentives could be developed to foster a range of activities that
enhance resilience.

**Training On and Evaluation of Mitigation Methods Are Needed**

Another area where capacity-building is needed is in the application of
mitigation techniques. Participants suggested a specific need for
training of contractors and homeowners on mitigation methods at the site
level as has been done in Florida by the Federal Alliance for Safe
Housing. But there is also a need for training of planners and
floodplain managers thinking about mitigation at larger scales. Since
the effectiveness and cost-benefit ratio of various mitigation methods
is still not completely understood, better methods of both qualitative
and quantitative performance evaluation of mitigation after a disaster
are also needed. Participants said it is particularly important at the
local level for there to be a set of methods for assessing loss avoided
because of mitigation actions.

**Communities Need Ways to Measure Resilience, and There Is a Need for
Dialog about the Social and Economic Aspects of Disasters**

Going a step beyond assessing risk and vulnerability, there is a need to
measure and monitor resilience. Participants said that community
resilience indicators could support meaningful discussion, but
emphasized that measuring resilience needs to be about more than whether
a particular physical settlement "bounces back" after a disaster.
Measuring resilience means thinking about the long-term ability of both
natural and human systems to withstand stressors and to have lessened
vulnerability over time.

It also means thinking about the economic and social aspects of
communities, as well as the built environment. Many participants
commented on the need for consideration and measurement of economic and
social factors related to disasters and resilience. On the economic
side, there is a need to show both the costs of hazard events, and the
cost-benefit of various mitigation, planning, and management actions.
Within the economic arena, several participants noted that insurance is
a key issue, calling for insurance analyses and dialogue about public
insurance policies. On the social side, the ability for communities to
stay together after disasters was raised as an important issue. This is
a significant and ongoing issue across the areas hardest hit by Katrina
and Rita. And in Florida and Alabama there have also been changes in
community composition after large hurricanes, with different types and
densities of development and new people moving into impacted areas and
bringing different cultures and values. Together with rapidly rising
property values, these changes create social instability. Participants
said that the social and economic aspects of disasters are important and
require more discussion across the Gulf region.

**Maps, Forecasts, Decision-Support Tools, and Training Are Needed**

Just as they reported that an ecosystem-based approach to management
requires extensive information and analysis tools, needs assessment
participants identified a host of information needs to support enhancing
community resilience. More floodplain and surge/inundation mapping was
identified as a key need, along with improved surge predictions and
hurricane intensity and track forecasting. Many participants mentioned
the need for pre- and post-storm data layers for comparison, and said
more data are needed to help deal with spills and environmental response
issues. As mentioned above, there is a high level of interest in tools
that can help communities assess risk and vulnerability.

Also similar to the discussions about ecosystem-based approaches,
participants emphasized that more information and tools alone are not
enough. Training and technical assistance are needed to help resource
managers, planners, local officials, and first responders understand the
information and apply the tools. For example, the Coastal Services
Center's Community Vulnerability Assessment Tool
([www.csc.noaa.gov/rva_tools/](http://www.csc.noaa.gov/rva_tools/)) was
identified as one tool that could be very useful but that communities
find overwhelming without assistance through the process. The
Association of State Floodplain Managers' new Coastal No Adverse Impact
handbook
([www.floods.org/NoAdverseImpact/coastal.asp](http://www.floods.org/NoAdverseImpact/coastal.asp))
was another specific tool where participants said training would be
helpful. Several participants said first responders need training to
better understand the data to which they have access. Both first
responders and local officials in areas heavily impacted by Katrina and
Rita were identified as groups that cannot devote extensive time or
travel funding for training; participants recommended half- or one-day
offerings and distance-learning options for these audiences.

**Emergency Managers, Floodplain Managers, Resource Managers, and Land
Use and Transportation Planners Need to Connect**

Just as there are multiple data layers required to understand risk and
resilience, there are diverse professions involved in assessing risk and
planning for resilience. And just as there is a need to sort out all the
different maps, models, and planning efforts related to hazard
resilience, there is a need to bring together the diverse professionals
working with these products and processes.

Emergency managers, floodplain managers, resource managers, land use
planners, and transportation managers were all identified as playing
important roles in increasing community resilience, and many
participants talked about the need to bring these different communities
together. While they have different priorities and missions, and use
different methods, people working in these different fields are all
struggling with issues related to reliance. Bringing these groups
together provides opportunities to share information, tools, lessons
learned, and perspectives. It also provides the opportunity to
collaborate, pursing resilience-related projects that meet the missions
of multiple groups. Finally, it can eliminate current and prevent future
inefficiencies and duplication of effort. Participants suggested that
NOAA encourage these groups to connect and provide forums for dialogue
and exchange. Training on the Coastal No Adverse Impact handbook was
mentioned again, identified as one possible tool for fostering
collaboration across different groups.

**Post-Disaster Planning Is Needed *Before* Disaster Strikes**

The need for planning before disaster events is all too apparent in the
wake of the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons. Participants now working on
recovery in the northern Gulf emphasized the need for post-disaster
redevelopment planning before an event and said this is a key gap in the
region. Emergency decisions need to be built into long-term planning,
and information from recent hurricanes should now inform future
strategies. Resources are needed to fund this planning.

*Enhanced Use of Mutual Aid for Post-Disaster Support*

One type of pre-event planning suggested was the development of
partnerships between organizations and communities in different
geographic areas of the Gulf coast. Local governments, resource
management entities, and community organizations could participate in an
integrated mutual aid process wherein all parties agree to provide
support after large disasters. The value of such relationships for
response needs through the Emergency Management Assistance Compact was
demonstrated after Katrina and Rita, and participants suggested that
such partnerships need to be encouraged and expanded for recovery,
mitigation, and long-term planning.

*Pre-Event Planning for Communication and Research Continuity Is Needed*

Several individuals talked about the need to determine how communication
and information needs will be met during a disaster. Again, establishing
partnerships before an event can help, and identifying roles in the
event of a disaster can ensure that communication channels function and
that critical information is saved or collected. Participants also
talked about the need to plan for preservation of monitoring data. For
example, oil production platforms provide for extensive monitoring.
There needs to be a plan for when an offshore platform has to shut down
for evacuation. Plans are also needed for re-establishment of monitoring
capacity after a disaster.

*Business and Employment Continuity Planning*

Participants talked about the need for planning for businesses and for
workers. For the oil and gas industry, hazards planning is clearly a big
issue; not only does the industry have extensive infrastructure in the
Gulf region with offshore platforms and land-based pipelines, but many
of the industry's employees also live in areas likely to be impacted by
coastal hazards. The recreation and tourism industry is another sector
that could benefit from predisaster continuity planning, and
participants said there has been inadequate dialogue with this industry
about this topic. Finally, the fishing and seafood industries are
particularly vulnerable to coastal hazards, and could benefit from
planning. One idea suggested is for states or even the entire Gulf
region to develop plans for how fishermen and seafood workers displaced
by either a storm or a red tide could be employed temporarily in other
areas or sectors, perhaps helping to rebuild after a storm, or helping
to study the storm or red tide impacts on habitats and species.

**There Is Confusion about Storm Surge Models, and Basic Education and
Outreach Are Needed**

Storm surge was a topic raised by many participants, the majority of
whom remarked on the confusion generated by the various models and
mapping efforts related to surge. The scientific debates and variations
across different models are confusing to the public and to local
officials. There is a significant need for education and outreach on
surge as a critical component of risk communication, but the current
confusion hampers communication efforts. Participants called for
standardization of both surge modeling and mapping, saying that the
various entities involved in modeling and mapping need to agree on and
implement standards that are based on accurate heights and horizontal
positions. New outreach and education materials need to be developed,
and once again visualization was identified as an effective technique
for helping people understand surge.

*Better and More Surge Modeling*

A number of participants also discussed data needs that could improve
surge modeling, specifically wind data, upland topography/elevation, and
bathymetry. As is mentioned in the data and tools section, several
participants expressed a need for seamless topographic-bathymetric
elevation models to increase the accuracy of surge modeling. Finally,
there is an interest in having more runs of the SLOSH model, and
specifically having runs 48 hours out to inform local decision-making.

**Sea Level Rise Research, Education/Outreach, and Planning Are Needed**

Sea Level Rise was another topic raised repeatedly during discussions of
resilience, and participants said there is a growing recognition of the
need for research on and education about sea level rise. On the research
side, there is a need to understand the different causes of sea level
rise and the relative contributions of these causes. Participants
suggested more sensors to allow more precise tracking, especially in
areas that are most vulnerable. Predictive models showing ecological and
socioeconomic impacts are also needed.

On the education side, there is a need to raise awareness in coastal
communities that sea level rise is happening and that planning is
necessary. Outreach efforts need to identify the connections to growth
and development and demonstrate the value of proactive action.
Participants said that information about long-term costs is an essential
component of communicating about sea level rise; people need to be able
to consider the costs of various adaptation and mitigation strategies.
For example, retreat might be more expensive than coastal armoring in
the short-term, but ultimately may be more cost-effective.

As with the overall topic of resilience, sea level rise is an issue that
both resource managers and elected officials find hard to address.
Participants said that states are starting to worry about sea level rise
and recognize the need for planning, but they do not know what should be
done. There is a need to identify options and strategies and to
communicate projections that make the issue more real for the
communities most at risk.

*Habitat and Wildlife Impacts*

While much of the discussion of sea level rise focused on impacts to
human communities, participants also talked about impacts to coastal
habitat and wildlife. Many Gulf species stand to be impacted by rising
sea levels, and research and planning are needed to help sustain both
individual species and biodiversity. Sea turtles, beach mice, and
shorebirds are a few of the more charismatic examples, but numerous
coastal species will be impacted as habitats change.

*Restoration Projects Need to Plan for Sea Level Rise and Climate
Change*

Resource managers are also concerned about how sea level rise and
climate change will impact restoration efforts. Managers recognize the
need to plan for these factors as they design projects, and some are
already thinking about how buffer areas can be included in projects to
allow habitats to migrate landward in the face of storm surge and sea
level rise. Managers said they need guidance and case studies to inform
their efforts in this area. A guide on how to incorporate resilience in
coastal restoration would be a useful tool in the Gulf region.

**Protect and Restore Coastal Habitats, and Communicate the Hazard
Mitigation Values**

Since hurricanes Katrina and Rita, people across the Gulf region, and
indeed across the country, have been talking about the importance of
coastal wetlands for mitigating storm damage. Not surprisingly, the
assessment identified a need to pursue habitat restoration and
protection to achieve both ecological and hazard mitigation benefits.
Participants also said there is a need to better understand the
connection between coastal habitats and hazard risk. Tools are needed
that show the relationship of wetlands to flooding and storm damage. As
with other topics, including economic information within these tools is
important, allowing people to understand and communicate the economic
costs and benefits of wetland loss and restoration.

In Mississippi, the state has worked with the Nature Conservancy to
combine information about storm-affected areas with information about
areas of environmental importance. Places where there is overlap have
been identified as acquisition priorities. This methodology could be
extended around the Gulf, and identifying these "win-wins" could help
generate support for protection and restoration in these areas.

**Katrina and Rita are Not "Over"**

A final and important note under the resilience section is that
hurricanes Katrina and Rita continue to impact thousands of people in
the Gulf of Mexico region. Impacts to the natural system also persist.
Cleanup of waterways and estuaries continues, and NOAA's work in this
area is appreciated and needed. Participants emphasized that there are
still basic recovery needs, as well as unanswered questions about where
displaced people can and should go.

**[Data and Technology Needs]{.smallcaps}**

"The technology side is where NOAA could really shine." -- Gulf
Interviewee

As the above quote suggests, many of the people who participated in the
needs assessment look to NOAA as a valued source of data and technology
tools. While existing data and tools from NOAA and its partners are
widely used, there are also many additional needs. Some of these needs
were identified as specifically related to an ecosystem-based approach
to management or resilience to coastal hazards and have already been
introduced. This section augments that information, providing more
details on both the types of data and tools currently used, as well as
gaps and constraints to use and application.

**Survey Results: Current and Desired Spatial Data Use**

The NOAA Coastal Services Center Customer Survey provided insight into
both current and desired use of spatial data. The most commonly used
spatial data layers among Gulf respondents were current shoreline,
coastal land cover, and coastal land use, with 70% or more of
respondents' offices using these layers. Additional data layers being
used by over 50% of respondents' offices were seagrass distribution,
public access, and elevation/topography.

The survey also revealed data needs, with over 50% of Gulf respondents
indicating that the following layers were not currently being used but
would be useful:

-   Sediments

-   Suspended sediments

-   Waves

-   Currents

-   Tides

-   Shoreline change/erosion

-   Coastal demographics

-   Marine and coastal economic data

-   Marine infrastructure

-   Critical facilities

-   Dump/discharge sites

-   Aquaculture sites

-   Salinity

-   Sea surface temperature

-   Primary productivity

-   Fish habitat distribution maps

-   Shellfish bed distribution

-   Cultural and historical resources

-   Sensitive habitats

**Detailed Data and Mapping Needs**

Augmenting the survey results, the focus groups and interviews
identified a host of specific data and mapping needs. While it is clear
that the amount and use of coastal and marine data has grown
dramatically in recent decades, there are still big data gaps in the
Gulf of Mexico region. The following list attempts to summarize the
range of needs expressed:

-   [Data in a GIS format]{.underline}: There is an ever-growing demand
    for data that can be viewed and analyzed in GIS.

-   [Habitat mapping:]{.underline} As discussed in the ecosystem-based
    approach to management section of the report, habitat mapping was a
    frequently identified need. Specific types of habitat mentioned
    included hardbottom, oyster reef, wetlands, and submerged aquatic
    vegetation (SAV). Participants also said areas need to be mapped
    more frequently so change can be monitored. There is an interest in
    having more side-scan data.

-   [Bathymetry and topography/elevation data]{.underline}: Many
    individuals mentioned the need for more bathymetry data. In addition
    to a basic lack of bathymetry in some areas, much of the data
    currently available are significantly outdated. There is the
    potential to do concurrent identification of habitat types when
    collecting bathymetry data. Lidar data are needed for elevation, and
    there is a need to integrate bathymetry and topography data sets,
    creating seamless "topo/bathy" maps. This integration is needed to
    understand and model processes that occur across the land/water
    interface, such as how activities on land impact coastal waters and
    in modeling surge and inundation from a storm. VDatum was identified
    as an important tool for transforming coastal elevations between
    different vertical datums.

-   [Remotely sensed data for habitat mapping]{.underline}: Participants
    emphasized the need for remotely sensed data sets with a high
    resolution to support habitat mapping and said they are always in
    need of and interested in more recent aerial photography. In
    particular, resource managers are interested in low-tide and winter
    photography to better map oyster beds and seagrass.

-   [Species associations with habitat]{.underline}: Once habitat is
    mapped, there is a need to identify species associations. (This was
    mentioned under the topic of fisheries data as well.)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Historic habitat mapping]{.underline}: In addition to current data,
    managers are interested in having pre-development habitat
    information in a GIS format. Historic benthic maps and
    pre-development vegetation maps allow managers to assess changes in
    habitat structure.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Land use and change over time]{.underline}: Current and trend
    information on land use are needed for a variety of applications,
    including restoration planning, growth management, and evacuation
    planning.

-   [Sediment transport data and lidar]{.underline}: Participants cited
    a need for these data to help with monitoring both beach nourishment
    projects and channel dredging. The combination of topographic lidar
    for beach surveys and modeling of sediment transport can help
    managers understand how long a nourishment project will last and
    where the sand is going. Along with the need for data, participants
    also mentioned there is a need for coastal geologists to provide
    expertise to inform restoration efforts.

-   [Data from water level stations and NOAA buoys]{.underline}:
    Participants said that more water level stations are needed, and
    more buoys are needed to provide improved wind, wave, and current
    data.

-   [Surface radar measurement of currents]{.underline}: Participants
    called for greater frequency of measurements.

-   [Oil and gas infrastructure and impacts]{.underline}: There is an
    ongoing need to track both the number and location of oil and gas
    rigs, and to identify and locate associated infrastructure. One
    specific problem mentioned was that maps showing pipelines coming in
    from offshore do not match up to maps of onshore lines. Participants
    also identified the need for data on the impacts of
    outer-continental shelf exploration and development on wetlands,
    considering variables such as navigation channels and vessel
    traffic.

-   [Real-time data systems for marine transportation]{.underline}: One
    participant talked about the need to expand PORTS data beyond water
    level. Oil spill trajectory, pH, and salinity were all mentioned in
    this context.

-   [Hydrography]{.underline}: Much of the hydrography for coastal
    waters in the Gulf is 50 or even 100 years old. Restoration
    projects, surge models, coastal engineering, and coastal research
    projects all use these dated surveys and could benefit from more
    recent information.

-   [Benchmarks for surveying]{.underline}: Many of the benchmarks and
    survey monuments in the northern Gulf were destroyed by Katrina. New
    and accurate monuments are needed. (NOAA and other partners have
    been working to address this issue since the storm.) Accurate land
    surveying is critical to research.

-   [Data for performance measures]{.underline}: Many resource managers
    are being asked to collect data for performance measures. State
    coastal zone management programs are struggling to pull together all
    the data for their performance measures, some of which are not
    readily available, and could use help with this task.

-   [Flood and wind frequencies]{.underline}: These data are needed at
    the local level, along with historic precipitation and tide data.

-   [Social vulnerability]{.underline}: Several participants expressed
    interest in having social vulnerability assessment data in a
    geospatial context.

-   [Pre- and post-storm data]{.underline}: There is a critical need for
    before and after aerial photos, elevation surveys, and other remote
    sensing data to evaluate storm impacts such as erosion and debris.
    More data points for high-water marks are also needed.

-   [Marine debris mapping]{.underline}: Several individuals mentioned
    the ongoing need for marine debris mapping.

-   [Human use maps, economic data]{.underline}: As discussed in the
    ecosystem-based approach section, many participants talked about the
    need to collect data on human use as well as a variety of economic
    data. Beach use, boating, and recreational fishing were mentioned
    specifically as human uses that managers would like to see in a
    spatial context.

-   [Fisheries data]{.underline}: Fisheries-related data needs were
    discussed, including more stock assessments, fisheries utilization
    and distribution data, and essential fish habitat refinement.
    Participants are interested in more real-time data, and a number of
    participants emphasized the need for better data on recreational
    fisheries.

-   [Hypoxia data]{.underline}

-   [Salinity monitoring for drinking water applications]{.underline}

**Data Management, Access, Sharing, and Standards**

More coordinated data management, improved data access, increased data
sharing, and data standards were topics mentioned repeatedly during the
assessment. This is not surprising, given the variety of entities
collecting data in the Gulf of Mexico region. Several participants felt
that NOAA and other federal agencies should play a key role in helping
to address these needs, saying that federal entities could provide value
in the region by pursuing cross-database management and actively
fostering improved data access, sharing, and management. Some indicated
it is part of the federal mission to provide a trusted data repository.
The state of Florida is currently pursuing enhanced coordination of
coastal and marine data and would like to coordinate with federal
efforts. Although participants felt federal entities were poised to
help, several individuals acknowledged that there are problems with data
sharing even among the federal agencies.

Regarding standards, participants spoke of the need for more
standardized data collection and quality-control protocols, and for more
standardized metadata. Fostering standardized metadata is an area where
federal entities are seen as important players. (The multiagency Federal
Geographic Data Committee, which promotes geospatial data coordination,
provides a variety of metadata resources:
[www.fgdc.gov/metadata/](http://www.fgdc.gov/metadata/).) Several
participants talked about the need for increased standardization of
water quality data, calling for consistency across monitoring efforts by
different agencies and programs.

**On-line Databases and Clearinghouses**

Resource managers, researchers, and others said a key challenge is
simply finding out what data exist in the Gulf region. Accessing data is
a secondary challenge. Participants suggested there is a need to develop
regional and/or national on-line databases and data clearinghouses for a
variety of data types. Remote sensing imagery, sediment management data,
bathymetric data, and restoration project information were four specific
areas where individuals felt clearinghouses are needed. Several
participants expressed support for using the portal concept for Gulf
Coast imagery and other data.

*Consult the Locals When Building a National or Regional Database*

Sometimes regional/national databases do not provide information that is
useful at the local level. In other cases the databases might be useful
but have not been designed with local users in mind and thus are hard to
use at this level. These problems are understandable since
regional/national databases are often designed for a national target
audience. While answering national questions for audiences such as
Congress clearly has utility, there is the potential to enhance the
benefits of such databases if locals are consulted during development.

*State and Local Entities Have Data to Contribute*

Another reason to consult both local- and state-level partners is that
there are significant data holdings at these levels, as well as capacity
to collect new data. Several participants talked about specific data
they would like to share. For example, the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management has a Cessna plane with several sensors and
cameras, and they would be interested in sharing the data they gather
with NOAA and comparing remote sensing data. The National Estuarine
Research Reserves are also a great resource for data, and these entities
are interested in increased data sharing. The Santa Rosa Island
Authority also expressed interest in sharing aerial photos,
demonstrating that many local entities may be potential partners.

*[D]{.underline}atabases and Clearinghouses Will Not Necessarily Solve
Access Issues*

Participants emphasized that while databases and clearinghouses are
needed, *how* these tools are developed is important, and people may
need technical assistance both to contribute information and to access
and apply these tools at the local level. Metadata training can help
data providers develop and share contextual information that is
essential to data users. Once multiple data sets have been compiled,
tutorials on how to find, extract, and manipulate data are needed.
Organization of data is also a key variable to facilitate access and
application. For example, participants suggested that data need to be
organized by both political boundaries and ecological boundaries (e.g.,
estuary or watershed). Easy downloading of data into formats that end
users can manipulate is also essential.

**Integrated Ocean Observing System Data**

Discussions of data management, access, sharing, and standards
frequently included a reference to the ever-increasing volume of data
from the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS). The 2006 Coastal
Services Center Customer Survey revealed that observing data are already
widely used in the region, with 57% of Gulf respondents reporting that
they or their offices use coastal and ocean observations. As the data
needs sections above illustrate, there is a strong demand for
observation information. Focus groups and interviews revealed, however,
that regional customers and partners are concerned about management of
observation data. The sheer volume of real-time data from multiple ocean
observing platforms has people concerned, and participants emphasized
the need for planning. Individuals also talked about the need to connect
observation information to management issues and to conduct outreach
about the value of observation data. Finally, participants urged NOAA to
consider and plan for how IOOS Regional Associations fit into NOAA's
structure, planning, and projects.

**Data Are Good, but Tools to Analyze Are Better**

Gulf customers and partners expressed a need for a wide range of tools
to analyze and apply raw data. Tools are needed both to support
decision-making and to educate. Participants pointed out that one
critical value of analysis tools is to explain and/or justify decisions.
Tools are needed to analyze past trends, to forecast future conditions,
and to model potential future scenarios. Participants talked about the
need for priority-setting tools (e.g., tools to identify restoration
priorities), enforcement tools (e.g., aerial photography to identify
regulatory violations), and participatory tools (e.g., user-created maps
of human use). As was discussed in the ecosystem-based approach section
of the report, tools to demonstrate the cause and effect relationship
between growth and development and coastal resource quality and quantity
are a priority need.

**Survey Results: Current Tool Use and Constraints to Use**

The 2006 Coastal Services Center Customer Survey provided information on
Gulf respondents' use of various technology tools, as well as the most
common constraints to use. The most frequently used tools are as
follows:

-   [GIS]{.underline}: This is the most widely used tool, with 91%
    reporting that they or their offices use this technology.

-   [On-line data and mapping]{.underline}: 77% reported that they or
    their offices use on-line databases such as portals and
    clearinghouses, and 75% reported use of on-line mapping for browsing
    or viewing data.

-   [Visualization tools]{.underline}: 64% reported that they or their
    offices use visualization tools.

-   [Remote sensing]{.underline}: 60% reported that they or their
    offices use remote sensing tools.

-   [Decision-support tools and models]{.underline}: Use of analysis and
    modeling tools is widespread, with 56% reporting that they or their
    offices use decision-support tools for manipulating or analyzing
    data, and 43% reporting that they or their offices use models or
    model outputs.

When asked about constraints to using technology tools, Gulf respondents
indicated that conflicting demands on time, lack of required knowledge
or skills, and insufficient staff size were key constraints to using
technology tools. For on-line databases, on-line mapping, coastal and
ocean observations, and decision-support tools, conflicting demands on
time was the top constraint. However, for GIS, remote sensing tools,
visualization tools, and models, a lack of required knowledge and skills
was the top constraint.

When asked about the utility of various types of assistance with
technology and data, four types of assistance were identified as having
high utility by over half of Gulf respondents:

-   Providing data (73%)

-   Providing training on existing software (71%)

-   Providing on-site technical assistance in use of software (59%)

-   Developing customized applications (53%)

The interest in training and on-site technical assistance was reiterated
by many during the focus groups and interviews. As the next section
discusses, when it comes to technology tools, participants felt strongly
that effective delivery is just as important as development.

**Tool Delivery Must Promote On-the-Ground Application**

Developing an on-line tool for analyzing land use trends in the Gulf
region does not guarantee that all Gulf communities will understand how
they are growing. Creating the perfect storm surge model does not mean
everyone who should evacuate will or can. And creating the perfect
nonpoint pollution model does not mean that people will stop dumping oil
in their driveways.

These examples demonstrate a concept expressed repeatedly during the
needs assessment: developing a tool is only "half the battle." Again and
again participants emphasized that more effective delivery of existing
and future tools is essential to promote on-the-ground application, and
ultimately to promote policy and behavior change.

More effective delivery is a two-part challenge. First, there is a need
to get the tools in the hands of coastal communities. Second, these
communities need both the capability and capacity to *use* the tools.
Participants said that existing tools are not being used at a scale
broad enough and big enough to matter, and said better delivery is
essential both to an ecosystem-based approach to management, and to
enhancing community resilience.

*Basic Outreach Is Needed to Reach New Audiences*

Outreach is needed to address the first challenge of getting tools in
the hands of those who can use them. Participants who are familiar with
the Coastal Services Center said that its information and tools need
better exposure to a broader group and said outreach should be broadened
to reach new audiences such as planners and building permit officials.
(More information on specific target audiences is presented in the
communication section.)

*State Partners Need Help with Outreach about Their Tools*

State-level participants said state entities frequently have developed
tools that are underutilized within their own states, let alone in other
parts of the region that might benefit from these tools. These entities
need help exporting and marketing the decision-support tools they have
developed. In particular, they need help getting state tools to the
county and parish level.

*Training and Technical Assistance Are Needed*

Participants at both local and state levels emphasized the need for
training and technical assistance to help customers apply existing
tools. As the data sections illustrate, both GIS and remote sensing are
now used widely, but there is an ongoing need for training on these
technologies. Individuals who had attended or sent staff to the Coastal
Services Center's GIS and remote sensing trainings said these were very
useful and should continue. Upper-level managers expressed a need for
GIS training opportunities for new staff members, and those using GIS
and remote sensing already expressed a need for advanced training. A
number of participants expressed a need for opportunities that allow
participants to receive technical assistance from experts as they apply
GIS and remote sensing data to their local issues.

Beyond GIS and remote sensing, participants mentioned training and
assistance needs in a variety of technical areas, from 3-D modeling and
visualization tools to metadata and statistical packages. There is also
interest in training on new and emerging technologies such as Web
Services.

Finally, a number of participants commented on the need for training and
technical assistance specific to Coastal Services Center tools. ISAT,
NSPECT, and CVAT were all identified as tools that require training and
technical assistance. Participants said these tools are very valuable
for Gulf customers, but urged the Center to explore ways to make these
tools easier to use.

*Tools Should Be Transferable and Kept Up-to-Date*

There is a constant tension between trying to ensure that a tool is
locally relevant and trying to create tools that are widely applicable.
Participants emphasized the need to strike this balance, making tools
transferable while not losing their local utility. Several also
mentioned the need to make sure that tools that use Environmental
Systems Research Institute (ESRI) technologies are updated as new
versions are released.

**Remember, Not Everybody Is a "Techie"**

As a closing note on data and technology needs, and one related to the
next section on communication, participants urged NOAA to remember that
not everyone can access and use highly technical tools and "e-products."
While technology tools are clearly needed to address many of the issues
raised in the assessment, several participants talked about the
importance and value of "low-tech" tools. While computer-assisted
analysis is useful in many settings, basic graphics, and face-to-face
explanation of concepts, still have tremendous value.

**[Communication Needs]{.smallcaps}**

> "Communicate what all of NOAA can do."
>
> "The Coastal Services Center should help match up NOAA resources with
> users on the ground."
>
> "A key challenge in the Gulf is knowing who's doing what."

"It will be great to have a regional Center in the Gulf."

\-- Gulf Interviewees

The above quotes illustrate ideas heard repeatedly during the needs
assessment. Participants provided positive feedback on existing NOAA and
Coastal Services Center products and services but said there is
inadequate awareness and use of these products. Resource managers and
others are overwhelmed by information, and need help tracking the
activities of the many entities involved in coastal and marine
management in the Gulf of Mexico. A Gulf Coast Services Center that
strives to connect NOAA products and services with on-the-ground needs,
and that fosters communication and coordination among Gulf players, will
be a welcome addition to the region.

**Survey Results: Use of Different Communication Mechanisms**

The survey revealed that Gulf respondents use a wide variety of
communication mechanisms to exchange information related to their jobs.
The following list shows methods used by at least half of respondents,
listed from most to least used:

-   Talking with colleagues (100%)

-   Professional meetings and conferences (93%)

-   Workshops (91%)

-   Trainings (85%)

-   Websites (81%)

-   Technical documents, government reports, conference proceedings
    (73%)

-   Scientific journals (67%)

-   Newsletters (63%)

-   E-mail discussion groups (list serves) (53%)

-   CDs (53%)

-   Private sector relationships (51%)

-   Books (51%)

**COMMUNICATION BEST PRACTICES**

While the needs assessment focused on identifying gaps and constraints,
interviews and focus groups also provided insight into best practices
for communication when participants highlighted products and services
they have accessed and appreciated. While there are clearly large gaps
and challenges, the following sampling of raw comments identify some
things that are working. In some cases participants also suggested ways
to improve these mechanisms to better address current needs.

[NOAA Products and Services]{.underline}

-   Websites, conferences, and e-mail newsletters from NOAA are all
    used.

-   I'm very pleased with river forecast and hurricane data.

-   Sea Grant extension agents are helpful.

-   The news around the Gulf piece from the Office of Ocean and Coastal
    Resource Management is useful.

-   I like the Gulf of Mexico Alliance working website.

-   NOAA websites have a lot of information, but sometimes the
    information is dated.

-   The Environmental Protection Agency relies on NOAA data.

-   The Community-based Restoration Program provides very useful
    information.

-   The Community-Based Restoration Program has accomplished a lot at
    the local level. It's an effective program. If given funding, it
    could do lot of good things at the local level.

-   The Coastal Risk Atlas is very useful, although I sometimes think it
    could be more user-friendly.

-   I get information from the National Coastal Data Development Center
    (NCDDC) at Stennis.

-   I use the National Data Buoy Center (NDBC) and National Hurricane
    Center (NHC) websites.

-   NOAA remote sensing resources are useful.

[Products and Services Specific to the Coastal Services Center
(CSC)]{.underline}

-   The Project Design and Evaluation (PDE) and Public Issues & Conflict
    Management (PICM) trainings were well-received. We're very impressed
    with Center trainings.

-   GIS training is good. Keep it coming.

-   Facilitation assistance we have gotten is good. Keep it coming.

-   I really like being able to call for help with identifying speakers
    and for help with meeting process planning.

-   I call staff directly that they're very accommodating and glad to
    help.

-   Continue doing things CSC already does well---good customer service
    response, data, and workshops.

-   CSC websites are useful, but things can be hard to find.

-   We really like the NSPECT tool and have used it widely. These remote
    tools for water quality management and sampling are of great appeal
    and need.

-   Tools such as NSPECT and CVAT are needed, but we need help applying
    them.

-   We're using Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) data and the
    ISAT tool.

-   I use the CSC website often to access products.

-   CSC has workshops that are very useful. We've already taken
    advantage of this. Bringing professional development opportunities
    is great.

**Customers Need Help Tracking Gulf Activities and Entities**

The diversity of communication mechanisms used by Gulf respondents hints
at the "information overload" many are facing. Many participants spoke
about the challenge of keeping track of who has what when it comes to
data, tools, and services, and of keeping up with who is doing different
projects. Resource managers know there are additional resources they
could benefit from, but they do not know where to go, and they do not
have time to spend hunting for these resources. Unfortunately, this lack
of awareness also leads to duplication of effort. For people on the
ground there is a real need for mechanisms that sort through all the
varied activities and resources in the Gulf region.

*Develop Roadmaps and "Push" Products*

Many participants said there is a need for "roadmaps" or guides for
locating data and tools that will help people at the state and local
levels. Some individuals said that just having a guide or catalogue was
not enough, however, and suggested that NOAA and other providers of
information and tools should do more active outreach. These individuals
suggested "pushing" products via mechanisms such as periodic updates on
data, tools, and training, and annual reminders. The following sections
summarize specific products and mechanisms that participants said were
needed or could help customers and partners track activities and
products.

*Gulf Coast Services Center E-Newsletter*

Many participants suggested a newsletter, and the majority recommended
an electronic format shared via Listserv. Federal, state, and local
entities all indicated a newsletter could be useful.

Most suggested this newsletter cover specific products, although some
also suggested it contain information about ongoing projects.
Participants emphasized that such a newsletter would need to be
targeted, and concise. Recommendations for frequency varied, with some
suggesting a monthly newsletter while others said every few months. It
is important to note that several participants advised against the
creation of a new newsletter, citing existing information overload.

*Gulf Websites, Calendar of Events*

As was mentioned in the data section, there is a need for regional
on-line databases, and websites were mentioned as a useful tool for
information sharing. However, participants cautioned that websites can
be daunting to navigate through, and recommended making sites searchable
by keyword. Creating a website also means committing to keep it up to
date. Participants suggested that providing downloadable one-page
summaries of information on websites is useful.

Several people suggested there is a need to develop a calendar or
schedule of all activities in the region. One participant said it would
be helpful if such a product were designed so that receiving entities
could filter out the items they are interested in before sending on to
additional partners, and so that entities could add their own events.

*Gulf Coast Services Center Staff Members Should Serve As Regional
Points of Contact*

Needs assessment participants were pleased to learn that there would be
Gulf Coast Services Center staff members who can serve as regional
points of contact. They indicated that it would be useful to have such
contacts both for accessing Coastal Services Center products and
services and for accessing products and services from the broader NOAA
family. Because NOAA is so large, individuals often do not know who to
call about a particular topic, and several participants said it would be
great to be able to call a local, familiar source. There is a need to
have points of contact who understand local conditions and players, and
a Gulf Center can provide this function.

*Meetings, Calls, and Presentations*

Even those individuals who suggested newsletters and websites frequently
said that there is no substitute for direct communication. Many
participants recommended meetings and workshops for sharing information
as the Gulf Center joins existing or creates new networks in the region.
Several entities said they would appreciate face-to-face meetings to get
to know the new Center. Participants said NOAA should continue to
provide information at conferences, and some suggested the new Gulf
Center support regular forums for information exchange in the Gulf
region. Participants said that when face-to-face communication is not
possible, conference calls can be valuable.

**Outreach Is Needed on the Full Suite of NOAA Capabilities and
Assistance**

Perhaps the most frequently voiced communication need was for outreach
on the full range of NOAA information, products, and services.
Participants said both current and potential customers and partners are
unaware of the full suite of NOAA capabilities. Both state- and
local-level entities are unaware of NOAA information, products,
services, and funding opportunities that could help them, and even
customers who do take advantage of some of what NOAA has to offer say
that they need to know more about the capabilities and assistance in
parts of NOAA with which they are less familiar.

Both private and public entities said they would like to have one place
where they can go to see everything NOAA has to offer and everything
NOAA is doing. Participants said there is a need for outreach materials
on NOAA's capabilities and resources and said NOAA needs to do a better
job communicating what all the different divisions do. Finally, several
individuals pointed out that the lack of awareness about the range of
activities means that states and municipalities do not realize how many
resources they are getting from NOAA. Making the connections across NOAA
programs would create a clearer picture of the NOAA contribution.

**Regional Team Contribution**

In the fall of 2006, NOAA established eight regional collaboration teams
composed of representatives from all of NOAA's line offices and
programs. This needs assessment has been shared with NOAA's Gulf of
Mexico Regional Collaboration Team to promote outreach and communication
of NOAA's products and services in a highly integrated way that more
directly meets the needs of the Gulf stakeholders. This needs assessment
was also reviewed by the NOAA regional team in developing collaboration
goals and projects for the first year.

**Gulf Coast Services Center Should Match NOAA Tools with On-the-Ground
Needs**

In addition to calling for greater outreach, participants said a key
role of the new Gulf Coast Services Center should be to match NOAA tools
with needs on the ground. The Gulf Center should continue to assess
needs, as is being done in this assessment, and foster connections
between NOAA programs and regional customers and partners. Participants
suggested it would be helpful if the Gulf Center could also communicate
about planned projects where there might be opportunities to "piggyback"
and stretch limited dollars. For example, there might be monitoring
activities where a state or local partner could add a little funding and
have an additional sampling area or additional criteria included in the
project.

**Customers Need Help Promoting the Value of Management and What They
Have to Offer**

Not only is there a need for more outreach on what NOAA has to offer,
but customers and partners in the Gulf region also say they need to do a
better job with outreach about their own activities. Several
participants said coastal resource management entities need help
promoting themselves and what they do and suggested that NOAA could help
them communicate the benefits---and avoided costs---of management. Given
funding constraints, resource management entities rarely have adequate
resources for sharing and marketing what they are doing. This means
there is not as much "tech transfer" and sharing of success stories and
lessons learned as there could be. These entities also need help getting
the word out about resources they have to offer to educators,
researchers, and the public. For example, individuals with National
Estuarine Research Reserves said they need help getting the word out
about the reserves as research sites and about their educational
facilities.

**Science *Translation* Is Needed**

In discussions of communication needs, participants emphasized the need
for providing information that can be easily understood by the public
and other non-scientist target audiences. Whether discussing information
from NOAA or from Gulf groups involved in research and management,
individuals said there is a need for more science translation. Research
findings need to be repackaged in ways that local governments, citizen
groups, and the public can understand and apply. Graphical
representations of scientific information are needed, since different
people learn in different ways, and individuals said that maps are a
particularly valuable tool for science translation. Terminology is also
important. (For example, one individual reported that "drainage" has
proven more effective than "stormwater management" when communicating
with local officials.)

**Target Audiences**

In addition to calling for more education and outreach to the public,
needs assessment participants also identified a number of specific
audiences that NOAA and the Gulf Coast Services Center need to target,
or help partners to target. Participants identified the following
audiences:

-   [Local elected officials]{.underline}: This audience was one of the
    most frequently mentioned, with participants emphasizing the need to
    provide both information and tools. One individual suggested
    providing training for local officials when they are first elected,
    and several suggested getting on the agenda of meetings and making
    information available to staffs.

-   [Planners at all levels]{.underline}: Participants identified local,
    regional, and state planners as target audiences, again saying these
    groups can benefit from both information and analysis tools.

-   [Permitting offices]{.underline}: While some entities involved in
    permitting activities that impact coastal resource are already
    well-connected to NOAA, participants felt there was a need to reach
    out to state and local permitting offices that have not been
    traditional target audiences.

-   [Communities and coastal residents]{.underline}: Several people
    mentioned the need to reach out not only to elected officials or
    decision-makers at the local level, but also to their constituents.
    Participants said coastal residents need information to learn about
    the place where they live, about management, and about how to
    participate in decisions about the future.

-   [Developers, contractors, and engineers]{.underline}: Several people
    suggested that groups involved in designing and constructing new
    development are potential target audiences. For example, these
    groups might use information about living shorelines and pass it
    along to property owners. Participants said NOAA data could be
    useful to the coastal engineering community but felt that this
    audience may not know the data are available.

-   [Temporary residents and residents that are new to the
    coast]{.underline}: Temporary residents such as seasonal "snowbirds"
    and new residents from inland areas were also discussed as target
    audiences. Participants said these groups have low levels of
    understanding of the coastal resources, issues, and management
    entities in their new or temporary homes.

-   [Retirees]{.underline}: Several individuals talked about the
    retirement community being a great source of volunteers for resource
    managers and educators. Retirees can help with a wide range of
    activities, from collecting monitoring data to doing education to
    providing basic staff support.

-   [Media]{.underline}: A final target audience identified was the
    media. Print, broadcast, and on-line media can help spread
    information from NOAA and partners.

**Existing Mechanisms, Facilities, and Partners Can Help with
Communication**

During discussions of communication needs, many participants reminded
the needs assessment team that NOAA and the Gulf Center should take
advantage of existing communication mechanisms. They also emphasized
that partners in the Gulf region can help with everything from hosting
workshops and training, to sharing information via existing Listservs
and newsletters, to convening multiple stakeholders for participatory
processes. The following list of raw comments provides examples of
specific suggestions for capitalizing on partner resources and
capabilities:

-   Take advantage of the National Estuarine Research Reserve Coastal
    Training Program.

-   Make use of the Gulf of Mexico Alliance Environmental Education
    Network and its Listserv.

-   The Mission Aransas National Estuarine Research Reserve can be used
    as a field training facility.

-   The State Geodetic Advisors are working constantly to coordinate
    activities not only among federal agencies but also between federal,
    state, and local agencies.

-   Take advantage of existing computer labs.

-   Do not build new systems to communicate, but rather participate and
    integrate with existing ones such as National Estuary Programs,
    National Estuarine Research Reserves, emergency managers, floodplain
    managers, etc.

-   Think about the Dauphin Island Sea Lab as a potential partner. The
    lab hosts conferences and trainings, and the new National Marine
    Fisheries Service lab will have a big meeting space.

-   The Southeast Watershed Forum does lots of training for communities.

-   The South Mississippi Environmental and Agricultural Coordination
    Organization (SMEACO) is an excellent avenue to promote coordination
    and training on resilience.

-   The Gulf Coast Ocean Observing System (GCOOS) just received
    authorization to hire an education coordinator. This position could
    help with outreach.

-   In Southwest Florida, the Lee County Electrical Co-op, Florida Gulf
    Coast University, and Florida Department of Transportation have
    computer labs for technology training.

-   The Mississippi Department of Marine Resources is an asset in
    bringing engineers, scientists, and developers together to share
    information.

**[Coordination Needs]{.smallcaps}**

The sheer number of issues and entities involved in coastal resource
management and community resilience to coastal hazards suggests that
effective coordination will always be a challenge. However, needs
assessment participants did identify specific coordination needs they
felt NOAA and a Gulf Coast Services Center might help to address. Some
of these have been mentioned in earlier sections of the report, such as
the need for coordination of restoration efforts and the need to bring
together the diverse professions involved in assessing risk and planning
for resilience. Additional coordination needs are described in this
section, along with some ideas about how NOAA might foster coordination
and collaboration in the region.

**The Gulf of Mexico Alliance Has Great Potential**

Needs assessment participants familiar with the Gulf of Mexico Alliance
said the initiative has the potential to help with many regional needs,
including enhanced regional coordination. The involvement in and support
of the alliance by NOAA and the EPA as federal co-leads is seen as
valuable, and participants urged NOAA to continue its involvement.
Although the alliance is seen as a useful mechanism for coordination,
many participants did voice concern about the alliance's ability to make
progress without funding. Several participants said face-to-face
alliance meetings have been very useful, and they hope these will
continue. Several people also noted that one benefit they have already
seen from the alliance is better communication among and within federal
agencies.

**The Pieces of NOAA and Other Federal Agencies Need to Work Together**

As was discussed in the communication section of the report, customers
and partners in the Gulf region find the array of NOAA programs and
offices somewhat bewildering. In addition to a need for communication
about the full suite of NOAA offerings, participants said there is also
a basic need for better coordination among the different pieces of NOAA.
People said there needs to be better and more communication across the
different programs. For example, one resource manager said his agency
receives requests for data on one issue from four different parts of
NOAA. Those participants familiar with NOAA's new regional teams said
this is a good sign, and said they would like to know more about this
effort. To directly address this coordination issue, NOAA established
eight regional collaboration teams composed of representative from all
parts of NOAA. The Gulf collaboration team is working very closely with
the Gulf of Mexico Alliance and other regional groups to ensure better
communication of all NOAA programs.

*Good Partners within NOAA*

Within the overall need for better coordination across NOAA,
participants identified specific programs that could be valuable
partners in Gulf Coast Services Center efforts. Given the broad range of
needs, it is clear that a host of NOAA programs will be important
partners, but the following four were specifically mentioned during
interviews and focus groups:

-   [Office of Education]{.underline}: This office can help reach into
    both primary and secondary classrooms, as well as help educate
    adults.

-   [Sea Grant]{.underline}: Sea Grant has good lines of communication
    with the fishing and seafood industry in Gulf states. The Sea Grant
    programs are a resource of information, and they can help get
    information out into communities.

-   [National Marine Fisheries Service]{.underline}: With multiple
    offices around the Gulf, NOAA Fisheries has valuable data, research,
    and contacts.

-   [National Weather Service]{.underline}: Participants suggested that
    the Weather Field Offices could be valuable partners for helping to
    push products and services out to users. In particular, emergency
    managers look to these offices to provide information and tools.

*Coordination within and among Other Federal Agencies Is Needed*

During the course of interviews and focus groups, there was considerable
discussion about the need for more and better inter- and intra-agency
coordination at the federal level. While there are organizational
structures trying to address some of the interagency coordination needs
(e.g., Gulf of Mexico Alliance Federal Working Group, Federal Geographic
Data Committee, and the Interagency Working Group on Harmful Algal
Blooms, Hypoxia, and Human Health), considerable coordination challenges
remain. Participants identified areas where NOAA should work with other
federal partners, as well as mentioned a number of coordination needs
within other agencies.

Federal coordination needs often arose in the context of discussions
about the complexity of taking an ecosystem-based approach to management
or enhancing coastal community resilience. Diverse federal agencies and
programs have different roles to play in both areas, and local and state
partners and customers in the Gulf region were clear that federal
coordination is essential to making progress. As recent experience with
Gulf hurricanes demonstrates, this need for coordination is compounded
after disasters, given the complex array of federal authorities and
funding streams designed to provide response and recovery assistance.

**Work with National Estuarine Research Reserves and National Estuary
Programs**

Many participants said there is a need for and value in enhanced
coordination with both National Estuarine Research Reserves and National
Estuary Programs. These entities are a great resource for place-based
information and also have well-established relationships and
partnerships with a host of stakeholders. Participants pointed out that
there is much to learn from the National Estuary Programs' efforts to
take a community-based and ecosystem-based management approach.
Similarly, the reserves have extensive experience in place-based
management, research, and education, and in fostering stewardship. As
was mentioned in the communication section, reserves and estuary
programs can help spread information and host events, and these entities
are also interested in hosting research and trying out products.

Several participants from these programs also said they could benefit
from greater coordination between reserves and estuary programs, and
between sites in different parts of the Gulf. For example, an informal
network of science coordinators from both reserves and estuary programs
could share information and lessons learned from their respective
research efforts. Having such a network would also provide a mechanism
for sharing new research, tools, and products from NOAA.

**Work with State Coastal Zone Management Programs**

Similar to the reserves and estuary programs, there are mutual benefits
to be realized by coordinating with the state Coastal Zone Management
(CZM) programs. These programs are both customers and partners.
Participants did note that the Gulf Center should be aware of the
substantial differences in the Gulf states' CZM programs and help spread
awareness of these differences among NOAA and other federal partners.
Many of the needs identified by CZM programs have been identified in
earlier sections of the report, but one additional specific need was for
help reviewing requests for proposals and subsequent submissions by
potential grantees. CZM managers also suggested it would be valuable to
have Gulf Center staff members attend their state meetings and get to
know local players. Finally, CZM managers said that the federal
consistency workshops previously offered by NOAA's Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management were useful and need to be sustained.

**Coordinate with the Emergency Management Community**

The assessment revealed that emergency managers are interested in
continued coordination with the NOAA Coastal Services Center.
Participants said the Coastal Services Center helps connect emergency
managers with the "technological community," and there is a real need to
maintain this connection. As with many audiences, there is also a need
for more outreach to emergency managers about the range of NOAA products
and tools.

Thinking about the coordination that is needed among the different
entities involved in resilience to coastal hazards, participants
suggested NOAA could play a valuable role in connecting emergency
managers with coastal managers, floodplain managers, and planners. And
some of this collaboration has already begun. For example, in the wake
of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Sea Grant has recognized a need to
become more operationally connected to federal and state disaster
operations systems. Likewise, emergency managers are becoming cognizant
of the operational capabilities of Sea Grant.

Participants also said there is a need for greater coordination and
collaboration between NOAA and the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). This coordination will be particularly important as efforts to
understand and enhance community resilience to coastal hazards move
forward. Participants suggested that NOAA and FEMA need to sort out
their respective roles in different activities ranging from forecasting
to mapping to response to long-term planning, finding a division of
labor that makes sense given each entity's strengths.

**Help Coordinate Coastal and Marine Mapping Players**

As was discussed in the data and tools section, participants felt that
NOAA could play a key role in coordinating data management and sharing.
One area in particular where participants felt NOAA could help is in
coordinating coastal and marine mapping efforts. There is a lot of
remote sensing and mapping being done in the Gulf coast region, but
there is little coordination across the many agencies involved.
Fostering coordination could help expand the utility of these various
mapping efforts, eliminate duplication of efforts, and identify
opportunities to leverage resources for greater return.

**Pursue Partnerships with Private and Non-Profit Entities**

Along with the myriad coordination needs within the public sector,
participants emphasized that coordination with nonprofit groups and
private businesses is also needed. Both can be customers for information
and tools, as well as important partners in projects. Conservation
groups can also serve as conduits to private-sector funding. Several
participants suggested there is a need to reach out directly to the
private sector to encourage public--private collaborations. For example,
the oil and gas industry could contribute to the development of improved
circulation models. Likewise, the local chambers of commerce could be
key partners in community resilience efforts.

As was discussed in earlier sections of the report, pursuing an
ecosystem-based approach to management and enhancing community
resilience will require coordinated efforts by many different players in
the Gulf of Mexico region. Both nonprofit entities and private
businesses will need to be at the table.

**Next Steps: Using the Needs Assessment Results**

As this report details, the needs assessment process has provided a
wealth of information about specific needs related to resource issues
and management activities. It has provided a snapshot of current
activities and capacity in the region, and highlighted common
constraints and needs that are faced by customers around the Gulf and
across the public, private, nonprofit, and academic sectors.

The assessment results will be invaluable for informing and guiding the
efforts of the new NOAA Gulf Coast Services Center. The findings are
already shaping strategic planning efforts that are underway, and the
many specific needs identified have the potential to provide project and
product ideas well into the future. An additional value that cannot be
encapsulated in a report is the host of strategic contacts that were
made or renewed during the needs assessment process. The individuals who
contributed their ideas will be valuable sources of information and
partners for collaboration in the future.

The Gulf Coast Services Center's parent office, the NOAA Coastal
Services Center in Charleston, South Carolina, will also look to the
results of this needs assessment to help shape future activities. The
Coastal Services Center is heavily engaged in the topics explored in the
assessment; an ecosystem approach to management, coastal community
resilience, data and technology tools, and communication and
coordination are all areas where the Coastal Services Center strives to
contribute. The positive feedback about existing products and services
is heartening, and the needs identified suggest ways in which the
Coastal Services Center can continue and expand this contribution in the
Gulf of Mexico region. Similarly, both feedback on existing efforts and
new needs point to ways in which the broader NOAA family can continue to
bring value to the region. Assessment results are being shared with all
the NOAA line offices and will inform the ongoing dialogue of the newly
formed NOAA Gulf of Mexico Regional Collaboration Team and the four
priority area task teams. All members of the NOAA Gulf of Mexico
Regional Collaboration Team, which covers the five Gulf States, were
provided with a copy of this needs assessment for review, comment, and
consideration. The team used this document to help shape the selection
of collaboration and communication activities in the first year.

Finally, the information gathered in the needs assessment has the
potential to inform many diverse organizations involved with coastal
resource management in the region. The report will be shared with
everyone who participated in the focus groups and interviews, and be
made available on the Coastal Services Center's website. The Gulf Coast
Services Center will work to ensure that the issues raised in the
assessment inform regional dialogue and projects, and will encourage
partners to collaborate to address specific needs.

**Appendix A:**

**Cross-NOAA Steering Committee, Needs Assessment Team**

**Steering Committee Members:**

Brendon Bray

Office of Response and Restoration <Brendon.Bray@noaa.gov>

Richard Crout

National Data Buoy Center

<Richard.Crout@noaa.gov>

John Feldt

National Weather Service

<John.Feldt@noaa.gov>

Nikola Garber

National Sea Grant Program

<Nikola.Garber@noaa.gov>

Josh Lott

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

Coastal Programs Division

<Josh.Lott@noaa.gov>

Liz Mountz

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

Coastal Programs Division

<Elizabeth.Mountz@noaa.gov>

Rost Parsons

National Coastal Data Development Center

<Rost.Parsons@noaa.gov>

Laurie Rounds

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

Coastal Programs Division

<Laurie.Rounds@noaa.gov>

Lawrence Rozas

National Marine Fisheries Service

SEFC/Estuarine Habitats and Coastal Fisheries Center

<Lawrence.Rozas@noaa.gov>

Ric Ruebsamen

National Marine Fisheries Service

SER/Panama City Lab

<Ric.Ruebsamen@noaa.gov>

Carleigh Trappe

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

Coastal Programs Division

<Carleigh.Trappe@noaa.gov>

Paul Trotter

National Weather Service

<Paul.Trotter@noaa.gov>

Roger Zimmerman

National Marine Fisheries Service

SEFC/Galveston Lab

<Roger.Zimmerman@noaa.gov>

**Gulf Coast Services Center and Coastal Services Center Needs
Assessment Team:\***

Becky Allee

Landscape Characterization and Restoration Program

Gulf Coast Services Center

<Becky.Allee@noaa.gov>

Todd Davison

Director, Gulf Coast Services Center

<Todd.Davison@noaa.gov>

Chris Ellis

Human Dimensions Program

Coastal Services Center

<Chris.Ellis@noaa.gov>

Heidi Recksiek

Human Dimensions Program

Gulf Coast Services Center

<Heidi.Recksiek@noaa.gov>

\* Brent Ache of NOAA's Special Projects Office also conducted several
interviews. This assistance was much appreciated.

**Appendix B:**

**Target Audiences**

**Primary Audiences**

*State and Federal Managers*

-   State Coastal Zone Management Programs (CZM)

-   Other state agencies that deal with coastal issues (departments of
    natural resources, fish & wildlife, environmental protection,
    health, environmental quality)

-   Florida Water Management Districts (WMDs) and Regional Planning
    Councils (RPCs)

-   National Estuarine Research Reserves (NERRs) and National Marine
    Sanctuaries (NMSP)

-   State Sea Grant programs

-   National Estuary Programs (NEPs)

-   Coastal National Wildlife Refuges and National Parks

-   Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council

-   Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission

-   State floodplain managers

-   State and local emergency managers

-   County planners

-   Associations of counties

-   Coastal states' point of contact for National States Geographic
    Information Council (NSGIC)

-   Coast Guard and state-level enforcement agencies

-   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers districts

-   Environmental Protection Agency Gulf of Mexico Program

-   U.S. Forest Service

-   State port authorities

-   State departments of transportation

*Nongovernmental Entities & Industries*

-   Regional Associations (RAs)

-   University programs involved with coastal issues

-   Nongovernmental organizations involved with coastal ecosystem and
    resilience issues (e.g., the Nature Conservancy, Shore and Beach
    Preservation Association, the American Red Cross, Place-based groups
    such as Apalachicola Baykeepers, and voluntary organizations)

-   Coastal land trusts

-   Media

-   Oil and gas industry

-   Fishing industry

-   Ports and navigation industry

-   Recreation and tourism

-   Insurance industry

**Secondary Audiences**

The public

NOAA partners

**Appendix C:**

**2006 Coastal Services Center Customer Survey**

**Results for Respondents from Gulf States**

Note: Percentages have been rounded to whole numbers, so totals may not
add to 100.

A report on nationwide results from the 2006 survey, as well as results
from past customer surveys, are available online at
[www.csc.noaa.gov/survey](http://www.csc.noaa.gov/survey).

**Overview of Gulf respondents**

Of the over 400 total respondents to the 2006 survey, 79 were from the
Gulf of Mexico states:

-   30 from Florida

-   20 from Alabama

-   14 from Texas

-   11 from Mississippi

-   4 from Louisiana

Respondents came from a variety of organizations:

-   6 respondents were from state Coastal Zone Management (CZM) programs

-   6 were emergency managers at either the local or state level

-   30 were from non-CZM agencies involved in coastal and marine
    resource management (e.g. Departments of Environmental Protection,
    Departments of Fish & Wildlife, Departments of Water Quality.)

-   10 were from National Estuarine Research Reserves

-   2 respondents were county planners

Respondents also reported holding a variety of positions within their
organizations:

-   11% were in education and outreach

-   6% were in emergency management

-   10% were in information technology (GIS, remote sensing, or a
    related field)

-   19% were in natural resource management

-   6% were in permitting and regulatory enforcement

-   10% were in planning

-   23% were in program or site administration and management

-   9% were in research

-   5% were from a position type not listed on the survey

Most respondents have been in coastal resource management 10 years or
less, although almost a quarter have been in the field over 15 years:

-   37% have been in the field 5 years or less

-   28% have been in the field 6-10 years

-   13% have been in the field 11-15 years

-   12% have been in the field 16-20 years

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   7% have been in the field 21-25 years

-   4% have been in the field over 25 years

Many respondents were familiar with the Coastal Services Center (CSC),
and a significant percentage have used one or more CSC products and
services:

-   57% are familiar or very familiar with CSC

-   60% have visited the CSC website

-   50% get one or more CSC publications

-   44% have attended a CSC workshop or training

-   30% have gotten technical assistance from CSC

-   37% have used data or other products from CSC

-   29% have partnered with CSC on a project

**Priority Topics**

Seven issues were identified as high priority by over 50% of Gulf
respondents:

-   Land use planning / growth management (61%)

-   Hurricanes (61%)

-   Flooding/inundation/storm surge (56%)

-   Habitat restoration and monitoring (56%)

-   Water quality monitoring (53%)

-   Public access (52%)

-   Watershed planning (51%)

**Hazards Management Topics**

Survey results revealed that many respondents feel they need to learn
more about hazards management topics:

-   78% said "long term recovery" is a topic they need to know about for
    their job, and that they need to learn more about.

-   77% said "risk and vulnerability assessment" is a topic they need to
    know about for their job, and that they need to learn more about.

-   72% said "hazards mitigation" is a topic they need to know about for
    their job, and that they need to learn more about.

-   69% said "response immediately after a disaster" is a topic they
    need to know about for their job, and that they need to learn more
    about.

-   65% said "risk communication" is a topic they need to know about for
    their job, and that they need to learn more about.

-   51% said "forecasts and warnings" is a topic they need to know about
    for their job, and that they need to learn more about.

Asked to rank the relative priority of these hazards management topics,
"risk and vulnerability" rose to the top, with 30% of Gulf respondents
listing this as the number one priority. "Long term recovery" came in
second with 19% ranking this as their top priority.

**Spatial Data Use**

(Note: 20% of Gulf respondents said they were not familiar with spatial
data use in their office, so the following data are for the 80% of Gulf
respondents that are familiar.)

-   Current shoreline was the most commonly used data layer, with 77%
    reporting use of this layer in their office. an additional 20% said
    their office does not use this data layer, but that it would be
    useful.

-   Coastal land cover was a close second, with 74% reporting that their
    offices use this layer. An additional 23% indicated their office
    does not use this data layer, but that it would be useful.

-   Coastal land use came in third, with 70% reporting use of this layer
    in their office, and 25% saying it would be useful.

-   Additional data layers being used by over 50% of respondents'
    offices:

    -   Seagrass Distribution

    -   Public Access

    -   Elevation/topography

-   Data layers that over 50% of respondents indicated were not
    currently being used but which would be useful:

    -   Sediments

    -   Suspended sediments

    -   Coastal demographics

    -   Marine and coastal economic data

    -   Marine infrastructure

    -   Dump/discharge sites (NPDES)

    -   Aquaculture sites

    -   Salinity

    -   Sea surface temperature

    -   Primary productivity

    -   Fish habitat distribution maps

    -   Shellfish bed distribution

    -   Cultural and historical resources

    -   Sensitive habitats

    -   Waves

    -   Currents

    -   Tides

    -   Shoreline change/erosion

    -   Critical facilities

**Technology Tools to Support Coastal Resource Management**

Survey data provided insight on Gulf respondents' use of various
technology tools, as well as the most common constraints to use. Tool
use is described below, listed from most-used to least-used:

-   [Geographic Information Systems (GIS)]{.underline}: 91% reported
    that they or their offices use GIS. 90% said this tool has high
    utility. for those who reported constraints to using this tool, lack
    of required knowledge / skills was the biggest constraint (35%).
    Other top constraints were conflicting demands on time and
    insufficient staff.

-   [On-line databases (data portals, data clearing
    houses)]{.underline}: 77% reported that they or their offices use
    on-line databases. 34% said this tool has high utility. For those
    who reported constraints to using this tool, conflicting demands on
    time was the biggest constraint (38%). Other top constraints were
    lack of required data, lack of required knowledge/skills, and
    insufficient staff.

-   [On-line Mapping]{.underline}: 75% reported that they or their
    offices use on-line mapping for browsing or viewing data. 40% said
    this tool has high utility. For those who reported constraints to
    using this tool, conflicting demands on time was the biggest
    constraint (40%). Other top constraints were lack of required data,
    lack of required knowledge/skills, and insufficient staff.

-   [Visualization (GIS-, 3D-, and photo-based)]{.underline}: 64%
    reported that they or their offices use visualization. 44% said this
    tool has high utility. For those who reported constraints, lack of
    required knowledge/skills was the biggest constraint (37%). Other
    top constraints were inadequate equipment/facilities/technology,
    lack of required data, conflicting demands on time, and insufficient
    staff.

-   [Remote sensing tools]{.underline}: 60% reported that they or their
    offices use remote sensing tools. 73% said these tools have high
    utility. For those who reported constraints, lack of required
    knowledge/skills was the biggest constraint (42%). Other top
    constraints were conflicting demands on time and insufficient staff.

-   [Coastal and ocean observations]{.underline}: 57% reported that they
    or their offices use coastal and ocean observations. 25% said this
    tool has high utility. For those who reported constraints to using
    this tool, conflicting demands on time was the biggest constraint
    (25%).

-   [Decision-support tools (manipulating / analyzing
    data)]{.underline}: 56% reported that they or their offices use
    decision-support tools. 46% said this tool has high utility. For
    those who reported constraints to using this tool, conflicting
    demands on time was the biggest constraint (37%). Other top
    constraints were lack of required knowledge/skills, and insufficient
    staff.

-   [Models or model outputs (habitat modeling, SLOSH,
    HURREVAC)]{.underline}: 43% reported that they or their offices use
    models or model outputs. 32% said these tools have high utility. For
    those who reported constraints, lack of required knowledge/skills
    was the biggest constraint (46%). Other top constraints were lack of
    required data, conflicting demands on time, and insufficient staff.

**Utility of different types of assistance with technology tools and
data:**

The survey asked respondents about whether several different types of
assistance would have high, medium, low, or no utility. The following
list shows the percentage indicating each type of assistance would have
high utility, listed from highest to lowest:

-   Providing data: 73%

-   Providing training on existing software: 71%

-   Providing on-site technical assistance in use of software: 59%

-   Developing customized applications: 53%

-   Evaluating existing software for coastal applications: 49%

-   Developing case studies detailing the uses of existing software: 40%

-   Inventorying available software: 34%

**Human dimensions tools**

The survey asked about human dimensions tools (e.g. social science
methods, strategic planning tools) and constraints to using these tools.
Tool use and constraints are described below, listed from most-used to
least-used:

-   [Meeting facilitation]{.underline}: 64% reported that they or their
    offices use meeting facilitation. 33% said this tool has high
    utility. For those who reported constraints to using this tool,
    conflicting demands on time and insufficient staff were the biggest
    constraints (19% each).

-   [Strategic Planning]{.underline}: 62% reported that they or their
    offices use strategic planning. 30% said this tool has high utility.
    For those who reported constraints to using this tool, conflicting
    demands on time was the biggest constraint (25%).

-   [Stakeholder engagement processes]{.underline}: 61% reported that
    they or their offices use stakeholder engagement processes. 41% said
    this tool has high utility. For those who reported constraints to
    using this tool, conflicting demands on time (26%) and insufficient
    staff (21%) were the biggest constraints.

-   [Surveys]{.underline}: 61% reported that they or their offices use
    surveys. 19% said this tool has high utility. For those who reported
    constraints to using this tool, conflicting demands on time and
    insufficient staff were the biggest constraints (19% each).

-   [Performance measures or indicators]{.underline}: 60% reported that
    they or their offices use performance measures or indicators. 58%
    said this tool has high utility. For those who reported constraints
    to using this tool, insufficient staff was the biggest constraint
    (24%).

-   [Project management]{.underline}: 52% reported that they or their
    offices use project management. 37% said this tool has high utility.
    For those who reported constraints to using this tool, lack of
    required knowledge/skills was the biggest constraint (23%).

-   [Evaluation of individual products or projects]{.underline}: 47%
    reported that they or their offices use evaluation of individual
    products or projects. 24% said this tool has high utility. For those
    who reported constraints to using this tool, conflicting demands on
    time and insufficient staff were the biggest constraint (18% each).

-   [Needs Assessments]{.underline}: 46% reported that they or their
    offices use needs assessments. 24% said this tool has high utility.
    For those who reported constraints to using this tool, conflicting
    demands on time was the biggest constraint (28%). Other top
    constraints were insufficient staff and lack of required
    knowledge/skills.

-   [Interviews]{.underline}: 45% reported that they or their offices
    use interviews. 13% said this tool has high utility. For those who
    reported constraints to using this tool, conflicting demands on time
    was the biggest constraints (17%).

-   [Observation]{.underline}: 44% reported that they or their offices
    use observation. 27% said this tool has high utility. For those who
    reported constraints to using this tool, conflicting demands on time
    was the biggest constraints (19%).

-   [Evaluation of entire programs]{.underline}: 43% reported that they
    or their offices use evaluation of entire programs. 18% said this
    tool has high utility. For those who reported constraints to using
    this tool, conflicting demands on time was the biggest constraint
    (17%).

-   [Focus groups]{.underline}: 42% reported that they or their offices
    use focus groups. 11% said this tool has high utility. For those who
    reported constraints to using this tool, conflicting demands on time
    was the biggest constraints (19%).

-   [Policy/legislative analysis]{.underline}: 38% reported that they or
    their offices use strategic planning. 25% said this tool has high
    utility. For those who reported constraints to using this tool,
    conflicting demands on time was the biggest constraint (19%).

-   [Cost-benefit analysis]{.underline}: 35% reported that they or their
    offices use cost-benefit analysis. 12% said this tool has high
    utility. For those who reported constraints to using this tool,
    insufficient staff was the biggest constraints (19%).

-   [Demographic analysis]{.underline}: 33% reported that they or their
    offices use demographic analysis. 15% said this tool has high
    utility. For those who reported constraints to using this tool,
    insufficient staff was the biggest constraints (19%).

-   [Stakeholder analysis]{.underline}: 33% reported that they or their
    offices use stakeholder analysis. 25% said this tool has high
    utility. For those who reported constraints to using this tool,
    conflicting demands on time was the biggest constraints (29%).

-   [Logic models]{.underline}: 25% reported that they or their offices
    use logic models. Only 3% said this tool has high utility. For those
    who reported constraints to using this tool, conflicting demands on
    time was the biggest constraint (18%).

-   [Social assessments]{.underline}: 21% reported that they or their
    offices use social assessments. 8% said this tool has high utility.
    For those who reported constraints to using this tool, lack of
    required knowledge/skills was the biggest constraint (19%).

-   [Content analysis]{.underline}: 17% reported that they or their
    offices use content analysis. 10% said this tool has high utility.
    For those who reported constraints to using this tool, conflicting
    demands on time was the biggest constraints (17%).

-   [Non-market valuation]{.underline}: 9% reported that they or their
    offices use non-market valuation. 7% said this tool has high
    utility. For those who reported constraints to using this tool,
    insufficient staff and lack of knowledge/skills were the biggest
    constraints (12% each).

**Methods Used to Get or Exchange Information**

The following list shows the percentage of Gulf respondents using
different methods to exchange information about tools, technology, or
other issues related to their jobs:

-   Talking with colleagues (100%)

-   Professional meetings and conferences (93%)

-   Workshops (91%)

-   Trainings (85%)

-   Websites (81%)

-   Technical documents, government reports, conference proceedings
    (73%)

-   Scientific journals (67%)

-   Newsletters (63%)

-   E-mail discussion groups (list serves) (53%)

-   CDs (53%)

-   Private sector relationships (51%)

-   Books (51%)

-   Trade publications or corporate reports (41%)

-   Magazines (45%)

-   Electronic journals (e-journals) and electronic magazines (e-zines)
    (40%)

-   Web-based discussion groups (27%)

**Training: Constraints to participating and applying, Interest in
online learning**

-   61% said conflicting demands on time always or often limits their
    ability to attend trainings.

-   40% said awareness of trainings always or often is a constraint,
    while 38% said availability of training is always or often a
    constraint.

-   35% said lack of funding always or often limits their ability to
    attend trainings.

-   21% said travel restrictions always or often limit their ability to
    attend trainings.

-   Only 9% said lack of management support always or often limits their
    ability to attend trainings.

-   When asked what barriers or constraints have limited their ability
    to *apply* knowledge or skills acquired during trainings, the most
    frequent responses were related to time constraints and conflicting
    demands on time.

-   49% have participated in on-line distance learning, and 30% said
    they have a high level of interest in on-line distance learning.

**Appendix D:**

**Focus Group Locations and Participants**

**Focus group locations:**

  ------------------------------ ------------------ ----------------------
  Gulf Coast Ocean Observing     August 24, 2006    St. Petersburg,
  System Board of Directors                         Florida
  Meeting                                           

  National Emergency Management  September 21, 2006 Orange Beach, Alabama
  Association Annual Conference                     

  State Coastal Zone Management  November 14, 2006  Charleston, South
  Programs: Southeast Regional                      Carolina
  Meeting                                           

  Restore America's Estuaries    December 14, 2006  New Orleans, Louisiana
  3^rd^ National Conference on                      
  Coastal and Estuarine Habitat                     
  Restoration                                       
  ------------------------------ ------------------ ----------------------

**Participants:**

Suzanne Adams Florida Dept. of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency
Management

Kacky Andrews Coastal States Organization

Brandon Bolinski Federal Emergency Management Agency Region 4

Becky Boudreaux University of New Orleans

Cortis Cooper Chevron Texaco

John Dosh Escambia County (Florida) Emergency Management

Gregory DuCote Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources, Coastal Management

Eddie Fisher Texas General Lands Office

Lynn Griffin Florida Coastal Management Program, Florida DEP

Phillip Hinesley Alabama Department of Conservation & Natural Resources

Carrie Hall NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

Brad Hattaway Escambia County (Florida) Emergency Management

Janis Helton Alabama Dept. of Conservation & Natural Resources

Willa Henriksen Mississippi Department of Marine Resources

Sharon Hodge Northern Gulf Cooperative Institute

Matt Howard Texas A&M University

Ann Jochens Texas A&M University

Jane Kushma Jacksonville State University

Ali Legett Mississippi Department of Marine Resources

Ed Levine NOAA Office of Response & Restoration, Marine Debris Program

Brock Long Federal Emergency Management Agency Region 4

Josh Lott NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

Mark Luther University of South Florida

Robert (Buzz) Martin Texas General Land Office

Bill Massey Dewberry

Frank McCrory Alabama Emergency Management Agency

Matt Miller Federal Emergency Management Agency, Mitigation

Liz Mountz NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

Katie Niemi U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Worth Nowlin Texas a&M University

Chris Oynes Minerals Management Service

Linda Pace Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources, Coastal Management

Neal Parry NOAA Office of Response & Restoration, Marine Debris Program

Alfredo Prelat PAR Government Systems Corporation

Nancy Rabalais Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium

Ben Rhame Texas General Lands Office

Laurie Rounds NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

Raymond Toll Science Applications International Corporation

Carleigh Trappe NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

Lesley Turney Alabama Dept. of Conservation & Natural Resources

Tina Sanchez South Alabama Regional Planning Council

Mike Spranger Florida Sea Grant Program

Vembu Subramanian University of South Florida

Sharon Walker University of Southern Mississippi

Julie Shiyou-Woodard South Alabama Regional Planning Council

**Appendix E:**

**Individuals Interviewed**

Mark Alderson Sarasota Bay Estuary Program

Tim Alexander Northern Gulf Institute, Mississippi State University

Diane Altsman Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf of Mexico Program

Kacky Andrews Coastal States Organization

Steve Atran Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council

Stephanie Bailenson Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
Coastal and

> Aquatic Managed Areas

Patrick Banks Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

Russell Beard NOAA National Coastal Data Development Center

Lisa Beever Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program

Harry Blanchet Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

Seth Blitch Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve

Michael Bograd Mississippi. Department of Environmental Quality

Marty Bourgeois Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

Jennifer Buchanan Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve

Rafael Calderon the Nature Conservancy

Glorida Carr Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf of Mexico Program

John Cortinas NOAA Office of Laboratories and Cooperative Institutes

Eric Chassignet Northern Gulf Institute, Florida State University

Richard Crout NOAA National Data Buoy Center

Marian Dicas Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve

John Dindo Dauphin Island Sea Lab

Quenton Dokken Gulf of Mexico Foundation

David Driver BP America, Inc.

Helen Drummond Galveston Bay Estuary Program

Richard Eckenrod Tampa Bay Estuary Program

Marcia Garcia Mississippi Department of Marine Resources

Holly Greening Tampa Bay Estuary Program

Ken Heck Northern Gulf Institute, Dauphin Island Sea Lab

Dan Henderson NOAA National Data Buoy Center

Sharon Hodge Northern Gulf Institute, Mississippi State University

Riley Hoggard National Park Service, Gulf Island National Seashore

Rob Hudson Photo Science

Steven O. Jenkins Alabama Department of Environmental Management

Rosalyn Kilcollins Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve

Grant Larsen Mississippi Department of Marine Resources

D. Herb Leedy Minerals Management Service, Environmental Science Section

Steven Lohrenz Northern Gulf Institute, University of Southern
Mississippi

Steve Lyle Mississippi Department of Transportation

Chris May Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve

Larry McKinney Texas Parks and Wildlife

Sally Morehead Mission Aransas National Estuarine Research Reserve

Bruce Moulton Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Henry Norris Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission

Debbie Norton Santa Rosa Island Authority

Christine Olsenius Southeast Watershed Forum

Rost Parsons NOAA National Coastal Data Development Center

Harlon Pearce Commercial Fisherman, Louisiana

Melody Ray-Culp United States Fish & Wildlife Service, Coastal Program
Region 4

Susan Rees United States Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District

Jeff Rester Gulf State Marine Fisheries Commission

Scott Robinson Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership

David Ruple Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve

Margaret Sedlecky Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve

David Shaw Northern Gulf Institute, Mississippi State University

Tina Shumate Mississippi Department of Marine Resources

David Still Suwannee River Water Management District, Florida

Tabitha Stadler Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve

Robert R. Stickney Texas Sea Grant

Kerry St. Pe Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program

Kristen Strellec Minerals Management Service

LaDon Swann Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant

Dr. Robert Twilley Northern Gulf Institute, Louisiana State University

Michael Uhart NOAA Office of Laboratories and Cooperative Institutes

William Walker Mississippi Department of Marine Resources

Christine Walters Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve

Heather Warner-Finley Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

Steven H. Wolfe Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Glade Woods Northern Gulf Institute, Mississippi State University

Lee Yokel Environmental Education Network, Gulf of Mexico Alliance

Leslie Young Mississippi Department of Marine Resources

Lisa Young Dauphin Island Sea Lab

Clayton Younts Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve

Jan van Smirren FugroGEOS

**References**

American Geophysical Union. 2006. "Hurricanes and the U.S. Gulf Coast:
Science and Sustainable Rebuilding." Accessed at
*www.agu.org/report/hurricanes/.*

Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve. 1998. "Apalachicola
National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan, 1998--2003."

Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program (NEP). 1996. "BTNEP
Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan."

Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program (NEP). 2000. "Charlotte Harbor
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan."

Committee on National Needs for Coastal Mapping and Charting, M. S. C.,
National Research Council. 2004. "A Geospatial Framework for the Coastal
Zone: National Needs for Coastal Mapping and Charting." the National
Academies Press.

Congressional Research Service. 2006. "CRS Report for Congress: Coastal
Louisiana Ecosystem Restoration after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita."

Council on Environmental Quality. 2004. "U.S. Ocean Action Plan: the
Bush Administration's Response to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy."

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Gulf of Mexico Program. 2003.
"Critical Scientific Research Needs Assessment for the Gulf of Mexico
Program."

Florida Sea Grant College Program. 2005. "Florida Sea Grant College
Program Strategic Plan 2006 through 2009."

Galveston Bay National Estuary Program (NEP). 1995. "The Galveston Bay
Plan: The Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the
Galveston Bay Ecosystem." Publication GBNEP-49.

The Governor's Commission on Recovery, Rebuilding, and Renewal. 2005a.
"After Katrina: Building Back Better Than Ever: a Report to the Hon.
Haley Barbour, Governor of the State of Mississippi."

The Governor's Commission on Recovery, Rebuilding, and Renewal. 2005b.
"Mississippi Renewal Forum Summary Report: Recommendations for
Rebuilding the Gulf Coast."

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 1998. "Generic Amendment for
Addressing Essential Fish Habitat Requirements in the Following Fishery
Management Plans of the Gulf of Mexico: Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of
Mexico, United States Waters; Red Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico;
Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Coastal Migratory Pelagic
Resources (Mackerels) in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Stone
Crab Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Spiny Lobster in the Gulf of Mexico
and South Atlantic; Coral and Coral Reefs of the Gulf of Mexico." In
accordance with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Award No. NA87FC0003.

Gulf of Mexico Alliance. 2006a. "Gulf of Mexico Alliance Governor's
Action Plan for Healthy and Resilient Coasts, March 2006--2009."

Gulf of Mexico Alliance. 2006b. *Gulf of Mexico Alliance: Community
Workshop Summary Report.* Report prepared by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Services Center.

Accessed at *www.dep.state.fl.us/gulf/events/files/CWReport_Final.pdf*.

Heinz Center. 2006. "Filling the Gaps: Priority Data Needs and Key
Management Challenges for National Reporting on Ecosystem Conditions." a
Report of the Heinz Center's State of the Nation's Ecosystem Project.

Jacobson, Susan and Mallory McDuff. 1998. "Training Idiot Savants: the
Lack of Human Dimensions in Conservation Biology." *Conservation
Biology*. Volume 12, Number 2. Pages 263 to 267.

Jepson, Michael. 2005. "Ecosystem Fisheries Management: a Summary of
Workshops Conducted along the Gulf Coast." a Report Prepared for the
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Gainesville, FL.

Jochens, Ann. 2006. "Gulf of Mexico Coastal Ocean Observing System."
O*cean Views: News from the Ocean.US Office*. Issue No. 29. Pages 1 to
2.

Lehr, W., and P. Scholz, 2002. "Predicting and reducing watershed
impacts of coastal storms -- the coastal storms initiative (CSI). Earth
Systems Monitor. March 2002: 7, 16.

Lindell, M.K., W.G. Sanderson, and S.N. Hwang. 2002. "Local Government
Agencies' Use of Hazard Analysis Information." *International Journal of
Mass Emergencies and Disasters*. Volume 20. Pages 29 to 39.

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 1998. "Coast 2050:
Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana." Louisiana Coastal Wetlands
Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands Conservation
and Restoration Authority. Baton Rouge, LA.

Louisiana Recovery Authority Support Foundation. 2006. "Collective
Strength 2006 South Louisiana Recovery Survey: Citizen and Civic Leader
Research Summary of Findings."

Louisiana Sea Grant. 2002. "Louisiana Sea Grant Strategic Plan
2002-2006."

Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium. 2006. "Strategic Plan:
Plotting a Course for 2006-2010."

Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force. 2001.
"Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the
Northern Gulf of Mexico." Washington, DC.

Mobile Bay National Estuary Program (NEP). 2002. "Mobile Bay National
Estuary Program Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan: a Call
to Action -- an Overview of the Priority Environmental Issues Affecting
the Mobile Bay Estuary."

Morton, R.A., J.C. Bernier, J.A. Barras, and N.F. Ferina. 2005. "Rapid
Subsidence and Historical Wetland Loss in the Mississippi Delta Plain:
Likely Cause and Future Implications." U.S. Geological Survey Science
for the Changing World, 1-124.

National Academy of Sciences. 2006. "Mitigating Shore Erosion along
Sheltered Coasts: Report in Brief." National Research Council.

National Estuarine Research Reserve System. 2006. "Research and
Monitoring Plan: 2006-2011."

National Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) Center. 2005. "Envisioning a
National System of Marine Protected Areas: a Gulf of Mexico Region
Public Dialogue." July 18, 2005.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2004. "Proposal
for the Establishment of a NOAA Gulf Coast Services Center." Prepared in
Response to the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004
(Public Law 108-199).

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2005. "Gulf of
Mexico Activities Inventory: in Support of the U.S. Ocean Action Plan
Gulf of Mexico." Draft document produced to support discussion at the
National Ocean Service's Senior Management Council retreat.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2005b. "NOAA
Gulf Coast Services Report." Office of Management and Budget--approved
final draft.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Coastal Services
Center. 2002. "Coastal Resource Management Customer Survey: 2002
Results." Charleston, SC.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Coastal Services
Center. 2002b. "Marine Protected Areas Needs Assessment: Final Report."
Charleston, SC.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Coastal Services
Center. 2005. "Storm Surge Tools and Information: a User Needs
Assessment." Accessed at
*http://ekman.csc.noaa.gov/socialscience_2/stormsurge_needsassessment.jsp*.

NSTC Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (JSOST). 2006.
"Charting the Course for Ocean Science in the United States: Research
Priorities for the Next Decade."

Parish Recovery Planning Tool. 2006. Louisiana Speaks: a Long-term
Community Planning Initiative of the Louisiana Recovery Authority.
Accessed at *www.louisianaspeaks-parishplans.org*

Rabelais, N.N., R.E. Turner, D. and Scavia. 2002. "Beyond Science into
Policy: Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia and the Mississippi River." *BioScience*.
Volume 52. Number 2. Pages 129 to 142.

Responsive Management. 2006. Coastal resource manager customer survey.
Unpublished raw data.

Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) and Southwest Florida Water
Management. 1995. "District Sarasota Bay: the Voyage to Paradise
Reclaimed -- the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for
Sarasota Bay."

Smith, R.A., and R.E. Deyle. 1998. "Hurricane Case Study: Opal in the
Florida Panhandle." in *Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery and
Reconstruction*, J. Schwab, American Planning Association. Pages 235 to
258.

Steel, B.S., C. Smith, L. Opsommer, S. Curiel, and R. Warner-Steel.
2005. "Public Ocean Literacy in the United States." O*cean & Coastal
Management*. Volume 48. Pages 97 to 114.

Tampa Bay Estuary Program. 2006. "Charting the Course: the Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan for Tampa Bay." St. Petersburg, FL.

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. 1995. "Emergency Preparedness:
Future of the Region -- Tampa Bay Strategic Regional Policy Plan." Tampa
Bay, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. 3-1 to 3-31.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (NRCC). 1998. "Coastal
Bend Bays Plan." Published in "Coastal Texas 2020, a Clear Vision for
the Future of the Texas Coast," Prepared for Members of the 109th U.S.
Congress and 79th Texas Legislature, Austin, TX, CBBEP-1.

Thayer, G.W., J.P. Thomas, and K.V. Koskic. 2006. "The Habitat Research
Plan of the National

Marine Fisheries Service." *Fisheries*. Volume 21. Number 5. Pages
6--10.

Thurlow, A.R., C.J. Kruse, and D.H. Bierling. 2004. "A User Assessment
of Coastal Ocean Observation Systems in the Gulf of Mexico." Prepared
for Texas Sea Grant Program and Texas A&M University System.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), New Orleans District. 2004.
*Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA), Louisiana Ecosystem Restoration Study,
Final.* Volume 1 of LCA Study -- Main Report.

U.S. House of Representatives Science Committee, Subcommittee on
Research. 2005. "The Role of Social Science Research in Disaster
Preparedness and Response." Testimony by Shirley Laska, PhD.

Working Group for Post-Hurricane Planning for the Louisiana Coast. 2006.
"A New Framework for Planning the Future of Coastal Louisiana after the
Hurricanes of 2005."