NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP): Guidance for Regional Implementation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Coastal Change Analysis Programl (C-CAP) is developing a nationally standardized database on landcover and habitat change in the coastal regions of the United States. C-CAP is part of the Estuarine Habitat Program (EHP) of NOAA's Coastal Ocean Program (COP). C-CAP inventories coastal submersed habitats, wetland habitats, and adjacent uplands and monitors changes in these habitats on a one- to five-year cycle. This type of information and frequency of detection are required to improve scientific understanding of the linkages of coastal and submersed wetland habitats with adjacent uplands and with the distribution, abundance, and health of living marine resources. The monitoring cycle will vary according to the rate and magnitude of change in each geographic region. Satellite imagery (primarily Landsat Thematic Mapper), aerial photography, and field data are interpreted, classified, analyzed, and integrated with other digital data in a geographic information system (GIS). The resulting landcover change databases are disseminated in digital form for use by anyone wishing to conduct geographic analysis in the completed regions. C-CAP spatial information on coastal change will be input to EHP conceptual and predictive models to support coastal resource policy planning and analysis. CCAP products will include 1) spatially registered digital databases and images, 2) tabular summaries by state, county, and hydrologic unit, and 3) documentation. Aggregations to larger areas (representing habitats, wildlife refuges, or management districts) will be provided on a case-by-case basis. Ongoing C-CAP research will continue to explore techniques for remote determination of biomass, productivity, and functional status of wetlands and will evaluate new technologies (e.g. remote sensor systems, global positioning systems, image processing algorithms) as they become available. Selected hardcopy land-cover change maps will be produced at local (1:24,000) to regional scales (1:500,000) for distribution. Digital land-cover change data will be provided to users for the cost of reproduction. Much of the guidance contained in this document was developed through a series of professional workshops and interagency meetings that focused on a) coastal wetlands and uplands; b) coastal submersed habitat including aquatic beds; c) user needs; d) regional issues; e) classification schemes; f) change detection techniques; and g) data quality. Invited participants included technical and regional experts and representatives of key State and Federal organizations. Coastal habitat managers and researchers were given an opportunity for review and comment. This document summarizes C-CAP protocols and procedures that are to be used by scientists throughout the United States to develop consistent and reliable coastal change information for input to the C-CAP nationwide database. It also provides useful guidelines for contributors working on related projects. It is considered a working document subject to periodic review and revision.(PDF file contains 104 pages.)

State of Technology for In Situ Measures of Salinity Using Conductive Temperature Sensors, Savannah, Georgia, December 3-5, 2007: workshop proceedings

This Alliance for Coastal Technologies (ACT) workshop was convened to assess the availability and state of development of conductivity-temperature sensors that can meet the needs of coastal monitoring and management communities. Rased on the discussion, there are presently a number of commercial sensor options available, with a wide range of package configurations suitable for deployment in a range of coastal environments. However, some of the central questions posed in the workshop planning documents were left somewhat unresolved. The workshop description emphasized coastal management requirements and, in particular, whether less expensive, easily deployed, lower-resolution instruments might serve many management needs. While several participants expressed interest in this class of conductivity-temperature sensors, based on input from the manufacturers, it is not clear that simply relaxing the present level of resolution of existing instruments will result in instruments of significantly lower unit cost. Conductivity-temperature sensors are available near or under the $1,000 unit cost that was operationally defined at the workshop as a breakpoint for what might be considered to be a "low cost" sensor. For the manufacturers, a key consideration before undertaking the effort to develop lower cost sensors is whether there will be a significant market. In terms of defining "low cost," it was also emphasized that the "life cycle costs" for a given instrument must be considered (e.g., including personnel costs for deployment and maintenance). An adequate market survey to demonstrate likely applications and a viable market for lower cost sensors is needed. Another topic for the workshop was the introduction to the proposed ACT verification for conductivity-temperature sensors. Following a summary of the process as envisioned by ACT, initial feedback was solicited. Protocol development will be pursued further in a workshop involving ACT personnel and conductivity-temperature sensor manufacturers.[PDF contains 28 pages]

Recent Developments in In Situ Nutrient Sensors: applications and future directions, Savannah, Georgia, December 11-13, 2006: workshop proceedings

The Alliance for Coastal Technologies (ACT) convened a Workshop on "Recent Developments in In Situ Nutrient Sensors: Applications and Future Directions" from 11-13 December, 2006. The workshop was held at the Georgia Coastal Center in Savannah, Georgia, with local coordination provided by the ACT partner at the Skidaway Institute of Oceanography (University System of Georgia). Since its formation in 2000, ACT partners have been conducting workshops on various sensor technologies and supporting infrastructure for sensor systems. This was the first workshop to revisit a topic area addressed previously by ACT. An earlier workshop on the "State of Technology in the Development and Application of Nutrient Sensors" was held in Savannah, Georgia from 10-12 March, 2003. Participants in the first workshop included representatives from management, industry, and research sectors. Among the topics addressed at the first workshop were characteristics of "ideal" in situ nutrient sensors, particularly with regard to applications in coastal marine waters. In contrast, the present workshop focused on the existing commercial solutions. The in situ nutrient sensor technologies that appear likely to remain the dominant commercial options for the next decade are reagent-based in situ auto-analyzers (or fluidics systems) and an optical approach (spectrophotometric measurement of nitrate). The number of available commercial systems has expanded since 2003, and community support for expanded application and further development of these technologies appears warranted. Application in coastal observing systems, including freshwater as well as estuarine and marine environments, was a focus of the present workshop. This included discussion of possible refinements for sustained deployments as part of integrated instrument packages and means to better promote broader use of nutrient sensors in observing system and management applications. The present workshop also made a number of specific recommendations concerning plans for a demonstration of in situ nutrient sensor technologies that ACT will be conducting in coordination with sensor manufacturers.[PDF contains 40 pages]

Ground water-surface water interactions sensor technology, Savannah, Georgia, March 7-9, 2005: workshop proceedings

The Alliance for Coastal Technologies (ACT) held a Workshop on Sensor Technology for Assessing Groundwater-Surface Water Interactions in the Coastal Zone on March 7 to 9,2005 in Savannah, GA. The main goal of the workshop was to summarize the general parameters, which have been found to be useful in assessing groundwater-surface water (GW-SW) interactions in the coastal zone. The workshop participants (Appendix I) were specifically charged with identifying the types of sensor systems, if any, that have been used to obtain time-series data and to make known which parameters may be the most amenable to the development/application of sensor technology. The group consisted of researchers, industry representatives, and environmental managers. Four general recommendations were made: 1. Educate coastal managers and agencies on the importance of GW-SW interactions, keeping in mind that regulatory agencies are driven by a different set of rules than researchers: the focus is on understanding the significance of the problem and providing solutions. ACT could facilitate this process in two ways. First, given that the research literature on this subject is fairly diffuse, ACT could provide links from its web site to fact sheets or other literature. Second, ACT could organize a focused meeting for managers and/or agency groups. Encourage development of primary tools for quantifying flow. The most promising technology in this respect is flow meters designed for flux chambers, mainly because they should be simple to use and can be made relatively inexpensively. However, it should be kept in mind that they provide only point measurements and several would need to be deployed as a network in order to obtain reliable flow estimates. For evaluating system wide GW-SW interactions, tools that integrate the signal over large areas would be required. Suggestions include a user-friendly hydrogeologic models, keeping in mind that freshwater flow is not the entire story, or continuous radon monitors. Though the latter would be slightly more difficult to use in terms of background knowledge, such an instrument would be low power and easy to operate and maintain. ACT could facilitate this recommendation by identifying funding opportunities on its web site and/or performing evaluations of existing technologies that could be summarized on the web site. (pdf contains 18 pages)

Seabed Sensor Technology, Savannah, Georgia, February 1-3, 2006: workshop proceedings

Future coastal management practices require that a holistic, ecosystem management approach be adopted. Coastal ecosystems, however, present a variety of specific and unique challenges relative to open ocean systems. In particular, interactions with the seabed significantly influence the coastal ecosystem. Observing technologies must be developed and employed to incorporate seafloor interactions, processes and habitat diversity into research and management activities. An ACT Workshop on Seabed Sensor Technology was held February 1-3, 2006 in Savannah, Georgia, to summarize the current state of sensor technologies applicable to examining and monitoring the coastal seabed, including the near-bed benthic boundary layer and surface sediment layer. Workshop participants were specifically charged to identify current sensors in use, recommend improvements to these systems and to identify areas for future development and activities that would advance the use of sensor technology in the observation, monitoring and management of the coastal benthic environment. (pdf contains 23 pages)

What is coastal climate?

Historical definitions of what determines whether one lives in a coastal area or not have varied over time. According to Culliton (1998), a “coastal county” is defined as a county with at least 15% of its total land area located within a nation’s coastal watershed. This emphasizes the land areas within which water flows into the ocean or Great Lakes, but may be better suited for ecosystems or water quality research (Crowell et al. 2007). Some Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) documents suggest that “coastal” includes shoreline-adjacent coastal counties, and perhaps even counties impacted by flooding from coastal storms. An accurate definition of “coastal” is critical in this regard since FEMA uses such definitions to revise and modernize their Flood Insurance Rate Maps (Crowell et al. 2007). A recent map published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Coastal Services Center for the Coastal Change Analysis Program shows that the “coastal” boundary covers the entire state of New York and Michigan, while nearly all of South Carolina is considered “coastal.” The definition of “coastal” one chooses can have major implications, including a simple count of coastal population and the influence of local or state coastal policies. There is, however, one aspect of defining what is “coastal” that has often been overlooked; using atmospheric long-term climate variables to define the inland extent of the coastal zone. This definition, which incorporates temperature, precipitation, wind speed, and relative humidity, is furthermore scalable and globally applicable - even in the face of shifting shorelines. A robust definition using common climate variables should condense the large broad definition often associated with “coastal” such that completely landlocked locations would no longer be considered “coastal.” Moreover, the resulting definition, “coastal climate” or “climatology of the coast”, will help coastal resource managers make better-informed decisions on a wide range of climatologically-influenced issues. The following sections outline the methodology employed to derive some new maps of coastal boundaries in the United States. (PDF contains 3 pages)

Encouraging sustainable development in a coastal community: New Hanover County, North Carolina's exceptional design zoning district

While New Hanover County is the second smallest county in North Carolina, it is also the second most densely populated with approximately 850 people per square mile. Nestled between the Cape Fear River and Atlantic Ocean with surrounding barrier island beach communities, the County’s geographic location provides a prime vacation destination, as well as an ideal location for residents who wish to live at the water’s edge. Wilmington is the largest city in the County with a population just under 200,000. Most of the Wilmington metropolitan area is developed, creating intense development pressures for the remaining undeveloped land in the unincorporated County. In order to provide development opportunities for mixed use or high density projects within unincorporated New Hanover County where appropriate urban features are in place to support such projects without the negative effects of urban sprawl, County Planning Staff recently developed an Exceptional Design Zoning District (EDZD). Largely based on the LEED for Neighborhood Development program, the EDZD standards were scaled to fit the unique conditions of the County with the goal of encouraging sustainable development while providing density incentives to entice the use of the voluntary district. The incentive for the voluntary zoning district is increased density in areas where the density may not be allowed under normal circumstances. The rationale behind allowing for higher density projects is that development can be concentrated in areas where appropriate urban features are in place to support such projects, and the tendency toward urban sprawl can be minimized. With water quality being of high importance, it is perceived that higher density development will better protect water quality then lower density projects. (PDF contains 4 pages)

Using ReefBase to create customized maps

One of the most popular sections of the ReefBase website is the online GIS that enables users to create an almost unlimited range of maps showing a wide variety of features. A new version of the GIS, offering an even larger array of facilities and data layers, is online as of early September. In this article, we will provide an introduction to the ReefBase GIS and also highlight some of the powerful but lesser used features of the system.

Cross-shelf and seasonal variation in larval fish assemblages on the southeast United States continental shelf off the coast of Georgia

Seasonal and cross-shelf patterns were investigated in larval fish assemblages on the continental shelf off the coast of Georgia. The influence of environmental factors on larval distributions also was examined, and larval transport processes on the shelf were considered. Ichthyoplankton and environmental data were collected approximately every other month from spring 2000 to winter 2002. Ten stations were repeatedly sampled along a 110-km cross-shelf transect, including four stations in the vicinity of Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary. Correspondence analysis (CA) on untransformed community data identified two seasonal (warm weather [spring, summer, and fall] and winter) and three cross-shelf larval assemblages (inner-, mid-, and outer-shelf ). Five environmental factors (temperature, salinity, density, depth of the water column, and stratification) were related to larval cross-shelf distribution. Specifically, increased water column stratification was associated with the outer-shelf assemblage in spring, summer, and fall. The inner shelf assemblage was associated with generally lower temperatures and lower salinities in the spring and summer and higher salinities in the winter. The three cross-shelf regions indicated by the three assemblages coincided with the location of three primary water masses on the shelf. However, taxa occurring together within an assemblage were transported to different parts of the shelf; thus, transport across the continental shelf off the coast of Georgia cannot be explained solely by twodimensional physical factors.

Catch and Bycatch in the Shark Drift Gillnet Fishery off Georgia and East Florida

An observer program of the shark drift gillnet fishery off the Atlantic coast of Florida and Georgia was begun in 1993 to define the fishery and estimate bycatch including bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, and sea turtles. Boats in the fishery were 12.2-19.8 m long. Nets used were 275-1,800 m long and 3.2-4.1 m deep. Stretched-mesh sizes used were 12.7-29.9 cm. Fishing trips were usually <18 h and occurred within 30 n.mi. of port. Fishing with an observer aboard occurred between Savannah, Ga., and Jacksonville, Fla., and off Cape Canaveral, Fla. Nets were set at least 3 n.mi. offshore. Numbers of boats in the fishery increased from 5 in 1993 to 11 in 1995, but total trips decreased from 185 in 1994 to 149 in 1995. During 1993-95, 48 observer trips were completed and 52 net sets were observed. No marine mammals were caught and two loggerhead turtles, Caretta caretta, were caught and released alive. A total of 9,270 animals (12 shark, 21 teleost, 4 ray, and 1 sea turtle species) were captured. Blacknose, Carcharhinus acronotus; Atlantic sharpnose, Rhizoprionodon terraenovae; and blacktip shark, C. limbatus), were the dominant sharks caught. King mackerel, Scomberomorus cavalIa; little tunny, Euthynnus alleteratus; and cownose ray, Rhinoptera bonasus, were the dominant bycatch species. About 8.4% of the total catch was bycatch. Of the totals, 9.4% of the sharks and 37.3% ofthe bycatch were discarded.

Lethal Parasites in Oysters from Coastal Georgia with Discussion of Disease and Management Implications

Extensive mortalities of oysters, Crassostrea virginica, occurred from 1985 through 1987 in coastal waters of Georgia. Fluid thioglycolate cultures of oysters collected from 16 of 17 locations revealed infections by the apicomplexan parasite Perkinsus marinus. An ascetosporan parasite, Haplosporidium nelsoni, was also observed in histopathological examination of oysters from 4 of the locations. While the range of H. nelsoni currently is recognized as the east coast of the United States from Maine to Florida, this is the first report of the parasite in Georgia waters. This paper documents the occurrence of these two lethal parasites in oysters from coastal waters of Georgia, along with potential disease and management implications. Results of an earlier independent and previously unpublished survey are also discussed which document the presence of P. marinus in Georgia as early as 1966.

Diet of Bottlenose Dolphins Tursiops truncatus in the Northwest Panhandle and Foraging Behavior Near Savannah, Georgia

The foraging ecology of bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus in the Northwest Florida Panhandle and estuaries in northern Georgia was determined using diet analysis and behavioral surveys. Stomach content analysis was completed on bottlenose dolphins(N = 25) that stranded in the Northwest Florida Panhandle from November 2006 to March 2009. The most abundant prey species were spot Leiostomus xanthurus (20.4%), squid (10.9%), pinfish Lagodon rhombiodes (10.3%), and Atlantic croaker Micropogonias undulatus (8.5%). Dolphins that stranded during months with a red tide Karenia brevis bloom consumed more pinfish, and spot; whereas dolphins that stranded in non-bloom months consumed more squid, Atlantic croaker, and silver perch Bairdiella chrysoura. Differences in diet were also identified for dolphins that stranded inside bays/sound and dolphin that stranded outside of bays along the coast, and male and female dolphins. Surveys were conducted from south of the Savannah River to north of Ossabaw Sound in Georgia where foraging behaviors were classified. Multivariate Generalized Additive Models were used to test correlations of behaviors to dolphin group size, depth, salinity, temperature, creek width, and tide. Sightings with headstands (p = 0.009), hard stops (p = 0.019), chasing (p = 0.004), mudbank whacking (p < 0.001), herding/circling (p = 0.024), and strand feeding (p = 0.006) were correlated with shallow water or small creeks. Sightings with kerplunking (p = 0.031), mudbank whacking (p = 0.001), strand feeding (p = 0.003), and herding/circling (p = 0.026) were significantly correlated with low tide. The results of the Savannah, Georgia study were the first to characterize foraging behaviors in this area and demonstrate how bottlenose dolphins utilize the salt marsh estuary in terms of foraging. Studies like these are important to determine how dolphins forage efficiently and to provide background information on diet and foraging behavior for use in monitoring future impacts to dolphins in the Northwest Florida Panhandle and near Savannah, Georgia.

Muskrats on tidal marshes of Dorchester County

This bulletin reports, in a non-technical manner, investigations on the Virginia muskrat, prevalent in Maryland, from July, 1949 to June, 1951.