Local solutions to local problems: A stormwater education collaborative

Currently completing its fifth year, the Coastal Waccamaw Stormwater Education Consortium (CWSEC) helps northeastern South Carolina communities meet National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II permit requirements for Minimum Control Measure 1 - Public Education and Outreach - and Minimum Control Measure 2 - Public Involvement. Coordinated by Coastal Carolina University, six regional organizations serve as core education providers to eight coastal localities including six towns and cities and two large counties. CWSEC recently finished a needs assessment to begin the process of strategizing for the second NPDES Phase II 5-year permit cycle in order to continue to develop and implement effective, results-oriented stormwater education and outreach programs to meet federal requirements and satisfy local environmental and economic needs. From its conception in May 2004, CWSEC set out to fulfill new federal Clean Water Act requirements associated with the NPDES Phase II Stormwater Program. Six small municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) located within the Myrtle Beach Urbanized Area endorsed a coordinated approach to regional stormwater education, and participated in a needs assessment resulting in a Regional Stormwater Education Strategy and a Phased Education Work Plan. In 2005, CWSEC was formally established and the CWSEC’s Coordinator was hired. The Coordinator, who is also the Environmental Educator at Coastal Carolina University’s Waccamaw Watershed Academy, organizes six regional agencies who serve as core education providers for eight coastal communities. The six regional agencies working as core education providers to the member MS4s include Clemson Public Service and Carolina Clear Program, Coastal Carolina University’s Waccamaw Watershed Academy, Murrells Inlet 2020, North Inlet-Winyah Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve’s Coastal Training and Public Education Programs, South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium, and Winyah Rivers Foundation’s Waccamaw Riverkeeper®. CWSEC’s organizational structure results in a synergy among the education providers, achieving greater productivity than if each provider worked separately. The member small MS4s include City of Conway, City of North Myrtle Beach, City of Myrtle Beach, Georgetown County, Horry County, Town of Atlantic Beach, Town of Briarcliffe Acres, and Town of Surfside Beach. Each MS4 contributes a modest annual fee toward the salary of the Coordinator and operational costs. (PDF contains 3 pages)

Underwater Passive Acoustic Monitoring for Remote Regions, Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, Coconut Island, Hawaii, February 7-9, 2007: workshop proceedings

The Alliance for Coastal Technologies (ACT) convened a workshop, sponsored by the Hawaii-Pacific and Alaska Regional Partners, entitled Underwater Passive Acoustic Monitoring for Remote Regions at the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology from February 7-9, 2007. The workshop was designed to summarize existing passive acoustic technologies and their uses, as well as to make strategic recommendations for future development and collaborative programs that use passive acoustic tools for scientific investigation and resource management. The workshop was attended by 29 people representing three sectors: research scientists, resource managers, and technology developers. The majority of passive acoustic tools are being developed by individual scientists for specific applications and few tools are available commercially. Most scientists are developing hydrophone-based systems to listen for species-specific information on fish or cetaceans; a few scientists are listening for biological indicators of ecosystem health. Resource managers are interested in passive acoustics primarily for vessel detection in remote protected areas and secondarily to obtain biological and ecological information. The military has been monitoring with hydrophones for decades;however, data and signal processing software has not been readily available to the scientific community, and future collaboration is greatly needed. The challenges that impede future development of passive acoustics are surmountable with greater collaboration. Hardware exists and is accessible; the limits are in the software and in the interpretation of sounds and their correlation with ecological events. Collaboration with the military and the private companies it contracts will assist scientists and managers with obtaining and developing software and data analysis tools. Collaborative proposals among scientists to receive larger pools of money for exploratory acoustic science will further develop the ability to correlate noise with ecological activities. The existing technologies and data analysis are adequate to meet resource managers' needs for vessel detection. However, collaboration is needed among resource managers to prepare large-scale programs that include centralized processing in an effort to address the lack of local capacity within management agencies to analyze and interpret the data. Workshop participants suggested that ACT might facilitate such collaborations through its website and by providing recommendations to key agencies and programs, such as DOD, NOAA, and I00s. There is a need to standardize data formats and archive acoustic environmental data at the national and international levels. Specifically, there is a need for local training and primers for public education, as well as by pilot demonstration projects, perhaps in conjunction with National Marine Sanctuaries. Passive acoustic technologies should be implemented immediately to address vessel monitoring needs. Ecological and health monitoring applications should be developed as vessel monitoring programs provide additional data and opportunities for more exploratory research. Passive acoustic monitoring should also be correlated with water quality monitoring to ease integration into long-term monitoring programs, such as the ocean observing systems. [PDF contains 52 pages]

Distribution and potential bioeffects of atrazine in coastal waters

Estuaries provide critical nursery habitat for many commercially and recreationally important fish and shellfish species. These productive, diverse ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to pollution because they serve as repositories for non–point-source contaminants from upland sources, such as pesticide runoff. Atrazine, among the most widely used pesticides in the United States, has also been one of the most extensively studied. There has not, however, been a specific assessment of atrazine in marine and estuarine ecosystems. This document characterizes the presence and transformation of atrazine in coastal waters, and the effects of atrazine on marine organisms. Review of marine and estuarine monitoring data indicate that atrazine is chronically present in U.S. coastal waters at relatively low concentrations. The concentrations detected have typically been below acute biological effects levels, and below the U.S. EPA proposed water quality criteria for atrazine. While direct risk of atrazine impacts are low, uncertainty remains regarding the effects of long-term low levels of atrazine in mixture with other contaminants. It is recommended that best management practices, such as the use of vegetative buffers and public education about pesticide use, be encouraged in the coastal zone to minimize runoff of atrazine into marine and estuarine waters.

Guidelines for the conservation and restoration of seagrasses in the United States and adjacent waters

Seagrass ecosystems are protected under the federal "no-net-loss" policy for wetlands and form one of the most productive plant communities on the planet, performing important ecological functions. Seagrass beds have been recognized as a valuable resource critical to the health and function of coastal waters. Greater awareness and public education, however, is essential for conservation of this resource. Tremendous losses of this habitat have occurred as a result of development within the coastal zone. Disturbances usually kill seagrasses rapidly, and recovery is often comparatively slow. Mitigation to compensate for destruction of existing habitat usually follows when the agent of loss and responsible party are known. Compensation assumes that ecosystems can be made to order and, in essence, trades existing functional habitat for the promise of replacement habitat. While ~lant ingse agrass is not technically complex, there is no easy way to meet the goal of maintaining or increasing seagrass acreage. Rather, the entire process of planning, planting and monitoring requires attention to detail and does not lend itself to oversimplification.

Developing alternative shoreline armoring strategies: the living shoreline approach in North Carolina

This paper reviews the scientific data on the ecosystem services provided by shoreline habitats, the evidence for adverse impacts from bulkheading on those habitats and services, and describes alternative approaches to shoreline stabilization, which minimize adverse impacts to the shoreline ecosystem. Alternative shoreline stabilization structures that incorporate natural habitats, also known as living shorelines, have been popularized by environmental groups and state regulatory agencies in the mid-Atlantic. Recent data on living shoreline projects in North Carolina that include a stone sill demonstrate that the sills increase sedimentation rates, that after 3 years marshes behind the sills have slightly reduced biomass, and that the living shoreline projects exhibit similar rates of fishery utilization as nearby natural fringing marshes. Although the current emphasis on shoreline armoring in Puget Sound is on steeper, higher-energy shorelines, armoring of lower-energy shorelines may become an issue in the future with expansion of residential development and projected rates of sea level rise. The implementation of regulatory policy on estuarine shoreline stabilization in North Carolina and elsewhere is presented. The regulatory and public education issues experienced in North Carolina, which have made changes in estuarine shoreline stabilization policy difficult, may inform efforts to adopt a sustainable shoreline armoring strategy in Puget Sound. A necessary foundation for regulatory change in shoreline armoring policy, and public support for that change, is rigorous scientific assessment of the variety of services that natural shoreline habitats provide both to the ecosystem and to coastal communities, and evidence demonstrating that shoreline armoring can adversely impact the provision of those services.