Biology, ecology, control and management of the invasive Indo-Pacific lionfish: An updated integrated assessment

Venomous Indo-Pacific lionfish (Pterois miles and P. volitans) are now established along the Southeast U.S.A. and parts of the Caribbean and pose a serious threat to reef fish communities of these regions. Lionfish are likely to invade the Gulf of Mexico and potentially South America in the near future. Introductions of lionfish were noted since the 1980s along south Florida and by 2000 lionfish were established off the coast of North Carolina. Lionfish are now one of the more numerous predatory reef fishes at some locations off the Southeast U.S.A. and Caribbean. Lionfish are largely piscivores that feed occasionally on economically important reef fishes. The trophic impacts of lionfish could alter the structure of native reef fish communities and potentially hamper stock rebuilding efforts of the Snapper –Grouper Complex. Additional effects of the lionfish invasion are far-reaching and could increase coral reef ecosystem stress, threaten human health, and ultimately impact the marine aquarium industry. Control strategies for lionfish are needed to mitigate impacts, especially in protected areas. This integrated assessment provides a general overview of the biology and ecology of lionfish including genetics, taxonomy, reproductive biology, early life history and dispersal, venom defense and predation, and feeding ecology. In addition, alternative management actions for mitigating the negative impacts of lionfish, approaches for reducing the risk of future invasions, and directions for future research are provided.

Limited resources? Let the habitat priority planner help!

In this time of scarce resources, coastal resource managers must find ways to prioritize conservation, land use, and restoration efforts. The Habitat Priority Planner (HPP) is a free geospatial tool created by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Coastal Services Center that has received wide praise for its ease of use and broad applicability to conservation strategic planning, restoration, climate change scenarios, and other natural resource management actions. Not a geographic information system (GIS) user? Don’t worry―this tool was designed to be used in a team setting. One intermediate-level GIS user can push the buttons to show quick results while a roomful of resource managers and stakeholders provide input criteria that determine the results. The Habitat Priority Planner is a toolbar for ESRI’s ArcGIS platform that is composed of three modules: Habitat Classification, Habitat Analysis, and Data Explorer. The tool calculates basic ecological statistics that are used to examine how habitats function within a landscape. The tool pre‐packages several common landscape metrics into a user‐friendly interface for intermediate GIS users. In addition, HPP allows the user to build queries interactively using a graphical interface for demonstrating criteria selections quickly in a visual manner that is useful in stakeholder interactions. Tool advocates and users include land trusts, conservation alliances, nonprofit organizations, and select National Estuarine Research Reserves and refuges of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Participants in this session will learn the basic requirements for HPP use and the multiple ways the HPP has been applied to geographies nationwide. (PDF contains 5 pages)

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)

Non-governmental organizations and multi-sited marine conservation science: A case study

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are now major players in the realm of environmental conservation. While many environmental NGOs started as national organizations focused around single-species protection, governmental advocacy, and preservation of wilderness, the largest now produce applied conservation science and work with national and international stakeholders to develop conservation solutions that work in tandem with local aspirations. Marine managed areas (MMAs) are increasingly being used as a tool to manage anthropogenic stressors on marine resources and protect marine biodiversity. However, the science of MMA is far from complete. Conservation International (CI) is concluding a 5 year, $12.5 million dollar Marine Management Area Science (MMAS) initiative. There are 45 scientific projects recently completed, with four main “nodes” of research and conservation work: Panama, Fiji, Brazil, and Belize. Research projects have included MMA ecological monitoring, socioeconomic monitoring, cultural roles monitoring, economic valuation studies, and others. MMAS has the goals of conducting marine management area research, building local capacity, and using the results of the research to promote marine conservation policy outcomes at project sites. How science is translated into policy action is a major area of interest for science and technology scholars (Cash and Clark 2001; Haas 2004; Jasanoff et al. 2002). For science to move policy there must be work across “boundaries” (Jasanoff 1987). Boundaries are defined as the “socially constructed and negotiated borders between science and policy, between disciplines, across nations, and across multiple levels” (Cash et al. 2001). Working across the science-policy boundary requires boundary organizations (Guston 1999) with accountability to both sides of the boundary, among other attributes. (Guston 1999; Clark et al. 2002). This paper provides a unique case study illustrating how there are clear advantages to collaborative science. Through the MMAS initiative, CI built accountability into both sides of the science-policy boundary primarily through having scientific projects fed through strong in-country partners and being folded into the work of ongoing conservation processes. This collaborative, boundary-spanning approach led to many advantages, including cost sharing, increased local responsiveness and input, better local capacity building, and laying a foundation for future conservation outcomes. As such, MMAS can provide strong lessons for other organizations planning to get involved in multi-site conservation science. (PDF contains 3 pages)

Assessing tourist demand for traditional coastal dependent businesses on the South Carolina coast

Tourism driven development and coastal gentrification have resulted in a notable decline in traditional coastaldependent businesses on the South Carolina (SC) coast. We examined the sustainability of these businesses by assessing tourists’ demand for local, traditional, and marine related products and services. The research integrated focus groups and an intercept-based mail survey. This paper reports selected survey results and discusses how the findings will be incorporated into small-business training materials. (PDF contains 4 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)

Coastal community hazard mitigation and community rating system of NFIP

Storm force flooding continues to be a major concern in the hurricane season and causes considerable loss to the coastal communities. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) provides recovery resources for the flood disaster and dissuades uneconomic uses from locating in flood hazard area. In order to motivate flood insurance purchase and promote increased flood hazard mitigation, the Community Rating System (CRS) that is a part of NFIP, credits 18 community floodplain management activities. However, CRS has been marked by a lack of active participation since its inception limiting its potential effectiveness. As of January 2008, 1080 communities, representing only 5% of all the NFIP communities have enrolled in CRS. Little empirical evidence exists to shed light on what factors influence the establishment of local hazard mitigation projects. To fill this gap, we propose to analyze flood hazard mitigation projects in 37 North Carolina coastal counties between 2002 and 2008. Specifically, we will examine the influence of physical, risk, and socioeconomic factors on coastal community hazard mitigation decisions as reflected in the CRS score. Ultimately, our project will forge a better understanding of community decision making, as related to natural hazards. (PDF contains 4 pages)

Resource management of dynamic coastal environments using synoptic measures from remote sensing

In addition to providing vital ecological services, coastal areas of North Carolina provide prized areas for habitation, recreation, and commercial fisheries. However, from a management perspective, the coasts of North Carolina are highly variable and complex. In-water constituents such as nutrients, suspended sediments, and chlorophyll a concentration can vary significantly over a broad spectrum of time and space scales. Rapid growth and land-use change continue to exert pressure on coastal lands. Coastal environments are also very vulnerable to short-term (e.g., hurricanes) and long-term (e.g., sea-level rise) natural changes that can result in significant loss of life, economic loss, or changes in coastal ecosystem functioning. Hence, the dynamic nature, effects of human-induced change over time, and vulnerability of coastal areas make it difficult to effectively monitor and manage these important state and national resources using traditional data collection technologies such as discrete monitoring stations and field surveys. In general, these approaches provide only a sparse network of data over limited time and space scales and generally are expensive and labor-intensive. Products derived from spectral images obtained by remote sensing instruments provide a unique vantage point from which to examine the dynamic nature of coastal environments. A primary advantage of remote sensing is that the altitude of observation provides a large-scale synoptic view relative to traditional field measurements. Equally important, the use of remote sensing for a broad range of research and environmental applications is now common due to major advances in data availability, data transfer, and computer technologies. To facilitate the widespread use of remote sensing products in North Carolina, the UNC Coastal Studies Institute (UNC-CSI) is developing the capability to acquire, process, and analyze remotely sensed data from several remote sensing instruments. In particular, UNC-CSI is developing regional remote sensing algorithms to examine the mobilization, transport, transformation, and fate of materials between coupled terrestrial and coastal ocean systems. To illustrate this work, we present the basic principles of remote sensing of coastal waters in the context of deriving information that supports efficient and effective management of coastal resources. (PDF contains 4 pages)

Protecting a threatened coastal fish species through regional collaboration

Rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) are small anadromous fish that live in nearshore coastal waters during much of the year and migrate to tidal rivers to spawn during the spring. They are a key prey species in marine food webs, as they are consumed by larger organisms such as striped bass, bluefish, and seabirds. In addition, smelt are valued culturally and economically, as they support important recreational and commercial fisheries. The Atlantic Coast range of rainbow smelt has been contracting in recent decades. Historically, populations extended from the Delaware River to eastern Labrador and the Gulf of St. Lawrence (Buckley 1989). More recent observations indicate that rainbow smelt spawning populations have been extirpated south of Long Island Sound, and evidence of spawning activity is extremely limited between Long Island and Cape Cod, MA. In the Gulf of Maine region, spawning runs are still observed, but monitoring surveys as well as commercial and recreational catches indicate that these populations have also declined (e.g., Chase and Childs 2001). Many diverse factors could drive the recently noted declines in rainbow smelt populations, including spawning habitat conditions, fish health, marine environmental conditions, and fishing pressure. Few studies have assessed any of these potential threats or their joint implications. In 2004, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed rainbow smelt as a species of concern. Subsequently, the states of Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts were awarded a grant through NMFS’s Proactive Conservation Program to gather new information on the status of rainbow smelt, identify factors that affect spawning populations, and develop a multi-state conservation program. This paper provides an overview of this collaborative project, highlighting key biological monitoring and threats assessment research that is being conducted throughout the Gulf of Maine. (PDF contains 4 pages)

Improving the chances for developing coastal country success in adapting to climate change

There is an unequivocal scientific consensus that increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere drive warming temperatures of air and sea, and acidification of the world’s oceans from carbon dioxide absorbed by the oceans. These changes in turn can induce shifts in precipitation patterns, sea level rise, and more frequent and severe extreme weather events (e.g. storms and sea surge). All of these impacts are already being witnessed in the world’s coastal regions and are projected to intensify in years to come. Taken together, these impacts are likely to result in significant alteration of natural habitats and coastal ecosystems, and increased coastal hazards in low-lying areas. They can affect fishers, coastal communities and resource users, recreation and tourism, and coastal infrastructure. Approaches to planned adaptation to these impacts can be drawn from the lessons and good practices from global experience in Integrated Coastal Management (ICM). The recently published USAID Guidebook on Adapting to Coastal Climate Change (USAID 2009) is directed at practitioners, development planners, and coastal management professionals in developing countries. It offers approaches for assessing vulnerability to climate change and climate variability in communities and outlines how to develop and implement adaptation measures at the local and national levels. Six best practices for coastal adaptation are featured in the USAID Guidebook on Adapting to Coastal Climate Change and summarized in the following sections. (PDF contains 3 pages)

Concerted action for successful coastal communities in Tanzania: Lessons from the Tanzania Coastal Management Partnership (TCMP) 2006-2009

The Tanzania Coastal Management Partnership (TCMP) works to implement the National Integrated Coastal Environmental Management Strategy (ICEMS) in Tanzania’s coastal landscapes and seascapes, funded in large measure by the U.S. Agency for International Development. The overarching goal of the Sustainable Coastal Communities and Ecosystems in Tanzania (SUCCESS Tanzania) initiative is to conserve coastal and marine biodiversity while improving the well being of coastal residents through implementation of the Tanzania ICEMS and related ICM policies and strategies. It does this by focusing on three key results: -Policies and Laws that Integrate Conservation and Development Applied -Participatory Landscape Scale Conservation Practiced -Conservation Enterprises Generate Increased and Equitable Benefits from Sustainable Use An additional result sought in the program is gender equity and HIV/AIDS preventive behaviors promoted through communicating HIV/AIDS, environment, and equity messages. (PDF contains 3 pages)

Challenges in using science-based shoreline setbacks: Examples from South Carolina

Beachfront jurisdictional lines were established by the South Carolina Beachfront Management Act (SC Code §48- 39-250 et seq.) in 1988 to regulate the new construction, repair, or reconstruction of buildings and erosion control structures along the state’s ocean shorelines. Building within the state’s beachfront “setback area” is allowed, but is subject to special regulations. For “standard beaches” (those not influenced by tidal inlets or associated shoals), a baseline is established at the crest of the primary oceanfront sand dune; for “unstabilized inlet zones,” the baseline is drawn at the most landward point of erosion during the past forty years. The parallel setback line is then established landward of the baseline a distance of forty times the long-term average annual erosion rate (not less than twenty feet from the baseline in stable or accreting areas). The positions of the baseline and setback line are updated every 8-10 years using the best available scientific and historical data, including aerial imagery, LiDAR, historical shorelines, beach profiles, and long-term erosion rates. One advantage of science-based setbacks is that, by using actual historical and current shoreline positions and beach profile data, they reflect the general erosion threat to beachfront structures. However, recent experiences with revising the baseline and setback line indicate that significant challenges and management implications also exist. (PDF contains 3 pages)

Shoal manipulation as an effective solution to site specific beach management, examples from three South Carolina beaches

Soft engineering solutions are the current standard for addressing coastal erosion in the US. In South Carolina, beach nourishment from offshore sand deposits and navigation channels has mostly replaced construction of seawalls and groins, which were common occurrences in earlier decades. Soft engineering solutions typically provide a more natural product than hard solutions, and also eliminate negative impacts to adjacent areas which are often associated with hard solutions. A soft engineering solution which may be underutilized in certain areas is shoal manipulation. (PDF contains 4 pages)

To pave or not to pave: A social landscape analysis of land use decision-making in the towns of the lamprey watershed

Population pressure in coastal New Hampshire challenges land use decision-making and threatens the ecological health and functioning of Great Bay, an estuary designated as both a NOAA National Estuarine Research Reserve and an EPA National Estuary Program site. Regional population in the seacoast has quadrupled in four decades resulting in sprawl, increased impervious surface cover and larger lot rural development (Zankel, et.al., 2006). All of Great Bay’s contributing watersheds face these challenges, resulting in calls for strategies addressing growth, development and land use planning. The communities within the Lamprey River watershed comprise this case study. Do these towns communicate upstream and downstream when making land use decisions? Are cumulative effects considered while debating development? Do town land use groups consider the Bay or the coasts in their decision-making? This presentation, a follow-up from the TCS 2008 conference and a completed dissertation, will discuss a novel social science approach to analyze and understand the social landscape of land use decision-making in the towns of the Lamprey River watershed. The methods include semi-structured interviews with GIS based maps in a grounded theory analytical strategy. The discussion will include key findings, opportunities and challenges in moving towards a watershed approach for land use planning. This presentation reviews the results of the case study and developed methodology, which can be used in watersheds elsewhere to map out the potential for moving towns towards EBM and watershed-scaled, land use planning. (PDF contains 4 pages)

Watershed monitoring and the TMDL modeling to assess bacterial loading in estuarine environments to improve management

Shellfish bed closures along the North Carolina coast have increased over the years seemingly concurrent with increases in population (Mallin 2000). More and faster flowing storm water has come to mean more bacteria, and fecal indicator bacterial (FIB) standards for shellfish harvesting are often exceeded when no source of contamination is readily apparent (Kator and Rhodes, 1994). Could management reduce bacterial loads if the source of the bacteria where known? Several potentially useful methods for differentiating human versus animal pollution sources have emerged including Ribotyping and Multiple Antibiotic Resistance (MAR) (US EPA, 2005). Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies on bacterial sources have been conducted for streams in NC mountain and Piedmont areas (U.S. EPA, 1991 and 2005) and are likely to be mandated for coastal waters. TMDL analysis estimates allowable pollutant loads and allocates them to known sources so management actions may be taken to restore water to its intended uses (U.S. EPA, 1991 and 2005). This project sought first to quantify and compare fecal contamination levels for three different types of land use on the coast, and second, to apply MAR and ribotyping techniques and assess their effectiveness for indentifying bacterial sources. Third, results from these studies would be applied to one watershed to develop a case study coastal TMDL. All three watershed study areas are within Carteret County, North Carolina. Jumping Run Creek and Pettiford Creek are within the White Oak River Basin management unit whereas the South River falls within the Neuse River Basin. Jumping Run Creek watershed encompasses approximately 320 ha. Its watershed was a dense, coastal pocosin on sandy, relic dune ridges, but current land uses are primarily medium density residential. Pettiford Creek is in the Croatan National Forest, is 1133 ha. and is basically undeveloped. The third study area is on Open Grounds Farm in the South River watershed. Half of the 630 ha. watershed is under cultivation with most under active water control (flashboard risers). The remaining portion is forested silviculture.(PDF contains 4 pages)