CICEET Progress Report for the period 3/01/09 through 8/31/09

Project Title: Sustainable Estuarine Shoreline Stabilization: Research, Education and Public Policy in North Carolina
Principal Investigator(s): Carolyn Currin, NOAA and John Fear, NCNERR
Project Start Date: 09/01/08
Report Compiled By: John Fear

Contributing team members and their role in the project: The following team members provided text for this progress report.

• John Fear, PI, vegetation monitoring lead
• Carolyn Currin, PI, elevation monitoring lead
• Greg Piniak, Co-PI, wave measurements team
• Pete Peterson, Co-PI, nekton measurements lead
• Mike Piehler, Co-PI, nutrient transformations lead
• Martin Posey, Co-PI, benthic infauna lead
• Jill Fegley, Co-PI, education and outreach lead

Figures

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Map 1

b. elevation monitoring
Central Coast sites_- Due to the absence of tidal datums in the vicinity of the sites, we established a temporary benchmark using steel rod and acquired elevation data using a GPS RTK unit (Trimble 5800) and the NOAA OPUS protocol. After the benchmark is established, we will use laser survey equipment and GPS VRS equipment to obtain the surface elevation of each vegetation plot, and a Digital Elevation Model of the site when low tide conditions are suitable.

Southern Coast sites – We will need to establish benchmarks for at least some of the southern sites due to the absence of tidal datums in the vicinity. We are still looking for usable benchmarks in the Wrightsville Beach area. Once the benchmarks are found/established, we will obtain elevation data for each vegetation plot and a Digital Elevation Model of each site.

c. wave sampling
In initial site selection in the CeCo region, we determined that the sites lacked sufficient depths available to deploy the directional wave profiler. This challenge is being overcome by obtaining a directional wave and current meter that works in shallower water. We anticipate the unit to be delivered at the end of August 2009.

We conducted a test deployment in June 2009, with the objective of validating the deployment design for wave data collection. For this short-term deployment we used the marsh area at the Duke University Marine Laboratory in Beaufort, NC. The marsh is near the intersection of two main channels, and receives a lot of wave energy from passing boat traffic. Two RBR pressure sensors were deployed at the same relative elevation, one in the marsh and one at the base of the seawall. Incident, directional wave energy measurements were made seaward of the marsh using a Nortek Vector, leased for this purpose while purchase paperwork for the project’s instrument was being processed. An additional RBR sensor was deployed with the Vector to cross-calibrate the two instruments. Data collection for all instruments was in 2048-second bursts at 4Hz every 30 minutes, beginning 19 June at noon local time and ending 16:00 on 25 June. We collected bathymetry data and established locations for the instruments, seawall and marsh perimeter using a real-time kinematic GPS (Figure 1). We tracked tidal stage during the deployment using the NOAA tide gauge about 100m south of the deployment site.

We restricted initial analysis to the RBR sensors. The Vector configuration required by the shallow water was such that the data analysis package provided with the instrument cannot be used. We are developing Matlab scripts to analyze the data, but have not yet completed the programming. Preliminary analysis of the RBR sensors (Figure 2) shows relatively low wave heights, with no extreme events recorded. The primary forcing mechanisms creating wave energy are wind-waves and boat wakes. At low tide, wave energy in all three locations were comparable, though the seawall and marsh sensors sometimes became emergent at low tide (see the discontinuities in the time series in Figure 2). At high tides, the seawall consistently had higher wave energy than was observed in the marsh, suggesting the marsh was effective in dissipating wave energy.

d. nekton sampling
We complete our early summer (June 25-30) sampling of nektonic fish and crustaceans for the six central coast (CeCo) sites, deploying both fyke nets and gill nets. Fyke nets (3 m long with additional 5 m attached wings) were placed at the marsh shoreline. Fyke nets directly sample smaller fishes using the marsh itself: this is achieved by deployment at peak high tide and retrieval at dead low tide. At retrieval, we collected all fish and crustaceans and returned them under preservation to the laboratory for identification, size measurements and quantification of gut contents. We also deployed gill nets 120 m long with panels of different mesh sizes ranging from 2.5 cm to 15 cm (stretched mesh). Gill nets were located 10 m from marsh shoreline set at dead high tide and retrieved after 2 hours of falling tide. As for gill net samples, all fish and crustaceans that were captured were preserved and transported to the UNC-IMS for identification, size measurements and quantification of gut contents.

In developing our sampling design and strategy, we needed to achieve replication of nekton sampling at each site and we needed in both day and night unlike much previous work which avoided the difficulty of nocturnal sampling. Furthermore, we wanted to sample each site simultaneously yet possessed only 3 fyke nets and 3 gill nets. Consequently, we established a design in which 3 sites received gill nets and 3 other sites received fyke nets during each sampling period. We alternated spatially the placement of gill and fyke nets for example, on day 1, sites 1, 3, and 5 received a gill net and sites 2, 4, and 6 received a fyke net. Then on day 2, net types were switched among sites so that sites 1, 3, and 5 received a fyke net, while sites 2, 4, and 6 received a gill net. This process was repeated for each day and night until 4 complete day/night cycles were sampled.

Preliminary data show that the natural marsh (site 5) and the bulkhead- wide marsh (site 6) exhibited the highest levels of nekton abundance and species richness. Our sampling included a green sea turtle, large rays, and a red drum, all collected during nocturnal gill net deployments

e. nutrient transformations sampling
Nitrogen cycling is an important contributor to shallow estuarine habitats’ ecosystem function. Nitrogen generally limits primary production in coastal ecosystems. Nitrogen supplied in excess can also be considered an important coastal pollutant. Negative impacts linked to excessive nitrogen delivery to coastal regions include but are not limited to harmful algal blooms, shifts in primary producer communities and increased hypoxia.

Sediment cores were collected from the central sites on July 6, 2009. Sediment cores and reservoir water were transported to The University of North Carolina Institute of Marine Sciences in Morehead City, NC. The continuous flow system was incubated in an environmental chamber (Bally Inc.) at in situ temperatures under dark conditions. Each core was capped with a plexiglass top equipped with two O-rings to maintain an air and water-tight seal. Each cap contained two ports with Tygon tubing, one for inflow and one for outflow to create a well-mixed water column within the continuous flow chamber. Water column volume was maintained at approximately 400ml. Inflow water from the reservoir was aerated and unfiltered water was passed over cores at a flow rate of 1ml per minute .

Cores were pre-incubated for a period of no less than 18 hours prior to sampling to allow the system to reach equilibrium. 5ml samples were collected from the inflow and outflow of each core at 18, 24, 36 and 48-hour increments for analysis of dissolved gases by membrane inlet mass spectrometry (MIMS). MIMS was used to measure concentration of dissolved gasses (N₂, O₂ and Ar) in water. Additionally 50ml water samples were collected for nutrient analysis from the reservoir water and each core. Water was filtered through Whatman GF/F filters (25mm diameter, 0.7 µm nominal pore size) and the filtrate was analyzed with a Lachat Quick-Chem 8000 automated ion analyzer for NO₃, NH₄, PO₄ and total nitrogen (TN). After the continuous flow experiment was complete, sediment samples were taken from each core for organic matter percentages determined by loss on ignition.

Benthic fluxes were are calculated using the equation (C_out - C_in) X F/A are, where C represents the concentration of any analyte, C_in and C_out are the outflow and inflow concentration (µM), respectively, F is the peristaltic pump flow rate (ll hr^-1), and A is the surface area of the core (m²). Since there were multiple sediment cores per sample site, the inflow concentration of water entering the core was measured from the reservoir water, which bypassed the cores and flows directly into the sample vials. This line also accounted for any changes in water chemistry through tubing and pump effects.

Rates of denitrification were relatively high (Figure 3) and did not vary with marsh width in front of the bulkhead. Additionally, the reference marsh without a bulkhead had similar rates of denitrification. This result indicates that marsh of any width seaward of a bulkhead provides the same amount of denitrification per area as a natural marsh. This has implications for bulkhead construction in that every effort should be made to protect existing marshes during construction. It may also have implications for restoration because planting marshes in front of bulkhead may be a reasonable near-term strategy to augment ecosystem function.

Benthic chlorophyll a samples were collected from each site and provided a measure of benthic microalgal biomass. Benthic chlorophyll concentration and marsh width appeared to have a positive relationship (Figure 4). This result was somewhat surprising because the areas narrower marshes were likely to have higher light levels at the sediment surface and might be expected to have higher benthic chlorophyll concentrations. If the pattern we have observed continues, there will be implications for estuarine management. Our data indicate that as marshes narrow in from of bulkheads the loss of Spartina biomass is not being compensated for by increases in benthic algal biomass.

f. benthic infauna sampling
1) Site selection- Six sites representing a gradient of marsh thicknesses associated with bulkheads were selected in June. Three of these sites are located in Brunswick County, NC along the Intracoastal Water Way while the remaining three sites are located in New Hanover County, NC.
Site 1: Bulkhead with Medium Marsh St. James Plantation 33° 55.534, 78° 07.901
Site 2: Bulkhead with Medium Marsh St. James Plantation 33° 55.559, 78° 08.095
Site 3: Bulkhead Narrow Marsh Oak Island 33° 55.547, 78° 08.699
Site 4: Bulkhead No Marsh Harbor Island (Wrightsville Beach) 34° 12.513, 77° 48.005
Site 5: Natural Marsh no bulkhead UNC-W CMS 34° 08.506, 77° 51.732
Site 6: Bulkhead Wide Marsh south of CMS off Peden Point rd. 34° 07.730, 77° 52.101

2) Characterize site: the thickness of the marsh as each site was measure from the base the bulkhead to the outer edge of the marsh. Site 1=medium marsh 16m distance between docks 74m, (note : Large Phragmites near bulkhead), site2=medium marsh 16m, distance between docks 90m ( possibly short/young phragmites in marsh, sparse), site3=narrow marsh 3-5m, marsh is discontinuous in lengths of ~9-11m this matches the narrow marsh location in the central region, site 4=bulkhead no marsh, bulk heads is ~45m long, site 5=natural marsh no bulkhead, site 6=thick marsh 18-22m thick.

3) Benthic infaunal community sampling- All sites were sampled for benthic infaunal community characteristics in the July. All samples were collected using a standard benthic core (10cm diameter to a depth of 15cm) along the lower edge of the marsh at all sites. Benthic infaunal samples were also collected in the central Region in July using the same equipment and protocols.

Objective 2: Design and install a demonstration project utilizing alternative shoreline stabilization approaches for research and education purposes.
The YSI needed to conduct the pre-construction water quality monitoring has been ordered and is expected to be delivered in September 2009. This means it will be on hand and ready for deployment in summer 2010. Beyond this, no work has been conducted on this objective. See Section E for the timeline for this objective.

Objective 3: Develop and refine approach for evaluating ecological and socioeconomic costs and benefits of shoreline erosion & protection alternatives
No work has been done on this objective. This objective is not scheduled to be implemented until year 2 of the project after the data from objective 1 from year’s 1 and 2 has been collected. See section E for timeline for upcoming work on this objective.

Objective 4: Develop effective communication methods for exchanging information between scientists, regulatory agencies, business community, politicians and general public in regard to costs-benefits of various short-term and long-term shoreline stabilization plans.
See Section B.

B. Please describe knowledge dissemination activities during this reporting period.
Objective 4: Develop effective communication methods for exchanging information between scientists, regulatory agencies, business communities, politicians and the general public in regard to cost-benefits of various short-term and long-term shoreline stabilization plans.
An eight-page brochure was developed in conjunction with the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management. The brochure presents information on a variety of shoreline stabilization structures available to coastal property owners and provides a tool to determine the most appropriate shoreline stabilization method based upon shoreline type and other site characteristics. A dichotomous key guides the landowner through a series of questions about conditions on their property and leads them to a recommended stabilization method. The key and its recommendations are currently based on the best professional opinions of the North Carolina Estuarine Biological and Physical Processes Work Group (August 2006). The brochure has been reviewed by Division of Coastal Management staff, the Coastal Habitat Protection Plan Steering Committee (made up of members from various State agencies) and the CICEET Advisory Panel. A pdf version of the guide can be downloaded off the Division of Coastal Management’s and the NC Coastal Reserve’s website. A web version of the dichotomous key has also been developed which includes additional information and photographs. At current time this key does not include data from our project as the initiative to develop this brochure occurred well before the start of our project. However, the brochure will be modified based on new information that results from our projects efforts.

A Needs Assessment survey was developed to determine stakeholder knowledge and attitudes regarding estuarine shoreline stabilization methods. Early in the development of the survey we realized that we needed to have two different instruments: one for marine contractors and one for landowners. The draft questions were given to the CICEET advisory panel for review in April. We received several suggested revisions which were incorporated into the surveys. The marine contractor needs assessment will be administered through SurveyMonkey since the Division of Coastal Management had a list of marine contractor’s email addresses. Municipal databases have been searched for addresses of estuarine shoreline landowners. Unfortunately, the contact information gleaned from the tax records are physical addresses and not email addresses. Because of this we are planning on sending out postcards with a web link to the survey. We will initially send out 900 postcards to random estuarine shoreline landowners in the northern, central and southern coasts (300 each region). Based on the response rate we may send out another batch of postcards to another set of randomly selected landowners. Both needs assessment surveys will be sent out in early September.

In addition to the needs assessment surveys we are also developing a document that explains different ecosystem services provided by natural shorelines and the impact of bulkheads on those ecosystem services.

C. Have the results/data gathered during this reporting period indicated that a change to your original approach is necessary? If so, who was involved in the decision-making process? Please explain.
Vegetation: No modifications necessary.

Elevation: The lack of existing benchmarks noted above necessitated the need to install temporary benchmarks. This was an unforeseen change to our original plan. This decision was made in collaboration with the project PIs.

Waves: We had originally planned to use a directional wave and current profiler (AWAC), but the bathymetry of the available sites was too shallow to allow deployment of that instrument. Instead, we purchased a shallow-water, point-measurement directional wave and current meter, estimated delivery at the end of August 2009. In the interim, we leased a version of the instrument purchased, and ran a test deployment (described in section A) that validated study design. This decision was made in collaboration with the project PIs.

Nekton: After we selected the CeCo sites, we realized that the short shoreline length (100 ft) proved too short to expect statistically valid counts of utilization by birds. Consequently we are attempting to engage volunteer stakeholder assistance to make multiple counts of birds utilizing each of our marsh treatment sites. This modification was made internally within the nekton module team.

Nutrient transformations: No modifications necessary.

Benthic infauna: No modifications necessary.

D. Please describe collaboration activities with target stakeholders during this period. Has interaction with stakeholders during this period brought about any changes to the project? Have the stakeholders confirmed the relevance of the technology or approach you are working on?
Two very interesting things have occurring during this reporting period. While not directly related to the task of our project, they are tangentially related and highlight the relevance of our project and the potential it has, right now, in our State to effect policy change. They also directly involve many of our project team, and the stakeholders that make up our advisory panel.

The first is a study initiated by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management to review the 30 marsh sill alternative shoreline stabilization projects that have been permitted so far in the state. This review is to evaluate the engineering, shoreline stabilization, biological habitats, and nekton utilization of these marsh sills. Several of our project team members (PI Fear, PI Currin, and Co-PI Peterson) have been included in this study. Our inclusion in this study provides a wonderful opportunity for us to evaluate whether the marsh sill is an ecologically more favorable method of preserving marsh ecosystem services than a vertical bulkhead.

The second is that our State’s Division of Soil and Water Conservation has added marsh sills as one of there best management practices. This change means property owners that utilize a marsh sill to stabilize their property will now qualify for an incentive package that will reimburse up to 75% of the project cost ($5,000 cap). It is expected that this incentive will help drive property owners toward alternatives to vertical bulkheads as the “cheapness” of bulkheads is one of the main reasons they are so prevalent in North Carolina.

E. Please describe technical and non-technical objectives for the next reporting period and outline your work plan to meet identified objectives.

Objective 1: Conduct research to quantify ecosystem trade-offs as a consequence of habitat alteration.

a. vegetation monitoring
The Northern Sites will be monitoring in September 2009 to complete the last of the three sampling regions for this year’s data collection. The final six sampling sites for the northern region are being delineated this week by our nutrient transformation team. All data will be digitized from the field datasheets into a database. This data entry work will be completed by Jan 1, 2010.

b. elevation monitoring
The elevation team will complete the digital elevation maps for the Central and Southern Regions this fall. The northern sites will be completed during the peak biomass period during the next field season.

c. wave sampling
Upon arrival of the new instrument (expected August 31, 2009), we will begin data collection deployments as outlined in the original proposal. All field work during the next reporting period will take place in the Central Region.

d. nekton sampling
For the next reporting period, the identifications, measurements and gut content analyses will be completed for all fish collected during the June sampling. Fall sampling of the CeCo sites will begin October 19 and tentatively end October 30. Bird use observations will begin in early September for the six CeCo sites.

e. nutrient transformation sampling
Groundwater wells will be installed this fall. The denitrification, sediment oxygen demand, and nutrient flux will be measured at all sites this fall as well. This will complete the year one data collection for this module.

f. benthic sampling
The year 1 sampling for this module is now complete. Over the next few months the samples collected will be analyzed. This process is expected to be complete before the next field season begins (Summer 2010).

Objective 2: Design and install a demonstration project utilizing alternative shoreline stabilization approaches for research and education purposes.
The demonstration project will become a high priority over the next few months. At our next scheduled advisory panel meeting (see below) we will try to finalize the conceptual design for the demonstration project. The project will then be placed out to bid. We anticipate beginning construction in the fall of 2010. While no impacts are expected, this construction period will fall after the seasonal turtle and bird nesting season is over. We will begin the pre-construction monitoring in the summer of 2010.

Objective 3: Develop and refine approach for evaluating ecological and socioeconomic costs and benefits of shoreline erosion & protection alternatives
Advisory panel meeting:
We will be holding a PI meeting following the completion of this year’s field season. This should occur at the end of September. We also anticipate having our second advisory panel meeting this fall. At current time this meeting is planned for late October or early November. This meeting will be devoted to updating the panel on the year one collected data and finalizing the conceptual design for the demonstration project.

Economic scoping:
We will be working with our advisory panel economist to craft out the scoping assessment project described in our proposal. This assessment is scheduled to be completed at the end of year 2 when field data from both years is available.

Objective 4: Develop effective communication methods for exchanging information between scientists, regulatory agencies, business community, politicians and general public in regard to costs-benefits of various short-term and long-term shoreline stabilization plans.
The education and outreach module have many activities related to this objective scheduled for completing during the next reporting period. They plan to 1) revise and publish the 8 page brochure on stabilization options developed in conjunction with DCM; 2) continue with the media campaign by increasing information on the website regarding ecosystem services, status of the CICEET project and develop an e-newsletter; and 3) develop K-12 curricular activities on ecosystem services and shoreline stabilization. No workshops are planned until the end of year 2.

F. Please describe any activities, accomplishments, or obstacles not addressed in other sections of this report that you feel are important for CICEET to know about.
We successfully routed the support originally planned for NOAA to the NCNERR. This allowed the project to continue with only a minimal time delay. During this process we also completed a budget revision. This revision allowed the project to take advantage of new technology and existing resources available through our partners.

We also with the help of Richard Langdon successfully routed the support for the JHT contractors through the University of New Hampshire. This allowed us to keep key project personnel in place minimizing the disruptions that would have occurred if this activity was not successful.

PI Currin was invited to attend a workshop in Puget Sound, “Puget Sound Shorelines and Impacts of Armoring: State of the Science”. She will be authoring a chapter in the published proceedings on shoreline stabilization alternatives used in North Carolina. It was clear from conversations with other workshop attendees that the results of our CICEET-funded work in North Carolina will be very useful nation-wide.

Like most States, the State of North Carolina has been facing unprecedented budget shortfalls. In response to this crisis, on numerous occasions over the past 6 months spending by State employees’ has been halted; regardless of funding sources. PI Fear has attempted to minimize the impact to the project of these spending freezes. However, they have certainly decreased our ability to utilize the CICEET funds. This will translate into reduced expenditures compared to our expected plan. We should be able to recovery from this over the next few months as with the passage of our biannual State fiscal budget, the spending limits have eased back a little.

The CICEET funded team from Hudson River and our team have initiated talks to see how our two projects relate and how we might collaborate. We have a conference call scheduled for 9-17-09 to discuss updates of projects and discuss options for further funding. This collaboration between these two projects examining similar issues in very different environments has the potential to be very informative and increase our understanding of shoreline stabilization much more than each project could individually.