“Managing Coastal Urbanization and Development in the 21st Century:

Balancing Human Dimensions and

Water Quality Issues”

Geoff Scott

NOAA/NOS National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science

Center for Coastal Environmental

Health And Biomolecular Research

NOAA, NOS, NCCOS, Coastal Center for Environmental

Health and Biomolecular Research and Hollings Marine

Laboratory, Center of Excellence in Oceans and Human

Health Research

Mike Fulton, Fred Holland, Paul Sandifer, Heath Kelsey

and Jan Gooch

South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium

Rick Devoe and Denise Sanger

University of South Carolina, Arnold School of Public

Health

Dwayne Porter

Urbanization in

Coastal Ecosystems

Globally > 55% of the world’s population lives within 50 miles

of the coast, 33 of the 50 largest cities in the world are located

in coastal areas & more than 80% of world commerce is

transported by ships (Dean, 1997)

Half of the US population (>141 million people) reside within

50 miles of the coast, which occupies less than 11% of the

land area of the lower 48 states (NOAA, 1999; 2005)

U.S. population has increased by 33 million (28%) since 1980

and is expected to increase by anther 12 million by 2015

(Crossett et al.; 2004)

PEW COMMSSION: 25% of all conversion of rural land into

suburban/urban land use in the last 300 years for the U.S. has

occurred in the 15 year period from 1982-1997 (NRI, 2000)

Urbanization in

Coastal Ecosystems

This influx of people, and the associated residential and commercial development of the coastal zone has resulted in significant modification of landscapes such as increased imperviousness.

Major alterations of the hydrological cycle, which change the transport and delivery of water to coastal watersheds.

This in turn results in increased discharges of toxic chemicals (pesticides, trace metals, PAHs, personal care products, and pharmaceuticals), nutrients, and microbes

Urbanization in

Coastal Ecosystems

COASTAL CONDITION REPORT: 44% of Estuarine

Ecosystems were impaired primarily due to NPS pollution

(EPA, 2002)

Bricker et al. (1999) similarly has reported that 67% of our

estuaries and bays in the U.S. are moderately or severely

impacted by eutrophication.

In 2001 > 13,000 beach advisories or closures occurred in

the U.S. (EPA, 2001)

> 40% of the shellfish beds in the U.S. had harvest

restrictions resulting from urban runoff, discharges from

septic tanks, runoff from animal feedlots and wildlife

pollution sources (EPA, 2001).

P. Schmidt

Getting Sick at the Beach?

In 2006 alone, the US had ~ 34,358 days of beach closures/advisories,

due to the presence of pathogens (bacteria, viruses or other disease-

causing microbes) and HABs

NRDC estimates 10% of beachgoers contract GI illness for >7,000,000

cases annually

Estimated annual public health costs in just two counties in California

were $21 – $51 M - extrapolate to the U.S., potentially huge

South Atlantic Bight

The greatest rate of

population change has

been in the southeastern

US (58% increase)

followed by the Pacific

(46%) & Gulf of Mexico

(45%) coastal regions

(Crossett et al., 2004).

Southeastern U.S.

includes FL, GA, SC & NC

Population Trends Along the

South Carolina Coast

1973 1994

20152030

Urban Area

70

Miles2

Urban Area

250

Miles2

Urban Area

607

Miles2

Urban Area

868

Miles2

Mapped at 5:1 ratio

for year 2015 and 2030

Charleston Urban Growth

Temporal Series Maps

Vulnerable Land Use in the Coastal

Zone to Flooding and Innundation

Suburban Land Use

Urban/Industrial Land Use

Impaired

ecosystems Altered hydrography

& increased flooding

Contamination of

seafood & beaches

Impacts of Coastal Development on

Marine Ecosystem and Human Health

Health and

Welfare

Physical-

Chemical

Changes

Altered Land Cover

Increased Impervious

Cover

Living

Resources

Coastal

Development

Activities

Impaired Water Quality &

Hydrography

Reduced Biological

Productivity

Altered Food Webs

Chemical Contamination Impaired Animal

Health

Microbial and Pathogen

Contamination

Increased Population

Density

Vulnerability to Flooding

Quality of Place

Beach and Shellfish

Bed Closures

Urbanization Effects on

Coastal Ecosystems

Human

ResponseStressor Exposure

Ecological

Response

Increasing Imperviousness Increases

Contaminant Loading in Estuaries

Quality of Place10-20% Impervious

Cover20-30% Impervious

Cover10-30% Impervious

Cover

Urbanization Studies in SE U.S.

Land Use in Coastal Ecosystems Study (LUCES)

• Focus: Compartmental Interfaces in Estuarine Systems Affected by Coastal Urbanization

• Location: SC and GA

• Text Book: Coastal Urbanization (G. Kleppel et al. 2007, Eds.): Van Norstam Press

Tidal Creek Project

• Focus: Tidal Creeks as Sentinel Habitats

• Location: GA, SC & NC

• Numerous Reports and Manuscripts (F. Holland and D. Sanger Lead Authors)

Urbanization in Southeast

Estuarine Ecosystems (USES)

• Focus: Comparison of

Suburban and Pristine Estuarine

Ecosystems (Multi-Disciplinary)

• Location: Murrells Inlet

(Suburban) vs. North Inlet

(NOAA NERRS Site) in SC

• Text Book: Sustainable

Development in the

Southeastern Coastal Zone (F.J.

Vernberg, W.B. Vernberg and T.

Siewicki Eds.); Belle W. Baruch

Library in Marine Science Vol.

20; Univ. of South Carolina

Press

Impervious Cover (%)

Po

pu

lati

on

Den

sit

y (

#/h

a)

P<0.001, R2=0.81

0 20 40 60 800

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

NCSCGA

Population Density vs.

Impervious Cover

Lo

g o

f F

ecal C

olifo

rm

Impervious Cover (%)

r2 = 0.6342

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Fecal Bacteria vs.

Impervious Cover

Why Should We Be Concerned?

•Public and Environmental

Health Threat

•Devalues Home Values

•Engages the Public

HUMAN DIMENSIONS: Balancing

Economic, Environmental, Social

and Political Interests/Perspectives

Early Stages of Coastal Development – Economic

and Political Perspectives are Drivers and may

outweigh Environmental and Social Drivers

Mature Stages of Coastal Development - Eventually

Environmental and Social Drivers come into Play with

the Public Demanding

- Accurate Information about Social Concerns –

Taxes, Highway Congestion, School Systems –

“Quality of Life” Issues

“Sound Science” about Environmental Concerns

-Tools to ID Bacterial Pollution Sources

Human Sources of Fecal

Contamination

Marinas

Sewage Treatment Plants

MarinasSeptic Tanks

Golf Courses

Livestock

Urban & Rural Wildlife

Pets

Animal Sources of Fecal Contamination

What is Microbial Source Tracking (MST)?

Source Tracking Lessons Learned

Each tested source tracking method has unique

advantages and disadvantages

Discriminatory power

Ease

Cost

Stability of signal

Library-dependent methods, in general, require

large source databases that are geographically and

temporally specific (.e.g. MAR and Ribotyping)

Library-independent methods are more user

friendly (e.g. coliphage & QPCR)

A “toolbox” approach is recommended

Multiple Antibiotic Resistance (MAR)

Testing of E. coli

E. coli colonies in the (a) absence of antibiotics and

presence of (b) ampicillin and (c) chlortetracycline

(a) (b) (c)

Resistant isolates on

ampicillin plate

Resistant isolates on

chlortetracycline plate

Control plate

with no

antibiotics

Broad Creek: MAR Results

• 96 surface

water stations

were chosen

for study based

on coliform

data and were

located within

five “priority”

watersheds.

South Carolina

500

kilometers

Legend

Cities

Study Areas

GreenvilleSpartanburg

Columbia

Charleston

Florence

Impaired Surface Water Study

Source MAR Index Antibiotics

WWTPs 8 COT

Chicken Farms 16 COT

Hog Lagoons 12 COT

Surface Water (All) 2- Savannah 2.9 PCKNOSSfT

- Catawba 0.9 APOT

- Saluda 2.8 APT

- Pee Dee 2.0 AP

- Waccamaw 3.9 APOT;COT

Other Animals 1 0 -

1= (cows, dog, horses and birds)

Antibiotics Tested: Ampicillin(A), Chlortetracycline (C),Kanamycin(K),Nalidixic Acid (N),

Neomycin (Ne), Oxytetracycline(O), Penicillin (P), Streptomycin (S), Sulfathiazole (Sf),

Tetracycline (T)

SC Impaired Watershed Study: MAR

Results

DOLPHIN LIVE CAPTURE: E.coliANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE RESULTS

% Dolphins Resistant

To > 3 Antibiotics

-CH 39% (Am-Amx-Cf-P)

Pulsed Field Gel Electrophoresis and

Ribotyping

cow E. coli surface water E. coli

Ribotyping E. coli

Matching patterns observed for cow

and water E. coli

Sample Area

Cattle

Farm 4

Cattle

Farm 3Cattle

Farm 2

Cattle

Farm 1

Horse

Farm 1

Horse

Farm 2

Ribotyping Pattern Match to

WildlifeRibotyping Pattern Match to Cattle

Cattle Farms

No Ribotyping Pattern

Match

Horse FarmsPump Station

Not tested or could not be ribotyped

Ribotyping Pattern Match to cattle and wildlife

Surface water sample collected during rain event

Ribotyping Pattern Match to sewage, cattle and wildlife

RESULTS

-526 E. coli isolates

from SW (n=253) or

Known Sources

(n= 273)

-41% of SW samples

matched a Library

Source (at 90%

Similarity)

-96% of matched

samples were either

Raccoon (44%) or

Cattle (52%)

-Only a low proportion

of SW matched STPs

Toogoodoo Watershed Study

F+RNA Coliphage Analysis

SerotypingGenotyping

Library Independent Source Tracking Method

0 00 00 0 0

4837

13

501

1923

95

6

46

3

15

64

1

10

100

1000

Surface Waters

(n=534)

Wastewater

(n=133)

Hog Lagoons

(n=55)

Chickens (n=94)

Sample Type

Nu

mb

er o

f Is

ola

tes

I

II

III

IV

NT

F+RNA Coliphage Typing Results

Greenville

Greenwood

Saluda

Watershed

N

S.C.

0 20kilometers

Type II or III Phage

Type I (only) Phage

No F+RNA Phage

NPDES Permit Sites

Streams

Watershed

Legend

Enterovirus—host-specific for human

Norovirus—host-specific for human

Methanobrevibacter smithii—host-specific for human, but also

detected in bird guano in SCCWRP Study

Bacteroides spp—host-specific for human, cow, and dog, but

may cross react with other species

Current “Toolbox Used by NOAA CCEHBR/HML

Source Tracking Methods

Fecal coliforms—by MPN or membrane filtration

Enterococcus—by MPN or membrane filtration

E. Coli—by MPN or membrane filtration

F+ RNA Coliphage—including genotyping

Sample

group II or III

F+RNA

coliphages

Methanobrevibacter

smithii

human-source

contamination

detected

Calhoun St. - - no

King St. - - no

Market St. + + yes

Spring St. - - no

New Market Ck. + - yes

Ashley River - - no

Cooper River - - no

Charleston Stormwater Study

(from SCCWRP) Single Agar Layer qPCR Luminex (duplex) RT-PCR RT-PCR

E. coli ENT F+ phage F- phage M. smithii M. smithii ENT Enterovirus Norovirus

True Negatives

(PBS)0/2 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/2

"Negatives“

Offshore Water0/6 0/6 0/6 0/6 1/6 1/6 0/6 0/6 0/6

Ambient Water

with Low

Bacterial Counts8/8 7/8 3/8 6/8 1/8 5/8 4/8 0/8 0/8

Sewage Spiked

Offshore Water9/9 9/9 6/8 8/8 6/10 9/10 8/10 2/10 8/10

Sewage Spiked

Doheny Water4/4 4/4 4/4 4/4 2/4 4/4 4/4 1/4 0/4

Dirty Ambient

Water

(Tijuana River)2/2 2/2 2/2 2/2 2/2 2/2 2/2 2/2 2/2

Number of positive samples per number of samples analyzed

SCCWRP Methods Evaluation Study

Shellfish Harvest Area and Beach Closure

Decision Making Using Predictive Models

• Using Satellite and Doppler Radar Precipitation

Data to Predict Shellfish & Beach Closures

Modeling Results

• “Best” Models: Salinity and Temperature (+ NEXRAD

Precipitation, Tide, Wind)

Model

Predicted/

Observed

<43

Predicted/

Observed

>43 ARCC (%)

Missed

Closures

Unnecessary

Closures

Regression 42/43 4/4 98% 0 1

Regression No Salinity 43/44 1/4 92% 3 1

Regression Tree 39/44 2/4 85% 2 5

Regression Tree No Salinity 42/44 2/4 92% 2 1

NEXRAD Data

Model

Predicted/

Observed

<43

Predicted/

Observed

>43 ARCC (%)

Missed

Closures

Unnecessary

Closures

Regression 36/43 4/4 85% 0 5

Regression No Salinity 41/44 1/4 92% 3 2

Regression Tree 39/44 1/4 90% 2 5

Regression Tree No Salinity 44/44 0/4 92% 4 0

Rain Gauge Data

CONCLUSIONS

• Microbial Source Tracking is an important tool

to ID pollution sources within a watershed

• Library Vs Non Library Methods

• Tool Box Approach is Best

• Predictive Modeling based on Precipitation

may better protect health until field sensors for

pathogen detection are developed