19970996 Ver 1_Complete File_19971117

!' ?y ?X
A REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS OF DATA ON
SURF ZONE FISHES AND INVERTEBRATES
IN THE SOUTH ATLANTIC BIGHT AND THE
POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM BEACH RENOURISHMENT
Edited By
Courtney T. Hackney', Martin H. Posey'
Steve W. Rossi and Amy R. Norris
Prepared for
Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineer
Wilmington, North Carolina
May 1996
1. University of North Carolina at Wilmington
2. North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve
Foreword
occasionally it is helpful to step back and evaluate a course
of action or some basic paradigm of science. Beach renourishment
and the manner in which environmental impacts are assessed was
ready for such a review. This review assembled and critically
evaluated all technical data related to organisms and the Beach
Renourishment process. Budget limitations limited this report to
the beach and nearshore environs, neglecting the habitat and
problems at the sand source. We also limited our search to species
known to associate with beaches or those species and groups we
thought potentially useful as a monitoring tool.
In any effort such as this, many individuals not,listed as
authors contribute greatly in many ways. Mr. Frank Yelverton and
others in the Environmental Resources Branch located hard-to-find
reports and documents. Numerous other scientists and resource
managers lent their expertise and greatly enhanced the final
version of this report.
All technical comments made either orally or in writing were
considered and addressed whenever possible. Other comments
received included statements of policy toward beach renourishment
by some agencies. While interesting and important, these comments
were outside the scope of this report. We leave to the various
agencies that are a part of the permitting process, the task of
applying their own political, economic and agency position to the
Beach Renourishment process. We hope that the technical
information contained in this document will be used to fashion
agency technical response to Beach Renourishment projects in the
future.
Courtney T. Hackney, Ph.D.
Professor of Biological Sciences
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
i
Executive Summary
This review identified important fish and invertebrate species
that use the beach zone, supratidal to subtidal, along the South
Atlantic Bight (SAB)(Figure 1). All information available on these
species is summarized and cited. When data were not available on
species of the SAB, information from closely related species was
used.
Nine fish species and five invertebrate species and/or
ecological groups were identified because of their permanent or
temporary use of the beach profile. Data available for species of
the upper intertidal, such as Ocypode (ghost crabs), and surf zone
species, such as Emerita (mole crabs),and Donax (surf clams)are
adequate to allow reasonable impact estimates. Species found in
the subtidal and low intertidal sediments, especially polychaetes
and fishes feeding in the surf zone, are poorly understood with
respect to impacts of beach renourishment. Application of the
guild approach may be useful in addressing this problem for
benthos.
High population variability with respect to time and space and
sampling difficulty make accurate assessment of recovery time and
indirect impacts difficult to assess for highly motile fishes and
for organisms in sediments of the lower intertidal and subtidal
zones. The impacts of renourishment on well known species of the
beach profile are predictable. Prediction of impacts for other
species will not be possible without additional information on
these species and their role within this dynamic zone.
Avoidance of prime recruitment periods will limit the time to
recovery and insure restoration of population levels as quickly as
possible. Recruitment for species identified was primarily from
April through September. Additional data may reduce the length of
this recruitment window and/or allow better estimates of the
potential impacts of renourishment within this time frame.
Use of sediments with a grain size similar to the renourished
beach limits criticism and potential adverse impacts. Altering
sediment grain size, however, will not impact all species
similarly. Some populations may be enhanced while other are
harmed. Limited data on many species makes this determination
difficult.
Limiting the quantity of material placed on the beach at any
one time also has the potential to limit impacts. Deposition of
material below the high intertidal zone will limit impact on ghost
crabs. Innovative methods that will increase the cost
effectiveness of intermittent renourishment should be explored.
ii
Table of Contents
Page
Foreword I
Executive Summary ii
Section I Introduction 1
By Courtney T. Hackney, Steve W. Ross and
Amy R. Norris
Section II Invertebrate Indicators, By Martin H.
Posey and Chris Powell
Chapter 1 - Introduction 10
Chapter 2 - Life History Reviews
Emerita spp. (Mole Crabs) 13
Donax spp. (Coquina Clams) 17
Orchesto idea spp. (Beach Fleas) 21
Ocypode spp. (Ghost Crabs) 23
Polychaetes 25
Chapter 3 - Polychaete Guilds 28
Chapter 4 - Summary of Invertebrates 32
as Indicators of Beach
Renourishment Effects
Section III Surf Zone Fishes of the South
Atlantic Bight, By Steve W. Ross
Chapter 1 - Introduction 42
Chapter 2 - Community Structure & Ecology 43
Chapter 3 - Life History Reviews 56
Anchoa hepsetus (Striped Anchovy) 56
Anchoa mitchilli (Bay Anchovy) 58
Membras martinica (Rough Silverside) 59
Trach inotus carolinus (Florida Pompano) 60
Leios tomus xanthurus (Spot) 62
Menti cirrhus americanus (Southern Kingfish) 63
Menti cirrhus littoralis (Gulf Kingfish) 65
Mugil cephalus (Striped Mullet) 66
Mugil curema (White Mullet) 68
Chapter 4 - Commercial and Recreational Fisheries 71
of the Surf Zone
Chapter 5 - Impact Assessment and Monitoring 91
Section IV - Summary and Recommendations 108
By Courtney T. Hackney, Steve W. Ross,
Martin H. Posey, and Amy R. Norris
INTRODUCTION
By
Courtney Hackney, Steve Ross and Amy Norris
Throughout history humans have utilized and enjoyed areas
where the ocean meets the land, including beaches. For the
majority of that time, these sojourns were short visits in search
of food or seasonal relief from hoards of mosquitos and other
biting insects kept at bay by ocean breezes. For society, beach
erosion, island migration and inlet changes were largely irrelevant
until humans became a permanent feature along the ocean s edge.
Today humans flock to the nation s beaches, dividing each shoreline
into permanent parcels on which structures of various sizes are
constructed.
Unfortunately for those who choose to live on the water s
edge, sand is in continuous motion. Shorelines change in response
to the rise and fall of sea level relative to land. Overall, sea
level has been rising in the past 15,000 years, but has changed
very little in the last 5000 years. Erosion is the naturally
occurring result of sea level rise. Where the mainland is in
direct contact with the ocean, erosion is continuous. Where thin,
narrow barrier islands protect the mainland, erosion takes the form
of barrier island retreat (Niedoroda et al 1985). Since humans
have become permanent features along the shoreline, they have
attempted to prevent the migration and erosion of beaches using
both hard and soft structural approaches.
Hard structural approaches, such as seawalls, bulkheads and
groins, have been the traditional response for the preservation of
upland property and structures threatened by erosion (National
Research Council 1990). When used correctly, these structures
successfully stabilize the position of the upland and protect
existing structures from erosion (Krauss 1988). However, the
adjoining beaches, one of the prime reasons people come to the
coast, are not protected from erosion. Beaches in front of
seawalls will narrow and eventually disappear (Pilkey and Wright
1988). Furthermore, these structures, when not designed and
constructed properly, can hasten the erosion of already dwindling
beaches.
Beach renourishment is a soft structural approach that
involves replacing sediments lost through natural and human-induced
erosion. In this method, sand is removed from a borrow site and
deposited on the beach. Pilkey and Clayton (1989) and Dixon and
Pilkey (1991) summarized renourishment activity of the U.S. and
Gulf coasts, respectively. The main goal of this approach is the
preservation of recreational beaches and protection of property
from erosion and flooding. For this reason, renourishment is
growing in popularity over hard approaches which protect property
but do not protect beaches. Many beaches in the South Atlantic
Bight (SAB), which extends from Cape Hatteras to Cape Canaveral
(Fig. 1), have made use of beach renourishment in an attempt to
protect the integrity of their beaches. In North Carolina, the
primary remedy for beach erosion since 1985 has been beach
1
renourishment. In fact, dredged materials removed from North
Carolina active nearshore, beach, or inlet shoal systems which are
suitable for beaches is required by the North Carolina Coastal
Resources Commission under Section 7M 0200, to be placed either on
the beach or within the adjacent littoral zone.
Beach disposal activity falls into three categories; shore
protection projects, maintenance dredging projects and permit
actions. The average portion of the North Carolina coast impacted
on an average year (1984-1995) is 0.4301 of the 320 mile coastline.
If all renourishment events occurred in the same year and utilized
the entire span of beach authorized, a maximum of 3.2116 of the
coast would be impacted by beach renourishment. Carolina Beach
(1.3 x 106 yds3 every three years), Wrightsville Beach (1 x 106 yds3
every three years), and Masonboro Island (1.18 x 106 yds3 every five
years) have as much as 14,000 ft, 8,000 ft, and 5,000 ft of beach
impacted, respectively, when these shore protection projects occur.
Beach disposal also occurs as a beneficial byproduct of
maintenance dredging. With the exception of the Morehead City
Harbor (3.2 x 106 yds3 every five years), these projects are smaller
although more frequent in some cases. Efforts to maintain the
Oregon Inlet add an averge of 415,000 yds3 annually to Pea Island
where 10,000 ft of beach may be impacted. Inlets crossing the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) are maintained on an almost
annual basis and add 290,000 yds3 to a number of area beaches
affecting as much as 8,000 ft of beach. Hatteras Island (61,000
yds3 on 1000 ft every three years), Ocracoke Island (103,000 yds3
on 1700 ft every 2.5 years) and Long Beach/Holden Beach (61,000
yds3 on 1600 ft every 1.5 years) are the remaining beaches
receiving sand from maintenance of other channels. Beaches on two
other islands have received permits to place sand on beaches. In
1993, Figure 8 island owners placed 275,000 yds3 of sand on 3000 ft
of beach in an effort to protect the north side of the island and
in 1987 and 1996 the Town of Baldhead was permitted to place about
700,000 yds3 along 10,000 ft of Southwest Beach. (The above data
were provided by Mr. Frank Yelverton, Wilmington District, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.)
Once a beach has been replenished, repeated renourishment will
be necessary, in most cases, to keep pace with the erosion rate of
the artificial beach. The length of time between renourishments is
dependent on local conditions and is difficult to predict. A study
of Atlantic and Gulf coast renourished beaches reported that 88%, of
Atlantic and 900 of Gulf coast artificial beaches required
renourishment within five years after initial replenishment
(Leonard et al. 1990).
Because renourishment must be repeated periodically within
short time spans, it has the potential for impacting surf zone
2
ro
50
3°
31°
29°
27°
4
85° 83° 81 ° 79° 11- '
biota by frequently altering their habitat. Potential physical
changes in the upper beach and intertidal area from renourishment
activities include increased sediment instability, sand compaction,
and change in beach slope and sediment textural characteristics.
The effects of these changes on some beach and intertidal species
like sea turtles, nesting birds and mole crabs, were identified
early and are well documented. However, impacts to other beach and
intertidal organisms have not been identified and impacts to
subtidal biota have been virtually ignored.
Although the effects of renourishment are concentrated in the
upper beach and intertidal zones, significant physical
perturbations of varying time scales also occur in subtidal
regions. These include increases in local turbidity (Parkinson et
al. 1991), transport of turbidity clouds to other coastal areas,
changes in depth profiles (both in the borrow area and the surf
zone deposition area), and redistribution of toxins potentially
held in the sediments (into the water column at the borrow site or
at the beach site or into the beach sediments). Fauna found in
renourished areas are subject to direct mortality from burial
during renourishment activities and indirect mortality from
physical changes in their habitat. Because the beach and surf
zones are such dynamic environments, the assumption has been that
environmental impact on surf zone species is minimal.
Physical alterations of surf zone habitats are mostly short-
term and usually the beach reverts to pre-nourishment conditions
after one to five years (Leonard et al. 1990; Pilkey 1992)
depending on variables such as wave energy, size of project area
and proximity to inlets (National Research Council 1990). The
effects of these physical changes on surf zone biota, however, are
not well understood. In fact, the general ecology and biology of
most surf zone biota are poorly studied. Most treatments of
coastal marine ecology either give light treatment to the
intertidal surf zone as a unique habitat (e.g., Mann 1982; Sharp
1988) or emphasize rocky intertidal systems (e.g., Levinton 1982).
This appears incongruous considering the relative accessibility of
the beach habitat compared to an area like the deep sea.
Despite the appearance that the surf zone is a continuous open
habitat, swept by currents, it may actually operate as a self
contained ecosystem (see review in Ross 1983). Evidence exists that
inorganic nutrients arise within the surf zone and are retained by
circulation patterns in sufficient amounts to allow localized
phytoplankton blooms (McLachlan 1980). For example, South African
surf zones appeared to supply most of the energy needs of the
ichthyofauna (Du Preez et al. 1990). The degree of functional
isolation is important for understanding how surf zones operate and
how they are impacted; however, data on this subject are lacking
for the SAB.
The coastline of the SAB consists of a chain of barrier
islands separated by tidal inlets. Ocean facing beaches are
generally composed of coarse to fine sand sediments and are
influenced by high energy waves, long shore currents (usually
flowing south), and riverine/estuarine discharge. The degree of
5
fresh to brackish discharge, which varies seasonally and annually,
may influence the structure of the area s warm temperate biota more
than any other factor. Riverine/estuarine discharge is
concentrated in the central portion of the SAB from the Cape Fear
River to St. John s River. The surf zone near areas of high
discharge actually more resembles adjacent polyhaline estuaries in
both physical (e.g., finer sediments and lower salinities) and
biological attributes (Miller and Jorgenson 1969; Dahlberg 1972)
than high salinity beach zones (e.g., those in North Carolina north
of Cape Fear). The surf zone along the SAB, however, is always
characterized by having higher energy and lower primary
productivity (Steele and Baird 1968) than other shallow coastal
areas.
As noted previously, some environmental impacts of beach
renourishment are well documented and management strategies are
available to mitigate these impacts (e.g., sea turtle impacts) ;
however, much of the biological research concerning beach
nourishment is unpublished and widely scattered. Furthermore,
there is no synthesis of existing information from which consistent
monitoring or management plans can be formulated, and some subject
areas, such as impacts to fish communities or subtidal benthic
communities, have been almost completely overlooked. This report
was commissioned by the Wilmington District of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers and contains a review of documents relevant to beach
renourishment as well as literature on dominant and/or important
animals on or near the beach zone including those found subtidally.
Effects of sediment removal from borrow areas on subtidal animals
are not considered in this review. Emphasis was placed on the
southeastern U.S., but, when relevant, information from other areas
was included. For instance, research conducted in South Africa
addressed similar problems and concerns faced along the U.S. and so
their approach and conclusions were included in this report (See
Section III). Inclusion of unpublished reports is always a
difficult process because they often have not been peer reviewed.
We have not evaluated the scientific basis for many conclusions of
these reports. Thus, reliance on an individual unpublished report
should only be done with caution.
The following sections provide a review of fishes and benthic
invertebrates most common in the surf zone along the South Atlantic
Bight. Life history information is summarized and information gaps
noted. Management implications stemming from these gaps are noted
where appropriate. Finally, recommendations regarding appropriate
monitoring strategies are identified and discussed.
6
Literature Cited
Dahlberg, M. D. 1972. An ecological study of Georgia coastal
fishes. Fish. Bull. 70:323-353.
Dixon, K.L. and O.H. Pilkey, Jr. 1991. Summary of beach
replenishment on the U.S. Gulf of Mexico shoreline. J.
Coastal Res. 7:249-256.
Du Preez, H.H., A. McLachlan, J.F.K. Marais and A.C. Cockcroft.
1990. Bioenergetics of fishes in a high-energy surf-zone.
Mar. Biol. 106:1-12.
Leonard, L., K.L. Dixon, and O.H. Pilkey. 1990. A comparison of
beach renourishment on the U.S. Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf
coasts. J. Coastal Res., Special Issue 6:127-140.
Levinton, J.S. 1982. Marine Ecology. Prentice-Hall Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 520 pp.
Krauss, N.C. 1988. The effects of seawalls on the beach: extended
literature review. J. Coast. Res., Special Issue 4: 1-28.
Mann, K.H. 1982. Ecology of Coastal Waters: A Systems Approach.
Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley. 322 pp.
McLachlan, A. 1980. Exposed sandy beaches as semi-enclosed
ecosystems. Mar. Environ. Res. 4: 59-63.
Miller, G.L. and S.C. Jorgenson. 1969. Seasonal abundance and
length frequency distribution of some marine fishes in coastal
Georgia. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Rpt. No 35, 102 pp.
National Research Council. 1990. Managing Coastal Erosion.
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 182 pp.
Niedoroda, A.W., D.J.P. Swift, and T.S. Hopkins. 1985. The
shoreface. pp 533-624 in Coastal Sedimentary Environments,
R.A. Davis, Jr. ed. Springer-Verlag, NY
Parkinson, R.W., P.F. Venanzi and K. Fitzpatrick. 1991.
Preliminary observations of a long term turbidity study,
Sebastian Inlet, Florida. pp 295-310 in Preserving and
Enhancing Our Beach Environment. Proc. 4th Annual National
Beach Preservation Tech. Conf. Florida Shore and Beach
Preservation Assoc. Tallahassee, Fl.
Pilkey, O.H. 1992. Another view of beachfill performance. Shore
and Beachfill performance. Shore and Beach 60(2):20-25.
Pilkey, O.H. and H.L. Wright III. 1988. Seawalls versus Beaches. J.
Coast. Res., Special Issue 4: 41-64.
Pilkey, O.H. and T.D. Clayton. 1989. Summary of beach
replenishment experiences on U.S. East Coast barrier islands.
J. Coastal Res. 5:147-159.
Ross, S.T. 1983. A review of surf zone ichthyofaunas in the Gulf
of Mexico. Proc. N. Gulf Mexico Est. Barrier Island Res.
Conf., Biloxi, MS.
Sharp, G.D. 1988. Fish populations and fisheries: Their
perturbations, natural and man-induced. pp. 155-197 in
Ecosystems of the World v. 27, Continental Shelves, H. Postma
and J. Zijlstra, eds., Elsevier Press.
7
SECTION II
INVERTEBRATE INDICATORS OF RENOURISHMENT EFFECTS ON THE BEACH
COMMUNITY
By
Martin H. Posey, Christopher M. Powell,
and Troy D. Alphin
Chapter l: Introduction
Literature on selected invertebrate species, higher taxonomic
groups, and ecological guilds were located through computerized
searches of major literature data bases (including, in part,
Current Contents, Biological Sciences Abstracts, Aquatic Sciences
Abstracts, Abstracts on CD, Dissertation Abstracts), reviewing
recent publications, and reviews of government reports. In Phase I
of this project, completed Fall 1994, we proposed concentrating on
selected indicator taxa, including Emerita, Donax, Ocypode, and
high beach amphipods (Orchestoidea and Talorchestia), as well as
exploring a functional group approach to beach communities. Because
of the relative paucity of information on many species, we have
used literature on members of these genera from throughout the
world, but have tried to concentrate on North Carolina populations
whenever possible.
Benthic organisms have received specific attention in studies
of the biotic effects of renourishment and dredging activities for
several reasons. First, benthic organisms form an important link
between primary production and commercially important finfish and
decapods (commercial shrimp and crabs). As such, many benthic fauna
are important food for surf fish, shorebirds, or epibenthic
invertebrates using the surf zone and they may be indicators of
habitat characteristics important for these organisms. Second,
benthic macrofauna have limited mobility and reside in a relatively
small area for most of their life. Unlike fish, which may utilize
a particular beach for only a short period, benthic invertebrates
can provide information on longer-term, average conditions on a
beach. Finally, many benthic macrofauna are more easily sampled
than fish or shorebirds, thus allowing better long-term
opportunities for monitoring of beach habitats as well as
assessment of immediate renourishment effects. Sampling of smaller
macrofauna can often be accomplished through sediment grabs or
cores while abundances of larger fauna (such as ghost crabs) may be
assessed through counts of holes or burrows.
Several generalizations can be made about benthic fauna
inhabiting open sandy beaches. The open beach environment is
characterized by predictable moderate wave activity and occasional
periods of extreme swell or wave action associated with storms. The
sediments are generally much courser and more highly sorted than in
protected estuarine tideflats. Organic matter in the sediment is
generally less than in protected sandflats. Most benthic fauna on
open sandy beaches are infaunal, burrowing forms including both
meiofauna and macrofauna. Meiofauna are 0.1-0.4 mm in size,
generally about the same size or just slightly smaller than sand
grains on an open beach. This group reaches its highest diversity
in the beach environment, where they are adapted to live within the
spaces between sand grains (Levinton 1982). The open ocean beach
represents one of the lowest diversity environments for macrofauna
10
(organisms larger than 0.4-0.5 mm) (Levinton 1982). The heavy wave
action and resultant sand mobility prohibit the establishment of
many species requiring permanent tubes and favors burrowing forms.
Because of difficulty in suspension feeding in heavy surf (waves
and sand scour will tend to break delicate filtering structures)
and low amounts of detrital material (excepting wrack), food
resources are also low relative to protected sandflats. These
factors combine to produce a macrofaunal community in the swash
zone characterized by relatively low diversity (less than 20-50
species persistent on a beach compared to over 300-400 species
persistent on protected sandflats behind Masonboro Island, Posey,
unpublished data), relatively low abundances, and species capable
of maintaining position in unstable, wave swept conditions.
Despite their potential use for assessing community-level
impacts of beach renourishment activities, there are several
potential problems involved with use of benthos as indicators.
First, many small benthic organisms, such as meiofauna, are similar
in size to the surrounding sand grains, making it difficult to
quantitatively determine their abundances in a cost-effective
manner. Although meiofauna constitute a numerically important part
of the beach community and may be an important food source for many
juvenile fish, their small size makes them difficult to separate
from the surrounding sand and thus extremely time-intensive to
sample. Among macrofauna, taxonomic uncertainties and temporal
variability in abundances plague attempts to assess whole community
responses to beach renourishment effects. Many studies of
macrofauna have identified only selected taxa to the species level,
leaving others at the family or even class level (Posey 1990).
Among those studies that have identified organisms to the species
level, disagreements about taxonomic criteria have made many
identifications questionable. Finally, not all benthic macrofauna
may be important food sources for fish, crabs, or shorebirds or may
not be necessarily representative indicators of habitat quality or
community responses (Paine 1980). Since one of the important
aspects of studying benthos is their role as a trophic link,
examining species that at least reflect food availability to higher
trophic levels is desirable. These problems associated with
studying the whole benthic community have led to the practice of
using indicator taxa that can be representative of overall effects
of renourishment. To be useful, indicator species should have
several characteristics: 1) they must be easily sampled to allow
cost effective monitoring, 2) they should have life histories
representative of other benthic organisms (i.e., their responses to
renourishment activities should reflect the likely responses of
taxa that were not specifically targeted), 3) they should be
persistent members of the beach community between years, 4) they
should have a sufficiently widespread distribution to allow
comparison between areas, and 5) though not absolutely necessary,
it is desirable to include at least some species that are important
11
prey for fish and/or shorebirds. We chose the indicator taxa and
groups reviewed in this report because they meet these criteria
along North Carolina and southeastern United States beaches and/or
have been widely used as indicator taxa in previous studies of
beach renourishment (Hayden and Dolan 1974, Nelson 1993, Dolan
1994, VanDolah et al. 1994). Additionally, taxa that represent each
of the main ecological zones on sandy beaches are: 1) the
supralittoral (amphipods, Ocypode), 2) swash zone (Emerita, Donax,
polychaetes), and 3) subtidal areas (polychaetes, guild
approaches).
In any review of the literature on open ocean sandy beach
invertebrates, several caveats must be made about the reliability
of data. Most studies (with a few notable exceptions) have been
conducted for only a few months or, at periodic intervals over a
year. Thus, to make conclusions about general life history
patterns, especially life history patterns important in making
management decisions, such as seasonal patterns of abundance on the
beach or periods of peak recruitment, requires the synthesis of
data from a variety of studies. Observations of beach organisms,
especially infauna (those living within the sand) are often not
consistent among studies, involving a variety of techniques such as
core sampling, grabs, qualitative observations of burrows, or sand
traps. Additionally, the method of separation from the sediment
(e.g. sieving vs. elutiation, or the size mesh used for screening)
is often unclear. Taxonomic difficulties for groups such as
polychaetes, certain amphipods, and juvenile bivalves, where
identifications require observation of detailed taxonomic
characteristics and generally accepted characteristics for
separating species have changed over the past several decades, make
taxonomic lists from earlier studies difficult to integrate with
more recent work. These problems reflect the need for multiple,
standardized long-term studies of beach organisms and, while they
do not invalidate comparisons among studies, do limit the ability
to make specific recommendations.
12
Chapter 2: Life History Reviews
Emerita app.
The anomuran crabs of the genus Emerita, commonly referred to
as mole crabs or sand crabs, are a ubiquitous part of sandy beach
communities throughout the world. Their abundance,
conspicuousness, importance as a food resource for shorebirds and
fish, and ease of capture makes this group a potentially important
indicator of anthropogenic impacts on the beach community,
including effects of beach renourishment. In the following
sections, we review the worldwide distribution of this group, life
history characteristics, including reproduction, larval development
and life span, feeding ecology, migration patterns, and general
concerns of using this group as an indicator of the community
effects of beach renourishment. In our review we will attempt to
concentrate on traits of mole crabs occurring along the east coast
of the United States, but will review data on all species where
appropriate to understanding general characteristics of the genus.
I. Distribution of Emerita app.
At present the genus is known to contain at least 10 species
throughout the world, all are found on sandy beaches and their
adjacent shallow water offshore areas. Emerita analoga is found
along the Pacific beaches of North and South America from Kodiak
Bay, Alaska to False Bay, Argentina. E. austraafricana is found
along the beaches of southern Africa, in South Africa, Mozambique
and Madagascar. E. benedicti is found along the southeast coast of
the United States and along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, and is
known to co-occur with E. talpoida. E. brasialinesis occurs along
the southeast coast of South America. E. emeritus is found along
the southeast coast of the Indian subcontinent to IndoChina.
Another species which occurs on the Indian subcontinent is E.
asiatica which is limited to the coastal beaches around Madras. E.
holthuisi is found along western India, the Red Sea, and the
Persian Gulf. E. portoricensis is known from the Gulf of Mexico
and the Caribbean, but it is restricted to islands. E. rathbunae
is restricted to the west coast of Central America, Peru, and the
Galapagos Islands, and this species has been known to co-occur with
E. analoga. The dominant species inhabiting the eastern coast of
North America is E. talpoida (Efford 1976). Since this is the
dominant species in North Carolina, we will concentrate our review
on E. talpoida with reference to other species for comparison and
to indicate potential generality of utilizing this genera as an
indicator.
II. Life History
A. Reproduction
13
Age and size at which reproductive activity begins does not
differ greatly among species within the genus Emerita. E. analoga
males become reproductive about 2-3 months after they recruit into
the beach population, usually corresponding to 6mm carapace length
size. Females do not become reproductive until after 1 year,
however some females that recruit early (winter) may become
reproductive during their first season on the beach (Cox and Dudley
1968). The Indian species, E. asiatica, shows a similar pattern
with the males becoming reproductive between 3.75-11mm in carapace
length, usually during their first summer season. Females of this
species begin to brood eggs around 20mm in length, usually
representing their second year in the beach community (Subramoniam
1977). On islands in the Caribbean, E. portoricensis females
become reproductive during their first year on the beach at
approximately 10mm carapace length (Goodbody 1965). No data on E.
portoricensis male reproduction is available. In North Carolina,
E. talpoida females become reproductive around 12mm, occurring
during their second season in the beach community, and males show
signs of reproduction in their first season at around 6mm in length
(Diaz 1980, Diaz and Costlow 1987). Wharton (1942) found a similar
size range for reproduction in both males and females of E.
talpoida. Breeding season also appears to be fairly uniform
across the genus with most species breeding in the summer months.
E. analoga has a 213 day breeding season, lasting from early spring
until early fall (Cox and Dudley 1968). E. talpoida exhibited
greatest reproductive effort during July with the season running
from early June until late September. During the summer, Diaz
(1980) reported 2 strong reproductive pulses, the strongest was
during July with another in late August. Wharton (1942) found an
almost identical pattern for E. talpoida, with the greatest
reproductive effort in July. The one exception to this
reproductive seasonality in the genus Emerita is E. portoricensis,
which demonstrated a more or less continuous reproductive effort
throughout year (Goodbody 1965). Initially mole crabs were thought
to undergo protandraic sexual reversal, meaning that males become
females after their first year. This does not appear to occur in
any known Emerita species (Subramoniam 1977, Efford 1967, Diaz
1980). The hypothesis of sexual reversal was refuted by: 1)
laboratory observation where males were held in captivity and no
reversal was seen, and 2) in the field, the density of females does
not change over the course of the year as would be predicted if
males were changing into females at certain times of the year (Diaz
1980). Reproduction in mole crabs has been suggested to be
potentially affected by turbidity plumes, which may be produced by
sediment addition associated with renourishment activity. The
cooling effluent from the San Onofre Nuclear Generating station
produces a turbidity plume along the beach at San Onofre. E.
analoga inside the plume area created abnormal egg masses due to
14
reduced feeding capability (Siegal and Wenner 1984).
B. Larval Development
Little information is available on larval development of
Emerita, with specific data only available for E. talpoida and E.
analoga, and their larval strategies appear to be markedly
different. E. talpoida appears to spend approximately 28 days in
the plankton, developing from egg through 7 zoeal stages to
megalopae, with the possibility of a longer stay if food is
abundant. This relatively short larval period has been suggested to
restrict dispersal to the immediate region (Rees 1959), but this
assertation requires further study. The planktonic life of E.
analoga is considerably longer, containing 7 zoeal stages just as
E. talpoida, but these remain in the plankton approximately 4
months, indicating a far greater dispersal capability than E.
talpoida (Johnson 1939). The implications for E. talpoida are that
renourishment activities would probably directly affect larval
recruitment at a beach for only a narrow window of time,
approximately one month after peak reproduction in summer, but
renourishment activities during this time could lead to seasonal
recruitment losses at a beach. Post-renourishment indirect effects,
such as related to sediment instability, are more difficult to
determine.
C. Life Span
Life spans across the genus Emerita are relatively consistent
for most species, with males living approximately 1 year after
recruitment and females surviving for about 2 years after
recruitment (Efford 1967, Goodbody 1965, Cox and Dudley 1968,
Achuthonkutty and Wafar 1976, Subramoniam 1977, Diaz 1980). This
variation in longevity can lead to a slight trend towards females
in summer (65% female, 35% male; Diaz 1980)
III. General Ecology
A. Feeding
Emerita have a pair of antenna on which are located rows
of diverging setae that are used to suspension feed. In the surf
zone, the animal faces downslope, into the surf, and holds it's
antennae down as the oncoming waves pass over them. As the wave
rolls up the face of the beach and begins to recede, the animal
raises it's antennae and allows water to pass through them and food
particles collect in the setae. The physical conditions allowing
feeding vary among Emerita of different species, with E. analoga
able to feed in almost standing water but E. talpoida starving in
calm waters and requiring significant water movement for filtering
(Efford 1966). Emerita spp. eat a variety of particles including:
colonies of bacteria (Bacillus marinus, Flavobacterium boreale, and
Rhodococcus agilis), planktonic algae (Provocentrum, Gonyaulex, and
Synacosphaera), small zooplankton (nauplii), and organic detritus
of specific sizes (Efford 1966).
15
B. Migrations and Aggregations
Tidal migration is a well known phenomenon in Emerita, with
individuals following the swash zone up and down the slope of the
beach through the tidal cycle. This is accomplished by riding
receding or incoming waves to move up or down the beach front
(Efford 1965, McGinte 1938). Emerita all form aggregations or
small dense patches. These patches were initially thought to be
established by one or a combination of several biotic processes: 1)
congregations centered around food sources, 2) mechanism to reduce
predation (similar to schooling and other prey aggregation
techniques), or 3) aggregations that increase fertilization success
(Efford 1965). Dillery and Knapp (1970) later showed, through
marking of individual Emerita, that aggregations were formed by
different individuals from day to a day. Such rapid immigration-
emigration exchanges within the population do not appear consistent
with the various biotic hypotheses, indicating a possible physical
mechanism behind aggregation formation.
One physical process theory suggests that since Emerita
utilize waves to migrate with the tide and a big portion of wave
energy is in lateral transport, Emerita will be transported down
the beach perpendicular to the wave. Emerita may then collect at
convergence points creating aggregations (Cubit 1969). However, a
more recent theory incorporates both physical and biotic factors
for the creation of aggregations with physical process such as
lateral transport actually creating aggregations and predation by
fish (Menticirrhus undulatus and Amphistichus argentous) limiting
the aggregations to the upper end of the swash zone (Perry 1980).
Such lateral transport may also contribute to recolonization after
renourishment. In addition to tidal migrations, Emerita talpoidea
may also undergo seasonal migrations. E. talpoidea may migrate to
deeper water during winter months, following offshore movement of
sand (Edwards and Irving 1943). However, this seasonal migration is
still somewhat conjectural (Barnes and Wenner 1969).
IV. Influence of Renourishment Activities on E3aerita
Renourishment activities may affect Emerita populations
directly through burial and indirectly through changes in substrate
composition, turbidity and beach profile. Because of increased
ability to bury and move, E. talpoida prefer courser sands as
compared to fine sands. At Pea island, in 1992, the first part of
a renourishment project pumped large amounts of fine sand onto the
beach, resulting in a significant decrease in the abundance of E.
talpoida. The second portion of this project utilized courser
sands as fill material, and these courser sands were not associated
with as drastic reductions in E. talpoida as occurred with the fine
sands (Dolan et al. 1992). The area of greatest impact of
renourishment on E. talpoida is the outfall area from the pipe.
The mortality associated with this area is due to two factors: 1)
direct burial, and 2) increased turbidity which leads to lower
16
feeding efficiency. This affected zone can extend up to 2000m from
the outfall pipe, with larger E. talpoida having higher
survivorship than smaller individuals (Reilly and Bellis 1983,
Dolan and Donoghue 1993). As discussed earlier, turbidity has been
associated with decreased reproductive success in certain species
(Siegal and Wenner 1984). The time required for Emerita to recover
to prenourishment numbers varies between studies. Recovery times
range between one month, two months and up to one year depending on
the size class of E. talpoida, with smaller sizes having longer
recovery times (Hayden and Dolan 1974, Reilly and Bellis 1983,
Dolan et al. 1992, Dolan and Donaghue 1993).
V. Management Recommendations
Pertinent aspects of the biology of Emerita, especially E.
talpoida, the species dominating North Carolina beaches, are
sufficiently well understood to predict basic effects of beach
renourishment and recommend actions to reduce effects. Evidence
suggests that Emerita is affected _buttheeffe_cts will be
significantly reduced if renourishment activities occur during
winter or early Spr c ivi ies e ween date May_and -?e-pfi-mbez
- ---------- -- ----
would have .a greater impact because this is the period of,_ greatest,
reproductive activity and recruitment and Emerita ma.undergQ_
seasonal offshore movements during wing. Potentially more
important in reducing renourishment effects is to utilize coarser
sediments for renourishment when possible. Fine sediments are more
likely to have a detrimental effect than coarse sediments. This
combination of timing and sediment type, as well as maintenance of
a moderate beach profile, are probably the best approaches to
limiting overall impacts of renourishment activities on mole crabs.
Since recruitment may be local and lifespans less than two years,
activities affecting beach stability throughout a recruitment
season may have long-term (greater than 2 years) population
impacts. With respect to needs for more study, Emerita represents
one of the best studied invertebrates inhabiting sand beaches.
Potential concerns are the sublethal effects of turbidity and
sediment changes associated with renourishment or variations in
reproductive responses and isolation among different beach
populations. The relatively short larval span does present some
potential for population variations among different beach systems.
A final area of potential research need is interaction between
factors such as salinity stress or wave stress on recovery rates.
Although Emerita are found in a wide variety of wave-exposed sand
beach systems, including beaches at the mouth of the Cape Fear
River where salinity fluctuations may be significant (Posey,
unpublished data), extreme conditions may affect recovery rates.
Donax spp.
Tellinid clams of the genus Donax are among the most abundant
17
of all infaunal mollusks in high energy sandy beaches worldwide.
Belonging to the superfamily Tellinacae, Family Donacidae, the
genus Donax has over 64 known species, however, their taxonomy at
the species level is not well understood (Ansell 1981). Of the 64
known species approximately 77% occur in tropical seas, 22% occur
in warm temperate areas with the remaining species in cold
temperate oceans. Donax variabilis, commonly known as the coquina
shell, is the species commonly found along the North Carolina
coast. As with Emerita, their abundance, conspicuousness,
importance as a food resource for shorebirds and fish, and ease of
capture makes this group a potentially important indictor of
anthropogenic impacts on the beach community. In the following
chapter we review the life history characteristics of this genus,
including larval development and life span, predators, feeding
ecology, and management implications of using this group as an
indicator of renourishment effects.
I. Life History
A. Reproduction
Donax spp. have separate sexes. The time required to reach
sexual maturity differs between species, apparently varying with
latitudinal distribution. Species in warm temperate seas take up
to two years to mature, e.g. Donax sierra (Ansell 1981). Though
specific data for D. variabilis is limited, this North Carolina
species appears to fit in this group (Chanely 1969). Species in
tropical oceans mature faster, with species such as D. faba, D.
cuneatus, and D. denticulatus reaching sexual maturity within a few
months after recruitment (defined here as initial establishment in
the benthic community, including settlement and metamorphosis into
juvenile forms) (Wade 1968, Trevallion et al. 1971). Species in
cold temperate oceans (such as the northeast Pacific) appear to
reach maturity at an age intermediate to tropical and warm
temperate species, e.g. D. vittatus and D. trunculus reach sexual
maturity at approximately one year after settlement (Ansell 1981,
Bondino and Marchionni 1972).
B. Larval Development
Fertilization in Donax is external and all species exhibit
planktotrophic larval development (Rees 1950, Wade 1968, Chanley
1969). Most larvae have a planktonic period of approximately 3 to
4 weeks and the larval pool may supply a number of beaches, at
least for D. variabilis and D. denticulatus (Wade 1968, Chanley
1969). A few species, such as D. sierra, have shorter planktonic
larval stages and in such cases the density of recruits on a beach
may be controlled by adult abundances (de Villiers 1975). Size at
settlement for all species is approximately 300um. D. vittatus
settle between 250-350um shell length (Frenkiel and Mouzea 1979),
D. denticulatus between 245-330um (Wade 1968), and D. variabilis
18
between 275-340um (Chanley 1969). Timing of settlement, at least
for North Carolina populations, is not well known. However, most
species of Donax exhibit episodic recruitment, possibly related to
oceanographic conditions (Ansell 1981), with peak recruitment
generally assumed to occur in early to mid summer.
C. Life Span
Donax spp. live an average of two years after recruitment to
the beach community (Nayar 1954, Coe 1955, Wade 1965, McLachlan
1979). D. variabilis has an average life span on the order of two
years (Chanley 1969, Morrison 1971, Mikkleson 1985), D.
denticulatus and D. incaratus live for two years (Wade 1968, Ansell
et al. 1972) while D. gouldi and D. hanleyanus (an Argentinean
species) can live up to 3 years (Coe 1955, Penchaszadeh and Oliver
1975). D. sierra, a cooler water species, may live up to five years
(de Villiers 1975).
D. Growth Rates
In tropical species growth occurs rapidly until sexual
maturity is reached and growth reaches a sudden plateau (Wade
1968). However for temperate species growth is slower with some
seasonal variation (Ansell and Lagardere 1980). Growth rates for
some individual species are known: D. variabilis: 3-3.7mm per
month during summer (Mikkleson 1985), D. gouldi: up to 12mm their
first year, 18mm their second year and to 20mm their third year
(Coe 1955), and D. incaratus: 2mm per month (Ansell et al. 1972).
Wade (1968) has shown that growth rates within any given species
may be variable and due mainly to the availability of food within
the system.
II. General Ecology
A. Predators
While sandy beaches are considered a biologically depauperate
community, a number of predators may prey on Donax thereby
affecting their abundances. Among the most important predators in
the subtidal environment are portunid crabs, for example Ovalipes
puncatatus (Loesch 1957, Wade 1967, MacLachlan 1979). Fish also
appear to consume Donax (MacLachlan 1979, Wade 1967). However, the
importance of predators to Donax is not well treated in the
literature. In the upper end of the swash zone and above the most
important predator are the ghost crabs Ocypode spp. (Wolcott 1978,
Wade 1967). Shorebirds are Donax predators; for example
Sanderlings preying on Donax on Texas beaches and on South African
beaches, and Ruddy Turnstones preying on Donax at Sanibel Island,
Florida (Loesch 1957, MacLachlan 1978, Schneider 1982).
B. Feeding
Unlike most other tellinid clams, Donax are not deposit
feeders but active suspension feeders (Wade 1965, 1967, 1969). The
majority of material ingested by Donax spp. is microalgae, both
phytoplankton and suspended benthic microalgae (Pohlo 1967). D.
19
cuneautus has been shown to ingest yeast cells as well as plant
material (Krishnamarthy et al. 1966). Rates of filtration are
positively correlated with Donax biomass (Ansell 1981).
C. Tidal Migration
Donax are tidally migratory, with migration accomplished by
using the roll of the waves up and down the beach. On the rising
tide, Donax rise out of the sediments and allow the incoming wave
to push them up the beach and quickly bury themselves, before the
receding waves moves them down again. Their movement when the tide
is falling is accomplished in the reverse order (Ansell and
Trevallion 1969). In Donax variabilis tidal migration appears to be
seasonal, ending in fall, possibly indicating predator avoidance
behavior (Leber 1982). Also during the summer, Emerita talpoida
and Donax variables segregate in the swash zone, indicating
possible competition for food (Leber 1982). Mikkelson (1981)
argues that tidal migration is related to beach slope with greater
tidal migration associated with lower slopes. D. variabilis may
undergo some offshore migration during winter (Leber 1982), but
these migrations do not appear to involve far distances from the
beach.
III. Influence of Renourishment Activities on Donax and Management
Recommendations
Limited work has directly examined the effects of
renourishment activities on Donax populations along the coast of
North America. Factors related to beach renourishment that are
likely to affect abundances of Donax spp. and their rate of
recovery after a disturbance are: timing of recruitment, influence
of sediment characteristics on survival and growth, and changes in
beach slope as it may affect tidal migration and retention on the
beach. Little is known about timing of settlement, but recruitment
is episodic and it is assumed that Donax recruit during the summer
as does Emerita, though confirmation is needed. Tb_j.s_would sn?gest
that winter or early sprinq__L nourishment activities would minimize
impacts on Donax. As with Emerita, sustained disru - . _ .. ption of
recruitment for 1-2 years could have long-term (greater than 2
years) effects on populations inhabiting isolated beaches. Steep
beach slopes, which may occur after renourishment, may inhibit
tidal migration. The influence of sediment type is not well
understood, but coarser sediments appear to be preferred as with
Emerita. Despite the paucity of information,-__ the.. few.- studies.- that
haye__prov_ided data on renourishment effects _on._Donax_,.suggest_. few
major long term- differences in ? v_ersity_-__Q?...._ah 1 ?_.._betweexL.
renourished_ and control beaches (Cultor and Mahadevan 1982, Naqui
and Pullon 1982, Gorzelany and Nelson 1987) and relatively _qu c .__
recovery of Donax on renourished beaches (Lynch 1994).
20
Orchestoidea app.
Species of the Talitrid (Family Talitridae) amphipod genera
Orchestoidea (formerly Orchestea) and Talorchestia are conspicuous
members of the supralitoral community of sandy beaches along both
the East and West coasts of North America. They, along with ghost
crabs, are among the few common, permanent inhabitants of the
supralitoral zone (area at and just above the high tide mark).
In the United States there are five species of Orchestoidea:
0. corniculata and 0. californiana, the largest members of this
genus averaging 28mm in length, and O. columbia, 0. pugettensis and
0. benedicti, all averaging less than 25mm in length. Most of the
Orchestoidea are found along the western North American coast from
British Columbia south to Southern California and Mexico (Bowers
1964, Blousfield 1959) but they are also common along the Atlantic
seaboard. Along the Atlantic coast is Talorchestia megalophthalma
and T. longicornis, which exist from Newfoundland south to Florida
(Meinkoth 1994). Regardless of species, they all occupy the same
niche, living in semi-permanent burrows above the high water mark
along sandy beaches.
Within the genus Orchestoidea, there appears to be some
segregation of species, with 0. corniculata living closer to the
swash zone and never being found on the high beach (Bowers 1964)
and other species occurring higher in the intertidal. Whether or
not segregation occurs between other members of this genus has not
been demonstrated.
I. Life History
Little is known about the reproduction and development of
these two genera aside from the general characteristics of amphipod
reproduction. Amphipods as a group brood their young and produce
relatively large juveniles. This eliminates any dispersal through
planktonic larval phases. Life spans for amphipods are generally
around 1 year, with few species living more than one year.
Reproductive maturity of many amphipod species is relatively fast,
on the order of several months.
II. General Ecology
A. Burrowing and Feeding
Orchestoidea spp. form large aggregations on certain portions
of the beach. Their burrows have almost circular openings, but
often have no direct shaft and may be little more than a pocket of
air surrounding the animal. In summer, average burrow depth is
approximately 15 - 20 cm; however, in winter burrow depth can
exceed 75 cm. Bowers (1964) reports that soft sand is preferred as
a burrowing medium; however, Fawcett (1969) suggested that 0.
corniculata preferred hard packed sand for burrowing. Craig (1973)
found that 0. corniculata preferentially reused old burrows, with
past burrowing activity sometimes producing softer sediments.
21
Talitrid amphipods are generalized omnivores, eating mostly
plant material such as seaweed and other wrack, though they may
consume a variety of anthropogenic organic materials (Bowers 1964).
B. Swimming
Orchestoidea spp. and Talorchestia spp. are poor swimmers,
though they may sometimes be swept out to sea and washed to other
beaches. A more usual pattern for these amphipods is that when
they are swept off the beach, they use their back legs to anchor in
the sediment and wait until they can be swept back onto the beach
(Bowers 1964). Movement of individuals by waves may be an important
mechanism for local transport and colonization.
C. Nocturnalism
Orchestoidea spp. and Talorchestia spp. are almost exclusively
nocturnal, moving over a zone of 15-25 m during a night and moving
all night except during high tide (Craig 1973). Nocturnal behavior
is thought to be advantageous by: 1) reducing the risk of
predation, 2) reducing heat stress that may occur with the high
temperatures characteristic of the supralitoral zone of sandy
beaches, and 3) leading to greatest activity during periods of
greater humidity (Bowers 1964).
D. Orientation
The restriction of these amphipods to the supralitoral
combined with nocturnal foraging over the entire exposed beach has
led to several studies of how they navigate. A number of Talitrids
are believed to use celestial navigation to locate the zone of the
beach they inhabit (Pardi and Pardi 1963), and it was initially
thought that Orchestoidea oriented using moonlight, ignoring all
other conflicting signals such as light reflected off the water.
To accomplish this, these amphipods would also have to account for
the nightly and monthly changes in the position of the moon
(Enright 1961). Craig (1971) suggested that lunar orientation
wasn't used for the following reasons: 1) in laboratory experiments
lunar orientation did not occur, 2) at best the moon is only
visible half of the time, and 3) if animals do move from one beach
to another, they are faced with the problem of using lunar
orientation information from one beach on another which may have
different physical orientation (Craig 1971). Craig (1973b)
suggested a more simple system of orientation depending on the
wetness of the sand. If the amphipod was in wet sand it orientated
up the beach and if it was in dry sand it orientated down the
beach, consistently leading to movement towards the upper
intertidal.
III. Gaps in the Literature
There appear to be significant information gaps in the
literature concerning Orchestoidea and Talorchestia. No
information is available on reproduction, recruitment, little on
feeding, growth rates, potential predators, lifespans, or basic
population parameters such as abundances and sex ratios. With
22
respect to its use as an indicator of beach renourishment effects,
information is needed on times of peak recruitment, responses to
varying degrees of burial and sedimentation, and how beaches are
recolonized after a disturbance. Given the lack of planktonic
larvae, the distance for effective recolonization and time needed
for population recovery deserves special attention. Additionally,
sediment type and beach slope appear to be important for burrow
establishment and movement. More information is needed to determine
exactly how the use of various sediment types (finer sediments than
the existing beach or similar to the existing beach) and changes in
slope affect these amphipods.
IV. Management Recommendations
With significant gaps existing in our knowledge of this group,
it is difficult to make informed management recommendations.
However, general characteristics of amphipod reproduction and
ecology suggest renourishment could be done in stages to allow
recolonization. Allowing 1-2 weeks betweenrenourishment of at
least certain beach sections or ha_vinq_sections left undisturbed
between inlet barriers should enhance colonization rate.
Ocypode spp.
Ocypode spp., commonly known as ghost crabs, are an obvious
component of the fauna of the upper zone of sandy beaches. Because
they are large, forming conspicuous burrows that can be easily
counted, and may fill an important role as a beach predator, ghost
crabs are a potentially good indicator species for the influence of
renourishment activities on beach communities. ocypode quad-rata is
the only ghost crab occurring along the southeastern coast of the
United States. Other members of this genus that exist worldwide
include: Ocypode ceratophthalmus, 0. saratan, 0. gaudichaudii, and
0. kuhlii (Haley 1969, Jones 1972).
I. Life History
While all species exhibit similar growth rates, ultimate adult
size differs between species. 0. ceratophthylamus has precocious
growth and reaches a maximum size of 16mm carapace width (Huxley
1931). 0. saratan may reach a maximum carapace width of 30mm and
has relatively constant and non-precocious growth (Sandon 1937). 0.
gaudichaudii exhibits precocious growth and reaches a maximum size
of 29mm carapace width (Crane 1941).
Relatively little is known about other aspects of ghost crab
life history, such as reproduction, larval ecology, and timing of
recruitment. Decapods, in general, exhibit internal fertilization,
but those species with planktonic larvae vary in the time spent in
the plankton. Age to reproductive maturity and lifespan of Ocypode
is not certain, although they presumably live more than one year.
Timing of recruitment and whether recruitment is continuous over a
period or episodic is also poorly understood, though, like most
23
other beach residents, recruitment probably occurs mainly between
late spring and early fall.
II. Ecology
A. Activity and Zonation
Ghost crabs are nocturnal, burrowing during the daylight
hours, and feeding and presumably mating during night.
Little information is available on the zonation of Ocypode
other than their obvious upper intertidal distribution. The
distribution of 0. ceratophthalmus burrows changes over the course
of a month with the advent of spring and neap tides, moving up or
down the beach to maintain relative tidal position (Jones 1972).
This species has also been demonstrated to prefer loose uncompacted
sand in this zone (Jones 1972).
B. Food and Feeding
Ocypode were initially thought to be scavengers moving through
the seaweed and detrital wrack to feed on carrion. They were also
thought to be possible predators on meiofauna, since they have been
known to consume sand (Jones 1972). It is now widely accepted that
Ocypode are predators. Wolcott (1978) showed that, along the N.C.
coast, Ocypode act as predators and only scavenge facultatively.
Their primary prey appear to be the mole crab Emerita talpoida
(Fales 1967, Wolcott 1978) and Donax variabilis, the coquina clam
(Wolcott 1978). E. talpoida comprise up to 60% of the crab's diet
and Donax up to 25% (Wolcott 1978). Another example of their
predatory behavior comes from New Jersey where Ocypode have been
shown to eat newly hatched diamond back terrapins, Malaclemys
terrapin. This predation is probably opportunistic but was
observed over three summer seasons from 1991-1992 (Arndt 1994) and
indicates the broad potential diet of these crabs.
III. Anthropogenic Impacts
Research on anthropogenic impacts on Ocypode along the mid
Atlantic and North Carolina coast have concentrated on the
influence of Off Road Vehicles. On Assateague Is., Md., Ocypode
densities were 300% lower in areas of heavy Off Road Vehicle
traffic compared to undisturbed beaches (0.3 animals per 0.1 ha
with heavy ORV traffic compared to 10 animals per 0.1 ha on the
undisturbed beach; Steiner and Leatherman 1981). Areas with light
ORV traffic had 90% lower abundances compared to undisturbed
beaches (1 animal per 0.1 ha) while areas with pedestrian traffic
actually exhibited slightly higher abundances (19 animals per 0.1
ha) (Steiner and Leatherman 1981). ORV use has been shown to kill
crabs by directly crushing them as well as destroying their
burrows. The slight positive effect of human pedestrian traffic in
this study may be due to discarded food scraps (Steiner and
Leatherman 1981). However, in a study conducted on beaches along
the North Carolina Outer Banks , Wolcott and Wolcott (1984) argued
that human, in particular ORV, use had little effect on Ocypode
24
populations in this area. In their study, the nocturnal habits of
these crabs seemed to make them relatively safe from passes of ORV
even when burrowed as shallow as 5cm deep.
IV. Management Recommendations
Studies of the influence of ORV on Ocypode indicate their
susceptibility to changes in sand compaction and to disruption of
their burrows. Thus, dumping of sediment will directly kill these
crabs and residual changes in sediment compaction and grain size
may have long-term effects on survivorship and recovery. Because
these crabs live at or just above the high tide level, sediment
changes associated with renourishment may be more persistent than
in intertidal areas. Recovery is likely to be slower than for
supralitoral amphipods because the longer period to reach maturity
and recruitment via planktonic larvae may make recovery more
dependent on timing of disturbance and oceanographic conditions.
Given this, high mortality of ghost crabs is probably an inevitable
result of renourishment activities and management strategies should
concentrate on enhancing recovery. Three approaches are likely to
be most effective: 1) timing activities so that they occur prior to
recruitment, 2) providing beach sediment that favors prey species
and burrow construction, and 3) where it does not adversely affect
other fauna, disposing in surf zone for fill. The first requires
further research into recruitment patterns while the second is best
met by renourishment with coarse material.
Polychaetes
In this section, we review the literature on polychaete
annelid species as they are affected by beach renourishment.
Polychaetes are treated here as a group because of taxonomic
uncertainties at the species level and the usual practice of
identifying them primarily to class or family level. Although
there is considerable literature pertaining to beach renourishment,
relatively few articles specifically deal with the effects of beach
renourishment on polychaetes. This may partially reflect the
difficulty of taking core and grab samples in the low intertidal
or shallow subtidal areas of open ocean beaches (polychaetes are
most effectively sampled with cores or grabs and would be most
abundant in lower tidal areas) as well as the experience necessary
to distinguish many polychaete species. The primary literature
provides extensive information on polychaete assemblages associated
with protected tidal flats, but not exposed sandy beach habitats
(Woodin 1974, Levinton 1989). Research on polychaetes in protected
sandflats indicate the general importance of disturbance in
structuring benthic communities (Woodin 1974, 1981, Rees 1977,
Thistle 1981, VanBlaricom 1982). In particular, a variety of
studies have indicated that sediment disturbance, including both
lateral movement and deposition of sediments, has a strong negative
25
effect on tube-building and sedentary polychaetes as a group while
having minimal effects on or even enhancing some mobile taxa.
However, the lack of experimental data from open ocean areas makes
it difficult to extrapolate these observations to high-energy beach
communities.
Of the nearly 200 articles we reviewed on beach renourishment
effects on beach fauna, only a few were found to specifically
provide information on the response of polychaetes (Parr 1978,
Marsh 1980, Van Dolah et al 1994, Lynch 1994). Thus, insufficient
data is present to develop firm conclusions about the influence of
beach renourishment on this group. Research that does specifically
deal with polychaetes in sandy beach habitats suggests that their
abundance and species composition may be closely linked to sediment
characteristics. Howard (1972) found a shift in the relative
abundance of different polychaete species occurs with a shift in
the percentage of mud in the sediment. Greater percent silt/clay
on a sandy beach is associated with greater numbers of species and
total polychaete abundance. Van Dolah et al. (1994) examined
sediment and infauna before and after renourishment from a borrow
site and a renourished open beach site in South Carolina. In this
study, sediment characteristics did not return to the pre-
renourishment state at one borrow site and the infauna responded to
this sediment change with a shift in species composition and
abundances.
In a study of beach renourishment on the California coast
(Parr 1978), five polychaete species numerically represented a
large percentage of the benthic fauna in an open beach community
(among the ten most common taxa for at least some sites) and in
general polychaetes formed a large percent of the species present.
There was an increase in the abundance of certain species after
renourishment but in general no significant difference in the
number of taxa present. There was, however, a shift in species
composition and some changes in the dominant taxa. The initial
increase in abundance observed for some polychaete species was
short lived, declining after a few months. In some cases there
was evidence of indirect effects of renourishment, involving
reductions in abundance associated with increased sand dollar
activity (Parr 1978). Work done in South Carolina found at least
one polychaete, Scolelepis squamata, to be among the most abundant
taxa after renourishment. Possible explanations for this increase
in relative importance were that S. squamata was less adversely
effected by the renourishment than are other infauna, surviving
moderate sediment deposition and quickly recruiting to disturbed
areas, and the indirect effects of removing other organisms
(VanDolah et al. 1994).
The infaunal response (especially polychaetes) to beach
renourishment is indicative of communities dominated by
opportunistic species. The quick response and recovery of the
26
system can be attributed to the fact that many of the species found
in the sandy beach habitat are adapted for wave disturbance and in
fact are dependent on this disturbance (Rees 1977). The dumping of
dredge material however is a catastrophic event causing mass
mortality through burial. So an increase in abundance of some taxa
directly after nourishment (weeks to months) may suggest release
from biotic interactions and recruitment from adjacent areas. This
increase could be attributed to increased availability of resources
or a release from predators or competitors (Woodin 1981, Posey et
al. 1995). Grant (1983), working on a moderately exposed beach,
found that physical factors, such as ripple effects, are
responsible for the most significant amount of sediment movement
but that biotic effects, specifically bioturbation, can be
important in structuring the infaunal community. In general M.
studies of infauna dealing with beach renourishment conclude
there is little long lasting effect afterrenourshment_ (Marsh
1978, Van Dolah 1994, Parr 1978).
Although the limited number of pertinent studies indicate
that beach renourishment does not appear to have significant long
lasting effects on polychaete assemblages, more work is needed in
the sandy beach and surf zone habitats to clarify the effects of
large scale disturbance. There are examples where permanent
changes in sediment characteristics can have long lasting effects
on the infaunal community (Levinton 1982, Posey 1990). It has been
easier for researchers to use other taxa as indicators and so
relatively few studies have dealt specifically with polychaetes in
this habitat. Patterns of change in polychaete assemblages with
changes in sediment characteristics, patterns of colonization
through recruitment and survival of dumping, and the role of biotic
interactions must be further studied to understand the processes
structuring the polychaete component of the beach community.
27
Chapter 3: Guild Approach to Assessing Renourishment Effects
Guild approaches have been used in benthic ecology since the
first formal introduction of functional group distinctions by
Rhoads and Young (1970). These approaches have continued to receive
attention as a means of reducing the complexity of individual
species patterns through the formation of ecologically meaningful
groupings. Guild classifications in benthic ecology have generally
been based upon feeding type, living position, and mobility type
(Posey 1990, Wilson 1990). Examples of guild distinctions include
burrowing deposit feeders versus suspension feeders (Rhoads and
Young 1970, Woodin 1976), mobile fauna versus sedentary organisms
(Posey 1986, Brenchley 1981, 1982), deep burrowing deposit feeders,
shallow burrowers, and head down deposit feeders (Woodin and
Jackson 1979, Thayer 1983, Woodin 1983), and tube
building/permanent burrow dwellers versus mobile burrowers (Posey
1990). These groupings provide distinctions between feeding types
as well as species requiring relatively stable substrates and
contact with the surface and those able to tolerate greater
sediment instability. Such distinctions have been successfully used
to explain the relationship between sediment parameters and current
regimes and various community types (Rhoads and Young 1970, Aller
and Dodge 1974, Murphy 1984, Hines et al 1989, Posey 1990) and the
occurrence of distinct dense community types (Woodin 1976,
Brenchley 1981, 1982, Levin 1982, Luckenbach 1987). Recent reviews
have emphasized that the predictions of such guild approaches are
limited by the types of distinctions used, the types of organisms
involved, and community differences, but given these cautions the
approach can have a significant explanatory value (Posey 1990).
Guild approaches require some knowledge of the feeding type
and life habits of the benthic organisms involved. Generally they
have concentrated on polychaetes, since identification of
polychaetes to the family level is generally sufficient to indicate
feeding type, mobility, and living position (Fauchald and Jumars
1979), and bivalves, since most bivalves are relatively sedentary
and can be classified as either indirect deposit feeders or
suspension feeders. The abundance and diversity of amphipods on
exposed beaches also suggests the potential usefulness of this
group in guild approaches. Because of the variety they represent,
this chapter will concentrate on polychaetes, however any guild
approach is likely to include bivalves, and possibly amphipods, in
analyses as well. Although the diversity of macrofauna in open
beach habitats is much lower than that of protected areas dominated
by fine sand, open sand beaches are still inhabited by a variety of
polychaete guilds, including deep burrowers such as Scolelepsis
(McLachlan 1983, Bally 1983, Straughan 1983, Dextor 1983, McDermott
1983), Euzonus (Gianuca 1983, Straughan 1983), and Lumbrineris
(Straughan 1983), shallow burrowers such as Nepthys and Hemipodus
28
(Bally 1983, Gianuca 1983), and species living within semipermanent
burrows or tubes such as Diopatra (Gianuca 1983), Spio (Dextor
1983), Arenicola (McLachlan 1983) and Glycera (Dextor 1983).
Diversity, both at the species level and at the guild level,
increases with depth as one moves from the surf zone to below the
area immediately affected by wave action. offshore sand bottom
communities along the North Carolina coast are relatively diverse
habitats containing over a hundred polychaete taxa (Posey and
Ambrose 1994, Lindquist et al. 1994).
The diversity of polychaetes significantly increases the
ability to apply guild-level analysis for assessing beach
renourishment effects, with analysis of variations in the relative
abundance of various guilds being used as an indicator of community
effects. Such an approach has several advantages. First, many of
the indicator species commonly used in beach renourishment studies,
such as Emerita and Donax, are primarily intertidal. There are few
obvious indicator species (numerically or functionally dominant
species being consistently found over a large geographic area) that
could be used to assess impacts on the benthic community below the
surf zone. Guild classifications provide a useful alternative by
encompassing several ecologically similar genera in a single
grouping whose abundances can be compared across habitat gradients
and between geographic areas. Secondly, the use of guilds obviates
the taxonomic problems associated with many benthic organisms.
Although the feeding type and living position of many benthos are
known, there is considerable debate about taxonomic status and
identifications are often difficult and time consuming.
Additionally, one of the reasons for examining benthic organisms as
indicators of renourishment effects is their importance as food for
many fish. This importance can often be assessed based on
ecological parameters described by guild classifications without
the need for detailed taxonomic identifications. Finally, guild
classifications can include species commonly used as individual
indicators, keeping the information obtained from such widespread
taxa but enhancing it with information on other taxa with similar
feeding, mobility, and living position characteristics.
A guild approach can have several applications to studies of
the effects of beach renourishment. In particular, intertidal and
adjacent subtidal polychaete fauna on exposed shores can be
divided, based on living position and mobility, into three major
groups: tube builders and permanent burrow dwellers that must
maintain contact with the substrate surface, deep burrowing taxa
that maintain impermanent contacts with the substrate surface, and
shallow dwelling active burrowers that are generally found within
several centimeters of the substrate surface. Bivalves similarly
can generally be divided into taxa that live within relatively
permanent burrows and near-surface, active burrowing forms. These
groupings reflect the different benthic strategies found among
29
infauna inhabiting high to medium energy environments and can be
extended from the intertidal throughout subtidal regions. Tube
building fauna and those living within semi-permanent burrow
systems are predicted to exhibit strongest effects from beach
renourishment activities (Posey 1990). Beach _renourishment._.._is-
characterized by an initial deposition of sand followed by a period
of substrate instability where. fine parti.cles_are eroded and the_
beach slope changes_to equilibrium conditions. Additionally, areas
down current of actual sediment deposition may experience increased
turbidity and there may be significant changes in overall sediment
grain size and sorting. Deposition of sediments, changes in
sediment grain size, and turbidity may also occur under natural
conditions after major storm events, so certain beach invertebrates
may be expected to have adaptations to survive such events while
others may be killed and exhibit more colonizer-dependent
strategies. A difference between renourishment„activities and major..
storm effects is that_renourishme_nt activities may. occur during,
spring or summer, when mayor storms are not as l.ikely,_ and they.
differ in duration (often occurrinIg lasting for several weeks) and
scale (affecting on y_a limited area). Species living within tubes
or permanent burrows are especially susceptible to erosion and
deposition of sediment (Rhoads and Young 1970, Brenchley 1978,
Posey 1988), such as may occur directly through sediment placement
or indirectly through settling of suspended material, because of
the requirement to maintain their position at the substrate-water
interface. Offshore, effects of increased sedimentation and
sediment movement over the substrate will reduce the abundances of
these organisms. Tube dwellers and permanent burrow dwellers are
also the benthic fauna most likely to be important prey of fish and
other epibenthic predators since they often feed or defecate on the
sediment surface. Burrowing deposit feeders will be less
susceptible to minor increases in siltation or turbidity than tube
dwellers or species living in permanent burrowers (Posey 1990).
However, because many of these macrofaunal species cannot tolerate
prolonged exposure to anoxia, they will still be expected to
exhibit high mortality in heavier depositional environments. Active
burrowers living near the sediment surface are expected to be most
tolerant to sediment deposition since their active lifestyle and
occurrence near the substrate surface will increase their chance of
surviving burial from at least moderate amounts of sediment.
However, even these taxa will be killed in the zone of direct
dumping on the beach front.
As of now, no studies have directly tested the use of guild
approaches for examining the effects of renourishment activities.
We propose that the guild distinctions given above will allow
examination of renourishment effects along a tidal gradient from
the intertidal sandy beach down to a depth of 10-20 m. Effects can
be estimated by examining the relative abundance of these groups,
30
with a hierarchial variation in effects predicted depending on the
degree of sediment deposition or instability. Since these groups
vary in their availability to epibenthic fish, such a guild
approach will also allow determination of changes in forage habitat
quality for fish and epibenthic crustaceans. We propose that such
an approach be tested along the North Carolina coast by
implementing a grab or core sample program prior to, during and
following a renourishment project and comparing the results with
conclusions reached from more standard indicator species such as
Emerita and Donax. This sampling regime should extend from the mid
intertidal to a depth of approximately 5-10 m.
31
Chapter 4: Summary of Invertebrates as Indicators of Beach
Renourishment Effects
In this review, we have discussed 4 indicator taxa, the swash
zone genera Donax and Emerita, the supralitoral Ocypode and the
Orchestoidea and Talorchestia amphipods, as well as the polychaete
assemblage on sandy beaches. In addition, we have discussed the
possibility of using a broad-based guild approach to monitor
renourishment effects. The swash zone taxa (Donax and Emerita)
appear to respond in similar ways to potential renourishment
effects. Both are susceptible to direct mortality in the area of
sediment deposition and indirect mortality or changes in growth and
reproduction associated with sediment instability and siltation.
However, both are relatively opportunistic species that appear
capable of rapid recovery if renourishment activities do not extend
throughout the recruitment season and do not significantly change
sediment characteristics or beach slope for long periods. The
limited information on polychaetes also suggests recovery, but
there are relatively few studies dealing directly with this group
and polychaetes appear particularly susceptible to changes in
sediment parameters. Less is known about the potential responses of
the supralitoral taxa to disturbance from renourishment. These
species presumably experience mortality from sediment dumping and
may be affected by sand compaction (Ocypode). However, research is
needed to determine recovery times, optimum timing to minimize
renourishment effects (based on recruitment and life histories),
and the importance of these taxa to other organisms (i.e. their
position in the beach food web). These four taxa and polychaetes
were chosen as representative indicators because they are obvious,
easy to sample, are known or suspected prey for birds and fish, and
presumably are typical of beach macrofauna. However, a guild
approach is proposed that makes use of general community data, is
not subject to species-specific idiosyncrasies, and is applicable
over a variety of tidal heights and depth zones. This approach is
particularly useful for examining effects from the swash zone down
into subtidal areas where geographically widespread indicators have
not yet been identified. Use of guilds as an indicator requires
grab or core sampling and sorting through a 0.5 mm screen, but does
not require extensive taxonomic identification. Thus, it presents
an alternative to species-specific indicators that is not overly
time-consuming. The guild approach also utilizes more community-
level information, incorporating information summarizing aspects of
the biology of many species rather than just a few specific taxa.
We strongly suggest future research to examine the usefulness of a
guild approach to understanding renourishment effects.
32
LITERATURE CITED
Achuthankutty, C.T. and M.V.M. Wafar. 1976. Ecology of a sand beach
at Sancoale, Goa: Part II-Population Model and Production of
Emerita holthuisi, Sankolli. Indian Journal of Science 5: 98-
102.
Aller, R.C. and R.E. Dodge. 1974. Animal-sediment relations in a
tropical lagoon, Discovery Bay,Jamaica. J. Mar. Res. 32. 209.
Ansell, A.D. 1981. Functional morphology and feeding of Donax
seirra and Donax sordidis. J. Moll. Stud. 47:59-72.
Ansell A.D., P. Sivadas, B. Narayanan and A. Trevallion. 1972. The
ecology of two sandy beaches in southwest India III.
Observations on the population of Donax incaratus and D.
spiculum. Mar. Bio. 17:318-332.
Ansell, A.D. and F. Lagardere. 1980. Observations on the biology
of Donax trunculus and D.vittatus at Ile d"Oleron. Mar. Bio.
57: 287-300.
Ansell, A.D., P.Sivadas, B. Narayanan and A. Trevallion. 1972. The
ecology of two sandy beaches in southwest India. II. Notes on
Emerita holthuisi. Marine Biology 17: 311-317.
Ansell, A.D. and Trevallion A. 1969. Behavioral adaptations of
intertidal mollusks from a tropical sandy beach. J. Exp. Mar.
Bio. Eco. 4: 9-35.
Arndt, R.G. 1994. Predation on hatchling diamond backed terrapin,
Malaclemys terrapin, by the ghost crab, Ocypode quadrata.
Fla. Sci. 57: 1-5.
Bally, R. 1983. Factors affecting the distribution of organisms in
the intertidal zones of sandy beaches. pp. 391-403. In:
McLachlan, A. and T. Erasmus (eds.), Sandy beaches as ecosystems.
Developments in Hydrobiology 19. Dr W. Junk. Publ., Boston.
Barnes, N.B. and A.M. Wenner. 1969. Seasonal variation in the sand
crab, Emerita analoga,(Decapoda, Hippidae) in the Santa
Barbara area of California. Limnology and oceanography 13:
465-475.
Blousfield, E.L. 1959. New records of beach hoppers (Crustacea:
Amphipoda) from the coast of California. Contrib. Zool. 1-12.
Bondino, G. and V Marchionni 1972. Neusecreation and gonad
maturation in a population of Donax trunculus from Leghorn
Italy. Bolettino Zool. 39: 321-326. (Abstract)
Bowers. D.E. 1964. Natural history of two beach hoppers of the
genus Orchestoidea (Crustacea: Amphipoda) with reference to
their complemental distribution. Ecology 45:677-696.
Brenchley, G.A. 1982. Mechanisms of spatial competition in marine
soft-bottom communities. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 60. 17.
Brenchley, G.A. 1978. On the regulation of marine infaunal
assemblages at the morphological level: a study of the
interactions between sediment stabilizers, destabilizers, and
their sedimentary environment. Ph.D. Dissertation. The Johns
33
Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
Brenchley, G.A. 1981. Disturbance and community structure: an
experimental study of bioturbation in marine soft-bottom
communities. J. Mar. Res. 39. 767.
Chanley, P. 1969. Larval development of the coquina clam Donax
variabilis with a discussion of the structure of the larval
hinge in the Tellinacea. Bull. Mar. Sci. 19: 214-244.
Coe, W.R. 1955. Ecology of the bean clam Donax gouldi on the coast
of southern California. Ecology 36: 512-514.
Cox, G.W. and G.H. Dudley. 1968. Seasonal pattern of reproduction
in the sand crab, Emerita analoga, in southern California.
Ecology 49: 746-751.
Craig, P.C. 1973b. Orientation of the Sand Beach Amphipod
Orchestoidea c.corniculata. Anim. Behav. 21:699-706.
Craig, P.C. 1973. Behavior and Distribution of the Sand Beach
Amphipod Orchestoidea corniculata. Mar. Bio. 23:101-109.
Craig, P.C. 1971. An analysis of the concept of lunar orientation
in Orchestoidea corniculata(Amphipoda) Anim. Behav. 19:368-
374.
Crane, J. 1941. On the growth of the brachyuran crabs of the genus
Ocypode. Zoologica 26:297-310.
Cubit, J. 1969. Behavior and physical factors causing migration and
aggregation of the sand crab Emerita analoga (Stimpson).
Ecology 50: 118-123.
Cultor J.K and S. Mahadevan. 1982. Long-term effects of beach
nourishment on the benthic fauna of Panama City Beach,
Florida. U.S. Army C.O.E., C.E.R.C. Misc. Report No. 82-2.
Dayton, P.K. 1984. Processes structuring some marine communities:
are they general? pp. 181-197,In: Strong,Simberloff, abele,and
Thistle (eds.) Ecological Communities.
de Villiers, G. 1975. Reproduction of the sand mussel Donax
sierra. Invest. Rep. Sea. Fish. Brch.Repl. S. Afr. 102: 1-33.
Dexter, D.M. 1983. Community structure of intertidal sandy beaches
in New South Wales, Australia. pp. 461-472. In: McLachlan, A.
and T. Erasmus (eds.), Sandy beaches as ecosystems.
Developments in Hydrobiology 19. Dr W. Junk. Publ., Boston.
Diaz, H. 1980. The mole crab Emerita talpoida (Say) : A case of
changing life history pattern.Ecological Monographs 50: 437-
456.
Diaz, H. and J.D. Costlow. 1987. Seasonal development sequences of
Emerita talpoida. J. Coast. Res. 3: 169-177.
Dillery, D.G. and L.V. Knapp.1970. Longshore movements of the sand
crab, Emerita analoga (Decapoda, Hippidae). Crustaceana 18:
233-240.
Dolan, R.. 1994. Progress Report: Pea Island beach nourishment
project. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Report to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Pea Island National Wildlife
Refuge. Manteo, North Carolina.
34
Dolan, R. and C. Donoghue. 1993. Monitoring and analysis of 1992
beach nourishment placed on Pea Island, North Carolina.
Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Pea Island
National Wildlife Refuge, Manteo, North Carolina.
Dolan, R.., J. Fucella and Cinde Donoghue. 1992. Monitoring and
analysis of Beach nourishment placed on Pea Island, North
Carolina, Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 1991-1992.
Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alligator River
National Wildlife Refuge. Manteo, North Carolina.
Dugan, J.E. 1988. Temporal variation in the growth of the sand
crab Emerita analoga from two California, USA beaches. Annual
Meeting of American Society of Zoologists. American Zoologist
28: 64A. Abstract.
Edwards, G.A. and L. Irving 1943. The influence of temperature and
season on the oxygen consumption of the sandcrab Emerita
talpoidea. J. Cellular Comp. Physiol. 21: 169-182.
Efford, I.E. 1966. Feeding in the sand crab, Emerita analoga
(Stimpson) (Decapoda, Anomura). Crustaceana 10: 167-182.
Efford, I.E. 1976. Distribution of the sand crabs in the genus
Emerita (Decapoda, Hippadae). Crustaceana 30: 169-183.
Efford, I.E. 1965. Aggregation in the sand crabs Emerita analoga
(Stimpson). Journal of Animal Ecology 34: 63-75.
Efford, I.E. 1970. Recruitment to sedimentary marine populations
as exemplified by the sand crab, Emerita analoga (Decapoda,
Hippadae). Crustaceana 18: 293-308.
Efford, I.E. 1967. Neoteny in sand crabs in the genus Emerita
(Anomura, Hippidae). Crustaceana 13: 81-93.
Enright, J.T. 1961 Lunar orientation of Orchestoidea corniculata.
Biol Bull. 120:148-156.
Fales, R.R. 1967. Apparent predation on the mole crab, Emerita
talpoida, by the ghost crab, Ocypode quad-rata. Ches. Sci. 17:
65.
Fauchald, K. and P.A. Jumars 1979. The diet of worms: a study
polychaete feeding guilds. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 17:
193-284.
Fawcett, J.J. 1969. Zonation and temporal distribution of three
species of beach-dwelling amphipods of the genus Orchestoidea
(Taltridae). M.A. Thesis, University of California, Santa
Barbara.
Frenkiel, L. and M. Mouzea. 1979. Larval Development of two
Tellaniads, Scobicularia plana,and Donax vittatus. Mar. Biol
55: 187-195.
Gianuca, N.M. 1983. A preliminary account of the ecology of sandy
beaches in southern Brazil. pp. 413-419. In: McLachlan, A. and
T. Erasmus (eds.), Sandy beaches as ecosystems. Developments
in Hydrobiology 19. Dr W. Junk. Publ., Boston.
Grant, J. 1983. The relative magnitude of biological and physical
sediment reworking in an intertidal community. J. Mar.
35
Res.,41, pp.673-689.
Goodbody, I. 1965. Continuous breeding in populations of two
tropical crustaceans Mysidium columbine (Zimmer) and Emerita
portoricensis (Schmidt). Ecology 46: 195-197.
Gorzelany, J.F. and W.G. Nelson. 1987. The effects of beach
replenishment on the benthos of a sub-tropical Florida beach.
Mar. Envirn. Res. 21: 75-94.
Haley, S.R. 1969. Relative growth and sexual maturity of the Texas
ghost crab, Ocypode quadrata. Crustaceana 150:129-143.
Hayden, B. and R. Dolan. 1974. Impact of beach nourishment on
distribution of Emerita talpoida, the common mole crab.
Journal of Waterways, Harbors, and Coastal Engineering
Division 100: 123-132.
Hines, A.H., M.H. Posey and P.J. Haddon. 1989. Effects of adult
suspension- and deposit-feeding bivalves on recruitment of
estuarine infauna. Veliger 32. 109.
Howard, J.D. and J. Dorjes 19 Animal-sediment relationships in
two beach-related tidal flats; Sapelo Island, Georgia. J.
Sed. Petrol. 42,pp.608-623.
Huxley, J.S. 1931. Notes on differential growth. Amer. Natural.
65: 289-315.
Jarmillo, E. and A. McLachlan. 1993. Community and population
responses of the macrofauna to physical factors over a range
of exposed sandy beaches in south-central Chile. Estuarine,
Coastal and Shelf Science 37: 615-624.
Johnson, M. W. 1939. The correlation of water movements and
dispersal of pelagic larval stages of certain littoral
animals, especially the sand crab, Emerita. Journal of Marine
Research 2: 236-245.
Jones, D.A. 1972. Aspects of the ecology and behavior of Ocypode
ceratophthalmus and O. kuhlii. J. Exp. Mar. Bio. Eco. 8: 31-
43.
Krishnamurthy, S. R. Seshardi and U.D. Ramamurthy. 1966. Role of
microbes in the nutrition of some estuaries of marine
bivalves. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. India. 8: 231-235.
Leber, K.M. 1982. Bivalves on a North Carolina beach: Contrasting
population size structures and tidal migrations. Mar. Ecol.
Prog. Ser. 7: 297-301.
Levin, L. 1982. Interference interactions among tube-dwelling
polychaetes in a dense infaunal assemblage. J. Exp. Mar. Biol.
Ecol. 65. 107.
Levinton, J.S. 1982. Marine Ecology. Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey. 526p.
Lindquist, D.G., L.B. Cahoon, I.E. Clavijo, M.H. Posey, S.K.
Bolden, L.A. Pike, S.W. Burk and P.A. Cardullo. 1994. Reef
fish stomach contents and prey abundance on reef and sand
substrata associated with adjacent artificial and natural
reefs in Onslow Bay, North Carolina. Bull. Mar. Sci. 55. 308-
36
318.
Loesch, H.C. 1957. Studies of the ecology of two species of Donax
on Mustang Island, Texas. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. Univ. Texas
4: 201-227.
Luckenbach, M.W. 1987. Effects of adult infauna on new recruits:
implications for the role of biogenic refuges. J. Exp. Mar.
Biol. Ecol. 105. 197.
Lynch, A.E. 1994. Macroinfaunal recolonization of Folly Beach,
South Carolina, after beach renorishment. M.S. Thesis,
University of Charleston, Charleston, South Carolina, 106 p.
Marsh, G.A. 1980. Ecological evaluation of a beach nourishment
project at Hallandale, Florida. U.S. Army Corp.of Engineers.
Misc. Rep. 80-1(II).
MacGintie, G.E. 1938. Movements and mating habits of the sand crab,
Emerita analoga, American Midlands Naturalist 19: 471-481.
McArdle S.B. and McLachlank A. 1992. Sand beach ecology:swash
features relevant to the macrofauna. J. Coastal Research.
82,pp. 398-407.
McDermott, J.J. 1983. Food webs in the surf zone of an exposed
sandy beach. pp. 529-538. In: McLachlan, A. and T. Erasmus
(eds.), Sandy beaches as ecosystems. Developments in
Hydrobiology 19. Dr W. Junk. Publ., Boston.
McLachlan, A. 1983. Sandy beach ecology - A review. pp. 321-380.
In: McLachlan, A. and T. Erasmus (eds.), Sandy beaches as
ecosystems. Developments in Hydrobiology 19. Dr W. Junk.
Publ., Boston.
McLachlan. A. 1979. Growth and production of Donax sordidus, on an
open sandy beach in Algoa Bay. S. Afr. J. Zool. 14: 61-66.
Meinkoth, N.A. 1981. National Audubon Society Field Guide to North
American Seashore Creatures. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 813
PP-
Mikkelson, P.S. 1985. A comparison of two Florida populations of
the coquina clam, Donax variabilis. II. Growth rates. Veliger
27: 308-311.
Mikkelson, P.S. 1981. A comparison of two Florida populations of
the coquina clam, Donax variabilis. I. Intertidal Density,
Distribution and Migration. Veliger 23: 230-238.
Morrison, J.P.E. 1971. Western Atlantic Donax. Proc. Biol. Soc.
Wash. 83: 545-568.
Murphy, R.C. 1984. Factors affecting the distribution of the
introduced bivalve, Mercenaria mercenaria, in a California
lagoon - the importance of bioturbation. J. Mar. Res. 43. 673-
692.
Naqui, S.M. and E.J. Pullon. 1982. Effects of beach renourishment
and borrowing on marine organisms. Dept. of the Army C.O.E.,
C.E.R.C., Tech. Paper No. 76-15.
Nayar, K.N. 1954. Studies on the growth of the wedge clam, Donax
cuneatus. Indian J. Fish Res. 2:325-348
37
Nelson, W.G. 1993. Beach restoration in the southeastern US:
environmental effects and biological monitoring. Ocean &
Coastal Management 19: 157-182.
Paine, R.T. 1980. Food webs: linkages, interactions strength and
community structure. Journal of Animal Ecology 49: 667-685.
Pardi, F. and L. Pardi. 1963. On the lunar orientation of sand
hoppers (Amphipoda: Taliridae). Biol. Bull. 124: 97-105.
Parr, T., Diener D., and Lacy S. 1978. Effects of beach
replenishment on the nearshore sand fauna at Imperial Beach,
California. U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers. Misc. Rep. no.78-4.
Penchaszadeh, P.E. and S.R. Oliver. 1975. Ecologia de una prolacion
de "berberecho" (Donax hanleyanus) en Villa Gesell, Argentina,
Malacologica 15: 133-146.
Perry, D.M. 1980. Factors influencing aggregation patterns in the
sand crab Emerita analoga (Crustacea : Hippidae). Oecologia
(Berl.) 45: 379-384.
Pohlo, R.H. 1967. Aspects of the biology of Donax gouldi and a
note on the evolution in Tellinacea. Veliger 9: 330-337.
Posey, M.H. 1990. Functional approaches to soft-substrate
communities: how useful are they? Reviews in Aquatic Sciences.
2. 343-356.
Posey, M.H. 1987. Influence of relative mobilities on the
composition of benthic communities. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 39.
89.
Posey, M.H. 1986. Changes in a benthic community associated with
dense beds of a burrowing deposit feeder, Callianassa
californiensis. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 31. 15-22.
Posey, M.H. and W.G. Ambrose. 1994. Effects of proximity to an
offshore hard-bottom reef on infaunal abundances. Mar. Biol.
118. 745-753.
Posey, M., C. Powell, L. Cahoon, and D. Lindquist 1995. Top down
vs. bottom up control of benthic community composition on an
intertidal tideflat. J. Exp. Mar. Bio. and Eco. 185 pp.19-
31.
Rees, G.H. 1959. Larval developement of the sand crab Emerita
talpoida (Say) in the laboratory. Biological Bulletin 117:
356-370.
Rees, C.B. 1950. The identification and classification of
Lamellibranch larvae. Hull. Bull. Mar. Ecol. 3: 73-104.
Rees, E.I.S., A. Nicholaidou, and P. Laskaridou. 1976. The
effects of storms on the dynamics of shallow water benthic
associations. pp.465-475. In: B.F. Keegan,P.O. Ceidigh, and
P.J.S. Boaden(eds) Biology of Bent is Organisms.
Reilly, F.J. and V.J. Bellis. 1983. The ecological impact of beach
nourishment with dredged materials on the intertidal zone at
Bogue Banks, N.C. Misc. Report No. 83-3. U.S.A.C.O.E. Coastal
Engineering Research Center, Ft. Belvoir Va. 125pp.
Rhoads, D.C. and D.K. Young. 1970. The influence of deposit-feeding
38
organisms on sediment stability and community trophic
structure. J. Mar. Res. 28. 150.
Sandon, H. 1937. Differential growth in the crab Ocypode. Proc.
Zool. Soc. London 107: 397-414.
Schneider, D. 1982. Predation by Ruddy Turnstones (Arenaria
interpres) on a polymorphic clam (Donax variabilis) at Sanibel
Island, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 32: 341-344.
Siegel, P.R. and A. M. Wenner. 1984. Abnormal reproduction of the
sand crab Emerita analoga in the vicinity of a nuclear
generating station in southern California. Marine Biology 80:
341-345.
Steiner, A.J., and S.P. Leatherman 1981. Recreational impacts on
the distribution of ghost crabs Ocypode quadrata. Biol.
Conser. 20: 11-122.
Straughan, D. 1983. Ecological characteristics of sandy beaches in
the southern California Bight.pp. 441-447. In: McLachlan, A.
and T. Erasmus (eds.), Sandy beaches as ecosystems.
Developments in Hydrobiology 19. Dr W. Junk. Publ., Boston.
Subramoniam, T. 1977. Aspects of the sexual biology of the
anomuran crab Emerita asiatica. Marine Biology 43: 369-377.
Thayer, C.W. 1983. Sediment-mediated biological disturbance and
evolution of marine benthos. pp. 479 , In: Tevesz, M.J.S. and
P.L. McCall (eds.), Benthic Communities. Plenum Press, New
York.
Thistle, D. 1981. Natural physical disturbance and communities of
marine soft bottoms. Mar. Eco. Prog. Ser. 6,pp.223-228
Trevallion, A. A.D. Ansell, P. Sivadas, and B. Narayanan. 1971. A
preliminary account of two sandy beaches in southwest India.
Mar. Biol. 6: 268-279.
Turner, H.J. and D.L. Belding. 1957. The tidal migrations of Donax
variabilis. Limon. Oceano.2: 120-124.
VanBlaricom, G.R. 1982. Experimental analysis of structural
regulation in a marine sand community exposed to oceanic
swell. Ecol. Mon., 52(3) pp. 283-305.
Van Dolah, R.F.,R.M. Martore, A.E. Lynch, M.V. Levisen, P.H. Wendt,
D.J. Whitaker, and W.D. Andrson 1994. Environmental
Evaluation of the Folly Beach Nourishment Project. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Charlston District. Marine Resources
Division South Carolina Deptment of Natural Resources.
Wade, B.A. 1969. Studies on the Biology of the West Indian beach
clam, Donax denticulatus, Functional Morphology. Bull. Mar.
Sci. 19. 306-322.
Wade, B.A. 1968. Studies on the biology of the West Indian beach
clam, Donax denticulatus, Life History. Bull. Mar. Sci. 18:
876-901.
Wade, B.A. 1967. Studies on the biology of the west Indian beach
clam Donax denticulatus,Ecology. Bull. Mar. Sci. 17: 149-174.
Wade, B.A. 1965. Notes on the ecology of Donax denticulatus.
39
Proc. Gulf. Caribb. Fish Inst.17:36-41.
Wenner, A.M., D.M. Hubbard, J.Dugan, J. Shoffner, and K. Jellison.
1987. Egg Production by sand crabs (Emerita analoga) as a
function of size and year class (Decapoda, Hippidae).
Biological Bulletin 172: 225-235.
Wharton, G.H. 1942. A typical sand beach animal, the mole crab,
Emerita talpoida. Ecological Monographs 12:157-164.
Wolcott, T.G. and D.L. Wolcott. 1984. Impact of off-road vehicles
on macroinvertebrates of a mid-Atlantic beach. Biological
Conservation 29: 217-240.
Wolcott, T.G. 1978. Ecological role of ghost crabs, Ocypode
quadrata, on an ocean beach: scavengers or predators? J. Exp.
Mar. Biol. Eco. 31: 67-82.
Wolcott, T.G. 1978. Ecological role of ghost crabs, Ocypode
quadrata on an ocean beach: scavengers or predators? J.Exp.
Mar. Bio. Ecol. 31: 67-82.
Woodin, S.A. 1974. Polychaete abundance patterns in a marine soft-
sediment environment: the importance of biological
interaction. Ecol. Monogr., 44 171.
Woodin, S.A. 1976. Adult-larval interaction in dense infaunal
assemblages patterns of abundance. J. Mar. Res. 43. 25.
Woodin, S.A. 1981. Disturbance and community structure in a
shallow water sand flat. Ecology 62(4) pp.1052-1066.
Woodin, S.A. 1983. Biotic interactions in recent marine sedimentary
environments. pp. 3, In: Tevesz, M.J.S. and P.L. McCall
(eds.), Benthic Communities. Plenum Press, New York.
Woodin, S.A. and J.B.C. Jackson. 1979. Interphyletic competition
among marine benthos. Am. Zool. 19. 1029.
40
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This segment of the current project examined fishes of the
surf zone, concentrating on South Atlantic Bight (SAB) beaches and
impacts of beach renourishment. Objectives of the fisheries
section are to: 1) review all literature and data on surf zone
fishes (intertidal to the 8 m isobath), 2) summarize the life
histories of the most common/important fishes using the SAB surf
zone, 3) evaluate what is known about impacts of beach
renourishment on fishes, 4) review the trophic structure of surf
zone fishes, 5) evaluate the use of the surf zone and near beach
region as a migratory pathway for fishes, 6) evaluate, if possible,
the degree of patchiness of the surf zone fish community, and 7)
evaluate data gaps and make recommendations for monitoring and
research strategies related to renourishment and evaluate the
management implications of this information.
Literature and data on fishes in the surf zone (intertidal to
the 8 m isobath) were located, evaluated, and incorporated into a
computerized, annotated, and indexed bibliography using Procite (v
2.2) software. We attempted to locate all relevant literature by
conducting searches of Dissertation Abstracts, Current Contents,
Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts, and Abstracts on CD.
Although the bibliography and text sections of this report
emphasize the SAB, especially North Carolina, relevant references
from other locations and non-fish subjects were incorporated.
42
CHAPTER 2
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND ECOLOGY
In the United States, surf zone fishes have been most
extensively studied along beaches of the Gulf of Mexico from middle
Texas to the middle West coast of Florida (Reid 1956; Gunter 1958;
Springer and Woodburn 1960; McFarland 1963; Naughton and Saloman
1978; Saloman and Naughton 1979; Modde 1980; Modde and Ross 1981,
1983; Ross 1983; Rupple 1984; Ross et al. 1987; McMichael and Ross
1987). This region is usually included in the same warm temperate
zoogeographic province (Carolinian) as the SAB, and these two
regions, now separated by the Florida peninsula, have a very high
degree of similarity in the overall fish fauna (Briggs 1974). The
structure of surf zone fish communities was fairly uniform
throughout the Gulf of Mexico, despite differences in sampling
techniques and in years and seasons sampled (Ross 1983). The Gulf
of Mexico surf zone ichthyofauna was characterized by the following
(see review in Ross 1983): 1) < 10 fish species composed at least
90 % of the fauna by number, 2) few species occurred there all
year, 3) < 80 species were recorded in any study, 4) planktivores
seemed to dominate, 5) the habitat was an important nursery and
feeding area. In the Gulf of Mexico, fish surf zone data are
lacking for larval fishes (one study), trophic patterns (three
studies), and diel patterns.
Few studies have directly targeted only surf zone fishes along
the SAB coast (Cupka 1972; Anderson et al. 1977; Delancey 1984;
Francesconi 1994; Ross and Lancaster, unpubl. data). Additional
data on fish use of SAB beach habitats were part of larger studies
that sampled a variety of areas or other animal groups (Pearse et
al. 1942; Tagatz and Dudley 1961; Miller and Jorgenson 1969;
Dahlberg 1972). Gilmore (1977) and Peters and Nelson (1987)
surveyed the surf fishes just south of Cape Canaveral, Florida.
Although relevant to surf zone fish ecology in the SAB, that area
is more influenced by tropical faunal components. Dodrill (1977)
conducted an extensive survey of sharks within 500 m of the beach
also just south of Cape Canaveral. Ironically, the state with the
longest SAB coastline (North Carolina) has had the least amount of
directed surf zone fish research.
Although the above studies are informative and generally agree
with data from the Gulf of Mexico, they are severely limited in
many regards. Some of this work is not widely available, being
represented by an ongoing, unpublished project (Ross and
Lancaster), an unpublished masters thesis (Delancey 1984), and two
unpublished agency reports (Cupka 1972; Francesconi 1994). All but
one study was conducted during daylight with most sampling done at
low or ebbing tide (Table 1). These studies were widely scattered
along the SAB coast, but were usually represented by only one
station, and only two studies lasted longer than 13 months (Table
1). To adequately assess species composition, it is important for
43
Table 1. List of fish species (phylogenetic order) from surf zone seine
sampling in the South Atlantic Bight. Numbers within the table are
abundance ranks of species within the area sampled. Y=present, no ranks
given and *_< 0.05% of total. Locations are: MI=Masonboro Island, NC
(Lancaster and Ross, unpubl. data), AB=Atlantic Beach, NC (Tagatz and
Dudley 1961), SC=several South Carolina beaches (Cupka 1972), FB-1=Folly
Beach, SC (Anderson et al. 1977), FB-2=Folly Beach (Delancey 1984), GA-
1=Sapelo Is., GA (Dahlberg 1972), GA-2=St. Simons Is., GA (Miller and
Jorgenson 1969). For Time/Tide: D=daylight, A=all times or tides, L=low
tide, E=ebbing tide. For sampling frequency: W=weekly, BW=biweekly (twice
monthly), M=monthly.

MI
AB
SC LOCATIONS
FB-1
FB-2
GA-1
GA-2
No. Months 3 12 12 24 7 13 98
No. Stations 3 1 6 1 1 1 1
Sampling Frequency W BW M BW BW M BW
Time/Tide D/L D/A D/A D/L A/A D/L D/E
SPECIES
Ginglymostoma cirratum Y
Aprionodon isodon 22 Y
Carcharhinus acronotus Y
Carcharhinus limbatus Y
Carcharhinus plumbeus Y
Galeocerdo cuvieri Y
Negaprion brevirostris Y
Sphyrna lewini Y
Dasyatis americana Y
Dasyatis sabina Y
Dasyatis sayi 11 25 21 Y Y
Gymnura micrura Y
Rhinoptera bonasus Y
Elops saurus 18 Y 19
Megalops atlanticus Y
Albula vulpes Y
Anguilla rostrata 18
Myrophis punctatus Y
Ophichthus gomesi Y
Alosa aestivalis 25 20 7 Y
Alosa mediocris Y
Brevoortia smithi 18 Y
Brevoortia tyrannus 1 22 8 Y Y 5
Dorosoma cepedianum 22 Y
Dorosoma petenense 14 18 Y
Harengula jaguana Y 24
Opisthonema oglinum 10 Y Y 14
Sardinella aurita Y
Anchoa cubana Y
44
Table 1. (continued)

SPECIES
MI
AB
SC LOCATIONS
FB-1
FB-2
GA-1
GA-2
Anchoa hepsetus 9 2 5 7 y y 3
Anchoa lyolepis y 9
Anchoa mitchilli 10 10 2 2 y y 1
Synodus foetens y
Bagre marinus y
Ariopsis felis 18 y y
Opsanus tau y
Antennarius radiosus y
Histrio histrio y
Urophycis regius y
Ophidion marginatu y y
Strongylura marina 25 17 y y
Hyporhamphus unifasciatus 13 25
Cyprinodon variegatus 21 17 y
Fundulus heteroclitus 18 y 22
Fundulus luciae y
Fundulus majalis 13 22 7 16 y y 11
Gambusia affinis y
Poecilia latipinna y
Membras martinica 8 3 6 11 y y 7
Menidia beryllina 20 7 y y
Menidia menidia 9 1 1 y y 6
Syngnathus fuscus y
Syngnathus louisianae y
Syngnathus sp. 18
Centropristis philadelphica y
Pomatomus saltatrix 13 13 12 17 y y
Echeneis naucrates 14 y
Caranx hippos 12 21 15 17 y
Caranx latus 21 y y
Chloroscombrus chrysurus 21 13 y y 13
Oligoplites saurus 10 y 20
Selene setapinnis y
Selene vomer 22 22 y y
Trachinotus carolinus 2 8 3 4 y y 8
Trachinotus falcatus 7 19 13 12 y y 15
Trachinotus goodei 16 15 y y
Diapterus auratus y
Eucinostomus argenteus y y
Eucinostomus gula
Eucinostomus sp. 22 18
Lutjanus apodus 12
Lutjanus campechanus 25
Lutjanus griseus 24 y y
Archosargus probatocephalus 18 y
45
Table 1. (continued)
SPECIES
Lagodon rhomboides
Orthopristis chrysoptera
Bairdiella chrysoura
Cynoscion nebulosus
Cynoscion regalis
Larimus fasciatus
Leiostomus xanthurus
Menticirrhus americanus
Menticirrhus littoralis
Menticirrhus saxatilis
Menticirrhus sp.
Micropogonias undulatus
Pogonias cromis
Sciaenops ocellatus
Stellifer lanceolatus
Kyphosus incisor
Kyphosus sectatrix
Chaetodipterus faber
Abudefduf saxatilis
Mugil cephalus
Mugil curema
Sphyraena barracuda
Sphyraena guachancho
Sphyraena picudilla
Astroscopus y-graecum
Kathetostoma albigutta
Chasmodes bosquianus
Hypleurochilus geminatus
Hypsoblennius hentzi
Gobionellus boleosoma
Gobionellus shufeldti
Gobiosoma bosci
Gobiosoma ginsburgi
Trichiurus lepturus
Scomberomorus cavalla
Scomberomorus maculatus
Peprilus alepidotus
Peprilus triacanthus
Prionotus carolinus
Prionotus evolans
Prionotus scitulus
Prionotus tribulus
Prionotus sp.
Citharichthys macrops
Citharichthys spilopterus
MI AB
13 4
14
4 6
5 22
1 5
24
9
25
25
6 7
3 11
25
LOCATIONS
SC FB-1 FB-2
21
18
y
18
21
4
15
22
15
17
3
16
16
18
18
25
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
8 6 y
11 5 y
22 y
22
y
24
14 15 22
46
18
17
y
y
y
y
GA-1
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
GA-2
23
17
26
2
16
10
25
4
12

Table 1. (continued)
LOCATIONS
SPECIES MI AB SC FB-1 FB-2 GA-1 GA-2

Etropus crossotus y
Etropus rimosus y
Paralichthys albigutta 16 y
Paralichthys dentatus 10 17 22 y y
Paralichthys lethostigma 25 22 y y
Paralichthys squamilentus 14 14 21 9 y y
Scophthalmus aquosus 12 18 y
Gobiesox strumosus 14 y
Trinectes maculatus 18 y
Symphurus plagiusa y
Aluterus scriptus 14
Monacanthus hispidus .8 23 9 13 y y 18
Sphoeroides maculatus 25 14 14 y y 21
Sphoeroides spengleri 18
Chilomycterus schoepfi 22 y y
Chilomycterus (?) sp. 17
TOTAL NO. SPECIES 26 36 39 40 47 114 98
47
surveys to cover all seasons and multiple years, since Ross (1983)
reported that temporal duration of sampling and numbers of species
collected in surf zones were positively correlated. All of the
above studies (except Dodrill 1977) were conducted in the
intertidal zone in depths < 2 m. The only data available for the
deeper portion of this high energy area in the SAB are from
compilations of beach and pier fishing statistics, commercial seine
and gill net statistics, and a study related to these (Francesconi
1994). Data on the deeper reaches (to 8 m) will, therefore, be
presented in a later section on commercial/recreational fisheries.
Surf zones typically harbor a diverse fish fauna (Lasiak 1984;
Moyle and Cech 1988). As in Gulf of Mexico surf zones and
southeastern US estuaries, relatively few, small species dominate
the abundance and biomass of SAB surf zone fish communities (Ross
1983). Based on limited data, 130 species of fishes are known from
the surf zone between middle North Carolina and southern Georgia
(Table 1). Forty-seven species have been recorded from North
Carolina beaches (Table 1). Because this number resulted from very
limited spatial and temporal sampling, the actual species richness
of fishes using the North Carolina surf area for at least part of
their life history is much higher. The chapter (below) on
commercial/recreational beach fisheries documents additional surf
zone species not sampled during research operations.
The importance of surf zones for fish habitat seems to have
been underemphasized, considering that similar numbers of species,
compared to estuaries, inhabit this rather monotypic habitat. Surf
zone ichthyofaunas of South Africa were similar to estuarine faunas
(Bennett 1989). Comparable fish species numbers characterize
representative SAB estuaries: 78 species from two years of sampling
in shallow creeks throughout Pamlico Sound, NC (Ross and Epperly
1985), 104 species over one year in Newport River, NC (Turner and
Johnson 1973), 51 species over one year in North Inlet estuary, SC
(Cain and Dean 1976), 142 species over 13 months in coastal Georgia
(Dahlberg 1972), 115 species over 31 months in the St. Johns River,
FL (Tagatz 1968). Overall, both the surf zone and the estuary
individually accommodate about 10-20% in species numbers of the
area's total marine ichthyofauna. Habitat diversity is higher in
estuaries (e.g., grass beds, mud flats, greater salinity ranges)
than in the surf zone, and, thus, a higher fish diversity would be
expected there; however, this is not always the case.
Based on research seine sampling, the fishes most commonly
among the top 10 species in the SAB surf zone are Atlantic menhaden
(Brevoortia tyrannus), striped anchovy (Anchoa hepsetus), bay
anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), rough silverside (Membras martinica),
Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia), Florida pompano (Trachinotus
carolinus), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), Gulf kingfish
(Menticirrhus littoralis), and striped mullet (Mugi1 cephalus)
(Table 1). Menhaden, the anchovies, the silversides, and the
48
mullets often occur in massive, dense schools, while the others
appear to be distributed singly or in more diffuse groups. The
lack of large fishes in the above list is mostly because the
sampling techniques were biased against larger fishes. Data from
commercial seines and hook and line (see later chapter) indicate
that many large fishes are seasonally quite common in the surf
zone. In fact, the second largest known fish, the basking shark
(Cetorhinus maximus), occurs regularly along some beaches during
late winter (pers. obs.). The occurrence of large fishes, however,
may be less consistent and persistent than the species listed
above.
of the dominant fishes, only the Florida pompano and Gulf
kingfish use this habitat almost exclusively as a juvenile nursery
area. As adults, these two species occur more broadly through the
nearshore coastal waters, but, as juveniles, they are rarely found
outside the surf zone. The remainder of the dominant fishes are as
(or more) likely to occur as juveniles in estuaries as in the surf
zone. Beach areas receiving high freshwater discharges seem to
have a larger proportion of typically estuarine juveniles (e.g.,
menhaden, spot) using the surf zones as nursery areas. As adults,
the dominant fishes listed above (except pompano and kingfish) are
quite widespread over the SAB continental shelf.
The SAB resembles the Gulf of Mexico in that winter is the
season of least fish abundance and diversity in the surf zone, and
the season of maximum species richness is late summer. In terms of
abundance and biomass, a peak occurs in the fall when juveniles are
at maximal sizes and large schools of fishes are leaving estuarine
habitats and migrating along beaches. The major recruitment period
for juvenile fishes to surf zone nurseries is late spring through
early summer, which is later than for fishes that primarily use
estuarine nurseries.
Detailed data on multispecies trophic interactions of fishes
from southeastern US surf zones result from only two studies, one
from Mississippi (Modde and Ross 1983) and one from South Carolina
(DeLancey 1984). Based on their studies and other feeding data for
individual species, Ross (1983) and DeLancey (1989) constructed
partial trophic webs for their respective study areas, and these
were combined and further modified for this report (Fig. 2). Diet
data for three species of Menticirrhus from a Gulf of Mexico surf
zone (McMichael and Ross 1987) were consistent with these webs.
The major fishes consumed a variety of benthic and planktonic
invertebrates, with most of the prey coming from the water column.
The dominant benthic prey, especially for pompano and kingfish,
were coquina clams (Donax, see Section II, Ch 2) and mole crabs
(Emerita, see Section II, Ch 2). Sediments containing detritus and
diatoms were consumed mainly by mullet. The South Carolina surf
zone food web (DeLancey 1989) included interactions of species with
a nearby rock groin. This web is relevant to many SAB surf
49
FIGURE 2. Partial trophic web for the surf zone and nearshore
ecosystem of the South Atlantic Bight, emphasizing
fishes. Arrows go from prey to consumers. This
diagram is based on literature and unpublished data.
50
I
51
habitats which also include some structure (pier or other pilings,
inlet jetties, groins, wrecks, etc.). Lenanton and Caputi (1989)
suggested that surf habitats with increased structure (from
detached macrophytes, jetties, etc.) usually had more diverse food
webs with more benthic prey, compared to less complex surf zones
where planktivores dominated. Du Preez et al. (1990) reported that
the zooplankton community could supply 91 % of the foods for some
fishes in a South African surf zone. Much of the energy input to
the surf zone trophic web may come from dissolved organic matter
which is in turn used by interstitial bacteria (Cox 1976). The
high degree of dietary overlap for surf zone fishes does not
necessarily indicate that competition for food is high (Lasiak and
McLachlan 1987).
A major difference between the South Carolina and the Gulf
data was that Donax were not a dominant food item in South
Carolina. In North Carolina, however, Leber (1982) and Johnson
(1994) reported coquina clams were commonly eaten by Florida
pompano and silversides. Donax can be utilized as a renewable
resource, since the smaller fishes often eat only the siphons which
later regenerate. For many clam eating fishes, siphon cropping is
a recurring theme that increases production without prey mortality
(Peterson and Quammen 1982; Currin et al. 1984; Du Preez et al.
1990; Skilleter and Peterson 1994).
Apparently, many surf zone fishes not only exhibit ontogenetic
changes in diet (Ross 1983), but also shift diets in relation to
prey availability. Feeding that seemed fortuitous (and not
reported in other literature) was noted by Johnson (1994; Fig. 3)
where Florida pompano consumed large numbers of flying insects.
Lasiak and McLachlan (1987) also reported prey switching for some
South African surf zone fishes. Such opportunism has great
advantages in a variable environment like the surf zone. The
ability to modify feeding could also mitigate impacts from beach
renourishment.
The only data on larval fishes occurring in SAB surf zones
were reported by DeLancey (1984) for Folly Beach, SC, and even
these were quite limited. He found 13 species of larval fishes
that were most abundant at night, with the Gobiidae being the
dominant family. An unpublished report by Peters and Settle (1994)
for an ongoing project documented larval fishes in shallow waters
at Beaufort Inlet, NC, and two of their stations were near the
beach in < 8 m. Although they reported 52 fish taxa (32 identified
to species) from night sampling and found significant catch
differences among stations, they did not separate the data by
station. In general, they found that larval species composition
was similar to the adjacent estuary, and as in DeLancey (1984), the
Gobiidae were a dominant family.
The interaction of larval fishes with the surf zone habitat is
likely to be similar between the SAB and the Gulf of Mexico. The
52
FIGURE 3. Percent frequency of major foods consumed by Florida
pompano (Trachinotus carolinus) during summer 1994 at
three Masonboro Island, NC surf zone stations.
53
c
0
cz
U
0
J
(n
E
0
0 C
0 co
?-- E
Q
U _cz
N 0
c"
LL
+-j
nC:
W
U
0
a)

N
CO
co
O
N
co
LO
co
C'7
N C
O
c?
? U
T 0
N
C
d- O
?- RS
U
J
....................
cf)
CO ao
cr)
CC)
N ..

O
N
N
T
54
T
O
co
J
L
0
i
C
C70
U
U)
O
CL
Q
s
c
Q
D
..Q
U
O
z
0
detailed study by Ruple (1984), while only for one year and in one
location, reported several noteworthy characteristics: 1) more
larval fishes occurred in the outer surf zone (4-7 m) than along
the inner surf zone (< 1 m), 2) the numerically dominant larvae of
the inner surf zone were species that eventually use estuarine
nursery areas (e.g., spot, menhaden), 3) the seasonal peak of
larvae in the inner surf zone was in December, while it was in May
and June in the outer surf zone, 4) larvae of the two main fishes
that use the surf zone as a juvenile nursery area (kingfish and
Florida pompano) were either absent or uncommon. Ruple (1984)
reported a total of 69 different larval fish taxa (49 identified to
species).
Although not well documented in the literature, the surf zone
and nearshore' regions seem to be an important migratory route.
This system may be used by larval/juvenile fishes (mostly winter
through spring) as they move towards inlets and estuarine
nurseries; however, data on this are either lacking or inferential.
Adult fishes reportedly migrate very close to the beach during the
fall as they make north to south spawning migrations (Earll 1887;
Peterson 1976). Actual spawning locations are usually considerable
distances offshore of the surf zone; therefore, at some point
during the migration these fishes turn away from the beach. The
northward return migration of adults in the spring does not occur
along the beach and has not been documented. However, it must
occur offshore, since fishes reappear in northern habitats that
were previously vacated.
55
CHAPTER 3
DOMINANT FISHES OF THE SAB SURF ZONE - LIFE HISTORY REVIEWS
Several fishes are consistent and/or dominant members of the
SAB surf zone community (see above). Brief life history reviews
are provided for the following species: anchovies (Anchoa hepsetus,
A. mitchilli), rough silverside (Membras martinica), Florida
pompano (Trachinotus carolinus), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus),
kingfishes (Menticirrhus americanus, M. littoralis) , and mullets
(Mugi1 cephalus, M. curema). Besides being representative of the
surf zone habitat, several of the above species (spot and mullets)
contribute substantially to North Carolina and SAB commercial
fisheries. These species, plus the pompano and kingfishes, are
also recreationally significant. The anchovies and silverside are
important forage fishes throughout this area. These species employ
a diversity of life history strategies.
Life History of the Striped Anchovy (Anchoa hepsetus)
There is relatively little life history information available for
the striped anchovy. This species has no commercial or
recreational value, but is an important food item for other fishes
(Smith 1907; Hildebrand and Cable 1930).
Geographic Range: They are found from Nova Scotia to Uruguay,
ranging through coastal waters from mesohaline estuaries out to the
middle continental shelf (Hoese and Moore 1977; Robinette 1983;
Smith 1907). They appear to be most common south of Cape Hatteras,
NC.
Environmental Distribution: Striped anchovies occur in water
temperatures ranging from 5 to 35 pC, and salinities from 0 to 44
ppt (Schwartz et al. 1981; Robinette 1983). They are more common
in higher salinity waters than the bay anchovy (Stevenson 1958).
Spawning: The overall spawning season may last from early spring
through mid summer; however, timing varies at different locations
throughout the range. Spawning may last from May through August in
the Chesapeake Bay (Hildebrand and Schroeder 1928), but may begin
earlier in the Beaufort, NC, area (April-July, perhaps with two
peaks, Hildebrand and Cable 1930; Hildebrand 1963; Robinette 1983).
Hildebrand and Cable (1930) reported that spawning occurs at night.
Spawning takes place in estuaries and nearshore coastal waters (at
least out to 22 m depth), but is usually in water deeper than that
used by the bay anchovy (Robinette 1983). Olney (1983) noted an
absence of postlarval A. hepsetus in the Chesapeake Bay area,
indicating a lack of spawning activity in the area; however, this
56
contradicts Hildebrand and Schroeder (1928). Striped anchovy spawn
by the time they are one year old (Hildebrand and Cable 1930).
Growth:
Larvae-- Larvae hatch at water temperatures from 19 to 21pC.
Growth rates of striped anchovy larvae have not been described, but
are probably similar to bay anchovy.
Juveniles and Adults-- They are considered juveniles at about
35 mm SL, and mature after approximately one year at a size of 75
mm (Robinette 1983). Young grow rapidly (Hildebrand and Cable
1930); however, detailed, age specific data are lacking.
Food Habits: This species depends on zooplankton as the primary
food source. Adults feed mostly on mysids and copepods (Hildebrand
and Schroeder 1928; Hildebrand and Cable 1930; Stevenson 1958;
DeLancey 1989). Hildebrand (1963) found that early juveniles
mostly eat copepods. As they grow, the diet is supplemented with
gastropods, foraminifera, ostracods, and annelid worms.
Use of Coastal Waters and the Surf Zone: Striped anchovy are a
pelagic estuarinefnearshore species, preferring more oceanic waters
than bay anchovy. They are widely distributed from spring through
early winter, but usually move into deeper water during colder
months (Smith 1907; Stevenson 1958; Robinette 1983; pers. obs.).
Although common in the surf zone, these fish are often ignored
(because of their lack of commercial or recreational importance) or
are not adequately sampled (because of sampling gear bias). The
distribution and abundance patterns of striped anchovy have been
difficult to characterize not only because of catch variability,
but also because these fish are contagiously distributed and
exhibit large fluctuations in population size. Modde (1980)
defined striped anchovy as a migrant surf zone species, common
during the warmer months. However, Peters and Nelson (1987)
classified juveniles as surf zone residents near Sebastian Inlet,
FL, where they were most common around the jetties. Naughton and
Saloman (1978) reported only a few A. hepsetus from beaches along
the northwestern Florida coast, but in a later study Saloman and
Naughton (1979) reported that they were among the ten most abundant
fishes on beaches of the middle west Florida coast, especially
during April and September. Despite these inconsistencies, most
studies in the SAB found striped anchovies to be a major component
of the surf zone ichthyofauna (Tagatz and Dudley 1960; Dahlberg
1972; Ruple 1984; Modde and Ross 1981; Ross 1983; Ross and
Lancaster, unpubl. data) during the warmer months. They utilize
the entire study area (intertidal to 8 m) and often the whole water
column. It is unknown whether the striped anchovies that settle
around SAB beaches during the early spring remain there until late
fall or whether they move into and out of adjacent estuaries.
57
Life History of the Bay Anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli)
Because the bay anchovy is a dominant (perhaps even the most
abundant) fish in nearly all coastal and estuarine habitats through
most of its range, there are considerably more data on its life
history than available for striped anchovy. Most data, however,
are from outside the SAB. See general reviews for this species
from the Gulf of Mexico (Robinette 1983) and mid- Atlantic (Morton
1989); however, these should be used with caution as they contain
inaccuracies and do not include all available references.
Geographic Range: Bay anchovies are found in coastal/ estuarine
waters, usually < 20 m deep, from Maine (rare north of Cape Cod,
MA) through the northern Gulf of Mexico to Yucatan, Mexico,
excluding the West Indies (Burgess 1980a; Robinette 1983).
Environmental Distribution: These fish tolerate wide temperature
and salinity ranges. They have been caught in waters between 0 and
80 ppt (most common at < 20 ppt) with temperatures ranging from <
1 to 32.5 pC (Tagatz and Dudley 1960; Burgess 1980a; Schwartz et
al. 1981; Robinette 1983).
Spawning: The spawning season may be all year toward the southern
part of the range, with decreasing spawning periods with increasing
latitude. Spawning in North Carolina and much of the SAB occurs
from late April through September, with a peak in July (Kuntz 1914;
Hildebrand and Cable 1930). The spawning season in Chesapeake and
Delaware bays is May-August (Stevenson 1958). They usually spawn
in estuaries in depths < 20 m over a wide salinity range
(Robinette 1983; Morton 1989; Loos and Perry 1991). The often
repeated report that they may spawn near the edge of the
continental shelf seems doubtful or possibly is restricted to
southern Florida. Most spawning occurs during late evening hours
(Detwyler and Houde 1970; Fives et al. 1986; Luo and Musick 1991;
Robinette 1983; Zastrow et al. 1991). In order to reproduce
effectively, Zastrow et al. (1991) found that females spawned about
50 times during the season. Castro and Cowen (1991) suggested that
peak spawning correlates with the time that larval food abundance
reaches a maximum, around June and July.
Growth:
Larvae-- Bay anchovy are about 2-3 mm when hatched (Hildebrand
and Cable 1930). Although Stevenson (1958) was unable to age
Delaware Bay specimens using scales or otoliths, he calculated a
growth rate based on length frequencies of around 4 mm/week from
hatching to a size of 16 mm. Castro and Cowan (1991) calculated an
early larval growth rate of 0.529 mm/day.
Juveniles and Adults-- Stevenson (1958) calculated a growth
58
rate for Delaware Bay juveniles of about 0.3 mm/day (9 mm/month)
during summer through fall, with a decline in rate as the season
progressed. In the Chesapeake Bay, juvenile growth rates averaged
0.47 mm/day and most fish reached maturity at 40 to 45 mm FL
(Zastrow et al. 1991). Newport River, NC growth rates were between
0.24 to 1.11 mm/day (Fives et al. 1986). Some larvae spawned early
in the year may mature and spawn in their first summer (Fives et
al. 1986). Bay anchovy is a short-lived fish which rarely survives
to three years old, so a recruitment failure in a single year could
severely impact future egg production (Zastrow et al. 1991).
Food Habits: Larvae of the bay anchovy primarily eat various types
and sizes of copepods. With growth, the larvae select larger prey
(Castro and Cowen 1991; Detwyler and Houde 1970; Leak and Houde
1987). Adults are usually planktivores, eating the most abundant
and largest zooplankton (Stevenson 1958; Johnson et al. 1990).
Copepods, Uca zoeae, and barnacle cyprids are common daytime and
low tide dietary items, while larger items such as Uca megalopae,
shrimp zoeae, and amphipods dominate the nighttime diet especially
around high tide (Johnson et al. 1990). Visual selection is
generally used in feeding, but under low light conditions other
cues (e.g., smell, vibrations) may be used to locate optimal prey
(Saksena and Houde 1972; Delancey 1989; Johnson et al. 1990). The
effects of increased water turbidity on feeding are, therefore,
difficult to predict.
Use of Coastal Waters and the Surf Zone: Although a common species
along SAB beaches, the bay anchovy is most abundant on beaches
receiving more brackish water discharges from estuaries (Table 1).
They were also common in the Gulf of Mexico surf zone during late
spring to early fall (McFarland 1963; Modde 1980; Modde and Ross
1981), although their occurrence was variable (Naughton and Saloman
1978; Saloman and Naughton 1979). Tagatz and Dudley (1960) found
them to be most abundant in July and August at Atlantic Beach, NC,
but mostly absent during November through March. DeLancey (1989)
caught bay anchovy in greatest abundance at low tide during the day
at Folly Beach, SC. Johnson et al. (1990) found them to be common
at North Inlet Estuary, SC in water 1-1.5 m deep. Bay anchovy move
to deeper water, often offshore, and often toward the south during
winter. Mortality and migration patterns during the over-winter
period may largely control population sizes (Vouglitois et al.
1987).
Life History of the Rough Silverside (Membras martinica)
This species is neither commercially nor recreationally important,
and as a result, there is little data on its life history. Some
information in this section has been inferred from studies on the
59
related Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia).
Geographic Range: Rough silversides range in coastal and estuarine
waters from New York to Tampico, Mexico (Hildebrand and Schroeder
1928; Hoese and Moore 1977).
Environmental Distribution: In North Carolina this species was
collected in salinities ranging from 0 to 36.9 ppt (Tagatz and
Dudley 1960; Schwartz et al. 1981); however, they seem to be most
common in mesohaline and polyhaline waters. Rough silverside are
found in temperatures from 2 to 31 pC (Tagatz and Dudley 1960;
Schwartz et al. 1981).
Spawning: Data are lacking; however, rough silversides probably
have a protracted spawning season. In the Chesapeake Bay they had
enlarged gonads from May to August (Hildebrand and Schroeder 1928).
Like Menidia menidia (Middaugh 1991), spawning may occur in
estuaries where vegetation is used as a spawning substrate.
Growth: Data are lacking on this subject. Hildebrand and
Schroeder (1928) reported a maximum size in Chesapeake Bay of about
115 mm. Mature females on a Gulf of Mexico barrier island ranged
in size from 63-85 mm (Reid 1954).
Food Habits: This species is largely a planktivore with copepods
constituting the main diet item (Reid 1954; Hildebrand and
Schroeder 1928). Adult Menidia menidia also consume copepods,
especially when small, some plant material, and with growth, they
ingest more shrimp and small fish (Cadigan and Fell 1985).
Gilmurray and Daborn (1981) found that M. menidia feed mostly on
the rising tide, and suggested that the resuspension of sediments
by the incoming tide may make food more accessible.
Use of Coastal Waters and the Surf Zone: Membras martinica
probably uses estuarine grass beds for spawning and nursery areas.
Surf zone collections in the SAB usually contain rough silverside,
but it appears that only adults frequent this habitat, often
forming large schools near the surface (Reid 1954; Tagatz and
Dudley 1960; Naughton and Saloman 1978; Peters and Nelson 1987;
Ross and Lancaster, unpubl. data). Rough silverside were most
abundant at night during high tide in a South Carolina surf zone
(DeLancey 1984).
Life History of the Florida Pompano (Trachinotus carolinus)
Geographic Range: This sub-tropical species ranges from Cape Cod
(rare north of Chesapeake Bay) to Brazil (Hildebrand and Schroeder
1928; Gilbert 1986).
60
Environmental Distribution: Florida pompano prefers salinities >
28 ppt, but have been caught in salinities as low as 12.5 ppt
(Finucane 1969; Bellinger and Avault 1971; Gilbert 1986). Gilbert
(1986) suggests that temperatures < 15 pC are unfavorable, and that
they prefer temperatures between 28-32 pC.
Spawning: The spawning season is prolonged, April - June (Reid
1954; Finucane 1969; Gilbert 1986). Spawning usually occurs over
the continental shelf in or near the Gulf Stream and rarely occurs
north of southern Virginia (Fields 1962; Finucane 1969; Gilbert
1986). Details of spawning are lacking.
Growth:
Larvae-- Larvae spend their first month at sea until they
reach about 12 mm and then move inshore to the beaches (Gilbert
1986). Additional growth data are lacking.
Juveniles-- Age specific data are lacking. Fields (1962)
suggested that growth rates of young on Georgia beaches averaged
about 22 mm/month.
Adults-- Information on sizes and growth rates of mature
specimens is scarce. Florida pompano may live 3-4 years and adults
were reported to have a growth rate of 36 mm/month (Gilbert 1986).
Males apparently mature at a smaller size (225 mm FL) than females
(Moe et al. 1968 in Gilbert 1986).
Food Habits: Adult Florida pompano are selective benthic grazers,
while juveniles are mostly planktivores. Juveniles feed
opportunistically on amphipods, bivalve mollusks, crab larvae,
copepods, isopods, and invertebrate eggs (Gilbert 1986). Finucane
(1969) and Bellinger and Avault (1971) reported more diversified
feeding with growth. Fish 50 to 110 mm consumed amphipods, larval
and adult Dipeta, and whole coquina clams. At 110-138 mm they
primarily ingested mollusks (Donax). Modde and Ross (1983) found
that foraging activity of juvenile pompano was primarily diurnal
with peak stomach volumes in the early afternoon. Johnson's (1994)
data also suggested opportunistic feeding of juveniles on a NC
beach with mole crabs, coquinas, and insects being major foods
(Fig. 2).
Use of Coastal Waters and the Surf Zone: This species uses the
surf zone as a juvenile nursery area from April through November,
and during summer it is a dominant fish in that habitat (Hildebrand
and Schroeder 1928; Reid 1954; Tagatz and Dudley 1960; Finucane
1969; Dahlberg 1972; Naughton and Saloman 1978; Modde 1980; Peters
and Nelson 1987; Ross and Lancaster, unpubl. data). The young (11-
20 mm) first appear on beaches from mid April to early May, and
several recruitment waves may arrive at about one month intervals
(Fields 1962). They begin to leave beaches for deeper water when
61
they reach 60-70 mm TL, about mid-July for the first spawned. By
late fall or early winter all young have moved offshore and
probably southward in response to decreasing water temperatures
(Gilbert 1986).
Life History of Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus)
Spot is one of the most studied fishes in the SAB because it is
abundant throughout the area, and it supports commercial and
recreational fisheries. See general reviews of its biology in
Mercer (1987), Hales and Van Den Avyle (1989), and Phillips et al.
(1989).
Geographic Range: Spot occur from the Gulf of Maine (rare north of
Delaware Bay) to the Bay of Campeche, Mexico (Mercer 1987).
Environmental Distribution: Spot are found in a wide range of both
salinities and temperatures usually over mud or sand bottoms. They
occur from freshwater to oceanic salinities (Ross 1980a). Moser
and Gerry (1989) and Moser and Miller (1994) documented spot
metabolism and indicated that they tolerate large, rapid salinity
changes quite easily. Ross and Epperly (1985) reported that most
spot in the Pamlico Sound, NC area occurred around salinities of 15
ppt. They also found that most spot occurred in areas with fine,
organically rich sediments. Temperatures in which spot were caught
in NC ranged from < 1 to 33 pC (Tagatz and Dudley 1960; Schwartz et
al. 1981). Spot usually occur in oxygen concentrations > 5 mg/l
(Mercer 1987).
Spawning: Spot spawn in the SAB over the mid to outer continental
shelf from mid-October to mid-March with most of the activity
taking place during a two month period starting in mid-November
(Hales and Van Den Avyle 1989; Flores-Coto and Warlen 1993). Ross
(1992) found that surviving estuarine recruits in NC were mostly
spawned in December. There is probably little or no spawning north
of Cape Hatteras (Norcross and Bodolus 1991). Spot spawn near the
bottom in temperatures > 17 pC.
Growth:
Larvae-- Larvae off of middle NC grow at about 0.2 mm/day and
recruit to the estuaries near Beaufort, NC around 59 to 82 days of
age (Warlen and Chester 1985; Flores-Coto and Warlen 1993).
Juveniles-- Most of the available data for spot are from NC,
where daily growth rates ranged from 0.02-0.04 g/g/day (see review
in Mercer 1987). Absolute daily growth rates for juvenile spot
from the Cape Fear River and Pamlico Sound based on age specific
analyses range from 0.16 to 0.43 mm/day (Ross 1992).
Adults-- Published data on adult spot age and growth, especially
62
for the US east coast are scarce. They reach five years (nearly
350 mm FL) but are rarely older than three years (Mercer 1987).
Food Habits: Juvenile and adult spot are primarily benthic
feeders. They utilize rising tides to find suitable prey, although
feeding also occurs at lower tides (Archambault and Feller 1991;
Billheimer and Coull 1988; Feller et al. 1990). Archambault and
Feller (1991) suggest that environmental stress (low dissolved
oxygen and higher temperatures) in shallow creeks may hinder
feeding during low tides. Miltner et al. (1995) found that food
resources (as opposed to predation pressure) were largely
responsible for determining spot distributions in estuaries. Spot
often feed by ingesting bottom sediment and extracting food items
(Billheimer and Coull 1988; McCall and Fleeger 1993). Juveniles
can turn over the top 2 mm of sediment in each square meter of
foraging area (Billheimer and Coull 1988), and they seem to feed
more actively in sediments having the highest densities of
meiofauna (McCall and Fleeger 1993).
Spot are selective feeders and food preferences vary depending
on season and location. Larvae use vision to select prey items
according to prey size, swimming behavior, and prey color (Govoni
et al. 1986). Primary food items for larvae consist of various
copepods and pteropods, with most feeding taking place during the
day (Govoni et al. 1983). Adult spot mainly eat small crustaceans,
annelids, harpacticoid copepods, and nematodes, with some small
mollusks and fish (Hildebrand and Schroeder 1928; McCall and
Fleeger 1993; Nelson and Coull 1989; Service et al. 1992).
Use of Coastal Waters and the Surf Zone: Spot are abundant in
nearly all estuarine and coastal waters with catches being highest
during the spring and fall (Dahlberg 1972; Modde and Ross 1981;
Ruple 1984; LeBlanc 1991). On a Mississippi barrier island, Ruple
(1984) reported that larvae were not very common in the outer beach
but were a dominant species of the inner surf zone (within 10 m of
the beach). While spot constituted 18.8% of the catch of migrant
species in a Gulf of Mexico surf zone, individuals may not stay in
the surf for extended periods (Modde 1980). High densities of fish
(especially larvae) in and around inlets (Tagatz and Dudley 1960;
Sedberry and Beatty 1990) suggest that this species uses the beach
mostly during movements into estuarine nursery grounds. Adult spot
are often found along the beaches as they emigrate offshore in the
fall.
Life History of the Southern Kingfish (Menticirrhus americanus)
Geographic Range: This species is found from New York to Texas,
(most commonly from North Carolina southward), and also along the
Brazilian coast (Bearden 1963; Chao 1978). Of the three species of
63
kingfishes in the SAB, the southern kingfish appears to be the most
abundant and widely distributed.
Environmental Distribution: Southern kingfish are found in a much
wider salinity range than the other two species of Menticirrhus,
near 0 to 36 ppt (Bearden 1963; Schwartz et al. 1981; Sikora and
Sikora 1982); however, they are uncommon in salinities < 10 ppt.
There is a strong size and salinity relationship, with young
occurring in lower salinities than adults (Sikora and Sikora 1982).
They also occur over a wide temperature range, 5 to 32 pC, but they
cannot tolerate temperatures < 6 PC (Bearden 1963; Schwartz et al.
1981; Sikora and Sikora 1982).
Spawning: The spawning season for M. americanus is protracted and
primarily depends on water temperature, commencing when offshore
bottom waters reach about 15 pC (Reid 1954; Bearden 1963; Sikora
and Sikora 1982; Smith and Wenner 1985). Near Beaufort, NC they
spawn from April through August, with the peak during June and July
(Hildebrand and Cable 1934). The spawning season may be similar in
Chesapeake Bay, but later at higher latitudes (Hildebrand and Cable
1934). Offshore spawning may coincide with increases in
zooplankton.
Growth:
Larvae-- Data are lacking.
Juveniles-- Data are scarce and incomplete. Growth seems to
be very rapid for the juveniles which reach an average of 210 mm in
7 months (Hildebrand and Cable 1934). They grow to around 100-117
mm SL by the end of their first summer (Sikora and Sikora 1982).
Adults-- Welsh and Breder (1923) reported that maturity was
not reached until the third year (about 250 mm), while Hildebrand
and Cable (1934) suggested that it could be earlier. Males and
females mature at different times and sizes, between one and two
years (160-190 mm SL) for males and approximately two to three
years (230-250 mm SL) for females (Bearden 1963; Sikora and Sikora
1982; Smith and Wenner 1985). Maximum size (around 400 mm TL) is
reached by age 6 (Smith and Wenner 1985). Growth rates decline
from over 130 mm in the first year to less than 25 mm/year between
ages 3 and 4 (Smith and Wenner 1985).
Food Habits: Southern kingfish are primarily bottom feeders that
use sensory pores located on the chin barbel, lower jaw, and mouth
to find prey (Sikora and Sikora 1982). The diet changes with
increasing fish size (Bearden 1963; McMichael and Ross 1987).
Juveniles < 80 mm SL primarily eat clam siphons, cumaceans,
copepods, mysid shrimp, small polychaetes, amphipods, and shrimp
larvae. From 81-135 mm SL, they prefer annelid worms, amphipods,
shrimp, and small crabs (Ovalipes and Callinectes). As they mature
64
(136-200 mm SL), they mostly forage for annelid worms and shrimp,
chiefly Trachipenaeus. Larger adults prefer penaeid shrimp, small
crabs (Ovalipes, Portunus, and Callinectes), and fish (juveniles
and larvae).
Use of Coastal Waters and the Surf Zone: Larvae and early
juveniles < 20 mm are most abundant in nearshore coastal waters,
moving toward estuaries as they grow (Hildebrand and Cable 1934).
This species uses the estuaries much more extensively than M.
littoralis; however, only the smallest juveniles often occur in
salinities < 10 ppt. Bearden (1963) found that the young prefer
shallow (< 1 to 10 m), soft bottom, estuaries during the summer in
South Carolina, and some individuals may remain in the estuaries
until December. As water temperatures decline during the fall,
they move south and offshore to deeper water (Bearden 1963; Sikora
and Sikora 1982; Smith and Wenner 1985). The above patterns are
similar to those in the Gulf of Mexico (McMichael and Ross 1987);
however, off Brazil they occur in warmer, less saline waters
(Giannini and Paiva 1990).
Southern kingfish occur regularly in the surf zone, but are
not dominant there, and probably use the surf region mostly during
migrations. While they were not abundant at Atlantic Beach, NC
(Tagatz and Dudley 1960), Ross and Lancaster (unpubl. data)
reported them to be the fifth most abundant fish during summer
months at Masonboro Island, NC. In the winter, southern kingfish
are nearly absent from the beaches and inshore areas and may over-
winter south of Georgia (Reid 1954; Bearden 1963; Smith and Wenner
1985). In the Gulf of Mexico, Modde and Ross (1981) and McFarland
(1963) characterized M. americanus as a spring and summer resident
of barrier islands; however, catches were usually small.
Life History of the Gulf Kingfish (Menticirrhus littoralis)
Geographic Range: This species is found from Virginia to the Gulf
of Mexico (rare north of North Carolina) (Smith 1907; Hildebrand
and Cable 1934; Hoese and Moore 1977).
Environmental Distribution: Gulf kingfish have a much narrower
range of salinity and temperature preferences than southern
kingfish. They have been caught in temperatures from 5 to 31 pC,
but prefer water temperatures > 20 pC (Bearden 1963). They have
been reported in salinities from 14 to 36 ppt (Tagatz and Dudley,
1960; Saloman and Naughton 1979; Schwartz et al. 1981), but are
rarely caught in salinities < 25 ppt.
Spawning: Data on this subject. are lacking. In the SAB, spawning
seems to occur offshore from April to September (Hildebrand and
Schroeder 1928; Dahlberg 1972). Spawning was reported from May -
65
August near Beaufort, NC (Smith 1907; Hildebrand and Cable 1934;
Bearden 1963).
Growth:
Larvae-- There are no data on larval growth rates.
Juveniles-- Growth data are generally lacking, but early
growth seems to be rapid, with fish reaching at least 120 mm by
four months of age (Hildebrand and Cable 1934).
Adults-- There are few data available. Males mature at an
earlier age (about two years) and smaller size (about 195 mm SL)
than females. Females mature at two to three years of age (230-250
mm SL). Adults may reach approximately 460 mm SL, which is larger
than the other Menticirrhus spp. (Bearden 1963).
Food Habits: This is an opportunistic bottom feeder (Bearden 1963;
McMichael and Ross 1987). Small fish (< 20 mm) are planktivorous,
feeding mostly on mysids and amphipods, whereas larger individuals
(21-40 mm) prefer benthic prey (e.g., polychaetes and Donax
siphons). With growth, Donax siphons remain major food items while
small fish and Emerita increase in the diet. Generally, amphipods
and mysids are eaten less as the fish grow (Modde and Ross 1983;
DeLancey 1989). This species, like M. americanus, does not depend
on sight for feeding, but uses sensory pores located on the lower
jaw, snout, and chin barbel (Bearden 1963).
Use of Coastal Waters and the Surf Zone: This species rarely
occurs in estuarine waters, and is almost exclusively restricted to
the surf zone during its first nine months. Recruitment begins in
early May and is greatest in the summer months (Modde 1980;
McMichael and Ross 1987). They use this habitat as their only
nursery area and are a dominant member of its ichthyofauna
throughout their range (Tagatz and Dudley 1960; Bearden 1963;
Dahlberg 1972; Naughton and Saloman 1978; Modde 1980; Sikora and
Sikora 1982; DeLancey 1984 ; Peters and Nelson 1987; Ross and
Lancaster unpubl. data). Adults rarely venture into shallow areas,
being most common over the inner continental shelf.
Life History of the Striped Mullet (Mugil cephalus).
The striped mullet is one of the dominant fishes of the SAB and is
both commercially and recreationally important. There are moderate
amounts of data on some aspects of its life history (see review in
Collins 1985 for South Florida).
Geographic Range: Striped mullet occur in western Atlantic coastal
waters from Nova Scotia and Bermuda to Brazil, and are most common
south of Chesapeake Bay (Finucane et al. 1978; Burgess 1980b;
Gilbert 1993).
66
Environmental Distribution: Striped mullet are extremely hardy
fish, tolerating a wide salinity range as adults, and a wide
temperature range throughout their lives. They can survive
temperatures ranging from about 6 to 32.0 pC and salinities from
freshwater to 75 ppt (Tagatz and Dudley 1960; Dahlberg 1972;
Burgess 1980b; Schwartz et al. 1981; Collins 1985).
Spawning: Spawning occurs offshore, possibly 5 to 55 km from the
shoreline (Anderson 1957; Arnold 1958; Caldwell and Anderson 1959;
Finucane et al. 1978; Bishop and Miglarese 1978; Collins and
Stender 1989); however, detailed data are lacking. Spawning
usually takes place in the late fall to early winter, with a peak
in mid-December and early January for the Gulf of Mexico (Anderson
1957; Arnold 1958; Caldwell and Anderson 1959; Finucane et al.
1978; Aguirre 1993) and in late November to early December in the
SAB (Finucane et al. 1978). Most fish spawn by their third year;
however, some may mature in their second year (Collins 1985).
Growth:
Larvae-- Very little data are available. Older larvae may
grow at a rate of about 5 mm/month (Anderson 1957).
Juveniles-- Juveniles may grow at 20 mm/month (Higgins 1928)
and attain a size of 160 mm by age one (Anderson 1957). Detailed
data are lacking.
Adults-- Despite the abundance and commercial importance of
this species detailed data on age and growth are lacking. Striped
mullet mature at 200-300 mm SL. They may attain about 160 mm SL by
an age of one and a half years and 235 mm by age two (Jacot 1920).
At about 5-6 years of age (about 600 mm TL) growth approaches an
asymptote (Collins 1985).
Food Habits: Adult and juvenile striped mullet are generally
primary consumers that feed on zooplankton, macrophyte detritus,
and microalgae by taking in the top layer of sediment (Odum 1968a;
Ross 1983; Collins 1985). They prefer very fine sediment particles
which are rich in absorbed organic material and bacteria (Odum
1968a). Larvae consume mostly microcrustaceans, while juveniles
may feed on dinoflagellates (Odum 1968b; Odum 1970; Collins 1985).
Adults are sometimes carnivorous, feeding on polychaete
swarms, dead fish, baited hooks, and apparently select prey
visually (Odum 1968a; Bishop and Miglarese 1978). Adults may
switch to carnivorous behavior in response to spawning physiology
(Bishop and Miglarese 1978). Gonad maturation may require a higher
protein intake, most easily obtained by carnivory.
Use of Coastal Waters and the Surf Zone: Most larval M. cephalus
migrate to inshore waters at 16-20 mm SL (Aguirre 1993; Anderson
1957; Collins 1985). Striped mullet are common inhabitants of both
67
estuarine and surf zone shallows. They occupy surf zones year-
round, with highest abundances during late winter and fall (Reid
1956; Tagatz and Dudley 1960; McFarland 1963; Dahlberg 1972;
Naughton and Saloman 1978; Modde and Ross 1981; Ross and Lancaster,
unpubl. data). Peterson (1976) reported that schools of striped
mullet used the surf zone as a migratory corridor, swimming rapidly
and in a directed fashion. Earle (1887) and Jacot (1920) also
documented the large southerly migrations of adult mullet in the
fall, which are often correlated with weather patterns (i.e., the
"mullet blow").
Since striped mullet normally ingest sediments, settling of
dredged material may have some effect on their feeding. Dredged
material can form a mobile, 1 m thick, concentrated suspension at
the bottom after disturbance from ocean waves (Wolanski et al.
1992). This effect can occur even after compaction; however,
Wolanski et al. (1992) examined the behavior of dredged mud and not
larger sediments generally used in beach renourishment. Whenever
dredged sediments are held in suspension, visual predation by
striped mullet could be impeded.
Life History of the White Mullet (Mugil curema).
White mullet appear to be less abundant and less widely distributed
than striped mullet; however, the two species are very difficult to
distinguish, especially as larvae and juveniles. Therefore, much
of the data on these species may be confounded. White mullet are
usually combined in commercial or recreational fishery statistics
with striped mullet.
Geographic Range: White mullet are found in the western Atlantic
from Canada to Brazil, including Bermuda the northern Gulf of
Mexico and the West Indies. Adults larger than 180 mm SL are rare
north of North Carolina (Anderson 1957; Richards and Castagna 1976;
Ross 1980b; Collins 1985).
Environmental Distribution: This species is more tropically
distributed than striped mullet and is rarely found in waters < 20
pC. It can survive temperatures down to 15 pC, and its upper
critical temperature is around 37 PC. White mullet are euryhaline,
but are more common in higher salinities than striped mullet. They
have been recorded occasionally from freshwater (Ross 1980b) and
salinities as high as 50 ppt (Dahlberg 1972; Moore 1974; Schwartz
et al. 1981; Modde and Ross 1981).
Spawning: Spawning occurs from mid-April to mid-August with a peak
around May (Moore 1974; Anderson 1957). Anderson (1957) witnessed
68
spawning activity at night in about 60 m of water off the south
Florida coast and suggested that spawning probably occurs at sea
over the continental shelf from Florida to North Carolina.
Caldwell and Anderson (1959) reported a school of spawning white
mullet about 55 miles from nearest land in the Gulf of Mexico.
Growth:
Larvae-- White mullet spend their first few weeks at sea, then
move to inshore nursery areas at a size of 17 to 25 mm SL, or 3-4
weeks of age (Collins 1985; Richards and Castagna 1976). Early
growth has been estimated at about 17 mm/month (Collins 1985).
Juveniles-- They probably attain 200 mm SL by the end of the
first year (Collins 1985). Age specific growth rates are lacking.
Adults-- White mullet probably mature completely at about 200
mm SL. Females have slightly longer average lengths than males of
the same age. Although detailed data are lacking, this mullet may
reach lengths of 203, 288, 327, 345, and 353 mm at each of its
first 5 years (Collins 1985).
Food Habits: Information on food habits of this species is scarce.
Mugil curema are probably primary consumers, with a diet similar to
M. cephalus (Odum 1968b; Moore 1974; Collins 1985; Delancey 1989).
If true, they may also use visual cues for feeding (Bishop and
Miglarese 1978). DeLancey (1989) indicated that M. curema consume
primarily sand containing diatoms and detritus. Small
invertebrates also seem to be included in the diet. Odum (1968b)
witnessed this species feeding with striped mullet near the air-
water interface on a dinoflagellate bloom in an estuary. During
the bloom, their diet consisted almost entirely of the
dinoflagellate.
Use of Coastal Waters and the Surf Zone: This species is present
year round along the Gulf of Mexico and is especially common in the
summer (Reid 1956; Naughton and Saloman 1978; Modde and Ross 1981;
Ross 1983; Ruple 1984); however, it is often not abundant
(McFarland 1963; Ross 1983; Saloman and Naughton 1979). On the US
east coast this species seems to be common during the summer, but
rare or absent during the fall and winter (Tagatz and Dudley 1960;
Dahlberg 1972; DeLancey 1989). It probably migrates offshore and
to warmer southern waters as temperatures decline (Collins 1985).
By December it is absent from beaches (Anderson 1957; Peters and
Nelson 1987).
Juveniles and larvae of white mullet use inshore waters,
including the surf zone, as nursery areas. Recruitment peaks in
the spring but may continue until August. They can be taken on
beaches from late April until late August (Anderson 1957; Richards
and Castagna 1976; Collins 1985; Peters and Nelson 1987). The
young may use beaches as a migratory pathway to the inlets for
69
CHAPTER 4
COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL FISHERIES OF THE SURF ZONE
The beach, intertidal surf zone, and the adjacent nearshore
ocean are an important fishery area, having a long history of
exploitation. Much of the information concerning fisheries of this
zone is anecdotal or in the popular literature, since there has
been very little research on surf zone fisheries. Most of the data
used for the following accounts were derived from fishery
statistics.
RECREATIONAL FISHERIES
Recreational fishing along the beach habitat (intertidal to
the 8 m isobath) is popular throughout the SAB and takes place from
the beach itself (surf fishing), piers, and small boats (trolling,
drifting, and anchored fishing). Generally hook and line is used.
In total poundage, the North Carolina recreational fishery is much
smaller than the commercial seine and gill net fisheries (Fig. 4).
Since North Carolina has much larger commercial finfisheries than
the other SAB states, this trend is probably reversed from South
Carolina to Florida. Despite supposed conflicts between these two
fisheries, there is no evidence that the commercial fishery
operations, at least in North Carolina, negatively impact the
recreational pier fishery (Francesconi 1994).
Recreational data separating landings by catch area (beach and
pier) were only available for North Carolina (Table 2); however,
total recreational surf zone landings were available for South
Carolina (Table 3), Georgia (Table 4), and Florida (Table 5).
Although many species identifications are questionable, these data
indicate that at least 102 fish species are caught from NC beaches
and piers with Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), bluefish
(Pomatomus saltatrix), Florida pompano (Trachinotus carolinus),
king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla), kingfishes (Menticirrhus
spp.), northern puffer (Sphoeroides maculates), pigfish
(Orthopristis chrysoptera) , pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides) , red drum
(Sciaenops ocellatus), smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis), Spanish
mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus),
striped mullet (Mugil cephalus), and summer flounder (Paralichthys
dentatus) dominating the catches (Table 2). The major species were
similar in SC and GA, but their numbers of species caught and total
poundages were the least of the four SAB states (Tables 3 and 4).
This can be partly attributed to their shorter coastlines and fewer
fishing piers compared to NC or. FL. The above dominant species are
also important in the FL recreational landings, but the addition of
many tropical/sub-tropical fishes (e.g., snook, snappers, jacks)
accounts for the high Florida species richness (Table 5).
Landings for several of the dominant fishes were similar
between the piers and beaches in North Carolina (Table 2). Some
71
FIGURE 4. Annual total commercial (seine and gill net) and
recreational (pier and beach) finfish landings for the
North Carolina surf zone area.
72
Cn
ui
U
Q
L1J
z
J
O
rr
Q
U
rr CY)
OC)
t
zT
N
zN
C)
O
v r
r
J
0
z
z
4?
U)
LL
J
O
F-
0
C)
N
0
T
0
m
m
CC)
Co
0
N
co
0
co
Cn
co
Icr
co
cr)
CO L
co
X) (1)
r
D
X)
0
r
73
o LO o LO o tc) o
co N N "- T
spunod 10 suoilIlW
Table 2. North Carolina shore based ocean recreational fishery landings
(thousands of pounds).by Year (1988-1993) and location (B=beach, P=pier).
*=species caught, no weight reported.
Year and Location
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Species B P B P B P B P B P B P
Atlantic Bonito 0.0 34.83 0.0 8.78 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Atlantic Cod 0.0 0.29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Atlantic Croaker 158.04 96.89 94.54 78.21 4.81 12.99 9.52 13.73 29.48 0.0 20.78 45.46
Atlantic Cutlassfish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.94
Atlantic Menhaden 35.91 0.0 0.0 0.11 0.36 32.24 0.40 + 4.33 0.0 0.09 +
Atlantic Needlefish + 0.0 + 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.07 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Atlantic Sharpnose
Shark. 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.48 0.0 0.0 1.07 0.20 0.0 2.06 0.0 0.0
Atlantic Silverside 0.0 0.0 ' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Atlantic Spadefish 0.0 1.54 0.0 2.02 0.0 0.84 0.0 1.15 0.0 1.75 0.0 1.61
Atlantic Stingray 0.0 0.0 + 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.57 0.0 0.0
Banded Rudderfish 0.0 42.23 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Black Drum 0.0 2.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.19 2.40 10.33 7.18 17.12 3.46
Black Sea Bass 0.74 5.41 0.0 11.85 0.0 25.49 0.61 1.28 1.05 0.79 0.70 5.79
Blacktip Shark 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Blue Catfish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Blue Runner 0.0 7.42 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.99 0.0 0.0 0.51 3.11 010 0.24
Bluefish 5159.41 217.06 1665.16 290.6 709.27 895.38 808.35 291.10 339.25 99.6 141.71 206.83
Clearnose Skate 67.93 + 0.23 0.23 + + + 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.67
Cobia 0.0 14.19 0.0 28.59 0.0 0.0 5.56 63.85 6.07 13.35 0.0 14.75
Cownose Ray 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.88 0.0
Crevalle Jack 0.0 2.70 0.0 45.39 0.0 1.25 0.87 5.70 0.0 2.12 0.49 3.30
Dogfish Shark Family 0.0 18.23 0.0 0.0 1.43 0.0 0.80 0.0 0.0 O.D 0.0 0.0
Dolphin 0.0 20.19 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.96 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.57 1.60 0.0
Drum Family 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 + 0.0 0.0
Dusky Shark 0.0 0.0 + 3.41 0.0 0.0 5.51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Florida Pompano 23.08 14.74 14.95 16.52 116.56 32.19 19.13 29.47 16.52 10.76 36.00 32.24
Grey Triggerfish 0.0 1.55 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.08 0.0 0.43 0.0 8.05 0.0 35.17
Greater Amberjack 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.81 0.0 6.92 1.84 1.60 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Gulf Flounder 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.32 1.64 0.25 0.23 0.0 0.0
Gulf Kingfish 0.0 0.0 4.03 0.72 0.0 0.14 13.51 11.44 6.11 1.36 12.98 1.07
Hammerhead Sharks 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 + 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hardhead Catfish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.80 1.13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Houndfish 22.89 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Inshore Lizardfish 57.03 0.29 0.0 0.0 3.24 1.21 + 0.61 + 1.18 0.0 +
74
Table 2 (continued)
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
B P B P B P B P B P B P
Irish Pompano 0.0 0.35
King Mackerel 0.0 93.61
Kingfish genus 0.51 4.77
Knobbed Porgy 0.0 0.0
Ladyfish 0.0 0.0
Lefteye Flounders 0.0 1.05
Lesser Amberjack 0.0 0.0
Little Tunny 12.86 0.0
Lizardfishes 0.0 0.0
Longspine Porgy 0.0 0.69
Marbled Puffer 0.0 0.0
Mullet Family + +
Northern Kingfish 21.94 31.54
Northern Puffer 310.66 5.96
Northern Searobin 0.0 0.0
Oyster Toadfish 0.0 0.0
Palespotted Eel 0.0 0.47
Pigfish 3.45 54.06
Pilotfish 0.0 0.0
Pinfish 1.54 41.43
Porcupinefish 0.0 0.0
Puffer Family + 0.0
Puffer Genus 0.0 +
Red Drum 141.57 20.41
Red Hind 0.0 1.20
Requiem Shark Family 0.0 +
Rock Hind 0.0 0.0
Sandbar Shark 0.0 0.0
Scalloped Hammerhead 0.0 0.0
Scup 0.0 0.0
Sea Catfish Family 0.0 0.0
Seatrout Genus 0.0 0.0
Sheepshead 0.0 26.50
Silky Shark 0.0 0.0
Silver Perch 0.37 3.27
Silver Seatrout 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
26.73 11.80 0.0 193.51
0.0 4.17 + +
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.23 0.0 0.0
+ + 0.0 +
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
82.86 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.63 0.0 0.0
0.74 0.0 0.0 0.0
6.76 16.26 33.13 35.78
106.33 20.22 35.61 3.22
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 +
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
12.58 18.85 34.57 31.01
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
16.83 11.75 31.76 5.15
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 + 0.0 0.0
0.0 + 0.0 0.0
158.93 3.87 239.79 6.25
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 1.30
0.0 0.0 0.0
51.49 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.66 0.0 0.40
0.0 0.0 0.0 +
0.0 0.0 0.0
1.81 5.08 4.45 18.65
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2.09 23.00 2.42 7.08
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.35
0.0 0.0
0.0 84.16
+ 47.61
0.0 0.25
0.20 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
2.68 5.04
0.0 +
0.0 0.08
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
37.76 49.49
14.96 6.16
0.16 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
4.28 4."9
0.0 0.0
23.23 37.15
0.33 0.0
0.0 0.0
+ +
77.64 4.60
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.64
0.0 0.0
0.57 0.93
0.0 0.0
0.0 +
6.87 17.73
0.0 0.0
1.38 11.79
0.0 0.0
0.0
1.51
5.75
0.0
0.0
3.48
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
82.70
110.89
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.66
0.0
9.25
0.0
0.0
+
54.63
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.16
0.0
0.0
16.67
0.78
0.68
0.0
0.0
18.54
23.08
0.0
0.48
2.12
0.0
5.29
+
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.30
65.89
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.30
0.0
24.50
0.0
+
0.48
11.10
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.37
0.0
6.25
0.0
0.0
87.64
0.0
14.75
0.0
0.03 0.0
0.0 36.92
3.43 12.23
0.80 0.0
0.0 0.0
2.91 0.0
2.71 0.0
0.0 +
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
59.20 44.41
26.98 74.72
0.0 0.0
+ 0.0
0.0 0.0
4.36 18.37
0.29 0.42
0.97 38.07
0.70 0.0
0.0 0.0
+ +
131.52 23.57
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 +
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.21
0.0 0.0
+ 0.0
2.06 18.64
0.0 0.0
1.23 9.47
0.0 0.0
75
Table 2 (continued)
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
B P B P B P B P B P B P
Skate Genus 0.0 * 0.0 * 0.0 0.0
Smooth Dogfish 144.20 5.45 188.22 12.01 4.33 0.0
Southern Eagle Ray 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Southern Flounder 1.13 4.81 7.36 14.26 7.75 13.61
Southern Hake 0.0 0.05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Southern Kingfish 91.55 218.97 25.73 26.09 82.36 79.26
Southern Puffer 1.72 0.0 * 0.60 0.0 3.10
Southern Stingray 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Spanish Mackerel 34.00 49.47 99.35 103.75 23.23 98.20
Spiny Dogfish 0.0 0.0 567.89 4.30 9.75
Spot 150.90 316.25 63.59 473.31 162.92 256.90
Spottail Pinfish 0.0 0.23 13.35 1.98 1.44 0.69
Spotted Hake 0.98 0.0 0.0 0.52 0.08 0.0
Spotted Seatrout 22.37 75.28 32.80 29.81 8.31 14.66
Stingray Family 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.0 0.0
Striped Bass 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Striped Killifish 0.89 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Striped Mullet 115.71 0.0 21.38 0.0 0.23 76.54
Summer Flounder 197.34 47.16 110.79 13.34 153.04 14.40
Tautog 0.0 + 0.0 3.89 0.0 0.63
Threadfin Shad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Unid. Sharks 0.0 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.0
Unid. Flounders 0.0 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.0
Unid. Fishes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Weakfish 20.11 3.44 25.22 0.0 3.43 0.93
White Catfish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
White Mullet 0.0 0.0 0.40 0.0 0.0 0.0
White Perch 0.0 0.21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Whitebone Porgy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Windowpane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.15 0.0
0.0 + 0.0 0.0
5.8B 0.0 0.68 0.23
0.0 * 0.0 0.0
37.39 17.94 5.46 14.23
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
60.96 87.56 15.54 64.72
0.0 0.0 0.0 19.52
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
21.92 130.13 58.32 63.30
25.15 4.39 12.53 8.66
94.20 460.85 34.20 206.64
0.0 0.33 0.0 1.02
0.42 4.13 0.54 0.16
90.22 45.12 20.30 32.83
0.0 + + 0.0
3.88 0.0 16.20 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.65 3.04 384.52 21.23
33.86 20.18 30.45 25.54
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 + 0.0 0.0
3.12 1.14 * 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
+ 0.0 0.0
1.19 9.80 1.81 14.30
0.0 0.46 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.80 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3.33 0.0
7.09 0.87
0.0 0.0
4.76 12.23
0.25 0.0
48.03 61.93
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
30.04 73.27
1.83 +
43.52 5 59.18
0.0 1.72
0.36 0.22
45.43 33.21
* 0.0
3.13 0.0
* 0.0
* 13.52
83.71 32.26
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 +
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
6.16 22.43
0.0 0.31
0.0 0.0
0.53 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
76
Table 3. South Carolina shore based ocean recreational fishery
landings (th ousands of pounds) by ye ar (1988-1993). Al l shore
locations (b each, pier, etc.) are combined. *=species caught, no
weight repor ted.
Year
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Species
Atlantic Croaker 15.12 5.85 0.50 7.26 7.53 1.26
Atlantic Sharpnose
Shark 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.47 0.0
Atlantic Spadefish 0.57 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.92 0.0
Bieck Sea Bass 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.78 0.0 0.0
Blue Runner 0.0 0.0 4.09 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bluefish 41.65 123.00 36.77 39.94 3.58 18.22
Florida Pompano 20.93 11.89 6.13 5.33 3.70 14.61
Grey Triggerfish 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.59 0.0 0.0
C1ulf Kingfish 6.20 5.60 1.42 0.0 0.0 0.0
Heardhead Catfish 4.11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Inshore Lizardfish 0.0 0.18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.58
King NackereL 10.92 0.0 0.0 33.48 0.0 0.0
Kinfish Germ 3.49 7.81 * 21.49 24.93 5.29
Ledyfish 0.0 0.0 • 3.06 0.0 0.0
Lefteye Flounders 0.0 • 0.0 • 0.82
Northern Kingfish 0.0 0.73 0.0 0.0 2.34 0.0
Oyster Toadfish 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pinfish 5.88 5.81 7.07 0.0 0.41 12.13
Red Drupe 5.36 26.74 5.72 30.39 78.81 3.60
Red Porgy 0.0 0.70 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Searobin Family 0.0 0.35 * 0.0 0.0 0.0
Seatrout Genus * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sheepshead 22.25 5.27 2.01 0.0 2.17 0.0
Silver Perch 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.94 0.0 0.0
Southern Flounder 9.84 0.0 * 16.30 8.59 1.30
Southern Hake 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.43
Southern Kingfish 59.19 11.15 5.59 44.69 29.36 18.30
Spanish Mackerel 0.0 30.65 21.42 23.35 20.01 8.11
Spot 371.94 37.14 2.38 124.39 76.34 324.32
Spotted Seatrout 3.54 0.0 2.42 22.19 2.10 0.0
77
Table 3 (continued)
Year
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
species
Stingray Genus • • 0.0 0.0 * 0.0
Suer Flounder 1.51 3.47 1.07 0.0 0.0 2.14
Unidentified Bottoms
Fish 0.0 • 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Unidentified Sharks * * * 0.0 0.0 1.75
Weakfish 0.0 2.33 0.98 3.53 10.07 1.04
78
Table 4. Georgia shore based ocean recreational fishery landings
(thousands of pounds) by year (1988-1993). All shore locations
(beach, pier, etc.) are combined. *=species caught, no weight
reported.

$= ar•i Aa
1 QAA
1 QAQ Year
1 QQn
1 QQ1
1 QQ7
l Q91-
Atlantic Croaker 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.32 0.29 0.53
Atlantic Spadefish 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.86 0.0 0.48
Black Drum 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.19 0.0 1.95
Black Sea Bass 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.07 0.33 3.50
Bluefish 0.0 0.0 11.33 0.0 0.0 1.50
Crevalle Jack 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.92 0.0 0.0
Pinfish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.21 0.0 0.0
Red Drum 1.23 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.05
Sand Perch 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.0 0.0
Sheepshead 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.09 2.05 0.0
Silver Perch 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.11
Smooth Puffer * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Southern Flounder 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.41 0.0 0.0
Southern Kingfish •0.0 0.0 0.0 3.62 0.0 6.93
Spot 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.51 4.88
Spotted Seatrout 0.0 0.0 7.16 7.42 0.0 0.0
Striped Mullet 77.84 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.83 0.0
Unidentified Sharks 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.33 0.0 0.0
79
Table 5. Florida shore based ocean recreational fishery landings
(thousands of pounds) by year (1988-1993). All shore locations (beach,
pier, etc.) are combined. *=species caught, no weight reported.
Year
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
species

Atlantic croaker 23.46 53.41 9.18 30.09 24.67 20.49
Atlantic Cutlassfish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.61
Atlantic Mackerel 18.14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Atlantic Menhaden * 0.0 0.0 • 0.0 •
Atlantic Moonfish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.92
Atlantic Spadefish 0.0 13.40 9.93 12.18 32.66 0.0 14.43
Atlantic Thread Herring 0.0 * 0.0 2.51 * 0.0
Bar Jack 0.0 16.31 6.67 0.0 0.0 3.46
Bermuda Chub * 4.56 • • '
Bigeye Scad * 0.0 0.0 '
Black Drum 7.30 5.91 3.86 36.95 8.65 59.10
Black Margate 14.64 55.21 1.91 * 0.0 2.95
Black See Bass 15.28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Blacktip Shark 0.0 0.0 0.0 138.96 23.27 8.16
Blue Runner 261.59 183.19 155.14 259.27 202.44 107.17
Blueback Herring 0.0 0.0 1.27 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bluefish 97.62 118.06 238.56 348.17 548.28 412.16
Bluespotted Cornetfish 4.12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bluestriped Grunt 6.34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.75
Bonefish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Butterflyffsh Genus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.27
Caro 0.0 7.31 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.90
Channel Catfish 1.46 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cobia 0.0 40.28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Common Snook 34.37 7.02 99.68 60.59 34.57 22.11
Crevalle Jack 113.93 58.62 68.08 213.41 182.24 220.50
Dolphin 0.0 18.15 0.0 0.0 21.71 60.74
Drum Family 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.0 0.0
False Pilchard 0.0 10.79 74.41 91.21
Florida Pompano 10.37 19.65 86.87 50.79 29.21 25.54
French Angelfish 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Gafftopsail Catfish 0.0 0.0 11.39 0.0 13.40 5.03
Gag 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Gizzard Shad 2.78 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
80
Table 5 (continued)
Ye ar
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Species
Goby Family 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.0
Grey Angelfish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.26 0.0
Grey Snapper 50.57 26.82 13.56 118.78 65.38 28.33
Grey Triggerfish 1.56 0.0 0.0 13.65 7.96
Great Barracuda 35.16 68.97 56.09 437.34 67.53 64.16
Great Hammerhead 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 1.86 0.0
Greeter Amberjack 0.0 0.0 * 0.0 * 3.72
Grunt Family 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Grunt Genus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.0
Gulf Kingfish 82.72 46.17 137.57 43.29 34.59 23.51
Hardhead Catfish 0.0 27.90 2.04 22.76 7.63 9.05
Herring Family 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hogfish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.99
Horse-eye Jack 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.20
Houndfish 5.91 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.92
Inshore Lizardfish 4.12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Irish Pompano 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.57 3.59 8.92
Jack Family 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
King Mackerel 0.0 0.0 160.99 28.79 8.65 12.60
Kingfish genus 0.51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ladyfish 11.67 0.0 74.25 1.30 0.0 0.0
Leatherjack 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.0
Leatherjacket Family 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lefteye Flounders 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.0
Little Tunny 82.49 36.97 25.63 52.21 60.29 12.05
Lookdoun 5.65 4.80 0.0 0.0 * 1.31
Margate 8.36 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mojarre Family * 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mullet Family 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.0
Mullet Genus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mutton Snapper 11.93 20.15 0.0 16.16 81.12 14.88
Nassau Grouper 0.0 2.40 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ocean Triggerfish * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pinfish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.96
Pinfish 0.0 1.42 1.47 0.0 * 45.49
Porkfish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.26
81
Table 5 (continued)
Year
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Species
Rainbow Runner 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.58 0.0 0.0
Red Drum 0.0 53.37 0.0 0.0 23.49 7.89
Red Grouper 30.50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.82
Red Snapper 36.21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.10 ,
Rough Scad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.0
Round herring 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Round Scad * 0.0 0.0 * 0.17 "
Sailors Choice 2.58 0.0 2.77 10.96 " 3.84
Sand Perch 7.42 0.0 0.0 0.0 • 0.27
Sandbar Shark 0.0 9.95 0.0 0.0 * 0.0
Scaled Sardine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 1.62
Scalloped Hammerhead 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 • 13.20
Schoolmaster 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Scrawled Cowfish 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.60 0.0 0.0
Sergeant Major 0.0 0.0 0.0 * • 0.0
Sheepshead 51.17 51.37 111.83 67.99 8.31 57.92
Silver Perch 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.11 0.30
Silver Porgy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.41 1.86
Silver Seatrout 0.0 10.85 6.82 0.0 0.0 6.17
Slippery Dick 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.0
Smooth Hammerhead 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.39 0.0 0.0
Smooth Skate 0.0 0.0 5.06 0.0 0.0 0.0
Snapper Family * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 •
Southern Flounder 16.56 58.78 3.49 12.59 60.35 39.20
Southern Hake 0.0 0.0 0.0 " 0.0 0.0
Southern Kingfish 105.85 273.84 168.35 214.12 195.22 85.31
Spanish Hogfish 0.0 0.0 0.0' 6.27 0.0 0.0
Spanish Mackerel 323.03 34.01 182.62 301.60 115.21 90.29
Spanish Sardine 0.0 0.0 0.0 • 0.0 0.0
Spot 0.0 13.91 * 25.50 20.12 145.28
Spotfin Mojarra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 • 0.16
Spottail Pinfish 15.06 36.50 40.85 9.92 18.40 44.31
Spatted Seatrout 5.22 4.80 0.0 0.0 11.16 5.82
Striped Mojarra 18.52 3.51 * 36.07 25.24
Striped Mullet 40.32 0.0 100.28 833.44 0.0 26.84
Tomtsta 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 • •
Unidentified Sharks 0.0 * 0.0 3.26 0.0
82
Table 5 (continued)
Year
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
species

Unidentified Flounders 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Weakfish 0.0 3.04 16.40 0.0 0.0 1.20
White Grunt 0.0 0.0 0.55 * 24.15 6.90
White Mullet * * 0.0 0.0 * 18.27
Yellow chub 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.15 0.0
Yellow Jack 49.66 5.12 96.28
Yellow Stingray 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.0
Yellowfin Menhaden 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Yellowfin Mojarra 0.0 15.35 1.58 0.0 0.0 2.02
Yellowtail Snapper 5.8 2.93 * 0.0 0.82 7.97
83
catch differences, however, reflect the different depths fished by
pier compared to beach fishermen. Beach fishermen usually fish
from the intertidal surf to around 60 m offshore, while pier
anglers fish from just beyond the intertidal out to 305-366 m
offshore (length to the end of most piers). King mackerel, Spanish
mackerel, pigfish, and spot were taken more frequently each year
from piers, indicating, as expected, that these species are more
common beyond the intertidal (Table 2). Northern puffer, red drum,
smooth dogfish, striped mullet, and summer flounder were mostly
caught from the beaches, which is consistent with observations that
they frequent the intertidal area (Table 2). There are 32 public
fishing piers in North Carolina, 8 in South Carolina, 3 in Georgia,
and 34 along both coasts of Florida (Goldstein 1994) compared to
hundreds of miles of accessible ocean beaches; therefore, catch
differences could simply reflect differences in fishing effort.
Although the limited surf zone recreational fishing effort data
(Mumford 1995) are difficult to interpret, there is an indication
that recreational effort is preferentially concentrated on the
fishing piers.
These data do indicate, however, that many large individuals
and species (not usually sampled in research operations) readily
occur in the shallow surf zone. Conservatively, at least 38 fish
species were caught recreationally from North Carolina through
Georgia (Tables 2-4) that were not collected during research
projects anywhere in the SAB (Table 1). Only one of these (smooth
dogfish) was a dominant recreational species, at least in North
Carolina. An interesting difference between the research based
data (Table 1) and the recreational landings (Tables 2-5) is that
most of the dominant recreational species (see above) were either
not caught (smooth dogfish), rarely caught (Atlantic croaker, king
mackerel, pigfish) or had much lower rankings in the research data.
Only Florida pompano, southern kingfish, spot, and striped mullet
had similar rankings in the two different databases, further
evidence that they are dominant surf zone species in the SAB. Some
explanations for the above catch differences are: 1) The basis for
the rankings was different (i.e., weight for the fishery data and
numerical abundance for the research collections), 2) Species
biases-recreational fishermen direct effort toward foodfish while
research projects treat all species equally, 3) Gear biases-
research gear (seines) and recreational gear (hook and line) are
capable of catching different species, and 4) Fish behavior. A
combination of the last 3 items is the most logical explanation for
the differences. For example, many species readily take a baited
hook (summer flounder, bluefish) but can easily avoid seines, a
combination of gear bias and fish behavior.
Although data on seasonal use of the surf zone by recreational
fishermen are lacking, it is generally observed that the peak
fishing season occurs during the fall, coincident with the major
84
migration of adult fishes along the beaches. Spring and summer are
also periods of high fishing activity. During winter there is very
little fishing activity, since most game fishes have moved away
from the beaches.
COMMERCIAL FISHERIES
Commercial fisheries data for the surf zone area were only
obtained for North Carolina (Table 6); however, as stated above,
North Carolina probably has the largest commercial surf zone
harvest in the SAB. Total landings for this fishery have varied
over the last 20 years (Fig. 3), and any apparent declines in
landings cannot be attributed to changes in fish stocks. Although
no fishery effort data are available, variation in landings may be
largely due to changes (mostly a decline) in commercial fishing
effort along the beaches and to changes in market conditions.
Beach commercial finfish landings ranged between 0.2 to 2 %
(mean=0.96 %) of the overall North Carolina total landings during
the 22 year period (Table 6). Beach landings did not correlate
with overall state patterns. In fact, during the years of the
lowest beach landings (1981-1983) overall state landings were at
their highest (Table 6).
The surf zone commercial fishery has always concentrated on
the striped mullet (or an unknown combination of the two mullet
species) and is attuned to its fall migrations which occur along
the beaches throughout the SAB (Earll 1987; Francesconi 1994). The
mullet fishery uses a variety of seines and gill nets and
historically was the dominant fishery of the southeastern US (Earll
1887; Smith 1907). Most of the commercial operations are south of
Oregon Inlet, NC. During the fall, mullet generally move from
north to south in massive schools that are located visually in the
near-beach shallows. These movements are often correlated with
weather fronts ("the mullet blow"). Apparently other species are
also cued to initiate offshore and southerly movements by the same
fall weather patterns (Ross and Moser 1995).
Depending on location and time, species besides mullet
contribute substantially to the commercial beach catches. These
species include kingfishes, bluefish, spot, striped bass, spotted
seatrout and weakfish (Table 6; Francesconi 1994). At least five
species were recorded in the North Carolina commercial beach
landings (Table 6) that were not documented in either the
recreational landings (Tables 2-5) or the research data (Table 1):
alewife (A1osa pseudoharengus), Atlantic mackerel (Scomber
scombrus), shad (Alosa sapidissima), sturgeons (probably only
Acipenser oxyrhynchus), and tuna (unknown species). All of these
were landed from the northern district, probably north of Cape
Hatteras. Also, some of the catch differences may be explained by
the larger (both length and mesh size), more efficient gear used by
commercial fishermen.
85
Table 6. North Carolina commercial finfishery landings (thousands of
pounds) by year (1972 -1982) by major di strict. These are ocean landings
for gear u sed o n the beach (haul seines and gi ll nets). * = confidential
data. 0.0 may indica te that no data we re recorded as wel l as no landings.
Districts are: North ern = north of Ocr acoke I nlet, Centr al = Oc racoke
Inlet to B ogue Inlet, Southern = south of Bogu e Inlet. U ncl. _
unclassifi ed.
Year
District/ 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982
Species

Nort e
Alewife 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.92 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bluefish 242.77 406.11 349.21 264.44 317.61 195.71 186.57 241.68 159.86 76.92 73.27
Butterfish 0.30 0.64 0.12 0.24 0.0 3.59 0.15 0.10 0.0 0.0 13.36
Croaker, Atlantic 0.81 0.69 11.09 14.00 3.67 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.11
Drum, Black 1.86 6.88 4.47 0.90 0.12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Drum, Red 13.05 18.23 29.49 36.74 13.67 3.42 0.20 0.0 0.0 * 0.0
Flounders, Fluke 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.0
Flounders, uncl. 0.94 1.34 0.94 8.09 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Harvestfish 0.40 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hickory Shad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.0
Kingfishes
(Sea Mullet) 66.68 32.64 13.72 22.22 15.73 5.29 2.00 0.0 0.0 15.73 0.29
Mackerel, Atlantic 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mackerel, Spanish 0.95 0.79 0.70 0.0 0.0 3.74 0.0 0.40 0.0 0.0
Mullets 50.29 36.22 309.94 383.08 556.96 103.26 26.00 0.0 * 0.0
Pigfish 1.96 2.55 1.14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pompano 1.18 1.52 0.59 2.03 2.24 0.22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.43
Seatrout, Spotted 39.99 104.36 74.48 71.73 20.79 7.78 5.30 0.0 * 0.0 0.57
Shad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.0 * 79.60 43.67
Sheepshead 0.0 0.0 1.30 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Spadefish, Atlanti c 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.36 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.0
Spot 348.18 151.71 176.71 89.36 152.66 66.47 105.70 120.49 151.39 294.83 155.50
Striped Bass 618.20 887.651 421.72 379.11 172.40 37.29 17.62 2.10 0.0
Sturgeons 4.13 0.70 5.98 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.05 1.10 0.0 0.0
Tuna 0.0 0.0 12.13 1.35 1.30 0.0 2.50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Weakfish 31.62 51.22 66.83 21.38 2.74 93.18 254.85 201.55 105.30 60.80 40.30
Whiting 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.65 0.0 0.0 0.0
Uncl. for
Industrial/Bait 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.14
Other
(includes confi.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.67 13.02 34.78
86
Table 6 (continued
Year
District/ 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982
Species

c re
Bluefish 14.16 0.0 0.0 2.25 3.70 0.0 9.32 13.45 13.98
Butterfish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.56 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Croaker, Atlantic 0.0 5.26 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.00 16.50 2.54 0.0 0.0
Drum, Red 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.13 0.33 0.12 0.0 0.0 * 0.0
Flounders, Uncl. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.93 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Harvestfish 0.19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.32 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kingfishes
(Sea Mullet) 0.16 0.0 0.0 0.12 0.0 0.0 0.18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mackerel, Spanish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.60 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mullets 163.87 195.48 610.97 395.64 472.93 320.12 614.29 424.62 619.40 147.88 423.91
Pigfish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.30 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pompano 0.33 0.35 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
See Basses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.75 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Seatrout, Spotted 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.95 0.42 1.98 1.58 0.0 * 0.0 5.65
Sharks 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.47 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Spot 15.19 0.0 0.0 10.69 3.92 38.71 55.30 30.35 * 0.0 10.06
Striped Bess 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.10 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.50 0.0 0.0 0.0
Weakfish 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.46 0.0 0.0 2.63 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.81
other
(includes confi.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.01 * 2.39
Southern
Bluefish 0.0 0.18 2.51 0.0 0.62 3.58 1.87 0.10 0.83 0.85
Croaker, Atlantic 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.0 0.0
Drum, Red 0.0 0.0 0.44 0.0 0.15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Flounders, Uncl. 0.0 0.0 0.12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kingfishes
(Sea Mullet)
2.06
3.77
1.88
1.03
0.86
0.0
0.0
0.0
*
0.0
Mackerel, Spanish 0.0 0.46 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mullets 374.35 327.46 421.39 429.41 458.74 639.52 275.83 171.30 193.83 121.44 170.14
Pompano 0.44 0.0 0.40 0.0 0.12 0.0 0.0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Seatrout, Spotted 0.T7 0.13 1.69 0.70 1.27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Spot 140.14 140.02 208.72 43.25 97.79 39.16 2.35 8.14 4.44 3.26 '
Weakfish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.13 0.35 0.0 0.0 0.40 0.0 0.0
other
(includes confi.)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.15
0.0
1.42
Total
(all districts) 2134.94
2376.33
2729.24
2213.62
2300.86
1873.07
1834.31
1351.75
1347.65
862.90
1026.86
State Total
(ell fisheries) 154,757
119,285
183,882
220,693
205,616
231,375
269,229
354,085
308,046
388,553
554,890

87
Table 6 (continued)
Year
District 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
species
o e
Bluefish 37.85 79.06 43.10 8.88 * 110.17 31.00 283.56 287.81 137.08 26.91
Butterfish 0.0 0.14 * + + 1.24 28.53 1.92 0.82 25.82 1.57
Coble 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.0 • * 0.0
Croaker, Atlantic 4.52 2.53 15.43 10.83 * 48.75 68.68 0.51 2.51 5.78 12.06
Drum, Black 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.0 * 4.91
Drum, Red 0.0 0.95 * 0.0 0.0 * 0.0 0.67 2.70 0.74 5.69
Flounders, Fluke 0.0 1.66 * * 0.0 * 0.0 * + " 20.78
Hakes 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hervestfish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.0 17.51 • 0.30 19.50
Hickory Shad 0.0 • 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 • 0.0 0.0 •
Jacks 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 + 3.96
Kfngfishas
(Sea Mullet) 0.0 * 0.40 2.65 * 1.03 0.33 5.51 11.36 10.15 52.63
Mackerel, Atlanti c 0.0 + 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mackerel, King 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 • 0.0 •
Mackerel, Spanish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.76 * 0.33 4.67 10.23 16.90
Menhaden, Atlanti c 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.0
mullets 0.0 * * 0.0 0.0 25.97 0.71 4.75 7.09 * 63.53
Perch, White 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 • 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pigfish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.40 0.0
Pompano + 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * + 1.09 4.11 3.01 1.20
Seatrout, Spotted 21.06 2.19 0.0 0.26 * 8.23 * 7.43 31.20 42.99 16.13
Shad 0.0 6.77 0.0 0.0 • 0.0 * • * * "
Sharks 0.0 + * 0.0 0.0 • 0.0 * 0.0 2.56 +
Sheepsheed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 + 0.0 0.0 • 0.17 0.42
Skippers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 "
Spadefish,
Atlantic 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.0
Spot 81.27 14.19 24.80 45.03 4.11 177.61 182.03 104.57 159.67
Striped Bass 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.25 0.0
Sturgeons 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.0
Swellfishes
(Puffers) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * * 2.58 + 2.18 2.10
Tune 0.0 " 0.54 0.0 0.0 + * * 0.40 0.32 0.63
Weakfish 25.45 41.30 384.88 607.56 66.11 238.81 31.21 8.59 11.43 2.29 2.67
Uncl. Fish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.85
Uncl. for
industrial/Bait 47.88 3.98 34.19 * 0.0 * * 34.19 + • e
88
Table 6 (continued)
Year
District/ 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Species
other
(includes confi.) • 9.93 6.86 24.21 22.78 10.98 7.38 6.46 40.54 30.94 9.61
Central
Bluefish 20.37 37.15 38.47 52.70 75.93 33.90 20.05 41.38 25.71 2.19 15.71
Butterfish 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.0 0.0
Cobia 0.0 0.0 * * 0.0 0.0 ' 0.0 * 0.0 0.0
Croaker, Atlantic 0.89 20.87 8.56 22.25 53.82 18.50 9.42 11.00 20.51
Drum, Black 0.0 0.0 0.84 * 0.79 0.52 0.0 0.35 0.44
Drum, Red 10.86 38.34 7.20 8.07 6.65 12.50 13.49 29.02 2.77 9.98 5.31
Flounders, Fluke * 1.20 5.56 2.07 1.26 4.77 1.87 • * • "
Narvestfish * * 3.55 2.93 3.42 1.22 3.45 0.94 2.20 * 0.0
Jacks 0.0 0.0 ' 2.23 * 0.0 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kingfishes
(Sea Mullet) * 7.67 3.45 7.90 32.43 4.20 3.74 9.94 7.50 * 2.06
Mackerel, King 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 • 0.0 0.0
Mackerel, Spanish * 3.62 6.95 7.71 20.20 6.47 4.71 33.85 13.46 1.58 2.20
Menhaden, Atlantic 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' 0.0 0.0
Mullets 109.65 503.30 208.53 420.04 811.32 970.81 452.01 1219.47 381.29 494.50 915.56
Pigfish 3.31 4.54 7.81 5.93 5.53 4.47 6.25 5.51 5.36 * 0.0
Pompano • 0.0 0.35 0.0 2.69 0.0 0.0 * * 0.0
Seatrout, Spotted 26.66 9.39 10.88 6.01 13.98 7.39 24.98 20.55 112.50 23.38 14.64
Sheepshead * 2.39 1.15 1.70 2.09 0.83 0.60 0.45 0.76 0.0 0.0
Spot 49.09 231.82 422.89 210.52 295.31 158.37 164.59 172.88 118.04 • 46.93
Striped Bass 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.0
Suellfishes
(Puffers) * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Weakfish 4.01 53.55 22.55 32.20 65.46 28.99 18.48 19.55 14.50 •
Unclassified Fish 0.0 * * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Uncl. for * • * 0.0 123.33
Industrial/Bait * 432.85 91.09 220.73 65.46 123.33
Other
(includes confi.) 13.28 0.83 0.66 0.84 289.43 0.0 190.36 185.61 166.84 1.06 2.40
Southern
Bluefish * 1.30 * 0.0 6.13 11.39 40.73 77.88 19.71 10.68 20.67
Butterfish 0.0 0.0 * 0.0 * 0.0 * * * 0.0 0.0
Croaker, Atlantic 0.0 0.28 * 0.0 * * * ' * 0.0 0.0
Drum, Black 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Drum, Red * * * 0.0 * 3.11 * * 0.85 * 0.38
89
Table 6 (continued)
Year
District/ 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
species
Flounders, Fluke 0.0 0.0 * 0.0 * * * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Harvestfish 0.0 * * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Jacks 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kingfishes
(Sea Mullet) * 0.63 ' 0.0 0.0
Mackerel, King 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mackerel, Spanish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 3.31 16.89 52.59 12.01 5.02 22.48
Mullets 61.24 178.78 53.02 * 96.22 255.93 168.38 208.21 146.29 138.05 193.60
Pigfish 0.0 0.0 * " * 0.0 " 0.0 "
Seatrout, Spotted 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 " 1.08 * 1.28 30.34 5.57 1.48
Spot 18.00 7.29 " 0.0 * * 4.03 * * 0.0
Weakfish 0.0 * * 0.0 * " " * * 0.0
Other
(includes confi.) 0.25 2.21 5.45 * 24.16 11.81 3.90 4.32 8.39 * 4.10
Total
(all districts) 467.08 1680.73 1409.17 1652.76 1739.18 1980.12 918.79 2112.30 1561.24 1013.84 1643.26
State Totals
(ell fisheries) 244,086 235,845 170,367 134,399 114,956 143,831 117,329 125,182 157,651 106,090 118,359
90
CHAPTER 5
IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING
Two general conclusions were apparent from this review of
beach renourishment impacts in the SAB: 1) many aspects of surf
zone fish biology (microhabitat utilization, trophic ecology, local
and long range movements, larval usage) are poorly known along the
SAB coast, and 2) there has been almost no assessment of the
effects of beach nourishment on surf zone fishes of this area (Van
Dolah et al. 1994; R. Van Dolah, pers. comm.). I found only one
limited study (Baca et al. 1991) that marginally dealt with beach
renourishment impacts to fishes. Most information on such impacts
were either anecdotal or derived indirectly through non-fish
research. In a comprehensive (as yet unpublished and unavailable)
review of dredging and renourishment issues (mostly dealing with
invertebrates) the greatest long term impacts to any faunal
component occurred in borrow areas rather than in deposition areas
(R. Van Dolah, pers. comm.). R. Van Dolah also emphasized that
during his review few data were found on renourishment impacts to
fishes. Baca et al. (1991) also suggested that the greatest
impacts to fisheries were in the borrow areas, but they presented
no data to substantiate this. The shifting, ephemeral nature of
this habitat coupled with a seemingly variable ichthyofauna has
probably contributed to a general, but untested, impression that
the surf region is somewhat immune to environmental degradation.
The effects of renourishment activities on the beach,
intertidal, and nearby coastal waters maybe similar, on a smaller
_igale, to the effects of storms. Despite the fact that fishes
regularly occurring in the surf zone are adapted to a high energy
environment, rapid changes in their habitat can still cause
mortality and other negative impacts. Storms, _t especially
hurricanes, caused large changes in shore fish community structure
,and massive fish kills _inT_Florida _(Robns 1957; Breder „1962).
Mortality_ was apparently due to increased sediment in the water
column which interfered with fish _ res??iration __(Robns 1.957 )6r'
Recreational and commercial catches Malso seemed _to_decre_ase aft_
storms due to unknown causes (Breder 1_962). Similarly, surf zone
hook and line fish catches apReared to decline _in the_v_icinty__.of
beach renourishment_activities in South Carolina (D. Allen, pers.
comm.). Unfortunately, since the literature offers contradictory
results concerning turbidity impacts (Hayes et al. 1992), the
actual effects of increased turbidity from renourishment on fishes
are unclear. An ongoing (as yet unavailable) study on the effects
of turbidity on larval marine fishes (D. Colby, pers. comm. ) may
answer some impact related questions, at least for larvae. Reilly
(1978) suggested that increased turbidity from beach renourishment
appeared to inhibit invertebrate recruitment to the surf zone.
This effect could be transmitted to the fish community in the form
91
of a decreased food supply. Additionally, if invertebrate
recruitment is negatively impacted by unusual turbidity, it is
reasonable to assume that larval fish recruitment to the beach
could be impacted similarly.
Although surf zone fish data for the SAB are widely scattered
and much less extensive than data for other fish communities (e.g.,
estuarine and reef), it seems that the basic structure of the
community can be defined in terms of the major species'
seasonality, relative abundance, and size structure. Monitoring
population trends of major surf zone species (like kingfishes and
pompano), as attempted for estuarine fishes by many states, is
desirable, but not feasible without major financial commitment.
Even a large scale, fishery independent, standardized survey (as
would be required) for an extended period (minimum 10 years), could
result in variable data and ambiguous conclusions. The types of
studies needed along the SAB are like those conducted for the South
African Surf Zone Dynamics project, which resulted in a substantial
literature which was adequate for assessing impacts from a variety
of causes and sufficient to put the surf zone fauna in a larger
biotic context. These studies integrated many aspects of ecosystem
ecology to provide a complete view of the surf zone system.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations result from the above review of
SAB related literature and from studies conducted elsewhere,
especially in South Africa. These recommendations are restricted
to those most relevant to assess impacts of beach renourishment on
fishes.
I. The dredging/renourishment window in the SAB that should least
approximately
shco_ mm unities is
im_act fi
earl March. This window is p roximatsimi.lar -el to that from late recommended b NovembertShe
aly
-?-------_ ._ - .-_._._ Shealy
et al. (1975) and Reilly (1978). Any activities outside of this
window would have much higher probabilities of impacting fish
communities, and the monitoring activities described below would
then be more critical.
II. Where possible, upland borrow sites with-apprprite_..5ediment-s
should be used, as these minimize impacts_ to__aquatic.,resour_ces.
(Baca et al. 1991) Also, because many researchers report that the
greatest impacts occur in and around the borrow areas, additional
efforts should be directed toward monitoring the responses of the
fishes surrounding these sites before, during and after the
activity. Small grained sediments should be avoided for
renourishment as these increase turbidity and are often unsuitable
substrates for most beach fauna. Cox (1976) suggested that beach
meiofauna (an important community) required a median grain diameter
92
(> 200 um). Renourishment projects should be as small as possible
(<0.5 nmi length of beach) and multiple projects in a given area
should be temporally staggered (Reilly 1978).
III. The assumption that the patchiness and variability of the
surf zone fish community is unstructured ("random") may be an
artifact of limited spatial and temporal data. McLachlan and Hasp
(1984) found very distinct associations of groups of invertebrates
and fishes with beach features, but the correct sampling protocol
was necessary to reveal these patterns. It is noteworthy that the
patterns they found could have been disrupted by renourishment,
which changes beach morphology. Considering this, an examination
of fish usage patterns as they relate to beach physics and
structure before and after renourishment is needed for the SAB.
This activity should include multiple stations along a section of
beach. Several sections could be surveyed along the SAB to include
a variety of beach types. Although directed toward invertebrates,
much of the discussion by Cox (1976) on sampling contagiously
distributed animals could apply to sampling fishes.
IV. There are documented _negative?impacts of renourishment on some
Qf the invertebrates Legqpecially mole crabs a??qua,?L__that__ axs_
major foods of the fishes (Reilly 1978 and Baca_ et _a_1_ 1991)
therefore, negative impacts could be indirectly transferred to the
fish community. More complete trophodynamic descriptions
incorporating energy budgets are needed for SAB surf zone to assess
the degree and long term implications of renourishment impacts
transferred through the food chain. Trophodynamic studies would
also forge an important link between the non-fish and fish
communities.
V. Details of movements of fishes along the surf zone are almost
completely unknown. Massive migrations of adult fishes from north
to south in the fall are known, but details are lacking. Of equal
importance are the movements of offshore spawned larvae along
beaches toward the inlets and estuarine nursery areas, but there
are no direct data on movements of these fishes. The amount of
"territoriality" and movement of "surf zone residents" is also
unknown. Whether renourishment, especially through increased
turbidity, has any impact on these movements is unknown. Also, if
juvenile surf zone fishes tend to reside in areas where they first
settle, local impacts could have greater consequences. A pilot
project during summer 1995 examined local movements of two dominant
surf zone fishes on a NC beach (S.W. Ross and J. Lancaster).
Preliminary results from this work suggested that Florida pompano
exhibited a fairly high degree of site fidelity. This work should
be expanded to further describe short-term movements along the
beaches and if possible to test any effects of renourishment on
93
site fidelity and movements.
VI. Life history data for the dominant species of the surf zone
came from many areas, often the estuaries. In general, these data
do not need to be repeated specifically for the surf zone. Some of
the activities recommended above would fill in life history data
for surf zone species. Basic life history data were lacking for
the rough silverside, some aspects of the Florida pompano, Gulf
kingfish, and striped mullet. A lower priority objective should be
the completion of life history studies on these species to
facilitate a more accurate evaluation of the surf zone fauna.
94
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Funding for this project was provided by the US Army Corps of
Engineers (Wilmington District) through a Cooperative Agreement
with the NOAA Office of Coastal Resources Management. Support was
also provided by the NC National Estuarine Research Reserve.
Johnny Lancaster was instrumental in conducting literature
searches, helping to write the life history reviews, compiling
landings data, and editing. Fishery landings were supplied by Paul
Phalen and Doug Mumford (NC Division of Marine Fisheries). I thank
Jim Johnson (NC State Univ.) for helping with some literature
searches. Robert Van Dolah (SC Dept. of Natural Resources)
provided insight and perspective on renourishment. I thank the
following reviewers for their helpful comments: Mary L. Moser,
Fred C. Rohde, and George H. Burgess.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Most of the references cited here were used in the above text.
Some additional references are included that are relevant to the
subject, and these are marked with an asterisk.
Aguirre, A. L. I. 1993. Coexistence of Mugil cephalus and M.
curema in a coastal lagoon in the Gulf of Mexico. J. Fish.
Biol. 42: 959-961.
Anderson, W. W. 1957. Early Development, Spawning, Growth, and
Occurrence of the Silver Mullet (Mugil curema) along the
South Atlantic Coast of the United States. Fish. Bull. 57
(119) : 397-414.
Anderson, W. W. 1957. Larval Development, Growth,and Spawning of
Striped Mullet (Mugil cephalus) Along the South Atlantic Coast
of the United States. Fish. Bull. 58(144): 501-519.
Anderson, W. D., Jr., J. K. Dias, R. K. Dias, D. M. Cupka, and N.
A. Chamberlain. 1977. The Macrofuana of the Surf Zone off
Folly Beach, South Carolina. NOAA Technical Report. NMFS
SSRF-704.
Archambault, J. A. and R. J. Feller. 1991. Diel Variations in Gut
Fullness of Juvenile Spot, Leiostomus xanthurus (Pisces).
Estuaries 14(1): 94-101.
Arnold, E. L. 1958. Offshore Spawning of the Striped Mullet, Mugil
cephalus, in the Gulf of Mexico. Copeia 1958: 130-132.
Baca, B. J., R. E. Dodge and C. Mattison. 1991. Predicting
Environmental Impacts from Beach Nourishment Projects. Proc.
4th Nat. Beach Preservation Tech. Conf. pp. 249-310. Florida
Shore and Beach Preservation Association, Tallahassee, FL.
Bearden, C. M. 1963. A Contribution to the Biology of the King
Whitings, Genus Menticirrhus, of South Carolina. Cont. Bears
Bluff Lab. 38: 1-27.
95
Bellinger, J. W. and J. W. Avault, Jr. 1971. Food Habits of
Juvenile Pompano, Trachinotus carolinus, in Lousiana. Trans.
Amer. Fish. Soc. 100(3): 486-494.
Bennett, B. A. 1989. The Fish Community of a Moderately Exposed
Beach on the Southwestern Cape Coast of South Africa and an
Assessment of this Habitat as a Nursery for Juvenile Fish.
Est. Coast. Shelf Sci. 28: 293-305.
Bennett,B.A. and C. G. Attwood. 1991. Evidence for Recovery of a
Surf-zone Fish Assemblage Following the Establishment of a
Marine Reserve on the Southern Coast of South Africa. Mar.
Ecol. Prog. Ser. 75: 173-181.
Benson, R.L. 1958. Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina Its Erosion
Problems. Shore and Beach :29-31.
Billheimer, L. E. and B. C. Coull. 1988. Bioturbation and
Recolonization of Meiobenthos in Juvenile Spot (Pisces)
Feeding Pits. Est. Coast. Shelf Sci. 27: 335-340.
Bishop, J. M. and J. V. Miglarese. 1978. Carnivorous Feeding in
Adult Striped Mullet. Copeia 1978(4): 705-707.
Breder, C. M. 1962. Effects of a Hurricane on the Small Fishes of
a Shallow Bay. Copeia 1962(2): 459-462.
Briggs, J. C. 1974. Marine Zoogeography. McGraw-Hill, New York.
475 p.
Burgess, G. H. 1980a. Anchoa mitchilli (Valenciennes), Bay
anchovy. p. 73 in D.S. Lee et al. Atlas of North American
Freshwater Fishes. N.C. State Mus. Nat. Hist., Raleigh.
Burgess, G. H. 1980b. Mugil cephalus Linnaeus, Striped mullet. p.
779 in D.S. Lee et al. Atlas of North American Freshwater
Fishes. N.C. State Mus. Nat. Hist., Raleigh.
Cadigan, K. M. and P. E. Fell. 1985. Reproduction, Growth and
Feeding Habits of Menidia menidia (Atherinidae) in a Tidal
Marsh-estuarine System in Southern New England. Copeia 1985
(1) : 21-26.
Caldwell, D. K. and W. W. Anderson. 1959. Offshore Occurrence of
Larval Silver Mullet, Mugil curema, in the Western Gulf of
Mexico. Copeia 1959(3): 252-253.
Castro, L. R. and R. K. Cowen. 1991. Environmental Factors
Affecting the Early Life History of Bay Anchovy Anchoa
mitchilli in Great South Bay, New York. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.
76: 235-247.
Cain, R. L. and J. M. Dean. 1976. Annual Occurrence and
Diversity of Fish in a South Carolina Creek. Mar. Biol. 36:
369-379.
Chao, L. N. 1978. Family Sciaenidae. In: W. Fischer (ed.). FAO
Species Identification Sheets for Fishery Purposes Western
Central Atlantic. FAO. Rome.
Collins, M. R. 1985. Species Profiles: Life Histories and
Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and
Invertebrates (South Florida)-- White Mullet. U.S. Fish
96
Wildlf. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(11.39). U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 7 pp.
Collins, M. R. and B. W. Stender. 1989. Larval Striped Mullet
(Mugil cephalus) and White Mullet (Mugi1 curema) off the
Southeastern United States. Bull. Mar. Sci. 45(3): 580-589.
*Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1993. A Brief Environmental
Analysis of a Potential Sand Borrow Area Offshore of Amelia
Island, Florida. 59 pp.
*Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1990. Environmental Impact
Assessment for Beach Restoration: Brevard County, Florida. 57
PP.
*Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1992. Fisher Island Beach
Restoration Project: Year 1 Post-construction Survey Report.
143 pp.
*Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1987. Preliminary Environmental
Study: Town of Hilton Head, South Carolina. 26 pp.
Cox, J.L. 1976. Sampling Variation in Sandy Beach Littoral and
Nearshore Meiofauna and Macrofauna. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Coastal Eng. Res. Cent. Tech. Pap. No. 76-14: 72 p.
Cupka, D. M. 1972. A Survey of the Ichthyofauna of the Surf Zone in
South Carolina. SC Wildlf. Marine Res. Dept. Tech. Rep. No. 4.
19 pp.
Currin, B. M., J. P. Reed and J. M. Miller. 1984. Growth
production, Food Consumption, and Mortality of Juvenile Spot
and Croaker: a Comparison of Tidal and Nontidal Nursery Areas.
Estuaries 7(4A): 451-459.
Dahlberg, M. D. 1972. An Ecological Study of Georgia Coastal
Fishes. Fish. Bull. 70(2): 323-353.
DeLancey, L. B. 1984. An Ecological Study of the Surf Zone at Folly
Beach, South Carolina. M.S. Thesis College of Charleston. 131
PP.
DeLancey, L. B. 1989. Trophic Relationship in the Surf Zone During
the Summer at Folly Beach, South Carolina. J. Coast. Res.
5(3): 477-488.
Detwyler, R. and E. D. Houde. 1970. Food Selection by
Laboratory-reared Larvae of the Scaled Sardine Harengula
Pensacolae (Pisces, Clupeidae) and the Bay Achovy Anchoa
mitchilli (Pisces, Engraulidae). Mar. Biol. 7: 214-222.
*Diaz, R. J. and J. T. DeAlteris. 1982. Long-term Changes in Beach
Fauna at Duck, North Carolina. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Report 82-12. 48 pp.
Dodrill, J. W. 1977. A Hook and Line Survey of the Sharks Found
within Five Hundred Meters of Shore along Melbourne Beach,
Brevard County, Florida. MS Thesis. Fla. Inst. Tech. 304 pp.
Earll, R. E. 1887. The Mullet Fishery. pp. 553-582. In: G. B.
Goode (ed.). The Fisheries and Fishery Industries of the
United States. Section V, Vol. I. Washington, DC.
Eggold, B. T. and P. J. Motta. 1992. Ontogenetic Dietary Shifts and
97
Morphological Correlates in Striped Mullet, Mugil cephalus.
Env. Biol. Fish. 34: 139-158.
Feller, R. J., B. C. Coull, and B. T. Hentschel. 1990. Meiobenthic
Copepods: Tracers of where Juvenile Leiostomus xanthurus
(Pisces) feed? Can. J. Fish. Aq. Sci. 47(10): 1913-1919.
Fields, H. M. 1962. Pompanos (Trachinotus spp.) of South Atlantic
Coast of the United States. Fish. Bull. 62: 189-222.
Finucane, J. H. 1969. Ecology of the Pompano (Trachinotus
carolinus) and the Permit (T. falcatus) in Florida. Trans.
Amer. Fish. Soc. 3: 478-486.
Finucane, J. H., L. A. Collins, and L. E. Barger. 1978. Spawning of
the Striped Mullet, Mugi1 cephalus, in the Northwestern Gulf
of Mexico. NE Gulf Sci. 2(2): 148-150.
*Fisher, L. E., R. E. Dodge, C. G. Messing, W. M. Goldberg, and S.
Hess. 1992. The First Renourishment at Hollywood and
Hallandale (Florida) Beaches: Monitoring of Sediment
Fallout,oral Communities, and Macroinfauna: Preliminary
Results. Proc. 1992 Natl. Conf. Bch Preservation Tech. pp
209-226.
Fives, J. M., S. M. Warlen, and D. E. Hoss. 1986. Aging and Growth
of Larval Bay Anchovy, Anchoa mitchilli, from the Newport
River Estuary, North Carolina. Estuaries 9(4B): 362-367.
Flores-Coto, C., and S. M. Warlen. 1993. Spawning Time, Growth,
and Recruitment of Larval Spot Leiostomus xanthurus into a
North Carolina Estuary. Fish. Bull. 91(1): 8-22.
Francesconi, J. J. 1994. Effect of Stop Nets on Pier and Beach
Angler Catch Rates and General Fish Movement Along Bogue
Banks, NC. NC Division of Marine Fisheries. Morehead City. 17
PP.
*Funicelli, N. A., D. A. Meineke, H. E. Bryant, M. R. Dewey, G. M.
Ludwig, and L. S. Mengel. 1989. Movements of Striped Mullet,
Mugil cephalus, Tagged in Everglades National Park, Florida.
Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(1): 171-178.
Giannini, R. and F. A. M. Paiva. 1990. Sciaenid Fishes (Teleostei:
Perciformes) from Baia de Santos, San Paolo, Brazil. Boletim
do Instituto Oceanografico 38(1):69-86.
Gilbert, C. 1986. Species Profiles: Life Histories and
Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates
(South Florida) --Florida Pompano. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv.
Biol. Rep. 82(11.42) U. S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4.
14 pp.
Gilbert, C. 1993. Geographic Distribution of the Striped Mullet
(Mugil cephalus Linnaeus) in the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific
Oceans. Fla. Sci. 56(4): 204-210.
Gilmore, R. G., Jr. 1977. Fishes of the Indian River Lagoon and
Adjacent Waters, Florida. Bull. Fl. State Mus. Biol. Sci.
22(3): 101-147.
Gilmurray, M. C. and G. R. Daborn. 1981. Feeding Relations of the
98
Atlantic Silverside Menidia menidia in the Minas Basin, Bay of
Fundy. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 6: 231-235.
*Goldberg, W. M. 1988. Biological Effects of Beach Restoration
in South Florida: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Bch.
Preservation Tech. 1988. pp 19-28.
Goldstein, R. J. 1994. Coastal Fishing in the Carolinas: From Surf,
Pier, and Jetty. Blair Press.
Govoni, J. J., D. E. Hoss, and A. J. Chester. 1983. Comparative
feeding of Three Species of Larval Fishes in the Northern Gulf
of Mexico: brevoortia tyrannus, Leiostomus xanthurus, and
Micropogonias undulatus. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 13: 189-199.
Govoni, J. J., P. B. Ortner, F. A1-Yamani, and L. C. Hill. 1986.
Selective Feeding of Spot, Leiostomus xanthurus, and Atlantic
Croaker Micropogonias undulatus, Larvae in the Northern Gulf
of Mexico. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 28: 175-183.
Gunter, G. 1958. Population Studies of the Shallow Water Fishes of
an Outer Beach in South Texas. Inst. Mar. Sci. 5: 186-193.
Hales, L. S. and M. J. Van Den Avyl. 1989. Species Profiles: Life
Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and
Invertebrates (South Atlantic) - Spot. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv.
Biol. Rept. 82(11.91).
Hayes, J. W., M. J. Rutledge, B. L. Chisnall, and F. J. Ward. 1992.
Effects of Elevated Turbidity on Shallow Lake Fish
Communities. Envir. Biol. Fish. 35: 149-168.
Higgins, E. 1928. Progress in Biological Inquires, 1926. US Bur.
Fish., Rept. of the Commissioner of Fish., Doc. No. 1029: 517-
681.
*Hildebrand, S. F. 1922. Notes on Habits and Development of Eggs
and Larvae of the Silversides Menidia menidia and menidia
beryllina. Bull. Bureau Fish. 38: 112-120.
Hildebrand, S. F. 1963. Family Engraulidae. pp. 152-249. In
Fishes of the Western North Atlantic. Part 3. Memoir No.I.
Sears Foundation Mar. Res., Yale Univ., New Haven, CN.
Hildebrand, S. F. and L. E. Cable. 1930. Development and Life
History of Fourteen Teleostean Fishes at Beaufort, N.C. Bull.
U.S. Bureau Fish. 46(Doc 1093): 383-488.
Hildebrand, S. F. and L. E. Cable. 1934. Reproduction and
Development of Whitings or Kingfishes Drums, Spot, Croaker,and
Weakfishes or Sea Trouts Family Sciaenidae, of the Atlantic
Coast of the United States. Bull. U.S. Bureau Fish. 48(Bull.
16): 41-117.
Hildebrand, S. F. and W. C. Schroeder. 1928. Fishes of Chesapeake
Bay. Fish. Bull. 43: 366 pp.
Hoese, H. D. and R. H. Moore. 1977. Fishes of the Gulf of
Mexico. Texas A&M Univ. Press, College Station, TX.
*Houde, E. D., J. C. Gamble, S. E. Dorsey, and J. H. Cowan Jr.
1994. Drifting Mesocosms: the Influence of Gelatinous
Zooplankton on Mortality of Bay Anchovy, Anchoa mitchilli,
99
Eggs and Yolk-sac Larvae. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 51: 383-394.
Jacot, A. P. 1920. Age, Growth and Scale Characters of the Mullets,
Mugil cephalus and Mugil curema. Trans. Amer. Micro. Soc.
39(3): 199-229.
Johnson, S. C. 1994. The feeding habits of the Florida pompano
(Trachinotus carolinus) along Masonboro Island, North Carolina
National Estuarine Research Reserve. Unpubl. Directed
Independent Study. Univ. NC-Wilmington.
Johnson, W. S., D. M. Allen, V. M. Ogburn, and S. E. Stancyk. 1990.
Short-term Predation Responses of Adult Bay Anchovies Anchoa
mitchilli to Estuarine Zooplankton Availability. Mar. Ecol.
Prog. Ser. 64: 55-68.
Kuntz, A. 1914. The Embryology and Larval Development of
Bairdiella chrysura and Anchovia mitchilli. Bull. US Bur.
Fish. 33: 3-19.
*Lancaster, J. E . , S. Johnson, and S. W. Ross. 1995. The Summer
Surf Zone Ichthyofauna of Nourished and Unnourished Beaches on
the Masonboro Island, NC National Estuarine Research Reserve.
ASB Bull. 42(2): 77-78. (abstract)
Lasiak, T. A. 1984. Structural Aspects of the Surf-zone Fish
Assemblage at King's Beach, Algoa Bay, South Africa: Long-term
Fluctuations. Est. Coast. Shelf Sci. 18: 459-483.
Lasiak, T. and A. McLachlan. 1987. Opportunistic Utilization of
Mysid Shoals by Surf-Zone Teleosts. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 37:
1-7.
Leak, J. C. and E. D. Houde. 1987. Cohort Growth and Survival of
Bay Anchovy Anchoa mitchilli Larvae in Biscayne Bay, Florida.
Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 37: 109-122.
Leber, K. M. 1982. Seasonality of Macroinvertebrates on a
Temperate, High Wave Energy Sandy Beach. Bull. Mar. Sci.
32 (1) : 86-98.
Leblanc, B. D., D. L. Murphy, R. M. Overstreet, and M. J. Maceina.
1991. Long-term Adult Population Fluctuations and Distribution
of the Spot, Leiostomus xanthurus, in Missisippi. Gulf Res.
Rep. 8(4): 387-394.
Lenanton, R. C. J. and N. Caputi. 1989. The Roles of Food Supply
and Shelter in the Relationship Between Fishes, in Particular
Cnidoglanis macrocephalus (Valenciennes), and Detached
Macrophytes in the Surf Zone of Sandy Beaches. J. Exp. Mar.
Biol. Ecol. 128: 165-176.
*Lenanton, R. C. J., A. I. Robertson, and J. A. Hansen. 1982.
Nearshore Accumulations of Detached Macrophytes as Nursery
Areas for Fish. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 9: 51-57.
Loos, J. J. and E. S. Perry. 1991. Larval Migration and Mortality
Rates of Bay Anchovy in the Patuxent River. NOAA Technical
Report NMFS 95: 65-76.
Luo, J. and J. A. Musick. 1991. Reproductive Biology of the Bay
Anchovy in Chesapeake Bay. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 120:
100
701-710.
Matta, J.F. 1977. Beach Fauna Study of the CERC Field Research
Facility, Duck, North Carolina. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Coastal Engineering Res. Cent., Misc. Rep. No. 77-6. 102 p.
McCall, J. N. and J. W. Fleeger. 1993. Recognition and Utilization
of Prey Aggregations by Juvenile Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus
Lacepede). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 174: 121-134.
McFarland, W. N. 1963. Seasonal Change in the Number and the
Biomass of Fishes from the Surf at Mustang Island, Texas.
Publ. Inst. Marine Sci., Texas 9: 91-105.
McLachlan, A., T. Erasmus, A. H. Dye, T. Wooldridge, G. Van der
Horst, G. Rossouw, T. A. Lasiak and L. McGwynne. 1981. Sand
Beach Energetics: An Ecosystem Approach Towards a High Energy
Interface. Est. Coast. Shelf Sci. 13: 11-25.
McLachlan, A. and P. Hesp. 1984. Faunal Response to Morphology and
Water Circulaiton of a Sandy Beach with Cusps. Mar. Ecol.
Prog. Ser. 19: 133-144.
McMichael, R. H., Jr., and S. T. Ross. 1987. The Relative Abundance
and Feeding Habits of Juvenile Kingfish (Sciaenidae:
Menticirrhus) in a Gulf of Mexico Surf Zone. NE Gulf Sci.
9(2): 109-123.
Mercer, L. P. 1987. Fishery Management Plan for Spot (Leiostomus
xanthurus). Fisheries Management Report No. 11. Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission Spec. Sci. Rept. No. 49: 81
pp-
*Merriman, D. 1947. Notes on the Midsummer Ichthyofauna of a
Connecticut Beach at Different Tide Levels. Copea 1947(4):
281-286.
Middaugh, D. P. 1991. Reproductive ecology and spawning periodicity
of the Atlantic silverside, Menidia menidia (Pisces:
Atherinidae). Copeia 1991: 766-776.
Miller, G. L. and S. C. Jorgenson. 1969. Seasonal Abundance and
Length Frequency Distribution of Some Marine Fishes in Coastal
Georgia. US Fish Wildlf. Serv. Rept. No. 35. 102 pp.
Miltner, R. J., S. W. Ross and M. H. Posey. 1995. Influence
of food and predation on the depth distribution of juvenile
spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) in tidal nurseries. Canadian J.
Fish. Aquat. Sci. 52(4):.
Modde, T. 1980. Growth and Resisency of Juvenile Fishes within a
Surf Zone Habitat in the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf Res. Rep.
6(4): 377-385.
Modde, T. and S. T. Ross. 1981. Seasonality of Fishes Occupying a
Surf Zone Habitat in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Fish. Bull.
78(4): 911-922.
Modde, T. and S. T. Ross. 1983. Trophic Relationships of Fishes
Occurring within a Surf Zone Habitat in the Northern Gulf of
Mexico. NE Gulf Sci. 6(2): 109-120.
Moore, R. H. 1974. General Ecology, Distribution and Relative
101
Abundance. of Mugil cephalus and Mugil curema on the South
Texas Coast. Cont. Mar. Sci. 18: 241-255.
Morton, T. 1989. Species Profiles: Life Histories and
Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and vertebrates
(Mid-Atlantic) - Bay Anchovy. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol.
Rept. 82 (11. 97) .
Moser, M. L. and L. R. Gerry. 1989. Differential Effects of
Salinity Changes on Two Estuarine Fishes, Leiostomus xanthurus
and Micropogonias undulatus. Estuaries 12(1): 35-41.
Moser, M. L. and J. M. Miller. 1994. Effects of Salinity
Fluctuation on Routine Metabolism of Juvenile Spot, Leiostomus
xanthurus. J. Fish Biol. 45: 335-340.
Moyle, P. B. and J. J. Cech, Jr. 1988. Fishes An Introduction
to Ichthyology. 2nd Ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ. 559 pp.
Mumford, D.G. 1995. North Carolina Marine Recreational Fisheries
Statistics. NC Division of Marine Fisheries. Morehead City. 31
PP.
Naughton, S. P. and C. H. Saloman. 1978. Fishes of the Nearshore
Zone of St. Andrew Bay, Florida, and Adjacent Coast. NE Gulf
Science 2 (1) : 43-55.
Nelson, A. L. and B. C. Coull. 1989. Selection of Meiobenthic Prey
by Juvenile Spot (Pisces): an Experimental Study. Mar. Ecol.
Prog. Ser. 53: 51-57.
*Nelson, D. A. 1994. Shoreline Protection and Beach Erosion Control
Study: Environmental Considerations. Inst. for Water
Resources, Mississippi. 19 pp.
*Nelson, W. G. 1993. Beach Restoration in the Southeastern US:
Environmental Effects and Biological Monitoring. Ocean and
Coastal Management. 19: 157-182.
*Nelson, W. G. 1988. An Overview of the Effects of Beach
Nourishment on the Sand Beach Fauna. Bch. Preservation Tech.
1988. pp. 295-310.
Norcross, B. L. and D. A. Bodolus. 1991. Hypothetical Northern
Spawning Limit and Larval Transport of Spot. NOAA Technical
Report NMFS 95: 77-88.
Odum, W. E. 1968a. The Ecological Significance of Fine Particle
Selection by the Striped Mullet Mugil cephalus. Limnol. Ocean.
13(1): 92-98.
Odum, W. E. 1968b. Mullet Grazing on a Dinoflagellate Bloom. Ches.
Sci. 9: 202-204.
Odum, W. E. 1970. Utilization of the Direct Grazing and Plant
Detritus Food Chains by the Striped Mullet Mugil cephalus.
Marine Food Chains. pp. 222-240. J. H. Steele (ed.). Univ.
California Press; Los Angeles.
Olney, J. E. 1983. Eggs and Early Larvae of the Bay Anchovy, Anchoa
mitchilli, and the Weakfish, Cynoscion regalis, in lower
Chesapeake Bay with Notes on Associated Ichthyoplankton. Est.
102
6 (1) : 20-35.
*Osorio, D. D. 1988 (1989). Trophic Ecology of Mugil curema,
Mugil incilis, and Mugi1 Liza (Pisces Mugilidae) in the
Cienaga Grande de Santa Marta, Colombian Caribbean: I.
Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis. Anales del Institutode
Investigaciones Marinas de Punta de Betin 0(18): 113-126.
Parkinson, R. W., P. F. Venanzi and K. Fitzpatrick. 1991.
Preliminary Observations of a Long Term Turbidity Study,
Sebastian Inlet, Florida. pp. 295-310. In: Preserving and
Enhancing Our Beach Environment. Proc. 4th Ann. Nat. Beach
Preservation Tech. Conf. Florida Shore and Beach Preservation
Assoc. Tallahassee, FL.
*Pavlovic, M. and S. D. Markovic. 1990. The Ability of Gray
Mullet (Mugil cephalus) to Adapt to Different Water Salinity.
Veterinarski Glasnik 44(12): 1101-1106.
Pearse, A. S., H. J. Humm, and G. W. Wharton. 1942. Ecology of Sand
Beaches at Beaufort, N. C. Ecol. Mono. 12(2): 135-177.
*Perera, P. A. B. and S. S. De Silva. 1978. Studies on the Biology
of Young Grey Mullet (Mugil cephalus) Digestion. Mar. Biol.
44: 383-387.
Peters, D. S. and L. R. Settle. 1994. Larval Fish Abundance in
Vicinity of Beaufort Inlet Prior to Berm Construciton.
Interim Rept. to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District. 38 pp.
Peters, D. J. and W. G. Nelson. 1987. The Seasonality and Spatial
Patterns of Juvenile Surf Zone Fishes of the Florida East
Coast. Fla. Sci. 50(2): 85-99.
Peterson, C. H. 1976. Cruising Speed During Migration of the
Striped Mullet (Mugil cephalus L.): an Evolutionary Response
to Predation? Evolution 30(2): 393-396.
Peterson, C. H. and M. L. Quammen 1982. Siphon Nipping: Its
Importance to Small Fishes and its Impact on Growth of the
Bivalve Protothaca staminea (Conrad). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.
63: 249-268.
Phillips, J. M., M. T. Huish, J. H. Kerby and D. P. Moran. 1989.
Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental
Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-
Atlantic) - Spot. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rept.
82(11.98).
*Purcell, J. E., D. A. Nemazie, S. E. Dorsey, E. D. Houde, and J.
C. Gamble. 1994. Predation Mortality of Bay Anchovy Anchoa
mitchilli Eggs and Larvae Due to Scyphomedusae and Ctenophores
in Chesapeake Bay. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 114: 47-58.
Reid, G. K. 1954. An Ecological Study of the Gulf of Mexico Fishes,
in the Vicinity of Cedar Key, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 4(1):
1-94.
Reid, G. K. 1956. Observations on the Eulittoral Ichthyofauna of
the Texas Gulf Coast. SW Nat. 1(4): 157-165.
103
Reilly, F.J., Jr. 1978. A Study of the ecological impact of beach
nourishment with dredged material on the intertidal zone. MS
Thesis. East Carolina Univ., Greenville, N.C. 108 p.
Richards, C. E. and M. Castagna. 1976. Distribution, Growth, and
Predation of Juvenile White Mullet (Mugil curema) in Oceanside
Waters of Virginia's Eastern Shore. Ches. Sci. 17(4): 308-309.
Robinette, H. R. 1983. Species Profiles: Life Histories and
Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates
(Gulf of Mexico)--Bay Anchovy and Striped Anchovy. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Serv., Div. Biol. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/11.14. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. TR EL-82-4. 15 pp.
Robins, C. R. 1957. Effects of Storms on the Shallow-Water Fish
Fauna of Southern Florida with New Records of Fishes From
Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 7(3): 266-275.
*Romer, G. S. 1990. Surf Zone Fish Community and Species Response
to a Wave Energy Gradient. J. Fish. Biol. 36: 279-287.
Ross, S. T. 1983. A Review of Surf Zone Ichthyofaunas in the Gulf
of Mexico. Proc. N. Gulf Mexico Est. Barrier Islands Res.
Conf. Biloxi, MS.
*Ross, S. T. and T. A. Doherty. 1994. Short-term Persistence and
Stability of Barrier Island Fish Assemblages. Est. Coast.
Shelf Sci. 38: 49-67.
Ross, S. T., R. H. McMichael, Jr. and D. L. Ruple. 1987. Seasonal
and Diel Variation in the Standing Crop of Fishes and
Macro invertebrates from a Gulf of Mexico Surf Zone. Est.
Coast. Shelf Sci. 25: 391-412.
Ross, S. W. 1980a. Leiostomus xanthurus Lacepede, Spot. p. 759.,in
D.S. Lee et al. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes.
N.C. State Mus. Nat. Hist., Raleigh.
Ross, S. W. 1980b. Mugil curema Valenciennes, White Mullet. p.
780. in D.S. Lee et al. Atlas of North American Freshwater
Fishes. N.C. State Mus. Nat. Hist., Raleigh.
Ross, S. W. 1992. Comparisons of Population Dynamics of Juvenile
Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), Atlantic Croaker (Micropognias
undulatus), and Atlantic Menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) Amoung
Diverse North Carolina Estuarine Nursery Areas. PhD. Diss.,
North Carolina State Univ. 144 pp.
Ross, S. W. and S. P. Epperly. 1985. Utilization of Shallow
Estuarine Nursery Areas by Fishes in Pamlico Sound and
adjacent Tributaries, North Carolina. Ch. 10. pp 207-232.1n:
A. Yanez-Arancibia (ed.). Fish Community Ecology in
Estuaries and Coastal Lagoons: Towards an Ecosystem
Integration. 654 pp.
Ross, S. W. and M. L. Moser. 1995. Life History of Juvenile Gag,
Mycteroperca microlepis, in North Carolina Estuaries. Bull.
Mar. Sci. 56(l): 222-237.
Ruple, D. L. 1984. Occurrence of Larval Fishes in the Surf Zone of
a Northern Gulf of Mexico Barrier Island. Est. Coast. Shelf
104
Sci. 18: 191-208.
Saksena, V. P. and E. D. Houde. 1972. Effect of Food Level on the
Growth and Survival of laboratory-Reared Larvae of Bay Anchovy
(Anchoa mitchilli Valenciennes) and Scaled Sardine (Harengula
pensacolae Goode & Bean). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 8: 249-258.
Saloman, C. H. and S. P. Naughton. 1979. Fishes of the Littoral
Zone, Pinellas County, Florida. Fla. Sci. 42(2): 85-93.
Schwartz, F. J., W. T. Hogarth., and M. P. Weinstein. 1981. Marine
and Freshwater Fishes of the Cape Fear Estuary, North
Carolina, and their Distribution in Relation to Environmental
Factors. Brimleyana 7: 17-37.
Sedberry, G. R. and H. R. Beatty. 1989 (1990). A Visual Census of
Fishes on a Jetty at Murrells Inlet, South Carolina (USA). J.
Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 105(2): 59-74.
Service, S. K., R. J. Feller, B. C. Coull, and R. Woods. 1992.
Predation Effect of Three Fish Species and a Shrimp on
Macrobenthos and Meiobenthos in Microcosms. Est. Coast. Shelf
Sci. 34: 277-293.
Shealy, M. H., Jr., B. B. Boothe Jr., and C. M. Bearden. 1975. A
Survey of the Benthic Macrofauna of Fripp Inlet and Hunting
Island, South Carolina, Prior to Beach Nourishment. South
Carolina Marine Resources Center Tech. Rept. No. 7. 30 pp.
*Shelton, C. R. and P. B. Robertson. 1981. Community Stricture of
Intertidal Macrofauna on Two Surf-Exposed Texas Sandy Beaches.
Bull. Mar. Sci. 31(4): 833-842.
Sikora, W. B. and J. P. Sikora. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index
Models: Southern Kingfish. U. S. Dept. Int. Fish Wildl. Serv.
FWS/OBS-82/10.31. 22 pp.
Skilleter, G. A., C. H. Peterson. 1994. Control of Foraging
Behavior of Individuals within an Ecosystem Context: the clam
Macoma balthica and Interactions Between Competition and
Siphon Cropping. Oecologia. 100: 268-278.
*Smith, A. W. and L. A. Jackson. 1992. A Comparison of Beach
Nourishment Eastern Australia Verses Eastern U.S.A. Proc. 1992
Nat. Conf. Beach Preservation Tech. pp. 68-84.
Smith, H. M. 1907. The Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina
Geological and Economic Survey. E. M. Uzzel, Raleigh.
Smith, J. W. and C. A. Wenner. 1985. Biology of the Southern
Kingfish in the South Atlantic Bight. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc.
114: 356-366.
*Spadoni, R. H. 1978. Environmental Monitoring of the Beach
Restoration Project for the City of Delray Beach, Florida.
Papers Presented at Beach Seminar 1978. pp. 37-54.
*Spadoni, R. H. and S. L. Cummings. 1994. Environmental
Considerations for Beach Nourishment Projects in Florida.
Proc. 7th Nat. Conf. Beach Preservation Tech. pp. 608-623.
Springer, V. G. and K. D. Woodburn. 1960. An Ecological Study of
the Fishes of the Tampa Bay Area. Fla. State Board
105
Conservation, Professional Papers Series, Number 1.
Stevenson, R. A., Jr. 1958. The Biology of the Anchovies Anchoa
mitchilli mitchilli Cuvier and Valenciennes 1848 and Anchoa
hepsetus hepsetus Linnaeus 1758 in Delaware Bay. MS Thesis
Univ. Deleware.
Szedlmayer, S. T. 1991. Distribution and Abundance of Nearshore
Fishes in the Anclote River Estuary, West-Central Florida. NE
Gulf Sci. 12(1): 75-82.
Tagatz, M. E. 1968. Fishes of the St. Johns River, Florida.
Quat. J. Fl. Acad. Aci. 30(1): 25-50.
Tagatz, M. E. and D. L. Dudley. 1961. Seasonal Occurrence of Marine
Fishes in Four Shore Habitats near Beaufort, N. C., 1957-60.
U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rept.-Fish No. 390. 19 pp.
Turner, W. R. and G. N. Johnson. 1973. Distribution and Relative
Abundance of Fishes in Newport River, North Carolina. NOAA
Tech. Rept. NMFS SSRF-666. 23 pp.
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1995. Environmental Assessment:
Proposed Change in Constructon Schedule for Carolina Beach and
Vicinity--Area South Project, New Hanover County, North
Carolina. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Report. 26 pp.
*Van Dolah, R. F., M. W. Colgan, M. R. Devoe, P. Donvan-Ealy, P. T.
Gayes, M. P. Katuna, and S. Padgett. 1994. An Evaluation of
Sand, Mineral and Hard-bottom Resources on the Coastal Ocean
Shelf off South Carolina. South Carolina Task Force on
Offshore Resources Report. 235 pp.
Van Dolah, R. F., R. M. Martore, A. E. Lynch, M. V. Levisen, P. H.
Wendt, D. J. Whitaker, and W. D. Anderson. 1994. Environmental
Evaluation of the Folly Beach Nourishment Project. U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers Report. 125 pp.
*Van Dolah, R. F., D. R. Calder, and D. M. Knott. 1984. Effects of
Dredging and Open-Water Disposal on Benthic
Macro invertebrates in a South Carolina Estuary. Estuaries
7 (l) : 28-37.
*Van Dolah, R. F., P. H. Wendt, R. M. Martore, M. V. Levisen, and
W. A. Roumillat. 1992. A Physical and Biological Monitoring
Study of the Hilton Head Beach Nourishment Project. South
Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Report. 159 pp.
*Vieira, J. P. 1991. Juvenile Mullets (Pisces: Mugilidae) in the
Estuary of Lagoa dos Patos, RS, Brazil. Copeia 1991(2):
409-418.
Vouglitois, J. J., R. J. Kurtz, and K. A. Tighe. 1987. Life History
and Population Dynamics of the Bay Anchovy in New Jersey.
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 116(2): 141-153.
Warlen, S. M. and A. J. Chester. 1985. Age, Growth, and
Distribution of Larval Spot, Leiostomus xanthurus, off North
Carolina. Fish. Bull. 83(4): 587-599.
Welsh, W. W. and C. M. Breder Jr. 1923. Contributions to Life
Histories of Sciaenidae of the Eastern United States Coast.
106
Bull. U.S. Bureau Fish. 39(Doc. 945): 141-201.
*Wilber, P. and M. Stern. 1992. A Re-examination of Infaunal
Studies that Accompany Beach Nourishment Projects. Proc. 5th
Nat. Conf. Beach Preservation Tech. pp. 242-257.
Wolanski, E., R. Gibbs, P. Ridd, and A. Mehta. 1992. Settling of
Ocean-dumped Dredged material, Townsville, Australia. Est.
Coast. Shelf Sci. 35: 473-489.
Zastrow, C. E., E. D. Houde, and L. G. Morin. 1991. Spawning,
Fecundity, Hatch-date Frequency and Young-of-the-year Growth
of Bay Anchovy Anchoa mitchilli in mid-Chesapeake Bay. Mar.
Ecol. Prog. Ser. 73: 161-171.
107
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
By
Courtney T. Hackney, Martin H. Posey and Steve W. Ross
We have identified nine fish species and five invertebrate
species/groups that are important inhabitants of the intertidal and
subtidal beach environment. These species are both important to
humans for food and recreation or as food for other important
species. These species fall into two general groups. For some
species much information is available so that the impact of beach
renourishment on that species can be predicted, e.g. Emerita
talpoida. Other species have not been well studied or impacts of
beach renourishment on them was expected to be minimal. Many
finfish were assumed to simply move away from renourishment
activities, an assumption which may be invalid. Both the level of
use and the timing of use are not clear for all species, especially
subtidal invertebrate and fish species.
The physical dynamics of the surf zone has led to the
assumption that this community is faunistically unstable. Though
a popular concept in the literature, the community structure of the
surf zone is not well understood and thus, the activities,
dependencies, and roles in community trophic dynamics of individual
species are not known. Species which use the intertidal portion of
this habitat, e.g. sea turtles and mole crabs, are well studied
because potential impacts to these species were identified early.
Many of the limits currently placed on the renourishment process
are related to the timing of important life cycle activities of
these species, e.g nesting. Fortunately, many of the lesser
studied species (see sections II & III of this report) recruit to
the surf zone during the same time of the year and so current
renourishment windows may be acceptable to these species as well.
There are four management questions that must be addressed for
each renourishment project. The ability to answer each question
will determine the degree of success in predicting impacts. The
following recommendations are not based necessarily on current
practice or economic feasibility, but on our current base of
knowledge and our assessment of how best to protect the natural
resources associated with beach renourishment. Each renourishment
project should evaluate the current state of knowledge with respect
to both the biota and current engineering practices. Cost may
dictate that some recommendations are not practicable for a given
project. However, as technology changes and our knowledge of these
resources improves, it may be practical or even imperative that
these recommendations be followed more closely.
108
1) When will the project be accomplished? The timing of
renourishment is critical in minimizing impacts to species directly
impacted, e.g. invertebrates. Most invertebrates have limited
motility and so rely on larval recruitment to recolonize the beach
habitat. Planning renourishment such that it is complete
immediately before larval recruitment will insure rapid recovery of
these species. Impacts to finfish will similarly be reduced if
impacts to their invertebrate food source is reduced. The majority
of fish species surveyed recruit between March through September
while invertebrates recruit later (May through September). An
examination of Table 7 will identify which species will likely be
impacted by beach renourishment occurring during any time period.
A valid assumption is that invertebrates in the direct zone of
renourishment will be destroyed and that species feeding on these
will be negatively impacted.
ter
2L.- Will the sediment texture of the beach face change after
renourishment and if so for how long? In an?deal world material
placed on beaches by renourishment should be of the same grain size
as the beach. Often this is not possible or there is a temporary
difference as beach sediments are resorted when the beach profile
adjusts to the increased slope of the beach. Changes of sediment
texture will affect species differently. For example, Emerita
would be negatively impacted by the introduction of finer grained
sands while many polychaetes would find conditions more to their
liking. In fact, we do not know the requirements of many of these
species as noted in Section 2 so the best approach at present is to
attempt to recreate the original sediment texture. If and when
more data become available on textural requirements then it may be
possible to accurately predict the impact of changing sediment
grain size on a beach.
There is also a question about the impact of an altered beach
profile on both the bottom dwelling invertebrates and fishes and
other demersal organisms feeding within this zone. There is almost
no information on the subject and the assumption that there is no
impact, inherent in many reports and analyses, needs to be examined
through good scientific research.
3) Can the duration of renourishmentbe -limited so that it
does not preclude recruitment for any_s2ecies during its entire
recruitment period? This question is related to #1 above, but
includes the fact that the longer the renourishment occurs, the
greater will be its' impact and the more likely the project will
disrupt the entire recruitment of one or more species (Table 7).
Methods which would allow sand to be stockpiled and then placed on
the beach during short time frames would reduce impacts and allow
recruitment to begin quickly.
4) Are there innovative ways to minimize impacts? Conducting
renourishment. in stages so that only a portion of the beach is
renourished instead of the entire beach done all in one year is a
109
Table 7, Temporal presence and major recruitment periods of surf zone (A) invertebrates and
(B) fishes of the South Atlantic Bight
A. Invertebrates Month
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Donax variablis p p p p +' +R +R + + p p p
Ocypode quadrata* p p p p p pR pR pR pR p p p
Orchestoidea &
Talorchestia** ? ? p p p p p p p p p ?
Polychaetes*** p p pR +R +R +R +R +R +R + p p
Enterita talnoidea t) D t) D + + + +R +R + DR PR
*peak abundance period not certain
* *peak abundance and peak recruitment not certain
* * *recruitment and abundance patterns vary between species
B. Fsshes*
J F M A Month
M J
J
A
S
O
N D
Anchoa hepsetus p p + + + + p p
Anchoa mitchilli p p p p + + + + p p p
Membras martinica p p + + + p p + + p p
Trachinotus carolinus R R + + + + p p
Leiostrnnus xanthunts R It R R p p p p p + + p
Menticinltus americanus p p p + + p
M. littoralis p p p p R It R + + + p p
A9ugil cephahrs p + R R p p p p p + + p
M curema R R + + + p p p
Some abundance\seasonality data may be inaccurate due to sampling variability or lack of data
p - present
+ - period of peak abundance
R - period of recruitment
110
potential solution. Logistically such an approach may be more
costly, but less expensive environmentally. Permanent burial of
dredging pipes in the upper beach might lower long-term costs.
This question could best be addressed by a panel composed of both
ocean engineers and marine scientists with the challenge to develop
and consider innovative methods to limit duration of beach
renourishment.
Most beach renourishment projects require some evaluation of
environmental costs which are often accomplished through post-
project monitoring. Currently, most efforts are directed at
evaluating the degree of impact and time of recovery based on the
response of particular species. These data are extremely difficult
to evaluate given the high variability of most of these
populations, with respect to time and space. Few previous studies
have yielded scientifically valid answers to the question of how
long a project's impacts last. A more productive approach may be
to develop an understanding of the surf zone community, including
feeding relationships and recruitment of the juveniles of
trophically important species. If an adequate data base can be
developed for all important species then an estimate of the length
of time required for segments of the beach to recover can be made.
Models based on these relationships may offer the most reliable
method of determining impacts. These models may be intuitive, but
not enough data are currently available to create them.
Accumulating these data will require replicate studies carried out
over many different time periods and at many locations.
Models developed with an emphasis on functional approaches,
e.g. feeding guilds (Section 2), may avoid some of the problems
associated with basing decisions on life cycles of only a few
species many of which represent highly mobile and contagious
populations. At present, however, not enough information is
available to create such models. We recommend that efforts now
directed at monitoring the recovery of species which are well known
be directed at species and groups whose use of the surf zone is
poorly understood. While this will likely not improve the ability
to determine when the beach has fully recovered, it will over time
provide enough information to begin to develop models that will
allow some reasonable prediction of impacts to the surf zone
community.
Given the dynamics of the beach zone environment, certain
sizes of renourishment projects may resemble natural storm events
insuring that species within this habitat have the evolutionary
memory to recolonize. This is, in fact, the assumption already
made with respect to the subtidal portion of the surf zone
community. Assumptions made with respect to all four questions
presented in this summary need to be confirmed with well designed
scientific studies, before, during, and after renourishment.
111
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality rr
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary ID E H N F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
December 3, 1997
Pender County
DWQProject #970996
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Mr. Andy Hedrick
Town of Surf City
PO Box 2475
Surf City, NC 28445
Dear Mr. Hedrick:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to
bulldoze 6.2 miles of ocean beach for the purpose of constructing a berm at The Town of Surf
City, as you described in your application dated November 17,1997. After reviewing your
application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification
Number 3112. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go
ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal
Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire
when the accompanying 404 or CANIA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General
Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application
except as modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be
required to send us a new application. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future)
exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506
(h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached
certification and any additional conditions listed below.
1. This certification shall expire one year from the date of this certification to allow the
aquatic life on the beach to restore itself.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an
adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask
for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina
General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-
7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
S' erely,
Yr:eston d, E.
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Wilmington DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
John Parker; DCM
I' ar
Attachment
t
970996.1tr
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
r
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
lfflm? F
1•f
1,,ECEWED
? NOV 10 1997 CDENR
?-' f NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
NVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
November 7, 1997
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Mr. A. Preston Howard, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
FROM: John R. Parker
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
Applicant: Town of Surf City dune restoration
Project Location: Within the Town limits, Pe
,der & Onslow Counties

Proposed Project: Beach bulldozing 6.2 miles, the entire length of the beach, for the purpose of berm
enhancement
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form
by December 3, 1997. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Janet M.
Russell at extension 249. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
X This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached. '?
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED DATE 109? _? WNJ$)? 127 North Cardinal Drive, Wilm gton, N.C. 28405-3845 • Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO November 25, 1997
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 199800349
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Dorney:
of
27611-7687

Enclosed is the application of Town of Surf City for Department of the
Army authorization and a State Water Quality Certification to perform beach
bulldozing on 6.2 miles of beach from and landward of the approximate low tide
line, adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, in Surf City, Pender and Onslow
Counties, North Carolina. Your receipt of this letter verifies your
acceptance of a valid request for certification in accordance with Section
325.2(b)(ii) of our administrative regulations.
We are considering authorizing the proposed activity pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, and we have determined that a water quality
certification is required under the provisions of Section 401 of the same law.
A Department of the Army permit will not be granted until the certification
has been obtained or waived.
According to our administrative regulations, 60 days is reasonable for
State action. Therefore, if you have not acted on the request, or asked for an
extension of time, by January 17, 1998, the District Engineer will deem that
waiver has occurred.
Questions or comments may be addressed to the undersigned of the
Regulatory Division, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Jef rey H. Richter
Project Manager
Wilmington Field Office
Enclosure
Copy Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Form DC.k1-MF-l
c' 0 q
0 4, 1
APPL
Ibe c owp? by all applicants)
k,.W1j
dMIATUY
1. APPLICANT

a. Landowner.
j=e - Town. of Surf City
Address PO Box 2475
City Surf. City State NC
b. City, tow". community or landmark
Surf City
c. Street.address or secondary road number
214 N. NP -River Drive
d. Is proposed work within 'City limits or' plmtti"g
jurisdiction? ---- ?_ Yes No
e. Name of body of grater nearest project (e.g. river,
Creek, sound, bay) Atlantic Ocean
Zip 28445 Day Phone [phone]
Fax 910-328*-4132:
b. Authorized Agent: ;
Name Andy Hedrick
Address Same . as .above
City Stm
Zb see above Any Phone see above
Fix same as above
C. Prgjea name of any) . 'Surf City Dune
Restoration Project
NOTE Pwx* %C br bswd 1R Aww of r(?l. ?dlor
pvjea nip":
i
2. LOCATIpN }OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. County P end e r
Rnised 03/96
3. DESCREMON AND. PLANNED. USE.
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
a, . List. all de3?sl4cent :activities. you propose (e.g.
building a home, motoi, .
marina, •bulichead, pier, and
excavation and/or Ming'ac avides. '
nlar in and ve etatin current berm/dune
structure
b? Is the proposed jjtr, ty m2mumee of an Misti"g
Proj=ty =W work, or both?. Both
c. Will the project be fbnpublic,.private or commtrcial
=? -:_Public Use
d. Give a brief description of purpose, use, methods of
construction and daily operations of proposed
Pmje&- If Moro space is needed, please ate
addfdonal pages. The ur ose of the project
isto st in the redevelopment of a
of a protective dune or.t tne beach in
Surf City. The ro ect will consist if
pushing sand from the low tide beach onto
the Pxi-stine berm/dune..-Vegetation of
the berm/dune will occur-after the bull-
-dozing, (see a comuanv ii2:.narrative) .
7,1
010T I S 1997 -?
;COASTAL IAANAG;:11P1cNT

Surf City, North Carolina
Hurricanes Bertha and Fran had devastating effects on the protective dune structures in Surf City.
As a result of the emergency status that existed due to the Presidential declaration, FEMA authorized the
Town of Surf City to create unvegetated berms that would provide protection against a 5-year storm.
In an effort to assist Mother Nature in the dune restoration process, the Town of Surf City proposes to
bulldoze sand from the beach to create a higher and more substantial protective berm than now exists.
Upon the completion of the bulldozing efforts, the Town will partner with the State of North Carolina to
establish fencing and vegetation on the enhanced berm/dune structure.
The parameters of the project extend 6.2 miles on the beachfront from the city limits at Topsail
Beach to the city limits at North Topsail Beach. The Town will use an experienced contractor
(in beach bulldozing activities) to push sand according to CAMA guidelines (one foot cut, following
contour of existing grades, etc.). The duration of the bulldozing activities is expected to last from 4 to 6
weeks, depending upon the weather. No wetlands will be affected, and no fill will be brought to the site
or removed from the site.
All Surf City residents will be notified of the CAMA permit application through a statement on
the October water bills (example attached). Individual property owners, on the oceanfront, will be
notified by registered mail of the proposed project. In order to comply with advice issued by the North
Carolina Attorney General's Office, permission from individual property owners will be solicited to
perform the dune restoration activities that will occur on private property. The Town of Surf City
expects a very, very high percentage of approvals to conduct the restoration work.
Two adjacent property owners, the Polzers and Scotch Bonnet Enterprises, will be mailed copies
of the complete application package, by registered mail, on October 15, 1997. Copies of certified mail
receipts will be forwarded to the Wilmington District Office immediately upon receipt by Surf City.
Vegetation activities will take place as soon as arrangements can be made after the bulldozing
work is complete. The vegetation work will be coordinated with Division of Coastal Management, as
per their direction.
^II I?
GC ! 16 109-
D, ,S!UI'
COASTAL 10AW24,GE1\f1ENT

Form'DCM-MP-1
4_ LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire. tract, 6::2 miles of beach front
b. Size of individual lot(s)
N/A
c. Approximate elevation of tract above MHW or
NrWIL Varies with height of berm/dune
to 16: )
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s).of tract
Sand
C, Vegetation on tract None
f. Man-made features naiv on tract Berm
g. What is the ; CAMA Land Use Plan land
classification of the site? (Ca.sudr Ae.tome land Aw plpL)
Conservation Transitional
Developed _X__ Community
Rural Other
h. How is the tact zoned by local government?
Residential &.Commercial
L Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable
zoning? X Yes No
(AuacA to-Ar m+e0Q-M eiesOcare; if4Famble)
j. Has a professional archaeological assessment been
done for the tract?:. Yes X _ No
If yes, by whoni?
k. Is the project ! located in a National` Registered
Historic District or does it involve a National
Register listed or eligible property?
Yes X No
1. Are there wesiands on the site? Yes X No
Coastal (marsh)' Oth Cr
If yes, has a delineation been conducted?
(Ansch doawwuaeian, V-6UOR-)
reed a3/"
m. Describe existing wastewater treaunent facilities.
NONE
n. Describe location and type of discharges to waters
of the state. (For example, surface runoff, sanitary
wastewater, industrial/comrnercial effluent, "wash
down` and midential discharges.)
NONE
o. Describe r Nxisting drinking water supply source.
5. ADDITIONAL NTORMATION
In addition to the completed. application form, the
follo*ing items must be submitted:
• A copy flf the -deed (with state application only) or
other lnstrumeut under which the applicant claims title
to the Affected properties. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then
forward a copy of the deed,or other instrument under
which, the owner claims title, plus written permission
from the owner to carry out the projecct.
• An accurate, dated work plat C including plan view
and =&s-saxional drawings) drawD to scale in black
ink on an $ 1/2' by I1' white paper. (Refer to
Coastal Resources Commission Rule 7J.0203 for a
detailed description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue4ine
prints or other ,larger .plata.are acceptable only if an
adequate number of duality copies are provided by
applicant. (Contact tine U.S. Army C?p : of
Engineers regarding that agency's u;e of larger
drawings.) A site or location. map is a gait of plat
requirements and it must be sufficiently detailed to
guide agency pers=eJatnfamwar: Wi k;he a to the
? l
CC 1 6 19'9?
?i??(SIUiv :?-
:;O'A.STA%L MAN/. G;_DAENT
Form DCh1-MP-1
site. Include highway or secondary road (5R)
numbers, landmarks, and the like.
• A Stormwater Certification, if one is necessary
• A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and
signed return reodpts as proof that such owners
have received a copy of the application and plats
by certified .mails Such landowners trust be advised
that they have 30 -days in which to submit comments
on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal
Management. Upon signing this form, the applicant
further certifies that such notice has been provided.
Name _Scotch Bonnet Enterprises
Address 1972 Shirley Drive
4}1VTjr_ Burlington, NC 27215
Name Robert & Betty Polzer
Address 13185 Painesville Road
Pboue Painesville, OH 44077
Name
Address
Phone
• A list of previous 'state or federal permits issued for
work on the project tract. Include permit numbers,
permittee, and issuing dates.
Individual permits to property
owners.
• A check for $250 made payable to the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEIM) to cover ; the co= of processing the
application.
A signed AEC !hazard notice for projects in
oceanfront and inlet areas.
A statement of compliance with the K.C.
Environmental Policy Act N.C.G.S. II3A - I to
10) If the project involve' the expenditure of public
funds or use of public lands, attach a statement
documenting. compliance with the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act.
6. CERTI CATION' AND PEFtmissION
TO ENTER ON LAND
I understand that any permit issued in response to this
application will allow only: the development described in
the application, 7be project will be subject to conditions
and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed
activity complies with the Stats of worth Carolina's
approved Coastal Management Prog= 'and will be
conducted in a manner consistent with such program.
I certify that I am authorized to Qlant, and do in fact,
grant permission to representatives of state and federal -
review agencies to enter on the aforementioned lands in
connection with evaluating information related to this
permit application and follow-up monitoring of the
Proj?•
I further certify that the information provided in this
application is tvthful to the east of my knowledge.
This is the 14th day of October.,, 19.2-
print Name Andy Hedrick
Signature
Zmrdm~r 60""L--d
rru
Please indicate =irachments pertaining to your proposed
prajen.
X DCM MP-2 Excavation and FU.I Information
DCM MP-3 Upland Development
DCM W-4 Structu.-es Informa4on
DCM W-S Bridges and Culverts
DCM 1AP-5 Marina Development
NO Please sign and dare each. attachment in the
space provided at the borrmn of each form.
_ T' _,77:?\\
„ "T 1 1007 =--
Revised 03145
`? T
.4 V, G
Form DCM-NIP-2

EXCAVATION
AND FILL
(Except bridges and culverts)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major
Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete all
other sections of the Joint Application that relate to this
proposed project.
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation or
fill activities. All values to be given in feet.
Access
channel
(MLV/) or (NVVL)
Canal
Boat
basin
Boat
ramp
Rock
groin
Rock
breakwater
Other
(Excluding
shoreline
stabilization)
Revised 03/95
Average Final
Existing Project
Unzth Width Death Death

1
32,24.0 0O 1' N/A
200'
1. EXCAVATION
b. Type of material to be excavated' sand
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below
MHW or NWL in cubic yards 119,400 to 238, 800
c. Does the area to be excavated include coastal
wetlands (marsh), submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAVs) or other wetlands? Yes X No
d. Highground excavation in cubic yards 0
2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED
MATERIAL N/A
a. Location of disposal area
b. Dimensions of disposal area
c. Do you claim title to disposal area?
Yes No
If no, attach a letter granting permission from the
owner.
d. Will a disposal area be available for future
maintenance? Yes No
If yes, where?
I
1
Form DONI-NIP-2
e. Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands
(marsh), SAVs or other wetlands?
Yes No
f. Does the disposal include any area in the water?
Yes No
If Yes,
(1) Amount of material to be placed in the
water
(2) Dimensions of fill area
(3) Purpose of fill
b. Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands
3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION N/A (marsh), SAVs or other wetlands?
_ Yes X No
?f' Yes,
a. Type of shoreline stabilization (1) Dimensions of fill area
Bulkhead Rpprap
r';- 1017
b. Length
``nf?? 1? 11?
c. Average distance waterward of MHW or?TQNWL
d. Maximum distance waterward of MHW or NWL
(2) Purpose of fill
5. GENERAL
a. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
e. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months and erosion controlled? vegetation
(Source of informarion)
f. Type of bulkhead or riprap material
g. Amount of fill in cubic yards to be placed below
water level
(1) Riprap
(2) Bulkhead backfill
h. Type of fill material
i. Source of fill material
4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
a. Will fill material be brought to site?
Yes _x_ No
b. What type of construction equipment will be used
(for example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic
dredge)?
bulldozer
c. Will wetlands be cr3ssed in transporting equipment
to project site? Yes X No
If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts.
Surf City Dune Restoration Proiect
Appli r `e57"
Signature
/D111;/ c" -7
Date
Revised 03195
Ar-C HAZARD NOTICE
roject Is In An: ): Ocean Erodible Area
late Lot Was Platted: N/A
High Hazard Flood Area Inlet Hazard Area
SPECIAL NOTE: This hazard notice is required for
development in areas subject to sudden and massive
storms and erosion. Permits issued for development in this
area expire on December 31 of the third year following the
year in which the permit w as issued. Shortly before work
begins on the project site, the Local Permit Officer will
determine the vegetation line and setback distance at your
site. If the property has seen little change and the proposed
development can still meet the setback requirement, the
LPO will inform vou that you may begin work. It is impor-
tant that vou check with the LPO before the permit expires
for official approval to continue the work after the permit
has expired. Generally, if foundation pilings have been
placed and substantial progress is continuing, permit
renewal may not be necessary. If substantial progress has
not been made, the permit must be renewed and a new
setback line established. It is unlawful to continue work
after permit expiration without this approval.
his notice is intended to make vou, the applicant, aware
f the special risks and conditions associated with
evelopment in this area, which is subject to natural
azards such as storms, erosion and currents. The rules of
ne Coastal Resources Commission require that vou
eceive an AEC Hazard Nonce and acknowledge that
notice in Nvriting before a permit for development can be
sued.
'he Commission's rules on building standards, oceanfront
etbacks and dune alteration are designed to minimize,bu t
iot eliminate, property loss from hazards. By granting
)ermits, the Coastal Resources Commission does not
;uarantee the safety of the development and assumes no
iability for future damage to the development.
he best available information, as accepted by the Coastal
Zesources Commission, indicates that the annual ocean
!rosion rate for the area where your property is located is
2 feet per year.
Che rate was established by careful analysis of aerial
)hotographs of the coastline taken over the past 50 years.
itudies also indicate that the shoreline could move as
nuch as 275 feet landward in a major storm.
Fhe flood raters in a major storm are predicted to be about
15 feet deep in this area.
'referred oceanfront protection measures are beach
iourishment and relocation of threatened structures.
hard erosion control structures such as bulkheads,
;eati-alls, revetments, groins, jetties and breakwaters are
prohibited. Temporary devices, including sand bags, may
)e allowed under certain conditions.
Phis structure shall be relocated or dismantled within two
vears of becoming imminently threatened.
the applicant must acknowledge this information and
requirements by signing this notice in the below space.
Without the proper signature, the application will not be
=omplete.
CA ?4,? ?- (C>W ...r u r=
Applica s signature
i0-'y- F
Date
For more information, contact:
Local Permit Officer
Address
Locality
Phone

Revised 11193

v? Y
O o
I/ J
O 1.
Y?
.J
7

q `.

W
l o
fi .
?
Z
- IL
o ??
c
n
C
O

r ?
v
w
A v
l

O
N
v

I
I i 1 I
i
I ? I j I I I

I I I i

i I
I
''' I I ! I I I I I I I I
?
I

I I I I I I
i i I I ? I I I 1 _
-I -- I I I
l i I l i l I l i l
I ? I?! I l( I ? I? l
I t I j I I I
-? ? I 1 I I I i I I
I i
I
--_- _ I ily:.: I 1 I I I ? I
I 1 I
`? I I I I I I I 1 I I I I
1
? i . I I I I _
j I
fj? I I ? ? ? ? I l i `f -s
I ? ;

:?? ?' I i i l?%' ? I
1 I
i' i I J
! I
EE
I i I I ? .I i I I i i
i ;
' I I I _ I 1 I j j I
0
?2
O Q
C)
O
C) r
N ^
O
r
_. o
o 1
>
CD
z
Q?
C° E
0

O

U
'U

o p

O
tf')
Q V
O
''1k
O W
N
`O
Q O O O O O O O O O O
O' C c7 r O cJ c7 c N O
(OASN 14) Uoilenal3
' ? I 1 1 I
i i ? I i I I ? ? l i i l l {
' I i I I { 1 {
I I
I i I I i I I ? ?I i l i I I I I
•
j I I I i ? I I
I i ? i j I ! I ! ?( J
•--I -? -I --•?
i I I I I j I j ! i ?
I ' i I I ?
I I I I 1 i I j ? ? I
? ! i I a
i { I I I
I I 1 ? I I I I I I I I I I i
I I I I I i
I i I I I
!
, i I I I I I I I I I
' ' I i I I I
' i I i 1 j I i I 1 1
\) I
I I ` I ?I
I 1 , I I !
I I ? j I I I
I I
• ! I I I I I I I

i
?
i i Vl?

, j I ! i ? ! I I

J
N
Ul
0
U
W
e4
9
J
t?
r
v
N?
LA
I
C-i
V
' o
l I i I I
I ' I I I I ! j O
i I ? I I ! t r
I I I I i
I I I I ' I I ' I I 1• ? j o
1
• I i , I , r
?: ! I I I l l i I o w
-_ I ft' i I I t I I j I
_ i ; I i ! - I I I e:L
CD 4-J c)
? ! i I 1 ? I ! i i I I _ I ? I i ?; O > l
Z ? .
C ; i I , I I t i i co
c
i !
L I ! l I I \ I I I ( 1 I I 1 r
I I 1 I i ! ' ' ! I I I I I A
T I i ' i i I I I I I ' i I i I ; ? I I CD
LO
I I ! i i i l i ; ?I CD
I ? ! I ! i i ? ! I i i
. i i l i i I l I l l I I I c
i I i I I ? i I I i , i !?-
i ! °
_ I! I I i' I I ?
? I
i
! ! ! o
O
O O O O O O O O O O O
O" C c7 c 0 co C) c N O
N r r r r
(CADN u) UOIIBAal3

W
Ile
nnJ
,L
i
? ?('?
.r a?l II?IClN7
O Y.
?tlMo .ab
?1
W
N? I
D
u
3 U 2
U W
a' IC oa
l
° Oj N U NI l
w O i
I• a
Ate

l'A (
i
y I)
K W tz

s
is v it
N
0
jf ,`
aI
6 COMA
oh? VIN Ills
1 6 YIdO /
16 IIYm
p

,
1s 1nnH
l
is U3oNnD?
1
°
,s OV1110
Slllllt Ap
1#?
i 1%
I 1161 u 1c
1 D
N
o
#
vle
1 39
is
o u,?
6,11711 A110, .
vV,

!C Illtl a .(31032
...... .. ._.._.__.. 1C N1 ° 1-CC

iSNor ? 4
16 'DIl Z O

^ 16ufp/U Z
u

A1Nn0"M01SN0 is is " l
-
o
'
r 61
A!Nl10? A+`A+avoue u
y
--
H30N3d 3 n id?N -'
13 V 1
1 :2 a' 3 V
J'
1 A
a s NOI'
"
a
0 ° it
v
1 )' d. Il A 113

;v 3 v
,

r 3ilYl Nn6 0?1I1NN3l1?DaW
=
O ? y
J
u J pb ma
I°
?

< - W W
1 S NIIId)pj aala 1
I
U 4
N
I

CA <
°=
°
z
"
1.. N J ? ? C

;.- + 3 Y m
a n N )1DN 11M
W
OI
cl
a r
¢
?• ? j Z1H 3B
3H
H ' ?
m or
=
AY
x
AV
3 uoes?raauo

I
AV 4l'R
--IIVD-30 AIIOH _? __~ OWL
L I 3 v H CHot
y r tNOd HD1H
?
/rte ? a 3A ND 31vb
/ L
t7 [-" O 3A Wry UIIQ
3A 31 01UVHO
v
v / C) a
e C) °

N (' W
lt;
MN m a
w
i
u`
OP

I r^ ?f., ,I RlE ORBE
01
I
G I
W
/ 4 ?
AUYW3SOUZ a
Ua
UO 1`13U N
1.331 Ol
Hl 3-IV I AUIV 1
u(I I toil I ';
OU NOSNIAW _
LL
H O
r
S?NOV t7, N
N 1 u
?
A
a
I;
It W
O Q

f?
V V V/
b
y
a
otJ
' Nf1 S
J
W 1
4F IVO 13d
a Zr10 licoun vat

O O aQ
11,
40 ?' (fa
0,Y,1 Ill BVZ113
pS
j
tg
J
10 >tr?
Yy C

( 'c
OI
(
ra CCHOONER
0. Nl C.NVDUGW dl?O U C 1180
2IIJ '.11 31
?(10 .13 •
NOB
s I
? 1
12
vQa ld
= W
Sllry,l Al1D °I.Ol3 N LRYO
ua c HDV
?11?111 All-? "? VdGl
?11A I A3NIId

W
O
?
[
I-4
2
a

ll
i

D

(?

L
rL
0

C

?

W

J 2

Q

j
U

N'
W
?J
7
w
lL k

j
?
f`

d-
?
U
?

b ?
r

i
W N
J

U
N
x
O <

a
n
a
0
111 `• ?j Trl?

T. w ` OCT 16 1997
a DI VISIO1-4 OF
^
tCO4STAL MANAGEMENT

o
?. U
a
,z
11L
O
V) V
w

u- J ?

? 3
A 7 T
L I
OCT 0 8 1,997
DIVISION! OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
V-
W ?- ?
O
N p
W n
0
J C o
0
a
w ?-
?l `t•
J
? u
W w
W
o --
d J
d
} ? H
W
ro rL

To: John Dorney
Environmental Sciences Branch
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
CAMA MAJOR PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW
REGIONAL OFFICE STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REVIEWER: STEENHUIS -q-6
ACTING WQ SUPERVISOR: SHIVER
DATE: November 21, 1997
WETLAND INFORMATION FOR CENTRAL OFFICE TRACKING
PERMIT YR: 97 PERMIT NO.: 970996 COUNTY: Pender & Onslow
PROJECT NAME: Surf City Dune Restoration Project
PROJECT TYPE: Dune Restoration PERMIT TYPE: CAMA
COE #: N/A DOT#: N/A
RCD FROM CDA: DCM DATE FROM CDA: November 10, 1997
REG OFFICE: WiRO RIVER AND SUB BASIN#: 030624
*STREAM OR ADJACENT WATER BODY: Atlantic Ocean
CLASS: SB STREAM INDEX #: 99-(3)
*OPEN OR CLOSED: N/A
WL IMPACT: N/A WL TYPE: N/A
WL REQUESTED: N/A WL ACR EST: N/A
WL SCORE: N/A
Q?
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing beach bulldozing 6.2 miles, the entire length of the
beach within the Surf City town limits, for the purpose of berm enhancement.
RECOMMENDATION: ISSUE
STORMWATER PLAN REQ'D:
IF YES, DATE APPROVED:
MITIGATION: N/A MITIGATION TYPE: N/A
MITIGATION SIZE: N/A RATING SHEET ATTACHED?: N/A
WATER QUALITY CERT. (401)
CERT. REQ'D: Yes
IF YES, TYPE: General Certification #3112 for CAMA Major Permits.
SEWAGE DISPOSAL
TYPE OF DISPOSAL PROPOSED: N/A
TO BE PERMITTED BY: N/A
IF BY DWQ, IS SITE AVAILABLE AND PERMIT ISSUANCE PROBABLE: N/A
WATER/WETLAND FILL
AREA OF FILL - WATER: N/A WETLAND: N/A
IS FILL ELIMINATING A SIGNIFICANT USE? N/A
DREDGING
IS DREDGING ACTIVITY EXPECTED TO CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT LOSS
OF RESOURCE? N/A
IS SPOIL DISPOSAL ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED? N/A
40
970996. Nov
Page Two
MARIN
ARE THE FOLLOWING ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED?
SEWAGE DISPOSAL: N/A MARINA SERVICES: N/A
OXYGEN IN BASIN: N/A CLOSURE OF SHELLFISHING WATERS: N/A
(ATTACH A MARINA USE ATTAINABILITY EVAL.)
RECONaVIENDED CONDITIONS OR PERMIT RESTRICTIONS: That the project be done
in such a manner so as to not cause turbidity outside the immediate construction area to exceed
25 NTU.
It is recommened that this project be done as outlined in the application on the condition that it
will not re-permitted on a yearly basis (unless an emergency arises). A project of such magnitude
would make it difficult for the macrofauna to re-establish themselves on the wet beach within a
years time. If this project were to occur yearly, it would have an overall negative impact on the
ecosystem.
In addition, the amount of sand that would be taken out of the beach "system" could possibly cause
starvation of sand further down the beach causing additional impacts not anticipated.
cc: Central Files
Wilmington Regional Office Files
DCM- John Dorsey
John Parker
4
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
y70 r
99J
1. APPLICANT'S NAME: TOWN OF SURF CITY DUNE RESTORATION
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: Town Limits, Pender & Onslow Counties
Photo Index - 1995: 25-310 through 25-316
State Plane Coordinates - N/A
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit - Numerous
Was Applicant Present - Yes
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received - October 16, 1997
Office - Wilmington
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan - Town Of Surf City
Land Classification From LUP - Conservation
(B) AEC(s) Involved: Ocean Hazard
(C) Water Dependent: N/A
(D) Intended Use: Protective Structure
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing - N/A
Planned - N/A
(F) Type of Structures: Existing - Emergency Berm
Planned - Enhanced Berm
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: 2'/year
Source - Erosion Rate Maps
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION: [AREA]
DREDGED FILLED OTHER
(A) Vegetated Wetlands
(B) Non-Vegetated Wetlands
(C) Other Bulldozing
Ocean Beach 6.2 Miles
(D) Total Area Disturbed: Approximately 75 Acres
(E) Primary Nursery Area: N/A
(F) Water Classification: SB Open: N/A
8. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing beach bulldozing 6.2 miles, the entire
length of beach within the Surf City town limits, for the purpose of berm enhancement.

Page 2
9. PROTECT DESCRIPTION
The Town of Surf City is located on Topsail Island, a barrier island between the Atlantic Ocean and
the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. Surf City is between the towns of Topsail Beach and North Topsail
Beach and falls within two counties - Pender and Onslow. Topsail Island in general experienced wide
spread damage during Hurricanes Bertha and Fran of 1996. Severe beach erosion resulted in the loss
of 30' to 75' of frontal dune mass. The Town of Surf City requested and received endorsement from
the Federal Emergency Management Agency to construct an emergency berm along the oceanfront.
This berm was constructed out of bulldozed sand, pushed landward from the wet sand beach. The berm
was designed to provide protection from a five-year storm event. A random cross-section of this
structure today approximates 5' high with a base width of 35' - 40'. This benn was constructed as far
landward of the intertidal area as was feasible. In areas where no dunes existed, the emergency berm
was constricted as close to the public street as possible. In areas with surviving dunes the emergency
benn was pushed against the erosion escarpment.
By submittal of this application, the Town of Surf City is proposing a wide scale, beach bulldozing
event supplementing the emergency berm construction of last year. The Town proposes to hire a
private contractor that would push sand. This sand would be used to enhance the dimensions of the
present emergency ben-n. The height and width of the berm would be increased an additional 5' in
width and 2' in height by the proposed activity. Most areas of the beach are evidencing a buildup of
sand from the past Spring and Summer seasons. Any bulldozing activity authorized would be limited
to a total excavation of 1' deep as is provided for under the specific conditions TI 5A: 07H.1805.
Also proposed is a stabilization effort. If the bulldozing is permitted and executed, the emergency berm
will be planted with appropriate beach grass species. Sand fencing will also be installed to promote
natural buildup of wind-blown beach sand.
10. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
The proposed beach bulldozing will result in a lowering of the existing beach profile. The area of
disturbance will be approximately 75 acres of intertidal and dry sand ocean beach. Creatures who
inhabit the intertidal zone will likely be adversely affected by the proposed work. A requirement that
the work be carried out during the Winter months will result in less impact to plants and animals who
utilize the beach during the Spring, Summer and Fall.
Additional protection will be afforded to those existing homes which are now threatened from the beach
erosion.
Janet M. Russell / November 7, 1997 / Wilmington
Surf City, North Carolina
Hurricanes Bertha and Fran had devastating effects on the protective dune structures in Surf City.
As a result of the emergency status that existed due to the Presidential declaration, FEMA authorized the
Town of Surf City to create unvegetated berms that would provide protection against a 5-year storm.
In an effort to assist Mother Nature in the dune restoration process, the Town of Surf City proposes to
bulldoze sand from the beach to create a higher and more substantial protective berm than now exists.
Upon the completion of the bulldozing efforts, the Town will partner with the State of North Carolina to
establish fencing and vegetation on the enhanced berm/dune structure.
The parameters of the project extend 6.2 miles on the beachfront from the city limits at Topsail
Beach to the city limits at North Topsail Beach. The Town will use an experienced contractor
(in beach bulldozing activities) to push sand according to CAMA guidelines (one foot cut, following
contour of existing grades, etc.). The duration of the bulldozing activities is expected to last from 4 to 6
weeks, depending upon the weather. No wetlands will be affected, and no fill will be brought to the site
or removed from the site.
All Surf City residents will be notified of the CAMA permit application through a statement on
the October water bills (example attached). Individual property owners, on the oceanfront, will be
notified by registered mail of the proposed project. In order to comply with advice issued by the North
Carolina Attorney General's Office, permission from individual property owners will be solicited to
perform the dune restoration activities that will occur on private property. The Town of Surf City
expects a very, very high percentage of approvals to conduct the restoration work.
Two adjacent property owners, the Polzers and Scotch Bonnet Enterprises, will be mailed copies
of the complete application package, by registered mail, on October 15, 1997. Copies of certified mail
receipts will be forwarded to the Wilmington District Office immediately upon receipt by Surf City.
Vegetation activities will take place as soon as arrangements can be made after the bulldozing
work is complete. The vegetation work will be coordinated with Division of Coastal Management, as
per their direction.
,,'',\III i I
•J ' i C` 1GG 7
t:CIAS T A..i_ 1V11,:r,ii\,- cEIV1EN11'
NCDEHNR WIRO Fax:[phone] Sep 24 '97 14:13 P.07
I
Form DCM-MP-2 j
APPLICATION'
(To be conapZ by all applicants)
1. APPLICANT.

a. Landowner:
Name - Town of Surf City
Address PO Box 2475
city Surf City' State NC
Zip 28445 Day phone [phone]
b
Fax 910-328,4132
Authorized Agent:
Name Andy Hedrick
Address Same - as .above
City $Late
C.
Zip see above Dey Phone see above
TI-
Fax same as above
Project name (i any) Surf City Dune
Restoration Project
NOM Penni[ will be 1""W in nonr of krwOwwr(s), and/or
ptojea name.
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED
i
PROJECT
a. County Pender
Revised CLV95
b. City, town, community or landmark
Surf City
I?
c. Street address or secondary road nu er
214 N. New River Drive
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? Yes No
e. Name of body of water nearest project (e.g. river,
Creels, sound, bay) Ate lantic Ocean
3. DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE.
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
a. List. all dvmlopm activities you propose (e.g.
building a bom, motel, marina, bulkhead. pier, and
excavation aa&or filling activities.
ErilarglnQ and vegetating current berm/dune
structure
b. Is th6 proposed acdwity maintenance of an existing
projw, new work, or both? Both
c. Will the project be for.public, private or commercial
uu? Public Use
d. Give a brief description of purpose, use, methods of
construction and daily operations of proposed
project. If more apace is needed, please allarh
additional pages. The purpose of the project
is to assist in the redevelopment of a
of a protective dune for the each in
Surf City. The-project will consist of
hushing sand from the low tide beach onto
the existing berm/dune. Vegetation of
the berm/dune will occur after the bull-
dozing (5eg accom„panvin ,narrative) .
(1 T 1. E 1 0 7 -- -
-OAST^.L MA',',?AG 1'0EN1.1
NCDEHNR WIRO
Form DCM-MP-1
Fax:[phone]
I,
4. LAND AND WATER
CFIARACTEMSTICS
Illr.
a, Size of entire tract 6:,2 miles of beach front
b. Size of indivfdaai lot(s) N/A
c. Approximate elevation of tract above MHW or
NVIL Varies with height of berm/dune
to 16 )
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
Sand
e. Vegetation on tract _ NnnP
f. Man-trade features now on tract Berm
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan land
classification of the site? (Consult &e Local Land use pkn.)
Conservation Transitional
DevelopedCommunity
Mural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
Residential & Commercial
i. is the proposed project consistent with the applicable
zoning? X Yes No
(Ansch :onlwa a etnf, JLente, if appfimbk)
j. Has a professional archaeological assessment been
done for the tract? Yes No
If yes, by whom?
k.
Is the project ! located in a National
Historic District or does It involve
Register listed or eligible property?
Yes R No
Registered
a National
1- Are there wetlands on the site? - Yes X No
Coastal (marsh)', Other
If yes, has a delineation been conducted?
(Attach don mwmadon, ff available)
Sep 24 '97 14:14 N.U8
M. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
NONE
n. Describe location and type of discharges to waters
of the state. (For example, surface runoff, sanitary
wastewater, industrWicommercial effluent, "wash
down" and residential discharges.)
NONE
- .w -r
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
N/A
. u ? Iwww?w i
5, ADDMONAL WF'ORMA.TION
wl I ??I IIA??^ 1?1
in addition to the completed application form, the
following items must be subnutted:
• A copy of the -deed (with state application only) or
other instrument under which the applicant claims title
to the affected properties. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then
forward a copy of the deed,or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permission
from the owner to carry out the project,
'e An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view
and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on an 8 1R' by I V white paper. (Refer to
Coastal Resources Commission Rule 73.0203 for a
detailed description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats, ate acceptable only if an
adequate number of quality copies are provided by
applicant. (Contact the U.S. Army Corps of
En&eers regarding that agency's use of larger
drawings.) A site or lo=Ion map is a part of plat
requirements and it must be sufficiently detailed to
guide agency personnel 4nf?m1I1ar--wi0_che area to the

Revised 03/9s
-ASTAL MAf, AGEtiEN
NCDEHNR WIRO Fax:[phone] Sep 24 '9 14:14 F.09
Form DCM-MP-1
site, Include highway or secondary road (SR)
numbers, landmarks, and the like.
• A Stormwater Certification, if one is necessary.
16 A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and
signed return rewipts :as proof that such owners
have received a copy of the application and plats
by certified mail: Such landowners must be advised
that they have 30,days in which to submit comments
on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal
Management. Upon signing this form, the applicant
further certifies that such notice has been provided.
Name Scotch Bonnet Enterprises
Address 1972 Shirley Drive
-Phom Burlington, NC 27215
Name Robert & Betty Polzer
Address 13185 Painesville Road
i1rom Painesville, OH 44077
Name
Address
Phone
• A list of previous 'state or federal permits issued for
work on the project tract. Include permit numbers,
permittee, and Issuing dates.
Individual permits to property
owners.
e A check for $250 made payable to the Department of
Environment, Healtb, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR) to cover the costs of processing the
application.
• A sighed AEC hward
oceanfront and inlet areas.
notice for projects in
• A statement of compliance with the N.C.
Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A - 1 to
10) If the project involves the expenditure of public
funds or use of public lands, attach a statement
documenting compliance with the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act.
Revised 03145
1
6. CERTMCAIION AND PERNUSSION
TO ENTER ON LAND
I understand that any permit issued in response to this
application will allow only the development described in
the application. 'Ibe project will be subject to conditions
and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed
activity complies with the State of North Carolina's
approved Coastal Management Program and will be
conducted in a manner consistent with such program.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact,
grant permission to representatives of state and federal
review agencies to enter on the aforementioned lands in
connection with evaiuatgg information related to this
permit application and follow-up monitoring of the
project.
I further certify that the information provided In this
application is truthful to the best of pay knowledge.
nis is the 14th day of October i9 97
Print Name Andy Hedrick
Signzture
zard&~ Artfoori:ed ?aent
Please indicate attachments pertaining to your proposed
project.
X DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information
DCM MP-3 Upland Development
DCM MP-4 Structures Information
DCM MP-S Bridges sad Culverts
DCM MP{ Marina Development
NOTE; Please sign and dare each attachment in the
space provided at the botrom of each form.
'.??:??.. L 1997

Form DCM-MP-2
EXCAVATION
AND FILL
(Except bridges and culverts)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major
Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete all
other sections of the Joint Application that relate to this
proposed project.
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation or
fill activities. All values to be given in feet.
Average Final
Existing Project
Length Width Depth Depth
Access
channel
(MLW) or (N,AL)
Canal
Boat
basin
Boat
ramp
Rock
groin
Rock
breakwater
Other
(Excluding
shoreline
stabilization)

r

::
am
•'? 5
::j
i5{
v ;
. 'vC:\: i1, w.?,.\,'•r.

1
to N/A
32,240
200'
1. EXCAVATION
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below
MHW or NWL in cubic yards 119,400 to 238,800
b. Type of material to be excavated sand
c. Does the area to be excavated include coastal
wetlands (marsh), submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAVs) or other wetlands? Yes X No
d. Highground excavation in cubic yards 0
2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED
MATERIAL N/A
a. Location of disposal area
b. Dimensions of disposal area
c. Do you claim title to disposal area?
Yes No
If no, attach a letter granting permission from the
owner.
d. Will a disposal area be available for future
maintenance? Yes No
If yes, where?
(, l T t' 199.7
CA
5 TAL 1liF
1 ? ? ?i 4 la f- !Vi E "! T
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-2
e. Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands
(marsh), SAVs or other wetlands?
Yes No
f. Does the disposal include any area in the water?
Yes No
If yes,
(1) Amount of material to be placed in the
water
(2) Dimensions of fill area
(3) Purpose of fill
b. Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands
3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION N/A (marsh), SAVs or other wetlands?
Yes X No
IV, 'I
1 lid i '-,e vl es,
a. Type of shoreline stabilization (1)
Bulkhead Riprap 'i
6 1997 '(2)
b. Length r
C A MA.C,1VAGEMENT
c. Average distance water-ward of MHVor L
d. Maximum distance waterw rd of MHW or NWL
e. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months
(Source of informarion)
f. Type of bulkhead or riprap material
g. Amount of fill in cubic yards to be placed below
water level
(1) Riprap
(2) Bulkhead backfill
h. Type of fill material
Dimensions of fill area
Purpose of fill
5. GENERAL
a. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
and erosion controlled? vegetation
b. What type of construction equipment will be used
(for example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic
dredge)?
bulldozer
c. Will wetlands be cr3ssed in transporting equipment
to project site? Yes X No
If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts.
i. Source of fill material
4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
a. Will fill material be brought to site?
Yes x_ No
Surf Citv Dune Restoration Proiect
App6 r Proj
4
Signature
/D/?`llc'-
Date
Revised 03/95
O

.
Y
i i
I
I ! LO
' r

? I
I
I
I I I
i I j
, I O
I
Q O ! ? I I I I !
cC
?^
v1 I i
? I
? I i I ?
I I
=
I r
I i
?
i I I ? 1 I -
---
I
I I
I I i
I I I i I
i I j
j. I O

' 1 I
I ? I i I I
I I ? I j I i I Cl)
j ! r
i I i
i ? I I I j I i I I O
rN•-
_

fJ ?? i 'J
1 i I
I i i i I i
•- ? . I O
V rJ ; l l_ i! I I ! I I

I
I
??
? ' I
I I
f' _I ?
I ;?
I i I I ? I I
O
V
tL

I
I
Z ,., ! j ! I
I I j Z

'
O o
i I
!
?' I I I i ^? I I
C
^
t O
ca
7
N
N cu
`
V c
a

w >,
? v

O

v
O O O O O O O O O
O- C to v N O o? C7
N r r r '-
(CIASN 4) U0118A@13
! I i ?1 .I i i I j I
1 i I i I I
I ? I ' I \` I_ I i I i I
I I I I I I i
I '? I I i I I ''` ? i i I I
i i j j I I ' ` i i I I I I I
i I
I I i I 1 1 ?I i . j I I i
I I I I i I ; I I I - -- -1
I i I I '• i i i , ? ' ; I C11
• ! I I I i I
I I ; I I i i I I (
i
?
i i I I
i i j I i I I i I I
I I I I ? i ! ' I Y I
j 'I
.
i ! { i i
I I i I
I
I i I
I i
? i

-i
O
O
U
I ?
I ?
O
cD
O
LO
O
"ql
O -
cq
O
N
O
O
O O
N O
Q
I,u
nQ
W
nn0
`L
f
1
V
ti
k
i
J
`L
W
U
V
J
U -_
et ^ _r --
t?
V
z
V ?
rr
C
0
3 cc
V
I cc
V Q
T
lu
v
I
0
`J
O
i I
I !
I I I
I 1
I
i
• I I 1 I
i I
i ? I I
I I
I I

- ,

f
i I 1 ! I I 1 i I
I i _
-r •
-,
I I !
I I
' 1 t ? I I I
I I ? I I I I I j t
1 1 I i

1 ! i i l i l
' l i ? l
I

--
?
LIU
I
I I ? I I
I I I I I
I
I'I' I I I I I I i I
.?.
.__., i w I
I i I I I ? I
I I I I ! I
I I
!" Ili +?-_ I i I c`}. Ltr I i I ! '
CD 4-J
\ I
I ? ; ? i ?
? I i I I I
1 I
I I I i i
' ? i
i I I i i i i Q; I I I r!
I ? I I I I ? I ? 1 I

I
i ' i I I ? ? I
! i I I I j
I I I I
' I I I __ i I i i I I
I
I i I I
i i I I
I
I ' I !
I I 1 I I I i (
I
I I i I ' I I
I I I I I ! 1 I I i
I
I ( I I
i I I
' I I !
I I I I 1 I I I I ?
I I I I I? I ? -1 -!
__-
?
I i I I

I
. ) I

I i I I I I

i i i !
, f i I 1 I i ! I I I
I I I i ? I?

I
I i I ? i I I I I
I I
i i ? l l l l i
I I I I I I -S 1
? I I ?I

1
I
?! I !

I r r l
i I I ?I
I I , •. t I ? ? ? i I

i i
? i

, i i I !
• I ? I
I I
•? O O O O O O O O
O' O cD sT N O cA CD c
N '- r r r
(CIASN 14) uoflenal?
O
r
O
Cl)
r
Q
O ?l/l?
r ? 1
9
Q,
O O
rX
r"? l
O
I
o
0
z
O O
co O I
U
O
t` C
O 0
O
C) v
? t
O l
cl)
1.t1
O
N
O
ON,
O O
N O
? r•
?,II
IIS
J
6-

h ? 1 (
r ?
??<?1G9110 I
I
v;
a 1-
AVkit
o
?
N)
)
Is
1 .
U
W ('
N 3 U ; I

:? ul u J u w .
z ??? Is on.
0 d N Uu Nll
I
w O aq
!• (4YV R ?

) U
yl
1 W l .'
,n
a

r.r s V 119 J
y v
1- m!=P 16
'
? mw
E 3 33u ?-
V
i l
h
I
U
I
I JIM
N
I
IID
I
'
1l 1 S VIdO
15 OOIIVM a t3
lS IIICNIINiQ
IS 1110Nnn ll
S
IS f111V J11l11yyyy10 1 / V116NI'd
S11W11 APJ /?SNllldypll (
IOU 0
IS 111.136 3B
AlI AIIO -?_ ZS, tu.11Y00 C3 Rp}11lDloos
is 1116 a?
1111 WW
15 NIltI n Z q
1S IIII = O
11 , m
16 t:
a H1 s T
.... l8 o nut z -1 FU-
A1NnOOMO1SN0 16 ?IS IN v
?„• S 1 U y
A1Nf100 M401 rrr
l130N3d
?3nldN
i3 V
E 3Q 3d
?, a 3 V
it N31*
(3 V
jA (z a s Nor
J. U
J V
1 d r- 6 N-n DO ,
i,V 3 V? II
3NVl ryNS OI+In?IN3111D3W
?. N L II
?• r
) 3 Vl
QI _1 J
U iJ VSa ?_ mcc
1S Nl1ld1o, a U 4
of 2
r, n ?N 1lDN 11M
i l9 EL d V
?. O z N 110 AN
w Ix ?
nv
?. ? (aDDSOIOD
Z `AV
3 ( Noes?laauo
VE I
AV N'1.2
?(" ;?w
_ in
1W)•3D )Ali Al!011 J VrU0.
x'- 01 (it 1 V N IGNIN
Z MV 1N Od Now
y
??• (?(_.,, a MV 11 D 37V,
0 3n Wv'llln0
Q ` 1n 31. Olu V11O
V V n
Q =
?E
u' O0 IkOfArSe
. /^ _4F 111 IIJEW
V/ ? I
Q
/ rtl
?
z
Al1YW3S ()UL a
11111(1 N3u
' M
un 11331 01
N1 31V I A111VJ
Illl t1i X11 Al 1 11.11,
uu rlnsldAly
(L -

O
N
!
aPtlO?[ ? I ii
any[
'
a
S
IIII
'i a
1) a
0
(4 Ylr
Q u
-
Ilml
I s
?P !1 IVO 1
I 3d
Z v- I,) J111DI 1n VAG
' .N
(f)
'
Y 1
!J Ill:, 111 DV2113
O?'JO' ?7
J
A 6
.-1 ID )1VO 1y
ti .1Cli
O
( SCIIOONE P
D
Lly N1 S.NV000W ddV 111 96 l1nO
Q 2 i(1 3.11: 3L
??13 :.13 NOD

yl

u1
OaO1 1 1
r 31 V

l' 1nuO
m, 01l It
SIIWII
A
113 Nn c ?U AIIOY 30
SIIWII AIIJ •.2f 1" ?IIY1Yd6Dl I
Iln I A3Ill,ky flit
X211
W
O
H
;z

7

I I\'
U

AJ' ,
Il!
?,

n

U
b

-
V
cA
Cu
N
"
OG
W W

J

v

rwwl
?.
-
O
I'
?f

J
Is
r
(?
Q (?
J
Y ? J
? N
2
W N
J
Q
U
y
x a
O

a
a
a
O
(d 1. .._ C-
3
1_
J JUI
=-
w R(,T 16 1997
V) k DIVISI()p?IOF
s '
tU O?STAL. MANAGEMENT
o. V\ 't
LJ,

a
v, U
a
Z o u
Q U
V1 ILA
!j J

LL J
y ?
D ?
P
N
1\ r
IK 3
iu `°
-
P,I
D
I
J OCT U 8 1997
[DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Z
W l-
U ? U1
I1C, ?
O
w Q ?
J ? O
0
Q.
IV J
V ?
J
U
41 lu -
? lU
0
d J
d
? (u
~ a ?
w M
I
--- _ - 1. Z.
??? l
u
C...;. a
<_ 1L. lLl
r)

17 V
-
'
n
( ( v
t `
1

v
C? ."AVt
wIN
O _,I 1J3
111^000]---1?? ¢>

U V
IU C
.l. Irv
Icy _
Y W I
.y a ah •
r < m?=
mW. Lzl•:
1S OOfIV
!s snot
Is a3(INno
I S 11 (INVd111?yy?10y
S111Y11 ,1111 I SSNllldlp
1S VINO
S liryl l?A l10 `._?_1SC1!!?0
1S N1
1 S #!
1 S ? 1111
is '#1
- is i 15
a 111
_ CS a Ulli
AanooMOlSNO 7s is
..,,,..,r _ S 1
A1Nf100 -m-OMOdD
N30N3d
r
0 '1
' r
U
ti

J S NI

II
JI

1 (
f• \
i- 7
? q I

0
?-1
1w Al 10114
:
W
O1

/ V o

c

ti
i
w

1
4
b
I
Q
a
O
v,
G
H
Vas
1006
W
L
IJ "'
N, ' O
? U
H
n.la?N
3 V
3 V
I Fla
VI N31`
1 V
Nor
v
t10 ,
IfIN3l?J3W
N
J
m?
it _ U 4
Q
cc
a
Iv m
11DN IN
V i
3B
V
loD
v
00 S Flaw)
v a?
Cc
1
1U W
N LBNIN
1N Oa 110111
11) 3lvw
wv'funo
3L?OIUV143
I
rt I
u`
Nl z V
AUVw1S m
„ 110 f4 N
l l10 1,331 01
NI TIVIAIIIVl
1111 lll??IM I II.II,
lllI NI)tif.lalV-
IL -
N u
O
6 p,N t7 N I ?.
u UI
[1(I
QIS U
N
VJ"? 10 IN 11 8
4,V' In J5 IVJ 13d
6 'UI-115 JIN(ltln V3s
fJ `? ??1? 111 UVZI13
ONlOS 1,? '13
10 YVO 'v1 s
SCH0ONER?j
NI S.NVDUOw dyOU SS 11110
;.13 NOB
. OI
s?
ul
op, l
iu'3
S11WIl A Ili m.013 lR'. lllUO
O 110Y38
SIIM111 A11J x.117 Ydslll
in I A 31Ndwn11
41163#0
W Q
J U I
I D 2
a?
1 ? U W
oal
. 'Nil
f O
?z
s'
c;
I
Ile
33H ti
UI
)IM
Ole
I

W
Q
1+•1
a
W
J
z
W (y
J
Q
U
N
x a
a
0.
a
-'0