GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE DATA BASE 



After evaluation of the existing 

 data base, several generalizations can 

 be made as constructive criticism. 



Much of the available information 

 was developed for a specific project as 

 support for an environmental impact 

 assessment. Some of this information is 

 biased in one direction or the other. 



A large amount of the information 

 on the effects of shoreline structures is 

 engineering-oriented. There is also a 

 large body of literature concerning the 

 distribution and tolerance limits of biota 

 of the coastal zone. Very little informa- 

 tion exists on the impact of structures 

 upon the biota. As a result, most envi- 

 ronmental impact assessments rely on 

 the ability of individuals to extrapolate 

 impacts from what they know of the con- 

 struction procedures, coastal physical 

 processes, and nonstructure related bio- 

 logical data. Most of these assessments 

 are made in a climate of potential litiga- 

 tion. The result is an extremely water- 

 ed-down product that is only marginally 

 based on fact. The literature on bio- 

 logical impacts of the minor shoreline 

 structures is characterized by these 

 types of assessments. 



An evaluation of the potential im- 

 pact of some minor shoreline structures 

 by a competent biologist often would re- 

 sult in a negligible impact conclusion. 

 Unfortunately, the present regulatory 

 climate necessitates a lengthy discussion 

 of potential impacts. In order to pre- 

 pare such a discussion, seemingly in- 

 consequential matters are discussed at 

 such length that everyone starts believ- 

 ing they are truly problems. Lengthy 

 discourses of turbidity and sedimenta- 

 tion effects of rocks landing on a sand 

 bottom fill the impact assessment litera- 

 ture. It is doubtful that competent biol- 

 ogists would project a probable impact 

 due to fish gills being clogged, fish dy- 

 ing from released toxic materials, ben- 

 thic organisms being smothered, and 

 primary productivity "being reduced sim- 

 ply by the placement of stone in inter- 

 tidal habitats. However, these state- 

 ments are rampant throughout the liter- 

 ature, with the sideline comment that 



these impacts are probably minor. This 

 syndrome seems to be more prevalent 

 for structures with low potential impact. 



The opposite syndrome is also 

 evidenced in the literature. An example 

 would be concluding no potential impact 

 based on a nonexistent data base. 



Much of the literature is negative 

 in nature. There are many examples 

 where structures have had an overall 

 positive impact on an area. Attraction 

 of fishes to structures is often inter- 

 preted as being a beneficial impact. 

 Both positive and negative aspects 

 should be evaluated. 



Much of the literature evaluates a 

 structure as if it were in a vacuum. 

 The impact of a single groin will often 

 be negligible, but that single groin may 

 cause a stepwise series of groins to be 

 built, each of which is to mitigate the 

 effects of the previous groin. The 

 socioimpacts caused by bulkheads and 

 the resultant house, or ramps and the 

 associated boating pressure are other 

 examples. Factors such as these should 

 be considered when evaluating the im- 

 pact of structures. 



140 



