Reilly and Bellis (1978) reported extensive damage to amphipods and other 

 benthic animals due to a nourishment operation in North Carolina. Hayden and 

 Dolan (1974) observed a redistribution of mole crabs at a North Carolina beach, 

 but no mortalities because of nourishment. Taylor Biological Company (1978) 

 also observed no long-term faunal damage 4 years after beach nourishment at 

 Treasure Island, Florida. Culter and Mahadevan (1982) observed no long-term 

 damage to the macrofauna 6 years after beach nourishment at Panama City Beach, 

 Florida. Marsh, et al. (1980) found no observable lasting effect on the macro- 

 fauna 7 years after beach nourishment at Hallandale Beach, Florida. 



Dredge and fill operations have caused faunal enrichment expressed as 

 diversity and increased number of species. This in many cases is related to 

 opportunistic species invading an area following a disturbance which are later 

 replaced by resident species. Parr, Diener, and Lacy (1978) noted the effects 

 of beach nourishment at Imperial Beach, California, were short term (5 weeks 

 or less), involving an increase in abundance of motile crustaceans. Applied 

 Biology, Inc. (1979) observed an increase in macrobenthic populations following 

 nourishment at Duval County, Florida. Faunal enrichment following a disturbance 

 was also recorded earlier by Clark (1969) and Gustaf son (1972) . 



Meiobenthic animals are more susceptible to the effect of dredging. Rogers 

 and Darnell (1973) recorded more than 50 percent meiofaunal reduction due to 

 a dredging operation in Texas. Sherman and Coull (1980) simulated dredging by 

 manually disturbing the sediments of a 9-square meter area and recorded more 

 than 70 percent reduction in the meiofauna population. Pequegnat (1975) also 

 observed a decrease in meiofauna population related to dredging activities. 

 It is questionable, however, if these results can be extrapolated to a beach 

 nourishment situation. It appears from these studies that meiobenthic animals 

 are more sensitive to disturbances than macrobenthic animals and it takes 

 longer for their populations to recover. 



3 . Effects on Motile Animals . 



Mobility of fishes and some invertebrates render them least vulnerable to 

 adverse effects of beach nourishment. However, decimation of food-chain 

 organisms by heavy deposition of sediment would indirectly affect their popu- 

 lations. Bottom-feeding and bottom-dwelling fishes (e.g., flounder) would be 

 most likely affected. Suspended solids in the water can affect the fish popu- 

 lations by delaying hatching time of fish eggs (Schubel and Wang, 1973), killing 

 the fish by coating their gills, and by anoxia (O'Connor, Neumann, and Sherk, 

 1976). Fish tolerance to suspended solids varies from species to species by 

 age (Boehmer and Sleight, 1975; O'Connor, Neumann, and Sherk, 1976). Gen- 

 erally, filter feeders are less tolerant to siltation than bottom feeders 

 (Sherk, O'Connor, and Neumann, 1974). 



Destruction of habitat rather than suspension of sediments seems to be the 

 major danger to beach and nearshore fish. Most of these animals have the 

 ability to migrate from an undesirable environment and reappear when disposal 

 ceases (O'Connor, Neumann, and Sherk, 1976; Courtenay, Hartig, and Loisel, 1980). 

 Species which are closely associated with the beach for some part of their life 

 cycle, such as the grunion (Leuresthes tenuis) on the west coast and some 

 burrowing and reef fish with limited mobility on the Florida coast, are most 

 likely affected by beach nourishment. Parr, Diener, and Lacy (1978) observed 

 that beach nourishment did not prevent subsequent spawning of grunion at 



20 



