Although the total catch in 1980 was larger than in 1981, due mainly to 

 the large catch of gizzard shad, there were also decreases from 1980 to 1981 in 

 the catch of other species. However, a comparison of the catches of these 

 other species on transect IV, which was located in the area most likely to be 

 affected by the beach nourishment activity, with catches made on transects I 

 and VI, the reference transects (Tables 9 and 10), revealed no adverse changes 

 that could be attributed to the beach nourishment activities. Gillnet catches 

 at transect IV in the nourishment area in July and October 1980 were smaller 

 than in July and November 1981, and catches at transects I and VI in the con- 

 trol areas also showed similar trends. The larger seine catch at transect IV 

 in June 1981 than in June 1980 also indicates that the beach nourishment acti- 

 vity did not have an effect on the distribution of fish in the study area 

 (Table 10). The seine catch was lower at transect IV in July and November 1981 

 than in July and October 1980, but similar declines were evident at transects I 

 and VI. These results indicate that the beach nourishment activity had no 

 adverse effect on the distribution and abundance of fish near the Lexington 

 Harbor throughout the period of study. 



V. CONCLUSION 



The results of this study indicate that the Corps' beach nourishment 

 project conducted in October 1980 at the Lexington Harbor had no major adverse 

 impact on substrate particle-size distribution, water quality, macrozoobenthos, 

 or fish in the study area. Marked changes in the beach face profile occurred 

 in the immediate vicinity of the harbor as a result of the nourishment 

 activity; however, the only obvious change that persisted until the completion 

 of this study about 1 4 months later was a moderate lakeward extension of the 

 beach face in the area immediately south of the harbor. 



27 



